Talk:The Sign of the Four

message: While what is there now is interesting, it reads more like literary criticism. I think the artcle would benefit from a plot summary that refrains from comment on the literary constructions used (maybe have a separate section for that later?) and simply gives a synopsis of the events of the story.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.118.23 (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  basic plot summary 

message: Can anyone inform me of the several regional British journals that Sign of Four was published in?
Any advice would be much appreciated.
Thanks
Cw142 17:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wider Publications? 

message: Doyle was reputedly commissioned to write the story over a dinner with one of the magazine's agents, J.M. Stoddart, which was also attended by Oscar Wilde. At the dinner Wilde was also commissioned to write a novel, in his case    The Picture of Dorian Gray.
Can anybody shed more light on this dinner meeting? It sounds extraordinary interesting to fancy Wilde and Doyle sitting at the same table... -- Syzygy 15:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea: Done! - DavidWBrooks 15:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whoa, Dude. I just checked out Doyle's memoirs at Amazon Germany, and they sell for like 200 US$ -- nota bene, a reprint from 1989! Amazon US doesn't seem to be appreciatably cheaper. Any idea where this absurd price comes from? (But thanks for the edit, Dave! Most interesting...) -- Syzygy 08:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doyle & Wilde? 

message: Is the correct title The Sign of Four or The Sign of the Four? I have seen both titles used for editions of the book. Why has this title confusion happened? Did the second published edition have a different title than the first published edition? —Lowellian (reply) 14:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above question was answered on Talk:Sherlock Holmes (thanks to User:Shimgray!), and has now been added to this article. —Lowellian (reply) 05:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title question

message: "whom many regard as the best-known literary character ever invented" 
As always, either source it or delete it. (isn't there a bot who can autodelete these?) 85.227.226.168 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "whom many regard as..." 

message: Okay, several problems here:
The section starting with "The greater tautness and unity of the second book are, however, achieved at the price of having Jonathan Small act very much out of character" should at the very least be in its own section. The Scarlet page calls this section "inconsistencies".
But the main problem, of course, is that the entire reasoning isn't sourced and reads in a biased way (I was asking myself what wikipedia has against Doyle's story, before I caught myself realizing it's because it's deliberately not neutral language). Even if you reply saying you can prove this (as a matter of just stating an opinion) that only makes in original research.
I propose a) that this entire section is removed, or if not, b) is pruned and cleaned-up, retaining only those specific plot items that we can agree are strange, and at the very least c) it is moved into its own section (it is definitely inappropriate under the general "plot" header) and given some sort of tag indicating it's controversial, speculative or equivalent.
85.227.226.168 19:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jonathan Small acting out of character?! 

message: I was bold and removed the following section:
Doyle could have set right the last two points, without substantially changing the story line, by having Sholto help the four prisoners escape, come with him to Agra and point out the treasure - whereupon he betrays them to the British authorities, in battle with whom the three Indians are killed and Small is returned to the Andamans while Sholto makes off with the entire treasure. With that in the past of the story, Small would do exactly the same things he did in the course of the book. Indeed, he would have an even stronger motive for wanting to revenge himself upon the perfidious prison officer. 
This reads as if written by a would-be detective story writer that's decided to rewrite the story himself, and is so far from the desired tone of Wikipedia I could not keep myself from removing it immediately. 85.227.226.168 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are going in circles here. Over the course of time, the abovementioned paragraphs have been written, removed, reinserted in a different form and removed again. Personally I feel that Small's behaviour is indeed a significant plot hole, because he has no motivation to act like he did, and pointing out alternatives is only reasonable -- this is more akin to stating the obvious than "original research", but YMMV. --Syzygy 13:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We're only going in circles if people do not respect the Wiki guidelines.
Restricting yourself to stating that Small's behaviour is odd/strange/unexplained is probably okay as an expression of common sense.
Stating that his behaviour is a "significant plot hole" needs a source (even if it is only your Sherlock Holmes page)
Giving alternatives may also be fine, provided it is clear it's only an example given for purposes of illustrating the so-called holes in the plot, but I do believe they should still be sourced. That is, don't add in an example you came up with just for this page - that's simply unencyclopaedic. (Playing "the game" has no place on Wikipedia)
195.24.29.51 12:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pure speculation 

message: Note:  Project Banner with Andaman and Nicobar Islands workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article  falls under :Category:Andaman and Nicobar Islands or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article --  TinuCherian     (Wanna Talk?)   - 05:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:INDIA]] Banner/Andaman and Nicobar Islands workgroup Addition 

message: Should have mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crucifer_of_Blood  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WHPratt (talk • contribs) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adaptations 

message: I think that the first infobox on the page is unnecessary; most of its information is covered in the second infobox and the rest is covered in the article. Moreover, the "Series" designation in the first infobox is even worse, since it just links to the disambiguation page which links back to this page. Mario777Zelda (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion