Jump to content

Talk:Charlotte FC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 03:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  • @SounderBruce: Long enough, new enough, sources look good, the copyvio detector isn't raising any red flags (only thing tripped is the list of proposed team names, but that's not a problem), and both hooks are cited and interesting (personal preference is the original). Everything looks in place, so now to wait for the QPQ before we can proceed with this. Zappa⚡Matic 22:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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

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

SounderBruce and ignoring edit warring

[edit]

@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]

History of the sport in the city is not context

[edit]

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]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Cherrell410 (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Charlotte FC/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cherrell410 (talk · contribs) 13:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
    Suggestions for improvement below:
  • Expansion bid under Tepper: remove redlink
    • Redlinks do not need to be removed if there's potential notability.
  • Inaugural season: says nothing about expansion draft
    • Added.
  • Inaugural season: Probably more info about 2022 offseason, and a new subsection for the 2023 season (or rename inaugural to something else
    • I would rather wait until the season is over before adding a full section.
  • Stadium: you don't need to mention that the panthers are owned by tepper, as the lead says just that
    • The lead must repeat information from the body, therefore it belongs here as well.
  • Headquarters and training facility: the campus, planned to popen in early 2023 - we're way past early 2023, needs updated info
    • There has been no recent coverage of the facility, so I've amended the sentence to 2023 and will keep an eye out for further news.
  • Ownership and management: remove redlink
    • Again, unnecessary.
  • Team records: add a year by year heading before the table (as seen in the article for the revolution)
    • Don't see the point in this.
  • Head coaches: As of October 26, 2022 --> as of 2022 season
    • That line is meant to signify that it was updated on a certain date, which could be mid-season if such a change is made.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@Cherrell410: Addressed your comments above. SounderBruce 05:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlotte_FC&oldid=1206627110"