Talk:Park Slope

	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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment[edit]

I lived in Park Slope for several years in 2005-2008. I did not find it predominantly gay, or even particularly gay. What you did see most of was strollers, even w/ same sex moms. But you also saw young bright, sharp students, musicians, writers. It is a mish mosh where the only generality is that it seems to have a very nice cool smart vibe. And no one group or type overshadows or dominates in number another. So it’s just a great mix and stays interesting because of that. Great restaurants, "hip" restaurants and bars where you can hear live music from country to folk to rock and roll to jazz to blues or poetry readings or sip on a beer with the regulars and watch a film, great dive bars and upscale too. Something for everyone.

More edgy and interesting along 5th and as you get into the higher numbers, more sedate manicured family oriented in Park Slope proper and 7th Avenue.

The new dog run needs benches, lights and a drinking hose for the pooches. And there is nothing like off leash hours in Prospect Park in that large area (and for those who like a dip in the dog pond). When I lived there there was a sax player who used to play on one of the benches in the morning. Nice touch.

I'm actually moving back, though its almost more expensive then Manhattan now, and I moved there originally because you could get a lot more for your money. Doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

The negatives--lots of strollers (unless you are pushing one yourself), elitist attitude in some of the shops and restaurants, and the few times I strolled into the food co-op contemplating joining, I always got this feeling that nobody in there (shopping or working) was very happy and it had this cult feeling....

When I first moved there I stopped into the Barnes and Nobel for a cup of coffee and glass of water and they charged me for the glass of water. Somewhat off putting to say the least. But later it seemed to me to be in keeping with the feeling that those there that had money appeared always on the precarious verge of losing it, and those w/out, on the verge of being discovered or publishing and having it. Yet another perspective on the meaning of "the slope." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.29.13 (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Park Slope has a distinct version of Brooklyn flavor. I suppose for some, an acquired taste.

It is so pathetic this article has so little info compared to the one on Williamsburg.

Park Slope hipsters! Get to work!

Photos[edit]

Why are there so few photos of Park Slope on the Web? And the ones there are are old and unattractive. This is one of the most beautiful urban neighborhoods in the world, and almost nothing!

Park Slope and Urban sprawl[edit]

I would hardly call Brooklyn or Park Slope an example of urban sprawl. Please read the article on that topic to get a better sense of what is meant by urban sprawl. Darkcore 22:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See your talk page. --Howrealisreal 00:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the urban sprawl characterization of turn-of-the-twentieth century development (which implies car-reliant development) with that of the streetcar suburb. I think this may be more historically accurate.--Pharos 01:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I am satisfied with this compromise. Thanks guys. --Howrealisreal 01:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's funny; actually I changed this independently of Darkcore's comment, which I noticed afterwards. On another point, I'm not sure I agree with the removal from Category:Gay villages. This has been a major aspect of the neighborhood's development in recent years.--Pharos 01:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that is true. Along with the influx of immigrants during the late 70s and 1980s, Park Slope is another classic example of how gays and lesbians have initiated gentification in neighborhoods. I am looking to find a good source that deals with this information before I add it to the Park Slope history section. Good point Pharos. --Howrealisreal 01:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think a distinction needs to be made between a gay village and a neighborhood that may be home to gays and lesbians. The Queer community tends to be heavily urbanized. Also, the Queer community, particularly gay men, have, along with artists, played significant roles in gentrifying many urban neighborhoods in many, many cities. However, a gay village is a neighborhood with a distinct "gay identity" that, to me, does not really exist in Park Slope. Yes, gays and lesbians live there (and they live in Fort Greene, Astoria, Bed-Stuy, Williamsburg, etc., etc.) but I don't think the definition of "gay village" is particularly warranted for any of those neighborhoods. Nor do I think it is really appropriate for Park Slope. Darkcore 06:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to the term "gay village", so it may not be appropriate for this article. But, I do think Park Slope's association with the gay and lesbian community, specifically how they helped shape and evolve the neighborhood before the boom in property value of the 1990s, is more well-known and more significant compared to your other examples of Fort Green, Astoria, Bed-Stuy, etc... I've grown up in this area for almost 22 years now, and I do believe that there is a distinct "gay identity" in Park Slope, although it has been hindered more recently due to the area becoming fashionable to families and young professionals (hipsters, yuppies, whatever you want to call them). I know it is not the end-all/be-all, but Park Slope still hosts many gay and lesbian parades and events that cater to the queer community in and beyond its boundaries. --Howrealisreal 19:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removed gay village category. At one point it might be appropriate but currently it probably doesn't. --Howrealisreal 16:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Progress[edit]

