Wikipedia

Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road/Archive 4

< Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road
Latest comment: 5 months ago by मल्ल in topic "Furiosa Road" listed at Redirects for discussion
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mad Max: Fury Road. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mad Max: Fury Road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Which poster to use

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I tried uploading the final theatrical poster with date, rating, etc., and the upload was reverted. I don't want to get into an edit war so let's settle this here. Why the revert? The final theatrical poster is not trumped by any previous poster. — Film Fan 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You know why because it's the fourth time. The rating isn't important for the same reason we don't mention it in the article, we don't need the release date on the poster because it's in the article and it's not even the Australian release date so it's jingocentric. You keep uploading the blue/orange posters and I assume it's because you prefer them, which is fine, but the existing poster has pictures of the cast and a full credit listing which we can use in the article as well, compared to the posters you upload which have the date on. And that isn't a valuable contribution to the article.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You do not have a valid argument. The rating does matter. It's the rating that shows us it's the final poster. Your upload is simply your personal preference. The only posters that should be considered are the final US poster, or the Aussie poster. You make the argument that your upload has the main cast (not a valid reason) and the billing block on it - but both the Aussie poster and the final US poster HAVE THEM ON TOO. You literally have no argument, and do not know what a theatrical poster is. It's time to concede this farce, mate. — Film Fan 22:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
What has altered since this discussion, and why has noone else seen a need to change the poster in the last 2 years? This is literally the same argument, so like last time I'll let a third party weigh in because I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
That was me pushing for the Aussie poster. This is me saying either the Aussie poster or the final US poster are acceptable (although really, it should be the Aussie poster) and that you have no argument, and you know it, and, because you have no counter argument, all you've got is that you "disagree" lol. Yeah, if you're gonna dig your heels in with nothing but "I like the other poster", we'll wait for someone else to weigh in.
Or, alternatively, you could pick one of the two posters I'm offering you, and we can be done with this nonsense. — Film Fan 23:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:FILMPOSTER, "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article." Outside the world premiere, which I do not think we can find a unique poster for, the earliest theatrical release for a general audience would be the Australian poster. Arguments about the billing block do not seem to be that relevant, as this is a relatively new film in the internet age, things like cast, production, release dates are not terribly difficult to find reliable third party sources on. Going by the rules, get a variation of an Australian poster. Which would appear to be this one: here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Nope, the current poster is the Australian poster (the poster you linked to is American). — Film Fan 18:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Then use that. If there are other Australian posters, I am a bit more flexible with using one that we can argue best gives the idea of the idea of the film across. Details like credits/release dates etc. are not as important I think...whatever we can agree one best gets the point across. The current one is definitely Australian, so go for it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed on all counts, and the current poster is the only Australian poster, so case closed. Finally. — Film Fan 18:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mad Max: Fury Road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A Reboot

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The only citation for this film being a reboot is a link to an article with the headline "How George Miller Rebooted an Iconic Franchise With 'Mad Max: Fury Road' " But at no point in the article does George say the film is a reboot, I suggest the mention of a reboot is removed. 81.130.141.175 (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I Comment To Mortee.

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I Point Out That User Removed Reference To Joint Australian-American Nature of Film And Replaced With Nonsensical "Purely Australian". I Do Not See Point Of Your Undo. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I Point Out You Can Also See "Venture" Was Replaced With Similarly Nonsensical "Adventure". IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  • @IUpdateRottenTomatoes: sorry - I clicked to undo your first edit, which replaced "adventure" with "adenture". It undid your second edit at the same time, which I hadn't seen and which was in fact an improvement. You're welcome to reinstate it. I tried to revert myself, but couldn't because you'd already made a third edit. Mortee (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I Thank You For Clarifying. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Production country

Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

Lead says its just an Australian film. The infobox says its both Austrailian and American. Which is it? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It's an Australian and American film. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
That depends - as per the MoS - entirely on how the film is described by reliable sources. So far there aren't any direct references to the film's nationality to be able to draw such a conclusion (the 'countries' box on BFI isn't adequate). MapReader (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
And since Hollywood Reporter no less is happy to describe this as an Australian Film, so should we[1] MapReader (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Got it. I didn't want to edit war over the matter. Does the NYT review (which mentions that it was also a U.S. production) qualify as well? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I can’t comment on NYT as it is paywalled. But clearly there was some US involvement in production, which should be (and is) acknowledged within the article. That doesnt inhibit RS, and hence WP, describing it as an Australian film. Such judgements are often made on the basis of the predominant origin of the creative input, but of course it isn’t for us to try and second guess the RS. MapReader (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The NYT article can be viewed here without a paywall and it states both Australia and USA. Mind you, Screenaustralia.gov.au states just one production company, here, the Australian one. It seems that people are including the Village Roadshow in some of the production bits (it doesn't seem to be a major contribution, with the predominate funding coming from Australian companies). Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I am only seeing an infobox listing the countries involved with the film, not a descriptor, unless I have missed it? As I said above there is no denying the American involvement (just as there was French involvement in Mulholland Drive and British involvement in Game of Thrones, yet both remain widely and rightly seen as American creative products). There are further references to this Max Max being an Australian film here[2] from the US - this article from the HR explains why it is considered an Australian film - from the UK[3][4], here from Australia[5][6][7] and Ireland[8]. I wouldn’t have a problem with adding “United States” to the infobox, reflecting the involvement, which doesn’t conflict with the primary description in the lead article as being an “Australian Film” (just as Mulholland has both the US and France in the infobox but is described as “American” in the lead) MapReader (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Well MOS:FILMS standards states we should list all countries involved. I've tried bringing this up in discussion with MOS:FILM, but there is little detail about it when it comes to films listed as "in association with" or "co-produced by" when there is one main production company like "a so-and-so production". These rules also seem to differ from country to country so it gets complicated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The logical position, already reflected by very many film articles, is that the infobox lists the various countries involved and the lead describes the film as directly referenced by reliable sources. All in line with the existing MoS. MapReader (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead uses one source which states one country but as we see here, we've found other sources that list a second one. Which is correct then? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Plenty of films are made involving entities from second countries yet are seen as creative products from one particular country. The Hollywood Reporter article linked above explains why this is seen as an Australian film, despite the American involvement. It is reasonable therefore to describe the film (reflecting the RS) as an Australian film in the lead but list out both countries in the Infobox. MapReader (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes but thats interpretation though. I'd lean towards it myself being an Australian film, but if we are going to get technical (which we should be for specifics), we need to deduce what are the countries of production specifically. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely the opposite. “we need to deduce...” isn’t the job of editors, and THAT would be interpretation and fall foul of OR. Our job as editors - not writers or researchers - is simply to identify (and weigh, where necessary) the relevant reliable sources. Hollywood Reporter states directly that it is an Australian film, and as a good RS that is entirely sufficient, reflecting as it does a good balance of other RS. It is helpful for the purposes of our discussion that HR goes on to explain why it comes to that conclusion, but all that we need is the direct citation. As per Mosfilm. MapReader (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not about us deducing what it is ourselves, its deducing how Australian or American productions handle their country of production credit as it seems different per countries and different sources say different things. Using them all would be not being realistic for readers as we have indeed found sources that state different things and it remains unclear which is the more accurate for this production. I would say its more "Original Research" by just stating one source over the other for...well, I can't even figure out why we do that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
With respect, I don't think you are grasping the point, which is that it is not about "deduction" at all. If reliable sources say it's an Australian film, then it's an Australian film. Of course, differing sources sometimes conflict and the balance and reliability of sources then has to be weighed - but then that's an issue for articles across the whole of WP. In the case of film, personally I'd give more weight to foreign sources (in relation to the film) as there is obviously a tendency for national sources to try and 'claim' a good film as their own. In this particular case the film is very widely seen as an Australian film and - as a very reputable and American source - the fact that Hollywood Reporter is happy so to describe it must carry a lot of weight. MapReader (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 4 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Georgejdorner (talk · contribs) 17:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


