Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music/Archive 1

References

The references did not come out right. I just need help to have the references to go to a the page. If you open up the edit link you can clearly see that everything is referenced form third party sources. it's in no way jibberish because some people dont know about some of the heros or their titles. It's also not one sided. All of the artist have equal amount of facts just like an encyclopedia.(Kelvin Martinez (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

Most of the sources are poor quality like that imbd link and the article lacks notability. Its trivia at its worse. We already have an article for the list of the worlds best selling artists, we dont need anything else. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 12:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not agree with the above statement - I have just happened to check half a dozen sources at random, and include perfectly reputable ones such as RIAA, Billboard, Rolling Stone, etc. I don't doubt that there may be the odd duff reference - fix it or delete it. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Worlds Best Selling Artist!! and its not trivia at it's worse because I've seen plenty of pages here on wikipedia that make this page look good.Kelvin Martinez (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For those of you with time on your hands, and wishing to improve existing Wikipedia articles, I just came across the following website for the Songwriters' Hall of Fame - http://www.songwritershalloffame.org/artists/home - which lists a few nicknames/honorific titles, call 'em what you will, and may be of use as regards references, if it hasn't already been used. The organisation in question was founded by Johnny Mercer (very notable and Founding President 1969-1973) and has been headed by leading songwriters such as Sammy Cahn (very notable and President Emeritus 1973-1993) and Frank Sinatra (very notable and Chairman Emeritus 1993-1998). Regards, --Technopat (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Some Time To Fix Links

I need some time to fix the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvin Martinez (talk • contribs) 12:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems like most of this is trivia anyway. Booglamay (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I reckon the article, as it stands, is lousy. However that is also true of many Wikipedia articles and they don't get speedy deletion templates stuck on 'em. I am not an inclusionist, and much of my time on Wikipedia is spent tidying up articles which irritate me, but in this case the speedy deletion was contested with a hangon template and I reckon that changing a contested speedy deletion template to another template and rushing good faith editors to try & fix the article could be considered bad faith. Most of the content in the article is, as Booglamay points out above, trivia, and personally I would consider much of it pure crap, but that doesn't mean it has no place on Wikipedia, if adequately edited, that is, referenced, etc. I attach the following excerpt from the Wikipedia deletion guideline for everyone's consideration:

Quote:

Wikipedia writers and editors contribute a lot of brilliant prose, but occasionally some patent nonsense. This falls into two categories:

1. Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes sequences such as "rtmhtyhjjflbhjognaaaaahat///8kjt9ykbitiof,kkc", in which keys of the keyboard have been pressed with no regard for what is typed.
2. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.

Not to be confused with...

The following, while often regrettable, are not patent nonsense, and should not be treated as such. Check the Deletion policy for information on how to handle these things.

• Violations of copyright or other exclusive rights, nonsense or not (see Wikipedia:Copyrights)
• Poorly written content that can be improved (See How to copy-edit)

The wikilink at the end of the above quoted guideline asks "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" --Technopat (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the title

The title of the article also implies that these artists are part of a legitimate royal family when infact all they are is media/fan nicknames. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 12:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Realist² above that the title is incorrect. Apart from any other consideration, the word "royality" doesn't exist in English. A more convenient article title could be something like Honorific titles in popular music.--Technopat (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So picking up on some of the comments below, what happens if some of the stuff here gets shifted onto an article called something along the lines of List of nicknames in popular music, in keeping with a load of similar lists included in the See also subsection of Nickname? Trying-to-be-constructive regards, --Technopat (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Well I added the notes bar so that the refs are visable. Clearly there are major formatting problems. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Being bold - moved article to conform to Wikipedia's naming conventions

As mentioned elsewhere on this talk page, the original title of the article was incorrect - as regards use of English - and did not conform to Wikipedia guidelines on naming conventions. I have therefore moved it to its present title. This of course does not affect the content of the article, which still needs serious editing... --Technopat (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank You Kindly!!!!!!!!

Thank You Thank you Thank You for fixing up this page for all editors especially admins. The last time I made a page was List of Best Selling Remix albums. Things were different a year and a half ago lol. Sorry if i made a mess for asking for a lot of help but I knew the page was a dozze. So its better know and still not perfect but its a start for a good page. So lets keep on working on it to make it WIKIPEDABLE (Thought of that myself lol). How does it look? Anyone thoughts? Kelvin Martinez (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Page looks Good

Its finally looking the way its suppose to. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Berry OR

I copied the information from the King of Rock and Roll page, which is up for speedy deletion, to the relevant section here. However, without citations, I'm not certain of the validity of the Honorific titles in popular music#Chuck Berry information, although it seems plausible and reasonable to me. Accordingly, I slaapped in the Original Research tag.

