Talk:Oklahoma City/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: This article has inaccurate population density

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tourism Brochure? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  "Queer" community in OKC 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POPULATION: 

message: *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)
thread_title: Interstate 644

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gay/Queer Queer/Gay

message: 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)
thread_title:  Link policy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: ====Support====
# Jibbajabba 22:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: # Jibbajabba 22:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # 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)
thread_title: Oppose

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. --204.87.108.120  19:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Metro Areas Boosterism 

message: 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 . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Split sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Strong reccomendation for cleanup 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: article changes

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Support====
*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)
thread_title: Survey

message: *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)
thread_title: Support

message: *Oppose. cf. Virginia City. —  AjaxSmack  06:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: 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)
thread_title: Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

message: 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)
thread_title:  economic note in lead 

message: 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) Okiefromokla•talk 01:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists 

message: 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.
Okiefromokla•talk 05:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs much work

message: 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. Okiefromokla•talk 21:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article opening 

message: 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. Okiefromokla•talk 21:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Okiefromokla•talk 16:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oklahoma City's nicknames

message: 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. Okiefromokla•talk 04:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Okiefromokla•talk 20:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: October 4 revert

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sonics move 

message: 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. --86.167.229.235 (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boundaries