Wikipedia ruins "The Mousetrap" by giving away the ending...., ...and gets a mention on French Radio tonight.... Options

[the fieryangel]

Wikipedia puts the ending of Agatha Christie's "The Mousetrap" on the play's article.... and the Christie heirs are pissed.

The issue is discussed ad naseum by the usual cast of Wikipediots...

Among the gems in the discussion :

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

I disagree. We don't do that for other articles and we shouldn't do it for this one. If you don't want to know the plot, don't read the plot section of the article (or maybe don't read the article at all). --Two Bananas (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This would just be another form of spoiler, and would still be covered by WP:SPOILER. If a section called "Identity of the murderer" isn't enough of a clue to the reader that the identity of the murderer is about to be revealed, an article entitled "Killer in Agatha Christie's 'The Mousetrap'" presumably wouldn't help them much either (and could even be worse, if they got there from a Google search and the one-paragraph article got straight to the point). I'm not sure how hiding the ending behind a link would uphold Christie's final wishes any more closely - the Telegraph article suggests that her grandson considers it a "pity" when any reference work includes the plot in its entirety. --McGeddon (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Or they could just not include the spoiler in the article...

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Or they could just not include the spoiler in the article...

That is beyond the intelligence, sensitivity and creativity of the parasitical runts.

Sorry ... did I miss out 'adolescent' in "parasitical runts"?

Oh, imagine the precendent it would set for them, the arguments, the gaming ... Wikipedia excluding information? They much rather just fuck someone else over and bother not a bit.

[CharlotteWebb]

The rules of its licence mean it can only be performed once outside the West End each year, allowing for the identity of the murderer to stay secret.

These terms seem to ensure I'll live the rest of my life without seeing a performance of this play or any film adaptation thereof. How many royalties could they possibly be losing?

In other news, check out the earliest edits to The Crying Game, circa Sept. 2001. This came up on the mailing list in the last big argument about "spoilers".

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[dtobias]

Why should this play have any more (or less) protection against spoilers than any other suspenseful work of fiction?

SNAPE KILLED [censored]!
[censored] IS LUKE'S FATHER!
SOYLENT GREEN IS [censored]!
ROSEBUD IS [censored]!

[taiwopanfob]

Why should this play have any more (or less) protection against spoilers than any other suspenseful work of fiction?

For the same reason why BLP victims should be accommodated: the/a principal is making the request.

[thekohser]

Why should this play have any more (or less) protection against spoilers than any other suspenseful work of fiction?

SNAPE KILLED [censored]!
[censored] IS LUKE'S FATHER!
SOYLENT GREEN IS [censored]!
ROSEBUD IS [censored]!

THE NEW SHERIFF IS A [censored]

[Abd]

Why should this play have any more (or less) protection against spoilers than any other suspenseful work of fiction?

For the same reason why BLP victims should be accommodated: the/a principal is making the request.

What in the world is wrong with using a collapse box for spoiler information, so that someone simply needs to click once to read it? I'd prefer that courtesy, myself, so I could choose to see it or not. I did, from this here, go read the article, and I'm a little sorry I did, if I ever am able to see the play. It's a spoiler. Sometimes we forget that knowledge has purposes.

[CharlotteWebb]

SNAPE KILLED [censored]!
[censored] IS LUKE'S FATHER!
SOYLENT GREEN IS [censored]!
ROSEBUD IS [censored]!

THE NEW SHERIFF IS A [censored]

LIFE IS A STATE OF [censored].
I'M A BIG, BRIGHT, SHINING [censored].
ASH IS A GODDAMN [censored]!
MICKEY, I'M [censored].
FORGET IT JACK, IT'S [censored].
GOOD GRIEF—IT'S [censored].

These are probably too easy.

[jayvdb]

Why should this play have any more (or less) protection against spoilers than any other suspenseful work of fiction?

For the same reason why BLP victims should be accommodated: the/a principal is making the request.

What in the world is wrong with using a collapse box for spoiler information, so that someone simply needs to click once to read it? I'd prefer that courtesy, myself, so I could choose to see it or not. I did, from this here, go read the article, and I'm a little sorry I did, if I ever am able to see the play. It's a spoiler. Sometimes we forget that knowledge has purposes.

You knew the plot was going to be spoiled. If you don't want to understand the work, read a review instead. I'm steering clear of this article! ;-)
The writing of a review that doesn't spoil the story line is very subjective, and temporal, and is best left to professional writers writing for a specific audience.
Wikipedia articles about fiction are writing for a) people who are stupid enough to click on a Wikipedia link while searching for a review, or b) wanting to read an encyclopedia style article about the work.

The 'Wikipedia has spoilers' issue did make sense when we first removed the spoiler collapse boxes, but people have had a long time to be stung by this, and should have learnt the hard way by now, if common sense didnt kick in the first time.
The only improvement to the current situation would be for Wikipedia articles about fiction to have a prominent notice above them indicating that the page that follows does include spoilers, so googlers have an extra chance to realise and click back.
Reading a great novel the second time is more enjoyable, rather than less. The same goes for seeing plays. I've never watched the same play by the same company, but I doubt that the experience is diminished the second time if it was good the first time.

[CharlotteWebb]

You knew the plot was going to be spoiled. If you don't want to understand the work, read a review instead. I'm steering clear of this article! ;-)

You mean you're saving up to watch this play?

[jayvdb]

You knew the plot was going to be spoiled. If you don't want to understand the work, read a review instead. I'm steering clear of this article! ;-)

You mean you're saving up to watch this play?

I'm not saving for this play, but a holiday could put me in the right spot at the right time.
I don't normally read Wikipedia articles about fiction until after I have read/seen/walked out on/etc the work, unless I am pretty confident that I am unlikely to be interested in enjoying it first hand.

[taiwopanfob]

Reading a great novel the second time is more enjoyable, rather than less. The same goes for seeing plays. I've never watched the same play by the same company, but I doubt that the experience is diminished the second time if it was good the first time.

For most people interested in this stuff, reading the same murder mystery again is about as exciting as solving a solved crossword puzzle.

[A Horse With No Name]

That play is still running in London? I saw it 20 years ago. I barely remember anything of the production today, whereas I can I recall details of shows that I saw on Broadway when I was a kid in the 1970s.

[jayvdb]

Reading a great novel the second time is more enjoyable, rather than less. The same goes for seeing plays. I've never watched the same play by the same company, but I doubt that the experience is diminished the second time if it was good the first time.

For most people interested in this stuff, reading the same murder mystery again is about as exciting as solving a solved crossword puzzle.

It may not be as 'exciting' the second time, but it can be equally enjoyable, if it was well written.

[HRIP7]

What in the world is wrong with using a collapse box for spoiler information, so that someone simply needs to click once to read it? I'd prefer that courtesy, myself, so I could choose to see it or not.

Well, I tried, but got soundly defeated. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Milton Roe]

The rules of its licence mean it can only be performed once outside the West End each year, allowing for the identity of the murderer to stay secret.

These terms seem to ensure I'll live the rest of my life without seeing a performance of this play or any film adaptation thereof. How many royalties could they possibly be losing?

In other news, check out the earliest edits to The Crying Game, circa Sept. 2001. This came up on the mailing list in the last big argument about "spoilers".

"I see dead people...." They don't know they're dead. Some of them are editing wikipedia.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

The Sixth Sense film is a case where you have to see it again even after you've seen it once. Spoilers remove only part of the fun.

I saw The Mousetrap in London in 1977, and it had been running for many years before that. I'd see it again today, as that was so long ago I don't remember a damned thing about it, except that it had an O. Henry style ending. Which don't tell me, as I may be in London some time again before I die (you see, I'm not yet sick of it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ). Though, with so many unvisited places in the world, don't bet on this unless I get rich or somebody invents an antiaging pill.

[HRIP7]

Useful article in the New York Times today. I must say I did enjoy Holmes' (Rupert, not Sherlock) comment:

Rupert Holmes ... questioned the motives of someone eager to report the surprise in a creative work, whetheron a personal blog or a collaborative project like Wikipedia — calling the achievement, at best, “a momentary sense of superiority.”

“It’s the self-aggrandizing vandalism of another person’s potential pleasure. It’s spray-painting your name across the face of the Mona Lisa and thinking you’re one up on Da Vinci.”

Bull's eye, mate.

This post has been edited by HRIP7:

[EricBarbour]

Useful article in the New York Times today. I must say I did enjoy Holmes' (Rupert, not Sherlock) comment:

Now that's funny. Wikipedia is so pathetic, even a mediocre-pop-singer-turned-mediocre-playwright can criticize them effectively.

(And in the interests of full disclosure, I must say that I always thought Mr. Holmes's music was unlistenable drivel.
The kind of awful sappy MOR stuff that radio stations calling themselves things like "Soft And Warm, The Quiet Storm" play repeatedly.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[thekohser]

(And in the interests of full disclosure, I must say that I always thought Mr. Holmes's music was unlistenable drivel.
The kind of awful sappy MOR stuff that radio stations calling themselves things like "Soft And Warm, The Quiet Storm" play repeatedly.)

So, you don't like pina coladas. But don't tell me you don't like getting caught in the rain?

[Milton Roe]

(And in the interests of full disclosure, I must say that I always thought Mr. Holmes's music was unlistenable drivel.
The kind of awful sappy MOR stuff that radio stations calling themselves things like "Soft And Warm, The Quiet Storm" play repeatedly.)

So, you don't like pina coladas. But don't tell me you don't like getting caught in the rain?

So I waited with high hopes
Then I thought I'd collapse:
He was dressed like a tranny
And and on top, leather straps.
It was our own Poetlister,
Straight from e-Harmon-y
And I gagged for a moment,
And I said, "Well, fuck me..."

So you like Coleridge and Kipling
And lists of all kinds of Jews?
And you're way into bondage--
I guess that last isn't news...
And you like playing games on B-boards
Like you're a cute female friend--
You're the chat pal I've prayed for--
Go log on; we'll pretend!