Talk:The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Thefastandthefurioustokyodrift bigearlyposter.jpg
Image:Thefastandthefurioustokyodrift bigearlyposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029205833/http://www.writingstudio.co.za/page1260.html to http://www.writingstudio.co.za/page1260.html
 * Added tag to http://media.filmforce.ign.com/media/665/665274/vid_1535879.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110815182201/http://www.briantyler.com/Site/Fast_Five.html to http://www.briantyler.com/Site/Fast_Five.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060707083322/http://www.michaelmedved.com/pg/jsp/eot/archives.jsp to http://www.michaelmedved.com/pg/jsp/eot/archives.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Unincluded songs on soundtrack
With the section concerning songs in movie but not on soundtrack, would it be too much to ask, and/or unencyclopaedic to include which scene that the song is heard in, such as | Kill Bill 2 soundtrack? Thanks --Sadistic monkey (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Video Game
Should there be something about the video games? There is a video game but i havnt played it yet. has any1 played it >? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.198.35 (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC) ...are you referring to the need for speed games because from what i know there is no fast and the furious games

Satire?
Is this perhaps the greatest satire of all time? Some aspects of the film are so ridiculous that is almost has to be. It is an awful film if you look at it like a regular movie, but as a satire it is awesome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.163.43 (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Spin Off?
I am not a member of Wikipedia but would still like to make a suggestion if you nice people don't mind. A spin off is considered different to a sequel, am I right? Maybe the intro on the article needs to be changed. As far as I know, it's a sequel. Anon Wiki Person.

Yes, it is a sequel and not a spin off. What do other people think? If nobody responds I will change it because it is incorrect. Universal call the film a sequel. Scoc716 21:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I might have to disagree. Since the film has almost nothing to do with the previous two movies one might have to consider it a spin off rather than a sequel. Daniel J. Leivick 03:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, a sequel to a previous movie is in some way logically connected (the audience learns how Brian is reintroduced into the first sequel to the Fast and the Furious movie (FnF). to the plot of the previous movie, or share similar plot characteristics. The first two movies in the Fast and the Furious series are related in that they not only participate in racing events, but also commit crimes such as rig-hijacking (FnF) and drug money laundering/trafficking (2F2F), and behind both of which the protagonist (Brian) participates undercover on behalf of the FBI. I see this film as a spinoff because we have new characters in a new setting, and the focus is on a "unseen" (from the American perspective) racing technique (and the culture and lives of the drivers) rather than a crime-related plot. And in this new setting, cops play a very passive role and make no attempt to enforce the prohibition of these illegal practices.

In summary, sequels should be logically related to the prequel (for lack of a better word). The new movie (FnF:TD) should be seen as a spinoff, or perhaps a new "episode" (as in TV series), mostly unlrelated to previous episodes, but still center around the machines fundamental to the story. The same goes for the production of Batman Begins or Star Wars Episode I as they are prequels to long-established pieces of work. Peter Shen 163.13.129.121 04:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fast & Furious 6 may have something to say on this topic Misterandersen (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

CopyVio
The original form of this article seems to have been copied from the Universal press-release for the movie. Is this a copy-violation? I suspect so... but then, dozens of news outlets have printed it verbatim, so maybe press-releases are public domain? Who knows? Maebmij 01:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Game link?
Where is the appropriate place for any information about the game of this name published at the end of this month? I think an article should at least be linked to somewhere on this page.

END IT
If you want to give your critic opinion, go to the Internet movie database or rotten tomatoes. As a reminder, don't make a personal attack on anyone. They may be wrong, but just tell them rather than fire at them. I'll be editing any phrases with personal attacks.Spyco 05:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Excised Rumors and Speculation repost
I'm reposting the info due to the cited sources embedded in the paragraphs. I will provide scans of the Modified magazine editorial for reference in a few days. Also, linkage to a site of spy video footage (which is common in the automotive world for new models and the like) that substantiates the Modified editorial in one aspect and a known website that clearly shows they have casted (and created) cars from all three of the F&F movies is more than creditable enough to warrant inclusion. Cantthinkofausername 23:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Then can we at least change the section title? It makes no sense for them to be 'rumours' now that they have been confirmed. --Stretch 10:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

song in the trailer
does anyone know what song they used at the end of the trailer?

the one with "almost over now" lyrics in it.

kthx :)

Dstan 09:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. I know it's N*E*R*D's Rock Star but it's not the Radio version. Anyone know anything else?

XP_V1

Problem solved, It's the Jason Nevins re-mix of Rock Star.

XP_V1

What's the name of the song that's played in the background as Neela and Sean are drifting with a group of cars through the mountains?

