Talk:Back to the Future/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Music

I added quite a lot of information about the soundtrack to this page, but TheRealFennShysa removed all of it. I had used links from Amazon to verify my information, and Shysa says that those links shouldn't be used as reference. Fair enough, but that's the only online source I could find to confirm the facts. For instance, the fact that the 1999 soundtrack album was recorded by the Scottish National Orchestra is clearly listed on the Amazon page. I've now substituted a link by allmusic.com, but it's not clear at all from that link who did the recording.

Anyway, my point is not to argue with Shysa, but simply to ask if anyone knows of any better links that can confirm this information. I've moved my text over to the page for the soundtrack album, where it fits better anyway. Thanks! -- Tom H12 (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Continuity

"In addition, the "To Be Continued..." caption was not added until the film was released to video."

I saw this movie in the theater as a kid, and I remember being quite excited when the words "to be continued" showed up at the end of the movie. I know that this is a referenced statement, but it is still wrong -- yes, even the BBC can make mistakes sometimes. Maybe the caption was added later, but it was not all the way until it was released on video. 24.59.148.187 21:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I was pretty sure I heard this factoid as well. Is there any other reference to this that can be made? I'm sure the user above could have been mistaken, or could have seen the film in theaters in a late run or something? TheHYPO 19:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Zemeckis and Gale said on the commentary that there was no caption. Alientraveller 19:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Zemeckis and Gale could be mistaken too. Note that in the archives of this discussion several other people have noted the same. So... rather than waste time and effort hashing it out here, I'll nuance the statement to what we know is true: the Zemeckis and Gale claim it was not there. 24.59.148.187 (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What archives? I'm actually confused in that the archive box on this page has no archives; also /Archive, /Archive, /Archive 1 don't seem to exist as pages. Where are the archives? I also am weary of your approach. The filmmakers should have final say as an official source. A few readers remembering something from 30 years ago should not be given credit against a secondary source associated with the film. It's as close to primary as we can get in this era, I would think. TheHYPO (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

HYPO, the movie was released in 1985, it is now 2008, that is not even 25 years, barely 23. Yes, the film makers SHOULD have final say, except that they didn't make the commentary right after the film, like most films now a days, but many of years later when they were producing the DVD version, thus they might have forgotten if they had used it or not if it was one of those one wanted to use it, the other didn't. I would say it is still up in the air on debate, but as for now, list the "facts" of published media, unless someone has a bootleg copy from 1985.[[User: IkeRay]IkeRay] 09:24, 6 March 2008(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikeray (talk • contribs)

Which reminds me...where did the other talk threads go? Eaglestorm (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, theHYPO, try this-Talk:Back_to_the_Future/archive1, can someone put them in the archive box above? Eaglestorm (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I have to add to this that others haven't already done, but I am one of the many people with memories of seeing the film in the theater in 1985. A year later, my parents got me the video, which I watched over and over, and I distinctly remember seeing the "To be continued" sign, which excited me tremendously. (I believe this video is still somewhere in my parents' house, so I could check.) Unfortunately, I cannot remember whether that sign showed up in the theatrical version I saw. I was only eight at the time. marbeh raglaim (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents, in case the subject should come up again: I saw the film in the theaters in 1985 as well, and there was no "To be continued . . . " on it. The following year, I saw it on pay-per-view, and that was my first instance of seeing "To be continued . . . " on the film.

It's not theoretically impossible for Universal to add something to the film during its original release, but I imagine it would be prohibitively expensive to recall all current copies of the film out in circulation and send out new ones with the added text. It would also seem pointless for them to send out tiny reels that are only 10 seconds long with that text needing to be spliced into the film.

The version I saw on pay-per-view is probably identical to the version prepared for home video.

Also, I saw Bob Gale give an interview in Dec. 2002 just before a screening of this film in Hollywood. (The screening was to celebrate the arrival of the films on DVD.) At that time, Gale said something to the effect of: "How many of you remembering seeing the 'To be continued . . .' when you first saw the film in the theaters?" (looks at rasied hands in the audience) "Well, you're all lying. We had no idea there was going to be a sequel! We added that line for home video."

It's possible that Gale's memory is faulty, but he would most likely have been in the editing bay when it happened. It's far more likely that viewers' memories are faulty based on years of having seen the revised version. Memory is a funny thing: some people insist they saw the missing Biggs scenes in the theaters while watching Star Wars in 1977. In fact, the Biggs scenes were in the novelization, the radio drama and (I believe) the comic book adaptation, which led to the false memory. Just food for thought. -- Tom H12 (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Cartoon

Just wondering why the fact the movie inspired a Saturday morning cartoon was omitted. Heck! I can't even find a referece to the cartoon on Wikipedia. That is just so wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.4.65 (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's at Back to the Future: The Animated Series. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 03:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sidebar discussion

I have begun a discussion at Template talk:BttfSidebar about the possibility of replacing the sidebar on all bttf pages with the much more efficient navbox template which I have just completely rennovated. Please share your opinion there (not here) and if there is no objection (or consensus for objection), I'll start replacing sidebars with navbars. Cheers. TheHYPO (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"Academy Award-winning"

Where does it say it won an academy award?--Dch111 (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/awards -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was just confused when I didn't see it in the article itself aside from the first paragraph. --Dch111 (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

DVD Release

Has anyone ever heard of that "304 minutes April 1st DVD Release" thing? I've searched the net and couldn't find anything release to this. Am I the only one who think this is an April Fools' joke? -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have heard of self-made DVD's with all three movies cut as one available for download (illigaly of course), but never heard anything of an official release as such. Doc Brown (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice the date of release? It is an April Fool's joke. Nutster (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "gigawatt"

The article currently reads, "The metric prefix "giga-" is now part of everyday speech due to its use in computing and is now most often pronounced with a hard g, even though the official (NIST) pronunciation is the soft g."

I questions that "giga-" is "now most often pronounced with a hard g" ("jiga-"). The common use of the prefix in 2008 is with a soft g, as in "girl".

Comments? KBCraig (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, "girl" would be a hard "g". WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Do the British pronounce giga as jiga? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the debate currently going on about gigawatts vs. jigawatts, please visit the official BTTF site and click on "Movie Trivia". One item of the menu reads "1.21 Gigawatts". I'd put it as a ref but it requires steps to reach the info. -- Lyverbe (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently it is listed as jigga watts. I remember hearing on an NPR interview that the producers were unsure how to pronounce giga- as it was not in common use in 1985. As a result, they called a scientist who gave them incorrect information. I have changed it back to giga-. -abefroman abefroman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC).

Why the redirect?

Marvin Berry & the Starlighters redirects to this article but there is no mention of "Marvin Berry", the "Starlighters" and not a whole lot of "& the". Why not just ditch the redirect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The article once had more info on the character, but it was later changed to a redirect. Perhaps we should put the old text of the article into "Minor Characters" page and redirect there instead. -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No Need to protect this page.

The good faith edits that were made by User:69.212.211.7 did not constitute vandalism. So why was the page protected? So that an editor who is not vandalizing a page will not add information that you don't agree with? User:WikiKingOfMishawaka has made the claim that the issue has been settled in his favor [1], then makes the claim that it is settled. Yet there is no discussion, although he says there has been. User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry protected the page and said it was because of vandalism, yet I have seen none.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Universal Picture Film category

Could someone please explain to me this "subcat" thing? When I go to the category "Universal Pictures films", I see BTTF 2 and 3 listed, but not 1. This is obviously because the category is not there. What is this "subcat" thing?! If someone wants to see Universal Picture films and they go in the related category, they should been seeing BTTF. -- Lyverbe (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Back to the Future. Now scroll to the bottom of that page. I cannot believe why people don't understand this. Alientraveller (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not every topic in Category:Back to the Future is a "Universal Pictures Film" (certainly not the characters, the soundtracks, etc.). There are only 3 (maybe four) topics that belong in "Universal Pictures film" - the three movies and the series article. The rest are part of the BTTF category, but they aren't "films" and as such several of the categories listed at the BTTF category need to be removed. --MASEM 13:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

All of the articles in the category do belong there, as they are related to BTTF. However, most don't work when considered a subcat of Universal films. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying - the BTTF category itself is too broad in what it covers to be summarily classified as a Universal Pictures film. (If there was a "Universal Pictures franchises", that would be different). The various "film" categories that the BTTF category is in should be removed, with only the films themselves getting those categories. --MASEM 15:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Not only it's confusing, but it's totally false to put something like the soundtrack as a "Universal Picture Film" category. This is why we discuss about these kind of things and not just blindly jump in edit mode. -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Great news everybody. I fixed the whole situation. Wildroot (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Now, if you could master the "Show preview" button, it would be great. 20 changes in a row... I think it's a record. -- Lyverbe (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Setting records is a daily goal of mine. Please follow this policy because some of us tend to have akward internet connections from time to time. Wildroot (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

IP 98.30.64.48, why do you insist on putting that "Universal Picture Films" category? The above isn't clear enough? -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Back To The Future (Movie Closing)

There was a major error in the ending of this movie. The mall was referred in the beginning as Twin Pines Mall, but at the ending it is called Pine Lakes Mall. Has anyone ever noticed this error? All in all a very exceptional movie. From thephish64 11:07pm January 24, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thephish64 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not an error. When Marty went back to 1955 the first time, he crashed into a farmer's barn. After being shot at, he drives quickly away, running over one of two pines growing side by side. The farmer shouts, "You killed a pine!" Since this pine was killed, only one is living when they build the mall in the future (circa 1985). Hence, the name of the mall was not Twin Pines Mall (there was only one pine). The mall was actually called Lone Pine Mall. There are many details like this in the movie. However, this talk page should not be used to discuss the movie, but rather to discuss improvements to the article. Useight (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And it's "Lone Pine Mall," at that. Jersey John (talk) 06:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Puente Hills Mall served as a filming location for the fictional Twin Pines Mall (later Lone Pine Mall) in the 1985 film Back to the Future. In the film, Doc Brown uses the mall's south parking lot (visible in the above photograph) to stage his time travel experiments with the DeLorean time machine. A JC Penney store (now 24 Hour Fitness and Linens 'n Things) features prominently in the background. A Ross Dress store can be seen in a strip mall across the street; this store eventually relocated to the mall. On the DVD audio commentary, screenplay writer Bob Gale says that several fans gathered at the Puente Hills Mall in the early hours of October 26, 1985, the date given in the film as the present day, to see if anything would happen." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.99.187 (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Arabs as terrorists

I heard someone say that according to reuters, this was the first of a tradtion of movies to portray Arabs as terrorists. Can anyone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.249.110 (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought the terrorists in this movie were Libyans. Wildroot (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how does this add to improving the article?--Eaglestorm (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess it could be good to say that BTTF were the first of many, if it's indeed the case. -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

They are Libyans. Wildroot (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you heard that, but they were definately Libyans.--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think some of you should take a look at the Arab people article to figure out your definitions. Being an Arab and being Libyan are not mutually exclusive.

A Libyan is a person from Libya. An Arab is a more general identity taking into account "ancestral origins, religious backgrounds and historic identities".

Libya is a member of the Arab League and has a large population of Arabs (97% of the total population). Arabic is the sole official language of Libya.

As for this being in the article, I don't feel it is significant or will improve the article. If, however, you can find the original Reuters article I'd reconsider this stance depending on the article's context (i.e. there may be something significant written in the article). fakelvis (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Replacing plot section entirely

If you are not subscribed to the BTTF (film series) article, please read and comment on the following section: Talk:Back_to_the_Future_(film_series)#Plot_sections_are_ridiculous. I plan to start working on this tomorrow unless someone objects. -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the latest changes mention too many unimportant details. For example: "Biff orders him to turn around and walk away, but George cannot bring himself to ignore Lorraine's pleas for help. Biff easily subjugates George, but when Biff strikes Lorraine, George finally snaps and knocks out his tormentor with a single punch.". In my opinion, it's not important to mention this. To make the plot as short as possible, we need to go straight to the point. He sees Lorraine crying for help and he snaps. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Reducing that is completely reasonable here. It's too much detail; George arrives, finds Biff, hears Lorraine's pleds, and that gives him enough to knock Biff cold. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. As you will recall, George stands up for Lorraine and tries to take a swing at Biff, but Biff catches the punch in mid-swing and twists George's arm to nearly the breaking point. It looks like George is about to fail again, when Biff shoves Lorraine away and laughs about it. That indignity gives George the power and the will to take a second swing at Biff; the second time, he connects and knocks Biff cold, to George's own amazement. That sudden development of self-confidence is important to George's transformation, and deserves not to be "reduced" for the sake of eliminating nine words. DiogenesNY (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This line was just one example. It's not the only line that has what we believe to be useless details, so we're actually talking about more than nine words total. A plot has to quickly give the global idea of the story. In this example, making the reader understand that George snapped after seeing Lorraine's pleas for help is enough. I do understand your point about this example, but for someone who hasn't seen BTTF, this is not important enough to mention. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As one comment, if there was a significant discussion about that scene in the reception part of the article - something that alluded to George's emotional turmoil or something along those line - then there would be a reasonable issue to describe more about that scene than just "George knocks Biff out". But without that, there's not much more that the non-viewer of BTTF needs to know about this scene. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A kiss is just a kiss

When I cleaned up the plot section, I removed the kissing part because it was initially saying "A smitten Lorraine follows George to the dance floor, where they kiss for the first time, ensuring Marty's existence." which I thought was wrong because it doesn't mean they couldn't divorce before Marty's birth. After all, a kiss is just a kiss! Just thought I explained my reason for removing it. -- Lyverbe (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The kiss is a critical part of restoring Marty's future; we're told they kissed on the dance floor for the first time, and when they do, Marty's erasure from existance is reverted. It's pretty critical to this point. --MASEM (t) 03:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not contesting your point. I was only explaining why I removed it. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are they friends?

How did marty ad doc meet/become friends? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.91.100.38 (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The answer is the same as "Where/How did Marty meet Jen?": We don't know and we don't care. It's just something that don't matter in the story and not worth investigating to put in the article. -- Lyverbe (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Fringe Reference

Was wondering if it is worth mentioning that in the Fringe Episode on 4/2/10, characters in a parallel world are leaving a movie theater that is showing Back to the Future, staring Eric Stoltz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.238.190 (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to add this reference, it would have to be done in the article "Back to the Future in popular culture" -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

whats the point u just delete them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.140.34 (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

James Cagney?!

"Christopher Lloyd was cast as Doc Brown after the first choice, James Cagney, became unavailable" - I find this hard to believe. There is a ref to it, but it's a book. I really hate these kind of refs (like DVD references) because you can't verify them yourself immediately. You need to have the book/DVD, and even if you do, you need to figure out where it's mentioned.

I've searched the web and couldn't find anything supporting this. -- Lyverbe (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That may be because the name should be John Lithgow, as originally added back in 2008 by Wildroot.[2] It seems the article was vandalised last night by some IP.[3] --Ibn (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought the change was made by Esb94 who usually doesn't do vandalism, so I thought it was weird. I now realize that this particular change was done by a numeric IP. I would've undone it if I had realize it! -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Change the categories

Why don'd we change the categories Films set in 1880s, 1950s, 1980s and 2010s to Films set in 1885, 1955, 1985 and 2015? Egon Eagle (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Categorizing films by decade is the universal process used on WIkipedia. Look at [[Category:Films set in 1981]], [[Category:Films set in 1939]] and [[Category:Films set in 1862]]; there are no articles in any of those categories. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Even Gone with the Wind (film) is categorized with [[Films set in the 1860s]] instead of [[Films set in 1861]]. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Pronoun Trouble

This article states: "Just as Marty reunites with Jennifer, Doc arrives, insisting that they accompany him to the future to sort out his children." Who's children are "his" - we know it's Marty's (and Jennifer), but this sentence would appear to make them Doc's, changing "his" to "their" would fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside opinions for revert war

Here I suggested seeking outside opinions to resolve the edit war on this article. To be more specific, I'd suggest a third opinion or input from members of WP:WikiProject Film as a first step. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The info being inserted is right after a comment about the director having problems with Glover during the production. It would seem to be relevant to this article in that it suggests part of the reason he did not return for the sequels. But is that certain, or is it a coincidence? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The brief, sourced comment seems to be appropriate on this article. Dayewalker (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll make the point here I made in my edit summaries - it's a well known fact that the role George McFly was recast (although Crispin Glover was not removed completely, so the word "replaced", as preferred by one editor, was inaccurate) in the sequels - this has its own section in the Back to the Future Part II article - however, it's not relevant to THIS article, because Glover was the only actor to play George McFly in this film. It doesn't need to be mentioned everywhere that Glover is mentioned in relation to the role. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is relevant as well. I understand what MikeWazowski is saying, but it is a significant fact and there is no reason to be overly strict about what is included in this article. Additionally, as Baseball Bugs said, it adds context to the problems the director had with Glover during production. –CWenger (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

A one sentence summary in this case seems completely appropriate; it is simply a nice linking statement to go from this movie to the rest of the series and does no harm, particularly with the comment that Glover was difficult to work with here. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I have re-added the disputed content as we seem to have reached a consensus here. –CWenger (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems fine with a ref--I've added a {{cite web}} template to it. --Glimmer721 ^talk 23:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Flickr pics

I've removed the picture link, as it does not really add to the article. If there is a picture that can actually enhance the article, perhaps we could consider exploring if it can be used under the fair use policy. Otherwise, it is essentially an almost-random link to a page with a few set pictures. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I also saw it as a form of fanpage, which is not a link allowed by Wikipedia per section 11 of WP:FANSITE -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the same reasoning I saw it. The current license they have at flickr make them non-candidates for commons, but it would be great if the owner could allow one or two of them for use here. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If these same photos were in an article on an entertainment magazine website how would you see them? If these photos were in a published book how would you see them?--RadioFan (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I would see them as copyrighted material that can't be used in Wikipedia. Still, this would make them more robust sources since magazines/books publishers should make sure the images are authentic compared to personal webpages where their owners can easily allow themselves to put up fake pictures. I'm not saying the pictures discussed here are fake, but merely pointing out the difference between personal and professional sources. -- Lyverbe (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Would the link to the script not have the same copyright concerns?--RadioFan (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, the scripts have voluntarily been made public by the owners (because I'm sure they would have requested for them to be removed from the site) compared to picture and article scans that are obviously not public material until officially released as such. -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism!

Yeah okay there's some great positive criticism about Back to the Future but what about negative criticism. It doesn't seem to me that this article is being critically biased enough for me. Surely some critic had something bad to say about the movie and its only fair that that side of the story should be in the article too. At least that's my oppinion. -James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.136.203 (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Marty's siblings?

Shouldn't there be some kind of mention of Marty's siblings, however minor they are? There's next to nothing about them here, which meant I had to use IMDb to look up who portrayed them. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If worth mentionning, they should be listed in the article "List of characters in the Back to the Future films", not this one. -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, at the very least I'm going to add a brief mention of them in the opening plot section where it describes the family. No harm in that. I also think there should be a cast section, rather than just linking to that generic article above which only details the main cast of the entire trilogy. Once again, I found it very unhelpful that I had to use IMDb to look up those who had speaking roles. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot vs. Summary - Heading for a revert war

Personally, I prefer "Plot" even though I don't see "Summary" to be the end of the world. The problem with WP:FILMPLOT is that it reads "Plot summaries should exist as self-contained sections ("Plot", "Plot summary") in film articles" which doesn't help solving this case. The important thing is that the three BTTF articles need to use the same thing. The terms "Plot" and "Summary" basically mean the same thing, don't they? -- Lyverbe 23:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

They more or less mean the same thing, why not just say plot summary and be done with it.Meatsgains (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

First, how is it that the first entry wasn't signed yet it wasn't auto-signed by the bot either? I've never seen that before.

Second, are you really wanting an answer to that question here—without going to a dictionary to find out yourself? I'm not trying to be snide. I'm just asking.

Anyway, here's the difference:

The plot is the storyline, without going into much detail.

A summary (or synopsis) is basically a short recap—going into detail without telling the whole story (which is what we have in the BTTF articles).

But, the term "plot summary" (which is what is used in the WP:FILMPLOT) would suffice. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

About the signature, I must have added 5 '~' instead of 4 by mistake. I've now signed it manually. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that "Summary" is too vague. It could refer to a summary of coverage about the film, for example. "Plot" is really just shorthand for "Plot summary" with the implicit expectancy that we're not going to go in depth about the film's events, considering that this is an encyclopedic article that discusses the film in real-world context. Either way, I think that "plot" in the section heading is a helpful descriptor. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd think the fact that MOS:FILM clearly indicates "Plot" as the recommended section header would be all that really needs to be said on the topic, unless we want to discuss the appropriateness of the header in general, in which case the discussion should occur there, not on the Talk page for a specific film. Doniago (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Where does it "clearly indicate "Plot" as the recommended section header"? In fact, in the section, it uses the term "plot summary" 6 times, and the word "plot" only twice. And "plot summary" is the more accurate term, as the definitions given indicate. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that plot summary should be used, there is no way anyone will wonder what they were about to read with that title.Beefcake6412 (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"Plot" is the name of the section on MOS:FILM under which the plot information is discussed, and in my experience section headings for film articles match the section headers provided there on an almost one-for-one basis where applicable. The text "Plot summaries should exist as self-contained sections ("Plot", "Plot summary") in film articles." is there, which granted could be taken either way, but every recently-maintained film article I've seen uses "Plot" rather than "Plot summary". Personally I don't see how the word "summary" adds any crucial information; the mere length of the section would seem to make it clear that in most cases it is not a bare overview...and I wouldn't mind a reference as to where those definitions are originating, personally, as I don't recall ever seeing a definition of "Plot" that explicitly stated a lack of detail was involved.

In any event, as I've noted before, this does not appear to be the proper forum for discussing this matter, as the issue applies to more than just this one film, unless folks at MOS:FILM have been directed here? And if the goal is to determine standards for all 3 BttF films then I hope an effort is being made to make it clear to followers of those articles that there is a discussion here that applies to their work; I would not have been aware of this discussion if I hadn't been "warned" for edit-warring with a link to this film's Talk page...which seemed rather unusual as I'd never edited this film's article. Doniago (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"Plot summary" is just a redundant title. If I asked you the "plot" of a film you're going to summarize the basic story for me. You're not going to tell me word-for-word every detail. You're summarizing. So, the very nature of the word "Plot" implies a summarization. Thus, you don't need "summary" attached to it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It has been "Plot" for years, why not just leave it like that? The important thing is that all 3 articles use the same header name -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't there a brief conversation a few months back at the film project about making this more specific so that we could avoid potential edit wars? I seem to recall the conversation didn't go very far other than a handful of people noting their own preferences; the consensus in that conversation seemed to be for "Plot" (because "Plot summary" seems redundant as a section title) with some exceptions for "Premise" for as-yet-unreleased films that we had a sourced synopsis available to use in the article. Perhaps we should nail this down at the Project MOS? It seems a little silly to me that we'd need to but it might not be the worst idea ever. Millahnna (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

As apparently leaving it as an either/or situation leaves room for rather pointless edit wars, I'd support nailing it down and further support the reasoning you provide. While I appreciate the philosophy behind keeping things flexible, the reality is it just seems to result in the same arguments being brought up time and again. Doniago (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So now, we have BTTF1 & 2 with "Plot summary" and BTTF3 with "Plot". Any objections to change BTTF1 & 2 to "Plot" (like it has been for years) and end this discussion? -- Lyverbe (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The consensus at MOS:FILM seems to be that either is correct, and to leave it which ever way it is. If it's not broke, don't fix it! And if there was to be any changes, it would certainly make more sense to change one instead of two. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should nail this down at the Project MOS? - Agree. I don't see any reason to leave this detail up to discretion, thus a bone of contention, thus a potential waste of time arguing about on talk pages. Shirtwaist ☎ 19:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

I don't agree with removing the Rotten Tomatoes score, rating and consensus from the "Critical response" section. According to the essay about review aggregators, Wikipedia promotes its use so readers will have a bigger picture of the critical scenario, in a concise form, for which RT is considered a reliable source and commonly used. For a movie as old as BTTF, the stats shouldn't be that dynamic and its numbers shouldn't change a lot these days. The film already has a "Certified Fresh" classification, which means it's extremely unlikely to change to "Rotten" anytime this decade - same goes for its "Consensus". Plus, with 4.000+ visits every day, surely the article will be kept accurate as needed. A couple more things: this reference might help understand why the movie has very few negative reviews, like someone noted in this discussion page. It's also useful if someone prints the article for whatever purpose of presenting it. Again, I don't agree with the removal. Otherwise, it should also be removed from the Part II and III articles. Other than this, the article is top class.

