The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte (disambiguation) → Charlotte – Charlotte currently redirects to Charlotte, North Carolina. There has been a bit of a discussion in 2008 and 2013 at Talk:Charlotte. I agree with Infovarius, that the city is hardly known to most non Americans and the given name would be the most likely subject which these users would expect to find. As virtually all American cities already have the format City, State it seems logical to turn Charlotte into a disambiguation page. Inwind (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Suport per nom, first thing I think of is the female name, second is Charlotte Motor Speedway, which isn't in Charlotte NC, it's in Concord. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – I see no good primarytopic claim here. Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and related discussions (Talk:Raleigh (disambiguation), Talk:Bellingham (disambiguation), etc.). There is no factual basis to the assertions in the nomination--sure, most U.S. cities are at the "City, State" title, but in many, many cases, the base name "City" redirects there (Little Rock, Memphis, Missoula, Austin...). "First thing I think of" is actually not a criterion for determining primary topic on Wikipedia; page views and long-term significance are. This major U.S. metropolitan area got 163089 pageviews over the last 90 days. The given name? 7033. And no case has been made that any of these other topics even comes close to challenging the largest city in the Carolinas for educational significance. Red Slash 18:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  May be the city got more pageviews because the redirect leads there? Infovarius (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Almost certainly, and that is a good point; the redirect doubtlessly gives a couple of mistaken pageviews a week at least. But of the 14298 times in the last 90 days that Charlotte itself has seen a hit, most of them come from the over 500 links in articlespace to Charlotte, (virtually?) all of which expected to get the North Carolina city. Just like people link UK rather than [[United Kingdom|UK]], people do the same for Charlotte. Red Slash 21:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Page views for a redirect are counted separately from that of the target in the statistics. older ≠ wiser 12:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose As there are no other entities approaching the page views of Charlotte, then the page should stay as is. I note that if you look at Charlotte (given name) it is more or less a disambiguation page anyways, noting different people using the feminine version of Chuck. In response to Charlotte Motor Speedway not being in Charlotte, Baltimore-Washington International Airport is neither in Baltimore nor Washington, to which page should we disambiguate to clear this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baltimore-Washington contains the airport, so is not like Charlotte at all. Further, the Charlotte Motor Speedway is highly prominent. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the same logic, Charlotte also contains the speedway. older ≠ wiser 00:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Baltimore-Washington is not Baltimore or Washington, D.C. though, so unlike Charlotte, it is the conurbatino of two centers -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not really relevant though. Baltimore-Washington is a metropolitan area just as the Charlotte metro area. older ≠ wiser 14:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's clear which Charlotte is the primary topic, and it's the North Carolina city. -- Calidum 02:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I see no evidence that challenges this good sized city as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the title "Charlotte".--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I believe that the page view counter is not a good indicator for this article and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not based solely on page views but on the result of a discussion. The page view counter is useful for articles with names primarily used for places or surnames. Articles relating to widely used terms often have the disambiguation page as the primary topic. I have not done the page view count on Buffalo, but I guess there is a good chance that Buffalo, New York would be a strong contender. Inwind (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The city is definitely not the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, can you explain why? Red Slash 08:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the number of queens and princesses called Charlotte you think a city which is not terribly well-known outside America should be primary? Clearly not. Obvious US-centricity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that the city meets primary topic pageview thresholds. Following are pageview stats for one arbitrary month for entities called simply "Charlotte" with over 1000 views:
  • Charlotte, North Carolina: 59118
  • Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (the eponym of the city): 13882
  • Princess Charlotte of Wales: 6856
  • Princess Charlotte, Duchess of Valentinois: 5507
  • Charlotte (cake): 4708
  • Charlotte, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg: 3596
  • Charlotte (given name): 2410
  • Charlotte, Princess Royal: 2069
  • Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany: 1703

—  AjaxSmack  03:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, because apparently the city doesn't come close to surpass the rest of the eponymous topics with regard to long-term significance - I did a Google Books search for "Charlotte" [1] and I only found a city-related book at the very bottom of the third page. I didn't expect it to be that lopsided, but on the other hand, the given name does appear to be rather old and popular. A Britannica search for "Charlotte" [2] shows what is effectively a disambiguation page, listing the city first, and then all the other meanings, which is what we can do, too. I'm not particularly swayed by the raw hit count argument, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an index of popular things on the Internet. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in light of the recent decision with regards to Worcester it appears that obviously the city should be the primary topic, unless there is something else that is VASTLY more important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this issue has previously been discussed at Talk:Charlotte where there are comments about it from 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2013. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Softlavender (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per primary topic criteria. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte (disambiguation) → Charlotte – While this is a large city, it isn't primary by either criteria [[3]] [[4]] [[5]]. If you take into account these others the views would be even lower. As has been pointed out before the city's name comes from the given name and people globally would probably expect to find that at the base name, in addition to the fact that it was 11th most popular girl name in 2013 in the United States. See also Talk:Isle of Lewis. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Page views aside, there are so many well known things called Charlotte that I don't think anything can lay claim to primary topic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this move 2601:541:4500:1760:E861:9904:9861:4E33 (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The nom's own links show that the North Carolina city gets around 2/3rds of pageviews overall, which more than qualifies it for primarytopic by usage. Of the other topics called "Charlotte", the North Carolina city also is a clear winner for long-term encyclopedic significance. Nothing's broke here to fix. Dohn joe (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If you take into account some of the topics that are also sometimes "Charlotte" (as noted by AjaxSmack) [[6]] and the fact that it has been argued that the common name of US cities is "Placename, Statename" then you could end up with a negative number. While I agree its a clear winner of long-term significance over the anime, that's less clear with the name, especially given the city derives from the name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. There is no way that the city is the primary topic for this common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose no valid argument has been put forward for a move, which is required under policy. Moving the dab page to primary is a huge disservice to our readers when a hatnote works just as fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No valid argument? I have provided my arguments showing that this isn't significantly more likely to be sought with "Charlotte" and other evidence of PT#2. The move would slightly inconvenience those looking for the city but make it significantly easier to find the large number of other uses. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No, you actually haven’t presented a single policy based reason for a move. You’ve presented IDONTLIBKEIT combined with hand waving at the primary topic criteria. That doesn’t come close to establishing that we should remove a major financial centre from its stable title, and even if your arguments came close to presenting a reason to move (they don’t, so this shouldn’t be moved regardless) others have presented sound arguments that this wins on both primary topic criteria. All you say in response is that you are unsure on that above. Basically, you don’t like this title like it is and think we should make 2/3 of our readers take an extra click to get to the page they want. That’s just senseless if there isn’t a good reason, which there isn’t here. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I have presented page views which is usually the most common way to establish a PT, the first criteria "much more likely than any other single topic", and "more likely than all the other topics combined". Charlotte (anime) gets more than 1/3 of the views of Charlotte, North Carolina and the 2nd half of the 1st criteria might not be true if some of the other pages are also searched for with "Charlotte". I haven't presented IDONTLIKEIT arguments, my point is that the current set up is surprising to anyone who doesn't live in North America. See my arguments at Talk:Yelling (disambiguation) where the village is obviously an interest to me but I think its highly unfriendly to send the rest of the world to it who type "Yelling". The redirect Charlotte has been far from stable, see its edit history. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Dohn joe. The stats show that the city is the primary topic, and the current disambiguation hat note isn't causing any confusion to readers. Bradv 04:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.