Talk:Wrap rage

Informal photo
Would this be appropriate for inclusion in the article proper? I feel it makes a point, but I didn't want to be too bold about using my own work. -Nahum Reduta (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is he trying to get the knife out of the package, using the knife to get something else out of the package, or trying to use the package with the knife in it to do something to whatever's on the counter under the package? I'm not quite sure what's going on in that photo. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 03:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that was part of the whole point of the picture. You really can't tell because of the ironic wrapper. I believe he's using a smaller knife to open the larger one's box. This kind of packaging ought to be criminal to sell without opening. Oh wait, if they did that, they'de quit using the stupid arthritic-inducing packaging in the first place because of OSHA or the like. 24.162.128.27 (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He's using the package to cut the bread instead of opening the package to remove the knife and use the knife. Bombcar (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont think it is bread ... but I agree with Bombcar ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordstrix (talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I resized the image on this page for the sake of readability; I hope you don't mind. Also, while the image is humorous, I don't think it's very relevant to the article, as it doesn't clearly show the resilience of the packaging or frustration in trying to open it. tktktk (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What?!
This is the most ridiculous article on Wikipedia.

Thank you. --Mwongozi (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And now Amazon [ http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200285450 links to it].davewho2 (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * From their Main page, no less! Lithoderm (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

[ http://www.amazon.com/ We can expect a rash of vandalism]. I'll be watching it... Lithoderm (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2008 To be honest this article DOES read like an ad. --76.20.52.24 (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This reads like an Urban Dictionary entry - I really don't think it belongs here. 24.107.40.198 (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Legal liability?
Is there any reports of manufacturers or warehouse owners being responsible for any physical injury from packages being economicly compensated?, even the perforated packages have sharp edges. Electron9 (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure; I haven't come across any. If there are any examples of wrap rage-related legal issues as a motivation for manufacturers changing their packaging, though, that could be helpful.  tk tk  tk  23:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This does not belong on Wikipedia.
How is this on Wikipedia? How is this even close to being a serious article? Pages on purple drank and Steven Slater are ridiculous, but this just takes it to the next level. I'm pretty sure Wrap rage isn't even a real thing outside of Wikipedia, and it definitely doesn't deserve to have any more than a mention on this site. Candidate for deletion, anyone? Pstephan23 (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's on Wikipedia because it meets Wikipedia policy for neologisms - the article cites plenty of sources that refer to the phenomenon, with usage going back six years, showing that it's a "real thing outside of Wikipedia". --McGeddon (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah this is pretty much the dumbest shit I've ever read...only in America.--24.119.67.52 (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, this is a serious technical problem, a practical problem for consumers, and a feeling experienced all too frequently. It belongs right here.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think this deserves a dedicated article. Wrap rage should be a definition on wiktionary and the article merged into a subsection of the Packaging and labeling article. Besides, the entire article reeks of original research. Southsailor (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Where do you see original research? I can only find a couple of sentences that aren't sourced. --McGeddon (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article?
"A survey in Yours, a magazine aimed at people over 50, found that 99% of the 2,000 respondents said packaging had become harder to open over the last 10 years, 97% said there was 'too much excess packaging', and 60% said they had bought a product designed to more easily open packaging."

This is a survey about packaging in general. As the survey is aimed at over 50's the causal factor should be considered to be age, not the packaging. I will remove if no one has an objection. E2daipi (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Certainly age is a factor in those statistics. The point is to show that excess packaging may be an especially big problem for people over 50. I don't see an issue with pointing out that a certain demographic is particularly affected. — tk tk  tk  02:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I really think this article is unnecessary
Wrap rage just seems like a term that fits nicely onto one instance of rage, which, in a broader scope, is nothing more than one of the many many frustrated reactions to technology that we encounter every day. Is there anything unique about this kind of rage other than its source? What about when the wireless router stops working and a person doesn't know what to do about it, and they start yelling and screaming? Is that router rage? Or when people beat on their computers when they freeze or lag? Computer rage? Do both of those things need separate articles because they are rage with different mundane origins? If there is anything unique about this form of rage or forms like it, it's that it shows how impatient people have become and how much they need instant gratification; such that they break down emotionally when they can't get their prize out of the middle of a package that can be opened easily with anything other than their own hands. Let's delete this article, and others like it.

redelephantlabel (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * All that's required for a topic to have an article on Wikipedia is that it meet the guidelines for notability – that it is, that it has significant coverage in reliable sources. Based on the references on this article, I think wrap rage certainly meets that criterion. By the way, we actually do have an article on computer rage. — tk tk  tk  04:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I propose a new article - Article about Non-serious Topic Rage 41.145.25.238 (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I propose a new article - <> You don't see the importance because you are indoctrinated to think that all human behaviors are pathological and need to be medicated. Read the controversy about DSM-5 and you might understand.

The article was created because of the seal "Frustration-free packaging". But only in Wikipedia the "wrap-rage" is explained. Congratulations! Wikipedia just invented a new disease. --Justana (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The article draws on 18 published newspaper and magazine sources dating from 2006 to 2011, it has not been made up by Wikipedia editors. --McGeddon (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is hilarious! Please, don't delete it. --Justana (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of photo
I stumbled across this article and I'm enraged at its stupidity but what can you do if it meets WP:GNG. I at least recommend the removal of the photo. An article like this does not need a photo--at least not at this point. In all honestly this article needs to be merged into another article. Thoughts? tbone (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Both photos, or just the woman opening the lightbulb package? It seems useful to have a photo of the type of packaging that's a problem - the reader shouldn't have to click through to blister pack or clamshell if they aren't familiar with the packaging and want to see an example.
 * I'm not sure there's any single article that we could merge this into, given that it covers several different types of packaging. --McGeddon (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keeping one photo of the type of packaging sounds good. As for article merging, yeah there aren't too many options. Overly ambitious but maybe a new article on 21st century rage related problems in developed society. - tbone (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Very real problem, not silly article at all.
I'm not sure that the 'rage' adjective is appropriate, but the safety aspects of this style of packaging certainly deserve investigation by ROSPA or whoever. Some sources claim 6,000 people a year are injured trying to open such packages. I know I've had some near-misses myself.

In the UK, the situation is worsened by the carrying of a safe tool for doing this kind of job being outlawed by knife controls.

Perhaps one of the worst aspects is that the manufacturers offer no advised procedure for opening the packaging, leaving the buyer to try to improvise something with whatever tools are to-hand. That would seem to indicate a lack of due diligence, and therefore liability. --Anteaus (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)