Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road/Archive 1

Imperator Furiosa
Seriously? That should be Imperator Furiosus or Imperatrix Furiosa. 99.247.1.157 (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: recast vs reboot?
Should we go with what the reliable sources are calling the movie, or should we go with what knowledgeable fanboys are saying about the movie? Some editors are arguing that this is a remake or a recasting, and is not a reboot.

It looks like "reboot" is the most used term and the role of Max has been recast in the reboot. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * George Miller -reboot recast 'Mad Max' = 38,000 Ghits. This would be calling it a recast without mentioning reboot.
 * George Miller reboot reacast 'Mad Max' = 61,900 Ghits. This is recasting the character in the reboot.
 * George Miller reboot 'Mad Max' = 201,000 Ghits    This is calling it a reboot with or without saying that the character was recast.
 * George Miller recast 'Mad Max' = 73,100 Ghits. This is any source using the word "recast" in any context, the movie could be a recast, or the character of Max was recast.


 * Reboot (fiction)‎ has a precise definition - In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning. We should go by that definition in an encyclopedia. A recasting does not discard all previous continuity. Google hits are not a reliable indicator of a correct definition. I have often seen people misuse terms like reboot and prequel, particularly headline writers. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed - "Reboot" has become one of those terms like "Docudrama" that is so misused that it has almost lost its meaning. In spite of that Wikipedia does not need to take part in that so "precision is preferable" in this situation. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I really don't see why its necessary to note that its a reboot, even if it is one. We can just write that its the fourth film in the series. The director has even said that its not necessarily a reboot. Koala15 (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. The lead previously read the fourth film of Miller's Mad Max franchise. Then RAN added and a reboot of the series. He had no consensus to put that in, and it is disputed. Following WP:BRD, I'm removing it, leaving in that this is the fourth film in the franchise. Given that it won't be released until next May, no categorization is needed beyond that. More definitive info will eventually come out, most likely confirming its continuity with the series and status as a sequel. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't about what fanboys think is the truth, it is what the reliable sources say. Reliable sources always trump original research about what the proper term should be. You can't dispute reliable sources despite how awesome your original research is. If you have a quote from George Miller specifically saying it is not a reboot, please provide it as a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no need to prove a negative. Three editors disagree with you here and at least one more, an IP, reverted your reboot label yesterday. It has now been taken out by three different editors after you put it in the article three times. You have no WP:CONSENSUS. You can talk about fanboys all you like, but Google hits are not RS. Casual use of the term "reboot" in some articles is not definitive, and does not justify labeling the film as such in an encyclopedia. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * While I fully support keeping the "fanboy" mentality off Wikipedia, we still shouldn't misappropriate a term simply because the majority of sources have done. It might be a reboot, it might not be, but since the film has not been released yet then I suspect most sources are not in a position to determine whether it is or not. I favor Koala15's suggestion of not taking a stance on it until more is known about the nature of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I, too, think this is the most reasonable course of action. I searched high and low, and I couldn't find any definitive statement from George Miller himself.  I did find all sorts of statements from journalists, ranging from reboot to prequel to "none of the above".  Since the film hasn't even been released yet, it seems a bit premature to start labeling it as one thing or another, especially when there's no consensus on what exactly it is or what the plot is.  As an aside, I think that plot summary is a copyvio. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail removal
Yes, the Daily Mail is a tabloid. Tabloid is the size of the newsprint, it has no bearing on whether it is a reliable source or not. If you feel that it is an unreliable source you should work to get it blacklisted as an unreliable source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Country
While the origin of Mad Max is Australian, and I understand the involvement of the U.S., I think it's important to credit Namibia in the "Country" section. If a film is made on location, the background/backdrop is as much a character in the film as, say, Charlize Theron in this case. I think this is especially important since Namibia was controversially not tread on as lightly as it could have been during the production of this movie. While a film production company may reside anywhere in the world, a film's set is incredibly important to the essential character of the film. As far as citing a source goes, it's beyond common knowledge that the film was largely shot in Namibia, as other verified parts of the Wikipedia entry attest. Crediting the film to the US and Australia makes it seem like the all-important filming location is an expendable afterthought. Think about how Australia is the country attributed to Mad Max 2. I don't mean to inflame an edit war, but in the interests of de-colonizing this entry, I think it's important in a nuanced way to credit Namibia as well as the countries where the production companies have addresses. --Yepmatt (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The edit warring over the country really needs to stop. I would say it's a better idea to neglect the country parameter for the moment until we have something more concrete. Funding a film is not the same as producing it, and does not necessarily mean it was a co-producing country (see The Lego Movie, co-funded by Village Roadshow Pictures but not listed as Australian). More than likely, the film will be Australian only, but we don't know that yet. Sock  ( tock talk)  14:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In the interests of avoiding an edit war, I would support "Australian", but I really don't think this is terribly important. Plus, like Sock says, it's a bit early to be making strong statements about anything related to this film.  Once its released, we'll have more concrete data.  In the meantime, maybe people could expand the production section with recent George Miller interviews instead of edit warring over the infobox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Countries shouldn't be added to the infobox unless they can be directly sourced. If Warner sent out an exec to "get the production back on track" it seemingly indicates a level of involvement and the NY Times lists it as an Australian-US co-production, so I would recommend either including both countries and using that as a source or ommitting both countries for the time being. Betty Logan (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good find, Betty! The NY Times article would be a good source for both, so we can at least have reference (heh) as to why the US is included. I'll add it in now. Sock   ( tock talk)  17:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Australian. It would still be useful to reach a consensus on the predominant nationality of the article, not that I care what to put (or not) in the lead, but  for date format and spelling reasons. -Oosh (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We have a source that considers it an Australian/US production, so in the absence of sources that state otherwise that is what we should stick with. The article should be written in Australian English given that its primary association is with Australia, and presumably the other Mad Max articles are also written in Aus English. Betty Logan (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Care to join the "D", since you were the "R", to my "B" (i.e. WP:BRD)? -Oosh (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be written in a Australian format, since its a US/AUS co-production. Koala15 (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So on that basis it should be written in American English then? As per MOS:TIES any topic—that is topic, not article—that has strong national ties to a particular country should be written in that variety of English (which also includes date formatting etc). Mad Max is essentially an Australian creation and icon—and therefore an Australian topic—so any article on the subject of Max Max should be written in Aus English. Betty Logan (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We have to use one or the other... and it seems pretty clear-cut to me that it's more Australian than American.
 * Therefore, I'll be re-instating my earlier changes to that effect shortly, unless any additional (and/or better reasoned) objections come up in the meantime.
 * -Oosh (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Filming section
There have been multiple edits blanking the "filming" section. The section is well sourced and no explanation has been offered. If there is an inaccuracy then it would be better to discuss it here so it can be discussed and fixed. Repeatedly blanking section is not the correct approach. Betty Logan (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not sure what's going on. I requested temporary page protection, but it was declined when the latest blanker got blocked.  If it continues, we can try again.  Maybe these are people involved in the film's production?  I guess we could soften some of the statements so that they're attributed to the source.  I just read the THR story, and it's sourced to anonymous tips.  It might be best to say, "According to anonymous sources quoted in The Hollywood Reporter, the film ran over-budget and had an executive from Warner Bros. sent to get the film back on track." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * These sources presumably aren't anonymous to The Hollywood Reporter though. Ultimately we trust the HR or we don't, and if we do then perhaps the sentence can be reworded as "The Hollywood Reporter reported that the film ran over-budget and an executive from Warner Bros. was sent to get the film back on track", or something to that effect. That said I'm resistant to alterations when the editor refuses to discuss the specific nature of the problem with us. Betty Logan (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That would be somewhat better wording, so I would endorse it. The bigger issue is the alleged environmental damage. Near the last portion of its report at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/05/mad-max-fury-road-namibia, The Guardian wrote:

The government-run Namibia Film Commission is concerned the negative publicity will damage its lucrative film industry.

Florence Haifene, the commission's executive secretary, said all the environmental requirements had been met. "We don't want a bad image painted of our country, especially when the allegations are unverified and untrue," she said.

In response to reports about the alleged damage, the commission placed a full-page advertisement in a state-owned newspaper denying the claims.

The coastal watchdog Nacoma (the Namibian Coast Conservation and Management Project) said the leaked report had been commissioned by the government in response to complaints during filming, but that it was just a draft that still needed to be finalised.

"[The leak] has been a bit of an embarrassment. It's difficult and premature to make judgments," said the co-ordinator Rob Brady. "It's still being reviewed by other scientists."


 * Some adjustments may be in order. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sounds like it. Did anything ever come of the leaked draft?  I can't find anything obvious online. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look like it. The article should be amended now, and updated later if anything more comes of this. The question is how much attention does this merit? We don't want to give it WP:UNDUE weight. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's still mentioned in recent sources, such as the Sydney Morning Herald in May 2014, but I don't see any evidence that it was more than an embarrassing leaked draft.  Our article gives the impression that there were official charges filed, or, at least, an accusation made.  We should probably follow the lead of the SMH and say that environmentalists, not a government agency, accused the production of ecological disruption.  The official website is www.nacoma.org.na, and they don't seem to have any info on Fury Road.  I'd say it warrants inclusion but not in such an official-sounding way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The only possible notable part of this is some environmentalists made the accusation and some press covered those accusations. I'm not even sure that is worthy of inclusion, but if retained it should be kept small, following WP:UNDUE, and it should be clear who is and is not making the complaints. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

New additions
Well, the new additions pretty much solved the dilemma for us, but they were copyright violations. I reworded them. After I modified the bit about the storyboards, I noticed that they had already been discussed in the earlier section, so I combined them. I also accidentally introduced American-style dates into the article. When I fixed that, I noticed that there wasn't any real standard for date format, so I converted a few ISO-style dates to European format. I don't really care which way it goes, and I actually prefer ISO-style dates, personally. Anyway, it looks like this is mostly resolved now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I put in the original paragraph on storyboards over a month ago. I have now added a Storyboards subheader, as it is quite notable and unusual. However, Miller did still (co-)write a traditional script after the storyboards were done, as is shown in the Collider interview. You beat me to correcting that recent addition. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * is engaging in egregious copyright violations. I have warned him on his talk page, but I think he may persist, as he called my fixes "vandalism" in one of his edit summaries.  The disruption on this article is getting a bit tedious, and I'm starting to lose my patience. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

25 years in development, yet development section starts in 1998
2015-25=1990. – 2602:306:C59C:3899:716D:8121:6555:B425 (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅. Thanks for pointing that out. I reworded that statement to avoid confusion and fit within the parameters of its source. – TFunk (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Identity of the Ghost...
I think the Ghost character does not belong to the daughter of Max, as long as his only child, Sprog, was a boy. Probably Miller could explore the reason why Max sees a girl rather than a boy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.163.81.186 (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI, the little girl credited as Glory the Child is apparently a character in one of the comic tie-ins. Four comics are coming out and the synopsis for #4 reads "an innocent girl, Glory, has also been kidnapped by the depraved Buzzards. By the time Max arrives, it may already be too late." She does appear to be someone Max tried to save before the events of the film rather than a mysterious new daughter for the character. http://uproxx.com/gammasquad/2015/05/now-that-youve-seen-mad-max-fury-road-check-out-whats-coming-in-its-prequel/

