Talk:The Mousetrap/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Could this please be added to the Theatrical performances section:

The Genesian Theatre in Sydney, Australia recently announced a new production of The Mousetrap to be staged at their Kent St location from 1st September to 15th October 2011 to celebrate the 60th season of the West End run.

Uhm, could you elaborate why it is notable information? --Cyclopia^talk 12:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

this is the first production of the play to be staged in Australia, as the rights have never before been made available in Australia while the original West End run continues.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.2.30 (talk • contribs)

Ok, thanks. Can you give me a secondary source about that (say, a newspaper)? --Cyclopia^talk 15:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

More and more often on our wiki, some entries remain the property of very few contributors while many many people in talk pages disagree about the way an entry is built. That's why I shall not dare to do the job myself even if --- me too ;-))) --- I feel fully in good faith (see far below) saying that imho this source is enough : http://www.genesiantheatre.com.au/index.php?mode=view&s=2011&i=3 --ONaNcle (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is also mentioned on the City of Sydney What's On page http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/WhatsOn/html/custom/2234-event-details.asp?EventID=87698 This is a govt run website. The details regarding limited availability of the rights in Australia are mentioned on http://www.stagewhispers.com.au/node/4253 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.2.30 (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Last will

Spoiling under the title Identity of the murderer is against Agatha Christie's last will 82.224.88.52 (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is any sort of legal issue with this article (I'm not sure how a "last will" could have the power of injunction over future discussions of a work), I'd suggest contacting Christie's lawyers. I'm sure they'd already be aware of this article, though, if there were any serious legal issues in naming a fictional murderer. --McGeddon (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Since then (see The Telegraph above) the family has given a clear opinion on that matter. --ONaNcle (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't ask companies how they want their products presented on Wikipedia and what we may or may not write about them; we don't ask authors what we may or may not write about their books; and we don't ask the relatives of authors what they deem appropriate information for an encyclopedia. This line of arguing is only going to make it worse. Hans Adler 11:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia will obviously stay alive keeping insulting families this way but you're true it's going to make it worse to non-anonym-contributors not behaving in a decent way--ONaNcle (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We are behaving in a decent way, by building a complete and neutral encyclopedia. What would be indecent would be to grovel to every idiotic quirk that people may feel about a piece of content (like "hush! don't say it beyond the theather!"), making it impossible to create a neutral and comprehensive encyclopedia. --Cyclopia^talk 12:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Again: they published the script of the play. They published a short story based on the play. If you want to keep it a secret, don't publish it. Simple as that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Spoiling on Facebook too

One can find here [1] one sentence from an external web site but pretending to be extracted from wikipedia. Whatever entry it comes from, it should imho be removed not to give one more clue about the murderer. --ONaNcle (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not "pretending to be extracted", it's lifted from the article on The Real Inspector Hound. I'll take a look to make sure it's not carrying inappropriate spoilers for a separate work. --McGeddon (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You've indeed done a very nice job there ; anyway, I wonder if it remains still spoiled since you have left this sentence the audience wonders where the real Inspector Hound is .../... The twist is similar to that of Agatha Christie's play The Mousetrap --ONaNcle (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

So it is spoiled. Why should we care? We are an encyclopedia. We report information. If you don't like spoilers, don't read encyclopedic articles about fiction works. --Cyclopia^talk 16:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit much to ask people who don't like spoilers to avoid reading any articles about fiction, in case an article about Film A happens to give away the ending to Film B by way of analogy. We should "make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served" by any spoiler, per WP:SPOILER. It does seem that the Inspector Hound connection is worth mentioning, if Stoppard was being deliberately provocative about The Mousetrap - it shouldn't be too hard to phrase it in such a way that the reader will realise that the ending of The Mousetrap is about to be revealed (or at least implied) by the article. I'll look for sources and get back to it in the week. --McGeddon (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not too much at all. Part of the job of an encyclopedia is to locate a work within the culture that created it. Identifying similarities in two works that may illuminate that is precisely what we should be doing and I would consider a comprehensive encyclopedia that did not do this to be defective. -- ۩ Mask 14:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. --Cyclopia^talk 23:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have never seen the play, I won't bother now. The secrecy concerning the ending was an eccentric and very harmless British institution, what a pity you had to spoil it - all for a little cheap publicity. I hope Wikipedia feels it was worth it - I suspect it wasn't.  Giacomo  22:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you read the article if you didn't want to know the end? Especially the section titled "Identity of the Murder". JDDJS (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

...because every British newspaper I have read yesterday and today has directed me there, and I wanted to see if Wikipedia was being quite so cheap or had decided to do the decent thing and revert.  Giacomo  22:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it wasn't revealed for publicity. Wikipedia doesn't need publicity. Editors in the past have decided it was relevant enough to reveal who the murder is. JDDJS (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"it wasn't revealed for publicity" Really? That's not the way it currently looks from where I am sitting - I hope Wikipdia realises publicity comes in two forms; in my experience, PR was never one of the projects better points.  Giacomo  23:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just read the archives talk pages. Editors didn't say "Oh, lets reveal the ending so that we'll get some publicity." they said that the end was important enough to reveal. I don't understand what is so hard about not reading an article! I have avoided reading articles on many books, movies and TV shows that I was planning on watching/reading to avoid having the end spoiled. Why can't other people just do that? JDDJS (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Decision to keep the ending in Article was made in 2007 And it took until 2010 for the Sunday Papers to pick it up. If they hadn't picked it up, Half of the comments here wouldn't be here.Floul1^{Talk To me} 05:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The "anyone can go into a library and read the ending of a book" analogy is completely inaccurate; this is more like taping a sporting event, only to have some MORON tell you the result as you sit down to watch it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.233.238 (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree with my anonymous friend above too.  Giacomo  22:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is more like taping a sporting event, but then deciding to read about the game in the newspaper first. You don't have to read this article. If you don't want to know the end then don't read it. JDDJS (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep. It seems that the concept of "If I don't want information, I avoid to read it" is something incredibly hard to grasp for a lot of people. Well, I hope this article teaches them a lesson: Don't look on Wikipedia if you don't want spoilers, guys. --Cyclopia^talk 12:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I also lend my voice in support of not censoring relevant encyclopedic material. As per the well-established principle, Wikipedia is not censored. While a certain prudence may benefit particular articles dealing with sensitive real-world events, sensitivity to 'spoilers' in works of fiction is not the role of an encyclopedia. --Xaliqen (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Should we put the ending of Agatha Christie's The Mousetrap in a collapsed box?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is it a reasonable compromise, and a common-sense application of WP:SPOILER, to put the ending of Agatha Christie's famous, much-loved and world record-beating murder mystery play, The Mousetrap, in a collapsed box, as a courtesy to those who have asked us not to reveal the ending openly?

For background, see the Signpost article on the controversy, and the article in The Independent, as well as discussions above. --JN466 13:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Previously involved editors

• No. WP:SPOILER does not justify removing information that is relevant to the article's encyclopedic value, neither completely, nor by hiding it. While there may reasons to do so, so far no one has provided any policy-based reasons for this case. Neither the wishes of a third-party nor any amount of fabricated scandal can justify such a change, especially since the information is sourced to a number of publicly available books, published for more than 50 years. What's next? Putting all images on Muhammad into boxes so Muslim readers are not offended? It's a slippery slope if we start justifying not policy-based edits because some third-party thinks we should. Regards SoWhy 14:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Yes. WP:SPOILER is a content guideline (not a policy), to be applied with common sense and the occasional exception (per Wikipedia policy governing the application of content guidelines). This case is exceptional: this murder mystery is the longest-running play in history, it has a unique and cherished tradition of asking those who watch the play not to discuss the ending outside the theatre, and our article has attracted global press coverage for being insensitive to this tradition. Putting the ending in a collapsed box satisfies those who have asked us not to reveal the mystery without warning, prevents readers from learning the information by accident, and keeps it accessible to all those of our readers who make a conscious decision to learn it from our article. Doing so satisfies the greatest number of readers, thus improving the encyclopaedia. --JN466 14:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• No. There is no reason to treat this any differently than any other published work. If they didn't want people outside the theater to find out the ending, they shouldn't have published the play.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• No for the reasons outlined below:

1. Danger of a slippery slope: As SoWhy correctly worries, if we begin to allow this for this play, we open the doors to throw the WP:SPOILER guideline in the rubbish. After all, in Muhammad we piss off a lot of Muslims by showing the pictures without a collapsing table; in many sexuality articles we show images and videos that can be deemed "offensive" by many people. What constitutes a "reasonable exception" and what not? WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't mean only that we include information which is controversial or potentially offensive, but also that we take no steps to hide it from the reader.
2. Encyclopedic irrelevance of external traditions/author's requests: External requests or traditions should not affect editorial decisions in Wikipedia, when they go against our encyclopedic mission. We are under no obligation to follow "cherished traditions": I am sure there is a cherished tradition in the West also not to show penises in public, yet our penis article shows them. We are under no obligation to follow author's requests (and even less so their heirs' requests). The reason is not because we are jerks. The reason is that we are here to be a neutral, thorough encyclopedia. Such neutrality and thoroughness of course is at odds with traditions and opinions that require us to withhold information. But bending over to such traditions would make us less neutral and less thorough. In this case I understand we talk of collapsing information, not removing it altogether, yet the same considerations apply, we have no encyclopedic reasons to hide this information: we have only extra-encyclopedic ones, which are irrelevant to us.
3. Encyclopedic irrelevance of press reports: For the same reasons above, what the press says of WP must not sway WP from its objective. We shouldn't fear negative publicity, if such negative publicity is founded on a fundamental misunderstanding of our mission (providing a collection of public, notable knowledge). We should instead attempt to educate the press and the public on our mission and our policies. The article of the Independent is full of mistakes and reports as new something that dates from 2007.
4. Doing a technical disservice to the readers: By collapsing information we make a disservice to the reader by making the article harder to read, harder to print and in general less polished.
5. Consideration of the intelligence of the readers: Our readers merit more respect than being treated like braindead children that do not understand that an encyclopedic article about a work of fiction can contain spoilers on that work of fiction. By collapsing the information, we somewhat behave like nannies that tell our readers "see, we know better than you, we know what you should read first and what not". This is insulting to our public.
6. Systemic bias: Outside UK, the play is printed and available in every bookstore. The tradition is very much UK-specific. By collapsing the final, we accomodate the will of some UK reader but we make the experience worse for all our other readers.
7. We already have enough warnings: The plot is not revealed until the section called "Plot". The final twist of the play is not revealed until the subsection titled, very clearly, "Identity of the murderer". The article lead makes it very clear that the play is renowned for its twist ending. It is reasonably impossible to arrive to such section without having read that, and without noticing the title of the section and subsections. We expect every normal reader to understand what is going to be found in such sections and as such we have already warned enough the reader, without having to add collapsible boxes. --Cyclopia^talk 15:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• No. There is no way to read WP:SPOILER so that this is allowed, and for good reason: Unlike the kind of things that we do collapse (mostly navigation boxes), the spoiler is an integral part of the article itself. It would make a lot more sense to hide potentially offensive images (Goatse, autofellatio, Muhammad, etc.) in this way, but I have never seen such an outcome. (The images were either removed completely or left in the article without collapsing.) This is not the unusual special case that could not be foreseen when WP:SPOILER was written and which justifies an application of WP:IAR. It's a storm in a teapot, caused by a journalist who made things up, who was then copied by others who didn't fact check. Hans Adler 20:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• No... even if Cyclopia's attitude made me say Yes few days ago. I was not the one who has interviewed Prichard but when I've discovered the Independent on Sunday arguing, I've found most of my ideas exposed in a letter --- sorry Hans --- sent by me a full week before. I don't want to reveal my identity here but I could send both this dated letter User:ONaNcle#Independent_was_not_the_first... and the subsequent one to a trustable third party. BTW, Matthew Prichard the grandson is untrustable because he publicly reveals the end of some of his grandmother's masterpieces. --ONaNcle (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• No. If we're advocating a policy of obfuscating content based on "unique and cherished traditions", that takes out a lot more than a twist ending to a mystery play. And the Independent article would still have been written, most likely with the same reaction from Prichard, and with more "I can't believe you let people find out the ending!" quotes from IP editors, if Wikipedia had always hidden the identity of the murderer inside a little click-to-open box. --McGeddon (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• No. WP:SPOILER does not allow to remove info just because "it spoils the plot", and it has no exception in the form claimed by JN466. The twist ending is an important part of the play and its fame, and that's why it appears in the article. No reason has been provided except that it spoils the play for people who decided to read the "plot" section of a play they haven't still seen. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• No. Cyclopia covered my reasoning well, but I'll add that I feel like Wikipedia too often uses kid gloves when dealing with complainants who are wealthy, white, or Western. Maybe this is out of fear of media fracas or lawsuits, but if we allow precedents to be set with these, people later will have to choose whether to more overtly adopt a nationalistic or bigoted policy, or to slide down the slippery slope as far as it goes. Neither appeals. Wnt (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• No. The masterful explanation by Cyclopia pretty much covers my reasoning; I would only add that the fact that this ending is so notable that a stink can be raised about how we cover it is...even more reason to cover it, due to the all the notability these new articles are heaping upon the spoiler. If it's so important that it's a scandal to talk about it, then it's pretty darn important, and oughtn't we to cover things that are that important in our articles about those things without making readers have to jump through magic hoops to read them? A collapse box is one more obstacle put between the reader and the information; our goal should be to put as few obstacles as we can. Many readers would skim the page, see no text under the heading of "Identity" (etc) or not know how to expand the box (those "hide/expand" links are mighty small, and frankly a large portion of our readership is here to look at non-interactive text, not solve The Mystery of the Hidden Solution) and move on, not aware that the information was available but judged too "controversial" for them to see.keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• No. Why should we just give into the pressure of the newspapers? This article has more of a spoiling warning than most other articles. If you don't want to know who the murder is, then why would you read the section titled identity of the murder? JDDJS (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

• No. The section headline "Identity of the murderer" pretty clearly says what's going to be inside it. This is sufficient, and we're not responsible for people who choose to look at it it anyway despite knowing clearly what they're going to read. WP:SPOILER also agrees with us, saying that implied spoiler warnings in the form of section headlines are sufficient. I see no reason to make an exception simply because the media has reported on this article in particular. elektrikSHOOS 17:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• No. I'm sorry but this is a silly suggestion. If you don't want to know the ending, don't read an encyclopedia article on it. Plus doing this would be the thin end of the wedge.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • With respect, the play and its continuous 58-year theatre run are so notable that there are many reasons for looking up this article, other than wanting to know the play's ending. --JN466 08:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Of course, but you are missing the point entirely. The point is that encyclopedia articles contain spoilers practically by definition. It's ridicolous to not want full information on a subject in a place which is dedicated to -guess what- giving full information on a subject. --Cyclopia^talk 12:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • What Cyclopia said. Encyclopedias are the first place to go when you want clear information about the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, without the usual tongue-in-cheek "think of the children" stuff that pretends to believe in them. When the way a topic is commonly treated makes it very hard to get a certain bit of information you need, try an encyclopedia. An example would be a literary scholar who is researching stories with a certain kind of surprise ending and simply wants to know whether the plot of The Mousetrap is one of them. They should most definitely not have to go to the trouble of getting a copy of the script from the next library which has it, or of asking around among their acquaintances whether any of them has been to London and seen the play. Hans Adler 12:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• No If I don't want to know the ending for something, the last thing I would do is go to the internet then look it up. If I -did- want to know the ending, the FIRST thing I'd do is go to the appropriate wikipedia article and hope that said article was in compliance with WP policy so that I could have my answer quickly and reliably. It's nice to want to save people from disappointment or from having a story "ruined", but encyclopedias aren't about being nice. Quietmarc (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• No As an encyclopedia article, the focus should be to provide a comprehensive yet detached and objective reporting of the facts of the topic. No external pressures should force a deviation from the standards that have been formed over the past decade or so. We didn't do so for Mohammed or the FBI Seal, and we shouldn't do so here. One of the side-effects of documenting the total sum of human knowledge is that there will be those who don't want X or Y out there. It's already obvious from the table of contents that the identity is revealed, and it is far enough down that someone would have to make a conscious effort to read it. Arakunem^Talk 22:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• No. You seem to be laboring under a misconception about encyclopedias. We make finding information EASIER, not harder. If you honestly believe this is a common sense solution and a compromise then this is not the project for you. -- ۩ Mask 23:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Mousetrap outside London

Do you mind if I start an entry such as the Mousetrap outside London???--ONaNcle (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Content forking for the answer to that question.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It may make sense if you can show it is notable, otherwise expect it to be ripped to pieces at AfD (I would personally like the entry, however). --Cyclopia^talk 18:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"In celebration of the 60th Anniversary of the opening of the London production in 1952, The Mousetrap will be available for productions between 1 September 2011 and 31 December 2013." seems worth mentioning in the article, although we obviously shouldn't list every production that happens during that two-year period. Can we find a more reliable source than http://www.stagewhispers.com.au/node/4253 ? --McGeddon (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

New York Times article

There was a thoughtful article in the New York Times about the above controversy today. Personally, I thought Rupert Holmes, quoted in that article, had it about right. --JN466 02:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there are several other people quoted in the article whose opinions are more reasonable, e.g. David Thomson's. Hans Adler 08:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to get it skipping registration? --Cyclopia^talk 11:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The full unchanged text is here : http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/spoiler-alert-whodunit-wikipedia-will-tell-you-52962?trendingnow --ONaNcle (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ONaNcle! --Cyclopia^talk 14:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Jarecki: "It's hard to argue that there is an intellectual or academic reason for getting deeply into the secrets of a movie that the vast majority of the public has not had access to - Oh dear. Is this guy serious? --Cyclopia^talk 14:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article is carried by a whole bunch of other papers and media outlets as well. By the way, Cyclopia, registration at the NYT site is free, and you only need to do it once. --JN466 17:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I know Jayen, but I have already too many accounts around , so until needed... --Cyclopia^talk 17:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Policy or guideline?

Let's please not repeat ad nauseam the rumour that WP:SPOILER is a policy. It isn't. It is a guideline, to be applied with common sense and allowing the occasional exception ... as it says quite clearly at the top of the WP:SPOILER page. --JN466 17:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right: after the initial vote it was a guideline but after the vote above it became imho a policy--ONaNcle (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yep, but consensus rebuked allowing this particular exception, so, for all practical purposes, we're in a situation of WP:SPOILER being more or less binding. --Cyclopia^talk 17:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

What happens on an article talk page does not change the status of a project-wide guideline. As for this talk page, WP:Consensus can change (even if it is not very likely to). --JN466 18:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Jayen466, please read WP:DEADHORSE. There wasn't a single voice in your favor. Please stop trying to insist that this is a valid exception. elektrikSHOOS 01:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think writing "WP:Consensus can change (even if it is not very likely to)" qualifies as beating a dead horse. --JN466 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well actually, WP:SPOILER states that When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Can someone explain what encyclopedic purpose is being served by revealing the ending of The Mousetrap? Gatoclass (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The ending is one of the most notable features of the play. So documenting it is notable, encyclopedic information. --Cyclopia^talk 03:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

But there are many people who do not want to know the ending until they have seen the play. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Again: we don't remove spoilers just because they are spoilers..... --Enric Naval (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No one wanted to remove the spoiler. Please let's not use straw men arguments. --JN466 18:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Gatoclass was asking what encyclopedic purpose the ending served. Under WP:SPOILER, if it was serving zero encyclopedic purpose, we could just remove it. --McGeddon (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I see what you mean. --JN466 23:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to complain about spoilers. If you have a problem with spoilers please bring it up at WP:SPOILER. Thank you JDDJS (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I made it a proposal on the guideline's talk page. --JN466 21:31, 24 September 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)

There are many urban legends around Agatha Christie ; the most famous one is mentioned below about Prichard, the grandson ; less famous, but probably a common joke, is another urban legend on taxi drivers: American tourists having booked their place to see the Mousetrap are adviced to give an important tip if they don't want to be told murderer's name ;-)))

In France too, we often hear about the identity of the killer changed to mislead spoilers: without success, I've been working hard to find serious sources; therefore, I think it doesn't worth mentioning it in the main article--ONaNcle (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Whodunit??? Jimbo doesn't know

@Cyclopia : voting above the same as you was a kind of compromise to be given a clue once under a well advertized heading. Alas! it remains five times in our encyclopedia and even six times if you read carefully there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Inspector_Hound --ONaNcle (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And... so what? --Cyclopia^talk 16:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I felt quite puzzled by your short answer until I've just discovered you've been recently writing on Jimbo Wales User page several times. The text below was not easy to find and I think it could be useful to fully paste-copy it. --ONaNcle (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In my view, our current policy on spoilers is wrong, but I'm not wound up about it in the least and I don't intend to really join in discussions about it. I think there should be some kind of clause encouraging people to be particularly careful about spoiling reader enjoyment of art works that hinge particularly on a surprise ending, and to reveal it only if there is some particular encyclopedic purpose. Revealing endings just for the sake of some passion for documenting every single provable fact in the universe is not really right. I should add: I have not seen this play, I have not read the article, and I don't want to read the article because I don't want to have the ending spoiled for me. So I have no opinion about this particular case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Erm, what's your point with that, ONaNcle? Jimbo wrote that, not Cyclopia, and Jimbo's opinion a) holds no particular weight when it comes to content decisions and b) does not contradict the way the policy is being applied on this article. The Mousetrap's spoiler does have a particularly encyclopedic purpose; that the spoiler has been talked about in so many news articles and that it is so notable among famous twist endings fits exactly (in my opinion) with the cases Jimbo is saying should be described on Wikipedia. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you sign using a specific European alphabet, you probably know that most national wikis are still using the old spoilers banners ; Jimbo imho reflects not only a personal but a general opinion on that matter. --ONaNcle (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well, so general that you have seen where the Jayen466's RFC has gone. --Cyclopia^talk 16:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think ONaNcle meant that most other language versions of Wikipedia have a different spoiler policy to en:WP. I don't know if that is true, or what the breakdown is; nor does it matter, as each language version is allowed to decide such things for itself. --JN466 18:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In this specific case, his European language is quite far from mines and I'm not 100% sure their wikipedia tells us about Троттер not the killer--ONaNcle (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Chaoticfluffy's sign is cyrillic or greek, I think it's a fancy kind of phonetic transcription (she's from New York anyway). --Cyclopia^talk 22:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, my signature is my username written in the International Phonetic Alphabet, I am female, and I don't speak or edit Russian or Greek (or really much of anything, other than en.wp). That said, I'm not sure what point ONaNcle is trying to get across with his/her comment about other wikis using spoiler banners; Jayen466 is quite right when he/she points out that each language's wiki is independent and sets its own policies. Whether or not the Russian (for example) Wikipedia includes spoilers has nothing to do with the fact that the English Wikipedia explicitly allows them in our guidelines. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Sorry, it's a slow day --Cyclopia^talk 22:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

lol, no worries, no offense taken at all. First time anyone on wiki has bothered to assign me a sex at all, I think, so I must be moving up in the world! keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

oNaNcle: I understand it remains five times (where, by the way?) here. I don't think it's hidden without context, I guess, from the link you provide, it's in within context locations. So, again, what is your point? --Cyclopia^talk 13:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

five times... since my last edit it now appears only four times--ONaNcle (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have some concern about the remaning four mentions, perhaps you could explain where these mentions actually are? --McGeddon (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You've yourself :) been working on one of them... let's say it keeps improving at three and an half now ;-))) --ONaNcle (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try copyediting or discussing any problems you see in this (and other?) articles, rather than cryptically ticking them off when other people happen to fix them? --McGeddon (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

SPLIT (another early arc.)

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

Even if the German wikipedia tells us about the murderer, the Italian http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trappola_per_topi_(Christie) and (another latin one) the French don't ; I've no idea about how many edits have been thrown away from the talk page by this robot but the only solution seems to vote here on the British wiki about splitting or not this entry ; i.e. to tell or not the average reader in a separate entry about the killer's identity. --ONaNcle (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The messages are all archived at Talk:The Mousetrap/Archive 1 - nothing has been "thrown away".

The English-language Wikipedia has already debated the issue of spoilers in detail, back in 2007, and ended up deciding to remove all the "spoiler warnings" that existed at the time, introducing the policy of WP:SPOILER: "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." - splitting some content onto a separate page would count as an inappropriate spoiler warning. (It also wouldn't be very useful to a reader who'd printed the article out, or was reading it in a published book.)

If you think it's worth reassessing that policy, or wish to discuss it, you should raise your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. --McGeddon (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the play has been published, and it's easy to go to the library and find the identity of the murderer without entering into any sort of "oral contract", I don't think this is a valid reason for considering withholding the information. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel that as a Wikipedian, one who documents and lauds wonderful culture and tradition, it's our duty to maintain the tradition. It's all splitting hairs, at the end of the day it should come down to a vote; a vote which fans would ultimately weigh in on and win. So, shall we be democratic? Or shall the vocal minority stfu and move on to other articles? :) BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I laud wonderful culture and traditions as well, but I laud a general reference work like WP even more. Our duty is to report notable information, and if you don't want to know about the ending of the Mousetrap, then I wonder why you're reading the article on it. It's not "splitting hairs", it's part of our essential mission as an encyclopedia. --Cyclopia^talk 17:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe Cyclopia was entirely correct here. If I would give any concession to the opposition, it could only be that we might have some one-line informational template or just an italicized statement to alert the reader that we do not withhold spoilers. We do have quite a few informational templates cluttering up our articles, after all. Even this is probably too much to concede, and I'm not advocating it at this time, but perhaps people could work out an acceptable wording for some limited number of conflict hotspots, perhaps focusing on edit-warring etc. rather than purely as a spoiler warning. (If adopted, the same wording should be sharable with Rorschach test, if found acceptable).

The section containing the spoiler is titled "Identity of the murderer". I can't think of something warning the reader more clearly of what he/she's going to find in that section. --Cyclopia^talk 23:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't justify your 3R edit : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mousetrap&action=historysubmit&diff=385259200&oldid=383444613 --ONaNcle (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Did I revert you three times in 24 hours? Read WP:3RR please. --Cyclopia^talk 13:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(In any case, I agree that warring on the wording is not the way to go: Open a proper discussion here or a RFC). --Cyclopia^talk 13:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday, I've been denied the right to manage manually the archiving; the first lines above in this thread are still present in the archives... even after the recent interventions by the bots... if no human may correct a bot are there superrobots to do this task??? ONaNcle (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Manual archiving of old threads is fine - you were archiving a thread which was just two hours old, without deleting the original thread from the talk page, which isn't a helpful thing to do. The reason the "to throw in my two-penny worth" paragraph is present both on this talk page and in the archives is because you copied it here, slightly out of context, from the archives. --McGeddon (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's true I was trying in vain to archive a text about two hours old but you forgot to tell your readers that (1) the whole stuff was mine and was mostly quoting an (2) off-topic arguing in the French language (3) without full translation. ONaNcle (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hatnotes and article splits

Does this vote forbid us to emphatize at the top of the text about another review inside wikipedia where the full plot is NOT revealed?--ONaNcle (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "emphatize", or why some chat on the Italian Wikipedia project is relevant, but if you're obliquely asking "can I create a hatnote that links to the Wikia article I've made where I don't include the play's ending?", then no, this seems unhelpful to the reader, would still be a spoiler warning, and it fails basic WP:ELNO (Wikia sites are not "inside Wikipedia" in any meaningful way). --McGeddon (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday you've already been complaining about wikia and my main goal on wikipedias (45,000 edits since 2004) is to be useful... not to hurt anyone: if nobody tells in the next 24 hours this alterpedia action of mine was interesting, it'll be destroyed.

Destroyed also were this morning my ten lines on the same matter:

(Deletion log); 10:38 . . Alexf (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:The Mousetrap outside London" (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)

--ONaNcle (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that it would be inappropriate to link to your Wikia page in a hatnote, for various reasons including Wikipedia:HATNOTE#External_links, WP:SPOILER and WP:LINKSTOAVOID. If you said something relevant on the talk page of a now-deleted article, feel free to repeat it here. --McGeddon (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Onancle, you seem to be confused -or at least, you are confusing us. I am sure you are trying to be useful. The point is that what you do on Wikia has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I am sorry they deleted your article, but you should take the problem with them, not us. Wikia and Wikipedia have no relationship (apart from both being creatures of Jimmy Wales). What are you trying to communicate? --Cyclopia^talk 12:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that was deleted here -- I noticed it earlier.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Google keeps hiding much of my contributions elsewhere and when I try to create something positive here it disappears such as The Mousetrap outside London --ONaNcle (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it read like an ad or a website. We don't host those. We write articles. What you wrote was however not an encyclopedic article. That is why it was deleted. You need to master the writing style of our articles if you want to create new articles. And that is no small feat, although open to everyone, it is also a very difficult thing to do that will require a lot of falling down and getting back up on the horse/pen/keyboard. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia control over Google

(edit conflict) ONaNcle, I think we're having a fair amount of trouble understanding your English, which is making it hard for us to understand what you are asking, or, if you're not asking anything, what point you're making. Wikipedia has no control over what Google does, and in fact I think Google has sophisticated secret algorithms to select and order content it displays, so we can't offer anything to help you deal with what you're not seeing there. It's unfortunate if something you created here got deleted, but we have guidelines that determine what quality/content is required for an article to fit in here, and I can only presume that perhaps your deleted article did not meet one or more of the new article requirements. I'm not well-versed in creating pages, so the best I can do is send you here, to a page with some information about starting articles.

The fact that an article you created got deleted is absolutely not intended to convey any message about your worth as a contributor or writer; the fact is that we have complex guidelines and it's almost impossible for anyone to understand them all without some trial-and-error. However, also let me point out that this page is intended to be used for discussing changes to the article The Mousetrap, not discussing other articles or asking general questions. If you'd like to ask about why your article was deleted, the best place to do that is on the talk page of the administrator who deleted it. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't pretend to know better than other people whether Google is controlling or not wikipedia while injecting two millions dollars to help wikipedia. Anyway, it's remains a general matter while we're here to discuss only about The Mousetrap. On other wikis, most of the time not in the English language I must admit, I've been creating well over one thousand entries. First time one is said I could have financial and/or personal interest in a new one. I'm not in the mood to fight any admin about this. I just bet that the so many events around the 60th anniversary will get someone else creating a better title than my The Mousetrap outside London ;-))) Michel Alençon aka ONaNcle (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Grandson spoiling too

Avez-vous jamais percé le mystère de sa disparition en 1926 ? --- Ça s'est passé plus de quinze ans avant ma naissance. Mais elle n'a jamais dit à qui que ce soit ce qu'elle avait fait pendant ces onze jours où on l'a crue morte ou enlevée. C'était le résultat d'événements malheureux dans sa vie privée, rien à voir avec son métier. En tout cas, elle en est revenue plus forte, plus déterminée que jamais, avec la conviction que la littérature était sa voie.

D'après quels critères acceptez-vous les projets d'adaptation des romans de votre grand-mère ? --- Sur la base du traitement ou du script qu'on me soumet, mais aussi de la réputation du producteur et du scénariste. Je regarde les films qu'ils ont faits avant, et ensuite je donne mon accord ou pas. Je suis submergé de demandes, mais je tiens à ce que l'oeuvre de ma grand-mère continue de vivre. Le seul roman dont je refuse l'adaptation est Hercule Poirot quitte la scène, dans lequel Poirot se suicide. Mon métier consiste à gérer une marque, je ne peux pas donner l'autorisation à quelqu'un de tuer cette marque.

Extracted from an interview about Curtain spoilt by Prichard http://www.lexpress.fr/culture/tele/agatha-christie-nous-lisait-deux-chapitres-chaque-soir_915016.html the bolded part is the spoiling one--ONaNcle (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Prichard once gave away the ending to a Poirot story in an interview? How is this related to improving the Mousetrap article? --McGeddon (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess we should stop feeding the troll. --Cyclopia^talk 18:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I fully assume my vote above but I think we, the experienced editors, have the duty to explain better our actions: Cyclopia, when you revert someone edit, you're quite laconic in your explanations. In real world, it's uncommon to spoil a play without fully disclosing the whole plot. That's why I gave:

1. samples of Prichard's behavior, both on plays and novels ;
2. the full quote on the opinion of Jimbo Wales on that matter.

It's not the question of making a point or not because my own opinion has not changed since 2007. My main idea is to get newcomers admit --- even if they don't fully understand ---, that our wikipedia (different from most continental ones) and due to a democratic vote is not working like all the others encyclopedias on that matter--ONaNcle (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about my last edit there, guys. Neglected to scroll down in the diff and see that ONaNcle had shifted, not deleted, stuff. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read it that way, my previous edit sounds less cryptic BTW, I must apologize too because in a previous thread I'm misleading readers both about your gender and your non-cyrillic alphabet--ONaNcle (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Spoiling the end

I am not bringing up the spoiler discussion. Instead just want to point out that there should probably be a section about the controversy that arose because Wikipedia includes the ending. JDDJS (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A full section seems to me a bit too much, but a sentence could be fine. There is kind of a conundrum to solve, in that several print sources declared obviously false -for us- things (like that I am a Wikipedia spokesman), yet they are officially considered RS by us, so... --Cyclopia^talk 23:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd partially agree with this, though I'd be careful when writing it, as Wikipedia generally shouldn't be self-referential. We, for instance, shouldn't be citing discussions on this talk page (or on other Wikipedia pages). We'd primarily have to restrict the section to outside reaction of the "spoiler" and not internal discussion or defense of our policies. elektrikSHOOS 07:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added the sources and toned it down a bit - I don't see that the sources support Wikipedia being "heavily criticised" for it, just that Prichard was "dismayed" and considered it a "pity" when a journalist phoned him for a reaction quote. --McGeddon (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Cyclopia^talk 11:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've linked to the original Indy article where they contacted Pritchard, not the NYT writeup from three weeks later - David Gerard (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have put the spoiler in a 1-line 1-column collapsible table. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I reverted your edit. The consensus at Talk:The Mousetrap/Archive 2#Should we put the ending of Agatha Christie's The Mousetrap in a collapsed box? was pretty clearly against this "solution". Regards SoWhy 13:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel that wikipedia should delete the plot ending to keep the mystery alive for being going to see the play? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemloubrown (talk • contribs) 15:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

*points upward at the "previous arguments being restated" notice*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Publication

The article says that Christie's wishes were that the play was not to be published while the play was still being performed. The article later says that it was published in the UK in 1993. Is this correct? Also the mention of it being published in the US in 1950 is irrelevant since the West End production didn't begin till 1952.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's correct. The ISBN number is right there in the article if you're in doubt. --Xaliqen (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's that the short story not be published, at least that's what it says in the article. The play is what's been published, at least according to the article. 75.223.44.191 (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)libraryuser

You did you say the killer .My grandmother would not approve and would wish that her criminals in her storys were not published online or told to annyone else. I hope you understand that you have spoiled it for people who were going to watch the shown but now wont because they already know who the killer is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.163.128 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 February 2011

Yes, Wikipedia understand the importance of providing encyclopaedic information while avoiding spoilers, and has a policy on the subject at WP:SPOILER. This article complies with the policy. --McGeddon (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Amendoza616, 4 April 2011

Take off the identity of the killer on here.

Amendoza616 (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has been discussed at length before, and the consensus was to leave it as is.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Limo1412, 29 May 2011

I know this debate has been going on for a while, but seems like one side has been chosen and the other completely neglected. It seems like a better change would be to perhaps put a spoiler alert, which still would keep the orginal text revealing the identity of the killer but would give people the choice to find out or stop reading. A simple sentence like Spoiler Alert; Identity of murderer is revealed below would do. It is very easy to read the first two lines under the heading Identity of murderer (which only explain the debate) and then keep on reading as if it is still about the debate, to actually find out the killer's name is right there in the following sentence. This seems like a fair compromise/consensus as we keep the the text but just add one extra line on top, giving people the choice to read on or stop. Remember this wiki article is easily read by theatre-goers who don't know about the play or simply people who want some information but don't want to miss the entire point of the play, which is building up suspense until the climax; finding out who the killer is.

Limo1412 (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: That makes no sense. One would expect that a section titled "Identity of the murderer" might contain information on who the murderer is. Frankly, if someone reads beyond that point, it's their own problem, not ours. Adding the words "spoiler alert" is completely redundant and, again, violates WP:SPOILER. elektrikSHOOS 03:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A better importance rating?

the mousetrap was the longest running play in history and thus has great significance. so i want to know why is this article rated low on the wikiproject theater? I think a mid or high rating can easily be given to this article. --Robin 07:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it should probably be high importance or at least mild. I would change it but I have no idea how to. JDDJS (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't really see rating this higher than Cyrano de Bergerac (play), which is also low-importance but was much more influential.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I could see mid-importance given to both articles. As per WPTheatre's importance scheme: "This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas. Use also for plays or people that are very well known to regular theatregoers." JDDJS, to adjust importance, you just change the |importance= parameter in the associated WikiProject template at the top of the page. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we allowed to just change it? Or do we need to establish consensus first?JDDJS (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the same as any other edit. If you think it would be uncontroversial, or if you're feeling WP:BOLD, change it. Otherwise, seek consensus. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)