Talk:List of name changes due to the George Floyd protests/Archive 1

Archive 1

Neighborhood changes make due to namesake involvement with the Klan

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/503259-community-delegates-vote-to-rename-denver-neighborhood-named-after-kkk?fbclid=IwAR2IOWif-pp4Wh47jjom6XG3vFWTCq7UGO-H50HFgsLpME90_hPQFJgBXsk

Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

if i'm not mistaken, stapleton is already on the list. Kire1975 added it to the original article while i was making the split, so i ended up copying that entry over separately a few minutes later. you might have seen the page during the few minutes it wasn't there. in any case, thanks for the entry and for providing a reliable source! dying (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep, you are correct. I saw the news item in my Facebook feed right before bed and didn’t make too much of an effort to confirm. Anyways, this can be archived. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Industry... good choice of word

I like the use of the word "Industry", instead of "Corporate". Normal Op (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

New York subway stations

Cuomo announced on June 25 that President Street station (IRT Nostrand Avenue Line) would be renamed President Street-Medgar Evers College andFranklin Avenue would be renamed Franklin Avenue–Medgar Evers College. [1] gobonobo ^{+ c} 18:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks for providing a source. dying (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

School mascots

A few schools have already changed their mascots. Many more have active petitions to change theirs. UNLV's Hey Reb! seems to be under consideration. So far this seems to be mostly Confederate mascots, but could expand to mascots of indigenous peoples. I'm not sure whether these would be listed under symbols or names.

• Richland High School (Texas) Rebels [2]
• Quartz Hill High School Rebels [3]
• A. B. Miller High School Rebels
• Teton High School Redskins --> Timberwolves [4]
• Brighton Central School District Barons [5]

gobonobo ^{+ c} 14:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

thanks for moving these entries over from the other talk page, gobonobo! dying (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks, gobonobo. richland high school was already on the page when i got to it, and i did not include teton high school because it was reported on 2020.05.18 that the school board had unanimously voted to change the mascot the previous week, but i have added the others to the article. dying (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Name

I think this should be "during" instead of "due to". deisenbe (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

deisenbe: it was actually a point of discussion when we were deciding whether we were going to split the original article, and if so, how. my personal reasoning was that "due to" made more sense than "during" because i did not feel that a renaming that happened to occur during the protests (but was completely unrelated) should be included in the new article. i believe we consciously broke from the original article's use of "during" in its title.

admittedly, i was somewhat surprised that you had not joined the discussion, as Normal Op had pinged you. do you feel strongly about it? dying (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that "due to" suggests causation, and in most cases that isn't correct. It's that the protests created an opportunity, and the name changes inspired others. If there are renamings during this period that are completely unrelated, that has escaped my attention. ¶ In response to your query, I have been staying out, mostly, of discussions of the way these articles should be organized. My thanks to all of you working on it. My strength is going out and finding news stories and writing text, so I've mostly been sticking with that. Less stressful. deisenbe (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Neither seems to be a perfect option. Deisenbe is right that "due to" implies direct causation and leads to people arguing against including certain items. "During" begs the question of whether the protests are ongoing and what their end date will be. Perhaps something vaguer like "following" could be more inclusive. I'm of the opinion that all of these name changes are part of a broad cultural reset that was touched off by George Floyd's death. If we retain "due to", let's just agree that the scope is inclusive of the entire avalanche of name changes that came after and not just the initial rockslide. gobonobo ^{+ c} 18:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

personnel section

i am not sure if the changing of the casting of a character on a television show belongs in this article, but i think there should be some place on wikipedia that aggregates such changes. since i am currently aware of only two such changes, i am not sure if they warrant their own article at this stage, but i see no significant problems with adding a "personnel" section here at this time, and then branching the section off into its own article if the volume of the contents eventually warrants it.

the original discussion that lead to the creation of this page made a distinction between removals that were physical, which were to stay on the monuments page, and removals that were not, which would be listed in the new article. as the removals in these two entries are not quite physical removals, if this aggregation were to be included in one of these two pages, i believe it should be included here.

please note that the choice of "name changes" in the article title was based on prioritizing consistency over precision, and it was difficult to determine what exactly the page could end up encompassing anyway. therefore, i do not believe this aggregate should be removed from this page solely on the argument that they are not name changes. in addition, one could argue that, because these entries involved changing the name listed on a cast list (as well as changing the actor behind the name), it could be considered a name change.

i chose the section heading "personnel" deliberately so that it could be expanded to cover other situations, such as changes in government positions or corporate leadership, should they occur. in addition, it (serendipitously) follows alphabetically after all other current subheadings under "names", so users would not find it strange to, for example, skim through a list of schools and then a list of people before returning to a list of restaurants.

as i am unsure as to the validity of my decision, i would be happy to hear other thoughts on the situation, both for and against.

Featous, since you were the original editor to aggregate them on the monuments page, i thought you should know that i've placed your contribution here. dying (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Dying: Everything you wrote makes sense. And yes, mascots are name changes, too. (Example: Instead of "the fighting Rebels", they might become "the fighting Eagles". See... name change.) Normal Op (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Notes

Army promotion pictures

The Army just announced that it is removing photos from officer promotion packages to eliminate unconscious bias against candidates who aren't the "stereotypical image of a military leader." (Source) This seems like a poor fit for this page IMO, but it doesn't seem to fall neatly under any other Floyd page either. Any thoughts of if, and where, it might fit on the wiki? Thanks, Featous (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

good question, Featous. i stumbled upon that too, and couldn't figure out where it belonged, assuming it belonged amongst the floyd articles in the first place. i thought it could maybe fit on a new article entitled "List of practices changed due to the George Floyd protests", as many organizations have been putting out announcements stating that they were looking into changing their practices. however, talk is cheap, and the army is announcing a concrete change that will have an effect on army leadership in the long run, so it definitely stands out.

