From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I will be adding Fortunato Brothers and Pyza restaurant when I get address information. (WT-en) Carrot 11:27, 10 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Why was the Schnack listing deleted? Has the establishment closed? When you delete such listings, please give a clear reason in the comments on the edit. Thanks. Michael 02:45, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

I erased the paragraph on the Atlantic Yards discussion and resistance. ("Burgeoning new restaurants have lead to a new burgeoning political climate. Due to the near universal localized hatred of the proposed Ratner project for the Atlantic Yards, the local communities are organizing in surprising new ways.") I don't think it makes sense in the opening part of the wikivoyage article. Also it is not specific enough to be understood by non-brooklynites. If people think it is important to write about it (in a wikivoyage article) they should create a special paragraph somewhere further down the article. dan

In my judgment, this article is no longer a stub or even an outline, so I have deleted the "stub" notice in the article. -- Michael 03:47 1 July, 2006 (UTC)

Checkout Project:Article status. I marked it as a "guide". -- (WT-en) Colin 00:39, 1 July 2006 (EDT)

Flatbush, the most dangerous neighborhood in Brooklyn? Is that from police statistics? Unless someone can cite a reliable source, I will consider the claim to be baseless. For the time being, I am deleting the claim. -- Michael 00:49, 6 Nov 2006 (EDT)

"Understand" Section[edit]

Do we want constant references to poverty and projects causing a risk of violent crime in this neighborhood and that one, in the list of neighborhoods, or would such cautions be better moved to a "Stay Safe" section? -- Michael 06:57, 15 February 2008 (EST)

I agree with Michael about the poverty issues and moving them to the stay safe section. Also it is my understanding that [1] district articles general don't even have Understand sections. But what I think needs to be addressed is that a lot of the content in the Understand section might be better served in the See or Do sections as the Understand section seems rather long. I know a lot of them are neighborhoods, but within those there are many listings for activities (i.e. The Cyclone in Coney Island). Just my thoughts. (WT-en) Carson 15:08, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I think the Borough of Brooklyn is somewhere between a district (neighborhood) and a huge city, and rather closer to a huge city in its own right. The structure of the article reflects that, generally following the "Huge city" format [2], but for example, omitting the sections after "Sleep" that are usually in that format. I decided to separate the current "Understand" section into a "Districts" section and an "Understand" section, as shown in the linked "Huge city" template. If anyone wants to try doing some of the edits Carson has suggested, please feel free! Michael 04:33, 6 June 2008 (EDT)


