Talk:Fast & Furious 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Found Nothing[edit]

I looked on imdb, found nothing. --Thejokerwinsfatality (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That's because IMDB is not considered a Reliable Source MisterShiney 18:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


Do we know if this is an official title yet? If not, I feel that it should be changed to either "Fast and Furious 6" or "Untitled Fast Five Sequel" until we know for sure what the title will be. DanielDPeterson + talk 20:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is terrible in general, just basically copy pasted from my work at Fast Five. The title at the minute is being referred to as Fast and Furious 6, Lin on Twitter just said he got up to film "FF6" for instance while crew like Johnson refer to it as Fast Six. Probably have to defer to the director on this one, but it is also a working title that may alter internationally so perhaps Untitled Fast Five Sequel or Untitled Fast & Furious Sequel would be best for now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Refs for future use[edit]

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Moves without discussion[edit]

That's the 2nd time in as many days to two different titles it has been moved. The shorthand they use to describe it flips back and forth, the material they released about it has not. this and this and this and Universal Pictures own site say otherwise.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No short film this time?Is Letty alive for real?No asian gran turism and grey market outline?And no 4c man? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What the.....?[edit]

What's with all the moves? How come this page keeps bouncing back and forth the past couple of days like a ball in a pinball machine? MisterShiney 00:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Because people don't bother to discuss, at which point I could've showed them the above and both moves could have been avoided. The people involved flip between 4 different titles in referring to the film, but the relased promotional material so far only refers to it as Fast and Furious 6, and the Facebook for it currently says "Fast and Furious 6 in theaters.." whenever, I don't remember the date. And the twitter is titled Fast and Furious 6, its listed on Universal's site as Fast and Furious 6, and so on.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Title should have an ampersand instead...?[edit]

From all the promotional materials that I've seen (for instance all the posters linked above) it looks like the title should be written with an ampersand, Fast & Furious 6. Note that the 4th movie uses an ampersand, which is reflected across Wikipedia, while the earlier movies do not use ampersands, which is also reflected across Wikipedia. So I think this page needs to be moved to Fast & Furious 6, and all other mentions of the movie, etc., should change. I see that there's been a bunch of turmoil over the name, so I didn't want to do anything without discussion. Maybe one of you experienced movers can handle this. If not then I'll do it. Jeferman (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Anthony Appleyard for moving the page and Darkwarriorblake for fixing some of the article. I went around and changed it on the other pages I could find: the disambiguation page, the series page, and two templates. For posterity, since I didn't mention it above, before all these changes the title was listed as Fast and Furious 6 instead of Fast & Furious 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeferman (talkcontribs) 18:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Edit: sorry, forgot to sign! Jeferman (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Gina Carano's character[edit]

I watched interviews where her character name was shown to be 'Riley'. Jaybling (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Link? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
[1] Name at time 1:34. Jaybling (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Changed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
When Hobbs first met Riley, he read her credentials and said her full name, which is Riley Hicks; I haven't been able to find a source though. -- CollisionCourse (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Prequel Mention - Post Credit Scene.[edit]

I went to add a small piece of information having now seen the film, but since the page is protected right now by auto confirmed users, I'd thought I'd bring this up here. For the part about the post credits scene, you link to the third film describing the part where Han is racing in Tokyo, crashing & then killing him. Should it be inserted here saying "The events of the 4th, 5th, and 6th film leading up to this point allude to prequels"? Being that they weren't planned this way when the third film came out, its evident that it is now how it was written to tie up that loose end involving Han's character dieing in the 3rd film, but appearing in five and six. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

NATO Base Location[edit]

