Talk:Sherlock (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Apostrophe!

What on Erath is the apostrophe doing at the end of the word Sherlock? This is an error. Not only is it utterly meaningless, the word is not spelt that way in any press releases I have seen - Thank God! Can someone please change the title of the page?Daisyabigael (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Bradley0110 (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan

I'm not sure how to rewrite the final paragraph to deal with this issue, but I feel that as it stands now, it implies that John Watson's return from Afghanistan is an "original element" and not part of the character as Doyle first wrote him. But surely the original John Watson was also returning from a war in Afghanistan, albeit a different war? CanadianLemming (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

When I wrote the paragraph, I meant "original elements" as in bits that were originally in ACD's stories. I've changed it to "existing elements" for clarity. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Eleventh Doctor Watson

I don't know where to put this at the moment:

• French, Dan (4 February 2010). "Matt Smith rejected for BBC's 'Sherlock'". Digital Spy. Retrieved 4 February 2010.

Bradley0110 (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Levine, Nick (17 April 2010). "Mark Gatiss talks 'Who', 'Sherlock'". Digital Spy. Retrieved 17 April 2010.</ref>

The first one seems useless to me but I used the second one to specify who directed which episode. I assume it can still be used for something. 85.217.138.23 (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's useless. At the moment there is no casting information on the actors in the series, so it would be silly to give such prominence to one who didn't get the role. However, once we have a good casting section a simple "Matt Smith also unsuccessfully auditioned for Watson" line would be fine. Bradley0110 (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I consider that to be a bit of a trivia, but then if you would feel free to add it when the time is right. 85.217.138.23 (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bradley that a brief mention wouldn't do any harm because of Smith's relevance to the creative team. What concerns me, though, is that Digital Spy is not really considered a reliable source, so would probably have to come out anyway at GA review. Is there an alternative source for this? The JPS^{talk to me} 10:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

DS has become more reliable over the last few years now that they've started writing their own articles and doing their own research. Consider the frequent rumours of a celebrity turning up in EastEnders; The Sun or The Mirror will daub "MAJOR CELEBRITY TO APPEAR IN EASTENDERS" all over the front page, whereas DS will contact the BBC press office to confirm or deny it. Bradley0110 (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've always trusted DS - but has our peers' stance changed accordingly? Perhaps we should ask the main TV project about recent assessments and peer reviews of articles using DS. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Useful cast/crew links

• Sherlock Cast List
• Sherlock Crew List

I found these at Hartswood Films official site though I'm not sure how current they are. 85.217.138.23 (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd presume they're the final cast lists, since I doubt Hartswood would publish outdated information. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Pilot

So,the pilot is not going to be broadcast,what's the betting it will turn up on the DVD?94.196.139.95 (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.139.95 (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It would all depend on contractual arrangements between Hartswood, the BBC, unions, etc. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You could be right ... [1] Perhaps this is the DVD release. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Baker Street

The article says that Sherlock was filmed in Wales and in Baker Street, London. But the door marked 221B was in North Gower Street. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnMcW (talk • contribs) 22:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is your source for this? The JPS^{talk to me} 19:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have added a source. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I see from your user page that you've reviewed good articles in the past -- I assume you believe this reference to be 'reliable', by Wikipedia standards? The JPS^{talk to me} 15:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I simply recognised the location as my daughter used to live in North Gower Street and eat at Speedy's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnMcW (talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Rupert Graves

Is his character considered to be a major one? I mean he isn't featured even in the opening credits and according to the Hartswood cast list he is absent from the second episode. I suggest removing him from the infobox. 85.217.138.23 (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No original research, please

I suspect the popularity of this series has encouraged many new editors, inexperienced in Wikipedia's style and policies, to this article. You are all very welcome to contribute. I have noticed, though, some hints of original research creeping through. For instance, information about which ACD stories were adapted for, or influenced, each episode, is useful, but only with references to reliable sources. It is absolutely not acceptable, per our no original research policy, to write this based on your own observations and knowledge of the texts. Even consensus established in a forum somewhere inhabited by the most devout ACD scholars is insufficient. I've placed {{Citation needed}} tags on the problematic sentences for now to give people an opportunity to provide sources, before they are removed. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I respect your desire to adhere to the rules, and I admit that someone has been going a bit overboard (naming a half dozen stories as the "basis" when they have a tangential relationship at best to the episode). However, A Study in Scarlet has been bandied about for weeks in the press as the source of the first episode, and the parallels between the episode and Doyle's novel are unavoidable (title similarity; Watson returning wounded from Afghanistan; Holmes and Watson introduced in a chem lab at St. Barts by a friend named Stamford; the murderer is a cabbie dying of a terminal illness; the first victim is a business person gone missing found in an abandoned house in Lauriston Gardens in the Brixton area; the letters "RACHE" are found written near the body of the first victim; the victims are given a choice of two pills, one deadly poison and the other a placebo; etc., etc.). There is only one story in all of the world's literature that shares these details with the episode, and it's not original research to name it. Besides, you had only to follow the link to the article about that episode to see the same claim made with a valid citation. I've appropriated it here. It took me ten seconds to find it. You, however, would rather rant and rave than do a little research yourself. Next you'll be insisting that the plot summaries are unsourced. 71.200.134.47 (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• A guide to works of fiction WP:NOTOR especially when a programme is brand new and no secondary or tertiary sources exist re plots or cast or production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.145.185 (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It must be quite annoying for the primary editors of this page to have put so much hard working getting it to a good, well-referenced standard, only to be criticised by anonymous editors waving unofficial policies in their faces. Bob talk 07:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Steven Moffat, co-creator of the show, has tweeted that "The Blind Banker" is loosely based on "The Adventure of the Dancing Men". That source was also cited on the wikipage for The Adventure of the Dancing Men. I read in the Help articles that Twitter is not considered verifiable unless it is attributable to an expert. Considering that Moffat co-created the show and is in contact with the writers, wouldn't he be considered an expert here? Therefore, is that source OK to use? Thanks. Springhill40 (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Has the Twitter account been confirmed as actually being his, yet? --McGeddon (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Twitter has a "verified" process, and displays an icon when someone has verified that the account matches the person it purports to represent (for example). In this case there's no icon: that doesn't necessarily mean it's not Moffat's Twitter account, just that it's not yet confirmed. I'd be hesitant to suggest using it at this time. TFOWR 10:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In response to 71.200.134.47 - if plenty of sources have named A Study in Scarlett then it should not be difficult to add a source. However correct/obvious that observing similarities are, it is original research because it is relying upon Wikipedia's editors interpretation. It does not matter if we agree about these similarities.
94.2.145.185 - The page to which you point is merely an 'essay', and does not have nearly the same authority as a policy (which WP:NOR is)or guideline.
I agree that we should refrain from using Twitter. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• WP:NOR does allow use of primary sources for plots, casts, etc provided no comment is made.

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. .WP:NOTOR mearly clarifies the position.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.53.125 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 14 August 2010

The above quotation is about using the primary source as a reference for itself. I.e. the plot section does not need references because it can be substantiated by watching the primary source. The same for a mere cast list (substantiated by the end credits on the primary source). Identifying similarities between two primary sources (ACD text + Sherlock episode) is commenting -- it is analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative. It might be basic, but it's analysis all the same. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There is also an interview with Digital Spy in which Stevan Moffat confirms that the second episode is an adaptation of "The Dancing Men." i've been trying to turn it into a reference but i'm fairly new to wikipedia and it keeps referencing back to ref 13. could someone please help me get the reference straightened out? the url to the interview can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdkeFAVKajk thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.77.43 (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've formatted the link. This is a great reference, thanks. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Standard industry practice"

Is it really "standard industry practice" for drama pilots to be filmed but not broadcast in the UK? I know it's standard practice in the US, but for over here it seems highly unusual to me. Angmering (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Standard" is possibly the wrong word. We need an adjective somewhere in between "standard" and "extraordinary"/"unacceptable". Actually, we can probably lose it form the lead altogether. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's my error in how I interpreted the source. "Standard" practice would just be to commission a drama script for a cast read-through. Bradley0110 (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Is 'common' too close to 'standard'? —Tamfang (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Weapon Inaccuracy

This probably isn't notable enough to be in the main article, but it's been bugging me since watching the show. In the second episode, Sherlock states that the bullets from the gun the baddy is holding will travel at just over 1000 metres per second. However, the gun, a Makarov PM, fires the 9x18mm round which travels at just over 1000 feet per second.--94.168.156.12 (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't include trivia, continuity errors, and 'mistakes', unless reliable sources have indicated that they are notable. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any handgun can manage 1 km/sec. The line about ricochets is also a bit rubbish: even if ricochet from century-old brick is likely (I wouldn't know), it's not going to come back at you when you fire along a tunnel. But it's not relevant to the plot (unlike, say, the impossible behavior of the pistol that John lends to "Bill Clay" in Die Hard). —Tamfang (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Music Score?

Would love to see some details on the music score. Haven't found any information on it yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.98.249.59 (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of The Sun

As much as I hate to say it, The Sun is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, especially on relatively trivial matters such as a television programme. According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and previous discussions on the noticeboard, we would avoid a tabloid newspaper for serious issues (politics, science, academic, etc.), but there is no harm in us using it as a reference about a TV pilot. It has been raised [2] and [3]. Feel free to replace a reference with something with higher status, but there is no justification in WP's guidelines and policies not to distrust The Sun for our relatively superficial purposes. That another publisher, Digital Spy, chose to republish the story based on The Sun strengthens its case, really. Of course, usual attribution applies ("The Sun reported", rather than passing off as complete fact.) The JPS^{talk to me} 21:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, but the Sun has repeated been rejected as a source; even the Daily Mail is considered to need another reliable source to confirm details they publish. (See the debates at David Tennant among others, where the Sun has been used as a "source" for rumours about DT's relationship.) This is not even taking into account the fact that the fuss the Sun is trying to stir up is not even notable; there is nothing notable about a pilot not airing, as this happens quite often in television. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Further to this... having reviewed the material, it turns out that the text we've been debating is actually misplaced, and already covered in the more appropriate "Development" section. I have reworked it to include as much of the material as can be sourced to the more reliable Guardian reports. The remaining material is simply not usable; examples of the Sun's style include the lead sentence ("THE BBC wasted a massive £800,000 on an episode of its new Sherlock Holmes drama that won't be screened") and an unattributed "insider" saying "It must have been a real stinker". --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm very happy to lose The Sun as a source so long as the information is not lost. I'm satisfied with the current wording; I was unhappy at an adequate reference being replaced with a cn tag. Be careful, though, with categorically dismissing The Sun as a reliable source because, as far as I can see, there is nothing in policy that says it categorically cannot be used. Context is important, so a consensus at one article has no authority to judge another case. Discussing someone's personal life is different from a TV pilot, per WP:BLP. I sense the voices of cultural prejudices, rather than policy, will be heard in these discussions. Actually, do you not think it's worryingly subjective to dismiss a story in a national newspaper about the subject of this article? We might agree that them creating the story is ideologically motivated (commercial media, and Murdoch at that, having a go at the BBC), but is it really our place (per WP:OR) to ignore that? We should be objectively reflecting knowledge, not deciding which knowledge is valid. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Links

Hello. I see editors are removing Wikilinks to characters and stories from Moffat's clues of the forthcoming series. Just to explain to editors confused at the removal of these links: at the moment, Moffat has given us those names as "clues". It is not yet certain, for example, if the 'hound' refers to The Hound of the Baskervilles. Moffat may well be misleading us (another canine could impact on a plot), and, per MOS:QUOTE#Linking, we are misleading the reader by turning those teasers into fact. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

While I agree it would be OR to present those interpretations as fact my reason for adding the links, and I'll presume other editors that did the same thing were thinking along the same lines, was slightly different. To anyone familiar with Sherlock Holmes it is self-evident (i.e. WP:CHALLENGE does not apply) that the words "Hound", "Adler" and "Reichenbach" evoke central plot elements of three well-known Holmes stories, and furthermore that Moffat clearly intended to make this association, whether it is a red herring or not. That is a salient bit of context, and something that is worth getting across to readers who haven't read Holmes. Perhaps using straight forward internal links was a clumsy way to go about it, but does anyone see a problem with adding a non-committal sentence like:

The Hound of the Baskervilles is the title of one of the four novels featuring Sherlock Holmes, Irene Adler was a character in the first Holmes story, A Scandal in Bohemia, and the Reichenbach Falls in Austria were the setting for Holmes' and Moriarty's mortal duel in The Final Problem.

The point is not to say to the reader "this is the solution to Moffat's clues", but "this is the context of Moffat's clues". —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 12:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Would your example of a contextual sentence not breach WP:SYNTH? The JPS^{talk to me} 12:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe so. Mimicking the explanation in WP:SYN, we have three assertions: A, B and C. A is that Moffat gave three clues (sourced directly and explicitly in this article). B is that there exists three entities in the Sherlock Holmes stories (sourced indirectly as a summary of other articles). C is that A was in some way intended to evoke B. C is sourced from the same place as, albeit implicitly rather than explicitly. But we don't have to get worried about OR in following the implication. Nobody could seriously argue that Moffat's choice of those three words as clues for the plot of a Sherlock Holmes adaptation was entirely unrelated to the existence of plot elements with those names in Sherlock Holmes stories. It's no more OR than using a source that says "apples are not oranges" to back up the statement "oranges are not apples". One logically implies the other. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 13:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, your solution should be OK, then. What about as a footnote? In any case, it's only going to be temporary. (Although we may have the same thing next year.) The JPS^{talk to me} 13:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I know it's a trivial point. But if something's worth doing and all that. A footnote is a good idea, I'll go ahead and put it in. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 14:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Slightly strange sentence

• Speedy’s, the sandwich shop on North Gower Street below the flat used as Holmes' residence, reported a sharp rise in new customers who recognised it from the show.*

Well of course they did -- *nobody* would recognise it from the show before the show was broadcast.

Also is this talk page showing up in a completely different style to the rest of Wikipedia for anyone else? 213.123.192.77 (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's actually what the statement is saying, it's just stating they saw in increase in visitors (although I'll grant you it's a bit trivial). Talk page looks fine to me(?) Bob talk 12:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an article, not a fan piece

This is a great TV show/series, but it is trivialized by this article's fanboy-sounding trivia and quotes from magazine articles. No regular reader is going to wade through all that - and providing information to readers is the point, remember. I have trimmed some of it, but this certainly needs more tightening. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I agree with you here - is it not quite interesting that Matt Smith was considered for the role of Watson, for example? Having a long-but-well-referenced article about a subject is usually considered to be a good thing. In my experience, it's quite a treat to have so much coverage of a TV series. Bob talk 17:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Long is good only if the material is of value, otherwise it's just trivia that gets in the way of anything useful to actual readers. For eample, I just removed a gossipy paragraph about how it was very cold during filming, which made the actors' hands cold - just the sort of guff fed to feature writers by agents. This article is bordering on listing the actors' favorite colors. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not do what you suggest and tighten the prose up rather than just deleting content and references, though? Throwing words like "fanboy" and "gossip" around isn't very helpful. Bob talk 18:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree most of that material should not have been removed and should be reinstated. Bouket (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The weather during filming? Repetitive quotes about "what appealed to us about the idea of doing Sherlock"? Spoon-fed quotes like this: "Cumberbatch adds, "I doubt he [Holmes] uses Wikipedia much — but he uses technology as a resource". Cumberbatch adds???? How is that suitable for an encycloped and not a Sunday supplement? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Or this: The role of the detective inspired Cumberbatch to analyse people's characteristics and behaviour: "You can't help but cast an eye round you and think about people and the explanation that might lie behind the exterior show ... - ye gods, I guarantee that quote was spoon fed by a press agent to a lazy pseudo-reporter - it is absolutely unsuitable for this article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