What are the lyrics to it? Does it sound anything like this: This is the slam/this is the one/we gonna do it like it ain't been done before/this is the slam/this is the one/we gonna spring you like you ain't been sprung? If so, then it is called "The Slam", and it is by rapper tobyMac. If what I put is not what you heard, I am sorry I could not help you. I know that song is on a trailer for that movie, as well as many other commercials. Later!!! Chili14 (Talk) 02:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow!
I just ADORE Keiko Kitagawa-san! I like her work, I hope she does well in this movie like she did in Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon. --User:Angie Y.
 * Thank you for your comments. While we appreciate your thoughts, for future reference, the discussion ("talk") pages of articles are not for comments about the topic, but instead for comments on how to improve the article or questions regarding editorial integrity. We are not a blog or discussion forum, and comments about the subject of an article are not appropriate here. Thanks! --Kevin Walter 14:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Promoting Sexual Tourism
There have been critics about some images in the trailer in which japaneses girsl touch the chest under the shirt of the main character and say: "welcome to Tokyo", that said it promoted sexual tourism. Should it be posted?
 * No, having just seen the film, the few sexual references were largely overshadowed by the rest of the film. Frankly, I don't even remember the scene you're referring to. No one is there to "welcome" the main character when he first arrives in Tokyo. --Kevin Walter 16:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Me Neither, I don't remember that ever happening. koolboi141 18:48 20 June 06 (UTC) dude what you smoking there is no scene like that even in the trailer - !16:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackjohnson15 (talk • contribs)

3rd Sequel Rumors and Projections
There is obviously nothing confirmed about a sequel this early, and the ending of this film wasn't seeming to hint at a sequel at all. Anything suggestive about a sequel anytime soon will be immediately removed. --Doctor Hexagon 20:34 29 June 06 (UTC)

Copyvio
The plot outline is directly taken from the Yahoo! Movies page for Tokyo Drift. (Link: http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808715999/details ). Someone want to do a re-write? --Stretch 04:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed rumor
Vin Diesel does appear at the very end of the film ~ Magicana

Did anyone see
Did anyone see


 * 1993 Nissan Silvia S13: Earl
 * 2000 Nissan Silvia S15: Boswell

Were they on screen for a second, had a body kit that changed the look, or did I just miss them?

The 2000 is the one Sean Boswell crashes at the beginning. Its silver with blue and red I think. It was originally Han's until he let him use it to race the DK. koolboi141 - 18:42 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw the film again and did notice that the "Mona Lisa" was an S15. I think what throw me off was that it was RB not SR powered. ZoliElo - June 22, 2006; 16:07 (UTC/GMT)

Some asswipe put S13 in the plot referencing Han's car from the first drift race in the movie, who lets these morons on the site? Anyone who knows anything knows it was a fucking S15. There's no fucking way anyone could confuse the S13 with the S15. One is a hatchback with retracable headlights and the other is a coupe which permanently exposed headlights. (SnakeEyesNinja (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

Koolboi, Han's S15 is dark blue with a big orange stripe on it. The orange stripe does have silver trim though. (SnakeEyesNinja (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

The 180km/h Police car problem
I've tried hard to research it, but i'm drawing up unverifiable sources. Would han's claim of "Cop cars won't pursue over 180km/h" be moot due to the useage of Speed Cameras? I know two play a minor role in the Chiba-kun segments in the Video Option DVD's.--293.xx.xxx.xx 23:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never known cops in Japan, nor have I seen the movie. But there are essentially two types of policies on police pursuits.  1. Restricted - whereas officers must have permission to initiated a vehicle pursuit, typically restricted to no more than two cars and supervisors must oversee the pursuit and is allowed to call it off if danger to innocents, civilians or officrs are in danger.  2. Discretionary - the officers on the scene make the decision about whether or not to engage in a pursuit, often times restricted to the number of cars involved.  Speed cameras don't make it a moot point, it certainly helps in apprehension if the suspect is successful in evasion.  Typically though, there's no set speed limit on a pursuit, if a murderer is doing 180 km/h on the freeway and isn't endangering civilians or other innocents, its possible that a police officer would initiate a pursuit. Batman2005 03:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Most Japanese cars have a factory-installed 180 km/h speed limiter. They can be removed, but I don't know the conditions. The vehicles in the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department that have still have the speed limiter are vehicles that aren't meant to go over 180 km/h (e.g. Toyota Hiace, Toyota Vitz), or aren't primarily used for pursuits (e.g. Nissan Cedric). The cars that are specifically meant to pursue street racers are de-limited. These cars include the Mazda RX-7, Nissan Fairlady Z, Nissan Skyline 350GT, Nissan Skyline GT-R, etc. --HashiriyaGDB 17:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

The car in the movie was a Toyota Crown.--293.xx.xxx.xx 08:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm from Taiwan, and the way they do it here is, they will track your speed and snap a photo if you are in violation of speed limit regulations. They will not attempt dangerous pursuits (why add to the danger to other road users?) and attempt to spin the runaway suspect out of control possibly onto traffic in the opposite direction, as seen on numerous USA cop-chase pull-over videos. Presumably the Japanese cops enforce the law in this passive manner as well. It is clear that the cop cars in the US are intended for speed chases. Peter Shen 163.13.129.121 04:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC) the factory tuned police car is true but there is no way that youcould get over 180mph/kmph in tokyo or japan mainly from what i know is tokyo if you listen to the commentary of the movie it tells aboutthatJackjohnson15 (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack errors
The soundtrack info listed track #2 as "Six Days" and was linked to Six Days, which is a completely unrelated article. I have the soundtrack and the track is actually titled "Six Days The Remix" &mdash; Also, track #9 was incorrect. The song listed was a different title and artist than what is actually on the soundtrack. I made the appropriate corrections. S3BST3R 05:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, you beat me to it. I just picked up a copy myself. :-) --Kevin Walter 14:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Audience's Responses
The so-called Audience's Responses have been removed as uncited and weasel words. Please do not add them back. --Kevin Walter 14:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

'''THEY ARE NOT WEASEL WORDS!

