Talk:B&O

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) 20:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 20:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget to add hatnotes. I added them. — This, that, and the other [talk] 08:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I left the hat notes off ... is because anyone searching for B&O will not be looking for what is on Bo. But it doesn't bother me if you'd like them on. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]