Talk:Doc Holliday

Rename possibility

This is a genuine question, and I'm neither FOR nor AGAINST it... I was wondering whether it would be better to rename the page to "Holliday" or "John Holliday" given the fact that "Doc" was not actually his name, but a nickname given to him since he was the local doctor of O.K. Corral, Tombstone? --DCLM ☎ 13:02, October 22, 2019 (UTC)

Was the full name "John H. Holliday" given in-universe? Amorkuz ☎ 13:34, October 22, 2019 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain it was never said in the TV story but I can't speak for the novelisation. When he was asked if he was Doc Holliday, he answered with "That is my name", so he certainly identifies with it. -- Saxon (✉️) 13:39, October 22, 2019 (UTC)

Haven't read the novelisation. Does he appear in other media? --DCLM ☎ 13:48, October 22, 2019 (UTC)

The article mentions events around his death at the bottom. This happens in the novel, so perhaps his has a tombstone revealed with his name on it. Not sure. --DCLM ☎ 13:53, October 22, 2019 (UTC)

Good point about the novelisation. Indeed, the novelisation states his name as "Doctor John H. Holliday". Amorkuz ☎ 16:34, October 22, 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the novelisation is irrelevant here - per Thread:232143#4, names given in novelisations cannot be used for page titles. – N8 (☎/👁️) 23:42, October 23, 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that thread's conclusion a violation of T:NPOV? Danochy ☎ 04:27, October 24, 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes technical issues trump other policies. See the specific point cited by User:NateBumber in the post above yours for User:CzechOut's explanation. Shambala108 ☎ 04:31, October 24, 2019 (UTC)

NateBumber is wrong here on two accounts. Firstly, the novelisation is relevant because without it, "John H. Holliday" would have been a real-world bleed, not allowed in the in-universe portion of the page. Ascertaining it to be an in-universe name was necessary before continuing with the renaming debate. Put in simple terms, without that name mentioned in the novelisation, the proposed renaming would have been a direct violation of the policies.

Secondly, the cited CzechOut's reasoning was primarily focused on fictitious characters. In particular, the following passage "if the majority of users can't possibly know that name from experiencing the most ubiquitous version of a story" does not automatically apply to a real historical person, especially a famous one. Incidentally, the same would apply to names of famous fictional characters from the real world. For instance, even if most stories only mentioned "Holmes" and only some novelisations gave the full name of "Sherlock Holmes", still he would be most recognisable as Sherlock Holmes to the majority of the people.

I would ask to leave the questions of relevancy to the discussion and of policy interpretation to admin, instead concentrating on facts. Amorkuz ☎ 11:00, October 29, 2019 (UTC)

Okay. It was my mistake to try to understand and apply the policy as written. I'll do my best to concentrate on the facts from now on. – N8 (☎/👁️) 18:55, October 30, 2019 (UTC)

It was incorrectly stated at another talk page that this discussion was over. Since it isn't, here are some relevant quotes from our policies:

In most cases, you should title an article with the first and last name of a character. But you should use the last name by which the character was most often known.

...

By forum consensus, the titles of articles about individual characters should be the name by which the character was most commonly known in the Doctor Who universe. If a full name is provided, though is not generally used, the body text of the article itself should start with it.Character names

Don't include Mr, Mrs, Dr, or any other honourific in a page title — unless you have no other reasonable way to disambiguate.

...

Honourifics are titles that come before a name, such as Mr, Mrs, Dr, Professor, religious ranks, or military ranks. These should generally not be included in article titles, unless they provide the only reasonable means of disambiguation.

...

Finally, if a character is widely known by a title, such as Sergeant Benton, then a redirect can be created under that name, pointing to the proper article title — in this case, John Benton. This however should only be done sparingly, and only with major characters.Honourifics

Some of the explanatory text is not applicable for this case, mind. It is still quoted to give a full context.

If there are other relevant policies, please do not hesitate posting a quote below. Amorkuz ☎ 23:48, October 29, 2019 (UTC)

A new suggestion: let's not

"Doctor" is an honorific. If the character was called "Doctor Holliday", T:HONOR would tell us to name the page Holliday (or perhaps Holliday (The Gunfighters)). An example of this is Talk:Marple. But this character is not called "Doctor Holliday". He is called "Doc Holliday". "Doc" is neither a title nor an honorific but a nickname. Far be it from me, a lowly editor, to attempt to infer or apply this wiki's policies, but it appears that nicknames are often allowed in page titles, eg Amy Pond and Sam Jones. So I don't think it's a problem to follow Wikipedia's lead and keep the most used and most recognizable name - "Doc Holliday" - as the title for this page. – N8 (☎/👁️) 18:55, October 30, 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree. -- Saxon (✉️) 19:02, October 30, 2019 (UTC)

I agree entirely. GusF ☎ 19:29, October 30, 2019 (UTC)

Here, here.BananaClownMan ☎ 20:05, October 30, 2019 (UTC)

While it would be valuable to see if the OP also agrees with this argument, but, indeed, NateBumber is right: "Doc" in this case is a nickname, not an honourific. (It should, however, be noted that the provided Wikipedia link to the article about "Doc as a nickname" featuring Doc Holliday as an example is not acceptable as evidence that Doc here is a nickname by T:RW SRC). Granted, this is less obvious a nickname than Calamity Jane, partly because "Doc" is derived from a bona fide honourific "Doctor", which is, in fact, legally possessed by the character in question (including in-universe). But its use instead of a first name rather than before the first name and its abbreviated form betray its nature. Since it is not an honourific, Tardis:Honourifics does not preclude using it in the page name.

Unless another relevant policy is found, the only thing remaining to discuss is how to properly apply Tardis:Character names. This policy exhibits in inherent tension: on the one hand, it strongly suggests defaulting to <First name Last name> format. On the other, it recommends using the most commonly known name.

The examples of Amy Pond and Sam Jones are not fully comparable because Amy and Sam are nicknames based on first names and because they are not real-world people, which affects the recognisability of their names. The current name of the page of a real-world person has a nickname that is totally unrelated to his first name. However, Calamity Jane, Wild Bill Hickok and Blackbeard are all examples of real-world people whose names are known (at least in the real world) but who are much better known by their nicknames, assumed according to the customs of their times and/or occupation. Thus, the precedent for using nicknames does, indeed, exist.

The next question, which I hope should not cause much disagreement, is which of the two names is more commonly used in the DWU? Amorkuz ☎ 22:57, October 30, 2019 (UTC)

His first name John is never mentioned in The Gunfighters. He is referred to as John H. Holliday three times in the novelisation. Otherwise, he is called Doc Holliday or simply Holliday throughout. GusF ☎ 23:17, October 30, 2019 (UTC)

Just saw the earlier comment referring to rule against using novelisations for page names. Never mind! GusF ☎ 23:32, October 30, 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above assertions that "Doc" is not a title or honorific, but rather a nickname. In The Gunfighters, Kate Fisher, his girlfriend, often calls him "Doc". Shambala108 ☎ 23:42, October 30, 2019 (UTC)

Now that novelisations are valid sources for page names, this should probably be called John H. Holliday, with a redirect? Aquanafrahudy ☎ 08:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

No, why? Seems analogous to keeping The Rani over Ushas and so on. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 11:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)