Please also look at my comments in the deletion discussion. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 13:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Chuck berry will get worked on. Thanks for the support. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Focus on honorifics, not on honors

Someone asked my opinion about this article, so I'm posting a comment here. I think it would be improved if the sections for each artist were to focus on the title itself: Who first used it, is there a story behind it, has it been used in notable contexts, etc. Talking about each artist's achievements is really for the article on each artist, which is already linked. I think the sourcing and scoping problems that people are bringing up at the AfD discussion would be addressed by a tighter focus on the honorific titles themselves.

That's my 2¢ anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I just came across, by a roundabout route, the "See also" you posted for Jazz royalty. It's an extremely useful encyclopaedic reference - properly sourced, wikified, etc. (that goes without saying, surely?) - for anyone interested in that particular subject. Interestingly, it has been on Wikipedia since 2004. Furthermore, raises even more notability, and so on, concerns than the present article. I'm not going to stick an AfD template on it, I'm just going to try to tidy it up a bit, and maybe find the odd reference with which to wikify it further. --Technopat (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

We made it!!

Lets fix this page up good. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Its Complete!

All the references are done, the pictures are there, the structure is there, and the debate is long over lol. It will just get better. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of Album Covers as Illustration

Major red flag. I don't know a lot about this, but I think the use of the cover art from an album is only permitted in an article about that album. I think this is a hard and inflexible rule. Check with someone who knows more about WP image copyright isssues than me. But I ran across this exact issue once when I questioned the deletion of the "Born to Run" cover in a part of the Bruce Springsteen article. I learned I was wrong. The deletion was not only appropriate, but mandated. I fear it is here, too. David in DC (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Flagged for rescue

I have just flagged the article for rescue as I believe it needs the considered opinion of non-involved editors/administrators. As I have mentioned before, even though the subject matter is of no interest to me whatsoever, I consider the article to have been created in good faith and it evidently concerns notable subjects - trivial, popular or non-highbrow - but notable none the less. The fact that so much time has gone into making it well-referenced and as wikified as possible - as opposed to so much energy wasted in trying to pick it to pieces and nominating it for deletion justifies it being given a fair "hearing". Am copying & pasting this onto AfD page. --Technopat (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

I think this article has merit, and deserves to exist, but in accordance with some of the suggestions made above, I would focus on the honorific itself, and why it was applied. In particular, I would get rid of the "Quick facts" sections. The material in them is redundant to the artists' articles, and the selection of facts is often arbitrary. I'd also indicate which honorifics are widely used and which are not — for example, Elvis as the King, James Brown as the Godfather of Soul, and Sinatra as the Chairman of the Board are all heavily used, while I do not believe the ones for Usher and Garth Brooks, just to pick two, are in as nearly as widespread use. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed all the quick facts. Additionally, there are some unverified additions going on. If there's going to be expansion of this lists, all the nicknames need to be verified. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article starts listing Kings, then it goes to GodFathers and then goes back to kings. I have a suspicion these artists are listed according to the editors preference. There needs to be a consistent listing sequence according to title. — Realist² (Speak) 17:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I also don't get how Jackie Wilson being called "Mr. Excitement" fits in. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the title is still "honoring" him. Agree it is all a bit...hazy. I think there is a lot of Fan cruft here. I have no idea why the King of Pop is at the top, clearly that was the editors preference. The titles really should be in ABC order to avoid bias. — Realist² (Speak) 22:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have here is that this is all largely based on "titles". Once we get into nicknames like "Mr. Excitement", we might as well throw in Jerry Lee Lewis, who's been called "The Killer" for his style of piano playing. There's a slippery slope here that has the capacity to turn this page into a listing of all musicians with nicknames. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, I think we need to build a consensus on what actually is and isn't an "honorific title". — Realist² (Speak) 23:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat a comment I made in the first AfD:

"The Boss" and "The Chairman of the Board" ARE honorifics. An honorific need not be royal. An honorific is a grammatical form used in speaking to or about a social superior. At least according to my trusty Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition. David in DC (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hard to see a slippery slope there. I think Jerry Lee Lewis/The Killer is a straw man. It's in no sense an honorific. David in DC (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How are "Chairman of the Board" and "the Boss" honorifics? More to the point, what is an honorific? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A title that "honors" someone, my guess. — Realist² (Speak) 04:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty vague. And some wouldn't fit under that criteria. Frank Sinatra was intially called "the Chairman of the Board" because he had his own record label, Reprise Records, so he literally was the chairman. Springsteen was called "The Boss" because he was in charge of getting the band's pay after a show every night. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not hard. Dictionary definition: "An honorific is a grammatical form used in speaking to or about a social superior." At least according to my trusty Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition.

