Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music/Archive 2

Proposal to move to List of honorific titles in popular music

The general prose of the article doesn't seem to be getting any better and there is still a ton of peacocking/vandalism. I'd like to have everyone take a look at User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult/List of Honorific titles in popular music and either support or oppose moving Honorific titles in popular music to List of Honorific titles in popular music. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I also rearranged everything in alphabetical order as best I could in my userbox. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Support move. Excellent work! Just need to change that H for lower case :) --Technopat (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Apart from the problems with peacockery, this would reduce (if not remove) incidence of removal of "rival" artists, and most of the content should already be replicated in the artists' own articles anyway. There is one redlink that might need addressing, but there seem to be few sources beyond the honorific in any case. However, I'd leave it for now. --Rodhullandemu 13:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I do think this would be the best way to take the article. Large amounts of the pro's in this article have nothing to do with the title, and fanboys just want to turn this article into a battle of the divas. I still wish a list article could allow some room for pro's, a section that allows details on how/when they acquired the title. — Realist² 15:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There's room in {{episode list}} for a short summary, so I see no reason why we shouldn't include a "thumbnail sketch" in the proposed tabular format, limited in scope somehow. --Rodhullandemu 17:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think each title needs some context in a new list. We need to limit the scope so that it's relevant to the title. For example, the approximate date title was acquired, what publication or person first used the title (Michael Jackson's title was started by Elizabeth Taylor, not the press), maybe allow room for the individuals greatest musical achievement (although this gets rather hard for the likes of Elvis, Beatles and Jackson who have all broken so many records). We will have to make a strong lead for the new article to help with context issues. — Realist² 17:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there is no official oppose. I'll go ahead and move the article. I'll also archive the talk page so we can get a fresh start. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• The original version of the article is found here: User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult/Honorific titles in popular music. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the move. This article seems to me to be almost THE Peacock Article!! I mean, it's POV gone rampant. And, I'm sorry, but an awful lot of these "titles" seem given to the entertainer by their own label's liner notes, or some fansite, it seems to me. Sure, there are some very legitimate titles we all recognize like, "The Godfather of Soul", but.. even Michael Jackson self-styled himself as the "Prince of Pop", not the "King" of anything. Seriously, this page, and the Power trios page are both just rampant with 10 fans for every serious editor. --leahtwosaints (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Placing quote within citations

With the loss of the prose, I was think we could do something I did on Janet Jackson and place a small amount of information within the citation. Simply place a quote from the article between the "ref" and "citaiton" brackets. <ref>"place quote here"{{citation}}...Examples:

Jackson is ranked by Billboard magazine as one of the top ten best-selling music artists in the history of contemporary music, having sold over 100 million albums worldwide.

In January 1996, Jackson renewed her contract with Virgin Records for a reported $80 million dollars. The contract established her as the then-highest paid recording artist in contemporary music, surpassing the recording industry's then-unparalleled $60 million dollar contracts earned by her brother, Michael Jackson and Madonna.

Good idea, and quite common in articles on, er, more serious topics. Not sure however, that monetary values are a good idea to include because as time goes by it becomes less easy to assess how much they're actually worth, and any comparison over time and between markets would have to be WP:OR; better to just quote "for a [then] record amount...". However, good start so far. I think the move will stand despite the shortness of the time for consensus, because so few editors seem to be committed to this article. --Rodhullandemu 23:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks. And the article looks SO much cleaner! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And so much easier to look after. — Realist² 00:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just an idea on format...

• I'm wondering whether it might not be clearer if we could merge common honorifics, such as "King of Country", into one cell spanning the requisite number of rows to reduce slightly the burden on the reader. This would give an immediate linkage and comparison between artists who have been given the same title and remove some redundancy. Not quite sure how that works with sortable columns since I'm not a table guru, and it's not so urgent anyway. However, I see no reason why this article, despite its arduous beginnings, should not end up as a featured list with only a little effort.
• Another issue, of course, is that in translation, we've lost all the images, and in a list, only free images are regarded as defensible; however, they did add something to the previous version. Thoughts? --Rodhullandemu 00:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually wanted to merge titles that have multiple artists into once cell, but I'm not a table guru either. As for images, I think a single image in the introduction of either Michael Jackson or Elvis Presley would be great. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

On images, inserting them into a table means that they must necessarily be small otherwise the table itself would be huge if the images were rendered large enough to be recognisable; it's not like a flagicon which is identifiable even at, say, 32px resolution, and that, for a photograph would be silly, so perhaps I'll not pursue the idea. However, merging the rows is just a case of fixing the "span" in the table specification, but I'd rather do it in a sandbox first! --Rodhullandemu 01:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to use my sandbox User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult/List of Honorific titles in popular music. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking good folks :D — Realist² 23:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

An excellent source

read User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult/Celebrity nicknames and titles. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured List?

I've copied the criteria here:

1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
2. Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list.
3. Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries.
4. Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities.
5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
6. Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text; and it has a minimal proportion of red links.
7. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.

Do we feel like going for it? One problem might be "complete set of items where practical", but I'm stumped for how we might tackle that beyond spending hours Googling for "King of.." type entries for every genre we can think of. Opinions would be welcome. --Rodhullandemu 23:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I've only ever made one FL nomination and the FL system sucks. Since there is always a possibility that more honorific title's exist out there somewhere, we can never prove it's comprehensive. That said, I remember reading a few weeks ago that FL policies had changed. — Realist² 23:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind going for it. I'll have to finish working on citations for female artist and then work on the male artists. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK, the getout is "where practical"; a quick Google has given some ideas, and I think for a short time, a list of nominations to counter accusations of incompleteness may be worth keeping, and I'll start a new section below. Meanwhile, it's not urgent. --Rodhullandemu 00:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think, if we see someone add an unsourced claim, we should remove the claim, but make an effort to find a citation ourselves. The quicker we find all the titles, the happier the IP's are, the more stable the article is. By all means, let's give FL a run for it's money. Besides, it might give me even more legitimate reasons to moan about the FL process. :D — Realist² 00:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Fuelling your gripiness apart (LOL), unsupported claims in the meantime could be deleted from the article with a "See Talk page" edit summary, and add them to the list below for checking. --Rodhullandemu 00:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

King of Funk

What nonsense you people have wrote? James Brown is always known as King of Funk.

http://news.guitarojam.com/artists/king-of-funk-james-brown-123/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.48.98 (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nominations

To be investigated for reliable sources (I'll add citations when I find them):

King of Folk : Bob Dylan  Done

King of Folk : Bascom Lunsford  Not done - no reliable online source

King of Folk Blues : John Lee Hooker  Done

Queen of Punk : Toyah  Done

Queen of Punk : Siousxie Sioux  Done

Queen of Punk : Debbie Harry  Not done - no reliable online source

Architect of Rock and roll : Little Richard  Done

Prince of Darkness : Ozzy Osborne

Queen of the Blues, Empress of the Blues: Bessie Smith

Queen of Disco : Gloria Gaynor  Done she's in there.

http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/history/lavender/386/bsmith.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.2.128 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Grandfather of Rock 'n' Roll: Robert Johnson

The King: Elvis Presley- how is this one not obvious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groupguy (talk • contribs) 03:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"The King" is short for "King of Rock and Roll" which is already listed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

::: It's wrong, "The King" is only title! It has to do nothing with "the king of rock n roll".

