Talk:Back to the Future/Archive 3

Cast list expansion
I noticed that the cast list is missing...well, quite a few people in the movie; it doesn't list any of the secondary characters at all, such as those played by Will Hare and Billy Zane (neither of whom are even mentioned in this article). This seems to be due to the fact that the list at current includes a hidden warning, exhorting editors not to include minor roles. I can't really think of a reason why we wouldn't want to include links to credited cast members who have their own articles, and there are quite a few reasons why we would want to do so. Just checking up on Chesterton's fence here before moving on to include credited secondary roles from notable actors. Chubbles (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Notable? Sam Baines, Stella Baines, Marvin Berry, Old Man Peabody and Match barely have anything to do with the story.  These characters are not notable, they were just there for a short moment in the film with very few lines.  It's not because the actors who play them are known that their character is notable.  You could at the very least have left the comment to not add such characters there.  Anyway, am I alone thinking such characters are not worth being listed?  I always go with the majority so if I'm alone, I'll shut up and smile! -- Lyverbe (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The actors are notable. I didn't (and didn't mean to) claim that the roles themselves are notable enough to justify a stand-alone article for each of them, but that certainly wouldn't suggest not listing them, since notability does not apply to content. I honestly am flummoxed as to why we would choose not to mention them at all; despite having little screen time, this might be one of Will Hare's most visible roles, and it's Billy Zane's first screen appearance (this is considered important enough to mention in the lede of his article). All of these actors link to this article; the article should have some indication of why. Just in terms of basic information-provision, it's relevant to link to articles for actors who appear in films (we do this on every film page, and I've never heard of a general prohibition on secondary roles, or even cameos, on any film page), and simply adding them to a well-formatted cast list doesn't place undue weight on them. A GA-class article shouldn't be missing information like this. The hidden note contravenes WP:HIDDEN, so I removed it. Chubbles (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a prior discussion of this, though lightly-attended, here. As changes made here would reasonably apply to the other films within the trilogy, perhaps we might make an effort to solicit more opinions? DonIago (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * What we do want to avoid are a full list of credits (that's not WP's purpose) but if there are notable "small" parts of now famous actors, I'd simply recomment a prose/paragraph after the cast to mention these rather than filling out additional cast notes with non-notable names just to hit on the few that are notable. See for example, the mention of Rainn Wilson on Galaxy Quest. You just need to be able to source these as they sorta stand out like trivia. (Zane, I know one can, as I was just checking). --M asem  (t) 14:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not mean to advocate for a list of everyone, notable or non-notable, who appears in the film. (I think there might be a case for including the names of some significant figures in the film who aren't [yet shown to be] notable, such as Donald Fulilove, but I'm happy to put that aside for the time being.) But adding those few that are notable is sort of basic to the informational mission of the site, as is the basic ability to hyperlink between them. (One should be able to get from Back to the Future's article to Will Hare's article without having to visit IMDB in the middle to find out how they are connected.) Since these are credited cast members, it doesn't seem very useful to stud the cast list with footnotes to the movie's end credits; if they were uncredited, sourcing would, I agree, be important, but I'm not aware of any notable uncredited appearances in the film. Chubbles (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Our focus on film articles is generally about how they were created and how they have impacted the world, and thus we're not building out a 1-1 replacement for IMDB as you suggest; arguable at some point, this could go be argued to go to the level of cast and crew detail that would overwhelm articles on many news pictures where hundreds are involved. But that said, when we can at least document well-known actors of today in their first roles or in minor parts in the early parts of their careers with independent RSs, that certainly can be added in a manner that doesn't draw away from the main cast nor require us to add a ton of minor roles. We can let IMDB handle the rest of the credits from that. --M asem (t) 16:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just want to make sure it's clear that neither in the previous statement nor at any point in this conversation have I suggested that we should be building a 1-1 replacement for IMDB. (I've actually argued the opposite.) We have articles on cast members of this movie; we have an article on this movie. They have a direct relationship to one another. Those things should be interlinked; it's what makes Wikipedia functional - it's basic to the navigational structure, and by extension the informational utility, of the site. Chubbles (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But that's not really a requirement for linking on WP. It makes sense that for any actor if they are notable to list all the films they have been in, but that doesn't correlate that every film doesn't need to list every actor that has appeared in the film. The reciprocity of linking doesn't always make sense, and thats where understanding we're not trying to replicate IMDB's function is important. --M asem (t) 22:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We are agreed that every film doesn't need to list every actor that has appeared in the film. We are all agreed on that. Chubbles (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