Edit rate of Mad Max 2 error.
Under the postproduction heading of the filming section it states that the edit rate of Mad Max 2 was "120 edits, at 1.3333 edit per minute", (compared to the Mad Max Fury Road at 2700 edits). This is obviously completely wrong. I know there is a link to the source, but it's not an authoritative source and the figure, the ridiculous figure, of 120 edits for the whole film, is either George Miller misspeaking, or a typo. Watch the damn film, there are probably nearly that many edits in the opening black-and-white montage! Verlaine76 (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅. After conducting further research, I have come to the conclusion that the source attached to that statement was either a typo or misspoken like you suggested. I have since found multiple other sources where Miller claims Mad Max 2 had 1,200 edits (not 120). Thus, I've corrected the statement with a new source. Thank you for your assistance in pointing out this inaccurate information. – TFunk (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2015
Nathan Jones as Rictus Erectus

106.68.199.212 (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

❌ - as the actor and role have been included in our article since 2012 - Arjayay (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Many years between the events of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome and Mad Max: Fury Road
I'm just curious as to how this movie, Fury Road, takes place many years after the events of Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus needed for genre in lead
As one would expect for just about any film, there is some dispute over the way the genre should be represented in the lead sentence—it keeps getting changed, references removed, no references added, etc. Rotten Tomatoes calls the film an action-adventure and horror film. Allmovie tosses it into the action bin. NYTimes calls it an Action, Adventure, Sequel. (Sequel is a genre? WTF?) The BBFC calls it action, drama. suggested at WikiProject Film that since the consistent genre is action, that maybe we should just call it a post-apocalyptic action film, rather than all the derivatives like "post-apocalyptic action-adventure thriller" and things of that nature. Everyone's going to have an interpretation that they hold dear to their hearts—maybe the way to go is simpler? (Thanks for the links, Betty!) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Post-apocalyptic action film" works for me. Betty Logan (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Grammar change requests
Created this as a new section for people to request grammar changes, as article is protected till at least June 2015.

Near the bottom of the plot section, I think "and trap Joe and his army in the Biker's canyon" should be "and trap Joe and his army in the Bikers' canyon". Plus not sure if Biker should be capitalised in the article - is it the proper name of the gang, or just a description as in "a motorcycle gang"?

Also, should Rig be capitalised the way it is? It's a general description, short for "war rig", which simply refers to any large armoured truck-like vehicle in the Mad Max universe, not a proper noun. 83.136.123.72 (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen the film so I can't really comment - but unless there's a special explanation for these in the film, your suggestions sound sensible. Popcornduff (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit suggested: Production > development: Replace "revolving Gibson" with "involving Gibson" Marbelc (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've changed "revolving Gibson" to something like "surrounding Gibson"., re your notes above, I've changed Biker's canyon to "Bikers' canyon". I haven't seen the film so it's unclear if the region is "Bikers' Canyon" or if it's "the Bikers' canyon". Also don't know about War Rig. I'll defer to an editor more familiar with the film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Plot edits
This section is to discuss the recent plot edits by Blue Rules. An explanation was given for the reversion, it was just ignored by BlueRules as it did not mesh with what he wanted. Hopefully this thorough breakdown will be enough explanation. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * " When Furiosa begins driving off route, Joe realizes that his Five Wives, Capable, Toast the Knowing, The Dag, Cheedo the Fragile, and The Splendid Angharad, who is pregnant with Joe's child, are missing. As the women’s ability to breed makes them vital to Joe’s society, Joe leads his entire army in pursuit of Furiosa, calling on the aid of nearby Gas Town, led by the People Eater, and the Bullet Farm, led by the Bullet Farmer."
 * The five full names are unnecessary and more than one of them is pregnant, and in saying they are pregnant this way it takes more words to say than "Heavily pregnant" later on.
 * There is nothing said in the film that the women have a rare ability to breed rather than that they are just attractive
 * There is nothing said in the film that being able to breed (not identified as a rare trait) is vital to his society, when it is more heavily implied he wants a normal male heir.
 * Why is it important that Gas Town is led by the People Eater? In your edit, you mention him twice, once to introduce him, once to say he died.
 * You introduce the Bullet Farmer, again wasting words to both introduce him, then remention him later.
 * "Nux joins the army with his mechanic Slit"
 * You introduce a tertiary character, then mention him again when dead. Not important to the plot.
 * "Furiosa loses her pursuers by driving into an approaching sand storm and Nux crashes his car when he attempts to follow her."
 * This isn't true, he manages to follow her, and she smashes his car, he doesn't crash it.
 * No mention of Max escaping or doing anything, just a blood bag, then wakes up.
 * " Max agrees to let Furiosa and the Wives accompany him."
 * Lacks word reluctantly which refers to his character
 * No mention of Nux returning to Joe, such that his next mention is boarding the Rig much later on.
 * " Nux boards the Rig while Joe attempts to shoot Furiosa. "
 * Unexplained and unnecessary change from "shoot" to "stop", making the next sentence make no sense except you change that to...
 * "Although Furiosa manages to escape again, Angharad perishes after falling from the Rig and being run over by Joe's car."
 * Does she manage to escape again? No she doesn't, Furiosa shields her, which speaks to both her's and Furiosa's characters and Joe not wanting to hurt them, you're being deliberately pedantic that she falls while shielding Furiosa, when per WP:FILMPLOT events need not be described chronologically, making sense is more important.
 * "At night, the heavy Rig gets caught in deep mud, allowing the Bullet Farmer to catch up with it. While Nux helps free the Rig, Max kills the Bullet Farmer, and takes his guns and ammunition."
 * We don't see Max do anything to the bullet farmer, for all we know he dropped a grenade on himself, nor do we know whose guns and ammunition he takes, none of this is shown on screen, so it is WP:OR
 * "Capable finds Nux hiding aboard the Rig and consoles him after realizing he is distraught over his role in Angharad's death. "
 * He's distraught the blood bag he brought contributed to the death of his idol's wife, not Splendid directly.
 * "Valkyrie, the woman", ", led by the Keeper of the Seeds, agrees ", "resulting in deaths of Valkyrie, Slit, the Keeper of the Seeds, and the People Eater, "
 * Pointless name drops just for the sake of saying they die.
 * I haven't seen the film so really I've no right to comment... but I generally support any edits that fight the prevailing urge to include unnecessary detail in plot summaries. Popcornduff (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What we really have here is Darkwarriorblake unable to let go of a personal grudge he has against me, all over something that happened over two years ago. He previously did not provide a specific explanation for why my reasons were reverted, only that the details I removed were "solid" and what I added was "unnecessary." By hitting the revert button instead of editing the article manually, he re-added incorrect information; the wife portrayed by Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is named Angharad, not Splendid. Splendid is her title.


