Talk:High Line/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about High Line. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

History

Please see Talk:West Side Line (NYCRR) for the history of renaming/splitting this article. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

CSX?

Doesn't CSX still own the whole thing, and it's railbanked with the city managing the trail? --NE2 11:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed

The sentence in question is, The High Line was built in the early 1930s by the New York Central Railroad to eliminate the fatal accidents that occurred along the street-level right-of-way and to offer direct warehouse-to-freight car service that reduced pilferage for the Bell Laboratories Building (now the Westbeth Artists Community) and the Nabisco plant (now Chelsea Market), which were served from protected sidings within the structures. What I'm specifically looking for is a citation which backs up the claim that reducing pilferage was a reason for building this. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Article layout

An editor drastically changed the current layout, and left a message on my talk page. Here it is, along with my response:

The images of the Highline are also out of sync now. The large image at the bottom clutters the bottom of the article where the gallery is (why is that there?) and the images are not in line with how the line would appear when walking on it. It starts with 20th Street, then goes to 14th and 15th Street, goes to 20th, jumps back to the beginning at the Standard, and then to 17th Street. It would make more sense to arrange the images in a way that corresponds to the way the streets intersect the line. Gryffindor (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted both your changes. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a tourist guide or a photo tour, there's no reason images need to be laid out "in order", and the way they were makes sense in terms of the sections they're near. While I often use the single stack layout you changed to when there's no other choice, because of the constraints imposed by the article itself, it's not ideal, since i'ts boring and does not help the eye move through the article as a layout with more variety does. I've put a great deal of thought and effort into this layout, trying a number of options, and I believe it's far superior to the one you propose. Since we apparently disagree, please discuss this on the article talk page, and do not revert again unless you have consensus to do so. All further communication on this subject should take place there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As I noted, the best place for this discussion is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

length of the park

The length currently mentioned in this article of 1.45-mile (2.33 km) was applicable when the park only ran from Gansevoort to 20th Street. However, this week the second section was opened taking the park up to 30th Street. Using the rough rule of 20 short blocks per mile (from the Commissioners' Plan of 1811) the second section should have added 0.5 miles (0.80 km) for a total park length of about 1.95 miles (3.14 km). Can anyone find a citable reference for the total length of the park from 7 June 2011 on? Thank you. 69.126.127.193 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The High Line's official website site says here that the length was "doubled" and it is now 1 mile long. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the length, and, just for the heck of it, confirmed myself that the figure is correct by measuring the park's length on Google Maps. I don't know where "1.45 miles" figure came from. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Got it - the total length of the elevated section is 1.45 miles. What's open was a half-mile, now it's 1 mile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. 69.126.127.193 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

New section

I have added a new section, High_Line_(New_York_City)#Impact, to explain its ongoing significance. Like? Love? Hate? Bearian (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I made a few minor clean-up edits, but the content is a good addition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Millennium Park

I've deleted a sentence saying part of the inspiration for forming Friends of the High Line came from "Millenium" Park in Chicago. Not only was the sentence unsourced, but Millennium Park didn't open until 2004 (far behind schedule), and I doubt it could have inspired a group said to have been formed in 1999. To be sure, Millennium Park incorporated a well-regarded garden of native plants, which conceivably could have been an inspiration for the native plantings on the High Line, but I think a citation would be needed for any of this. Wbkelley (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Red link in "See also" section

The red link to Green Corridor of Singapore I removed from the "See also" section has been re-added [1]. I agree that red links in articles are often useful in spurring the creation of new articles, but the guidelines concerning red links do actually discourage the inclusion of red links in "See also" sections for what I consider pretty obvious reasons: (How can you "see" something that's not there?) I'll let someone else decide whether it is beneficial to retain this red link or remove it again. --DAJF (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with you... AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As do I, and I've removed the link from "see also". Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Tour guide writing or Encyclopedia?

