# Talk:Fast Five

I placed the hangon tag, I don't believe the person who tagged it understands what is happening.
Fast Five (disambig) has links to three topics, with Fast Five being a link to the disambiguation page.
Fast Five should only have a LINK to the movie page, just as "Fab Four" doesn't jump you into the Beatles.rhyre (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
rhyre (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of this article has absolutely nothing to do with an upcoming movie. Per WP:NOTNEWS, I don't think Wikipedia should have an article detailing the week by week events involved in filming.  Even if this can survive Speedy Deletion, though, it certainly wouldn't survive a PROD, per the criteria regarding future films in WP:NFF.  Thus, per WP:SNOW, we should go ahead and speedy delete anyway.  Once this film has started principal photography and the production is notable itself, then an article can be created.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place for a week to week acount for the making of a film, although i do think the article should stay, be cut to a minium until the film is released and focus on the key point that the film is being made. Atkinsonhd (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Some seem to be calling for edits to the article to reduce the amount of content, others for deletion.  I didn't create the original content of the page, merely cut/pasted it from the overly generic Fast Five page (which others keep trying to replace with the Film Content, despite it being a working title).
My suggestions are
Please review Amors Baller to see if that's a more suitable model for an upcoming film, and comment here.
Please review the page for Fast Five and comment here, suggesting whether or not THAT content should be moved here to create the smaller article.  Be aware that anonymous fanboys of the movie series may revert your work for a time.
rhyre (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Rhyre, you're correct that, if the movie deserves an article, it should be here under "Fast Five (film)," and "Fast Five" should be a disambiguation page.  However, if the problem is that the disambiguation page is being vandalized, the solution is not to create an article that doesn't meet notability--it's to defend the disambiguation from vandalizing (possibly through some level of protection, depending on who's vandalizing).  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I will request "semi-protection" for the Fast Five page as it exists now, to prevent anonymous edits.  The initial problem that motivated this change was anonymous IP users inserting random movie factoids into a page called Fast Five.  Fast Five originally linked to the section of the "Fast and the Furious article" which was where the upcoming movie existed. Principal photograpy has commenced as of July 2010, so the section really does qualify for an article (principal photography is one of the WP:NFF tests). (You can join the debate at the AfD discussion) rhyre (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Is Lucas Black even confirmed for the film?  I haven't heard a thing about his involvement in the film, if i'm wrong I apologize.  Unless we have concrete proof like a tweet from him or a set photo, I think we should keep him off of the page.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Florez411 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I just removed three long sections from the article.  Please know that I'm not trying to influence the deletion discussion; even if the article is kept, I am certain those sections had absolutely nothing to do with the film or the production.  The first section I deleted was about some sort of Green viral advertising campaign or contest; the second was about increasing green energy in Puerto Rico; and the third was about the goal of the government to improve the PR film industry (that did not mention Fast Five).  If someone else has a reason why those are relevant (and can include that info in the article itself), please feel free to re-add and explain here.  I don't know if someone is just randomly moving things around, or if someone's trying to give substance to this article where there is none, or what's happening.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have completed edits to add a reliable, published reference (Variety), and removed the redundant cast details (they are, and should remain, in the infobox).  Please don't re-add them.  I will request temporary semi-protection for the article, so that anonymous edits aren't allowed.  (Unless someone explains here why that's a bad idea.),  If you want to discuss the article's proposed deletion, click HERE to do so. rhyre (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

IS there any official source that Sung Kang is coming back to play Han because IMDB is not a reliable source when it comes to whos playing who unless a reliable source is shown I'm rermoving him from the cast list Ghost07 (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You can catch the brothers here. [1] 72.216.52.63 (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"...the sixth and final installment of the series is also being developed, but both films will not be shot back-to-back."
Does the first part refer to the sixth installment, which will be the last, or the sixth installment and the seventh/final installment? Does "both films" refer to Fast Five and the sixth installment? If so, then it probably shouldn't be noted if they weren't produced back-to-back. Also, the whole section is unsourced. --Boycool (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It was removed.  It seems people still don't understand that the Wikipedia requires sources. —Mike Allen  02:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually there are sources now that Fast 5 is a success.  Sources seem to indicate they waited to see how the movie would do before continuing with another to the series. Fast "6" is slated to be the next installment and Fast "7" will most likely be a spin-off with Dwayne Johnson.  Also there is no confirmation on any final installment as of yet.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.252.132 (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the Ford GT40 shown in the Fast Five film a road car or a replica? WKB(talk here/This is not Facebook nor Malaysia) 09:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Cast Section notes Letty as Dom's ex-girlfriend during description of her being indcated as still alive and returning for Fast Six. This is false/ incorrect because death does not denounce your releationship with a person. After death, married couples or long time partners generally do not
describe the deceased as their ex-wife, ex husband or partner. Letty and Dom were a long time couple when at the time of her death. Noting Letty as Dom's ex-girlfriend indicates that the two broke up before she died, which never took place in any of the films. Revision should be made on the false notion in cast section.

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0004176/bio----
Letty is Dom's daredevil girlfriend/ partner in crime. Together they form a "Bonnie and Clyde" relationship, which might not seem like it, but is actaully filled with an immense amount of love for one another. Throughout The Fast and Furious and Fast and Furious she continues to prove just how fearless and in love with Dom she is, even though it ends up costing her her life.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.242.107.91 (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC) 

Depends on how you want to view Dom's relationship with Elena Neves  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.165.30.89 (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Dom's new relationship with Elena is only a result of him believing Letty to be deceased. With out Letty's death, what would be his reason for finding companionship in Elena? The scene where Dom breaks and enters Elena's apartment to retrieve Letty's necklace (which Elena found at the run and chase to pursue Dom, Brian and Mia)shows that Dom is still very much passionatly in love with his long time girlfriend. There is alot of longing on his part. Fast 6 will most certainly depict that sense of longing and risk taking between Letty and Dom, the entire reason she has been recasted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.246.136.73 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC) 

Leticia "Letty" Ortiz was incorrectly linked to the page of a princess of another country. I correctly linked to the "character's page" in the Fast and the Furious series.
68.60.60.117 (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution.  In the future, when editing, there is a little box above the "Save" button where you can say what you have done so you don't need to post it on the Talk page. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why the Cast section is tagged as needing additional references. It doesn't have any references at all, and cast sections usually don't because the film references itself on that (just like plot information). Exactly what needs to be sourced in this section? Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

While I don't know why it was put there, if you want an article to be rated as a good article or better, it should have sources that backup that these are the cast, even if it is obvious.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Darkwarriorblake. You've done good work on this article. But, actually, the cast section for film articles here at Wikipedia are usually never sourced, and they still make it to GA (Good Article) status. And in the past, they would make it to FA (Featured Article) status that way. They are often sourced early on, before the film is released, yes, but usually not after the film has been released (because who is in the film is out there by then). Flyer22 (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it was here before the film came out, I only started providing input after its release.  I'm basing my information mostly on articles like The Incredible Hulk (film) where the film has been released but the sources are used to describe the development of the characters.  It doesn't HAVE to go there mind you, but there will need to be a casting section made that details how people were brought onto the film, etc.  But it is possible that tag has been there a while which is why it did require sources.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
It's possible the tag was added because it used to look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fast_Five_(film)&diff=424874316&oldid=424862161 which has lots of character details but no sources for them. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Here you go, it was added here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fast_Five_(film)&diff=425742035&oldid=425741314 so you could ask BoyCool why he added it Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking it was added early on too, as that made the most sense to me. I definitely understand about the type of casting information you speak of needing to be sourced. Of course Casting sections (information about why people were cast, etc.) are usually sourced. I was only speaking of simple Cast sections (consisting of only a list of the actors/characters). I think I understand why BoyCool added the tag. It doesn't seem needed anymore, though. Flyer22 (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I added the tag when there were excessive plot details for each character (something that's caused edit wars for me in the past), but it's been trimmed down since then. The only thing I would suggest getting a source for now, other than casting info, etc., would be for Letty and Monica in the post-credits scene, which wasn't credited in the movie. I really wouldn't oppose removing the tag now. --Boycool (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up why you added the tag, Boycool. Your reasons for having done so are definitely understandable. I'll go ahead and remove the tag. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any good reliable sources for casting in this film?
I can't find anything for Vin Diesel, Walker or Brewster, can find some for Johnson which I've added and can find only twitter announcements for Gibson and Ludacris plus a general announcement for Almeida and Pataky.  Any further information would be useful for this section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a debate regarding certain character names in the movie. First, there was Han. For a certain amount of time we believed his full name to be Han Lue, even though his last name was never mentioned at any point in prior films. Then, in Fast Five, when Hobbs brings up the facial ID, it lists Toretto's actual name whilst at the same time listing Han's last name as Seoul-Oh. That last name may come off as an obvious joke, but since there's no proof within the movies that his last name is Lue, then it has to be assumed that his last name is Seoul-Oh. Likewise, we've been under the impression that Gisele's last name was Harabo, but her last name was never mentioned in any capacity in the prior film, which is her only prior appearance. And then in Hobbs' database in the movie, her last name is listed as Yashar. Jaybling (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't watched any of these films since 2 and then this one so I don't know.  I know Gisele Harabo turns up a lot of results and Hobbs says that they can "change their names but not their faces" so maybe Yashar is an alias.  If I had the films credits it'd be a lot easier to sort it out once and for all as IMDB is not reliable as a source.  Is there no official source?  I tried the Fast Five website but that didn't help.  I also tried the actress who played Gisele#s site as that seemed the best place but it doesn't list her character, just says she's in Fast Five.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
You said that Google results for Harabo were prominent, but that fact still remains that the last name Harabo isn't mentioned within the movie. As far as that comment by Hobbs goes, I took that as that they can change their names on their passports, but their faces match their original names in Hobbs' database. Additionally, Gisele is revealed to be a former Mossad agent. I don't know where the last name Harabo would come from, but Yashar is definitely Israeli. Jaybling (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I dunno, everyone seems to credit her as Harabo from whatever the last film was she appeared in.  Like I said, it needs an official source, preferably the credits even from a leaked version if possible but I don't think those versions carry the credits.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
You can also just try searching for "Gal Gadot as Gisele" and all the results come back "Gisele Harabo". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Like I sort of said before, just because it comes up on Google doesn't make it so. That doesn't come off as conclusive evidence. A screenshot is perhaps needed. Jaybling (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying it makes it so, I'm saying it makes it a lot more likely than her name being Yashar because it sounds Israeli.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, then like I said, we need a screenshot. Jaybling (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I've just seen the movie again. It definitely said Yashar. So take that as you will. Jaybling (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