Does anyone know where the location was for the air base shown as the NATO base in Spain? I believe it is actually the old NATO US Air Force Base at RAF Upper Heyford in Oxfordshire, England, UK, about 40 miles north of London and just outside of the town of Bicester. I say this because I was stationed there at RAF Upper Heyford for a few years as part of the 20th Fighter Wing with the F-111E model Aardvarks and EF-111A Ravens/Spark Varks. The buildings and location used in 2 different sets of shots sure look like the Avionics Maintenance building that opened in the winter of 1980 close to the flightline areas of RAF UH. The south half of this building was home to the 20th Avionics Maintenance Squadron (AMS) Shops Branch, 1980-81, and subsequently the 20th Component Repair Squadron (CRS) Avionics Shops Branch/Flight, 1981-1994. The avionics back shops that worked out of this building were the Manual Test Stations (MTS) Shop (Radios and Radio Navigation), Automatic Tests Stations (ATS) Shop (Radar Navigation, Terrain Following Radar, Attack Radar, Inertial Navigation Systems, Etc.), and the Electronic Warfare Systems (EWS) Shop (ALQ-99 & ALQ-137 Trackbreaker, ALR-62 Countermeasures Receiving Set/Radar Homing and Warning Systems, ECM Pod Shop, ALQ-99 Tactical Airborne Jammer, and EF-111A ECM avionics repair). The north half of the building was used by 20th Supply Squadron base supply to support avionics maintenance and flight line avionics system maintenance. The aircraft shelter pictured in one scene in the background middle left is in the exact right location and the ramps/hoist I-beam are exactly what we used and in exactly the right place. To my knowledge only 2 buildings exactly like this exist in the world and they were both built during the Cold War to support USAF F-111 avionics maintenance for the 2 F-111 wings the USAF had in the U.K. in the 1970's, 1980's, and very early 1990's. The other building is still in active use by the USAF as of this very day in May 2013. RAF Upper Heyford is still there in mothball status since 1994 and the airfield of the base is now used as a giant car park for new cars.

I don't know where the air base is located but there's an article on the BBC website that calculates that it must have a runway that is 18+ miles long (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Jason Statham is the driver who kills Han in the final scene[edit]

This needs to be mentioned in the cast section, or in the plot section. Wikipedia does not take a policy view on spoilers, and they are usually encouraged from an encyclopedic point of view. For a recent example you need to go to the Star Trek: Into Darkness page, which contains plot twist concerning the lead villian. Therefore it needs to be mentioned that Statham's character is the one that kills Han and issues the threat to Dom, setting up his role as the lead villian of Fast 7 Colliric (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A) Your last thing is OR, you have no idea what he will be doing and if he will appear in Fast 7, he could be a background villain set up for 8 or 9.
B) It's not about spoilers in the plot, no cast are listed there, he isn't special and who is playing the man is of no importance to the plot.
C) Keep your edit to the cast section, this was not something you needed to start a discussion over. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
unfortunatly I am little lazy with putting in references, but it has been confirmed he is in the film and is rumored to be the lead villian, supposedly the brother of the villian that was in this one. (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

shaw always refer's to his brother. Statham might be his brother, and seeks revenge against the team--Sinjanthu (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Box Office[edit]

Mail Online ( reporting that the film is through $500m worldwide (180m US domestic, 342m elsewhere) while Box Office Mojo is currently on $490m. Are we committed to using BOM or will other sources work too? danno_uk 01:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

We can wait for BOM to update, we aren't a news site, and the Daily Mail site is temporary and will then need to be replaced again by BOM once it updates beyond 500 which will probably be this weekend Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"large aircraft"[edit]

Isn't the large aircraft an Antonov An 225? Hardtofindausername 20:02 June 11 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardtofindausername (talkcontribs) 13:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the aircraft used in this movie appears to be an Antonov AN-124, the Russian/Soviet version of a USAF C-5. Also, an Antonov An-225 has a double vertical tail. The aircraft in this film doesn't versus

Edit request on 17 June 2013[edit]

adding more hyperlinks such as glasgow Murugesu1997 (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done. Please be more specific as to the edit that should be made. Thanks. Jguy TalkDone 20:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