The section of the article that follows:

The park's attractions include naturalized plantings that are inspired by the self-seeded landscape that grew on the disused tracks[10] and new, often unexpected views of the city and the Hudson River. Pebble-dash concrete walkways unify the trail, which swells and constricts, swinging from side to side, and divides into concrete tines that meld the hardscape with the planting embedded in railroad gravel mulch. Stretches of track and ties recall the High Line's former use. Portions of track are adaptively re-used for rolling lounges positioned for river views.[11] Most of the planting, which includes 210 species, is of rugged meadow plants, including clump-forming grasses, liatris and coneflowers, with scattered stands of sumac and smokebush, but not limited to American natives. At the Gansevoort end, a grove of mixed species of birch already provides some dappled shade by late afternoon. Ipê timber for the built-in benches has come from a managed forest certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, to ensure sustainable use, conservation of biological diversity, water resources, and fragile ecosystems.[12]

This is written like a pretentious tour guide. Saying a trail "swells and constricts" is purely flowery-worded nonsense, as the trail neither "swells" (as water may) or "constricts" (like an artery); instead, the trail varies in width along its length. "Stretches of the track and ties recall the High Line's former use." Actually, neither a track nor a tie is capable of "recalling" anything, as it is an inanimate object; instead, "the park retains some of the original track and ties in an effort to display the High Line's history." This section should be rewritten as if it were included in an encyclopedia, not a coffee-table art book. Dataxpress (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Your suggested changes sound reasonable -- why not make them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I would, but my knowledge of The High Line consists of this article, and that's it. I wouldn't want to inadvertently add something false about the location or potentially remove useful information (especially the bits about all the plants of which I've never heard). I may come back to it, though. Dataxpress (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine. The descriptions add more to this article's readability, which is also an important factor in any encyclopedia where many articles are too dry and boring. The OP sounds like he has something against the park, personally. 98.92.189.55 (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia Manual of Style (words to watch)#Expressions that lack precision

"If a literal interpretation of a phrase makes no sense in the context of a sentence, it should be reworded."

Wikipedia is not meant to be an exciting rollercoaster-of-a-read, it's meant to be an encyclopedia. Accuracy and literalness take prevalence over avoiding being "dry and boring." Above all, none of the descriptions in this paragraph are properly cited - the sources linked themselves not only are of limited reliability (blogs), but also make no mention of any of these descriptions of the park (no references to pebble-dash concrete unifying a trail, or of that trail swelling, constricting, swinging, dividing, melding, etcetera). The current wording would be acceptable if the trail actually did, in the literal sense, swell and constrict, but I highly doubt such a trail would be very relaxing on which to walk. By using such words you are cheapening their use for other articles where objects actually perform these actions (for an example of such a path exhibiting behaviors similar to the ones written in this article, see the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.) Dataxpress (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

West Side Line (NYCRR)

The West Side Line connection definitely exists. It's just not in regular service anymore. Epicgenius (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

None of the Amtrak stuff you put into the article is in any way relevant to this article. Kindly get a consensus for it here before restoring it once again. BMK (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not service info. As stated previously, this is infrastructure-related. I'll remove the Amtrak stuff, but the portal is worth mentioning here (would you like to provide another reasonable description of the north portal?) Epicgenius (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I would like you to make a case here for why this material is pertinent to this article. You made a Bold edit, I Reverted it, now you Discuss it, here. You do not continue to ytry to jam it into the article, which, per WP:BRD, stays in the status quo ante. You've been told this many times before, now please follow it. Make a case for your material here, not just "It's infrastructure stuff", say specifically why the material is pertinent to this article, which is about the elevated section which was converted into a park, and is not about the line in general. BMK (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll write up a description of the connection in the West Side Line article. In the meantime, I will try to find a more suitable description for the northern end of the park. (And use spellcheck, man! Your spelling is horrendous!) Epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You clearly don't recognize the difference between typos and misspellings. BMK (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Either way, you should be careful. Try using the Show Preview button, or try typing slower., or consider getting a mobile device with spellcheck.

I'll keep on looking for sources as I think of what to write for the description on the West Side Line page. Epicgenius (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And the entrance is about three blocks north of Canal Street. So either you are wrong, or there is a typo and it should actually say "north of Canal Street". Epicgenius (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at a Google map, there are feeders into the entrance of the tunnel all around the area, including at Canal Street. The portal itself is at Broome Street between Hudson and Varick, one block north of Canal. The exit portal feeds into a roundabout which takes up all of St. John's Park, which used to be a private park (like Gramercy Park) at the center of a coveted development of brownstones.