Like a Chairman, or a Boss or a someone with a royal title. Those are honorifics.

Killer is not. David in DC (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So Jackie Wilson should go. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Kinda interesting take on my comment. Not, "OK, maybe Bruce and Frank can stay," but rather "So Jackie Wilson should go." Kinda makes the assumption of a good faith effort to improve less likely than an agenda to delete. Despite two recent failed AfD's. KM seems to be working in good faith. How 'bout we give him a hand instead of bitin' the newbies? David in DC (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I was applying your explanation to the article. With the definition you provided, Jackie Wilson does not belong here. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed Wilson. "Mr. Excitement" is a complimentary nickname, not an "honorific title". "The Killer" would also just be a nickname, not a title. But I'm not sure where Dr. Funkenstein would fall. ;-) --Father Goose (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Odd notes section

What is that odd notes section all about? — Realist² (Speak) 16:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Im done with the quickfacts. A lot of people believe it should just be on the artist main page.Or they said focus on honorfic and not on their honors. I consider like a consensus so I'll leave it out. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Refs

You need to change currect refs #'s 2, 10, 12, 15, 24, 27, 35, 40, 41, 45, 46, 56, 57, 60, 63, 66, 67, 70, 74, 77, 78, 85, 90, 91, 94, 96, 97, 100, 102, 104, as of this version of the article. They are all poor quality. If you fail to improve the sources I will be removing chunks of the article. — Realist² (Speak) 21:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A pointer is you don't want to cite an artists' personal website. Stick with notable industry sites: rollingstone.com, nme.com, billboard.com, ew.com, and so on. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't include them in my list, give the guy a chance ya no. We can come back to them later. — Realist² (Speak) 01:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please. I just put a 30 minute constructive argument to the author of this page but got edit-conflicted and my PMT means I can't cope with wasted effort. Just slow the fuck down; nothing is going to vanish over night. Chill, FFS. it can wait. --Rodhullandemu 01:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  I hope you don't mean that you lost what you typed because of the edit conflict? When that happens, your text isn't lost; it remains in an edit window at the bottom of the screen, and can be cut and pasted into the appropriate place in the upper window.--Father Goose (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  *double-checks your user page* Given your degree of experience, that surely can't be what you meant -- but what did you mean?--Father Goose (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

New section

I added a new section for bands/groups and added The Ramones, sourced here. Can someone write something more there like the others? --neon white talk 01:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it, "Godfather" doesn't fit the honorifics criteria. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

How? I'm sure it's meant as an honor. --neon white talk 01:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Neon on this one "Godfather" is honorific. — Realist² (Speak) 01:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Godfather" is a title which implies someone's influence, but it is not necessarily an honorific like King, Prince, Queen, Earl, Duke, Etc. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Your dangerously close to being Pointy. — Realist² (Speak) 02:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Godfather" is not a royal title, but in this context, it is clearly an honorific.--Father Goose (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"An honorific is a grammatical form used in speaking to or about a social superior."

To Paulie Walnuts, godfather is most definitely an honorific, as it relates to Tony. A social status thing enforceable by death, although T didn't usually stand on ceremony about this sort of thing. In fact Tony, he had a character played by Robert Loggia sent back up the river for using the Italian form "don" with a bite of sarcasm in his pronunciation.

In Judaism, godfather (or sandek) is definitely an honorific.

In Christianity too, I think. (Christians, a little help here please).

Cheers. David in DC (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations for each title

It's very important that it's verified that each person has been given the nickname attributed to them. I only see those refs for just a few artist (Michael Jackson, Elvis, and a few others). WesleyDodds (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record

