Talk:Sherlock Holmes (2009 film)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

Gay Portrayl

there has got to be a more reputable source, but this may be worth mentioning. (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, they clearly don't get the meaning of bromance... Alientraveller (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
"IT'S shockingly eleMENtary, my queer Watson." Christ...--EchetusXe 01:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Official site

I added a link to Sherlock Holmes Official Site although there's nothing yet but the title of the movie. --Mortrainey (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The article sounds like a press release

Just saying. (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr Watson was not a "former soldier". He was a military surgeon, who had seen active service in the Indian subcontinent. I am glad that Jude Law didn't think it necessary to portray him as a bumbling fool. The 1940's version of Nigel Bruce was something of a buffoon, but no fool. (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a worry when American's try to make a film on a classic British subject. It was more of a worry that the lead had obviously never heard of Sherlock Holmes. And even more worrying that the producer feels that the American's British accent is "flawless". I have yet to hear a modern American actor with a genuine-sounding British accent - they used to be rather better at accents before the "method" school meant that American actors mumbled and dissembled through their lines. (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well not all British actors have rock solid American accents either. Very few are flawless, but not all. Anyhow, how does this help the article?--Mike Allen 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't. As a general rule, anonymous IPs don't have anything to say. That's why they're anonymous IPs: They can't be bothered. (Luckily, Wp coddles them more than named users so... here I am!!) (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hate to break it to you, but you're not anonymous. —Mike Allen 02:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I so clearly am. (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What could be added...

I saw the movie today and although it may not be important I think some of the movie has to do with Watson and his date and stuff like that. I think more than a little portion of the movie focused on that. At least I think so... Jasonxu98 (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. I updated it.--EchetusXe 01:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Explanations

[Editorial comment removed to article and put here on talk page instead.] -- Horkana (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of scientific expltios given by Homes for the marvels performed by Lord Blackwood would anyone care to discuss them. -- by RichardBond (talk)

Another edit expanding on the trickery used by Blackwood which to be fair is not really essential to the plot and was removed but could still be reintroduced to the article in some other way, such as explaining the scientific basis for the tricks under the production section.
I have incidentally been careful to keep mentions of the tripwires and glass blade used by Blackwood in the script as they are an important part of the Plot, clear examples of his trickery hinting at rational explanations for other occurrences. -- Horkana (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


