Talk:Oklahoma City/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fabrication of facts

I took the time to fix and expand the list of Oklahoma City companies, and to make it accurate. And while I can understand the removal of the list to better the article, that person then put back the false information that I had removed. This article is now bogus to the point of being an outright fabrication. OG&E is NOT a Forbes 500 company. Sonic, Dobson, Express and Tronox are NOT Fortune 1000 companies.

This article has inaccurate population density

According to this article, the total area of Oklahoma City is 621.2 Square miles and the population is 541,500. Population density is a measure of people per square mile, or total poulation divided by total area. That makes OKC's population density at 871.6 people per square miles. So why then is this article saying that OKC has a population density of over 2,000 per square mile? Is it measuring supposed "urban area"? If so, it should say that in the city tab - but in any case, it should be measuring the city limits, because even in less urban areas that the city has incorperated, there are people who officially live within the city of Oklahoma City. You can't arbitrarily draw a line and say that you wont include half of the city of Oklahoma City in the density calculations. The correct density should be 871.6 people per sq. miles. Any seventh grader with a calculator could figure that one out.Okiefromokla 03:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Tourism Brochure?

This is one of the worst Wikipedia articles I have ever seen as far as it being read like a tourism brochure. Lots of flowery language, lots of spin. Besides, does all this stuff need to be put in? For example, talking about new apartments being built downtown? Stuff like that happens in every city how is it relevant to an encylcapedia article?

My point is, this needs to be rewritten to be a little less "Advertisey"... This is an encylapedia article it isnt supposed to a brochure for potential investers. Come on people.

Agreed and some effort has been made lately to clean that up but more work needs to be done. I commented on it recently in reference to the sections about the metro areas, but it is also an issue in other sections. --Claygate 02:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Oklahoma City listing was much better the way it was before with the neighborhoods included. It had a cohesiveness and was more representative of Oklahoma City before it was modified. Now it is one of the worst Wikipedia articles in regards to cities, and I've read a ton of them. I hope you all will consider returning it to the form it held in July. Rather than representing the city in its entirety, there is now only a portion of it shown. Oklahoma City is a sprawling city that spills into the surrounding cities. An article that does not mention at lenght the Paseo arts district or Deep Deuce or Automoble Alley or Bricktown or the Stockyards, does not properly represent Oklahoma City. Anyone who has lived here for any significant length of time knows that.

"Queer" community in OKC

"Oklahoma City has the state's largest queer community, known as the NW 39th Street Cock Sucker Enclave." Is it really called that?

Just to remind everyone: please keep your personal biases and political views out of your writing here. This is supposed to be a resource, not a soapbox.--Tosei 06:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The best way I see to clean up and expand this (and a few other articles) would be to add a new article, "Oklahoma City area," which would describe the urbanized area (including Edmond, Moore, Midwest City, Yukon, etc.). We'd stick all of the history stuff and some generalized stuff over there, and keep the city page for the neighborhoods and other city-specific stuff. Dufekin 01:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I added a bunch of stuff and tried to clean it up. I moved the history section to another page and took out a couple of pictures to keep the article under 32k, but I'm thinking about putting the history section back.--Tosei 07:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article has become pretty disorganized! The "Best restaurants" section and the "AKA" section are pretty shaky. I'm thinking about cleaning some of this up. --Nertzy 00:37, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I took out 'Parking meters' from famous inventions -- they were actually invented at oklahoma state university in stillwater, oklahoma.

This article fails to mention the Oklahoma City bombing. AlexanderWinston 18:24, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC) The Oklahoma City bombing is now noted and linked to in the overview and is briefly covered in the History of Oklahoma City article, and the memorial and museum are noted in the attractions section. I don't feel it needs to be covered more widely in the main city article since it is well covered on it's own page.--Tosei 15:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quail Springs Mall

I have removed a reference calling Quail Springs Mall the largest in Oklahoma. This is demonstrably untrue:

I thought that we could have free thought and comments about dangerous bars. Bartenders in this town are rude and violent. Lumpys and Mike's are dangerous places to visit. They have drink specials or drown nights. Young often underage patrons become violent and the the bouncers do nothing.

The Oklahoma City listing was better the way it was before with the listings of the neighborhoods. It had a cohesiveness that was more representative of the city before it was modified.


The article says that OKC is larger than cities in several states. Should it say by city limits? If you go by "Urbanized Area" KC and St. Louis are bigger. WikiDon 04:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll add in that it is the 61st largest MSA in the nation according to the Census Bureau, although some people take issue with how they determine what an MSA is (especially New Yorkers, since NYC is second to LA on the MSA list).--Tosei 04:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UMMM . . . There are more than five Plains states. Texas and Colorado are considered part of the Great Plains. Texas has several cities larger than OKC. Denver, Colorado (Proper and MSA) is larger than OKC. BTW, LA is second to NYC on the both the MSA and CSA lists. Dinobrya

Interstate 644

  • This highway doesn't seem to exist outside of Wikipedia. I've done some Googling on it and it's not mentioned on any roadgeek sites (except for discussing future designations) and isn't mentioned on Kurumi. I've removed it from the article. Can anyone else find proof that the Lake Hefner Parkway is actually a secret interstate? Scott5114 08:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • A lot of the hits I got were Wikipedia mirrors of this page, and "Interstate 644" -Wikipedia gives exactly 9 hits, and with Wikipedia mirrors further stripped from this you get 4 hits, 0 of which actually pertain.. Scott5114 08:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

LHP is actually US Hwy 74; the confusion probably arises from the fact that I44 turns into hwy 74 at the NW expressway. Sorry I didn't catch this mistake earlier.--Tosei 20:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Gay/Queer Queer/Gay

Will the editors who have an interest in this section please come to a meeting of the minds on the proper term. This editing back and forth is unseemly. I have nothing to add to the discussion. Dan Lovejoy 15:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the one that's changing to queer is the vandal as they are changing the proper names as well. --Claygate 22:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Link policy

We need a link policy for this page. Like many articles, we are experiencing "link creep." To start with , I propose that links meet these criteria:

  • Linked site is a resource for this page
  • Linked site has wide or universal appeal to Oklahoma City residents
  • Linked site is not overly commercial - no pop-ups or excessive blinky advertising
  • Linked site has abundant content about Oklahoma City
  • Directories may be linked, but not "webrings" or other traffic generating tools

This is not a comprehensive list, but it's a start. Thoughts? Dan Lovejoy 15:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Some links were reduced by merging the list of people from Oklahoma to page that already had the list and replacing it with an internal link to that list. --Claygate 15:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Page move

I would like to make it clear that, yes, I moved this page to "Oklahoma City" unilaterally, so no, there was no discussion on the topic of the move. It's simply a case of there being no name conflict and the long form sounding redundant, as with the case of New York City, which was virtually undisputed. If anyone has a problem with the move, feel free to say so here rather than simply moving it back. Jibbajabba 06:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I would really encourage listing a controversial move like this on requested moves. Simular page moves have been discussed recently and the outcome every time has gone against making more exceptions to the near-universal City, State standard for cities in the United States: see recent discussions at Chicago, Illinois and Los Angeles, California. Per this standard, I have moved this page to its original location. Please do not move again without seeing if there is a consensus for it first. Jonathunder 23:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Unlike other move suggestions, this one is not controversial in that the issue has been covered (see New York City). The non-controversial nature of the move is evident in how long it took for anyone to object to it, as this is hardly an obscure or rarely-visited page. It should be moved back per precedent set with New York; unlike Kansas City, there is no ambiguity or room for potential error here. Jibbajabba 22:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested page move

See the above conversation area; it took over two weeks for anyone to move it back after I moved it to Oklahoma City, and even then, it was moved only based on the feeling that there might not be a consensus. Rather than a lengthy debate, I hope we can get this taken care of swiftly and effectively. It is unambiguous and has a precedent with New York City. Unlike Kansas City, there is no name conflict, and "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma" sounds just as awkward as "New York City, New York". This is not about breaking standards, but rather keeping things uniform. If we allow New York to remain where it is, we should be doing the same here, otherwise it looks bad.

Also, on the argument of "What links here": That argument does not hold up to scrutiny because people link to the page that exists and often create piped links for the purpose, so please don't try to use that as an argument. It's just a case of common sense Jibbajabba 22:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)



  1. Jibbajabba 22:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Not sure why American wikipedians are so wedded to the city/state format. "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma" is ridiculous. Skeezix1000 18:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Umm, yeah, what Skeezix said. Even Canada gets it, why can't we? --Espantajo 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support show me another "oklahoma city" and I'll change my mind.--Tosei 04:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


  1. The standard for thousands of articles is city, state. So leave it here. Nothing is broken and nothing is fixed by moving the article. Vegaswikian 00:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strongly oppose. There is a standard; let's continue to follow it. Jonathunder 02:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Unnecessary to not follow the same pattern as 99.99% of other U.S. cities. NYC is an exceptional case for many reasons. olderwiser 03:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose for the reasons older and wiser gave. Thumbelina 18:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


  • If someone has a problem with New York City take it up there. It is not a precedent for every other city. Not following conventions and policies to avoid redirects from sloppy editors is not justification for changes. Vegaswikian 00:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not about a problem with an existing page, it is about common sense. This is not about redirects, it's about consistency. If you would stop thinking politically for a second and not assume this is an attempt to bypass naming conventions, you'd see that New York City, New York and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma are remarkably similar and thus there is a precedent for this article to be moved, but not every other city. Jibbajabba 07:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, so the logic is if the state and city are the same name ith a city added we don't need to follow the standard. So we should also change California City, California? I still think this is a very weak reason to not follow a clear and well adopted standard. That standard is very logcal and easy for anyone to follow. There is a difference between a precedent and a justified exception. Vegaswikian 07:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
        • We probably should if there's no name conflict or ambiguity with that city's name. As usual, though, America is backwards where even Canada (Toronto, Ottawa...) can accept that there are exceptions to the rule. Jibbajabba 21:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Metro Areas Boosterism

There seems to be a lot of boosterism about the suburbs and surrounding areas recently. Can these sections please remain more neutral in the point of view? Someone had a suggestion earlier on the page that these sections might need to be moved to a separate article. --Claygate 23:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Oklahoma City listing was much better the way it was before with the neighborhoods included. It had a cohesiveness and was more representative of Oklahoma City before it was modified. Now it is one of the worst Wikipedia articles in regards to cities, and I've read a ton of them. I hope you all will consider returning it to the form it held in July. Rather than representing the city in its entirety, there is now only a portion of it shown. Oklahoma City is a sprawling city that spills into the surrounding cities. An article that does not mention at lenght the Paseo arts district or Deep Deuce or Automoble Alley or Bricktown or the Stockyards, does not properly represent Oklahoma City. Anyone who has lived here for any significant length of time knows that. -- 19:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
My particular comment was directed more at the suburbs such as Edmond and Norman, but there was also a good argument that the neighborhood sections were getting too long and detailed for the main OKC article. Perhaps the detailed neighborhood information can be kept separate article as it is now, but to include an overview of the information about the neighborhoods in the main article in that section. Then the link to the separated article can be followed for more details. --Claygate 03:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Split sections

Having a section in this article on each and every city that makes up the OKC metro seems rather silly. It makes the article a bit long on things not actually related to OKC. I'm suggesting their content is moved to their respective city pages. We can always add them to the list of suburns in {{Oklahoma City}}. At worst, we should only hit the most notable parts of the suburns and split the rest. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. This is SRG, who is mostly responsible for the rapid expansion of the article. I would be in favor of moving all of the SEPERATE municipalities into their own page, and just mentioning them and linking to them in place of the writing. Like has been done for the history. I think we might move my downtown monstrosities to a seperate one too. Just a reminder that Westmoore is actually part of OKC, and that if we are to move Moore and Norman we should do the same for MWC, Edmond, Bethany, Yukon, and all of them. -Sooner&RiceGrad (I just had something to say on this, and am not sure if I'm doing this right.)

If a town has its own page, that's where its "town bio" belongs. FYI, if you want to sign your talk posts, use four tildes, and you'll get this: PhilTLL 08:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. OK anyway, I've gotten a lot of positive feedback, but i suppose that would be pretty easy to do. Consider them split. Oh but I do not think it was fair just to recommend the southern suburbs to be split (probably something meant by that over on the north side) and only the municipally independant suburbs are should be split. Not Westmoore, as it's part of OKC. Not Belle Isle, and I think The Village, Nichols Hills, and Bethany are open to judgement as being "independant".

I would like to leave a little stub of information, no more than a paragraph. I did Edmond and Yukon, and Mustang barely has anything as it is. Sooner&RiceGrad 13:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

City vs Metro in sidebar

Am I the only one who finds the sidebar confusing? It lists eight counties for Oklahoma City, when it extends into only 4, as far as I know. I presume that's for the metro area, but then other data, such as population, area and political leadership are clearly for the city of OKC itself. Should we have a separate section for the metro area? Teekno 01:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Could somebody list the four counties in which the city's territory is located?

Strong reccomendation for cleanup

I strongly recommend this article be tagged for cleanup. Like is being discussed above, (litterally) half of this article seems to be about OKC's surrounding towns, not to mention the parts of the neighborhood and downtown sections seem to be in a huge slant totwards advertising OKC This article is about Oklahoma City, not it's suburbs. Those sections need to be deleted. Provide links to each town's own article. This is an absurd use of OKC's article space. Also, the sections about downtown and the neighborhoods should shortned considerably to not mention so many little details about OKCs recent economic upswing. For example, nearly the whole "Downtown and the Central Business District" section talks about irrelevant things. There is even a list of the new iduvidual projects in downtown, like the specific mention of renovation of induvidual buildings. To be frank, this article is an overview of OKC, not a news bulliten. Remember, this article is not supposed to be a bias detailed account of everything good that has happened recently, but a balanced overview. --Okiefromokla 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

article changes

I removed the cleanup tag on this article because I moved the entire neighborhoods section to its own seperate article (which is now cited for cleanup), connected via a link under the new nieghborhoods section on this page. I also deleted this section describing all of the metro cities because: 1. It is not appropriate for an article about the city of Oklahoma City 2. There is already an article about the Oklahoma City metropolitan area, in which the section I deleted is located.

Also, I deleted several paragraphs under the "sports" section that are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. These paragraphs went on and on about sepculation regarding the Seattle Supersonics and if they would come to OKC or not. This is irrelevant for an article of this nature but it is also just speculation, as the OKC buisnessmen who bought the Sonics have specifically said they do not wish to move the team.

Here is the deleted section:

"Oklahoma City is also in the major league sports spotlight due to the acquisition of the NBA SONICS club by a group of local busines leaders. Oklahoma City businessman Clayton Bennett announced on July 18, 2006, that he and other OKC investors purchased the Seattle Supersonics NBA franchise, which also includes the Seattle Storm WNBA club. Bennett has long sought a major league franchise for Oklahoma City and had put together an unsuccessful bid for an NHL expansion team during the 2000 season. Many in the city are "thankful" the bid was unsuccessful due to the recent publicity of the NBA and the product the city has witnessed with the Hornets. In factt, Bennett had also made offers to Hornets owner Shinn for majority share of the team, which was denied.

