Talk:Nix Federal Building

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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