Jump to content

Talk:Sherlock Holmes/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2014

Pease can you add the following to the relatives of Sherlock Holmes: Mother - Ada Holmes Sisters - Enola Holmes Sons - Raffles Holmes 82.3.136.48 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reference on this? Or anyone else? Hafspajen (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
These are not canonical creations of ACD. The only reference in the stories to Holmes' family is to brother Mycroft. If they appear in a "related or derivative work," they might be added to a note about it, but this material does not belong in the Infobox or the body of the article proper. Sensei48 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I was kind of wondering myself because I don't remember anything about sons or family, just as Sensei48 said, only the brother, Mycroft. But it still needs to be resourced, whatewer related or derivative work they may come from. Hafspajen (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, here -> this is a reference to The case of the missing marquess : an Enola Holmes mystery Enola Holmes, much younger sister of detective Sherlock Holmes, must travel to London in disguise to unravel the disappearance of her missing mother. [1] Hafspajen (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The article is so bloated with random detritus as it is, the last thing we need is imagined relatives mentioned in derivative works. I would vote for a removal of Related_and_derivative_works, moving relevant pieces to non-canonical Sherlock Holmes works, which is what the article is for. Would seem like a good time to begin a clean up. Span (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Well I don't want or like deleting all these peoples work, but I can imagine put everything into a separate article.Hafspajen (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Which everything? Moving everything everything would leave this article rather... spacious. *Tumbleweed* Span (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I see a problem with a move at this time. Most of the "Stage, screen and radio adaptations" - distinguished in the article from "Related and derivative works" - are not based on actual SH stories by ACD. The notable exceptions are The Hound of the Baskervilles and most of the Jeremy Brett BBC episodes. Beyond that, virtually all of the screen portrayals are related and derivative, however faithful to the spirit of the originals or the depiction of Holmes they may be. I would favor a greatly reduced "adaptations" section and limit it to Baskervilles, Brett, and any other works that dramatize actual ACD stories - and yes, that would reduce the section to a shadow of its current self - but would improve the credibility of the article as an encyclopedia entry and not a pop culture fanzine piece. Once all the Seven Per Cent Solution and Baker Street and Rathbone movies and so on are moved into "Related and derivative" - then move the whole kit and caboodle to the non-canonical article.Sensei48 (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I support moving 'Related and derivative works' to 'Non-canonical Sherlock Holmes works', which is what that article is for. A full scale clean up would also be timely. Span (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

OK: Hafspajen (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I would delay this move temporarily, as I note above. Ultimately, yes, but not until all of the related and derivative works currently mentioned in the "adaptations" section are moved properly into the "derivative" section.Sensei48 (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing of Forensic science subsection

Most of the Forensic science subsection is currently unsourced, [1] including the important claim that "All of the techniques advocated by Holmes later became reality, but were generally in their infancy at the time Conan Doyle was writing." I suspect PMID 15350761 might be a useful source here (though I'm afraid I don't have easy access to the full text). Morgan and Bull 2007 (pdf) includes a short discussion (p.45) on the question of who influenced who, with regard to the work of Hans Gross. There's a more extensive exploration of the entire topic in Thomas 2004.
81.147.165.192 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please Add...

...Category:Fictional drug addicts, Category:Fictional chemists, Category:Fictional botanists, Category:Fictional geologists. Based on the "Use of drugs" and "Knowledge and skills" subsections. Modern depictions of Sherlock (Sherlock, Elementary, etc.) has him using scientific crime-lab equipment and using cigarettes, narcotics, etc. to stave-off boredom. --173.51.29.188 (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

  • This article is about the Arthur Conan Doyle character, who may fairly be termed a chemist perhaps but not a drug addict. Holmes is an occasional user of cocaine, but references to this in the canonical stories is very infrequent. Use of tobacco in the time frame of both the stories themselves and the era of their composition was not considered a drug addiction but rather as a simple choice or preference, a taste which could be as finely cultivated as a taste for wine. "Modern depictions" are a sidelight in this article which, again, is about Doyle's characters and stories. Those cats might be added to articles about those shows.Sensei48 (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Abductive reasoning is not the same as modus ponens

Abductive reasoning is not Modus Ponens.

Someone should change the statement that Holmes' abductive reasoning involves (repeated uses of) modus ponens. Modus ponens assumes that the antecedent is given, whereas abductive reasoning is where the consequent is given, and this suggests acceptable evidence for the antecedent. The implication would have to be backwards for this to be modus ponens. The difference is not found in the implication, but in the fact that the logical form of a sensible argument--an actual deductive argument--is used as a foundational resource for a different sort of reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.23.238 (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Henry Cauvain's "Maximilien Heller"

It has been suggested that Conan Doyle "borrowed" or slightly modified various of Holmes' characteristics from the obscure French novel Maximilien Heller by fr:Henry Cauvain, which was published well before A Study in Scarlet. For example:

  • Heller is an amateur detective
  • he lives in an untidy apartment
  • he is tall, thin and pale
  • he uses opium
  • he is an expert at disguise
  • he is a crack shot
  • he writes on abstruse subjects
  • his story is told by his close friend, a doctor.

Some stuff about this: [2], [3]. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, though the first of your links is dead - it goes to the familiar GoogleBooks "you have reached a page that is unavailable." The similarities may be there, but the suggestion that because the Heller novel preceded A Study In Scarlet the former influenced the latter is a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy without definitive proof that Doyle had read the novel - or had even heard of it. Or could read French. Or had access to a copy.Sensei48 (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a Gentleman ?