This article got through its second AfD with an overwhelming keep after "surviving" its first AfD by default. While we all know that Wikipedia is not democratic (don't have time to look for the reference right now) and editors are not voting (don't have time to look for etc. etc.) to keep or delete articles, maybe between us - even those of us who don't particularly like the content - we can put all this tremendous amount of energy at Wikipedia to good use and make something of this article. Tidying it up, applying best practices, adding/taking stuff away. Constructive criticism is great - but let's make it constructive. --Technopat (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a number of the "keep" votes were because it was too soon to have another AfD. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that people have real world things to do besides responding immediately to every "fix this now or I'm going to delete lots of stuff". Wait a decent interval. Give people time to improve the article. The daily carping about this failing or that is way over-the-top. Critics, there are plenty of ideas on this talk page for interested editors to follow up on constructively. But for heaven's sake, hold your horses; give it time There's a lot more stuff on WP that needs doing than demanding that everything here be fixed, right away. At the end of a decent interval (I've proposed 6 months elsewhere) this may well be ripe for another AfD. What's the rush? David in DC (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Because low-quality articles look bad. If anyone can improve this article and establish its notability, but all means do it as soon as possible. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I'd say it's pretty far past the point of needing immediate intervention. As long as the references back up the assertions made in the article (I haven't checked more than a few), I'd put it at B-class.--Father Goose (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still missing much of the key items that need to be included: references for each artist that they are known by these nicknames. Everything else in the article is really of secondary importance, or unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wesley remember this isn't going through one of your ruthless FA reviews, again I suggest you stop pressuring the situation. Not all editors are here 24/7. It will fix in due course. — Realist² (Speak) 14:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Realist. I cant be here 24/7 I have a life and things to attended too. I was away yesterday and here today to tell this message that I havent forgotton about this page I have to take care of a this damn smog check/light and brake inspection/registration/renewel of insurance. Ill be back to fix those references soon and try to bring this good page to greatness if possible. I bid you good day! Kelvin Martinez (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Godfathers of Punk

Today, an IP editor made an edit that shows the model for what this article, if it is to survive its next AfD, must become. Sourced to The Guardian, no less. Each entry should be, IMHO, a one or two line sourced explanation of how the subject comes to be notably associated with his/her/its honorific. David in DC (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It survived its last AfD, and it's substantially better now than it was then. Still, every additional improvement is quite welcome. Continuing movement in the direction you describe sounds good.--Father Goose (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

unencyclopedic

this article can never be anything more than a list of titles, names and references, with a perfunctory paragraph to hang the refs on

That is your POV opinion and is not a legitimate reason to add that tag, you haven't provided suggestions for improvement other than delete. — Realist² 17:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That's what WP:LISTs are, and we have thousands of them. Did you have anything more specific in mind? Or anything at all? --Rodhullandemu 17:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have mostly in mind the ridiculosity of this article. I will follow the incessant additions and reversions closely.

"I DONT LIKE IT" is not a legitimate reason to behave in your manner. Every edit you have made to this article has been pointy. Stop, I will take personal delight in dragging your diffs over to ANI. — Realist² 17:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec again)You need to sign your comments; it's easy. Meanwhile, editors a working on this article, but some haven't got the hang of what it's about. Rather than carping from the wings, why not help out? Meanwhile, repeated tagging of the article is unhelpful, disruptive, and blockable. If you feel that strongly about it, without giving it a chance to mature, try another Afd. --Rodhullandemu 17:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of unnecessary template

I have deleted the template requesting a global perspective to the article. The corresponding countering bias guidelines for that particular one state the following:

When these templates are used they should be accompanied by a brief note on the talk page to outline what exactly you feel needs to be addressed.

No such "brief note" was made on this talk page and this editor cannot see how the template adds anything useful to the ongoing discussion over the article. The existing - and remaining - template is more than sufficient in encouraging further improvements to the article. --Technopat (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We should not be parochial (=western & =modern) about popular music. That's why I added some sourced and referenced musicians. For example, in India, a population of about a billion, there is a "King of Bhangra", whose music has even penetrated the western world. Who is to say that this is irrelevant? "Nobody" is the correct answer. We have two problems here: (a) fancruft: everybody wants to include their own favourite artist, regardless of reliable sourcing for the title, which is the whole point of this article. (b) underneath this, we have the problem of writing the article as directed to why and how the artist has been labelled such as to warrant inclusion here. This is down to reliable sources and is not just a personal opinion. That is one of the major problems we've had over that last two weeks. The article as it is contains far too much detail which is already developed in the artists' own articles as to why they deserve these accolades. This is a list and although a thumbnail sketch as to why they have been given the titles they have is useful, a comprehensive recital is not appropriate. --Rodhullandemu 00:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The work I've done to Madonna and Janet Jackson could be used as a model. As Far as I'm aware those two along with Michael Jackson are the only three people in this article to have their titles attributed with a reliable source that states their respective "King/Queen of ___" in those exact words. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was a recent discussion on WP:AN about a new project to rescue articles that were ostensibly worthy but poorly focussed and badly written, and my suggestion was WP:BASKETCASE. It hasn't happened yet, mostly because I suspect that we have better things to do. What this article needs, really, is a focus group to remove the fancruft, ensure reliable sourcing, and generally point this article in the direction that its creators intended. Objectively, it's a defensible concept as an article we should have, as long as it's kept within its stated parameters, and that, so far, seems to be the problem. It's not a vehicle for puffing up a favourite popstar, and that should be made absolutely clear. --Rodhullandemu 01:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, hence why reliable sources need to be quoted. Any "puffing" the title may imply should be quoted from a source, not written out of context by the editor. Every person in this article need to be supported by an author/journalist, their book/newspaper/publication and the exact title attributed to the recording artist in the exact phrase "King/Queen of ___" etc. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a big problem here, as I see it; this article is essentially a list, and it is implicit in such articles that (unless they are stand-alone lists), that they are meant to be an overview of the topic they represent, and not replace a full article for that topic. As currently written, there seems to be too much detail for some artists, ostensibly to justify their inclusion here, but which is dealt with in their own articles. On a practical point, no reader is plausibly going to to search for this article directly; they are going to reach it from other articles. Example: search for "King of Pop"; they will see "Michael Jackson", but will also see this article for other possibilities. This article, good though it is, and it's a lot better than it started, is not meant to be a fanfest. --Rodhullandemu 01:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused. Are you suggesting there should be no prose at all and reformat the article into a list?