In the credits or on the computer screen?  Credits is what we need.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah. I didn't stick for those credits so I can't say, but it said so on the computer screen. I can say however that I just rewatched the fourth installment and the credits just say Gisele. If credits are the only thing that can prove her last name at the moment, then that would mean her last name should just be eliminated right now, since a Google search cannot be considered valid conclusive evidence. Jaybling (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not the search that matters, its the results.  Like this one http://www.mtv.com/photos/fast-five/1654283/5533311/photo.jhtml Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Where did they get the name from? IMDb? Jaybling (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I dunno, they have official pics that it says are sourced from Universal so I assume they know more than we do.  I'm not opposed to removing reference to Harabo from the article until a solid source can be found but there is virtually nothing at all to warrant naming her Yashar apart from 2 frames in the film at the moment.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The pic may be sourced, but the names are not necessarily. So maybe we should just remove her last name. Jaybling (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Updating this conversation, Gisele is listed as Gisele Yashar in both Fast & Furious and in Fast Five.  I don't know where Harabo came from but it isn't her name.  Han is listed as Seoul-Oh in Fast Five, I can't find any reference to a surname elsewhere.  So as far as I can now tell, their official names are Gisele Yashar and Han Seoul-Oh.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
For future reference so I can direct people here, anyone wishing to change Han Seoul-Oh to Han Lue or Gisele Yashar to Gisele Harabo, please see this image I've put together for you.  Will replace with a HD version if I can get my hands on the 720p copy. image. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute regarding what happened with the rest of the members of the heist. I believe it's not excessive. It wraps up their plotlines, but DarkWarriorBlake (who also believes he owns the page) thinks it's unimportant. It is. And if that's not important, then the part with Brian and Mia in the South Pacific is not either. And, Blake, what third party? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:46 24 May 2011 (UTC)

We went over this.  I don't own the page, I've never made any claim on the page.  The part with Mia, Brian and Dom (The Main characters) which is also the final scene of the film, is important to mention.  I do not know why you can't see the distinction between the main characters and the end of their plot and the supporting characters.  Where the supporting characters go and what they do is not important.  Their plotlines are wrapped up well enough by saying they went off and did their own thing.  As for 3rd party, the user Mike Allen who has some experience in these matters and also cited plot summaries.  I don't claim the plot is perfect, I don't revert every change, I only claim your addition is extraneous fluff concerning background characters and is not important to the reader for them to understand.  If you want that kind of detail I don't see why you can't go add it to the List of Fast and Furious characters as that is where any expansion of individual plots would be best placed.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WTF is notable about Ducati anyway? She already knew how to ride a bike, someone explained the two buttons that are different on Ducatis, why should this be part of an article?  --79.223.10.95 (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The information exists, so we must include it. --Boycool (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
It's apparently a Ducati Street Fighter or Racer, though I don't know enough about them to say if its particularly powerful.  The quote is this:
"As part of her preparation for her role in Fast & Furious, Gadot had to master driving a Porsche Cayman. But for this project, she was asked to don a motorcycle helmet and learn to ride a Ducati. Familiar and comfortable riding motorbikes, she was excited to try her hand at the luxury model. She explains: “I’ve ridden a bike before, but not this kind of bike. The Ducati was big and heavy, but it was beautiful just the same."
So she had to learn to ride a more powerful bike. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone tell me where this is coming from in the Plot?  No version of the film I have seen discloses any location at all for where the end of the film takes place.  Even with full subs on there is no heading that says Goa, India. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's one of the non-extradition places Brian and Mia talk about going to. --Boycool (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh OK, but it would be Original Research to say that is where they actually went then right? At least I know where that is coming from now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
There's still no proof that Goa is where they actually went. --Boycool (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

These arose during the early-October copy edit:

Dates of filming
The source used does say filming started in summer 2010, but this is a bit unfortunate as filming took place in both northern and southern hemispheres. If anyone has a source with a real date - even just a month - this would be better.
I removed a claim that Ludacris's Twitter dates the close of filming at November 9, 2010. He posted on 10th November but did not give an exact date.
--Stfg (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I've struggled finding sources for filming dates but I will look around again. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
OK have a few so far, one that says it is shooting in Puerto Rico between July-August here.  This, this, and this are also is posted in July talking about shooting beginning so i think its fair to say at least that filming began in July at least. But this article says Diesel was still filming in November, so the August finish is murky. hereDarkwarriorblake (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I've put in something using these. --Stfg (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Marketing
I've asked for clarification of "The game also featured missions and locations based on the plot of the film, while allowing players to interact and race against Fast Five characters." The question is whether the players interact with other players or with (simulations of) film characters. Or maybe this bit should be removed, since the two sources for this paragraph don't mention interaction (AFAICS). --Stfg (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I might have been using this "and earn opportunities to race against other characters from the films as well as participate in a bank heist."  I'd class that as interacting but it doesn't specifically mention interacting in the sense that you can talk to them or anything so perhaps better to just say "race against" and remove the interact part. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree, and have done that, also putting in the bit about participating in a bank heist. (It's interacting in a sense, but only with the game, and we do that with all such games, don't we?) --Stfg (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
"Territories"
I am temporarily suspending work on the "Box office" section, having become uncomfortable with the use of the word "territories" throughout this section. It has the potential for misunderstandings. The sub-section United States and Canada makes no reference to Canada, but opens with the words "In US territories", which certainly excludes Canada.