Revert of my addition of Little Richard - Architect of R&R

The comment when it was reverted was: (Amazon tries to sell a product, not the best source, they have a conflict of interest). The reference for Little Richard as the "King of Rock & Roll" Is also a link to Amazon. How come that source is ok, but mine is not? Also, the title "Architect of R&R" is from the title of the product. I don't think Amazon invented this album, so I'm not sure how they have a conflict of interest. I'm sure Little Richard and/or his record company has a conflict of interest about his title, but let's be consistent and either allow honorific titles based upon album/song titles or not. (is this link enough?:http://www.jeffosretromusic.com/richard.html) Ozy42 (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• If other claims on this page are supported by Amazon, I do believe they should be removed as well. If the title came from an actual product then we need to prove that he was given that title by some media organization before hand. We need to prove someone gave him the "honor". — Realist² 23:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I've rejected the idea of adding artists here based solely on titles of their albums, because that is generally a self-adopted honorific and used for marketing purposes. It lacks the necessary element of independence and reliability. You will see the problems that I mention above- trying to sort out the self-appointed from the rest can be tricky. As for the "King of Rock & Roll", I feel pretty sure this can be sourced independently from Amazon, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, although being an argument, isn't a great one, and the answer to it is WP:SOFIXIT. However, nothing is that urgent, and those who edit this page regularly, as you will see above, are aware of some of the issues arising. Panic ye not, but a "better", in the sense of "not commercially motivated", source, would be better. --Rodhullandemu 23:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we need proof that the person isn't "honoring themselves", it undermines the articles purpose. — Realist² 23:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As long, of course, as we remove "marketing departments" from the criteria at the head of the list! Yours sincerely, The King of Wiltshire©. --Rodhullandemu 23:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are two more sources:

• The R&R hall of fame: http://www.rockhall.com/inductee/little-richard - "He claims to be 'the architect of rock and roll,' and history would seem to bear out Little Richard's boast."
• You might recognize this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Richard - "Also known as The Architect of Rock 'n' Roll"

Is that enough? I think it does appear to be originally self-proclaimed, but the R&R hall of fame is a pretty good source to concur. In either case, shouldn't this page and the Little Richard page be consistent? SOFIXIT? Does that mean you want me to remove the King of R&R line for Little Richard, or you want me to go out and find a better reference, because I'll do the first, but not the second. Ozy42 (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well the Rockhall source is reliable, but the source indicates it's self-proclaimed. I don't mind if it's self proclaimed, so long as there is proof that a reliable newspaper etc started calling him that too. We could include in the source notes that it was self proclaimed. However, I don't know. When the Press turned on Michael Jackson some of them started adding that bullshit "self proclaimed" moniker. It wouldn't surprise me if they did the same Little Richard as well. Gave him the title, then unsuccessfully tried to take it away. If we can find one reliable source that calls him "The Architect of Rock 'n' Roll" (without any mention of "self proclaimed"), then it should be included. — Realist² 00:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think if reliable sources have accepted the title without demur, that would be acceptable, but to be fair, the article should reflect this. What we have to guard against is all sorts of nonsense creeping in "under the wire" on that basis, otherwise we would be swamped by "X said and nobody disagreed" types of argument. That would be unhelpful. If anyone can trace this title to its source, and that some respected source said "yes", that would be good. As far as the Little Richard article itself is concerned, it look just as questionably sourced there, but this article has slightly different criteria. --Rodhullandemu 00:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I realize I maybe infringing on WP:FORUM, but I find it amusing how this article is always a big red target for fans of a certain group of divas :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, had noticed. We should redirect "Diva showdown" to this article. — Realist² 16:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Holy Trinity of young R&B Starlets

I think this one should actually be removed. I believe this article is meant to illustrate titles that are common place or are used repeatedly to describe an artist. I highly doubt "Holy Trinity of young R&B Starlets" has ever been used outside that single source. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Google hits, Google news, Google books. — Realist² 06:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. :) I guess I can add a source or two to the bracket. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

On second glance, I actually read through all of those links and there was only once source that mentioned the title. so I removed the category. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I never checked the links myself, just presented them for others to view, I was meant to get back to it. I agree, slim pickings. — Realist² 08:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Few Mistakes

For one, there is nothing called as Holy Trinity of young R&B Starlets. Just becoz one source said it it doesnt mean every1 uses that.

• agreed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

madonna, janet jackson, paula abdul, dionne warwick are Not the princess of pop. the princessses are just britney and kylie.

• Several reliable sources quoted over the past four decades disagree with you. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Beyonce as the queen of R&b !!!!!!!111 please remove that

• We have more than one reliable souce. So, no. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove britney and celine dion from the queen of pop category. Every1 considers britney as the princess of pop

• About 90% of all sources on the subject do call her a "princess" however, several reliable sources also specify her as a "Queen". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Lisa marie presley.... why the hell is she the princess of pop... becoz her father was elvis??????

• She isn't. She's a princess of Rock and Roll. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.78.176 (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't pick the titles, we just report what reliable sources say. — Realist² 05:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What about jonas brothers??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.11.105 (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

see "Prince of pop" The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

or emetic. --Rodhullandemu 14:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't this cover groups?

Judas Priest are the Metal Gods, Slayer/Megadeth/Anthrax/Metallica were the "Big Four of Thrash". That's just 2, not enough to merit a group category I admit. BUT we should put together a list - if it amounts to much, then a new category could be made. I'll go try and find some more. (The Elfoid (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

It doesn't matter how many there are in the the category as long as its attributed to a source. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

can we add tupac for rap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.166.95 (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hard to believe but I've spent almost two weeks looking for a source that calls Tupac the king. I Don't even listen to hip hop/rap, but even I find it odd I can find a source for 50 Cent and not for Tupac. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Beyonce for Queen Bee!

I noticed that under Queen Bee you only have Lil' Kim (even though I don't get that lol) but Beyonce has been noted as Queen Bee a few time for example - on her The Beyonce Experience tour before she sung "Get Me Bodied", She had an intro that said:

"One who is too curious in observing the labour or Bee's.... So stand back cuz the Queen Bee's about to sting..."

And also in the Usher song "Love in This Club, Part II it starts by Usher saying "Queen Bee, yeah!" Wneedham02 (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd regard both of these, being self-sourced, as unreliable; on that basis, you'd have to include Mick Jagger for singing "I'm a King Bee" on their debut album in 1964. Consensus here is to include only reliable, third-party attributions, and if you can find one for Beyonce, fine. --Rodhullandemu 22:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just look at her The Beyonce Experience Live! DVD...., besides she's been named that title alot of times by newspapers here in the UK, Bono has called her it before... Usher only calls her by this name and not her proper name. I think your just been tricky! Wneedham02 (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, cite the newspapers, or Bono, then; but not her own DVD- that's a self-published source and not considered reliable. And I'm not being tricky, just trying to uphold the policies and guidelines we have here which are intended to make this an encyclopedia rather than a fan magazine. --Rodhullandemu 18:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Usher sings it on his Love in this Club part 2 song thats not her citing herself so thats proof or do you need a link to the song?Wneedham02 (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A song isn't proof that she's "Queen Bee". If she is "Queen Bee" as you are claiming it shouldn't be so hard to find a newspaper source. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 22:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Pop stars sing many ridiculous things, for example David Bowie sang "I'm an alligator" on the Ziggy Stardust album. His DNA indicates otherwise. --Rodhullandemu 22:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol, that was funny. ;) — R² 22:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

- Sources! Wneedham02 (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• The Insider is not reliable.
• Ref 1, blog not reliable.
• The Sun says "Queen B" not "Queen Bee"
• Ref 2 say "Queen Bey" not "Queen Bee"
• Ref 3 say the same as 2
• Ref 4 says "Queen Beeyonce" not "Queen Bee"
• Ref 5 says the same as The Sun
• Ref 6 doesn't even have the word "Queen" in it.

Sorry, but none of them say "Queen Bee" so it's not going to be added into the article until a source says "Queen Bee" and not "Queen B". ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 21:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

But otherwise OK, then? Rodhullandemu 21:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bey and Beeyonce parts are all playing on the Bee surely you can see that. You say not accurate but yet you got Rihanna down as a princess of R&B when there isn't any link and she don't even sinf R&B?? confused now!Wneedham02 (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter because they don't say Bee, for her to make it on the list as "Queen Bee" it needs to say that exactly. The quote is from the National Post, a newspaper, that has an ISSN number. So if there is any doubt about whether or not she was called "Princess of R&B" all they have to do is go look up the ISSN number at a library. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 19:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

HA! Found one [7] a YouTube video check 35 seconds in! Wneedham02 (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we can't use a blatant copyright violation as a source. Is there nothing in print? Rodhullandemu 21:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's not receiving third party coverage in print, it clearly lacks notability. — R² 21:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Other possible adds to the list

Best Rapper Alive-Lil Wayne & Jay-Z Godfather of Gangsta Rap-Eazy-E King of Crunk-Lil Jon Prince of Compton-Lil Eazy-E —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx1994xx (talk • contribs) 22:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just came across another... Beyonce as "Queen of Pop" she was introduced on to stage at the 2006 World Music Awards as the "Queen of Pop & R&B". Is this enough! Wneedham02 (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, you've got Jay-Z down as "King of Rap" but I thought he was the "King of Hip-Hop". Wneedham02 (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't make the list, we just report what third party sources say. — Realist² 22:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hip Hop and Rap are the same genre. Hip hop is the actual musical genre, while rap is the spoken verse applied to hip hip music, but as far as the recoding industry (and most sources are concerned) Hip Hop/Rap is the same thing. The "Kings of Rap" are also the "Kings of Hip Hop" but with most male artists the term "rap" is used while with the female artists "hip hop" is more commonly used. BTW if you're going to suggest an addition, you can either add it yourself with a citation or post the source here for use to examine. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, Peter Murphy has been called "The Godfather of Goth" and Nina Hagen once had the title "Mother of Punk Rock" or sometimes "Holy Mother of Punk". Siouxsie Sioux was probably given a title as regards Goth but I cannot find it widely used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.251.136 (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The One?

The One (DVD). This includes a documentary that aired on CBS. Food for thought anyway. — R² 14:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

kings of rap/controversy

Is one publication referring to an artist as the king of rap grounds for them to be listed here? This article names DMX, Jay-Z, DMX, Eminem, Snoop Dogg as having been called the king of rap. I was under the impression that the title would have to be recognized by the general public. I understand Elvis being called the king of rock n roll, and James Brown being called the godfather of soul, because those are names that have been given to them by a lot of people and recognized by the general public and media. But there is no king of rap and no general consensus on who the title belongs to. The artists listed have never gone by that title and most media sources wouldn't call them that. One publication calling them that shouldn't really qualify them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.7.183 (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you bothered to look at the citations for each artist? click the number in the right hand column and read each source for yourself. "king of rap" has been around since the early 80s and a wide variety of sources comment on the subject. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Change the "country" for Rihanna to Barbados?

In this table, the "country" for singer Rihanna is listed as U.S., but she is actually from Barbados and is still a Barbadan citizen as far as I know. Shouldn't her "country" be changed to Barbados? 76.126.30.121 (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Thanks! 76.126.30.121 (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

MARIAH CAREY QUEEN OF THE CHARTS

MARIAH QUEEN OF THE CHARTS??

http://www.mariahdaily.com/corantofiles/news-archive-1-2006.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by DEMONTEZ (talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fan site, we need reliable third party sources, best. — R² 17:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Queen of R&B Mariah Carey

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Mariah-Still-the-Queen-of-R-B-35214.shtml

She is the most successful,Best selling,need i say more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.223.222.25 (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, unreliable source. — R² 17:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What about this one?: http://www.theinsider.com/news/749046_Mariah_Carey --99.235.133.218 (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ready for FL anyone?

Should we nominate this article soon, I think the lead needs expanding first? — R² 10:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Rihanna R&B Princess?

This site is also claiming Rihanna could be considered in the category with Brandy as R&B Princess. I very well agree.

"Or should I say, the tattoo that the girls stole from Rihanna?! Maybe they were doing it to show their support for the R&B princess, but copying tattoos isn't really something friends do...especially in this town!"

http://x17online.com/celebrities/lindsay_lohan/quiet_lindsay-02202009.php

• unreliable source. I'll try and find a better one. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Should some of these people really be here?

I've noticed that under the PRINCESS OF R&B section theres Rihanna. But under her source, it says R&B PRINCESS. Isnt there a difference there? Its just like saying THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND rather than AN ENGLISH QUEEN. --Skye 0913 (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A queen is a queen, whether she is currently reigning or did so in the past. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I get your point, however Ive seen before that Miley Cyrus has been referred to as a "Pop princess" rather than the title that Britney or Kylie possesses as the official "princess(es) of pop". If theyre being put under the category of something like The Queen OF R&B, than the "of" clearly makes them an official title holder. Theres somewhat of a difference between that and "An R&B Princess", which is just a denotation of their relevant place in contemporary music. --99.235.133.218 (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The "of" doesn't make a difference, they are still being given an honorific title. We're not here to pick and choose, simple report. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with the top two comments it is completly different! Wneedham02 (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it different? When Lady Diana was alive she was usually reffered to as "Princess Di", not "Di, the princess of wales". The "of" means nothing, it's the "princess" part that counts. 74.77.171.141 (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Aaliyah not the Princess of R&B OR PRINCESS OF R&B & HIPHOP??

