Talk:Oneok

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Guanaco 11:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose per
  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]

You're talking about the abbreviation of the

National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, right? I also notice that the energy company says the final two letters are pronounced "oak" rather than "O.K." I think NASCAR is more like NASA, and I strongly suspect that Forbes and Reuters use "NASCAR" and "NASA" rather than "Nascar" and "Nasa". Those are abbreviations, and this one is not. Do any reliable sources use "OneOK"? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

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.

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: Consensus to move; The lowercase title is clearly supported by arguments considering the sources available and

• ONEOK → Oneok
• ONEOK Field → Oneok Field

And here is Forbes and Reuters using "ONEOK", so it is by no means universal even among those publications either. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per last time. ONEOK is much more
  WP:RECOGNIZABLE than Oneok. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

To give an example, Jack White is playing a concert tonight at ONEOK Field. I did a search for this concert, and every single one of the first ten results I got use "ONEOK": [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked two of those and they were both

primary sources, so you appear to be wasting both our time and yours by giving them. Andrewa (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Huh? None are from ONEOK, and most are news stories, such as from the

MOS:TM. The lowercase, on the other hand, does not enjoy widespread usage so there is no violation, as you claim. If you want more significant publications, here is New York Times and USA Today further demonstrating that the widespread usage of the caps IS the common name. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you following any of the links I'm giving? I'm following yours, but it's mostly a waste of time. A news story based on a press release is a

primary source, and your latest link to the New York Times is explicitly that. The other one does seem to qualify as a secondary source (finally), but so do the two counter examples given by BarrelProof below. In order to have demonstrated "widespread usage", you need more than one. Please, if they are there, be a bit selective in providing them. Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

You are not required to participate in this discussion if you feel it is a waste of time. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But it's not the whole discussion that is a waste of time, just the primary sources you are providing. And I think it's good use of my time to point this out. Otherwise, others might mistakenly think that they are relevant to the discussion. Andrewa (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per last time. This seems like a promotional styling that is not followed in some independent reliable sources. Wikipedia guidelines say to use ordinary English styling in such cases when the sources are mixed. The company says the final two letters are pronounced "oak" rather than "O.K.", so I think Oneok is more in line with ordinary English styling than OneOK, and Oneok is used by Forbes and Reuters. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It seems a simple case of violation of
  MOSTM. Andrewa (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Oppose move – see my comment from the last requested move for this. Corky 16:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's this one? So you oppose this move, but would support a move to OneOK? Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I note this is reversing

 04:46, 28 May 2017‎ Tavix (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (36 bytes) (+36)‎ . . (Tavix moved page Oneok to ONEOK over redirect: Revert, this is pretty much always in caps.)

which appears to have been undiscussed at the time. I'm a bit surprised that the RM at #Requested move 28 May 2017 above didn't simply reverse that, I guess from the edit summary it was itself reversing a still earlier move. Andrewa (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which itself is reversing

(cur | prev)  15:00, 26 May 2017‎ Feminist (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (7,574 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Feminist moved page ONEOK to Oneok: Not exactly an acronym) (undo | thank)

which was also undiscussed at the time. The all caps

Exactly! But that point wasn't made at the last RM, and I didn't find that previous move although I guessed it was there and looked for it... but not well enough. Andrewa (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

talk page or in a move review

. No further edits should be made to this section.