Brooklyn neighborhoods map.png

This article has been demoted in part because the "Eat" section is not ordered by price. I think it might actually be more useful to order it by neighborhood. But as I see it, there are basically three categories we want to emphasize, in some order or other: (1) Price; (2) neighborhood; (3) cuisine. Theoretically any order could be chosen, but since Brooklyn is such a large borough, my preference is Neighborhood/alphabetical order/specify vital information (price, street address, tel. #, website if any, et al.) within entry. I hope some of you have some feedback on best practice. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 03:19, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Actually, I think we should order our content by "neighborhood" on a much larger scale—Brooklyn needs to have a districts breakdown. Wikipedia tells me that, were it a separate city, it would be the fourth largest in the United States. So trying to cram the whole borough into one page seems to me untenable. Once we have a districts structure in place, we can then order the listings by price within the individual district articles.
Of course, breaking cities into districts isn't all that easy. Most recently, we've been trying to do this with Philadelphia, so if you are interested in getting the ball rolling on a districts breakdown, take a look over that discussion to see how we'd go about this. Washington, D.C.#Districts is a pretty good example of a completed districts breakdown.
Brooklyn is definitely a place I want to know better, so I'll be happy to help in whatever way I can (maps, most likely). Can't say I know much about the place beyond the Brighton Beach area, though. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:56, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
I agree. Dividing Brooklyn into district pages, in more or less the same manner as Manhattan, is really the way to go. I work in Brooklyn 3x a week on average, yet my knowledge of the borough is checkered, because it is so huge and has so many neighborhoods. I will plunge ahead at my earliest convenience to start some neighborhood pages. For example, I know some excellent Chinese restaurants and Italian pasticcerie in Bensonhurst and have a fair amount of knowledge of Downtown Brooklyn. I'll look at the links you give, too. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 03:35, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
Alright, I whipped up a map of Brooklyn's neighborhoods, which should make it easier to get down to a real districts discussion. I don't know half enough about Brooklyn to create a full proposal, but I will propose a couple districts that I'm at least somewhat familiar with.
1) Brooklyn/Williamsburg (Williamsburg, Greenpoint). I think Williamsburg as I've drawn it (which amalgamates the various North/East/West/etc. Williamsburgs) could sustain a full, good travel article. Greenpoint by necessity would have to be added to the article, as it otherwise would be cut off from the city, and I don't think it would have enough content for a good travel article of its own.
2) Brooklyn/Brighton Beach (Brighton Beach, Manhattan Beach, Sheepshead Bay). My favorite part of the city, where I can find my beloved Russian, Georgian, and Central Asian dishes! I think this would fill out a good article, but if it does not, we could combine it with either neighborhoods to the east, or with the third district proposed below.
3) Brooklyn/Coney Island (Coney Island, Seagate, Gravesend). I'll confess, I don't know this area—just the amusement park.
Thoughts? Other proposals? There's certainly no rush to create the districts, so lets make sure we get a well-thought-out, complete proposal, leaving neither gaps nor overlap. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:15, 18 July 2009 (EDT)
Great job! I'm no Brooklyn expert, but the map looks good to me. I hope some really knowledgeable Brooklynites weigh in on it, though. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 01:16, 1 August 2009 (EDT)
That map is awesome, and yes, districts really are the way to go. I have to admit that my knowledge is unfortunately not good enough to be of any help in the discussion. But good work is being done here (WT-en) Globe-trotter 02:59, 19 August 2009 (EDT)
I'm good with those districts, and might I add that we should have a Brooklyn/Prospect Park district for the neighborhoods ringing the park.(WT-en) Rastapopulous 13:33, 3 November 2009 (EST)
Also add a Brooklyn/Downtown District for downtown Brooklyn and Brooklyn Heights (and soem of the other nearby neighborhoods). On both this district and the aformentioned Prospect Park one I know plenty and could work on that.(WT-en) Rastapopulous 16:25, 3 November 2009 (EST)
This wikipedia article lists neighborhoods by historic towns: Which gives me thoughts to districting. Here is a proposal:
  1. Brooklyn/Bushwick or alternatively Brooklyn/Williamsburg encompasses Bushwick, Greenpoint and Wiliamsburg
  2. Brooklyn/Downtown encompasses DUMBO, Downtown Brooklyn, Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Boerum Hill
  3. Brooklyn/Gowanus and Red Hook encompasses Carrol Gardens, Red Hook, and Gowanus
  4. Brooklyn/Prospect Park encompasses Park Slope, Prospect Heights, Propect Park, and maybe Windsor Terrace, and maybe Prospect Park South (This district is small b/c there's a high concentration of attractions--most of the major ones are here)
  5. Brooklyn/Greenwood encompasses Sunset Park, Greenwood Cemetary, Borough Park, Kensington and Parkville, and maybe Windsor Terrace
  6. Brooklyn/Southwest or alternatively Brooklyn/New Utrecht encompassing Bay Ridge, Fort Hamilton, Dyker Heights, Bensonhurst, and Bath Beach
  7. Brooklyn/Brighton Beach and Coney Island encompassing Gravesend, Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay, Seagate, and Manhattan Beach
  8. Brooklyn/Flatlands encompassing Gerritsen Beach, Marine Park, Barren Island, Mill Basin, Flatlands, and Bergen Beach
  9. Brooklyn/Canarsie and East encompassing Canarsie, Brownsville, East New York, and Cypress Hills
  10. Brooklyn/Bedford-Stuyvesant encompassing Bedford-Stuyvesant and Crown Heights
  11. Brooklyn/Flatbush and Midwood encompassing Midwood, Flatbush, East Flatbush, Lefferts Gardens, and maybe Prospect Park South.
  12. Brooklyn/Fort Greene encompassing Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, and Navy Yard (this district seems a bit small and might need to be merged with another)
That's twelve districts, which is two more than usual. My own knowlege of Brooklyn is mostly in the Northern part, and I know very little of Central brooklyn and the areas near Queens in particular, but this seemed like a good breakup to start with. Any ideas/objections/changes?(WT-en) Rastapopulous 13:45, 4 November 2009 (EST)
Districts map draft 1

I hope you don't mind my intruding and adding those numbers to the list, but I think it will help us discuss. On the whole this looks great, so a big thanks is in order for drawing this up!

