Talk:The Mousetrap/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Offensive

I'm not sure how Wikipedia - which I guess is trying to compare itself to some sort of legitimate encyclopedia - can justify publishing the twist ending. I appreciate that the sorts of people who run these sorts of computer websites have no appreciation of preserved culture of this sort, but what a disgrace - especially the arrogance in the official responses to people and locking the site to make it unedited. Would have never expected this. Wikipedia should not have it's huge advertisements begging for money from people if it is itself when it is obviously being run by some truly spineless people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kringey555 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually can't understand how you can justify not putting the ending on the page. The play is very old and has a very famous plot twist. If you don't live near a theater putting on the show, but you want to know what the famous twist ending is, Wikipedia ha sit for you. And the page is locked so that people who aren't actually brave enough to have a discussion about any changes they want, do make changes. JDDJS (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting theory, though why anyone would go "I can't see the Mousetrap, I know, I will go and read it on Wikipedia because that is exactly the experience I want" rather than waiting or making an attempt to get to a show, I have no idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kringey555 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well in America, you could wait for years for somebody in your area to put on a production of the show, and have no results. JDDJS (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I can justify it for you: Wikipedia is not censored, and Wikipedia does not use spoiler warnings. An encyclopedic purpose is being served by describing the full plot, despite your aversion to the contrary. We've also placed the ending in its own unique section which can be easily skipped by readers who don't want to be spoiled. If you do not agree with this, perhaps you should search elsewhere for information. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what I mean. What disgusting arrogance. I have already seen this play, but the entire point of it is that the ending is not spoiled once you leave the show. What a shame that isn't understood by some moronic modern day internet drones. --Kringey555 (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It's not a theatrical review site, or a TV trailer, or a man talking loudly in a Charing Cross pub. If someone is researching Christie's work or the history of twist endings in fiction, they would expect to be able to research the main, salient points of the play from an encyclopaedia, and - as you say - the ending is to some extent "the entire point". Behind the play's longevity, the presence of the twist ending is best-known aspect of the work. Since sources have written about that ending (and the play itself has been published and can be bought from any bookshop!), we would be doing readers a great and arrogant disservice to say "the ending is legendarily famous; to find out what it actually is, please travel to London's West End to see the play, or leaf through the script in a library or bookshop, if you have any local libraries or bookshops". --McGeddon (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting how you're calling us arrogant when you called us "spineless people," "moronic modern-day internet drones" and "trying to compare itself to some sort of legitimate encyclopedia."

It should also be pointed out that none of these are "official" responses, as Wikipedia has no editorial board and is in fact run by a community of editors, who decide things via consensus. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I participated in a summer theatre festival production of this play last year. Nowhere in the script does it say "Don't reveal the ending", and our production did not ask the audience to keep the secret. "internet drones" has nothing to do with the question at hand.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the first contribution. Please remove the twist ending, in the spirit of the play. Eveline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.149.191 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In short that is not going to happen since our guidelines clearly state that we should not remove information because it is a spoiler.--70.24.215.154 (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Original cast

I don't want to barge in, but if any regular editor of this article thinks the names of the original West End cast worth adding, these are they:

• Mollie Ralston – Sheila Sim
• Giles Ralston – John Paul
• Christopher Wren – Allan McClelland
• Mrs Boyle – Mignon O'Doherty
• Major Metcalf – Aubrey Dexter
• Miss Casewell – Jessica Spencer
• Mr Paravicini – Martin Miller
• Detective Sergeant Trotter – Richard Attenborough

Source: "Ambassadors Theatre – 'The Mousetrap'", The Times, 26 November 1952, p. 12. Tim riley (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I think those would probably be worth having -- go ahead and add them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 26 November 2011

Please delete the information stating who the murderer is in the play the Mousetrap, this spoils the entertainment for people who wish to see the play and is totally unnecessary.

78.86.228.83 (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Per WP:SPOILER, encyclopedia articles cover all encyclopedic areas of a topic, and the ending to this play is of encyclopedic value. You can read discussions about this issue farther up on this talk page, and in the talk page's archives. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia spoiling the ending

I'm playing Trotter in a production of The Mousetrap and I want to invite my friends - however I know that if they wikipedia the play they will have the ending ruined for them (they will know I am the murderer from the start - it must be hard to enjoy a whodunnit when you already know from the start exactly who done it). Can there at least be some sort of SPOILER ALERT before revealing this information? I've already had a mate who looked it up, had the ending ruined for him when he wasn't expecting it, and now cannot he unknow that knowledge. Does this twist have to be ruined for everyone who reads this article? On many posters and playbills of The Mousetrap is a phrase that goes something along the lines of "Don't reveal the twist at the end"; does Wikipedia really need to ruin this theatrical tradition that, in all honesty, only adds to the overall enjoyment of the show? Is it imperative that it take the "mystery" out of this murder-mystery?Sebastianisgreat (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and Wikipedia does not use spoiler warnings other than our general disclaimers. Beyond that, it is not our problem. elektrikSHOOS 07:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I played Paravicini in a recent production, and didn't worry about it. (In fact, my 10-year-old was convinced I was the murderer up to the end. :-) ) If you don't want to know what happens in a play, don't look it up before you go see it. Seems fairly simple to me... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that the term Identity of the Murderer is in bold right on top of the section in question and seems to me to be very noticeable. There is already sufficient warning and I am confident that someone seeing that header would stop before they find out who the murderer was.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw the play for the first time in January this year, so not wanting the ending to be spoiled I didn't look up an article on it that would likely do that. Why did your mate read the article in the first place - even just reading the basic plot seems a silly thing to do if you're going to see it? I don't think the ending should be removed, we can't protect people from themselves I'm afraid.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I assumed that "Identity of the Murderer" would be a discussion on that subject, without necessarily revealing it, especially in the context of the requested secrecy. Guess I must be stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.186.152 (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, a plot synopsis of any story (book, film or play) will spoil the ending. In other cases it will not even have the ending under a separate headline as this does. There's no reason why this should be any different. An encyclopedia shouldn't be dictated by Agatha Christie's rules. Simple, don't want to know the plot? Don't read a plot synopsis.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree we are actually going above and beyond standard practice. Few if any other pages divide the ending of the plot in this matter.--69.159.111.142 (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe me could compromise with a show/hide box like I've seen on other pages in wikipedia. (I saw it most recently on the page for the 2006 film The Secret.) Perhaps the second paragraph in this section could appear in a "Show" box. This way the information is available but readers aren't assaulted with it. Everybody is happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.40.20 (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Spoiler Warnings on other pages

I see there is a spoiler warning on the page for The Killing. Twizzlemas (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes. And it has now been removed in accordance with tyhe WP:SPOILER guideline. Thincat (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That warning were also unilaterally added meaning its addition was irelevant to any discussion since it did not reflect any change in consensus on spoiler warnings.--70.24.206.51 (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 January 2012

Maybe we could compromise on the Identity of the Murderer debate with a show/hide box like I've seen on other pages in wikipedia. (I saw it most recently on the page for the 2006 film The Secret.) Perhaps the second paragraph in this section could appear in a "Show" box. This way the information is available but readers aren't assaulted with it. It's read at your own risk. Everybody is happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.40.20 (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

108.16.40.20 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has been discussed previously, and the consent then was a unanimous no for numerous reasons. We shouldn't change this unless there is new consensus to do so. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

FAQ?

We should add a "Frequently Asked Questions" at the top of the page? So people will read it before asking again for the removal of spoilers. There is one on top of Talk:Homeopathy, and it seems to work well. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, we've already got "Before commenting on spoilers in the article, make sure you have read the guideline on when to use spoiler warnings and the content disclaimer.", but framing it as one or two explicit questions (including "How about using some convoluted formatting to sort of hide the spoiler?") certainly wouldn't hurt. --McGeddon (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I've written up a basic one with three questions asked time and again on this page. Feel free to mercilessly adjust any and all of them. elektrikSHOOS (talk)

Thanks, that looks good. I've edited it a bit to move the emphasis from "censorship" to "spoilers", and to phrase it as "should the article include X?" rather than the more confrontational "why can't I do X?". I've also put the yes/no answers at the end of the questions so that the reader doesn't have to click open a further link. --McGeddon (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Revealing the truth!

The truth should not be revealed. It ruins it for everyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.24.248 (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't ruin it for people who are reading an encyclopaedia because they want to learn about the play. Wikipedia does not include spoilers, nor does it miss the endings off of plots (of films, books or sixty-year-old stage plays). --McGeddon (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you typoed there, McGeddon - Wikipedia does not exclude spoilers. :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And the guideline is usually interpreted as "Wikipedia doesn't include spoiler warnings". The rationale for this article "spoiler" is explained in the FAQ above. Diego (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I meant to say spoiler warnings. --McGeddon (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 March 2012

The Mousetrap is a famous play by Agatha Christie, and at the end of each play, they request that nobody reveals the secret of who committed the murder. I now request that you remove the secret from this article, to keep the secret safe.

ChaosZeus999 (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: per the FAQ at the top of this talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I, too, would not reveal the identity of the killer here, esp. since keeping the secret was the strong desire of the playwright, Dame Agatha Christie, and is such a time-honored custom in the original London production, now in its 60th year. But it appears there is still no consensus here for that. Too bad. Elendil's Heir, March 16, 2012.