"Now that Bennet's group owns the SONICS, it is presumed by most that he will eventually move the team to Oklahoma City, perhaps as soon as the Hornets leave - as they have publicly announced they intend to do. During the press conference announcing the purchase in Seattle, Bennet said publicly that he would like the team to remain in Seattle, so long as the city replaces and/or upgrades Key Arena, and Seattle remains economically viable. While he has shown publicly optimism that a deal can be worked with Seattle civic leaders within the 12-month deadline, the city has only provided the sub-spectacular "incentives" that it gave the previous ownership group, which was led by Starbucks CEO and billionaire, Howard Schultz, which they subsequently rejected and put the team up for sale.

"It should be know that the state of Washington and its residents have rejected requests to build the Sonics a new arena (similar to what was done for Seattle's other franchises, Mariners MLB and Seahawks NFL). And the Washington legislative session lasts until the end of this year. Regardless of a 12-month ultimatum given by Bennett, Seattle leaders have only the next 6-months to put a package together to keep the team in Seattle." --Okiefromokla 20:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sonic and the Oklahoma Publishing Company are not Fortune 1000 companies, OG&E IS a Fortune 1000 Company BOKF and ONEOK are not based in Oklahoma City, they are based in Tulsa, and while Gaylord Publishing is based in Oklahoma City, Gaylord Entertainment is based in Nashville. It's silly to have companies not based in Oklahoma City noted in this section so I moved the regional offices to companies with a major presence but kept the notation of regional office. York is not based in Oklahoma City, it's based in York, PA, AAR isn't based in Oklahoma City, it's a Chicago company removed "Official Entertainment" as a booking company with a myspace and one employee does not seem worthly of inclusion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS TO MOVE at this time. There is discussion to change the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements); once the issue is settled there, we can move pages around as necessary. Until then, the individual cities can stay put. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Oklahoma City, OklahomaOklahoma City — It is unnecessary for a city whose name contains the name of the state that it is located in to be followed by the name of said state (e.g., New York City, New York) Roygene 01:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.


  • Support Everyone who's obsessed with "city/state" don't get your panties in a wad. This is redundant and frankly it looks bad. I strongly support this move. Roygene 02:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • support i think it should be moved. it looks kinda redunndant Thatoklahomaguy 02:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The title Oklahoma City, Oklahoma is in blatant violation of WP:NC(CN), the most consistently followed naming convention in Wikipedia. See also Talk:Houston, Texas and Talk:Los Angeles, California. --Serge 02:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - state isn't necessary in any case. --Yath 02:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It's unnecessary to add the name of the state. Oklahoma City is unmistakable.--Húsönd 22:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Georgia guy 23:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. What other Oklahoma City is there? --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My "Great Project"
  • Strong Support -- Unique name. --Polaron | Talk 05:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as per Dralwik. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 08:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. john k 03:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support My God how idiotic are some people. There's only one city of this name so stop people so fucking stupid and someone move the page. Xania 19:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    Civility, please. There's no need for such language and insults in this discussion. -- nae'blis 17:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, unambiguous title and the common name. -- nae'blis 17:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Oppose. cf. Virginia City. —  AjaxSmack  06:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AjaxSmack. Plus, to change the title because it seems repetitive sounds like a pretty weak argument to defy convention, IMO. And would Kansas City, Kansas be qualified for moving should this precedent be adopted? I hope not, as Kansas City, Missouri has about 3 times the population as Kansas City, Kansas. Tinlinkin 10:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see the point. "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma" seems the proper way to identify the city. Why make up convoluted rules about cities with state names in them? We have a perfectly good and simple rule for identifying cities and we should apply it uniformly. Phiwum 14:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a clear name that fully defines the place. It is consistent with the usage in thousands of other cities and places in the U.S. -Will Beback 01:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tinlinkin. And to keep it simple. Gene Nygaard 01:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose to follow convention and keep it simple. Bubba ditto 22:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above comments. --musicpvm 14:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - stay consistent. Krugs 16:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While many of the pro sentiments both above and below speak of the precedent set by recent moves such as Chicago, Philadelphia, and Toronto, all three of those cities are clearly World Cities, and as such, their primacy makes them good exceptions to the City name, State name standard. Although Oklahoma City has many outstanding qualities, it is not a World City. Likewise, I do not feel that the relative uniqueness of its name merits an exemption from the existing naming standard. YMMV --Kralizec! (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Change the convention at WP:NC (settlements), then come back here. --Bobblehead 01:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per convention. AJD 02:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose See my arguement at Talk:Seattle, Washington. Also, technically New York City is "New York, New York" and not "New York City, New York". TJ Spyke 05:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Technically, New York City is the "City of New York." Technically, "New York, New York" is what you write if you want to mail a letter to the Borough of Manhattan. If you want to mail a letter to one of the other four boroughs, you address it to "Brooklyn, New York," "Bronx, New York," "Staten Island, New York," "Jamaica, New York," "Flushing, New York," "Long Island City, New York," "Far Rockaway, New York," or "Floral Park, New York." john k 22:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Will B. Jonathunder 13:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. BlankVerse 13:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Another round of this foolishness? I propose instead getting rid of the unnecessary exceptions by moving Chicago and Philadephia back. —wwoods 23:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Add any additional comments:

How often will we be revisiting this issue? The vote in January failed to move the page. Will we have a vote every ten months until the move is accepted?

