# Talk:Washington Heights, Manhattan

Hello everyone! I had recently done an edit which was meant to shorten the "In Popular Culture" section by removing entries that were not very significant, such as single episodes of TV shows and song mentions. The WP:IPC guideline, which was recently pointed out to me by Epicgenius, says that it's a good idea to not put a ton of trivia in those sections, but instead keep it for significant mentions, unless you're going to make a whole separate page for the long list (which I don't see the point of doing here). The "In Popular Culture" section has definitely accumulated a lot of trivia, some of which I put on there, and that is probably just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to trivial mentions of Washington Heights. However, Beyond My Ken did point out that there wasn't consensus on this point. So if you see this and have an opinion on it, then please reply it here, and if we get enough opinions we can reach a decision. (If anyone is new here just make sure to put four tildes at the end to sign.) Edit: Alansohn just unreverted my edit, but just in case I will leave this here. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The Spirit of Oohoowahoo, I had my finger about to touch the revert button, but as I reviewed your changes I saw that the items you removed were indeed trivial, especially TV episodes, fleeting scenes in films and song lyrics. I support the removals that have been made and I encourage Beyond My Ken to suggest which entries should be reinstated and see if consensus exists to reinsert items that had been removed. Despite the claims in the edit summary by BMK, the section was not removed in its entirety; it was trimmed appropriately. Alansohn (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it generally works the other way.  Post here which ones you or Spirit think are "trviail", and if we agree, they can be removed.  In the meantime, though, there is no standing consensus to remove. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
To avoid the inevitable problems, I've moved all the material to a new article, Washington Heights, Manhattan in popular culture. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, What the F&$k?!?!? you asked for a discussion and then you decide to do whatever you please once the discussion contradicts your wants and demands? What makes you the dictator here? The explanations for removing the trivial mentions are clear and you just refuse to participate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs) 21:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I encourage all participants to be civil in this discussion. Generally, I would mention only works where the page's subject is a clear primary topic, rather than an incidental or a cameo; otherwise, we'd inevitably have a bunch of poorly sourced trivia. So I don't think we need to include all content mentioning Washington Heights in this page. I think it is all right for BMK to move the content to a new page, as long as we either: (1) have a summary section in this page, or (2) a list of the few most notable works that depict Washington Heights, following the example of The Cloisters page. epicgenius (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that is a good solution. I say we can leave this open for a day or two and then we can do that. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I think epicgenius' solution is fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

So, I'm just creating this to avoid any further back-and-forth on this issue (for anyone else reading, this is just about which of two pictures to put in the article). Being someone with no personal stake in this discussion, I am leaning more towards GeneralPunger's point of view rather than Beyond My Ken's. Beyond My Ken does have a point in that the new picture of the 168th 1 train station is less recognizable in the sense that the sign saying "168th" is much smaller in the picture. However, GeneralPunger also has a point that this picture is more recent.
Obviously, the ideal situation is to have a picture of the recently renovated station that also has "168th" more present in the frame. However, I think that out of the two things to sacrifice, while both pictures would be fine in the article, the more recent one is preferable. After all, the purpose of the picture is to show what the station looks like is as current of a sense as possible, and while a larger identifier would be nice, it does have a caption so it's not like someone will truly be confused about what station it is.
So, my personal conclusion: please don't reverse the edit again, keep it like this but if at some point in the future someone posts an even better picture, that combines the best of both worlds, I think we would all be more than happy to go with that.
The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Spirit, you've done an awful lot of good work to this article, but you do not WP:OWN it.  Please do not attempt to regulate what goes in it -- that a job for editorial WP:CONSENSUS.Being more recent is not an overriding concern.  The overriding concern is showing an image which is some way informs the reader and a picture of two parallel platforms tells the reader absolutely nothing about the station. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, I've restored the status quo ante.  Until there is a consensus to change the image, do not revert to the new image again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, once again I'm not sure how "two parallel platforms" with the ceiling and arches visible informs "absolutely nothing" while a hazy overpass does. I mean sure, more of the distance is visible in the old picture, but, ignoring the element of the more obvious 168th St mosaic sign, I'd say that it being outdated, like Oohoowahoo said, cancels out this advantage. And yes, considering that the renovations to the station altered its appearance substantially, I'd say the new picture being new IS a concern. Maybe not overriding, but instead equally important. But anyway, I happen to be going through the area in a few days, so I'd be happy to take a stop at the station and take a good new picture! General Punger talk 03:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the current picture is any great masterpiece -- in fact, we have too many pictures in that gallery in any case -- but it's better than the alternative.I look forward to seeing your new image.  I happen to live in the area, so I can take a look as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I am glad there has been some agreement to take a new picture, Beyond My Ken you are right that from the beginning it may have been better to just say that I would be trying to take a new picture soon instead of trying to mediate the disagreement. In any case I will be stopping by 168th tomorrow so I'll post the link here so you and GeneralPunger can take a look. Side note: good point Beyond My Ken about the gallery being too big, I will take out one or two photos. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
You know, I had to come back up from downtown today, and I intended to stop at 168 and take some shots, but I was reading on the train and forgot to get off! Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hahaha... happens to the best of us. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks like we'll be having a photo competition if we're all going! General Punger talk 21:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The Official Washington Heights Wikipedia Meetup: Three mildly annoying people in a musty train station, only one minor improvement that no one will really care about. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps we should make a flag and serve lemonade? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Alright, finally took that new picture! I just made the edit to the article, and in hindsight I appreciate I should have put it here first for us to look over, but ah, guess I was eager. General Punger talk 06:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement!  I took a bunch of shots on Thursday evening, but I've been sick since then, so I haven't uploaded them yet.  I'll let you know after I do, and you and Spirit can make the decision about which picture to use.  I just glanced through mine, and some of them seem to be of the same quality as General P's, but not so much better that I'm hot to put them in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Here are the three images I uploaded. You folks decide. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I think your middle picture and Punger's picture are both very good, it's just personal preference from there. Punger's has the crossover bridge visible and fewer people around, while yours has the sign a bit clearer and a bit brighter lighting. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello people! As you might know I have been editing this page kind of on-and-off throughout the past year with the goal of getting it to Good Article status. I have almost finished with these revisions, the last one I have to do is with the "late 20th and early 21st century" section. So, Beyond My Ken & Alansohn, (I have already gotten advice from Epicgenius) do you think there is any more stuff in the article that should be revised or added before I put the nomination?
A big thank you to everyone who has put their time into making this article what it is today, I am very proud of this achievement. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The Spirit of Oohoowahoo, I've been watching the changes, but I haven't had a chance to review the article in its entirety, which I will do. Alansohn (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

163 St-Amsterdam Av (43142722640).jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes - Washington Heights is nicknamed THE HOOD or DA HOOD by many younger and older people familiar with the area for many many years as well. 2603:7000:7800:18BB:5E7:4FB0:BBB4:CE45 (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)