Jump to content

Talk:A Study in Scarlet/Archive 1

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

Formatting

The original illustration in Part I of the book's summary is improperly aligned with the text. Any way to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fartlisto (talk • contribs) 01:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

why did doyle choose watson to narrate the story insted of having holmes tell the story hself? what are the benefits and drawbcks of doing it this way?

Many books feature a highly intelligent and skillful protagonist paired with a more-or-less bumbling sidekick. Nowadays, writers probably do this because they grew up with the tradition and don't know any better, but the original motive (back in Conan Doyle's day or earlier) was probably to help the readers relate to the hero's feats of intellectual prowess. Dr. Watson gives Conan Doyle an excuse to explain Holmes's behavior. Poe did the same thing in his Auguste Dupin stories—"The Purloined Letter", "The Murders in the Rue Morgue", etc. You can even find the tradition carried on in Tom Swift books. I haven't read Victor Appleton's grand originals, but the Tom Swift, Jr. series (dating from the 1950s), had the boy genius Tom paired with Bud Barclay, a genial guy who always needed Tom's inventions explained to him. The most recent Tom Swift series—the ones I grew up with—did the same thing with Rick Cantwell, Tom's good buddy who never quite got the science but was always good "testing to destruction".
If you watch the movie Fantastic Voyage (or, better yet, read Isaac Asimov's novelization), you can see the same thing happening. The strong-jawed secret agent character, Grant, gives the writers an excuse for explaining what all the different organs do, why the ship can only stay miniaturized for so long, and so forth.
Not all stories, or even all mysteries, follow this pattern. In Murder on the Orient Express, most of Hercule Poirot's deductions go on in his "little grey cells", without his explaining them to anybody else. We don't really discover his mental processes until he presents his solution at the end. Most of Elizabeth Peters's Amelia Peabody books follow this pattern, too: her characters often take pride in not telling each other what they think, so only at the end are all the curtains pulled back.
The biggest downside I can see is that the Holmes-and-Watson storytelling method makes the Watson character look, well, rather stupid, unless the writer works with care. Many readers come away with this impression, certainly; Jorge Luis Borges wrote an essay that claimed Watson's intelligence was "somewhat inferior to the reader's." (Whether Borges actually believed that is hard to say—the man wrote an awful lot that wasn't serious. Check out his story "Death and the Compass" for a mystery without a Watson.) In The Seven-Per-Cent Solution, Nicholas Meyer had Watson defend himself against these claims, saying that being around Holmes was enough to make anybody feel stupid.
I suspect that I'm helping Mr. A. Nonymous finish his English homework, but I don't mind. First, because I'm probably too late anyway (by almost two months), and second because I got through AP English by copying passages from the Dada Engine. Who am I to dictate ethics?
Anville 16:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am in full agreement with Anville, but wish to highlight one point. Doyle wishes to emphasize Holmes' abilities. Clearly, then, he must demonstrate them to someone. This explains the necessity for Watson's presence. Now what? A straight "third person omniscient / God's-eye view" narrator would be forced to constantly interrupt the narrative to explain how astonished Watson is. Having Holmes tell the story would be even worse. Take, for instance, the incident of the retired sargeant of marines. How could Holmes relate this? How could he give Watson's motivation in asking the man his previous occupation? To Holmes, the question would appear to come out of nowhere. And, to even relate it would constitute a most repellent form of bragging. No, it is by Watson expressing his view of Holmes that Doyle convinces the reader of Holmes' extraordinary abilities. B00P 04:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you are both arguing the same thing, although Anville — by focusing too much on the "sidekick" aspect — perhaps unintentionally perpetuates the very myth he seems to be trying to discard: Watson as mentally inferior bumbler. BOOP's discussion in terms of storytelling mechanics is more to the point, but misses a secondary issue. It's also a matter of reader identification. Holmes is a moody eccentric, an arrogant intellectual, a misogynist, someone who conducts odiferous (and possibly dangerous) chemical experiments in his sitting room, fires pistols into the sitting room wall, goes days without sleep or sleeps for days, keeps unsavory habits such as chain smoking and drug abuse, disappears for days at a time, is alternately an absolute slob and a stickler for neatness, is an elegant conversationalist who despises small talk and goes days without speaking, etc., etc. He's a poor roommate and a dangerous neighbor or tenant. This isn't someone many mainstream readers could identify with, and at the time the stories were published many readers of propriety would have been appalled. However, by seeing him through the annoyed-yet-sympathetic eyes of an everyman narrator, the reader can be removed from the necessity of identifying with such a character and is allowed to see the creature in situ, as the effective genius that Watson sees. Holmes thus becomes an eccentric but romantic hero rather than an alien and unsympathetic being. He could not be the Holmes we know if he had to narrate the stories. He would have to be more of an everyman, and his genius would therefore not be as convincing. Canonblack 15:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty difficult to argue against Doyle's choice of first-person narration given that so many have readily accepted Watson and Holmes as real people.WHPratt (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr Watson is a doctor of medicine, his major study is medicine. is it any wonder that his efforts at detective work are at best mediocre. So, his success/failure at detective work has little to do with his intelligence. I think. -NotAnExpert ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.228.56 (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