Review criteria 6

I realize that the criteria of stability is one that is at least partially out of the nominator's control. However, checking edit history reveals that 68 editors have made 114 edits since nomination, beginning two days after your posting the nomination. Of course, you can't help that. However, a pattern of ongoing edits was still occurring when you nominated the article. Besides the 11 edits on the nomination date (8 by you, 3 by another editor), there were 26 edits by 18 editors in the month before the nomination date. I am leaning towards an immediate failure of the nomination on grounds of instability. However, the article shows so much work, so much promise, I thought you should be offered a chance to speak to the subject. I am placing this nomination on hold pending a failure for lack of stability.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions states, "Articles may be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with the subject." And there has been commentary in the past about changing that wording so that it's stronger in stating that those who have not significantly contributed to the article should not nominate it. I'm stating this because I'm not sure that Rusted AutoParts, who already has Mad Max: Fury Road listed on his user page as a good article, qualifies as a significant contributor to the article. His edits to the article can be seen here. BlueMoonset, as you are someone who persistently cautions those who are not significant contributors to articles against nominating them for GA, any thoughts on that?
And all that stated, Rusted AutoParts may be willing to address your concerns via editing, Georgejdorner. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, we can't do anything about the stability concern. But improving the article via editing can obviously be done. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I am willing and able to put the work in on concerns raised in order to get the page up to GA standard. @Flyer22 Frozen: a small clarification I wish to make is that the film articles listed on my user page are “Good Article Projects”, articles that I have nominated for GA or plan to work on to nominate. Rusted AutoParts 21:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I do not think the stability criteria is quite fair because no one can control the number of edits made on an article, nor the time span for them. But it is the criteria, vague as it is. I never got past this, never thought to check if Rusty was a contributor. If Rusty has an explanation for the ongoing edits, the apparent instability, then I think he should be afforded the opportunity to express it.
Update: Rusty is a late contributor, but he is a contributor. Just checked Edit history.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Rusted AutoParts, thanks for clarifying. Good luck.
Georgejdorner, yes, Rusted AutoParts is a contributor. That is clear from the link I pointed to above. But Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions wants the editor to be a significant contributor. That's what I meant. It's similar to what Wikipedia:Featured article candidates states about significant contributors, but the FA piece currently has stronger wording on that front. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
"Significant" is ambiguous and open to interpretation. To me, an edit change of 25,696 bytes is significant. Especially because it was on citations, which posits familiarity with the material being cited.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't classify the citation thing as meaning that one is a significant contributor. And I don't think most would either. That certainly wouldn't pass with regard to a WP:FA nomination. But like BlueMoonset stated below, "At this point, five and a half months on and with a review in progress, I don't see any reason for the review not to continue." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Georgejdorner, to get back to the original invocation of the stability criteria, I don't understand why it's mentioned at all in the context of this review. What matters is the stability of the article at the time of the review, not the edits made in the months since the nomination. In a review that is begun on October 9, edits that occurred in September are not a stability issue because the article has been stable—in this case, virtually untouched—since then. There does appear to have been minor instability in the middle of September, but the most problematic IP editor was subsequently blocked for a week on September 29 and has not returned. Note that regular edits that improve an article shouldn't be considered a source of instability unless they're coming so quickly, or making such significant changes, that a review is difficult to conduct: it's very hard to check an article that keeps getting modified. Sometimes waiting a few days to a week will allow things to calm down and the review to proceed. Of course, if there is edit warring and/or a lot of people involved making changes back and forth, it is not possible to conduct a review, in which case failing due to stability issues is warranted.

Continuing on to the contributor issue raised by Flyer22 Frozen, it looks like Rusted AutoParts made a series of edits on April 20 and 27, the vast majority of which seem to involve archiving a great number of references (note to Georgejdorner: archiving does not require any familiarity with them), but which also included copyediting and adding some new material. I'm not entirely sure where to draw the line between editing and being a significant contributor, though when Rusted AutoParts had made a great deal of GA nominations to articles where they weren't significant contributors two weeks before nominating this article, these were very clear and I reverted them until the proper consultation was made on the article talk pages per the GA instructions. (I believe the bulk of them have subsequently been renominated after consultation.) At this point, five and a half months on and with a review in progress, I don't see any reason for the review not to continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  • BlueMoon makes a compelling argument about stability. The purpose of the stability rule becomes clear in that explanation; thank you, BlueMoon. That settles that argument so far as I am concerned. Given that the article is not changing and impeding the review, I drop that objection under Criteria 6.
  • As a reviewer, I believe that a nominator should not be denied a nomination if they took the trouble to go completely through an article checking the cites and information. Call it a pre-review, if you will. And there should be no compulsion to add material, just to satisfy the requirement. If there's nothing left to add, well, that's it.
  • I will resume the review. I am asking for my full week because I am just beginning.
  • My apologies to Rusty for my seeming sloth, but it's been a loooong time since I reviewed an article. I want to get it right.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Review notes