As I said above, I don't know that much about Brooklyn to be a very competent judge, but I do worry that twelve might be a tad too many. In particular, if we create these districts now, we'll have a bunch of empty articles. Accordingly, it might be best to group some of them into larger chunks that could be broken down in the future if need be. On a more fundamental level, all district articles we create should be able to support a good travel article, which would ideally have at least 7 or so listings for the see section, eat section, drink section, etc. That's a rule that we should only break when there is a compelling reason.

On to the concrete proposals, taking into account my limited knowledge + a bit of research:

1. I prefer Brooklyn/Williamsburg, since in the current era it's the hotter of the two neighborhoods

2. Good

3. Anything I know about this area is very outdated, but I wouldn't have thought there would be that much to see/do. Am I wrong? I don't know that there would be anywhere good to merge it to, though, so perhaps it's best left as is.

4. Definitely would make a good district article; definitely include Windsor Terrace & Park Slope South

5 & 6. Merge into a West Brooklyn article?

7. Good

8, 9, 10, & 11. My hunch is that these groupings, while certainly coherent, might not produce good travel articles (at least for some time). If I'm right, then the question becomes how best to merge them together, or with other areas.

Bed-Stuy has a lot by way of attractions, but it's still a tempting target to merge with some surrounding areas. I don't think either Flatlands or Canarsie and East will be able to support good travel articles (at least without the help of an expert), so here's a wild idea: merge them, call it Jamaica Bay, and split off Brownsville to Bed-Stuy.

Then combine Bed-Stuy and Flatbush into one district article: Brooklyn/Bedford Stuyvesant-Flatbush. I can't say the areas have all that much in common, although they do bleed into one another, but they are complementary—Bed-Stuy has the sights, Flatbush has the eats.

(Another thought, not part of my proposal here, would be to merge Flatbush westwards with 5 & 6.)

12. Agreed, too small. Could it be added to the Downtown article as a sort of hinterland? Or would that mess up the Downtown article? If so, I don't have any good ideas of what to do with it.

Following my suggestions, we'd be down to a much more comfortable seven articles. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:55, 5 November 2009 (EST)

All very good ideas in my view. On number 12, I'm thinking merging it with Downtown, even if it is something of a hinterland relative to downtown. I'd say merge it with Williamsburg, but you seem to have that article covered (which is good, as I know next-to-nothing about the border areas), and it would create a really ugly and artificial district. If we think there's enough stuff to support it's own article, we can split it off.

On 3: as a Brooklynite, I've definitely alwyas thought of Red Hook as quite distinct, not sure why though. It doesn't really make much sense to merge it with either the 2 or 4, since both are quite attraction-dense already, and also because the "stay safe" situation in Red Hook is very different from the other two districts. My thoughts would be to look up some of the artworks and fill the district with that. I do believe there is plenty to do, but it's not well known.

On 5 and 6: I agree, we can merge into one article, but let's maybe call it Brooklyn/Greenwood and New Utrecht as that a. gives us a mind to a potential future split, b. keeps the coherence and c. still puts in the regions' name the reason most people would visit it: Greenwood cemetary.

I agree with the Bed-Stuy-Flatbush proposal.