Aaliyah is for sure the princess of R&B AND the princess of R&B & hiphop. She has sold more internationally than any of those other artist.Her closest component in worldwide sales is Brandy with 25 million,and Aaliyah sold 32 million worldwide.Though Brandy sold more in the United States by 400,000 more(NOTE:she has over two more albums than Aaliyah),Aaliyah still has sold more worldwide and has more R&B number one singles then Brandy,Rihanna,and Ashanti.You guys defiantly need to change that.

Has a reliable source called her any of these? If not, we can't say so ourselves.--Rodhullandemu 19:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes actually [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Now that's my proof Aaliyah is the princess of R&B.SHE SHOULD ATLEAST BE INCLUDED IN THE CATEGORY!!!!

All rather dubious sources, think BBC, CNN, MSNBC, TIME, Rolling Stone, All music, Entertainment Weekly, The New York Times and other published newspapers. — R² 23:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok [15]

[16]

One refers to her as Queen of r&b and the other refers to her as princess of r&b. One article is from rolling stone and the other is from Bet news,which airs daily on tv.

Error - needs correction

The source for calling Bob Dylan 'King of Folk' actually refers to him as 'King of Folk-Rock'. Can someone correct this?218.14.49.76 (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. — R² 13:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sortable WikiTable

I removed the sorting option from the WikiTables, it does not work when the rows are not equally spaced (i.e. one title spanning multiple artists). If you want to see what I mean go to the previous version and sort the Female Artists by artist name and look what it does to the table, in particular the portion of it at the bottom.--kelapstick (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. — R² 22:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Change Country of Neil Young

Neil Young is Canadian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.161.247 (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. — R² 16:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Brightman

you should add to this list sarah brightman..the biggest selling soprano of the world, which is known as the "queen of classical crossover" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonodejaesi (talk • contribs)

Checks out OK, there are two or three reliable sources in Google. --Rodhullandemu 02:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Gherorghe Zamfir

Excuse my ignorance, but is there a reason his country is listed as US and not Romania? Danius353 (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Just an oversight. fixed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

king of the Jukebox

I think Louis Jordan should be there as king of the Jukebox

I have also read a few on Metallica being The four hoursemen of heavy metal

Gene Simmons the deamon of metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preparationh (talk • contribs) 01:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Prince be on the list?

He's been referred to as "His Royal Badness" and "His Purple Majesty" for years. And there's also "The Artist"...

 Done The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Pop Genres

When User:Moon-sunrise added Ayumi Hamasaki to the (for lack of a better term) "generic" Queen/Princess of Pop sections, It got me thinking: should all "pop" genres (cantopop, j-pop, c-pop, be merged with the "American" pop title holders or should they remain separated? I've been keeping them separate because 1) the sources are usually genre/country of origin specific and 2) it helps give this article a proper worldview of music rather than being American-ethnocentric. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You can keep it separate. All though in my view it all should be merged because J-pop and Cantopop, are genres based on region not on the difference in musical style, as the template shows. Oh and if you haven't could you fix my mistake? Thanks. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 04:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. We could always merge if we get more input from an FA Review. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A view MoS issues

I believe that all data should be shifted to the center of it's box, rather than the left hand side. See List of best-selling albums worldwide as an example. Furthermore, we have over linking of nationalities. The country only needs linking on the first occasion it is seen. — R² 10:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Tammy Wynette

I believe Tammy Wynette has been referred to as 'The First Lady of Country'. Indeed, her Wikipedia page mentions this but it doesn't itself have a source, and it wouldn't be proper to use another Wikipedia page as proof... The Pacifist (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"'FIRST LADY OF COUNTRY' TAMMY WYNETTE DIES - News - NME.COM". www.nme.com. Retrieved 2009-03-17. and

"Remembering the first lady of country, Tammy Wynette – May 1998". www.countrystandardtime.com. Retrieved 2009-03-17. and "BBC - Country Review - Tammy Wynette, Stand By Your Man". www.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2009-03-17. would seem to be reliable sources; I'll do it myself if I have time, but I'm in hte moddle of something else. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 19:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Done The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Koko Taylor- Queen of the Blues

That's who is synonymous with that title in Chicago. http://www.kokotaylor.com/ I'd add it myself, but I'm not really sure what I'm doing there to get it up correctly. 68.57.232.161 (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Done The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Queens of Rock

Linda Ronstadt was considered the Queen of Rock The largest selling female rock or pop artist of the 70s. She was the first women to sell out arenas in the 70s. The article is from US magazine it is the actual article. I will second reference it. Ronstadt should for Historical reference alone.JGG59 (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please find the original source, we can't accept the current source because it was created by a cyber geek and has no authority. — R² 19:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If that is not good enough some of the other references don't add up. Referencing The History Booklet for MJ for King of Rock is not right.JGG59 (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Demon of Screamin'

How could anyone forget Steven Tyler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.147.163 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

King of Shock Rock

Alice Cooper is frequently called this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.236.119 (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree on that. He should definitly be mentioned--85.127.251.52 (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done He is now. Rodhullandemu 19:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Destiny's Child?

Im sure ive heard them been called the 'Queens of R&B' and 'Queens of Soul' before ill look for a source! Wneedham02 (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Kings of Rock

Run-DMC are frequently called the Kings of Rock because of their song and their role in bring rap and rock together (See Aerosmith and Run-DMC - Walk This Way). If someone can help find a credible source, then this can be added in this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaMacKid (talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

   "King of Rock" was a clever song title by Run DMC, not a title for the group in any way. It wouldn't make much logical sense to place them as the honorary kings of rock because of their rap-rock fusion that was ideated by Rick Rubin. Pbmaverick (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Queen Bee

Beyonce has been called Queen Bee for years.. someone add it to the list please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.135.147 (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is discussed above. Reliable sources are needed. — R² 21:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Quoting the article; "These titles—such as King/Queen, Prince/Princess, or Godfather/Godmother—may be given to them by the media, marketing departments of the record companies, fans, or critics."

As the above discussion has pointed out, fans have called her Queen Bee for a few years now. Just because there isn't an online source from a critic, even though there a multiple offline - and from fans, does not mean it's not true. It may not be as valid - but I've never heard Lil Kim called "Queen Bee" apart from in that one article..

The source for Lil Kim even states that she herself chose to adopt the name, and Beyonce has done the same aswell as her fans/critics calling her it. The intro for Get Me Bodied on her Beyonce Experience Tour states 'stand back because the Queen Bee is about to sting'. Confused 80.6.177.56 (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Godfather of Goth ?

where is Peter Murphy ? he is called Godfather of Goth for decades, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Murphy_(musician) Thanks. :] —Preceding unsigned comment added by PullusPardus (talk • contribs) 17:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into a reliable source, and adding this. Rodhullandemu 17:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Rodhullandemu 18:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Beatles title

I removed the recently added beatles title. I did a google search of the quote and while it certainly is online, I can't find it on anything as reliable as MSNBC (as claimed by the editor). So please provide a specific link to the MSNBC link, I can't find it. — R² 02:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done

Thanks. — R² 02:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Princess Of 'Wails' title

'Princess of wails' Isn't it meant to be Wales? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidJ1082 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably a pun - double meaning. 80.6.177.56 (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Lou Reed not Pete Townshend

I've never heard Pete Townshend called the Godfather of Punk. Lou Reed on the other hand, was a major influence in the evolution of punk and I've seen him referred to as the Godfather of Punk many, many times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrixRabbi (talk • contribs) 00:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We have two pretty good sources for Townshend; if you can find a source for Reed, that would be fine. And the same title may have been given to more than one person, as the article states. Rodhullandemu 18:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

KILL the list for gosh sake!!! (Seriously).