Congatulations on getting this quite beyond stub status; of course, it could still be expanded, particularly with non-historical info.--Pharos 18:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll continue to work on this here and there as I come across more information. I really appreciate the help and comments from all the on-lookers out there. --Howrealisreal 21:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

dyke slope[edit]

no mention of lesbians and the baby boom at all....

not true, read the article in full. but expanded on as per request. --Howrealisreal 17:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've lived in the slope my whole life. While there are a few lesbians, they are by no means dominant. As well, I have never heard ANYONE call my neighborhood Dyke Slope. Get a grip! —This unsigned comment is by 66.161.74.251 (talk • contribs) .

Well, just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean it's not true. I have grown up in the Slope for 20-some years, and have heard it described in various contexts that way. (Most recently by a professor at the college I attended.) Urban neighborhoods are complex and dynamic places; there is a lot more that happens in the present and past than meets the eye of one individual. --Howrealisreal 23:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point. I am 28 and an active member of the community. I do personally know lesbians. But whether its going out to dinner, or working at the Food Co-op, lesbians don't seem any more common than elsewhere in New York City. There is ONE lesbian bar on 4th Ave. Park Slope IS NOT called Dyke Slope by anyone except perhaps as an insult. You are missing the point. ITs a fiction!!! —This unsigned comment was added by 66.161.74.251 (talk • contribs) .

You might be missing the point here: Please check this google search and find that the usage of the term is verifiable. Note that most of the sites that reference it are from within the gay community (Gay.Com Travel, Woman seeking Woman advertisement in Craigslist, Dyke-TV show about softball...) and the class that I heard the term used at Pace University was my girlfriend's queer studies class (taught by a lesbian who herself lives in the Slope). You are right, Park Slope today is very diverse and lesbians don't normally walk around wearing signs that indicate so. But, you are kidding me if you are trying to deny the Slope's distinct gay identity and participation during its gentrification process. As someone who grew up in the neighborhood I am not insulted, and judging from the adoption of the term by the gay community, neither does many lesbians who have or still do call Park Slope home. Also, please sign your posts by adding ~~~~ after your text. Thank you. --Howrealisreal 15:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care about the few google searches that result (one of which is this site). If I put in Chelsea or Boys Town (halstead st, Chicago) TONS of hits appear. Not a handful. Gays don't have to wear signs. But there should be more than one drinking establishment that caters to them. The one dike bar on 4th ave is usually pretty dead, as is the one on 5th ave. The point is there IS no gay community. A few lesbians does not a community make. But I'm not denying that lesbians call the neighborhood home. It has been a liberal neighborhood for 30 years. The point is, the term itself, Dyke Slope. I don't like it. I've never heard it. I don't think its appropriate for Wikipedia. And don't tell me what to do. I can type whatever I feel like on this page.

Also, I've never even denied that lesbians are found in the neighborhood. My point is that while they have always been present, perhaps in greater numbers than elsewhere, they have had minimal impact on the neighborhood. They certainly have not been numerous enough to warrant a term like "Dike Slope". The reality is lesbianism is largely an academic phenomenon. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest some professor would make such a claim. But, that one class does not trump a substantial portion of my personal experience over many years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.161.74.251 (talk • contribs) 12:43, April 13, 2006.

