Talk:High Line

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the High Line article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

High Line has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 27, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 21, 2014.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the High Line (pictured), once an abandoned elevated railway slated for demolition in New York City, is now a linear park with about 5 million annual visitors?

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on February 16, 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

New York City: Public Transportation Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as Low-importance).

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other talk page banners

Text and/or other creative content from this version of High Line was copied or moved into Death Avenue with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of High Line was copied or moved into Tenth Avenue (Manhattan) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of High Line was copied or moved into Eleventh Avenue (Manhattan) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

The content of Friends of the High Line was merged into High Line. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

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)[reply]

In Popular Culture

Beyond My Ken "too far" isn't helpful as a revert reason. Please explain and detail CapnZapp (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

CapnZapp, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

CapnZapp, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pseudoheadings, again

I was frankly astonished to see that Beyond My Ken has again restored the pseudoheadings for the references section last June: [1]. I had changed this in January 2020: [2]. 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#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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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'_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)[reply]

This is not behavior befitting an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Gravel walkway under the Falcone Flyover

@G. Capo Unfortunately, even though there may be a second walkway under the Falcone Flyover, we cannot add it without a reliable source, per WP:V. This applies especially to good articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]