BTW, thanks for the advice, I don't know how I managed to struggle through almost 9 years of editing and 140k+ contributions without it. BMK (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so that means something then, huh? You'd better make 140,000 more edits, go through three more accounts, and correct all your typos IMMEDIATELY because it's such a urgent problem, although it could take you almost nine more years to undo all your edits. (Just kidding.) Epicgenius (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And it's not even the Holland Tunnel Portal, where the line ended! Epicgenius (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Overview map

A map would be nice to have. Showing the line, marking the different stages of development.--Thorseth (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You should look around and see if you can find one -- but it has to be in the public domain. Because the High Line is a city park, the stuff on its official website is not automatically PD (as stuff on a Federal government website would be). Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did this using openstreetmap.org, perhaps it needs some editing before it can be included in the article:

It would be better to have a map that shows the original course which went down to Spring Street. See here [2] Gryffindor (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That section was demolished in the 1960s. It's not part of the park. Epicgenius (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that we know the definite time that Phase 3 is going to open, this map needs to be updated to show that Phase 3 opened in fall 2014. This should probably be added after September 21. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

References section

@Beyond My Ken: I reverted your bold edit to refactor the references section and invited you to discuss your edit here. I hope you'll do so. MOS:APPENDIX is fairly specific about References and Further reading being separate sections. As discussed above, Further reading is explicitly that and not general references. MOS:APPENDIX is admittedly a guideline but I think we need a good reason to depart from it, and as you haven't used edit summaries I don't know what that might be. Re MOS:ACCESS, it says quite explicitly "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup. Screen readers and other machines can only use correctly formatted headings". Again, a guideline, but one worth following. Accessibility is important. Why make these changes? I can't recall seeing many Wikipedia articles structured in your preferred fashion. Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, beyond all the MOS crankery, I do happen to think it looks better this (my) way. Mackensen (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

FTR, his preferred reference layout is found in about ~5,000 articles. Epicgenius (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Just so this isn't totally lost in the shuffle, I want to reiterate that having "Further reading" buried inside "References" is troublesome. First, these aren't references. They weren't consulted writing the article. We don't cite them. Having them within the References section is semantically invalid. Second, screen readers won't (as far as I know, I don't have access to one just now) find the Further reading section; just the References section. That's an accessibility problem. I don't like waving the MOS around (seriously, check my edit history, I don't) but this is a case where those recommendations are sensible. Mackensen (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

They are "references" in that that they are referring the reader to other sources.

In any case, the "back of book" already has standard sections in "See also", "References" and "External links", it doesn't need another one in "Further reading". The focus should be on the content of the article not on the back of the book. BMK (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not how most people understand references. Further reading sections are an accepted part of the layout and common throughout the project. I am not sure what you mean by the "back of the book" here. The focus of the article is the content, and the Further reading is a standard way of informing the reader that there is further content not incorporated in this article which might be of interest. This accords perfectly with a summary-style article. You haven't addressed my concerns about accessibility. Mackensen (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

In popular culture

Well, I was bold and got reverted. This was my idea for refactoring the "In popular culture" list into some paragraphs, with the organizing idea that the High Line went from being an example of urban decay/wilderness (therefore a subject) into a setting post-rehabilitation. I accept that might be original research but I think it's pretty obvious on its face. I'll see if I can find a published source which makes similar observations and I welcome discussion about the idea. Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Your "context" added unsourced POV-analysis-interpretation-OR, so I reverted. You want to build a framework like that, find a source that supports the statements in the framework. BMK (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I believe that's what I said. Since you're exercising a pretty strong ownership of the article right now, do you have any ideas for improving that section? A list of cultural references without context and discussion is out of place in this otherwise well-written article. Mackensen (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section; I believe it's free of any thought or analysis. Mackensen (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Well done. However, "In popular culture" is the standard title for these sections, and I have restored it. BMK (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW Re: "Ownership" - bullshit, unless you want to claim that I "own" all the thousands of articles on my watchlist, for which I would do exactly the same thing if someone came in and started making changes which did not improve the article. Just take a look at the number and extent of the edits you and your partner have made to which I have not objected at all. When you make it better, there's no problem, when you don't, then I object and revert -- you know very well that's precisely how Wikipedia is supposed to work. So I suggest you might want to withdraw your comment and concentrate on improving the article instead of attacking another editor. BMK (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: it's common, yes, but I think it's undesirable and let me explain why. "In popular culture" developed (as I recall) over the last ten years as a euphemism to mask the now-rarer "Trivia" sections, but no-one was fooled. This section is now somewhat better than a trivia section. I borrowed the titling of "Depictions" from Statue of Liberty, which as a featured article about a park in New York City seemed apposite. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not simply "common", "In popular culture" is far and away the standard usage on Wikipedia, and makes the most sense, because it most accurately describes the contents of the section. The appearance of being a "euphemism" is totally in the attitude of those who object vehemently to Wikipedia covering popular culture, folks who cannot wrap themselves around the idea that an online encyclopedia in the 21st century isn't a printed encyclopedia, which is updated only occasionally, and has physical restrictions which limit the number of topics which can be dealt with. Anything which claims to be a "encyclopedia" in the Post-McLuhan Age which doesn't thoroughly cover our vibrant media is a sham. We do and should deal with popular culture, and when we do so within an article, the topic section is about that subject "in popular culture". BMK (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, three-quarters of the "Depictions" section in the Statue of Liberty article is about replicas, uses in institutions and on stamps and coinage. When the High Line reaches the point where there are replicas of it all over town, feel free to start a "Depictions" section. In the meantime, the section here should remain "In popular culture", as is the usual case on the vast majority of our articles. BMK (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting on the withdrawal of the "ownership" canard you blithely dealt out. BMK (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll grant the point, though I don't like it precisely because of all the connotations which I can't control. Best, Mackensen (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Image sizes

