Talk:Big O

Obama's Kryptonian origins

" I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father, Jor-el, to save the planet Earth."

There is video evidence of Obama's extraterrestrial origins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vws9fTtQgz4

Stop the coverup!!! 12.40.5.69 (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, you've had your joke. Thanks for the break. Time to move on now. JamesMLane t c 23:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read it the page, it was a "New York City charity event that takes the form of a comedy roast".

"Obama's speech made fun of his own name and reputation for grandiloquence, and took shots at both John McCain" Basicaly, it WAS A JOKE. Gangstabrutha (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No proof for individual claims

There's no proof or even mention on the respective article pages for the following people that this nickname is used to refer to them:

• Barack Obama
• Bob Orton
• Brian Oldfield
• Glenn Ordway
• Oprah Winfrey

I've left them in for now with a tag. I'll prune them in the future if the articles aren't updated with the relevant information and proof. The articles for the three other individuals need better refs for this as well. Mindmatrix 22:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

MOS:DAB doesn't allow references in disambiguation pages, and I'm not convinced that the nickname needs to appear and be sourced on the target page to be listed here. Anyway, I found references for Obama [1], Oprah [2], Ordway [3], and Orton [4], so I think all of those should be kept. I don't know about Oldfield, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick clarification on DAB guidelines and synonyms for David Eppstein (or anyone who might be confused on the policy)

The DAB policy section "DABMENTION" is about when a topic relates to another article but isn't a synonym for the article title. For example, if the DAB page is a person name such as "Joe Blow" and you link to an article on a real life crime case where a suspect in the case went by the alias "Joe Blow" then you could only link to that article if it mentions that as a alias for one of the suspects in the case. Now if the person was not mentioned in the article it links to then it's not acceptable. This does not apply to synonyms even if they do not appear in the article the link to since the topic is the article they link too. So for example the word tucker, as Australian slang for food, can link to the food article on a Tucker disambiguation page without needing to be mentioned in the food article. This applies to the article as the term "The Big O" is just a slang synonym for an Orgasm and thus the topic is Orgasm and so the orgasm article need not mention the term "The Big O". If there was a question as to it actually being a synonym then there would be an issue but it's mentioned as slang for Orgasm in the American Heritage Dictionary and the Free Dictionary, among others. Also, I went b ack and looked through the discussion archives linked to the DAB policy page and found a proposed rules from 20145 that suggested that synonyms on DAB pages should also appear in the article they link to. The result of this proposal was "No consensus" so I can officially say that as of today at least, that is not official policy so there is no need to have "The Big O" appear on Orgasm Article first. Here is a link to the archived discussion on the proposed addition to the "Manual of Style/Disambiguation policy page section on DABMENTION were there was no consensus: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages/Archive_41#Proposed_addendum_to_MOS:DABSYN --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

To the most recent editor who reverted my link to the Orgasm article. You should really read what I wrote about about what Wikipedia policy says about disambiguation articles and synonyms to 2020 editor who tried to revert my link then for the same reason. Unless you have evidence that the policy has changed since 2020 when I wrote what I wrote above, then it’s still the policy that disambiguation pages can include link to other article even if the title of the disambiguation page is slang in that instance. The Big O is indeed slang but it refers to an orgasm which has a valid article of it’s own and thus it’s not about the slang use of the word but rather simply to point people to the article on Orgasm for further info in the topic. Only where a slang term either does not have its own valid article or is not a direct synonym for a valid WP article topic should the slang term be left for Wiktionary. You are last I checked allowed to link synonyms to another article via disambiguation pages were said synonym is not mentioned in that article. This does not harm the purpose of not including articles on every slang or even regular word as simply allows someone looking up the slang to read about the original topic the slang terms refers to. This is something an ESL speaker could find useful, for example, saving them from having to look up the slang term, then search WP for non-slang term it refers too. But if anyone believes that policy has since changed then please provide actually evidence post-2020 where such a new consensus was reached, as I previously linked above to the most recent recent pre-2020 discussion where no consensus was reached. — Notcharliechaplin (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Every claim in Wikipedia needs a reliable source. The claim that "big O" is used as slang for "orgasm" needs a reliable source. Disambiguation pages are not the place, so such a claim needs to be referenced in the target article. That can only happen if it is mentioned at the target article. That is one reason why we have WP:DABMENTION: to make sure that the reason for the target to appear in the disambiguation page is sourced somewhere. And therefore, it needs to apply in particular to the use of slang terms. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry but I think you misunderstand the purpose of a disambiguation page guidelines. A major problem for Wikipedia is the fact that some topics share the same (or too similar) names as others. Many topics also have many synonyms for the topic names (ex: car, automobile, vehicle, etc or House,Home, dwelling, domicile, etc.). Thus we need a way to help readers find the actually topic they are looking for, even if they don’t know the most common name it is listed under on Wikipedia or if it needs to be listed under a more descriptive time in case where two topics share the same name (ex: Iphone is both a smart phone brand by App Inc. and a song title by Rico Nasty (listed on Wikipedia as “iPhone (song)” to disambiguate it). This is why Wikipedia has disambiguation polices/solutions for handling that. These disambiguation policies spell out when to use a hatenote vs disambig page and how to format individual listings on a disambig page. In cases one topic title is better known then other uses of the title and gets it now pages with a link to a disambig page for others same/same titles (see iPhone for example) and in other cases the disambig page comes first (see Mac where the disambig is first with computers, apple cultivar, and raincoat having different named titles. No were does it say in the disambig page guidelines that every entry in a disabig page must meet notability guidelines on it’s own where it is a synonym for a word/topic that is notable itself. If we were talking about a subtopic of a topic then you would be correct but in this case, “The Big O“ refers to an “Orgasm”, which is clearly a notable topic and well sourced so there is no need for “The Big O” to be sourced itself so long as not reasonable argument is made that it is not a synonym. Disambig pages need not include citations themselves and in 2020 Wikipedia editors rejected the notion that disambig synonyms (slang or not) need to to be mentioned in the article they link to so long as they refer to the topic of that article. Do you question whether “The Big O” is slang for an “Orgasm”? If not, then there is noting in current Wikipedia policies that says I have show it’s mentioned as slang for orgasm in the article on “orgasm”. Here is the link to that specific discussion again in case you doubt what I say: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 41#Proposed addendum to MOS:DABSYN. Again your interpretation of the policy was rejected though your welcome to bring it up again on the Disambig talk page as a new proposal if you really think you’d get a different result this time. — Notcharliechaplin (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

