Talk:Sherlock Holmes/Archive 1

message: I think there should be mention in this page about the mild insult towards people who think slowly or say something obvious. It has become a widely used phrase/nickname and shows Sherlock Holmes' popularity. What does anyone else think? Mr.bonus 21:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the film Pursuit to Algiers, the whole story took place aboard the ocean liner S.S. Friesland. Holmes informed Watson, "This boat will be making a short stop in Lisbon." Watson replied, "No, ship, Sherlock."Lestrade 22:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insult 

message: I notice that some (maybe all, I haven't managed to see them all yet) Wikipedia articles on the individual stories prefix the title of the story with "The Adventure of ..." (eg The Adventure of Silver Blaze) and proceed as if this were the actual title. However the online verson to which each article points omits these prefixed words. Is the correct title for the example I gave "Silver Blaze" or the longer version? If the latter, then the articles need to be fixed. --Phil 08:56, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
Annoyingly there's no clear convention on this. The original Strand Magazine publications of the stories begin with "The Adventure Of..." etc, but most collected book editions of the stories omit those prefixes. Except facsimile editions of the Strand stories, which tend to list the stories with the prefixes in their tables of contents... Even Holmesian reference works seem divided over whether to use the prefixes or not, and their writers are likely to care more about it than most Wikipedia readers. You pays yer money, you takes yer choice. Fosse8 06:45, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Adventure of ... 

message: 1. Raymond Smullyan's "Chess Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes" is a primer on Retrograde analysis in Chess and has Holmes, Watson and Moriarty in the cast.
2. Robert Darvas and Norman de V. Hart authored "Right Through the Pack", a bridge fantasy book - in which each card of the pack narrates a bridge deal where that particular card played a central role. One of the stories features Holmes and Watson (I can look this up, don't remember which card).
3. I also have a book called "The Oriental Casebook of Sherlock Holmes" by Ted Riccardi. This book features 9 adventures of Holmes (including the one about the giant rat of Sumatra :). It is .
These books ought to be mentioned in the article, but I am not sure under what heading. Binand
To answer Binand's question, they should all be placed under the "non-canon" section.Phoenix Song 00:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Few more books... 

message: Hi, I'm a bit new to Wikipedia, so sorry if this is a stupid question. I did look through the wiki documentation before asking and couldn't find anything. The "Sherlock Holmes Topics" Box/Table that appears at the end of all the Holmes articles has a broken image file link. I would be glad to fix this myself if someone could tell me how to edit that box. I believe it's included in the article through a tag that consists of the word "Holmes" surrounded by curly brackets. Help would be appreciated, even just a link explaining how to edit that. Thanks. --Osbojos 07:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sherlock Holmes Topics Box 

message: Hi, I know very little about Holmes, but a fair amount of logic.  The section on Holmesian deduction makes too much fuss about the logic, but worse than that it seems out of place in the article.  Deduction in the strict logical sense is pretty irrelevant — Holmes uses deduction, but no more than many other characters.  As the article points out, he excels at induction: finding convincing explanations for the available evidence.  Basically, he's a scientist (induction), not a mathematician (deduction).  Holmes is an expert in 'deduction' only in the wider sense of reasoning in a precise rational manner.
The stuff on computer reasoning is pretty dodgy: Conan Doyle compares Holmes to a machine to illustrate how his mind works, but I doubt he intended a comparison with 'thinking machines' as the article suggests.  Its only in retrospect that we see Babbage's calculating machines as computers (not a common Victorian concept...), and possibly in some sense as 'thinking'.  Also, the speculation about "a computer could possibly come with the idea" etc just doesn't make sense.  Which computer, programmed in what manner?  It opens up a debate that doesn't belong here.
My suggestion is to drop the deduction/man-machine stuff entirely, and just have something on induction/Holmes as scientist.  Would this be acceptable to everyone? Jihg 17:06, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
I would get rid of the whole 'Principles' subsection. Nitpicking apart Doyle's simple fictional explanations of Holmes' powers of observation and deduction is not really neccessary is it? I mean we have all realized they are far reaching at best in a lot of the stories. It doesn't need to be explained with variables and equations. The first two paragraphs of the 'Man or Machine' section are good, the rest just drags it out. Reginaldmusgrave 20:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holmesian deduction

