User talk:Pyxis Solitary/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Changing numbers to text

Please take more care when you change numbers to text. Your changes today broke numerous links to the individual season articles. The damage to List of Lost Girl episodes should have been obvious.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 12:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to not respond sooner. I've been off the grid. I sincerely apologize. That was not my intention. As obvious as some things might be, sometimes eyes glaze over and you don't see what's in front of your nose. I wouldn't deliberately make your staying on top of Lost Girl articles any harder than it already is. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television - cast order

Regarding your summary at Lost Girl,[2] WP:TVCAST specifies that "cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list". This is reflected in the instructions for {{Infobox television}}. The credit order in the first episode of Lost Girl was Anna Silk, Kris Holden-Ried, Ksenia Solo, K. C. Collins, Zoie Palmer, Rick Howland and Cle Bennett. Once actors are credited as main cast they stay listed that way, which is why Ksenia Solo is still in the list, despite only being credited as a "special guest star" in the season 5 premiere. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is screwy. Such policy is arbitrary and contradicts the established opening title sequence created for the series. I pulled up the episode after reading your message and Emanuelle Vaugier (first name misspelled) follows Cle Bennett in the credits before the "Created by Michelle Lovretta" credit. Based on Wikipedia's screwy thinking, her name should appear in the infobox, too. It's a Fae, Fae, Fae, Fae World (1.01) did not include the traditional opening title sequence -- that started with the next episode Where There's a Will, There's a Fae (1.02). Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I just checked the second episode and didn't see Vaugier at all. The order in the aired episode is Silk, Holden-Ried, Solo followed by the "Created by Michelle Lovretta" credit. After that is Collins, Palmer, Howland, Richard McMillan and then Elias Toufexis. After that is "casting by Lisa Parasyn" etc. The credit order in the aired episodes is rather screwy. Sometimes starring cast is credited before "Created by Michelle Lovretta" while other times they're credited after. When they are credited after, it's often the case that other, clearly non-starring cast are included as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

My typographical error. It is episode 1.01 that Wikipedia insists the credits should be based on, right? She is included in the opening credits of 1.01. Followed by Michelle Lovretta. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Vaugier isn't credited in a starring role in 1.01. The credit is "With Guest Star Emanuelle Vaugier". She's only a guest star so she shouldn't be in the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as the episode itself is concerned, the only difference between Vaugier and Bennett in the credits is in how their billing was negotiated in their contracts. She appears as much as he does in the episode. Wikipedia's idea on this matter is counter-intuitive and you know as well as I that editors are going to change the infobox time and again because how names appear in it clashes with the show's own promotion of who are considered the primary actors. But I give up. Wikipedia is obtuse.

P.S. The Lost Girl Wiki is leaving Lost Girl Wikipedia in the dust. It is more up-to-date and fact-checked than Lost Girl's main article here. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Because we have a clear guideline, and a template with clear instructions, it's generally easy to ward off changes by people who don't bother reading the guideline that was created with consensus formed by many editors. People need to remember that this is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is an encyclopaedia, but articles about TV shows are edited by fans of those shows. If you don't watch a TV show, if you do not care about a TV show, you don't come to Wikipedia to add info about it. The Lost Girl article has nose-dived. I used to stay on top of it and contributed a lot of info, but there needs to be other knowledgeable, neutral editors contributing information.

The fanatics engaged in shipping wars visit the Lost Girl article, piss on it, and someone who still cares about the article and has the initiative reverses their graffiti. Have you seen what has been done to the Zoie Palmer article? From what I can tell it has no Admin cat at the gates and the mice have had a good time playing with it. But I digress. My issue is that decisions made by Wikipedia are based on a consensus of editors who are constantly involved in Wikipedia. But Wikipedia can only thrive if the occasional editor contributes to it. And decisions about articles that depend on editors being fans of the topic need to be flexible because the first season of a TV series with more than that one season is not necessarily representative of the TV show as a whole -- yet that is what will remain in perpetuity within Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I need to make something clear about the Lost Girl Wiki vs Lost Girl Wikipedia: the wiki is based on the same encyclopaedic foundation as Wikipedia. It has policies and instructions. It thrives on the contributions from fans of the TV show (same as the Wikipedia article) but with more bells and whistles (videos, images, individual pages for episodes, actors, species, mythology, folklore, etc.). The rule of thumb about adding content to pages, however, is flexible so that the changes in production, and the evolution of characters and the story arc can be accommodated. I periodically archive the wiki so that it will remain a slice of the Internet pie until kingdom come. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"Back half" of Lost Girl Season 5

Thanks for correcting. The article I cited was unclear that it wasn't the back half (the remaining 8 eps of the split season) and in my excitement at having (I thought) a start date for the last few eps I misread it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlairman (talk • contribs) 19:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Completely understandable. I think we're all eager to see Part 2 already (I know I am). As it is, the only news about the final 8 episodes is that they will begin in Fall 2015, but Showcase's programming schedule with a specific start date won't be announced until months from now. However, your citation is perfect information to include in the Lost Girl (season 5) introductory section (see Lost Girl (season 4) for what I mean), and Lost Girl main article's Development and Production > Season 5, section. Cheers! :-) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Manual of Style on blockquotes

I did not mess up anything. The Manual of Style clearly states that one is not to use decorative quotation marks on blockquotes. See MOS:BLOCKQUOTE: "Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use....)" Please desist from your personal attacks and incivility. Good day. Skyerise (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I also don't understand why you prefer bitching to fixing. Please stay off my talk page in the future. Skyerise (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Citing scenes in episodes

Regarding this edit summary, you can cite scenes from episodes using {{cite episode}}.[3] If you want to cite an entire scene, add a time-code using time, but if you just want to cite a phrase or a word, like "Dennis" as Bo's last name, add the time using minutes.[4] --AussieLegend (✉) 08:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw your edit. I learned something new. :-) Thank you! Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That's always a good thing. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Zoie Palmer

I wasn't avoiding your comment — as you can see from Correctfact's talk page, I had actually already given them a first-level warning to stop it even before you posted to my talk page, and their behaviour hasn't yet recurred even once since I did that. So the only thing I could really do at the time was to wait and see what happens — as of right now, though, they still haven't actually re-edited the article since I posted my first message to their talk page. I'm absolutely prepared to escalate it to the next step if and when they do try to edit the article again, but until that actually happens I can't really do much more than I've already done. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A user can't be blocked for inappropriate behaviour until they've been explicitly warned that a block is in the cards (and you can't immediately jump to a block threat in a first warning, either — only on a followup warning can you start raising the possibility of blocking the editor, and only if the behaviour still continues after that can you actually follow through on blocking them.) My actual intention was only to pageprotect the article for a few hours as an immediate measure, but I appear to have accidentally selected a full week from the drop-down menu by mistake — so now that I have given them a "you can be blocked if you do it again" warning, I've dropped it back down to semi. But blocking the editor wasn't an option at the time, because they hadn't reached that level of warning yet. The editor does also have a prior history of editing on another unrelated topic prior to the Zoie Palmer thing, and have made a not-problematic edit to James Franco since — so I can't just label it as an WP:SPA that was created solely to vandalize Palmer's article.. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This individual is obsessed with making unwarranted and unsubstantiated changes to the article. I appreciate that you're on top of his actions and that you have given him a direct warning. As the saying goes: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Pyxis Solitary (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Carol talk

Hey there! I left a question on the Carol talk page, and would like your opinion. If you could, could you check it out? Hope your having a great day! Vmars22 (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I left another question on the talk page for the film, if you could check it out and leave your opinion, that'd be great! :) Vmars22 (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Left another question on the Carol talk page! Could you check it out and leave your opinion? :) Vmars22 (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Patricia Highsmith avalanche :-)

Greetings. This is not a big issue but could you, please, try and consolidate whatever changes you are making into as few edits as possible? Yesterday alone you edited the article 17 separate times. On the 15th of March, you edited it 13 times, one after the other, while on the previous few days your edits totaled some 24 times. This is not meant to discourage editing at all; only to kindly ask if you could please change whatever you want in bigger and fewer edits. The reason is that this makes it much easier to track changes and thus check for mistakes, etc. Thank you. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

"Yesterday alone you edited the article 17 separate times."

