Talk:The Mousetrap/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Listing the killer

While I see some peoples points about the wikipedia preceident of listing the killer this isn't your average play there is a big deal made at the end of the play about keeping the answer a secret. Is it possible to put this up for discussion like you can with a whole article (ie; deletion policy). --Rob 07:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that is terrible and against the idea of the play you go to keep it locked away in your heart! --Rob 12:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think it's very sporting to have the solution on here. I mean, I'm sure it's on the Internet somewhere but still. Michaelritchie200 16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it's at the very end. I am interested in Mousetrap as the longest running show not as a play so I'm glad I know what the fuss is all about. As for sporting, please, this is Wikipedia! You're suppose to have answers here! 203.214.159.176 11:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Plus, it's usual to name the solution at wikipedia. See The Hound of the Baskervilles or Murder on the Orient Express as other famous examples. And I really think it's okay. However, an anonymous user put the solution before the spoiler warning in the "short plot overview" section. I realize that it might very well be a Troll, and if he is, this is useless anyway, but in case you were a new user and just missed it, please put the solution always after the spoiler tag or at least a spoiler warning. I think that's a pretty good solution for almost all mystery artciles. ;-) Neville Longbottom 22:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well its been changed again. There is obviously some support behind this... shall we put this to vote? we seem to have 50/50 from the small amount of people who have discussed and/or changed the article, its only fair.

-- Oh dear lord, who took it out this time? I don't see why people complain if there's a spoiler warning. One only has to look at - say - the Doctor Who episode guides to realise there's a precedent on Wikipedia for publishing spoilers. I suggest we have a vote. --Richiau

I'm im favour for a vote as well. And just in case it takes place and I shouldn't be around, I'm in favour for keeping the solution. Neville Longbottom 22:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm for it. Although for sentimental reasons I am against having it on Wikipedia there is a precident set this is an unusual case though so I am undecided! --Rob 12:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning says that it's unacceptable to delete relevant material about a subject "because it's a spoiler"; this is exactly why the spoiler tags exist, so that readers can choose whether or not to have certain information revealed to them. It doesn't need a vote (or a vote on a vote) - I've re-added a slightly tidied version of the spoiler section from an earlier version of this article. --McGeddon 12:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Add a fifty-page long EXTREMELY boring essay on why not to reveal "whodunnit", and then add the solution at the end, in 8-point text in the Bauhaus font! Result: only the extremely brave will see it. 216.232.196.134 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I turned "honor" to the closest actual English word, honour. 216.232.196.134 14:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Actual English word"? Ah, there's that renowned British modesty. ~ CZeke 20:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There should definitely be a spoiler warning, or (even better) a link to the solution from the main page to a separate page to prevent anyone from accidentally seeing the answer. I came onto Wikipedia to look for some background on the play as a friend had asked me about it. I haven't seen it myself yet, so I was incredibly miffed to suddenly come upon the identity of the killer - if there had been a spoiler warning, then I would have stopped reading immediately because of the secrecy about the killer's identity being such a key part of its long run. --Tillietid 19:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is unfair on people who are going to see the play for the excitement of trying to work out whodunnit to reveal the plot twist. However, the argument for the site having the answer is strong, so the obivous answer is to include a spoiler warning, then people can choose to ignore the relevant seciton or not. I don't see why it is such a big deal to people not to include a spoiler alert, unless they are simply trolls 81.144.246.68 13:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an obvious thing to say, but: if you're planning on seeing a mystery play for the excitement of working out whodunnit, you shouldn't look it up in an encyclopaedia and start reading a section called "Plot".

I think there's some argument for putting a spoiler warning around that paragraph in this particular case, though, if the culture of secrecy surrounding the ending is so well known that the average reader would think "well, obviously they aren't going to reveal the actual ending". --McGeddon 15:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've split the ending into a separate "Identity of the killer" section instead (which isn't an entirely trivial section, as the tradition of asking audiences not to tell their friends also fits into it). I think that removes any possible argument that a reader wasn't sure what to expect when they started reading that section.--McGeddon 12:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I went to see the play this week and looked it up on wikipedia in advance. Despite the title of the section "The Identity Of The Murderer", I still did not avoid discovering the identity. This was probably because a) I was skim reading and b) I didn't expect the identity to be revealed.

Despite the good arguments for revealing, can I please suggest that the identity is not revealed so people like me (and there will be others!) do not have the plot spoiled. We should just put a link to another page for those who really want to find out. Thoughts? Marmaduke Jinks 23:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, this has been discussed elsewhere on this talk page, in the past. I'm afraid there's absolutely no precedent on Wikipedia for moving potential spoilers into separate mini-articles - we either write about something in detail, or we don't. --McGeddon (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's spoiler policy has also changed since this was last discussed: "In Wikipedia, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. Therefore, Wikipedia carries no spoiler warnings except for the Content disclaimer." --McGeddon (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I accept the argument that Wikipedia is trying to be 'an important, encyclopaedic reference', and, as WP:SPOILER states, this means revealing twists. However, a two-paragraph plot summary does not count as encyclopaedic. So, rather than argue about why it is vital for the quality of Wikipedia for this article to reveal the spoiler, someone should put some effort into writing a decent plot summary. Look at The Sixth Sense - the plot summary is so long, it should be obvious that it will give away the ending of the film, and there is no need for a separate section containing the spoiler. Until someone can do the same for The Mousetrap, I've made a minor edit under 'Identity of the murderer'; hopefully this makes it easier for a casual reader to stop before they reach the spoiler. AndrewBolt (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to your edit, but any reader who is in a section called "Identity of the murderer" should hardly have cause to complain when, in that section, the murderer is reveals. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 19:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I sort of agree, and someone else appears to think that my contribution 'doesn't scan'. Since it's more effort to attempt to provide a constructive contribution, than to roll back someone else's change, I'm going to bow out here. AndrewBolt (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am putting the identity of the killer in the plot summary. this is an old show and most people looking up just want to know the story line. i'll put the spoiler warning up too.--JDDJS (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I just found out i can't add the spoiler tag but i'm still changing the plot. Don't look up the show if you dont want to know the ending--JDDJS (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler warning war

