Talk:Sobriquet

message: I disagree with several of the examples given on the list. * * * For example "Jock – (derog.) a Scotsman" and "Jack Tar – sailor in the British Royal Navy."  I find evidence that sobriquets are individual rather than categorical, hence these are slang terms or colloquialisms rather than sobriquets.  * * * I think several of the examples lack what someone has eloquently described in this articles as the "salient characteristic...of sufficient familiarity.  * * *  I agree with the comment below that "The Wicked Lord Byron" is really just "Lord Byron" with an epithet.  I agree that "The City of Angels", being a mere translation of Los Angeles, disqualifies it for inclusion on this list. * * * I agree that "The City" is used by people in the NYC area to refer to Manhattan – and it is also used by people elsewhere talking ABOUT Manhattan as a sort of snobbery (maybe I’ll coin the neologism "snobriquet” for terms in this category). However, when the average person from a suburb of any American city says that they are going to "the city" they are referring to their own local urban center, not Manhattan. -- House of Scandal 09:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this right? One of those should be sobriquet surely? hypnox 00:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2006 

message: can anyone provide a source for above? I love it but accuracy counts for something and verafiability just a little more. Which suggewsts that every entry needs a cited source.SmithBlue 03:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  source for "Brian – Prince Charles" 

message: Wikipedia:Verifiability says in a nutshell:
*1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
*2. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
*3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Has anyone got reasons why this policy is better not applied to the list of sobriquets? SmithBlue 23:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With no demonstration to date of why Verifiability should not be applied to this list I will commence removing all uncited sobriquets. SmithBlue 03:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A 'sobriquet' is not a fact but a part of our language.  As with all words, phrases, proverbs, idioms, etc. what you must verify, if verification is what you want, is not that one person has used a particular 'sobriquet' but that it has 'entered the language'.  The way dictionaries do this is by analysing hundreds or even thousands of sources: television, newspapers, books etc. to examine the way words are used.  Is this what you propose? 82.153.15.121 15:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: p.s. If you care so much about citations, why don't you add them all yourself?  And in any case, if you are going to remove everything uncited, you had better remove the whole lot, because there aren't any citations at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.15.121 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In absence of discusion over Verifiability of sobriquets list I will begin removign uncited Sobriquets on 3 Feb 2007. SmithBlue 03:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sobriquet list   and Wikipedia:Verifiability 

message: That's rather George Best than Pete Best, no?
:pete best was a beatle, george best was an irish footballer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.249.147.215 (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fifth Beatle

message: I'm having a hard time distinguishing this `article' from a definition, aka a topic for a dictionary. 70.18.242.118 02:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear. As it stands, this article is a definition, some loose etymology and a list of examples. Not hugely encyclopædic, in my view. 202.7.166.182 (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rite a letter to Brittanica then, see the tag at the top of the page. MickMacNee (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what's an encyclopedia? 

message: Can we add a pronunciation guide to this?  How do you say Sobriquet anyway? Bounton 03:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: At present the standard for inclusion is a WP:RS showing use of the sobriquet. I plan to remove the  tag unless other editors demostrate its usefulness/currency. SmithBlue (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for Sobriquets 

message: User 122.248.0.10:  you've added "Battle of the Begums" but the link doesn't explain it. Can you add an explanation?  --Wikiain (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of the Begums 

message: Several of the examples are Metonyms - saying "Foggy Bottom" to refer to the US Intelligence services, for instance. Can something be a metonym and a sobriquet, or do these examples want removing? Brickie (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap with [[Metonymy]]? 