if i were to add the army's new practice to this article, i would probably either mention it in a bullet point under the personnel table, or create a new "practices" section and add it there. (serendipitously, "practices" comes alphabetically after "personnel".) possibly of note, the removal of "evil races" by dungeons & dragons mentioned by Kire1975 below could also fall under "practices" if it is created. if the new section ends up exploding, we can deal with it later.

also, Ham II's proposal regarding how to implement a new "List of changes made due to the George Floyd protests" sounds like it could work, so we could always just move things around if that article ends up being created. dying (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

Yeah, if all else failed, I figured I would add the Army promotion item to the top level protest article and let someone else filter it down. As well at the two examples that we're discussing, there is also the decision to pull racist cards from Magic the Gathering (WaPo), which is similarly an odd fit under monuments or names. Some sort of general page would seem to be in order. - Featous (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Another weird one is the show Brooklyn 99 scrapping all the scripts for the upcoming season ([6]) and the cancelling of Live PD and Cops (TV program) ([7]). - Featous (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Splash Mountain

Splash Mountain: Disney World and Disneyland's Splash Mountain will be renamed and the log flume ride depicting scenes from Song of the South will be rethemed around The Princess and the Frog (working title: New Adventures With Princess Tiana). [8] gobonobo ^{+ c} 21:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Added. Thanks! - Featous (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I was told to come to the talk page to mention this, but the ride was not changed because of the George Floyd protests. The rebranding was planned for at least a year according to the president of Walt Disney Imagineering and hence likely doesn't belong here as it wasn't changed specifically due to the protests. [9] 100.34.149.41 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That article only says that they "started talking about this particular concept" a year ago. As a Disney-produced interview with a Disney employee that fails to even mention Song of the South, this seems like a PR piece aimed at mollifying people upset at the change. Every news article I've seen links the change to the online petition and the George Floyd protests. gobonobo ^{+ c} 18:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times article cited also states that it was planned years in advance, while additionally saying "Disney said it had sped up the public unveiling of the project because of the current cultural conversation about race." At best they publicly reveled it a few months earlier then they would have, but that does not mean it was changed specifically because of the protests or a petition, which they are just noting exists, and it would be dishonest to keep it in this article. At this point it's more accusing Disney of lying about working on this for awhile and believing they made a highly detailed concept piece in only a few days. 100.34.149.41 (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

i agree with gobonobo. many (though not all) corporations are aware that some of their practices may be considered racist, and a corporation as large as disney would almost certainly have had contingency plans for when they were called out on some of the more overt ones. if the protests had not happened, it is unclear whether they would have actually gone through with the concept. had disney seriously been working on the change beforehand for over a year, it would have been easy to have made a public announcement about it weeks ago. at this late stage, though, it seems they had to scramble up some feasibility studies before they could commit to the idea and announce it to the world, with only one piece of concept art that i am aware of, based on a world they had already created over a decade ago, and no real timelines set at all. obviously, this is not necessarily the case, but it seems strange that they did not announce the change earlier if that was not the case. this is not to say that they should or shouldn't have begun implementing the idea, but only that it seems pretty clear that the process was sped up as a result of the protests.

please note that i am not saying that disney did not have the idea to change the ride until the protests happened. i actually currently believe they did have the idea to change it months, if not years, before. in addition, i am not saying that "they made a highly-detailed concept piece in only a few days". however, i fail to see anything wrong with that even if that was the case anyway. what i am questioning is how long it would have taken them to make the change, if they would have at all, had the protests not happened. virtually everything must change eventually. i believe, as a practical matter, this article simply addresses changes that were sped up as a result of the protests.

also, personally, i think, if a corporation was aware that something that they were doing was considered racist, and they were actually concerned about changing this, they would have acted pretty quickly. if it took them five years to get around to producing one piece of concept art, that doesn't sound like non-racist behaviour to me.

for an example of a change that was clearly put into motion before the protests and would have happened with roughly the same timeline regardless, please see teton high school's mascot, as noted above. dying (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I also support including Splash Mountain. Many of the names and structures we've been documenting have a history of controversy and prior removal efforts; the Floyd protests have routinely been the final push needed for removal. The reliable sources indicate this is specifically the case for Splash Mountain. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Not really, it's based on Song of the South which they have disowned for years before protests, including making it explicit it wouldn't be on Disney+ recently. It's not like this is the first time they disowned that property or did so specifically because of some random petition. Going against what all sources are saying, including from the company itself and the source cited in the article, that this was going to happen for years regardless of the protests and at best made the announcement a few months early (and which could have got delayed because of COVID concerns, much like many aspects of the Disney parks) is simply a fringe theory and breaks Wikipedia guidelines 100.34.149.41 (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

100.34.149.41, i am admittedly unsure as to why you seem so focused on accusing everyone of "accusing Disney of lying about working on this for awhile". as far as i am aware, no one is claiming that disney is doing this. personally, i have explicitly stated that "i am not saying that disney did not have the idea to change the ride until the protests happened. i actually currently believe they did have the idea to change it months, if not years, before." if there is an editor i am unaware of that has accused disney of lying about this, can you point out any specific instance where this happens?

also, if you currently believe that the reason why this entry does not belong in this article is because disney had the idea to change the ride before the protests, you should be aware that, as least as of now, inclusion in this article is not based on whether the change was first conceived before the protests. i do not know if the article title's use of the phrase "due to" led you to believe that. if so, you should be aware that other editors are aware that there may be an issue with the name.

the original article from which this article split off from had used the word "during" in its title, but during the discussion to split this article off, the point was raised that this article should be named "due to" according to wp:consistent. when i created the article and decided on a name, i chose consistency over precision, even though i was aware that this could cause problems later. however, i also knew that there were going to be many more changes in the future as a result of the protests, and attempting to predict the future and create appropriate article titles based on that prediction would be futile. if you have issues with the name, you are welcome to join the discussion. in addition, there is currently a discussion on how to further split the article, and you can contribute your viewpoint there to help shape the future of these articles, if you'd like.