 * *I agree the five full names should not be added on account of Max's full name not being used. My primary purpose of that edit was to ensure their names appeared as soon as they were mentioned. The characters have just been introduced, thus, they should be identified. Angharad is the only character whose pregnancy plays a part in the story, hence why I identified her as such. You don't see the current revision saying others are pregnant, do you? As long as I'm able to keep my revision under the limit, it doesn't matter if what I write adds words, because I know how to condense other portions of the summary.
 * *My edit does not say the ability to breed is rare, it says it's important to Joe's society. The current revision supports what I've written; it says the Wives are "women specially selected for breeding." Not specially selected because they're attractive, selected because they they can breed. Why is that acceptable if the film apparently doesn't support that statement?
 * * You just explained why their ability to breed is vital to his society. Keyword: "Joe's" society. Not society in general. Joe wants to ensure his society remains under the control of his own bloodline.
 * *In that same sentence, the Bullet Farm is mentioned. Since the Bullet Farmer reappears in the summary, identifying him as the leader of the Bullet Farm provides a concise description of who he is and eliminates the need to describe him later in the article. And if the Bullet Farmer is established as the leader of the Bullet Farm, then the People Eater should be established as the leader of Gas Town for the sake of consistency.
 * *Introducing the Bullet Farmer at the start of the article eliminates the need to identify him as "Joe's ally," which is what my edit did. He does not receive a re-introduction.
 * *No explanation given for why Slit is "a tertiary character;" he has a sizable amount of screentime and his name appears in the cast section. If you're going to mention a character in the cast section, you should also explain who he is in the summary. Otherwise, readers are going to have no clue who "Slit" is.
 * *Then here's a more concise description of what happens: "Furiosa loses her pursuers by driving into an approaching sand storm and destroys Nux's car when he attempts to stop her."
 * *Max does not escape during this sequence. Contrary to what it says in the article, he does not restrain Nux. Mad doesn't escape until after the car is destroyed. He does attempt to restrain Nux, but does not nothing absolutely crucial to the plot here. It's Nux who pursues Furiosa in the storm and it's Furiosa who stops Nux and inadvertently frees Max. Hence why it's acceptable to remove mentions of him in this sentence.
 * *Is the adverb absolutely necessary? The full sentence I created establishes it wasn't his intent to help Furiosa and the Wives. "Max steals the Rig, but after its kill-switch disables the truck, Max agrees to let Furiosa and the Wives accompany him." Keyword: But. If it wasn't for the kill-switch, he wouldn't have helped them.
 * *What makes Nux returning to Joe a vitally important detail? He actually first boards the Rig before Furiosa reaches the biker gang, gets thrown out of the vehicle, and is found by Joe's followers. His second attempt to get on the Rig is next the crucial thing he does, because it leads to Capable encountering him and his subsequent Heel-Face turn. Saying he returns to Joe isn't necessary because it's already established he's on Joe's side by that point in the movie and nothing in the article suggests he becomes a turncoat before Angharad's death.
 * *Joe's primary goal is stop the Rig and get his wives back, not just kill Furiosa. That's why "shoot" was changed to "stop." Eliminating the next sentence results in this change making sense.
 * *Wrong, Furiosa does escape again. She does manage to escape from Joe's pursuit, albeit at the cost of Angharad's life, as mentioned in my summary. Angharad shielding Furiosa is an unnecessary detail; it only occurs for a few seconds and adds nothing to the basic story. The problem with the current sentence is not that it doesn't describe the events chronologically. In fact, it technically does; Angharad shields Furiosa before she falls, as written in the article. The problem is it implies details that are incorrect. It implies Angharad falls while she's shielding Furiosa as the two events are written as directly following each other. Since describing the full sequence would involve too many words (Angharad falls after cutting a chain attached to the Rig due to her leg injury, not to mention Max shooting her in the leg earlier would also have to be described), it's better to just establish she dies without adding the things she did beforehand.
 * *We don't see Michael's men do anything to Tessio in The Godfather either, but the summary establishes he's "executed for his treachery." That's because it's obvious what happens to him, even when it's not viewed on-screen. Why else would Max have the Bullet Farmer's blood on him? If the Bullet Farmer dropped a grenade on himself, Max couldn't have been close enough to get blood on himself, because the shrapnel would have killed him too. At the very least, he contributed to the Bullet Farmer's death, and it should be mentioned the Bullet Farmer died. The article leaves his fate open-ended; the film didn't.
 * *This is another scenario where what I've written is reflected by the current revision- Nux is "distraught that he contributed to the death of Joe's wife" - and this information is somehow incorrect, yet still allowed to be in the article. Again, the current revision says Nux himself contributed to her death, not the "blood bag he brought." It's already been established that Angharad is one of Joe's wives, so saying he's upset over her death also means he's upset over the death of his idol's wife. Identifying her by name instead of "Joe's wife" eliminates another word.
 * *Valkyrie's character is already mentioned the article. She has a name, why not mention it as well? She's in the cast section, but just by reading this article, it's virtually impossible to figure out Valkyrie is the naked woman Max and Furiosa come across. The Keeper of the Seeds is also in the cast section, hence why she's worth identifying in the summary, instead of leaving her identity a mystery to readers.


