Talk:Oneok: Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Stub‑class Mid‑importance 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Energy Stub‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Oklahoma: Tulsa Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma 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.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Task-force Tulsa.

Did they give a reason behind their late 1980 adoption of the name ONEOK? Did they want people to think the company was Korean? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this article is well beyond the requirements for Stub classification. I have marked for Start class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruin2 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The request to rename this article to Oneok has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

ONEOK → Oneok – Per MOS:TM. The company refers to itself as "ONEOK" but that is neither an acronym nor an initialism; the company was renamed from Oklahoma Natural Gas in 1980. "Oneok" is used by sources such as Forbes and Reuters, so the use of "ONEOK" is not universal and an exception to the style guide should not be made for this article. feminist 08:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. I just went through 4 pages on Google news and all but one result showed the company in all caps, so the nominator's sources are obviously cherry picked. Also, I'm in the same industry as ONEOK and from personal experience I've never seen the company in lowercase. It's always uppercase. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh. Both of my sources were from the first page of my Google news results. Also, I don't think WP:OR would be considered valid anywhere on Wikipedia. feminist 13:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh. Good thing I'm not using that "original research" in an article (where it says not to use WP:OR if you actually follow what you link). Furthermore, that last comment was simply anecdotal evidence to help back up my claim that the CAPS is near universal. If you want sources, here's what I found in the first page of Google News alone: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. All of these sources use ONEOK in caps (although one of the sources did use Oneok once among ONEOK the rest of the time.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no doubt that you are more familiar with this topic than I am, but based on my personal experience on Wikipedia comments like "I am familiar with the topic and this format is never used" are often ignored at discussions like RM and the various deletion processes. But there is no need to debate on this as continued discussion doesn't really benefit readers. The main disagreement here is whether "Oneok" as a style is widely used enough for Wikipedia to follow its MoS; on this issue we clearly disagree. I will leave this for other RM participants to decide. feminist 15:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • From my experience, a title should follow the preponderance of sources. The sources overwhelmingly use ONEOK, making that title the common name, and the name more recognizable to our readers. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Usage by Forbes and Reuters demonstrates that the ugly ALLCAPS is not used consistently by independent reliable sources, and the company's own logo (as shown in the article) shows "Oneok" with the initial "O" taller than the other letters. Lots of companies try to promote spelling their names and brand names in all-caps to try to appear more prominent and important. Wikipedia is not a promotional forum and does not need to follow that styling. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So when all other sources use the company's actual name, they're using it for promotional reasons? Hmm... -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see MOS:TMRULES: "avoid: TIME, KISS, ASUS, The PLAYERS Championship; instead, use: Time, Kiss, Asus, The Players Championship". In this case it seems even more clear cut, since the company itself uses mixed case in its logo. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And in those cases, sources generally don't use caps. In this case, it's almost ubiquitous. Using Time magazine as an example, a Google News search of "TIME magazine", excluding TIME's own publication, produces many more results in the lowercase than the uppercase, so yes, the article needs to be in lowercase. For ONEOK, the lowercase is rarely used. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The company also says its name is "pronounced ONE-OAK", so it is not something spelled out letter-by-letter. Lots of companies do this all-caps styling of their names. Wikipedia tries to have its own house style, and generally avoids excess capitalization, and Forbes and Reuters seem like pretty good sources to consider. Some of those other sources that you identified are just repeating the company press releases and so forth, not really exercising their own independent judgment. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Related article: If this article is moved, I suggest that ONEOK Field should also be moved correspondingly. I am placing a move discussion notice on that article's Talk page. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, but... – I oppose the current naming suggestion, but wouldn't oppose to the article being named OneOK. "OK" stands for Oklahoma, where the company was founded and is headquartered. My other reason for opposing this move is that it it is the same as NASCAR – we don't pronounce it by each individual letter. Unless articles like NASCAR are moved, I will oppose any requested moves in this area. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]