Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road

"Furiosa Road" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Furiosa_Road&redirect=no Furiosa Road] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. मल्ल (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Australian in lead
While the source does back up that the film is Australian, it ignores other sources that describe it as an Australian and American co-production.

Per MOS:FILM, if the film is of multiple production entry items then we don't list them in that format as it was in the lead, so this is why it was removed twice. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the AFI and the BFI articles in the infobox cite the project as both a Australian and American co-production, not just Australian Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Per Mosfilm, Nationality is defined by the reliable sources - such as being called an “Australian film” - as Hollywood Reporter, a highly reputable American source, does in the citation, as well as explaining why. That a few companies from other nations were involved in the production doesn’t justify changing the descriptor, per OR/SYNYH, without reliable citations directly describing the film in a different way.  This has been discussed on this talk page before and the current description represents the current, and long-standing, consensus. MapReader (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think THR's "Mad Max: Fury Road is considered an Australian film as it meets the Australian government's thresholds for tax rebates and government support, was made largely by an Australian crew and had Australian creative control." statement is against the AFI, BFI and NYT, and saying that it's solely an Australian film and therefore is just produced by AU. I also don't see any consensus on this issue, there is an archived section where it's mostly you two discussing. ภץאคгöร  21:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither of the BFI or AFI data tables (they’re not written articles) describe the film directly; they just list out the credits and contain an entry for the nationalities of entities involved with the film. We do the same in our article’s infobox.  Nevertheless in RS the film is widely described as an Australian one, and citation does need to be direct. MapReader (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * you say widely and provide a single source. This isn't about loose jargon as the article you've cited points out, it's about being technically true. Also, please don't remove maintenance tags until the issue is addressed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are two further sources that counter it,, Screen Daily which only provides United States and Sight & Sound which describes it as an Australian and United States co-production. Even the Government Classification of the film states Fury Road as an "Australia United States" co-production here. So this "widely described" is bunk. MOS:FILMCOUNTRY does indeed state "If the nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film)" than it should be labeled as such. This is however not the case per the status above. Per WP:WEIGHT, I think we should stick with assuming it's not strictly Australian, as that would be misleading. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither of those sources actually describe the film. You’re synthesising from infoboxes. MapReader (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What are they describing then? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Who knows what criteria they use? Maybe based on the financing, maybe based on the credited contributing companies; it doesn't really matter, as WP works from direct citation, not by synthesising from another website's criteria. MapReader (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hollywood Reporter is clearly an authoritative and highly reliable source, and explicitly describes this as an "Australian film".  That it's a non-Australian source gives it extra weight, as we all know that national sources are often keen to take credit for any national involvement.  Yet here's a US business media source, reporting film critics deciding the film as "the best Australian film of the 21st century"; here's an Australian media site with additional commentary as to why it's regarded as an Australian film, also from a leading Australian news broadcaster; here's an authoritative UK media source, here's an article from Variety, from the BFI, from India, more from Hollywood Reporter, from MSN, from NME - originally a UK magazine but now Singaporean-owned, from the US movie site Movieweb, from central Maine, Time Out magazine, even an English-language article published in Iran.  There are of course tons of further Australian sources.  FWIW (which isn't that much), IMDb has Australia down as the country of origin.