Since the spoiler warning has been removed, the justification for revealing the ending given above has evaporated. Rather than simply revert the spoiler, I have taken the opportunity to demonstrate that it is possible to make some points about the ending without giving it away. I wouldn't object if someone restored the solution provided they added the spoiler warning back as well. However, arguably the actual identity of the murderer is nowhere near as notable as the fact that most people still don't know who it is. PaddyLeahy 16:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not acceptable to be self referential (WP:ASR), or to avoid telling people information (WP:ENC). Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for being dim, I don't see any self-reference in my version of this para. (WP:ASR explicitly allows terms such as "this article"... I would have thought "here" as a synonym would be equally acceptable). If you're objecting to the use of the WP jargon "notability", in context it is meaningful in the non-jargon sense. As for WP:ENC, it is entirely devoted to telling editors not to include information of various sorts. Moreover, in the specific case of The Mousetrap, I believe WP:IAR trumps any attempt to impose other policy. PaddyLeahy 17:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The self reference is where we lose tone - "In deference to fifty years of theatrical tradition, we do not name the murderer here." If you are asserting that you are ignoring all rules in this section, I highly advise you to seek more comment before continuing. I will leave the section with the POV tag for now, but I find this paragraph to be an offensive travesty. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement "In deference to fifty years of theatrical tradition, we do not name the murderer here." is highly biased. A neutral encyclopedia doesn't defer to tradition, theatrical or otherwise. -- MisterHand 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me you and Hipocrite are confusing WP:NPOV with WP:Consensus. Where is the debate (external to WP editors) about The Mousetrap and its ending that is misrepresented in that statement? Actually, if there is debate in the outside world about whether to defer to this tradition, it is clear that an overwhelming majority is in favour, otherwise everyone would know the ending and the play would long since have gone out of business. As for consensus among editors, Hipocrite unilaterally removed the spoiler warning despite an obvious consensus on this talk page that it should be present if the ending is given. PaddyLeahy 18:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We're not. Review WP:ATT and WP:NPOV, and then cite your sources. You'll find you can't. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's unreasonable to assume that someone browsing a Wikipedia article is familiar with its policies and practices about revealing endings, especially surprise endings, when on the Internet SPOILER ALERT warnings are standard and expected by many readers. I have been using Wikipedia for years and recently opened an account to tidy things up, and I myself was surprised to read the identity of the murderer. Wikipedia needs to reconsider its philosophy that the world will confirm to Wikipedia policies and practices on SPOILING endings without a clear and unmissable warning to that effect. My two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrLit (talk • contribs) 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The people removing ad nauseam the spoiler alerts year after year must be proud since hundreds of people are reading this entry each day that the theater has seen bookings decline. Michel Alençon aka 82.224.88.52 (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Mild rewrite

I've redone the lead to better comply with WP:LS, putting the most important information in the lead and moving some extraneous material elsewhere. I moved the main twist ending to the plot section, eliminating the overly detailed ending section, but currently have the plot section several sections down, after multiple notes that the ending is a twist ending, which should serve as sufficient warning for anyone who's invested in not knowing. I'd also kind of like to see the character list go, because it seems a bit over-detailed, but I can live without it. Phil Sandifer 16:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

pardon my ignorance if not true, but wasn't it Paul Merton not Stephen Fry who revealed the ending on TV? I think it was his show "Live at the Palladium", but I've got no evidence for this to hand. 195.58.94.172 20:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was Merton, but on Have I Got News For You. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a source for either Fry or Merton, other than what people think they remember? --Kife 11:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I'm going to tag the statement for now. If a citation can't be found, we'll have to torpedo it. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Truck Theatre Run

I can't find any evidence to suggest the showing of The Mousetrap in the Toronto Truck Theatre has ended, but if the writer is implying their "run" of showings was broken in 2004 that's certainly not how it comes across. Anyone know more about this than me? --Random Canadian Non-Member —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.247.51.57 (talk) 17:05:01, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Whoever didn't put a spoiler warning above the identity of the murder has just ruined this play for me. Thanks very much, idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.224.10.194 (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Spoiler and Wikipedia:Civility which will, I'm sure, answer your points in full. Thank you.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the play is still running (I read this on another Wikipedia page), and while this is implied on this one, I don't think the wording is clear enough. Can someone fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.31.25 (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Link to Three Blind Mice

The reason I put in the link to "Three Blind Mice" several months ago when I created that page (and I just cannot understand why it has just become an issue) is to draw reader's attention to the fact that the death of Daniel O'Neill, THE major event on which the both 'Three Blind Mice' and 'The Mousetrap' are based, is dealt with on great detail on that page. I am not merely repeating a link.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just become an issue because I've only just noticed it, that's all.

I feel that it's both redundant and flow-breaking to explicitly say "see Three Blind Mice for details" at the end of a paragraph, when it's already obvious that if you want more details about something that's a link, you click on that link. We don't need to explain or confirm that linked articles have more details about their subject. --McGeddon (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've made myself clear. The death of Daniel O'Neill is a real-life event (an allusion, if you like) on which both plays are based although "Three Blind Mice" comes first chronologically. I'm not sure that a casual reader of a long-ish page like "The Mousetrap" would think of skipping back and forth between the pages (and thereby interrupting the flow, as you point out, in an even worse fashion) unless they were explicitly prompted to do so. When I read a wiki page I'm unfamiliar with I don't click on the links but prefer to read the article fully through. When I dug out the details of O'Neill's death at the British Newspaper Library some months back, I did consider repeating the info on "The Mousetrap" page when I was creating the "Three Blind Mice" page but rejected the idea as there was a danger of additional info being updated on one page but not the other. A possible solution is to create an allusions section further down on this page with a standard "Main article" link back to Three Blind Mice. Would that be better?--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, yes, the allusions section sounds like a good idea. --McGeddon (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis of scenes

Jtomlin1uk contested this section's deletion because the same sort of synopsis exists (complete with fixed-width font in a dotted box) on other Christie pages. Looking at other, random play pages, though, none of them use this. Is there any actual Wikipedia policy that supports a list of scenes as encyclopaedic content, or did this just evolve arbitrarily among the Christie plays? --McGeddon (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's quite a few months ago now and I thought that the format was from another play page but I can't remember which one. It maybe that it was on one of the Christie pages. I don't know if there is a policy either for or against. If there is a policy against, I would say, fine, delete the info. If there isn't a policy then I don't think there is any harm in keeping a synopsis section in. When I get round to expanding these into full scene synopsis, then they will go anyway.

What I would say though is could editors please remember that Christie wrote over 80 books and 19 plays. Barely a week goes by when someone doesn't go into a Christie page and make one small formatting change and doesn't think of all the other pages where such a change might have to be replicated. I've added a great deal of info to all of the Christie pages since August last year, more than any other editor, and among all of these changes, I've also tried to bring in a large level of standardisation using the Wikinovels template and deleting or amending frowned-upon sections such as Trivia sections. Some of the pages are hellish to try to maintain to a standard and The Mousetrap is one of these (And Then There Were None is another!!) PLEASE think before making such changes!--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Just under two hours ago somebody reformatted the section in question and, true to form, has not (yet) bothered to touch the "lesser-known" Christie pages. I obviously wasted valuable editing time yesterday writing the above plea.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

While it's good to keep consistency, it's a bit much to ask editors to go through every possible article and make sure their change applies to each one. This is the sort of thing that requires multiple editors grouped together in a Wikiproject to do. I don't think there's a Christie Wikiproject, but perhaps there's interest in putting one together in order to bring some consistency to articles? -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 15:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, very few editors would think to check other, similar articles when correcting such a freeform piece of formatting; I know I probably wouldn't. If this is a recurring section of many articles, we should probably have a template for it, to ensure that it remains in a uniform, easily-edited format.