So, in the end, these so-called notable characters remain in the list? Now that characters other than the main characters are listed, where does it stop? I mean, if "Old Man Peabody" is considered notable, why isn't his son listed too? or the woman who asked Marty for a contribution to save the clock tower? And why is Match listed but not Skinhead and 3-D (why is Match more important than the other two)? To me, all these characters are all on the same level. If Wikipedia shouldn't be like IMDB, where do we draw the line? -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is my suggestion (and I am scanning the credits on Netflix, not changing it now). There are two distinct sets of cast lists: the first set that starts immediately after the film cuts to black, which lists the four principle + Wilson (as Biff) with roles, followed by four pages - about 15 total names - as featured actors but no roles (But obviously we can figure those out): Wells, McClure, Spreber, DiCenzo, Tolkan, Cohen, Siemaszko, Zane, Waters Jr., Fullilove, Freeman, Kauffman, Raven, Hare, and Bethune. After that, there is the longer scrolling cast list that is EVERYONE. I would suggest sticking to the list of 20 that is the principle + features as per the end credits here and if there is any other notable person that secondary RS have noted tied to the film that can be summarized in a prose statement below. --M asem  (t) 13:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And this way, we are using what the film had set up as notable, not our opinions, and anyone post-release determined notable, we'll use secondary sources. That eliminates all possible original research on WP editors' end. --M asem (t) 13:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't see the fear of an apres-cela-le-deluge situation as valid, and it strikes me as a straw man. No one - I will note, once more, not even me - is arguing that the entire cast list down to every extra that never appeared in another film should be listed. And it's not reasonable to think that there is now going to be a torrent of IPs trying to list every last person in the film. I gave a clear possible criterion for "where it stops" - notability, and therefore, linkability. Masem's proposal is another way of defining "where it stops", and is somewhat more inclusive; it also has the benefit of having a grounding in the film's own ranking of relative importance, which is probably a better criterion. It also allows us to expand the list in prose if there's someone else (perhaps a notable person who makes a cameo - not sure if anyone qualifies) worthy of inclusion. I support it. Chubbles (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and do what I suggested, and recommend that any other person notable in the cast that we can document to third-party source (like, uh, Huey Lewis :) can be prose under the list --M asem (t) 20:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that Back to the Future II also has an artificially restricted cast list - though, thankfully, no hidden warning note. Can we move on to expanding the cast list there, as well? (Does it require a new conversation, or at least a notice of the one here?) Chubbles (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would do the same there, and in the edit summary just refer back to BTTF1 's page resolution as to why. But the same rationale: using the listed cast immediately at the end of the film, so there's no subjective omissions or inclusions. --M asem (t) 18:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For the sake of making consensus more clear, just noting that I agree with these changes and the reasoning behind them. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The timing of Eric Stolz's replacement by Michael J. Fox
In the article is reads:

"a few weeks into filming, Zemeckis determined Stoltz had been miscast"

The implication is that Eric Stolz was replaced shortly after production began. According to a recorded interview with Tom Wilson available on YouTube, principal photography had been mostly completed on the production with Eric Stolz in the lead after "six or seven week's" filming and the production was at the point where actors are asking each other if "they had anything lined up next". It seems then that Stoltz's removal was more significant than an early stage cast correction.

Indieshack (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Film genre
Should we describe Back to the Future as a science fiction comedy adventure film instead of a science fiction film or is it OK as is? --TMProofreader (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's fine as is, per WP:FILMLEAD only primary genre, which is science fiction. Canterbury Tail talk 21:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Plot summary revamp
So, back in October, did an overhaul to the article, including the plot summary. However, while I agree with most of the changes by Darkwarriorblake and, I think we should discuss some of the potential changes I want to address here rather than edit war (which is forbidden). For example, when the terrorists kill Doc, the important part is that he's killed; the means (shooting him down), not so much. Also, How to streamline a plot summary might be helpful to remove unnecessary words in plot summaries. If there are any thoughts about how the plot summary should be revamped, please post your thoughts here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