by the way, i do not know how much experience you have with wikipedia, but in general, whenever an editor raises an argument based on a wikipedia guideline, they often cite explicitly what guideline they are referring to, like i have done above with the "wp:consistent" policy. admittedly, i myself do not claim to have full knowledge of all of wikipedia's policies. in addition, the policies have also changed over the years, so what i know could be outdated. in fact, another editor fixed one of my mistakes a few hours ago, citing the manual of style in the edit summary, and i was happy to learn what i had done wrong and why. since you are currently accusing us of breaking wikipedia guidelines, i would be happy to understand which guidelines we are breaking, and why. after all, i'm here to build an encyclopedia.

also, if you plan on being here for a while, i would suggest creating an account. aside from the benefits it confers to you, it also allows you to hide your ip address, which has caused embarrassing situations before. in addition, i would be happier addressing you by name rather than by number. dying (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

There are many instances of people in this accusing Disney of lying, every single person here besides me has not provided a source to their opinion. These include lines such as "this seems like a PR piece aimed at mollifying people upset at the change" and "Many of the names and structures we've been documenting have a history of controversy and prior removal efforts; the Floyd protests have routinely been the final push needed for removal". None of these cite anything besides "my opinion", while multiple sources, including the source cited in the article itself, mention that the protests at best speed up the announcement that was going to be made regardless. That could have been planned a few years or a month from now for all anyone knows. Saying the protests are what caused them to change it is completely misleading.

As of right now the Splash Mountain entry is breaking multiple guidelines, including WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:FORUM. WP:NPOV would just need to edit one or two words of particular language that give that entry a lean (and something I just want to bring up before changes are made), but the others could only be fixed if made explicit the change didn't happen because of the protests but was announced early as sources state, particular if a section of planned announcements made earlier then initially planned is made, or if the entry itself is removed. In addition, "changes during" is likely the better language to use, but that depends on the direction the article itself goes.

As you can tell I don't have much experience in the talk page aspect of the website. If I did make an account, it would be after this particular discussion has been long finished. 100.34.149.41 (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times article cited directly states that the Floyd protests played a role in the renaming. The Disney spokesperson quoted in the article further states that the protests greatly speed up the renaming process. If the Floyd protests had not occurred, we don't know exactly what would have happened: the ride may have kept its name indefinitely, it may have been renamed in the aftermath of another mass protest, or it may have kept its name for just a tad bit longer. This, by the way, is true of just about everything listed here; some of these things may have been renamed without the protests. The point is that we can't predict the future, especially not the future of an alternative reality. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

D&D

Dungeons & Dragons has pledged to remove the concept of "evil races" from its' storylines. It's not a name change exactly, but it is notable enough to be on this list in my opion. Thoughts? Kire1975 (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is a pretty notable change. As a side note, I think it may be appropriate to change the article title at some point; this plainly grown in scope beyond mere names. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Further splitting?

I've raised a question about the scope of this list and its sister article at Talk:List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests#Further splitting?. Ham II (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Berlin Subwaystation Mohrenstraße

The Berlin Subwaystation Mohrenstraße was renamed to Glinkastraße, where should this be covered, it's neither, geographic nor industy Norschweden (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Norschweden: good question. i actually created the government section for entries like that, since there seemed to be a decent number of entries maintained by a government that did not fit properly under education or under geography. you can probably put glinkastraße there. as of this writing, there are two nyc subway stations listed under that section, but i am about to comment them out as i discovered that they were actually legally renamed last year. the nasa headquarters and lansing office building should still be there afterward. i'm not sure if making that section was the best decision, but if you have a better suggestion as to how those entries should be categorized, please let us know. dying (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

president street-medgar evers college and franklin avenue-medgar evers college subway stations in brooklyn

digging through new york state legislation, i recently discovered that bill number a01512a, which renamed these two stations, had actually been signed into law by governor cuomo on 2019.12.16. since that date, there appears to have been some work done in procuring the funding to change the relevant signage and whatnot, but press releases on the renaming had already been released last year.

in addition, the text of the bill stated that the act "shall take effect immediately", so i do not believe the previous press releases were used to announce that they were planning to rename the stations, and the recent ones used to announce that they had now been renamed.

although i will be commenting these stations out because the renaming actually happened before the protests, i would not mind someone commenting them back in if there is a good argument for keeping them in this article. dying (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that dying. gobonobo ^{+ c} 22:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Where to put the USCGC Tane?y

[10] U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Taney (the last warship afloat that fought at Pearl Harbor) will be renamed to its designation of WHEC-37. The ship is no longer owned by the federal government, but rather a private historical group. What would be a good section to place the ship, or alternatively should a new section be created? Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Spirit of Eagle: good question. i did a bit of digging, and apparently, the ship was decommissioned in 1986 and donated to the city of baltimore. in addition, living classrooms foundation, a nonprofit organization based in baltimore and washington, d.c., stated that "[a]t the request of the City, since 1994, Living Classrooms has been the steward of the former USCGC Taney". the specific wording used, and the fact that i can't seem to find any explicit mention of the foundation actually owning the ship, leads me to believe that the museum is still owned by the city of baltimore, in which case, i see no issue with adding the ship to the government section.

however, if i'm wrong about that, and the ship is owned by a private historical group, i'm not sure where the ship should go. in that case, i'm assuming you're free to make a new section, and if other editors have an issue with it, it can be further discussed here. also, if you don't feel like creating a sui generis category, i see no issues with creating an "other" section or something similar. dying (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for looking into this. After a bit of consideration, I decided to just create an "other name changes" section for the ship since I don't think it fits cleanly into any of the other categories. (I guess you could technically classify the ship as a government structure, but the ship seems far more like a historical structure than a structure used for active government operations). If anyone has any better ideas, I have no objection to the listing being changed. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Wunaamin-Miliwundi Ranges

I propose that Wunaamin-Miliwundi Ranges (previously King Leopold Ranges) does not belong on this list, because none of the references [11][12][13][14] state that the name change (or the timing of a previously proposed change) was due to the George Floyd protests. The closest mention in any reference is that:

• "Statues of King Leopold II have been removed ... in the wake of global Black Lives Matter protest"
• "King Leopold II ... should not be honoured in WA, ... a statue of him in Antwerp had been taken down after being repeatedly vandalised during Black Lives Matter protests.
• The Range renaming "comes amid a period of global reckoning for historic injustices ..., which has been fuelled by the Black Lives Matter movement"
• The Ranges were renamed "amid global Black Lives Matter protests"

Note the complete absence of Floyd's name, and the complete absence of a stated causal link. The rename occurred at a time of BLM protests, but none of the reference actually state the rename (or the timing thereof) was "due to", "caused by", "as a result of" etc, the protests. Also Black Lives Matter is not limited to George Floyd, so BLM does not necessarily imply George Floyd. Give the references listed, the inclusion of Wunaamin-Miliwundi Ranges is apparently based on these assumptions:

• The name change happened during the BLM protests, therefore was "due to" the protests - but no reference makes that assertion.
• The BLM protests mentioned by the references were George Floyd protests - but no reference mentions Floyd's name.

Even if both assumptions were true, the link that the Ranges renaming was "due to the George Floyd protests" is original research by synthesis.

Or possibly:

• Statues of Leopold "have been removed ... in the wake of BLM protests", and "King Leopold II ... should not be honoured in WA, ... a statue of him .. had been taken down ...during Black Lives Matter protests
• ... therefore the Range was renamed was because the statue was removed - but no reference makes that assertion
• The statue was removed because of the BLM / George Floyd protests
• ... therefore the Range was renamed because of the George Floyd protests.

Again, even if all the assumptions are true, linking them is WP:synthesis.

Unless there is a reference that actually states that the Range was renamed, or its renaming hastened or facilitated, because of the George Floyd protests, I still assert that Wunaamin-Miliwundi Ranges does not belong in this list. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

it took me a few seconds to find three reliable sources linking the renaming to george floyd.

• news.com.au reported the renaming in its coverage of the george floyd protests
• agence france-presse gave floyd's death and subsequent worldwide efforts to address systemic racism as the context of the renaming
• new york times mentions the treatment of statues of leopold ii after floyd's killing as the context of the renaming

also, the movement to rename the ranges had clearly started before the protests, so i am assuming that your contention is merely with whether the process was sped up as a result of them. when reliable sources reported on ben wyatt referencing the statue being taken down in antwerp, it was also reported that in his call for input from traditional owners, wyatt stated that the renaming "has been delayed for a number of reasons but the time for that delay is up".

by the way, personally, within the context of causation, i have been roughly equating mentions made after floyd's killing of "black lives matter protests" with "george floyd protests", meaning that if a party claims that something was done due to black lives matter protests, i have been assuming that it was also attributable to the george floyd protests, as well as vice versa. my reasoning was that, since "george floyd protests" is not necessarily a phrase that the media has widely adopted, some sources may have been using "black lives matter protests" to refer to the protests, and sources that have a different term to refer to the protests may have been using their term and "black lives matter protests" as roughly equivalent terms in certain contexts, including that of causation. i had not previously interpreted this conclusion as an issue of synthesis, but as an issue of terminology, since there does not appear to be a clear consensus in the media regarding what to call the protests.

please note that i do not pretend that every editor has to have come to this conclusion, as it appears that you haven't. in addition, if other editors have also not come to this conclusion, i would welcome input on how to make the distinction between the two, as i am currently worrying that forcing a disconnect between the two regarding the cause of certain events that happened after floyd's death seems unnatural. however, regardless of whether this conclusion should be made, the link that you are claiming is original research by synthesis seems to have been pretty clearly made by reliable sources.

also, specifically with regard to the mountain range, i had been interpreting ben wyatt's statement as a example he brought up to show that other references to king leopold ii were under renewed scrutiny as a result of the protests and one statue had already been taken down, and not as a statement that his sole motivation for speeding up the renaming process was because a statue of king leopold ii had been removed. i admittedly had not even considered the second interpretation until you brought up this issue, and am wondering if other editors have also read wyatt's statement using that interpretation. dying (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"linking the renaming to george floyd" is not the same as "the renaming was due to George Floyd protests", which is what the Wikipedia article purports to list. (Possibly the Wikipedia article should have more general title instead - "... name changes linked to the ... protests" or similar, if that is the intent.) None of the references (including the ones that you listed) state that the renaming, or its timing, was due to the protests, merely that the renaming occurred at the time of the protests.

i have been roughly equating mentions made after floyd's killing of "black lives matter protests" with "george floyd protests", — That might be a safe assumption in the US (although personally I don't think it is, given that there have been other Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests in the US), but Aboriginal deaths in custody are also the subject of BLM protests in Australia.

Mitch Ames (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Extract from a radio interview with Aboriginal Affairs and Lands Minister Ben Wyatt (starting at 03:15), with my emphasis added:

Geoff Hutchison: I wonder to what extent is it a reassessment brought on by so many questions being asked about so many statues and monuments and names around the world at the moment.

Ben Wyatt: Obviously it's been elevated by that very discussion and those activities around the world, but this is something that Western Australia and more broadly Australia's being doing in various forms over the last probably decade or two.

Then at 4:15

Hutchison: How significant though, Minister, is it this week when, in the Belgian city of Antwerp they pulled down a statue of King Leopold?

Wyatt: Yeh, well very significant I think, and it highlights the absurdity that here in Western Australia we still have such a ... it is an extraordinary range or number of ranges over such a large area of the Kimberley named after somebody that clearly the Belgians don't have a lot of, I guess, kind sentiment to themselves, so I'm keen to do this soon Geoff. I think ... has taken, it's been delayed for a number of reasons but I think that it's time for that delay's up, and as soon as I just get some confirmation from different, a couple of different groups in the Kimberley we'll get on and rename that.

