Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2012 October 27

= October 27 =

Spoiler warnings in reviews (again)
I know I have asked this question before, but it appears that no one was able to answer the main question, so here I go again. For example, take the case of this review, which has a spoiler warning, although a rather unusual one. And here's the actual spoiler warning (emphasis mine):

As you can clearly see, the spoiler warning is telling the readers to stop reading at all costs and watch the show first before continuing. Granted, the review does give a rating of three stars, but's under the spoiler warning. The point is, what is the point of adding spoiler warnings to reviews that explicitly tells them to not read it if they haven't seen the work in question? I know that people read reviews for different reasons (as pointed out in my previous question), but the fact is that the majority of people read reviews to see if the show or movie they want to see is good or not. They don't need to be spoiled if they don't want to, but telling people to not read the review is sort of strange to me and kind of defeats the purpose. I can understand if they are to add a spoiler warning if they are going to discuss a major plot detail out of the blue, but a spoiler warning that tells readers to see the work first before reading the review seems rather out of place, especially if the person is in the minority who enjoys a work better after it is spoiled (like me) or if the person wants to read the reviewer's thoughts on the work, as well as to read about technical details, before watching. And it's not like the warning is telling them to skip only parts about the plot, but it's telling readers to skip the review as a whole. What are possible rationales for such a move?Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The author's e-mail is at the bottom of the article.  He would be in the best position to answer your question about his warning, especially since you didn't get the answers you wanted the last time you asked the Ref Desk.  RudolfRed (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * But this question is about the practice in general, not about this specific review. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the point. The reviewer says to watch a few episodes first, not the entire series, to familiarize oneself with the apparently complicated setting. Jones presumably goes over the series as a whole assuming the reader is somewhat familiar with the concepts therein.Clarityfiend (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The OP is assuming that only people who have not seen something would want to read a review of it. I, and I suspect many others, often read reviews of something I have seen to see whether the reviewer agrees with my impressions; appears not to have understood something that I (think) I have (rare); or mentions something that I've missed, enhancing my appreciation of the work or even prompting me to watch it again. Presumably the reviewer in question is conscious of this portion of his/her readership. {The poster formerly konwn as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.19 (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"Fuckin' Housemartins" - Question about "Confusion" by New Order.
In the version of Confusion found on Substance 1987, shortly after the chanting that closes the song, Bernard Sumner or some other member of the band or crew (definitely male) is audibly heard to say something like "fuckin' housemartins", before hawking up some phlegm and spitting.

Can anyone explain this and perhaps put it in the article? Regards. -- Editor510  drop us a line, mate  16:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Some people claim Sumner is saying "fuckin' 'ell, Martin" to Martin Hannett; but I've never seen a reliable source. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * My youthful ears can definitely hear an "s" at the end of "martin". -- Editor510  drop us a line, mate  16:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone on this NO forum thread suggests that it's Peter Hook commenting that what went before sounds like the Housemartins.  I like that interpretation. --Viennese Waltz 08:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Cathy_Carr
the Revision history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cathy_Carr&action=history shows 2 different birth years 1925 and 1936. shows 1930 Census reference making 1925 birth date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_Carr (aged 63) shows on page but NOT on edit-page, but both years 25 & 36 show on edit-page. life years showing would yield age of 52! also Catergories: should be 1925 births if 1925 birth date and age 63 are correct.

Please revise page so that it is consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by67.163.231.224 (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be better if you made this sort of statement in the discussion page of the relevant article rather than at the reference desk. This is roughly akin to finding a wrongly-shelved book in the British Library so asking the reference desk to sort it out. -- Editor510  drop us a line, mate  21:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Pogues' favourite football clubs
Does anyone have any idea which football clubs members of The Pogues support? I know Shane MacGowan has showed up on Celtic F.C. music compilations, so I'm guessing that's one. The only reference to clubs I'm aware of in their music is "Billy's Bones," which mentions both Arsenal F.C. and Tottenham Hotspur F.C. neutrally, as far as I can tell. --BDD (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ShaneMacGowan.com has a forum where you may get a quicker answer to your question. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)