I don't have anything against Rotten Tomatoes, but if you want to mention its BTTF entry, you have to add it so the dynamic numbers don't show up. It was already there before and after I updated the stats 3 times in about 8 months (yes, they still change that often) to keep the article accurate, I had enough and removed it. I don't want to go there again. -- Lyverbe (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with using Rotten Tomatoes. I think about every film article I have seen does. As long as the reference is dated (which it should be), people are aware that it might not be accurate anymore, just like anything else on Wikipedia. And for a movie as old as BTTF, it will never be that inaccurate anyway. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I do try to keep the articles as accurate as possible. That's one of the very main rule of Wikipedia. I feel it doesn't make any sense to put dynamic information like Rotten Tomatoes numbers (and I'm only talking about the numbers here), but I'll go with the majority. If you guys believe it's a must-have information for the article... -- Lyverbe (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

For a 25-year-old movie the information is not that dynamic though. And in my opinion having the aggregate opinion of film critics is very important for a film article. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I said above, I changed it about 3 times in 8 months (you can check the history). I was also surprised by this, but it's a fact. Either we remove the numbers (which would make the statement almost useless) or, like you said, add a {{as of}} template to prevent us from having to edit the information. -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea to use the {{as of}} template to reinforce to readers that this information may be dated. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed 'Rotten Tomatoes' almost a year ago and my reason is mentioned above. Perhaps Lightstriker was thinking the same thing as I did (and still do). I don't want to open an old issue, but this might explain his "Unexplained removal" -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Critically acclaimed" vs. whatever

So I went to check that Neutral language in critical reception discussion. My god, this is way too big for anyone to read. Personally, I don't care about one or the other, but we should be able to get a summary of that huge discussion. It's clear we're getting into a revert war in the BTTF article(s) -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that we're not supposed to use terms like "critically acclaimed" unless sources actually use such descriptors explicitly. In the meantime, "Very positive" is sufficient. There is an RFC on the subject, though thus far it's received little attention. Doniago (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

'Very positively' is fine. Charlr6 (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "Critically acclaimed" should be classified as weasel words. HiLo48 (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Critical response - Robbie Collin's opinion

I'm not too sure about letting the latest paragraph in the "Critical Response" about Robbie Collin's vote for his ten greatest films of all time. Wikipedia works with facts (surveys, box office, etc.) and this is not really a fact but rather a personal choice of his. Personally, I don't think I would let it in. Anybody else? -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Who the hell is Robbie Collin, anyway? --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Telltale Games Video Game

Surely this section should be removed. It's a video game, so related to the franchise as a whole, rather the than this film. It's not even a video game set around the events of BTTF, but rather additional events following the third film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.247.187 (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right, and it's already mentioned in List of Back to the Future video games anyway. I took care of it. I fail to understand how it got in the "American Film Institute list" section too! -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Some fool has vandalized the opening

I don't edit Wikipedia articles so not sure on protocol, but if someone can fix the damage that would be great. I don't want to break editing rules unknown to me by editing live page - hence comment here. Mitch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.34.217.49 (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Cast

How about a simple cast list instead of the character breakdown currently on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetfarm Louie (talk • contribs) 10:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

A "simpler" cast list can be found in the franchise article. I assume the way it's been done here is to explain why the actor was chosen. -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Cast list

A new "Cast List" section has recently been added to the Back to the Future articles. Some editors have seen this new section has been helpful, some have seen it as being useless and some are indifferent. For the good health of the articles, please express your opinion about this section on the franchise article. -- Lyverbe (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Source of BTTF album

@Paradoctor: I fail to understand why you removed that source (again?) regarding the BTTF album. WP:ELNO #5 talks about single web PAGES, not web SITES. As for WP:SPS, it talks about self-published sources which is not the case here (i.e. it is not WP:FANSITE). If you insist on removing the source, you need to find another one. -- Lyverbe (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lyverbe:

ELNO Is the cite to a page or a site?

SPS Please read the second footnote. Is there editorial control over Etsy listings?

"you need to find another" Nope, WP:BURDEN. You might want to check the article on the soundtrack, maybe it has a good source. Paradoctor (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

ELNO #5 is for pages, not sites, so it does not apply. As for Etsy, it's a huge company, not just something running as a server in someone's basement, so it is somewhat valid. The "somewhat" is because the items sold on it come from people like you and me which might not be considered reliable. Honestly, I can't tell. As for WP:BURDEN, you can't use that because it's there to say "If you say something, prove it's true", not "If you remove a proof, it's someone else's job to prove it some other way". -- Lyverbe (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

ELNO You did not answer my question. If you did, you would have realized that the cite is to a page, not to Etsy.

"I can't tell" If you yourself can't tell, you can't claim it is reliable, now can you?

"remove a proof" I did not remove a "proof", I removed a non-proof, and I made my case that it is indeed not a reliable source for the claim. If you think otherwise, the burden is on you to show that a) the cite directly supports the claim and b) that either the author is a recognized expert or that there indeed was editorial control.

If that doesn't satisfy you, and can't produce new arguments to convince me of the error of my ways, and want to reinsert the cite, you'll have to begin dispute resolution, because, as it is now, I will not let this cite return. If you do, it would probably be a good idea to start with WP:3O. Paradoctor (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

... I didn't contest the claim, only the ref, but, hey, suit yourself. Paradoctor (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

All I'm saying is that if you're personally not satisfied with a ref, you add another one or replace it, not remove it and tell other editors to do your task of finding a better one. The claim no longer as a ref so it can't stay there and that's why I removed it completely instead of adding a {{cn}} that will never be taken care of. -- Lyverbe (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"personally not satisfied" That was not a matter of personal taste, or even editorial judgment. The ref plainly and utterly failed to do what it should. It served only to drive traffic to an Etsy shop. FYI: This link was one of more than thirty of this type added by the same editor, all pointing to the same Etsy shop.

Maybe this will help you see the light: Ignore the lack of reliability, just try to show that the claim is supported by the ref. You'll find you can't.

"never be taken care of" Perspective, attain it you must, young padawan.

I have occasionally resolved cn's that had existed for years. Wikipedia's a huge project, and there's no WP:DEADLINE. Paradoctor (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree there...if the source is blatantly unreliable then removing it and tagging the statement with CN is appropriate; if the reliability is merely questionable then Template:Verify credibility might be a better approach, perhaps with an appropriate Talk page thread here. That said, while removing a source may not be best practice, I don't believe there's any policy explicitly prohibiting the practice if there are well-meaning reliability concerns. Also it seems rather pessimistic to assume a CN tag will "never be taken care of". One way or another it will be in time, whether via the addition of a source or via the moving of the material here or its deletion. Just my two cents. DonIago (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Gigawatts

Doc Brown isn't "mispronouncing" the word as presented in the video. "Giga" is Greek in origin, and the hard-g pronunciation is simply more common (as in "gigabyte") while not being any more correct (and in fact would be closer to mispronouncing the word). Atypicaloracle (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

...as already stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Back_to_the_Future/Archive_2#Pronunciation_of_.22gigawatt.22, but should the word "mispronounces" be removed or not, hmm... perhaps. Yeah, I think so. -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Both pronunciations are acceptable. I have amended "mispronounced" to "pronounced" and inserted references to two dictionaries supporting this.[4] —sroc (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The UK and the US pronunciations are different. So to most people in the UK it sounds wrong but we still understand it.
(UK) IPA(key): /ˈɡɪɡə/, /ˈɡaɪɡə/
(US) IPA(key): /ˈɡɪɡə/, /ˈdʒɪɡə/
It is odd that this is even mentioned because it is trivia. And what about the cat, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n29pzwK3UXI QuentinUK (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Grammatical/punctuation errors in "Plot"

The second sentence of the first paragraph: "His father George is bullied by his supervisor, Biff Tannen, while his mother Lorraine is an overweight alcoholic." contains grammatical and punctuation errors and is a bit of a run-on sentence which connect two unrelated thoughts. It should be rewritten as: "His parents are George who is bullied by his supervisor, Biff Tannen, and Lorraine who is an overweight alcoholic."

Additionally, it might be nice if the fact that he has two older siblings was notated in the plot instead of just listing two people in the cast section that are mentioned nowhere else on the page.

The first sentence of the second paragraph: "One night, Marty meets his scientist friend, "Doc" Brown, late evening at a shopping mall." doesn't really make sense the way it is written. I recommend: "After receiving a cryptic call from his scientist friend, "Doc" Brown, Marty meets him around 1 am at the shopping mall."

The last two sentence from the second paragraph: "A moment later, the Libyans kill him. Marty escapes in the DeLorean, but inadvertently activates the time machine, and arrives in 1955." should not contain any commas.

There are so many other errors that it would take forever to point them all out individually so I'm going to put the entire corrected rewrite here:

Teenager Marty McFly is an aspiring musician dating girlfriend Jennifer Parker in Hill Valley, California. His parents are George who is bullied by his supervisor, Biff Tannen, and Lorraine who is an overweight alcoholic. He also has two older ne'er-do-well siblings named "Dave" and Linda.

After receiving a cryptic call from his scientist friend, "Doc" Brown, Marty meets him at 1 am at the shopping mall. Doc unveils a time machine built from a modified DeLorean and powered by plutonium stolen from Libyan rebels. Doc demonstrates the navigation system with the example date of November 5, 1955: the day he conceived the machine. A moment later the Libyans kill him and begin to shoot at Marty. As the Libyans chase him through the parking lot, Marty escapes in the DeLorean but inadvertently activates the time machine and arrives in 1955.