I don't understand for the life of me how you can argue against putting this in a spoiler box. This is just plain despicable. You think it's not? It's been a tradition for decades and you are just ruining it. There is a section JUST on the long-withheld secret. How can you justify even including it? Who keeps putting it back in? I find it a little hard to believe that that level of detail is needs to be included here. I can read the article for plenty of things without having the ending ruined on here; some mischievous person just keeps putting it in and hiding behind the rules. This is absurd and you know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.161.60 (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Two things, First, if someone reads a section called identity of the murderer who don't want to known the murderer's identity it would be their own fault so I don't think we should be protecting people from themselves. Secondly, the idea that mentioning who the murder as being excessive detail is the absurd idea, not the refusal to censor valid info because some people don't like it.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

How come the insistence on explaining the entire plot to this, where it is traditional not to discuss the plot, and the entire description on this book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_to_Frankfurt ends somewhere around one-fifth of the way in. Why not the obsessive mania to explain everything on that page? Why only this one? Why are there some band pages where fans have obviously gone on at length about how amazing the band is and that gets left in, yet this page gets edit restrictions placed on it so that the tradition isn't spoiled? Why the obsession with this page when it is one of the few pages on all of wikipedia that violates some tradition, whereas other pages that need more editorial work are ignored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.161.60 (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The entire plot, and in particular the twist ending, is what made this play famous; since it's the most relevant part of the play, it's essential that it's per the WP:DUE policy and the reader's expectations of encyclopedic coverage (this is not a press review trying to sell tickets to the show). It's true that it's devoting more editorial work than it reasonably should, but it's also one that attracts interest for having its ending revealed against the secrecy tradition; it has become calloused because of all those disputes. (In the Passenger to Frankfurt case, the plot ending should also be revealed - otherwise it's not a real plot summary; but it's not as important there as here, since that ending is not historically significant, and this one is). Diego (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Some sort of edit notice for talkpage?

Wikipedia contains spoilers, but they should not be censored or removed in any way just because they are considered spoilers. In fact, the article is already semi-protected to prevent removal of spoilers. Nevertheless, people come here and request removal of the murderer's identity, despite the disclaimer at the top of this page. Should we add some sort of edit notice here where it prominently says that requests to remove the identity of the murderer will not be accepted, with a prominent link to our spoiler guidelines and content disclaimer? It would probably allow people to get the point - there are probably times they do the edit request despite seeing the template at the top of this page. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There already is one on the top of this page. JDDJS (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and it's been there for several years. There's also a FAQ with detailed answers to most of the common questions on this page. Why they're still regularly ignored is anyone's question. I think, however, they're referring to an Edit notice. (Go attempt to edit my user or talk page for an example of one.) Given the sheer number of requests made to this page on the spoiler, I think it's a good idea, but editnotices outside of userspace can only be made by administrators, so we have to get the attention of one of them, first. Maybe the edit notice would look something like the below? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess the one above works too. Here's my take, and it's more straight to the point, since there will probably be some people who won't click the links anyway. It also has the actual FAQ instead of a link to the FAQ:

Also, I believe that the FAQ should include the part about the tradition of not spoiling the ending. The FAQ should probably state that, the tradition is mainly a British one, while Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, so the article should be written from a global perspective and should not adhere to the wishes of rhe people of one country. For example, I am from the Philippines, and here, The Mousetrap is fairly obscure. In fact, I would not have heard of it if it weren't for the great spoiler debates. Due to the fact that I will probably never see the play in my lifetime, I decided to check the article, where I learned the identity of the murderer. And I don't feel spoiled at all, since I wanted to know who the murderer was. If I went to the page, and the page did not spoil the identity of the murderer, I would feel cheated, since that would mean I would spend some money on buying a rare book, or fly all the way to the UK just to watch (yes I could do a Google search, but still). That is why there should be a fourth question, something like "Shouldn't Agatha Christie's wishes be adhered to? Answer: No". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am all for the new header. JDDJS (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

While I do like that it's more to the point, I'm concerned the tone of it implies bad faith on the part of the person making the request. Also, there's a few niggling grammatical errors which bug me. Perhaps..? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have particular suggestion for changes, they can be discussed and requested by further edit requests. I don't think the tone suggest bad faith, just lack of knowledge on the existing consensus. Diego (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Approved template

Yeah something like that. Sorry about the grammatical errors. Always seem to have them despite always checking and double checking.... So, should we have one now? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit protected request

Instructions for the requested edit

• Please create a new page at Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:The Mousetrap.
• The content of the page should be the code of the template defined at Talk:The_Mousetrap#Approved_template.