Seriously, people. This list is so bloated and cringe-worthy. Everytime I stumble upon this article, it's like looking at a car-wreck (you know you should move along but you can't look away... you know, that sort of thing), which is probably why I keep clicking on it.

Example: I have no idea, nor the interest or time, in trying to track down the "reference" supposedly justifying GODSMACK's inclusion in "Kings of Metal"... But c'mon! Common sense tells you that is just shameful. I'd say it is just vandalism, but it is allegedly "referenced"... and there are countless other equally questionable examples on the list.

If they are not cited, they shouldn't be there. End of. Rodhullandemu 22:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I mean, if I search hard enough, and I find some quote in some review that calls the Decemberists "the kings of hyper-literate prog-folk", should I add them to the list accordingly??? No of course not. That would be asinine. Well, whoever added (for example) Godsmack (again, not to beat up on Godsmack, but what the heck! Why not?) should be absolutely ashamed of themselves! I don't care if they ARE your favorite band. That is just a joke. GROW UP PEOPLE.

Why not, if they are popular? And "some review" won't wash; we require reliable sources, such a reputable music journalists. As for Godsmack, if they can be reliably sourced as fitting the well-defined criteria for inclusion here, why not? Personal taste has no place here. Rodhullandemu 22:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so how exactly does this "reference" justify Godsmack? Please someone help me out! "Press, Ivy; Gary Dowell, Isaiah Evans, Kim Jones, James L. Halperin (2006), Heritage Music and Entertainment Dallas Signature Auction Catalog #634, Heritage Capital Corporation, p. 88, ISBN 9781599670812"

"Personal taste??" It is really unfortunate that I have failed utterly to make my point understood. My failing, I suppose. This has nothing to do with personal taste. There are artists on the list who I very much enjoy, yet their inclusion in the list seems absurd. Djlemonfresh (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)djlemonfresh

2nd example: I don't care how popular Lady Gaga happens to be this particular week/month/year, to say she is "Queen of Electropop" as if that is some "honorific title" on par with say, "King of Pop", is absurd. Michael Jackson (whom I am not even a fan of) will ALWAYS be known as "King of Pop" even if he never records another record in his lifetime. I doubt Lady Gaga will be known as the "Queen" of anything once she is surpassed by someone else. If someone wants to mention in Lady Gaga's article that "[insert source here] has referred to her as 'Queen of Electropop', well, be my guest.

Therefore... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djlemonfresh (talk • contribs) 22:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I PROPOSE THIS LIST BE KILLED ENTIRELY, or at the very least, stripped down to a few bare essentials

(maybe a dozen or two dozen TOPS) whose "honorific" titles are widely accepted and used in common parlance (e.g. King of Pop = MJ, The King = Elvis, The Boss = Springsteen, Chairman of the Board = Sinatra, etc.) I frankly question the necessity for the article to even exist. Seems like it has devolved into some sort of silly popularity contest for fanbois and fangirlz. Djlemonfresh (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)djlemonfresh

No need to shout. However, this article has already survived two deletion nominations, and so has arguably proved its worth in general. Another point is that we require reliable sources for inclusion, and this excludes "fanboi" and "fangirlz" blogs, MySpace and other trivial sources. You must remember that "popular music", by definition, is a widely-drawn concept and to try and narrow it either temporally or according to personal taste does not represent a neutral point of view. As a tertiary source here, we cite our sources and let our readers decide whether they agree or disagree with those sources; but not with us. We merely report what those sources say. Rodhullandemu 22:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for shouting. My point is it is ridiculous that if some review says Godsmack, just to use that example again, are the "Kings of Metal" that constitutes an "honorific title" in the same sense as "King of Pop", "The King", "The Boss", etc.--even if it is a professional review that can be sourced--, that just doesn't seem to justify inclusion in my mind. The list is so bloated as to be almost meaningless. It is ashame this article has survived two deletion attempts. I was just considering (prior to reading your comment) looking into how to formally propose just that. I don't suppose there is a way to formally propose what I am actually (informally) proposing (keeping the article, for what it's worth, but stripping down the list)??

It just feels perverse to me the whole premise of having to "source" these rather obscure and specific titles. It seems like that should almost be a CRITERIA of one of these "honorific titles", that it NEED NOT be sourced (though it could easily be, and perhaps should be to meet wikipedia guidelines). In otherwords, EVERYONE knows Elvis is "King" (again, not a fan, just saying). You need not source it for people to concede to it. While it may be interesting and worthwhile to research it and find the original source of said title, that is beside the point that it is a well-accepted and understood title. Djlemonfresh (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)djlemonfresh

Again, a neutral point of view (a non-negotiable policy here) suggests that we, as editors, do not impose our own values as to whether a particular entry is worthy or not; all we do is to report what the sources have said, and leave it to the reader to decide. In one sense, you are correct, in that whereas Godsmack may well be forgotten in five years time (or not), Elvis may not be (or not). But writing an encyclopedia means ignoring concerns such as that. Again, there is a current of opinion that just because something can be sourced and added to an article, it should be; that's a fallacy, because there's an issue of relevance here, but that ignores what this article is intended for: "Who has called <artist> <what> and <why>?". Once we start saying "X is a short-lived and unimportant artist in relation to others", we are imposing our own opinions; and that just doesn't work here. And our requirement for reliable sources is equally non-negotiable, because "everybody knows" isn't such a source. Rodhullandemu 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think we are getting somewhere here. You bring up valid points, indeed. But, in my thinking, it seems the whole spirit of this article's list of examples should have been (and I imagine once was) to only list those "honorfic titles" that are widely-accepted, and RELEVANCE plays a big factor in that. You kind of make my point better than I was making it myself, when you speak of the fallacy that "if something can be sourced AND ADDED it should be" [edit: I neglected to include the words "and added"]. Much of this list smacks of EXACTLY THAT. I'm not saying this is a black and white issue, and I would be curious as to where the specific criteria for inclusion in the list are found. But to the casual reader, I imagine, the list lacks restraint. I understand that "everyone knows" is not a source. And I understand about NPOV. But this list seems to be very much in an ugly part of a gray area when it comes to wikipedia. I mean, it seems just the very act of including an artist in the list as "King" or "Queen" or "God" of some genre lacks any neutrality on the face of it (unless, again, it falls into the "everyone knows" category). Sure, someone may have found a source for said entry. But it seems like there should be a common-sense test, or perhaps a tightening of the criteria... How I can't quite articulate. Surely, someone more articulate can help me out!