Nothing has changed since last January. I don't see the point of this vote.Phiwum 14:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not true that nothing has changed since last January. First, some history: the U.S. guideline to use the comma disambiguation naming format (city, state) even when there is no ambiguity issue has always been, and will continue to be until it is abandoned, controversial, because it is inconsistent with the use the most common name convention followed by the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, including city articles for most other countries. Also, because of how this guideline was enforced - via a bot - a true natural consensus was never established for it. Instead, thousands of U.S. city articles were created and renamed using the comma format automatically by software. The behavior of human editors on one individual article at a time establishes convention, not a bot following instructions by rote on thousands of articles at a time.
So, what has changed since January? First, the Canadian editors, who once shared the guideline with the U.S., abandoned enforcement of the guideline and have experienced unprecedented peace and tranquility on their city talk pages ever since. When someone proposes a move from Canadian-city, province to Canadian-city, there is only opposition if there is an ambiguity issue. On U.S. city talk pages, however, we remain in the Wikipedia dark ages, where a similar move request, like this one, still causes much protest "in the name of following guidelines" (never mind the broader conventions that the guidelines themselves violate).
Also since January, both Chicago and Philadelphia have been moved by Wikipedia editors who recognize that being consistent with the broader Wikipedia naming conventions is more important than being consistent with the exceptions that need to be disambiguated in a particular category.
As to your other question - how often will we be revisiting this issue? - that's hard to say. It's not like each revisit is planned. Note that neither the requestor this time, nor any of the supporting votes so far, were involved with the last vote. It's important to understand and appreciate the implications of this fact: because the name of this article is in blatant violation of the most visible and widely followed convention in Wikipedia - if there is no ambiguity issue, use the most common name used to refer to the subject of the article as the article title - it is inevitable for someone, sooner or later, to propose a move consistent with that convention, and for there to be considerable support for it. How often such a proposal will be made is impossible to predict, but that it will be proposed, over and over, until the article is moved to Oklahoma City is quite obvious, at least to some of us.
So you can vote to support the move now and get it over with, or vote to oppose and therefore commit ourselves to another vote, and yet another vote, ad infinitum, until, some day, the move succeeds. Your choice. --Serge 16:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Support the move or else? Very persuasive! Phiwum 17:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You make it sound like someone is making a threat. Consequences are consequences. I'm not threatening or planning to cause the consequences (I certainly did not make this move request, or the last one), just pointing out what they are likely to be, and that it's your choice. Just don't be surprised if you see similar requests in the future until this move succeeds. --Serge 18:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Part of your problem is a misinterpretation of "broader Wikipedia naming conventions". Gene Nygaard 01:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Please clarify. Do you disagree that "use the most common name" is followed in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, and that no other naming convention has a broader following? How do you explain why Wikipedia editors continue to come out of the woodwork requesting and supporting page moves like this? --Serge 02:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a question for those who oppose this move. If this article was already one that didn't follow the US cities naming conventions, would you request it be moved to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma? Why or why not? -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 04:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Since there was an established naming convention, the one that didn't follow it would stand out from the rest. So without a compelling reason for an exception, I would support that move from Oklahoma City to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Tinlinkin 05:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I prefer "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma" for consistency's sake. Every few months, this campaign will cause further inconsistency. Some other city will lose the state, so that we will have Tulsa and Oklahoma City but also Enid, Oklahoma. Or is Enid so famous that we should drop the "Oklahoma"? Perhaps it is the most populous Enid in the world, but who the heck knows where it is? What about Guthrie, Oklahoma? Bugtussle, Oklahoma? (Okay, so Bugtussle doesn't appear to have an article. Poor Carl Albert.) Why try to carve out useless exceptions like this? Consistency is a hell of a lot preferable in my book. Phiwum 20:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Probably because there are no guidelines at all as to what can be exempted so many people are just going by naming uniqueness or primary topic usage to determine what might be reasonable exemptions. --Polaron | Talk 20:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
But I see no reason for exemptions at all. It starts with New York City. Okay, that's clearly a world city and everyone knows which one we mean. Then comes a few others and eventually relatively minor cities like Oklahoma City. And then, what the hell, Tulsa too baby! But what is the point? How is consistency oppressive? Why not a single exceptionless rule which worked for so long? What drives these strange reformists that prefer ad hoc shortenings to simple rules? I simply don't get it. Phiwum 20:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Why not Tulsa too? Consistency isn't oppressive. One problem is that it's inconsistent with the way we do things for cities in other countries. Another problem is that it's pretty strongly inconsistent with our more general naming conventions. Somebody famous said something famous about a "folish consistency"...I can't quite recall what it was, though. Something about Hobgoblins. At any rate, I've proposed a change to the general convention at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements), if anyone here is interested and hasn't seen it yet. john k 22:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer to your proposal. At least you gave a real rule there. But the rule was more or less this: Every city will be treated like so, except for these 27 cities. I don't see any advantage to that rule. I also don't see how you can keep your promise: 27 cities and no more. As soon as it passes, more ad hoc city names will be suggested and on and on it goes, for no evident purpose. Phiwum 00:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, everybody, lets calm down. THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE WORTH GOING AT EACH OTHER'S THROATS OVER!!! The main reason I suggested moving the page is because the majority of people when looking up info on Oklahoma City, will not type "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma" into the search engine, but rather type only "Oklahoma City", or "OKC". Also, someone made a valid point about the definition of world cities, which Oklahoma City is not. However, if the city itself is well-known enough that people refer to it simply by its name only and not the state that it is located in (e.g., Miami, Florida; Cheyenne, Wyoming; etc.), then IT IS UNECESSARY TO INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE STATE IN THE TITLE. I feel that we have made our case strongly, and the biggest rebuttal I have seen is simply to maintain the "city, state" format. This might actually be confusing to people who are not intimately familiar with the signifance of states in the U.S. Kabul, Afghanistan and Baghdad, Iraq are both cities located in political subdivisions within countries; however, the names of those political subdivisions are not included in the titles of their pages. If the consistency advocates really want consistency, maybe we should follow the precedent set by those cities. Roygene 02:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Roygene, dear sir: Have you noticed? If you type "Oklahoma City" into Wikipedia search, you already get the right page! Heck, try OKC. Same thing. So why do you care whether the title identifies the state or not? No one will fail to find the page. And no one will be confused by the title. And no one will have to wonder why the state name appears in some city titles, but not others. Simple and consistent. Phiwum 02:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I feel that this has gone far enough. First of all, you just significantly weakened your argument by making such vague and "all-inconclusive" generalities as, "No one does . . ." and "No one will be . . ." It is impossible to tell the number of people who will or will not be confused by anything. Second of all, I agree we do have a weak argument, howevee consider this: these proposals are going to occur. Not just on this page, but on every other city that is well-known. Surely you must have realized by now that whoever first started this policy of changing the titles of cities that are well-known by dropping the state opened a major can of worms.
Now, with that established, we have two options open to us. One, we allow this move to take place and if another such proposal is to pop up on another city, examine the arguments there and decide it on those arugments only, not on precedent. Two, we can block this move and enforce this "consistency" policy on every U.S. city, regardless or size, popularity, or world-city status. Those are our only two options. If we choose the latter, then I propose this encyclopedia adopt this policy on city articles:
  • All cities located in the U.S. or any other country where the state or province where the city is located is significant, regardless of size, etc., be titled in the style(s) (1)"city, state", or (2) "city, province".
Personally, I feel that what the Canadians or Mexicans or Germans do is up to them, but if we intend to put debates like this behind us, we will need to decide on one of these courses or action. I rest my case. Roygene 02:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that whoever first passed a US city change introduced inconsistency which just seems to beg for even more ad-hoc inconsistencies. Like you, I don't care about what other country policies are. The US is a big place in which states matter and city names are repeated willy-nilly. A nice simple rule seems appropriate for this country and we've had thar rule for some time. Phiwum 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Why on earth are those "our only two options"?? The second option appears to be a straw man, in that there is absolutely no chance that it will ever get passed. the first option I'm not sure I fully understand. I particularly don't understand how you can (hypothetically?) advocate moving this page on the basis of a vote which appears, at the moment, to be against a move. Personally, I think we should allow for a flexible rule with exceptions, whereby the standard format for american cities is "City, State," but we explicitly allow reasonable exceptions for major cities when there is no serious danger of ambiguity and the use of "City" alone is clearly a primary usage. See above, about a foolish consistency - there's no reason to enforce consistency within US cities for consistency's sake, especially when it conflicts with naming standards for non-US cities. And the chances that you are actually going to achieve Milan, Lombardy and Prague, Bohemia, and so forth, are incredibly tiny. john k 04:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
You're exactly right john, we can't advocate moving this page with so few votes in support. What I'm saying is that this is never going to end unless we either completely tear down the wall or rebuild it. In my opinion, this city does not need the name of the state to follow it because it is well-known enough as to not be ambiguous. I don't know about any of the naming conventions or whatever, but that's just what I think.
However, there is some pretty strong opposition to it and I doubt very much that this vote or a future one will pass. My point is, like what Serge pointed out (see top of discussion), is that these votes are going to happen because someone decided that important cities do not need states following them. In theory, that person was correct; however, in practice, that rule can never be fully enforced. Why? Because people who for whatever reason will believe that some city, not just OKC, will be worthy of dropping the state from the title. Surely you can see why a rule such as, "All U.S. cities, except the important ones, will be titled 'city, state'", can never work.
First, let's start by giving the definition of important. What makes a city important? Well, OKC is important for several reasons: (1) it lies on a three-way crossroads of the U.S. Interstate Highway System, (2) it is the capital city of Oklahoma, (3) it is the 31st (I think) largest city in the U.S., etc. Tulsa is the farthest inland port in the U.S.; that's fairly important. Heck, Minneapolis is classified as a world-city for Heaven's sake and it still has the "city, state" style.
Do you see what I mean? You're always going to have someone who wants it moved. That's why we have only two options open. We either have to rebuild the wall where other people have started to tear it down, or just take it down completely. Roygene 14:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Roygene, I would advise reading of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic. Basically, my position is that when a particular city is the "primary topic" referred to by its name, it should just be at Cityname. For some reason I still don't really understand, a lot of people seem to disagree with this, but this is the basic way we name articles on wikipedia. There's some discussion of the issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements), if you want to join in. john k 02:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada. --Serge 05:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

