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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
9/11 isn't in the top paragraphs on New York City, so why should the Murrah bombing be so? Not that it didn't happen--I remember that part down to the second--but it really doesn't belong up top in what is basically an essential summation of the city. It doesn't define or epitomize us in any way and it never has. Yes, it was horrible, but Katrina isn't even at the top of the New Orleans article, and it was far more city-altering (literally). Queasy borderline between "merely inappropriate" and "gross historical grief pimping". PhilTLL (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understand why it would feel odd for the natives who don't go about their daily life thinking about the bombing or in fear for another one, but for most of the rest of the US population, yes, it's the only/most notable thing about the city at present. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, current Google pulls up 21m results for "Oklahoma City" and almost 1m for "Oklahoma City" bombing (5%). NYC and 9/11 are 141m to 11m (8%). 120m to 13m (11%) for New Orleans and Katrina. Personally, I'd say that argues more for inclusion on their pages than exemption from this one, but you're free to argue the other way. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, about mentioning the bombing in the opening--it's not appropriate, especially in the same paragraph about its founding dating--not the same subject. For whatever "bad" occurs in a city, that should not be in an intro, and this "freak" guy (now executed, yeah!) is not indicative of anything.
Open invitation (may I be so bold), persons of OK City: edit this article properly, of course without favoritism.
Rambling, personally: I grew up in Palatine, IL, site of the Brown's murders. I don't know what the article here states, but that's not a prime example of what Palatine is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.38.25 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not likely. For one thing, the OKC-based owners seem determined to sever any connections to Seattle and the Puget Sound area. And I seem to recall the NBA having objections to the idea of the Grizzlies being renamed as the Express because it might suggest a connection with FedEx. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard from several people that the opening picture of the bombing should be replaced with a picture that reflects the nicer side of OKC. I agree that a nicer picture should be placed first but also feel that the bombing picture should not be removed. I have placed a 1890's picture of OKC in the history section and made a section about the bombing where I moved the above mentioned photo. I hope this is ok for everyone.
Besides the lack of citation, the Oklahoma City page is a terrible read. It's full of bias. The author (or authors) appears to have created a piece in defense of something. As if disparaging remarks about this city are all that are known.
On accuracy, I didn't get much into the article because very little was cited and because of lack of neutrality. However, at the bottom of the page the article lists "Oklahoma Outlaws" of the USFL as a professional sports team of Oklahoma City. It mentions (co-owned with Tulsa). Especially with lack of citation this is disturbing, however, the Oklahoma Outlaws played all of their home-games in Tulsa. What factually (or in the author's opinion) makes Oklahoma Outlaws a "co-owned" team, or a team that has anything to do with Oklahoma City? Why would Oklahoma City have a claim to any link to the Outlaws, given that the Outlaws never played in Oklahoma City?
It was probably some Oklahoma City person assuming that any team whose name includes the word "oklahoma" must be from Oklahoma City... they like to forget that Tulsa is here too. You're right, the Outlaws played only in Tulsa for one season (1984) before moving to Arizona. I've removed it.
You're also right that this article is pretty bad. Some months ago, it was much worse, but I cleaned it up a bit and removed a lot of unsourced boosterism. Even so, it seems like the Oklahoma City chamber of commerce wrote much of the article. You can always be bold and improve the article yourself, and you are not only welcome to do so — you are encouraged! It would be great to have someone work on it; I never have done serious editing because I am just not all that familiar with Oklahoma City and my time on Wikipedia is fickle. However, this is a high priority article not only for Wikiproject Oklahoma but for Wikiproject Cities and it needs some hard work fast. I'm putting up a neutrality and reference tag for the time being. Okiefromoklaquestions?22:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the things that are noted as needing citation, what needs to be changed. There is a lot of "boosterism" of positives, but plenty of mentions of the negatives, including poor inner-city schools, disastrous results of Urban Renewal, and of course the bombing. As far as neutrality goes, I don't see an imbalance. What needs to change? Jbrown84 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess part of what got me going on this article was under the Geography section. The article states:
"Contrary to popular belief, the geography is not flat and treeless (like in the true high plains to the west), though some areas of the southern and western portions of Oklahoma City are more level."