Policy could go either way. I'd say that WP:INDISCRIMINATE was probably against it - the "development and historical significance" of a play is more important than the minutiae of its production, and whereas something like the original cast has encyclopaedic value, a flat list of scene locations doesn't (if Scene 4 has a really interesting setting, we should write about that as prose). It might be worth bringing this up at somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre, to see what the wider theatrical-editor consensus is. --McGeddon (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree a Wikiproject would be a good idea however I must disagree with your statement that it's a bit much to ask editors to make similar changes on other pages. If "one-off" changes were made on more obscure pages such as Why Didn't They Ask Evans? or Passenger to Frankfurt, I would perhaps agree but it's always the same two f**king pages they change!! This one and And Then There Were None. Excuse my language but it has led to two "mongrel" pages that, in the latter instance, veers considerably away from the wikinovels template at times and requires a lot of effort to bring it back into line.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you had that the wrong way around - someone editing Passenger to Frankfurt might be enough of a Christie fan to check other articles, but an editor of a page about a mainstream work is less likely to be reading the others.

It is too much to ask an editor to check all the other articles to work out what the consensus rule for formatting is, though. If the scene synopsis is important, its format should be written in stone somewhere, so that other editors can check it and help to keep it consistent. If you're the only person that's aware of it, then you're bound to be fighting a losing battle against random edits. --McGeddon (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Mousetrap gets almost a change a day. How many of these changes have been made by someone checking for templates before they do so - very, very few, IMO. (I'm also tempted to ask how many of those changes are relevant and add something of value to the article but perhaps it's best not to go there!!)--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that many users check other articles for formatting, when clearing up something like this. New users wouldn't think to, and experienced users would assume that if something had to be formatted precisely, it would be an actual {{template}}. The fly-by edit replacing an upper-case, fixed-width, dotted-border box with a simple bullet list seems perfectly reasonable, and this is the Wikipedia default for presenting a list of informational points. --McGeddon (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are they all there?

Can anyone explain how 4 people with a connection to the child abuse case "happen" to be gathered under one roof at the same time? I can understand in the case of the hostess (she lives there) and the murderer (who came there with a purpose -- though as another user has pointed out there is something of a problem over the notebook -- and who could presumably quite easily have established in advance the identity of the female proprietor), but how are we supposed to understand that two of the guests, each with a close connection, come to be there at the same time? I do not recall an explanation in the (U.S.) production that I saw recently, and it is too much to be credible as a coincidence. The murderer clearly does not know in advance that the younger woman guest is going to be there -- as he only becomes aware of her true identity towards the end of the play. But how would he have been aware in advance that the older woman guest was going to be there? Nandt1 (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As the writer and critic Robert Barnard said "if you can't believe six impossible things before breakfast (an allusion to Alice in Wonderland) then don't read Agatha Christie." Her works are full of situations such as those outlined in The Mousetrap and you just have to go with the flow and accept the puzzle being presented to you. Most "Whodunnit"-type crime fiction is like that Christie, perhaps, more than most.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Then again, what was the Major who is ultimately revealed to be an undercover police man doing when he clearly knew that the Sergeant was a fake? Shouldn't he have arrested him and avoided the murder? Even if he was looking for proof, what solid material proof did he get at the end? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.213.67 (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That was the flaw in the plot that Agatha Christie was well aware of. The pretext that the fake policeman gave for being there was that the police found the dropped note with this address at the scene of the other killing. But this was also the reason that the major/policeman gave for HIS presence there. If the killer had accidentally dropped a note and REALIZED what he had done, then he must have known that they would be waiting for him. If he did not know that he had really dropped the note then it was an amazing coincidence that he invented it as an excuse when he had also really done so. David Kessler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.52.149 (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler template

For the benefit of any other editors with this article on their watchlist; I've created a "uw-spoiler" template as a quick way to explain Wikipedia's spoiler policy to any editors who've blanked or otherwise spoilered this, and other, articles. --McGeddon (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Context for character descriptions

The character descriptions currently make little sense to any reader who isn't already familiar with the play. They say things such as "one of the abused children", but there's nothing in the article that explains what this is talking about. Either more information about the story should be added, or these cryptic references removed. It's ironic that I can learn the much-guarded secret ending here, but I can't find what happens before that. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Lost Colony

I have deleted the claim that "The Lost Colony" possibly holds the record as the longest continuous run in history (since 1937). The text stated that the play has run every summer in the US since 1937 but the linked pages clearly state that no performances were given from 1941 to 1945. Therefore, under any criteria, it cannot be claimed to be a continuous run. Even then taking into account the fact that it has run since 1945, its seasonality means that it isn't continuous. The Mousetrap has been performed on every evening that the theatres have been open in the West End since 1952 - that is continuous and I cannot see how there can be any debate about this.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Why spoil the ending?

This play is well-written, interesting, even scary at points, as well as being both funny and creepy in all the right parts. Not to mention the fact that (correct me if I'm wrong, please) it's the longest running play in history. Therefore, I think it deserves some respect. Obviously, the solution can be found elsewhere on the internet, but I still don't think it ought to be revealed. As many have noted, the tradition is NOT to tell your friends who the murderer is. Feel free to change it, since Wikipedia was created for the express purpose of any and all being able to edit it, but I really think we shouldn't identify the murderer here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvtheater (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is incorrect to assert that the title of the section is sufficient warning that the identity is revealed. I was expecting further information about the play's construction and reception. I am asking myself what is the personal motive of the editors concerned when so many others have objected? The guideline that it is "wrong to remove spoilers" can not, obviously, be an adequate defence from editors who have themselves ignored the guidelines by including the information in the first place, and in these circumstances this wiki-lawyering rationale effectively claims sole ownership of the page and brings the editors close to edit-war. Redheylin (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in what caused you to believe that a section titled "Identity of the murderer" wouldn't contain information such as, well, the murderer's identity. What was your specific line of reasoning? You see, if the header disguises the fact that a plot detail is going to be revealed, than the information may be better included in the plot section itself. --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That is easily answered since the first sentence of the section actually discusses the matter advertised by the title on general terms and one might imagine that the second sentence would continue in the same vein. As it happened I was reading the piece aloud to someone else and so attention was divided. Since no such thing occurs in articles on Christie's other works and the practice is deprecated by Wiki, the eventuality is unlikely to be anticipated.

Be that as it may, there's a more pressing problem: the section is entirely without references. This ought to be put right. It might be a wiki trick ending. I'll tag it. Redheylin (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And I have resolved the issue of no references; the sections are now cited to a publication of the play and I have removed the numerous tags you added. I presume that addresses your concerns? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It does not. "An article must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if:

Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials.

Based upon: These reliable third-party sources should verify enough facts to write a non-stub article about the subject, including a statement explaining its significance."

You have employed a single primary source that, moreover, fails to explain the significance (the encyclopaedic importance) and notability of the included information. So my concerns have not been addressed. Redheylin (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You're looking in the wrong place, Red. WP:PRIMARY makes clear that primary sources are usable in a case like this:

Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

If your objection is that the facts of the plot and characters have no sourcing, which it initially appeared to be, then the addition of a primary source resolves the issue. There is no interpretation involved in summarizing the plot, etc. A reasonable person can verify this information simply by reading the primary source provided.

If, on the other hand your objection is that the contents of the article are not notable or significant, you're welcome to take the article to WP:AFD, but I don't think it's going to work out for you there, since the play's notability is quite well-sourced throughout the rest of the article.

You missed the point. You need not worry about the notability of the play (I am overlooking the fact that you have not used the play but the book) but you need a third-party source to establish, as I said, "the significance (the encyclopaedic importance) and notability of the included information". Redheylin (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) So...you're saying that you want to see justification that a summary of a fictional work belongs in the article about that fictional work? If so, please see WP:MOSFICT, particularly the section titled "Contextual presentation", where the Manual of Style states:

Details of creation, development, etc. relating to a particular fictional element are more helpful if the reader understands the role of that element in the story. This often involves providing plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations.

In this case, The Mousetrap is notable largely for being a long-running play where the twist ending is used as a gimmick to keep audiences coming in/to keep the play fresh in public imagination/to keep people talking about how they can't reveal the ending. To be able to encyclopedically discuss this gimmick, it must first be be described.

So, as well as the fact that it is common sense to tell what a story is about when discussing the story, we also have a guideline stating that a summary of the plot is rather important to encyclopedic understanding of a work of fiction. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay: You say; "In this case, The Mousetrap is notable largely for being a long-running play where the twist ending is used as a gimmick to keep audiences coming in/to keep the play fresh in public imagination/to keep people talking about how they can't reveal the ending." This is the assertion that requires citation, since the guideline you quote makes it clear that a plot summary is required only in such detail as the "contextual presentation" of the play in real-world terms requires. Precisely, you need to show authority for the assertion that inclusion of details of the ending is required to understand the nature and notability of the play. Otherwise, obviously, the argument is based on OR. Redheylin (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia should contain potentially "spoiling" detail where it substantially enhances the reader's understanding of the work and its impact but be omitted when it merely ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers."

I want an authoritative source saying that disclosure of the plot ENHANCES UNDERSTANDING (other than from the "in universe" perspective, obviously). I am sure this is clear and clearly in line with policy? There are only so many ways I can be misunderstood; I think most of them have been tried. I cannot find this source. So? Without it, there is undue weight on the "twist". Redheylin (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the goalposts here seem to be moving faster than I can, and I'm preparing to leave on vacation for a week, I'm going to throw this over to WP:3O so we can get some outside opinions while I'm gone. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi, I come from WP:3O. The relevant guideline here is obviously WP:SPOILER, which says: It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. and When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served.. I'd say that the last condition is met: if the twist ending is an essential and notable part of the play (and it seems so from the rest of the article), it has to be covered in full. The article is to document the play, not to lure people into seeing it: if someone doesn't want spoilers, don't read the Wikipedia article on it. I hope it helps. --Cyclopia^talk 13:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The ending of the play is clearly important from an in-universe perspective. The fact that the ending is a "twist" is noteable from the real world perspective. However the amount and the nature of detail given of the plot (in-universe detail) must be gauged from the real-world perspective, and this requires a noteable authority to confirm that the events and nature and detail of "the twist" is essential to real-world understanding, rather than the mere fact that the ending is, famously, a twist. Otherwise there is undue weight and the "should not be included merely to spoil" clause kicks in.Redheylin (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

How can the reader know what twist is, and why it is indeed such a surprising twist, without explicitly describing it? The ending is a notable feature of this play from the real world perspective, and since its peculiarity, its inclusion for sure is not "merely to spoil". There is no need for it to be "essential", it is enough, from WP:SPOILER, to ensure that it serves an encyclopedic purpose, and for sure it does. The point is simple: there is no encyclopedic justification to not include such information: all arguments to not include it are for extra-encyclopedic reasons (the information happens to be a spoiler). As such, they are irrelevant arguments. --Cyclopia^talk 18:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and WP:UNDUE for sure doesn't apply. Everyone here agrees that the ending is notable and a defining feature of the play, a brief description of it, therefore, cannot be UNDUE. --Cyclopia^talk 18:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

To throw in my two-penny worth, I would argue that, however trivial it may appear, the revelation of the ending breaches an oral contract between such audience member. Such is the fame of the secrecy, that an audience member cannot reasonably attend without knowing their role to play in guarding it, and thus an oral contract, implied in fact, has taken its place. Given the importance of Wikipedia on the internet, I believe that they have the duty to protect said contract, as its breach is completely disrespectful of an old and well-kept tradition. However, given that the tendency seems to be to side with complete encyclopedic knowledge, as a compromise, I would advocate the creation of a separate page with discussion of the twist. I believe it to be a solution which would not diminish the content of Wikipedia whilst protecting a tradition and a contract which many thousands have sought to protect.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.151.183 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 19 April 2010

Identity of the killer revisited

The section has neither been deleted, truncuated or a spolier warning added, however the text has now been hidden, hopefully this should satisfy both sides.KTo288 (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Making content invisible without further clicks essentially means that you not only have a spoiler warning, you also don't get to see all of the content before you acknowledge it. Hiding content is not a compromise at all. — Kusma ^talk 19:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello, I'm an IP editor with no sense of what Wikipedia is and is not. I would therefore like someone to remove the identity of the murderer from the section clearly labelled "Identity of the murderer". Because of spoilers. And tradition. Or something. --212.159.152.58 (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:SPOILER. The identity section has been requested to be deleted dozens of times, and dozens of times it has been rejected. Wikipedia is an information source. If you don't want to know the murderer identity, don't read the article. --Cyclopia^talk 16:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(By the way, the article is semiprotected for this very reason -avoiding good-faith IP editors to remove notable information in that section from the article).--Cyclopia^talk 16:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I was taking the piss. Making fun. Not being serious. FFS. --212.159.160.53 (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

--Cyclopia^talk 23:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Terrible Decision To Name the Murderer

I have just come here looking for something else connected with Agatha Christie and am absolutely appalled that the ending of the Mousetrap is revealed halfway through the piece without a spoiler warning. This is an atrocious editorial decision and I can see no justification for it whatever. If this information has to be listed then PLACE A WARNING so that those that don't want to know can get off the page. SkinheadEscapes (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it has been repeated countless times on this talk page: If you don't want to know, don't read. Read WP:SPOILER: we don't need spoiler warnings, we're not here to serve entertainment needs, we're here to collect information. What would be "atrocious" would be deleting information only because it spoils the plot. Please do not remove that information again. --Cyclopia^talk 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that you sanctimonious dipstick. When scanning across a text looking for something else you can't automatically skip things that you don't want to know. The 'mystery' of the murderer is so central to this play that it defies belief that even an emotionally-challenged editor of WikiPedia would think it a great idea to spoil the plot just for the sake of a complete and thorough encyclopedia entry. I'm surprised at how strongly I feel about this but I do. It might have something to do with the fact that just a few days ago a friend was telling me how he'd just taken his son to see it and how wonderful it still was and how, of course, you mustn't reveal the ending because it would effectively wreck it. PUT A WARNING UP! SkinheadEscapes (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not clear. I didn't mean "don't read that paragraph". I did mean, "don't read the article". If you don't want information about X, you should steer clear of articles about X, because chances are the information about X will be present in the article. And, yes, it is a good idea to spoil the plot for the sake of a complete and thorough encyclopedia entry. I understand that the ending was not meant to be revealed, but our aim is not respecting Christie's artistic idiosyncracies: our aim is to give information to people who seek it. If you don't want this information, just stay away from the article. It's that easy. The point of an encyclopedia article is to give information, not to help the enjoyment of entertainment. Finally, it would be nice if you can avoid personal attacks and keep the conversation civil. Thank you. --Cyclopia^talk 17:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The bulk of the article seems fine, it's not as if we're giving away the ending in the opening paragraph, or halfway through the production history. That the section is called "Identity of the murderer" seems a clear enough warning that the reader is about to find out more about the identity of the murderer. --McGeddon (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

"In some productions the identity of the killer is changed to throw the audience off." - is this really true? It seems odd for a production company to mess around with the ending of an iconic play, for the sake of unknown audience expectation. --McGeddon (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I know I heard about it before however since I can't find any references you can delete if you want to.--JDDJS (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The identity of the murderer

I deleted the identity of murderer, since it is not supposed to be revealed here, or anywhere else on the Internet. I recently watched the show myself, thank's God, I didn't read about it here before - it would have spoiled everything!!! Whoever has written the original text: you must not ever reveal the ending of a detective story, at least not without a clear warning! For anyone who sin't an expert on the subject, it might ruin the entire experience of reading a novel, or in this particular case, wathcing a show. I feel sorry for those who have allready booked their tickets and happen to visit this page. Please, let the mystory remain a mystory. Do not change the text back!!! /olsson07 alias H Olsson (a great fan of Agatha Christie).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olsson07 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia.

The fact that the section is titled "identity of the murderer" is, I would have thought, a clear enough warning that the murderer's identity is about to be revealed. If I'd booked tickets for a whodunnit, I wouldn't read up on the play beforehand, I'd carefully avoid any reviews, and I certainly wouldn't start reading an encyclopaedia section called "identity of the murderer".

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and while not aimed solely at "experts", it's certainly aimed at people who wish to find out more about a subject. Any scholar attempting to research Christie's work would be immensely frustrated by your suggested "it is revealed that someone is not the person you would expect..." rewording. --McGeddon 21:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What about a link to a new page titled 'The Mousetrap - Identity of the Murderer'. 86.154.88.225 00:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Only if an entire, detailed encyclopaedia article could be written about it, which I don't think it can. We shouldn't disrupt Wikipedia structure for the sake of spoiler warnings, when the section title "identity of the murderer" is already perfectly adequate as a warning. --McGeddon 08:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why in the world would you keep insisting that it is "perfectly adequate as a warning" when clearly several thoughtful people, including me, disagree vehemently with you? There should be a Spoiler Warning, as is expected on the Internet. Something that is supposed to serve as a spoiler warning but does not include the words is just weaseling around the expected behavior of a respectable internet document. Having a spoiler with a weaselly warning is not consistent with the dignity of Wikipedia. Halfelven (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just repeating Wikipedia's existing WP:SPOILER policy which has said, for the past few years, that "Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings". Your change of title to "actual identity of the murderer" is probably a good idea, though. --McGeddon (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted that change, since it is pretty redundant in my opinion. Halfelven, if you disagree with the spoiler alert issue, please bear in mind it is a general issue of policy and therefore you should discuss it in a proper RfC about WP:SPOILER. Until policy changes, don't expect spoiler alerts to come out. We already had to semiprotect the page to keep it policy compliant. --Cyclopia^talk 16:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I quote from Wikipedia's page on how to write a plot summary: [1]

"Wikipedia should contain potentially "spoiling" detail where it substantially enhances the reader's understanding of the work and its impact but be omitted when it merely ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers."

Under those guidelines, it arguably would be appropriate to reveal the identity of the murderer in a book such as 'The Murder of Roger Ackroyd' for example. The plot twist in that book was at the time so revolutionary and so shocking that it forever changed the face of crime novels and firmly established Agatha Christie as a leading crime writer. The revelation of that twist is therefore of great encyclopedic value to readers in enhancing their understanding of the book and of its impact on the literary crime world.

However, the plot twist found in 'The Mousetrap,' whilst characteristically surprising, has had no such equivalent impact. Furthermore, as it is clear from the article that the murderer is acting in revenge for the abuse of young children that took place years before the opening of the play, the additional revelation of who that person actually is has virtually no further encyclopedic value at all. Therefore, the inclusion of such information only serves to ruin the experience of the play for readers.

Therefore, in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, the material revealing the identity of the murderer has been removed.82.46.16.211 (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And in line with the Wikipedia:Spoiler policy which states "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot" I have reinstated the section.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But you have missed the point completely. I agree with you that deleting a paragraph because it 'spoils the plot' is not a sufficient reason for doing so. However, this does not mean that it is appropriate to gratuitously release all plot details on an encyclopedia. Wikipedia clearly acknowledges that there is a line to be drawn and that it is not appropriate to reveal plot information that has no encylopedic value and only serves to 'ruin the experience of the work of fiction' for the readers. The identity of the murderer in this case clearly falls under that category.82.46.16.211 (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Then you have missed the point, policy is to keep "spoilers". Darrenhusted (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The policy is not to delete spoilers if they have sufficient encyclopedic value. Spoilers with no intrinsic encyclopedic value that serve only to ruin the experience of the work of fiction of the reader are not acceptable.82.46.16.211 (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would expect the plot section of a detailed article on a murder mystery to cover the identity of the murderer, particularly when the play is noted for its twist. Indeed, the wording of Wikipedia:Spoiler cites "completeness" as element of article quality, which is further stressed at Wikipedia's criteria for classifying "our very best work": the Featured article criteria.

There is an additional point to be made. 82.46.16.211's objection appears to be that the section serves "only to ruin the experience of the work of fiction of the reader". Given how clearly the section is marked (ie. it telegraphs that the content contained within reveals whodunnit), it does not spoil the reader – they are free to not read if they so choose.

If 82.46.16.211 feels that the reader is ill-served by what appears to be the consensus interpretation of how the spoiler guideline applies here, then they would perhaps be better served by seeking outside opinions – say, at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, which is likely to attract the attention of editors who were involved in writing the guideline. --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Revealing the murderer in The Mousetrap

I'm not sure I have an argument stronger than the current spoiler policy because when you have a policy it's inherent in that term that the response to a complaint is "It's policy." My argument for deleting the spoiler in the Mousetrap article is one that springs from emotion. The current policy talks about the inconvenience of a reader having to go to the original source to find out who the murderer is if spoilers are eliminated. True, Wikipedia does not serve actors or the playwright, but isn't there some sense of foul play when a "secret" that actors have implored their audience to keep for 50 years is revealed on a page under the beacon heading "Identity of the Murderer". Now it has been said that the title should be considered "fair warning". And yes, to those who don't wish to know it is - but for those who rehearse and try to keep the secret so that every audience can share in the delight of the surprise, this revelation wipes away that process and agreement between actors and audience. As I rehearse the play with my high school students, the great fun in the tradition of secret keeping and delight in that process has been taken away.

"The Mousetrap" pg 56: Paravicini: “Please don’t. I always think explanations should be kept to the very end. That exciting last chapter you know”.

Dramachat (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)dramachat

But we're nor the actors nor the audience: we are an encyclopedia. Our purpose is to collect and report notable knowledge, and everyone agrees the twist ending is a notable feature of the play. It's exceedingly easy to avoid knowing the identity of the murderer: just don't read it. Apologies if it sounds rude, but this is getting sillier and sillier every time. Asking WP not to reveal the identity of the murderer is just like asking a library to remove copies of The Mousetrap book from shelves because, you know, someone could just go and read the end. --Cyclopia^talk 12:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I had my first read through with the young actors tonight, and while we talked about keeping the victim and murderer a secret for the enjoyment of the audience, I knew it was now virtually impossible. Googling and making a trip to a library are certainly not the same thing unless that library is in your house. It's just silly to suggest the time and effort for both search methods are the same. With so little respect for the purpose of a "who dunit";that this genre is meant for an audience, and then making fun of someone's principle on a matter, I'm sure the apology was just as bogus as your mission statement. It didn't sound rude - it was. Notable feature. Dramachat (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)dramachat

I am not suggesting that "the time and effort for both search methods are the same". I am suggesting that it is ridicolous to ask for a relevant information about the play to be kept secret on -guess what- the encyclopedia article about the play. The fact that looking on WP is easier than looking in the library for the actual play is irrelevant. Again: if you don't want to know, don't read. What's difficult about that? Why shouldn't we allow people who want to know, to know? Including the ending makes everyone happy: if you don't want to know, you don't read it, if you want to know, you do. Not including it makes happy only the ones who want it secret. Anyway, Wikipedia policies and consensus about this kind of things is pretty clear, and this has been discussed to death on this talk page. Please stop beating the dead horse. --Cyclopia^talk 00:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Another thought on the subject -- this play is published, so anyone who wants to know the identity of the murderer can go down to their local library and find out. Hence, there's no particular reason to keep it out of here, as long as we point out that it's tradition to keep our mouths shut about it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.138.120.115, 8 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} the surprise ending of the play is revealed in this page :(. pls delete that info

86.138.120.115 (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: per WP:SPOILERS. SpigotMap 21:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.1.144.241, 29 July 2010

The identity of the murderer in THE MOUSETRAP by Agatha Christie is kept a secret by many people, and indeed it is noted on this page that audiences that see the performance are pleaded to keep the Whodunnit? mystery under wraps. So why does Wikipedia reveal the result, directly below acknowledging this?! It should have a warning, or not be there at all, as you are not aware that the surprise ending is about to be spoiled until you read it. I'm appalled this has gone unnoticed. Please sort this out ASAP.

92.1.144.241 (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: - I'm not sure how you can say this has "gone unnoticed" when there are at least a dozen separate threads on this talk page with titles like "Revealing the murderer in The Mousetrap" and "Terrible Decision To Name the Murderer", and discussing exactly this subject. As is stated in every single one of those threads, WP:SPOILER states that Wikipedia does not include spoiler warnings, nor delete significant material because it might spoil the plot. --McGeddon (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Mollie's Connection

I do not have permission to edit this article but there is an addition to be made. Under "Identity of the Murderer" is this list of involved persons:

"... it is revealed that the murderer is Sergeant Trotter, who is not a policeman at all; that Miss Casewell is actually his sister who came looking for him; and that Major Metcalf is, in fact, an undercover police detective, looking for the murderer."

It should also be included that Mollie Ralston had the children as students when she was a teacher.

Luci6424 (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Missed this because it didn't have the correct formatting for an edit request, but it's now Done--McGeddon (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Too early archiving

The people removing ad nauseam the spoiler alerts year after year must be proud since hundreds of people are reading this entry each day that the theater has seen bookings decline. Michel Alençon aka 82.224.88.52 (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith of other editors. We're writing an encyclopaedia and making information available to anyone who wants to study or learn about Christie's work, we're not trying to shut down a production. --McGeddon (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

About this good faith problem someone can make mistakes while being in good faith ;-))) imho you are not making information available to anyone when you or your robot keep on hiding recent POVs in an unreferenced page such as Talk:The Mousetrap/Archive 1 --ONaNcle (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Any thread that hasn't had any activity in over a month gets automatically archived here. Archiving talk pages in some way or another is standard procedure, per WP:ARCHIVE. If you think this is a problem, feel free to edit or remove the bot template from the top of this talk page, but I can't see that we're losing any unfinished discussions - most traffic on this talk page is people being concerned about the ending being spoiled, and an editor pointing out WP:SPOILER. --McGeddon (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not "unreferenced", it's linked right at the top of the page, where it says "Archives: 1" -- which, I presume, is how you found out about it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You could have presumed right but actually I had to manage through view history to discover at the end those badly-referenced-robotized-archives. --ONaNcle (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request (other editions)

{{editsemiprotected}} "The short story has still not been published within the United Kingdom but it has appeared in the United States in the 1950 collection Three Blind Mice and Other Stories."

The section on the publising history of the short story is incomplete: It is safe to assume that it has subsequently been published in other countries as well.

(eg: there is a greek translation from the late sixties or early seventies - "lychnari" editions, currently out of print, since the publishing house has closed down). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.231.188 (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Not done You need proper references when making this request. Please read WP:SOURCE. -- Crazysane (^T/_C\^D) 17:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Newgubea, 31 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Newgubea (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Not done You haven't requested anything? -- Crazysane (^T/_C\^D) 17:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Televised version?