This would appear to definitively state although the rename was already planned, it's timing was sped up as a result of the world-wide protests and removal of the statue, so I withdraw my proposal that it should be removed from the list.

However I do think that the article's lead sentence should explicitly state that the list includes changes that were expedited as a result of the protests, not just those caused by the protests.

Mitch Ames (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Notes

References

includes changes hastened or facilitated?

It has been suggested early in this talk page that the article's scope includes name changes that were already under consideration were expedited, hastened or facilitated by the protests, rather than initiated by the protests. If that is the intent, the article should probably say so explicitly. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done

I've added an appropriate sentence to the lead paragraph. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Science article

Cahan, Eli (2 July 2020). "Amid protests against racism, scientists move to strip offensive names from journals, prizes, and more". Science. Retrieved 7 July 2020.

I'm going to leave a link to this article in Science. There are a lot of changes being considered, including many awards and scientific names. Worth keeping an eye on. - Featous (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

thanks, Featous. using that article, i've added the entomology games, whose name was changed today. dying (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

new column format

@Ham II: thanks for implementing the new column format. i had been thinking of using something like the n/a template, but had felt that its use of the grey background color was too distracting, especially in the cases where it fell on a colored row because it split an otherwise unbroken row of color. it seemed to draw too much attention to itself when those cells should actually be ignored since they were not applicable. i don't know if the use of the grey background color was a conscious decision on your part, or if you simply used it because it was the default behaviour of the n/a template.

i'm implementing a version of those cells that leaves the background color untouched but uses grey text, as seen in the "No data" cells of the table of coronavirus cases. i am also using lowercase letters so that, when scanning down the list of states, it is immediately clear that "N/A" is not a state abbreviation like the other capitalized abbreviations. in addition, i'm using italics because the text is not to be taken literally (i.e., the state abbreviation is not the letter 'n', a slash, and the letter 'a').

i had actually thought about using the abbr template for "TBD", but decided against it because it drew too much attention to itself. had "TBD" only occurred in a few places throughout the tables, i think it would have been appropriate, but currently i feel there are too many such cells. so, i simply added the explanation to the "Abbreviations used" list above the tables. italics are used for the same reason as before: the entry is not to be taken literally (i.e., the new name is not the capital letters 'T', 'B', and 'D').

also, i like how you used the abbr template in the column headers of the page of changes and thought to do the same once a column format had been decided. since you've now implemented the new column format, i've abbreviated a few of the headers further. this way, the headers don't take up more than one row of text, and horizontal space generally not used by the cells below is freed up.

@Deus et lex: it looks like "WA" has been dropped for kimberley. if we're using this format, i would have argued for using full iso 3166-2 codes as the sort key, such as "US-WA" and "AU-WA", so that the american states could still be sorted properly, but first-level administrative divisions that were not american states could also be used in the column. however, it's not something i wanted to implement unilaterally, as i didn't know if others had felt strongly about this. dying (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Notes

@Dying: @Ham II: I'm not particular happy with the current version of the page and I think it's worse than what was there before. The "n/a" for the suggests that the Wunaamin Miliwundi Ranges are not located in a state in Australia, which is inaccurate. I understand there's potential overlap between "WA" which is the abbrevation for both the State of Washington and the State of Western Australia, but Wikipedia is not US-centric so we can't prioritise one over the other. I think we need to find a compromise that allows both. Any suggestions? Deus et lex (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deus et lex: agreed. i've reformatted the geography section to use full iso 3166-2 codes, so you (and others) can see how it could work. using the full iso 3166-2 code allows the sorting to work properly, so western australia does not sort with washington, and all the american states are properly sorted together. please let me know what your thoughts are. dying (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dying: - happy with that, thanks so much for your co-operative work and your great work on this page. It's wonderful when Wikipedia collaboration works well. Deus et lex (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deus et lex and Dying: I've kept this formatting at the "Geography" section, but changed the headings from "S" for state (which is inappropriate in some places) and "C" for country to ditto marks, as those columns continue to give the "Location" (the heading for the column preceding those two). I've also changed the hover text in the first of those headings to "Constituent unit [...]" instead of administrative division; this is more appropriate for England, which isn't really an administrative division as it doesn't have its own legislature or government. Ham II (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ham II: that is brilliant! i was trying to figure out how to resolve the ambiguity of "state" and "country", since, for example, i recognized that england was considered a country, and your choice of ditto marks did that beautifully.

by the way, although i am unfamiliar with how ditto marks are used worldwide, my previous understanding was that at most one ditto mark is used per word to be repeated, so i'm dropping one of the two ditto marks per column header. in addition, with two marks, it almost looks like a space is being quoted instead. please feel free to revert this if i am mistaken.

@Deus et lex: thanks for your contribution and feedback as well. you're right; i've been pretty happy with how well the collaborative spirit has worked here. also wanted to give shoutouts to deisenbe, Featous, gobonobo, Spirit of Eagle, Normal Op, Kire1975, and anyone else i may have missed, as they have also significantly helped make this page what it is. dying (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Normal Op: i don't know if you have been following this discussion, but i had reformatted the "Geography" section with a proposal that i believe three of us are happy with, and no serious issues regarding the implementation have been brought up. i understand that you removed the content for some of the cells in the non-american entries because they were not states, but i don't know if you were aware that, for the purposes of this demonstration, for that specific table, the column header no longer referred to states, but to constituent units, and the cells below were filled appropriately to give a demonstration of how it would sort. this proposal appeared to be agreeable to everyone, does not make a special case for the united states so it is no longer americentric, and also took into account your desire to keep a sortable column for american states. admittedly, i have no wish to undo your edits, so i will simply link to the old version here for those who want to see the demo. do you have any comments on the proposal? dying (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dying: I have obviously missed some of your discussion, because I thought I was fixing someone's mistake. Go ahead and fix it however you intended the table to look. It won't hurt my feelings one bit. Normal Op (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Normal Op: no worries. i had figured, from your edit summaries, that they were edits made on the assumption that only american states were included in that column, since, after all, that was the case on the rest of the page. i'll go ahead and restore the content of those cells for that section. dying (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

seeing that there appears to have been no opposition to the most recent proposal during the last two days, i will be propagating the latest format to the other tables on the page that currently use a state column. thanks for the input, everyone! dying (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Was Uncle Ben's Removed?