On the 6th? Really? Then why does the history show 5 times?

"On the 15th of March, you edited it 13 times"

On the 15th of March? Really? Then why does the history show 3 times?

"This is not meant to discourage editing at all;"

Yes it is.

If when I edit an article I find additional or better information, I edit the article again. If I realize I forgot something, I edit the article again. If I think it needs to be tweaked one more time, I edit the article again. Unlike most Wikipedia editors, I give full explanations for the edits I make that entail more than a minor copyedit. If you want to know what I edited and why, you will find the reason in the edit summary. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

My dear Pyxis Solitary, this was a small suggestion meant only to assist everyone, including yourself, to better edit this thing called Wikipedia. There is no rule mandating as few edits as possible. I was explicit about it. This is about making an effort to examine the previewed text rather than plunging ahead one edit at a time. Once again: This is not a big problem.

Apologies for confusing the dates. The sum of your edits in the last three days is 17, as follows:

7th of April: 4 edits

6th April: 5 edits

5th April: 8 edits

For the month of March alone, there must be 50 distinct edits you made to the article! It's an astounding average but, like I said, if this is your preferred way of doing things, by all means, have at it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

"The sum of your edits in the last three days is 17,"

"For the month of March alone, there must be 50 distinct edits you made to the article!"

It's called giving a damn about an article, and wanting to improve it as much as possible and deliberately (go look up what the word means). Good day, sir. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Archive URL

Hi there! I took what you wrote about archiving a URL, although, I'm having a bit of a problem. I did the proper citation, I kept clicking preview, and everything worked out! :), until I clicked save, and the red box appeared stating my issue was the link is "shorted". How do I fix this? :) I attempted to include the link here on your talk page, although, it said the same thing it told me when I was editing the article. Vmars22 (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

What's the article and the citation? I'll look at it and see what's going on. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is Higher Ground, in the development section, it states "Adriana Farmiga served as the film's artist", but the citation for the article website has been removed or something, but someone ended up archiving it. I attempted to put the archive citation on your talk page, but Wikipedia told me the same thing it told me when I tried to save the article "Don't use shortcuts". I appreciate it you checking this out :) Vmars22 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't know what happened when you tried it, but I edited the citation and it now links to the archive URL. See my summary re edit. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again for including the citation, sorry I'm responding/thanking now :) I meant to earlier, but just forgot. Vmars22 (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Number 9 Films

Hi Pyxis! My edit based upon what I've seen on other articles for the box office section of the filmography box, none of them used "as of". For example, on the A24 article, Cinelou Films, Lionsgate and Universal Pictures. It wasn't based on my opinion. I was going by on what I saw on those articles while editing. Vmars22 (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vmars22: If there is no specific Wikipedia policy or guideline, then it's a coin toss made by other editors. Where in Category:Film templates do you see a template just for "Filmography". There isn't one. Filmography sections are a Table list: MOS:TABLE. There are no MOS instructions about what you can and cannot include in them.

How many filmography sections exist in Wikipedia? Have you looked at every, single one of them? How many film production company articles don't have a filmography Table section? Look at EuropaCorp, Film4 Productions, StudioCanal UK, 40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks, for example. Look at Amblin Entertainment: the editors there named the section *Motion pictures*. Look at List of films released by Miramax: do its tables and their editing follow the exact same formula as every other article like it?

Should the lack of a filmography section in some articles be interpreted to mean that NO film production article should have one? If some articles have named their Table list "motion pictures" does this mean that all such sections in every article that has one should also be named "motion pictures"?

Why can't you create instead of delete? You wait for other editors to create articles and contribute content (the hard work) -- and then you drop by and tinker with it. Why, for example, is editing punctuation more important than doing the research necessary to contribute the *Awards and Recognition* information the Number 9 Films article needs?