First off, please remain civil (I'm glad you didn't keep this edit [1] in place). Second, please create and account and sign your posts. Third, your personal experience is not the measurement of what should and should not be included in WP. --mtz206 17:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, but it is just that. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal blog. You are absolutely correct that you can write whatever you want on these talk pages, but we have a responsibility to be accurate in the article page. Remember Wikipedia is not censored for any reason, which includes removing content because you find it offensive. Your removed edit stated that you think I am "a delusional, academic lesbian who wishes [I] had a neighborhood of [my] own," and I just have to chuckle at that. In fact, I am a heterosexual male Brooklynite who has grown up in and around the Park Slope neighborhood, although now I live in Sunset Park. Just like many of the other people (including many of the lesbian pioneers) who used to call the Slope home, I can no longer afford to live there. I have no knowledge of the lesbian bar scene since I am not a lesbian, but that is not the end-all-be-all criteria for a lesbian community. You have to understand that there is too much evidence (not personal opinion) that indicates "Dyke Slope" to be a valid term to describe the historic relevance of lesbians in the neighborhood. A New York Times article explains how lesbains had an important role in the first gentrifcation process of the Slope, and the article even references the term "'Dyke Slope', as [the neighborhood] is affectionately called by many lesbians..." In order to be accurate and objective, sometimes we have to put our own feelings aside and advocate sides that don't always reflect our personal experiences. --Howrealisreal 19:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am gonig to have to agree with the anonymous poster. I too grew up in Park Slope and must weigh in. While there are plenty of gay people in the neighborhood they do not make up a significant portion for particular mention. Also the neighborhood which I grew up in for over 24 years has never been called Dyke Slope by anyone I know either. I would like to call into question your usage of this phrase. Perhaps you are using it because your circle of friends do and its causing a misjudgement into how wide spread it is? Maybe the gay community calls it that, but even the gay people I know in Park Slope have never used the term. If it is particulary gay people then can you please state that. I will wait 3 days for a counter arguement or more solid factual standing then some google links. Thank You --Zer0faults 12:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is fair enough. I have no problem with attributing the phrase to the people who use it the most. I agree that I have not heard the phrase until more recently. It was just quite alarming to me when the anon had decided that the phrase was incorrect and should be omitted from the article, without taking into consideration anything else. This is a good compromise. --Howrealisreal 13:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to throw out there that I had heard the term "dyke slope" in various contexts before I moved to NYC; my partner and I now have a "welcome to south dyke slope" sign in the front room of our apartment. It may be a term specific to the twentysomething queer community, but within that context it is widely used. Decafdyke 14:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. Have lived in the slope since 1996. I'm a straight female. The one and only time I've ever heard PS referred to as Dyke Slope was from a lesbian friend from out of state. While this points to the fact that SOMEBODY is referring to PS as Dyke Slope, I personally have friends (straight and gay)all over Brooklyn and in Manhattan who have never used that term around me. And when I first heard it I asked people if they had ever heard it and everyone said no, so I thought my out of state friend was misinformed. For 12 years I've seen a very diverse neighborhood (which is why I like it) with no more stand out of lesbians than anyone else. And that lesbian cafe on 5th ave closed a couple of years ago. I'd say the term exists, but only for people who want to push labels.24.90.11.67 (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

movies[edit]

The Squid and the Whale, the 2005 American film written and directed by Noah Baumbach and produced by Wes Anderson is set in Park Slope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexvessels (talk • contribs) 13:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

at least part of the movie "Smoke" was filmed in the Slope and it seems that the smoke shop could easily be a 5th Ave, 7th Ave or Flatbush Ave shop.

granted, everything i see reminds me of the Slope, but "Dog Day Afternoon" looks pretty Slope-ish, too.