@Beyond My Ken: I'm going to repeat what I said on Talk:Dearborn Station (where I'm still waiting on your reply). Can you explain further about fixing the image size? This practice news to me, and the MOS says specifically "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." Again, as in the section above, edits that are directly contrary to the Manual of Style may be justifiable, but I think we need a reason beyond personal preference. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to repeat this discussion with you again. You know where I stand, and you know why the MOS statement is ridiculous, since the size adjustment is only available for people with accounts, not for the vast number of people who use Wikipedia without one. If you want to reacquaint yourself with my thoughts, see this. In the meantime, you're not going to be allowed to shove MOS down everyone's throat as if it was a policy, which it is not. You want to make it mandatory? Got a couple of hundred editors to agree to make it a policy. Until that happens, we get to use our editorial discretion to make articles look as good as they possibly can. BMK (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no desire to force anyone to do anything. You, on the other hand, desire to force everyone to view a thumbnail at 225px or 270px (rather large in some contexts). The guideline is a sensible one; it guarantees a viewable image for the largest number of users without having a negative impact on text display. It's not immediately obvious to me why 270px is preferable to 220px. All you've explained is that you don't like the MOS. That's fine. I don't much like it either, and in a notable case I ignored it to improve the encyclopedia. However, I also gained consensus on the talk page and justified my actions. You say it's superior. I don't think it is. I think the images occupy too much space. Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, WP:IMGSIZE is a policy, and concurs with the guideline: "In contrast, syntax such as thumb|300px simply sets a fixed image width, ignoring the user's base preference. In general, do not do this without very good reason..." Begging your pardon, but personal preference, whether yours or mine, isn't a very good reason. Mackensen (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to read WP:IMGSIZE again, friend. It carries no restriction, just a suggestion. BMK (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a suggestion. A suggestion on a policy page which says "In general, do not do this without very good reason" puts the burden on you to justify your edit, and as I've said several times personal preference isn't enough. Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

New map

We need a new map in the infobox now that Phase 3 is complete. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Try dropping a note to the editors who created and updated the current map. BMK (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I notified Thorseth, the map's original creator, but they may be slow to respond, as their last edit was 3 months ago and they have edited infrequently before that. I may need to remove the map on September 21 until a new one could be made. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't do that. Notify the other editors of the map as well. If you don't get a response in a reasonable amount of time, I can make sufficient changes to update the map. It may not be the prettiest thing, but it will do until someone can do a better job. BMK (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Done with Wikipedia notifications. I skipped Commons for now, as none of the users are particularly active there.