There, Marty encounters the teenage George being bullied by his classmate Biff. After Marty saves George from an oncoming car and is knocked unconscious he awakens to find himself tended by an infatuated Lorraine. Marty goes in search of the 1955 Doc to help him get back to 1985. With no plutonium available, Doc explains that the only power source capable of generating the necessary 1.21 gigawatts of electricity is a bolt of lightning. Marty shows Doc a flyer from the future that recounts a lightning strike at the town's courthouse the coming Saturday night. Doc formulates a plan to harness the power of the lightning while Marty sets about introducing his parents to ensure his own existence. In the process, he antagonizes Biff and his gang which leads to them chasing Marty, who is on a makeshift skateboard, through the town square in Biff’s car. Biff ends up crashing his car into a manure truck. Later, Marty attempts to warn Doc about his death in the future but Doc refuses to hear it, fearing to alter the future.

When Lorraine asks Marty to the upcoming school dance, Marty plans to have George "rescue" Lorraine from Marty's inappropriate advances. The plan goes awry when a drunken Biff attempts to force himself on Lorraine. George arrives to rescue her from Marty, but finds Biff instead. George knocks out Biff and Lorraine follows George to the dance floor, while Marty plays music with the band.

As the storm gathers, Marty arrives at the clock tower but a falling branch disconnects the wire Doc has run from the clock tower to the street. As Marty races the DeLorean toward the clock tower, Doc climbs across the clock to reconnect the cable. The lightning strikes on cue and sends Marty back to 1985 where he watches Doc being killed and himself escaping to 1955. However, he finds Doc is protected by a bullet-proof vest. Doc then takes Marty home and departs to 2015.

Marty awakens the next morning to find his family changed: George is a self-confident, successful author and Lorraine is physically fit. Dave and Linda are both responsible adults and Biff is now George and Marty's obsequious subordinate. As Marty reunites with Jennifer, the DeLorean appears with Doc, dressed in a futuristic outfit, insisting that they accompany him to the year 2015 to help their future children.

Tigereye32f (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Why not edit the Plot yourself? DonIago (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT... that's what I was looking for and couldn't find it so I didn't reply :) But still, about Marty's siblings, they haven't played an important role in the movies to be mentioned. I don't see how we could integrate them in the plot. -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that the plot summary as it is currently written is glossing over essential plot details. It doesn't mention the fact that Marty has prevented his parents from meeting - it just says he's trying to get them to meet without giving a reason, which ignores the thrust of the plot. Also a lot of the wording is quite poor in places. The word count is well within Wikipedia's acceptable standards, so I'd move to add some just to make the summary more accurate with a few additional details and rewrite a few elements. Siphida (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I added those details in only for it to get reverted. I agree that the plot summary is inadequate. There are two conflicts that drive the plot: 1. Marty accidentally travels back to 1955 without the necessary plutonium to power the time machine and return to the present day. 2. Marty roaming around the town and interacting with its residents prevents his parents from meeting, as Lorraine falls in love with him instead of his dad, which threatens to erase him from existence - he will never be born if his parents don't meet and fall in love.

From there on, Marty and Doc are working towards resolving those two issues. Doc tries to figure out how to generate the necessary 1.21 Gigawatts to sent Marty back to the future, while Marty is trying to concoct a scheme to make his parents meet and fall in love. The current summary kind of explains the first conflict but doesn't come close to explaining the second conflict to the reader. I feel that to adequately explain both, we need to add these following details:

1. Lorraine expresses disapproval of Marty's relationship with Jennifer while explaining how she met and fell in love with George by pure chance when her dad hit him with the car. (Without knowing this, how the hell does Marty realize that he has prevented his parents from meeting?) 2. Upon going back to 1955, Marty jumps in front of the car to save George, which causes Lorraine to fall in love with him instead. 3. When Marty meets Doc Brown's 1955 self, Doc warns him to not interact with anyone as anything he does could alter the course of history and change the future, which is why he initially refuses to heed Marty's warnings that he will be shot in October 1985. This makes Marty realize he has prevented his parents from meeting. Upon revealing this to Doc Brown, Doc warns Marty that he will die - be erased from existence - if he doesn't find a way to pair up his parents. 4. After George rescues Lorraine from Biff and takes her into the dance, she and George dance, kiss and fall in love while Marty serenades the crowd with music in the film's first climax. Marty witnesses the moment and realizes that his future existence is secure. The second plot conflict is resolved.

I will admit summarizing Back to the Future can be tricky. The script was written with an incredible attention to detail and so many small events throughout the film influence the plot or foreshadow further events. Its a big reason why this film is so rewatchable. But I think for a reader unfamiliar to the film to understand the two substantial plot conflicts which drive the film's plot I have to add those four things in. Reattacollector (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The plot should give a general idea of the story. It doesn't need any detail at all and doesn't need every what, when or why. Imagine picking up the DVD box and read the summary behind it which, by the way, is much smaller than what we have in the article. -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

DonIago (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC) - It wouldn't allow me to edit... It said that it was locked and could only be edited by certain people... I forget the exact message it gave...Tigereye32f (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

~~I'd like to know the exact error, as the page doesn't appear to be protected currently, unless I missed something.~~ Actually, the page was protected from 10/21-10/24, but I think you should be okay to edit now. DonIago (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Cast

A cast list of such a notable film with an iconic should include more than seven actors, especially when they are memorable or played by notable actors. Those films are seen more than one time and many will remember the characters I included - the future mayor, the cousin of Chuck Barry, the Clock tower lady. Every actor I included has at least one notable scene in the film; every actor has at least a speaking role and a named role as required in WP:Filmcast. I can remember everyone and I only saw this film three times. Other iconic films (like Titanic, Star Wars, Casablanca, Gone with the Wind) also have large cast lists. While a short cast list can bother the reader, because you can't find the actor/role you search, a large cast list will never disturb anybody (of course I didn't include the smallest roles). While a book is limited, Wikipedia has enough space for everything. --Clibenfoart (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I would ask that, per WP:BRD, you do not continue to reinsert your additions without a clear consensus to do so. WP:FILMCAST notes that film cast lists should "name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc." In my estimation, though I will abide by the consensus of other editors, you are adding more actors/roles than are merited.

Also, have you reviewed the cast list noted earlier on this page, which can be found at Back to the Future (franchise)? I would be more inclined to support making changes there if you feel a cast list should be more comprehensive. DonIago (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, this issue has been discussed before and consensus was reached. I don't see why we should go back there again. -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Can't the mention of certain actors being in the movies still be mentioned in their personal articles at least? --68.190.87.190 (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say no because the role they played in BTTF are not notable but it's up to the editors of these articles to decide. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I would say that the roles are notable enough to be mentioned here. Every actor I added to the cast list has mutiple lines, most of them have mutiple scenes or their characters are important to the story. --Clibenfoart (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

As our film summary can be made without mentioning these additional characters, that's a good sign their role is not notable. Just having a speaking role in a film does not make the character notable. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

BTTF day - Move to "franchise" article?

I would move this topic in the "franchise" article instead of BTTF-2 and now BTTF-1 since the event is common to the entire trilogy and not a specific movie. Objections? -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. BTTF2's article should still have a brief para on it but that links to the franchise, since that date stems from that. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Back to the Future. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Back to the Future. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080828034630/http://www.ew.com:80/ew/gallery/0,,20215654,00.html to http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20215654,00.html#20408759

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I also changed the link to be more precise. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Back to the Future. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thomas F. Wilson

Can we add Thomas please Laceygirl101 (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Your request is not clear, but I assume you're asking about the "Starring" section of the infobox. If so, no, we can't because this section is based on the credits mentioned on the theater poster which does not include Wilson. It might be hard to see it on the poster provided by Wikipedia but you can see it here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/mediaviewer/rm554638848 -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Biff's role at the end of the movie?