message: Just a note: Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce appeared in at least one BBC radio play "The Bruce Partington Plans" in 1939 (broadcast WJZNBC, 6th November, 1939), about the same time or prior(?) to the first Holmes movie with Rathbone. I dont know whether the movie or the play was produced earlier, but this might be an interesting detail. [Source is here] --Mkrefft, 15:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basil Rathbone 

message: His last story couldnt have been writen in 1957 because Conan Doyle died in 1930
* The 1957 in the article is not the date for the writing of Doyle's last Holmes story. It is when scholar William S. Baring-Gould posits Holmes died -- within the fictional context he inhabits.  ~CS 02:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  YOURE WRONG 

message: I think that the Ninja turtle stuff should be removed, I think that lots of TV shows and cartoons have made their own 'Sherlock Holmes' episode (Star Trek, etc... ) and putting all of them would be huge and putting just one is not encyclopedic...Hektor 15:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, if we're going to include "TMNT", we definitely need to include non-canon "7% Solution" & "Young Sherlock Holmes" (or "Indiana Holmes"...). Might do to incl "STTNG" apps, too (tho that belongs better on the Moriarty page, considering...).  Trekphiler 18:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Turtle stuff

message: Whose sketch of Holmes heads the article?  Trekphiler 17:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its a pen and ink then coloured piece, probably based on Basil Rathbone's pysiogomy.   I have a hunch its an american piece-so far so elementary. Do we need to credit it in the article however?.  Pydos 17:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Credit due

message: I added this:
:"A more subtle analogue is the Fox series "X-Files", with Special Agent Fox W. Mulder in the Holmes role and  Special Agent Dana K. Scully as Watson (right down to being a doctor); their investigations are more outré, but we can almost hear Mulder quoting Holmes' famous aphorism, "...whatever remains must be the truth.""
I left off this:
:"(This itself draws inspiration from Poe's Murders in the Rue Morgue.)"
I believe it's true, based on Doyle's use of a chimp (I think) as the killer, per Rue Morgue, but don't know it as a fact. And for those who don't know, the quote is, "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable,
must be the truth." (I thank Chris Claremont for that; he's the first to quote it that I saw.) Also makes you wonder if Chris Carter read Rex Stout, doesn't it...?  Trekphiler 17:38 & 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The truth is out there

message: I have been through this article for grammar, etc. Except for obvious repetition, I have not removed any content — I leave that for others who are better informed on the subject than I am. However, I have substituted synonyms for repeated words and rearranged the odd sentence to improve its flow. The possessive "Holmes'" (rather than "Holmes's") is now used throughout the article. I have amended the blockquote of Holmes' limits from A Study in Scarlet to match the published version (source: The Original Illustrated 'Strand' Sherlock Holmes, Facsimile Edition), even though the formatting doesn't quite match Wikipedia's Style Guide!
Chris 42 23:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: The page is very long. Would it be a good idea to split them into Sherlock Holmes and Sherlock Holmes (books) or similar? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 13:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a page that gives a list of the stories, and each of them also has its own article. (In addition, Holmes didn't appear in a series of novels. There were only four — all his other appearances being in short stories that were later collected into anthologies.) In my opinion, the only part of this article that could reasonably be split to another is the rather lengthy examination of Holmes' method of deduction. I purposely moved the paragraph concerning the contents of the canon to the opening. My aim was to give those coming to Holmes for the first time a concise overview of who he was, when he came into being, where he appeared, for how long, and in how many stories/novels, etc. Then you get into an in-depth character description, which only alludes to the story titles to illustrate certain points about the man. The list of anthologies already points you to List of Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes short stories. A lot of people have put a great deal of effort into constructing this article: with the possible exception of the "deduction" piece, which does slow the tempo somewhat, I think it's coming together really well. Plus of course, if you did split the article, you'd have a huge job on your hands to sort out the relevance of the huge number of links to it! Chris 42 18:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Split 

