Talk:Kennedy Center gets renamed to Trump-Kennedy Center
Add topicChanges Happen to "The Kennedy Center" name or anything else
[edit]I do also think this is an illegal change to add Donald J. Trump to the name but has happened, because Donald Trump thinks he can do whatever he wants so, if The building ever gets renamed back to "The John F. Kennedy Center" please reply to this discussion and I will look at it and delete the parts saying The building is still called "The Trump-Kennedy Center." Atl28 (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Great job @Atl28 BigKrow (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Review Request
[edit]I am kindly asking someone from the dev team to look at the article and reviews it perhaps @BigKrow or someone else. Thank You Atl28 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Review of revision 4962306 [Not Ready]
[edit]  |
Revision 4962306 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:06, December 23, 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Hello, Re: Kennedy Center gets renamed to Trump-Kennedy Center 1. Date and 'who renamed it' are missing in first paragraph. WN:IP 2. Text includes some analysis words such as "lots of", "many", "extremely likely", "most people". This should be replaced with something more precise, or attributed. WN:Attribution 3. External links should be moved from article body to the sources section. 4. {{image source}} should be specified in the image caption. Please fix these issues and re-submit. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Revision 4962306 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:06, December 23, 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Hello, Re: Kennedy Center gets renamed to Trump-Kennedy Center 1. Date and 'who renamed it' are missing in first paragraph. WN:IP 2. Text includes some analysis words such as "lots of", "many", "extremely likely", "most people". This should be replaced with something more precise, or attributed. WN:Attribution 3. External links should be moved from article body to the sources section. 4. {{image source}} should be specified in the image caption. Please fix these issues and re-submit. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
-- Gryllida 20:06, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank You for reviewing, I will continue to make these changes Atl28 (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- I still do not see date in the first paragraph, Atl28. Why is the article back in the review queue? Gryllida 20:07, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Review of revision 4964121 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 4964121 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:47, December 25, 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: The article has been published. Congratulations. The following edits were made by reviewer: 1) Article body written in past tense 2) External links moved to a section called 'External links' 3) Rearranged to specify the date in the first paragraph, see inverted pyramid Please keep these comments in mind when writing or editing articles in the future. The following notes were left by reviewer: 1) The previous review raised concern about bias in words such as 'many' in 'many commenters' or 'illegal in many ways', it was disappointing that this was not addressed at time of submitting for review. 2) Article was written on time and submitted on Dec22, which is not excellent for a Dec19 event, but is good. It is on the edge of being stale now, as is is already Dec25, and I am making the decision to pass. 3) Please write article about what happened, whether the rename was approved by authorities. Has there been any recent updates? Please consider revising more thoroughly before re-submitting for review; writing up a story and submitting for review sooner and closer to the event date; and also consider writing a article about updates, if any updates were available, immediately after these updates occurred. Many thanks. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 4964121 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:47, December 25, 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: The article has been published. Congratulations. The following edits were made by reviewer: 1) Article body written in past tense 2) External links moved to a section called 'External links' 3) Rearranged to specify the date in the first paragraph, see inverted pyramid Please keep these comments in mind when writing or editing articles in the future. The following notes were left by reviewer: 1) The previous review raised concern about bias in words such as 'many' in 'many commenters' or 'illegal in many ways', it was disappointing that this was not addressed at time of submitting for review. 2) Article was written on time and submitted on Dec22, which is not excellent for a Dec19 event, but is good. It is on the edge of being stale now, as is is already Dec25, and I am making the decision to pass. 3) Please write article about what happened, whether the rename was approved by authorities. Has there been any recent updates? Please consider revising more thoroughly before re-submitting for review; writing up a story and submitting for review sooner and closer to the event date; and also consider writing a article about updates, if any updates were available, immediately after these updates occurred. Many thanks. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
-- Gryllida 20:47, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- Also, the image licensing is unclear. It should be revised in Wikimedia Commons, as it is not 'Own work' unless you took the photo. It is likely that the image will need to be re-uploaded locally at Wikinews, via Special:Upload, as Wikimedia Commons does not allow uploads of 'fair use' images. Gryllida 20:51, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Edit opinion
[edit]I am the author of this article & I don't like one of the pending changes. I please request whoever reviews it declines the pending change. Atl28 (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- If you were referring to this change, it has been rejected, but only because it wasn't approved in time. We have a very short window, currently only 72 hours post-publication when changes are permitted, if also approved within that 72 hours.
- We typically do not reject changes simply because another contributor, including the original author, disagrees with them. Requests of this kind are more likely to succeed when they include a clear justification.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 17:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Extensive changes made and correction issued but not sighted
[edit]
This conversation has been marked for the community's attention. Please remove the {{flag}} when the discussion is complete or no longer important.
I have made several, significant edits to the article to improve accuracy and neutrality and issued a correction.
The article, as-written, is still imbalanced as it focuses almost exclusively on the objections to the renaming and provides no reporting of those in favor of the change, or the fact that ex-officio members of the board such as Beatty, can't vote according to the by-laws,[1], therefore her argument that the vote was not unanimous is incorrect.
Normally I would propose an article in this state for retraction. Instead, I attempted to correct the use of weasel words and phrases, unsupported statements, and attribution issues without introducing new facts or sources, given the constraints of the archive policy. If the community feels a retraction is the better solution considering the imbalance of the article and the re-write required to correct it thus far, it should be proposed at WN:DR.
If the edits and correction are not sighted within about a week, I may sight them to complete the correction and archival processes.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 15:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Heavy Water, I'd love to get your input, with your historical knowledge, on whether we should be trying to correct articles in this state or retracting them.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 23:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Michael.C.Wright: Yeah, these edits are far too substantive to be making more than 24 hours after publication. In these circumstances we would leave the problematic copy in place and issue a correction or retraction. (A retraction doesn't go through the deletion requests process, BTW). Retraction is ; most retracted articles are legally dangerous copyright violations that need to be blanked with prior revisions deleted. I don't think this meets that bar. I'd recommend reverting your edits to the copy and leaving the correction notice. Heavy Water (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
- Where should retractions go through? I followed these examples: [2], [3], [4], [5]Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 06:23, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- Michael.C.Wright: Yeah, these edits are far too substantive to be making more than 24 hours after publication. In these circumstances we would leave the problematic copy in place and issue a correction or retraction. (A retraction doesn't go through the deletion requests process, BTW). Retraction is ; most retracted articles are legally dangerous copyright violations that need to be blanked with prior revisions deleted. I don't think this meets that bar. I'd recommend reverting your edits to the copy and leaving the correction notice. Heavy Water (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2026 (UTC)