The plot currently states "...and Biff is now George's obsequious subordinate" - I don't think this is correct. "Subordinate" suggests that Biff works for George, but AFAIK he doesn't - he seems to have some kind of garage/mechanic/auto detailing company. I can't think of a decent term to replace "subordinate" right now, but I'm pretty sure it's wrong as it stands. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. "Client", "Customer", etc. but not "Subordinate" -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course he works for him, polishing his cars... client or customer is definitely wrong. --Maxl (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Calvin Klein

Should the plot reference the Calvin Klein name mix-up, on account of the waistband of purple briefs? I thought it was a semi-significant aspect of the plot, and a bit of a clothing-based pop culture moment in and of itself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.50.232 (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say no. The purpose of the plot is to describe what the story is all about. If it's not directly relevant to the story, it should not be mentioned. -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

And as we have seen in the discussion below, you decide what's relevant and what isn't. --Maxl (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverts by user The Old Jacobite

Hi, you've been reverting my edit twice. You have given two different reasons for doing so. Both, however, are wrong. First you claimed my edit contained "unnecessary details" which is not true. What I entered is about the very first demonstration of the time machine and therefore very important. Your reason for your second revert was about the length of the text. The plot text with my addition, however, contains 575 words, well short of the 700 word threshold. (I don't even think that a threshold of 700 words is necessary but if I discussed that "rule" here you'd probably tell me this is the wrong place to do so) Anyway, I've seen that a majority of the edits you made on this page are reverts of edits of other users. This is ok as long as the edit is or contains vandalism. However, many of the edits you reverted were not vandalism. They were simple additions. You may have a very specific perception how the article in general and specifically the plot section is supposed to look like (and that's what I meant with "your personal opinion"). However, you should concede that articles on the Wikipedia aren't personal property and that when people add text they don't think their addition is an "unnecessary detail". If they did they wouldn't make the edit. As long as it is not vandalism or too clumsily worded or against some of Wikipedia's rules you should accept other people's edits even if you don't agree with them. I haven't put my text back in yet because I first wanted to discuss it with you, something you don't do with the people whose edits you revert. --Maxl (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been around here for a long time and what I've seen over and over with film articles is that some editors feel it's necessary to add minor or irrelevant details to film plots. And, no, they don't think those details are minor or irrelevant – to a person, they believe they are necessary. And this is why I have seen film articles with plots that were more than 1,000 words long. But, to be frank, I don't care if they think they are necessary. They simply are not. And that is why there are editors like myself who will continually watch film articles and trim excessive details from plot summaries. And you are completely wrong about only reverting vandalism. And, no, I am not going to "just accept other people's edits," that would be idiocy and suicide for Wikipedia. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with OldJacobite about this one. The fact that we're far of the Wikipedia rule about the length of a film plot does not mean that we can add things that are not required. The purpose of a plot is not to explain every single little detail about a movie but rather give a brief summary of the important parts. Specifying that Einstein used the time machine is not important because the movie would have been exactly the same if he hadn't. Because of this, I also agree that it should not be mentioned. -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said, there's nothing wrong with longer film plots. And what you don't realise there's different opinions as to what is necessary for a movie plot or what's an "unimportan detail" and what isn't. It isn't like your opinion or perception is the only valid one. I've seen long plot sections which were very good - and which later were truncated and subsequentially weren't even half as good as before. Well, I've seen that you're not ready to accept other people's opinions and THAT is what will kill the wikipeda one day, people thinking their opinion is the only valid one. Sorry, but your attitude is potentially destructive. --Maxl (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Per the WP:FILMPLOT portion of the film manual of style:

"Plot summaries are self-contained sections ("Plot", "Plot summary") in film articles that complement wider coverage about the films' production, reception, themes, and other real-world aspects, per Wikipedia's policy on writing about fiction."

AND

"The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail."

The entire purpose of the plot section for us is to provide an overview that supports other information in the article. If there were real world information pertaining to that specific scene and the inclusion of the dog or whatever, your details would warrant an inclusion. But there are no details where the writer waxes poetic about writing the scene or casting had a hard time finding the right dog or anything to that effect. Which means it's superfluous detail, at best. It does not grant any greater understanding of the plot in terms of the real world information we provide elsewhere in the article.Millahnna (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I know that rule. But this discussion is not about the rule. It's about one person saying the detail is important and another other claiming it isn't. So it's simply about a difference of opinions that does not touch the rule itself. --Maxl (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"Well, I've seen that you're not ready to accept other people's opinions" - You're stuck with this perception and must get it out of your head. It's not about accepting other people's opinion, it's about the quality of the article. You have a choice: Read a 10 pages document full of irrelevant detail or read a single page that goes straight to the point. Which one do you prefer to read? That's what we want to achieve in the plot. It's not a book, it a summary of the movie to give the reader an idea of what it's all about. -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Ehm, yeah... who's stuck with a perception here? Well, I've seen there's no point arguing with you since you aren't open for argument. Good night. --Maxl (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with TheOldJacobite and others here: the plot detail about the one minute test with Einstein is extraneous even if it can be worded to fit into 700 words. It has no impact on the rest of the film, and while we have the test shot of Stolz during that scene, it doesn't really matter to know what that scene it for the purposes of the picture include. It otherwise has no impact on understanding the production/development of the film. As such, it is very much extraneous detail that is best left out if we are keeping the plot short. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Back to the Future. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F19850703%2FREVIEWS%2F507030301%2F1023
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0%2C%2C20215654_22%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014063554/http://www.empireonline.com/500/92.asp to http://www.empireonline.com/500/92.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.totalfilm.com/features/100-greatest-movies-of-all-time/page%3A2
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080131121632/http://www.loc.gov/film/nfr2007.html to http://www.loc.gov/film/nfr2007.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Rewording what happens to Doc

I’m wondering if this statement should be re-written:

“A moment later, the Libyans arrive and shoot Doc, apparently killing him.”

I think saying that the terrorists “apparently” killed Doc is problematic. In my opinion, it goes slightly past an objective description and crosses over into "interpretation." By doing so, I feel it unnecessarily hints at the final act reveal too early in the plot summary. Schistocyte (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Good point. This part has also been problematic in the past from people saying that he was indeed killed in the original timeline so "apparently" shouldn't be there at all. I can't argue with that. -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I would also agree with that. I had to rewrite it to "A moment later, the Libyans arrive and kill Doc", since the important part is that Doc is killed. The means, not so much. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Back to the Future. 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/20141222005631/http://www.moviefanfare.com/back-to-the-future/ to http://www.moviefanfare.com/back-to-the-future/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The consensus is against a merge because the soundtrack album had a number one single and charted and has received coverage in reliable sources.
Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The soundtrack article should be either improved or merged into this article. I feel that the information can merge into the parent article. However, per WP:FILMSCORE, track names of film score releases (i.e. the Back to the Future: Intrada Special Collection 2-CD Score) will be excluded (usually for being generic descriptions of specific scenes) unless they are noteworthy. The album certifications can be explained in prose (or table, but I prefer prose). Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Usually, I'm all for merging non-notable soundtrack albums. But this one has a number one single. And charted itself. And has at least one dedicated review already present in the article. So I don't agree with this one. Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: yes, I think this is notable enough for its own article – as well as charting in the US, it charted in New Zealand [5], and given how big a hit the film was, and that Alan Silvestri was already recognized as a film score composer, it's likely that reviews of the soundtrack album exist in print media of the time. The article needs improving but there's sources out on the internet: interviews with Silvestri about his score on CNN [6] and in The Hollywood Reporter [7], which would indicate that the music is notable enough by itself to be discussed outside of the movie. Richard3120 (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose as had number one single and reviews, improvement of the article is preferred Atlantic306 (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Plot reversion

RESOLVED

It's clear that the two edits which increase the plot summary to 694 words introduce a lot of unnecessary detail which could potentially confuse the reader. This person is looking for a summary of the movie, not "properly-mythologised" details. That said, speaking as an uninvolved editor IMHO the current version of the plot could benefit from a few tweaks, but this would involve at most half a dozen words. (The most significant of which would be to state in the second paragraph that Doc is fatally shot.) But such tweaks/changes are not relevant here, & properly handled in a separate discussion. -- llywrch (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
On further reflection, I realize that my comments that "the current version of the plot could benefit from a few tweaks" was a hint from my subconscious about this article. It needs to be pointed out that all of the edits to it since 17 January of this year have been reverted, which could be seen as an act of ownership. Since I have not looked at each edit to determine why it was reverted, I can't say if this Wikipedia principle is being violated here; nevertheless this is something that everyone interested in this article needs to keep in mind, lest she/he gets in trouble for trying to do the right thing. -- llywrch (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose reverting Lyverbe's edit of [17 January 2018‎].

Lyverbe suggests the prior version is 'long'. It comes in, however, at 694 words - which is well within guidelines for plot summaries.
Lyverbe says their version is 'fine'. This despite a number of inaccuracies and elisions. A reader could assume that Strickland is the one who tells Marty's band that they are too loud. Doc does not steal the plutonium; the Libyan terrorists steal the plutonium from the Pacific Nuclear Research Facility; Brown later cons the Libyans out of it. Doc does not listen to Marty's warnings (- more confusion for the reader, having just been told that he "refuses to heed warnings"); instead he later reads Marty's letter sometime between Marty being sent back and 1985. And why is Brown's house absurdly described as an unidentified 'utility shed', when we (but not the reader here) know that it is Brown's house, filled with framed newspaper cuttings, ornaments, Brown's dog's bowl/food, as well as television and radio, a coffee machine, a bed and other furniture, a wardrobe with hanging shirts, a jukebox, coffee cups, a fridge, hanging pictures, a working telephone line, lamps, etc - all fully visible on screen? Marty's opening line is "Doc? Hello? Anybody home?".
Lyverbe cites 'unneccessary detail'. It is hard to see, however, why points, for example, about the popularly-mythologised 88mph and the flux capacitor (which, lest we forget, is what makes the whole plot possible at all) qualify as "unnecessary details", while Lyverbe's description of Brown's clothing in the final scene and the fact that Marty's sister works in a boutique qualify as "necessary detail".