Cite 1 does not name production company. Cite 4 does.
Cite 3 names movie as Australian-American production, not strictly Australian.
Cite 5 confuses the question of the movie's cost instead of clarifying it.
Frankly, I don't understand the need for cites in the info box. Are these items controversial? Or is there some other reason?
Cite 7 in the lead does not back up assertions of box office losses. Is this item controversial enough to merit a cite?
I do not understand Cite 11. What is Metro? A bus?
Cite 19 is given thrice running. Earlier Cites 19 could be deleted as duplicate.
Cite 20 is given for two consecutive sentences. Recommend deleting the first Cite 20.
Source for Cite 31 is a list of video games.
Cite 32 does not give date quoted in text.
Source for Cite 34 says "few weeks before" October; text says October. Shaky.
Cite 35 says photography took six months. Cite 6 says 120 days. You should resolve this contradiction.
Cite 45 is a photo, with no info to corroborate text.
Cite 49 is superfluous; it also doesn't support text. Luckily, deleting it leaves Cite 48.
Cites 46 & 53 do not support the claim of Olympic athletes as stunt people. Cite 46 does mention Olympic riggers.
Two consecutive Cite 55s. First one should go.

Okay, time for a break. More later.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Back:
Source for Cite 63 does not support cuts-per-minute stat.
Source for Cite 64 has anti-browser popup. Cannot confirm all facts claimed.
Cite 67 is a security risk.
Cite 69 source does not mention test screenings.

Review notes 2

Couldn't find reference to 'four weeks' in video source for Cite 74, but may have missed it. How about a time hack leading to it? That may be helpful to readers as well.
Source for Cite 78 does not mention feral wandering.
Source for Cite 79 does not mention theme of staying alive. And why not link to the original magazine article?
Quotation not found in either Cite 82 or Cite 83.
Cite 84: quote not found.
Cite 89 contains pricing for comic books. Commercial site? Luckily, Cite 88 has the info and 89 may be eliminated.
Source for Cite 94 does not mention the IMAX showings in question.
See WP:OVERKILL for that clump of six citations in the Prequel comics section. They need to be trimmed. I can already verify the text without using any of the cites, so why six?
Cite 101 links to a commercial source.
Cite 110 links to a paywalled article. Proof is hidden.
Movie's release not in source for Cite 111.
Loss figure not in source for Cite 7b.
Cite 115: While Forbes gives various figures for movie performance, it does not mention the amount given in text. I can see how, with a bit of OR, $400 million could be derived, but then, that's verboten. Recommend rewriting text to source material and thus rescuing the source.
Delete the first of the pair of Cite 116s.
Cite 122 link returns 503 Error. The accompanying Cite 4 does not prove the text.
Source for Cite 123 contradicts text.
Source for Cite 124 is identical to 123, and is used confusingly. Please clarify.
Cite 128 is unneeded; Cite 127 makes the point.
Cite 132: Quotes not found in source.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Review notes 3

Cites 146/147/148: None link to the Ebert.com website referred to in article.
Skipped Cites 153 to 163 as much much more of the accolades overkill. After the first dozen or so cites acclaiming it, I burned out. If these cites are still here for the next reviewer, let her/him check them out.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Source for Cite 165 does not mention new script entitled 'Furiosa;.
Source for Cite 166 does not mention date.
Date for interview in source for Cite 171 is derived from source's dateline. Is this kosher?
Source for Cite 173 mentions possibility of a 'Furiosa' film with Theron, but does not state Miller desires it.

Decision table

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
  1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

Passable.

  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Per WP:TOOBIG, this article should be trimmed considerably. Much of the prose predicts future events, which tone I suspect traces back to use of press releases for sources. Cutting predictions, pruning the article to actual happenings, will cut it a lot. There is all too much financial trivia, when final box office results would suffice. Lastly, other articles could be "calved" from this one.
Addendum: Why an overly long Top ten lists section without cites, an Accolades section, and a See also: List of accolades received by Mad Max: Fury Road? Why not delete the Top ten list, or incorporate it into the List of accolades, before making the Accolades section a brief summary with the See also leading to a complete coverage of the praise? And believe me, it does.