I would suggest that we say "country" when we mean that, and reserve the word "territory" for when we mean some physical territorial unit that belongs to one country (like Tasmania, for example). I think (hope, really) that this might in effect remove the use of "territory" from this article.
By the way, the sub-heading "international" violates MOS:FILM#Box office, and if it's OK I'd like to change it to whichever you prefer of "Outside the United States and Canada" or "Outside North America". --Stfg (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with those changes.  An alternative header could just be "Elsewhere" if that is acceptable. As for the America section, the figures are largely sourced from Box Office Mojo  which reports their figures combined from the US and Canada, so th eopening of that section could be changed to just "In the United States and Canada". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. "In the United States and Canada" is good. "Elsewhere" would require the section to be moved below the US and Canada, losing the chronology of national premieres. Let me know if you'd prefer this, otherwise I'll go for "Outside North America". I have to go into London tomorrow morning, so it will be 18 hours minimum before I'm back on this now. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
No you're right, I had forgotten the chronology of events.  The international market has to appear first in that section so better to go with your heading suggestions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Aspect ratio
The Home media section mentions an aspect ration of 2:35:1. This is exactly what the source says, but I don't understand it. Is it a typo (for 2.35:1) in the source, or is there something that could be explained? --Stfg (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears to just be a typo from the source, any official site I can find on the subject switches back and forth between '2:35' and '2.35' though '2.35' seems to be the correct manner of writing the number. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've assumed so and made that change. --Stfg (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
List-defined references
I find the use of these a big help, but half of the benefit - ease of finding them - is lost when they are grouped like this and random within the group. Much better would be to have a single alphabetized list. --Stfg (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will remember that in the future.  Thanks for your copy-editing work Stfg, it is, as always, much appreciated. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Darkwarriorblake. It was a pleasure, as always. --Stfg (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fast Five/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 12:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Claiming this one for myself - will begin my review this evening. Miyagawa (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Couldn't see any problems with the lead, and only needed to do a very minor fix on the plot.

Cast: Would be preferable if citations could be added to the descriptions of Mia Toretto, Han Seoul-Oh, and to the final paragraph at the end.
Marketing: "first ever use of this marketing approach" - probably better to add a direct cite now rather than wait for a reader to add a citeneeded tag.
Markets outside the United States and Canada: "opened at number one in a further 44 countries" is that on top of the 58 countries mentioned in the previous sentence or is the 44 a separate count?
References: You need to check the capitalization of the sources - for instance you've capitalized Amazon.com but not Yahoo. Also Variety.com has a capital in one reference, but not another - same with Deadline.com.
References: A few references are missing details, either the website location or the newspaper. The ones I've spotted are 6, 7, 9, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 48, 51, 53, 58, 66, 77, 78, 97, 99- because at the moment a bunch of them look like they've come from Amazon.com
References: #11 needs format=PDF added.
References: #21 and #57 use a different date format to the others and needs to be corrected.
I'll come back and finish up the review once that's been looked at. Miyagawa (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Modifications complete. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Realised I hadn't checked the images, so went through and checked them. So I think we're all there now. Good job! Miyagawa (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much Miyagawa, nice reward for some hard work.  Thanks for taking the time to do this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Should we add in a paragraph about what the team does in preparation for the heist, as in how they find out about the vault, how they get access to the station's security camera feed, and practice driving through the mock parking garage, e.t.c, or would that make the plot section too long?
Jaydude1992 (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It'd make it too long and it's not really important to understanding the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want me to stop, just leave it alone, quit making a big deal out of it. I,m making a big deal because you won't stop undoing my edit. Just leave it alone already right or wrong, move on already, that's only way I'm stoping.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shookallen88 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC) 

I had to leave it alone at Fast & Furious 6 because you wouldn't stop there, you still started up here, and that is the second time you've made that threat on as many articles, "do it my way because I won't stop". Feel free to attempt that because if you do it again I'm just gonna report you to the admin who blocked you because you clearly haven't learned a lesson and he will hopefully block you for a lot longer. You've had this explained to you across multiple articles, this has to be your 15th edit across these articles about the same thing, you have no intention of following discussion or guideline and I'm not wasting any more time on you. Stop edit warring, because you're gonna end up blocked permanently. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Thinking getting me blocked longer is making it better, it's not. So if you want be blocked longer go ahead report me I really don't care. The more undo me reverts the more I,m not going to stop. I,m only going to say this one more time just leave it like I had it, grow up and move on from it. User: Shookallen88  12:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. It is likely to result in an indefinite block because the Wikipedia community will not tolerate your disruptive attitude. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Spinc has taken it upon himself to edit war over the content of this section instead of discussing. This article was turned into a GA 1 year and 10 months ago approximately. In that time Spinc, and only Spinc, has taken issue with its content, yet he feels justified enough to edit war to get his way and turn it into a barren wall of statistics and remove any achievements he personally deems invaluable. I argue that the content is valuable, that accomplishments of the time since superceded do not diminish those accomplishments or te impact the film originally had. Spinc thinks otherwise. The content is disputed and therefore the established version should stand while Spinc attempts to argue any further changes. Further edit warring over the content without a reasoned and concluded discussion will be taken as full on edit warring and referred to the necessary people. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to bring your attention to the box office section of the article. This verion includes content that is far from retrospective and, especially, out-dated achievements. For example the second paragraph states that the film became the highest-grossing 2011 film, but was surpassed by On Stranger Tides. Just because the film was released earlier in the year than other blockbusters, thus earned its money earlier in the year, doesn't make this an achievement, because other films throughout the year out-grossed it.