economic note in lead

Most US cities have mentions in their leads of the driving forces of a city's economy. That is notably absent here, as well as any prosaic (not a list) note on the economy in general. If anyone has done research on this sort of thing, it would greatly improve this article, as well as make it consistent with other city articles.--Loodog 01:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The part at the end about the Metro economy being bigger than KC, Nashville, San Antonio and others is a faulty claim. They are basing 2005 OKC numbers against 2001 numbers for the other cities. If one examines the external link from the GMP page, it can be seen how far off these numbers are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the source tends to indicate otherwise:

Regardless, as the information on Oklahoma City's metro economy was cited from a published, reliable source, it should remain in the article until proven otherwise. If you are not familiar with Wikipedia's official policy on verifiability, it states in part that "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." As such, I have reverted your deletion until such time as the sizes of the economic areas can be verified. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the source from the GMP page, that source says that Nashville, KC, and San Antonio all had GMP greater than 43.1 billion in 2001. The 2005 numbers are far beyond this. I do no think this information should stay up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


I do not believe this article needs any more lists. The recent list added to the education section should be converted to prose, as well as the entire economy section. Moreover, this article desperately needs an actual economy section in written paragraph form. (see Tulsa, Oklahoma article) Okiefromoklatalk 01:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This article needs much work

This article is so bad I almost get physically sick every time I look at it. I've been looking through Wikipedia articles of cities with similar population to Oklahoma City, and, frankly, I have concluded that the OKC article is the worst large American city article, and it needs a tremendous amount of work. While so much need to be done in order to get this into even a decent B-class article, I have compiled a list of things that desperately need to be fixed.

  • References
    • There is one reference listed in the right place, and that is just a URL, not a correctly cited reference.
    • There are also many "references" enclosed in only brackets "[url]" - this is not a citation, see WP:Citing Sources.
    • Way too many unsourced statements.
  • Boosterism
    • Delete flowery language describing how much Oklahoma City is on the upswing. Most of this article seems to have been written by the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce. Try to keep a Nuetral Point of View
    • Delete statements like this: "The city also has very well developed private and parochial schools": This is unsourced boosterism. Keep it encyclopedic.
    • The Sites of Interest section reads like a brochure. With that being said, this third-level section is twice as long as any second-level section, making this article's lack of a NPOV painfully obvious. There is no need to have a paragraph for every single "site of interest" in the city - cover a few high points, but make it a summary and not a comprehensive description. see:Wikipedia:Summary style
  • External Links
    • Take away all the external links embedded within the prose. The only links within the text should be to other wikipedia articles; external links should be in the external links section.
  • Sections need expansion
    • The article needed a government section, so I started a stub of one that needs to be expanded.
    • Geography
    • Neighborhoods
      • This section needs to be written from scratch.
  • Lists
    • Entire economy section needs to be rewritten as prose, but only as an overview of the city's economy. Do not go through and include the list of companies in paragraph form. Instead, create a new List of companies based in Oklahoma City article. However, mentioning companies with "large presences" in the city is not very useful, especially since the companies listed are companies that pretty much have "large presences" in every city.
    • In Higher Education section, remove the list of the colleges and convert into prose.

Okiefromoklatalk 05:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

article opening

The bit about the "central great plains states is arbitrary and stupid, why not also say Oklahoma City is the largest city in a state that ends with an A?

Also, while the overall tone of the whole page is way too much a promotional fluff piece, the opening just mentions that the city is big and that we have tornados and had a bombing, pretty depressing. How about some positive fact other than just "big"?

I removed the statement. Texas is a "great plains state," so it can't be said that Oklahoma City is the largest city in the Great Plains - Dallas comes to mind. Okiefromoklatalk 21:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma City's nicknames

The city can't have so many nicknames, we need to stick to one or two. Many of the nicknames entered are either not a common nickname or passing slang. I mean, come on, "The city?" Also, "Renaissance City" isn't the city's nickname... every city has a renaissance story and just because some members of the media started calling Oklahoma City "Renaissance City" doesn't mean it is a nickname people actually call the city, and this certainly must go from the list. Same with "Capital of the New Century," etc. Anyone have any suggestions on which ones to remove? If not, I will pick. Okiefromoklatalk 21:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why Oklahoma City needs to have so many citations added? I can understand certain claims, but why does the climate section or other well known or OBVIOUS sections need a citation for every sentence. That just looks ridiculous.

I dont see other cities needing to have so many citations for what would be obvious claims to those not from that area. It seems as tho the administration is being way too critical for anything mentioned about OKC, which shows your somewhat lack of knowledge about the place - in requiring people to cite anything that is written.