• EX: King of Pop
  • Michael Jackson (no prose)

or

• EX: reformat the article as an overview of the decade/genre
  • The 1980s saw Michael Jackson and Madonna crowned the respective King and Queen of Pop, while Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston were also attributed to the title "Queen of Pop" by the mid-1990s. (mild amount of prose without detail)

or

As it currently stands, in a semi-list format with specific prose on how/why the title was attributed to the artist? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I like its current format; makes for more interesting reading than I think the other two proposed formats would. The hyperbole needs to be cut back a bit in a couple of places, and solid sourcing has to be confirmed for each of the proclaimed "titles", but if all that is done, I think it'd be within reach of GA.--Father Goose (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Godfather of Grunge

Many people have applied this title to Neil Young, and it is listed in the second opening graph of his Wikipedia page. While it may have been a short-lived phenomenon, it did change the nineties, and alternative rock as we know it today would BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. I don't know, if anyone has thoughts on this, hit it up. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

More "honorific titles"

Hello ladies and gentelmen, I've come across an intersting list that does match this particular article. It has come to my attention that some of the titles has been credited to only the very first person that the title was given to. For example, "The Queen of Gospel" WAS Mahalia Jackson, however, since her passing, it has since been inherited by Albertina Walker. Another thing that caught my attention was the title of "The King of Funk". "The King of Funk" was ALWAYS James Brown.Well anyways, here is the list: Pop Royal Family: o King of Pop  Michael Jackson o Queen of Pop  Madonna o Prince of Pop  Justin Timberlake o Princesses of Pop  Britney Spears  Kylie Minogue Rock & Roll Royal Family: o King of Rock and Roll  Elvis Presley o Queen of Rock and Roll  Tina Turner Soul Royal Family: o King of Soul  Sam Cooke o Queen of Soul  Aretha Franklin o Godfather of Soul --205.217.248.150 (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)  James Brown o Empress of Soul  Gladys Knight o Godmother of Soul  Patti LaBelle o Princess of Soul  Alicia Keys o Queen of Blue-Eyed Soul (White Queen of Soul)  Dusty Springfield o Princess of Blue-Eyed Soul (White Princess of Soul)  Christina Aguilera Heavy Metal Royal Family: o Godfather of Heavy Metal  Ozzy Osbourne

Reggae Royal Family: o King of Reggae  Bob Marley o Queen of Reggae  Marcia Griffiths o Crown Prince of Reggae  Dennis Brown Blues Royal Family: o King of the Blues  B. B. King o Queen of the Blues  Dinah Washington  Koko Taylor Funk Royal Family: o King of Funk  James Brown o King of Punk-Funk  Rick James o Queen of Funk Soul  Chaka Khan Hip Hop Royal Family: o King of Hip Hop  Kanye West o Queen of Hip Hop  Lauryn Hill  Missy Elliot Country Royal Family: o King of Country  Roy Acuff  George Strait o Queen of Country  Reba McEntire Latin Pop Royal Family: o King of Latin Pop  Ricky Martin o Queen of Latin Pop  Gloria Estefan R&B Royal Family: o King of R&B  R. Kelly o Queen of R&B  Mariah Carey o Prince of R&B  Usher o Princess of R&B  Beyoncé o The Voice  Whitney Houston Gospel Royal Family: o King of Gospel  Rev. James Cleveland o Queen of Gospel  Mahalia Jackson  Albertina Walker o First Lady of Gospel Music  Shirley Caesar