"Sherlock Holmes" is a popular children's classic. The ratings of this film will be of particular interest to parents. Two different editors added this information to the article, and two others editors have edited and restored it after it was deleted by others. The information is properly footnoted. The burden of justification falls on those who would remove it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it does not stand up to Wikipedia's notability or worldview guidelins. I am removing and you must establish notability in order to include it. Sorry! Ratings must be notable, as in covered by third-party sources. I am failing to see why SH was rated PG-13 by the MPAA in the United States is notable, or why it would be important from a worldview perspective. If there is a third-party source available, feel free to re-add it. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Nowhere in the links you provided do I see that MPAA and BBFC classifications are non-notable. They are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles devoted to them. The information is displayed prominently at the beginning of almost all previews and in advertising for movies because of its notability. The information includes the UK and the US, the two largest English-speaking countries. How can you assert there is a Worldview bias? --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Because you are focusing on the rating systems of only two countries. Also, films are required to show ratings, not because they are notable. You can't say they are notable just because they exist. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
See here for third party notability. If the New York Times puts the information at the head of its film overview along with director and cast, it is certainly notable enough for the Wikipedia. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
This is not coverage, it is just a listing. You need significant coverage, which is more than a trivial mention. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please reread this section: Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The ratings reference only the main page, then readers must type in Sherlock Holmes to reveal the ratings. Also, why is this notable? Were the filmmakers aiming at a particular rating? I mean what is the point? IMDb has all of this information. Oh and yeah you can also ignore a rule that prevents "improving" an article, but how is this improving it? —Mike Allen 23:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the link to the MPAA site you mention, there did not seem to be a way to directly link to the MPAA page that provides the actual rating, so I put in the best one I could think of. Including the rating improves the article by adding information useful to the reader. Just because it is available on other web sites, such as IMDB, does not mean it should not be added to the Wikipedia. (We wouldn't have much information in the Wikipedia, if this was a rule.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I know, that is my point—there isn't a way to directly link to the page. Also, again, why is notable, other than it being "useful" to the reader? If it was given an X rating and was then changed to a R rating, or was banned in a certain country. Then yes I would say it would be notable. But just to be useful to the reader? No. About IMDb, this is the same reason why we don't list every single production company or distributor for every country. The same applies to ratings—because we can't list EVERY English-speaking countries ratings. You can take to this to WP:FILM to see what others think. —Mike Allen 00:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The PG-13 rating is also given in detail at the bottom of the actual NY Times review before the cast and crew listing. I can use the link to that article. Its inclusion by the NY Times article is substantial coverage and sufficient justification for including it in this article. There is no requirement that the rating be discussed separately elsewhere in the article, any more than we require the length of the movie to be discussed as a separate issue. --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify why I reverted the deletion, the summary stated "Classification: removed section, not supported by WP:FILM)" which is a poor reason to delete a section. Failing Notability is a suitable reason to delete a section, although my personal preference would be to mark it as citation needed and challenge editors to show the section has some special notability. In some cases wildly different ratings in different countries can be notable. (The MPAA website is also woeful and not a useful source of anything.) -- Horkana (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out above the notability guidelines only apply to inclusion of articles, not the content of the articles. If two IPs took the trouble to add the information, and it is routinely covered by the mainstream media as an attribute important to their readers, it is certainly important enough to include in the Wikipedia. Also, the info box includes an item "Country" which lists United States and United Kingdom. The ratings from both these countries were included. I don't see this as a bias. --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Horkana, I should have been more precise. But I mean really, the reason it's "not supported" by the Film project, is for the reasons listed above. —Mike Allen 00:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The rating is also given as vital information by the Washington Post: "'Sherlock Holmes,' a Warner Bros. release, is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some startling images and a scene of suggestive material. Running time: 129 minutes. Three stars out of four." Sorry Mike, but your arguments do not seem to be supported by the real world. --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
These are all trivial mentionings, it is just listed. Coverage needs to be more than just a mention. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You assert that but but do not support your assertion. If and when the NY Times and the Washington Post stop giving this information about films, then your assertion might be considered correct. Are "Warner Bros." and "Running time" and "three stars out of four" also trivial? No. Just you asserting that it is trivial does not make it so. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Both The New York Times and The Washington Post are Wikipedia-qualified credible sources and have limited copy space, but their editors choose to include the ratings information. This is sufficient evidence that the information is nontrivial. We do not need to provide any more evidence to support that argument. If you disagree, I suggest you write letters to their editors and convince them of your point of view. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
We are not NYT or Washington Post. It is a trivial mentioning. I also think the running time is not notable, but that is for another time and another place. The rating is a summary of there review, which is often but not always included in the reception sections, and the production company is clearly notable, as they produced the film. In no way is the MPAA rating notable here, nor the BBFC rating. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As an English language film and an English production I can see reasons why the ratings for the UK and possibly the US might be included in this article. You make a good point that it is about as notable as the runtime and we include that, but hardly any film articles include ratings and consistency is important too. If you can give something to establish a little bit more notability I'd like to support you on including this but it doesn't seem like any of the reviewers are noting the rating beyond plainly stating it. Even a criticism that it is underrated for the level of violence or something small like that might be enough. -- Horkana (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Horkana. If there is a source stating that a (notable) reviewer (i.e., no forums, blogs, etc...) found that the rating was too high or too low, then I could see its inclusion. BOVINEBOY2008 :)02:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, everyone! This is already covered in the guidelines because this kind of discussion has happened in the past: MOS:FILM#Ratings. Unless there is something worth noting about the Sherlock Holmes film rating, it does not warrant inclusion. Erik (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Erik. That is what I have been trying to say, at least I think. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I just shifted my support for Robert Allen to away from his position after reviewing many articles on WP, and I appreciate Erik's mention of MOS:FILM#Ratings which I think supports the current position. Here is a copy of what I wrote on Robert Allen's user talk page
I regret to say that I have shifted my thinking on this. Regardless of vague policy, de facto WP has discussed movie ratings whenever there is a public controversy over the ratings. All of the following films have had their MPAA ratings discussed on Wikipedia
Last Tango in Paris
Crash (1996 film)
Boys Don't Cry
Swimming Pool
Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!
Live Free or Die Hard
The Fly II
Eyes Wide Shut
Angel Heart
Dracula (1958)
Facing the Giants
Coming Soon (1999
In all cases there was public controversy over whether the rating was appropriate or over the granting of Adults Only to such a high-profile film. The closest we get to the issues you raise of Sherlock Holmes is the film Live Free or Die Hard since it is the 4th film a series in which the first three are rated R, but this one a mere PG-13. So the precedent of previous practice seems to be to discuss film ratings whenever there is a lot of public discussion about them. This has not in fact happened with the Sherlock Holmes films. There should be no surprise there. It has the same PG-13 rating as recent James Bond films and recent Star Trek films. I therefore respectfully state that I side with the majority, although I think it was technically incorrect to appeal to WP:Notability as that effects the existence of entire articles, and they should instead of appealed to WP:Indiscriminate. Sometimes editors make the right decision but appeal imprecisely to the wrong policy.
--WickerGuy (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Erik and WickerGuy have helped me understand the policy, and I can see why it is there. I suppose we are putting film ratings under category 3: "Excessive listing of statistics" which happens when every geographic rating area has to be included. But the New York Times includes them not only in the review of the film (at the bottom with details about why the particular rating was given), but also at the top of the "Overview" page. According to my dictionary an "overview" is a summary of main points. The Times includes the rating in a prime position at the top of the Overview page along with Director and Cast. So I don't agree that the rating itself can be categorized as an "excessive" statistic. It's just unfortunate that we would have to include so many to comply with the worldwide view requirement. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Budget could not possibly be 18 million.

The source isn't online, but I wouldn't believe it in any event. I mean, c'mon. Is that a typo? They couldn't have hired the actors for that much. Either find a better source, or delete the budget until a reliable source can be found.Xfpisher (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems such references are allowed on Wikipedia. Personally I do not like citing magazines and books. Why? How are we supposed to verify it? Take the person who added the reference word for it or go out and buy the book or magazine? I understand that not everything is on the internet, but most is. Also we can't add a site you must pay to view as a reference, but books are Ok. I don't get it. —Mike Allen 19:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
None of the sites like box office mojo, IMDb, etc, are listing a budget for this film. Guy Ritchie is on record as saying it's his biggest budget film by far--therefore bigger than Rocknrolla, which IMDb says had a budget of--wait for it--18 million dollars. It's ridiculous to leave that budget up, because of a cited source that is clearly incorrect, and can't even be checked--and might possibly be a matter of somebody misreading the article in question, and taking Rocknrolla's budget for Sherlock Holmes'. Seriously--it's IMPOSSIBLE for Rocknrolla and Sherlock Holmes to have been made for the same amount of money. If that were true, they'd be bragging about it all over the media as we speak. There is nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines that says you have to tell people what a film's budget is, even if you don't know. 180 million is more like it, but for the moment, we just don't know what it cost to make it. Is somebody going to delete that obviously inaccurate quote, or should I? Xfpisher (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's just wait to see what others have to say. —Mike Allen 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Somebody found another source, which is online, and says the budget is a 'reported' 80mil. I really really doubt it's that low, but at least it's POSSIBLE. Xfpisher (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
You should understand that production budgets are only estimates. Most producers/directors don't even announce what the correct production budget is. So if the movie flops, they can still say that made a profit. 80 million sounds believable. This is the best source we have, and it's better than nothing, IMO. —Mike Allen 19:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I do understand that production budgets are estimates--and in fact, there can be many 'correct' figures, which makes reporting production budgets dicey at best, when the studio won't release an estimate. I see it's gone up again--to 90mil. I'm not doing anything here--I've never edited this article. I think that when the smoke has cleared, it'll turn out to be higher than that. But in NO ALTERNATE DIMENSION COULD IT EVER HAVE BEEN 18MIL. That quote should NEVER have been allowed to stand, for even five minutes.Xfpisher (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I changed it to $90 million per a new source I found (LA Times). I must have never thought about it, or I'm sure it would have raised some red flags with me. The correct budget could have been posted and an anon IP changed it to 18 as vandalism and it never got noticed. Who knows, what's done is done, and it's changed now. Thank you for bringing it up. —Mike Allen 03:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome, and good job. But somebody just changed it back to 80mil. Obviously the L.A. Times source is better and 90mil is much likelier than 80mil. Again, it'll probably be over 100mil when the smoke clears. Xfpisher (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh you would have known it was some IP that changed it, BUT left the source as it was. LOL. Changed back. Thanks for letting me know. —Mike Allen 23:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Update. I don't know when, but Box Office Mojo added the budget to its page.[1], and it's $90 million. Lol —Mike Allen 05:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Marketing campaign

Some resources for the marketing of the movie:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaa abdelmoneim (talkcontribs) 17:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Q&A with Robert Downey Jr.

Might be useful in the casting or production section: The hollywood reporter

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaa abdelmoneim (talkcontribs) 17:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Moriarty/Accessdates citation formatting

Some reviews credit Ed Tolputt as playing Moriarty, IMDB credits him only as Anonymous man. Would have to be careful but this could probably be added alongside the note on Moriarty. -- Horkana (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed it. I didn't know we used IMDd as sources, but then I woke up and realized we copy/paste the cast from IMDb all the time, so we must be permitted to use it (it won't look good on a GA/FA review however). I personally would only cite AMG (All Movie), but that's me, and they do not mention this "Anonymous Man" anywhere. Will have to wait until the DVD to see what or if he is credited. Oh, and I couldn't fit all that I did with that edit in the edit summary, sorry. —Mike Allen 05:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
There were two citations, one in the middle of the sentence for imdb just to show that was his credited name, and an imdb link is better than no link. The reference text could be improved to explain that. There was a second link at the end of a sentence to a reviewer asserting that Ed Tolputt was playing Moriarty. (Even before the DVD is out there are streaming sites with the film, so I might be able to double check the actual credits if you insist.) -- Horkana (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
OT: I had no idea that moustache was BE, or I wouldn't have changed it. Also, I'll need to update all the dates and accessdates to accompany BE, to 29 January, 2010 etc, I believe is how the Brits do it. —Mike Allen 05:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I was getting to the dates. The policies are frankly rubbish but within that I'm going to use them to my purpose. At least linked dates could be adjusted to display according to your preferences but "the consensus" decided to get rid of them. I am going to revert most of the date changes, intermediate edits have made that task much more difficult than a single undo, this change was overreaching. We will need to discuss this change it is not as clear as many editors seem to think. Definitely do not change the accessdates, the rules do not require any format for the accessdates. You can argue for the "date" format if you must, it probably should be British format, but accessdates are supposed to follow whatever precedent the article already uses and I format citations very deliberately. This is horribly inconsistent and daft policy that a strong preference for the date format is enforced but format for accessdate is supposedly not required but since the inconsistency is there and I'm allowed to keep the accessdates formats the way they were I'm going to have to insist.
Again I would have done a quick undo if intermediate edits hadn't gotten in the way but please be careful about the formatting of authors in citations, I doubt you write your own name as "Allen, Mike" very often (unless maybe your a big fan of "Bond, James"). Please format authors using first = Mike | last = Allen or as author = Mike Allen. Do not format as author = "Allan, Mike". I will be correcting those as I go, either putting the names back to normal order or splitting them but definitely not changing the order or putting a comma anywhere near the author parameter. There is no requirement to do this, it's just neater and tidier. The citations in the article were very carefully and deliberately formatted and changed from bare links to citations with proper names.
I might temporarily add empty fields/parameters to citations. Please do not delete them, feel free to fill them if you can. I think it is worth backing up some of the better sources in an article, especially those from publishers like the BBC or the Guardian that don't have obnoxious NOARCHIVE policies. -- Horkana (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, it only makes logical sense to keep the accessdate in the same format with the date. Also, what is the difference in using the last= name= instead of using author=Allen, Mike? It still renders the same format, with the comma. The policies may be "rubbish", but I try and play by the rules, and if I don't like them, then I bring it up on the necessary board. I don't quite understand why you're always bitter about a consensus that has already been established on Wikipedia. Anyways, my question was, do we go by the British date formats or the English, since this is a British article? But it seems everything I do (that is within what we are supposed to be doing) will be reverted, so it may be best that I leave this article. I have other projects anyways.. too many, I might add, so this is probably best. Good day and good luck with a FA review. —Mike Allen 20:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The mix of changes you made in your edit made it hard to undo and I went out of my way to make corrections piece by piece rather than in one big revert. I am making an effort here. Author names are a matter of correctness, my preference was to keep it simple and just use "author" and that is how I added the authors when I converted the bare links to proper citations. If you want to be stricter and more complicated then be _properly strict_ and correct, use separate parameters for each author or the separate first last parameters.
I'll assume you meant British or American. As the character Sherlock Holmes and is the director of this film is British the correct answer according to the guidelines would be to use the British date format "1 January 2010" as you said. Making that change is the absolute lowest priority for me, I'll leave it to editors with automated tools.
The accessdate policies seem to moving again, to not even recommending accessdates anymore. In the long run accessdates will be a lot less important when more references are preemptively archived or backed-up. The way you want to do it will probably be forced soon but date formatting will probably eventually go full circle and end up with a system that allows dates to be presented as users prefer, Template:Start date is a sort of wiki-linked date all over again. -- Horkana (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
So you're saying only what you do on this article is the "correct" way? God I hope in 6 years, I don't sound this bitter. LOL —Mike Allen 04:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Track listing