Gentleman detective article said he was a gentleman detective. Also this source. [4]. [5] Hafspajen (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Well, this too [6].

From our article Gentleman detective: "Sherlock Holmes, may also be considered a gentleman, at least by background." That article may use a somewhat wider definition than I do, since I wouldn't include those who are paid to be detectives, like Sherlock; but he does sometimes work for free in a good cause. RJFJR (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
In British literature, as for example in the novels of the Jane Austen and the Brontë sisters, "gentleman" was a term used to refer to a man of the gentry, for the most part the "landed gentry," whose income depended upon inheritance and did not result from "work." Paid work was "beneath" a gentleman, and no one who worked or had to work for a living could ever be called a gentleman. Austen opens chapter 2 of Emma with the sentence "Mr. Weston was a native of Highbury, and born of a respectable family, which for the last two or three generations had been rising into gentility and property." "Rising into gentility" - in other words acquiring enough wealth and property over time to free the men of a family from the vulgar necessity of having to earn a living. This distinction often perplexes Americans reading 19th century British fiction, since our definition of "gentleman" refers to manners and deportment rather than to social class - but in the UK, a man could be a perfect pig and still be called a gentleman.
Worthy a character as Holmes is, there is still no clear indication that he and Mycroft belong to the gentry, a distinctly identifiable class in England. The gentleman detective article includes a good discussion of the issue at points - for example, referring to Collins' The Moonstone, our Wiki article states that "The mystery is eventually solved by Franklin Blake, who is a gifted amateur—and definitely a member of the gentry. The social difference between Collins' two detectives is nicely shown by their relationships with the Verinder family: Sergeant Cuff becomes a great friend of Lady Verinder's steward (chief servant), whereas Franklin Blake eventually marries Rachel, her daughter." That's it in a nutshell. That Wiki article makes a good case for thinking of Holmes as such, but it is speculation and original research. Hafspajen's two fascinating links play a bit loose with the term as well: The PBS link says "Like Sherlock Holmes, for instance, George’s Inspector Lynley is a 'gentleman detective,' an earl who works as a police inspector simply for the intellectual satisfaction it gives him." That's true of Lynley - but Holmes works for money, and he needs to - it is economic necessity that prompts him to seek a flatmate and leads to his acquaintance with Watson. Billingham is using the term "gentleman" in a contemporary sense (manners and deportment), but not in the manner that Doyle would have used it.
I would actually have no problem with putting SH in this cat, but in the interest of the integrity of the article, I would prefer that our approach to Holmes should reflect the fictional world that Doyle created out of the fabric of his own real one. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
OK; that makes Lord Peter Wimsey a gentleman detective. Hafspajen (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
My thought exactly when I looked at the Wiki article you linked. I'm not sure that most of the others on the category page qualify in the strictest sense of the word "gentlemen." regards, Sensei48 (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

"Elementary, my dear Watson"

The phrase is also used in the 1931 "Sherlock Holmes' Fatal Hour (original title "The Sleeping Cardinal"). This could also be the source of its popularity.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsrdoquLgbQ ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.243.246.113 (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Holmes' age

Much work has been done to this article and it is far better than it used to be, but I remain frustrated that an obvious error is continually reinserted in different places under different headings:

"Watson's own account of his wounding in the Second Afghan War and subsequent return to England in "A Study in Scarlet" place his moving in with Holmes in either early 1881 or 1882. Together, she contends that these suggest Holmes left university in 1880; if he began university at the age of 17, his birth year would likely be 1861.[57]"

Earlier in the article, it states that Holmes himself has said he worked privately for six years after graduating from university before meeting Watson. If Watson moved in in either 1881 or '82, Holmes could not have left university in 1880. Adding the six years would move his birth year back to about 1854, which is the year everything else (explained everywhere else in this article) attests as the correct year. Why does this stupid reference to 1861 keep showing up?

I don't understand your "Terms of Use" stuff, but this is just obvious. It has been changed repeatedly, but "1861" keeps being reinserted. This is exactly why some people make fun of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.219.112 (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2014

Under the "Stage Adaptations" portion of the article, please add the following:

My Dear Watson, a musical based on the Sherlock Holmes stories, premiered at the Annie Russell Theatre in Winter Park, Florida, on May 16, 2014. Books, lyrics, and music are by Jami-Leigh Bartschi. The musical centers mainly around the friendship between Holmes and Watson, and the story is mostly based on a combination of A Study in Scarlet, The Valley of Fear, "The Adventure of the Three Garridebs," and "The Final Problem." Jbartschi (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 00:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

Is there a Wikipedia page for the new movie?

Headline-1: 'It's my turn': Sir Ian McKellen shares first picture of himself as a 93-year old Sherlock Holmes in new film

QUOTE: "Sir Christopher Lee, Frank Langella, Peter O'Toole, Charlton Heston, Jonathan Pryce, Robert Downey Jnr., Jonny Lee Miller and Benedict Cumberbatch. These are just a few of the actors who have played the infamous detective who lived on Baker Street, but now another Hollywood legend is taking up Sherlock’s pipe and deerstalker hat. Sharing a first image of himself in the role, Sir Ian McKellen, 75, has given a sneak peek of the 93-year old sleuth he will be bringing to the screen." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: Here's Sir Ian McKellen as a 93-year-old Sherlock Holmes

QUOTE: "Sir Ian McKellen has posted a Twitter picture of himself as a nonagenarian Sherlock Holmes in the upcoming film Mr Holmes. Previously titled A Slight Trick of the Mind and based on a novel by Mitch Cullin, the film will follow the detective in his final years, with the 75-year-old actor being aged further through make-up to play a 93-year-old Holmes." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

Plan

Plan of 221B Baker Street has been updated by Russ Stutler. --Chvsanchez (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is Matt Frewer not mentioned as having portrayed Sherlock Holmes on this page...?

