Talk:Brooklyn

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brooklyn article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

Brooklyn was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 6, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 13, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

New York (state): Long Island High‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Long Island, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

New York City Top‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

MOS:BOLDTITLE

I have reverted the un-bolding of "Kings County" in the title, again. Per MOS:BOLDTITLE: If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold. The county name does indeed need to be moved to the first sentence, but "Kings County" is a formal name and so should not be unbolded. Same for the other boroughs. epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russian and Ukrainian American

Ukrainians are not russians (muscovites), both are totally different nations, besides jews from eastern Europe is the third nation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.140.159.110 (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that whoever made that chart was trying to group people who have similar culture and or languages. The chart never said that Ukrainians were Russians. It says "Russian and Eastern European". I would assume that Ukrainians would fall under the "Eastern European" label rather than the Russian label. Regarding, Jewish people of any origin, I'm not sure how they would be factored into this ethnic chart. 50.202.217.173 (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The mystery of Brooklyn's pageviews

I'm wondering if anybody can think of an explanation for the strange behavior of the pageviews of Brooklyn. In January Brooklyn was the 35th most viewed page on the English Wikipedia. Starting about September the pageviews went from a few thousand each day to a high over 100,000 then fell to about 20,000 for about a month, and then back up to about 50,000 per day since Christmas. You can play with the chart here.

@Bri, Pharos, Jim.henderson, MusikAnimal, Kaldari, and Igordebraga:. That exhausts the set of folks I know of who might have some expertise in this area. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's bot-inflated traffic. While desktop and mobile web show the same pattern, mobile app shows more normal fluctuations. I can only assume mobile app would mirror this the patterns of other platform types if it were genuine traffic. I live just across the river from Brooklyn and I personally can't come up with any explanation for this anomaly. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @MusikAnimal:. My question is why would anybody set up a bot to do this? If not "on purpose", doesn't it cost them some money to load the page 60,000 times a day for months at a time? I guess my question comes down to what is "bot-inflated traffic" and why do people do it, and if not on purpose, why don't they catch it. Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Who knows :) Bot-inflated traffic is actually common. Sometimes the reasoning is clear, such as phab:T236121 where automation was used to put articles on obscure artists into the "trending" section of the mobile app, apparently as a means of promotion. I don't know why one would do this for Brooklyn. At any rate, the Analytics team is working to improve bot filtering, see phab:T123442. Until then, we'll just have to use tactics like comparing the platforms to identify false traffic. Hope this helps, — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with MusikAnimal; no blip in Google Trends at the same time. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction, 2nd Paragraph - Data table and reference link both provide Brooklyn as the largest, not second-largest borough.

Changed as such to:

With a land area of 70.82 square miles (183.4 km2) and water area of 26 square miles (67 km2), Kings County is New York state's fourth-smallest county by land area and third-smallest by total area, though it is the largest among the city's five boroughs.[4]

Was odd to see this with the 2018 table right below it showing Brooklyn with the highest population. Note that the source [4] points to 2010 census data which, friendly to read as it is, also confirms Brooklyn as largest above Queens, Manhattan et al. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.5.33 (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Hiphopabad" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hiphopabad. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Hiphopabad until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there two "coord" templates?

@Epicgenius, Alibino, Alansohn, Xurizuri, HugoHelp, Bumm13, Palindromesemordnilap, and Freezingwedge: Greetings and felicitations. Why are there two "Coord" templates—one near the top of the article and one in the infobox? Would anyone object to having just one in the infobox with it displaying both inline and in the title? —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't noticed it, no objections from me. The first coordinate goes to Brooklyn Borough Hall. The second one, in the infobox, is centered to a random house? You might want to adjust the coordinate. --HugoHelp (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DocWatson42, I also don't object. I did notice that the infobox coordinates pointed closer to the middle of the borough, but like HugoHelp said, the title coords are Borough Hall. I don't have a real preference either way. Epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius and HugoHelp: Thank you. I didn't have the patience to play with the coordinates until they were the geographic center of the borough, so I used the title coordinates. —DocWatson42 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing TOC entries for 10 [sub-] sub-sections

This comment is based upon the "Latest revision as of 15:43, 2 April 2021" version of this article.

