Talk:Cobble Hill, Brooklyn

I changed the wording on the use of the lower level of the Bergen Street station because

(1) The Culver line has never really seen a long period of express service

(2) The assertion that neighborhoods to the south (such as Park Slope) had larger populations in the 1970s seems unfounded

There certainly has been express service on the line, but for various reasons, it has never been very successful. Efforts are underway by some residents to persuade the MTA to resume express service on the Culver Line, at least out to Church Ave.

--Boreas231 23:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article currently contradicts itself. If Court Street is considered CH's eastern boundary, then it can't be "centered on" Court and Smith Streets. If the intention is to say the commercial district on Smith in Boerum Hill serves CH, that should be explained -- or else the eastern boundary should be revised.

Decafdyke (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also: The school on Baltic described in the picture is between Smith and Hoyt, and thus is not part of Cobble Hill as defined in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.158.160 (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the previous layout, it was a little shifted up from the section that it referred to. On my screen, the lower edge of the image was above the beginning of the section header. I guess one way to resolve this would be to use |upright= ratios per WP:EIS; another way would be to use {{clr}}, maybe in conjunction with upright. Epic Genius (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Over the course of a number of conversations, we've established that your device is non-standard, and that therefore you should notbe moving images based on what you see on your device. My choices are based on a plain vanilla set up, completely standard. BMK (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid we're not talking about the same device. Which, by the way, is an iPad, which millions of people use... Epic Genius (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, I did some jiggering, how does this layout work for you? BMK (talk)

It looks better now, thanks. Epic Genius (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cobble Hill, Brooklyn. 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/20090324072821/http://brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/03/streetlevel_cou_1.php to http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/03/streetlevel_cou_1.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607171542/http://www.jtsa.edu/Audience_Pages/Scholars_and_Research/The_Ratner_Center/Papers_of_Conservative_Rabbis_and_Synagogues/Kane_Street_Synagogue%2C_Brooklyn%2C_NY.xml?ss=print to http://www.jtsa.edu/Audience_Pages/Scholars_and_Research/The_Ratner_Center/Papers_of_Conservative_Rabbis_and_Synagogues/Kane_Street_Synagogue%2C_Brooklyn%2C_NY.xml?ss=print

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cobble Hill, Brooklyn. 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/20080614161304/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/ny_local/1998/09/11/1998-09-11_cobble_hill_synagogue_opens_.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/ny_local/1998/09/11/1998-09-11_cobble_hill_synagogue_opens_.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160923101354/https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160303/astoria/citywide-ferry-service-launch-june-2017-official-says to https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160303/astoria/citywide-ferry-service-launch-june-2017-official-says

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I removed a section on libraries comprising entirely libraries that aren't in Cobble Hill. It was reverted, but none of the sources included mention the subject of the page, making inclusion somewhere between OR and UNDUE. Cobble Hill also doesn't have a DMV or a post office, isn't home to borough hall, doesn't have a ferry or an R line stop... that all of these are likewise in walking distance seems like, by the same token, reason to include, too? There are even several other libraries also within walking distance that aren't listed. Depending on which side of the neighborhood you're on, the Brooklyn Heights (and maybe even Red Hook?) library could even be closer than the Pacific branch. "No X here, but convenient access through a different part of town" just seems like we're writing a guidebook or realty listing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Just because the library isn't in Cobble Hill doesn't mean it doesn't serve Cobble Hill. The placement of libraries took place quite a long time ago, when the population distribution was different, and neighborhoods had different characteristics then they do now. We routinely report what police stations or fire stations serve a neighborhood, even if they're not located in the neighborhood. The same for schools, which have "cachments" at the elementary level which can include neighborhoods in which the physical school is not located True, we're not a guidebook, but we are supposed to describe the subjects of our articles, and that includes the public services they get, and where those services come from. Leaving out such information seems to me to be a disservice to our readers, and creates a false impression of the neighborhood' character. That library information has been in the article for a long time now, and I see absolutely no benefit to the encyclopedia in deleting it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply