Talk:Murder in the Mews

US vs UK edition
I have the US edition, Dead Man's Mirror, ISBN 0440116996, and it only contains three stories. It does not include "The Incredible Theft". I'm not sure what the best approach would be for remarking on this difference, but it seems like it should be mentioned somewhere.-- H-ko (Talk) 06:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. I've seen it documented in one or two places that the US version only has three stories but the New York Times review I quoted definately states that the US book had four stories - either they reviewed the UK version of the book (as they did with Poirot Investigates) or the story has been dropped from later versions. Can anyone elaborate further?--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My US-bought copy has three (theft missing).Ketil3 (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes the original poster is correct. The US version only has three stories. It does not include "The Incredible Theft." Mine is a Dell Publishing Co. Inc. Mass Market Paperback last printed in 1971. And for the following poster, "no," I doubt it is a first edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesterloli (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this a first edition?--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1984 Berkeley Books edition of "Dead Man's Mirror" has all four stories. Sluggoster (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Triangle At Rhodes
Shouldn't Triangle At Rhodes be given a section? It is included on the audio book version of this novel, but I am not sure if it appears in the actual novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just not got round to it yet. This is an incomlete article, as is The Hound of Death--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The wiki link to the poison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouabain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.101.248 (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Roman Numeral Troubles
This isn't the only place at Wikipedia that has problems with the way Roman numerals are written. But I am learning more and more how to use this site and have come across the issue again. In the last section of the article page listed "First Publication of Stories" and in the last entry for that section we read, "The Second Gong appeared in the June 1932 (Volume LIIX, Number 6) issue of Ladies Home Journal with an illustration by R.J. Prohaska." The way the Roman numeral in Volume LIIX is written is wrong. It actually makes no sense. If it is 52+10=62 it should be LXII. If it is 51+9=60 it should be LX. Understand? It makes no sense. The way it's written is what's called "undefined" and Roman Numerals are "Well-Defined." Look up that term Well-Defined here in Wikipedia. The writing of Roman Numerals at Wikipedia is horrendous. Sorry but it's true. I sincerely doubt the publisher did that. They aren't that sloppy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesterloli (talk • contribs) 23:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)