The current plot summary is not "fine", and Lyverbe's explanation for their immediate reversion is not "fine". Cpaaoi (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't call 694 words "well within guidelines". That's brushing against the upper limit. I'll wait for Lyverbe's response before weighing in further. DonIago (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my description of "well within". 700 is not "the upper limit". The WP:FILMPLOT guidelines suggest a general limit of 700, but explicitly stipulate that this is not a firm figure, and that unconventional plots may warrant more. The complexity of the BTTF plot is not on the same level as Pulp Fiction - viz guidelines - but since, for example, we meet the same characters in different guises at different times, it is clear that the proposed 694 words is a pleasingly well-proportioned length for what is not quite a straight-ahead film plot. Cpaaoi (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

About every 3 months, someone looks at one of the BTTF articles and decides to rewrite it thinking he/she can do better. We (the regular BTTF editors) then have to carefully read the changes and say "Hmmm'well, yeah... maybe", "Nah, that's bloating", "No point to explaining this", etc. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The current BTTF articles are clear and have the essential elements to describe the important points of the story. As an editor, you always have to ask yourself "Is it important for the reader to know about this?" and we very often revert changes because the answer is no. - Lyverbe (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

* The frequency of edits is not germane.

* No editor(s) has/have special dispensation over any article. This is not germane.

* You have no guideline basis to accuse of "bloating" or "pointlessness". This is not germane.

* Your commonplace "if it ain't broke..." is not germane.

* The failure above to deal in pertinent specifics, in favor of irrelevant generalizations, is going to lead us in circles - so let's get a good ol' RFC going... Cpaaoi (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The frequency of edits is germane. Those of us who have been watching this article for a long time, as Lyverbe has noted, see it periodically bloated with irrelevant details. This is not a matter of ownership, the accusation you have stopped just shy of making; it is a matter of dedicated editors keeping an eye on an article that has been repeatedly edited beyond recognition. And there is a guideline on this, as you well know, which is the 400-700 word guideline. As BttF is not a complicated film, there is no reason to run up to the 700 word limit. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The frequency of edits is not germane. Accuracy is the standard, as you well know. The new version is not "bloated"; that is a misrepresentation. And the new version does not reach 700 words, so I consider the reference to length a red herring, in any case. Cpaaoi (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the plot summary

Should the plot summary edit [17 January 2018‎] be reverted to the new version? Cpaaoi (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey:

(Yes, the new (currently reverted) version is better; No, the (currently existing) old version is better)

Yes. The new version is better; the old current version is confusing and inaccurate. Cpaaoi (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No. This seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, punctuated by the rapidity with which this was jumped to an RfC. There are more constructive options than reducing this to a binary decision. DonIago (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No. The current version may not be perfect and may require minor adjustments, but it's not a reason to rewrite most of it. -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No. I agree with the comments made above by DonIago and Lyverbe, and the very apt and perceptive comments made below by DonIago regarding Cpaaoi's dismissive attitude and unwillingness to collaborate. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
No per above. There's nothing wrong with the current plot per WP's fiction guidelines where the focus is more on establishing just enough of the plot for a reader to understand the production and reception section, hence why we ask for conciseness. --Masem (t) 00:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes - despite any issues with Cpaaoi's behavior, the proposed version is a superior summary. Just because the old version was under the maximum doesn't mean it was an appropriate length. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
No The previous plot-summary (version C) was slightly less than 700 words in length. The current one (version L) comes in at approximately 630. The summaries are significantly similar in length and, moreover, both are within the boundaries set by the length rule. Therefore, the question rests on the quality of each version, i.e. how each one conforms to the rule about plot summaries. Version C contains phrases (such as "Shortly realizing that he is late for school"; "arrive unexpectedly and fatally shoot"; "insists they travel with him thirty years forward"; etc, with emphasis in the guiltier words) which seem to violate the instruction that the summary "should be written in an out-of-universe style, presenting the narrative from a displaced, neutral frame of reference from the characters or setting." It also contains unnecessary verbiage whereas a shorter and equally informative alternative is available, e.g. version C has "deceitfully acquired from Libyan terrorists", while version L offers simply "stolen from Libyan terrorists". Version C reads as written by a fan of the movie and the series. It's arguably a text of infectious enthusiasm. But Wikipedia is neither about fan prose nor about competing original works. Version L is significantly more in line with Wikipedia's specifications. -The Gnome (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments

The existing plot contains conflations, lacunae and inaccuracies. The new version (as reverted by Lyverbe) does not. QED Cpaaoi (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
You are right, DonIago; there is a constructive option: say, for example, taking the existing plot summary and correcting it, which, lo!, is what is proposed here. The choice is between two similar versions; it is not a binary choice. And it has nothing to with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is a matter of simple accuracy and clarity. And the rapidity of the RfC was precipitated by the rapidity of the reversion and the failure of that editor to engage with the relevant points, but to digress into general ruminations. Cpaaoi (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I find myself disinclined to engage with you on the matter given what I perceive to be a dismissive attitude toward those who disagree with you and a general sense that you're more interested in getting your way than in collaborating with your fellow editors. If and when I feel that that has changed, I may be more willing to respond to your concerns. In the meantime, I will reconsider my response to the RfC if and when I feel it is merited. DonIago (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It is my corrections and my comments here which have been treated dismissively and non-collaboratively. But I am comforted by my knowledge from experience that the first flush of responses to an RfC is always by those with a majority stake in the main page edits. The truth always emerges in the end. Cpaaoi (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If I take your first example where you say "A reader could assume that Strickland is the one who tells Marty's band that they are too loud", my answer to this is exactly what I said earlier: "Is it important for the reader to know about this?". Whether it's Strickland, the music judge or even Huey Lewis himself, who cares? It's essential to go straight to the important events. -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Genre

Popcornduff recently trimmed the genres in the lede, but I think was a bit too aggressive with the trimmers. Surely, sci-fi is the primary genre here, yes? Sci-fi adventure maybe? Any thoughts on this? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Happy with whatever the most commonly cited genre according to the sources is. Just pick one, please, as per WP:FILM and recent film project discussions. Popcornduff (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Genre has always been problematic for most movies and music bands. I'd go with "SciFi & Comedy" for Part I & II, and perhaps add "Western" for Part III. -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you consulted sources to see if scifi or comedy (pick one please!) or western are the most commonly cited genres? If no one else does this I'll sift through the sources at some point myself. Popcornduff (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Why must it be only one? HiLo48 (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Limiting it to one genre keeps the lead concise, and halts the tendency to add more and more genres. See WP:FILMLEAD and also this recent discussion. Popcornduff (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yet another Wikipedia policy for me to disagree with. HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Popcornduff, I'll take a look this afternoon. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Back to the Future Part IV

The redirect Back to the Future Part IV, which currently redirects to Back to the Future: The Ride, has been nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 27#Back to the Future Part IV. Suggested there is the possibility of adding more information to the Sequels section of this article and retargetting the redirect to that section. Your comments on this, and the redirect generally, are invited in the linked discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on Plot Summary reverts (July, 2018)

@Lyverbe: could you please clarify what edit specifically you think was unnecessary from the [05 July 2018‎] version? Like you, I fully support the need for having a concise plot summary. Notably, the changes I worked on put the word count at 564 (which is well within the 400-600 word guideline at WP:FILMPLOT. I felt my additions were thoughtful (and not unnecessary) and would appreciate a discussion (rather than a policy of reverting anything that adds to the length).

For example, one would expect that in a movie about time travel, one would read about the time travel demonstration in the parking lot in the plot summary. So, I added 1 sentence that covers the sequence. So as to not add “unnecessary detail,” I omitted things like the name of Doc’s dog or the flux capacitor.

Other than that sentence, my other edits were relatively minor copyedits, a couple of Wikilinks (eg, the grandfather paradox), and the inclusion of a few details that were missing.

Thanks Schistocyte (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

"Jennifer encourages Marty not to lose sight of his musical aspirations." - Not useful in the story. Reader doesn't need to know.
"...in the early *morning* hours." (you added "morning") - 'Morning' is useless. "early hours" is clear enough.
Changed "Preparing to demonstrate the time machine..." to "Doc demonstrates that, upon reaching speeds of 88 mph, the machine can travel to any desired point in time, and successfully sends his dog one minute into the future. While showing Marty the time navigation system..." - Way too much detail the reader does not need to know.
To "The terrorists arrive and shoot Doc" you added "in retaliation for taking their plutonium" - Obviously. We already said he stole from them.
To "...inadvertently activates the time machine" you added "as he speeds away." - We said "Marty escapes in the DeLorean" so it's obvious that he's speeding away.