If you don’t want this page to be bias, than why do you only have negative reviews posted in the “critics’ response” section!?! This makes the film look horrible. I am writing about how it was perceived by the general public and fans of the series. Besides most critics are bias anyway. Everyone knows they have condemned almost all action movies, so by even posting a critics’ response you are being prejudice toward the genre of this movie. You better do something to illustrate the film’s impact on most of the people who have watched it, because trust me, in general they do not have the same idea of what a good movie is in comparison to the critics. And if you don’t believe me, read some of the user comments on imdb.com. Most of the people on there loved the movie and were pleasantly surprised with its quality. Now, if you want to remove the positive aspects of this film, than the only way to make the site truly “neutral” would be to also remove the negative reviews you are parading around!

Maybe you just want me to site my references. But tell me, am I really supposed to cite my colleagues, my friends, my family, my acquaintances and the random users of imdb.com?

And is not the general perception of a film on its die-hard fans (if not all of pop culture) worthy enough to be a section of this page? You people didn’t seem to mind the ones written on Jurassic Park III and on the Dirty Harry series. Can we at least post something on the box office success?

Until you come up with a better solution, I am going to restore this page's “neutrality” and place the Audience’s Response back in, only now I will label it “Fans’ Response” just to make a slight compromise. Hey, I’ll even take out the part about it being great entertainment.'''
 * The current wording does seem to avoid weasel words, however I think a rewrite of the entire "Reaction" section should be done, perhaps with a few more varied critic opinions (I believe Ebert & Roeper split on this film). I have still added the template. A citation should be made to a reputable source that discusses fan reactions. --Kevin Walter 09:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments.--293.xx.xxx.xx 05:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

'''Should I make a citation for imdb, since that is where I found both the box office and the reasoning for why the fans liked the film? If yes, how would I go about making one for it?''' - User 207.119.112.27


 * Audience responses did not come from reliable sources. The rules have become clearer since this discussion started, and user voted web polls such as IMDB scores are clearly not allowed.
 * The reaction/reception was an still is a mess in need of proper references to the original reviews (links to Rotten Tomatoes were not good enough), but I have made efforts to clean it up, but I still struggle to find many of the references that should have been included from the very start.
 * For example Ebert and Roeper At the Movies reviewed Toyko Drift on June 17, 2006. It was season 23 and episode 3. but no reference, not even an episode date was provided.
 * Still can't find a copy of that episode to check if the review quoted here is Roepers review from the show or from a separate print review. -- 109.76.137.43 (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Finally found it! From Cinematical a dead link to an MP3 but thanks the Web Archive has an archived copy of the MP3 which contains the review quote posted on Rotten Tomatoes. -- 109.79.184.240 (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Story Outline/Plot Outline/Whatever.....
Do we really need these two in the same articel when either one will suffice?--293.xx.xxx.xx 05:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is definitely a work in progress, so I suspect they are both there as a final plot outline is composed from the top (apparently copied from a press release) and the bottom one. --Kevin Walter 09:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A Sequel?
There is probably going to be a sequel but does anyone know anything about it being made yet or whats it going to be about? koolboi141 27 July 06 (UTC)
 * "Probably" is not the same as "has been confirmed and should be added to the article." --Kevin Walter 11:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

is there any truth to the rumors of this so caled sequel because from what i heard TD was the final movie of f&fJackjohnson15 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering what the word geijing meant if thats how you spell it??? if you can tell me email me at uraht101185@msn.com thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.202.66 (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Rumours
Do we still need the rumours from before the release of the film on here? --Stretch 06:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It was information from before the film was released, and the nature of the film did lead to alot of controversy and critisism. --293.xx.xxx.xx 12:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Even so, the 'Rumours and Information leaked prior to release' section is relatively pointless, as it mostly deals with what cars were suspected to be in the film. As there is a list of CONFIRMED cars in the film, why have rumours? --Stretch 07:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sean's EVO is a IX not VIII
Mitsubishi didn't make an EVO VIII in 2006. Plus the actual car is definitely an IX ( http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=115637 ). It's confusing though as the front bumper more resembles a VIII than an IX. A related note, it's one of a couple RWD EVOs. One of the customized rwd EVO's is used for Formula D.

Cast list
Most movies have a cast list, and I just want someone to make it. I just returned the movie to hollywood, and i just like it if someone who owns it to list the cast for me.

Plot outline
The way the plot outline Reads, it makes my brain want to leap down into my chest and strangle my heart so that I can't possibly read it again, and I actually fear it may have made me sterile. I'll start a partial re-write when I get back from work in a few hours, unless someone wants to start earlier. Churba 16:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The plot outline seems to ridiculously opinionated - yes, it may be an 'amazing' scene, but that's simply an opinion. Terms such as 'beats the crap out of' seem a little out of place on Wikipedia, too. Also, some of the descriptions seem to be wrong. For instance, when DK confronts Han at Han's garage, DK pulls the gun after their dialogue and the line "It's what we do". General clean-up would be appreciated. - Trick.