(unindent myself before we fall off the page) By contrast, the article presents information for why it includes what might otherwise be trivia about coat design, with the items about retailer Debenhams reports on the shows' effect on sales. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

For instance Bob is right that it is interesting that Matt Smith was considered for the role. You removed a lot of other information like that as well, for instance the part about "Sherlock not being about the Victorian atmosphere". Bouket (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realized that an earlier comment of mine didn't get added because of an edit conflict - in it I agreed that I have been snarky and unpleasant-sounding. My apologies for being jerk-like; I realize that such an attitude gets in the way of the message. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've returned the Matt Smith reference. I still think it's unnecessary, because "so and so wanted the part ..." items are famously unreliable, but so be it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

David, while you make some good points, not all of your suggestions are appropriate, despite your rhetoric (eg "absolutely unsuitable"...). You dismiss: "I doubt he [Holmes] uses Wikipedia much — but he uses technology as a resource". The first half of this sentence may be redundant, but the second is very useful way of describing an attribute of the character using a reliable source.
As far as I can see, the article abides by WP:RS. If The Guardian, one of the most-respected UK newspapers, thinks that something is important, it is not up for a mere Wikipedia editor to dismiss the idea. Reports of someone having being interested in a role can indeed be inaccurate. But, Wikipedia must be verifiable, not necessarily truthful. If a statement is supported by reliable source(s), it is not up to us to second-guess whether or not something (eg. Matt Smith, who would become the lead actor in Moffat's other show, being considered) is a publicity gimmick. Indeed, doing so could breach WP:OR by nature of unduly excluding material based upon your own opinions. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it certaintly is up to us to "second-guess whether something ... is a publicity gimmick" as part of the decision about whether to include it in an article - that's what editing is all about. Otherwise we'd just reprint everyting the Guardian writes!

We pick and choose based on judgement, and the sniff test spotting baloney quotes (if I may mix metaphors) is part of the judgment. There isn't any algorithm that says "X is encyclopedia-worth, and X-1 isn't" - it's all "second-guessing" if you want to call it that. "Editing" is another term.

There's disagreements in judgement here and I'm obviously in the minority, so I suspect I won't hold sway ... but what's how wikipedia works. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Er, I think you'll find that my mum is the producer of this (Elaine Cameron), and can I just point out that it IS filmed in Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.120.88 (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you point us to a source? For better or worse, wikipedia doesn't change articles based on the say-so of editors, since we might be talking through our hat! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Second series for 2012

So, the tricky situation has arisen that the source for series 2 having been put back is a BBC continuity announcement at the end of the series 1 repeats, and even more shakily confirmed by a tweet from producer Sue Vertue. If anyone knows how best to indicate this in the article, their expertise would be appreciated. U-Mos (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Gay

The Daily Mail reference suggests that Watson may also be gay however this seems completely off base. In fact in the episode Watson even says to Sherlock something like "that's ok" as to say it's fine if Sherlock is gay but Watson is not. I think there's clear ambiguity that Sherlock might be, but almost nothing to say Watson might be. Flamesplash (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And are you surprised that the Daily Mail have reported something with dubious evidence? Seriously, though, we can only incorporate what has been reported. We can't bring our own analysis into it. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

All this Holmes - is - Gay talk will end when Irene Adler turns up. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.84.124 (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hardly. Since we know from the canon that Holmes admired her for besting him but was *not* romantically attracted to her, and since speculation about his sexuality has been rife for decades, your evident wish that all the icky gay subtext just go away is unlikely to be granted(EnquireWithin (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)).

"The Blind Banker" suggests pretty strongly that John is of the majority. —Tamfang (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the line in the article, "Some dialogue in the first episode suggested that in this version the character Sherlock Holmes is homosexual." My interpretation of the dialogue in the first episode was that the writers were having fun with the idea that everyone who met Holmes and Watson *thought they were a (gay) couple*. This is not the same as suggesting that Sherlock is gay - I think they made it pretty clear he wasn't really a relationship guy, of any sort.

I took that dialogue that same way you did, myself. But we do have a media source coming up with that analysis so it's not just our own interpretation we've got in there. We could rephrase a bit to something along the lines of "some reviewers have interpreted...blah blah blah" so that we make it more clear that it is by no means definitive (unless the show goes that route of course). Millahnna (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing that bit as I didn't feel it was entirely relevant, especially not under 'casting'. Feel free to put it back in elsewhere, though (perhaps under the character of Sherlock?). --Northerlywind (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

USA airdates for series 2

can someone add this, I am using an iPad and can't scroll down.

'Sherlock' season 2 will begin on PBS in May 2012.

I found that info here: Link: http://entertainment.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979782463 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.180.185 (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Added that information, although I was uncertain about the reliability of that news source and instead found a twitter post which appeared to be legitimate (it had been cited by several other news sources). --Northerlywind (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Episode Section

Since there is going to be a second season and all the episodes have their own articles, I suggest that we move the "Episodes" section to a new page for "List of Sherlock Serials" in the format similar to the Doctor Who version. If not now, definitely if there is a third season to be announced in the future (which i realize will be months from now). The episode section should be shortened to a few sentences with a referral to the Sherlock serials page, but with other pages about each episode already, I don't see the point in writing a full description on each episode.
Betsi-HaP (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur. This page is becoming unnecessarily lengthy with all the quotes and trivia. With the amount of content on the few broadcasted episodes, I think they deserve a new page. --Northerlywind (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never made a new page before, so I wouldn't know any sort of protocol that may be needed. As long as no-one is like "No this is the worst idea in the entire universe", could some one put it up and I'll help on editing. Also the page should be written in British English, right? I assume so. Betsi-HaP (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Er, there already are pages about the broadcast episodes, i.e. A Study in Pink. If you're proposing a List of Sherlock episodes, this is fine, although as it stands it would probably be best to wait until the new series is at least ready to broadcast - there are only three completed episodes (plus a pilot) so far. Bob talk 21:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, were talking about having a page for a list of the episodes, much like (but obviously shorter than) the Doctor Who one. Then moving and shortening the episodes section on the main article. Betsi-HaP (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't shorten it too much at present, as for a narrow topic like this TV series, information is much easier to access when it's kept in one place - there have only been three episodes so far; it's not like an American season of 20 or so episodes or even a Who series of about 10 episodes. The standards of GA (which this probably could have passed a few months ago) or FA favour depth and length and completeness, as long as it doesn't simply regurgitate plots. These episode summaries are fairly concise at present, and as there have only been three so far, then they should remain here for the time being. Bob talk 23:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there does not need to be a separate List of Episodes page at this point. With only 6 episodes currently existing in any form, the episode section is quite compact and is not really taking up too much space. If a separate article were created, we'd still want a lot of this info in the main Sherlock article, which would lead to a lot of duplication. If a third series came out, we could reconsider the organization then.

And to answer Betsi's earlier question, anything Sherlock-related would be in British English. MOS:ENGVAR has more information on how to choose what variety of English is used in each article. Princess Lirin (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This conversation stays archived for (if/when) a third season comes out, right? Betsi-HaP (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Legitimate talk page content is never (/hardly ever?) deleted. It will either still be here on this page, or if someone sets up an archive for this page before the third season comes out, then it will be in the archive. Princess Lirin (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Remove costume trivia?