Diego (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ummm Diego, none of us are administrators, so we can't create the page. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what the edit request above is for. The instructions are for the administrator that has permissions to create the edit notice. It seems that SpigotMap didn't understand what was being requested because the instructions were not clear. Diego (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This should get their attention. We need the bottom template above created in Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:The Mousetrap. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Refer to Help:Template for instructions on creating a template. SpigotMap 02:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A template has already been made (see above, to be specific, the one with the white background and says "Wikipedia contains spoilers, and also contains spoiler warnings"). What we mean is that the edit notice can be added (through the red link above). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't really sure what the confusion was, but I'm very familiar on how to create templates. Perhaps if I copypasted the code? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

{{editnotice | id = mousetrap-spoil | header = Before making a request on this page: | headerstyle = font-size: 150%; | text = Requests to remove or hide the identity of the murderer in the article will likely be denied. [[Wikipedia:Spoiler|Wikipedia contains spoilers]], and also does not use spoiler warnings. Spoilers are generally not removed from Wikipedia simply because they are spoilers. * Keep in mind there is an encyclopaedic benefit to those who have not and will not likely ever see the play. * Prior discussions on the matter have also determined that putting the identity of the murderer in a section titled "Identity of the murderer" is sufficient enough of a warning for readers. * For more information, please read [[Talk:The Mousetrap/FAQ|this page's frequently asked questions (FAQ)]], [[Wikipedia:Spoiler|the guideline on when to use spoiler warnings]] and [[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer|Wikipedia's general content disclaimer]]. | textstyle = font-size: 120%; | image = Ambox warning pn.svg|96px }}

 Done SoWhy 11:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A fourth question for the FAQ?

The play is famous (or notorious) for asking the audience not to reveal the ending of the play. Some people are upset, not just at the fact that Wikipedia spoils the ending of the play, but the fact that the long-standing tradition was broken. Should there be a fourth question that states that removing the ending of the play because of a tradition violates WP:NPOV, and would clarify that Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia that does not follow the wishes of any person, body, organization or tradition when it comes to article content? (Except of course, living people and the laws of Florida) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the question about the tradition is missing from the FAQ and should be added, though I don't think this has anything to do with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy; there are no opposing view points that should be balanced. It's a matter of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia and covering "all human knowledge". As such, the most relevant policy is WP:NOTCENSORED, which is already explained at question Q3. Diego (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If the question about the tradition should be added, which particular policies would apply, aside from Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? And how should the wording be? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think those are enough, with a common sense explanation of the arguments repeated here so often. We should also mention that Wikipedia is not the one who broke the tradition - per WP:V and WP:NOR we can only repeat what others have said. The ending is being repeated here because it has already been previously revealed. Diego (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Someone should add the appropriate wording to the FAQ now. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

After far too long, I'm attempting to write up a suitable answer, though I'm trying to be delicate on the wording so as not to come off as boldly irreverent. Fixes to my answer are welcome and encouraged. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 June 2012

"The director of the play for many years has been David Turner." should read "The director of the play is currently Geoff Bullen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geefobull (talk • contribs) 12:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

But is it the truth?

The audience who view the play are asked not to reveal the ending, and the vast majority do not. The Christie Estate and the play's producers certainly would not.

Who's to say that what the Wikipedia article says is the twist ending actually is the real twist ending? Was the fact properly verified; and, if so, what proof was presented that the verying source was telling the truth?

76.126.3.38 (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, per Wikipedia policy, the section is substantiated by reliable sources. And the section about the identity of the killer has four such sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Booth (talk • contribs) 06:26, 1 July 2012‎

See above. It cites four different sources: three to independent authors analyzing the characters and the play, and one to the published version of the play itself. I'd say that's reliable. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There is also no rule saying that we need to "prove" that a reliable source is telling the truth and anything along that line would be Original Research which is not allowed Also no other reliable source have ever claimed that the ending presented in the article is fake so we need to go with what the reliable sources currently say which supports the current ending. Not to mention that the idea that a fake ending could have been placed and undetected for years on an article about a play this well known is so remote its not even worth considering. For this ending to be fake it would require one of the most elabarate hoaxes of all time. To be blunt if this was fake I am sure it would have been exposed a long time ago.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that there is nothing in the published script about not revealing the ending, whether as part of the script or in the production directions preceding it. Therefore, stating that "the audience" is asked not to reveal the ending is incorrect -- any production of the play outside of London may or may not ask its audience to keep the ending secret. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2012

The list of Agatha christie novels should include "Curtin - Poirot's Last Case" First published by William Collins, sons & Co Ltd 1975 and by Fontana Books 1976

58.107.71.31 (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done It is already in the template under Novels, second-to-last, before Sleeping Murder. Dru of Id (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 September 2012

please change the identity of the murderer to the following because: the real murderer is in fact the wife and not the police man, who in actual fact is still the son but he escaped from the mental health ward 3 months earlier and was on the trail of the murderer and collaborated with the police in the hopes that his sentence in the ward would be reduced.

