In response to Khajidha's notion of ""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." I'd like to point out that usually a work of art does not end with a warning not to reveal the twist being issued to the audience. So yes it may be far too basic plot to leave out and that you'd always expect it to be on an encyclopaedic article but that is all under normal circumstances. This is not normal circumstances. In the same way, audiences would expect that they get to discuss the twist ending with others under normal circumstances but that's not the case here. Khajidha made a very removed from context and reality response here. Panda815 (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing removed from reality is the idea that this marketing gimmick has any power over anyone.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a marketing gimmick it would have to be used while the show is being marketed, I.e. before the show was played, not straight after it. So it’s not a marketing gimmick. In fact this article itself calls it a tradition and traditions definitely do have power over people. So you’re contradicting the article itself. This conversation about the ending needs to be opened up again fully. Panda815 (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't tell the secret" and variants are used in many ads and reviews for the play. So, yes, it's marketing. And even the fact that the audience is asked not to tell after the play is a way to get them to encourage others to go. Traditions are only binding on those who choose to let them be. You can reopen the discussion as often as you want, but you will always lose the argument because hiding facts is totally anathema to the function of an encyclopedia. If we do what you want, we might as well shut down because we would no longer be a viable source if information. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Panda815. It's a quirky custom, but it brings a lot of value to people and keeping it a secret doesn't really do any harm, while sharing it clearly does harm to people by spoiling the story. I would suggest we remove details of the plot twist.

In particular, this hyperbolic statement is too ridiculous for words: If we do what you want, we might as well shut down because we would no longer be a viable source if information. 31.94.72.217 (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the secret does harm to people who want to read about the play. If someone doesn't want to have the story spoiled it is quite simple: don't read an encyclopedia article about the story. I can't believe that people could be so clueless as to not think the ending would be given. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By saying that you're saying that you think the only reason to read this article is for the plot. But the plot isn't the only thing that this article details is it? This article also talks about the play's history, performances, adaptations, critical reception etc. So why shouldn't a person read an encyclopaedic article to find out all of that stuff but not the plot? Your statement about it being viable is hyperbolic. Furthermore the article itself details Agatha Christie being disappointed that the ending is written in articles and her son being dismayed to find that this very wikipedia article has the ending in it. So clearly people do expect that the ending won't be given in this article. Panda815 (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to read all of that stuff, but not the plot, we have conveniently placed the plot in its own section. As far as the Christies being dismayed, that is of no concern. They don't control how literary works are reviewed. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the FAQ, Wikipedia:Spoiler is a consensus-guideline for WP, instructing that spoilers are valid content, are probably/usually appropriate content, omitting it to leave an incomplete article is a problem in general, and omitting it for potential audience's benefit is not allowed. Unless you have a strong enough novel argument to overcome those rationales, please don't bother being a time-sink here. DMacks (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks - Yes you're right that this is what the WP:Spoiler article instructs. However, as mentioned before, the article we're discussing here is not under the normal circumstances. There would be no argument of omitting a spoiler in virtually any other article but there is here because the whole tradition is not to reveal the ending and this spoiler in question's reveal has caused public dismay, especially with its author. So the WP:Spoiler guideline that applies to all other articles is absolutely fine and should be followed. Just not here. Notice how you have said "probably/usually appropriate content" in your reiteration of the guidelines. Not "always appropriate content" and this article is the exception, the reason that you put usually instead of always.

