Talk:High Line

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. Peer reviewers: Mihaela.deliminkova, Ivanalopez0897.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead image
Hi - I don't think the current lead image is one of the best now we can offer. I'll list some alternatives here, let me know what you think:


 * I'll stay with F and G, as H is crooked, off-center, and still with a washed out sky. J, also off-center, shows an unattractive winter view where all the vegetation is cut down, not great. K's biggest flaw is it's misleading - it was taken 9 years ago, before the Whitney Museum was built, now known very well as the start of the High Line; it would be in the picture behind the structure. ɱ  (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So far, consensus is still for F. As more people comment, if the consensus changes, we can re-evaluate. Or hopefully this spring/summer someone can take many more beautiful photos. Changing for now... ɱ  (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * F looks best to me, too, for lead image. Let this be a challenge for people to go out and get something better. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking as the author of G, I like it, but I think F gives the best impression of what the Highline is - F for me. I'll take a look through my files to see if there's something I didn't upload that might do better, but I doubt I have one.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

In Popular Culture
"too far" isn't helpful as a revert reason. Please explain and detail CapnZapp (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You went "too far" in removing material. Your first edirt was fine your second was nto. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * All the statements about the line pre-park were moved, not removed, to West Side Line. The hat note I added clearly clues the reader into the fact that article now too has a Popular Culture section. Please detail exactly which of the statements you object to, and detail your reasons to keep each one here, to help us reach a consensus. CapnZapp (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm inclined to agree with BMK. These entries are about the viaduct in popular culture, both prior to and following the park's opening. It doesn't really make sense to add these entries to the West Side Line, especially as the West Side Line page's pop-culture section only talks about the High Line prior to its development. epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have found an entry discussing the line after opening I have made a mistake and you should definitely feel free to move that entry back. My aim is for entries about the West Side Line to be at that article, and entries featuring the High Line at this article. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This misses the point, though, since both paragraphs of the West Side Line's popular culture section talk specifically about the High Line viaduct. The entire second paragraph of West_Side_Line talks about the viaduct immediately prior to, and during, the viaduct's conversion to a park. It's not only about the West Side Line, it's specifically about the High Line viaduct, whose abandonment is extensively discussed in the High Line article. As it is, the popular culture sections in both articles are awkwardly placed with no transitions. epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence The park is built on a disused, southern viaduct section of the New York Central Railroad line known as the West Side Line. tells us the structure (the elevated line, abandoned or running trains) is called West Side Line, while the name High Line is reserved for the after-conversion park. That is at least the assumption I based my edits upon. CapnZapp (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK, I think that's where the confusion comes from. The viaduct section is not known as the West Side Line in itself. The viaduct is part of "the New York Central Railroad line known as the West Side Line" (i.e. the viaduct is part of the West Side Line, which is a NYCRR line). Whereas your interpretation was The park is built on a disused, southern viaduct section ... known as the West Side Line, it was intended to say The park is built on a disused, southern viaduct section ... of the West Side Line. I'll fix this now. epicgenius (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Annother possible reference- can anyone tell me if it is the West Side Line shown in The Greatest Showman around the third chorus of "A Million Dreams"? Thanks! -AAEexecutive (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Changes due to COVID-19
Should we update or note somewhere the changes to the park due to COVID-19 safety precautions? For example: I know these changes aren't permanent, but considering they've been in effect for a few months, maybe it could or should be noted as a "moment in time" note? Such as: Just an idea to help keep it current. The High Line is pretty magical right now, even in its limited function!
 * 1) You can only walk one direction (north).
 * 2) You can only enter at a few places now.
 * 3) The park has been limited, I think it ends near 30th Street.
 * 4) You must reserve tickets in advance (they're free though).
 * During the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City, the High Line was momentary closed from XXX DATES XXX. It re-opened with limited functions in XXX DATE XXX, including one-way access, restricted entry and exit points, and an abbreviated course.

Nickgray (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoheadings, again
I was frankly astonished to see that has again restored the pseudoheadings for the references section last June:. I had changed this in January 2020:. Per MOS:PSEUDOHEAD: Using a pseudo heading at all means you have exhausted all other options. It is meant as a rarity. I explained the problems with such headings fully at Talk:High Line/Archive 1 and again at Talk:High Line/Archive 1. I am puzzled at the repeated, deliberate restoration of an accessibility problem without explanation. It cannot be a "rarity" to follow the standing layout and formatting of an article. Mackensen (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't do this. This kind of retributive action does not reflect well on you as an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't do what? What retribution? Repeatedly claming that someone has "personal animus" doesn't make it so. I was reminded because I was digging up examples of where you'd edit-warred against the MOS. Accessibility is important to me. I told you that, in detail, here and at Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1004. It's still important to me, and I hope it's important to you. Mackensen (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not behavior befitting an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're avoiding accountability. It's neither here nor there, but any interested onlookers can peruse Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents where I opined on BMK's behavior in a different MOS matter, and where, like here, he dodged all my questions and claimed personal animus as the justification. I've no idea what he means by that, nor what it has to do with a slow-moving edit-war to make this article less accessible. Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)