Talk:High Line

message: 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:
File:High Line 20th Street looking downtown.jpg|A: Current, low res, overexposed, unremarkable plants and buildings, but nice view of side and top
File:New York City High Line (21571387346).jpg|B: High res, good view of side and top, lush, full trees
File:New York City High Line - Urban Forestry - 20150915-OSEC-LSC-0172 (20976525663).jpg|C: Visually busy photo, good side and top view, modern stretch, but few plants
File:The High Line, New York (17643199203).jpg|D: Lush but limited view
File:High Line (9075262390).jpg|E: Lush, good sky+buildings, limited view, not centered
File:AHigh Line Park, Section 1a.jpg|F: Lush, good building view, top and side view, good exposure, colors, centered
File:Highline and IAC Building NY1.jpg|G: Lush, good building view, full view, but only top view
Please list more as you find them. Obviously we can't pick more than one, but others should be used in other places in the article as they're good photos! ɱ (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems most of this article's primary contributors have edited elsewhere today without comment here, so unless someone comments, in a day or two I'll choose one for the lead at least for the time being. ɱ (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Of these, I would lean towards keeping A, although F is also good. A is slightly overexposed, but that's most noticeable in the sky, which is unimportant; the bottom center would be completely dark otherwise. Although not the best photo, it's the best overall illustration of the topic, showing elevation, width, a hint of length, and environmental context. F also meets those criteria, but seems to be from a slightly lower elevation that I think shows width slightly less well, although exposure is definitely better. B is distorted and I think unacceptable. C is an atypical section, and the trains in the background make it harder to judge width. D is good but doesn't show elevation; I think we need a more distant perspective.  E is similar but somewhat distorted; needs some straightening at a minimum. G is a very nice photo but doesn't give a good sense of length, width or elevation; might be good elsewhere in the article. Station1 (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You might need to view A on other devices: it is overexposed for the railing, the people, part of buildings, and the sky. It is grainy and has the lowest resolution. It's also 10 years old; it's evident the shrubbery has significantly changed/grown since then, and there's many more new, tall buildings. And no, it is quite possible to have a decently-exposed photo - just look at the rest of them. Either a less-sunny day or a little photoediting can help if not too overblown. B seems to be taken with a wide-angle lens to show a large amount of the park, which is not something we should be averse to. Can we both agree on F as meeting all of your standards? The width is still incredibly easy to tell. ɱ (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no question A is overexposed, but it's a better illustration of the topic. It shows the structure itself most clearly, showing both railings for width, the low building at the left for height, as well as a nice subtle distant bend in the structure. There's a good sense of scale and the vegetation doesn't block any part of the view of the structure, as it does of the rear on the right half of F. Vegetation may change slightly with the season, but I'm not aware of any significant change over the years, and certainly no change to the subject structure itself, which is the important part. I don't see resolution or graininess being an issue when viewed at a normal size. Of course it's possible to have a better exposed photo; I just think for an encyclopedia, content is of far greater importance. That said, F is okay, and I have no strong objection to any of them except B. Station1 (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "A" might meet your technical qualifications (not all of which desperately -need- to be present in the infobox picture) but yet it is by far the worst picture. It is visually displeasing - low res, grainy, showing old buildings and low shrubs, out of date, and washed out. These photographic elements would make it thrown out of the mix in any professional illustrating debate; I just included it to show what is presently here. F shows the side and both railings really just as well. Most of the High Line now, 10 years later, has much higher shrubs and trees, making A unrepresentative. And yes, it's clear through Google Maps street views that the vegetation and surrounding buildings have changed. ɱ (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Oops, I must have missed this. So I'd prefer G and F, actually. G is the only image where the subject is front and center. Then F, which has a good side view. Then D and E, though D is blocked by greenery. I agree with Ɱ that A is kind of overexposed. B doesn't focus much of the subject at all, and in C it is kind of unclear what the subject is. epicgenius (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I roughly agree. Thanks for the input. Between G and F do you have a preference? ɱ (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , probably G. epicgenius (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: G is the best photo, but it could almost be a plaza at ground level. I don't think it illustrates "high" or "line" that well. Station1 (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other photos in the article, and the name and first sentence of the article are quite clear enough. ɱ (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: "too far" isn't helpful as a revert reason. Please explain and detail CapnZapp (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: , 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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#In_Popular_Culture 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)
replies: text:  The lead sentence  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)
replies: text: , 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 , it was intended to say . I'll fix this now. epicgenius (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture 

message: Should we update or note somewhere the changes to the park due to COVID-19 safety precautions? For example:
# You can only walk one direction (north).
# You can only enter at a few places now.
# The park has been limited, I think it ends near 30th Street.
# You must reserve tickets in advance (they're free though).
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:
* 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.
Just an idea to help keep it current. The High Line is pretty magical right now, even in its limited function! 
Nickgray (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes due to COVID-19 

message: 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:  I explained the problems with such headings fully at Talk:High Line/Archive 1#References section and again at Talk:High Line/Archive 1#Accessibility of pseudoheadings. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1004#Proposed image-placement topic ban for Beyond My Ken. It's still important to me, and I hope it's important to you. Mackensen (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not behavior befitting an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're avoiding accountability. It's neither here nor there, but any interested onlookers can peruse Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Beyond My Ken disruptively editing 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)
thread_title:  Pseudoheadings, again