Talk:Bo

1/23/09 Restoring redirect of B.O. to Bo

See explanation on Talk:B.O. More discussion to follow here. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Adjustments to page in progress

• NOTE: Page content descriptions, tags, will be adjusted ... Proofreader77 (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• NOTE: Abbreviations is an incorrect classification for the contents of that section. Evaluating categories included. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Temporary blank lines (for sorting) ... and possible sub-categories

Do not be dismayed by all the (temporary) white space. Sorting is in progress. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW UP: The reason I left the spacing in was that adding the sub-category names created even white space.

NOTE: For readability/usefulness, the different categories should be easy to see as grouped ... rather than run together. With one blank line left between categories, it's easy to deduce how those go together without a formal sub-category title.

FOR NOW -- I've added the subcategories in as comments to make it clear where new entries go when editing -- but will think more about this. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

People with the initials (category should be excluded)

Why should a list of people with the initials B.O. not be included?

1. 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.
2. 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)

Removing 2-entry category

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)

re the proposed B&O merge with Bo

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)

B&O

• 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)

The unusual formatting of this page (etc)

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)

Bo given name template

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)

Resolved

(by removing old, an now inappropriate, template) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

COPY: Archived discussion re D6 bot section topic reformatting (from bot owner's talk page)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bo - disambigation formatting of headings

Excuse delay of full explanation regarding disambiguation (not an article) pages and topic headings on the D6 bot page. Will discuss fully later today. (NOTE: My edit summary did say I would do that. Just not this minute. :) - Proofreader77 (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'm holding my breath ;) -- User:Docu

(note: removed non-pertinent section)

"===" vs "==" on disambiguation pages (before/after bot)

COMPARE:

• BEFORE BOT version of complex disambiguation page

VS

• AFTER BOT version of complex disambiguation page

Intricate discussion in due course :) (if necessary). Proofreader77 (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The later seems consistent with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Longer_lists and its Aurora sample. -- User:Docu

Preliminary response (more to follow):

• Thank you for Aurora sample. (Noting this as a LONG complex disambig case)
• Let us possibly categorize Bo as a MEDIUM complex disambig case. (But when it has been cleaned may be the next category)
• Then consider a theoretical SHORT complex disambiguation case.

• NOW: The issue of whether topic level "===" may be used instead of "==" to organize a disambiguation (non-article) page (without unsightly and space-wasting lines and HUGE HEADLINES) ... is not definitively defined :) ... and is the issue at hand.

• ASIDE: When I'm through picking a fight with your bot :) ... perhaps you'll consider letting me pick your brain about bots. (Very interested.)

(to be continued)

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(nutshell) case and proposal re bot and disambiguation pages

“ Section headings may be used on longer lists instead of, or in addition to, bold subject area headings, but using more than a single level, as on Aurora (disambiguation), is rarely necessary. ”

1. The guidelines for disambiguation pages explicitly allow some flexibility—and in this case, the matter of section headings is an afterthought rather than a carefully considered definition of preference.
2. (I posit) For short (and probably medium)-length complex disambiguation pages, skipping the "==" level topic specifier — using "===" instead, in order to eliminate lines and excessive-size headlines for short lists within categories — should be allowed, if not normative.
3. The D6 bot (and other such bots) should be programmed to accept that alternative for disambiguation pages, or provide a mechanism for explicitly flagging a disambiguation page for that exception.
4. It is understood that this case may require repetition and elaboration ad infinitum beyond this talk page. :)

Please do not consider this presumption. Just (at last) cutting to the chase, to save the gentle bot-owner's time (for the moment, anyway:)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss amending the suggested formatting for dab pages, it might be preferable to do this elsewhere, e.g. on the talk page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Longer lists or rather Wikipedia:MOSHEAD#Section headings. In the meantime, I will try to avoid changing pages you recently re-formatted.

An easier solution for the Bo page might be to remove some of the lowest level headers. -- User:Docu

Many thanks, and much appreciated. (And yes, time to get this off your talk page —assume you don't mind if I copy to the Talk:Bo).

Closing notes:

1. That one sentence quoted above is as much as the guidelines say about section headings, and it is useful (and about time:) to clarify this.
2. The guidelines appear to assume that simply bolding some category descriptors will be the norm. And probably that is the way to go for "short" (complex) disambiguation page. Long (especially very long) disambiguation pages like Aurora) would certainly use the normal section headers ("=="). Medium length (like the current state of Bo) are the tricky ones. It depends.
3. The issue of "levels" ... let's assume will be discussed elsewhere. :) Oh, I see. Yes, that's a good idea. (I think.:)

SO (for the current discussion at this moment on this page)

Resolved

(The issue to be addressed more formally in the appropriate venue as you suggested).

Again, my thanks. Cheers. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disambiguation clean-up (April 2009)

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:

1. Strict ("Extreme cleaning":)
2. Slack ("Let it be")

Let's leave it at that for now. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Fictional characters (sub topic)

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)

The issue of NOT going to second (third) level section headings on a disambiguation page

Before changing formatting on the Initialisms... section:

• Remember that this is a disambiguation page (not an article). Usually bold headings are used, rather than section headings at all. (NOTE: Proper article section headings begin with == not === — SEE: archived discussion with D6 bot owner above. That is where the suggestion to specifically remove second level headings comes from.
• See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Longer_lists

“ Section headings may be used on longer lists instead of, or in addition to, bold subject area headings, but using more than a single level, as on Aurora (disambiguation), is rarely necessary. ”

• REMEMBER (from above) "bold subject area headings" is the norm for disambiguation pages.
• Discuss further here if that is not sufficient to dissuade the reintroduction of second (third)-level headings

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The prompt for making the change was Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia#Indented list which listed this page. Strangely enough one of the regulars there is User:Docu, so at least I'm not the first. :) Do you have any ideas on coming up with a characteristic that would be suitable to adjust the output? I don't know if it can be set to ignore Disam pages, but that might be a start. Also, since two different people have tried it, it might make sense to put a <!-- Please do not redo headings, see talk page--> in it or something similar. I hope that we can figure out a way to do this so that you don't have to remind someone else.Naraht (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

LoL (laughing at the situation and myself, not your comment) — Much appreciated. Will add embedded comment for now, but yes must solve "issue" in big picture (note: laughing at amount of time it will take to resolve something I could have left alone).

NOTE: I added the indention after Docu discussion re "==="vs"==" level section headings — so, the indention wasn't the problem for Docu's bot, but rather the skipping of "=="-level headings and using "===".

So, two different reversions—the second, for changes made because of the first. (See: LoL:)

--Proofreader77 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I did the same as Naraht and did not realise there was an issue until this page was highlighted. welsh (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

LoL ... No, you did what the D6 bot did (Naraht fixed something else). Not your fault. Please excuse the confusion, while "big picture" is cleared up. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(Initialisms ...) indention

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)

Japanese weapon?

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

• @Qwertyxp2000: It's called a Bō, and it's currently in Bo#Other uses. Steel1943 (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Material cited to Urban Dictionary

@GwydionM: 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)

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)

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)

@GwydionM: 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)

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

GwydionM: 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 Mr. Granger 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)

Reverts

JHunterJ, alerting you to revert of your edits. GwydionM, 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)

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)

The mentality of being polite to others, making decisions based on consensus and not just belligerently trying to get your own way does dominate here. If that isn't for you, that's fine. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I’m new yall

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