Also the master slave code thing is probably relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.25.45 (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

uncle ben's was removed because the parent company apparently only committed to changing the brand, not necessarily the name. this page was probably the best page to place the entry at the time it was placed, but once the page of changes was made, the entry was moved there. more details are available at that page's talk page. dying (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: Uncle Ben's has been renamed to Ben's Original as of today. It should be returned to the article due to the name change, and I found a source for the name change. Call me when you get the chance 15:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

quote regarding dundas

there is an ip user who has been changing the quote for the dundas entry, replacing the word "oppos[ed]" with "support[ed]".

• the first time i noticed the change, i had undone the edit noting that it was unsourced information.
• the second time it was done, a source had been provided, but the source backed up the original quote. the source was added without the correct formatting, so i had assumed that it was a user unfamiliar with how to properly add content to wikipedia, so i restored the quote and added a sentence explaining that dundas was for "gradual" abolition, as opposed to "immediate" abolition. i also added a comment explaining that changing the quote would result in wikipedia improperly misquoting the source, as i wasn't sure if the ip user was aware that what was being changed was wording that was quoted from a reliable source.
• unfortunately, the ip user has now replaced the word a third time, so now i am inclined to believe that the ip user actually wants to change the quote rather than simply contribute additional information.

i recognize that if i were to undo the edit, other editors may interpret this to be hitting the three-revert rule. as i do not wish to get into an edit war or appear to be gaming the system, i would appreciate if anyone had any suggestions regarding what should be done next. dying (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Notes

I've "reverted" but re-worded to more directly match the reference - "involvement in opposing", rather than "oppos[ed]". Perhaps that will help. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

brands and products

@Ham II: i'm splitting off our conversation regarding brands and products to a new section since the old one seems to have gotten too long.

i think all of your previous suggestions regarding how to section the entries dealing with brands or products on the changes page seem reasonable. i only brought up the issue of "product" being possibly interpreted liberally in case that may be an unintended consequence of its use as a section heading. i also was not sure whether to lump or split, which is why i also suggested "Food brands" or "Food products". in any case, i do not have a strong opinion as to how to split the entries on the changes page, since the spread of entries on that page is so wide, so i think your current implementation is fine. we can always reorganize the page later if it does not seem to be working out.

however, i am questioning the use of the word "products" for a section heading on the renamings page, since, as the page stands, i would have easily included the bands and the brewing company (whose products are being renamed) into the new section, and arguably may have included the ferry too. would you be agreeable to renaming the section "Consumables" instead? i think that more accurately describes the split you performed, and also has a much more narrow interpretation, which could prevent future discussions regarding whether an entry fell into that section or not.

i apologize for not addressing this earlier; i had hoped to have the column format on this page resolved before addressing this, and also had previously believed that the reorganization was more focused on the changes page rather than the renamings page.

also, thanks for cleaning up the duplication of entries between the two pages. dying (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dying: Sorry for only coming to this now. Would "Consumer goods" be acceptable? "Consumables" sounds too jargonistic to me. In the hatnote on the "changes made" list, could we continue to use the single-word term "products" in the phrase "For products that are changing their names as well as their imagery [...]", for the sake of brevity? Ham II (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ham II: oh, that's interesting. i personally find "consumer goods" to be the more jargonistic term, since "consumables" made intuitive sense to me, while i think i only learned in an economics class that "consumer goods" entailed not only consumables, but also durable goods like books, and consumer services like haircuts. however, i suppose how jargonistic these terms are is an inherently subjective determination, and either term works fine with me.

by the way, i am assuming that the bands would solidly fit under "consumer goods", since i believe music is a durable good, and concerts are a consumer service.

regarding the hatnote on the changes page, i agree that keeping the use of the term "products" makes sense, especially if that remains the term used on that page. dying (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dying: OK, I didn't know that "consumer goods" and "consumables" aren't synonyms! The important thing for me is that the groupings are reasonably intuitive (per WP:ASTONISH), so any grouping that combines bands and food products under the title "Consumer goods" is probably not a good idea. Is "Consumer products" better, or does that mean the same thing as "consumer goods"? I still find "consumables" to be less familiar than either than either of the other terms, but as you say these things are subjective. I'm fairly sure that bands should be under "Music" (which would probably have to be a subsection of "Industry"). Ham II (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

i do not believe i was familiar with the term "consumer products" before, so i looked it up, and i think some sources equate "consumer products" with "consumer goods". wikipedia itself mentions that the u.s. has "an extensive definition" of the term in the consumer product safety act, which, i must admit, i am not very excited to read about at this time.

interestingly, before we started the discussion on using a hatnote on the changes page, i had actually envisioned an eventual split of the industry section into specific industries, such as "music" and "transportation", once there were enough examples in an industry to justify the split. i agree that the groupings should be reasonably intuitive; that was actually why i had planned to split the industry section up into smaller subsections by industry, since, for example, "sports" seems to be a pretty intuitive section heading. i was somewhat uncomfortable with creating a "products" subsection of the industry section, since the definition of a product seemed so vague.

i was just rereading what you had previously stated before about lumping and splitting, and now realize that you may have meant to suggest splitting on both the renamings page and the changes page. is that correct? if that is the case, then we might actually be in agreement but not realizing it, and we can just split both pages by industry and ignore the issues surrounding the terms "products", "consumables", "consumer goods", and "consumer products". i am sorry if i had misinterpreted you before, as i had believed you were only referring to the changes page, and was surprised when you had created a "products" section on the renamings page. dying (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'd definitely like to see further splitting where "Music", "Sports" and "Transportation" are concerned. As for what are currently called "Products", the "changes made" list currently has three food products/brands and one cleaning product, while the "name changes" list has six food products/brands, a brand of toothpaste and a cosmetics brand. The rationale for splitting this topic across the two pages is that some of the changes involve renaming and others do not. The rationale for lumping foodstuff, cleaning, toothpaste and cosmetics together under the same heading is that they're all "consumables" (or whatever we prefer to call them).