Where do you think these belong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.203.35.14 (talk • contribs)

Actually, all three of those movies are really in the Windsor Terrace area, which is sometimes branded "South Park Slope" by real estate companies trying to raise the property value and rents. I know this, because I grew up in Windsor Terrace for the past 21-or-so years of my life. Perhaps, you may want to move the section to that article. --Howrealisreal 00:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it for you. --Howrealisreal 16:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos[edit]

Is there a need for 5 photos of brownstones? A max of two would seem to be sufficient, unless they happen to be of something particularly noteworthy. --mtz206 23:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gentrification Cons[edit]

This article only seems to list the positive effects gentrification has had on Park Slope, making it seems a little POV from the view of those moving into the neighborhood during the gentrification. I would like to add the following, please give feedback, will wait for 3 or so days before adding to article.

"The negative impacts however of this gentrification is the displacement of the immigrant population that settled in the 1980s. As yuppies began to move into Park Slope the rising rents have made it difficult for low income residents to stay. It is not uncommon to find those same early immigrants who moved into the neighborhood living adjacent to renters paying two to three times the rent.

The commercial impacts of the gentrification can also be seen along the popular 5th Avenue stretch, where numerous banks and bars have replaced neighborhood staples such as the Salvation Army and once popular dollar store's. While gentrification and the ensuing rush of brand name stores normally signal a driving down of prices, in some industries such as food services, prices have gone up. The establishing of base prices by coporate businesses have led to smaller establishments such as the local convenience store to raise their prices, yet still maintain them under the base."

They arent necessarily in order, feel free to give feedback, pros cons etc --Zer0faults 20:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say be bold and go for it. I definitely agree with the nature of your proposed contribution, and if you feel it balances the appearance of the antithesis then by all means it is important to add. --Howrealisreal 13:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont' think that adding opposing views achieves the NPOV. Two biases don't make neutral. In particular, the paragraphs lack citations and contains several biased terms and too much unattributed speculation and original research.--Davmpls 21:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs)

Winter photos[edit]

I uploaded this picture I took of Park Slope. Would you like me to find a place for it in the article? — Anna Kucsma

Sure.. go for it. --Howrealisreal 15:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! — Anna Kucsma 14:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you added this winter shot, I deleted another of brownstones with snow in front. One winter shot is sufficient. --mtz206 (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Close access" paragraph[edit]

The third paragraph includes, among other things, a list of institutions to which Park Slope provides "close access." One of these institutions is the Brooklyn Public Library. While the library's Central Branch is indeed on the edge of the neighborhood, the sentence as written suggests that the system as a whole is within walking distance. Of course, it ain't. Could someone re-write it? (I'm feeling a little mentally flustered right now, or I'd do it myself...) — AnnaKucsma (Talk to me!) 01:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Ec- 18:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And nicely, too! Thanks for taking care of it. — AnnaKucsma (Talk to me!) 20:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southern border[edit]

I just reverted an anonymous edit that changed the southern border of Park Slope to the Prospect Expressway rather than 15th Street. I am not completely opposed to this, but I think the issue deserves some discussion and consensus before a change is made. I have lived in Park Slope for almost 14 years, and always considered 15th street (from the traffic circle at the edge of Prospect Park cutting West) the border. Perhaps this has expanded in recent years - the highway is a more obvious deliminater. Thoughts? --Ec- 23:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I always thought of 15th Street as the border, too. Beyond that is Windsor Terrace (I think). — AnnaKucsma (Talk to me!) 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was born and raised in Windsor Terrace (17th Street to be exact) for 23 years now: 15th Street is absolutely the border of Park Slope. Real estate agencies have been cashing in on the popularity of the Slope by terming Windsor Terrace as "South Slope" for awhile now. I strongly believe that the article should not give in to market-based boundaries. The true borders of the Slope should be defined in the intro of the article, and the "Park Slope sprawl" that is presently going on belongs down below in the history. --Howrealisreal 01:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a real estate broker who worked in Windsor Terrace for 3 years and in Park Slope for 1. I've never heard or seen anyone trying to pawn Windsor Terrace off for the South Slope. I'm not saying it hasn't been done but I have a feeling if it has, it's rare. I feel if it was more commonly done, I would have heard it by now.64.12.117.11 14:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing an edit that wrongly states that the southern boundary of Park Slope is the Greenwood Cemetary according to the New York City Department of City Planning. The cited source actually highlights the boundaries of South Park Slope with 15th St. being the northern boundary. As I've seen here, most, if not all, agree that the southern boundary of Park Slope is 15th St. Cheers Stavros 2k5 (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Border[edit]