... when it is stated elsewhere (e.g. on the page about Matt Frewer's television roles on Wikipedia) that he has? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.124.18 (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Matt Frewer is listed in the linked article: "List of actors who have played Sherlock Holmes". Mediatech492 (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Latest changes

Everything does not have to be removed just because shows a slight personal note. Reword. Hafspajen (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, or why you reverted my copyedit. Your edit summary ("removing content instead of rewording") is unclear; rewording does not necessarily improve prose, and copyediting sometimes involves the removal of content. The article's prose needs improvement to be "clear and concise" (Good Article criterion 1a), and I'm a native English speaker. I'm not doing anything differently in the section you reverted than what I've done in the article so far; it's a good article that, with some improvement, could be a GA. Miniapolis 23:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Almost GAN time (again)?

If any article should be at least a GA, it's this one; it was a failed GAN many years ago, but the sourcing has improved considerably since then. I'm planning a thorough copyedit and source check before another GAN (my first), and any help would be much appreciated. All the best, Miniapolis 20:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

One minor opinion: The "Sherlock Holmes pipe and hat" photo and caption stick out like a sore thumb. The photo needs a better caption, at a minimum, and probably should be removed altogether. It appears to be a photo that a WP editor created to illustrate some of the items mentioned as Holmes's, but it seems more like OR than something that contributes strongly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree; it's well-intentioned, but it clashes with the period illustrations and I plan to remove it when I get there. I'll re-align some of the images so they're not all marching down the right side of the page (one of my pet peeves :-)). Miniapolis 14:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Another comment: The third paragraph of the lead goes into detail about the narration of the stories. This information probably does not belong in the lead. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Must beg to differ on this one; I didn't find it out of place, and its removal would reduce the lead to two paragraphs (inadequate, IMO, for an article of this length). If you can replace it (in the lead) with one or two appropriate paragraphs, have at it. All the best, Miniapolis 14:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I put in a few notes. Ping me when you are done with the copy edit but before the GAN, and I'll come back to take a look. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Although you seem to have added many {{citation needed}} tags (dated October 2014), most quotes are attributed in-text; I'm adding footnotes where needed. Miniapolis 22:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
...and since the article now seems to have more tags than it did when I began its GAN preparation, I won't waste my time (or a reviewer's) nominating it; it's in better shape than it was when I started, which is the object of the game. I wish a future editor better luck. All the best, Miniapolis 23:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
More tags, sure, but that's only because you asked for help. A competent reviewer surely would have identified these few instances of apparent OR and need for clarification. I provided dozens of minor copy edits, eliminated some extraneous text, and provided tons of detailed feedback on my Talk page instead of here, where my feedback might bias a GA review in a negative way. I was trying to help you fix the problems before the nomination (as you requested) so that the nomination would go smoothly. There are only a half dozen tags that need to be addressed. I tagged only a few items that I was unable to resolve myself through copy editing. You're almost there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Um, you asked me to ping you when I was ready to nominate. I would've been more than happy to address a GAN reviewer's concerns on my own. Miniapolis 14:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
You asked for help (above, at the top of this section), and I provided many hours of help, both with direct editing and off-line comments. Let's try this. Good luck with the GA review. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Feedback to improve this article

This article was recently greatly improved by Miniapolis and others and subsequently nominated by that lead editor for Good Article status. Unfortunately, the nomination was not successful, but the reviewer provided helpful feedback.

Here is some additional feedback, copied (with just a tiny bit of editing) from my own Talk page. You may disagree that some of these are problems, which is fine with me. I offer them as suggestions for improvement. I think this article would make a great GA, or even an FA, with some more work.