A very long reply that completely fails to address my point. If we are to say on Wikipedia that "big O" is used to mean orgasm, then that claim needs a reliable source. In which article do you propose to put that source and the claim it sources?

Put another way, if you want to include this term on this dab page, the solution is very simple: (1) find a source for this meaning, (2) add the term to orgasm, with your source as a footnote, (3) now you can add it here, with an unlinked main term and an explanation that links orgasm, because there would not be a problem with DABMENTION any more. (But do not use a piped link because that is contrary to a different part of MOS:DAB.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on the disambig policy regarding slang synonyms:

As I have already stated on this talk page and as I just verified on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages, slang synonyms (or for that matter even non-slang synonyms) for a topic that has it’s own legitimate article are currently allowed so long as they link to the topic that they directly refer to. So, for example, Fuzz can link via a disambiguation page to the article Police since that is the topic of the article and fuzz is a slang synonym for police. What you can’t do is link a slang term or phrase to something related to the topic of a valid article but not mentioned ion the related article itself. To quote the policy regarding “Items appearing within other articles”: ”If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader.”. Since “The Big O” refers to an orgasm in this instance and “Orgasm” has an article of its own, the topic that “The Big O” refers to ass a synonym is included in the article in question as it is the topic of the article itself. Therefor this slang synonym need not be mentioned specifically in the Orgasm article as it’s simply a synonym even if it’s slang. If you still believe I am misreading the policy page in question then please present your arguments for why I am reading the policy wrong regarding slang synonyms for article topics as whole, specifically, especially given the link I perviously provide about to an prior discussion on changing the rule that was never adopted. —- Notcharliechaplin (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Nope, you are mistaken. older ≠ wiser 22:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

No, this has been discussed on a number of talk pages for the disambiguation guidelines and I am pretty sure I have not got it wrong. If you want to argue that I am mistaken then please point to the a specific discussion discussion how this particular point that contradicts what I have argued. Simply arguing I am mistaken is not a valid counterpoint. I have edited Wikipedia long about to have read all the guidelines and archived discussions of them to have a good sense of what they mean. Unless you point to a specific discussion where the consensus disagrees with my understanding of the guidelines then I will have to revert you again once 24 hours have and passed and I’m an not in violation of the 24 hr in 3R’s rule. I understand you don’t like the rule as I understand it to be but that irrelevant just as it would be if I didn’t the rule as written. But I’ve seen no evidence supporting your interpretation for the rule and no neither you or Epstein. If you’d like, we can take this to arbitration but I done enough research to to be fairly confident that I will win on this issue.

Notcharliechaplin (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it has been discussed extensively and the resulting guidance in both WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB is clear:

• WP:DABDICT: A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions, and I'd argue this extends to being a glossary for slang usage
• MOS:DABNOENTRY: Do not include entries for topics which are not mentioned in any article, even if there is an article on a related topic, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic.
• MOS:DABMENTION: If the topic is not mentioned in the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic.

Also relevant is WP:DABABBREV and MOS:DABACRO. Although 'Big O' is not strictly an initialism, Do not add articles to abbreviation or acronym disambiguation pages unless the target article includes the acronym or abbreviation—we are resolving an ambiguity, not making yet another dictionary of abbreviations. If an abbreviation is verifiable, but not mentioned in the target article, consider adding it to the target article and then adding the entry to the disambiguation page.

Yes, there have been several discussions over the years and I've participated in many of them. In one case, I was basically on the other side of the issue where an editor wanted to remove Michael Jordan from MJ (disambiguation) because at the time the article made no mention that he was commonly known as 'MJ'. The result was that this detail was added to the article. There does appear to be a consensus of sorts for an exception concerning references to various types of country codes where the detail is not explicitly mentioned in the country's article. In such cases, it was however determined to be more relevant to direct readers to the country article rather than to a list of codes containing the details. I don't think that is the case here. This is more like the MJ situation. If the phrase 'Big O' has significant currency in usage, there should be no issue in noting this somewhere in the article on 'orgasm'.

You referenced the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 41#Proposed addendum to MOS:DABSYN which concerned the addition of specific language to MOS:DABSYN that basically re-iterated the already existing guidance in MOS:DABMENTION. The discussion was not a repudiation of MOS:DABMENTION, only that there was no consensus to add the essentially redundant language to MOS:DABSYN. older ≠ wiser 11:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)