There is a bit of interesting but subjectively unimportant trivia on costumes under 'recording' that I think should be removed. --Northerlywind (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't really add understanding to the character and the BAFTA-winning designer only worked on the pilot. I'd say nix it. Also, a friendly recommendation: use edit summaries to explain removals. I was very close to reverting you on principle when I saw "Tag: references removed". Axem Titanium (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a bit in the "Broadcast and reception" section about increased demand for the coat after the series' release—perhaps some of the paragraph under discussion could be moved there while the rest is removed? I find the costuming information interesting so I'd rather it not be removed completely; however I agree that it's somewhat out of place in the current section, and there isn't enough costuming info for it to be its own section.

And ditto about the edit summaries: they don't take much time and they really help people to perceive your edits as reputable at first glance. Princess Lirin (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies re: edit summaries. I'm new, so I don't really know the etiquette here well. In any case, I agree that all the costume-related information should be lumped together. --Northerlywind (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Photos of actors and captions

The captions for the photos of Benedict and Martin are rather irrelevant. We knows that "Benedict Cumberbatch plays Sherlock Holmes." because it says right there on the article. I don't think the photo itself serves much purpose other than identifying the actor, which someone can find by clicking the article for Benedict Cumberbatch. Likewise, Martin Freeman's caption notes his BAFTA; however, the photo is simply of Martin playing the character John, not anything to do with the BAFTAs. At the very least, I think the captions should be amended to a factual statement - if not the photos removed altogether. --Northerlywind (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the photo the same picture that is on the Actors page? If so I could see why it may be unnecessary, but if it is a photo of the actor on the set of the production it can show the reader their costume, make-up, etc. So it could be seen as useful. Betsi-HaP (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles should be dealt with as standalone entities. We should not second guess that a user might click through to the actors' pages. Good/featured articles should be illustrated with 'free' images where possible, with appropriate captions. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we're not supposed to assume readers will click the links provided then I'd definitely say keep the photos; they fit nicely around the text anyway. :D Betsi-HaP (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Series 2 broadcast date

BBC press office 08/12/2011 Sherlock: A Scandal In Belgravia In haste, feel free to add to main article. Drappel (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Series? Series?! It's definitely NOT a TV series.

I thought it was pushing it when BBC released Torchwood as a five pary mini series that it was dubbed a 'TV series', but I honestly cannot fathom down what avenue of dire trope one could delve to apply the concept of serialised television fiction to THREE episodes.

Three episodes is barely a mini-series, it is not a TV series. 121.212.22.214 (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Series - n. A number of things that follow on one after the other or are connected one after the other.

Three episodes is a series of episodes.

The group of episodes that show in a given year are called a "season" in America instead of a series, "series" refers to there being more than two episodes and the potential for more. Even though this is a British show, most of the editors on Wikipedia are from America. If I didn't watch as much BBC as I did, I'd find your overreaction to be even more ridiculous. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, hello, i'm new here, I quite enjoyed the show, but I just wanted to add that you contridicted your self just now, when you said a "series" is longer than two episodes, well sherlock is. But I do agree with you it should be longer than three episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blair-souleater- (talk • contribs) 04:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations. You found a definition for series. Now maybe if you can expand your reading to TV series vs mini series we may be getting somewhere! 121.212.22.214 (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Many UK tv series have only a few episodes per series, e.g. Midsomer Murders (4-5 episodes per series) and Wire in the Blood (4 episodes per series). --Six words (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Six words is right that quite a few British dramas only have a few episodes per "season" (we don't have the 13-part structure common to U.S. TV, in fact 6 episodes is the standard commmissioned series length in the UK) - the term "mini-series" does not tend to be used in the UK. In fact, unless things are a one-off drama film or two part TV drama, nearly everything is referred to as a "series" in the UK, unless it's a soap. The other thing is that this is a TV series in the respect that there is another batch of episodes coming up. Bob talk 16:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

OP: By your IP, you seem to be Australian, not American, but others are correct here. There is a different usage of the term "series" in the UK and US, and I assume based on your comment that Australian usage is similar to the US. We would call it a mini-series in the US, but since the article is on a BBC show, the term "series" is appropriate. 99.43.32.160 (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

OP: You should tell the people who made Prime Suspect. Apparently that's not a TV series either by your definition -- they had two episodes per season. See for yourself: Prime_Suspect_(UK_TV_series). Here in the UK a TV series has a LOT less episodes than a US one. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

'Sherlockology' fansite as external link?

The Sherlock fansite Sherlockology recently opened with information on locations, costumes, and other interesting trivia. Could it be posted under external links, or is there a rule against fansites? Sherlockology has been acknowledged by the cast/crew such as producer Sue Vertue, a representative from the BBC, et al. It's not officially supported by the BBC, but it's well-known and has relevant information. --Northerlywind (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think WP:FANSITE suggests that Sherlockology is not appropriate. I won't fight against it as an external link (others might), but it must not be used as a reference inside the article's main body. The JPS^{talk to me} 08:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree, never use it as a reference, but ass a "see also" external link seems fine.Betsi-HaP (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If we get a source showing that the site has been acknowledged (even if unofficially), it may be worthwhile to include. Until then, I'm gonna keep removing it.

Addendum: According to their FAQ (although not a secondary source), "Sherlockology is an unofficial fansite dedicated to the BBC drama Sherlock and is in no way endorsed or affiliated with the television series, cast or crew." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sherlockology is not 'endorsed' by the cast and crew but has been acknowledged on several occasions on Twitter by Steven Moffat, Mark Gatiss, and Sue Vertue. I know my personal experiences don't count for anything, but I was in attendance when members of Sherlockology met and discussed logistics with producer Sue Vertue and a producer from the BBC (I can't recall her name). In addition, Sarah Arthur, the costume designer, has provided a lot of the information on costumes for their website. There is nothing formally written such as a press release stating that they are an 'official' fansite, but they have certainly been acknowledged by both cast and crew; I'll try to find the Twitter posts regarding this. Northerlywind (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I raised this issue at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_10#Fansite_on_Sherlock_.28TV_series.29. A contributor there endorsed the site as an EL, unless anyone else seriously contests it. Ian, how do you feel abut User:WhatamIdoing's rationale? The JPS^{talk to me} 10:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've pulled it again for further discussion, as I have concerns about the precedent this would set. Looking at the site I'm also not convinced that its presence enhances the article. The site has a shop, it is prominently petitioning viewers to vote for it, and the material is very fannish. (For example, John Wason's character page states "Dating John can be a bit dangerous and certainly not something for the faint hearted." Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Since our last discussion, the site has won a Shorty Award, news of which featured by the Radio Times [4]. The site has been redesigned, and no longer features an overwhelming banner to the shop. I think it's now time to include it as an external link. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Added notes from The Guardian about series 2

I have added notes from this recently published article regarding series 2. I am somewhat sympathetic to complaints about snippets, and we might like to tidy the prose, although it is important to ground and objectify claims relating to Conan Doyle's 'best-known' stories. I will usually contest summary removal of sections, however. For instance, Conan Doyle has a significant fanbase owing to the age and breadth of is work: it is indeed relevant to comment upon their reaction to this series, if reliable verifiable sources are provided. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Reichenbach Fall

Any reason why a page hasn't been set up for this episode? Or why there's no synopsis? Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Mainly because the episode hasn't aired yet! I predict that an article will appear next Sunday evening, with too much plot detail and no production information to speak of. Bob talk 01:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Premiere section

