Talk:Kennedy Center
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kennedy Center article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
| This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review prior discussions if you are considering renomination.
Discussions
|
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. If it is unclear which parts of the page are covered, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
| The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Image
[edit](courtesy tagging @Mikewem) I recently changed the lead image to a more recent image shot from Georgetown and showing the new white columns, which was reverted for a the new image having an inaccurate filename and apparent recentism. The filename is totally irrelevant to the fact that the image is of the Kennedy Center---no reader is going into the source text and getting confused by the filename.
But regarding recentism, using the current image (shot before 2006) is flat-out misleading due to Reach not being shown, doubly so because there is not an image of Reach in the entire article. Reach was added seven years ago, and permanently changed the view which is shown in the lead image. Using an image shot from Georgetown sidesteps this issue, since that view has not substantially changed since the KC's construction. And the white columns aren't exactly breaking news either, they were painted last October and we can assume that they'll stay that way until at least 2028. Theodore Christopher (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- It’s not just the source text, it’s the file page. Any reader who clicks on the image will be brought here where I would wager they may become confused. Or maybe they will not be confused. It’s possible readers want a picture of the Kennedy Center to be labeled Lincoln Center. It’s also possible that readers do not want pictures of the Kennedy Center to be labeled Lincoln Center.
- Either way, WP:FILENAMES says file names should be descriptive of the image so that’s pretty much the end of discussion. Mikewem (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps the file can simply be renamed on Commons then? Funcrunch (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- Of course it can. WP:FNC#5. Though, I personally would still support the older shot as a superior depiction of its subject. Mikewem (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- OK, I renamed it. Funcrunch (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- Why is it superior? Image quality is not irrelevant, don't get me wrong, but the picture is at least seven years outdated. The addition of Reach markedly changed the southern view of the KC, so using Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Washington, D.C., LCCN2011632175 (cropped).jpg as an accurate contemporary representation misleads readers. Theodore Christopher (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- I am not compelled to replace a very good picture that does not depict the Reach with a lesser quality picture that also does not depict the Reach. Mikewem (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- You clearly aren't. Also, since the north and south plazas were markedly expanded in 2005, the picture is more like 20 years out of date. It's like using a flattering picture of an actor when he was 20 instead of a less pretty picture of a 40something, just because he looked nicer. Theodore Christopher (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- I am not compelled to replace a very good picture that does not depict the Reach with a lesser quality picture that also does not depict the Reach. Mikewem (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
- Of course it can. WP:FNC#5. Though, I personally would still support the older shot as a superior depiction of its subject. Mikewem (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- FILENAMES does not say that inappropriately named files can not be used on Wikipedia in any circumstance. It simply cautions editors to name files appropriately. Theodore Christopher (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps the file can simply be renamed on Commons then? Funcrunch (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- B-Class Architecture articles
- Low-importance Architecture articles
- WikiProject Classical music articles
- B-Class ballet articles
- WikiProject Ballet articles
- Dance articles needing attention
- WikiProject Dance articles
- B-Class Opera articles
- WikiProject Opera articles
- B-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of High-importance
- B-Class District of Columbia articles
- High-importance District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject United States articles