Also the records are all over the place. There is a record for outside the US and Canada in the 2nd paragraph. But this paragraph is about the worldwide box office achievements of the film.
Then in the 3rd paragraph (first paragraph under Markets outside the United States and Canada), there are many grosses listed from a plethora of countries, yet many of these grosses have nothing notable (e.g. $260,000 in New Zealand). Are we serious?
Check this out (4th paragraph): "It broke the record for the biggest ever opening gross in the United Arab Emirates ($2.6M), holding this record for two weeks before being replaced by Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides ($2.7M)."
If you check the citation, th $2.6M is a cumulative gross (total earnings from all films on that weekend, not the weekend gross of Fast Five). The same case for the $2.7M for On Stranger Tides).
Also, the Markets outside the United States and Canada section does a weekend-by-weekend analysis for the film, and simultaneously mentions Thor's grosses, which have nothing to do with Fast Five. Simply saying: "Fast Five finished in first place" or "Fast Five finished in second place behind Thor" will do in my opinion. The whole section contains trivial facts that digress from the main purpose of the section: To present notable aspects of the film's box-office performance.
Generally, the data is presented chronologically, but a retrospective approach is recommended here.
On the other hand, I edited the section and removed trivial information. This is my version. Without saying it's perfect, in my humble opinion it avoids many mistakes the prior version makes. Most importantly, it keeps a retrospective approach, avoiding achievements that are TEMPORARY and MEANINGLESS.
What do other editors think? Spinc5 (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding what Darkwarriorblake claims above, and I quote: "I argue that the content is valuable, that accomplishments of the time since superceded do not diminish those accomplishments or te impact the film originally had", let's imagine this situation:
Movie A (MA) opened in January of a certain year and earned $100M by February 15. It was the highest-grossing film of the year. Then Movie B (MB) opened in late February and earned $200M by March 20 and became the highest-grossing film of the year.  Then MC opened in April, made $400M by May 10 and became the highest-grossing film of the year. Then MD opened in June and made $600M in ten days, becoming  the highest-grossing film of the year.
So are we going to include the phrase: "became the highest-grossing film of the year" in all these articles? COnsider another film ME that opens in October and makes $200M. It earned more than MA, but only and just only because of its release date it didn't top the yearly list at any time during the year. Are these the "valuable accomplishments" that Darkwarriorblake is rooting for. What exactly makes them valuable? Spinc5 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Did it earn enough to become a top grossing film and remain in the top grossing films of the year or not? And you removed stuff like "On May 14, 2011, after 25 days in theaters, Fast Five overtook Fast & Furious to become the highest-grossing film in the Fast and the Furious franchise" and " On May 15, 2011, with a gross of $168,780,000, Fast Five passed Fast & Furious ($155M) in the US and Canada to become the highest-grossing film in the franchise domestically – again taking inflation into account – earning in 16 days what it had taken Fast & Furious 91 days to achieve." You removed both of these entirely. YOU might not find it valuable, but others do, and it's ability as the fifth film in a franchise to destroy the previous film is notable. That you don't find it of value is why your BO sections are typically uninteresting statistics and nothing else. You also complain about comparisons to Thor, but analysts noted their direct competition for young males, while you added Madagascar 3 to the article on Prometheus when the two have nothing in common and offer no direct competition. So why is Thor not relevant again? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't completely remove the reference to competition from Thor. But your revision is referring to this issue too extensively. Also why can't we just say "the film became the highest-grossing film in the Fast and the Furious franchise worldwide/in the US and Canada, but was out-grossedby Fast 6". You mention the cumulative gross on that particular day that this happened, you mention the date, and you do this for every single "achievement" of the film. Who is adding endless statistics and numbers that have little value?