What do people think about the 'premieres' section? Although written in prose, it is a bit listy, and reminds me of the IMDb. Is it really necessary to list all of the international dates? I propose initial screening only. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting but I don't know if it really adds anything other than an interesting list. I wouldn't care if it was cut entirely. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Now we have six episode summaries, should we have a List of Sherlock episodes article. The episodes section in the main article could then be a very brief overview of the episodes in relation to when they were first broadcast, in the same style as Joking Apart#Episodes. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a separate List of Sherlock episodes probably would be a good idea. Right now, the listing is like a third of the article even though they have their own articles. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not see the point of such a list given that the episodes all have their own page. We simply need to trim the plots on this page to a line or two.Mezigue (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A list page is quite common even when the accompanying articles are developed. The Simpsons has List of The Simpsons episodes, which in turn has The Simpsons (season 1). These, along with many of its episode articles, are FAs. It might not be the best comparison (The Simpsons' 400+ episodes compared to Sherlock's 6 -- we clearly don't need separate articles for each series). Mezigue is right that the plot for each should be condensed; it should be intertwined with prose about who wrote/directed it, and when it aired (helping us to get rid of that premieres section). We'd all need to make sure, though, that any plot detail is kept to a minimum. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the summaries to a separate List of Sherlock episodes page and offered a replacement 'episodes' section. This section needs development; ideally it should be coherent. I've excised the 'premieres' section -- it would be useful to have a reliable source to acknowledge, broadly, worldwide broadcast. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Visual style

Are there any plans to expand the article and talk about the visual style, such as the extensive use of bokeh, tilt shift, informative captions and graphics, horizontal wipes, and color palette? Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of technology

Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock uses modern technology, such as texting, the internet, and GPS, to solve crimes

This should also mention forensic science, such as the biomolecular identification of pollen in "The Great Game", etc. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Including the sender's name/initials in the message body of a text implies that the users in this show are unfamiliar with the conventions of technology like texting, which is counterintuitive for a tech "genius". (Holmes to Watson: "Return home if convenient. SH.") One would only include their name in the message body if sending to someone unknown to the receiver and thus not listed in the receiver's directory, since this information is already sent in the header. (Actual text would read: "Text from Sherlock Holmes", then, "Return home.") Surely Watson has Holmes mobile number in his phone! Is there a place in an article like this for inconsistencies such as this? 98.230.199.85 (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Matt Smith photo

Since Matt Smith doesn't actually play a part in the series, is it out of proportion to have a photograph of him? The JPS^{talk to me} 23:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I have removed it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Re-direct "Science of deduction"

Please could we re-direct "Science of deduction" to this article? Seems appropriate! Crazy Eddy (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused: There is no "science of deduction" article to redirect. Even if there was, confabulating it (love that word, although I'm not sure I used it correctly) to a TV show seems not to be the right thing to do. Am I missing something? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I meant the phrase "science of deduction", which is Sherlock's trade in the TV series. Currently "science of deduction" is non-article and leads to the search page; would it hurt to have it lead here instead? Crazy Eddy (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The phrase is used in the books, which is where the TV folks got it. According to wikipedia's Sherlock Holmes articles, it's the name of the first section of The Sign of Four. So if we want to create an article with that title, it should probably redirect to Sherlock Holmes. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC).

Ah! In that case, could it be redirected to Sherlock Holmes? 81.140.72.129 (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference to the name "The Reichenbach Fall"

The article just refers to the Reichenbach Falls as the intention for the name "The Reichenbach Fall". In my opinion it is a direct reference to the german word "fall", too, which means "case". Especially because Sherlock uses a direct german translation to explain the name of moriarty. (Richard Broke) What do you think? Hinduindu (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well this would be original research. Mezigue (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sherlock (TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 04:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly. This article looks good though. TBrandley 05:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Images

• File:Sherlock titlecard.jpg could deal with a much better rationale, just in case it is up for deletion  Used the image from FA The Apprentice (UK TV series) as a template.

Infobox

• Believe "crime drama" should be "police procedural" followed by "drama" Is there a consensus for this genre? Not sure Sherlock fits in with 'police procedural' as the genuine police are featured minimally. Perhaps is more of an US expression?
• In the infobox, what is "Masterpiece" and "BBC" for. This is for "executive producer" parameter  Question: Rebecca Eaton is specified as being the executive producer for Masterpiece, with B. Jones the EP for the BBC. This is in addition to the first three names listed. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• In the infobox, use "90 minutes" rather than "93 mins". Don't be afraid to write it fully. Done
• In the infobox, SDTV should be before HDTV Done
• In the infobox, link stereo Done
• For the infobox, Template:Infobox television says "Do not use "SDTV" as it is ambiguous." That being said, I see "576i (SDTV)". Please, remove the "SDTV". Done
• Add the official website to the infobox using the "website" parameter. Think its at BBC.co.uk  Done

Lede

• "Sherlock is a British television" "British television" shouldn't be linked as per WP:OVERLINK Done
• "Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes" unlink Sherlock Holmes as it is linked above. Done
• I believe that Sherlock Holmes should just be Holmes as per WP:MOS Done
• "Six episodes, broadcast between 2010 and 2012, have been produced and broadcast". Repetitive. Remove "broadcast" from "produced and broadcast" Done
• Six episodes, broadcast between 2010 and 2012". Re-write to: "Six episodes, broadcast since 25 July 2010". Or just 2010 Done
• "The series has been sold to over 180 territories." "The series was conceived by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss during train journeys to and from the Doctor Who production base in Cardiff, where they were both writers." "The series depicts "consulting detective". Too many uses of "the series" consider re-writing. Examples: "programme, show, etc." Done
• "produced the series for the BBC" should be "produced the series for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), as per WP:MOS. After its original use, use only BBC per the same guideline OK, I've changed it, but not convinced -- FAs, such as Pauline Fowler, just use BBC
• "The series was primarily filmed" past tense. Its still broadcast on television. Use "is primarily filmed" Done
• "The series was primarily filmed in Cardiff". Unlink Cardiff. Its already been linked above Done
• "The series depicts "consulting detective" Sherlock Holmes". Just use "Holmes", as its already above. Please keep that in mind for the future. Done
• "in July and August 2010, with a second series of three episodes first broadcast in January 2012". Already parts are above. Consider changing the above "between 2010 and 2012", or change this. Thanks  Partly done
• "nominated for many awards" "many". Not encyclopaedic, how about "numerous" Done
• "UK" should be "United Kingdom" Done
• "The first series won the BAFTA Television Award for Best Drama Series" quick run-on sentence. How about merging with next sentence creating this: "The first series won the BAFTA Television Award for Best Drama Series, and all six episodes have been released on DVD and Blu-ray Disc in the UK, alongside tie-in editions of some of Conan Doyle's original books", etc.  Removed that phrase, as no need to specify one particular award -- the preceding sentence covers it.

Production

• Development: Rename it to "Conception"  I've renamed to 'Conception and development'?
• Development: "The series is a collaboration between Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss" re-write perhaps to: "Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss devised the concept of the series", etc. then continue Done
• Development: "The series is a collaboration between Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss". Why isn't Moffat and Gatiss linked? Its the first mention in the actual article Done
• Development: "The two writers are both big Sherlock Holmes fans." Run-on sentence. Merge with the next sentence. Too many short sentences can get old Done
• Development: "The two writers are both big Sherlock Holmes fans" shouldn't that be linked? Sherlock Holmes (moved to the first sentence in this section.)
• Development: "The writers realised that someone else would have the same idea to produce a modern-day version, so they wanted to do it before anyone else did". Isn't really encyclopaedic, right, please re-word Done
• Development: "encouraged them to start to work out how they might do it themselves". Awkward. Figure what out by themselves Done
• Development: "However, the first version of the pilot—reported by The Guardian to have cost £800,000". Link The Guardian Done
• Development: "led to rumours within the BBC" make the BBC to British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Also, now link British Broadcasting Corporation, not the BBC which should be in brackets  Done
• Development: "the creative team say" should be "the creative team said" Done
• Development: "In July 2009, the BBC drama department announced plans for three 90-minute episodes, to be broadcast in 2010" merge everything in that whole paragraph. As said in WP:MOS guidelines, people don't like to read two sentence paragraphs. Sorry if too harsh Done
• Cast: Should be renamed to "Casting"  Done
• Cast: Sorry, but after looking at the section; should be renamed to "Cast and characters". Thank you. Done
• Cast: Sherlock isn't needed there just be "series'"  Clarifies -- it's referring to the character
• Recording: "The show was produced by Hartswood Films for BBC Wales. BBC Worldwide also provided co-production funding" two short sentences how about re-writing to: "The show was produced by Hartswood Films for BBC Wales, while BBC Worldwide also provided co-production funding" Done
• Recording: Unlink cardiff; its already been linked above Done
• Recording: Unless your talking about the character, Sherlock should be italicized  Question: If you mean the bit about technology, it's meant to refer to the character.
• Music: "The music". What music? the theme music, dance music, silly music, etc. LOL  Done