At first glance, the "Brooklyn#Neighborhoods" section of [the above mentioned version or "revision" of] this article seemed [to me] to have 11 sub-sections (but with only the first one of them being mentioned [listed] in the TOC ['Table of Contents'] of the article, and not the next ten of them).

(But that was just my initial impression ["!"]; when I had been looking at the displayed version of the text in that section, but probably not paying close enough attention to the exact "font-size" differences, between the title of the first sub-section ["Brooklyn#Community diversity"] and the titles of the next 10 ... um, entities^H^H^H pieces of content that have titles and appear somewhere "under" or as "part of" that section.)

Upon further inspection, however (and this time, looking at the wikitext, not just the displayed version of the text), it now appears that only the first one -- "Brooklyn#Community diversity" -- is actually a sub-section (with triple equal signs ["==="] surrounding its title). The next ten are -- apparently -- actually sub-sub-sections, (with quadruple equal signs ["===="] surrounding their titles).

Even after figuring out that part, I was still puzzled by ... what the reason was (if it was intentional) for displaying (in the TOC) the name of the first sub-section ["Brooklyn#Community diversity"] but not the names of the ten sub-sub-sections "within" [or "under"] that.

(Is that something that is just a rule of Wikipedia -- or even of Wikimedia?) -- that everyone else already knows about?) (Except maybe for some [like me] who are clueless in that regard) -- ? --

Maybe it's OK. Personally I would have been fine if all 11 of the subdivisions there, had been [coded as] sub-sections, and did appear in the TOC. Maybe either (a) someone decided that it would be better if the ten sub-sub-sections that come after that [or, more like, that are part of that] did NOT appear in the TOC; or else maybe (b) someone made those next ten entities [pieces of content that have titles] into sub-sub-sections without realizing that it would cause those ten titles to be excluded from the TOC of the article.

If it's (a) then I guess it was intentional, and the reason for making that decision that way, was probably a solid one. But if it's (b) then ... well, someone might want to "consider" doing something about it.

Just a comment. Thanks for listening. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this just has to do with making the Table of Contents a bit more concise. If you put "TOC limit=3" (double curly bracketed) or in this case just "TOC limit" it will limit to showing the sections and subsections. I think that's a good idea to keep it from looking too cluttered, so I myself added it to a different article. However I do agree that having Community diversity as the subsection with the ethnicities as subsubsections under it doesn't make 100% logical sense. But if we made them regular subsections then the Table of Contents would get way too long. So I think it's fine this way. BTW: I have never edited this article so there might be something I'm missing, take what I'm saying with a grain of salt because it's just based on my prior knowledge. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"2nd borough" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2nd borough. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#2nd borough until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. feminist (+) 13:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Second borough" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Second borough. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#Second borough until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. feminist (+) 13:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Kings, New York" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kings, New York. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 28#Kings, New York until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. feminist (+) 02:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): R.Blecher.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zes26. Peer reviewers: Isabellala727.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of map showing neighborhoods of Brooklyn

It is utterly ridiculous that this article lacks a map that shows all the neighborhoods of Brooklyn. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need to edit the population claim?

I think Chicago might be bigger than Brooklyn. Mapnmuzikman (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, contrary to the claim made in the footnote, Brooklyn's population has gone down since the 2020 census. Could not find census data but other public data put the 2022 population of Brooklyn at 2.59 million which would be less than Chicago. 96.89.41.137 (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn

What does it mean? 2601:8C3:8700:3000:B831:C0FB:4C04:6AC8 (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you DOUG SAGORSKI 2603:9001:4000:3180:748C:1C4:E034:A948 (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]