It is, admittedly, taking more time than I thought - But it should be up within the next three days, Brisbane time. Churba 13:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I did some work on the last paragraph. Petershen1984 12:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the work! There is a mistake in the outline. Twinkie does not give HIS money to Sean. It's clear in the dialogue that Han left the money for Sean. Sean CHOOSES to give that money to the uncle. 174.3.226.181 (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

it was a 70 plymouth GTX not a duster
here you said the car was a 70 duster but it really is a 70 GTX,ive owned 6 Dusters and 2 GTX's,the GTX is longer and wider and more boxed shaped then the duster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.100.202 (talk • contribs)
 * Yeh, I'm not sure what a duster is but this definately doesn't look like a 2nd generation Road Runner, it looks more like the 1st generation and this generation did not have the GTX option. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The car in the movie is 1970 Plymouth GTX, in response to the person above me, yes the GTX was available in the Plymouth lineup since 1968 from any dealership in America, you can tell it's a 70 because of the grille shape, in previous years the grill had slots where as the 70 grille was referred to as the honeycomb grille because the whole centre of the grille had tiny hexagons in it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braviary01 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Twinkie's Minicar is not a "toyota scion"
It's a VW Touran. Someone change it please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.223.128.45 (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Not a low-rider
I watch this movie last night. Seans Monte Carlo is not a low-rider. It is a race-car type. They show inside of the door and it is plain metal panel like a NASCAR race-car. Also it is vey fast with many mods. Low-riders would have none of this, but hydrolics and nice interior parts. I can take out the low-rider? Qué Chévere! 06:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hustlin'
Why is Romeo Hustlin' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ovenith (talk • contribs) 00:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Plot Summary
The current word count for the plot summary is 1,958 words. Come on, folks! That's more than twice the length of an average newspaper or magazine review by a respected film critic. My goodness, Ian Buruma writing in The New York Review of Books wouldn't spend that much time discussing the plot details...of anything, and he's known to write long film and book reviews. That section really needs to be cut by half, at least. Also, this text seems to ramble a lot as if it were written by a teenager who so loved the movie that every conceivable scene needed to be re-hashed for posterity. Please remember the old saying, "Less is more." FWIW, J Readings 11:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, this is taken directly from WikiProject_Films' Style Guidelines:


 * The plot section is made self-contained (and is a totally separate section designated by ==Plot==), so plot details and actor names already mentioned in the lead section, and/or mentioned in a cast section, are repeated here. Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a complicated plot. J Readings 12:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

cameos
Older versions of this article included more Cameo appearances. Apparently they were removed from lack of sources/citations? They are easily verifiable by looking up the pictures of the quoted stars, and they could be verified with the movie credits as well. Please bring them back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raduberinde (talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

lyrics of the songs
hi guys i want to know the lyrics of the song which was played at the begining of the movie i searched the whole internet site but i can`t find that song plz anyone help me out of this, if any one know the name of the song then plz send the mail at mosu_27@yahoo.co.in plz plz plz help me i like that song very much waiting for the person who is really helpful to me ok bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.162.222 (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Song at the beginning
Does anyone know the song at the beginning of the movie? it goes like... "It's only monday...." or sumthing like that.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.119.230 (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots
Any chance we can get a couple of free-licensed screenshots for this movie's article? I think it would help the reader visualize some of the characters, the race scenes, etc. J Readings (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

dumb links
why the hell are 'wrench' and 'pickup' linked here in the plot explanation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.12.219 (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Where did the details on the cars go?
Hey, where did that grid on the cars go? It gave all the specs on the different cars in the movie, with their drivers and the fabricators...

I could have sworn it was on this page, but now it's gone. Did we edit it out or is it somewhere else?

JMO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.127.223 (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Fisherman
I've done some digging in and as it turns out the Japanese fisherman in the film who comments on Sean's terrible drifting at the docks (Keiichi Tsuchiya) actually says "カウンターステアが遅いだな?", which translates to "Counter-steer is late, huh?" in English. In the film this phrase is subbed as "You call that drifting?", most likely because some, if not most of the movie's viewers wouldn't know what counter-steer is. →Wiki article on counter-steer.

Just thought it was an interesting tid-bit of information. BrenMan 94 (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC) this film is good

Does the article author know what "Cameo" means?
If Vin Diesel makes a cameo appearance, that means he is playing the character of Vin Diesel. If his character's name in the scene is not Vin Diesel in the scene, then it is not a cameo appearance.192.139.122.42 (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cameos are (edit) not by definition instances of a person playing themselves. Vin Diesel's appearance in this movie fits the definition just fine. -- Daniel  21:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually cameos are just brief appearances, often where the actors are playing themselves but not always. CHeck any reliable dictionary.  FOr that matter our own article on the topic makes this distinction clear in the lead. Millahnna (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, I missed a word. -- Daniel 21:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Too much description and unnecessary links
The article's plot is way too long and there too many links for things that don't need to be linked. I fixed it a month ago but it's been reverted and is worse than before. It needs to be reduced and those links need to be taken out. Jedi Striker (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Grey minds think alike. I just grabbed a version of the plot you'd edited before this happened (side note I check that IPs contribs every day that I hit the site for exactly that problem).  It's still a little long but I see some easy "film does this" type junk that can be purged to help with that.  Millahnna (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Prequel/Sequel
Han dies in 3rd film, but is well and alive in the following 3 films (until his death is shown under different angle in F&F6 post-credits scene). My offer to mention that F&F3 is chronologically set after F&F4, 5 and 6 was rejected: "there is no other mention of chronology beyond the exact and only meaningful statement that it takes place after the 6th film". However, Han's reappearance in F&F4 is solid mention of chronology (unless F&F is a sci-fi series where dead revive). My following offers were rejected: list the subsequent three films (not only the final one) that take place before F&F3, and offer to just say that 3 next films are set before F&F3.

So please let's discuss and find a way to mention F&F 3 as prequel to not only F&F6, but also to F&F4 and 5. There's always a way - it just needs to be found. Gevorg89 (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First, it cannot be a prequel, it does not take place before those films. Second, Han being alive in the two intermediary films has no bearing on this film or this article about this film. The sole conflict with those films is the living-ness of a single character, not an otherwise complex plot that hinges on understanding that three films take place in the order in which they were released. There is a single point to convey and that is that it takes place after the 6th film in the series despite being the third. All of the films bar the third take place in order, it is not a complex situation and does not need the other films listing to make it understandable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

How livingness of a character doesn't make a film prequel-sequel? F&F4 and 5 clearly take place before F&F6, and post-credits scene of the latter show it to be set before F&F3. If 1<2<3, doesn't it mean that 1<3? According to Wikipedia, "A prequel is a ... filmic work whose story precedes that of a previous work". F&F3 takes places after F&F6 (which you accept). But F&F6 had 2 prequels (by production and plot), F&F4 and 5 (hope you accept that). That automatically sets F&F3 after F&F4-6. If you still don't agree, please write why or what kind of proves (if character's aliveness in not-a-sci-fi-story films isn't enough) would persuade you. Gevorg89 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have very little idea what you just said. A prequel is a work set before a previous work but made AFTER the previous work. The Phantom Menace is a prequel to Star Wars A New Hope, it is not a prequel to Attack of the Clones. One film is out of sequence because they decided to bring the character back, the character is reintroduced in Fast & Furious, the only connection between teh presence of a character, is between this and the sixth film, it is only necessary to state that, it is not necessary to state that the sixth film follows the fifth and the fifth the fourth. How is this still a discussion? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This is still discussion because discussion helps avoid edit wars. Yes, what you said about prequel and your example are true. And F&F3-6 fit the description. In F&F3 we were introduced to Han. In F&F4, there was a Han played by the same actor, who was member of Dominic's band and also reappeared in F&F 5 and 6, with the latter's post-credits scene officially proving the latest released 3 films being 3-part prequel. This film may or may not be considered as spin-off or stand-alone film, but F&F4 is indeed a prequel (even EW mentions the films as prequels (1 ), as it fits prequel's definition - is set in earlier time than the previous one was released and was released after the previous one. Unlike our previous discussion, in this one topic is clear and non-ambiguous. But I think I've found severeal ways for a solution, mentioning that - F&F3 is set before F&F4, or adding to the current "set before F&F6" version the following phrase: "and its predecessors", or writing "set before three-part prequel/backstory [choose best]", or "3 films released later backstory to Han's character". The following 3 films being F&F3's prequel is clear. All we need now is how to mention that all following 3 films are prequels, as, like I said, only mentioning F&F6 makes one think F&F4-5 not being part of a prequel-story (which is not true). Note that it's currently unknown whether F&F7 will be set after or during F&F4, so I don't see there a necessity adding info about F&F7 (which you thought I'd do). So please, instead of discussing prequel/non-prequel, help me find a better way to mention this film being set after F&F4-6, if mentioning F&F4 instead of F&F6 isn't a solution. Gevorg89 (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The solution already exists, where it says that it takes place after Fast & Furious 6. You're creating a problem where there is none. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the one who creates problems - not my fault that my offers don't match your pount of view. As I already said, one can't guess from the already written that film's events take place not only after F&F6, but also after F&F4 and 5, if they read about film for the first time and are unfamiliar with the series. So, what's the problem just adding to your written couple of words that show that all 3 films following F&F3 are set before it, and not only F&F6. In case you're going to say that kind of mentioning is insignificant - in that case already existing F&F6 mentioning will also be insignificant. What about deleting film reference from the beginning of the article and adding info about being followed by prequel films in "Production"? Gevorg89 (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The lede is a summary of the article contents, it states the film takes place after the 6th film. As nothing else is true, that is all that needs to be stated, it does not take place between or after 4 or 5, it takes palce after 6, where 6 falls in the line of succession does not matter. So yes, you are creating a problem to solve a question that has not been asked. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