Episodes

• "have been produced and broadcast", remove "and broadcast"; its already mentioned in the next sentence(s) Done
• "180 territories" could you name some country/international channel that the series airs on outside of UK  Added PBS. In my experience, this is a minefield. Earlier versions did this, then it exploded into an unsourced, directory-like list of various countries and when they were broadcast. Then there's notability issues -- which do we include, and which do we leave out? There was some discussion on the talk page.
• Steve Moffat should be Moffat as its already firstly mentioned above Done
• "wrote the episode" it would seem most of that stuff is already above in the "Recording" section  Done
• "The second series' final episode ..." has nothing to do with Series 3, it is Series 2  some restructuring
• "same time as series two" as the finale aired, right? It means to communicate that series two and three were commissioned at the same time, but they had previously only revealed that series two ad been commissioned.

Reception

• 'early 2013' don't need those single quotation marks Done
• shows' should be show's Done
• More ratings info? Overall ratings for Series 1, 2  Done
• Reception should be renamed to "Accolades" Done
• several awards → numerous awards Done

Home release and merchandise

• "2entertain in the UK" write fully to United Kingdom  Done
• "The second series UK disc" write fully to United Kingdom  Done

References

• I have made the changes for the section

External links

• "Sherlock at BBC Online". Use "BBC Programmes", use the {{BBC Programme}} (talk) template to help you. Please, and thanks.  Done
• Add TV.com link for the show.  Done
• "Contains various comprehensive guides to episodes, locations, and cast and crew.", "Showing the connections the new TV show makes to the original stories, compiled by comic book historian Alan Kistler.", "Interview with composer Michael Price about scoring the Sherlock series.". Don't really need that, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a directory or guide.  Sherlockology retained, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(television)#External_links, as a "major fansite website" -- it carries an endorsement from producer Sue Vertue, and is much more helpful than TV.com
• Though the page use "(TV series)", the Wikiquote and Commons boxs on the side should still use only "Sherlock".  Done
• Add Yahoo! TV link for the show.  Done
• Add TV Guide link for the show.  Done
• Add "Sherlock Wiki" link for the show.  , even though it looks full of advertising...

Response

Many thanks for this review. I'll work through them, and use the 'done'/'partly done' icons to indicate my progress and comments. Those templates embolden my comments, so it should be clear which are your words and which are mine. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, that was painless. There's a couple of things I'm unsure about -- as marked...? The JPS^{talk to me} 10:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You can keep it as Crime drama. Oh, and please link crime drama. I'm still doing the rest of my review. Most issues will be posted soon. TBrandley 16:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Added some more issues to be fixed. TBrandley 16:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the territory/station issue, I would at least mention PBS if it hasn't been already. They partially funded it, after all. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. It would need to be handled carefully to highlight the co-funding, and not to invite another 178 additions. I've added PBS to the top of the Episodes section. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Good work. I'll pass for GA. TBrandley 21:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Typo

It's semi-protected, so could someone with the ability to do so please change "Sherlock's bother, Mycroft Holmes" to "Sherlock's brother, Mycroft Holmes"?

Why? Italics has pretty specific uses and this doesn't seem to be one. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done bother -> brother. DonQuixote (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I did it to emphasize the difference between 'bother' and 'brother'. Thanks for the user who changed it.

Feedback on Sherlock (TV series)

Has anyone else been reading Feedback on Sherlock (TV series), and disturbed by the number of people complaining about the lack of an episode list from this article? It means they must have gone to the Episodes section, and missed the incredibly clear link to List of Sherlock episodes. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

i.e. Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Sherlock (TV series) —Tamfang (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sheeze, there are still new feedback comments coming back saying they want a list of episodes. I really can't see how the link could be made clearer save for writing it in massive letters. I have to say, I'm yet to find a single feedback comment useful for any of the articles I watch. Bob talk 17:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Link to Sherlockology

I'm concerned that the link to 'Sherlockology' is being removed. The claim that it is Lnkspam is dubious for many reasons. It won a Shorty Award last year, receiving coverage in publications inlcuding the Radio Times. This award is the site's main claim to notability, and how it is positioned above most 'fan sites'. Its content far transcends the limited offerings on the other links, and what Wikipedia is able to provide. (The Yahoo TV page, alternatively, offers only some very basic information, with some adverts, which is a little distsateful.) The assertion of 'linkspam' is inaccurate since the link is only intended for this page (rather than being spammed to multiple pages, to promote petitions, etc.). The JPS^{talk to me} 12:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a link to Sherlockology could be included, but if we're going to include that I think other important/useful fansites could be included too. A lot of pages for tv shows include a link to the wiki dedicated to it. How about including a link to Baker Street Wiki (that link goes to the Sherlock portal). Of course I'm biased since I'm an admin there, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to mention it. --54.228.16.253 (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The above comment was by me, had trouble logging in earlier. --Bluebellanon (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Aaaand, Pandora's box is open. Now we're evaluating which fansites merit inclusion. This is why WP:LINKSPAM draws a line at fan sites, with good reason. Sherlockology may be a wonderful site, along with the wiki, but this is an encyclopedia, not a fan page and fansites don't belong here. --Drmargi (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, whilst the wiki is created by fans it's an encyclopedia for everything to do with Sherlock Holmes, just like this is a general encyclopedia. They're both created by "fans" of their particular subjects. If they're against the rules then fair enough, but I wouldn't really compare fan sites to all the evils of the world. --54.216.28.235 (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

They're not comparable. There's no fact-checking done on Wikia (I admin two wikis on the site), and most sites are loaded with speculation. It's fan submitted for fan enjoyment, and Wikipedia has a firm policy that fan sites are not reliable, and are considered linkspam. --Drmargi (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity then, how come some wikia sites are added to articles and apparently have been there for a long time, such as Tardis Data Core being listed on the Doctor Who page or the Tongue Tied Wiki being listed at the Red Dwarf page? --Bluebellanon (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

They slip through unchallenged. --Drmargi (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Benedict Cumberbatch

Is that "incredibly sexy" required? It looks more like an opinion than a fact.