source: La Trobe theatrical company classic literature restoration program my self having seen the play only recently Grovey2guitar (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done We have multiple sources identifying another character as being the murderer in Christie's original script. A single modern (unofficial?) production deciding to alter the ending does not change this. --McGeddon (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I can see only two reasons to mention a change like this. The first would be if the ending was officially changed. The second would be if a major adaption of the work used the new ending (ie that was the case for the video game version of And Then There Were None and is briefly mentioned in the main article). However, Even if the first example did happen the original ending that was performed for years and verified by multiple sources would still needs to be mentioned. I would also like to add that I too saw the play and the policeman was the murderer. Finally, I don't think that a single theater company changing the ending is enough to even warrant a mention in the article.--174.93.171.108 (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be about WP:SOURCES, really. It wouldn't have to be a "major" adaptation - if a tiny student production of a play attracted heavy press coverage for changing the ending, that would be enough to mention it in the article. There's no suggestion that this is the case with the La Trobe production, though. --McGeddon (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

True but it is far less likely that a tiny student production is going to get anywhere near enough significant coverage to support adding the changed ending to this article. While it is not guaranteed a major adaption (film, Video game by know developer, etc) has a much better chance of generation the necessary coverage to cover the new ending and even then the original ending needs to stay.--174.95.111.105 (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ending

can we remove the bit about the ending as it should remain a complete mystery with no clues whatsoever as to who done it. Just say that you can't tell who it is. (Fdsdh1 (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC))

As per the FAQ at the top of this page, and the enormous "Before making a request on this page:" alert that popped up when you edited this page to ask your question: no, it would be against Wikipedia policy to remove a section of an article in order to make it a "complete mystery". --McGeddon (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we modify the edit notice?

It appears that there are some people who still request removal of the ending of the play (the detective did it) despite the FAQ and the edit notice, although the number of requests has gone down drastically (since April, there's only been three requests to remove/revise the ending, whereas the other edit requests were about unrelated content). Perhaps we should make some parts of it bold? For example:

One possible problem is that the changes might be assumed to be an assumption of bad faith (which it isn't). Despite this, the change could be enough to let users know that, whether they like it or not, the ending will never be removed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

In summary: boldface for the first sentence of the |text= paramater. This seems reasonable, so Done, see here; there were two other unrequested changes which I considered but rejected for now: (i) amend "will likely be denied" to "are likely to be denied" (British English); (ii) remove the |96px from after the |image= parameter - the {{editnotice}} template doesn't use positional parameters (except when |text= is absent), so this is ignored. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd support the change to "are likely to be denied," since the rest of the infobox already uses British English (see, for instance, the spelling of "encyclopaedic"). It would also match the form of English used in the article. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Twist ending tradition

I agree with the general consensus that it is not necessary to abide by the tradition of not revealing the end of the play. However, I am going to simply move the Twist ending tradition section to directly follow the Theatrical performances.

1. This is a logical position, since it is basically a tradition of the theater.
2. It does not change the content of the article
3. It does provide the reader with a sense of the somewhat secretive nature of the information that follows. It can be up to the reader if they, knowing that for many years the knowledge was not generally available, want to continue reading the plot points.

I hope this will satisfy both factions on this subject, without changing the content of the article. --Bobsd (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

In line with Bobsd's reasoning and taking it just one step further, I am moving the twist ending to a new section of this talk page, Identity of the murderer, linked directly from the Twist ending tradition section of the article. This play is so exceptionally famous that many people will probably read this article who are not regular Wikipedia users and are not familiar with the policy regarding spoilers. And despite the clear warnings that are now present, some people (including myself) read very quickly, often including parts of the page that they are not even aware of having looked at yet. I have been much annoyed not only by reviews in mainstream print publications that casually give away the big plot secret without warning in the middle of a paragraph, but also by some that say, e.g., "Spoiler alert: The doctor is the villain." This article gives more warning than that, but I see the killer's name on the first line of the section. --Thnidu (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thnidu, did you read the edit notice at the top of this page, or any of the past discussions here or in the archives? Or WP:SPOILER? The upshot is that this is an encyclopedia, not a place to put teaser trailers. People come to encyclopedias for complete information, which means that for something like this, where the twist ending itself is incredibly famous (both for being kept secret, and for being shocking) and notable, the article has to include and discuss that aspect. There's not really anything we can do about people reading too quickly to notice what they're reading - as you note, it's already separated into a different section with a header that makes clear what's about to be discussed. Talk pages are here to so editors can use them to discuss how to improve articles, not to hold "clickthrough" content we want to obscure from readers; in fact, there's really no circumstance in which notable content is going to be obscured from our readers at all, whether it's because it's a spoiler or because it's, sexual, or because it's anything else people tend to want to hide. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read all of the notices and the discussions here, though not in the archive. I chose the talk page because subpages are disabled in Main category (and I'm not arguing with that). I tried to make the point that this topic has an exceptionally strong case for separating the spoiler from the main text, but in trying to document the case with a screenshot

and copy over the refs from the article, I wasn't able to finish the change before Bobsd interrupted and reverted. And in answering him and undoing his reversion, I wasn't able to get the whole thing done before your intervention.