Thanks for the offer to update the map, by the way. I don't know how to do that, unless I am making a completely new map. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the new map. One thing, the 34th Street entrance is neither stairs nor elevators, as there is a ramp to street level. This can be changed later, as it is not important. Epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Pictures of Phase 3

I took some pictures and put them on the article, which I am sure will be used as placefiller. I have other pictures available on request, though they probably aren't that good. Anyone have better pictures, preferably not with an Apple device at dusk, as with mine? Epicgenius (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

I enjoyed seeing this at DYK Victuallers (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't there suppose to be some link, talk page template, or something to DYK so people can make a link? Otr500 (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Gallery

The gallery section is now at Commons. This ensures that it doesn't violate WP:NOTGALLERY. Epic Genius (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

And now it's back in the article, where it belongs. As a Commons gallery it's missing all the other images in the article; besides, Commons galleries are a total farce and should be done away with, there's no need for them when one can use the categories themselves. In any event, the article is better with the gallery than without, so please don't revert. (And it doesn't violate "not a gallery", which is, in any case, a guideline and not policy, and neither mandatory nor applicable in this case.) BMK (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) *3 @Beyond My Ken: Why do you wish the gallery to be placed here rather than at Commons? This article has 9 images already. That's a relatively large quantity compared to other articles, so having a gallery wouldn't do much other than to present time-lapses of construction or to contrast the different section. (And also, it presents too much distraction to the reader. If you're going to make a gallery, put some useful images in it, not some random conglomeration of images put together five years ago.) Epic Genius (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Commons has nothing to do with this article. If it did, then none of ou article would have any images, we'd just refer the reader to Commons. Four extra shots doesn't constitute a violation of NOTAGALLERY, it just enhances the article a bit, so please leave it here, in the article, and stop sedit warring -- I thought you'd gotten past that stage in your development? BMK (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not reverting anymore. See?

(But seriously, please consider swapping out the images or at least adding a few new ones. These images are getting too stale. I'm going to add alt texts to them now.) Epic Genius (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Now, that's a useful criticism. I'll take a look and why don't you too? But let's keep the mumber of image to 4, OK? BMK (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The new image is definitely an improvement over the old one. Epic Genius (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll do more on it tomorrow. BMK (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I have tended to find galleries most useful when they show photos that align to or relate to the others in the gallery in a certain way -- so there is real meaning in their juxtaposition. So it might be a series of "old" and "current" photos of same vantage point. So you'd have the currently in-article old Bell Labs building photo next to a photo of current view (don't think there currently is one). Or it could be a series of photos of the same thing from different angles: for example there are two photos of the urban gallery, would consider moving the in-article photo of urban theater next to the in- gallery urban theater photo -- you'd have two opposing-angle views of the same thing. If they are too similar then they probably don't both belong on the same page. Third it could be different perspectives from the same spot. Or the gallery could show the evolution of the phases: pic of Phase I, then Phase II and then Phase III etc. My two cents, am not sure I've been hugely successful with this such that I could show an example, but I think this is when I've found galleries most useful. They help tell a story relative to each other. WindingRoad (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback @WindingRoad. I, too, think a then-and-now vantage point would be good, especially a juxtaposition of images before-and-after-conversion to park. Epic Genius (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if "Chilling" is the most encyclopedic caption for the image of people relaxing on the benches, but it definitely is amusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.76 (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Chilling or relaxing?

Quoted from above:

I don't know if "Chilling" is the most encyclopedic caption for the image of people relaxing on the benches, but it definitely is amusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.76 (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I see there's a little conflict at the moment between Chilling and Relaxing as the caption for one of the gallery pictures. I don't find Chilling to be incomprehensible or outrageously unencyclopaedic, and I wondered why it must be changed? I would quite like to leave it. It's a slight smile rather than a belly laugh and I honestly do not think it inappropriate at all. Certainly it would be better discussed here than just reverted and re-reverted. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As a compromise, how about chillaxing? In seriousness, it should say relaxing. Slang might have a place on Wikipedia, but its not in this caption. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe I was the editor who put in "chilling" in the first place, and I initially reverted "relaxing" because "chilling" is a more interesting word and has a nice little touch of humor about it -- but after some thought, I think I agree that "relaxing" is more encyclopedic, not least because it's a plain-vanilla word, and not in the least interesting or humorous. Of course, it's also not nearly as "human" (if you know what I mean), but, after all, we're not writing literature here.

