Air carrier pilot reported the glideslope for CLT ILS 36C is out of service and instead of this being referenced within a NOTAM for RNAV 36C; it should have its own NOTAM for ILS 36C.

Narrative

This topic could have been raised before but I thought I would bring it to your attention. In Day 0 the FAA issued NOTAM for the CLT RNAV (GPS) Y Runway 36C. It is a NOTAM telling you to disregard the note about LNAV procedure NA during simultaneous operations. The issue I have is imbedded later on within the same NOTAM text it indirectly addresses a totally different approach; the ILS 36C. It says the I-DQG ILS or glideslope out of service. There are at least 2 or 3 other NOTAMs for Runway 36C but none of them call out the glideslope except for the RNAV NOTAM. You do not use the I-DQS ILS for the RNAV approach.Last night we were given a late runway change to the visual to 36C after setting up for and briefing the approach to 36L. The standard is usually to back up a visual approach with an ILS. We quickly reviewed the NOTAMs for 36C and the FO set it up and we briefed the visual backed up by the ILS 36C. We were vectored across the field coming in from the north to a right downwind for 36C. In the downwind vector; from a previous flight; I remembered there was a trick" with 36C. As I re-reviewed the NOTAMs I caught the imbedded ILS glideslope note within the RNAV 36C NOTAM. We changed the approach again in the box to the RNAV 36C; re-briefed; and except for the Tower Controller talking to us during the touchdown and high speed rollout; we made an uneventful landing.My question is; why is this not a separate NOTAM for the ILS 36C highlighting the ILS or glideslope out of service and how can this concern be relayed to the FAA?Cause: The ILS 36C I-DQS ILS or glideslope out of service should be its own NOTAM for the ILS 36C; NOT imbedded within the RNAV 36C NOTAM."