--Skye 0913 (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Order

Isn't it supposed to be that in each category...the performers should be alphabetized by name and those with sir names or not a band should by sir name first? if so, then in Queens of pop it should be Madonna, Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston then Janet Jackson. Are you sure the source didn't mean to say that Ms. Jackson was the Queen of R&B? I know Madonna to be in the pop genre and Mariah Carey to perform both Pop & R&B (although lately mostly R&B most of the songs she recorded and perform from 1990-present were Pop and outnumbers her R&B tracks) and Janet Jackson to sing R&B.---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 01:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The entire point of this article is to specify why theses "titles" were given and by whom. We don't make up reasons for inclusion, we quote sources in their exact words. Janet Jackson has been a consistent rival of Madonna for the title "Queen of Pop". See Ask Billboard under "The Diva Dance". Placing multiple artists in chronological order gives the section context on when and why the title was attributed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Word count limit per artist?

I think we need to impose an upper limit on how much can be written on one person/band. A person (obsessed fan boy) could theoretically write as much as they like about their favorite artist, trying to make that subject outshine all others in the same category. This is something I think has already started on the "Queen of Pop" issue. This article isn't about the artist and it isn't trying to prove who the biggest/best "Queen of Pop" is. All the article does is name people who have been given the title. Thoughts. — Realist² 16:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, this article is, essentially, a list. There is little point duplicating material already covered extensively in the artist's own article, assuming they have one. I'm not sure specifying a particular wordcount is helpful because those artists without their own articles (and I've yet to deal with "King of Bhangra", for example) will need a thumbnail sketch to explain why they have been so honoured. Obvious candidates, such as Michael Jackson and Madonna, barely need more than a couple of lines and references to their honorifics, in my view. --Rodhullandemu 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I mentioned above, would it just be better to turn the article into a full list with no prose? Even with Queen of Pop, the prose doesn't go beyond one paragraph. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 16:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We could move the article to "List of Honorific titles in popular music"? Warning, if we did that I imagine it could never pass a featured list review, they would always argue that theirs no proof it's a complete list. At least in this format we have some change of getting the article to GA. If no ones interested in the GA/FL thing then I support turning it into a list. Then we can concentrate more on the title aspect of the article not the hyping up of artists. — Realist² 16:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be better as a traditional list. using Queens of Pop as an example, we could only list the author/publisher who gave the title ex: Author Mary Cross documented in her book, Madonna a Biography (2007), that "[t]he year 1984 was unbelievable for Madonna [with the release of her second studio album Like a Virgin]. Indisputably, she was now the Queen of Pop". and leave it at one sentence, but then there is the question of why? Hence the elaboration and inevitable glorification of the artist, even when its in the words of a media professional. If its a straight List we can avoid any perceived POV. And I don't think it would be that big of a deal even for FA review. Few individuals are given these titles and there are even fewer reliable sources that actual use them in publications. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 16:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just prune the hyperbole (keeping in mind that the subject of the article itself is about media hyperbole), then see if what you're left with works better as a list or as prose.--Father Goose (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This originally was a list, but then attempts were made to turn this into an article, which I don't feel have worked primarily because the topic is so tenuous and inadequately addressed. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree up to point; as an article, it would contain too much redundancy to be able to stand alone, and there is very little commonality between the attribution of titles for a valid inference to be presented to the reader; however, as a list, my feeling is that it should contain thumbnail sketches of the artists involved, sourcing the title and giving a brief rationale for it. Further detail would be in the artists' own articles. In practical terms, nobody is going to reasonably search for this title, and specifics such as King of Swing already redirect to appropriate articles. However, as a list, I can see it having merits as a comparative, but not indiscriminate, repository of information. As an overview of popular music in one context, it's perhaps something only Wikipedia is capable of, and of that we should be proud. As regards the premise of the list (for that is what it is), there is no reason why the lead cannot be expanded accordingly. --Rodhullandemu 23:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Artists with more than one title

What are we to do about artists who occupy two titles? — Realist² 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

- In X's main section, "X" has also been described as "The Bard of Grunge" (ref) And in "[[Honorific titles in popular music#The Bard of Grunge]]", a see also link? --Rodhullandemu 22:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I get you. Could you do one so I can see? — Realist² 22:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wah! I know it's early for you, but I doubt my ability to do that right now. It's been a long day. I'll pencil it in for tomorrow. --Rodhullandemu 22:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :-) — Realist² 23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Judas Priest and the Rolling Stones

I think "Metal Gods" must qualify as a honorific. And it is one particularly associated with them (it began when they called a song from their biggest album "Metal Gods"). I'm too hungover to trust myself to make a good edit, but someone should get that one in.

