Talk:Rick and Bubba

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Alabama

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles

Rewritten

I've rewritten the article to take care of the copyvio problem. I'd like some input on if this is adequate. --Ichabod 01:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

I propose that Rick Burgess (radio personality) and Bill Bussey be merged into this article, because there does not appear to be enough content for them to stand on their own. In fact, they could simply be redirected at this point, since there is no unique information in those articles. Khatru2 10:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd. 7:25 CT, 27 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.72.32 (talk • contribs)

I agree. I created this page, and the other two are stubs. Tim Long 03:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty new at doing things on Wikipedia, so I'll need a good bit of advice and clarification. I put up the two pages for Rick Burgess (radio personality) and Bill Bussey with the idea of adding more biographical information for each individual later. After looking at the guidelines on Biographies of Living People I surmise that these two people fall right around the border of being noteworthy enough to justify separate bio pages. However, there have been a good many articles published on both of these people (usually together but some separately) that supply a fair amount of information on them.

Also, there are a few things about each of them that might be more appropriate to list on separate bio pages such as Bill Bussey's activity in amateur radio and competitive tennis and Rick Burgess' college football play and evangelistic speaking activities.

Two questions I have are (1) how long is it likely to be before the individual pages are merged (if that occurs) and, (2) can that be reversed later if circumstances change and appropriate information if available for full-fledged separate bio pages. Also, one of the things that prompted my making a page for Rick Burgess (radio personality) was that fact that there were two other Rick Burgesses listed that way, one of them also in radio broadcasting. And, if there was to be a separate page for Rick Burgess (radio personality) it then made sense to have a similar one for Bill Bussey

JPate 14:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. If you can add verifiable information from reliable sources to the articles about the individuals, please do. In answer to your questions, there is no exact time frame for a merge, but Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages suggests 5 days to 2 weeks. The process is reversible if new sources or evidence of notability can be provided. In the future, it would probably be a good idea to include the information about notability when you initially create the article. In that case, there would be no question about the necessity of a merge. Khatru2 23:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I'm in the process of checking the various information and making sure that it all comes from reliable sources and is verifiable, and I'm checking the guidelines for that to get familiar with all the proper procedures. I think I'll have the updated pages ready to go sometime next week.

JPate 22:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If JPate is able to expand the guys' articles properly, then they could continue to stand alone. Otherwise, they should be merged into the main article. You know, we could probably get everything we need with one phone call to Bubba, but that would be [[WP:OR|original research]. Darn. Realkyhick 04:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected the articles because it has been three weeks with no new content added. If anyone finds new information to warrant separate articles, feel free to restore them. Khatru2 08:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Rick's son

Please explain why Rick's son's death is relevant to this article. As sad as it is, this article is about the duo of Rick & Bubba and their radio show, and Bronner's death just isn't relevant to the content. If Rick had died, yes. Rick's son, no. I'm not trying to be insensitive to the situation. It's a sad day for that family and all R&B's fans and I sympathize with them, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, this isn't encyclopedic, in my opinion.--Zpb52 (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the event's inclusion is warranted because 1) a large part of their show is given to discussing their families, and 2) since "Rick Burgess" redirects here, this article is a de facto biography for Burgess. Bronner's death will have a significant impact on the show for quite some time. Frankly, I'm in favor of separate bio articles for Burgess and Bussey, but I believe that issue has already been decided some time ago. Barring that, a mention of the tragedy is warranted.

OK, folks, what's your opinion? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party - I've never heard the show, but it seems like if they discussed the matter on air, it would be relevant to the article. However, looking at the edit that was reverted, I don't know if it necessitates its own section and three paragraphs' worth of information.

A lot of the material in the intro could be moved to History (for sure the book and movie info), and maybe even a section for "Major show events" could be created; this event could fall under that section. Torc2 (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Hey. Sorry, but I don't think it should be included on the page. If Bronner was notable in his own right, it would be one thing, but the fact is that it's too peripheral to necessitate its own section. One sentence under the History section might be okay, but only if it has information on why it's notable to their radio show. Remember that not everything that happens belongs on Wikipedia. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested by netural party Post Deleted

That's nice. I'm sorry for your grief, but this is an encyclopedia, not a memorial site. --Zpb52 (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post Deleted

- - Unfortunately, due to your admiration for the show and your emotional attachment to the subject in question, your opinion is biased. When seeking Third Opinions, as myself and User:Realkyhick did, Wikipedia recommends using neutral parties so they can see the argument objectively. This is nothing personal, it's just Wikipedia policy. --Zpb52 (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post Deleted

- - - - I'm not trying to run you off. I just want you to follow the rules. Before you go, take a look at this: What Wikipedia is not. It will give you a good idea of what NOT to post from now on. --Zpb52 (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post Deleted

- - - - No. If you're going to be a constructive editor on Wikipedia, you need to read and understand the rules before you go breaking them, that's all. You're taking this WAY too personally. Chill, dude. --Zpb52 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post Deleted

- - - - Yes, you need to chill. Try to get some sleep and have a good night. --Zpb52 (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        By the way, if you want to see a civil discussion between two Wikipedia users, see the discussion below. --Zpb52 (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post Deleted

- - - - "Going away" does not involve coming back and continually violating Wikipedia policy, as you have been doing all afternoon.--Zpb52 (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post Deleted