  1. Discombobulate (2:25)
  2. Is It Poison, Nanny? (2:53)
  3. I Never Woke Up In Handcuffs Before (1:44)
  4. My Mind Rebels At Stagnation (4:31)
  5. Data, Data, Data (2:15)
  6. He's Killed The Dog Again (3:15)
  7. Marital Sabotage (3:44)
  8. Not In Blood, But In Bond (2:13)
  9. Ah, Putrefaction (1:50)
  10. Panic, Sheer Bloody Panic (2:38)
  11. Psychological Recovery... 6 Months (18:18)
  12. Catatonic (6:44)

what about Rocky Road to Dublin? there's no mention of that song anywhere on the page yet it was used several times during the film. MrRandomPerson (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Plot Summary Length

I did some minor cleanup in this section and was able to cut out about 200 words (it was at 994 before I did this, which is a three page essay). I just drew up an outline for the plot and am hoping, this week, to use it to help trim down that section even more. Just wanted to throw out a heads up in case I accidentally cut something relevant, or anyone else was planning to do likewise. Millahnna (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've copied this entire page to my sandbox (see my user page) for me to play with so that I can see the plot section in context with the rest of the article. I expect to have a major rewrite of the plot up on Saturday or so but would like input before I actually copy it here. I invite anyone with this page on their watchlist to add my Sandbox so they can see the proposed changes when I update. I've added a section for the film to the sandbox talk page, as well. Other than the obvious length issue, some things I want to address are internal links to things that don't really need them (e.g 1891) while obvious links are not included (title character with huge cultural background). I'd appreciate any thoughts from others who have an interest in the article's plot section. Millahnna (mouse)talk 23:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the 1891 internal link, I think it is necessary. If the reader wants, he/she can familiarize him/herself with the historic events that happened in the world that year to better understand the film setting. Wikipedia’s power and beauty lie in its internal links. --TheBearPaw (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I'll leave it then. Thanks. I'm fighting with the beast in my Sandbox now. If no one comments on it there, I'll just bring it over in a day or so. It's not like we can't just revert it if I make it suckier. Millahnna (mouse)talk 08:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A new version of this is sitting here and I have some notes up on the talk page. It took a few tries to get everything I can stand to find right now; you know how those fine tuning edits can go. I cut it by about half (down to 500-ish from 994) so I could really use some input from more experienced editors on whether or not I cut too much or could still kill even more. More pairs of eyes for general proofing purposes wouldn't suck, either. Again, if no one takes a poke, I will just bring it over in a day or so (I'll likely take another pass tomorrow, first) and see how it fairs. Millahnna (mouse)talk 10:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice job summarizing it further! I endorse the summary as long as a couple of changes are made. First, I would avoid quoting dialogue. WP:FILMPLOT says, "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail." I think one can write about the events without using a character's lines. Also, the long dashes seem out of place and may not be formatted quite right. I suggest looking at MOS:DASH to see if they need to be used and how they should be used. Erik (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The em dashes used according to policy (parenthetical and sharp break) but they look weird to me too (one came from original summary, the other is mine). I'll tweak some wording around them and the quotes on my second pass. Thanks for the help! Millahnna (mouse)talk 23:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Tower Bridge

The article was changed to say the bridge being constructed was Westminster Bridge rather than Tower Bridge because it doesn't make sense.

unfinished Westminster Bridge (Tower Bridge could not have been the correct reference. The three actors emerge from Parliament to the bridge; Tower bridge is ~3 miles away)

