Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Charlotte/Archive 5

Neighborhood naming standards

Since Neighborhoods in Charlotte is the only open task at this moment, I'd like to propose some standards for naming articles. Right now it's an inconsistent mess, and I'll argue that it is incorrect. Before we argue about which neighborhoods deserve a listing, lets clean up how we're organizing what we've already got.

• Inconsistent

• Elizabeth, Charlotte, North Carolina, Ballantyne, Charlotte, North Carolina and many others use the "comma-Charlotte" nameiong convention.
• Biddleville, Derita, Historic South End, and others do not have names which include Charlotte or North Carolina in their article names.

• Incorrect?

• Is it even correct to say Plaza-Midwood, Charlotte, North Carolina or Cotswold, Charlotte, North Carolina since these are neighborhoods and not towns or CDPs of North Carolina? This is most likely a technical issue but when you add ", North Carolina" after the name of an area, isn't that stating that this area it is an actual town in North Carolina? This question may require a Wikipedia:Requests for comment to advice from other Wikipedia editors, but I think it's important that we get a definitive answer for this.

• Duplicates

At this moment, Quail Hollow has the exact same content as Quail Hollow, Charlotte, North Carolina, but they are two separate articles which will differ as people edit one and not the other. There should only be one valid article and the other article should be changed to a redirect.

• Misleading

• There may be others but I recently changed the name of the article on Steele Creek from Steele Creek, Charlotte, North Carolina to just Steele Creek, North Carolina because it was misleading. This can be discussed further on that article's discussion page but since 1/3 of Steele Creek is not within Charlotte it was incorrect. I don't know if any other neighborhoods may have similarly misleading article titles but those that do should be corrected.

My suggestion is to have a standard which applies to most of the neighborhoods (although some may be exceptions to the rules). I suggest

1. Remove ", Charlotte, North Carolina" from any neighborhoods which are not recognized as an independent CDP by the Census Bureau. (This may possibly apply to all neighborhoods except Steele Creek, North Carolina.) For example, Plaza-Midwood, Charlotte, North Carolina will become simply Plaza-Midwood. This is common practice, as evidenced by Harlem and Greenwich Village.
2. IF a shortened neighborhood name conflicts with any other article on Wikipedia then it should be treated like it would be in a disambiguation situation. I don't know if this applies to any neighborhoods currently in this project but, for example if "Fakeville" were also a town in FakeState, you may add " (neighborhood)" to the title. This is also common practice when necessary, for example Observatory Circle (neighborhood) and Skyway (neighborhood)

Discussion? --Fife Club 16:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. To "change" the name of an article you create the article with the new name and then copy and paste all the content from the original article into it. Then go back to the original article and replace all text with #REDIRECT [[name of new article]]. Viola.

P.P.S. Later we can discuss which neighborhoods even belong in this project. (I for one don't see how The Arboretum, Charlotte, North Carolina can possibly count as a neighborhood. It's a shopping center. The neighborhood would be "South Charlotte".) But first things first. --Fife Club 16:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole Charlotte neighorbhoods problem started when a few editors didn't like the unsourced section called Neighborhoods in the Charlotte, North Carolina article. It was deleted, restored, deleted, then restored as a list... then made into a list with a short one-line intro with links. So far, no complaints, so it seems like its going to stay a while like that. What did this result in? Numerous new articles were created for all the Charlotte neighborhoods and people who lived in Charlotte sqeezed the Internet dry for enough information to keep their articles from being deleted. So, now, we have a mess, and its going to take some time to clean up. Which ones should stay and which should be deleted? Ok, we can hold off that discussion until later.

I agree there needs to be some uniformity for the titles. There's no real standard and there have been similar debates at WP:LOCAL and elsewhere, so I agree with Fife Club's proposal. The "Funkytown, Charlotte, North Carolina" style was probably derived from the way some unincorporated communities are disambiguated (i.e. Mount Olive, Stokes County, North Carolina). I like the "(neighborhood)" disambiguation style better. If by any chance the there are two neighborhoods in two different cities with the same name we may have to use "(Charlotte neighborhood)", which should be fine. --Triadian 18:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Fife Club's naming proposal as well for the reasons explained. Although can't a name change be done via the move tab? That would probably be easier, and the preferred medium as it carries the article's history--important if there are multiple contributors. While we are on the topic, another naming convention we may want to consider is for lists and categories. Mainly concerning the comma-North Carolina addendum. And no, this doesn't come from any ill feelings toward the NC attachment. :) Rather, that it is aesthetically unpleasing to scroll through a page and see half with it and half without it. I propose they all be "in Charlotte" or "of Charlotte", period, for the same reason that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte redirects you to Charlotte, and I will happily change Charlotte-related lists and categories to conform to this if no one disagrees.

As far as the neighborhoods section within the Charlotte article itself goes, I have been looking through different city articles, and many have a section entitled "Cityscape", which describes in prose form how the city is divided, well-known neighboring communities, and landmarks such as skyscrapers. Los Angeles is an example. A list is okay for now, but something like the above would be ideal (see WP:EMBED). It will have to wait to be done though until we sort out which neighborhoods are notable and sourced. — aegreen (talk • email) 20:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the "in Charlotte" or "of Charlotte" convention for lists and/or categories. --Triadian 20:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Before this project tries to do a mass renaming, you name want to review the discussion on neighborhood naming conventions. Whatever this project decides should be based on the guideline from the settlement naming project. Vegaswikian 23:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the topic of city neighborhoods. Maybe within a week there will be some useful feedback. If not, then we'll just go with whatever fits us best. I took the liberty of moving the pages prior to Vegaswikian's comment. --Triadian 20:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Neighborhood boundaries

As a personal, non-wikipedia pet project I've been mapping some Charlotte neighborhoods on to an interactive Google Map. Here's the link. If you click on a neighborhood "shape" it may display the source of the map boundaries if available. Again, this map is not part of any Wikipedia project but if you'd like, you may link to this map in the various Wikipedia articles for these Charlotte neighborhoods. Hint: You can zoom in to more targeted neighborhood views and create a new link to those views by clicking "link to this page". There are still many neighborhoods that I can't find specific known boundaries for. If you know of detailed, documented neighborhood boundaries not already on this map, please reply below or contact me on my user talk page and I'll add that neighborhood to the map. Thanks. --Fife Club 15:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Route 4

Should anything be changed or added before I nominate this as a good article? --NE2 04:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge North Charlotte & NoDa

In my opinion NoDa and North Charlotte should be merged into a single North Charlotte article with a section specifically on NoDa since NoDa is a PART of the greater North Charlotte neighborhood per CWAC designations. Thoughts? Patriarca12 23:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a bad idea. By that logic, Ballyntine, Quail Hollow, and South Park should all be lumped together as South Charlotte. Also by this logic, there would only be 4 neighborhoods in the entire city; North, East, West, and South. I don't think we should confuse identifiable neighborhoods with where they happen to fall geographically (although that would be a great means of organizing a list of all Charlotte neighborhoods). I would say this about any real neighborhoods, but Noda's in particular has far too unique of an identity to be confused with "North Charlotte".

Also, I don't understand why you mentioned the CWAC designations. That "North Charlotte" that you linked to is a very, very small subsection of town - less than 576 acres! According to that map, nothing along any of WT Harris, nor the Northlake Mall, nor the University area considered to be in North Charlotte. More importantly to your argument, Noda is no where near that little sliver of land that CWAC calls North Charlotte. CWAC designations are usualy just collections of neighboring subdivisions for statistical purposes only.

--Fife Club 02:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I would completely argue that "North Charlotte" isn't really a neighborhood anyway, and shoulld not be considered a "neighborhood" in this project. It's just a whole side of town, what contains dozens of real neighborhoods, like University City, Derita, and others.

North Charlotte is a separate neighborhood that includes NoDa. The CWAC map clearly shows the area of East 36th and North Davidson, the center of NoDa, as part of the neighborhood. Additionally, the moniker North Charlotte is based on the old Highland Mill operations there and is also noted on the National Register of Historic Places as the North Charlotte Historic District. Yes Druid Hills, Northlake, University City, etc. could be consider a part of North Charlotte in a more regional sense, but not in a neighborhood sense. When speaking specifically of neighborhoods NoDa is part of the larger North Charlotte neighborhood. Patriarca12 16:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad on reading the map wrong. But still, the CWAC maps are often inconsistent with real neighborhoods so they shouldn't be taken verbatim. For example:

• Steele Creek is shown as just a tiny fraction of what the real Steele Creek neighborhood actually is.
• Dilworth's CWAC map doesn't match the well documented historic district boundaries of Dilworth
• South Park, South End, and NoDa doesn't even exist according to CWAC but they're all obviously real and thriving neighborhoods.

So the real question we have to decide first is definition of what what constitutes a neighborhood? I would say that the people in a neighborhood identify their own neighborhood (such as registered Historic Districts, or the fact that somebody living off of WT Harris would say they live in North Charlotte), and not just go by the faulty CWAC maps. If on the other hand we do decide that only the CWAC maps matter than we'll have to be consistent and remove articles such as South Park, South End and NoDa because they're not recognized as such bt CWAC. Just my 8 cents. --Fife Club 17:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You do raise an excellent point about parts of town like University City, SouthPark, South End, etc. that do not necessarily fall into a single CWAC designation that are locally well known and established. Maybe we can note them as something like "zones" and note what neighborhoods are located within each (i.e. SouthPark encompasses the neighborhoods of Beverly Woods, Barclay Downs, Sharon Woods and Foxcroft).