Is it really that surprising that Watson's 'Bull Pup' is not brought up again in the other books. He says "I have another set of vices when I'm well, but those are the principal ones at present" - kev

I thought that the "bull pup" Watson mentioned was the one that they poisoned, both to test the pills and put it out of its misery. If that was the dog he was referring to, then no wonder it wasn't in later books, it was dead! --Trevheg 09:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The dog that they poisoned was not a "bull pup." "Now would you mind going down and fetching that poor little devil of a terrier which has been bad so long … ." (Chap. 7) However, according to Owen Dudley Edwards, in the Oxford Sherlock Holmes, a bull pup is a pistol that is small and similar to a "short-barrelled revolver of large caliber," not a dog at all.Lestrade 00:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
Another theory (from a Baker Street Journal correspondant) says that "I keep a bull pup" was a Victorian idiom for "I have a bad temper." WHPratt (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Why have people answered what are obviously questions that a school teacher has set as an assignment? 137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Plot holes?

I think it's fun to see if one can find plot holes in the Sherlock Holmes stories -- actually, "a mystery within a mystery" to find the logical fallacies in the stories of the infallable. (So to say.) Anybody know if there is a website dedicated to this idea? -- Syzygy 08:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I can think of another plot hole, but I don't want to contribute to a negative view of this work of art. Many readers have had many hours of pleasure in reading this story. The author has succeeded in creating a world and its inhabitants that live in the reader's imagination. Doyle didn't know London or Salt Lake City. He created his own version and did a fine job of it.Lestrade 13:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

"The book violates what would later become one of the cardinal rules of detective fiction" - I find the concept of violating a rule which does not exist yet questionable! Thermaland

  • One Plot Hole is that Jefferson Hope would go back to 221 B Baker Street-especially the first time when he was so suspicious about the "ring" in the advertisement so he sent a confederate in drag-to fetch the ring! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.70 (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism for the second part

I was wondering if anyone knows there having been any criticism coming from the Mormon church,regarding the second part of the book (The Country of the Saints)...--Padem 10:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a line about this in the plot summary, together with an external reference. --Quywompka 11:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The section added on contreversy is written very awkwardly, i would change it but i am not very familiar with the information. Can someone assist?Killemall22 (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistencies...

I have just edited the inconsistencies section of this article, and deleted the passage which talked about Watson's "bull pup." This is because I am certain, and I have looked it up in the novel, that the dog is actually mentioned later on.

In the final chapter of the first section of the novel, Holmes asks Watson to fetch the dog, which is apparently very ill. The landlady, according to Holmes, has been trying to convince Watson to get rid of the dog for several days. He then uses the dog to test the pills (that he suspects to be poisonous), which have been found as evidence, and Watson then describes how the animal dies.

Unless Holmes is refering to a completely different dog here, it seems very evident to me that this is a satisfactory explaination for what happens to Watson's pet, and why it is no longer mentioned in any later stories.

Dear Anonymous Editor, the following is included in the "Discussion" section above. It may be of interest to you, Anonymous Editor. If a bull pup is a dog, it is certainly not a terrier.

The dog that they poisoned was not a "bull pup." "Now would you mind going down and fetching that poor little devil of a terrier which has been bad so long … ." (Chap. 7) However, according to Owen Dudley Edwards, in the Oxford Sherlock Holmes, a bull pup is a pistol that is small and similar to a "short-barrelled revolver of large caliber," not a dog at all.

Lestrade 00:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

My mistake. I was unaware of the Bull terrier breed, which includes the notorious Pit bull.Lestrade 22:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
I don't see the mistake. It is not clear from context what Watson means when he says, "I keep a bull pup," which he considers a vice. Surely having a dog is not a vice, which makes Dudley Edwards' interpretation slightly stronger, although the idea that keeping a large caliber pocket pistol is a vice is only slightly less tenuous. At any rate, it is implied that the poisoned terrier is not Watson's; he describes the dog as he carries it upstairs and seems unaware of its age until he notices its white snout. I have always interpreted the text to be saying that the dog was Mrs. Hudson's, and she had asked Watson to put it down because he was a medical man and might perhaps know a humane way of doing so. In his laziness, he procrastinated until Holmes saw a use for the poor animal. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The plot summary is wrong

The description of how Hope was arrested is simply wrong. Did the writer actually read the book?

It certainly seemed an odd summary; it may have been based on a filmed adaptation instead of the book itself. I've done a very quick tidy up of the summary of the first part. --Quywompka 11:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Have just read the article and the plot summary is still incorrect.

Then fix it yourself, lazy butt. It seems pretty right to me (although I haven't read the book recently) Juru (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The "key" issue

From the Plot Holes:

"It is strange that the police apparently never questioned the owner of the Brixton house, where the first murder happened. The door was intact, so whoever murdered Drebber had to have a key, for which the owner would have been the obvious candidate. This would have led the police (or Holmes, who chose to ignore the clue as well) quickly on to the right track. Defense: the owner had no idea who Jefferson Hope was, or that he had a key."

Well, the book says --

It chanced that some days before a gentleman who had been engaged in looking over some houses in the Brixton Road had

dropped the key of one of them in my carriage. It was claimed that same evening, and returned; but in the interval I

had taken a moulding of it, and had a duplicate constructed.

Wouldn't this provide a logical chain: House owner -> prospective client -> cab driver? --Syzygy 14:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The summary is not really a summary at all. And why is depiction of Mormons part of the summary? Why is it describing the theme instead of the plot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.155.123 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the bit about the Mormons. I have no idea what you're talking about as far as "describing" the theme. Perhaps you are referring to the explanation of the motive? In that case, I disagree; the motive should be in the plot summary of a mystery novel. Juru (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

words cut off

it seems as though the information plane on the left side of the page is covering up the plot summary. Is it appearing this way to everyone or just me?Killemall22 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary regarding Joey Daly

I've just read an electronic copy, and there was no mention of Holmes and Watson visiting an actor named Joey Daly. After J.H. confesses and recounts his tale to the Scotland Yard inspectors, Holmes asks J.H. the identify of the man who retrieved the ring. Either my electronic copy is incorrect, or the recent contribution about the visit to the actor comes from a film adaptation. Anyone know for sure? 71.190.64.85 (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither. It was vandalism. Monkeyzpop (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Misprint?

In the "Adaptations" section, the following is printed: "A surprisingly faithful animated version of the tale with Peter O'Toole voicing Holmes was produced in 1984 by Burbank Films and helmed by frequent Disney animator Alex Nicholas." Instead of "helmed", should the word be "filmed"?Lestrade (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

"Helmed" is a common term in discussing films. It means "directed". Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Word Count

I'm concerned that the word count of this 'novel' is actually that of a novella. See (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_count). Apart from Science fiction associations, most place the cut off at 50,000 words for a novel, which I believe would make this a novella. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.4.225.49 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it would be classified as a novella. The article you referenced states:— "Novelist Jane Smiley suggests that length is an important quality of the novel.[5] However, novels can vary tremendously in length; Smiley lists novels as typically being between 100,000 and 175,000 words,[6] while National Novel Writing Month requires its novels to be at least 50,000 words. There are no firm rules: for example the boundary between a novella and a novel is arbitrary and a literary work may be difficult to categorise.[7] But while the length of a novel is to a large extent up to its writer,[8] lengths may also vary by sub-genre; many chapter books for children start at a length of about 16,000 words,[9] and a typical mystery novel might be in the 60,000 to 80,000 word range while a thriller could be over 100,000 words.[10]

The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America specifies word lengths for each category of its Nebula award categories:[11]

