Talk:Charlotte FC

Charlotte FC has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 4, 2023. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Football: American & Canadian Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States: North Carolina / Charlotte Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina - Charlotte (assessed as High-importance).

A fact from Charlotte FC appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 January 2020, and was viewed approximately 1,169 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the Charlotte MLS team signed a kit sponsorship deal months before being officially awarded an expansion franchise? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charlotte MLS team.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Charlotte FC.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SounderBruce&oldid=prev&diff=1075834745 You made no reverts to vandalism, so, yes, you do need an instructional session on WP:3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit was clearly vandalism by a disruptive user, who has been warned by several other users for inappropriate use of articles before American soccer club names. Don't message me about this again. SounderBruce 23:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looked looked like a good faith edit to me, but even if, it would be two edits, and you claimed one on your talk page. I'll message you until i feel you get the message. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you avoid hounding Bruce please? And, to be quite honest, your extensive block history due to 3RR violations doesn't qualify you much to give an "instructional session" on the topic. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 23:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No hounding intended. He reverted all of the edits I made to his talk page but whatever you say, I just thought he might want to learn from someone who has my experience, but clearly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You both seem quite experienced, but I don’t think moving this from his talk page is a good idea especially after he removed it very intentionally. If you want to keep this conversation going, the 3RR noticeboard is, of course, always open, but I don’t think this is very productive here. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 23:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I take this to the noticeboard? Did he exceed three reverts?

Yes he removed it, but he also added a {{Don't template me}}, I can only assume that it was for my benefit, yet I have not templated the editor. I tried to discuss it there, but was met with misconceptions and aggression. I have not seen problem behaviour from the editor and was attempting to inform the editor of a potential problem. Nothing more. Regardless, I have made my point and going forward, I will simply report bad behaviour I see. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t looked into it too much, so he might not have gone over three reverts. Either way, my point is more that this doesn’t need to be taken to an article talk page just because it was removed from his user talk page, as well as that so, yes, you do need an instructional session probably isn’t the best way to approach it in any case. — {{u|Bsoyka}} ^talk 02:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every time someone has tried to a history of soccer in the city where an MLS team is playing, it has been removed. The rationale has been consistent: that's a different topic. If a history article is needed, create one and mention it briefly in the article, but a detailed history is not. You will not find it in articles about other sports in North America. You will not find it in association football articles for other nations. It is not needed in this context either. I will be more than happy to take this to a larger audience if needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Sounders FC#History, a long-standing part of an FA, mentions previous clubs. You keep removing the first MLS bids and needed context that led up to the Tepper bid in addition to the previous teams. Do you really need to be so combative over every little change that you can't control? SounderBruce 06:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! I just recently added a single sentence (before being reverted by Walter) to mention previous NASL clubs that existed in Boston prior to the arrival of the New England Revolution in that respective article. Walter, what's wrong with adding a bit of context and background information to MLS club articles like Charlotte FC and New England? Oluwasegu (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed in many MLS articles and has been expunged. Whitecaps, Timbers, TFC, LA Galaxy, many articles have brief mentions, but long paragraphs. A stand-alone article is appropriate, not a section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]