Talk:Central Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag of New York City
NYC Portal

This article is part of WikiProject New York City, an effort to create, expand, and improve New York City-related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.

Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Why the Lake doesn't freeze

Wetman, I have no objection to your including a link to urban heat island, but that article seems to address factors that apply to urban areas generally. It doesn't include any reference to how a particular small part of an urban area can be affected when construction creates a windbreak, as has happened along 59th Street. It's not a general "urban heat island" effect. In fact, in some places, tall buildings would create a wind tunnel that would have a cooling effect. Is there anything in the analysis of urban heat islands in general that would rule out making an additional reference to how the Lake is now shielded from the wind? JamesMLane 02:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The area of wind turbulence may indeed extend a full kilometer north of the highly broken "line" of tall buildings along 59th Street to the southernmost shore of the Lake. We all agree that urban heat islands do contribute to the phenomenon of urban lakes not freezing (as does pollution), but do dense planted windbreaks in rural areas have any effect on small ponds not freezing? " Windbreak height (H) is the most important factor determining the downwind area protected by a windbreak... On the windward side of a windbreak, wind speed reductions are measurable upwind for a distance of 2 to 5 times the height of the windbreak (2H to 5H)." See [1] for the context of the quote. Our New York cold comes from the west and northwest. A wintry day in Central Park would convince you that there is no effect from the buildings along the Park's horizon. Wetman 05:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've been in Central Park on wintry days. The problem is that you can't tell how much wind you're not experiencing because it's blocked by the buildings. (On the other hand, I forgot to mention that, along with a possible wind tunnel effect, the buildings might also produce some cooling because of shading.) I don't know whether there's any learning on this subject that's backed by research somewhat more rigorous than standing in the Park in the winter. JamesMLane 14:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Side of Central Park

I added a little note about the notion that Central Park can be dangerous, especially after dark or if you're alone, or both. Tried to keep it brief and non-threatening, because all of New York City has a similar reputation which is, statistically speaking, exaggerated. I also thought it was noteworthy to mention the Central Park Jogger whose assault & rape made major headlines for years in the area, not just in the city itself.

Perhaps as a balance, someone could create a section outlining the more positive image of the park, say "Artistic Depictions" or "Movies Filmed in Central Park" or something like that? --Feitclub 01:55, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I think most cities have found that with a large, undeveloped area like Central Park, where few people pass through it at night, it's very hard to keep the area safe. Actually, the dangerous time in the Park isn't after dark, it's when it's almost deserted. (This is different for different parts of the Park.) I'd rather be there just after sunset than just after sunrise. There will be more people around in the early evening than at dawn. Some areas, such as the area near the Boathouse, where a fine restaurant draws people in throughout the dinner hour, are safe well into the evening. I'd leave the paragraph in but try to find an improvement on the phrase "especially after dark". JamesMLane 08:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] CPMU

The recently-added bit on the Central Park Medical Unit seems a bit too effusive, and somewhat spammish (with three external links to the same webpage in one paragraph). Should it be nuked, or is it a legitimate topic that just needs to be cleaned up? 68.81.231.127 05:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By my count, it's five external links to the same webpage in one paragraph. It certainly is too effusive. It's also more detail than is really needed in this article. Perhaps it should be reduced to one or two sentences, with the rest of it moved to an article about CPMU, and the ext links here replaced by a single wikilink to the new article. JamesMLane 13:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Done. Tweak away. 68.81.231.127 19:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I switched Bethesda Fountain images. The former image is at right. Less information, IMHO. --Wetman 3 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)