message: Has the use of Doyle vs Conan Doyle been debated?  Conan is not a family name; it does not occur among the names of either parent.  —Tamfang 01:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conan the Grammarian 

message: Didnt Sherlock fight Jack the Ripper in one of his books? I read most of them but I thought he did. user:SaintDante
::Not in the Sherlock Holmes canon.   However, Joseph Bell, upon whom Holmes is based, was asked to consult on the Jack the Ripper case because of his deductive skills and pathological knowledge.  It is alleged that the murders came to an end after he had submitted his solution, but this is an endlessly debated point. Pydos 16:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  Elementary. Pydos 12:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: In the book "Encyclepedia of Serial Killers" under the Killers in Fiction it reads " Jack the ripper matched wits whith master detective Sherlock Holmes at least 8 times. ( In one bizarre outing, Holmes was the ripper, plagued by mulitiple personalities as he chased himself through fog shrouded london.)" I have read all the books by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and I can not remember once were he was mentioned, let alone eight times. does any one know what the book is refering to? are is it just lieing? I have reseached this page and found nothing. Please tell me if you know. SaintDante 14:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He would be referring to a number of Sherlock Holmes pastiches which have been written over the years. This is a list of stories that have Holmes chasing Jack.--Roland 01:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ Jack the Ripper]] 

message: at the end of the non canon section on this page we have a rather long paragrpah beginning "An other example of Sherlock Holmes pastiche is found in The Curse of the Nibelung: A Sherlock Holmes Mystery...".  Does anyone else think it should be re-written to sound more general like "A common setting for non canon pieces pits Holmes and Watson against the Nazis.   Most notable were the films made during the Second World War starring Basil Rathbone, but more recently 'The Curse of the Nibelung: A Sherlock Holmes Mystery'.   Such pieces were in the spirit of Conan-Doyles patriotism,and indeed the canonic "His Last Bow" describes Holmes versus Germany on the eve of the Great War."   If no one objects in the next few days i'll do this,and shift the Nibilung paragraph to the sub article. Pydos 09:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  It seems more general now. Pydos 19:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi spinoffs 

message: Can we get some information about the non-canonical speculations of Holmes' and Watsons' relationship?  (Ie, the homoerotic reading thereof.)  It has come up in most literary discussions of Holmes that I've had, and has been often mentioned in my lit classes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.117 (talk • contribs) 
:What you are talking about is slash fiction, and does not belong here, IMO.  Coyoty 00:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a separate page on homoeroticism/homosexuality and criticism in that regard (which could deal with similar instances in other cases as well) and a link from this page u/ "See Also"? gunslotsofguns 11:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A simple reading of The sign of The Four will lead you to this quote: "Love is an emotional thing, and whatever is emotional is opposed to that true cold reason which I place above all things."  Holmes obviously had as little to do with emotional relationships as possible.  He constantly and consistantly decieved Watson with calous disregard for his friends feelings... He is quite unlikely to have wanted an emotional relationship of any type and fewer still are the people that would have put up with his unemotional, and oftimes thoughtless, disregard for their feelings.  No, there was no relationship between Watson and Holmes and any who profess there was one need look no further than the above quote.Padillah 12:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In all honesty, today's society isn't the best example of 'public opinion,' all I see is immaturity.
These ideas weren't around when Conan Doyle was alive, and it is only in this political climate that such opinions are aired.
P.S. Wasn't Watson married to the woman from 'The Sign Of Four?'
     Highcount. 11:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Do the contributors to this article have any problem with this article being in the Wold Newton family members category? There has been a call to delete the category here. I am fighting to keep the category alive, but I would like to know if I should stop trying. Lady Aleena 02:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another question 

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed
:At 49kb it's an extremely long article.  The writing should be more concise.  You've also got a lengthy to-do list on this page, much of which indicates that the good article criteria are not met.  Referencing is a concern - only two cited, which for an article this size is not really sufficient.  Lists should be avoided where possible.  And a minor point, but as Holmes is an English literary figure, UK spellings ought to be used.
 Worldtraveller 23:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: I recall someone making the comment "Sherlock Holmes would be useless in real life, because he relies absolutely on people conforming to type". That is, he is a reflection of the victoran ide of a stratified society, which itself was a reaction to the industrial revolution. Once you are aware of this, you see it all the time in the books. Any cockney with a Pink'un showing out of his pocket nessesarily cannot resist a wager ("the Blue Carbuncle", I think).
Another fascinating things about the Sherlock Holmes books is their horror of displays of emotion. Persons in distress who visit Baker st are either stiff-upper lipped or raving madmen who faint on the doorstep and such like. The message is that if you give in to emotion, then it's stepping off the edge of an abyss. And, of course, stiff-upper-lipp`edness is connected to social class. 
But I need to find someone else's opionion on the matter before I can put it in wikipedia.
Pmurray bigpond.com 00:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bit pointless to make it, unless it is a brief sentence in the overview.  And yes the quote abut the 'pink un' is from The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle.  One could, of course, make a guess nowadays about how someone might react if they were dressed like a chav, so some things never change. "there is really nothing new under the sun" as Holmes once noted (The Valley of Fear).  On that subject restaint of emotion is a Ancient Greek characteristic encapsulated in the term "sophrysne".  Pedantically yours.  Pydos 19:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sherlock as a reflection of vistorian attitudes 

message: Um, does the phrase "No Shit, Sherlock" need to be redirected to the Sherlock Holmes page? If anything, shouldn't it be its own page to describe to an individual its meaning in English slang? Seems a little curious to me that it redirects here.Darwin's Bulldog 07:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't need to.  Now it doesn't.  I've removed the redirect and marked the page for speedy deletion.  Coyoty 18:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Shit, Sherlock

message: Good Afternoon. As Holmes' creator, Doyle died in 1930 does this mean that as it is now more then 75 years after the authors death, that the stories are in the public domain worldwide - including the USA? Lochok 04:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Domain Status 

message: Just a polite note, as I find myself reverting for this reason rather a lot. Wikipedia: Manual of Style (links) states that a page is overlinked if a link appears more than once (though there may be a case where there is some distance between them). For this reason, please do not link a story/novel title wherever it appears on the page — once is sufficient. In one recent edit, I lost count of the number of links to "A Scandal in Bohemia", some of them just a line apart. Chris 42 15:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but note that this is quite a long article. Overlinking is bad when the same links are next to each other, but re-linking is good when the same link appears in different headings that are screens apart. —Lowellian (reply) 11:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlinking story/novel titles 

message: Were Holmes or Watson's ages ever established? I always thought that they (but Sherlock more so) were young-ish, possibly late twenties to early thirties. the previous unsigned comment was left by user:Felixq
:Not exactly.  Watson completed his medical training, then further military training before he served as an army doctor, Holmes had recently finished a degree (Baring Gould believed Holmes completed at least 2).  On this we could base their ages as about 25ish.  Its not explicitly noted, but it is a minor topic for Holmsians to debate. Pydos 10:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holmes' and Watson's ages

message: We now have a section on quotations (not of my doing).  I would like to suggest that we at least attribute them (as i have done with some of them) but i'm also wondering...should we get rid of this section, and keep the wikiquote link at the bottom under 'eternal links'?  Please discuss below; i'd hate to act unilaterally.  The two criticisms of this page ar usually
# length...too long really
# lack of structure...more like a random trivia bowl (but getting better [see 'failed nomination of featured article'])
Thank you! :-)Pydos 15:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations

message: I have removed the copyright section.  Wikipedia does not give legal advice, and we do not routinely identify copyright ownership of literary works.  Furthermore, the commentary there is unsourced
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In this case, an account of the copyright situation is relevant, if well-wrriten and properly sourced. Pliny 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do you believe that to be the case?  The situation involving Doyle's works is not significantly different than that of any other authors from the early 20th century.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to strongly object to the removal of the section about copyrights. I read over the information. It is not only interesting but also notable, for the reason that there were a number of disputes and court cases over the copyright. In response to UninvitedCompany, although the situation may not be "significantly different", there are still a lot of details that apply to Conan's work that don't apply to other works. There are other articles on Wikipedia that cover disputes over estates of creators and artists, whether they be authors, painters, singers, etc. —Lowellian (reply) 21:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: "His hair is more often a brown tone and he is often depicted with or without a mustache."  I find this statement mystifying, as all characters are depicted "with or without" mustaches.  I suppose the author was trying to say "clean-shaven or with a mustache", but this raises another point: I've never seen Holmes depicted with a mustache.  Has anyone?  (Apart from his various disguises, of course.)
:"He is sometimes depicted with a moustache" would be clearer, but no, I have never seen him depicted with one (and he never has one in the Paget illustrations.) Robin Johnson (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mustache? 