How nothing else (i. e. F&F4 and 5 taking place before F&F3) is true? I repeat, if 1<2<3, then 1<3. F&F 6 is set before F&F3, as seen in the post-credits scene. But there were two films released before and set before the 6th part, as seen by attentive viewers. For those who are non-attentive, didn't see the film series or just forgot, I'll remind. F&F4 ends with Dominic's band going to free him. F&F5 continues from the same place, thus making it a continuation of F&F4. F&F6 continues some time after F&F5, as seen by Letty's photo in the end of F&F5 and it being shown to Dominic in the beginning of F&F6. F&F6 ends with F&F3 crucial scene being re-shown under the different angle, thus proving F&F6 (and thus F&F4 and 5) being set before F&F3. So why not mention that before F&F6 there were two more prequel films? Or you don't recognise those films as prequels - taking place before the previous film's events just because they had their own sequels? I still don't understand the logic. Gevorg89 (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah so much like the discussion at Captain America this is going nowhere because you don't acknowledge anyone else's opinion. On Star Wars A New Hope it is not necessary to mention that there were three films made later that take place before it, in fact NONE of those films appear to be mentioned on that film's article. The films are numerical in order, by simply saying that it takes place after the 6th film we are making people as aware as they can be. And since the first and second films ALSO take place before the third film, should we mention them being prequels as well? At this point I think you are being deliberately obstructive because you cannot not be getting this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

But you also don't agree anyone else's opinion. Also I remind you that in Cap Am's case, though not in the plot, but it was eventually mentioned of the final scene's real status. About Star Wars - I didn't watch the films so I won't discuss what is/isn't or should/shouldn't be mentioned in their articles, especially here. Also I must remind that the discussion is about mentioning that F&F3 takes place not only after F&F6, but also after F&F4-5 (I didn't say anything about mentioning F&F1-2). About deliberate obstructing - blaming others is always easy. I started this discussion to find acceptable way of mentioning the chronology of the series and not for reading accusations instead of arguments. Did I correctly understand your point of view - as no F&F3 scene is present in F&F4-5, like it is in F&F6, then F&F4-5 don't take place before F&F3, no matter that they take place before F&F6, which is clearly set before F&F3? Please don't avoid discussion - write (clarify) your arguments and not personal blamings for not sharing your point of view, as anyone not agreeing with the written in any article may be blamed in non-constructivity for changing what already is. Gevorg89 (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't avoided discussion, I've answered and ended it multiple times you're just not happy with the result. You seem to find it illogical to say that the third film takes place after the sixth, and are concerned that people will be confused by the order that 4 and 5 then take place in. I have stated that it is unnecssary to mention any other film but the sixth because other than that it plays in released order. Your inability to comprehend basic numerical ordering is getting tiresome, post on the Film Project for further input, don't write me personally a lengthy response because you are repeating the same thing over and over. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen these films but is it known for sure the other parts are all in the order they were made? For example, would it be possible for another film to come out in such a way that the 4th and 5th films turn out to come later in the story, or does the 6th film reference the events of these films? Betty Logan (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The fifth film carries on directly from the fourth, and the sixth directly from the fifth so it is unquestionable that they, and the first and second and in chronological order both in terms of plot and release. The third film has been retroactively chronologically altered by the presence of a single character who died in the third film but appears in 4, 5, and 6, so it isn't some deep plot thread that is out of order, which is why my argument that the sixth film (which features a coda referencing the death of that character in the third film) is the only one that needs mentioning as it reasserts the film's plot placing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree we don't need to tick off all the films it is set after because it's a bit of a mouthful and not all that nescessary for a series that is mostly made in order, but for readers who have never seen the films it wouldn't hurt to be explicit either. Couldn't it be worded something like "It is the third installment in The Fast and the Furious film series, but is the sixth part in the series' internal chronology, set after the events of Fast & Furious 6."? Would either party accept that? Betty Logan (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

TW
It's not relation Twinkle to add important cast. So don't revert it.--Ferrari è grande (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox film. Cast go in starring per and only per the billing block on the poster. Who you think is important is irrelevant. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * poster? It's not normal rule about Wikipedia.--Ferrari è grande (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I just posted you to the rule about it, on Wikipedia. So yes, it is normal rule on Wikipedia, and continuing to edit war over it will see you reported to the administrators. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You have also did edit war. It will see you reported to the administrators, too.--Ferrari è grande (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BRD regarding the process cycle. Please also note that as per the infobox instruction, we use the cast billed on the poster in the infobox.  Extended cast lists can be included in the main body of the article.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're editing-warring, Ferrari è grande. Both you and Darkwarriorblake are strongly advised against editing the page for the next day or so. That being said, only the top billed cast belongs in the infobox- it's pretty inherent, actually. D arth B otto talk•cont 18:24, 09 September 2013 (UTC)

Asian Americans
Found a book excerpt which uses FF:TD as an example of Asian American representation in film. Might useful as a source if anyone wants to try and write analysis or a "Themes" section for the article. (Also it fascinates me that this film is being deeply analysed at all.) -- 109.76.137.43 (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Unlikeable clown
Deleting without explanation fails to follow the basic rules of Wikipedia and is almost indistinguishable from vandalism. Edit summaries should be used to explain changes, especially deletes.

Collider.com points out that a minority actually like this film despite its shortcomings, and appreciate the introduction of the actor Sung Kang and director Justin Lin to the franchise. I don't want there to be undue emphasis on praise for a film that received what can at best be described as "mixed reviews" but I do think this is a fair summary of the minority opinion, which is supported by the sources, and should not be deleted. Rephrased perhaps.

That same article also included a harsh opinion of the lead character saying the film "hinges on a lead character who is an absolutely unlikeable clown and may be the worst driver in the world", which I toned down to simply say the lead character was unlikable. I think it is fair to say other reviews were not positive about Lucas Black and his portrayal of Sean Boswell, and based on the sources available "unlikable" seemed like a fair and reasonable way to characterize those opinions (personally I'd go with the harsher assessment, but for an encyclopedia article I am deliberately taking a more neutral tone).


 * We can discuss adjusting the wording.
 * We can discuss if it might be necessary to qualify the opinion and say "according to Collider.com" or some other caveat

Please note WP:BRD Bold, Revert, Discuss. Deleting is unhelpful and does not improve the article but until we can come to some consensus about changes, I will revert the article to WP:STATUSQUO. -- 109.79.178.201 (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * In case there was any doubt that only Collider was saying the lead was unlikable:
 * Ethan Alter, Premiere magazine: The problems with Tokyo Drift start with its ostensible hero; during the course of this movie, Sean makes so many dumb decisions it's a wonder that anyone wants to be associated with him.
 * Matt Singer, Village Voice: Like 2 Fast 2 Furious before it, Tokyo Drift is a subculture in search of a compelling story line, and Black's leaden performance makes you pine for the days of Paul Walker.
 * Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle: But it quickly tanks, thanks to a lead character with no goals, focus, appeal or intelligence and a lead actor who's just a little too convincing at playing a dunce.
 * Brian Clark, Austin Chronicle: Worse, Boswell is possibly the dumbest, least charming protagonist to ever grace this sort of film.

That's just a few of the reviews that found it necessary to actively and directly criticize the performance of Lucas Black, there are plenty of others reviews that generally criticized the cast (and of all the cast only Sung Kang got positive notices, with a few calling him a scene stealer). -- 109.79.178.201 (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewers and fans disliked the film as it stands alone from the rest of the franchise, in terms of location and cast, with an unlikable lead character, but some appreciate it for introducing Sung Kang and Justin Lin to the franchise, and enjoyed the simple story, stylish direction, and that the film never takes itself too seriously.

The whole sentence itself needs rephrasing. Unlikable lead does not make sense without context when the next sentence praised the new director and actor. Who is "some?" Shencypeter (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Deleting is very different from rephrasing. My objection was to an editor deleting without any explanation, and another editor repeating the delete instead of restoring the WP:STATUSQUO, seemingly without even having checked the sources.
 * By all means expand and clarify the text, more detail and more context is fine by me. I thought it was a little strange too, but I checked the sources, and there was no justification for deleting it without any explanation. (Perhaps the sentence was too long, but some "reviewers and fans" disliked various things about the film, and some other "reviewers and fans" said some good things.) I agree it could be better. -- 109.79.178.201 (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW the first version of this particular paragraph under discussion was added in July 2019. It has been through many small adjustments since. -- 109.79.178.201 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe we can cut everything and begin with "When critics rank the movies against each other, it has often appeared on the bottom of the list. Over time, it has become a favorite with some fans, and it has been placed in with the top four by some critic rankings, and even at the number one and two positions by others." Reasons: Shencypeter (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All this discussion to justify unlikable clown when named reviews already criticized the plot and acting is just overkill.
 * Tokyo Drift was initially seen as a departure from the series having no other main characters from the first two films. A few prequels later Tokyo Drift got lukewarm reception because of how Han was written into the family, killed off by a now-identified villain, and yet he survived for Fast 9.

I was forced to start this discussion by people deleting with no explanation. Deleting a chunk of text is a lot easier than trying to rephrase, but I would still encourage any editors to try and rephrase the section.

I think it is a better summary of the sources to say people appreciate the introduction of the actor Sung Kang and director Justin Lin. Later in the same paragraph, the secondary attempt to explain "With the film series becoming more action dependent, and incorporating less realistic storylines, the simplicity of Tokyo Drift has become more appreciated by critics" is not so good, but I accept that it can be difficult to provide a good but short summary. It is difficult to succinctly convey information from the reviews like FF:TD "is the one that feels closest in spirit to genuine car culture". -- 109.79.165.105 (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I still don't see value in particularly emphasizing unlikable lead character. It's as if Wikipedia is saying the 737 MAX is unfavorable, to whom? passengers? It depends on perspective. The narrow body jet will be main cash cow for Boeing and airlines in a post coronavirus world. Just to make a point. Shencypeter (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have encouraged editors to try and rephrase the section. I still encourage you to suggest a different phrasing.
 * Deleting without any explanation as some anonymous editors have done was unacceptable.
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good reason for deleting something. Eventually and belatedly making the very bare minimum effort of good faith it requires to provide an edit summary, and deleting claiming the text was "baised" is a start, but WP:BRD. The wording is objective and supported by sources, as I have shown. I don't think there is any WP:UNDUE emphasis.
 * Anyway I have made several changes to the critical response section as a whole, and changes to the particular section we are discussing. I think it changes the emphasis a little but not too much.
 * Again, I still encourage you to suggest a different phrasing. -- 109.79.65.28 (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Removed, hear me out, you don't need to make generic references to named reviewers, what about unlikable character or bad location? Who said all these things? It's not wikivoice. Is it really that important in the middle of a paragraph about how fans are liking the movie better because of the changes over several prequels?  Shencypeter (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I asked you not to delete. I asked you repeatedly to rephrase or suggest alternate wordings. You didn't make any suggestions, you went ahead and deleted anyway. I don't think that is a productive or fair way to engage in a discussion. It still doesn't seem like you have read the Collider.com reference directly at the end of the sentence you trimmed, even though I linked it and quoted it above, at the start of this discussion. Not that it matters, as I've expanded the Critical response section with more detail from contemporary critics, and I think the good and the bad aspects of the film are more clearly covered, so the negatives don't need to be repeated. (The Critical response section might benefit from one or two more positive review for balance if they say something different than the positive reviews already included. If I can find the review that called Sung Kang a scene stealer I'd include that too but I don't recall where I saw it.)
 * On a slightly different note, it might be better to move some of that critical reappraisals into a separate "Legacy" subsection, since it is talking about retrospective reviews not contemporary reviews, but maybe it is too short for its own subsection. -- 109.79.65.28 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