1. "Attitudes towards women" is a title that doesn't seem to fit the section. Perhaps "Relationships with women"or something else would be more appropriate.
2. There are a few places in the article where there is a jump from the fictional world to the real world, jumping from Watson and Holmes's descriptions of events and people to Doyle's descriptions or those of Klinger etc. It is a bit jarring.
3. The section on deduction says that he uses abductive reasoning. The article contrasts abductive reasoning with deductive reasoning, but the Holmes article conflates the two.
4. Wikipedia articles are used as references, in apparent violation of WP:CIRCULAR.
5. Reference formatting is inconsistent (scan the author names, for example). This is not a GA criterion, but it could be cleaned up.
6. The long quotation in the "Knowledge" section does not match the text given at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/244/244-h/244-h.htm. This sort of problem is why I requested citations for each of the quoted sections of text. One could reasonably say "It's from the story, why should I cite it?" There are often differences in published versions of written works, however.
7. The "Knowledge" section contains a bunch of apparent OR.
8. The last paragraph of the Knowledge section should probably be removed or drastically revised. It's all OR claiming to be about Holmes's knowledge of psychology, but the incidents described are just knowledge of human nature.
9. The author is sometimes referred to as "Doyle" and sometimes as "Conan Doyle".
10. "Holmes helped marry forensic science ... and literature." This lead sentence refers to literature, but literature is not mentioned until much later in the section. The first sentence could be left out. In any event, this section also needs more citations, otherwise it appears to be OR that suffers from the post hoc fallacy, e.g. "Holmes frequently laments the contamination of a crime scene, and crime-scene integrity has become standard investigative procedure."
11. I find this whole Influence section frustrating without citations. It repeatedly says "Holmes (or Conan Doyle) did this, and now it's popular", implying that Holmes was the cause, but not stating it explicitly or citing sources. I did not copy-edit this section because it needs major cleanup first.
12. The "Scientific literature" section might fit better in the "Knowledge" section or in a new section of the article that contains out-of-fictional-universe information about the stories and the author. It is again jarring to be pulled back and forth between the real and fictional worlds. This section also uses a different citation style from other sections.
13. "Finances" section is unreferenced. It feels like OR.
14: What does "provided Doyle with a link" mean? Does it mean he gave him the idea, or taught him something about it, or exemplified it somehow? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this bracketed entry?

Watson and Holmes use tobacco, smoking cigarettes, cigars and pipes (a socially-acceptable habit at the time)

The three mentioned activities are all socially acceptable but are in some jurisdictions publicly prohibited. An editor can have personal opinions and perceptions about smoking but that should not be part of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.72.122.197 (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

minus Removed. Yeah it is unnecessary, looks like written in favor of Sherlock Holmes (it's like saying he smoked because it was socially acceptable). Violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV--Chamith (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem with the removal, but please AGF; I was trying to provide historical perspective. Miniapolis 14:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know that you were the one who added those content. And I didn't revert your edit I just removed that part without undoing your other edits. I would definitely assume good faith if I undo someone's good faith edit. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Considering the amount of time that has passed without objection to its removal, I am going to go ahead and remove the phrase "(a socially-acceptable habit at the time)". --Scardinoz (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sherlock Holmes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2015

There is 2 episodes in the cartoon BraveStarr the aired in 1988 that was was titled " Sherlock Holmes in the 23rd Century" Part 1 & Part 2. that had the characters on Holmes and Watson Ebrown82 (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Elementary My Dear Watson

There is some bit of confusion over just who said this first.

First, in the subsection for that phrase: "The phrase "Elementary, my dear fellow, quite elementary" (not spoken by Holmes) appears in P. G. Wodehouse's novel, Psmith in the City (1909–1910),[60] and his 1915 novel Psmith, Journalist.[61]"

This is correct for Psmith in the City; "Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary," is the phrase in Psmith, Journalist. The reference to the 1922 Agatha Christie story is correct.

Second: "William Gillette (who played Holmes on the stage and on radio) had previously said, "Oh, this is elementary, my dear fellow"."

There's no cite for this. According to the text of the play as found on the Diogenes Club website, the only time we get even close to this is "Elementary! The child’s play of deduction! ", in Act II. However, on William Gillet's wikipedia page, the phrase "Elementary, my dear fellow! Elementary!" is listed and cited as being from a 1935 text of the play. Also on that page is this (also uncited) passage: "Gillette formulated the complete phrase: "Oh, this is elementary, my dear fellow", which was later reused by Clive Brook, the first spoken-cinema Holmes, as: "Elementary, my dear Watson""

Based on the following page, it may be a matter of different versions of the Gillette play. It originally premiered in 1899, but this page has references to 1922 and 1935 versions: http://www.bard.org/study-guides/about-the-playwrights-sherlock-holmes-the-final-adventure

I suppose what I'm asking is if anyone can track down the 1922 and 1935 editions somewhere and search them for the phrase, so we can cite it, explain the versioning differences (if any) and put this to rest. I've done a Google Books search of "Sherlock Holmes, the Published Apocrypha", which the bard.org pages linked above claims to contain the 1922 text, and the search only turns up the phrase identical to the Diogenes Club script. Palindromedairy (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead Editing

I'm going to try a bit of editing on the lead. I feel it's a bit focused on minutiae at the moment (who narrates what story, which obscure journal such and such story came out in) while leaving out some of the greatest bits of significance (the widespread but mistaken belief that he is a real character, the Great Game, mass enduring popularity and adaptation, lasting effect on the mystery genre and popular culture). While I'm normally one for trimming the hell out of leads, as of now I don't feel this one really captures the broad essence of what makes Holmes and the stories important or how it all is seen today; nor does it accurately summarize the article's contents. Palindromedairy (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, all done as far as I can see. I hope people will agree that this works as a better overview. Palindromedairy (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
It is certainly better written with a better perspective, but the statement that "many have believed" SH to have been an actual person is at least questionable and needs a solid source - hence my tag. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand the surprise, but Abbey National, the company that used to reside at the real 221B address used to employ someone full-time to answer all the mail that came in addressed to Sherlock Holmes, asking him to solve one sort of problem or another. This is mentioned several times on the 221B page, though each time it is unsourced. I'm hoping it will prove relatively easy to find references to this; I'll take a look in the next few days. Palindromedairy (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, after I wrote this I did a little Googling, and it turns out that there are some RS in support of this, including some sort of BBC survey that indicated that 58% of respondents believed SH to have been a real person. I'm sure I can find it again, and maybe we can try that out as a source. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Adaptations Mess