To put it another way... Calling Godsmack "Kings of Metal" is very likely to stir intense debate and (probably) much laughter amongst, say, a large group of metal fans. Calling MJ "King of Pop" is not really up for debate. Love him, hate him, or indifferent, most people understand that is a "title" he "holds" (i.e. something he has OFTEN been referred to as), whether they agree with the title or not.

Perhaps I hit the nail on the head in my last parenthetical comment above. It seems perhaps the criteria should be altered in some way, so that a SINGLE (or small handful) of sources is not enough to deem some artist the "holder" of an "honorary title". The spirit of the article/list, it seems to me, would/should have been to stick to titles that are part of common parlance; NOT those used once or twice by journalists, reputable or otherwise. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between a turn of phrase to make an article or review more colorful and an actual "honorary title" that an artist "holds". ~~djlemonfresh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djlemonfresh (talk • contribs) 23:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The big thing here is that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, in the sense that, while it may not be true that Godsmack are "Kings of Metal", it is verifiable that they have been called that. --kelapstick (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Let me give you one example here: Whilst researching the title "Queen of Folk" in relation to Sandy Denny, I encountered Vinjamuri Anasuya Devi, who hasn't yet got an article, but from the source has been honoured as such from India to the USA; she has a career lasting over sixty years, but I'm not going to exclude her simply because she does not fit some simplistic model of what this article is meant to be for. She is a popular musician, in her own country, and elsewhere, with an honorific title, and reliably sourced as such. That, as far as this article is concerned, is enough for inclusion. This article doesn't exist to argue the merits of inclusion. As for sources, whereas notability in general is predicated upon "multiple, independent, reliable sources", that criterion only applies to articles, not content within articles. As for "authentic" titles, as implied by your final comments, in the absence of a central authority capable of awarding such titles, that isn't going to happen. Much of the pop music industry is hype, which is why we try to exclude self-descriptions, otherwise every MySpace and YouTube band would be on here. Marketing hype, we try to exclude for the same reasons; it's a Sisyphean task to review all the sources for validity, but historically, those who watch this page are quick to jump on unreliable sources. I think it's about right as it is, given the (necessary) breadth of its coverage. Rodhullandemu 23:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe you may be deliberately misunderstanding my argument, in order to diminish it. I never stated nor implied anything about titles being "authentic". There is a reason I use quotation marks aorund words like "honorary tile" and "holds" in my last comment. Obviously there is no central authority on this matter. I never implied there was. Perhaps we just cannot see eye-to-eye on this, but I suspect I am not the only one. It seems that the whole spirit of this article, and the way most people think about this concept, is not just a "who called what when and why" game, but rather the title should be part of common parlance, perhaps a common nickname for a very relevant and notable artist. Such a name could be sourced over and over and over again if necessary. This list, to me, and I suspect to many others, appears to just be a list of any artist who has ever been (professionally) called "King" or "Queen" of anything, even if it was just once. Sorry, but that is just silly, and in so many examples seems to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of NPOV (for one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djlemonfresh (talk • contribs) 23:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Why does wikipedia need a list of ALL artists who have ever been called (even just ONCE) "King", "Queen", etc., of a genre, just b/c it can be traced to a professional source. If more people cared, and did the research, I suspect this list of artists could grow into the several thousands. While you may say, "Why not, if it can all be verified?", I would say hogwash. The whole concept of these "honorary tiles", as I imagine most people think of it, then becomes meaningless (hey, look, we found one for almost every artist!). It definitely seems like the criteria are too loose for inclusion into this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djlemonfresh (talk • contribs) 00:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu is correct on this issue, policy is on his side. I suggest we end this discussion because it will not go anywhere. We could require more than one source for title inclusion, but there is no policy that demands such a burden. I'm sorry you do not like the concept of the list (this is a list, not an article, they always tend to be long) but some of your arguments seem to come down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The community has agreed several times that this article is acceptable and should stay on Wikipedia. — R² 07:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not saying so much get rid of the list entirely as I am show some restraint and good common sense, so that the list actually has some meaning and fits the spirit of the concept of "honorific titles". If that falls into the category of "i don't like it", then fine. I am no expert on wikipedia policy, but if none of my arguments are supported by policy, while i'm surprised, then fine. The list seems very unencyclopedic to me. And I am surprised that policy is allegedly so rigid and b&w on these matters as to allow such a meaninglessly bloated list to propagate. I'm sure the reason I will get no support on this is b/c most readers probably skip past this article quickly, seeing it's obvious silliness, unless they are "fans" of the article. I will probably do likewise in the future, although given the time and inclination, I'm sure one could find professional references to this or that band as "Kings" for every other band under the sun. Do I like that they could all end up on this list? No. But that is b/c it is ridiculous, not just b/c it doesn't suit my tastes.

Honestly, these "honorific titles" should probably be defined more as "nicknames", "aliases", or "AKAs" for the artist (e.g. The Boss) that can be referenced a multitude of times; not simply that one "professional" author or reviewer referred to so&so as "Kings" one time. As an example, while I personally love Radiohead, and they are undisputably popular and critically-acclaimed, I don't see them on the list. I'd venture to guess they have been "professionally" granted some "title" on at least a few occassions. But folks generally don't think of Radiohead as "Kings of Alternative Rock" (as an example) as something they are actually CALLED. That may be my or someone's (even a professional's) OPINION of Radiohead... but no one KNOWS them by that name ("Kings of Alternative", or something similar) in the same sense that they know Bruce Springsteen is AKA "The Boss".

If no one here sees that clear difference, then I abandon all hope for the fanbois & girlz of this "article". Peace. 76.181.68.30 (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)djlemonfresh

Djlemonfresh and others. I agree! No offense, but if Rodhullandemu is correctly applying wikipedia standards, then wikipedia deserves the "can't trust it, anything goes" reputation it has. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a hater. I like to think wikipedia is a credible and reliable source of information, and yet articles like this make it hard to go on thinking that way.

This article should NOT be killed. It is both fun and useful. But I agree with others saying it seriously needs to be pared down. Encyclopedias have editors, have editorial standards. Wikipedia doesn't allow entries to random local bands on the basis that they are not notable. Why should it allow notable bands to be aggrandized solely because two publications used hyperbole to describe them?

I think a better standard than "honorific has been used in two publications" would be "honorific has been used in two headlines." Also, the honorific should be capitalized as if a title. Otherwise it is just a description.

Here are a couple examples:

Eric Clapton is "God". Because of one piece of apparently famous graffiti in the 60s that people cite, Clapton gets the honorific "God"? This seems less an honorific and more a description of some graffiti. If that's too ambiguous, I think the bar here should be whether or not you can actually use the honorific in place of the person's name. You wouldn't headline an article "God to release a new album" or even follow up the headline "Clapton to release a new album" with the sub-header "God says it's a return to his roots".