The ending mentioned here didn't seem much of a surprise to me, because I'm near-certain that I've seen it before in some murder mystery that aired on PBS in the U.S. around 20-25 years ago. But though I see some mention of parodies and tributes, I don't see mention of a televised version. Anyone know if there was one? Wnt (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Independent

What this new paper article did was wrong. They took random posts from the talk page and wrote them as official statements. They claimed one user was "a spokesperson" and that an IP user was "an approved member of the community." That was wrong. These people are making stories out of nothing. JDDJS (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. You can send a comment to the editor, and they may find it helpful. Newspapers are still trying to figure out how to deal with the internet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good idea. I have just sent the editor an email. JDDJS (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

They've already been alerted about their commitee mistake by several fans on their website but the main point imho is: http://stats.grok.se/en/201008/The_Mousetrap 77.198.125.242 (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That shows the irony that the Independent's "report" complaining about the presents of "spoilers" in the Wikipedia article did more to "spoil" people about the play's conclusion that the Wikipedia article itself. "The lady doth protest too much." —Farix (t | c) 17:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In an interview in French this morning http://www.lexpress.fr/culture/tele/agatha-christie-nous-lisait-deux-chapitres-chaque-soir_915016.html you'll find how a main character is dead. --86.69.180.167 (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC) aka fr:Michel Alençon aka --ONaNcle (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ending spoiler

• This spoiler was complained about in today's issue of the Daily Telegraph (a UK newspaper). I have put the spoiler in a {{navbox ... }} which hides it until the reader clicks on the word "show" at its right end. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To assist non-tech-savvy readers, shouldn't we add an instruction to click on the word "show" at the right end of the navbar? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What on earth for? Wikipedia:Spoiler Skomorokh 22:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that WP:SPOILER has not been forgotten here, though the Daily Telegraph just printed that "There is no official Wikipedia policy on revealing the ending of films, plays and books with different methods being adopted by different editors."[2] With the sustained press coverage we are rapidly approaching the point where the Wikipedia article should report on itself. This will prove particularly... unusual... to deal with when the coverage is inaccurate. Wnt (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. I feel we could use the occasional IAR exception and report it correctly, by rectifying a bit of information. OR? Perhaps, but to propagate inaccurate information on ourselves that we know for certain being inaccurate is grotesque. --Cyclopia^talk 12:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This would not be the first time that this kind of problem comes up. There are some fundamentalists, including some admins, who insist that we have an obligation to lie about Wikipedia when the press gets things wrong. Hans Adler 12:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a perfectly logically tenable position: after all, if we hold the principle that we report what RS say, that's the exact outcome we should expect. That is why I explicitly invoked WP:IAR above. This seems to me a textbook example of an exceptional circumstance where we should break the rules for once, to provide a better service to our readers (i.e. accurate information). --Cyclopia^talk 12:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia's correct (on that point, at least). We can point out that a report on Wikipedia by a normally Reliable Source has got a Wikipedia policy wrong. I'm far from convinced that Wikipedia's citation of a Wikipedia Policy which contradicts an inaccurate "RS" report constitutes research, original or otherwise. From WP:NOR "The term 'original research' refers to material - such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories - not already published by reliable sources." It would be perverse to argue that Wikipedia is not a primary source for a wikipedia policy, even if it it not in general a reliable source. And a primary source may be used on Wikipedia "to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Quoting the relevant policy article would seem to fit. And even if it didn't, WP:IAR would be appropriate! - Paul (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It would seem best to me, in order to avoid controversy and still provide the requested information, to create a "Killer in Agatha Christie's 'The Mousetrap'" article, move the entire plot spoiler there and then reference it in the introduction to the article. In this way, the final wishes of the author are upheld (and a fundamental part of the play's structure) and Wikipedia gets to post everything just as before.--eleuthero (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. We don't do that for other articles and we shouldn't do it for this one. If you don't want to know the plot, don't read the plot section of the article (or maybe don't read the article at all). --Two Bananas (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This would just be another form of spoiler, and would still be covered by WP:SPOILER. If a section called "Identity of the murderer" isn't enough of a clue to the reader that the identity of the murderer is about to be revealed, an article entitled "Killer in Agatha Christie's 'The Mousetrap'" presumably wouldn't help them much either (and could even be worse, if they got there from a Google search and the one-paragraph article got straight to the point). I'm not sure how hiding the ending behind a link would uphold Christie's final wishes any more closely - the Telegraph article suggests that her grandson considers it a "pity" when any reference work includes the plot in its entirety. --McGeddon (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Put this spoiler in a hideable box?

• The Telegraph would be quite right in stating there is no official WP policy on spoilers. WP:SPOILER isn't a policy, but a content guideline, "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". This case, where a complaint against Wikipedia has been widely reported in the national UK press, is unusual enough to merit such an exception. So let's be reasonable and restore Anthony Appleyard's navbox compromise, per this article version; it's the best solution for all parties concerned. --JN466 03:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If I could keep my mouth shut about some moron spoiling Lois McMaster Bujold's new not-yet-published (downloadable ARCs) book in an edit summary, I think we'll survive having the end of The Mousetrap in here. (I could just post the link to Google Books for that page, but I'm not quite that cruel.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Putting it in a box, as Anthony Appleyard did, satisfies Christie's heirs, fans of the play who have objected to our coverage, and still leaves the information available to those who wish to see it. It's a win-win solution. --JN466 03:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
      • So, what's next? The Sixth Sense? The Empire Strikes Back? The Crying Game? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
        • The situations are not comparable. None of these other works have a decade-long, hallowed tradition of not divulging the ending, nor has Wikipedia's coverage of them attracted nationwide media comment, or petitions for us to exercise restraint. WP:SPOILER explicitly allows the occasional exception, and asks us to apply common sense. Given the situation that has developed, common sense is that we gain little or nothing by insisting on revealing the ending in the way we do, whereas we gain goodwill, and serve our readers, by making sure that only those who have made a conscious decision to view the information come to see it. It's just a question of sensitivity, and it is no skin off our nose. --JN466 04:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So if journalists start reporting that we spoiled those endings, we change our guidelines immediately to fit those complaints? Nobody insists on anything here. The section are clearly called "plot" and "identity of the murderer" and if someone clicks on them / reads them, it's not our fault if the ending is spoiled for them. Your argument is somehow based on the assumption that people are forced to read this article before watching the play - they are not. Regards SoWhy 09:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The article has a spoiler warning. Apart from the general principle that you shouldn't read an encyclopedia article if you don't want to have the full information, you also shouldn't read the section "Plot" if you don't want to learn about the plot, and you shouldn't read its subsection "Identity of the murderer" if you don't want to be informed about that. Even the subsection that any reasonable reader will expect to contain a spoiler starts with a one-sentence paragraph that does not mention the murderer. I think it's relatively hard to read the information accidentally. Hans Adler 09:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• None of these other works have a decade-long, hallowed tradition of not divulging the ending : And why should we care about this tradition? What has to do with encyclopedic coverage? Why should we care about Christie's heirs?
• nor has Wikipedia's coverage of them attracted nationwide media comment, or petitions for us to exercise restraint. : And why should we care about nationwide media comment, or such petitions?
• is unusual enough to merit such an exception.: No, it isn't, there is no encyclopedic reason to allow an exception. --Cyclopia^talk 09:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Why should we care? Because it is more generous to care about other people, and to make a concession, than it is to reflexively argue, "I don't have to care". Sticking it into a box does not harm our encyclopaedic mission one jot, and makes other people happy. Why would we not do that, except to prove the point that we have the power to refuse? We have that power anyway. I just don't think it is necessary to exercise it. --JN466 14:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oh but the point is that it harms our encyclopaedic mission, and that I care about other people. Specifically, encyclopedias are not expected to treat their readers like they were braindead babies and we were their nannies. We are supposed to treat them as reasonable persons who understand that, once you have a section headed "Plot", and a subsection headed "Identity of the murderer", then you will find a spoiler. I would find it insulting upon our readers to put even more steps to find information which is already obvious there is. Since I don't want the majority of our readers to feel treated like cretins only because a minority doesn't get the point of what encyclopedias are for, I prefer the section to stay as it is. Creating the subsection was the nice gesture you talk about: because it makes it clear that that spoiler will be found there, without harming the article. But we don't need anything else. --Cyclopia^talk 14:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• That the sections are headed "Plot" etc, is not enough. Many people cannot quickly shut their brains' visual cortexes down in time to avoid eye-decoding information which is already on screen. 09:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs)