The Stones too. "The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band". Surely?

(82.69.60.98 (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

If you can provide us with a reliable source that gives them these titles we can add it for you. — Realist² 18:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Article needs a resuffle

Why is the King of Pop listed first? That makes no sense at all, the titles should be placed in ABC order or something. Having that at the top seems to serve an agenda. — Realist² 15:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's always going to be difficult to meet WP:NPOV with a list like this. Even putting "Kings" before "Queens" is likely to attract accusations of sexism. However, it's gotta be done somehow. Perhaps "Kings of ...", arranged alphabetically by sourced genre is as neutral is we can get, followed by "Princes of ... "; then "Queens of ...", followed by "Princesses of ..." in the same order, with lower honorifics being given appropriate positions. This article started off as a shed, basically, and has developed into something worth having on Wikipedia; for one thing, it's not something any other encyclopedia is likely to be able to tackle, and for another, unlike some other lists I've seen, it doesn't rely on original research in its construction. If we can persuade editors to limit the fancruft, it's a worthy addition to what we have going here, and I am prepared to stick with it. --Rodhullandemu 00:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, this is a worthy article now, even with the diva showdown *shrug*. That said, the original author of this article was an uber MJ fan...I know the "King of Pop" title is one of the better known but still I don't like the positioning of that. This is coming from me, and I support MJ about 90% of the time. Of course we also have this "chairman of the board" thing which would come before Prince/King. I see no problem with the separation of male and female, awards are often given to best male/best female. They are often put in separate boxes because male singers/groups tend to outsell female acts (at least at the very top of the scale). — Realist² 09:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, where to go now

This article has survived an Afd again, but still needs some TLC; in particular, fancruft should be resisted as inimical to the purpose of the article; WP:NPOV still applies. Fortunately, those editors who oversee the article are committed and understand what it should be. There are still some structural issues to be addressed (see above thread) and some unsourced nonsense to be considered. --Rodhullandemu 23:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article needs further purging. Will get to it at some point soon. We won the battle but the war is far from over. — Realist² 23:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Would any of these be acceptable?

• The Modfather - Paul Weller
• Ukulele King - George Formby
• King of Polka - Frank Yankovic

There are news media sources available for all three. RMHED (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure (so long as the titles are relevant to the music and not their personal life etc etc) just add it to the relevant section with the sources. It's best to actually put the source ad the title together so that its easy to check. For example, Paul Weller has been called "The Modfather",[5]... — Realist² 17:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hyperbole and fancruft

OK, we all have our favourite artists, and would like to see them adequately represented here according to our own assessment of their importance. Nothing wrong in that, except that basic policies here apply, and any detail is better addressed in the individual articles for the artist. What we are concerned with here is (a) sourcing the title they've been given and (b) a brief statement of why. That is the whole point of the article; it is not intended to be an exposition of how wonderful an artist is (or is not). As such, the article is essentially a list, although not an indiscriminate list, since it must be reliably sourced. The other bias we have to defend against is time considerations; for example, "popular music" is emphatically NOT the same as pop music. It is the music that the people found popular; hence, for example, "The Waltz King" for Strauss is equally valid here. In particular, what is needed here is the avoidance of peacock terms. So please don't add your favourite artist without adequately sourcing their title; it IS going to be deleted. Apart from providing reliable sources, the most important policy here is verifiability; we are an encyclopedia, not a fanzine. --Rodhullandemu 21:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and this article

Wikipedia:NPOV#The_neutral_point_of_view states that this policy is to be applied in the case of "conflicting viewpoints"; however, the whole point of the article is to discuss what titles have been given to these musicians, and a rough idea why. The way the article is written obviates the need to be neutral (compare, for example Criticism of Microsoft), and I don't see that neutrality requires us to seek out reliable sources that say "Actually, Elvis isn't the King of Rock n Roll", because to do so and be valid, an alternative candidate would have to be at least nominated. That's not the purpose of the article; it's not a discussion of whether the title is merited.