Now, you CAN do that with "The King", and Elvis is routinely called "The King", even in headlines. (As a side note, Elvis is listed as one of a handful called "King of Rock and Roll"; he should also be listed as "The King".) I'm not trying to argue importance or aesthetic superiority here, but there is only one person who you can refer to as "The King" in a music context and everyone knows who you mean. This is not true of Clapton.

Meanwhile, I love Bauhaus and all, but have never heard people refer to Peter Murphy as the "Godfather of Goth." Yet according to this article he clearly is because the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said so. The other citation for this (from "The Independent") actually refers to him as the "godfather of Goth" -- note the lack of caps in "godfather" -- which to me reads as more of a historical statement than an honorific.--Jumunius (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)User:Jumunius, 17:53, 22 May 09 (UTC)

I quite agree with Jumunius. Wikipedia's standards for inclusion aren't the minimum standard here, because the article is not a list of honorific titles some legitimate source has used, at one time or another, for musicians. The article is only useful and interesting as a list of widely accepted, societally conferred honorifics. Bruce Springsteen is the Boss; James Brown is the Godfather of Soul. Those titles grew organically from their impact on the culture, and everyone working in music would recognize them from their titles. Somebody writing for the East Dwindlefork Times-Picayune could call Billy Ray Cyrus the "King of Country Music That Involves the Word 'Breaky'"; that wouldn't make it worthy of note. The bar has to be set higher for this article to have any purpose. I would suggest that a legitimate citation for this article needs to say something like "X, who is widely referred to as the King of Y" instead of simply asserting the honorific itself. Otherwise, the citation doesn't address the qualifications needed for this article.

By way of analogy, an article on wolverines that said "This researcher would consider the wolverine to be the more rightful king of the forest" would not be a sufficient citation for giving the wolverine the title "king of the forest" in the article "List of honorific titles used for animals." The lion, despite not living in forests, is the one known as the "king of the forest", and one article suggesting otherwise is not going to crown the wolverine in anyone's eyes.

Rather than Verifiability, I think the standard here should be WP:Notability. To be included here, a title should be shown to be notable, not just verifiable. --Jere7my (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just let me point out that the reference currently numbered [137] justifying the sub-list of Queens of Country Music, is not a valid reference. Or if it is, then I don't understand the purpose of this article, and I will refrain from confusing the people that do. The list as it stands, especially in light of what I really believe is the truth, has no definite knowledge value.

Therefore the talk page, where we can exchange our humble opinions, is really the only valuable component, in my humble opinion. I disagree "I don't like it" properly describes what is questionable/funny about this wikipedia article. It just makes me imagine some impressionable young person reading it, and possibly believing that they have some sort of accurate knowledge.

To repeat, if you check out the citation for "Queen of Country Music" honorific, I think you will observe it is not a definitive reference - it is just a random newspaper blurb that appeared in some newspaper at some point in time, and is obviously playful speculation about the subject.Mea (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail, a mass-circulation UK newspaper, called singer Pixie Lott (who released her first single 2 weeks ago) the "Princess Of Pop". They also called Britney Spears the "Princess Of Chav". And mtv.com calls Britney the "Trainwreck Of Pop". Surely a mention in a well-known media outlet is not enough for these titles to be taken seriously enough to be listed in Wikipedia? The list as it is now only proves that honorific titles in pop music are given frivolously, and are thus meaningless. Surely the purpose of a page on Wikipedia can't be to prove its own irrelevance? 84.198.246.199 (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Loudest band in the world

The Who is usually said to be the "loudest band" in the world. There is even a wikipedia article for Loudest band in the world. I think the title should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.118.27.70 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really within the definition of an "honorific", though. Rodhullandemu 02:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, isn't Manowar the loudest?--Stormwatch (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Queen

The band Queen, is called by all the rock musics community as "The Queen of Rock", we need to add that to the group section.

Also I added Freddie Mercury as the new "God of Rock" --Xopauxo wiki (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Kitty Wells is the undisputed Queen of Country Music

The famous country D.J., Eddie Stubbs see: Eddie Stubbs had a long-running weekend program on radio station WAMU. As a person who listened to this show for many years, I can testify that almost every time he introduced a song by Kitty Wells, he would refer to her as the UNDISPUTED Queen of Country Music. This is a fact (that he said it), but of course this is matter of opinion, but Mr. Stubbs opinion should count for more than the average person's, since he is properly regarded as an authority on the subject.

I may go ahead and clean out the list on my own, subject to a review period which begins now. Note I do not have recordings handy of Mr. Stubbs making the pronouncement referred to above. His words were such, and probably predated the existence of this wikipedia article. He was aware that over-usage of honorifics is a feel-good kind of thing that gets out of hand.

In the end it becomes a matter of judgment. I think a lot of people frequenting Wikipedia are fairly young, and consider subjects such as these honorific titles, as far as the older ones, like speculations on the Trojan War or some such. But actually, for everyones information, Kitty Wells was considered the Queen of Country music because of her frank and unvarnished singing style. Country music, without the words, is actually fairly formulaic and not a major art form. It is the emotion and stories that make it great for those that appreciate it.

Dolly Parton is an extremely gifted songwriter and musician. Loretta Lynn is a powerful figure in country music. Reba McEntire, o.k., something for you younger folk. But take a little time a listen to Kitty Wells sing her heart out. Then you may understand why on his radio show, Mr. Eddie Stubbs repeated the phrase "the undisputed Queen of Country Music", in reference to Kitty Wells, literally hundreds of times. Mea (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am "fairly old" rather than "fairly young" (I remember Beethoven's early, unsuccessful gigs), but there's no reason why Kitty Wells should not be included in the article, properly sourced; however, its lead does make it clear that "more than one artist may have been given a title". I'd advise against "cleaning out" the list, because thus far, more or less all of the entries are reliably sourced (one or two could be better-sourced, or lost), and by the criteria set out in the lead, belong in it. If you have any particular suggestions for a cull, please mention them here before removing them; that will save much argument. Rodhullandemu 02:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked out the citation for having multiple Queens [137]. This is a very evanescent and light-hearted blurb that appeared in a newspaper on the eve of Dolly Parton visiting for a concert date. As soon as I find a valid reference I will be cleaning out the list.

I am glad to have someone responding to my discussion, above. But what was not 'particular' about my comment? The particular is that although some people may be fans of the competing "Queens", and although the subject is debatable, there are knowledgeable opinions on the subject. I think it is more than any female artist in the country genre whose name is fairly well known can be automatically entered into some contest called The Queen of Country Music.

Is this a list of anybody who has every been referred to with these titles from any known source? If it is then I don't care about the article, and I withdraw my suggestion. Wikipedia has always been quite rigourous about citations. However, citing anything that has ever appeared in print or in computer-land, does not a valid citation make.Mea (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we remove reference #137 (and its dependent entries)?

SHOWN BELOW: THE BEGINNING PART OF THIS REFERENCE, DO YOU THINK THIS IS A CREDIBLE REFERENCE: clipping from the famous Omaha World-Herald

Published Thursday August 7, 2008 Readers Weigh In: Who is the queen of country?