The next thing I'd like to examine is the massive "Adaptations and derived works" section. It's huge, rambling, and ordered with no particular logic, with its two subsections each featuring material that might appear in the other, and all of it overloaded with material that best belongs in the separate subpages that already exist to contain all of it. Palindromedairy (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

All right, that's done. I've kept only those works that are either the most well-known, notable, or illustrative, with extra emphasis on the most recent works, as they are freshest in the public's mind and reached wide audiences recently. Again, the adaptation and pastiche subpages still exist and contain all information cut (or should): these edits were an attempt to prevent needless bloating and duplication, not to suggest that the items cut don't matter. I've also tried to make things a little more systematic, rather than just a big series of lists; the writings section is now completely dedicated to writing, with the adaptations slightly renamed and containing all other media. Sourcing is still rather weak, as per the tag at the top of the page, but I largely worked with what was there. Palindromedairy (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
This is a bridge too far, I think, and my first inclination was to revert this edit. While substantial changes likely needed to be made to this section, these edits break one of the tenets that was labored over heretofore in archived discussions. The most important point was to place most of the recent adaptations in the pastiche section, since the characters portrayed by Cumberbatch, Downey, Miller, and others share only a name with ACD's character and are otherwise inventions of modern writers. The significance of this is derived from that fact that the rest of the article is based strictly and completely on the canonical Holmes and not on the freehand adaptations that have been made since.
Two examples are illustrative of this. First, earlier edits from several years ago attempted to follow modern speculation and make more out of Irene Adler than Doyle ever did, and the present subsection that essentially simply rehashes the "Bohemia" story was an editors' compromise; several of us felt that a simple sentence or two in the "Women" section would have sufficed while others wanted a much more involved and speculative subsection based on pastiches, "Great Game" speculation, and so on. For my money, what we have in the article is still too much and really would be better in the "Women" section, but an acceptable and accepted compromise should remain, since that as you know is how Wikipedia works.
Second, over the years attempts have been made to introduce material from The Seven Per-Cent Solution and films and other pastiches to expand the section on SH's use of drugs. The brief section in the article as it is represents another compromise and consists of a precise summary of ACD's treatment of the issue, which I am sure you know disappears from the canonical stories somewhere in the middle of SH's career.
I very much appreciate your explanation above and your sensitivity to earlier work on the article, but I would suggest that we could regard the adaptations section as re-edited by you as a work in progress. I would propose two changes in a general way: first, avoid recentism and do not highlight recent works for the reasons above, and second, keep this section in harmony with the rest of the article by considering primarily works that are canonical in character and ideally in plot at well. That would kill two birds with one stone: the section would be greatly reduced in length, as you wish, and it would retain its integrity in the article overall, which is what I would like to see. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I greatly appreciate the restraint, and while I read the earlier Talk discussions I never saw what I was doing as coming down on one side or the other of any earlier debate; I saw this all as a matter of clarification, and order vs. disorder (I may have read through the archives too quickly). For example, my desire to mention The Great Game stems not from any interest in it (I find it something that results in interesting bits from time to time, but largely kind of silly), but from the unassailable fact that it is a big part of Holmesian fandom, and has been for decades: in the interests of accuracy we must consider it (my addition of a small note on pastiches to the lead follows the same logic). That having been said, I agree completely with all attempts to ensure that the canon Holmes is kept clearly defined in this, what must first and foremost be a factual article; treating Holmes as a real character without any caveats is only going to confuse readers approaching the subject for the first time. If you examine some of my other edits, you'll see that I've removed various bits of non-canonical speculation as well, or at least marked it as such.
Regarding your concerns over the adaptations edits themselves, over and above the great excess of info we had, my thoughts were that we previously had two categories: "Stage, screen and radio adaptations", which contained both adaptations of canon works as well as pastiches (The Universal Pictures Nazi-fighting Holmes and idiot Watson; The Seven-Per-Cent Solution's drug psychosis-plagued Holmes), and "Related and derivative works", which contained ... adaptations of canon works as well as pastiches (and had film, TV, and stage information, too). When huge numbers of post-Doyle presentations of Holmes deviate wildly from the canon, whether written or in any other form of media, I can't see how you can possibly hope to create the sort of clean divide between "canonical" derivations and those that take some greater or lesser degree of creative liberty (not to mention that I cannot possibly emphasise enough how I see such an approach as an immense avenue for future rancor over what constitutes adequately "canonical in character"). If the idea was to create the two categories of canonical and not, since a large number of items in the old "Stage, screen and radio adaptations" section were also not canonical in character, things needed a great deal of changing in any case.
Overall, though I understand where your concerns are rooted in, I feel my edits don't make things any worse than they were before, but they do improve clarity while avoiding future arguments. That the section is fundamentally about adaptations means it cannot help but be largely non-canonical in character. In order to better highlight the fact that the vast majority of adaptations in any form of media deviate in some way or another from the canon, I will gladly add clarifying notes to the section and its subsections to better illustrate the issue to any reader. Beyond that, I'm more than happy to continue discussing this. Cheers. Palindromedairy (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Weak grammar and probable typo

"As being a boy, he blows a party horn instead of smoking a pipe when he considers something"

This isn't good English. "Since he is a boy..." or "Being a boy..." both seem better.