2. Verifiable with no original research:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Provides a Reference section entirely linked to websites, but has no Bibliography due to lack of hard copy sources.
  2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). About a third of the Cites require attention.
  2c. it contains no original research. Questionable.
  2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. None found.
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Coverage okay.
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Overly detailed. Which reader is going to be interested in opening night box office receipts in a foreign country, for instance?
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Fair and balanced presentation.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. There are many running changes in Edit history, but none that have made any major changes in the article.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Done.
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Suitable. A single illustration for a movie seems skimpy, though.
  7. Overall assessment. There is a terrific 80,000 byte article straining to emerge from this overblown article. I have never seen so much research into a subject. It seems mad to claim there are too many sources; however, with multiple links to the same source articles because the same source may have been reprinted several times, a reviewer is lost in tall grass. We have a case of too many cooks helpfully ruining the broth. Hopefully, there's a master chef willing to take over.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Budget

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I thought maybe someone had vandalized the budget range again but it seems User:Chompy_Ace deliberately removed the it, but did not explain with an edit summary.[9] The range listed was $150–185 million but the lower figure of $150 that Box Office Mojo claims the film cost was removed.[10] If the Box Office Mojo figure is wrong then please explain.

Even then Template:Infobox film warns not to cherry pick budget figures. -- 109.76.130.230 (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverted by myself. Chompy Ace 08:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks.
I took a closer look, even the SMH article that was used as a source for the higher number explains that the figures are disputed by Warner and Miller : "The production company has claimed Fury Road cost $US154.6 million; the studio claimed it blew out to $US185.1 million." So even more so than usual the budget range should be listed for this article. If the producers and filmmakers cant agree how much it cost, no wonder Wikpipedia editors disagree about it so often. -- 109.76.130.230 (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
In a feature about Mad Max for Variety Scott Foundas wrote "some say as high as $250 million (not counting P&A)." [The original page wasn't working for me for some reason, I read the Archived copy] but anyway it probably best to stick with the figures that came from the lawsuit, which are probably about as accurate we can hope to get.
I tried to dig deeper and get a clearer understanding of this. I always hope that the article body will more clearly explain details from the Infobox but in this case it only made things less clear. Confusingly the Box office section of this article said the budget was $200 million but then immediately after (as a caveat) explains in brackets that this claimed figure was actually the total spend including distribution and marketing costs (so as a simple matter or writing clarity it would have been better to lead with a phrase more like "total cost"). It is also misleading because it misrepresents what both the sources actually say: Scott Mendelson at Forbes said the budget was $150 million; the Deadline reference was not even attempting to provide a conclusive total spending figure, it was only looking at the profits the film had made so far and saying vaguely that the inclusive costs were "well over $200M". (Even if the budget was $150 a total spend of $200 M seems low, according to The Numbers P&A "Even midlevel releases will spend $40 million to $50 million on advertising.") I made a small adjustment and rephrased the text as little as possible to go with the reported budget figure of $150 that Mendelson used in the source[11] (as as User:Chompy Ace is actively working to slim down the article, there did not seem like much point trying to expand the explain such minor details more clearly).
FWIW I found another source looking at the lawsuit, an article from Indiewire which explains the discrepancy of the budget figures $150-185 essentially comes down how to count the cost of $31 million in reshoots.[12] Since for once there is a relatively simple explanation for the discrepancy, maybe the infobox should have a footnote to explain?
As always you need to to take the figures with a pinch of salt. -- 109.76.130.230 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Despite the article achieving {{Good article}} status some editors keep vandalizing the budget figures[13] and unfortunately what's even worse is other editors are letting them away with it and not immediately reverting. I've fixed it again. -- 109.79.161.25 (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 3 years ago99 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kncny11 (talk · contribs) 17:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


Hey there! I'm going to be reviewing this GAN. All comments should be received within 7 days. Any section that I've tagged with   Working means that I haven't finished coming through for comments, but feel free to start tackling suggestions as I work! Kncny11 (shoot) 17:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

Infobox and lede

  • "The film is set in a post-apocalyptic desert wasteland where petrol and water are scarce commodities, and follows" → "Set in a post-apocalyptic desert wasteland where petrol and water are scarce commodities, Fury Road follows"
  Done Chompy Ace 01:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "and Iraq War, respectively."
  Done Chompy Ace 01:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "In 2007, after focusing on the animated comedy Happy Feet, Miller decided to pursue it again." → "Miller decided to pursue the film again in 2007, after the release of the animated comedy Happy Feet."
  Done Chompy Ace 01:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  Done Chompy Ace 01:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Is Fury Road considered the highest-grossing film even adjusted for inflation? Genuine question
  Not done per consistency with other articles, such as Warcraft (film)#Box office and Ralph Breaks the Internet#Box office, to skimp on details everywhere else Chompy Ace 01:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • By that token, the factoid should be mentioned in the body
  Not done per consistency with other articles, such as Warcraft (film)#Box office and Ralph Breaks the Internet#Box office, to skimp on details everywhere else Chompy Ace 01:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • WL the best films of all time again in the lede
  Done Chompy Ace 02:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Plot and cast

