Jump to content

Talk:Sherlock (TV series)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Edits reverted

It seems astonishingly difficult these days to make any sort of improvement to an article without someone undoing it for a laugh. I just made two small adjustments to some text:

  1. "The third series has become the UK's most watched drama series since 2001." - changed "has become" to "was", because it hasn't just recently become that, it became it at the time of its transmission, which was two years ago.
  2. "The pilot, observes critic Mark Lawson when it was released on DVD..." - reworded, because Mark Lawson, should you be in his company right now, would not be seen to be observing things about the pilot of Sherlock. He did so in the past, though; thus, past tense is correct.

These changes were undone by someone who said "was fine". I think that using the present tense when you should use the past tense is not fine, actually, and I think mine was a really obvious edit to have made. But if it really needs discussing, then have at it. 86.185.226.91 (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I just read the bit about the critic again. In context, it actually probably makes more sense to write the sentence as, "Critic Mark Lawson observed that the pilot was "substantially expanded and rewritten, and completely reimagined in look, pace and sound."" Regarding your first point, I agree with your 100%. I'll make the change in a couple days unless any other editors voice their concerns here. -RM (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The IP's edits look like clear improvements to me. --JBL (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
They are not. 1) It is not a problem to use the present tense to summarise a review. It is a little unusual but perfectly correct. Changing it is misplaced pedanticism of the sort that holds that good writing is uniform writing - it is not. 2) Changing the tense about the record audience is also incorrect as it changes the meaning from "broke the record" to "held the record for a while", which is not what the source says. Finally, the editor is a banned user known for constant edit-warring, uncivil behaviour and wasting everyone's time and whom it is highly advised not to feed. Mezigue (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Obviously, (Redacted). If you would like others to delay rewrites until s/he goes away, that is fine with me. But that's not really an argument about whether the edits are good or not. --JBL (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
S/he never goes away for good and keeps revisiting the same pages. However, I did just argue that they are not good edits! Mezigue (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the redaction above; @MarnetteD: and @Favre1fan93:, you know I respect you both tremendously, but that comment more than contravenes WP:NPA. I know this IP frustrates everyone here tremendously, but the personal attack simply isn't appropriate, and does nothing to help the situation. Consequently, I've restored the redaction. --Drmargi (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, if User:86.185.226.91 persist in removing my comment regarding the frustration of other editors under the IP User:94.117.87.110 or any other IP, I will restore the original attack and wash my hands of this. I've left a comment on his/her talk page suggesting he/she quit while they're ahead. --Drmargi (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
And there we see how much WP:NPA means to you. If you think that merely being called "frustrating" for having my edits constantly reverted means I'm "ahead", you've obviously confused this for some very weird game, which I in fact am not playing. 94.117.39.40 (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Nationality

User:Whatcha2016 is wondering why this show is described as both American and British. Can anybody help? --John (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes: Talk:List of Sherlock episodes#US viewers Alex|The|Whovian? 11:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not wondering though because there is no production done in America and it is entirely made by British production teams here in Britain. To say that it is British-American is ridiculous because of this and staking a claim on a British show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatcha2016 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you even read the discussion I just linked you to. Also, indent and sign your posts. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Alex, what is the criterion for considering something "British/American"? --John (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but the editor apparently has no plans to discuss this, and has been warned and reported for edit warring and violating 3RR. Alex|The|Whovian? 13:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
As is shown in the closing credits of each episode it is a Brit/US co-production. Without the money from the US the show would likely not get made. This is a fact of life nowadays for many programmes made in the UK. MarnetteD|Talk 13:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
For the record here are but one, two and three reliable sources discussing the co-productions between the BBC and PBS. All of them mention Sherlock. There are others sources out there but these should suffice to make the point. AtW feel free to add these as refs if you feel that will help. MarnetteD|Talk 14:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 Done Alex|The|Whovian? 14:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Alex, what is the criterion for considering something "British/American"? --John (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

As with everything else at WikiP it is reliable sources. Those have been provided. MarnetteD|Talk 17:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The Abominable Bride just won the Emmy for Best Television Film. Rebecca Eaton was on stage with Moffat and Vertue, and Moffat acknowledged Sherlock as a BBC and PBS/Masterpiece co-production. That, my friends, is British-American. Interestingly, I never see any sources produced by those editors who claim Sherlock is only financed by PBS. --Drmargi (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The concept was British. Hartswood films makes it for the BBC, which has a big say in the how things go. The financing is by the BBC and Boston. The text read like it was produced in the USA and the UK. I rewrote this for clarity, as the text was clunky, and I did not add any new information just making reading easier. Existing sources are backing this up. But some keep reverting for some mysterious reason. 94.3.125.209 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Crown (TV series)#British or American-British?. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

series 5

As far as I remember everyone said (in 2016) that there will be no further seasons due to unavailability of the main actors. Should be sourced and included, if it's so. --grin ✎ 07:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Moffat debunked this as a mere rumour; it's not true. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2017

A request for more information to be added; in the section describing Series 4, information about the online leak of a Russian cut of the series' final episode, 'The Final Problem'. References below: http://globalnews.ca/news/3181616/russian-version-of-sherlock-season-finale-leaks-before-premiere/ http://www.nme.com/news/tv/sherlock-leaked-final-episode-producers-respond-1944731 http://www.itv.com/news/2017-01-14/sherlock-producers-issue-spoiler-alert-after-final-episode-is-leaked-online/Sanjuniperobeach (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Sanjuniperobeach (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 The article can wait the 20 hours until the official release is shown MarnetteD|Talk 23:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

The section "Possible season 5" - could someone amend it from...

There has currently been no official announcement for series 5

In January 2014, Moffat stated that a fifth series had been plotted by himself and Gatiss,[98].

...to...

There has currently been no official announcement for series 5.

In January 2014, Moffat stated that a fifth series had been plotted by himself and Gatiss.[98]

(Adding a full-stop at the end of the first sentence, and removing an extraneous comma before the cite in the second sentence, and moving the final full-stop to before the cite.)

The two sentences could maybe be joined together as well?

Thank you! 80.229.60.197 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done as it appears since the request, the section has been reformatted and the issue has been taken care of. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
No problem, the new version looks better! 80.229.60.197 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Genre

AlexTheWhovian, Drmargi, why does the article specify only one genre? On the Channel One website (Sherlock distributor) stated that it is a detective and thriller. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You're using a secondary source to support the description, not the BBC or PBS. Neither of them describes Sherlock in that way. If you can gain consensus for the addition, then fine. But one source, and the Russian distributor at that, versus the BBC and PBS descriptions isn't a strong rationale for the addition. --Drmargi (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
On BBC and PBS websites have a genre? Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Critical Reception

This section needs to be updated to reflect reaction to the latest season, something like "The show has met with critical acclaim. Sherlock sustained positive reviews during its first three series, although critical reaction to the fourth was mixed." This seems like an oversight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.71.136 (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I had updated with the critical aspects but it gets reverted without explanation. If someone doesn't argument the reasons in the talk page, i'm going to redo the update. 87.16.251.194 (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
A) you are not responding to the point the other IP made last month. B) The items are not part of reception by critics. C) The items you are trying to insert violate WP:UNDUE. The sources are WP:PRIMARY - until the are commented on by reliable WP:SECONDARY sources they do not belong in this article. This is an encyclopedia not a WP:WEBHOST for fan complaints. Basically they are saying "you should have written the show the way we want it written" and not the way you wrote it. There are plenty of places on the net where the complaints can be aired. Wikipedia is not one of them. MarnetteD|Talk 16:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I concur. This Johnlock/writers lied business isn't notable and represents at best, a fringe perspective on the show. I can see adding critics' comments on Season 4, as they weren't as favorable, but not niche fan groups' perspectives on the show. That belongs on a fan site or a wiki. --Drmargi (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Drmagi's comments. However, purely from an analytical perspective (i.e. Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, etc.), series 4 scored notably lower than previous series. I mean, the page even displays Metacritic scores for the first three seasons. Why not update it to include the score for season 4? Right now it comes off like Sherlock fans are trying to prevent the page from saying anything negative about the show.
I don't think there's any particular effort to keep negative reviews out so much as no one has bothered to add them. --Drmargi (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sherlock (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sherlock (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy of Future Speculations- Discuss

The section Episodes--Future claims "Cumberbatch is signed for a fifth series.[1]" While the source does have a headline claiming that Cumberbatch has "signed up" for series 5, this claim is not mentioned in the article, let alone providing direct quotes. Moreover, even though 4 years have elapsed, I can’t find any other source making this claim. It seems unlikely to be accurate. Can anyone find a better source? Can it be removed? Allthegoodnamesaretaken2 (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Sherlock Fans, Rejoice! Benedict Cumberbatch Signs up for Two More Series". International Business Times. 9 January 2014.
Part of the problem is your source. IBTimes is one of a number of publications that pass on what's published elsewhere, often inaccurately. As such, they are tertiary sources, and of questionable reliability. Can you find anything in a reputable media source? If not, that should tell you something about the reliability of the information you want to add to the article. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 09:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

British series

There has been extended discussion here, here and here about the nationality of television series, with particular reference to British series that are financially supported by and shown in the US under the PBS Masterpiece brand. This question has been raised before here, in archived discussions on this page. The revised television MoS now rests upon direct referencing and the exercise of creative control as the determinants of the nationality (country of origin).

In the case of Sherlock, its nationality as a British series is confirmed by referencing CNN[1], Encyclopaedia Britannica (US owned)[2], Hollywood Reporter[3], variety.com[4], Newsweek.com[5], bookmans.com[6], Time Magazine [7], comicbook.com[8], Washington Post[9], America Magazine[10], indiewire[11], complex.com[12] as well theaustralian.com.au, as a whole host of British RS. That creative control sat in the UK is widely recognised and confirmed by published interviews with PBS executives. MapReader (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Live experience in London

There is now a live 'escape room' style experience in London, produced with Hartswood Films in collaboration with Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, called The Game is Now — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorMilton (talk • contribs) 00:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019

I want to edit it because I find out some error. Cyx080605 (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please let us know what errors there are and what the fix is. RudolfRed (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Line Chart or Bar Chart

I believe that a bar chart would be more suitable for the "Metacritic ratings per series". A line Chart implies continuity whereas in our case, we have three different series to compare. Cinadon36 07:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

Upon a request from a user, I have some things to say about the Infobox.

If the show is a UK-US co-production, why does the country part of it only list the UK? The Infobox rules only allow the broadcaster of where the show was made to be placed in there, with few exceptions.

And why is BBC One HD listed? It’s just a simulcast channel.

Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It is produced IN the UK. It is produced BY ITV (UK) and WGBH Boston/Masterpiece (US). The infobox is accurate. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, okay then. I'll ignore the page from now on. Luigitehplumber (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Sociopath

I feel like the bit about "The part is modelled as a charismatic secondary psychopath or 'High functioning sociopath' as Sherlock self describes, unlike Doyle's rendering as a primary psychopath, thereby allowing more opportunity or ambiguity for traits of empathy" could usefully make clear that this description of Doyle's Holmes is the opinion of a single neuroscientist, and possibly also that Moffat has stated Sherlock's claim of being a high-functioning sociopath is "bullshitting" in this interview.86.132.127.65 (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sherlock_(TV_series)/Archive_2&oldid=1166226657"