Please update Guideline 2.1.2 Artist names

2.1.2 says: Names are entered as they appear on the release.

One effect of this is that we now have … I don't know how much, but way too much Pandits, Ustads, Shris and whatever Indian honorifics in PANs, I haven't checked the Dr. titles.
Wouldn't it be possible to add that Indian honorifics and academic titles shouldn't be used in the PAN, as they are not part of the name and therefore only be used in the ANV, please!

Agreed, titles in general shouldn't be part of the PAN except when they are actually part of the artist name, p.ex. Lady Gaga.

Borderline cases can always be discussed.

I don't agree. In Jewish/Israeli music a rabbi is almost always credited with their title. It would be a stretch to remove a title that is almost always used with the artist's name. Famous example: Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach. Whether or not to use an honorary title really should depend on how the artist is normally credited and also the norms within the society where the artist lives.

Similarly, Dr. Roger S. Payne is an academic, a biologist who became semi-famous for recording whale song. He's generally (but not always) credited with his title. To me that is the most relevant PAN.

I'm not familiar with either of the artists, but it seems odd to me that they both include the title in the PAN, especially when there are at least an equal amount of credits, if not more, without the title.

The problem is that titles can change, and one person can hold multiple titles. Even religious titles can change. But a really good example are military titles, see for example Geoffrey Fisher.

Just my 2¢ though. ;)

unfortunately, there are multitudes of PAN's like:
Dr. Helmut Kohl
which I think could/should be changed
OTOH, if an artist is consistently credited with honorifics, they should be part of the PAN

marcelrecords
OTOH, if an artist is consistently credited with honorifics, they should be part of the PAN

I also think the actual releases by the artist should trump credits on various collections. In the case of Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach most of his releases do include his title. FWIW, our discography is grossly incomplete, as you might expect.

I also think that if they are the most credited with titles, it should be include in the PAN. Take Sister Nancy. (Sister Rosetta Tharpe sung religious gospel, but I don't know if she really was a "sister", maybe not, maybe yes) (duplicate inside !)

my favorite: His Holiness The Dalai Lama

I tend to agree with marcel and TPF here ...

Willow.the.Wisp
my favorite: His Holiness The Dalai Lama

...is entirely a title. His name doesn't appear at all.

yeah - you're right.

this is a better one:
Queen Elizabeth II

I like this one:

His Holiness Pope John Paul II

teninchfan
I like this one:
His Holiness Pope John Paul II

That just reminded me of this debate: http://discogs.versitio.com/help/forums/topic/357083
(Unrelated to this topic, but just a few days ago I was thinking about where I crossed paths with that Italian before. Now I know again…)

Back on topic:
I recall there was a discussion (or two) with Mac Rebenack.
I thought it was then added to the guidelines, but apparently not.

Yep, loukash, that's exactly why I made this thread.
Let's take the Rabbi and the Pope aside for the moment, let them be Rabbi and Pope, no problems with these.
I these discussions about Dr. titles and also two rulings in the forum especially concerning Indian names – Ustad yes or no. It was NO both times and I stuck since then to that. The problem is, I can't prove jack cause – I can't find any of them.

And the Indian name section is a mess and will stay a mess if nothing about these honorifics is done because aside from different transliteration of names we have additional these honorifics which confuse s additionally.
We have i.e. Ustad Allauddin Khan who has also one ANV as Acharya Allauddin Khan but with double l.
And we have Allauddin Khan with the same name but he is a completely different person.
No (1) and (2) which would make obvious it's two people but one with Ustad, the other without. You only see they are different people when you read the Release Notes of the linked release. (I would of course like to update the data and profiles but I would prefer to have both without titles and with numbers to make the difference visible.)

One man is born Krishna Khan, becomes Krishna Khan Saheb, then Pandit Krishna Khan Saheb, later then maybe Pandit Krishna Khan Baba and then, then he becomes Pabushan Krishna Khan or maybe just Pa Krishna Baba (as he has been given the honor of being Pa Vibushan. And he has always the same birth name but has ended up with 4 different PANs here. (Ravi Shankar even was a Bharat Ratna, means Jewel of India – but for heaven's sake he was PAN Ravi Shankar all the way …)

That's my concern and it's impossible to get a grip of these multiple PANs in the Indian artist section as long as everbody uses all these ever changing titles and doesn't stick to the birth names.
That's why I would like to have mentioned the most common Indian titles like Sri (also Sree, Shri, Shree = Mister), Pandit (= teacher), Ustad (= Maestro, Professor) and Pa (Pa Bushan or Pa Vibushan = order from the Indian state). I think we can forget about the Bharat Ratna, he is given away very rarely.)

teninchfan
I like this one:

His Holiness Pope John Paul II

Popes get a completely new name when they are appointed. Their real name is something else. The problem here are titles that are attached to the real name. More relevant would be Samuel Kelsey, whose titles include both reverend and bishop.

loukash
I recall there was a discussion (or two) with nik's participation where he ruled that academic titles should be avoided in PANs

IIRC nik has said that whatever is commonly used, that should be the PAN, even if it contained a title. Maybe that was about different kind of titles (non-academic), but what's the difference, really? That's based on my memory though... But I think that approach is problematic in many ways, at least IMVHO.