User:Khajidha - I'm not sure what the relevance of the plot being in its own section is. You said that people shouldn't read an encyclopedia article unless you want the plot spoiled and I was pointing out that there are other reasons to read the article. So the sections are irrelevant to your point that I was refuting. Again the fact that the Christie's don't control the literary world is also irrelevant. You said that you're shocked that anyone would not expect the ending in this article and I was just pointing out that lots of people, even high profile ones do expect it. Panda815 (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which just reinforces my belief that lots of people, even high profile ones, have silly ideas that we do not have to take into account here. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the printed version of the play does not contain any requests not to discuss the contents. (Or at least, the edition I read, I don't know if there are other ones that do.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe people are still trying to argue against including it. It's been done to death. If you're reading the entry for the show and read the sub section of plot titled "Identity of the murder", then it's entirely on you for spoiling the ending. We give far more warning on this article than any other. It's not like this is the only place on the Internet that identifies the murder. We would not be doing a service for anyone by censoring it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s got nothing to do with sections or spoilers. As said, the play itself ends with a warning to keep the secret and that is what should be honoured. The fact that it’s self inflicted because of the sections is completely irrelevant to whether the ending should be in the article or not because that’s not the reason why we’re arguing for it not to be included. Yes other places on the internet reveal it but that’s the argument of if everyone jumps of a bridge are you going to as well. Just because they do doesn’t mean we should. Panda815 (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we should keep the ending. This has been debated since more than a decade, and as you can see there is a very clear consensus. We do not give a f*** about requests to censor the plot of a worldwide famous play. The ending is documented and extremely relevant information about the subject, there is no encyclopedic reason to remove it. cyclopia^speak! 15:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it's not a clear consensus otherwise there wouldn't be this much debate on the Talk page. Even on this revival here I'm not the only user arguing for its exclusion. It might not be an encyclopaedic reason to remove but it's a very important reason all the same. Panda815 (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not an encyclopedic reason, then it is irrelevant. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And why is that so? Nothing is worth considering unless it’s specifically encyclopaedic? We live in a world with people and reality. Not everything fits in the best little box of encyclopaedia. There’s nuance and further consideration to take into account. The reasons being discussed here are just as important as encyclopaedic reasons. Panda815 (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing is worth considering unless it’s specifically encyclopaedic?" Yes, exactly. This an encyclopedia. If it doesn't have an encyclopaedic purpose, it's irrelevant here. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you really have to ask why non-encyclopedic reasons have no relevance to writing an encyclopedia, then there is no use discussing things with you. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is not "this much debate", there is just you beating a dead horse. cyclopia^speak! 09:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JDDJS - The question I asked was why is it so that if the reason is non encyclopaedic then it’s irrelevant. You restating that does not explain the reason behind it.

User:Khajidha - That’s counterintuitive. Anyone would think that’s all the more reason to discuss so that you can get across the answer to my question.

cyclopia - I’m one of two people on my side of the debate here even if the other person hasn’t posted as much as I have. Also this isn’t the first topic about this so if you look through the archives for this page you’ll find plenty of other people arguing my side. That’s what I meant by this much debate. Panda815 (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously don't know how to explain to you that only encyclopaedic reasons matter when making an encyclopaedia. If you can't understand that, then I don't think that this is the right community for you. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is either trolling or lack of competence. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit rusty — how does it work to close inane talk page discussions? Should an admin be involved? cyclopia^speak! 10:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one post by an IP beside yours, and no novel argument. This discussion should be closed. cyclopia^speak! 10:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

cyclopia - Yes there's only that other person, I said as much myself earlier. Not sure the point of saying that. I also said this isn't the first entry on this, check the archives.So either way not just me.

JDDJS - It's a shame that you can't explain that because I genuinely don't see why myself. I'm not sure this makes it not the right community for me. We all have our different opinions but no one needs to be treated as an outcast for their opinion. I've already explained why I think the way I do. That we live in a world where not everything fits in one box, we're not in a vacuum where nothing interacts with each other. So you're welcome to take that apart and disagree with it if you want. Panda815 (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Panda815 Everyone of those previous discussions ended with a clear consensus to include the identity of the murder. You have not brought up any new reasons to not include it that hasn't already been debated. If you can't understand that the number one priority of Wikipedia is to build the best encyclopedia possible, then yeah, this isn't the community for you. I've had countless disagreements with other editors on what is best for building an encyclopaedia, but outside of dealing with vandals, I've never seen any other editor not understand the number one priority is building the best encyclopedia possible. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"That we live in a world where not everything fits in one box, we're not in a vacuum where nothing interacts with each other". What does that have to do with anything, let alone making an encyclopedia? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JDDJS - I in fact responded directly to a point made by Khajida in the archived discussion and presented an argument against what they’d said. That to me is a new argument. Also I might be confused but hasn’t what you’re saying changed since your last post about what I don’t understand. Before I didn’t understand why we don’t use non encyclopaedic reasons for building an encyclopaedia. Now you’re saying I don’t understand that we need to build the best encyclopaedia possible? Those are two different things. Of course I agree that we need to build the best encyclopaedia possible but what I said was I don’t see why we have to only refer to encyclopaedic reasoning in order to build the best encyclopaedia possible. That’s what I thought we were talking about. So what I was saying is we can use any type of reasoning to build our encyclopaedia not that we shouldn’t try to build the best possible. So Khajidha that’s what the quote you’re asking about means. That an encyclopaedia doesn’t fit in the box of just using encyclopaedic reasons it should use all kinds of reasons. Panda815 (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ending our interaction here. I'm sorry, but you're clearly beyond help. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]