Does it really matter if a name is linked twice? It's that really necessary to worry about that...REALLY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shookallen88 (talkcontribs) 01:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter, you should have stopped 3 edits ago. As it is, we don't double link, there's a plugin specifically for locating double links. What if anything is gained by linking him immediately after he is already linked? You've carried this on far longer than was necessary and wasted both our time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want me to stop then leave as is, linking a name twice isn't nothing to get angry about so leave it as is, Then ill stop undoing.
So your argument is, if I want you to stop, then let you just do what you want so you can stop edit warring to get things your way? Jfc, how long have you been editing on here? I suggest you head over to the 3RR discussion opened about you, because edit warring to get your way and arguments like "Let me do what I want and we won't have a problem" aren't the way to conduct yourself on Wikipedia. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no right or wrong having a name linked twice in the info box, that's your personal opinion, but no reason to try to get me blocked, so it be ok if there's a name linked twice in the info box. I agree to leave the name unlinked so means you didn't get a single linked I didn't get my double, which means we both didn't get what we want. This way we both can quit arguing.

Actually, there is a right or wrong, or preferred one. Please check out WP:REPEATLINK. --Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 02:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a right one, you link the first instance. ANd I'm not trying to get you blocked, you're doing that on your own by edit warring, ignoring warnings, ignoring the guidelines provided to you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:EDITWAR, "Don't use edits to fight with other editors – disagreements should be resolved through discussion." The page history shows edit warring by both editors. Also worth highlighting, "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring'." Erik (talk | contribs) 19:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
You really felt this was a better use of your time than implementing the MOS discussion? Saying an editor restoring based on applicable guidelines and an established version with reasoning, posting guidelines encouraging discussion and issuing warnings on failure to heed all of those is equal to the editor saying "who cares"? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Blake, you engaged in edit warring. It was not destructive to the article to let a second link linger in the infobox and to try to start a discussion, and failing that, to involve other editors in the matter. Like the policy page says, you cannot defend edit warring because your edits were right. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To my knowledge you just link something within a section once. So once within the lead, once within the plot, once within the info box. So it can be linked multiple times within the article, just not multiple times within the section. Hope that clears any misunderstanding. -- MisterShiney 19:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

  • You're unlinking it as added by a different editor now and you have received a warning already from an administrator about edit warring. Might be time to step back and realize you're in the wrong here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What's the difference it's not over linking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shookallen88 (talkcontribs) 22:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 June 2013[edit] (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. That image is already in the article. RudolfRed (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


This film is produced and Distribuited by a American Company, and also is directed by a American. so why in country says "USA-UK"? the filming location does not influence the nationality Nz123456 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be USA and Japan (the production countries), see Fast & Furious 6. P.S. films can't have a nationality, only humans. --Danrok (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that may be wrong, how can it be Japan when noone involved on the production side, producers/directors/writers are Japanese and the bulk of the film is not filmed there? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Correct genres[edit]

This film has been placed in the American action thriller films category. However it is down as an action and adventure film at the British Film Institute, see Fast & Furious 6. --Danrok (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Official Title[edit]