Personally, if we are to create articles about individual neighborhoods, I feel CWAC/NSA designations should be used as they are all officially defined and mapped by the city. However, I will be fine with any consensus that can be reached on the issue. Patriarca12 22:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. CWAC and NSA designations can often be useful information to include in a neighborhood article, especially since it's an official and documented government designation. I just personally favor community consensus (what people really consider a neighborhood) over stricty going by those maps. Your example of mentioning which CWAC neighborhoods are considered to be part of the SouthPark neighborhood would constitute valuable content for that article. Getting back to NoDa, I still don't think it should be embedded within a North Charlotte article but by all means mention those facts in both articles. --Fife Club 15:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

LYNX Rapid Transit Services

Would y'all take a look at the LYNX article I have been working on and let me know if anything should be changed or added before I nominate this as a good article? Patriarca12 22:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a very impressive article, seriously. Excellent job! A particularly good job with your proper use of citations (and multiple instances of the same citations) - something rarely done correctly in Wikipedia. The only suggestion I have is to check with the Village Pump as to whether the use of colorizing text for aesthetic reasons (to match the line color) may possibly conflict with any Wikipedia policy. I like the idea but you may want to just check on that before you nominate the article. Again, great job. --Fife Club 16:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Another Choice for Black Children Adoption Agency

Another Choice for Black Children Adoption Agency (via WP:PROD)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this here? Are you looking for support on the proposed deletion? And what case are you making, for or against? I don't get why this was posted here? I'll chime in on this if somebody can provide a link to the proper discussion page (which is not here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Charlotte). --Fife Club 04:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is here as notification of a proposed deletion relevant to Charlotte, North Carolina. I am neutral on the matter of the article itself. If you do not want to be notified in relation to Charlotte-related article dispositions, I won't place anything here in the future. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. No harm was done by mentioning it. Although I think this project is primarily focused on the Charlotte, North Carolina article and other articles related to the city itself, it's just that I can't figure out anything that we can do about it anyway. I can't find any discussions on the proposal and all it says is that the "owner" of the article can simply remove the tag is they don't want it removed (and they don't even need to justify their reasoning). Personally I've got to agree with the template that, although it's great work that they're doing, the article is about a non-notable organization so the article is against Wikipedia guidelines. Besides that, no other articles link to it other than some talk pages, so it's an orphan article anyway. (Absolutely no pun intended at all!) Just my 2 cents but I'm not going to lose sleep either way. --Fife Club 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a habit of trying to find the most specific WikiProject that might have perspective on whether or not an article should be deleted or improved; local notability is best judged and sources found to support it by persons living in or with great interest in that locale (in general). You've described the functional scope of this project as quite narrow; so I'll plan to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/North Carolina with similar notifications in the future. Thanks for the clarification. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I removed the PROD and added some content and citations that I believe help establish notability. At any rate, it'll have to go to an Afd now if someone really wants to delete it. Shawn in Montreal 16:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Activity

To get the activity of this project up, I will tag articles related to the Charlotte area with this project tag. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates

I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{WikiProject United States}}. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

US Collaboration reactivated & Portal:United States starting next

Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.

The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate

One or more articles relating to this project have been nominated to be a future United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month. All editors interested in improving these articles or voting for next months collaboration are encouraged to participate here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for United States A-Class review process

There is a proposal at WikiProject United States to start an A-Class review process for United States related articles. Please stop by and join the discussion. Kumioko (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Carolina Panthers FAC

Hello; I have nominated the article Carolina Panthers, a high-importance article on this project, for featured article. The Panthers are, of course, one of two major professional sports teams based in Charlotte and are perhaps the most popular team based in the city; they are of unique interest to the history and growth of the city of Charlotte, as the team's entry perhaps marked the entry of Charlotte and North Carolina into the national spotlight. All editors of this project are invited to comment on the featured article candidacy. Toa Nidhiki05 19:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion to remove the Automatically assessed logic from the WikiProject United States template

Greetings, there is a discussion regarding removal of the logic used to populate Automatically assessed article categories from Template:WikiProject United States. Most of the categories (over 220 Wikipedia wide) were deleted in February 2013 because they were empty. These categories were previously populated by a bot that hasn't run since 2011 and the categories aren't used. Removal of this uneeded/unused logic will greatly reduce the size and complexity of the WikiProject United States template. Any comments or questions are encouraged here. Kumioko (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Lest there is any confusion for people who don't speak the same language, the words "logic used to populate Automatically assessed article categories" refer to the feature that was supposed to allow this WikiProject's template to "inherit" class and importance ratings from other WikiProjects. Kumioko says that there are no longer any bots performing the function that formerly copied those ratings. --Orlady (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

College basketball team navigational templates

Please join the discussion at the College Basketball Wikiproject for forming a consensus on the creation of a basic navigation template for college basketball teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject United States - 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)