As for Prometheus and Mad 3, if you believe the pre-relase tracking section is too big, or that it shouldn't be mentioned at all, fell free to discuss it. But there was enough coverage from media outlets to justify this section. Just as there was enough coverage to justify a reference to Thor, but not that extensive, in my opinion. You almost mention Thor in every sentence in "Markets outside the United States and Canada". The article isn't called "The competition between Fast Five and Thor at the box office". It is called "Fast Five - Box office". So, if you have any other reason to reject my revision, bring it up, please. Spinc5 (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The section is for informing about its Box Office, if its box office involved competition with another film then that is what is discussed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, you have failed to address the countless issues I brought up earlier and you are insisting on neglecting something that I have made quite clear: your revision doesn't have the correct balance between retrospectiveness, focus on the film's achievements and reference to other films. Spinc5 (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm ignoring your issues because I addressed them the last two times you did this.  Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Darkwarriorblake-I am a bit confused by your opening paragraph. Do you mean to say that Spinc5 is removing information because it is useful. If I am not mistaken you meant to say insignificant instead of invaluable. So, I am gonna go with that. 
In my opinion, both versions are fraught with superfluous and irrelevant data. For example, this line is not important: "The film also set an opening-weekend record among films starring Diesel, Walker, Brewster, Johnson, Moritz and Lin,[85] records overtaken in all cases by Fast 6"
Even this "Despite the competition from Thor, Fast Five earned a further $20M for the week, bringing the gross for the US and Canada to over $135M" is not needed.
Although this part "Fast Five closed on August 11, 2011, after 105 days (15 weeks), having accrued $209,837,675 across 3,793 theaters,[3] making it the second highest-grossing heist/caper film, behind Inception ($292.5M),[91] and the second highest-grossing car-racing film, behind Cars ($244.1M) – not adjusting for inflation.[92]" acts as pseudo-conclusion, it doesn't really add any valuable information. 
"The film received a one week re-release in IMAX theaters on September 30, 2011."-> This should be moved to the upper section of "Release"
" bringing the total to 58 – 6,979 theaters altogether." --> this is unclear
"The week saw the film break opening-weekend records for Universal in 12 countries: Argentina, Brazil ($5M),[76] Chile, France ($8.8M),[76] India, Italy ($7.4M),[76] Malaysia, Mexico ($8.6M),[76] the Netherlands, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam.[74]"--> To have continuity and congruity, there is no need for the opening grosses in the parenthesis. 
As Spinc5 previously pointed out, the  opening total for Fast Five and Pirates of the Caribbean in UAE are inconsistent with the source. I think a review can fix this problem.
The second paragraph(On May 14, 2011, after 25 days in theaters...the same list before leaving theaters) is too long and can easily be condensed without losing the valuable information.
On another note, I think information about pre-release tracking is sequentially valuable especially when it's out of the range of expectations. The tracking serves as a a prelude to all the records and numbers.Eddyghazaley (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

All remarks except the first one is found Darkwarriorblake's version of the article. As I said, this version is not perfect but I believe it is a better starting point. We could start with this version and make improvements. Spinc5 (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed it is. I had a slight mix-up. In fact, your(Spinc5) version addresses almost all my comments. I thought the current version is your version. Anyhow, I totally agree with you, Spinc5. I think we have to revert it back to your version. The current one is meaninglessly extended.Eddyghazaley (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Currently, it's 2 vs. 1. I believe it would be better if more editors weighed in. And if Darkwarriorblake insists we could take the discussion to a place where more editors will become aware of it. Otherwise, we should just revert it to my version, and any changes could be made using it as starting point. However, I'll wait another day or two in case anyone else joins the discussion. Spinc5 (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
What is it? Wikipedia is not a democracy? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
@Edd. What part of "The content is disputed and therefore the established version should stand while Spinc attempts to argue any further changes. Further edit warring over the content without a reasoned and concluded discussion will be taken as full on edit warring and referred to the necessary people." did you have trouble interpreting? Was it the disputed part? The established part? Because at the moment you've just blanked a bunch of references, a bunch of content which needs to be RETRIEVED by someone. I assume you know how an ongoing discussion works because saying shit like "Look at discussion. This non-sense stops now. The current version is wrong, this version is right. I am changing it it to the better version" is your personal opinion altering a 2 year old established piece of content and removing a bunch of sourced content based entirely on your opinion and ignorance of a discussion which is what? 4 hours old? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You insist that your version is established. By whom? I request you bring up names of editors that explicitly approve your version. If they agree with you they should speak up asap. Because in my opinion, this box-office section is one of the tens (if not hundreds) of BO sections that contain trivial information no one has noticed. Or cares to dispute over. Also, sourced content doesn't equal relevant content, and especially not necessary content. Spinc5 (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Content no one noticed, for more than 2 years. Except the copy editor, the GA reviewer, the 70,000 people still viewing the article on a monthly basis or the 204409 looking as far back as 2012. I mean whatever, they're only people, what do their stupid opinions matter, we all know people were just coming here looking for a Spinc authored box office section that will become worthless as time stretches on. On a side note, get your spelling right the first time, that's the THIRD edit conflict. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Most viewers won't actually question the article's content. Of the thousands of viewers, not all read the BO section. Even less looked at the sources, and even less cared whether its content was appropriate, based on Wikipedia's guidelines (which most of the viewers haven't even read). As for the copy editor and the GA reviewer, I'd like to hear their opinions here. I understand they have many articles to review so it's probable that they might make mistake. Spinc5 (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
So your argument is that, based on unfounded and unpublished research, no one reads any of the article and if they do they're not as smart as Spinc, so we can discount them. Pretty bold. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
First off, its not a matter of Spinc's smartness it is only based on what the source says. In this case, the source clearly declares that your version is partially wrong. The fact that you say otherwise suggests a rather odd bias.(I have a feeling that you are a huge Fast and Furious fan and thereof your judgement is being clouded). Back to my previous edit: I believe that any logical person and Wikipedia would incontrovertibly disallow false and faulty information(a few of the numbers are wrong and the syntax is convoluted--and not to be mention the unnecessary lengthiness and redundancy) to be displayed to a millions of people. Eddyghazaley (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

So numerical mistakes justify your broad actions in contravention of any discussion? Try again. So me liking a film is a justification for your broad actions in contravention of any discussion? Try again, these films are ok at best, I am not a fan and don't even remember how I ended up editing on this article. Syntax? It was copy edited by the head CE guy. Lengthiness? Well one way to cut the fat is to remove content entirely I guess rather than trim what is there. Not really a winning argument Edd or an explanation. But kudos for jumping to fan boy so early on. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say "no one reads any of the article". And you're completely missing the point. You are assuming that if someone READ the article, he would then MAKE CHANGES or DISCUSS something he believed was incorrect. You can't assume that. That's what I'm saying. I don't know why you're inferring that I'm smarter from what I said. As for the copy editor and GA reviewer, I told you, they should wiegh in. Why have you taken this thing so personally?