Word count Novel over 40,000 words Novella 17,500 to 40,000 words Novelette 7,500 to 17,500 words Short story under 7,500 words" I have one source stating that the word count of "A Study in Scarlet" as 43,692 words. (http://manybooks.net/titles/doyleartetext95study10.html) Therefore this work may very well be presented as a novel. Ásmóðr Vánagandsson (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources and editorializing

With regards to the revert I just made of Olorin3k's edit. Primarily it the edit suffers from misrepresenting sources. For example, Estleman in the foreword for the story gives two specific reasons why it was not controversial, specifically the reports of the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the small membership of the church. Nowhere in his comments does he attribute it to the "lesser ability of Mormon apologists in those days". Another example, the website (itself probably not a RS) for the 5th Regiment history says the order to go to Utah was because the Mormons "were accused of denying the sovereignty of the United States and inciting Indian attacks on travelers", not "to prevent further Mormon violence against Christian settlers". Finally, comments like "alleged, without any supporting evidence or corroborating testimony" and "She does not specify whether these alleged errors include the violent nature of Mormonism as depicted in the novel or not" and such are POV editorializing and border too much on original synthesis. Hence the revert. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my unintentionally misrepresenting the Estleman source. I'll fix that. Talking about things like this before erasing the information that I added is a better way for you to deal with things (unless your intent is to censor certain types of information wholesale). As for the 5th Infantry source, that is not misrepresented, but I will reword it in order to maintain precision of meaning without attributing specific words to them. Content is more than the mere words used, and so more wording prevents misunderstanding of communicative intent. That is the way all sources are used that are not just mere quotes. So it is rather arbitrary to accuse of editorializing, yet I will work to improve the wording while also aiming for conciseness. As for the propagandistic reference to an absolutely unsubstantiated later allegation that Doyle privately recanted but never told anyone else, maybe we should accuse inclusion of that in the article as editorializing, eh? Seems like it has such little merit to be in here at all, but I was willing to let it stay with some balancing of its tendentious inclusion. Simply exercising the ability to find some source, however incredible it may be, that has said what you want in print somewhere, and then to cite it with a reference does not mean that in itself it is anything more than POV editorializing. Since there is no credibility to the claim of Doyle's secret recantation except in that one person's POV, it is certainly accurate to mention that fact, even if that may be opposed by someone who doesn't like the reality. How can a statement of indubitable fact be slurred as mere "editorializing"? So I will aim for better wording. Olorin3k (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I am under no obligation to discuss first before removing material. Quite the opposite, the onus is on the editor adding material. Please reach consensus before re-adding material - see WP:3RR (which will apply if you re-insert the material again today) and WP:BRD. Editorializing is when you make valuations of the sources that is both original and meant to lead the reader to a conclusion not found in the sources. For example, "a modern Salt Lake City newspaper repeats without citing sources a hearsay discussion" is participating in the debate rather than simply reporting it. Now, if a reliable source made such an argument that the account was suspect, then that would be a different case. Also, your "fix" to the 5th Regiment comment doesn't do anything to address either the POV, OR, or RS concerns. First a self-published website is not a reliable source. Second, leading with "Such accounts reflect the widely known fact that..." is both POV and original synthesis connecting the stories that may have influenced Doyle to the 5th Regiment deployment. Finally, I don't see this 1894 source as supporting the statement that historians were noting the link between Doyle's depiction and its accurately reflecting recent violence by Mormons. Now, there are other routes for resolving disputes, and I would recommend pursuing one of those rather than engage in editing against the current preliminary consensus (at least two editors have issues with your intended edit). --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out any ambiguity, which I hope I have resolved. And I added another source in case you want it. Since there is no obligation to discuss before removing material, as you say, then perhaps it is better to just remove the linked sources that are simply hearsay and are not even secondarily linked with Doyle's viewpoint? Is that what you want? If so, then we can remove the ungrounded hearsay attributions to Doyle's daughter and to an allegation years after Doyle died. They are several steps removed from what Doyle is verified to have ever expressed. The inclusion of those does not address Doyle's depiction of Mormonism, as the heading of the section addresses, but they are uses of a Mormon publication that claims, with no verifiable sources mentioned, that, without any similar public statement by Doyle whatsoever, Doyle regretted what he wrote. But why would Doyle not express his regret to the friendly audience he was addressing, if he did it in private? If we allow such sources to be highlighted without any rectification of their POV usage, then it endorses the thing you claim to oppose. An unsupported POV from a Mormon newspaper article is still just an unsupported POV, is it not? Why would you want that to be retained while claiming to oppose the practice? Olorin3k (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thought I might add that I think your valuation of my description of the newspaper source as "editorializing" is inaccurate. In the same way that printing the truth is not libelous, so mere description of the source is not making a "valuation" of its content. If I say that somebody wrote a sentence composed of introductory participial clause followed by dual verb construction conjoined with the word, "and," then that is mere description, not valuation. Similarly, when I describe the actual construction of the newspaper's verbiage mentioning Doyle's daughter, describing how the article is using the quote, then that is simply objective fact, not personal opinion or valuation of content. The fact is that the writer of the article did not even talk to Doyle's daughter, who herself did not even talk to her father but merely expresses her personal opinion of what Doyle might have thought. To describe that is not diversionary but enlightening of the actual content of the article, is it not? Olorin3k (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The text attempting to discount/discredit the SLT article via the characterization in that wording is most definitely editorializing. Likewise the Utah War material you attempted to insert, seemingly in an attempt to "prove" Doyle's characterization was correct, is off-topic on this article. Additionally, it is laughable incorrect to call Redfield Proctor, Levi K. Fuller & Charles H. Davenport (authors of Men of Vermont ) "historians", or give much credence to their evaluation of Young. The bobcat.ws website is a self-published source, and the author credited on that page is not a notable "established expert on the subject matter [the Utah War, Utah, Mormonism, &/or A Study in Scarlet], whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". —Asterisk*Splat→ 19:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your team of derisive and repetitive erasers of legitimate information is revealing its disingenuousness. For example, inability to refrain from ad hominem attacks like "laughable," the unnecessary and inexcusable deletion of the Bagley source, etc. What motive can you have for continuing a policy of denying presentation of views other than that relying on a newspaper source with no credibility since the writer neither spoke with those he quotes (and upon which this section relies) nor references a written source to which he may have referred? Why insist on a very weakly evidenced case and the censoring of legitimate sources? If others insist on including quotes pulled from the air by a single newspaperman, then I will describe that in context instead of allowing this article to continue misleading readers into thinking the quotes are legitimate reasons to deny all publicly known evidence about Doyle. And it is mischaracterization to criticize the early source, roughly contemporaneous with Doyle's novel as you did, for it is not used for its "evaluation of Young" but for its popular recognition of a link between Doyle's novel and its views of Mormonism, which is precisely on-topic. Moreover, the 5th regimental history is not cited for its expertise on the Mormon War but for its knowledge of the 5th Regiment's history, in particular the reasons the Regiment was diverted to Utah, which is how it was used in this article. In that it is credible, especially since its assessment coheres with other histories like Bagley's that you unnecessarily erased. I see your criticism as rather baseless and mischievous. Please desist from erasing work if you cannot better justify what seems to me to be amounting to abusive censorship. Olorin3k (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

