Jump to content

Talk:Bo Burnham/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bo Burnham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Bo Burnham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

bo bunrham help

is there away we can redirect bo burnham to Bo Burnham? (caps) googling Bo Burnham shows wiki coming up at fourth hit, but non-caps pushes the site back to the fourth page.

i hope im making sense here lol..

no caps = http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bo+burnham&btnG=Google+Search

caps = http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Bo+Burnham&btnG=Search —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

not really

A lowercase search of bo burnham connects directly to the uppercase Bo Burnham. If it didn't then one could create a page there and redirect. It needs to be spelled differently to make a redirect page. You could make one the way you misspelled it, "bo bunrham" but that really wouldn't help much. MBCF (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

i kind of figured but id thought it was worth a shot. is it possible to make wiki come up on the first google hit for "Bo Burnham"? anything we as editors can do? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
There are ways to make the page rank higher but you have to be careful because google ranking is smart. It knows when it is being tricked and then sends the rank down.
The easiest thing to do is to make links using "Bo Bunrham" as the link to well visited sites about BB. That can be done in the "external links" and by adding references to everything. The more times you say "Bo Burnham" in sentences that make sense as well as links using that name will do it.
The other thing to do is wait. It takes time. The longer the page exists the higher the rank. MBCF (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Just googled "Bo Burnham" in quotes and ranked number 6 and it was google visited on July 12 (look at the cached page). Adding a section title "Exteranl Links" and listing all good Bo sites would kick it up a notch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBCF (talk • contribs) 12:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
gotchya. i tried googling bo burnham (without caps) and it ranked #6, like u said. im satisfied with that. : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Apatow

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/YouTube-Celeb-Joins-Team-Apatow-10320.html - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

20 Million Views

It says 20 million views on YT, yet on Tube it's only 2million+?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LZoO8LyizLA&feature=channel

Changed to 2.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.14.103 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

more info about apatow?

when i started this article i didnt think it would get this popular. : )

anyways, i was just wondering if we could start adding more info about bo burnham's alleged-collaboration with film director/producer judd apatow? been googling but cant seem to find anything noteworthy.

thanks!

Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

reconstitution

I greatly expanded and cleaned up this article. Every iota of information is 100% cited to reliable sources, and I executed the manual of style for articular consistency's sake. I don't think I removed any information that was originally present, but if so, make sure it's verifiable before replacing it. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

View counts

It says in this article that "Burnham's videos have received over 10 million hits" This information is quite old and Bo's videos have now received around 20-30 million views. Can anyone fix this and find a verifiable reference on his number of internet hits.

Thanks! (also, awesome re-doing of the article!) Catscan32 (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Collecting the information ourselves is original research and synthesis, and we can't do that. The 10m number comes from The Boston Globe which, as you say, is just shy of a year old. The numbers are invariably higher, but without a reliable source we can cite, our options are either (a) leave the 10m number in (possibly noting "as of"), or (b) remove it. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why don't we just refer to Burnham's profile on youtube.com ?! He actually has more than 20 mio views on his videos by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.230.60.192 (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I discussed it at the original research noticeboard, and based on the input there, I've updated the count. The precise number at the very moment I looked was 32,648,901; I truncated that to "over 32.6 milion" for prose's sake. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • updated the Youtube Channel hit count to 184 mill. as of 2016-12-26, also included the info for the Month/Year about the hit count. (Whenever I find such info included in the article text, I deem it a good info and at times it convinced me to check on the info and often update the article with the newest number available.) Since I am no native tongue, I hope the way I phrased it is okay with everyone.
Question (probably for User:Fourthords(was: user pd_THOR) why was the deadurl=yes set for the archiveurl= of the youtube hit count? The original URL is not dead. Is that some issue with WP:ORN? --Rava77 (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Nope, that citation showed up well after my time here. Furthermore, I have no idea why it would be set to "no"; I've changed it. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