Arsricharan1999 (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Sricharan A R

It was part of a larger vandalism, which has now been reverted. Feel free to check for, and revert yourself! drewmunn talk 15:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It was reverted before you posted your comment. --Drmargi (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I know, but nobody had cleared it up for Arsricharan1999, so I thought I would. drewmunn talk 16:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"Filming" vs "Recording"

The title of the section related to Production Design and capturing of the series in a recordable format keeping changing, so I thought I would weigh in on this. Even though the medium has technically changed from a physical film medium to digital processing, many in the industry regularly use "filming" to describe the process. It may be that it has become idiomatic and metaphorical as much as literal, but it has by no means been widely superseded. In addition, the show runners themselves use "filming" to describe what they are doing, so it seems to make most sense to use that term. http://www.idigitaltimes.com/articles/18117/20130606/sherlock-holmes-season-3-release-date-the-empty-hearse-the-sign-of-three-premiere.htm

The term "recording" came from records back from the day before tapes/CDs existed, so it also is a holdover of an older technology that has been adapted for modern use, so it too could be seen as idiomatic. Cygnature (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. In the American film/TV industry, digital is becoming increasingly common and yet the term "film" is still the idiom of choice. Recording sounds rather awkward and forced by comparison. I've seen Gatiss routinely use "filming" on tweets, which isn't a sufficient source on its own, but does reinforce the observation above regarding the website. --Drmargi (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

British punctuation

I noticed a recent edit that added a stop after "Dr" in "Dr Watson." I haven't taken it back out, because I'm unsure of the rule (being an American Anglophile myself and therefore not an authority on British grammar and mechanics), but I thought title abbreviations such as "Mr" and "Dr" didn't get a stop in British English.Boomshadow ^talk _contribs 06:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're correct, but I'm American as well, although well-versed in British English. There must be an online source for British English punctuation and grammar that could be checked. --Drmargi (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I just checked the style guide for the Guardian and Observer and then the Oxford University Press and they have no stop -- or period ;-) --after "Dr" or "Mr" or "Ms", so I will shift the punctuation in the article to remove the stops, given that this article is on a British topic. Cygnature (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Series 3

Have we a source for 2013 release date? After a quick check, the internet doesn't seem to provide anything solid, and Gatiss has just said on Twitter that "anything online about transmission dates etc is entirely bogus. Noting will be decided for months yet."  drewmunn  talk  08:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Some while back, we did have a rough time of year, sourced to the BBC, Gatiss and the Moff. Then came the production delays, and now what we have appears to be inaccurate. --Drmargi (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Should we take action on this?  drewmunn  talk  16:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Update: Sherlock (series 3) is included on the 2013 Original British Drama trailer from the BBC, the synopsis for which reads "Sherlock... [is] part of the Original British Drama 2013 offering only on BBC One." That is, I believe, enough to state a transmission date of 2013, although we don't currently know anything more than that (beyond rumours). For now, I've reinstated the "2013" on the above grounds, but feel free to discuss this is you feel it's incorrect!  drewmunn  talk  08:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Moriarty is dead

http://www.latintimes.com/articles/9459/20131022/sherlock-season-3-spoilers-moriarty-really-dead.htm#.UmzmgXy9KSN http://www.blastr.com/2013-7-19/sherlocks-showrunners-offer-final-word-moriartys-fate http://www.cultbox.co.uk/news/headlines/4587-sherlock-star-andrew-scott-moriarty-is-dead http://www.hypable.com/2013/07/18/top-information-learned-from-the-sherlock-comic-con-panel/ I deleted the part that said that Moffat left the subject of his death unclear, but some angry Moriarty fan in denial keeps putting it back, saying the source "does not contain that information". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.235.253.198 (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Mezigue (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a Moriarty fan in denial; I'm an editor who is careful about fact checking. I suggest you calm down and read WP:CIVIL before you edit again, then stop leaping to conclusions about the motives of other editors. Second of all, your source doesn't support removing the statement you removed, which reflects an earlier source, and is accurate as posted. You cannot remove appropriately sourced material to suit your version of the story. Moreover, the source you were offering at first was a gossip rag, and after three attempts, I couldn't find anything about Sherlock in it. You MUST link directly to the article sourcing your edit, not the main page of a site that includes the article you wish to use as a source.

In future, when someone challenges an edit you make, your next step is not to edit war, as you did, but to start a discussion. You could have saved yourself a lot of hassle had you either started this discussion right away, or simply added another sentence stating that Moffat and Gatiss later clarified blah, blah, blah. You should also review WP:RS. Just because it's online doesn't mean the source is accurate. None of your sources are major media, and you have to ask yourself why. Other editors certainly will. --Drmargi (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest asking Moffatt, but he's no longer on Twitter. And although I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I really would need a black-and-white major reliable source to publish such a claim before I fully accept it. For such a polished series, there was what seemed to be a major production error in the moments following Moriarty's 'death'. Coupled with the fact that cast and crew have neatly avoided confirmation so many times, I'm lead to have at least some doubt in claims of his death until I have clear-cut evidence presented to me.  drewmunn  talk  14:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

In all fairness, it takes two to edit war. Yes, the anon editor should have taken the dispute to the talk page, but User:Drmargi should have done the same, or notified the anon on their talk page, rather than edit warring back.

As far as the sources are concerned, the one originally provided ([5], per diff) does clearly support the edits the anon made. The reliability of the source is of course a separate question, but it does link to an article about season 3 of Sherlock, and does contain the quotes by Moffat that were added to the article. I'm not sure why User:Drmargi was having the trouble she described above; perhaps it was something on her end, or perhaps she tried copying the link from the edit summary, rather than the article itself. In any case, it seems to me that good faith should have been assumed and the anon contacted on their talk page about a possible broken link, rather than simply reverting.

As for the actual dispute, a quick search turned up Andrew Scott stating that Moriarty is dead: [6] [7]. That would seem to support the sources posted above citing Moffat. Indrek (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't support the edit the IP made; it supports additional clarification that should follow the existing statement. At the time the standing edit was made, Moffat was guarded about whether Moriarty was dead. There's no need to remove that, which the IP persists in attempting to do, thereby misrepresenting what was in the original source and the sequence of comments Moffatt made. I would expect an IP to have difficulty with that distinction, but am surprised an experienced editor doesn't see the difference. Similarly the issue of Moriarty being dead is not in question, given there are a number of sources supporting it (although the first is not the one I would depend on as opposed to a couple of the later ones), and really never was. What I couldn't seem to get across to the editor is that he/she needs to add additional clarification that Moffatt and Gatiss have subsequently confirmed that Moriarty is dead, not alter what's already there and properly sourced. This is a tempest in a teapot that should have been a simple edit. --Drmargi (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The first link worked perfectly fine for me. Also, the statement "Without revealing wether Moriarty faked his own death" is false. It should therefore be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.235.253.198 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's just an earlier statement, when Moffatt was being cagey, something he routinely does with both Sherlock and Doctor Who. Gatiss has subsequently made more information available. That doesn't make the statement you persist in removing false. --Drmargi (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Drmargi: If you had no objections to the article stating that Moriarty is dead and all you wanted was that the earlier, now outdated tidbit about Moffat initially not confirming Moriarty's death to remain as well, why didn't you just tweak the wording accordingly? Personally I see no need to include that information - the important part is Moriarty's fate and his presence (or absence) in future episodes, not whether or not Moffat was at some point in the past non-committal about it - but if you feel so strongly about it, then you could have just amended the article accordingly.

In the spirit of moving this along, though, may I suggest the following wording?

While Moffat initially did not reveal whether Moriarty also faked his own death at the end of series two, and merely suggested that the character would not feature heavily in future series,[8][9] he has since confirmed the character's death, saying that "[he] shot himself in the face" and "can't return from that".[10] Actor Andrew Scott has also stated that Moriarty is dead, saying that "there could [not] have been any better exit for a character like that".[11]

Would something like that be acceptable? Indrek (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that the quote from Moffatt isn't needed in the content of the article. Other than that, it does seem a better solution. I have to admit I haven't tried to find any sources of late (I want to make sure the solution is a surprise, you see), so as long as the ones you've found pass reliability tests (at a glance, they do), then it's fine. It is a bit of a shame, however, as that means there was a production error, although that was probably there to keep us talking!  drewmunn  talk  20:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the IP did a poor job of presenting the source at first, and I found it questionable. I didn't see the need for a change given the iffy source, and that's all I intend to say on the matter. The change looks find, although I'd be careful to check what should be attributed to Moffatt and what should actually be attributed to Mark Gatiss. I would also encourage the IP to learn to source properly and to review WP:CIVIL, WP:RS and WP:BRD before editing again. --Drmargi (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Moffat

Per the article: "The show was conceived by Moffat and Gatiss during train journeys to and from the Doctor Who production base in Cardiff, where they were both writers."