So, I can live with either, but I suggest that no more reverting go on until there's a consensus - it's a little silly, and no one wants to end up in the list on WP:LAME. BMK (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, "chilling" may have started as slang, but it ain't anymore, it's pretty darn mainstream. BMK (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Chilling is still slang, disagree that it is mainstream, and is very "millennial" in its use. Also, "chill" is used as command to "calm down." which is not what the High Line is a place for. If we're going for humor, then let's write for The Onion. People on the High Line, including me, go there to relax and hang out, not to "chill." It's not the appropriate word choice. Andreldritch (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it wasn't put there for humor, I said that the word had a "touch of humor about it". Those are distinctly different things. BMK (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a consensus for Relaxing then. DBaK (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Splendid. Thanks all. Andreldritch (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Chill, dude. BMK (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on High Line (New York City). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://thehighline.org/news/2010/04/22/new-water-feature-coming-to-the-high-line

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Updates

I updated the continuing effect on real estate prices, with a cite. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 19 February 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Andrewa (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

– This is a clear primary topic for the term "High Line" according to usage statistics. Of the 1,189 people who see the pages linked at High Line (disambiguation) every day for the last month, 1,082 go to this page. epicgenius (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Support - Works for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Support. Thanks for putting the numbers together. I went back a year and there's no change. I did some checking on Google Books and it predominates over other possible terms. It's only directly ambiguous with the Philadelphia line (which is located at Harrisburg Subdivision anyway) and the High Line Canal, and it's clearly a more common topic than either. Mackensen (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose – epic's posted stats link is very misleading; adding the disambig page (see here) shows that the the NY parks gets less than half as much traffic as the disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there a mistake there? H is not a disambiguation page. Station1 (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this does seem to be an error on Dicklyon's part. If you put in the disambiguation page, which is High Line, you get this, which clearly shows that High Line (New York City) gets far and away the most views, 23,000 compared to the next highest, which is under 900. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, yes, sorry, I flubbed it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Support from the numbers. (Obviously, if executed, the move must leave a REDIRECT.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Support per nomination. An undeniable primary topic. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chicago

I don't know if Chicago's 606 (Bloomingdale Line), for which the city began planning in 1997, was influenced by the High Line or not, but it has been built, so the text here should be adjusted accordingly. Kdammers (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Advocate

"Advocate" does not require "for". The use of "for" is a recent innovation and is not standard English. Here are two dictionary entries:

advocate: verb [with object] publicly recommend or support: they advocated an ethical foreign policy. (Dictionary on recent Apple computer.)

advocate: transitive verb: to support or argue for (a cause, policy, etc.) : to plead in favor of. They advocated a return to traditional teaching methods. a group that advocates vegetarianism. (Merriam-Webster on line.)

Thus, the revert by Beyond My Ken is incorrect. Zaslav (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken refuses to accept the authority of these dictionaries and insists on an edit war, which I don't want to get involved in, therefore I ask people to give opinions. Zaslav (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

When used with an object, "advicated" takes "for". See this. The object in the sentence fragment

They advocated for the line's preservation and reuse as public open space...

is "the line's preservation and reuse as public open space". If the sentence was recast differently, and the fragment was, for instance, "...they advocated preservation" then the "for" would not be required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, returning the article to the status quo ante was proper, your re-insertion of the change after it was challenged and reverted was a violation of WP:BRD. Please don't do it again without a consensus in your favor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You were wrong to revert initially with no reason given. That is my original complaint. Even now you give no argument except a dictionary of uncertain reliability.

Your grammatical analysis is mistaken.

"They advocated the line's preservation and reuse as public open space ..." is perfectly grammatical; the object is "the line's preservation and reuse as public open space ...", which is a somewhat complicated noun phrase.
Your suggestion ""... they advocated preservation ..." is grammatically similar: "preservation ..." is a noun phrase functioning as the object. Both are correct.
Grammatically, "advocate" has an object X in the form "advocate X". In the form "advocate for X" it is the preposition "for" that has the complementary noun phrase X.
Your dictionary has no authority compared to Merriam-Webster and the very authoritative Oxford English Dictionary. However, you do get support from the OED. The OED says there are two ways to use "advocate", one taking "for" and the other not. I was mistaken in thinking "for" could not be used after "advocate"; I am reconsidering my opinion about this article.

The OED (omitting obsolete usages) says (cut-and-paste quotation):

3.

a. (transitive). To act as an advocate for; to support, recommend, or speak in favour of (a person or thing).

