Talk:Doc Holliday: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:::::Sometimes technical issues trump other policies. See the specific point cited by [[User:NateBumber]] in the post above yours for [[User:CzechOut]]'s explanation. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 04:31, 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. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 04:31, October 24, 2019 (UTC) | ||
:::::: [[User:NateBumber|NateBumber]] is wrong here on two | :::::: [[User:NateBumber|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 [[User:CzechOut|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. | :::::: Secondly, the cited [[User:CzechOut|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. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:00, October 29, 2019 (UTC) | :::::: I would ask to leave the questions of relevancy to the discussion and of policy interpretation to admin, instead concentrating on facts. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:00, October 29, 2019 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:01, 29 October 2019
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)
- 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)
- 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.