More Photos

I have great photos to contribute from the CWRU show. see here: http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/7666059_pDc7h#494895257_3Z8Sr all are dual licensed under CC and GNU. Use what you want. LexieM (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's hella awesome. Thanks, LexieM! I'll go through them tomorrow and look at incorporating some of them as I can. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

album consolidation

I'm considering replacing the two separate album articles with a consolidated article (User:fourthords/Bo Burnham discography) for the time being. The two album articles can't really be expanded significantly from where they are, primarily because I haven't come across the sources. Does anybody have any input? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

missing information

even though Bo chose to go to NYU he was accepted into Brown and Harvard, source: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/fbptr/i_am_a_20_yearold_comedian_and_redditor_my_name/c1esgfm

Magicalbendini (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Also his brothers' college enrollment status is way outdated. Pete graduated Cornell several years ago.

sources

  • Mintzer, Rebekah (2009-02-26). "Bo Burnham Proves Teenagers Can Be Funny". The Spectator. Clinton, New York, United States: Hamilton College. Retrieved 2009-02-28. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Greaney, T.J. (2009-03-04). "In-your-face comedy". Columbia Daily Tribune. Columbia, Missouri, United States: Henry J. Waters III. Retrieved 2009-03-05. YouTube phenom Bo Burnham prompts protests at Westminster. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "?". Teen Vogue. United States: Gina Sanders. Mar 2009. p. 91. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

un-/under-utilized sources

RfC How should Burnham be refered to in the lead sentence?

The consensus is that Burnham should be referred to in the lead sentence as:

C. comedian, musician, actor, filmmaker and poet

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Positions and roles says:

The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources. The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph.

Significant coverage in reliable sources have been provided for each of the roles presented in option C. The consensus based on editors' evaluation of the sources is that each of these roles "emphasize what made the person notable".

Cunard (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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.

How should Burnham be referred to in the lead sentence?

  • A. comedian, musician, and actor
  • B. comedian, musician, actor, and filmmaker
  • C. comedian, musician, actor, filmmaker and poet
  • D. other, please specify

The relevant policy is WP:BLPLEAD, specifically WP:BLPLEAD#Positions_and_roles. LK (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • The current version: C. Can I ask why this is an RfC when there's been no previous talk discussion? For context, editors should see the changes made to the page on 15 August, particularly this version in which I provide specific sources saying "Burnham is an __" for each of the claims (though the body also obviously sources this information). Pinging @Lee Vilenski and Radiphus, who each made related changes on 15 August. And Lawrencekhoo, can I ask why you think the current version is not acceptable, and how this relates to BLPLEAD? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
For context, I simply reverted edits removing the word poet. This should certainly not be an RfC without previous talk page conversation. There are plenty of sources regarding Burnham's poetry book, egghead, so removing this seems fruitless. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Since it's asked here's the relevant policy section of BLPLEAD: "The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources. The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph. In general, a position, activity, or role should not be included the lead paragraph if: a) the role is not otherwise discussed in the lead (per MOS:LEAD, don't tease the reader), b) the role is not significantly covered in the body of the article, or, c) the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person (e.g. do not add "textbook writer", if the person is an academic)." --LK (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I am able to read. I was looking for a specific noun found in the current lead sentence that you don't think Bo is "commonly described" as. But there isn't one. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a classic example of 'local consensus'. We need the input of the broader community to enforce what are very clear guidelines from WP:BLPLEAD, that a person should be referred to in a way similar to how he is commonly referred to in RS. I have yet to see a single example of a RS stating something like "Burnham is an American comedian, musician, actor, filmmaker and poet". Even if there was a single example, we should still evaluate all of the ways Bo is referred to in RS, and use a sentence similar to how he is most commonly referred. LK (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Please see WP:RFCBEFORE, as the previous editor who removed the tag cited. Your arguments are pedantry to the point where if we observed them, we'd never be able to do anything but quote sources verbatim, which would obviously fall afoul of WP:COPYVIO! The oldid I give above contains refs for everyone one of those adjectives, in the form "Burnham is an ___", which is an unnecessarily pedantic requirement anyway, evidenced by the fact another editor removed these refs as excessive. In fact I was considering bringing this to ANI myself, as you bring up in this edit summary, but escalation is rarely the right tool. I don't understand your vendetta here, but I will let other editors weigh in first. Pinging @Redrose64, Lee Vilenski, and Radiphus (all editors who've made past edits relating to this) and I welcome any comments from users who've come here from the RfC notice. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@Lawrencekhoo: You have now added a {{rfc}} template to this thread three times. Please describe how all of the methods outlined at WP:RFCBEFORE have failed (or are unsuitable), requiring a formal thirty-day RfC to be initiated. For instance, the first suggestion is that it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page - so where on this talk page is that discussion? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I have yet to see a single example of a RS stating something like "Burnham is an American comedian, musician, actor, filmmaker and poet".