message: Shouldn't a place like this mention John Dickson Carrs & Adrien Conan Doyles "The exploits of Sherlock Holmes". They have written 12 stories together about cases Watson mentioned in passing but actually never wrote about. If The 7-percent solution and others are worth mentioning why not this one? Or does it belong in some other list at some other site? Kurben 10:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out The Exploits of Sherlock Holmes. It is indexed by the definite article "The," which makes it difficult to find.Lestrade 13:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Exploits of Sherlock Holmes 

message: This article has too many bold lines and red links. Babub→Talk 19:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold and redlinks 

message: In the middle of an explanation on Sherlock's deduction skills, it was quoted that "In several stories, Holmes is said not to have known anything at all of philosophy, although he quotes Thomas Carlyle." Obviously, it was a bit out of context. Where should it be moved to? --71.109.37.168 05:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where should this be put? 

message: There's nothing in the article about Holmes' addiction to opium and cocaine, a very important part of the character.
:Where do you think Holmes got all his magic powers from, hmm?
-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug Addiction 

message: This article makes a lot of references to non-canon spinoffs of Sherlock Holmes; I wonder if it should also mention the Mary Russell series of detective novels by Laurie R. King, which feature SH as Mary's partner and later husband.
As Laurie King has a number of non-sherlock novels, perhaps a brief note and a link to King's won article?  ThomasHartman 21:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Beekeeper's Apprentice 

message: Despite being fictional, there is a small museum dedicated to him at the exact address. Simply south 22:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last I read the exact address is (or would be) part of the Abbey National Bank building.  The Museum fakes it. Esthameian 23:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Museum 

message: Well i saw the movie shanghai knights (jackie chan movie). lol. anyways they had sir arthur conan doyle as a character and in the movie the name sherlock holmes is believed to be from a clock... ok just watch the movie you'll understand.
anyways if you did then put a link somewhere of this parody hehhheheh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Storkian (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shanghai Knights? 

message: In the list of Holmes posing as other people, i saw that the Hound of the Baskerviles was not mentioned. In the novel, however, Holmes is considered an unknown in the countryside for about 20% of the book. Should this be mentioned?--Will James 09:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disguises 

message: The extlink section needs serious pruning per WP:EL. 64.160.39.153 07:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extlink cleanup 

message: Should we find some way of placing spoiler alerts on this page?  Several of the allusions to Holmes' powers of deduction (necessary for an article about Holmes) reference plots and solutions from quite a few of the books.Padillah 12:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler alerts? 

message: This section read a bit like an essay, rather than an encyclopedia article, so i've made a few minor changes.  MattB2 11:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits to Women Section

message: :Image:Jeremy Brett.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Jeremy Brett.jpg

message: Greetings all.  I have been rather brutal here, but I feel since no-one has tried then it needed doing.  It may seen brutal, but it seems more like an encyclopedia entry now.  I havent yet removed the sections of WEAPONS or QUOTATIONS yet, but I dearly want to - the former is trivial, the latter is a long list.  Comments welcomed! Pydos 20:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree the weapons section is trivia. However rather than delete it, I have appended it to a paragraph where I think it naturally fits, on Holmes being fearless and facing danger etc. The lists of instances of use has been relegated to footnotes to support the text. I think the result (two sentences in the main body of the text) is now in proportion to the importance (ie. small) yet still retains all of the information for those interested in this angle. Samatarou 15:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  well done!  The game is afoot now.  I had no objection to the information, just the format. Keep it up, and we might just make a featured article yet! Pydos 14:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My attempts to improve readability

message: The template at the top of this page used to say that this article was a former FA candidate. There is no mention of it anywhere on the talk page, which I've now archived, and there is no sub-page. I have changed it to a former Good Article candidate, as I found a mention of its failing in May 2006. If anyone can actually find a link to some proof that Sharlock Holmes failed an FAC, it will remain as a former GAC - • The Giant Puffin • 12:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Candidate? 