I concede. I will undo the move, unless you or someone else has already done so, and instead of moving the spoiler to another page I will edit the paragraph so the villain's name is further into the middle of it -- which, I hope, is a permissible way to deal with the admittedly exceptional case in which fast reading is relevant to the content or layout of an article. --Thnidu (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What's the big deal with the ending anyway? The "shocking" level is nowadays on par with "Luke, I'm your father". It was shoking and novel when The Mousetrap was premiered, but similar endings have been so overused and people are so aware that this play has a twist ending that it's difficult to be surprised anymore. When I saw the play I was able to deduce who was the murdered on this meta-information alone, guessing that "it must be the only character that would allow for a twist ending". It has no merit this way. Diego (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Obvious to you, maybe. Anyway, it's settled now. --Thnidu (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So long as we're not wording the paragraph too tortuously, then sure, I don't see a problem in rearranging the sentences here. --McGeddon (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Rewording of the edit notice again

Well, the edit notice is almost entirely in British English, except for the first sentence. Can it be changed to "Requests to remove or hide the identity of the murderer are likely to be denied"? Also, would it be appropriate to include the full FAQ instead of linking to it, because some people will probably not read it? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You can edit the protection template yourself here, I don't think it's protected. We've only had one inappropriate edit request since the template went up ("can we remove the bit about the ending as it should remain a complete mystery with no clues whatsoever"), and I don't think a full FAQ would have made any difference there. --McGeddon (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It's protected. And I'm suggesting because it's bothering me that the first sentence (in bold no less) is in American English, but everything else in British English (being Filipino, I'm more familiar with American English, but since this is from the UK, British English should be used). Besides, I was the one who suggested putting up that edit notice in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think transcluding the FAQ into the edit notice is a good idea. The FAQ is difficult to find at the top of this page. I support showing the questions in its collapsed form at the edit notice itself; this will make it easier for the requester to spot the particular objection that he/she may have in mind.

The note page is indeed fully protected; and I think the edit request must be placed at its own talk page, not here. Diego (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Subpages of Template:Editnotices aren't "protected" in the normal manner, but use a different mechanism which means that only admins and accountcreators can create and edit them. As noted in the last post, a message should be placed on the talk page of the editnotice; more details at WP:EDNO. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Disabled request, because a similar request exists at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Talk:The Mousetrap. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 January 2013

I understand Wikipedia's stance about spoilers. A suggestion: change the heading "Identity of the murderer" to something less ambiguous like "Identity of the murderer revealed" to make it clearer that you are about to read the murderer's identity. I read the section assuming that it was going to contain a further discussion on the tradition of requesting audiences not to reveal the identity of the murderer. It reduced my enjoyment of the play. Niallkristina (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Niallkristina (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry buy I don't feel that it's required, in the plot section with a subsection specifically about the identity of the murderer I think it's a given that the murder's identity may be revealed. Your suggested change to the section header isn't in the proper formal tone expected of Wikipedia articles. My apologies. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I agreed with the request before reading your answers, and have edited it accordingly. I don't see anything wrong in tone, and it's clear from the request that the title wasn't accurate enough to describe the section content in a precise way. Diego (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverted. I agree with Callanec the tone is improper - "Identity of the murderer revealed", apart from being redundant, is not even a topic title, is more of a warning. --Cyclopia^talk 12:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's clear from Niallkristina's comment that it's NOT "a given that the murder's identity may be revealed" in the section. So what do you find acceptable for a title that does make it clear? Diego (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's clear enough. That a readers' expectations were disappointed does not mean that it is universally misleading. --Cyclopia^talk 11:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You already know what's in the section, so maybe you're not the best judge? I think people reading the article for the first time are better judges for what the title suggests at first read. There's no harm in exploring alternate possibilities for the title, so I'll restate the question: what criteria do you use to find a title acceptable? Diego (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER says that a section header such as "Plot" or "Ending" is sufficient to imply the presence of spoilers; if you are reading the plot of a story in an encyclopaedia, you should not be surprised if the entire plot is stated, spoilers and all. It would be redundant to expand that to "Plot revealed" or "Ending revealed". --McGeddon (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The revealing is not directly under "plot" title, it's at a subsection. After all the efforts editors have undergone to provide enough warning through prose, people are still failing to notice the hints, which is evidence that it's not redundant enough in this case. Niallkristina expected to find the tradition of not revealing the ending. I've added a "see also" hatnote to point to that other section, I hope that gives one more hint that only the play's in-universe description of the ending is provided in the section. I'd still would like to hear what other alternate titles we could consider. Diego (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"After all the efforts editors have undergone to provide enough warning through prose, people are still failing to notice the hints, which is evidence that it's not redundant enough in this case." - Nope. It is evidence that some people do not pay enough attention or have expectations at odds with what WP is for. We do not need to provide any warning at all. We're not here to provide warnings. We're here to provide informations. If you don't want to know the plot of a work of fiction, do not look it up on WP. The fact that some people expect to not find it is not relevant to our aim, which is to give comprehensive, sourced, notable information to readers. --Cyclopia^talk 12:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this article as is already goes beyond how fiction articles are typically handled on Wikipedia. Few if any other articles have plot points that are considered spoilers put into separate sections (ie The Empire Strikes Back does not have a section titled Dark Vader`s revelation to Luke Skywalker nor does the usual suspects have a section titled identity of Keyser Söze) so I don`t see why we would have to go even further with this article.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I`ve noticed that recently the tradition of secrecy section was put before the identity of the murderer section and that it was renamed twist ending. I think the sections should be swithced back since the current order disrupts the flow and I don`t see any consensus for the rewritten section name. I would fix it myself but I can`t edit the page.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I personally feel the section is more consistent now. What do others think? --Cyclopia^talk 14:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it made more sense as a separate section elsewhere in the article. It seems wrong to have the tradition of secrecy and the thoughts of Matthew Prichard listed as part of the "plot" - the current flow is "events of play, characters are assembled in the hall, murderer's identity is divulged, by tradition this is secret, Prichard was dismayed..." which sounds like we've finished describing the plot and have decided not to tell the reader who the murderer was, which seems actively unhelpful for both the interested reader (who may stop reading at this point) and the foolhardy, spoiler-fearing theatregoer (who may carry on reading under the impression that the "revealed in Wikipedia" is historic and the identity will not actually be revealed).