- - - - I have to go to bed. It's been fun! Maybe it'll die now. --Zpb52 (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post Deleted

FWIW, From another fan

I'll start off by saying, I'm a noob at editing here, and I'm a huge fan of the show. I think Bronner's death *is* important to the show's history section, as it's definitely changing the timbre and atmosphere of the show, and certainly for the immediate future. Perhaps the best thing to do would be, once Rick returns to the show, to add, under the "History" section or a "Significant Events" section, a line such as "Rick took an extended leave of absence from the show from January 21, 2008 to (Return Date) to mourn the accidental drowning death of his youngest son, Bronner," then link/reference this to Rick's Bio page, where there would obviously be a more thorough description of this tragedy. MHaz1701 (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, actually. If the page ends up splitting, that's a good course of action to take. --Zpb52 (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it doesn't split, I think some small mention should be made, though; it is a pretty important event in the show's life. At the very least, I think maybe it should be mentioned that Rick is currently on a LOA and why, until we know something further about his return date and whether or not to split the article. That way, there's at least acknowledgement of his absence and the cause, in the history section, even if it doesn't split. MHaz1701 (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That, too, is a good idea. Because it's in the context of the radio show, that information would be relevant. What we don't need is a three-paragraph news article/obituary. --Zpb52 (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How about something like "Rick is currently on a leave of absence from the show to mourn the drowning death of his youngest son, Bronner. His return date to the show is currently not known." The only thing that makes me, honestly, "iffy" about this is whether or not Bubba and Speedy et al decide to go to "Best Of" shows until he returns. Or could the line be edited as necessary for this possibility? MHaz1701 (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've posted something similar to that at the bottom of the header. Remember, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we shouldn't speculate on his return, just announce the fact he's gone for the moment.--Zpb52 (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I like it. I made one change: swapped "Rick" for "Burgess." Reasoning: the article is about "Rick and Bubba," not "Burgess and Bussey..." More people will understand who "Rick" is in context of the article by itself than they will "Burgess." MHaz1701 (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Mildly disagree with first names for style reasons. Using last names is more formal than first names, and is the normal WP style. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Fair enough. This should accomplish all we need to accomplish right now. Good suggestions, my friend.--Zpb52 (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Chaos, panic and disorder... My work here is done... MHaz1701 (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Ordinarily, I'd agree with you about last names vs. first names, but I think "Rick" is clearer than "Burgess" in the context of the article. Fans of the show would immediately know who "Burgess" is, but non-fans would probably get confused. Note: I'm trying to treat this article as an isolated piece for the sake of discussion, with a reader who has no prior knowledge of the show as my model. MHaz1701 (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split into three articles

I propose this article be split into three separate and distinct articles:

Rick Burgess
Bill "Bubba" Bussey
The Rick and Bubba Show (from which "Rick and Bubba" will redirect)

We can include all the biographical info on each host, and create a page which is all about the show.

It would also, in effect, provide a compromise for the info about Bronner's drowning. That information would be accepted on Rick Burgess' bio page. --Zpb52 (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are both of them notable on their own? Would those two pages be able to exist without turning into fan pages? If we are to follow this proposal, I wouldn't do a redirect; I'd do a move. Much cleaner that way. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I would say yes. Rick Burgess is on the Christian speaking circuit, and maintains a separate weekend career doing stuff like that. Bill Bussey is venturing into his own things as well. They are a team, but they are notable in their own rights, in my opinion.--Zpb52 (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes For

Vote For Split: Reasons mentioned above. --Zpb52 (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split, as was originally done by other editors. I think they're notable enough in their own right for separate articles now. (I thought it back then, too, but I lost that battle.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split, as long as both articles come out as verified and notable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split Both Rick and Bubba are at least minor celebrities outside of the show.MHaz1701 (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split - The two men have outside lives and ventures that place them into the public eye independently of one another. Each is hired frequently as a speaker at events where the others do not attend. While it is possible that neither would have been in the public eye initially without the show, the same can be argued for many musicians who have never recorded without their bands or actors who have only appeared on one television show or in one movie. Both did have radio careers prior to teaming up as well.Steventhomas42 (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split - There's definitely enough info now for the split. (btw I changed my vote) Googolme* 17:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split - I do think Bronner's death should be briefly mentioned on the R&B page, but detailed in Rick's bio. The reason is because on the Archive Page of the Extreme Club the audio of the days without Rick are archived & available indefinitely, because "the events of these days changed all our live forever".SuBassmaster (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is someone going to do this? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes Against

Keep as one: Neither of them are significant without the other. --Ichabod (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one: There is not enough significant biographical information to warrant separate pages. Perhaps short individual bios could be included on this page, as supplementary background information of the show itself. --User:Arob22 (User talk:Arob22)

Neutral Votes

Split if someone adds more bio As stated above, there isn't much bio info but if the pages are split, there needs to be alot more bio. but splitting would make the pages alot clearer. there are too many subjects for this page. Googolme (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)changing my vote[reply]

Tag removed

The tag has been in place for over two years with no action, so I have removed it. An article on one or other or both of the people can be created by doing some research and building up the relevant sections within this article. When there is enough verifiable material, new articles can be created per WP:Summary style. At present there is not enough sourced material to create an article so a split cannot be done (which is likely why nobody has done it so far). When enough material has been created in this article the split can be done - though if people need assistance, a new Split tag with a new date can be placed on the article. SilkTork *^YES! 17:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]