I was confused about Brooklyn Botanical Gardens and Brooklyn museum, the description on the page would exclude these as they are outside the border the article talks about. As long as I have lived in Park Slope, over 30 years now, I have yet to see anyone actually call this area Park Slope either. These two institutions are actually in Prospect Heights. --NuclearUmpf 17:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NM, I see they are not attributing it to the neighborhood just banking off of its distance. --NuclearUmpf 17:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

adding Category:Places impacted by urban decay[edit]

I think that this should be added becuase there *was* decay in Park Slope at one time. If you look at the things in the category they are not all places that are ina state of decay but rather places that suffered it at one time.

futurebird 05:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya'know, I tend to think that this category is kinda meaningless. What urban neighborhoods have never suffered a little decay? (See also: Category_talk:Places impacted by urban decay) — AnnaKucsma (Talk to me!) 01:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a great question, there are places that have not suffered from blight, maybe not in NYC (though the upper east side comes to mind...) but in the country. What do all of those places have in common... I think that's important question to ask when thinking about Urban Decay. The remarkable recovery of Park Slope makes the fact that it was once a victim of urban decay all the more remarkable (and notable). --futurebird 04:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Residents' Userbox[edit]

I've created a userbox, User:AnnaKucsma/Boxes/Park Slope. Comments welcome. Users, too. — AnnaKucsma (Talk to me!) 17:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yuppies and hipsters[edit]

i think the author of this article meant to say that hipsters go to williamsburg and greenpoint, and yuppies go to park slope -- not that hipsters go to w-burg, and yuppies to the slope and greenpoint. but i'm not going to change it since it is silly, unsubstantiated, and a gross over-generalization. Nickhanlon 15:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

houses of worship[edit]

I see lots of large churches in Park Slope, but the wiki only lists synagogues. That's pretty weird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.206.51 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article used to have explicit lists of houses of worship under churches, synagogues and mosque headings. Jeffrey O. Gustafson cleaned the slate on 2007-06-07, creating a balance of representation, sort of speaking, by having no explicit house of worship listing whatsoever. It has its advantages, I guess, in fairness, and no one objected at the time. But, this being the Park Slope wikipedia article, Which Must Have Lists On EVERYTHING, the synagogues are creeping back in. So, restore the churches. Somebody else can do the mosques and Shinto shrines and whatever else might be left out — and don't forget the Ethical Culture folk! And while you're at it, add a few more writers and artists, maybe a politician or musician or two. Can't leave them out. And you don't even have to feel obliged to maintain the list cruft. This article is so sand-bagged with itemizations, how could a few more possibly hurt?

On a more serious note (and now that I've made my feelings about lists and such known ;) I propose reverting 72.229.149.18 synagogue list, because my preference is for Jeffrey O. Gustafson clean slate approach. I don't find such lists particularly useful for the clutter they create, nor do they get the maintenance they require. I will revert 72.229.149.18 edit — the synagogue list — in two weeks' time if there is no further discussion on this topic (but I welcome the discussion, especially ideas on how to keep such lists representative and accurate). Take care Gosgood (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Border[edit]

Using the boundary definitions included in both the current Park Slope and Prospect Heights articles, the triangle bounded by Flatbush to the north, Park Place to the South, and 4th Avenue to the west would thus be part of no Brooklyn neighborhood whatsoever. My view is that the present northern border is actually Flatbush Avenue, not Park Place.