If we further split "Products", it would be easy to have "Food products" sections on both pages, but then what do we do with bleach (on "changes made"), toothpaste (on "name changes") and cosmetics (ditto)? Should there be a "Cleaning products" section on the "changes made" list" and a "Cosmetics and hygiene" section on the "name changes" list? Ham II (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ham II: i agree that the "products" should be split across the two pages, since some entries are simply renamings and some are rebrandings without a renaming.

i can understand the idea of lumping the "products" together, but am not sure if it is the best idea for the renamings page.

for example, if i were to create a food subsection of the industry section, i would likely have included the consumable food entries, such as the lollies, as well as the entries not involving consumables that are also part of the food industry, such as the restaurants. i've refrained from doing so because there is currently a "products" subsection, and it seems unusual to create a subsection for the food industry when all the food products are in a different subsection. if i were to create two food subsections, one directly under the industry section and another under the "products" subsection, then it might create even more confusion.

also, i see no issues with not creating a subsection if it would only have one entry. for example, if i were to create a technology subsection, i believe, currently, only the apple store would be in it, so i don't feel that the tech industry warrants its own subsection at this time.

if i were to split the industry section now, i would probably remove the "products" subsection, and create subsections for food, lodging, music, and sports, as each of those industries currently have at least three entries. i would find it unusual to have a "products" section at the same level as a music or sports subsection. dying (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dying: I'm willing to try something along those lines: Subsections for "Food and drink" (adding "drink" to "food" in order to include the pub with the resturants, and the brewing company with the food products), "Hotels" (which I'd prefer to "Lodging", but that might just be a UK-vs.-US stylistic preference), "Music" and "Sports". Over at the "changes made" list, the "Products" section could be split into "Food and drink" and "Cleaning products" sections, and "Games" changed from a subsection into a section. Ham II (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ham II: i don't feel strongly about what the industries should be called, since there are a wide range of official taxonomies available, but i thought i should mention why i chose to use the terms "food" and "lodging" here.

• i believe the term "food" is usually understood to implicitly include drinks as well, unless an explicit distinction is made. for example, currently, the food article on wikipedia explicitly mentions alcoholic drinks and kombucha as examples of "fermented and pickled foods". also, wikipedia has an article on the food industry, while there is a redirect for the food and drink industry. i was also considering the issue with the pub and the brewing company, but figured that simply including them under "food" would implicitly resolve the ambiguity. if you don't agree, then clearly the ambiguity should be explicitly resolved, so we should call it "food and drink".
• regarding "lodging", i wanted to use a word that made it clear that the subsection was focused on entries that provided temporary shelter, since i was familiar with the term "hospitality industry" but knew that this term often included restaurants and pubs. digging through those official taxonomies, the terms "lodging" and "accommodation" appeared the most appropriate to me, and i selected the former because the latter has additional meanings that might cause confusion. also, i had avoided the term "hotel" because hotels also often served food and drink (and could be seen as a modern version of the pub or tavern), and hotels were only one example of what could be included in a "lodging" or "accommodation" subsection. however, i also recognize that hotels are often used as the prototypical example of lodging, so if you prefer to use that term, i'm also fine with it.

by the way, excluding wikipedia, i believe the plurality of my anglophone sources are continental in origin, so the selection of a term to denote the latter industry might have been a british-versus-continental issue. dying (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dying: You've convinced me on the merits of "Lodging". I'm less sure about "Food": one definition in Merriam-Webster is "nutriment in solid form", so if nothing else there's one sense of the word that excludes drink. Lexico (i.e. the online Oxford dictionary) does indeed give "Any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink [...]" as the only definition. On British/American/Continental variations of English: British English is what I know best, so with a topic where the strongest national ties are to the US I'm not always sure of the most suitable terms to use, hence my uncertainty about several points in this discussion. Let's go ahead with creating the subsections. Ham II (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ham II: sounds good. i've created the subsections "Food and drink", "Lodging", "Music", and "Sports". i've also created a "Healthcare" subsection since three entries fell under that industry, and chose that term because that's the term that wikipedia itself uses, including the lack of a space. also, thanks for linking to lexico, as i was previously unaware of its existence. i ended up playing around with lexico so much that the site blocked me for a bit. dying (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Notes

Robert Lee Moore Hall

Does someone mind adding Robert Lee Moore Hall to the list, if appropriate? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

deisenbe had already added it, but as the "Robert L. Moore Building", presumably because that is how it is being referred to by many of the press releases and news articles on the subject of its renaming. i was aware that it was also known as the "Robert Lee Moore Hall", so have added a link to that article. however, i also mentioned in a comment next to the link that it was unclear whether one or the other was considered the official name, since the university appears to use the two names interchangeably. if you have any additional insight into the situation, it would be much appreciated. thanks for bringing it up. dying (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

terminology

we should probably address the realtor stuff.