I don't know about your screen but on my 1680x1050 resolution TFT there is no way that the Contents box (with the clear section name "Plot") and the actual plot section fit on the same screen. I have to scroll down to find the section "plot". Also, the "plot" section's beginning does not contain the information we are talking about. There is no way you can claim that someone can read the entire section before beginning to realize it's a plot section. And of course that does not constitute an excuse for them being surprised to find plot details in an encyclopedic article about a fictional work. Regards SoWhy 09:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The same for me. By coincidence I have the same screen resolution. If I put Firefox into full screen mode and zoom out to the point that I can barely read the letters, the heading "Plot" is at the bottom of the screen. The above comment by AnthonyAppleyard (dated but unsigned) sounds like post-facto rationalisation: A journalist has complained about the article, so there must be something wrong with the article. Never mind that the journalist also misrepresented random editors including an IP address as speaking for Wikipedia in an official capacity. Hans Adler 09:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If sticking it into a clickable box makes more readers happy with the article, without inconveniencing anyone else, then doing so is simply an easily made article improvement. So let's agree to do that, and move on to things that actually matter. The labelling of the box needn't be as dramatic as it was in Anthony Appleyard's version. "Click on Show if you want to know the play's ending" would do just as well. --JN466 14:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

But that's precisely what {{spoiler}} was meant for and that's precisely why we don't use it anymore. This suggestion conflicts with consensus not to have spoiler warning of any kind. Would you add the ending of The Sixth Sense into such a box? The one from Empire Strikes Back or Harry Potter? Or to put it another way: Apart from the fake media outcry (about something that was in the article for years) and the wishes of some third-party (which can and do happen with other articles as well), what policy/guideline based reason is there to treat this article any other than all other articles about fictional works? Regards SoWhy 15:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER explicitly asks us to apply common sense, and to allow the occasional exception. There is no need to be dogmatic about these things; flexibility is a good thing. As for your question about The Sixth Sense, Empire Strikes Back or Harry Potter, no, I wouldn't put the endings of these in a collapsible box. --JN466 15:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against the possibility of exceptions in general. But as with every exception, you need to argue in its favor based on policy and guidelines - which you have failed to do. The fact that exceptions are possible is by itself not a reason to make them - nor are the wishes of journalists or third parties. If you can tell us any reason, why it's better for the encyclopedia to treat this article any different that those other examples I mentioned (all of them containing notable twists after all), we might be more willing to follow your and Anthony's suggestion. Regards SoWhy 16:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

@JN466. The exception is only for removing plot information that doesn't serve an encyclopedic purpose. There are no exceptions to removing info just because it spoils the plot. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Another red herring. Nobody in this discussion, myself included, has advocated the removal of the information. What has been proposed is to put it in a box that the reader can reveal, at their discretion. Our encyclopaedic purpose is to serve as a resource for the public. If a section of the public tells us that we are doing it badly, and if we can accommodate that section without depriving anyone else of information that they may wish to have, then doing so enhances our fulfilment of our encyclopaedic mission, i.e. serving the public. Simple really, isn't it? --JN466 00:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Now let's get serious and read WP:SPOILER, not just talk about it. It's only three paragraphs. The second paragraph says we don't do spoiler warnings except in the way in which we have been doing it in this article for ages. The last sentence is most pertinent: "[...] Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers."

You just claimed: "WP:SPOILER explicitly asks us to apply common sense, and to allow the occasional exception." Please tell us which of the three paragraphs can be understood to cover what you have in mind. Thank you. Hans Adler 03:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

At the top of WP:SPOILER, it says: "This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." This applies to all content guidelines, and applies to the entire text of WP.SPOILER that follows below that caveat, including what you quote. The provisions there are not cast in stone, and are not designed to be applied mechanically. --JN466 12:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the "section of the public", you might want to read Uncle G's analysis here which sums up really well why this is a bad reason to change anything. Regards SoWhy 07:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I read it (and answered it there). One of the books UncleG mentions as divulging the ending is this one. It is a 2576-page specialist cyclopedia for writers, costs $368, and has one of the lowest amazon sales ranks I have ever seen. The other is a US teacher's guide. I trust the papers have got one fact right, that some people in England are upset we are openly revealing the ending. There is no need for us to do so. Putting the ending in a box is such a little thing for us, and obviously a big thing to them, that I don't see it as reasonable to refuse. --JN466 13:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to provide a reasonable, policy-based reason to change it, not require us to tell you reasonable reasons to not change it. And we have mentioned a number of reasons why it would be a bad thing for the project to act based on what is a big thing for other people while you have not provided any other reasons than "it's a big thing for some people in England who are upset about it". Regards SoWhy 13:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy involved here, other than the policy that we should use common sense in applying content guidelines like WP:SPOILER, and that we should allow the occasional exception (that is policy, and a very long-standing one). --JN466 14:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There are only exceptions for not including a spoiler at all, as I already explained to you. Please stop claiming that WP:SPOILER supports your argument. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to copy and paste the whole guideline here (it's only three paragraphs) and bold the sentence that pertains to this article. As I've said below, I see no reason to make an exception simply because it has been reported on in the press (and rather sloppily, too.) elektrikSHOOS 06:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that reveals plot events or twists, and thus may "spoil" the experience for any reader who learns details of the plot in this way rather than in the work itself.

Articles on the Internet sometimes feature a "spoiler warning" to alert readers to spoilers in the text, which they may then choose to avoid reading. Wikipedia has previously included such warnings in some articles on works of fiction. Since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers.

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, Wikipedia:Lead section). When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information—articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance.

— Wikipedia:Spoilers