Queen of Country. The title has been bestowed on Dolly Parton, Reba McEntire, Loretta Lynn and a few other female country stars. With Parton set to perform Monday at the Qwest Center Omaha, we wanted to know who readers consider the real queen of country. Here's what they think.

There is no reason to remove it. As you yourself stated above, this article quotes information from any third party reliable source which deals with the subject. We agreed long ago we don't "pick and choose" which sources we like/don't like with regards to who has been called/labeled what, as long as it has appeared in print from a reliable source. Choosing who is a "legitimate" King/Queen of whatever genre is original research on our part, not WP:NPOV editing. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

KING OF ROCK AND ROLL

I have removed all other names from the section "King of Rock n Roll" except Elvis Presley After reading this:-

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/King-of-Rock-and-Roll

You people should write only those people here, who are really honoured! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.27.159 (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rihanna to be considered Queen of...

I recall numerous articles calling Rihanna the newest Queen of R&B, and since her latest transition to Pop Music, they also call her the newest Queen of Pop. I added her to the list, but it has then been removed. I think if Britney can call herself the Queen of Pop in one of her songs, and she instantly become the Queen of Pop, I think since the media calls Rihanna Queen of Pop & R&B, she should be added to these lists. It's poposterous!Forever Kenny (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC).

You have to cite a reliable third party publication using the title. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will find it!74.236.156.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC).

Is this a good article? http://neonlimelight.com/2009/05/18/bow-down-to-whipping-my-hair-by-rihanna/ Some of these reference articles are not reliable for these other artists.74.236.156.131 (talk)

No it is not unfortunately, it is an obscure website. — R² 12:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's some articles: Rihanna: Queen of the Download http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/12094/week-ending-aug-3-2008-rihanna-queen-of-the-download/

Rihanna: Queen of the Summer Jam http://www.mtv.com/videos/news/152186/rihanna-queen-of-the-summer-jam.jhtml#id=1560871

Rihanna: Queen of R&B http://www.canadatop.com/article/Rihanna http://www.arenamagazine.co.uk/girls/rihanna/

I'll continue to search. All of these a credible articles. I reviewed some of the other articles by some of the other artist and they weren't credible at all! If you don't add these, the other ones must also be removed!74.236.156.131 (talk)

All sources currently in the article pass WP:RS. None of the sources you've presented are exactly reliable or considered noteworthy news sources with the exception of Yahoo/MTV but even those are duboius. Try something like a major news publications: NY Times, LA Times, print encyclopedias, etc. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is Rihanna currently on the 'Queen of R&B' section when the ref cites her as the Caribbean R&B Queen, She's no Queen of R&B and shouldnt be on this section or the 'Queen of Pop' section. This page is starting to get a big silly! Wneedham02 (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Also... The 2 sources that state Rihanna as Queen of Pop, one says the 'Raining Queen of Pop World' - Is that the same and the second says the 'Barbadian R&B pop queen' - Is that the same? Like my previous comment Shouldnt you make a new section for Barbadian Queen of Pop and/or Caribbean R&B Queen as I personally feel these are completly different things! Wneedham02 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Cliff Richard

Sir Cliff is commonly known as the Peter Pan of Pop, in Britain and Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.55.37 (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've heard it too, but I'm not sure if that's "honorific" or slightly mocking. — R² 15:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

R. Kelly: The Pied Piper of R&B

He's been referred to as The Pied Piper of R&B by himself, other artists, and in several articles.

[17]

[18]

[19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.8.235 (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, The Times article can definitely be used. I'll add it. — R² 16:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for perspective, he gave himself that title; it was not bestowed up him by anyone. I'm not sure if that has an effect on posting, but I think that it should. The Times may have used it in an article title filled with negative press, but that was for journalistic drama, in my assumption. The fact that Kelly gave himself the title alone makes me think it is not a legitimate candidate for the list. I strongly oppose adding the title to the list.

Pbmaverick (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

He might or might not have given himself the title. When the media turn against a person they usually come up with some crap about it being "self proclaimed". — Please comment R² 13:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers - Called "America's Band" by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

New title in group titles: *America's Band - Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers*

Source: http://www.rockhall.com/inductee/tom-petty-and-the-heartbreakers

Thoughts?

Pbmaverick (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

ONLY 1 QUEEN OF POP=MADONNAAA!!

WTF people?? Nobody refers to mariah or janet as the Queen of Pop, only their hardcore fans. On the other hand Maodnna is GENERALLY ACCEPTED, KNOWN AND REFFERED TO as the QUEEN OF POP! If I create a website and randomly refer to Rihanna as the Queen of Pop that doesn't mean anything.

Think about it, whenever I hear a Madonna song on the radio, the presenter afterwards sais "another amazing song song by the Queen of Pop". It's her nickname and it is associated only with her image, not with mariahs or Rihhanas or Beyonces. Their are like 1.000.000.000.000 (countless) sources that refer to Madonna as the Queen of Pop, and like only 1 source which names Janet as the Queen and it is written in a lame blog of one of her hardcore fans (no offense I also love janet). So maybe this article should be updated because anybody could name any star as however he/she wants leading to confusion. I mean if I refer to Aalyiah as the Queen of Hard Rock in my blog do I have the right to use it as a source in order to name her the queen of hard rock in this article. NO!! This page should include the GENERALLY ACCEPTED BY MEDIA AND PEOPLE TITLES (ex. Madonna=Queen of Pop, MJ= King of Pop, Elvis= The King).. OK? Any opposition..?

We should not be using blogs as reliable sources, because they aren't. However, if a reliable source describes an artist as "Queen of Pop", that's enough for inclusion here. Also, there's no need to SHOUT, and worth a look at this. Rodhullandemu 13:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think its a bit silly if im honest with the amount of 'Queens' in each section I agree with some but some are just stupid and offensive to alot of music fans! Wneedham02 (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

But not to others. Rodhullandemu 17:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is Jimi Hendrix not on this page???

I mean if we have made up titles like "Architect of Rock and Roll", we can make one up for Hendrix. Anyway, I've got a citation to support Hendrix in his own category called "King of sex, drugs, and rock and roll" http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/lemmy%20hendrix%20was%20the%20king%20of%20sex%20drugs%20rock%20n%20roll_1098497. Considering how convoluted the rest of this list is, I think it's more important to include that than people like "The King of Skiffle", whatever that actually is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surcer (talk • contribs) 02:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Skiffle obviously happened before you were born, but I remember it being very popular in the late 1950s and early 1960s. As to "made-up titles", we don't do that; we usereliable sources, such as music journalists, as arbiters. Rodhullandemu 17:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is the Biggest Band in the world?

U2 has been undisputedly called the biggest band in the world, if there is the best band, there should be the biggest...

Reference: http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gallery/26273590Akashsoham (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Akashsoham

The Greatest Guitarist of All Time - Jimi Hendrix

I think we can all agree on it, and here's the source (Rolling Stone mag list of the 100 greatist guitarists) http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5937559/the_100_greatest_guitarists_of_all_time/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.67.169 (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)