[edit] Table of contents

Please do not chuck around non-standard TOC templates. There is a very good reason why the default TOC is how it is. The floating TOCs were created for extreme cases where a TOC neccesarily has to be very long and would disrupt the article, and that certainly is not the case here. Both templates have been through lengthy votes for deletion, which they only narrowly survived, and in which it was generally agreed that they should not be used at whim. In this particular article {{TOCleft}} makes the page look ugly in large screen resolution, and difficult to read in low resolution. It is not only unjustified here but positively damaging to the layout. Joe D (t) 21:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This article has rather a lot of images and is not easy to format. Numerous editors have been at work on it since 3 February 2002, among whom User:Steinsky aka "Joe D" has never appeared to express any interest or make any contribution whatsoever (Page History). So, ignoring for a moment our self-appointed enforcer of an inflexible and catholic uniformity, there are currently two formats, between which we are not permitted to choose:
We have a template expressly to allow this flexibility. Flexibility in fact is Wikipedia's main "rule" —a thought lost on a very few editors with authority issues. --Wetman 01:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The vote on TOCright was 31 keep to 14 delete, which i don't think constitutes having "narrowly survived". There was a wide range of opnion expressed, and there was not, IMO, anything like a general agreement that flaoting TOCs should be used only in "exceptional circumstances". No editing decision should be made on whim, and this choice is no different IMO from any other formatting decision. Looking at the two versions compared above, I don't find either horrid. My personal preference would be for the version with the floating TOC, but I don't think it should be a huge issue either way in this case. More general discussuion on this issse is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Template:TOCright and I urge thsoe intersted in the general issue to join the discussion there, where suggestions for how to use this feature are still being considered. DES 16:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I adjusted the formatting for TOC placement with what will hopefully be a compromise solution. Although I think the second option listed above appears better than the first, I'm not a big fan of having both left and right alternating images. But that's just my style preference. I floated the TOC to the left after the first paragraph which, because the TOC is not very wide, will not create a very thin column of text between it and the images on the right. This also allows the TOC to appears "above the line" (that is, within the initial visible screen and not having to page down). —Mike 17:45, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a selection could be made between the competing images: in the dash for the top it looks like Aerial View is beating Bethesda Terrace by half a length in the home stretch, folks... With a normal single image that "wrapped" TOC box will not look so awkward. I have been reverte too often to attempt any format here. Wetman 01:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup!

Why is this article so cluttered and disorganized? Central Park is the greatest park in the World, it deserves a way, way better article. --Mb1000 23:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Have begun to rework the article. Will probably take a few days though, so I'd appreciate it if someone could abstain from major edits until I publish the polished version, or at least gives me a heads-up on my talk page.
Go to User:Bjelleklang/Central Park to see the work in progress. Bjelleklang - talk 23:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Have so far written about the park's history from ~1850-1940. Would appreciate if someone could look over it, in case I've missed major points. Located at User:Bjelleklang/Central Park Bjelleklang - talk 18:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


Finished cleanup/rewrite, but removed the following from "Events"

as these should be expanded before being put into the part regarding activity in the park. Also removed some images, as the old version had way too many. Bjelleklang - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 01:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"Central Park is the greatest park in the World". Citation Required!!!

[edit] Crime Section

The last part of the crime section (dealing with the volunteer police) looks more like an advert than an encyclopedia entry. Can someone (with more experience than me) please correct it! Daniel (☎) 23:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Picture

I deleted the winter image from the image gallery. That is the Municipal Building in the background, meaning the park in the picture is City Hall Park. Whoever added it should add it to the City Hall park article, as it is a very nice picture. Just the wrong park.

Thanks for the identification, never been there myself. I added that description on the image page, waiting for a City Hall Park article to be written. --para 09:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Surely, since Noah Webster's unilateral decision to shift the position of the 'e' at the end of 'centre', this should properly be spelt 'Centeral Park'. Grant 16:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't possibly be serious. — Larry V (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Y'know the scary fact, he probably is. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • typa-typa) 01:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is called Central Park not Centeral Park--Taida 21:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's actually named for Olmstead's third-grade teacher. Jessa Claire Central became Mrs. Paul Smith many years later, and he was the one who donated all those schools. (Tongue firmly in cheek, and praying that Grant's was, too. Of course, it's always possible that he suffers from a cereberal defect...) Lamabillybob (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Description: layout and features

Only a very alert Wikipedia reader would realize that the category Central Park includes articles on the park's individual features. Those articles should be linked here in a concise few paragraphs that describe the park's layout before its history is gone into. --Wetman 13:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drastic trimming of the In Popular Media section required

Any arguments about dramatically trimming the Popular media section? Similiar to what's taken place in the Time Square article, there's so many films shot there that we should keep it higher level. Some specific callouts will still be required, but it wont be a trivia list.

[edit] Split Central Park Conservancy into a separate article?