 * Now I am open to compromise and eliminating some of the names I added. However, this would entail an actual compromise; edits I've made, such as removing the detail about Angharad shielding Furiosa, being allowed to remain in the article. Bluerules (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * BlueRules, only you are clinging to the past and simultaneously violating WP:GOODFAITH, your edit was undone with a reason, I can't write an essay in the edit summary, your version was poorer in every way and was part of a series of edits that had expanded the plot, so it got a plot tag put on it. A shorter version was put back at which point you reinserted your edits that removed a significant chunk of detail about the events of hte film in favour of a list of names, so it was put back again, with a reason. That you don't like the reason is not an excuse to say there was no reason.
 * First, no, just because you keep an edit under the summary does not mean it is a good edit. As noted, three times now, you removed huge sections of a precisely detailed plot to insert the names and deaths of insignificant characters. This is not a positive edit, under the word limit or not.
 * Per basic writing, it is neither necessary to introduce the 5 wives alongside 3 other main characters and a whole world in the first paragraph, nor beneficial to the reader when they can be introduced exactly when they are introduced to the audience in the film, providing an easy connect and flowing with the actual story.
 * Them being breeders is part of plot, Splendid's death is a part of the film it is not the pivoting point considering she dies less than half way through, your edit introduces her pregnancy as if she is a more important aspect of the plot compared to other things.
 * " As the women’s ability to breed makes them vital to Joe’s society," is not the same as "Five Wives – women specially selected for breeding – are gone". You don't know why they are vital, or what they are vital for. It also says it much longer.
 * So your solution to the Bullet Farmer being mentioned later in the plot to the existence of the Bullet Farm is to introduce another town leader for "clarity" so he can be mentioned later? The Bullet Farmer's position in the Bullet Farm is not important to understanding of the plot. Allies are called from Bullet Farm, and later in the plot, Joe's ally the Bullet Farmer goes and does stuff. Mentioning him twice does not improve the plot.
 * Max restrained Nux from blowing the car up, killing both him and Max and probably blowing up the Rig, so yes, Max escaping did actually do something and in no way did Furiosa accidentally free him.
 * Additionally to the above, Nux attempting to sacrifice himself just to stop Furiosa getting away is information about the larger world and what the War Boys will do for Joe. You're opting to remove world building information for inconsequential names.
 * Joe is trying to shoot Furiosa in the scene, he doesn't want to stop her, just the Rig.
 * Explaining this one for the second time. Per WP:FILMPLOT events do not need to be described in chronological order, ease of readability is the priority. Saying Splendid shielded Furiosa explains both that Joe won't hurt her and provides character information about Splendid, the wives, Furiosa, and their relationship. The current wording in no way infers that she falls because she was shielding, but even if it did, per WP:FILMPLOT, events do not need to be described in chronological order. Third time.
 * You don't quite seem to grasp the concept of WP:OR or WP:OTHERSTUFF. That the plot of the Godfather is written incorrectly does not support doing it elsewhere. We describe what is on the screen we don't interpret the events. Max walked into the dark, came back with stuff, it's for the reader to interpret that how they want. In no way do you, BlueRules, know that, that is even the Bullet Farmer's blood and not one of the several grunts he had with him which is just the tip of the inferring iceberg you're pushing with this.
 * No, saying he's upset over the death of Splendid is not the same as him being upset over the death of Joe's wife. He's upset BECAUSE HE FAILED JOE, not because Splendid died. Your edit changes the emphasis.
 * Lots of characters are mentioned in the article, it is not the purpose of the plot to identify everyone in the cast section so your point is moot. This, as told you you now TWICE, is introducving people for the sake of introducing them. This applies to Slit too, Slit does nothing in the film that needs to be mentioned in the plot so he is surplus to the requirements of understanding the plot.
 * Max being reluctant to take the wives and Furiosa is information relating to his character.
 * I probably missed one or two points, but know that I read it all and disagreed with it, considering you've just re-raised all the points I've already addressed. If you disagree with any of this feel free to ping the Film Project for input and let them make a decision, but do not just write a block of text to reply because I've already addressed these points twice now. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to expand on the characters outside the main story, try adding information about hte comics, those detail all the small characters in more detail. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are the one still clinging to the past. Here you are, determined to go against everything I wrote and listening to no one but yourself. Your reasoning to revert everything I wrote is not valid and it's still not valid. On many occasions (as will be seen below), you don't respond to what I'm actually arguing and you create a straw man. You won't even acknowledge the fact that the deceased wife's real name is Angharad and you continually removed that correct information.


 * 1. I did not say keeping an edit under the summary is a good edit. I said I know how to keep the edit under the summary, even when some my revisions add words, because going over the limit is usually a bad thing. The details I removed were unnecessary; you didn't even provide a reason for why the fight between the Bullet Farmer and Max's group should be as detailed as it is in this article.
 * 2. You said it yourself (and you say it again), "events do not need to be described in chronological order, ease of readability is the priority." So using the fact that the wives aren't physically introduced until after the first chase is not a valid reason to wait until that point in the summary to identify them by name. They're already mentioned in the opening paragraph; there's no harm in naming them right then and there.
 * 3. I mentioned her pregnancy because the article states her unborn child dies, so as long as that detail is there, her pregnancy has to be acknowledged beforehand. Since it's an aspect of her character, it should be mentioned as soon as she's identified, removing the need to re-introduce her, as the article currently does. I don't see how including her pregnancy at the beginning makes it seem more important than it really is; it's at least touched upon by the current revision, whereas Gas Town (also mentioned in the opening paragraph) is never mentioned again. And I'm open to removing that detail, although the fact that her unborn child dies would also have to be removed. I never said them being breeders wasn't important.
 * 4. One of the reasons you were attacking my revision is because you claimed "there is nothing said in the film that the women have a rare ability to breed rather than that they are just attractive." That is how my revision is the same in respect to what is currently said in this article; both establish the women can breed. Not in regards to the other reason you attacked it ("there is nothing said in the film that being able to breed is vital to his society"), the one you're still applying to it. It doesn't need to be established why this a vital ability, because it should be pretty obvious why breeding is necessary in a society. It does have more words, but they can be used to replace unneeded details.
 * 5. I said "consistency," not "clarity." If the leader of the Bullet Farm is mentioned, it's consistent to also mention the leader of Gas Town. As with the wives, there's no harm in introducing a character immediately by name, unless the character's real identity is supposed to be a secret, and that's not the case here. Saying he's the leader of the Bullet Farm establishes his position in the Bullet Farm, his status as Joe's ally, and the fact that he's connected to the Bullet Farm. The current revision only establishes he's Joe's ally, and it's done with more words. It doesn't harm the summary to establish who he really is, especially when it can reduce the word count.
 * 6. Max does not restrain Nux. The only thing he did was grab the flare before Nux could use it to blow them up, but it was Furiosa who stopped Nux for good by taking out his ride. And Furiosa did inadvertently free him; by wrecking Nux's car, Max became detached from it. How did you think he became free? He was still attached to the car before it was destroyed.
 * 7. What's the point of including that information when the article doesn't provide the full details of it? No mention of Valhalla, no mention of why Joe's followers are so fanatical to him. In order to properly build that information, you'd have to include the why, not just what Joe's people do for him, and that would risk making the summary too long.
 * 8. I didn't say Joe wasn't trying to shoot Furiosa, I said that wasn't his primary goal. Stopping the Rig involves stopping Furiosa because she's the one driving it. If you insist on being literal, the sentence could read "Nux boards the Rig while Joe attempts to stop it."
 * 9. This is the best example of how you don't read what I've actually written. My issue with the sentence has nothing to do with it not apparently describing the events chronologically. In fact, I stated the sentence is indeed chronological in its description of what happens, and you still ignored this and made a straw man. My problem with the sentence is it's misleading. "The current wording in no way infers that she falls because she was shielding" - blanket statement. No elaboration, no rebuttal to the fact that those events are written as directly following each other. "But even if it did, per WP:FILMPLOT, events do not need to be described in chronological order" - straw man. This is not about chronological order, this is about missing details and sentences that have the potential to misinform readers. Yes, the sentence provides information about the characters. But does it provide any information mandatory to the story? No. Angharad shielding Furiosa has no impact on the major event that occurs at the end of the chase; her dying. The scene where Cheedo tries to run back to Joe also provides character information; why isn't that mentioned in the summary? Because like Angharad shielding Furiosa, it's not important to the basic plot. I have a feeling you're still going to respond by telling me "events do not need to be described in chronological order," even after I blatantly inform you that's not what I'm arguing. It doesn't even make sense to claim I'm arguing that when the sentence I'm opposed to does provide a chronological description.
 * 10. You didn't grasp the concept of OTHERSTUFF when you first used it against me and still don't understand it. Did you notice that it's on a page entitled "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions"? It's focused on the creation and deletion of articles, not about how articles shouldn't be written like others. OR says nothing about how you can't write about events in a film that are blatantly obvious, even if they're not shown on-screen. Are you going to argue Tessio wasn't being led off to be executed in The Godfather? Your analysis overlooks the fact that the Bullet Farmer stops pursuing the Rig when Max goes out to confront him. Besides dying what, else would stop him? As I said before, Max at least contributed to his death.
 * 11. The current revision does not make it clear Nux is upset because he failed Joe. It can be read as him being upset over her death; after all, that's what the article is saying he's distraught over. If you want the emphasis to be clear, write Nux is "distraught that he failed Joe." And I don't understand why you won't refer to Angharad by her real name.
 * 12. So why do we even have that cast section to begin with if we're just going to include plenty of characters that readers will learn nothing about, including what happens to them? What's the point of making readers wonder who they are? Slit has a sizable amount of screentime, so it's alright to throw a few mentions about him; he's not a mere background character. I already told you the People Eater's name was added to for consistency mentioned above, not for the sake of just adding names. I added the Keeper of the Seeds' name because the group she leads is also mentioned. The fact that I did not add The Doof Warrior, The Organic Mechanic, and Miss Giddy proves I'm not adding the names just to add them. I understand not all character names can be added, but it's worth attempting to add as many as possible so there's less mystery surrounding characters mentioned in the cast section. What I like best here is how you completely ignored my reason for why Valkyrie's name should be added. She's already mentioned in the article, what's the point of not including her name when she has one?
 * 13. Like I said in point #9, not all information about the characters is necessary to the plot. And my sentence still implies he didn't intend to take Furiosa and the Wives with him, for reasons I mentioned above and you ignored.


 * To top it off, you make completely inaccurate assessment of what I wrote- "(I've) just re-raised all the points (you've) already addressed." Like I mentioned above, the inaccuracy of this statement is best evidenced by my ninth point. You blatantly misrepresented my argument and claimed I was arguing something I wasn't, something you could refute much easier and use it as "evidence" of me just re-raising a point you allegedly addressed already. I don't know whether you did this by choice or not, but either way, it's unfortunate that you will not accept contributions just because they're done by me. My focus is what takes place only in the film, the comics are their own entities. I'm still open to compromise and changing parts of what I've written, but that still involves an actual compromise between us, not you dismissing everything I suggest. Bluerules (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said, ask for input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, I'm not having a 9000 character per-turn debate-off with you, it's a bank holiday weekend and I'm not going to spend my little time away from work explaining to you why plot matters more than replicating the cast section in the plot. I've stated why I prefer the existing version, which is an amalgamation of various editors edits not just my own although the bulk is mine by virtue of being the first editor to add it. Also claims like "determined to go against everything I wrote and listening to no one but yourself" are again a very poor show of WP:GOODFAITH,and just an attempt to undermine an editor to strengthen your own position. I'm not going against anyone, you're the only person causing an issue, and further personal attacks that assign actions to my edits that are untrue and unfounded will be reported accordingly. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are still misrepresenting what I am trying to accomplish. This is not about "replicating the cast section in the plot," my edits do not involve listing every character in the summary and they do more than add characters. They also involve fixing incorrect information and removing unnecessary details about the characters, which provide an intriguing look at their personalities, but also do not take priority over basic plot information. At the very least, you should allow Valkyrie's name to be included, because she's already mentioned in the summary. Also at the very least, you should allow Angharad to be referred to be her real name. But you don't. You just hit the undo button when you see I submitted an edit. Not only do you argue against my edits and my reasons for them, you don't even acknowledge my real motivation behind my edits. Case in point, my reason for why the sentence "Splendid, Joe's heavily pregnant wife, shields Furiosa, but falls from the Rig and is run over by Joe's car, mortally wounding her and her child" should be removed. You claimed it was because I felt it didn't provide a chronological description of the events and even claimed this again when I established that wasn't my issue with the sentence. I gave my real reasons and you didn't listen to me. Want to prove this isn't personal? Why don't we come to a compromise then? Why don't we see if we can agree upon which characters are not needed in the plot summary and what character details can be removed? Why don't we take an objective look at the article and see if there's anything that truly should be changed? Plot summaries need all the help they can get. Bluerules (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not reading all that stuff above. What I know is that the ideal length for a plot description per WP:FILMPLOT is 400-700 words. We limit the word count not only to dissuade cruft, but to avoid possible copyright issues, should our excessive prose constitute a derivative work. This description is not intended to replace actually seeing the film, and these are some of the reasons why I tagged the plot section as too long. We should be providing a general overview, not rehashing every detail or twist, and this objective requires cuts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * BlueRules, I told you to go get input from the FilmProject. You've reinserted the bulk of your edits, ignoring that I disagreed with them not because of who you are (because I do not care), but because I disagreed with the edits. I've restored again much of the original content per the reasons above such as not introducing 9 characters and a fictional world setup in the first paragraph, and introducing the wives when they are introduced to the audience, I left Splendid as Angharad though the names are interchangeable and that was a petty squabble. Your edits are not the only plot edits that have been undone but you're the only person who has taken it upon themselves to take it as a personal offense rather than the nature of Wikipedia. I disagreed with your edits, I've asked you to get further input and you've opted to not to, likely knowing how it will turn out. Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, please refrain from continuing to reinsert edits without further input. And yes, "As the women’s ability to breed makes them vital to Joe’s society," does make it sound like breeding is a rare ability since it implies that all other women were not selected because they couldn't breed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You ignore my reasons for why the edits work in favor of the article and why it seems you're making this personal, yet you accuse me of ignoring you? With my last edit, I was attempting to find a middle ground between the edits I've made and the way the article is now by using some of my edits and leaving other parts of the article the same. I didn't even add any new character names, not even Valkyrie, and you're still undoing what I've written. Saying "Max escapes and restrains Nux" is incorrect. Max never restrains Nux, he only throws away Nux's flare. It's Furiosa who stops Nux for good in that scene. Max does not escape from the car until after it is destroyed. I don't mind if the word "reluctantly" is used so long as it doesn't cause the summary to go over the word count, but the sentences "Max steals the Rig, but its kill-switch disables the truck. Max reluctantly agrees to let Furiosa and the Wives accompany him" should not be separated; they flow better together. There needs to be a prior mention of Angharad being pregnant before it says her unborn child dies, which the article currently lacks. Does the fight with the Bullet Farmer need to be as detailed as it is? The nine characters being introduced in the opening paragraph are all crucial the plot. Technically, there already are nine characters being introduced; the Wives are simply not identified by name. The Wives do not need be introduced by name when there are seen to by audience; as you said it yourself, events don't have to be described chronologically. The sentence "as the women’s ability to breed makes them vital to Joe’s society" is still correct because breeding is vital to any society. The purpose is to establish their importance and they are important. You are not explaining how it implies breeding is a rare trait; the implication is Joe needs them. I take your reversions personally because I know you and see what you're doing. You are the only person undoing my edits. You allow my edit to Angharad's name stand, but still feel the need to attack it by claiming "the names are interchangeable and that was a petty squabble." Are Imperator and Furiosa also interchangeable? Would it be fine if Furiosa was referred to as Imperator in the article? Like "Splendid," that's her title. The edit is also consistent with the how the rest of the Wives are identified; Toast and Cheedo are referred to by their real names, not "Knowing" and "Fragile." After telling me to stop making personal attacks on you, you state I'm not asking FilmProject for input "likely knowing how it will turn out." I'm not going to FilmProject because right now, it's not necessary. This is between you and me. And you do not have complete control over this