@Lawrencekhoo: Los Angeles Times wrote in 2015, Bo Burnham, poet and satirist, sings his way to Las Vegas [...] comedian and actor Bo Burnham heads to the Joint at the Hard Rock Hotel. Also in 2015, Cleveland.com wrote Burnham is hard to define. He is not a set-up punchline comedian, nor is he a sage storyteller. He weaves music and poetry, dance and stand-up together -- along with dirty jokes and sophisticated satire. In a 2016 interview with Vulture, it is mentioned that Burnham has an extensive bio: comedian, writer, YouTuber, poet, musician. The Interrobang wrote in 2016 that Burnham combines music, stand up, poetry, and more in his often sold out shows, and created the MTV series Zach Stone Is Gonna Be Famous. In a 2018 show of a National Public Radio news program, the host says that Burnham has an impressively diverse resume - musician, comedian, writer, producer, singer-songwriter, rapper, actor, poet. And at this year's Sundance Film Festival, he added movie director to that list. Should i keep looking for more sources? I have yet to understand which of these terms you have a problem with and why. - Radiphus (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • As regards WP:RFCBEFORE: Clearly we prefer it when some degree of discussion is attempted on the talk page before more involved community outreach/dispute resolution processes are utilized, but there is absolutely no formalistic or concrete requirement anywhere under policy or community consensus. Indeed, the very wording of the policy subsection that has been invoked here repeatedly makes it clear that the mandate for prior discussion is precatory, not a firm requirement. If the community wanted firm rules about more specific hoops to jump through or standards that someone had to meet before an editor could reach out to the broader community, they would be in that policy. As such, at some point, trying to enforce one's idiosyncratic notion of how much "before" work has to be done before one allows another editor to utilize a process that exist specifically to get the larger community's opinion becomes outright WP:DISRUPTIVE--and frankly, WP:EDITWARRING to repeatedly remove an RfC tag and deny another editor access to the larger community's opinion (no matter that there are several people who agree with you doing the same thing) is blatantly inappropriate and eventually an express ticket to WP:ANI. Every editor who responds to an RfC is a WP:VOLUNTEER, as with any other process on this project, and we can decide for ourselves whether the OP has done enough to make it worth our while to respond to their inquiry. And I say this as someone who spends a not insignificant fraction of their time on project responding to RfCs (about a thousand of them in recent years) and who has occasionally called other editors out for not considering RFCBEFORE before leaping into the process. But asking such an editor not to be so hasty (or to be more reserved with the process in the future) is about all that is appropriate in these circumstances. If they still insist on going ahead with an RfC, trying to deny them access to the community process is almost never appropriate and will generally only succeed in A) raising the profile of the dispute and B) further entrenching the original involved parties. Clearly there is a dispute here and it's not going away, so let's stop wasting time on a pro forma meta-discussion that is only going to raise the tension between good-faith editors further, and just address the content issue.
As to my !vote for the best approach, it is for Option C: I understand where Lawrencekhoo is coming from, but I think they are missing the forest for the trees. It is true that BLPLEAD (and the general approach across biographical articles in general) urges us not to throw in every professional or laudatory position an individual may have claim to, in favour of focusing on the main sources of said person's notability. However, there are occasions where an individual is notable specifically for having a multifaceted career or producing fusional works. After a review of the sources employed in the article, others raised in this thread, and a little bit of extra searching myself, I am convinced this is one such case. BLPLEAD is not a one-size-fits-all test, it is a logical extension of WP:WEIGHT--for most entertainers, weight will fall on a couple of forms of work, but where the notability is more diffuse as reflected in reliable sources, it is appropriate to broaden the opening description. Mind you, I personally would class Burnham as a comic who leans on some gimmicks involving other forms of art, but we're not here for my WP:original research descriptor, nor anybody else's; the sources seems to regard Burnham as a musician and poet in addition to comedian (filmmaker is borderline, perhaps), and we should follow suit. Snow let's rap 21:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Just in regards to the "filmmaker is borderline" point: the only filmmaking credit of Burnham's which is relevant to this discussion is Eighth Grade, released in July 2018, so older sources wouldn't really refer to him as a filmmaker. However, Eighth Grade is a multi-million dollar project that he wrote and directed and the plethora of post-movie sources are referring to him as a filmmaker, and talking about the filmmaking role, so I think it's obvious already that this will be a large part of his legacy. (Post-Make Happy, Burnham was pretty clear about wanting to move away from the musician-comedian roles and into filmmaking, but this is WP:CRYSTAL territory.) — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment (Summoned by bot) The current wording (C) comes across as borderline puffy. In situations like this I think we need to defer to RS sources. Given the success and prominence of Eighth Grade I do believe that "filmmaker" needs to be utilized either alone orin combination with another term or terms. Coretheapple (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC) revising. Coretheapple (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    Filmmaker alone? Then why has Burnham been a notable figure since 2008, when his only works were of musical comedy? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 14:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    You're right. Filmmaker alone would probably be too little. But right now seems like too much. As I said, it's up to the sources. For instance. The New Yorker profile suggests adding "comedian" [1]. I'd favor paring it down from the current long description, which reads too hagiographic. Coretheapple (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    There are plenty of RS (most described above) that refer to Burnham as a lot of the above. Certainly Musician and Comedian. Potentially actor and poet are where the list gets exessive, however they are both very much true. Perhaps an initial lede that states he's a Musician, and Comedian (Which is what he is most commonly known as), and then a second sentence regarding his other various roles regarding filmmaking, acting and poetry. He's also clearly a music writer, considering he wrote a lot of his songs, which could be added. I feel like this removes a massive bias for him stating he's all sorts of things, but also explains that he is active in plenty of areas. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    I don't agree that the current wording is puffy or hagiographic, as the language is not positively loaded. It only mentions the person's notable positions as they are determined by reliable sources, some of which i have provided above. Notability is not measured by the level of success in an artistic/occupational area; it is based on coverage in reliable sources, and all of the those terms (including filmmaker) have received significant coverage, either alone or in combination with the others. - Radiphus (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    I also don't understand how a simple list of value-neutral jobs is hagiographic. For acting, he starred in Zach Stone Is Gonna Be Famous—and when I say "starred in", I mean his character was the centre of every single scene in a 12 episode series. Poet is the one where I will concede is the least important claim, but he's a published poet, with a full-length book of poetry. It's not like we're dealing with a list so long it's unusable, or even one that's much longer than most other WP bios. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 14:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    I see it the same way. - Radiphus (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2018 (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.