@Lapadite77: has edited the Table. When she edits something I respect it because she knows a lot more about how Wikipedia works than I do (and about WP b.s., too, for that matter). Did she frig around with the Table as you have? No. Has she ever added speculative content that came from a fan chat room to the Carol article, as you have? No. Does she edit because Sally or Johnny did it this way or that way, as you have? No. 'Nuff said. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I've created a list of articles, and I frequently go back and expand, contribute, etc, when information about them is found. I add information to articles if I find that I think is relevant to the article, I will add it, and go from there. I've been learning my way on here much better this last few weeks and I'm starting to get the hang of it. Instead of deleting and causing a hassle which with every edit I make that is not way I want it solved in anyway shape or form. I've also just learned not to add "Amazon" to articles, and content from fan chat rooms. It took me a while, but I figured it out. I'm sorry my edits on the Carol article are not the best, I'm not the best editor, I make mistakes on here. If you look at my contribution history, you'll notice with the articles I edit, I always have to go back when I should just click "preview" which I'm now going to start doing, but anyway, like you said before, "should also be named motion pictures"? I was just going by those four articles, and I will just edit the way the filmography box states. I respect Lapadite's edits and I respect yours if anything, I've learned much more about the editing styles and policy from the two of you. I'm sorry if it seems I'm "tinkering" with articles or anything. I just wanted to let you know I'm still learning and I'm sorry about the "motion picture" the final "cut" and "cast" problems I've created on the Carol article.

Like you wrote above "Why can't you create" instead of "Delete"? "Than doing the research nesscary to contribute to the Awards and Recognition" information the Number 9 Films article needs? I will start to look for research on creating that section. Does that section mean awards and recognition they films they've made gotten or actual awards the company itself has gotten? :) Vmars22 (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Added some information about the projects, and a two box-office grosses that were missing from the table. Wanted to discuss the Awards & Recognition here, before editing or adding anything :) Vmars22 (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop editing the article. You screwed up a perfectly good citation and left it with a "Check date values in: |date=" advisory. And the Box Office Mojo citation you added for And When Did You Last See Your Father? ... WTF? It's invalid. Stop tinkering with the article. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Will no longer edit that article and the Carol article (including soundtrack & novel) Vmars22 (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Weighing in - regarding "as of" in the BO column, there's no guideline or wiki project consensus I'm aware of that suggests one way or another. I didn't remove it because of that plus I've no issue with it. An alternative would be to add a note to each BO entry or a table legend. This is up to editor preference, but hardly worth contention. If there's disagreement, local consensus would settle it (reminder that WT:FILM can help). Vmars22, I recommend reading WP:Otherstuffexists. As for other editing issues, I believe Vmars is well-intentioned as has usually made constructive edits when he's contributed content. Vmars, I do stress you pay more attention to detail and preview your edits, as well as read the guidelines and policies others link. If your edits are causing a lot of errors and problems due to inexperience / lack of policy and guidelines knowledge or comprehension, I suggest proposing them on the talk page (which you've done a few times). Remember you can always ask another editor their opinion on an edit or clarification of a guideline, and like I said, WP:FILM is a good resource for film-related articles and editor input. Lapadite (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Title change

Hello, Pyxis! I made a quick edit on the Number 9 Films article. We Happy Few has been re-named Their Finest. I've updated Happy Few to The Finest. I know I've said multiple times I will no longer the article and that is true from now, I just wanted to update the article in order to make it accurate. Hope your having a good day! :) Vmars22 (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the film's name. Vmars: if you refrained more often from deleting information because you thought it should be deleted, your editing wouldn't have pissed me off as it did.

BTW, where did you find that the name of the movie had been changed? According to Number 9 Films' website, it is still called "We Happy Few": http://number9films.co.uk/upcoming_releases/we_happy_few/ Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It is playing at TIFF this year, http://tiff.net/films/their-finest/, http://variety.com/2016/film/news/magnificent-seven-denzel-washington-toronto-film-festival-1201823106/, I was also thinking about adding that both Finest and Limehouse Golem are playing at TIFF, but would it sound more like trivia if added? Vmars22 (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Unless it involves an award associated with it, a film being screened at TIFF or any film festival is irrelevant information. If, however, a British production's world premiere is at a film festival in the UK, US or Canada, this information would be important. If its international premiere is at Cannes, this is definitely an important film festival mention. Wherever a film premieres is an important fact. Otherwise, no.