It's fine when you quote someone saying the protagonist is unlikable, it is not acceptable for Wikipedia to judge a character as unlikable. Like I said, when it depends on context and perspective, it ceases to be WP:NPOV. At least one other editor agrees. Shencypeter (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You failed to explain adequately earlier that you wanted it to be clearer that it was a quote saying the character was unlikable, I even suggested adding the caveat "according to Collider.com" if someone really thought the source needed to be explicitly stated in the text. "At least one other editor agrees" but that isn't clear either, you're assuming the an anonymous editor is deleting without explanation indicates agreement.
 * Anyway the "unlikable clown" will be back in Fast & Furious 9, maybe as a supporting character he'll be put to better use. Hopefully they wont repeat the mistakes of FF7 where he stuck out like sore thumb, he was already too old for the character in FF3 and by FF7 it was ridiculous. -- 109.79.81.162 (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * His name is Lucas Black and Sean Boswell, unlikable clown is what you want to say on the page and you can't! Shencypeter (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "While many critics disliked the film, as it stands alone from the rest of the franchise, in terms of location and cast, with an unlikable lead character and a generic plot,..."

The statements are undisputed but they do not coherently fit between the paragraphs. Too generically sounding to be noteworthy. The film, Location, cast, unlikable character. Shencypeter (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Vehicles
I was trying to check and improve the references of the Technical section and was eventually able to find some archive copies and fix the dead links. Here are some more related articles I found about the cars and the film:
 * Screen Test, Road Test: The Cars of Tokyo Drift
 * Behind the Scenes of The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift
 * Faster, Furiouser and Camera Ready

Maybe I can find a way to add them later. -- 109.77.193.6 (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tokyo Drift (Fast & Furious) (song) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Tokyo Bikerz
Biker Boyz 2603:80A0:D40:6C:B4F0:6144:1D71:B144 (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Lack of credits in lead
TLDR: Lucas Black and Bow Wow only ones credited in lead; can this be changed?

So I noticed that there is a notice on the page (only editors can see this) where only Lucas Black and Bow Wow can be credited as they were the only ones credited on the poster. I could see the reasoning for that and it does seem to be a precedent, but it is admittedly jarring for there only to be 2 actors mentioned in the lead, especially considering that there are 3 others on the poster (Sung Kang, Nathalie Kelley, and Brian Tee) and they also took up substantial screen time. Is this short credits by any official policy, and if so, can anything be done about this? Template:Infobox film states that an “alternative approach may be determined by local consensus”, so could we change the lead and infobox to include everyone depicted on the poster? Thanks. Dantus21 (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Unrelated side note, but many of these discussions could probably be archived as they’ve been inactive for years. Idk if non-admin are allowed to archive so I asked first Dantus21 (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dantus21 Fyi, I have setup archiving bot to do that, I don't see it as controversial hence just be WP:BOLD.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  04:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I did so and it got reverted by @User:NinjaRobotPirate, which is when I noticed the hidden note in the editor page. Does this hidden note have any merit? No Wikipedia rule (or any talk page consensus) was mentioned with it Dantus21 (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dantus21 To clarify, the BOLD I was referring to your latter comment pertaining to discussions' archival not pertaining to your former comment about the content. As for your former comment, the community (at least according to my knowledge ... I think it's written down somewhere officially but I forgotten where ... maybe you want to read through MOS:FILM to see if this is where it is written otherwise it's likely based on consensus through some discussion(s) on say WT:FILM or elsewhere) rule is to always list down whoever is credited in the poster.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  07:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's at MOS:FILMLEAD and Template:Infobox film, [the lead] should identify other remaining elements, such as the director, the star(s) of the film... ...[infobox#starring] Names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release...
 * Maybe there's room for exceptions, Sonny Chiba is listed on the poster but not mentioned up top. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the links @Paper9oll and @70. I checked the template and it does state that an “alternative approach” may be considered by local consensus. I definitely support this page using an alternative approach of listing the actors on the poster, as they all have substantial screen time (how would you find a source for this? I could watch the movie and count minute by minute but that might seem redundant) and Black and Bow Wow aren’t the only main characters in the film, even if they’re the only ones billed by name. What are your thoughts on this? Dantus21 (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to it, I certainly think it's more warranted than the international AKAs and title stylizations some editors feel should be mentioned in this franchise. You might get more leeway for the lead rather than the infobox. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)