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Living/realtor-groups-drop-master-bedroom-bathroom-terms-listings/story?id=71552673

How Could we adress this?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/realtors-master-bedroom-bathroom-terminology/ https://www.wired.com/story/tech-confronts-use-labels-master-slave/

is this appropriate for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.172.175 (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

We could add sections "Technology" and "General language". -- Beland (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The "other names" section is also an option. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

i've created a new terminology section and added most, if not all, of the examples mentioned in the sources provided. dying (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Unreadable column headers

@Dying: Re: this revert, the column headers that just have double quotes make it difficult for readers to figure out what the columns mean. For desktop users, it's not obvious that hovering over the quote marks will reveal "Country" or "Constituent unit". Mobile users, which are very roughly half of all web traffic, cannot hover and thus cannot see the real names of the columns at all. If the resulting column width is objectionable, I would suggest merging these two columns, or merging both with the Location column in such a way that it can be sorted by country and first-level division. Though in many cases the charts are too short to really need sortability. -- Beland (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Beland: i had not previously known about the issue regarding mobile users being unable to hover, so thank you for bringing that to my attention. i had previously believed that a term with a dotted underline was a universally-accepted user interface standard to indicate that additional information can be obtained by hovering above the underlined term, so i am not sure how best to address the issue of desktop users not finding this obvious.

in any case, from a practical standpoint, i believe the column headers for those two columns are a mere formality, since, like the numbers on a volume control knob, they can probably be removed without any real impact on the user interface, since the contents of the cells below should make it immediately obvious what type of data that column contains.

i agree with you that hovering should not be an oft-used mechanism, but had previously seen no issues in using it here since the information that hovering over the ditto marks would have provided did not seem that important. also, i hesitate to merge the columns, since it took a while to reach a consensus on how the columns should be formatted. (additional discussion can be found here and here.)

offhand, i can think of two easy solutions to address the issues you brought up.

• drop the column headers. they were never really necessary. the additional information that was given upon hovering can be placed in a comment instead as guidance for editors wishing to add an entry to the table.
• replace the ditto marks with an explanatory footnote. this way, there is no need to hover over the text to obtain the additional information.

please let me know if you have any additional suggestions. thanks, Beland. dying (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The data in the columns is not particularly self-explanatory. For example, I doubt a high school student in India is going to recognize the abbreviations for U.S. states. It's also unreasonable to expect international readers to know whether "MI" means "Michigan" or "Mississippi" or "Minnesota" or "Miami". I think a single "Location" column with no abbreviations writing locations in big-to-small order would take the minimal amount of width, avoid confusing local abbreviations, allow sorting, and address the concerns about maintaining U.S. states without forcing state-level data for other countries. For example, "US, California, Berkeley" and "UK, England, London". -- Beland (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

What if the column heading were Location (sort by country first) and the contents along the lines of Berkeley, California, United States, but with the sorting "United States, California, Berkeley"? A template similar to {{sortname}} could be created, with the input {{sort location|Berkeley|California|United States}} allowing the sorting to be the opposite way round to the text. Ham II (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

default sort order

i just wanted to see if anyone felt strongly about changing the default sort order in the tables to chronological by date of first report.

originally, when the page was created, the entries taken from the monuments page were split into different tables, one for each country, and because the split by country did not seem as appropriate for this page, i just combined the tables together, but did not bother to also sort the tables chronologically, in case such a change would have been controversial, since i wanted to first resolve whether how the tables were merged was an issue with anyone. after that appeared to have been resolved following plenty of discussion, i boldy sorted the products section chronologically. since no one appeared to have any issue with it, i boldly sorted the rest of the industry section chronologically. that sort was recently reverted in the food and drink section, so i just wanted to see if anyone had any opinions on the matter.

my reasoning for sorting the tables chronologically was simply because it seemed more intuitive, as the current sorting scheme was only a vestige of how the entries were categorized on the monuments page.

@Johnny Au: i thought i might ping you as you were the one who reverted it. i didn't know if you had a preference, or if, for example, you were merely sorting the table back to how the rest of the page is currently sorted. dying (talk)

It is best to be consistent. I just sorted it to be country first, then by date. If the tables were to be sorted purely chronologically, then all tables are to be sorted purely chronologically by date, then by country, then by state, then alphabetically by item. It is best to discuss with other users to form a consensus as well. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 12:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Johnny Au: you bring up an interesting point regarding the use of secondary, tertiary, and quaternary sort keys when sorting by chronological order. previously, i had generally treated all entries of a particular date to be of the same equivalence class, and might informally order them secondarily roughly by time zone (since 2020.08.06 begins in new zealand before it begins in hawaii), although this was not a rigorous process (since an event on 2020.08.06 in new zealand may occur before an event on 2020.08.05 in hawaii anyway).

is what you describe a wikipedia standard or guideline that i may have missed? also, do you personally have any preference for that standard, the current standard (with country as primary key and date as secondary), one that only uses a primary key when sorting chronologically, or another one that has yet to be proposed? dying (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It is best to form a consensus with others from various WikiProjects associated with this article, but what I've proposed is among the most intuitive. Pinging Ham II and Spirit of Eagle. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 13:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Chronological order is simplest because of the ease of adding new entries to the bottom. The grouping of UK examples at the top of the first section has the subconscious effect of making those six items look more significant than the 49 US items that follow (at least to this reader). The list of changes made due to the George Floyd protests uses chronological order as the primary sort key for its sections, and more consistency between these lists would be a good thing. Ham II (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

oh, that subconscious effect is a good point that i had not thought about. admittedly, i was made aware of that specific cognitive bias when i was much younger, and tried to train myself against it. apparently, it worked, since i had not considered it when i was merging the tables. if it had occurred to me, i probably would have sorted the entries chronologically when i first merged the tables, to avoid giving those entries undue attention. i should try to take that into account in the future. thanks for bringing that up, Ham II! dying (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

from what i can tell, it appears that consensus is to sort chronologically, with no clear consensus regarding the usage of any additional sort keys. i will go ahead and propagate that change. please let me know if i've misinterpreted anything. thanks! dying (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Eskimo Nebula, Siamese Twins galaxies and perhaps others

• https://www.ibtimes.com/nasa-reevaluate-celestial-object-nicknames-deemed-insensitive-3023343 Ham II (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. oh, wow, this is really interesting. i've placed it under terminology, since nasa itself has referred to it as "unofficial terminology". (also, it didn't seem to fit under geography, since there really wasn't any geo to speak of.) thanks for bringing it up, Ham II! dying (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Roy G. Williams Park

[15] Named after a polcie chief who once threw Jackie Robinson out of a game; it was renamed by resolution to Elliot Avenue Park. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. thanks, Spirit of Eagle. dying (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Darlie toothpaste .jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)