Talk:B.O.

NOTE: People with the initials B.O. do not belong on this page

Unless someone is famously known by their initials (e.g. JFK), they do not belong on a disambiguation page for those initials.

Only if citiations to reliable sources indicating the person is commonly identified by their initials should their name be added to this page. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now, there are a number of problems with your comments. First, you cite no policy to support your naked and somewhat novel assertion that one must be "famously" known by his initials to be included on a disambiguation page. In doing so, you confuse the issues, and misunderstand the purpose of a disambiguation page. The issue isn't whether the initials serve as a ubiquitous and verifiable nickname of sorts (which would be the applicable standard for, say, including it as a nickname in the body of the individual's article); it's whether inclusion would be helpful to a reader. That is, is it possible that a user could stumble upon this page looking for an article on Barack Obama? The answer, pretty obviously, is yes, which is why presidents on down the line are listed on disambiguation pages for their initials. Second, even if your articulated standard did reflect official policy, "B.O." is in fact a "commonly" used shorthand for Barack Obama. A search of "B.O." and Barack Obama yields 2,190,000 hits, a much higher number than many other presidents appearing on disambig pages. "GWB" and George W. Bush yields 413,000. "RR" and Ronald Reagan yields 126,000. "WJC" and Bill Clinton yields 16,500. "JEC" and Jimmy Carter results in 2,940 ("JC," 207,000). Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera....

Regardless of whether you find it unpleasant that Obama's name appears in an article for "B.O.," the facts are:

(1) They are his initials,

(2) They are a commonly used shorthand, and

(3) There is a long and unbroken precedent of listing presidents on disambiguation pages for their initials (or, in the absence of other similarly titled articles, creating a redirect).

There is nothing controversial, inappropriate, or unusual about including Obama in an article on his initials.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: For the moment, I have simply added colons for indention (as per Wikipedia talk page convention) to indicate PassionoftheDamon comments (above) for the the inclusion of the two initials "B.O." for "Barack Obama" to this disambiguation page is a reply to my statements. Will respond to her/his arguments in due time.

PRELIMINARY METACOMMENT/ASIDE: Actually, an interesting case for analysis of public rhetoric -- and (as I will possibly demonstrate) the "abuse" (perhaps a better word exists, we'll see) of disambiguation pages, to lesser and greater extents (to which any alleged precedents do not give license, yada yada yada:) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response re presidential initials: There is NOT "a long and unbroken precedent of listing presidents on disambiguation pages" ... with two-character initials.

Response re "commonly used shorthand": The use of "B.O. stinks" and "B.O. offends me" on anti-Obama bumper stickers and in POV blogs illustrates a kind of "common use." And that takes the issue of those two initials to a special category -- one that should inspire closer analysis of this case. (For later discussion.)

Broader response: See next subtopic. Proofreader77 (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages (common issues, and potential for abuse)

NOTE(S):

Disambiguation pages are not articles, and have tended to be granted somewhat more "freedom."
The short-name (two and three character) disambiguation pages ... are the ones I'll focus on here.
These short-name disambiguation pages often collect a random subset of people's names that happen to have those initials. As long as the person is notable enough to be in Wikipedia, recent changes patrollers usually allow it being added.
HOWEVER: Since, in almost all cases, notable people are not publicly identified by their initials (e.g., Britney Spears is not known as B.S.), what you get is a disambiguation page uselessly cluttered with people due to their un-notable initials.
POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE: Is there anything "wrong" with, e.g., creating/organizing a disambiguation page that begins:

B.O may refer to:

Body Odor
Breath Odor
Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States

Yes, there is something wrong with doing that. Proofreader77 (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Nov 9 2008 splitting of "B.O" from the Bo page ... and the suggested (re)merge

I see the suggested merge tag added Dec 31 2008 for "B.O." "Bo" and "B&O" ... and notice that there was a Nov 9 2008 splitting of "B.O" from that page to this (formerly redirected to Bo) page ... with a copy/pasting of that section to this page without explanation or discussion ... bringing these elements to the top of a page:

Body Odor

Breath Odor

Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States and Illinois Senator

NOTE: Usually "B.O." and "BO" would be disambiguated on the same page -- as they were, before the undiscussed split.

I support the proposed (re)merge to BO. (As to the issue of initials, see previous topic) Proofreader77 (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reverting the the unexplained, undiscussed split of Nov 9 (NOTE: POV issue)

Given that:

No notice for discussion was given for this unjustified split on either talk page.
The existing (and proper) redirection of B.O. to BO was replaced here without edit summary (diff) (There was an edit summary on Bo (diff) saying it was being done, but not why).
The resulting arrangement of content has POV implications -- whether intentional or not.
(NOTE: The issue of initials and disambiguation pages is yet to be resolved, but not part of the issue of the splitting off of B.O. from Bo.)

THEREFORE: With special emphasis on the POV issue, I hereby inform the community of my intention to restore the redirect of B.O. to Bo which existed on November 9 2008 (diff). Following that restoration, a discussion of whether a B.O./Bo split is justified is welcome on the Bo talk page.

NOTE: With the exception of the Barack Obama and Buck Owens entres, the content here is identical to what has already been restored to the section for it in Bo. Since that is a separate issue from the redirect, an entry for Obama and Owens will be created on Bo (in an appropriate place), with further discussion to continue on the Bo talk page. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reclassification: Disambiguation SEO vandalism

The un-redirection of B.O./Bo and the ordering of B.O. content is consistent with the pattern of an attempt to SEO a Google #1 result "snippet": "B.O. may refer to * Body Odor * Breath Odor * Barack Obama."

Recreation or attempted reversion to that condition will be treated as vandalism. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]