As you have taken offence to my use of the term "laughable", I withdraw it, and substitute another, but the context is the same: neither the two prominent politicians (who belonged to a political party caught up in the throes of vilifying Mormons in Utah just before this work was published), nor the highly political editor of the Brattleboro Reformer can reasonably be called historians. I didn't say that Bagley is a bad source, I said the Utah War material was off-topic, which includes the text you are using Bagley to support. You appear unfamiliar with Harold Schindler, who is hardly just a "newspaper man"; he happens to be a journalist and historian of note about the American West. He had a prominent position providing the SLT with articles of historical interest during Utah's centennial, and the Utah Division of State History quotes verbatim those articles, right along side material contributed by Bagley, because he is highly credible. If Bagley had written specifically about the Utah/Study in Scarlet/Doyle connection, that could easily belong in this article, but the more general material about the Utah War is out of place and off-topic. Just as I have withdrawn word you identified as "ad hominem", I ask that you do the same by striking "mischievous". —Asterisk*Splat→ 22:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Olorin3k: since you have you have edited other pages in the month since the comment above without making any additional comments here, am I to assume that you either have no further interest in this discussion, have nothing more you wish to say, or are quietly acquiescing to the points that have been made here? —Asterisk*Splat→ 17:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

ho

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.221.69 (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on A Study in Scarlet. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Study in Scarlet. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Study_in_Scarlet/Archive_1&oldid=1255473352"