Talk:Nix Federal Building

Photo

Photos in the public domain here: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.478303555513148.112382.100000005222835&type=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.173.167 (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Title styling discussion

See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Hiccups for discussion of the recent set of different title styling moves. Dicklyon (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

History

The history of the building's name's styling in terms of commas and spaces is no particular interest, I would think, compared to the history of the building and when and why it was renamed. All the styling variations show is that the government doesn't pay much attention to such things. Perhaps the nits can be moved to a footnote? Dicklyon (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is in the article to prevent those who would change the name of the building to match their grammatical prejudices from doing so. It is iron-clad evidence of the history of the name, and wouldn't be necessary if certain editors weren't more interested in supposed grammatical "rules" then they were in actual facts on the ground. If those editors don't like the evidence in the history section, they only have themselves to blame. As it is, the section is completely factual, and precisely referenced as to every comma and space. I suggest that the editors who care more about non-applicable "rules" than facts re-evaluate the purpose of Wikipedia, and re-orient themselves as to their purpose in editing it. BMK (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

That's not the kind of thing we usually put into an article. I understand your motivation to do so, but wouldn't a footnote be more than adequate? Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

A footnote would be acceptable. I'll make the change. BMK (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)