view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Should the article include the identity of the murderer? (Short answer: Yes.) A1: Per Wikipedia's policy on "spoilers", "Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers." This has been discussed numerous times on this article's talk page, and consensus among Wikipedia editors has consistently been in favor of keeping them. Keep in mind that there is an encyclopaedic benefit to researchers and other readers who have not and will not likely ever see the play. Q2: Should the article have a spoiler warning? (Short answer: No.) A2: Wikipedia does not use spoiler warnings in conjunction with its policy against censoring content, observing that "No other academic, scholarly, or other professional publication that describes or analyze works of fiction, such as other encyclopedias, includes disclaimers about spoilers when discussing said works." Consensus has shown that separating the end of the play into a separate section titled "Identity of the murderer" is sufficient to warn readers that they are about to read the end of the play. Q3: Should we place the "Identity of the murder" section into a collapsible box/table/area? (Short answer: No.) A3: Collapsible areas can make it difficult for mobile browsers or accessibility tools such as those used by the visually impaired to correctly display the page, which is contrary to Wikipedia's goal to be accessible to everyone. Because of this, using such techniques to hide text is generally discouraged in articles unless it is used to collapse long lists or other such information that would otherwise be disadvantageous to simply scroll through. Q4: Should Wikipedia respect the tradition to not spoil the end of the play? (Short answer: No.) A4: The play itself, including the ending, has been in publication since 1954 and is widely available, and the article's plot summary reflects that. As a worldwide information resource, Wikipedia is not censored, and does not remove spoilers simply because they are spoilers. There is an encyclopaedic benefit to researchers and other readers who have not and will not likely ever be able to see the play. Discussions on the article have determined that these benefits outweigh the tradition to not spoil it.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 25, 2011 and November 25, 2014.

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Theatre Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Paul Bignell and Matthew Bell (2010-08-29). "Wikipedia springs 'Mousetrap' ending". Independent on Sunday. Ben Leach (2010-08-29). "Agatha Christie's family criticise Wikipedia for revealing Mousetrap ending". The Telegraph. "Wikipedia Reveals Secret of 'The Mousetrap'". Slashdot. 2010-09-01. Noam Cohen (2010-09-17). "Spoiler Alert: Whodunit? Wikipedia Will Tell You". New York Times.

Before commenting on the fact that the article gives away the ending of the play, make sure you have read this page's frequently asked questions (FAQ), the guideline on when to use spoiler warnings and the content disclaimer.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I haven't watched the play. But from the plot summary, I gather something is awry: If Metcalf is the "real" policeman, he must know that Trotter is an impostor. So how can he proceed to allow Trotter to kill Mrs Boyle, rather than arresting him immediately? (After all, Metcalf must know Trotter is up no good.)

So, either the plot summary is somewhat incomplete, or this is a substantial plot hole -- or I am missing something obvious. Which is it? --Syzygy (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a substantial plot hole. However, plot holes are not generally not considered encyclopedic information, unless there has been a lot of coverage of the plot hole, so please do not make a not of this plot hole in the article. JDDJS (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was mostly concerned about the plot summary being wrong, or poorly worded. --Syzygy (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the play and this plot hole was so apparent I could scarcely believe it. 146.199.178.128 (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the play. Metcalf is as cut off as everyone (because of the weather) so is unsure what to do when Trotter arrives and says he is the policeman sent to investigate. 2.27.21.157 (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are interesting- intentional?- double negatives there…”plot holes are not generally not considered encyclopedic information” e.g. ELSchissel (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite all the warnings on the talk page, there are still people who make edits removing the twist ending. (see this and this) Is it possible to get an edit notice on the page itself like we have for this page? I feel like a slight modification of the template on this will do. RteeeeKed💬📖 00:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've seen the huge warning when I try to post here, so I know it might not end well, but respectfully, is there anything the can be done to satisfy everybody? The play has run since 1952 miraculously without the plot twist becoming general knowledge. The article itself says that the audience is traditionally asked not to reveal the murderer's identity after leaving the theatre, and that Agatha Christie's grandson was "dismayed" (which I assume means "angry") to see the twist described in this Wikipedia page, so the feelings of those staging the play and the holder of its copyright are well known, but the answer seems to be a blunt "this is an encyclopaedia, so our job is to openly blurt out the twist in a very famous play, despite the production relying on holding it secret for its continuing commercial viability". The warning here on the talk page doesn't explain what the "encyclopaedic benefit" is for people who won't see the play to know its plot in full. It also says that the paragraph heading "Identity of the murderer" is sufficient warning, but a casual reader could see it as a general discussion of that identity rather than a complete revelation of it. I expect this has been asked many times and disregarded on each occasion, but is there a way of obscuring the paragraph in question unless the reader clicks on an explicit link saying that the twist will be revealed? I hope this doesn't cause offence. Peter Galvani (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, such an obscuring of the material is not an option. The encyclopedic benefit for people who won't see the play to know its plot in full is simple. TO KNOW ITS PLOT. Why would anyone who has not seen the play and who wishes to someday see it without having the plot "spoiled" for them read an encyclopedic article on it? If I read an encyclopedic article on ANY work of fiction, I would consider it deficient if it did not include the ending. Many articles here on Wikipedia are deficient in this manner, but that is no reason to make this article worse. I think the problem is that too many people refuse to see anything on the internet as serious or scholarly. This is NOT a review site attempting to convince people to go see the play. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did want to see the play and automatically assumed this entry would NOT reveal the outcome. Now it is spoiled for me

At the very least, shouldn't it state at the top CONTAINS SPOILERS? Caelon (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Any encyclopedic article on any work of fiction should be expected to cover the plot in full. Not in absolutely complete detail, but "who dunnit" is far too basic to the plot to leave out. I find it impossible to believe that anyone could seriously not expect this to be here.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, most people reading a section clearly entitled "Identity of the murderer" would expect it to include .... the identity of the murderer. - Arjayay (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was it stated how many performances there had been when it went on hiatus in 2020 ? -- Beardo (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's widely claimed, including here, that no film adaptation can take place until no West End production has been staged for at least six months. However, our repetition of that claim doesn't actually cite any sources. Whence did this claim originate, and is it actually an official position of the play's producers?

Assuming that there is any truth to this claim...

• A recent BBC report claimed that the six month period has never kicked in, yet the COVID pandemic meant that performances were halted from March 2020 to May 2021, i.e. for 14 months which is more than twice that period. Does this mean that a) there's a force majeure clause somewhere that prevents such production closures from counting towards the six month period, or b) that they're trying to treat the attempted 23 October 2020 reopening as having interrupted the six month period despite that reopening ultimately not going ahead, or c) that at some point the producers moved to counting any old production as something that puts the brakes on any film adaptation (see also Beardo's query), or d) that the BBC and/or its reporters just don't know what they're actually talking about?
• What happens when the play's copyright expires and the material is then up for grabs as much as any other public domain work is? Would there still any avenue for the six month period to be enforced in terms of basic contract law or would the play's producers finally be powerless to stop any film adaptation going ahead?
• Finally, aside from the usual repetition of the claim, how does See How They Run figure into all this? Since it uses the play as its backdrop, some plot points must inevitably be referenced (however indirect said references might be).

- Dvaderv2 (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised that even if they did try to count the attempted October reopening as an actual production, there's more than six months between the March 2020 closure and that date. Ditto for the gap between the attempted October reopening and the eventual May reopening. - Dvaderv2 (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]