message: Taiwan is listed as an example for the Republic of China.  I do not think this fits into the definition listed in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.222.200.15 (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan 

message: This word seems more in line with the Spanish word "Apodo," which is often translated as nickname.  But nicknames are often diminutives or endearing epithets for someone.  Whereas, even when a person embraces it, an apodo can have a pejorative origin.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.195.12 (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apodo [Spanish] 

message: Just out of curiosity, what is the deal with wikipedians feeling the need to use high-brow words such as this, instead of much simpler and much more broadly understood terms?  "...is nominally rated with a minimum breaking strength of 550 pounds, thus the sobriquet "550 cord"."  Why not just say "nickname"??  Seriously folks, there's no reason for this linguistic snobbery.  Stop it.  If a word you want to use would require the average person to use a dictionary, and a suitable substitute is available that would not, use the simpler word.
207.171.191.60 (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You stop it. Should we destroy the historical usage of a word just because you think it's not required in daily usage? The average person doesn't discuss cricket or rugby, should we get rid of those articles just because they're not in your daily vocabulary? This is an encyclopedia, a place of knowledge. The article doesn't go into sufficient detail, but not all nicknames are sobriquets. The list is getting out of hand though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

text: reply "sobriquet" carries a suggestion of approval and even adulation that is often missing in a mere "nickname." In fact a nickname can be, as often as not, quite unflattering or even derogatory. Orthotox (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Wikipedians don't "feel the need to use high-brow words" necessarily. Other people do, and that is why we have an entry for it. I agree with others that the term is more of a definition thus should be in Wiktionary only instead...except for the fact that it falls under the linguistics Wikiproject and secondly, it receives a huge number of hits (19,992 in the past 30 days).--FeralOink (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter if the word is used mostly by hack writers. We're not here to pass judgement or to declare what should be "self-evident to thoughtful people"!  Nor is sobriquet a phenomenon of mass communication whatever that is supposed to mean: it has been part of the English and French languages since the 16th century or earlier, see the article. Also, as you can see by the sources under the "Use" sub-heading, it is a term applied in academic contexts by scholars of everything from the Dead Sea Scrolls to Tang dynasty poetry. I think there are is Islamic historical usage as well.--FeralOink (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the high-brow word? 

message: I'd say "sobriquet" is employed mainly by hack writers straining to impress. As such, it's a kine of specialized cliche bit of language that is virtually NEVER used in speech. Any thoughtful person knows this. Perhaps linguists have a category for this sort of thing, although this particular example may be a phenomenon of what was formerly called "mass communication," rather than of language per se. 
"Moniker" is in a similar category, which, if it can be defined, could be the subject of another Wikipedia "list article" so beloved of the "I memorized the phone book" crowd. 
Also, many and perhaps even most of the so-called "sobriquets" listed here exist only through repetition, again, by hack writers, rather than because of "actual" use.--Badiacrushed (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if the word is used mostly by hack writers. We're not here to pass judgement or to declare what should be "self-evident to thoughtful people"!  Nor is sobriquet a phenomenon of mass communication whatever that is supposed to mean: it has been part of the English and French languages since the 16th century or earlier, see the article. Also, as you can see by the sources under the "Use" sub-heading, it is a term applied in academic contexts by scholars of everything from the Dead Sea Scrolls to Tang dynasty poetry. I think there are is Islamic historical usage as well.--FeralOink (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: middle or low brow?

message: It seems that the list given would be better presented as a separate List of Nicknames. I'd propose List of Sobriquets, but as has been observed even when citation is possible, definitively determination of whether a sobriquet or nickname will prove elusive for many of the examples herein.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.174.208.4 (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate list? 

message: I know this phrase as "father of our country". Is the variation in the article used widely outside of the United States, in reference to George Washington? B7T (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father of "his" country?  

message: "Home of the Brave" and "Land of the Free" are, I would think, standard stand-ins for the USA, at least among Americans. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_the_Free_(disambiguation) Orthotox (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Candidates for consideration: sobriquets for "America"

message: We have an editor who wished to see "Crooked Hillary" added. Does it qualify as a sobriquet or is it simply slanderous campaign statement? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is more of a moniker. Sobriquets usually have positive or fond connotations.--FeralOink (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crooked Hillary 

