Talk:Joseph Genaro

Move to Joe Jack Talcum

This is the name by which he's known. The only reference to "Joseph Genaro" is in the lede, where we give his birth name. Otherwise, it's "Joe Jack Talcum" throughout, and his categories are sorted under T for Talcum, not G for Genaro. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I would argue against this - his birth name and legal names are Genaro, and "Joe Jack Talcum" is an alias; thus, the article should be headed, sorted and written as Genaro per Wikipedia's musician biography policy. The inconsistencies should be addressed as such, i.e., eliminating references to Genaro as "Talcum" beyond noting his oft-used stage name. Sorting should also be done under G. Colinclarksmith (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least you're arguing for consistency, which is the main principle here. I'd rather have your alternative approach than what we have at the moment. However, if he's notable only because of his music career, and to his music fans he's mostly known as Joe Jack Talcum, then doesn't that dictate what the title should be? Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Style says: "For an artist or group that has recorded under many names, use the name that is most common or famous ... Redirect all the other names to one article. For an individual without one recording name that is more prolific or famous than the others it may be easiest to use his or her birth name".

I don’t know this guy from Adam, but at first glance it appears he's best known as Joe Jack Talcum. I acknowledge he seems to have also used the names Jack Talcum, Jasper Thread, Butterfly Fairweather, Butterfly Joe, and Butterfly Joe Armada. That range of names alone might mean he should be listed as Genaro, with redirects from all his aliases. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Having gone back and re-read the policy, I see that you are more on-the-nose with your interpretation of the policy than I previously was (i.e., that the name the artist is best known under rather than that which he was born under is the name the article should be headed under). I would still argue along with the direction you're heading in the last paragraph of your previous post, being that Genaro's string of pseudonyms through the years is fluid and inconsistent enough to warrant a general grouping under his birth name (which has been consistently used, although often on the back-burner, throughout his career). Genaro and his band-mates in the Dead Milkmen all used (and frequently changed) pseudonyms in their listings in the liner notes of Dead Milkmen records, but all musicians with the group other than Genaro used their proper last names in all other musical instances (i.e., with groups other than the Dead Milkmen.) These other musicians in the Dead Milkmen all have biographical articles under their proper last names, and I think this is appropriate.

Anyhow, it seems like we're potentially on the same page here (i.e., favoring consistency), and I would argue for the categorization, composition and titling of this article to all fall under Genaro, as the musician in question is known by a multitude of names (probably most commonly Joe Jack Talcum, but not in a quantity to constitute a majority,) and thus his birth name is most appropriate. Colinclarksmith (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Gay

There's nothing in the article to suggest he's gay. LGBT categories need to be supported by evidence. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Genaro references his homosexuality in this interview. I'm not of the opinion that this information need necessarily be integrated into his article, but others who are interested in such an addition may use this interview as a starting point for research. Colinclarksmith (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of necessarily being interested in the details of his private life. It's a question of not putting people into categories where there's not an obvious reason why they should be so categorised. Such a reason needs to form part of the article, and not just exist somewhere on the internet. Obviously the editor who put him into the LGBT/gay categories knows this about him. If that editor had said in the article "He is gay" but without a citation, anybody else would have been justified in asking "where's the evidence for that claim?". Putting a subject into a LGBT category without making any mention of homosexuality in the article is tantamount to making an uncited assertion of the subject's homosexuality. So, this information does necessarily need to form part of the article. Otherwise, the LGBT categories will be removed. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is completely fair - I see no reason why Genaro should be grouped with LGBT artists. I merely point to the link to an article where Genaro talks at some depth about this subject in case someone else wants to make a case for its inclusion in the article (e.g., if whoever posted the category was not aware of this interview). I would not oppose the removal of the LGBT artists category. Colinclarksmith (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul

I've overhauled the content of the article to reflect consistent reference to the artist under his birth name and hopefully to convey a more encyclopedic tone overall. Regarding the issue of sexual preference - there was a sentence in the article referencing homosexuality via the Mark Prindle article, which I hadn't noticed previously. I left it intact. Colinclarksmith (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I missed that sentence too. Funny, it's right there, large as life. I'm more than happy with your changes, Colin. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Great! Glad to hear it, thanks. I'm also glad to hear I wasn't the only person that missed that line. Cheers, Colinclarksmith (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Genaro. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330014715/http://www.philebrity.com/2011/01/05/say-hi-to-the-king-in-yellow-the-first-album-of-new-material-by-the-dead-milkmen-in-over-15-years/ to http://www.philebrity.com/2011/01/05/say-hi-to-the-king-in-yellow-the-first-album-of-new-material-by-the-dead-milkmen-in-over-15-years/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://stream.publicbroadcasting.net/production/mp3/kuac/local-kuac-849164.mp3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820035942/http://litshow.com/joejacktalcum to http://litshow.com/joejacktalcum

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)