  • Word count falls at 691 for the plot, falling just within the 400-700 range set by WP:FILMPLOT.
  Already done Chompy Ace 02:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Max Rockatansky, a survivor haunted by visions of deceased people, is captured by the War Boys, the army of the tyrannical Immortan Joe, and taken to Joe's Citadel. Five clauses is a lot for one sentence. This can probably be broken up.
  Done, reworded Chompy Ace 02:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think you need to specify that his wives were selected for breeding
  Done removed Chompy Ace 02:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "the Splendid Angharad, the last of whom is heavily pregnant with Joe's child"
  Done Chompy Ace 02:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  Done Chompy Ace 02:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "The gang turns on her when they see
  Done Chompy Ace 02:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • How does Angharad both get fatally run over by Joe's car and die giving birth to his child?
  Done removed sentence that conflicts Chompy Ace 02:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "After Furiosa shoots the Bullet Farmer, Max leaves to confront him and his men,"
  Done Chompy Ace 02:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "They drive the War Rig overnight through swampland and desert, coming across a naked woman the next day." → "After driving the War Rig overnight through swampland and desert, the crew comes across a naked woman the next day."
  Done Chompy Ace 02:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Max suspects a trap, but Furiosa approaches the woman"
  Done Chompy Ace 02:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Production

  • That pre-production began in 1997 is mentioned in the lede but nowhere in the body.
  Done reworded Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Development section needs more lead-up: when did the studio start planning for a fourth film? When did Miller lose the rights in the first place?
  Partly done added the earliest source by the book Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The idea for a fourth installment"
  Not done this article uses Austrailan English Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • All direct quotes need a citation at the end of the sentence ("had to move on to Happy Feet)
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "entered then" → "then entered"
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Citation needed for "different route" and "renaissance" sentence, as direct quotes are used
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Clarify that the rains and wildflowers were in Broken Hill
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delink Namibia after first instance
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Mention when the exec was sent
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove parentheses
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • New sentence for "They began on 22 November"
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comma after "were constructed"
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comma after "to the hull"
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Clarify that the guitar is on fire! It's the most interesting part!
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "He replaced Dean Semler ... who left in [date]."
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The quote about a "western on wheels" belongs more in development or themes than filming
  Done moved to themes section Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • For that matter, the sentence about the (flaming) guitar should be moved to right after the practical effects sentence
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Sixel had 480 hours of footage to edit; watching it took three months." → "Sixel had 480 hours of footage to edit, which took three months to watch."
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Sentence about cuts per minute is too long -- consider adding the Road Warrior stats as a note.
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Explain the significance of manipulating the frame rate
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  Done Chompy Ace 02:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Themes

  • I would start with the Miller quote in the "Survival" subhead, as the director's word has the most authority.
  Done Chompy Ace 02:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Follow that with "critics have noted that"
  Done Chompy Ace 02:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "illustrated by Max, who begins the film [description of Max], then rediscovers ..."
  Done Chompy Ace 02:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Which is the underlying goal for Max, survival or humanity?
  Done chose survival Chompy Ace 02:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Speaking of, make subhead say survival and humanity, as both are mentioned
  Done Chompy Ace 02:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "that has received academic attention/notice."
  Done Chompy Ace 02:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "with Charlize Theron's role as Furiosa serving as a dramatic center for the film"
  Done Chompy Ace 02:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delink Theron
  Done Chompy Ace 02:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No need to specify in the second para that Theron's character is Furiosa
  Done Chompy Ace 02:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The description and characterization of Furiosa could be better-cited
  Not done removed Chompy Ace 02:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Would prefer a direct quote from Miller
  Done Chompy Ace 02:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "as it dominates the motivations of several major characters: Max's home was destroyed, Furiosa was taken from hers, and the Five Wives are in search of a new home to raise their children."
  Done Chompy Ace 02:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Other examples of Miller films about family
  Done added Chompy Ace 02:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Release