Your arguments are: 1)The article is established. - I am asking the ones who established it to speak up. 2)The BO section content is well sourced. - But, sourced dosen't equal necessary. 3)The article has many viewers. - But, you can't use the number of article viewers as a measure of the article's correctness/appropriateness or whatever. 4)My BO sections are useless collections of statistics "worthless as time stretches on". - But, I mentioned many times that your version has much more numbers/statistics than mine. Some are even outdated. So you should care about worthlessness as much as I, and anyone else, should. 5)You insist that I removed content entirely. - Did you even read my version? I moved content around because I thought it was more relevant to that part of the BO section. And any content I completely removed, I considered it was not necessary, just like Eddyghazaley did. Spinc5 (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
You can spare me this argument Spinc, I am "assuming" that if someone read the article they would make changes like you are "assuming" they read it, saw something tht needed changing, and just didn't. One is significantly more likely than the other over a 2 year period in a well trafficked article about a popular film. And yes I have read your version. I think that was clear when I copy/pasted explicit content at the beginning of the discussion that no longer exists in any form. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I am the person who wants to have a discussion over here. You, on the other hand, want to castigate and mock any person who opposes or disagrees with you. I simply changed it to the version that is more accurate until we can resolve this issue.Eddyghazaley (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
OK. Let's try this again. What if we replace the aforementioned explicit content with this: "Fast Five became the highest-grossing film of the series in worldwide grosses (as well as separately in the US and Canada, and outside the US and Canada) but was out-grossed in all three cases by Fast & Furious 6." Is there any other precise content you insist on including in my section? Spinc5 (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
What discussion is it you were having Edd when you wandered in, took a side and immediately reverted the content? Please don't pretend that you haven't simply escalated a situation while avoiding having to discuss the content first, and claim that you did it to be accurate for the time being, as if there was a ticking clock attached to it. You blundered in and caused your own issues. Don't be mad that you get called out for it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I offered my corrections and opinion to the current version, which I found to be faulty. Looking at Spinc5's version,I realized that his version is better. Did you bother to reply to my initial comments? Nope, you instigated a fight. And your continuing derogatory tone doesn't make things any better. Finally, you resorted to threatening("Don't be mad that you get called out for it") me.Eddyghazaley (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
What would be the point in addressing your points if you've already taken a stance? And threatening? That is a fairly loose interpretation of the word, comparing telling the truth to threats. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Everybody has a stance but it doesnt mean you cant discuss something with them or convince them otherwise. If you dont want to talk and discuss how to improve the section then please stop because this is leading nowhereEddyghazaley (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No one, in the history of Wikipedia, has ever had a stance and then altered that stance? The only time any discussion goes anywhere on this site is when a majority is for it. Maybe the section needed trimming, it did not need culling. That you personally find some information irrelevant just does not make the information irrelevant. Let us address your issues:
Although this part "Fast Five closed on August 11, 2011, after 105 days (15 weeks), having accrued $209,837,675 across 3,793 theaters,[3] making it the second highest-grossing heist/caper film, behind Inception ($292.5M),[91] and the second highest-grossing car-racing film, behind Cars ($244.1M) – not adjusting for inflation.[92]" acts as pseudo-conclusion, it doesn't really add any valuable information.
So I am assuming I am reading this point wrong, because it reads like you are saying that information about its length of run, the total it made, how many theaters it appeared in total, it being the second highest grossing heist/caper film on record and the second highest grossing car racing film on record is not valuable. If that is the case how am I meant to argue for them when at least 4 of those 5 are important in my opinion?
" bringing the total to 58 – 6,979 theaters altogether." --> this is unclear
I'm not sure how this is unclear.
