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

Reasons for renaming

Is there any evidence that these name changes were specifically due to the George Floyd protests, rather than part of a more general reaction against commemorating historical figures whose activities are now seen as racist? Especially outside the U.S., many of the citations do not mention Floyd at all, concentrating on broader campaigns such as Black Lives Matter which predates the Floyd incident by several years. Certes (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Wingate Hall

https://greensboro.com/news/state-and-regional/angered-wake-forest-pauses-renaming-building-honoring-slave-owner/article_759609e2-bffb-11eb-8a3e-8ff4345d39b5.html

Dundas Street in Toronto

Here are two sources that provide new information about Dundas Street in Toronto: CBC article City of Toronto action report

There's going to be a council meeting on July 6, 2021 regarding Dundas Street.

It would be great to incorporate the new details regarding Dundas Street as it would also affect other civic assets in Toronto named Dundas such as Dundas and Dundas West stations of the Toronto subway system and Yonge–Dundas Square and may also include those throughout the province as the Dundas Street name is present in some of the other municipalities in the province. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 22:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)  Done Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I have made a few updates. However, since the Toronto City Council recently passed a motion to rename Dundas Street, it would be great to promote it to yellow and moved to the appropriate section. Even the neighbouring municipalities are considering changing the name of Dundas Street. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

"Change partially or fully reversed"

The colour code going from Proposed change supported by one or more officials to Change partially or fully reversed seems wrong. Combined with the red-for-stop background colour, the current version reads as if these proposed changes were abandoned. If the "change" being referenced is the same in both cases, from an old name to a new name, should it not be worded as "change partially or fully implemented"? Or is this a typo for "changed partially or fully reversed"? Belbury (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Belbury, admittedly, i am not sure if i fully understand your question, but i believe changes that have been implemented are currently shown with no color, while red is being used to denote changes that have been reported (and possibly executed) before being partially or fully reversed.

the colors in the explanation at the top of the article are sorted roughly in order of how close to implementation an entry is (with the assumption that a decision that is reversed will likely not easily be reversed again), and not in a chronological order. a proposed change may be discussed by a decision-making body, which may then decide in favor of the change, before executing the change. red is used if the decision-making body reverses its original decision after it has already been reported.

does this answer your question? dying (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I see my mistake, I must have assumed that the grey background rows just hadn't been categorised yet, and as you say was reading the key as a chronological progression of "reported → deciding → supported → ...". If grey means "implemented", I'll add that to the key in the fourth position.

This was compounded by the fact that many of the red/magenta rows don't mention a decision being reversed. Some of them say that the rename happened, others say it's still pending. From a scroll through the page the only actual case of reversing I can see is Trader Joe's. Do these need updating to mention a reversal, or have they been given the wrong colour? Belbury (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like in at least some cases this is a user changing the colour if they can personally see that, two years on, the change didn't actually happen. This should really be mentioned in the "Details" column and be given a reference so that other editors can WP:VERIFY that the name didn't change. --Belbury (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That user was me. Here's my previous edit for reference. Note that I went under a different IP at that time. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying! It's an understandable edit when the only dial to turn is the colour setting.

I guess it would be enough to put "This decision was later reversed.{{citation needed}}" or "...partly reversed" at the end of the Details paragraph for each of those entries, for now. Although ideally we'd be able to link to a news story or press release confirming (or at least implying, if it's recent but still uses the old name) each of these. Belbury (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Having just corrected Black Boy Lane with sources to say the renaming was implemented rather than reversed, I've reassessed this. Black Boy Lane was one of the entries changed from Reported but not yet executed to Change partially or fully reversed as part of the above IP's "let's be real - only a few of these decisions went anywhere" in May 2022; although it was true to say that the plan hadn't gone anywhere at that point (the street wasn't renamed until January 2023), it was not true to say that the decision had been "partially or fully reversed".

Sure, it's not ideal for entries in this article to be years out of date, but it's much worse for this article to be making false statements about these plans having definitely been cancelled or reversed, if the edit was something as simple as changing all "not yet executed" entries to "reversed" if they didn't have an implementation date by that time. This explains why I was initially puzzled by dozens of red "fully reversed" rows that didn't match the text or the sources.

I've rolled back the colour changes from that edit. --Belbury (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for making that update, I'd noticed that a lot of listings were incorrectly labelled in that way, but didn't have the time to make this fix myself. It's good to see the page be more accurate now. - Odin (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposals with official backing content is completely missing

It's my fault. Something happened between this edit and this edit, and I goofed up. I tried to fix it but I'm completely lost now. Please help. Kire1975 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Kire1975, i think i fixed it. please let me know if i broke anything. dying (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Sorry for any trouble. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

no worries, i'm glad i could help. thanks for raising the issue. dying (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

New details about former Andrew Jackson Post Office in San Diego

https://www.sdjewishworld.com/2023/07/07/ceremony-renames-andrew-jackson-post-office-for-susan-a-davis/

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-07-06/rolando-post-office-susan-davis

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Susan_A._Davis_Post_Office_plaque.jpg

I have to declare a conflict of interest on this change only. -Erik Anderson Kire1975 (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The post office was renamed by an act of Congress but the signage won't come down: The unveiled plaque read “This Building Is Named in Honor of Susan A. Davis by an Act of Congress, Public Law 117-314, December 27, 2022.” However, a legend will remain for the foreseeable future in large letters atop the Post Office Building stating: “United States Post Office, Andrew Jackson Station, San Diego, California 92115.” No congressional appropriation has been made to replace the lettering, and according to Davis, such an appropriation is problematic because such legislation would have to incorporate not only this post office branch but other renamed post office branches throughout the nation. I thought that was pretty notable. Kire1975 (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)