Talk:Oki Electric Industry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Business (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Reads like one long ad[edit]

That is all. -- (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Probably translated from a Japanese language slide. (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised it doesn't talk more about their printers, particularly dot matrix, as that's where most people are familiar of them. (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 21 March 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 20:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oki Electric IndustryOki (company) – "Oki" seems to be the most common of the common names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not like inventing short forms names when a perfectly acceptable formal one exists. Do you have any evidence of broad usage that surpasses the present title? RGloucester 02:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not an invented form, it's one that is used much more commonly than the formal name. "Oki" is definitely used most commonly. The corporate logo is "OKI" is all caps, and that's the name that is typically used, even by the company to refer to itself on its own English webpage. "Oki Industries" is a less common alternate. The company's history that it published reflected this, it's entitled "The 120-Year History of Oki Electric". "Oki Electric Industry" alone is almost never used; I can only find a few non-Wikipedia usages, but these all seem to be in contexts where the full name is used: "Oki Electric Industry Co. Ltd." "Oki Group" is relatively common as well. I'm not expert enough in google searches (nor can I be bothered) to quickly set out ratios, percentages, or changes of usage over time. But I do know in fact that the current WP name is definitely less common than at least three other alternatives. As an American comparison, I would say "Oki" is used about as commonly as "GE" (maybe a bit more); "Oki Electric" is used about as commonly as "General Electric" (maybe a bit less); "Oki Electric Industries" is used about as commonly as "General Electric Company": ie, not very often and generally only when the formal name is being set out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I see plenty of hits for "Oki Electric Industry" in both Google and Google News searches, comming from such sources as Reuters and The Japan Times. I see no need for a change from the present title. The lack of the "Co. Ltd." is a product of WP:NCCORP, which prefers usage without such suffixes. RGloucester 03:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not saying the formal name is never used; I'm just saying it is less common than a number of others. I don't care that much about getting this article renamed, I literally saw it in passing and it was slightly jarring because I do know that the current name is not the most common way to refer to the company in English. But whatever. Wikipedia is weird that way sometimes. I'll just go have coffee at my local Starbucks Coffee Company New Zealand. Let me know if you want to come along, I can pick you up in my Toyota Motor vehicle. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
"Oki Electric" is very common – partly because Oki Electric Industry has about 9 subsidiaries with that as part of their name, per this page. Probably introducing this much extra ambiguity is not a great idea. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I understood the article to be about the entire group of companies—original company and subsidiaries. The article is not terribly well written or structured, so it's a little hard to tell what was intended in this regard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.