The poster for the film shows Fast and Furious 6 but the film itself just has Furious 6 in the opening credits. Shouldn't the official title used in wikipedia use what is on the screen as the primary source as the official title and the other alternate titles be the redirect?AbramTerger (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The official title is being used. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 15:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
No, the article is titled "Fast & Furious 6", the official title in the Film is "Furious 6". The primary source is the film, so officially that is the title.AbramTerger (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The primary source is not the film. The primary source(s) are how the studio submitted the film to every rating body, and it was submitted as Fast & Furious 6, the only place it is Furious 6 is the title card and that isn't even consistent across releases. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 16:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encylopedia, and wikipedia naming conventions are based on the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules AACR2 7.0B1 which states: "The chief source of information for motion pictures and videorecordings is (in this order of preference): the item itself (e.g., the title frames), ...". When the film was released in May 2013 the cited in the article, Furious 6 was the title on the title frame. That is also the title on the title frame in the current DVD release. If there were film releases with alternate titles (or alternate anything else different from the original release) they can be discussed in the article (with proper citations), but would not change the primary source of the initial release being named Furious 6, not matter what the posters or trailers said then or now. The primary source from a wikipedia encylopedia point of view is the work itself. Do you have a source about what the title cards were for various releases? All I have seen is the film in the theater and the current DVD, both of which had Furious 6. If there were several releases with alternate titles a table of those alternate names may be interesting (but that is off-topic of this discussion, unless you have a reference for a release (though not a preview) before the May 2013 that had a different title card? If there is no version before May 2013 with a different title card, I think the official title should be what is on the film's title card per wiki policies.AbramTerger (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
A lot of time could have been saved here if you had just read the article. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 19:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I read the article before I posted. I don't see how it changes anything I have written. The point remains that the primary source that wiki policy uses for the title is the title card for the film and the film show Furious 6 as the title. Everything else is a secondary source and would be just a discussion in the article.AbramTerger (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The people who own and made the film have said, flat out, in the article, it is called Fast & Furious 6, it was submitted to theaters, ratings boards, etc as Fast & Furious 6, this isn't something that is debatable, and per WP:COMMONNAME, Fast & Furious 6 is the commonly known and accepted title for this film. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 21:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. You would have saved a lot of discussion time, if you had opened with this explanation instead of claiming a secondary source for the official title. I don't completely agree, but I can understand how a common name (albeit longer) can be chosen over the more shorted and accurate name in the primary source. Typically the common name is shorter than the full more accurate name in the source, so I can understand the reasoning. I find it odd to choose a more clunky common name over a short more accurate name, though I guess it also does keep the franchise name it. Again thank you for the clarification.AbramTerger (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"Starring" in Infobox[edit]

Do we really need to have 11 actors listed in the Infobox. I know Template:Infobox film states: "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release", but that does not seem to me to just ALL the names, just ensure that the names used in the infobox match the poster. It seems to me that Diesel, Walker, and Johnson are the stars. This is demonstrated clearly stars They are justified in 4 ways: Their names are in larger typeface than the others, they are listed 2x on the poster (top of poster + billing block), they are listed in the billing block before the title, and their pictures are on the poster. To me they are the only names that should be in the infobox for "starring". I don't think the infobox was meant to be an all-inclusive but more a summary of the credits. A fuller list is the Cast in the article. Are there any arguments against making this edit? AbramTerger (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Notability of Benjamin Davies[edit]

I removed Benjamin Davies from the cast list. While he is one of the 41 credited actors, he is not one of the 18 actors billed on-screen. Per WP:CASTLIST: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information so we limit based on criteria. We have chosen the billing list of 18 actors rather than the more complete list of 41 credited actors as a nice list of the notable actors. The 3 stars listed on the poster or the 11 actors listed in the poster billing block do not seem sufficient. None of those lists has Davies anyway. If Davies' role is "notable" in some way (like Statham's uncredited cameo), I see no reason he should be added to the cast in this article. Please do not add him or anyone else to the list without some citation.AbramTerger (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed Davies again. There is still not citation indicating some notability of the actor to warrant the inclusion of him. See WP:CASTLIST

Full Cast Notability[edit]

Please update full cast of Fast 6, I have added four more notable characters

Clara Paget as Vegh Benjamin Davies as Adolfson Samuel M. Stewart as Denlinger Matthew Stirling as Oakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davideversalt (talkcontribs) 21:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Citations needed for notability outside the billed actors. See earlier comments. There was no need to add a new topic. AbramTerger (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned earlier, the full cast has 41 credited actors, Per WP:CASTLIST: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" so we limit the list based on the criteria of billing. Notable actors (with citations outside of WP) will be cited in entertainment articles. AbramTerger (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
For the cast section, the actors are listed in the order of the opening credits. The notable cameos (Jason Statham) are then listed in the followup paragraph. Paget did not make this list but she does show up in the closing credits where she is listed ahead of John Ortiz's character. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fast & Furious 6. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Fast & Furious 6. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)