Talk:The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes

message: The image :File:Blakely Stephens.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Blakely Stephens.jpg

message: Can the setting of the film be tied to a specific date?  You could argue that the reference to Kaiser Wilhelm II, or a railway line north of Inverness, indicate a later date than some are assuming? PatGallacher (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have to be much later than that.  Rogozhin tells Holmes that Madame Petrova's favorite tale of his exploits is "Big Dog from Baskerville"; The Hound of the Baskervilles was first serialised in The Strand in 1901-02.  Victoria died in 1901, fixing the date at some point during that year, unless either her presence or the reference to HotB is an anachronism (the latter a possibility considering that Madame Petrova could not, therefore, have read HotB to its conclusion as it hadn't been published yet).  And while Nessie was not widely known until the 1930s, local legends of a lake monster extend back to the Middle Ages.  It was only in the 1930s that non-locals began talking to the press about purported sightings, and that the first purported photographs of a monster were taken.  It is entirely possible that Victorians would at least have been aware of the myth, even if they were not terribly excited about it.  71.200.138.188 (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a screenplay in PDF format floating around the web, based on the theatrical release with the addition of the frame story of Blakely as Watson's modern descendant reading through a sheaf of manuscripts from the tin box.  That version of the screenplay (not identical to Wilder and Diamond's original full-length screenplay) states in the opening bracket of the frame story that the main plot (or plots) take place in 1887-88, which completely disagrees with the Hound reference, although Watson's reaction to the gravedigger's mention of the Monster does state that the action is taking place in the 19th Century.  Not sure how legitimate the PDF is, but maybe W&D just got the publication date of Hound wrong. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of film

message: I have reverted some recent edits by an anon user.  Although some of them might be considered individually, on the whole they are going into some issues in more detail than is necessary for this article.  We do not need to refer to it as a pre-WWI submarine, any fool can see that the film is set pre-WWI.  It is not a sea monster, it is a lake monster.  It is probably not helpful to establish exactly what point in the development of the Zeppelin is implied by Mycroft's brief comments, a complex issue, the point is that this is clearly later than the 1887-88 date when the film is set.  And so on... PatGallacher (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vagueness?