"It is written by Kōki Mitani who is a fan of the Canon of Sherlock Holmes and defines each novel of the canon is adventure rather than mystery"

should likely read "... as adventure rather than mystery"

You're right, I didn't notice that before. VortexCat123 (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC) VortexCat123 (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Holmes' age

This was discussed endlessly years ago. This article, itself, states that Holmes worked as a consulting detective for six years after university before meeting Watson. If, as King suggests, Holmes left university in 1880 and worked for six years, there is no way he could have met Watson in 1881 (or 1882). Doyle, himself, sets Holmes' birth year, and it's not 1861. It's time to stop this: "Watson's account of his own wounding in the Second Afghan War and return to England in A Study in Scarlet place his moving in with Holmes in early 1881 or 1882. According to King, this suggests that Holmes left university in 1880; if he began university at age 17, his birth year would probably be 1861.[78]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.238 (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Elementary, my dear Watson

The article claims Gillette's Holmes speaks the line "Oh, this is elementary, my dear fellow", while the article about Gillette's play claims the line is "Oh, this is elementary, my dear Watson". However, neither line is in the scriptof the play, and closest to that is "HOLMES: Ho! (Sneer.) Elementary! The child’s play of deduction!" in the second act. See also Talk:Sherlock Holmes (play)#Elementary, my dear Watson. --Newblackwhite (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I also noticed that. I think you are right. Twishum 3 (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2016

Motion to change the first sentence of the second paragraph from "Though not the first fictional detective, Sherlock Holmes is arguably the most well-known..." to "Though not the first fictional detective, Sherlock Holmes is indisputably the most well-known..." Georgesoul88 (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: without a source specifically stating that, don't think that's a good idea. Even with a source, seems overly-strong language in my opinion. Arguably does just fine. Cannolis (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually these corrections are made by a bot named cluebot ng. It detects and removes vandalism. And you know that a bot does not have any idea of language. Twishum 3 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Cricketers as origin of name

[7]: Sherwin + Shacklock = Sherlock. They played against a W. Mycroft.

Is this just a legend or does it have any legs? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sherlock Holmes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding the Spy Elements in Sherlock Holmes story

Four of the stories The Adventure of Second Stain, The Adventure of Naval Treaty, The Adventure of Bruce-Partington Plans, His Last Bow have elements of spy thriller, the last one being a full fledged spy story. It should be added in the article. Shyrlocked (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

In the third paragraph under Personality & Habits, there is reference to Maria Konnikova mentioning Holmes using "what is now called mindfulness." I think it would be a good idea to link to the Mindfulness wiki page in this sentence. KalaSm (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sherlock Holmes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

A photo of the Soviet actor Vasily Livanov.

Please, add a photo of the Soviet actor Vasily Livanov, who played the role of Sherlock Holmes. Here it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilv (talk • contribs) 16:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Story dating

"All but one are set in the Victorian or Edwardian eras, between about 1880 and 1914."

Which story is set before 1880 or after 1914? 2600:6C55:7600:1B72:0:F358:5F91:3384 (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That would be "The Adventure of the Lion's Mane", which was set in the 1920's. Mediatech492 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2018

The two colorized images of Sherlock Holmes are not in the public domain. The original illustrations by Sidney Paget, which are in the public domain, are black and white. The colorized versions are under copyright to the person who colored them in. I suggest replacing the two colorized images, one from The Final Problem and the other from The Man with the Twisted Lip, with the original black and white images. GatorD42 (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Adapted public domain black-white images may be copyrighted when adding different colors, shades, and tones in various places of derivative work only if sufficient changes to the preexisting item are in place. These changes, if in color, must be 'sufficiently creative' enough to constitute a new work of authorship. I'm not sure that simply coloring items to resemble how they would look in nature meets this directive. This might be a "gray area", so to speak. Do you have any information on who the (color) illustrator may be, and how long ago the color was added?  Spintendo  13:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes / David Burke

The page on Sherlock Holmes references David Burke as having played Watson in the first three series. He actually played Watson only in the initial series. This is stated in the page about David Burke. The page is currently protected, so I can't make the edit there. Vgfalcao (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Ronnie Falcao, 12/21/18

Thank you for pointing out this error. I corrected it. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Just noticed this. The David Burke page is wrong, according to the TV series page:
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_Sherlock_Holmes_episodes
On the show page it says that he was in the first two series, which is what this page currently says: still only for The Adventures, but it seems the network considered that to be two series, with an almost three-month gap between the two batches of episodes (see also The Return, which is broken up into series 3 and 4). I think people have a tendency to collect things by Doyle's book compilations, rather than how the series was actually structured, and as such in people's mind's The Adventures becomes "the first series" regardless of how the TV show considered / aired it. Palindromedairy (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Elementary

RE. section 6.1, the exact phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson" is used in Psmith Journalist (1915). The article implies otherwise.

The earliest use of "elementary" by Holmes is in the short story III. A CASE OF IDENTITY from The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - 1892

"I noted, in passing, that she had written a note before leaving home but after being fully dressed. You observed that her right glove was torn at the forefinger, but you did not apparently see that both glove and finger were stained with violet ink. She had written in a hurry and dipped her pen too deep. It must have been this morning, or the mark would not remain clear upon the finger. All this is amusing, though rather elementary, but I must go back to business, Watson. Would you mind reading me the advertised description of Mr. Hosmer Angel?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.36.247 (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

According to the Los Angeles Times "His last story with the famous detective appeared in 1923; due to special circumstances, his last 10 stories are to remain under copyright protection until 2022-23." so the claim "American copyright on the remaining protected stories expires between 2020 and 2023." can be demonstrated to be false by the reference on the sentence before that statement. "You see, but you do not observe." - A Scandal in Bohemia--2606:A000:131D:45A7:D4ED:5FF9:467F:E2B8 (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The LA Times is wrong. Sussex Vampire, Three Garridebs, and Illustrious Client become available in 2020; Three Gables, Blanched Soldier, Lion's Mane, and Retired Colourman in 2022, and Veiled Lodger and Shoscombe Old Place in 2023. This is explained on the Case-book page. Palindromedairy (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Cite Standardization

The article had an immense mess of various Holmes story citations, as befitting a character over a century old that has largely hit the public domain. There are also a lot of statements that merely cited a story, without giving any page references. I've decided to standardize on one edition of the canon (with page refs), for consistency's sake. I chose the Klinger Annotated Sherlock Holmes, as it has some valuable notes concerning wider story issues, is known to be accurate, is in print, and is widely available in both text and electronic formats. No one version will be perfect of course, but I figure that, when settling on just one, it's the best to work with (the Oxford and Baring-Gould annotated editions being out of print, and the Baring-Gould being riddled with Great Game-based OR besides. Palindromedairy (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

All right, I'm done my overhaul (which included a lot of general trims, adds, and edits). I'm not certain if I recorded the basis for the canon cites correctly (in a new "Sherlock Holmes story references" section, placed just before the general "Citations" section). If it's incorrect I'd appreciate it being corrected to Wikipedia standard. Perhaps the article could be brought up for good article status again? I read through the previous failed nomination and over the past year or so have tried to address all the issues noted there. Palindromedairy (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Contemporary popularity of Doyle's work?

This is a well-developed article, thanks - however the lead contravenes WP:MOSLEAD (significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article) with its references to an unprecedented popularity of the character. "The character's popularity became widespread", "Holmes's popularity and fame are such" and "Avid readers of the Holmes stories helped create the modern practice of fandom" are quotes from the latter two paragraphs of the lead, albeit with citations. The number of references to the popularity of Doyle's original canon of works, apparently close to the time of publication, in the lead implies that it is an important feature of the topic - however the works' popular reception is not developed in any 'reception' or 'popularity' section in the actual article. I invite authors with subject familiarity to propose whether to reduce the references in the lead or to expand on the theme in a section. Artemgy (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I propose expanding on the topic of contemporary popularity of Doyle's work in a new 'Reception' section. The article already touches upon Holmes's contemporary popularity a little in the subsection for 'The Great Hiatus', and upon the character's continuing popularity in the 'Societies' subsection, so some of that info could be moved to the new section. Miles26 (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I've started a new 'Reception' section, with a new 'Popularity' subsection, and moved the existing subsections 'Honours' and 'Societies' from 'Legacy' to there. Other editors are welcome to make changes. Miles26 (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Looks quite nice. Thanks! Palindromedairy (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gabriella MNT - I noticed you removed the line I inserted about the Estates legal action against various companies who were making Sherlock Holmes productions, even though the copyright ownership of Holmes is largely public domain. Your annotation was simply "Complete mess with the sources. Needs properly sourced" As far as I am aware, those sources are ok - it would be great if you could let me know what the issue was in particular, so I can fix it up - cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I haven't got realy any feedback on specifically why that was taken out. The information certainly appears relevant to the topic and to update the page, so unless anyone has any issues, I will clean up the references and add it back in. Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Deathlibrarian, thanks for your edits. I noticed some issues so I have done my best to help fix them. I fixed some citations, mainly regarding dates. The sources seem to specifically refer to Enola Holmes, so I clarified that and tried to elaborate a little. I also removed the statement "the fact Doyle died in 1930 puts them clearly in the public domain" since it appears that, in the United States, the Sherlock Holmes stories enter the public domain based on date of publication, not the date of Doyle's death. Miles26 (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Miles,Miles26 yes I see what you're saying, two of the references are speaking generally (and were written before Enola Holmes) but yes, as you say, the others are more about Enola Holmes specifically, good point. I may try and find some more references when I have the time, cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
You're right, I should have said that some of the references are about Enola Holmes. Thanks again for your work. Thanks also to Palindromedairy for working on the section too. Miles26 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2020

I don’t actually need edit access, I just want to tell whoever made this to add Enola Holmes in the “Family” section. Thank you! DetectiveWolfo (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The work is listed in the linked article Sherlock Holmes pastiches, but Enola is not a canonical family member as far as I am aware. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment- It is incorrect to say that Holmes used "deductive reasoning." Deductive reasoning is to move from definition to the examples, (you say that John Jones is the murderer and then look for examples-clues). In actuality, it is the opposite. Inductive reasoning is used (from the clues or examples, to the definition, aka, theorem- who did it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.161.172 (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

"well-known"

Not sure if short description should keep the "well-known". I think it's just redundant. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