A different issue, however, is the use of peacock terms such as "legendary"; and that is a consequence of the fancruft I deprecate in the above discussion, and hope to address that at some point. Meanwhile, I will remove the NPOV tag and replace it with {{Peacock}}. --Rodhullandemu 15:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

fansite

content of article is inarguably "excessive trivia and irrelevant praise, criticism, lists and collections of links" no rescue is possible, article is unencyclopedic and braindead at the root.

I disagree; it's under the supervision of experienced editors, with numerous GA's, DYK's, Barnstars and a few FA's to their credit. Unsourced nonsense is removed as quickly as its noticed. There are already proposals to clean it up, in the above two sections. If we weren't having to deal with pointy interventions and overkeen fans, we'd have it sorted out by now. --Rodhullandemu 18:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Again this crosses into IDONTLIKEIT and is not sufficient rational for the tag. 3 failed AfD attempts shows that the community does not feel the same way you do. Unless you provide a valid examples of where "fansite" applies to specific areas of the article I will shortly removed your tag. Given your past pointy edits to this article I would suggest that if you don't like the article just forget about it and move on with your life. — Realist² 18:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering the high amount of reliable sources who comment on the subject, the article is not beyond rescue, and in fact has not been in need of rescue for quite some time. I've removed the fansite tag. Warning of instances of peacocking is enough for a warning to readers. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. — Realist² 17:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Other important artists

I think Celia Cruz should definately be on this as she is well known as the Queen of Salsa. Also in addition one other person is hank williams as another person under King of Country. I stumbled on that on a few of his boxsets.

Don't put Chuck berry and little richard again

Rock n Roll hall of fame has already declared Elvis an undisputed king of rock n roll, so its stupid if we try to share that name with other artist just because of there fans claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.19.2 (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should the Rock n Roll hall of fame be the authoritative source on the matter? There is a ton of criticism about many of the decisions they make.97.113.241.19 (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

King Of New York - The Notorious B.I.G.

This page has a huge bias against hip-hop. My nomination above.

Metal God

Rob Halford is widely known as The Metal God because of his contributions to the heavy metal genre. Searching for Metal God on wikipedia redirects you to his page and I believe he and the title bestowed to him is more than enough to warrant a spot in this article. I'm sorry about being a wiki newb, I hope I did everything correctly.97.113.241.19 (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Princesses of Pop / Queen of Pop

I've read the article about honorific titles many times and I've always found this category bizarre. In fact, it seems to me that honorific titles are given by the media and fans alike to underline the success an artist has reached over her career. Now, as successful as Kylie Minogue may have been, I don't think she and Britney Spears can be put into the same category. Actually, an artist who has sold more than 83 million records worldwide in just 10 years is more in the league of a queen than that of a princess. What's more, it's not just countless fans who have been referring to Spears as the Queen of Pop for years, it's also the media.

Here are some links that I think justify her move from the "Princess" category to the "Queen" category:

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/entertainment/queen-of-pop-britney-spears-back-to-centre-stage-in-the-musical-world_10093574.html

http://www.idobi.com/news/2008/10/15/britney-spears-still-queen-of-pop/

http://www.pressmediawire.com/article.cfm?articleID=18985

http://www.virginmedia.com/music/pictures/toptens/why-we-love-britney-spears.php?ssid=2

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1999_Nov_12/ai_57535217

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/4-17-2004-53066.asp

Maybe these sources are not as authoritative as Entertainment Weekly or Rolling Stone or The New York Times or other top-notch media and maybe there aren't as many using this honorific title for Britney as there are for Madonna, but then the only artist who's been constantly referred to as "Queen of Pop" (a little too much by default, I would say) is Madonna. Which would make Mariah Carey and Janet Jackson unfit for the category, since they've quite rarely been called "Queens of Pop". If they are in that category, Spears should be, too. I could also add, as somebody has done up to now, that both Carey and Jackson don't exactly make music that can be classified as pop, being it more R&B, but it's probably not the point here.

Maybe the reason why the categories aren't updated is somebody feels that in order to be considered a "Queen" an artist should have a career spanning about 20 years. But then again I think that sales and success are more important as far as honorific titles are concerned. Dreamboy81 (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that matters for this article are reputable sources using the title, not our personal opinion of whom the title is applied to. I'd say the only source you listed worth including is Virgin since is one of the world's leading record labels (a bit odd they have an article on an artist they don't have a contract with, but whatever). BTW Janet and Mariah have been referred to as Pop "Queens" for at least a decade, Britney has just barely been referred to as such. 90% of all the articles I've read on her still call her a princess. As I said, all that actually matters is a reputable source using the title, nothing else. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)