To paraphrase: "please don't think of us as flat and treeless, but if you come here, don't be surprised if you see some flat and treeless areas."
Instead, "Oklahoma City has a diverse topography ranging from.....". Give a description of the types of terrain. Load it up with citations, then if possible, perhaps add a topographical map.
It seems to me that the line itself is completely unnecessary. Very rarely, IMO, should a defense of (or appeal to) "popular belief" be used. The author/authors didn't take a poll to find out what popular belief is, and if they did take such a poll, they obviously didn't cite it. The section does go into type of geography, though again with little citation.
The neutrality issue goes both ways IMO. Both "boosterism" and "disparaging remarks" should be limited. The author's opinion, whatever that is, needs to be limited. Naming objects, places, peoples, terrain, climate; that's great. I'm sure Oklahoma City has great points and not so great points. Saying "this is great" or "this we could do without" or "it's popular to believe but"; those are the author's opinions. And it goes to what the author is trying to prove; hence Neutrality.
I could pick and choose several lines in different sections. That's one line that really stood out to me the first time I read it. I'll take a closer look at the article and see if I can contribute to cleaning it up some. I've never edited Wiki, and so I'm somewhat hesitant to start now. Maybe I'll find my intestinal fortitude somewhere.
--Zoroaster8000 (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The geography section is what did it for me, too. It is true that much of the "boosterism" has been removed (mainly by me, actually) but some of it is still there, although it is nowhere near as bad as it once was. I may have overreacted with a neutrality tag, but the article is certainly very bad due to its lack of sources. If the neutrality tag is disputed, please remove it. Okiefromoklaquestions?02:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some of the uncited information and tried to clean up the Film district section. It was pretty much a plagiarism from a guest blog article on The Oklahomans' Web site. I provide some citations from that source in the section, but it needs quite a bit of cleaning up still. Okiefromokla 02:17, 26 January 2010
The crime section is just ridiculous. It seems as if someone is trying to prove how "hard" the city is when in fact it has a single digit murder rate and is relatively safe for an American city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.27.225 (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the first two paragraphs of the crime section. The only reference was to an out of date DOJ document, and I sure don't think the DOJ, or any police agency can be considered a reliable reference for anything but statistical crime info. It is in the police's best interest to promote the idea that a given city is dangerous, as in this day of declining budgets, the police department's share of the limited money pie is fueled by keeping the citizens in fear. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of the crime section should be removed in its entirety. There is no evidence cited as to the existence of the Juarez Cartel, nor the Sinaloa Cartel, other than a mysterious article full of gloom and doom printed in the Daily Oklahoman, with not a SINGLE mention of any Defendant by name, much less the inclusion of any actual convictions (footnote 68). This paragraph appears to be planted by the police to justify their budget, which might sell newspapers but raises real questions for inclusion in an encyclopedia. 71.30.146.54 (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this should be moved to Oklahoma City. There's no other usage of the name that would confuse anyone, when people say Oklahoma City, it's pretty well understood, and there's precedence to call an article on a city a certain way based on the usage (in that it's understood that NYC = NY). Kansas City is not a factor, as I'm not trying to move either to "Kansas City" because there DOES exist confusion in that case. I don't think uniformity is a factor either, because it's been established already that the state doesn't HAVE to be after it. I mean, after all, what's the number one reason we put the state after the city? For disambiguation purposes, of course. After that, people decide on uniformity, but not all pages NEED to be disambigged - disambiguation is only present if it needs to be, and I don't believe that uniformity should matter. I mean, it's not even like people say the whole thing most often, because it's understood what Oklahoma City means. No one says New York City, New York, because it's redundant. The only time you really hear people doing that is if it's very formal, or if someone writes a list. A list is a different story, because since all of it's one list, uniformity does matter - the list has to be consistent with information provided. However, articles are a case-by-case basis. The reason so many city articles disambiguate this way is because they have to - many either share their name with other cities or have a name based on a person, place, thing, or other word (St. Paul for instance also refers to a Priest). If none of this were true (and I know, it's an unbelievable scenario, but bear with me), and disambiguation in this way weren't needed, we'd call everything St. Paul, Boise, and Oklahoma City. But in this case, the obvious solution for any city that DID need to disambig would be to do so, so why isn't the reverse true? - A Link to the Past(talk)06:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a long-standing and contentious issue that has gone around in circles for years, and it might be hard to reach consensus this time. I undertsand your reasoning, but I've always found this move to be unnecessary, and I still find no real reason to deviate from the standard way American cities are written (City, state), regardless of it being slightly repetitive in this case. I'm closer to the fence about it than you might think, but the most serious problems with this article have nothing to do with its name. In any case, it might be a good idea to post a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) if you're serious about trying to reach consensus and getting editors involved in the discussion.