1599 T. Nashe Lenten Stuffe 2 If..it were lawfully indulgenst me freely to aduocate my owne astrology. 1659 P. Heylyn Parable Tares iv. 98 For the single life of Priests..Paul seemes to advocate the cause, wishing that all men were as he. 1702 S. Stoddon Dissenters No Schismaticks iii. 59 To have advocated a Cause which in heart you condemn. 1789 B. Franklin Let. to N. Webster 26 Dec. in Wks. (1793) II. 81 During my late absence in France, I find that several other new words have been introduced into our parliamentary language. For example I find a verb..from the substantive advocate; The gentleman who advocates, or who has advocated that motion... If you should happen to be of my opinion with respect to these innovations, you will use your authority in reprobating them. 1821 Monthly Rev. 96 450 The interests of justice, of liberty, and of independence are advocated. 1851 C. Merivale Hist. Romans under Empire III. xxiii. 29 They advocated its publication for their own private interests. 1915 A. S. Neill Dominie's Log ix. 101 I would advocate the keeping of animals at school. 1959 Times 3 Jan. 10/4 As training they are advocating two hours of ‘hula-hooping’ every morning. 2008 R. Preece Sins of Flesh xiii. 319 Ellen and James White..advocated (and the church still advocates but does not require) vegetarian practice.

b. (intransitive in same sense). Chiefly with for.

1607 C. Lever Crucifixe sig. Fv He aduocates for vs perpetuallie. 1659 T. Fuller Appeal Iniured Innocence i. 46 I wonder that the Animadvertor will advocate for their Actions so detrimental to the Church. 1660 P. Heylyn Ecclesia Restavrata I. i. ii. 37 I will not take upon me to Advocate for the present distempers and confusions of this wretched Church. 1705 D. Defoe Rev. Affairs France II. 173 I am not Advocating for the Dissenters, but for Representing things as they really are. 1720 D. Defoe Mem. Cavalier ii. 328 I have thus far advocated for the Enemies. a1827 R. Hawker Catechisms & Bks. for Children in Wks. (1831) X. vi. 676 I have..nothing to give that can induce any to advocate for me. 1872 F. Hall Rec. Exempl. False Philol. 75 I am not going to advocate for this sense of actual [i.e. meaning ‘present’]. 1922 Chinese Students Monthly Feb. 303/1 Each is trying to advocate for something new. 1983 W. G. Winters & F. Easton Pract. Social Work in Schools ii. 29 The social work member..is in a key position to advocate for pupils' needs. 2007 S. Hyde Come out & Win iv. 82 Increasing the number of openly LGBT elected officials who will advocate on our behalf will inevitably change the outcome of many legislative projects.

What I get from the usage examples is that if you are arguing for something or someone you "advocate" it. If you are arguing on behalf of something or someone you "advocate for" it. That's only my opinion, and it's a subtle distinction. The proper usage in the High Line article is probably that both are okay. Thus, I'm leaving it as it is. After all that! Zaslav (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Similar project in Paris

Re the recent revert Beyond My Ken, surely the reference to what inspired this project should be given more prominence. At least move it to the beginning of the second paragraph. Rwood128 (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No, the inspiration is important, but not more important that the description. Where it is, in the third paragraph, is really quite appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on High Line. 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: 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) 05:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High Line. 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/20110716221732/http://theartnewspaper.com/articles/Taking-the-High-Line-the-art-park-that-rivals-MoMA/20396 to http://theartnewspaper.com/articles/Taking-the-High-Line-the-art-park-that-rivals-MoMA/20396

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) 15:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High Line. 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/20140911002221/http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/movies/2013/05/23/movie-review-what-maisie-knew/ZoKdWOxMNe4Me071pBzJdM/story.html to https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home-and-garden/architecture/the-high-line-effect-why-cities-around-the-world-including-toronto-are-building-parks-in-the-sky/arti

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) 08:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

New lead photo?