I think the plot section/subsections should really just give the plot and nothing else. (Even "The twist ending is unusual for playing with the very bases of the traditional whodunnit formula..." - which I think someone inserted as filler to prevent the reader from plunging straight into reading the ending? - seems a bit inappropriate.) --McGeddon (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the secrecy section should be presented afterwords to have a better flow as it was previously. I think the section is useful but it should not divide the plot the way it does.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I do however agree with the removal of the bold heading for acts and scenes. I don't see that as necessary. Also is there a reason that the plot section is so well down. I've check several other articles for plays and most have it near the beginning?--174.93.160.57 (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just arrived out of the snow to say I think the current version here is pretty good. I don't think it matters that the plot is described later than usual in the article (indeed it suggests critical judgement). "Twist ending" could possibly be a section rather than a subsection. Although the continuity of the plot narrative is slightly interrupted, I like the order as it is. Thincat (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"Twist ending" has now been given its own section. This means that the "Plot" section no longer contains the complete plot, which seems a mistake. The original structure ("Identity of the murderer" as a subsection of "Plot", and "Twist ending tradition" as its own section) seemed fine, to be honest. --McGeddon (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean, it is a pity the end of the plot is not in the "Plot" section. On the other hand I really like "Tradition of secrecy" coming immediately before "Identity of the murderer". That seems appropriate to me since the tradition is very much part of the play. Thincat (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It probably makes most sense to put the tradition at the end of the plot, since it talks of the plea being made "at the end of each performance". Is it being stated higher up the article purely to act as an not-really-but-kind-of spoiler warning, to tell the reader that the ending is revealed on Wikipedia, before Wikipedia reveals it? --McGeddon (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think explaining the tradition *before* revealing the murdered makes good inverted pyramid style writing. The fact that the author initiated the tradition is more important in an encyclopedic sense than who's actually the murderer. If we start with the most important thing and provide the details later, readers will better understand why knowing who's the murderer is a big deal when we finally do it. If we also allow some readers to stop reading before they reach the "identity" section (which is the recommended action for those of us who defend keeping the reveal), that's a win-win. Diego (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair concern. I've completed the "plot" section with a summary of what happens at the end of the play (note that the guideline doesn't require Wikipedia to reveal it either - it should be done what's better to explain the topic). I like better the structure that Thincat suggested with "Twist ending" as a separate section. This lets readers wanting to know about the relevant part that made the plot famous, the atypical twist ending, to seek it without having to read first the whole plot. The trick to organize an article is to allow each reader to find the parts they're interested in. The current section gives better hints as to what is included under each title - having the "tradition" part inside the plot made no sense, and keeping the identity of the murder together with the tradition is a good idea since they're strongly related. Diego (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed that -- it's not a fair description of the end of the play. Also, the plea not to reveal the twist is not part of the play, but a tradition with some productions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A "Plot" section should make sure that the reader "gets a sense of what happens and can fully understand the impact of the work and the context of the commentary about it". We should not omit the single most important plot point from the plot summary! If we aren't sure how a reader will approach the article, it would be easy enough to mention the ending in both sections. --McGeddon (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