I agree with the other Okie. The standard (with few annoying exceptions) is that US cities are identified as City, State. Adding exceptions one at a time doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Phiwum (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong preference either way, but with regard to New York City, there are reasons for its location not applicable here. The actual name of the city is "New York" which under standard usage guidelines yields: New York, New York. The problem is there's a great deal of ambiguity with "New York, New York", as this often means Manhattan only. Keeping the article at New York City made the most sense and was the choice most inline with user's probably expectations.--Loodog (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Okie, above. The net benefit is relatively minimal at the risk of overturning the apple cart - there is a perfectly good standard in place and no compelling reason to start the practice of introducing exceptions anew. Shereth22:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Okie too. There's no problem that needs fixing. New York is a special issue and editors over there are even now engaged in a fruitless debate over the right name. It's best to stick with the naming conventions unless there's a special reason to do otherwise. ·:· Will Beback·:·18:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image Image:The Oklahoman front page.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
An editor added this [1] sentence to the entry at about the same time he added it to Indianapolis[2]. I'm not sure I'd consider the latter case to be "sharing"—it's not quite New York, New York, after all—but I get the point. What do others think about the statement? Is it accurate? Is it encyclopedic? Shall we keep/delete/edit it? GreenGourd (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it would be a true statement to say that it's one of two cities to share etymological roots with the its state, but that's trivia in the extreme.--Loodog (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sharing name? No! Indianapolis is not the same name as Indiana. It's pretty ridiculous to say so. The statement of "The state capital having all the letter as in the name of the state", or similar, would be accurate. Saying that Chris is the same name as Christopher is not accurate, but is closer than the twisted comparison made in this case, and has different parameters.68.180.38.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I just noticed that the "letter-matching" for the capital is not in the article, so it's apparently removed, but I keep my comment in agreement for the exclusion of that twisted comparison. 68.180.38.25 (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the end, for external links, I just entered the links for American Factfinder & City-Data.com. It would be nice if these links were available for each city [in the US]. Other nations' equivalents too. I've notice that sometimes in references that the Census is listed, but it's usually the home page.
I know there's not really a standard procedure/layout for these "articles" (at least followed), although there are guidelines, templates & such. But, specific links would be nice.
BTW, it's random that I chose OK City; I have no connection & have driven thru the state once ~20 years ago. I visit city pages often, since that's my field (urban planning). I actually should contribute my knowledge in adding to articles.
Would it appreciated if I add certain relevant links [usually about stats] to pages about cities & such that I visit?
