Talk:Hobbs & Shaw

Title

@DisneyMetalhead: Can you please explain your recent move of the article? The source explicitly states that the title is Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw. -- Alex^TW 01:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The source states Fast and Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Various statements on the same sources uses interchangeably Fast and Furious and Fast & Furious.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide such sources, and how do you base which source is more important? -- Alex^TW 02:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the page to the original move until any variations on the title becomes clearer. -- Alex^TW 04:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. While opposition to the move was not based solely upon official titles, please note that under WP:OFFICIAL official titles are not necessarily used as titles on Wikipedia; where a different name is the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources, that title is preferred. Dekimasuよ! 21:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw → Hobbs & Shaw – It is overly precise to include "Fast & Furious Presents:" in the article title. We have similarly dropped similar "ownership" labels unless truly needed, like we do not have Marvel's The Avengers or Lee Daniels' The Butler or Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (these all redirect to common-name titles). "Hobbs & Shaw" is sufficient per WP:COMMONNAME. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom Nevermore27 (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as the Fast and Furious Presents: is part of the official title (see the posters/official logo). Not at all similar to the above comparisons. Your argument is like dropping Fast and Furious and just keeping Tokyo Drift.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  It's interesting to think about the meaning of these title variants that continue to challenge us editors. :) I would argue that the distinction from Tokyo Drift lies in "Presents" in the sense that Hobbs & Shaw is a spinoff, where Tokyo Drift was the next film in the main series. It does not mean that including the "presents" bit is the "wrong" answer, but it is unnecessarily overdoing it. Rogue One with its "A Star Wars Story" labeling is a better analogy of tangentially related branding. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The studio is officially marketing the film as Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw. That is the official title. — 212.139.116.154 (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)..." I outlined the most relevant examples in my original statement above. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Yes, the studio is officially marketing the film as Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw in the US, as we can see on their website (and as Fast & Furious: Hobbs & Shaw in the UK—again, as we can see on their respective website). Anyway, I support the claim because studios are known to use over-the-top titles just for the sake of marketing and branding. Later on, when the movie is finally released in cinemas and home video, the film's title is just a shortened version of it, usually the one every member of the cast and crew has been addressing as when speaking about it. The Avengers, Rogue One (and Solo, in which case I don't fully understand why the latter kept the full "A Star Wars Story" title on its Wikipedia article and Rogue One didn't), Ghostbusters, It, and so on are good examples of this type of policy. In any case, the article at hand could keep its current title (Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw) until further development on the matter makes it necessary to change it. —Pagina18 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw is the official title of the film, and the title being used to market the film. The first part of the phrase is not a possessive like the nominator's examples of Marvel's The Avengers or Lee Daniels' The Butler, and the Rogue One: A Star Wars Story example isn't convincing given that Solo: A Star Wars Story has retained the subtitle. Against the WP:COMMONNAME argument, the shorter title cannot be considered the common name when not only official sources, but the third-party secondary movie websites most widely-used by the public, IMDB, Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes, all use the longer title as well. —Lowellian (reply) 02:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment @Lowellian:

1. Rogue One 1 2 [1]
2. The Butler 1 2 3

Same sources, different films, all using the longer title above. I'll even add an example of my own: Dr. Strangelove, even though IMDb, Metacritic and RottenTomatoes all use the longer title, we use the shortened title on WP. It's not about official name, as @Erik: mentions above, it's about what people use in everyday use. I would defy you to find somebody who would refer to the film as "Fast & Furious Presents" in common conversation. Nevermore27 (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

But against those examples are other examples like Solo: A Star Wars Story and, to add one not mentioned before, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. The WP:COMMONNAME policy means the common name in sources, not the common name in casual conversation. Just to use examples of three articles I've edited recently, Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, Perl Compatible Regular Expressions, or Legend of the Five Rings Roleplaying Game would not be referred to by those full names in casual conversation (people would respectively say "Jesner" or at most "Jesner v. Arab Bank" or "PCRE" or "L5R" or at most "L5R RPG" or "Legend of the Five Rings"), but those are the names used in sources. —Lowellian (reply) 18:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Lowellian: Ok, common name in sources like The Verge? The Ringer? Boy Genius Report? Den of Geek? AV Club? USA Today? News and pop culture websites, all primarily referring to the film as "Hobbs & Shaw", only one even mentioning the full title. WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Even articles like this announcing the full title still primarily use the simplified one. Nevermore27 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There are just as many sources showing the opposite. The most widely-used reference and review sites, IMDB, Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes, all use Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw as already established above. On top of that, there's 411Mania, Bleeding Cool News, Deadline, Entertainment Weekly, Flickering Myth, IGN, Newsday: entertainment and film news websites, all primarily referring to the film as Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw. —Lowellian (reply) 04:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