Infobox description

Can we get some clarification regarding the terms used in the infobox for this BLP? Recently "Singer, songwriter and rapper" were changed to "musician" due to the infobox description being "too long". We already had an RFC above stating these were acceptable in the prose, so why would this not be ok in the infobox? As per WP:BRD, starting discussion. Pinging editors involved Bilorv, Radiphus and Bowling is life Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't the scope of the RfC—it was about the terms "comedian, musician, actor, filmmaker and poet". None of "singer, songwriter and rapper" were discussed. As with everything in the infobox, we need to concisely include only the most important details; nine occupations would be overkill, when Burnham isn't really a rapper (he has sung rap music... but also music from a dozen other genres) and "musician" covers all of his music-related stuff (in addition to singing, his works feature keyboards and pianos). (Thanks for starting the discussion.) — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
My issue is with "songwriter"; as being a musician doesn't exactly cover this. Granted, he writes for himself, but a lot of musicians do not write their own music. The rapper and singer parts I will concede they are covered by musician. Is there a policy at WP:MUSIC regarding this? (It's outside my knowledge, I'm afraid). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Would it be worth bringing this question up at WP:MUSIC? A WP:FA in Bob Dylan simply lists him as a Singer-songwriter, not a musician. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Career Beginning

The first paragraph states that Bo's career began in March 2006 on youtube, but according to his about page (https://www.youtube.com/user/boburnham/about) he joined in July, so perhaps that should be changed to July 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.192.82 (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bo_Burnham/Archive_1&oldid=1110316383"