Of course there is no pay-off to me. In fact, I should make a big donation for all the facts that I've gathered from here. My motivation would just be in helping education, as is true for about all contributors/editors. 68.180.38.25 (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I would read about the gangs that are thriving in Oklahoma City - particularly the south side - but there is nothing here - zero - zip - zilch. Oklahoma City is one of the bigger Crip and Nortenos cities in America. But no mention of it here. Crossroads got closed basically because gang members hung out there. But no mention of it here. No mention of the crime rate and shootings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.200.174 (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think there is a need for a list of every single gang in OKC. Sure, list crime stats and data, but do we really want to give out attention to people who don't need it? Crimsonedge34 (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "Crime" section of this article is really awful. It just goes on and on about gangs, as if they are in control of the city. Listing 30 gangs in a city of a half million is just rediculous. How many members do you think belong to "Playboy Gangsta Crips"? There's also no statistics of any kind about citywide crime rates, or on the city's police department. --Jleon (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list is sourced but it should still be removed. The bigger problem is that the whole section needs to be rewritten. --Jleon (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case remove the list of gangs and tell people how many gangs are found in the city. If I had the time I would re write it but I don't right now.--SteamIron20:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The crime section is really innacurate and over blown concerning gangs. Perhaps OKC gangs could have a page somewhwre else. -Rover109
Hiding the full picture:
I totally disagree with the comment by User: Jleon .This is not a vacation site trying to bring people to your city. If your gang problem is so bad that YOU would rather leave it out is just plain nuts. Are you a employee of the Chamber of Commerce? I would want to know who, what, where and when to look out for gangs or a gang in any city. Once more, the people of OKC want to hide anything that may not make there city come out smelling like a rose and it gets very old.Just good old sugarcooking. Fciman06 09:47 08/March/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fciman06 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
The Moore deaths from the school on May 20 were not in Oklahoma City, so are irrelevant to this article. Moore might be in the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area, but it is a separate city from Oklahoma City.
I suppose that there must not be many people checking the talk page. All I am suggesting is that details relevant to Oklahoma City are kept, and details that are not relevant removed. I am fairly sure that the Moore article already contains that information, which is where the information should stay, that being the relevant article. Details that are not relevant to this article should be removed. The May 3 tornado was worse than the May 20 tornado in terms of fatalities, and yet its death toll wasn't included and the May 20 tornado's death toll was? Some of these details are excessive, I would suggest perhaps creating a link to the tornadoes, but the information itself, as well as irrelevant information should be promptly removed. I am not suggesting that said information is or isn't unimportant, but rather that only relevant information should be kept. The tornado itself may be relevant, but the Moore specific fatalities, e.g. school, are not, being part of a different city in a different county than Oklahoma City.
Hi. I'm going through all the US Cities (as per List of United States cities by population) in an effort to provide some uniformity in structure. Anyone have an issue with me restructuring this article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I won't be changing any content, merely the order. Occasionally, I will also move a picture just to clean up spacing issues. I've already gone through the top 20 or so on the above list, if you'd like to see how they turned out. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will be reviewing this article. My strategy is to give overall comments about the article, then go through it section by section, check all the references, and finally to check it against the Good Article criteria. I'll let the nominator know when I'm ready for their response. Rcsprinter123(tell me stuff) @ 22:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article has promise but has a way to go before it has reached perfection. Obviously it is an important topic (state captital) and deserves to be a fairly decent article to serve the 1265 people that read it every day. To start with, I can see that there are four [citation needed] tags in the article, and an {{update}} tag in the Crime section dating from January 2012. These will need fixing straight away before I consider passing the GA. Also, there are far too many sections, that is to say, the TOC is too long, so either consider consolidating some sections or changing the TOC to only display up to level three headers by using {{TOC limit}}. The lower half of the article has quite a lot of lists and statistics but less prose.
Some merits to mention, however, include the nice clean protection log with only one entry from back in 2009 showing a nice stable edit war-free history, and the detail that is given in some sections that clearly provide relevant information for people researching the OKC area.
The montage for the city (File:Okc montage.jpg) is nominated for deletion. I'm sure it would be fairly easy to compile a new one if that gets deleted, so watch out just in case.