For anyone who's not clicking through to the links, the majority of these are just press releases (from the studio which named the movie) and links to the trailer, not full articles as I posted. Nevermore27 (talk)

The original argument for the move was that by WP:COMMONNAME, the quality of sources don't matter, only common usage. Now that sources have been produced showing that the full name is common usage, you're back to arguing quality of the sources, but that defeats the argument for the move in the first place: if quality of sources is what matters most, then the official sources and most widely-used reference and review sources (IMDB, Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes) would matter most, and they support the full name Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw. —Lowellian (reply) 07:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not the quality of the sources I'm pointing out, it's the fact that several of them are identical. Nevermore27 (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

They're not. The sources are a wide range of types from a large number of different websites -- official, reference, review, entertainment news. —Lowellian (reply) 07:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

So I don't get accused of bludgeoning again I'm going to drop it, we're just talking past each other. Nevermore27 (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support: Nevermore27's preceding comment about the source usage really drives it home--Fradio71 (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Fradio71, you may want to add a distinct bullet with your stance to support in case it is overlooked by the closing editor. (You can strike out the above to avoid redundancy too.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, supporting previous oppose comments based on the film's official title. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Just reiterating that "official name" is not the standard under WP:COMMONNAME Nevermore27 (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

  Nevermore27, will you be replying to many more opposing comments? -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Will you be making many more comments that are irrelevant to WP? Nevermore27 (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion on my opposition is irrelevant. The opposition is relevant to this discussion, as is BLUDGEON. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I have replied to two opposing comments, one of which became a back-and-forth, so I hardly think that qualifies as bludgeoning. Your jumping to that accusation is revealing though. Nevermore27 (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Regarding comparing Rogue One to Solo: A Star Wars Story, the difference is that Rogue One can stand alone without any disambiguation term. Solo by itself would have been a possibility if it was a unique word, but we would have had to call it Solo (2018 film). The consensus for that instance is that a natural disambiguation, keeping A Star Wars Story, was better. Here, Hobbs & Shaw can stand alone. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support WP:Article titles specifies that titles should be WP:CONCISE while keeping accuracy and being WP:PRECISE. The proposed title matches these three conditions. Further WP:OFFICIALNAME states we should not use official names just because they are official, instead we should use the WP:COMMONNAME. So, juse because the Studio has a long title, doesn't mean we need to, should, or have to, use it. There is no confusion with a different Hobbs&Shaw, so this isn't a WP:NATURALDAB situation. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Strictly marketing, it's evident from that "presents". Not a proper title. The makers want to make sure that the non-fans knows the film is from the F&F family. Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw and Hobbs & Shaw are WP:COMMONNAME, as far as I searched both are showing up equally, so you can cherry-pick according to your argument. I don't think WP:COMMONNAME is applicable right now, because it's not clear whether F & F Presents is even part of the title. The official title is Hobbs & Shaw as per its Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, the production company, and the official website name is www.hobbsandshawmovie.com. It is not comparable to Solo: A Star Wars Story or Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, as those are proper full titles and the part after colon is subtitle, whereas here the first part is a brand name (also coming with a "presents") and the second part is THE title, it is comparable only to Marvel's The Avengers, in which case we know what was done.--Let There Be Sunshine 07:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The URLs of those websites have the short form of the title so that the URLs are easier to type, but the actual content of those websites have Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw as the official title:

• The Instagram is full of posters that are all labeled Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw.
• The Facebook posts read "Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw. Watch the trailer now...", "Vanessa Kirby is Hattie Shaw in Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw," etc.
• The Twitter tweets refer to "Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw" [2] or "@FastFurious Presents: @HobbsAndShaw" [3] [4]. By their very nature, tweets are very limited in word length and thus use informal abbreviations, and even then, they're still including the phrase "@FastFurious Presents".
• HobbsAndShawMovie.com is filled with banners that are labeled Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw, and the first paragraph of the synopsis reads "...reprise their roles as Luke Hobbs and Deckard Shaw in Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw."
• The distributing studio shows the title in a big headline: Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw.