But then you'd be faced again with the problem of explaining "the impact of the work and the context of the commentary about it" inside the plot section. That would suggest keeping the whole "Twist ending" under "Plot". Given that the ending is the major point making this play notable (together with being the longest running show, but both are related), I think a small WP:IAR is merited to keep the "ending" section at top-level. If not, both "Tradition" and "Identity" should be placed inside "Plot" in exactly that order for the reasons above. Diego (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we might be at cross purposes here. The policy I quoted there doesn't mean that the "Plot" section should give the reader a full understanding of the play's critical context, just that, having read the "Plot", the reader should now be in a position to understand any critical commentary he or she might go on to read. We shouldn't scatter important plot details around the article - if the reader wants the plot, we give them the plot. --McGeddon (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that actually makes sense. The two sections don't need to be written in the same level of detail though, and titles can guide the readers as to what content is found under each section - revealing the ending under Plot, and analysis of it under Twist ending. Diego (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

So does that more or less put us back to this version? The article as a whole may benefit from having its sections in a different order, but are you happy with "Plot" containing a subsection "Identity of the murderer", and "Twist ending tradition" being separate? --McGeddon (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

More or less (althoug I still like this version the most)- in any case, the analysis of the ending should be all together in one place and it should be placed before the details of the ending are revealed. I've edited both sections and expanded the "Identity of the murder" to actually explain the ending instead of just telegraphing it - would you please perform a quick check of grammar on it? Diego (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Twist ending subtitles

I've restored the section titles under "Twist ending". It's true that each section is one or two paragraphs long, but it's clear that many readers come to the article wanting to read about the tradition of secrecy. Pointing directly to that section from the table of contents thus allow those readers to jump directly to the section they want to read. Diego (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The priority should be to avoid very short sections. Maybe just rename the "Twist ending" section to "Twist ending and traditions"? --McGeddon (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure to have seen that part of the MOS before, it's not cited commonly. In any case it seems to oppose building a whole article out of very short sections, but that's not the case here - the previous "Theatrical performances" and the next "Plot" sections are quite large, so "Twist ending" doesn't seem to me as creating clutter. I could live with placing all the navigation information in the main section title, but then it would be "Twist ending, traditions and revelation" to identify everything that's talked about in the section. Are you OK with that? Diego (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think "revelation" is sufficiently implied; the whole point of a twist ending is that it is revealed to the audience! --McGeddon (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The content of the "revelation" section is not that the ending is revealed to the play audience, is that it has been revealed through other media (including this WP article). It's not clear by the title "Twist ending and traditions" that we have content about that. The TOC should be an outline that reasonably identifies the contents of each section. Diego (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd think "revelation" would be read as "revealed as part of the performance" by most people. If the reader is looking for how the twist ending had been revealed by other media, "Twist ending" seems sufficient by itself - "Twist ending and tradition" maybe makes it clearer that we're discussing the ending in terms of its tradition rather than just mentioning the ending itself, but I don't see that "Twist ending, tradition and revelation" adds anything to that. --McGeddon (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Mmmmmh... maybe "Twist ending and tradition of secrecy" would work. Diego (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. --McGeddon (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Details of the ending

I've just fleshed this out a little to clarify the murderer's motive and fate, working from a truncated Amazon preview of the script and the (slightly different) novelisation. I don't think I've misrepresented anything, but if anyone who knows the play better than me could check it over, it'd be appreciated. --McGeddon (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact details from watching the play, but your recap is more or less what I remember, and the expanded summary is clearer now. Diego (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's indeed clearer but removing this sentence Tom Stoppard's play The Real Inspector Hound parodies many elements of The Mousetrap, including the surprise ending. further in the text and especially below the identity of the murderer would imho fit better. ONaNcle (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving the Stoppard paragraph into "Publication history" makes no sense, as it has nothing to do with the history of the play's publication. I don't see how it "fits better" there. I've moved it back to the general "History" section. --McGeddon (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not to move the so-called Stoppard paragraph here or there ; the problem, as I've already emphatized above in January, is to respect the will of the novelist not give any clue about the identity of the murderer before summarizing the play. ONaNcle (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

If the location is not the problem, why did you move it? Telling the reader that another play "parodies many elements of The Mousetrap, including the surprise ending" does not give any information about the identity of the murderer in The Mousetrap. --McGeddon (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

About the identity the sixth character is imho an obvious clue. ONaNcle (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's obvious only if you already know the ending. It doesn't seem a big deal. Diego (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This section needs a slight rewrite, since some aspects of it won't make sense to the reader not introduced to the play (like me). For example "She was a teacher of the Corrigan children". Which "the" Corrigan children? I presume they would not be mentioned in the story before (if so, please add them appropriately), but then a short explanation or a drop of the definite article would seem appropriate. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)