It did get deleted, but Done as I made a new montage and added it to the page
The seal is poor quality and could do with being converted to vector. I have uploaded a new one for you and added it to the article.
The map is very vague and should follow the standard for US places: a map like File:LA County Incorporated Areas Beverly Hills highlighted.svg. I know how to make these so will make them for all of Oklahoma County and add them to the article. Because it is an internationally recognised city I'll leave the whole-U.S. map there too.
Done - maps made.
There is no sources for the nicknames; also OKC is used within the article as a general abbreviation when I believe that the full name should be used.
Pending Sourced two of them, looking for a source for the third.
Lead body
The tornadoes part gives no clue what F/EF4s and F5s are.
Compare very close wording: Article: "the first woman to serve as mayor of a major U.S. city with more than 350,000 residents." Source:"first woman elected mayor of a U.S. city with more than 350,000 residents".
Is "set off a bomb" a technical term? I think something more like "detonated" would fit. Also, the paragraph about the bombing is unreferenced.
Subsection Museums and theater comprises the whole section. This makes it redundant and other subsections with other culture could be added (or the subsection title removed.)
Is that tree the most relevant image to represent OKC's culture? Put a cultural thing in, or one of those museums if you can find a good image. The tree can stay but other images are preferable in addition to it.
There's a dead external link which doesn't even need linking to, get it removed.
{{done)) - Link removed
There's no references before the Thunder subsection.
The two images both show the same ballpark, change one to something else.
It doesn't say why the Thunder subsection is named so. Put that in.
The last paragraph of Thunder is unreferenced.
Hornets is not a good subsection title for Effect of Hurricane Katrina on the New Orleans Hornets. As the Hornets aren't from OKC, they are from New Orleans, this makes the reader think that the Hornets are from Oklahoma City. Rephrase it to show it's about the story of what happened.
The list of Current teams this is completely unreferenced and there is no indication of how high-level the team must be to be included in the list; and there is no mention of whether or not the list is exhaustive.
The number of each ref I give is correct as of revision 592200621; if any have been added since then it will have moved around.
If there is no comment on a ref assume I have reviewed it and found no problems. Please strike when you have fixed each ref.
Ref 4 does not support the claim; it says Oklahoma City is 30th, not 29th
Ref 7 says that the Oklahoma City-Shawnee Combined Statistical Area has 1,322,429 people, but the article says 1,322,249
Ref 9 says that there was an F5 tornado in 2013, making the total 2, but the article still says one. It also says that there have been 11 F/E4s, but the article says eight. Some updating required.
Ref 12 isn't really very clear that OKC "was settled" on April 22. How can this happen in one day? Is this something we should claim on Wikipedia?
Ref 13 links to the index of the OK Digital Library, it should be changed to the more specific [3]
Same for ref 14, but you'll have to find the specific article yourself
Ref 15 doesn't seem to link to the intended content, needs fixing
Ref 17 doesn't link directly to the source, should go to [4]
Ref 20 is pointless
Refs 21, 22 & 24 are possibly dead, and need replacing
Ref 23 links to Wikipedia and must be removed
Ref 25 doesn't say $3 billion
Ref 27 doesn't mention blackjack oak
Refs 29, 31, 76, 78, 79 and 92 are dead, and need replacing
Refs 56, 60, 61 don't appear to support any claims, and need replacing
Ref 61 is improperly formatted
Ref 62 uses exactly the same phrase as in the article: "agriculture, energy and manufacturing"
Ref 87 ranks OKC 31st(?) for walkability, and certainly doesn't say 43rd anywhere
Well, I'm marking this review as failed for now. When it is ready to be renominated, a new review will be started at Talk:Oklahoma City/GA2, and I will inform the reviewer of everything that was listed on this review, but not addressed. I hope you can improve the article soon. Rcsprinter123(babble) @ 17:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something had better replace Okc montage.jpg with something else pretty soon, because I would say that the loss of it definitely degrades the quality of the article. Dustintalk12:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would this picture be better to use in the montage? Not to discount the image used there; this one is just more up to date. I think that it would probably do some good to use an image such as this somewhere. I'm just making a suggestion. Dustin(talk)02:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After investigating, I have found that the messed-up formatting is just showing up in the climate section for me, but it has to do largely with images overstacking on the right side from preceding sections. Multiple images will either need to be moved or