—Lowellian (reply) 08:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

URLs may be easier to type, but why the page name contains only Hobbs & Shaw, it does not depend on URL. Because the official title is simply called as that. As I said above, Fast & Furious Presents is strictly used for marketing purpose, hence it can be seen in the promotional materials, a distributor's only aim is product selling and Fast & Furious is a best-selling brand. I forgot this one.--Let There Be Sunshine 11:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support The "F&F presents" part is strictly a marketing tool to further connect the new spin-off to the successful main franchise in the public eye. To add another example, Spike Lee adds "A Spike Lee Joint" to all his movies to generate more publicity, yet we have BlacKkKlansman and not BlacKkKlansman: A Spike Lee Joint.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: WP:COMMONNAME not WP:OFFICIALNAME. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fast & Furious Presents is an integral part of US title. For example, Fast & Furious: Hobbs & Shaw is international title and being used everywhere! Just go to Universal Pictures International website and select your territory to check. — 212.139.116.154 (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Since this is the English Wikipedia and not the US Wikipedia, this seems to me to be more reason to drop Fast & Furious Presents if the official title is different in other territories. Seems much more likely that Hobbs & Shaw will be the common name across the board. A quick look at that website shows Australia and UK/Ireland using the official title Fast & Furious: Hobbs & Shaw, making it different than this article's US-centric title. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support. Not generally a huge fan of ignoring what appears to be the official title, but the way "F&F Presents" is commonly dropped by media and the prominence "Hobbs & Shaw" gets as a title compared to the full form has me decently convinced. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  We wouldn't be "ignoring" the official title, it would still be noted in the header section. Hopefully this helps. Nevermore27 (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support: Concise and straightforward common name. The official name doesn't matter (see WP:OFFICIALNAME). It's hard for me to understand what all the above fuss is about. The suggestion seems like quite an ordinary and typical case of Wikipedia title choice. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments

what did idris elba injected in his body some liquid or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.100.33 (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Liquid Tshepang Med Hox Mtshepose (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Keanu Reeves and Kevin Hart being in Hobbs and Shaw

Hi I saw a couple days ago that Keanu Reeves and Kevin Hart were listed on the cast role. I've seen nowhere officially that they are in the movie online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KCChiefsfan2008 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Release date

1 August in UK Infinite mission (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Lore or Lorr?

This might be a last minute change, but Lorr was used in the production notes. [5] Can someone confirm how the names were eventually credited / captioned? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like they're using Lore for most of the magazines and newspapers for the spelling. Lorr will be added as a footnote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"Hobbs and Shaw (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hobbs and Shaw (upcoming film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 20:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"Hobbs and Shaw (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hobbs and Shaw (upcoming film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 20:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Move protected

I've move protected the page. Since the current page title was moved by consensus on a requested move discussion, any moves reversing that need to be adequately discussed here first. bibliomaniac15 22:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Reception India. Huh?

Why does this article have a whole paragraph and subsection of reviews from India? Hobbs_&_Shaw#India I can understand maybe highlighting some non-American or British critics because of star Jason Statham but it is not clear why someone thought a paragraph full of Indian critics was a good idea.

This isn't an Indian film. It isn't by an Indian director. It doesn't star any prominently Indian actors.

Did some enthusiast boldly add this just because they could and no one has gotten around to removing it yet? It seems WP:UNDUE and irrelevant to highlight Indian critics, could someone explain this please? (or remove the low relevance critics.) -- 20:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC) 109.76.130.9 (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It appears to have been a recent change from some days ago (diff) so I have reverted to the status quo for now. if editors believe some of these critics are somehow particularly relevant or insightful please discuss. -- 109.76.130.9 (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)