Though historically this area may not have been part of Park Slope, and was also not part of the Park Slope historical district, Flatbush is now commonly understood to be the boundary between Propsect Heights to the North and Park Slope to the south. As evidence, the official NYC website[2] shows the northern boundary at Flatbush avenue. I'd submit that this is a higher quality source of neighborhood boundaries than New York Magazine. If this area is not part of (modern) Park Slope, what neighborhood is it part of? --Ominesan (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The border between Park Slope and Prospect Heights is Flatbush avenue. I know that there is a bit of sensitivity about Park Slope's borders extending, but this one is both accurate (backed up by the NYC site, rather than a factor of the historic district demarcation), and a pretty small area at that. 63.251.31.10 (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As more evidence I'd submit the recent New York Magazine article (http://nymag.com/daily/food/2009/06/prepared_foods_with_a_pedigree.html [3]) about a new store, Brooklyn Larder, located at 228 Flatbush (SW side of avenue), which is owned by the owners of Franny's, which is on the NE side of Flatbush. The article places Bklyn Larder as being in Park Slope, and Franny's as in Prospect Heights. Flatbush Avenue, not Park Pl, is the northern border of Park Slope and I am going to go ahead and make this change unless someone provides contradictory objective and current evidence showing Park Place as the modern border. I'd request that along with the evidence, it be proposed as to what neighborhood the the area bounded by 4th Avenue, Flatbush Ave, and Park Place is in fact part of if that area is not part of Park Slope. --Ominesan (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pop. density stats are reversed[edit]

In the lead paragraph, there's this line: "...resulting in a population density of approximately 68,000/square mile, or approximately 26,000/square kilometer"

I'm guessing that those figures are probably reversed -- that is, that it's more likely 68,000/sq km and 26,000/sq mi. Otherwise, the conversion doesn't work. There are about 2.5 square kilometers in every square mile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Largeman2 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout a mapp y'all?[edit]

Can I get a holla ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.55.249.171 (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding facts in article that are not included.[edit]

Repost from this: An article about Park Slope, Brooklyn omits the following four interesting and important facts about the neighborhood:
1. Barack Obama lived on Second Street in Park Slope immediately after he graduated from Columbia University[4]
2. Al Capone grew up on Garfield Place in Park Slope[5]
3. Park Slope now contains the largest Historic Distirict in New York City[6]
4. The Trolley Dodgers played there first baseball games in a ballpark where Washington Park is now located. ("In the 1880s, a new professional ballclub called the Trolley Dodgers played in Washington Park, at a field between Fourth and Fifth Avenues on the flatlands below Park Slope. The first game of the new team was played in 1883." by Richterman, Anita (June 22, 1987). "Problem Line". Newsday. p. 21. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help))
How would I go about getting them included? -- 70.107.122.85 (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold! Looks like you have some good citations in hand. Here's another cite of Al Capone having lived at another Garfield Place address. Seems to have been sourced by the NY Times from NYS Census data, so it's not an "old owner told the realtor" story or a neighborhood legend. TimBRoy (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Downsize or remove entirely list of "Notable Residents"[edit]

The list makes up more than 50% of the entire article. Doesn't Wikipedia regard these lists as trivia? In that case, the whole list should be removed entirely. A concise article is the better option here. - Rantankamus (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list is huge and should be moved to a separate article, with references and a brief description added about what makes each person notable. Richard Apple (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1890 census data destroyed[edit]

how can this article refer to the 1890 census information when, in fact, there is no direct information to cite from. i was in search of the census data from 1890 and found out that it had been destroyed in a 1921 fire. where is the author getting his/her information from regarding the wealth of the residents of Park Slope, in 1890, if there is no hard (accurate) government data to look at? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhlitwack (talk • contribs) 02:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Public Schools[edit]