Another example is, Oklahoma City being called 'the city'. This is a common fact of knowledge to anyone who either lived or visited Oklahoma yet (no surprise) you administration people haven't heard of OKC being referenced this way and therefore YOU want to dictate what OKC culture is, otherwise requiring a citation.

In my opinion, we should only cite claims or recent facts and not have to cite every sentence just because you all are not from OKC or are not aware of "common" Oklahoma City facts or colloquialisms (such as OKC's city urban area, which everyone from OK or OKC knows is much smaller than the city limits).

Please revise the OKC page and this discussion with a common sense approach. Perhaps a few of us from OKC (I am an expat), could get together and clean it up based on what we know. Like I said, I dont see so many citations or requests for other major cities (say Seattle, where I live now) yet there are lots of colloquial and regional claims that may or may not be true - its obvious that someone edited it because there are FEW citations or requests for them. 06:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I understand where you are coming from, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. In an ideal article, almost everything need to be cited. Anything requiring verifiability or that is likely to be disputed requires a citation. Try to understand, Wikipedia is made up of random internet contributers. To someone wanting to read an encyclopedia article, an usourced statement is just like taking the word of some stranger who may or may not be familiar with the subject matter. This is why sources are required. Most people are not familiar with Oklahoma City, and therefore the article should not be verifiable only to those who have the ability to compare what they read to their own knowledge of the subject. In the to do box, I put "please cite your sources" because when users do not cite sources it puts the work to me and other editors who must go back and search the web for a source, and if one cannot be found, the statement must eventually be deleted (if it needs verifiability). Also, as it stands, none of this article is currently cited. However, please feel free to add to this article in what ever way possible per your knowledge, but keep in mind that if a source cannot be found for a statement needing validation it may eventually be removed. Once again, I understand where you are coming from as I was once new to Wikipedia and felt the same way. However, there is no way for Wikipedia to be a legitimate, trustworthy encyclopedia without being sourced correctly. I hope this helps. Okiefromoklatalk 16:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: If you need any help deciding if something needs to be cited, please feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will help the best I can. Okiefromoklatalk 16:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

October 4 revert

I reverted the deletion of the Hornets in the sports infobox. I think its important to include the Hornets since it was so recent that they were in OKC. Also, the specification that the Hornets were there from 2005-2007 takes away the possibility of misunderstanding regarding if the Hornets are still there. That will certainly be even more true when 2008 comes along. Okiefromoklatalk 04:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you and the I removed the New Orleans Horntes like they should be. I know all you Oklahoma City sports fans are desperate to field a major league sports team, but claiming a team on Wikipedia is not going to do it for you, even if it makes you feel better. Look at all the other articles of major cities, they do not claim to have teams that were once based in their city. Does Charlotte claim to have the Hornets from 88-02? Does Vancouver B.C. claim to have the Memphis Grizzlies from 95-01? Does Los Angeles claim to have the Rams and Raiders during their tenures? No! They do not. In addition, unlike these cities I just mentioned, the NEW ORLEANS HORNETS were never based in Oklahoma City but playing there temporarily. Therefore, this is an even stronger reason to why you should not try to claim the New Orleans Hornets in your article. Tboy206 18:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I assure you I have no personal feelings about the Hornets, nor do I live in OKC. Because of the special circumstances, I feel it is appropriate to include them in the infobox. One of the main reasons for this is the return of the NBA in a year or two, most likely. Also, I feel it is too soon to remove them from the infobox... they just left this year. Lastly, the Hornets were indeed based in OKC; their official name was the OKC/NO Hornets, and the team's corporate headquarters was located in OKC for that period. Temporary relocation does not mean no relocation. If no one else would like to throw in their opinion, we can leave the infobox as is. Okiefromoklatalk 20:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Just because you are assuming that the NBA is returning to Oklahoma City in a year or two does not make it valid for you to put the New Orleans Hornets in your article. Also I believe you are implying that the Seattle Supersonics will be relocating to Oklahoma CIty. Well for your information the Sonics have a lease at their venue until 2010. Plus the city of Seattle is in the process of suing Clay Bennett and the Sonics for breach of contract. Clay Bennett is truly one of the worst owners in the history of professional sports because if the Sonics do break their lease early with their venue in Seattle then it will be disastrous for all major league teams. It would also mean that no city is safe to hold their professional sports teams to their current contracts when their team can just leave early at its own discretion. But back to the argument at hand. Well if you feel that placing the Hornets in Oklahoma City is necessary then why don't you add the Hornets to Charlotte, Grizzlies to Vancouver, and the Rams and Raiders to Los Angeles? Wait, you won't becuase you are biased. Tboy206 21:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sonics move

For an explanation of my replacement of the NBA in OKC section with a paragraph, see Talk:Seattle SuperSonics#November 14 reverts. Also, just to stop discussion on multiple pages, it'd probably be a good idea to consolidate all discussions on this on the Sonics' talk page. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


How can a "city" have a population density of 360/km^2? This is lower than some entire countries such as England and South Korea. -- (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)