 * As to why it's widely seen as an Australian film, that isn't really our concern as editors; our duty is simply to follow the sources. But the first linked Hollywood Reporter article is explicit and persuasive on the point.  Mad Max is regularly described as an iconic Australian film series. The 'Australian' descriptor was put into the article by its original creator twelve years back, and is now long-standing and relatively stable, aside from occasional periods of chopping and changing usually from IP edits. MapReader (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody said THR is unreliable and not authoritative. But what every commenting editor here so far has been pointing out is that the film is not just an Australian production as evidenced by multiple sources. "national sources are often keen to take credit for any national involvement." is your opinion and the same can be said for the AU sources as well. Some of the sources you have added refer to the series as a whole, some are low quality and one is from a dubious/unreliable source called "Taste of Cinema" (but you wrote it as Time Out). IMDb is also unreliable. Do they state that Fury Road is only an Australian film? I don't see it. ภץאคгöร  14:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Nyaxros above. Most if not all the Mad Max films are Australian. That is not the question, and speaking colloquially, most writings are not going to describe film as an "Australian-American production" in prose as that's a mouthful and also not helpful in the context. For example, if Fury Road broke records for an Australian production, they'd call it an Australian production, because listing it as an Australian one. Some sources you listed seem to be talking about its follow-up, not this film in question (see here). I feel like this is a constant need for editors to just search out their opinion and then base it in facts, but referring to the the film as simply Australian in casual terms is not wrong per se, but it would be just as misleading to say there was only one production company involved because you, I, or anyone found an article that only went into discussing one production companies involvement. Saying "Who knows?" to my response, suggests you aren't aware that the Country in country of production is generally based on the where production funds come from, not from cultural or identities. So simply saying THR is superior, is not really a valid take as suggesting the British Film Institute or the several other sources such as Screen Daily or Sight & Sound are wrong. All other editors here have basically come to the same conclusion on this as well. If you think this isn't a valid way of categorizing a films nationality, I'd suggest taking it up as a larger scale deal at [[WP:FILM] instead of here, as this is something that would be grander than just one film beyond Hollywood here or there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia follows the sources, cited directly, and not based on editor-constructed argumentation. As per FILMLEAD, " If the nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film)...", thus how the film is CALLED is the central question.  Such sources widely describe the film as Australian, and I haven't seen many that use phrases such as "international co-production" or "American-Australian", because that's not how it is seen.  That - to use your words - "the Mad Max films are Australian" is precisely the point, and really the argument ends there. MapReader (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you are saying it "ends there" as we go by consensus on the talk page. You are definitely misinterpreting my words as I said that was used casually, it's not a serious view as that's not how films are referred to in casual terminology. Take a look at O' Horten which has several production countries. Nobody trying to write readable prose would list every single production company unless just making a point of how many there were. Again, your sources you've provided included IMDb and some were referring to the sequel. I appreciate this, but instead of ignoring the content I provide, I think you've addressed that the MOS:FILM is probably not in line with how most editors have been editing and categorizing films. I'll let other editors step in to suggest a consensus (? ? As they have come to the conclusion that just because one reliable source only refers to one country, it does not disinclude the other. Not to mention you haven't really addressed some of the dubious sources you've provided otherwise and some that just are not even talking about this production. I'm not sure what else you want as I've suggested several alternatives to take this to try and appease your issue, but you seem more interested in shutting down conversation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The other key factor of the MOS:FILM states "If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." Which is probably how this should be handled. I think the statements above make it clear, it's not just an Australian production. Even if it may be casually referred to as one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see Lumiere mentioned, and this has been used before for determining if a film's so-called nationality is singular. Judging from their page for this film here, the co-producing countries are AU and US. With this and the above evidence, I don't think it's appropriate to classify this film as singularly Australian in the first sentence. The Australian and US involvement should be fleshed out later in the lead section. Leave the first sentence clear of nationality and if there is consensus, including "English-language" instead to at least establish some cultural context. (I know that's uncommon, but I think that's a reasonable alternative when multiple countries are in play.) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, the number of sources describing the United States as co-producing country is fairly significant. Just because a source describes it as an Australian film in a particular context, does not preclude consideration of the other sources. I don't see any fundamental difference between THR describing is as an "Australian film" and Lumiere using the term "Producing country". I agree that care should be taken to avoid outliers, but AFI, BFI & Lumiere appear to all be in agreement that this was a joint production between two countries. Betty Logan (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not if none of them state that explicitly, as per STICKTOTHESOURCE. MapReader (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation of the guideline. If a source labels the nationality of a film a "producing country" or "country of origin" then that is "explicit" identification of the film's nationality. I do not accept that for a claim to be "explicit" we have to find one that literally states "XXX is an Australian-American film". There are different ways of saying the same thing. Wikipedia is in the business of souring facts, not expressions. What we want to avoid is implicit identification of a film's nationality i.e. an editor attempting to identify a film's nationality on the basis of where the film was made, or where the production companies are based. We require a source to explicitly make that connection, which is certainly true in the case Mad max: Fury Road and US involvement. Betty Logan (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)