Cleaned up the Public Schools section, including the full names of each school. I also added the new standalone pre-K and edited some of the school descriptions (according to their websites, 321 and 107 both eliminated pre-K). I also removed MS 266, since it isn't in Park Slope by any measure[7]. SixFourThree (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Park Slope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041015025442/http://psreader.com/article44.html to http://psreader.com/article44.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Park Slope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people[edit]

I think this section should be split to List of people from Park Slope. The section is already pretty long (it has 130 entries with 63 references) and has more than 37,000 characters of wikicode. epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius, looks like no objections so go for it but would be best per past AfDs if there was a case for their notability as a list apart from that there are many. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 21:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 December 2021[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Park Slope → Park Slope, Brooklyn – I propose renaming the article in order to standardize it with other articles on NYC's neighborhoods, which normally follow the format ["neighborhood", "borough"] (for example, Jamaica, Queens). - Headphase (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The other neighborhood articles are titled as such not because there's a strict standard on how to title neighborhoods, but because they aren't distinctively known enough for it to be known without disambiguation (Windsor Terrace, Brooklyn), or because there's too many other notable examples (e.g. Williamsburg, Brooklyn is famous enough to be known as Williamsburg alone, but there's too many other highly notable Williamsburgs). When these don't apply, the city isn't needed (examples of other sufficiently notable neighborhoods that don't include city: Montmartre, Notting Hill, etc.). It's the same policy as for city titling - we have Seattle rather than Seattle, Washington because it's famous enough to not need the state. Park Slope is well-known and there aren't other notable Park Slopes to disambiguate from. SnowFire (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Many other neighborhoods in New York City don't include the borough name: Harlem, Greenwich Village, Long Island City, Tribeca, etc. WP:USPLACE says: Neighborhoods within New York City are identified by the standard [[neighborhood, borough]] when not at the base name (emphasis mine), which implies that it is acceptable for the neighborhood to be at the base name if the title otherwise meets Wikipedia guidelines, which in this case it does. Rublov (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All understandable. Thanks for the USPLACE reference Rublov. I suppose my question becomes, by what standard are we measuring notoriety for base name-only status? There should be some objective threshold, but I didn't find anything on this in the WPNYC Project pages, at least. Headphase (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Headphase: I don't know about an objective threshold, but Park Slope is one of the better-known neighborhoods of the city, as supported by the fact that it has its own national historic district, and that it is, per the article itself, one of New York City's most desirable neighborhoods. Is it as well known outside of the city as, say, Harlem? No. But there is clearly no need for disambiguation, so WP:CONCISE if nothing else argues in favor of the shorter title. That being said, it might be worth starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) to clarify the guideline. Rublov (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SnowFire and Rublov. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. 125.167.57.198 (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:OVERPRECISION. Neighborhoods are generally not treated differently than other articles, in that they take the base name unless that's ambiguous and they are not the WP:primary topic. In those cases we generally disambiguate with a comma followed by the city's name. NYC is unique in that the borough rather than the city follows the comma, but again, only when necessary. Jamaica, Queens is at that title because the country of Jamaica is the obvious primary topic. But there's no other Park Slope on WP, so no need to disambiguate the title. Station1 (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2021 (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.

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. SixFourThree (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging South Slope, Brooklyn into Park Slope. There seems to be no reason for pulling one section of the neighborhood out into its own article; most of the businesses and schools referenced in that article consider themselves as being in "Park Slope" if you actually click the links. It seems that anything covered in that short article can easily be absorbed into this one without causing any article-size or weighting problems in Park Slope.By the Beard of Worf! (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that there seems to be more information about South Slope in the main "Park Slope" article than there is contained in the "South Slope" article. So merging would help minimize confusion and better disseminate information. By the Beard of Worf! (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, and since there has been no objection in over a month I'm going to do it. SixFourThree (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)SixFourThree[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.