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 account. 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)