Talk:OshKosh B'gosh

Untitled

No details about the origins of the name? What does B'Gosh stand for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.143.238.2 (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"By gosh", presumably... --Midnight Bliss (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

So where *are* they made now?

"Oshkosh B'Gosh clothes are no longer made in Oshkosh" - but there's no indication of where production moved to. Please insert this if you know. 86.136.250.154 (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oshkosh now operates two plants in Kentucky, making less than 10% of the companys merchandise. The rest is produced by subsidiaries in Mexico and Honduras, or outsourced to third-party manufacturers.

Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/oshkosh-b-gosh-inc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willyandre (talk • contribs) 23:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 22 October 2017

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: moved to OshKosh B'gosh. A bit of a mess, but I think sentiment of the majority and the sourcing provided was in favour of K/g. Jenks24 (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

---

OshKosh B'Gosh → Oshkosh B'gosh – "K" and "G" are only capitalized as a means of stylization. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:710B:C71E:5A7F:BF09 (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Move to Oshkosh B'Gosh. I object to the claim that the G is only capitalized for stylization, because it may be a contraction of "By Gosh", which would make "Gosh" a separate word and capitalized in title-case. However, the K is a clear case of only being capitalized in stylization.  ONR  (talk)  20:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and move to OshKosh B'gosh (if anywhere). The best litmus test for establishing COMMONNAME for companies is probably the Google news search, which shows that "OshKosh" is near-universally camel-cased. However, it is capitalization of g in "B'gosh" that is almost always on the lower-case side. MOS:TM is pretty clear that When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should examine styles already in use by independent sources., which are rather consistent here. No such user (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support – agree with No such user that the G in B'gosh should be lowercase. To CamelCase OshKosh or not is trickier. It is commonly done, but not always and not crucial; essentially decorative, especially in light of its reference to Oshkosh, Wisconsin. For example in latest news. I'd downcase both the K and G per MOS:TM. Dicklyon (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Dicklyon:: MOS:TM explicitly addresses camel case and its standard is not "not always" but Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable. With over 90% sources using "OshKosh", I have little doubt about the judgment. While I support the spirit of MOS:TM, I'm wary of occasional holier-than-thou applications. No such user (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  I have no strong objection to the CamelCase here, but I think Oshkosh is as clear, and is in use. Dicklyon (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Old Naval Rooftops. Move to Oshkosh B'Gosh seems, to me at any rate, to be the best solution. Dolotta (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  But sources never cap the G, so why would we? Dicklyon (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  A few do, but it's clearly a minority usage. Its coming out of nowhere (the company no longer uses that variant in their logo, nor in running text). And it doesn't make any sense; we wouldn't do this to any other contraction. When's the last time anyone saw, e.g., a song title in the form "D'Ont Go"?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. What a mess! Sources are all over the place. User:No such user is correct that a Google News search shows 90%+ usage of "OshKosh B'gosh". But a Google Books search shows a clear (80%+) preference for Kosh/Gosh, quite a few kosh/Goshes and very few kosh/goshes. And a Google Scholar search shows a weaker (60%+) preference for Kosh/Gosh, with a pretty strong showing for kosh/Gosh(the choice of ONR and Dolotta here). The least prevalent appears to be the proposal here of no camel case. All told, I'd say that argues for the status quo, which is the most common variant in books and scholarship. NSU's alternative of Kosh/gosh would also be supportable. Dohn joe (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:TM, MOS:CAPS. The company isn't even consistent; their present logo reads "OshKosh B'gosh", and RS rarely try to mimic either over-capitalizing stylization, so WP doesn't either.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  Huh?! SMcCandlish, I usually bow to (or at least seriously consider) your opinion, but this is a pretty obvious case where RS do try to mimic the "over-capitalizing" stylization. Maybe not quite consistently, but the proposed form certainly isn't near a point of convergence. No such user (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  In news sources [1] and books [2], there's a wild mix of "Oshkosh B'gosh", "OshKosh B'gosh", and "OshKosh B'Gosh", even "Oshkosh B'Gosh", all owing to differing house styles at different publishers. No convergence on the non-overcapitalized form is required. Per MOS:CAPS, all that's required is lack of a strong showing of consistency for a particular unusual capitalization case; if there's not one, we use lower-case, ergo "Oshkosh B'gosh". Furthermore, Oshkosh is a proper name, not a made-up text string, and it does not have a capital-K in it; the capitalization in the logo is just stylization for its own sake.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  Well, YMMV what constitutes a "wild mix", and "strong showing". From your searches above, first 40 hits (two pages):

  • News: OshKosh 39, Oshkosh 1
  • Books: OshKosh 25, Oshkosh 15

  "B'gosh" and "B'Gosh" are more evenly split indeed. I'd call that a "strong showing" for camel case. As for Oshkosh, Wisconsin being a proper name, I wouldn't put much weight on that – the brand has a long life of its own, and I would say that the city is pretty well-know internationally due to the brand, rather than the other way round. No such user (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Move to OshKosh B'gosh. Since sources are inconclusive, we may as well defer to the way the company styles itself in literature (rather than in logos etc). From [[3]], in the legal blurb at the bottom, they tell us that "OshKosh B'gosh [is a trademark] owned by subsidiaries of Carter's, Inc." Bloomberg also write it that way.[4]  — Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

---

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.