"The week saw the film break opening-weekend records for Universal in 12 countries: Argentina, Brazil ($5M),[76] Chile, France ($8.8M),[76] India, Italy ($7.4M),[76] Malaysia, Mexico ($8.6M),[76] the Netherlands, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam.[74]"--> To have continuity and congruity, there is no need for the opening grosses in the parenthesis.
Some of the information is not available or was not at least at the time and so it isn't present, that does not require the removal of information that is present especially when it directly addresses a record breaking event.
As Spinc5 previously pointed out, the  opening total for Fast Five and Pirates of the Caribbean in UAE are inconsistent with the source. I think a review can fix this problem.
This could be corrected if true, it is not a major issue.
The second paragraph(On May 14, 2011, after 25 days in theaters...the same list before leaving theaters) is too long and can easily be condensed without losing the valuable information.
Instead, it has been removed entirely, and length is not an issue in this article that it needed removing.
For example, this line is not important: "The film also set an opening-weekend record among films starring Diesel, Walker, Brewster, Johnson, Moritz and Lin,[85] records overtaken in all cases by Fast 6"
Again, your personal opinion. Is it establishing a record or not? Is it speaking to the films success or not? Is it related to the film or not? It is, in all cases. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
1) If the reader wants to know the total days in release, they can access the original site. It is not very valuable because most blockbuster/action films end with the same number of days. So, 105 days is nothing special thereby making it not very note-worthy. In that same sentence you repeated what you said initially,i.e. the amount of money. The number of the theater was previously said so you don't need to add it again even if it increased slightly. They can easily look at the table from box office mojo which is a lot clearer.  The two records are present in Spinc5's version. But, I have to say that a film can make many records if you isolate the variables. Similarly, those isolations lead to temporary records that are mutable. Records for 2D and 3D are more substantial because they have a determining factor in the final revenue of the film. Anyhow, I am okay with keeping them but someone has to update them from time to time.
2) What is the 58 supposed to mean? Someone can get confused. I know it refers to the countries. And why do you need to add the total number of theaters? You can send the information across sans including it.
3) Sounds fair to me.
4) --
5) We can fix that.
6) That line is found in both versions. If the film was considered a success, whats to point of reiterating it again in different words. Naturally, if the film had the biggest-opening in it series, then it would seem logical that it would set a record in the actor's filmography. Then again, its more about the actors then the movie's box office. It would be more appropriate in the actors page. But, even there, they only talk about highest-grossing films. Thanks for addressing my comments. Eddyghazaley (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Info in paragraph 2 of the Darkwarriorblake  version:
1) highest-grossing film in the Fast and the Furious franchise worldwide - added to my version, without stating gross on particular day, nor the date that the record was achieved
2) highest grossing installment of the franchise outside the US and Canada - same  as previous
3) highest grossing film of 2011 - this is a meaningless "record" because it only occurred due to the film's release date being early in the summer, before other blockbusters came out in that year. This record would be meaningful, only if it had been held until the year's end (but was not held, in this case)
4) entered the top 100 highest-grossing films of all time worldwide - are we serious? are we going to mention, for every film, the date (and cumulative gross on that day) on which the fiilm entered the top 100? This is most of all meaningless and definitely not a record.
5) reached a peak of number 55 on the same list. - included on my version
Number of days in release, number of theaters in release on 2nd weekend, and other trivial info can be found at Box Office Mojo and are of no need in Wikipedia if they are not records. Besides, who wants the section to become a lenghty list of numbers/grosses of zero notability?
This is a repeat of the discussion we had at Prometheus, in that there is no point in any film having a box office section if you think nothing is of worth unless it is a record. Being in the top 100 grossing films of all time is an achievement, number of days in release speaks to success, gone in two weeks or gone in 3 months? If anything, it becoming the highest grossing film of 2011 early in the year and remaining in the top 7 is a bigger achievement than just getting to 7. Again this is all stuff you personally feel isn't notable but that does not, in reality, mean it is not interesting to the readers, the many thousands of readers who never removed it, contrary to your theory that they all just didn't bother even though people will edit worthless articles over a comma. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is meant to summarize the information in a clear and concise way. If we copy paste all the information from the original website then the purpose of the original source will be lost. If the reader needs more information such as days in release and other miscellaneous information he/she can visit the site. There is no need to emphasize the success of the film to this extent. Entering the top 100 is no longer a special thing, the gross will highlight its success. Why did we choose this information instead of the rest? By choosing that which is most important....the importance of the information is relative to what the reader is searching. In general, we add the data that is always searched for. Further information can be found  on box office mojo. Can you tell me what is missing in Spinc5's version, so I can see what to add?(other than the days in release, and about setting a record in the first quarter of 2011) --Eddyghazaley (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I am going to add the opening grosses for the individual markets(the ones that are available and I will try to find the rest) sometime tomorrow. If you have the time to do it sooner then go ahead. I won't be able to answer any replies until 2mrw.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you think we can get a photo of Jordana Brewster where she does not look naked. Why is the photo cropped? Not that there is anything wrong with nudity, but the photo is misleading. Can we not find one where her clothing is visible?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.45.147 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC) 

I am curious as to why the reversions of my deletions of the now-irrelevant stuff on when actors announced for the movie. Useful before the movie hit the screens, but it is now on regular TV. Seems like outdated edits. Bellagio99 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)