Talk:Cleo Henry

notability, etc.
I replaced #REDIRECT Birth of the Cool, which had been in place since 2005, with a single sentence linked to the same place which is much more helpful. The redirect was to the article Birth of the Cool, but you couldn't find out about this pseudonym without reading the whole article or doing a search on "Cleo Henry".

A pseudonym used by two major jazz figures is certainly notable. It is referenced in the linked article. I'm not sure it needs to be categorized, but we can probably think one up.

This would be well within scope if this were on a dab page -- why not just leave it as is? The alternative is to go back to the unhelpful redirect. As a sophisticated editor on the WMF project (120,000+ total contributions), I can find my way around, but a new user looking for a biography of Cleo Henry is going to get lost.

. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 17:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * References are not optional. Categories are not optional.  Please do not remove maintenance tags without fixing the issues that they represent.  And I mean fixing them when you remove the tags, not at some unknown point in the future.
 * Also, you give no indication that the term has separate notability from the previously redirected article. That's the reason for the notability tag.  You now have a fully separate article for this term.  A stub, yes, but a separate article.  And if there is to be a separate article, you need to show that the term meets the notability criteria separately from the previously redirected article.
 * I'm not going to edit war over the tags, but if you do not intend to fix the problems in short order, please put the tags back ASAP so that someone else can come along and fix them. Lack of categories, in particular, generally gets fixed within a matter of a few days of being tagged.
 * As for it being a dab page, if you have two different articles to point to, then it can be a dab. A dab is almost like a redirect to multiple targets, and does not generally need to have all the trappings of a separate article.  But all the extra explanation should not be included in a dab.  But this is not a dab as currently structured, and as long as it is not a dab, then it is subject to the rules for articles, not dabs.  So either it's an article, follows the article rules, and needs sourcing and categories and notability, or it's a dab, and should be a bare-bones listing of the two separate articles that it disambiguates.

A dab version would look something like:

Cleo Henry may be:
 * A pseudonym of Miles Davis.
 * A pseudonym of Gil Evans.

TexasAndroid (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Your proposed dab is more helpful than nothing, but it is not accurate -- Cleo Henry is a pseudonym of the two of them working together and not a pseudonym of either one individually.


 * Do what you like with it. I recognize that as is, it stretches the rules, but it seems to me that stretching the rules is better than making things more difficult for an inexperienced user to get the information he or she is looking for. I spend 95% of my time on Commons where senior Admins, including me, try to do what is right, even if it means bending the rules a little. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs)  22:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you do not care about the rules on your project, that's your choice. I care about the rules.  I've gone ahead and put back at least the unreferenced and uncategorized tags.  If you want it to remain as a stub, it can be a stub, but it still needs to be referenced or categorized. I'll also stick a stub template on it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * We certainly care about the rules on Commons, but we don't let them stand in the way of being helpful to users in very unusual circumstances. I suggest you think of this as a redirect with explanation. I started this because the bald redirect left me mystified -- why was I reading The Birth of the Cool? Or, if you prefer, think of it as a single item DAB -- one of the goals of DABs is "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily" -- this does that.


 * Since the name was referenced at Birth of the Cool, I have as you suggested, added the reference here. I see that you have not replaced the notability tag. I hope we can agree that a pseudonym used jointly by two Jazz Hall of Fame members is notable, even though it was used in only one instance. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs)  16:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, we do not agree. If there no sources about the pseudonym (not just ones that mention it, but sources *about* it), then it is likely not *separately* notable from the main topic. Redirects can be used when topics are not really separately notable, but not full articles, stub or not.  We do not generally have separate articles on every minor side-issue about a notable topic or person.
 * And I'm sorry, but there is really no such thing as a "redirect with explanation". There is simply no such beast.
 * Anyway, I'm sorry for being snarky with my most recent response. I was annoyed at your own implications that I did not care about what is "right".  That I cared about the rules more than what was "right".  In this case, we simply disagree about what is right.  There may be cases where it is appropriate to break the rules.  But I have yet to see that this is one of those cases.  So from my POV, the rules *are* what is right in this case.  And to have you imply that I cared more about the rules than about what was right was very annoying.  So I snarked back at you.  I should not have done so, and I apologize.  - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Me too.  My CoS (Coefficient of Snarkiness) got out of hand up there. I should know by now that it is always better to dial it down, or wait a while. I defend my colleagues when others snipe at them -- I should not have sniped at you. Sorry.


 * Now for the problem at hand. I came here because I was looking for dates for Cleo Henry while cataloging Boplicity in my CD collection. The redirect simply dumped me into The Birth of the Cool, which wasn't helpful.


 * Boplicity doesn't have its own article, but according to AllMusic, it appears on more than 75 different CDs recorded by more than fifty different groups (that number includes Miles Davis in ten different combinations with other notable musicians).


 * While we normally deal with pseudonyms by redirecting them to the real name -- see Neil Moret -- or from the real name to the pseudonym -- see Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, that won't work here because the pseudonym was used jointly by Evans and Davis and for only the one piece. The other joint pseudonyms that come to mind -- Carolyn Keene and Franklin W. Dixon were used often enough so that they are more notable than the actual people.


 * I see these possibilities to make it easier to find out about Cleo Henry rather than simply being dumped into The Birth of the Cool.
 * 1) Leave it as it is.
 * 2) Make it a single entry DAB.
 * 3) Delete this page and enter Cleo Henry at Henry (surname)
 * 4) Delete this page and do nothing -- then a WP:EN search on Cleo Henry will end up at the right place in The Birth of the Cool.
 * 5) Find someone who is qualified to write an article on Boplicity (I'm not) and redirect Cleo Henry there.
 * I'm indifferent between #1 and #2, and prefer them a little to #3 or #4. #5 would be great, but doesn't seem likely.
 * . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 01:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A blue note
yall are crazy. the amount of debate here is greater than any possible article on this name. just relax, cats.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)