I noticed the current main photo is CC-SA. I've uploaded one of my own photos, taken on 2012, that is licensed public domain dedication:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:High_Line_Park,_Section_1_--_near_18th_Street,_facing_northwest;_August_2012.jpg

Dansnguyen (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no advantage of having a PD photo over a CC-BY-SA photo. We are CC-BY-SS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Accessibility of pseudoheadings

It's inaccurate to claim that bolded text is accessible. Screen readers will read it, yes, but they don't (in general) assign any semantic value to it. Emphasis markup can be a different matter, depending on the reader, but pseudoheadings generate bold tags, not emphasis tags. Unless you're sighted, there's no semantic meaning for "Notes", "Bibliography", and "Further reading". That's why MOS:PSEUDOHEAD specifically recommends against the type of headings in use in the references section here. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not assigned any semantic value to my eyes either - it's just a bolded word, just as it is to the listener of a screen reader. The semantic value comes from the context: i.e. "References" ... "Notes" Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

For a sighted person the bolded "Notes" is the only text directly beneath References and is immediately followed by an ordered list. It's a section header. Someone with a screen reader lacks this context. Promoting Notes and the other pseudoheadings to actual headings gives them that context, and also improves navigation from the table of contents. In the case of "Bibliography" and "Further reading", it would make it explicit that we're transitioning from one section to another. For a sighted person this is obvious. For blind people, or even people with limited vision, it's not. Mackensen (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The screen reader user gets precisely the same context that I do.

It is cpmpletely unnecessary to clutter up the TOC with hierarchical divisions going to "References" gets to everything you need. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Bolding instead of explicit subheadings is widely used on Wikipedia where those subsections (Bibliography, Further reading, Sources, …) are too short to warrant headings. The guideline MOS:PSEUDOHEAD explicitly allows bolding in these cases. I also fail to see how the words Notes, Bibliography, Further reading – when they follow the heading References – lack context or semantic value. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: Widely used they may be, although I can't say I encounter them all that frequently. In my experience it is much more likely that real headings are used. The guideline suggests that outcome: "Using a pseudo heading at all means you have exhausted all other options. It is a rarity." I've explained above how these bolded words lack context for screen readers. I'm not making this up to be difficult. Digital accessibility is something I work with every day. The screen reader is going to "see" this:

References (Heading)

Notes (single word read aloud without context)

Ordered list (X items)

(Items are enumerated or parsed through)

Bibliography (single word read aloud without context)

Ordered list (X items)

(Items are enumerated or parsed through)

Further reading (single word read aloud without context)

Ordered list (X items)

(Items are enumerated or parsed through)

This isn't what the sighted reader experiences at all. For one, they can navigate to Bibliography or Further reading, because while these aren't separate navigation items as far as page markup is concerned they're visually perceptible as such. No such luck for the screen reader. The screen reader will have to navigate through the whole section, and there's nothing indicating that there are separate sections. Mackensen (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

"Halo effect"

An edit I made removing the link to halo effect was reverted. I think if you look at the source, its use of halo effect is clearly colloquial "halo" + "effect", and not the academic usage of "halo effect" that was linked to, which refers to cognitive bias. I think it's terribly difficult to read "systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment" into the source's approval with regards to the project. AllenY99 (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I think Halo effect#Marketing may more reasonably describe what the article intended to say? Mackensen (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Sounds right. I have changed the section link. epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Cheers AllenY99 (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Upright scaling factor

@Ɱ: Regarding the hidden image at the top:

Don't add a particular image size to most images of this article; it will be reverted. The images need to be able to customize from personal preferences.

the "upright" scaling factor can accommodate these personal preferences, per MOS:IMGSIZE (as you already are aware). So some images can be relatively larger or smaller, and so don't fall under fixed image sizes. This comment isn't specifically directed toward your edits, but for any other editors who may be watching this page as well. epicgenius (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, okay, so, the issue is that "upright=X.X" is meant to be used sparingly; not in every image on an article. The standard thumbnail size is appropriate for most images, though those with intricate detail can be enlarged, and those that are very long and short should be expanded, while those that are very tall and narrow should be reduced. This is what is presented in the MOS, and this is what FAs and GAs follow. This keeps a good balance between article text and images. If you personally want all the images larger, then go to Preferences>Appearance>Thumbnail size. None of these images with uprights over 1.0 really need to be here; there's no intricate crenelations or small text relevant to the article.

ɱ

(talk) 16:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hm, I was at work and should've read this more carefully. The note is the same as at the NYC article, meant to discourage upright=x.x, but especially XYZpx as the latter is not scalable in user preferences.

ɱ

(talk) 04:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Art

I don't know how often artworks are swapped out. I created Silent Agitator, which is currently on display, but I'm hesitant to add mention in the High Line article without support. Long term, I could see there being a separate section, or even a standalone article, specifically about art installations along the High Line. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)