message: In line with the To Do lists, I think "Holmesian Speculation" should be put into a separate article. At first I was minded to make it a subsection of "Influence of Holmes", but it's just too big and unwieldy, and also too much of a fandom thing. So I propose making a new article "Sherlock Holmes Speculation" and leaving a stub of it (comprising the first paragraph) as a subsection of "influence of holmes", so we have 
*6 Influence of Holmes 
* 6.1 Role in the history of the detective story
* 6.2 As an inspiration to fans --> main article "Sherlock Holmes Speculation".
I'd like to invite suggestions as to the title though, as I feel it might be improved. Also are there likely to be any problems moving this stuff to a new article, I've never done this before. Samatarou 23:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the article 

message: Can't remember that he used morphine. In Sign of Four he answered that it's "cocain, seven-per-cent solution", but there is no occusion of Holmes using morphine.
He answered that in reply to watson's q, "is it cocaine or morphine"?
He Did Use Morphine, And Quite Often.  Connubialis  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.55.52 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "occasional user of cocaine and morphine" 

message: In paragraph about Prof. Moriarty, the article includes a sentence about how he was possibly Holmes's math tutor. That has absolutely no basis in the stories and was invented by Sabine Baring-Gould. As interesting an idea as it may be, it doesn't belong in the article. The sentence should go.
Jmeisen 06:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I can't recall if it was done yet. If not, we should. DreamGuy 16:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sherlockian speculation in midst of article 

message: An anon recently restored the following link with the attached comment: 
:*Sherlock Holmes Public Library Audio and Text
:" my link has been here for years - why suddenly does some newcomer feel the urge to delete it over and over - at least state a reason and why you feel you can delete others non-commercial on-topic links "
At this point, admitting it is your own link makes it a WP:COI concern. I've placed it here for discussion over whether the link is appropriate so other editors can weigh in. I could go either way on it myself. DreamGuy 16:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the editor who removed the link twice. Other editors have also deleted it. WP:3RR is relevant here. I did not mean to offend anyone by my actions. I just don't think that articles should have long lists of external links. Wikipedia is not a web directory. I don't feel strongly about the link either except for the WP:COI concern mentioned already. If the anon has a commercial interest I would feel very strongly. My research shows that the link still appears in five other Wikipedia articles. DRoll 09:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link debate 

message: The tone of the article treats the Holmes character, especially, like this literary universe must be coherent (i.e. "Holmes must be pulling Watson's leg in A Study in Scarlett"). 
Details that Conan Doyle tosses off may or may not be calculated.  He may or may not have cared or known about such inconsistencies.  His conception of Holmes' psyche was likely constantly in flux during the process of composing these tales, meaning the given facts are likely to contradict one another here and there; there's no reason to treat these inconsistencies like they're part of a master-plan.  While some artists very consciously create literary universes which are exceptionally internally consistent, and create visions which can be treated like "canon"; most of the time treating fiction this way is dumb.  I suggest these references should be amended.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.180.85 (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: StarTrekian Universe Problems

message: The author states that, during the Victorian period, lying to the police, concealing evidence, burgling, and housebreaking were "not necessarily considered vices as long as they were done by a gentleman for noble purposes, such as preserving a woman's honour or a family's reputation".
Is the author certain that this statement is true? Because it seems to be an extremely unusual claim. Is there any kind of primary source or evidence to support or prove this?
To be fair to the author(s), this is overall an extremely well-written, well-researched and informative entry on Sherlock Holmes.
Mardiste 01:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. That needs a source. Wryspy 21:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victorian ethics 

message: "My sister and I, you will recollect, were twins, and you know how subtle are the links which bind two souls which are so closely allied. "
Interesting, no?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.2.101 (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doyle