"Postcolonial Criticism" Section

I have re-positioned and made editable this recently-introduced section. It raises an important issue and presents a fair number of reliable sources in support of it. However, its inclusion in its current form raises several issues: 1. It is by far the longest section in the article, inappropriate for a debatable theory that is at best an outlier. 2. The writing varies from weak to poor, and there are within the text multiple examples of unsourced POV ("contagion of empire" and the like). 3. Punctuation, repetition, and diction problems abound. The section should be kept IMO but edited for appropriate proportion to the topic and with aggressive correction of subpar writing. Sensei48 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The section is a decent start on various interpretation of the Holmes canon. However it cites observations by different scholars, without much effort to distinguish one's views from the other. There were no links to the specific Holmes stories examined, or the geographic terms used. It needs work. Dimadick (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

My main issue with it is that the theories and analyses by themselves existing doesn't really mean much. Who are these people and their articles? The idea that Victorian literature is laden with all sorts of colonial assumptions is true but also obvious. However, these sort of non-notable academic analyses (as a fellow obscure academic, nothing personal) full of "X clearly symbolizes Y" stuff are pretty thin, even if the opening argues that "Various prominent scholars" (who are unnamed) are saying these things. And the section is far too large. I'd like to try and trim it to get to the heart of the arguments being made, which would also serve not to give this sort of fringe material undue emphasis. It would be nice if we could get a few more authors there, at least one of whom is notable, while keeping it tight. I'll be giving the trimming part at least a shot. Palindromedairy (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully this meets peoples' ideas of proportional weight. Palindromedairy (talk) 07:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Both your reflections above and your edit of the section itself are clear and commendable, IMO. The original edit was well-intended but not well-executed, as above. I may do some further minor edits, but the problems with length, grammar, and style have all been rectified by your work. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

"Elementary, my dear Watson" Appeared Much Earlier

The just-published book, The New Yale Book of Quotations, reveals that "Elementary, my dear Watson" appeared (in a parody form) in 1901, and a variant of the expression appeared in 1893.

Can you give a page number / more detail on this? My scan of the book mentions a NY Times April 1911 article (page 215), but nothing about 1901 or parody. Palindromedairy (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 13 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Roghikt, Turquoise98, Mrichardson4. Peer reviewers: FryWrites, Tackeret, BornUnderPunches, Angrycabbagemerchant, Bcade.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

Change "The first known period pastiche dates from 1893. Titled "The Late Sherlock Holmes", it was written by Conan Doyle's close friend, J. M. Barrie.[194]"

to "The first known period pastiche dates from 1891. Titled "My Evening with Sherlock Holmes", it was written by Conan Doyle's close friend, J. M. Barrie.[194]

Source : https://www.arthur-conan-doyle.com/index.php?title=J._M._Barrie https://www.arthur-conan-doyle.com/index.php?title=My_Evening_with_Sherlock_Holmes 2001:1C00:220A:8800:C064:24A8:828F:6F6 (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That source is a user generated wiki, and not a reliable source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Which story is non-Victorian/Edwardian?

Could someone please add (as a note to the "All but one are set ...") which story is non-Victorian/Edwardian? That may be somewhere in the article, but I haven't ferreted it out yet. Thanks -- BMJ-pdx (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It is 'His Last Bow: The War Service of Sherlock Holmes'. I'm not sure it's appropriate for the lead. It is mentioned twice in the text, esp in the Retirement section Sbishop (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I have added it as an "efn" footnote, which should be acceptable. BMJ-pdx (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
What about the below answer?
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Sherlock_Holmes/Archive_3#Story_dating

Kenixkil (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

According to the Wiki page on The Lion's Mane, that is set in 1907. I haven't checked the text myself. Sbishop (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Holmes narrates this one himself and mentions the July 1907 date in the 8th paragraph. That puts it firmly in the Edwardian era, leaving as noted "His Last Bow" as the only tale that is neither Victorian nor Edwardian in its date. Sensei48 (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
His Last Bow is set c. 1914, at the eve of World War I. Whether the Edwardian era ended in 1910, or covers every event until the start of World War I differs in various periodization schemes. Dimadick (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Radio adaptations of Sherlock Holmes missing

The Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes radio program ran from 1930-1936. There is a detailed wikipedia page on it: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Sherlock_Holmes_(radio_series)

This is a different series from The New Adventures of Sherlock Holmes that ran 1939- 1950 starring Basil Rathbone.

Can this show be added to the adaptations section? 2601:140:8380:E640:2491:B111:1C1:4214 (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Expanded the radio section slightly and added this material as part of that. Thanks. Palindromedairy (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes movies and facts

1. Sherlock Holmes (2009) 2. Sherlock Holmes: a game of Shadows (2011) 3. Enola Holmes (2020) 4. Enola Holmes (2022) Eggswithmilk (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to mention any facts I apologize Eggswithmilk (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


I definitely think that the Enola Holmes films deserve a mention on this page, as they are relevant to portrayal of Holmes and his stories in history. Etleyden (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

2011 Spanish Film

See this. I don't write english very well. Botedance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botedance (talk • contribs) 17:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Elementary My Dear Watson" Section Is Outdated

The discussion of "Elementary, my dear Watson" omits the latest scholarship on this topic. The recently published New Yale Book of Quotations (Yale University Press) reveals discoveries pushing evidence of this phrase back well before 1909. 2601:192:80:99D0:9DCE:8CA6:47D4:A270 (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

That section doesn't claim 1909 is definitely the earliest. It says "there is some indication that it was clichéd even then." ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ Why on earth is she called Enola, that might be discussed, why not Enid, Phyllis or Pyrola?
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sherlock_Holmes/Archive_3&oldid=1225586738"