Talk:Doc Holliday

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Revision as of 18:55, 30 October 2019 by NateBumber (talk | contribs)

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 [T:CHAR NAMES [src]]

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 [T:HONOUR [src]]

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)