Moffat is currently more than a writer for Doctor Who, he's an executive producer. Thanks for your time, Wordreader (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, currently. But when they conceived of this programme, they were writers. DonQuixote (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Series four

The Radio Times is a perfectly reliable source. Span (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The Radio Times is absolutely a reliable source. The problem is that this article does not say that the BBC have commissioned a fourth series. It says that Cumberbatch and Freeman really want to do one and announced a fourth series to the press. However, Moffat's comments suggest that the actors' announcement was premature, and that the BBC execs haven't actually confirmed it (publically, at least). So, the message of this article is that a fourth series is not yet confirmed, even though the two leads would jump at the chance. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we can say safely say that Freeman, Cumberbatch, Gatis and Moffat are up for it. [12] [13]. No formal BBC verification yet. Span (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

JPS, I agree. I removed the section on series 4 from the article, as the source says nothing about such a series existing. It seems to have been added back in (an action I disagree with), but I'll leave it there unless others have other opinions. On a wider scope, we don't usually have sections for series that have not been announced, as anything said on them is not reliable and may fall into WP:BALL territory. How do we know whether there will be a series 4? What if they make a standalone film instead? What if it's not commissioned? The actors may have stated they are happy to do it, but that's like saying "Harrison Ford is happy to make another Indiana Jones film" and creating an article just off of that one statement. I see no reason the fact shouldn't be mentioned elsewhere in the article, but having the section is (in my opinion) premature and wrong.  drewmunn  talk  07:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the subheading, replacing it with a paragraph at the bottom of Series three, firmly grounded in reliable sources. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A bit more on the detection maybe?

I feel there ought to be a bit more on the way the series portrays the deductive process - while there is a brief mention of texts onscreen, a bit more about the visual elements "chair? sitty thing?" would be good. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2014

The third series premiered in the UK on 1 January 2014 and will premiere in the US on the 19th. SHOULD BE UPDATED. 24.128.139.31 (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Claiming Steven Moffat is showrunner

I came here to settle an argument about how was the showrunner, Moffat or Gattis. The wiki page mentions the "showrunner" once and references this article: http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/jan/09/sherlock-back-fourth-series-steven-moffat

The article quotes Moffat as only the producer, not the showrunner. Thought that was important as it's sparking many arguments over the internet.

-urg- double post, sorry

I thought it was pretty well established that Gatiss is the show runner for Sherlock, and Moffat for Doctor Who. --Drmargi (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I googled it to try and find info. These pages claim Moffat is showrunner:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s129/sherlock/news/a536572/sherlock-showrunner-steven-moffat-molly-broke-our-first-rule.html http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sherlock-showrunner-prepping-season-4-669607 This page claims Gattis is: http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-07-17/gatiss-of-thrones-hbo-fantasy-show-casts-sherlock-showrunner-mark-gatiss This page claims they both are: http://www.assignmentx.com/2010/the-ax-interview-showrunners-steven-moffat-and-mark-gatiss-on-sherlock-and-doctor-who/

Is it properly established anywhere that Sherlock even has a showrunner? I notice the reference to it on the wiki page has now been removed which is probably smart. The best definitive info I could turn up with that Moffat and Gattis are co-creators/EP's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.150 (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

"Showrunner" is not an actual job. Not in the UK at least, so it's just newspapers using the word willy-nilly. Better not to use the word to avoid this sort of argument. Mezigue (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong release date of "Sherlock: The Network" App

it was released in January 2014 not 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.240.170 (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Many Happy Returns

This mini-episode is now available on the BBC's YouTube channel in the US and maybe elsewhere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwntNANJCOE. However, I don't know how to edit this into the article (or the UK-only bit out). Thanks to whoever can fix this, Zpletan (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Watch Many Happy Returns at this link- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwntNANJCOE //www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwntNANJCOE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.219.62 (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Special - Easter/Summer, not Christmas?

Reading the references, there is no mention of the special airing at Christmas. If anything, the assumption is that it will air earlier as the special is being filmed in January with the series to be filmed later in 2015. 86.25.135.140 (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Netlfix

Is it necessary under home release to mention that this is available on netflix. I mean how notable is this, and should we be promoting them over other similar companies.Blethering Scot 13:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Not notable at all. On-demand services such as Netflix should be regarded as just another rental service, so it falls under home media. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Now Airing on BBC America

The series starts with "A Study in Pink" 8 November 2014 on the BBC America channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubla (talk • contribs) 08:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

We usually don't bother with rebroadcasts, otherwise we'd have to dedicate an entire site to I Love Lucy. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The most number ?!

The linguistic catastrophe, "the most number of wins" currently occurs in the second paragraph of the article. Can someone, preferably at least semi-literate, please edit it to either "the greatest number of wins" or "the most wins". Jeez. (88.151.31.196 (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)).

Done, thanks for pointing it out. —Flax5 23:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Minisode

Why do we not count the minisode as an episode in the infobox. Is it because it wasnt broadcast traditionally? We include it in List of Sherlock episodes, so why wouldn't we include it in the infobox tally.Blethering Scot 22:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Check the numbering under "No. overall" in the List of Episodes page. "Many Happy Returns" is not counted as an episode as it was not televised. Alex|The|Whovian 22:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Then why list it in the episode list. This isn't being consistent. It either is a episode and should be listed in List of Sherlock episodes or it isn't. You can't have 1 rule for Sherlock (TV series) and one rule for List of Sherlock episodes.Blethering Scot 22:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Both pages follow the same rule. Both pages count up to a current total of 9 episodes. Episode 10 on this page will indicate the New Year's Special. Episode 10 on the List of Episodes page will indicate the New Year's Special. "Many Happy" returns is listed as an un-numbered episode. Alex|The|Whovian 22:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The clue is in the title of the page List of Episodes. You are saying it is not an episode, if it isn't then it should be deleted from List of Sherlock episodes.Blethering Scot 23:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to discuss this with you, but your incivility of captioning your edit summaries as "sigh" is making it hard to. It's a mini-episode, officially produced for the show, and is hence an episode "in its own right"; however, is it not a televised episode and does not get added to the number of televised episode. Alex|The|Whovian 23:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox starring

Shouldn't only Cumberbatch and Freeman be listed in the infobox since they're the only ones that receive opening credits billing, while all the others are in the end credits and thus, guest stars. As main cast is not determined by popularity, screen time, or episode count (per MOS:TVCAST). Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

British-American definition

I see there is a bit of an 'edit disturbance' going on over this British-American description. It took me a while to find out where the discussion was - it's actually here, and I have to say there's hardly a consensus. WGBH provide funding to a large number of British dramas, but does the descriptor normally just refer to who paid for it? I guess it does. Perhaps the best bet is just to remove that descriptor from the opening, which I have to say has become rather tangled in mentioning producers/companies/dates - it reads a bit like one of those interminable press releases that journalists turn into copy. Bob talk 22:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Manga

An Official Manga Adaptation is coming soon to Europe. Can this be mentioned?

http://www.cnet.com/news/miss-sherlock-let-the-manga-comics-coming-in-english-tide-you-over/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.232.121 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Done! The U.K./US release date will be 8 June, 2016. Caffeinated42 (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Setlock

Is there a reason that the Setlock phenomenon isn't mentioned? It has become such a big deal that it has affected filming.

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-11-25/sherlock-fans-have-changed-the-way-we-make-the-show-says-mark-gatiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caffeinated42 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)