Talk:The Red-Headed League

Novels: Short story / Crime Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Short story task force.
	This article is supported by Crime task force.

Media franchises: Sherlock Holmes High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sherlock Holmes (assessed as High-importance).

Red Headed League in The Times[edit]

In The Times Personal adverts for 20 January 1921 there is an advert for The Red Headed League - possibly a scam. Jackiespeel 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removed inappropriate analysis from main plot section[edit]

"(Unaccountably, the posibility of a villain sexually interested in a 14-year old girl does not seem to have occurred to Holmes, though such people existed at the time of writing as at present.) "

If you want to put it back, so so in an "analysis" section. Don't point out plot holes in the main summary.

Besides, who is to say this is a real plot hole? I am sure we can agree the sensibilities of the time did not encourage Doyle to write about such deviations, and I find nothing strange whatsoever that Doyle had Holmes ignore this possibility. 85.227.226.168 18:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the police detective[edit]

The name of the police detective in this story is given as Peter Jones, while the detective in the earlier story The Sign of Four is Athelney Jones. It is not clear whether Doyle misquoted the name from his earlier story. In the The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (TV series) episode of The Red-Headed League starring Jeremy Brett, the appearance of the detective is very different from the description of Athelney Jones provided by Doyle, so at least the TV series seems to treat the two detectives as different.

"Most famous"?[edit]

Really?

Such a purely subjective assessment should not be included in the first sentence of the article! Canth1 (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Deleted Most of Analysis"[edit]

As Holmes meant that Wilson had learned some minute knowledge of everything under the letter "A", not himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.148.156 (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

User:Amazinglysmartperson added the comment "However there is no indication of how long after the ad was read when the "interview" date took place.", but the text states "It is The Morning Chronicle of April 27, 1890. Just two months ago." and "He came down into the office just this day eight weeks, with this very paper in his hand" and the interview took place the same day. Richard Pinch (talk) 10:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Villains[edit]

The article lists three villains in the story: "John Kyle (Vincent Spaulding), Archie and Duncan Ross (William Morris)". I think there is no doubt that there are only two: Jonh Kyle aka Vincent Spaulding, and Archie, whose surname is not mentioned but who uses two pseudonyms for different audiences: Duncan Ross and William Morris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.74.226 (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation detail[edit]

I made a small edit, showing that the inflated 370 pounds figure is the weekly amount, rather than the inflated value of the total. When I read this initially, I was not sure what was meant, so I thought it made sense to clarify. Boomcoach (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]