  • "was released in theatres on 15 May" → "was theatrically released in the United States the next day"
  Done Chompy Ace 02:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I would like a better citation for the 15 May release, as the one that's currently there is dated to 2013
  Not done Deadline Hollywood is generally reliable per WP:RSP Chompy Ace 02:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "with each issue focusing on the backstory"
  Done Chompy Ace 02:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • End sentence after "comprises of four issues." Otherwise, it gets too long.
  Done Chompy Ace 02:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Cut the Mad Max: Fury Road after the first instance -- e.g. "the second, Furiosa #1, was released ..."
  Done Chompy Ace 02:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "collection of art inspired by the film, titled [title here], was released on"
  Done Chompy Ace 02:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Mention publisher
  Done Chompy Ace 02:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "In January 2016, Miller announced that the black-and-white versions"
  Done Chompy Ace 02:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  Done Chompy Ace 02:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "a box set containing all four Mad Max films"
  Done Chompy Ace 02:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • comma after Mad Max: Black & Chrome
  Done Chompy Ace 02:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Reception

  • Opening critical response sentence saying the film received generally positive reviews
  Not done per consistency with other articles Chompy Ace 02:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "awarding the film four out of five stars"
  Done Chompy Ace 02:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Peter Bradshaw wrote that the film is"
  Done Chompy Ace 02:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused by the transition from the Guardian quote to "that George Miller revived the franchise." Might just be missing an "and"?
  Done removed partial sentence Chompy Ace 02:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The IGN sentence doesn't accurately describe what the review is saying. The actual quote is "The over-the-top stunts and eccentric characters and designs are all hugely important to Fury Road, as are the troubled figures like Max himself and Furiosa, but it’s the overriding sense of the film’s uniqueness, its striving to be something more than just another action movie, that is most impressive." I.e. the film's uniqueness is not found in the stunts and designs.
  Done Chompy Ace 02:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  Done Chompy Ace 02:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • comma after "range of atypical female roles"
  Done Chompy Ace 02:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "and was named Rotten Tomatoes' best scoring film of 2015." Rotten Tomatoes is a review aggregator, so best-scoring is a reflection of what other people have said about it, less so a separate accolade.
  Done Chompy Ace 02:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • quotation marks around the NYT and Wired list names
  Done Chompy Ace 02:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  Done Chompy Ace 02:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Future

  • "In 2011, Miller and McCarthy found during the writing process for Fury Road that they had enough story material for two additional scripts." → "During the writing process for Fury Road in 2011, Miller and McCarthy found that they had enough story material for two additional scripts."
  Done Chompy Ace 02:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Miller told Wired in May 2015 that if the film becomes successful, he will tell the other two stories."
  Done Chompy Ace 02:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Later that month, Miller
  Done Chompy Ace 02:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "That October, Miller's team..."
  Done Chompy Ace 02:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Last sentence of the first paragraph is slightly confusing, as the two sequels during the writing process have already been mentioned
  Fixed Chompy Ace 02:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Later that month, Miller clarified"
  Done Chompy Ace 02:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Last sentence of the second paragraph is hard to follow.
  Fixed Chompy Ace 02:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "A prequel, titled Furiosa,"
  Done Chompy Ace 02:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Mention that Hemsworth and Abdul-Mateen II are in unspecified roles
  Done Chompy Ace 02:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delink Junkie XL, already mentioned in the body
  Done Chompy Ace 02:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  • Looks like all refs have been archived already; good job!
  Already done Chompy Ace 02:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The Variety reference (9) says that Miller got the rights back in 1997, not 1995
  Not done removed Chompy Ace 02:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The New York Post is considered "generally unreliable." Since this comes from a direct conversation with Miller, I'm fine with it.
  Already done Chompy Ace 02:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The Metro source (12) is incomplete. Needs name and author at the very least.
  Not done removed Chompy Ace 02:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The FirstShowing ref (21) outright says that it's a rumor. Would prefer a direct quote.
  Done Chompy Ace 02:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Looper isn't my favorite source (54), as it gets a little clickbaity.
  Done removed Chompy Ace 02:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Other

  • Article looks stable. One IP reversion within the past month.
  • Earwig copyvio score looks good at 25.4%!
  • All pictures fall under free use criteria and are relevant to the article
  • Looks like many of the issues mentioned in GA1 have been addressed