And these are just from the first two paragraphs! There's nothing in these examples that rang a "Oh! we did forget to mention this!" alarm. There is a difference between "details that were missing" and "details that were not needed". But, hey, it's only my opinion! :) -- Lyverbe (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Lyverbe: I appreciate your critique, however, I don’t feel that your assessment of my overall edit (not just the 2 paragraphs) is completely fair:

For example, I did add the phrase "in retaliation for taking their plutonium.” You say “Obviously. We already said he stole from them.”

However, a careful read of my edit would have revealed that I in fact removed the line about steeling the plutonium because it is not accurate.

The other 3 main substantive edits that I included in the first 2 paragraphs are:

1) - The fact that Marty aspires to be a musician

2) - The films depiction of the 1st successful test of time travel in history

3) - The fact that the time machine is activated at 88 mph

Points 1 and 3 develop into major plot points across the trilogy, while point 2 is a scene highly associated with the movie (and part of much of the marketing materials) and deserves to be referenced in the summary.

What are your thoughts on slightly expanding the plot summary to include some of these moments, while still remaining concise? Thanks- Schistocyte (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to agree that most or all of these changes seem unnecessary. Popcornduff (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe that what you are doing is trying to highlight moments in the movie whether or not they are important.

1) Why is it important to mention that Marty aspires to be a musician? Perhaps if we'd learn in 2015 that he has become a big rock star, but no, this desire is not used anywhere in the trilogy. Not important!

2) Why is it important to mention that Einstein was sent? This fact is not used anywhere in the movie. Not important!

3) The reader doesn't need to know how it's activated. We just need to mention he was sent to 1955.

To be completely honest, I didn't check all your changes because there were too many of them. After a couple of "We don't need this" and "We don't need that", I just gave up and undid the whole thing. Indeed, perhaps some of them were useful and/or improved the quality of the article. -- Lyverbe (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Lyverbe: My intent is to highlight important moments (not highlight moments in general). However, I do accept that the idea of what constitutes an important moment is subjective.

I'm not sure what you mean about this desire not being used anywhere in the trilogy. Here's a quote from the part 2 (in 2015)
- "That accident caused a chain reaction, sending Marty's life down the tubes. Otherwise, your father's life would have turned out differently. The man wouldn't have pressed charges...Marty wouldn't have broken his hand, given up on his music... and spent years feeling sorry for himself."
- As this is being said in Part II, we see old Marty pathetically plucking his guitar and sounding awful (with young Jennifer recoiling in sadness). So it is mentioned (and becomes important again when the fax machine erases at the end of part III).
- On a similar point, parts II/III introduce the subplot of Marty losing his temper whenever someone calls him "chicken." Someone might then go to the wikipedia summary for the first film and be like "when did this happen in the first film?" They wouldn't find a mention of it, because this character flaw is never introduced in the first film (which is why it is a silly plot device to begin with...). However, Marty's music is referenced again (see above).
- After giving this some thought, I believe that mentioning his band's rejection from the competition is enough for a reader to deduce that he has an interest in being a musician. I just wanted to give you my reasoning so you can see that I really am giving thought to what to include and what not to include (rather than trying to just include the film's highlights).
"...and successfully sends his dog one minute into the future."
As I said in a prior post, in a film about time travel, the film's depiction of the first successful time travel experiment I feel deserves to be mentioned (I devoted less than a sentence to it).
The fact that the machine is activated once accelerating past 88mph is a detail that some would consider very important.
Its the entire reason they are in the parking lot to begin with (why not time travel in his garage?). Its the mechanism by which Marty accidentally sends himself to 1955. AND it is the entire reason the machine gets stuck in 1885.

Because inclusion of these points depends on the subjective opinions on what is/isn’t important, I will not push them further until there is some sort of consensus. For now, I went ahead and made copyedits that do not appear to be controversial. If anyone has a problem with those, feel free to discuss - Schistocyte (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Plot: This is what I mean

For those who don't understand why we keep reverting changes made to the plot, here's what I mean. Once again, like about every 2 or 3 months, someone just thought "Hey, I can improve the plot" and changes it by going from 533 words to 574. We, regular editors of the article, have to read every changes and revert/correct/accept them. This is tiresome especially when the article was perfectly fine as it already was. Unfortunately, people always think they can do better so they add more stuff, and more stuff, and more. In a couple of months, the plot will be bloated with useless junk and we'll have to rewrite it. Again.

Before this happens, we revert 95% of the changes with the comment "It was fine the way it was" but these editors then cry their heart out thinking we're being cruel to them.

Leave the plot alone. The best version was written by @Masem: a couple of years ago but, obviously, it's been lost. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- Lyverbe (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Lyverbe: I feel these comments are against the spirit of WP:DONTBITE, WP:CON, and WP:BRD. I particularly don't appreciate the characterization that editors who make a good faith attempt to collaborate and build consensus are "[crying] their heart out." If you believe a prior version was better, than why not propose some changes and let other editors chime in.— Schistocyte ^(talk) 18:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem with a film like BTTF is that there are lots of tiny little details involved that fans tend to gravitate to that, when you step back from being a fan, are not essential to the film. One or two may filter in by one editor and won't seem as bad, but then the next editor will add a few more, and the next even more, and so on. We need to keep to the core of the movie which doesn't require all these elements. --Masem (t) 20:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: I would ask that you and Lyverbe (talk · contribs) consider some of the advice at WP:PLOTSUM, specifically "Periodic reviews and reassessments by new editors are essential to maintaining Wikipedia articles and to maintaining plot summary sections in particular." There is no doubt that everyone is well-intentioned in trying to stop "plot bloat," but this resistance to consider the input from new editors is really troubling. — Schistocyte ^(talk) 00:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

But the movie hasn't changed in 25 years. I could understand if we were talking a film released a few months ago and now out on DVD to revamp the plot with more rewatches, but that's not the case here. Plot summaries are meant to be concise. --Masem (t) 01:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that the process of determining which details make the cut is a subjective one. Some are obviously unsuitable, while others teeter on the edge of inclusion. I would advise anyone who invests time into a plot summary of a popular film, novel, or TV series to brace themselves for the eventual disappointment that their preferred version won't last indefinitely. Remove the obvious violations, but don't bother fighting the minor changes. It's just not worth the time or frustration, and you risk biting newcomers that are just starting to get their feet wet. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

A resistance to consider the input from other editors... true and not true. There is indeed a resistance but I've always been open to real improvements. Anyway, I haven't reverted the last plot edits simply because I'm fed up with fighting for a "perfect" plot. I care about the plot section of the 3 movies but it seems I care too much. BTTF was once a WP:FA (or was it WP:GA?) and it seems impossible to get it back even though I know it's not just because of the plot section. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Pop culture section

Might I suggest this be better done on the main series article for the films, rather than this film? That way, pop culture that may reference or more of the films are all in one place. --Masem (t) 17:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I concur with this. Also a reminder that all pop culture items must be accompanied by a source illustrating their significance, as discussed at WP:IPCV. DonIago (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Can of worms. If this section is allowed (regardless of its location), people will feed it, feed it and feed it. In 6 months, it will become half the size of the article itself. -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

As long as it maintained well, nuked unsourced material and mitigation separate sentences for various references to just go "BTTF has been parodied in TV shows like...", only going into deal on extremely notable uses or ones that can go indepth. (For example, Ready Player One, the film, its sourced that Speilberg didn't want any references to his films, but agreed to the DeLorean because of its importance in the book/film.) --Masem (t) 23:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Spielberg explained Zemeckis felt Stolt

"Spielberg explained Zemeckis felt Stolt..." I'll just leave it at that. Whoever wrote that "sentence", should fix it. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I have had a go at fixing it. Thanks for the heads up. HiLo48 (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Reagan joke?

§ Legacy quotes Ronald Reagan as saying

"...As they said in the film Back to the Future, 'Where we're going, we don't need roads'"

and immediately adds

When he first saw the joke about him being president, he ordered the projectionist of the theater to stop the reel, roll it back, and run it again.

What joke? "Where we're going, we don't need roads" has nothing to do with Reagan and is hardly even a joke. There is no other mention of such a joke, which makes this sentence rather disconcerting and out of place. It should be preceded by a sentence quoting or summarizing the joke, or at least reporting its existence, before presupposing it. --Thnidu (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

"When he first saw the joke ABOUT HIM BEING PRESIDENT" -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)