What you should do to cover your editor arse is find a citation that supports your changing the film's title. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Cold Squad

I noticed your edit summary at Cold Squad after making my edit. WP:TV consensus seems to be requiring AAA compliance (technically it's always feasible since the choice is somewhat arbitrary, but it doesn't have to strictly match the color on the poster etc. if color compliance is an issue), as episode lists which are not AAA compliant are automatically categorized in Category:Episode lists with invalid line colors‎. – nyuszika7h (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems like the script only made it slightly darker, so not a big deal I guess. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

???

Revision as of 08:19, September 14, 2016 was made by User:AlexTheWhovian.

Revision as of 13:41, September 14, 2016 was made by User:Nyuszika7H.

Are you one and the same?

The "AlexTheWhovian" color (#8A4523) was too brown. The color I originally chose was a closer approximation to the color of Sgt. Ali McCormick's hair during seasons 1 and 2. It became an immediately recognizable feature of the character, for which Julie Stewart was good-naturedly teased. The McCormick hair color began as auburn with redder highlights increasing gradually during the course of each season.

To see an example of the character's hair color: http://www.justwebshop.nl/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/c/o/coldsquad2_2d.jpg

The second color I selected (#a14614) has a %64.14 red RGB. The "Nyuszika7H" color (#923E12) has %64.60. The %88 yellow CMYK remains the same. So, the third new color works.

Re WP:TV: There is no content dealing with color compliance. But the content in WP:COLOR specifically states:

"Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible...."

It does not say the entirety of AAA level must also be met. Based on what is stated in WP:COLOR, #a14614 did meet the WP:COLOR criteria (for Snoop's Colour Contrast Check the "a" needs to be "A"). Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

American Film Institute

I have removed the content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://www.afi.com/afiawards/whatis.aspx and http://www.afi.com/afiawards/criteria.aspx, which are copyright web pages. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Completely understandable. I know that everything everyone knows about AFI is based on what is provided by AFI to the public and media, but I'll have to think like a journalist and figure out how to rewrite it. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Pyxis Solitary. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in the University of Minnesota

I am Weiwen Leung, a student at the University of Minnesota. I am currently conducting a study on how people on the LGBT+ Wikipedians group use and contribute to Wikipedia.

Would you be willing to answer a short 5 minute survey? If so, please email me at leung085@umn.edu. It would be helpful if you could include your Wikipedia username when emailing.

Thank you, Weiwen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiwensg (talk • contribs) 18:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Carol

Tenebrae – December 2016

Tenebrae : 11 December 2016

Hi, Pyxis. I agree with you that the Hollywood Music in Media Awards should be included if it has a Wikipedia article; I must have mistyped the name when I went to see. Thank you for catching that. It does actually say at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Accolades that, "Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability. Because of the proliferation of film festivals and 'award mills', festival awards should be added with discretion, with inclusion subject to consensus. Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not included." No worries; all good. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Actually, I noticed only after the fact that you had placed the entire list, violations and all, at Talk:List of accolades received by Carol (film). Please note that Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply to talk pages as well as to article pages. Trying to place disallowed edits on the talk page is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy, and I would hope and ask that you do not edit-war over this, since an RfC with other editors would go unanimously to uphold policy. I understand you're a fan of the movie, but we can't undermine Wikipedia policy for that. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC) That list in the Talk page was created January 2016 and you're the only one who has found an objection to it. Admins have kept an eye on every article associated with the film for the last 12 months and not one of them has objected to it. This is my talk page. You're in my territory. Therefore .... find someone else to bullshit. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC) See my comment on the article's talk page. I would also ask you refrain from name-calling, a violation of WP:CIVIL that, as long as you're bringing up admins, doesn't sit well with them. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Stay away from my Talk page. Go run to an admin about it. There's nothing "civil" about a bully and a liar ... and that is what you've proven yourself to be. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Since when are rooms italicized?

Hi. I don't get this, italicizing "Oak Room" throughout the text. Never heard of buildings or parts of buildings being italicized, here or elsewhere. Herostratus (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The "Oak Room" is the official name of the room and the title of the article. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

True, but that doesn't mean it should be italicized. Some things we italicize -- ship names, movie titles -- but we don't italicize building names and since rooms are parts of buildings I don't think we should italicize them either. Herostratus (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you for the info. :-) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)