Final comments and verdict

Great first showing! I'm putting the article   On hold for now until the issues have been addressed, but many of them are minor spelling/grammar mistakes or a request for clarification. The biggest request I have is some restructuring of sentences, as well as more clarification on the early stages of development (that first paragraph might have to be broken into two for visuals' sake). Best of luck on the edits, and feel free to ping me if you have any comments or questions! Kncny11 (shoot) 20:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kncny11: all issues have addressed. Chompy Ace 02:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@Chompy Ace: Looks good to go! Thanks for working with me, and for putting so much work into a great article! Kncny11 (shoot) 17:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

68.110.240.75 I don't understand the reason for your recent edit. Can you please explain to me the point of adding (wife) to the end of each character's name? Thank you. 2601:644:8D80:AB10:38CF:E766:BD3E:217C (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thekevinbrothers.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2020 and 16 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taliaboehm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Improvement and clarification

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This sentence structure can be improved - why has the idea occurred twice? Miller came on the idea for Fury Road in 1987; however, the film was in development hell for many years before the idea occurred in 1998. 70.36.60.215 (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I found the old text from last year (the problematic change came on March 9), and put back the earlier text. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Short description

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The short description guidelines are a bit long and boring for something quite simple but I would encourage editors to read them at least once: WP:SHORTDESC. The purpose behind the short description is to disambiguate similar titles in search results etc. Key personnel are a good way to do that, and the example WP:SDEXAMPLES for film articles is to highlight the director. I do not think the extra word makes the short description any better, it is unnecessary and not of any real help to highlight the nationality of the film. It is better to keep the short description short WP:SD40, which is what my changes were doing. An editor argued that his revert was restoring the status quo it was only restoring a recent version, and my edit was restoring the status quo of the article when it was GA nominated. -- 109.77.202.160 (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, the short description should be kept short,[14] there is rarely any cause to include the nationality in the short description. (It is not supposed to be a copy of the first line of the article.) -- 109.78.195.175 (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Profit

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Quoting from the article: "While the film still made a profit, it didn’t quite meet its expectations.[103] The Hollywood Reporter calculated that the loss incurred by the film was around $20–40 million." How did it make both a profit and a loss? Is something wrong here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.44.162.62 (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, no, maybe. It depends. You need to read between the lines a bit, but perhaps this encyclopedia should make it clearer but there is no real contradiction here.
"While the film still made a [gross] profit," [based on its theatrical box office gross] "it didn’t quite meet its expectations." The studios always expect to make a very big profit not a small profit, and more specifically it probably didn't meet the opening weekend earning projections reported in the press. "The Hollywood Reporter calculated" and by calculated they really mean estimated and they added in other expenses such as marketing costs which are considerable "that the [net] loss incurred by the film was around $20–40 million." This also says nothing about any ancillary profits that may have been made from home media, or the fact that Hollywood Accounting never ever wanting to admit to actually making a profit, and they like to deliberately keep it murky. Reader beware. -- 109.78.195.175 (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Movie production book - Blood, Sweat & Chrome: The Wild and True Story of Mad Max: Fury Road

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The book Blood, Sweat & Chrome: The Wild and True Story of Mad Max: Fury Road (by Kyle Buchanan, 2022) describing the production of movie Mad Max: Fury Road should probably be included in this article. Here are links to the book, and two news articles describing book highlights. Donfede~enwiki (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Sweat-Chrome-Wild-Story/dp/0063084341
"Blood, Sweat & Chrome: The Wild and True Story of Mad Max: Fury Road" by Kyle Buchanan circa 2022
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/feb/23/charlize-theron-tom-hardy-mad-max-fury-road-book
"Charlize Theron ‘felt so threatened’ by Tom Hardy making Mad Max she required on-set protection" by Catherine Shoard circa 2022-02-23 on The Guardian
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/books/2022/02/22/charlize-theron-tom-hardy-mad-max-fury-road-book/6892728001/
"Charlize Theron recalls Tom Hardy's 'bad behavior' on 'Mad Max' set in new book: 'I didn't feel safe'" by Patrick Ryan circa 2022-02-22 on USA Today

Nux

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nux (Mad Max) has been nominated for deletion. Discussion participation and/or article improvements welcome ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Budget Update

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Using The Sydney Morning Harold as a source to update a movies budget is little odd considering I haven’t ever seen it used before on other budgets. It’s odd timing as well considering the change came after Furiosa bombed at the box office. WhowinsIwins (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

"Furiosa Road" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The redirect Furiosa Road has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 18 § Furiosa Road until a consensus is reached. मल्ल (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mad_Max:_Fury_Road/Archive_4&oldid=1235981621"