message: I'm a new editor so I thought to practice adding citations to Sobriquet from the Oxford Dictionary of Nicknames by Andrew Delahunty. My adding the nickname for Oliver Cromwell was reverted. Is the standard that a reference book like this is not enough when the same nicknames are reused in history for more than one person?  In the same reference book, both President Grant and General Macarthur are listed as The American Caesar. I was adding that nickname for both of them. Is this wrong?
thank you. Garnetbibliophile (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a great idea. But again, one reference does not mean it's a universal sobriquet. If it's not on the first page of a Google search, it's not sufficiently common to be considered here, even with a good reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't the first page of the Google search results test bias towards 20th and 21st century sources? I can see it for contemporary nicknames but I hesitate to adopt it for historic figures.  If I find more book references would the first page of Google search results test still hold?Garnetbibliophile (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does it? If it's sometime more common that the original name, it shouldn't matter. If it is a sobriquet that could be equally applied to other subjects, it's not appropriate to state it only applies to one subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What about how the American Caesar was General Grant in the 19th century and General MacArthur (especially after the Manchester book) is the 20th century American Caesar.  Should all the 19th century citations to American Caesar as Grant be ignored because the nickname was reused? Is uniqueness absolutely required when the use is separated by nearly a century? Go to Google Books (not regular Google) enter american caesar grant, then use the Tools to select free Google ebooks instead of any books. The results will be filled with 19th century usage of Grant's nickname as American Caesar.  This is an example of how the first page of a regular Google search is biased towards recent usage. The Google Books with free Google ebooks gave me The Presidents of the United States 1789-1894 edited by James Grant Wilson. On p. 183 it  has a list of Presidential nicknames as used when the book was published in 1894 that includes Grant as American Caesar.  What's to be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garnetbibliophile (talk • contribs) 05:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good thing we don't list it here. I'm not sure what you're asking about that though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to list American Caesar but in the editing conflict it was one of the edits that didn't get saved. So would it be proper to list The American Caesar - Ulysses Grant, Douglas MacArthur showing that the nickname has applied to both generals as long as there are specific citations individually applied to the two gentlemen? thank you for being patient with this. Garnetbibliophile (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  :American Caesar. Has the term become more common than their actual names? Has the name become synonymous with either individual so that in general conversation you could use the term and most would understand it? That's what a sobriquet is. If that's not the case, it's a nickname. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a definition and distinction that makes sense to me. Of course, it implies that sobriquets fade into nicknames as time goes on and people become less familiar with the fame of particular individuals.  So this article is for current sobriquets in the current popular knowledge more than I thought. The Velvet Fog was always Mel Torme, now maybe that doesn't mean the test? Thank you. Garnetbibliophile (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. And I would argue that many of the items listed here are in fact nicknames (or less). Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Ulysses S. Grant is now mentioned with his period sobriquet which is sourced to the Library of Congress. (It isn't "American Caesar".)--FeralOink (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford Dictionary of Nicknames as a source of citations 

message: As Citizen Canine pointed out three months ago, the  section has become an example farm: The list contained 440 entries. Nothing has happened to remedy this since (apart maybe from adding the translation of "caligula", which still is not a very elucidating explanation.). In my view, the purpose of an "example" section is to provide examples that help understand the topic. So I started applying a clear measuring stick: keeping only those that are commonly used for the particular meaning and well explained and referenced or for which we have dedicated articles. 
I started with , reducing that section from 102 to 5. Extrapolating, one can assume that the whole list will contain some 22 entries, already quite a long list for examples. At least we can do away with the alphabetical subsections and maybe instead divide the examples between people, cities, or some such.  
When removing the following, I had some regrets, but I wanted to stay with the yardstick I set.
* Billy the Kid, William H. Bonney (1859–1881), the notorious Western outlaw
* Blackbeard – Edward Teach, English pirate
* Bloody Mary – Queen Mary I of England
* Bollywood – [Hindi cinema], film industry
* Buddha – Siddhartha Gautama
* Buffalo Bill – American frontier showman William Frederick Cody
* Caligula ("Little Boots") – Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus
* Capitol Hill - United States Capitol, United States of America Legislative branch of Government 
* The Celtic Tiger – Republic of Ireland and/or its economy during boom period of mid-1990s – mid-2000s decade
* Christ – Jesus of Nazareth
* The City of Brotherly Love – Philadelphia
* Colosseum - Flavian Amphitheatre (Rome)
If someone else feels, too, that one or some of them merit inclusion, let's think about how to bring the entry or entries up to par. 
BTW, many of the entries I removed had double links: One to the article, the other one to a redirect. ◄ Sebastian 12:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example farm