I also agree with the Jamaica Bay Proposal but I would probably call it Brooklyn/East instead: I'm wary of calling it Jamaica Bay since there has been discussion (though unlike with Brooklyn, no action) on districtifying Queens, which might cause confusion. And since there's little chance this district would be split up, I dont think we should have a name with the format "a and b"

(WT-en) Rastapopulous 07:41, 5 November 2009 (EST)

One more proposal: Let's maybe call 7 Brooklyn/Coney Island and Greater Brighton Beach since most people I know from outside Brooklyn think of the whole area as "Brighton Beach" but in reality Brighton Beach only covers a small part. Or is that getting to technical? (WT-en) Rastapopulous 07:54, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Never been outside Manhattan, so I'll leave all this to the experts but "Brooklyn/Coney Island and Greater Brighton Beach" really hurts my eyes, even without "Greater" it's really pushing it. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 08:03, 5 November 2009 (EST)
In hindsight, it's a silly idea. I do think we need to mention both names in the district name, though. Coney Island has, as far as I know, little outside the aquarium, the beach, and the amusement park, and putting it with Brighton Beach makes sense. I don't know loads about the area, but we do have someone who does here (and I do know relatively more about it than other places). So yeah, ignore the "greater" bit. (WT-en) Rastapopulous 10:10, 5 November 2009 (EST)
(final?) Districts map
Agreed on all counts, and I have "finalized" a districts map to the right (there is bound to be an error or two on that complex of a map). Lets wait a week for others to respond, then start the districting process? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:21, 5 November 2009 (EST)
It's a trivial detail, but I'd suggest dropping the I-478 shield from the Battery Tunnel -- there are no 478 signs posted anywhere (just this), so the number is little known. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 16:42, 11 November 2009 (EST)
Very happy with that map. I will do a side-by-side comparison with the neighborhoods map to check it this weekend, when I have access to a better comp. Thank you so much for making it--I'm still a total newbie (albeit inspired by Plunge Forward), but I can definitely run a comparison between the maps this weekend. (WT-en) Rastapopulous 22:56, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Just a question: should I know what "GNRA" stands for on that map? (WT-en) LtPowers 11:13, 6 November 2009 (EST)

GNRA stands for Gateway National Recreation Area, basically a large federal "park" spanning parts of New Jersey and New York. It doesn't really make much sense to make a guide to it, though, b/c the various parts of it are discontinuous. (WT-en) Rastapopulous 11:29, 6 November 2009 (EST)

OK, I've done a side-by-side comparison of the two maps and it seems that the one you drew up is error-free, at least as far as district borders is concerned, so I think we have our map. (WT-en) Rastapopulous 16:21, 11 November 2009 (EST)

If you're finalizing the image, I'd like to see a little more color contrast between adjacent districts. (WT-en) LtPowers 17:09, 11 November 2009 (EST)
I'm afraid I don't know how to edit these images. (WT-en) Rastapopulous 19:53, 11 November 2009 (EST)
I've made the changes suggested above. (And you can edit SVG files in Inkscape [3], which is freeware, if you feel like playing around with maps!) Time to plunge forward. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:19, 14 November 2009 (EST)

Districts status[edit]

Brooklyn is still a long way away from guide status, but just for fun, here's an inventory. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:56, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

Outline (2)
Brooklyn/Coney Island and Brighton Beach, Brooklyn/East
Usable (7)
Brooklyn, Brooklyn/Williamsburg, Brooklyn/Downtown, Brooklyn/Gowanus and Red Hook, Brooklyn/Prospect Park, Brooklyn/Bedford-Stuyvesant and Flatbush, Brooklyn/Greenwood and New Utrecht
The article statuses remain the same 3 years later. It would be great if one of the Usable articles could be made into a Guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now, Brooklyn and all the Brooklyn district guides are Usable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still all Usable. The next one to be promoted to Guide will be the first. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Safety in Coney Island[edit]

I am bowing out of a nascent editing war on whether Coney Island is "one of the more dangerous neighborhoods in New York City," but I want to try to reach a consensus about this. Undoubtedly, some crime is committed there; that's in no dispute. But is it really dangerous compared to East New York, as currently claimed in the article? Please discuss. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 04:29, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

Alternative banner for this article?[edit]

Banner currently used in this article
Suggested new alternative banner

Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I much prefer the current one. Besides the matter that I find the close-up of the bridge more striking, there's the more practical matter that the page title would cover up the view of the bridge tower (the most iconic thing in the image!) in the proposed alternative. PerryPlanet (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer the existing one for the same reasons. The close-up of the bridge is crispy, while the alternative is yet another skyline, which would be ok if there were no other alternatives.Danapit (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]