article. You do not have the right to revert any edits you are against, especially when you do not have a valid reason for reverting them. Working on this article is a collaborative effort and that is why I'm willing to not push all of my suggestions on this page. It's up to you if you want to continue making this a collaboration. Bluerules (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Jesus christ, "I know you and see what you're doing. You are the only person undoing my edits." I need you to understand this BlueRules, I do not care about you, I am completely and utterly indifferent to you or your existence, so when I see your edit in the history of an article I do not make it my mission to find a reason to revert it because you are of no consequence to me, so stop being a martyr, stop being paranoid, stop looking for an enemy to fight against. Your edits were undone for the reasons given, you not finding them valid does not make them so. I left some of your edit intact but you're still moaning. Max restrains Nux's arm and it stays restrained until the car is smashed, if it were not so Nux would have blown up his car and he and Max would be dead about 30 minutes into the film. Stop being pathetically pedantic over all these minute details. Imperator is a title, Joe refers to Angharad the Splendid as Splendid the first time he ever mentions her, is he referring to her by her title? I asked you to ask at the Film Project because it removes us from the equation, you have now spent, and forced me to spend an untenable and disgusting amount of time stating the same things over and over and over and I have no interest in doing it. So go ask the Film Project for input and until that time I'm not interested in you restating how they are vital to Joe's society because of their "ability" to breed, something that is common to every single bloody woman. If you don't get why it sounds stupid, I'm not going to keep explaining it to you. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Here we go again, you ignoring what you can't refute and listening to no one but yourself. You are the only person opposed to my edits here and you just so happen to be a person who has fought against my edits two times in the past, even bringing up the first scenario when you went against me the second time. You make statements that aren't even applicable to this situation (calling me a martyr) and aren't accurate (calling me paranoid when I recently settled an issue on the Jurassic World page and didn't take my edit being undone personally). I don't merely say your reasons are invalid, I prove they're invalid. You fight me tooth and nail on just about everything I submit and even when you leave my edits alone in the main page, you still attack them. You say I'm "moaning" when you're still criticizing the edits you left alone? Yes, Joe is referring to Angharad by her title. Notice how the Wives only call her "Angharad?" Max only holds Nux's arm for a few seconds before the Rig destroys the car. There's no way to confirm if Nux truly was restrained because he didn't have a lot of time to fight back. At the very least, you could say Max stopped Nux (for the time being), but saying he restrained Nux is a stretch. You also don't try to explain how Mad escaped because he didn't escape. He remains chained to the car throughout the sequence. You say I'm being "pathetically pedantic;" is it better to be inaccurate? Is it better to include information that is wrong than to ensure every little detail is correct? Yeah, the ability to breed is common to the female population in a normal world. This movie takes place in a post-apocalyptic wasteland where the environment is affecting the health of people. Even the current revision doesn't establish the Wives were selected because they're attractive. I could be overlooking something, but shouldn't Furiosa have become a wife instead of the Rig's driver if the environment didn't affect women's ability to carry children? Nobody is forcing you to respond to me, nobody is forcing you to undo my edits, and certainly nobody is forcing you to ignore the points I raise and repeat yourself. That's all on you. If you don't want this discussion to continue, simply stop responding. I am content with leaving most of the character names out and instead describe who they are in the cast section. However, I want the summary to flow better and not contain incorrect details. That is what my edits intend to do. I know you're going to claim that sentence about the Wives being vital to Joe's society because they can breed is incorrect, but at its core, it's accurate because they are important because their breeding abilities will give Joe a healthy heir. Would you prefer if it read "As the women’s ability to breed makes them vital to Joe"? Bluerules (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've told you to involve the FilmProject. I'm not wasting any more time on you, yours are not the only edits that have been undone, and you may notice that when I undid your edits, noone rushed to put them back in. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your refusal to listen to me only shows you're not interested in compromise and making this page a full collaboration. Users usually don't restore edits that weren't made by them, your point is? Bluerules (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to ping the Film project for you? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can do that myself. I want to hear the opinions of other editors on this page first. Bluerules (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm tempted to perform a non-admin closure on this discussion because I think it's going nowhere fast. Since it's also a giant text wall, which makes it very unlikely that many members of the community will want to read the entire thing, my recommendation is for Bluerules to start a new discussion below with clear examples of what he wants added and why, and invite WikiProject Film to chime in. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I'll start it up. Bluerules (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead
Oh yeah, Darkwarriorblake, go ahead and delete my unnecessary information. It's not like it'll help any confusion as to why the Citadel is first mentioned at the very end of the plot synopsis and is confusing to people that will read it without having seen the film. It's not like I've seen the film 3 times and they explicitly say Furiosa's convoy is getting both gasoline and ammunition from Gas Town and Bullet Farm. It's not like Nux being involved with Max stealing the rig has anything to do with the story. Oh and good call on saying that one guy's edit about the radiation is original research, I didn't have the guts to point out how unnecessary that bit was. Too bad you left it in the article. Cause apparently original research is more necessary than what is explicitly said on-screen. I don't want to make the same mistake again, is there like a page that explains the minimum details that should be added to film synopses? Scarabola (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Make my day

 * Instead of being passive aggressive here, use the edit summary to explain what you are trying to accomplish. I removed the OR and added an earlier mention of the Citadel for you. The rest isn't necessary, when she goes off road she's heading to Gas Town, that is the only part relevant to the story here, and Nux being involved in fighting Furiosa isn't necessary to understanding the story either, there's a strict word limit for a reason, we could go into lots of minute detail about the film and end up with Alley Cats Strike, but Nux's presence in that scene is not at all required to impart the knowledge that Max takes the truck and is forced to work with Furiosa to actually use the truck. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As well we need to keep the plot from bloating over the set word limit (i think its 700 or something). Any details that aren't necessarily important should be left out. Rusted AutoParts 21:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)