The two are tied together, but it seems a lot of this article is actually about the work the Conservancy does. (dm 15:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Set up your form Central Park Conservancy. Fearlessly copy and paste relevant text there from here, without removing it from this article, however, and use it as a base to add all the material on the Conservancy, its history, its work etc that you're burning to get in. Finally add a Main article: Central Park Conservancy header at the appropriate place here. Of course you wouldn't "cannibalize" an article with encyclopedic coverage, just to create a fork. --Wetman 07:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Cannibalizing is not what I had in mind. I do believe the Central Park article would be better if the Conservancy text were cut in half. dm 15:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion was offered merely in case you didn't want to delete useful test. My mistake. --Wetman 21:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "wilding"

I removed the word from the last paragraph. It is contentious, tabloid language, and added nothing to the story. MarkinBoston 01:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good choice --Knulclunk 02:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Activities in the park

Activities include sports, climbing, entertainment and CHILDREN? What on earth is that supposed to mean? Some oblique MJ / Catholic priest reference? Also, how do sport, climbing and entertainment become mutually exclusive? λ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.160.105 (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need help referencing

I noticed the tag asking for a citation about people flocking to cemeteries for open spaces. I happen to be doing a term paper on Central Park and have a reference where this is mentioned. However, I don't know how to properly cite it. Could somebody help? Here's the relevant information in Turabian footnote format: John Emerson Todd, Frederick Law Olmsted: Twayne’s World Leader Series (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1982), 73. Applejaxs (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll add your reference, using the <ref></ref> format: check the html of the article to see how easy!. Those little challenges to familiar statements, made by people who've never read anything in the field, for whom anything is news, are a constant minor irritant at Wikipedia. --Wetman (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lysistrata Photo?

I deleted the photo with the caption "The 2005 adaptation of Lysistrata performed in Central Park starring Julie Bain and Ton-Essa LaRocque." Seems to me that its a shameless plug for the two actressess appearing in the picture (not surprisingly, a picture that also appears in the Wikipedia entry for "Lysistrata"). There are thousands of live performances in Central Park each year, some sanctioned, some not. I see no reason why this photo, essentially a picture of two women sitting on a rock in central park (i.e., not even performing at the time) should be included in the entertainment section of this article. Loafsta (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediocrities. Well deleted. --Wetman (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia Section Lunacy

I'm not as against trivia sections as the guidelines, but some common sense needs to be maintained, or we enter the realm of science fiction. One of them says, "The real-estate value of Central Park is estimated to be $528,783,552,000 according to the property-appraisal firm Miller Samuel." There is a footnote, and it exists. It's a blog, part of a list of 'Ten reasons to love New York,' and that list does not provide a footnote. So there's no telling what Miller Samuel actual said, nor what he assumed in coming up with the figure, nor even if the decimal place is right! Second line of defense, does that number make any sense? In the Wikipedia article on Manhattan, the total real-estate value of the island is given as 1.8 trillion dollars, which is quite reasonable, considering that the total wealth of the United states is about a hundred times that (an estimate that assumes that GDP is the accrued earning on wealth at prime rates of interest). Likewise, Rockefeller Center stands on 22 acres and is presently worth about three billion (ref: Wikipedia article), or one six-hundredth of that. That is, we have upper and lower bounds that make the figure appear rational. To assume that 800 acres of nearly raw land is worth thirty percent of the very-intensely-developed Manhattan, which covers 14,000 acres, is absurd. Likewise, that would imply that the presence of landmark world-class buildings on the Rockefeller Center land has reduced its value by seventy-nine percent! What Samuel probably meant was that the park would have that much value IF developed to the same degree as the property that immediately faces it, AND those properties retained their present value. When trying to assess the potential value of adjacent commercial plots, one developed and the other not, that's a reasonable strategy--the doubling actually increases the value of BOTH properties, so the estimate is autmoatically conservative. However, in this case much of the value of those adjacent properties is DUE to facing the Park, so that method would lead to a very dubious estimate. Lamabillybob (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Whenever one sees amenities translated into money figures one is watching the manipulation of phantom figures to impress the clueless, like the phantom figures quoted at times for the "value" of the Amazon rainforest. Beneath trivial. --Wetman (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ROCKS BOLDERS

Does anybody know how the rocks or bolders or stones are made i dont think they are real are they??? plese answer on my profile if u know... --Blackbirdkd (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

They'real, and so are the scraped grooves in them that show which direction the ice was moving during the last Ice Age. --Wetman (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)