removed. Dustin(talk)18:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Prokaryotes, not sure how you get you're breaking out climate and weather into their own sections as being in line with the guidelines, which specifically include Climate as part of the Geology section, with weather included in the Climate section. Onel5969 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know, what Prokaryotes - I don't know what I was looking at. You are absolutely correct, for some reason I thought you had broken out the weather and climate into their own sections. Maybe I should cut down on the drugs. My apologies - will self revert. Onel5969 (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See State of Oklahoma - That is the full name. I realize it would have been better to post this first before reverting, so I may change that, but all that aside, as a proper noun, regardless of other stuff which does not have a bearing on this article, proper English dictates that proper nouns should be capitalized. Dustin(talk)18:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rcsprinter: Please do not ignore me. I have no reason to accept your logic if you won't even come to discuss this on the talk page, so please respond. Dustin(talk)16:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not ignoring, just forgotten. I suggest we (you) take this to the talk page of WikiProject United States and ask their opinion, as they are more qualified to talk about it than me, a non-American who is not an English language expert. If you look around though, you'll find the majority of "state of"s in articles are uncapitalised. Rcsprinter123(warn) @ 18:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This is one of those interesting grammatical examples. Either "state of Oklahoma" or "State of Oklahoma" could be correct. Dustin is absolutely correct, if the subject of the article is the title, than the latter is correct. However, if the subject of the sentence is Oklahoma, and the "state of" is simply a description, then the lower case is appropriate. To make it even more confusing, the structure of this sentence makes it ambiguous as to which of the two is the correct interpretation. Rcsprinter123 is also correct that most US City articles use the lower case, although there are those which use the upper case. All that being said, I think the lower case should remain in this instance. Onel5969 (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Oklahoma City's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡22:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Oklahoma City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Oklahoma City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 7 external links on Oklahoma City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 11 external links on Oklahoma City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 14 external links on Oklahoma City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Oklahoma City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
Residents of Oklahoma City suffered substantial losses on April 19, 1995 when Timothy McVeigh detonated a bomb in front of the Murrah building.
I know "truck bombed" isn't a verb, but wouldn't the sentence sound better if it was just "McVeigh bombed the Murrah building."? Thanks, L3X1(distænt write)03:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this in the lede?
"Oklahoma City has the largest municipal population of any city in the Great Plains region of the central United States, as well as all neighboring states to Oklahoma, excluding Texas and Colorado."
I mean... Texas and Colorado are two of the 6 states that neighbor Oklahoma. The border between Oklahoma and Texas isn't inconsequential either. This just adds needlessly confusing information. In addition, the "Great Plains region" seems confusing as a defined region for population or cities. I would like to just remove the sentence, but since it's in the lede and been around since Jan 2017, decided to drop a line on the talk page before doing so.
ChunyangD (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Under the duplicated topic ″Infrastructure″ the section titled °Highways″ is duplicated. More may be duplicated but I didn't look for it. Wiki name (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the nicknames section, the nickname "The Big Friendly" is a false nickname that nobody in the city actually uses. It is likely the city trying to re-brand itself, with a puff piece article that has even been rescinded by the original author in a later article. Also, I lived there for 20+ years and still visit family there regularly. [1]4.2.161.196 (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Done
Pending Sourced two of them, looking for a source for the third.
On hold. Rcsprinter123 (babble) @ 16:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
failed for now. When it is ready to be renominated, a new review will be started at Talk:Oklahoma City/GA2, and I will inform the reviewer of everything that was listed on this review, but not addressed. I hope you can improve the article soon. Rcsprinter123 (babble) @ 17:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.