Talk:Bo

message: * NOTE: Page content descriptions, tags, will be adjusted ... Proofreader77 (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Adjustments to page in progress

message: Why should a list of people with the initials B.O. not be included?
# Even if "initials" was a valid justification (will discuss below), few people have only two initials. A list of all the (notable) people whose first initial and last initial happens to be B.O. (whatever their middle or other initials are) is an absurdly arbitrary list -- and a long one. 
# Assertion: People's initials (especially a 2-character version) could be considered a special case of "partial title match."  Proofreader77 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  People with the initials  (category should be excluded) 

message: The arbitrary noting of two people with the first and last initial B. and O. (Barack Obama and Buck Owens) is absurd. Even if it made sense to list all the notable people in Wikipedia with the initials B. and O. (which it doesn't), the arbitrary selection of a few is misleading. Removed. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing 2-entry category 

message: ===Bo, BO, B.O., bo, .bo  (is confusing enough:) ===
Yes, the page is "messy" (for many of the reasons disambiguation pages get that way, and that's after I took out the  "first/last" initials entries) ... BUT a page that organizes/lumps all those different things on the same page ... is not going to be as "clean" as less complicated disambiguation pages.
NOTE: While there is no choice but to have the above on the same page ... we must remember that we should attempt to make it easy for people looking for particular forms to spot it easily. That is not a trivial information design problem.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  re the proposed B&O merge with Bo 

message: Yes, the page is "messy" (for many of the reasons disambiguation pages get that way, and that's after I took out the  "first/last" initials entries) ... BUT a page that organizes/lumps all those different things on the same page ... is not going to be as "clean" as less complicated disambiguation pages.
NOTE: While there is no choice but to have the above on the same page ... we must remember that we should attempt to make it easy for people looking for particular forms to spot it easily. That is not a trivial information design problem.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bo, BO, B.O., bo, .bo  (is confusing enough:) 

message: * The most well known (American, of course, and much more so historically) reference is B&O Railroad. (If you put quotes around it in a Google search, that's what you get.) 
* Bang & Olufsen — this may be too much a promotional link. In the public realm how well is it known as B&O? A Google search without  quotes gives you this company, but that may just be SEO. (Note the different Google results for with and without quotes)
* Business and occupation tax is a partial match, since it needs "tax" before B&O means much.
Bottom line: The B&O page should perhaps be redirected if we remove the (two) questionable entries... but then the redirect would be to Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, not to Bo (which is complicated enough). SO: For the moment, I'm undoing the merge to Bo. 
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: B&O

message: Yes, this page has many "issues." Part of this has to do with the history of the page ... which includes a template ... which includes the Wiktionary lookup underneath a special link to pages that begin with Bo.
And yes, ... much of the page does not comply with disambiguation guidelines. But before erasing everything that had accumulated here, let us begin by analyzing the categories of what was here and why.
A few months ago I sorted and added some categories and subcategories — but let us note that this is not an article and does not need topic section dividing lines. Or so many believe. :)
Bottom line (for the moment):
* Please do not "standardize" the formatting (because of the template/wiktionary issue).
* Let us discuss if a full "clean-up" needs to be done. And if needs to be done now. :) 
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The unusual formatting of this page (etc) 

message: Part of the problem with this page is this odd template created for an earlier incarnation of this page. It is time for it to go, and replaced by the Wiktionary link. :) 
The "interesting" link included in the template Special:PrefixIndex/Bo can be added to See Also. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bo given name template

message: This disambiguation page has been marked for clean-up. Note that most disambiguation pages have some "slack" :) ... and we should discuss the items that by a strict following of the guidelines for disambiguation pages would be removed. 
As a conceptual framework for cleaning :) ... consider these two positions as the ends of a scale:
# Strict ("Extreme cleaning":)
# Slack ("Let it be")
Let's leave it at that for now.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation clean-up (April 2009) 

message: These are partial matches and do not belong on a disambiguation page.
Why haven't I deleted them? BECAUSE: If they were real people I would move them to the Bo(surname) and Bo(given name) pages. Since I can't, I'm pondering if there is something else that should be done with them other than delete. 
Comments? Proofreader77 (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional characters (sub topic)  

message: The issue is readability for the reader. :) If the decision is made to use section headings of type "===" (see discussion above—more discussion will take place over at project disambiguation); AND we follow the guideline that would suggest using one level of section headings; THEN without the indention, what fits within the "Initialisms ..." is not quickly grasped. Will stop there for now. (Both issues require policy-level discussion—consider this page R&D:).
--Proofreader77 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: (Initialisms ...) indention

message: Jasmine .8
thumbnail'Bold text
Jasmine 3s Amelia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.191.224 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fghjhfctry 

message: Where is that Japanese name for that long stick used as a blunt weapon? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese weapon? 

message: The purpose of disambiguation pages is to help readers navigate to the article they are looking for. Disambiguation pages aren't articles—they're navigation aids. Per MOS:DAB, "Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link." MOS:DAB also says, "References should not appear on disambiguation pages. Dab pages are not articles; instead, incorporate the references into the target articles." Moreover, Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. For all of these reasons, the item about the history of "B.O." as advertising slang, cited to Urban Dictionary, should not be included here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Facts are facts.  Silly to get snobbish about them.  And I want the reference to be actually found, having failed to find it when I wanted to check it on the Wiki.  --GwydionM (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't addressed any of the problems I pointed out, so I've reverted to the status quo. Please do not re-add the material without consensus. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

text:  Please participate in this discussion rather than just reverting. As I said above, MOS:DAB says not to include this kind of material in disambiguation pages, and Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

text: I've requested input from WT:WikiProject Disambiguation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

text: If there are interesting facts missing from this encyclopedia, consider adding them to a relevant article, not adding them to what is, essentially, an index. Your response to  was unfair and suggested you weren't prepared to listen - please understand the guidelines are based on the consensus of the community. You can start a discussion about changing them, but shouldn't just ride roughshod over them. Both of you are now beyond WP:3RR and are WP:EDITWARRING, however good your intentions, please now leave it. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material cited to Urban Dictionary 

message: , alerting you to revert of your edits. , please try to be less snarky and more civil with edit summaries. JHunterJ is a very experienced and knowledgeable editor on dabs who was obviously not 'offened by their existence' but following the guidelines which have evolved out of community consensus. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: He's a meddling fool.  Data thrown away for no good reason.  Which is why I mostly don't both with the Wiki: this mentality dominates.  --GwydionM (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts

message: Hey y’all I’m new I’m Oscar and I go to BCPS OscarJohnSoutherden (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I’m new yall