A fictional film need not make sense and allowing for artistic license the bridge could be the more dramatic looking Tower Bridge. It is unusual to have citations for the Plot section but this item probably needs verification, and I've also added a citation request on the note in the Westminster Bridge article about it appearing in Sherlock Holmes. Certainly it looks a lot more like the [pictures of Tower Bridge].
Now that I've noted the issue here I'm going to delete from the Plot section the editoral comment about how it must be the Westminster bridge. -- Horkana (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've found at least one reference to assert it's the Tower Bridge. (Heck, even if the geography is wrong, the year is right: the bridge would have still been under construction at the time of the movie). Also, the chase could have gone through the sewers - or onto waiting boats and onto the bridge (cut in post-production). But basically there's no way it's similar-looking to the Westminster bridge. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It is definitely Tower Bridge. For the following reasons:
  • They pass the bridge under construction earlier in the film and discuss it being the first combined bascule and suspension bridge, which type of bridge Tower Bridge is.
  • A shot of the Palace of Westminster before Blackwood's appearance in the Houses of Parliament shows Westminster Bridge in the middle ground as complete with vehicles crossing it.
  • The film, like the stories, is set in the 1880s or 1890s by which time Westminster Bridge, built in the 1860s, was finished.
  • Tower Bridge was not under construction in the 1860s, but between 1886 and 1894. File:Tower bridge works 1892.jpg, already on the Tower Bridge article, shows the bridge in September 1892 with construction somewhat further advanced from the depiction in the film (span of pedestrian walkways completed and stonework underway).
--DavidCane (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't think it was Westminster bridge but wondered if I was missing something and perhaps the other editor who changed it knew something I didn't. Now I feel I, and any other editor have more than enough information to revert if anyone tries to change it again. It's odd to have citations in the plot summary (and the review does just assert rather than prove it is Tower Bridge, so maybe that citation will be dropped later) but it is good to have things clear and unambiguous like a good encyclopedia. I hope we can consider this case closed. Thanks again. -- Horkana (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I also concluded it was Tower Bridge based on its location and the relative location of St. Paul's. It is a mystery to me how the pursuit could go from Parliament to the Tower Bridge. It also seems to me that they emerge on the south side of the Tower Bridge, so they must also have crossed the river to get there. But I'm not 100% sure they emerge on the south side of the bridge. Anyway, movie makers often make these geographical mistakes to promote the scene. Jnmwiki (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"Meat or potatoes?"

Is it a reference to Bullet Tooth Tony's line from "Snatch"? "So, you are obviously the big dick and the men on the side of ya are your balls." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Content Dispute: Reviews

One editor seems to feel that one notable reviewer, David Stratton, does not know enough about the source material for his reviewed to be used. I wanted to find out what other editors thought of this. I haven't read any Holmes stories in about 20 kajillion years so I may have missed something but I didn't notice anything in his review that stated he was inexperienced with the source material. The editor in question seems to feel that his criticisms of the fighting are the key issue as literary Holmes was involved in fights. But 1. I see this as a POV interpretation of the editor's meaning and 2. not a valid reason to remove a notable reviewer according to any policy I'm aware of. SO like I said, am I missing something? I'm hoping the editor will engage here instead of continuing to revert. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

One example of why his review is wrong is how he describes that the version of Sherlock in the movie is a travesty to Conan Doyle because he is a fighter and adept at using weapons. A quote from chapter 2 of the first Sherlock Holmes story ever written, Watson describes Holmes as "an expert singlestick player(fencing), boxer and swordsman." In parts of other stories he fights and is described as an expert at a certain type of karate which I don't know at the time, but if you would like I can find more quotes to prove Stratton wrong. 1. This is not a point of view, when the books prove Stratton wrong, it becomes fact and 2. taking a review off that is and can continue to be proved inaccurate is as valid as a reason to remove the review as any. 3. The excerpt from the article used on Wikipedia is talking about the fighting, if an criticism of something else that is accurate is added in that would be acceptable. I do not believe that when reading critical responses that readers of Wikipedia should be getting inaccurate information. Removing or replacing inaccurate info is why people are allowed to review and remove content. Jlavigne5771 (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
To my knowledge, Holmes never actually fought in the Doyle stories, Watson merely recounted how Holmes could handle himself if necessary. Now, I could very well be wrong in this case, as I'm just going by memory (which can easily be misremembered). If that is the case, then Stratton does have a point, as in the film we actively see Holmes fighting. In any such case, one's lack of knowledge of a source material does not negate one's credibility as a film reviewer - it merely makes one look ignorant. If I am wrong in my memory, and as such Stratton is wrong with his, then it is not our place to say who can and cannot look ignorant. So long as his review is professionally written, and we are only sharing his personal thoughts on why he felt the movie wasn't that good and not our own personal opinions of his personal opinions (if that makes any sense), then I don't know why we cannot have his review. If those are the reasons why he disliked the film (and I'm assuming he disliked the film based on those comments alone and not having read the review myself), then so be it. If there are other reasons why, and no other critic shares his opinions on the fighting in the film, then use the other reasons just to save any further arguments.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Information on Wikipedia does not have to be correct, it just has to be properly sourced to reliable third party (and notable) publications. This entry is. —Mike Allen 01:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as MikeAllen when the information is wrong, it is not a reliable third Party. As for the fighting I know once instance appears in either "The Final Problem" or "The Adventure of the Empty House." I am trying to find quotes to back this up, I will post them as soon as i find them. Jlavigne5771 (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a fistfight at the end of Terror by Night. (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I will find the fights and post them tomorrow, I have stuff to do tonight. also as far as BIGNOLE goes, I have no problem with his opinion being on wikipedia if it can be pointed out that his opinion is based on wrong information. Sadly most people do not know the true Sherlock i.e. being addicted to cocaine. Jlavigne5771 (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is it so important to include Stratton's review? It shouldn't be removed because it's disliked, but it's just unnecessary.  Chickenmonkey  01:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This all started when Jlavinge tried to add this text (copied from edit history):

"Although in the article Stratton states that the version of Holmes as "adept at fisticuffs, a dab hand with weapons, a kung-fu master..." as this travesty, it is obvious that Stratton was speaking of the way Holmes was depicted in previous works of film and television as all of those features fits the version of Holmes created By Conan Doyle perfectly."

