There are some Sherlock quotes on the Doyle quotes page. Should those all be moved here? — Bobby D. Bryant 18:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sourcing and accuracyEdit
This page needs major sourcing and accuracy checks. Many quotes are paraphrases, and a lot do not have sources, which is just plain silly for quotes from a PD work. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm afraid it's a culture of complacency here. Not very many editors are particularly concerned about accuracy, and the couple of dozen who are can't clean up 4,500+ articles by themselves. We are still a long way from being a grown-up wiki project. The most frightening thing is that we may still be the most accurate quotes database on the Internet. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Once I'm in the same zip code as my copy of the Adventures, I'll check the quotes that I can and mark the ones I don't have access to. Kerowyn 03:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
There's something wrong in the quote attributed to "The Sign of Four" in the Assorted section. It looks like two quotes have been run together. (Feel free to remove this comment if you fix it.) – Bobby D. Bryant 10:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't object to the organization by theme, but it does not conform to the the layout specified by the template for literary works. Should we change it over? – Bobby D. Bryant 10:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- This article is a bit of an odd duck. It isn't really a literary work, but rather a compliation of literary works, which leaves it open to being treated like a theme, which seems to be how it's currently organized. Checking the history, I see that an anonymous user restructured the article from its earlier, somewhat disorganized grouping under "Sourced", into a thematic arragement. (Kalki had long ago sorted the quotes chronologically, but that apparently didn't last long.) I can understand the utility of such an organization, but it does tend to confuse and invite needless arguments over categorization and order.
- I highly recommend we re-establish a proper separation into sourced and attributed (assuming we have any of the latter), and group the quotes by work, sorted by publication date. Any one-quote works should be listed up front, followed by subheadings for multiply-quoted works. (Alternatively, we could just create subheadings for all the quoted works, which is a bit friendlier for inexperienced editors to add new quotes.) While we're at it, we should try to cite chapters, or page numbers (if we can cite a specific publication), to make it easier to verify the quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- I entirely agree with Jeff's recommendation. I might as well have a stab at re-formatting it myself, checking the accuracy of the quotes along the way, unless someone else wants to take the job on. Antiquary 17:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Page numbers in 'The Hound Of The Baskervilles'Edit
Are some of the page numbers for 'The Hound Of The Baskervilles' uncorrect? On some of them the page numbers of the quotes show numbers in the six hundreds. There are not even that many pages in the novel. Can someone please put in the correct numbers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) March 29, 2007 at 12:51 (UTC)
Shouldn't page numbers be sourced to Klinger's new The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes volumes? And not an old (1983) set of the canon? If something like the latter, why not the fairly new Barnes & Noble Classics two volume edition? But, I vote for someone with the Klinger volumes to update the quotes, if they can. I know it is a tall order.
Or, just no page numbers at all?
Tuckerresearch 19:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- If someone wishes to replace one edition with another, this is allowable; but the current page numbers, which all relate to a specific edition (The Penguin Complete Sherlock Holmes), ought to remain until the change has been made. - InvisibleSun 21:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Quick Watson the needleEdit
Isn't this one of the more famous non-quotations of Holmes, and deserving of a debunking here? TomS TDotO 14:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)