My take on this was that this was a very POV edit. Stratton could have meant the style of fighting; he states that Holmes is a master of kung fu in his initial list of criticisms. Stratton goes on in a later paragraph to specify, "Robert Downey Jr, is cast as Holmes, and he goes along with Ritchie's concept of Holmes as a dishevelled, unshaven fighter more than a thinker." To my eye, both of these thoughts leave plenty of doubt as to whether or not the fighting itself was the reviewer's specific issue so much as the manner in which it was used.

Since both of these thoughts from the review itself led to my view that the edit was extremely POV, I reverted it. At this point Jlavinge decided to remove the review in its entirety. In answer to Chickenmonkey's question, I don't really care about the specific review in and of itself. My understanding of film project guidelines are that we should attempt to provide multiple views when available from notable sources. Removing Stratton's review would still leave one negative review in the article (and two positive ones), so perhaps that would be fine. I DO, however, care that about the escalation from the original edit to this point, which is why I asked for additional views.. Millahnna (mouse)talk 13:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't talk about my way or the highway or personal attacks. I don't see how you can interpret this as the possibility of Stratton meaning the style of fighting, when Stratton is speaking only to the fact of him being adept at fisticuffs. That is your POV and a baseless one at that. With my way or the highway, what have you been doing this whole time? You feel you know better than all and they are stupid, therefore it needs to be the way you think it is. Personal attacks would be speaking of what I put as very bad English, when also not knowing what you are talking about. Seeing as I am a high school English teacher, I might know a thing or two about English. Two of my classes are senior level AP English, which is only literature. What are the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle stories? You started off insulting my intelligence right off the bat, while not knowing the true Sherlock and thus showing your own ignorance. I am sorry for telling you to get off your high horse and to pick up a damn book. However when being treated like I am dumb from someone who has no reason, right or basis to treat me as such, I start becoming honest. Maybe I could have worded it differently, but you could have done the same. If you feel that there needs to be equal negative and positive reviews, feel free to find one that is critical for a valid reason and does not give false information. Jlavigne5771 (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

After the most recent edits here and on my talk page related to this issue it has become clear to me that Jlavinge and I should not engage each other. With that thought in mind, I would like to reiterate my vote to either keep the original review (perhaps, as Jlavinge suggested, with a source to indicate that the reviewer may have the wrong idea) or replace it with another negative review if such is warranted by the WP:Film MOS. Again, I was under the impression that we were supposed to provide multiple views on a film if available (perhaps I have the wrong idea, myself). All of that stated, I will no longer be participating in this particular conversation and will, as per my usual, abide by whatever consensus is reached. If any other editor has a question about things I've already said, feel free to ask me on my talk page. But I don't particularly feel like putting up with the hassle I have received related to this issue. Happy editing all. Millahnna (mouse)talk 18:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Problems with that is Jlavigne introduced original research into a sourced statement, which we can never do, and unless we find a source that specifically says "Stratton is incorrect", then simply finding a source that says "Sherlock Holmes fought villain X in story Y" and presenting it as proof that Stratton is wrong would still by original research (most specifically synthesis). As such, Rotten Tomatoes seems to list 19 Fresh reviews and 16 Rotten reviews, which would suggest plenty to choose from is we'd rather change out the review.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not introduce it into a sourced statement, it was inserted as a note about a sourced statement. The sourced statement which says the Stratton is incorrect is the actual stories, which are copyrighted work. Therefore, there will be no postings of the books online because it is illegal. To call the original stories original research is ridiculous. Just because the source is not online doesn't mean it isn't a reliable source, in fact it is more reliable since it is the actual works rather then something that someone posted online. I don't see why there has to be equal reviews of both bad and good. Simply posting reviews that are ACCURATE would make sense. The whole need to replace the article rather then put a note on it or just remove it all together seems like a very backwards way of doing things. Jlavigne5771 (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost all of Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes work is in the public domain. They are legally posted all over the internet. Also, I just checked the page history, you never entered that comment as a note but as direct text on the page. (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Above comment was from me. I didn't realize I'd logged out, sorry. Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear with my earlier, admittedly drive-by, question. I meant, is there a reason Stratton's review either can't be replaced with another one or can't be removed altogether? This has since been brought up in this discussion, to which I would say: yes, the fact that Stratton's review represents the view of someone who is not American is adequate reason to keep his review in the article, in my opinion. There are undoubtedly other reviews from other non-American film critics, but I have yet to see one and Stratton is certainly notable enough (even though, in a completely non-encyclopedic comment, I think his review is crap).  Chickenmonkey  19:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you about Stratton's review which gives me a passing thought. I liked the movie; I didn't like Stratton's review. I know when it first opened I read a few reviews from others who didn't like the movie that I felt were valid in their subjective take it. Perhaps it would be best to replace the review with another notable reviewer (preferably not from the U.S. as you noted) who had a negative view of the film that caused fewer eyerolls from the film's fans. I don't know if you see my angle here, but it could be argued that if the page is edited mostly by people like myself who liked the movie and the only negative reviews we include are from people who seem a little ridiculous from the point of view of fans, that in itself could be considered POV (by only presenting "silly" negative reviews). For instance the second negative review we have I have no issues with. I disagree with him but his reasons for feeling as he does make sense to me. Am I being clear; kind of a random thought. Millahnna (mouse)talk 20:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but I wouldn't worry about that. As long as you continue to make good edits, it shouldn't be a problem.  Chickenmonkey  20:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That source states that the Character is public domain, meaning the character can be written about. At the end of the article it states that an estate still owns the copyrighted work. I am sorry about that I didn't put it as an actual note about the bottom of the page, I didn't mean note in that way, merely as something which points something out. Also, monkey I agree with what you are saying, but if there is a need for a non-American source on Sherlock Holmes it would make more sense to me that it be someone with knowledge of the books. Also, it would stand to reason that this be someone who it British, as Sherlock is part of their culture and the movie was made by a British man. Jlavigne5771 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-read the source; all of the books except one are in the public domain. The character has been for a long time, which is apparently the source of the misunderstanding (that and Conan Doyle's estate holder being really weird about it). Millahnna (mouse)talk 20:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I just re-read it and it says AT LEAST one book is still copyrighted in the US. It does not refer at all to the copyright status in the country in which the books were written and first published. The source is not about the copyright status of the book, rather the copyright status of the character, like i said before. Either way, when the actual books cannot be a reliable source but what people who are ignorant on the subject say is considered reliable, all hope for humanity is lost. Jlavigne5771 (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
There isn't a "need", per se, for a non-American review, but it's best to incorporate one if it's available, I would think. To Stratton's "knowledge" of Sherlock Holmes; I don't think it matters what informs a reviewer's opinion, as much as the opinion, itself, matters.  Chickenmonkey  20:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Which his opinion is fine with me if readers can know that his opinion is based on fallacies. I do not think it is right to put something out there on an "encyclopedia" that gives people false information. He can not like the movie all he wants, but to put his opinion out there without pointing out that what some of what he is saying is false is irresponsible. People come to this site to learn things, and I cannot in good conciseness have an opinion on the site if that in the opinion is giving false information. To include this review without some sort of side note is encouraging ignorance. Jlavigne5771 (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure the fact that he dislikes the film could be included without mentioning the contested parts of the review. If a reader feels the need to find out why he dislikes the film, they can visit the source and read the entire review for themselves -- determining on their own if they feel he is wrong or inaccurate.  Chickenmonkey  21:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear I was not trying to be a smart ass when I said I was sorry above, If you would find that way acceptable to put that note or a similar note, I would have no problem with that. Jlavigne5771 (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You need more than just "Review Y disliked Sherlock Holmes" in the reception section of a film article. We cannot insert our own observations that Stratton is incorrect in his assessment of the literary character Holmes, as that is original research. The very definition of original research. Unless you find someone stating that Stratton is wrong in his assessment (i.e., a reliable source has to point it out, we cannot use a reliable source that proves him wrong and doing the pointing out ourselves), then we cannot suggest that Stratton is wrong about Holmes. As such, either replace the source, or just let it go. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. The fact that Stratton appears to be making a judgment based on no discernible facts is irrelevant, because that's what he's paid to do for a living anyway. If you don't like it, then just replace it. I'm sure there are other, non-American sources our there to be used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It can be VERIFIED that Stratton has no idea what he is talking about by PICKING UP A BOOK. There is seriously something wrong with people saying that something that can be read in a book that created something is less verifiable then something that an ignorant person wrote that can be found on the internet. Jlavigne5771 (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Also what is the plot summary? what are the million different points in all the articles where a person watches a movie, reads a book and so on and puts what happened on Wikipedia? Is that coming from one of these sources you keep talking about or is it coming from the horse's mouth? Why do you feel that the actual movie or the actual book or whatever it is given the case is a verifiable source but it is not when pointing out a fallacy in what someone wrote? Jlavigne5771 (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
This quote:

The makers of this film are mainly interested in action; that, they believe, is all that gets young audiences into cinemas today. They may be right, but they have ridden roughshod over one of literature's greatest creations in the process.

Should suffice to show Stratton didn't like the film, but mentions nothing of the contested "fighting" comments.  Chickenmonkey  22:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I do agree with you. That quote is an actual reason with basis to not like the movie. Jlavigne5771 (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
You can verify that Stratton believes that Holmes doesn't fight in the novels. You can verify that Holmes does fight in the novels. What you cannot do--and I am by no means trying to insinuate any insult to your intelligence, so please do not take it that way--on Wikipedia is take those two things and put them together and say, "See, Stratton is wrong because it's right here in Novel X". Unless someone does that for us, we are not allowed to introduce our own research into an article, and that is what you are doing. You are creating synthesis, and we cannot do that on Wikipedia. You are not allowed to insert your own interpretation or research into an article. None. So, if everyone disagrees with the use of Stratton's review because he is apparently misremembering Holmes's literary characterization, which is the basis for his dislike for the movie, then the answer is to simply replace the review. The answer is not to insert our own words into an article saying, "Please disregard what Stratton is saying about Holmes not being a fighter, as Novel X clearly shows that he was a fighter."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you referring to Bignole? Jlavigne5771 (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I am referring to your original comment, both on the article itself and later that you can simple point to the novel and prove that Stratton is wrong. If you change the information you pull from Stratton's review that's cool too. I'm merely saying you cannot state that Stratton is wrong in his assertion that Holmes's is not a fighter in the novels unless you have some reliable source actually talking about Stratton being wrong. We are not allowed to say that he is wrong. Now, we can just avoid those comments and find others, as Chicken has done above apparently.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes someone was saying to disregard the review because he is wrong. You just put original research on here that not only can't be verified but is false. Please stand to your own rules that you have repeated many times. Again, I see no need to replace it, there is no fairness doctrine. I have said many times some other note can be put, so don't put words in my mouth. If you want to keep putting words in my mouth make them the right ones. I believe this conversation is on here because I decided to remove it like you are saying to do, rather then put a note. I know you don't think Wikipedia is about being right, but rather about things that can be verified, but you are wrong in your assercion and it can be verified. Jlavigne5771 (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Now it is I that have no idea what you are talking about. If you want to change what information you pull from his review, I'm in total support. As for anything else, I point to WP:NOR, as I'm clearly not explaining what the policy says very clearly so I'll let it speak for itself and just leave it that. You editors have a good day. I'm detaching myself from the Twilight Zone and returning to reality. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Please read the first sentence in the section, and also read the comment after chicken's. If you have no idea what I am talking about please read the section before commenting. I am not changing anything, as said in the first sentence, I felt this should be removed. In fact, you told me something about deleting the review too much, so you can't really claim ignorance on the subject. However, if you want to keep chiming in and try to convince me of something I decided in the past, might i suggest Gore vs. Bush.Jlavigne5771 (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


One of the interesting things about this movie is that anyone with a familiarity with Sherlock Holmes is able to place this movie within the Holmes canon. Although it is only alluded to in the main page, the movie obviously takes place between the Holmes adventures The Sign of the Four (which involves Mary Morston, Watson's fiance) and The Adventure of the Empty House, in which it is strongly implied (and later confirmed)that Watson's wife has died. It can be narrowed a further adventure, since this movie involves Moriarty, who dies in The Final Problem. I believe the strength of evidence is sufficient to warrant putting the chronological placement in the main article. Legionaireb (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Holmes survived The Final Problem so theres no reason why Moriarty shouldnt have —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


So, reports are coming in of a sequel in the works, perhaps the section on the sequel in this article should be expanded, or a new page created.

Information on sequel can be found here:

Teh Wallaby (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


The DVD/Home media section is a bit sparse. Anyone know a particularly reputable site for DVD reviews? Had a look and although I found Mark Kermode praising the film in general he doesn't really say anything in particular about the DVD and his review could be included in the Critics section if at all. Hard to know if Blu-ray reviews is a good enough critic, this "Maximum Movie Mode" presentation might be worth a mention. A woudln't bother to mention the inclusion of a "Digital Copy" unless I was including criticism of it (which is a bit sneaky offtopic). I've seen articles before that use DVD Talk and it seems to be a reasonably good source, about half the review discusses the DVD and notes with dismay that the DVD version is inferior to the Blu-ray version, or as they put it "short changed -- Horkana (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Alt text for the images in this article

User:Horkana and I began a conversation at User talk:Horkana#Sherlock Holmes WP:ALT and it was felt the conversation was best to be had here.

It is my contention that WP:ALT advises that alt text for images be short and offer the same information that is meant to be conveyed by the use of said image (i.e. the theatrical poster for Sherlock Holmes is used here to show how the film was marketed — by using the actors and the tagline "Holmes for the Holiday", because the film was released on Christmas. The theatrical poster isn't used in this article, in my estimation, to show what the characters are wearing or what's on the shelves around the characters.

In deciding what alt text to use, you should think about asking yourself these questions:

Why is this non-text content here?

To demonstrate how the film was marketed.

What information is it presenting?

The marketing of the film.

What purpose does it fulfill?

It shows that the filmmakers chose to use Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law to market the film and chose to capitalize on the holiday release.

If I could not use the non-text content, what words would I use to convey the same function and/or information?

I would merely state that the poster contains Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law with the title of the film above them and the tagline "Holmes for the holiday" beneath them.

I would, however, like to hear everyone else's opinion on this as I believe having good quality alt text is something we should want.  Chickenmonkey  04:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Murder by elements

This might look like original research but it is not intended to be. I am more interested in whether an obvious aspect of the movie, not referenced in the movie,was picked up by reliable sources. The three murders and attempted mass killing that relate to the sphinx also take the form of death by the four elements - earth, water, fire, air. I can't have been the only person who noticed this. Were the production team playing with the audience? Are there sources on this?-- (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly intentional, but original research unless there's reliable sourcing. Doniago (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


Holmes refers to Turkey. Is Turkey ever called that at this time? Or only Asia Minor (geographically) or the Ottoman Empire (politically)? Varlaam (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This article, 1908 Summer Olympics, says the Ottoman Empire was called Turkey in 1908. Varlaam (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really clear on what this has to do with improving the article? If it's an error within the film, it's rather trivial unless the goof received coverage from reliable sources to establish it as notable. Doniago (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
So, let me clarify (not for you, since this discussion is a month old) but for those read this later: Individual subtopics in one article do not need to be notable at all. Quite on the contrary, comprehensiveness is one of the requirements for an article to reach FA status. Therefore, all we need to include such a subtopic is verifiability, not notability. Granted, no unpublished synthesis should be included too and the subtopic must not receive undue weight; but you'll be surprise how easily these necessities are met. Fleet Command (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


Just for quick notes on my revert of the genre: here are some sources referring to it as an action film The Telegraph, Washington Times, The Atlantic Wire, Variety goes on about the action scenes, and Allmovie. It should not be removed from the lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Release dates and other material

First, we had an IP who insisted on changing the release dates and the dating style of the article. I reverted (the IP was blocked temporarily for changes to this article and to others). Now, we have another editor who seems to believe the IP was right. I've reverted that editor, too. That editor also had the film coming out in 2011, but I assume that was inadvertent.

The infobox has release information. It is correct, although it is unsourced (I'm allowing it to remain because it comports with IMDb, but it should really have a secondary reliable source). Because of the sourcing issues and because it's not all that important anyway, in the body I changed the release information to be less specific. Also, the source that was there (and the editor put back), does not support the release dates, anyway.

Finally, there is no basis for changing the dating style from American to British, although it's not a big deal either way.

If this continues to be a problem, I will simply remove all the release information until it's reliably sourced for every assertion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

There should be a little more information about Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, the sequel. TJRana (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Like what? You realize that film has its own article? Doniago (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Spoiler Alert!

Shouldn't there be a spoiler alert for the plot of the movie? TJRana (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No. WP:SPOILER. Doniago (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)