, while I appreciate your interest here and attention to detail, I have to disagree with this edit, which is essentially a wholesale revert. Not sure that was intentional or if you really insist on going back to that version, but perhaps I should clarify the recent changes. I took the longstanding version that existed months ago and blended that together with the massive overhaul performed a few weeks ago back in October. Tried my best to retain the best of both. Hopefully we can hash out any remaining differences here, line by line if needed. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You and I were typing that up right around the same time! ;-)
 * In response to the part about Doc being shot is an essential detail, because it is directly relevant to him wearing a bulletproof vest. We're talking an extra two words here to provide that clarity. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm actually satisfied with the other minor changes several editors made following mine, but the only remaining item of contention from my perspective would be "stole" vs "swindled" in the second paragraph:
 * Swindled is a better fit, since Doc made a deal with the Libyans to build them a nuclear device from the plutonium, but ended up giving them a fake product in return. Although stole is technically correct, swindled is more precise. The act of stealing can come in many forms, but swindling is defined as using "deception to deprive (someone) of money or possessions means", which is a more accurate depiction of what happened. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If I wasn't busy playing Cyberpunk 2077 I'd be more involved. I don't agree with the changes to the lead paragraph. I think my edit of setting the context of his family is more important than immediately addressing he was late for school. The photo is also not mentioned at all as far as I can see, and without the mention of standing up to Biff, their hostility seems to be overlooked and there is no mention that Marty was ever really in jeopardy because him fading away is omitted entirely. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reasonable concerns. Regarding the intro, I don't think it matters if the family is mentioned first, but I'd support flipping things around if it moves this along. However, I disagree with reverting back to the previous version entirely. Stringing together multiple fragments with semicolons is unnecessary, and "confides to" is the wrong form. That needs to be "confides in". And finally, we can't say "professional and social failures" to describe both siblings. Each one is having a different issue. His brother is in a dead-end job, and his sister is struggling socially.Regarding the photo, sure why not. I'm sure we can find a way to incorporate that back in, adding it to the 4th paragraph. As for standing up to Biff, I'm not so sure I follow. It's still described in the 5th paragraph. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Made an attempt to resolve outstanding concerns and still open to further suggestions if this isn't satisfactory. Anything else we need to discuss? --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're being pedantic about the siblings, they're not doing well, that is the gist of the film. Neither is a high flying executive with tonnes of lovers. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to focus on content, not the contributor and leave the insults out of this. I suggest you strike that out. Currently, the description of the siblings reads, "struggling in early adulthood". Do you have a better suggestion? Also if you see this as a pointless exercise, then you're free to step away at any point. No one's stopping ya. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Pedantic isn't an insult, a derogatory term, or an attack. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is. See Merriam-Webster's take on that. You've also referred to others as "pedants" too in the past. Perhaps you weren't aware before since you've used it sparingly, but you are now, and that's good enough for me. Back to the issues at hand...if there are any left to discuss. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, in the Queen's English, it just means you're being pedantic, i.e. focusing on a single detail, in this case, a word, searching for a webpage that calls it an insult, and then making it the focus of a response. "Struggling in early adulthood" does not read as well as "professional and social failures" nor does it explain 'how' they are struggling. There is nothing wrong with using "professional and social failures". It both reads better and gets to the point in a clearer way. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So now I'm cherry-picking? You do realize that Merriam-Webster is usually one of the first 2 or 3 results? Choose to believe what you want; it makes no difference to me. I've moved on.Just so it's clear, if we settle on "professional and social failures", you're happy? Are there any other remaining points of contention? --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Back in 2018 | I found myself in a lively discussion regarding the plot section for this article. While I would of course expect and welcome changes to | the version I worked on my concern is that recent changes to the plot summary have introduced too much detail and has morphed into a scene-by-scene recap which is generally avoided per WP:FILMPLOT. Additionally, any reference to Doc being "killed" is an inaccurate description, even in the context of the first timeline. A better descriptor would be: "The terrorists arrive unexpectedly, opening fire and shooting Doc," and "He arrives just in time to see Doc get shot."  — Schistocyte  ( talk ) 05:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in and pointing out a time when the summary was much simpler (and shorter). It does seem to have ballooned quite a bit since then. I have no issues reverting back to shooting and shot. Consider it done. It's a good point. Since it appears we've lost Darkwarriorblake to a video game, I'll go ahead and make the other change he requested. I'm sure long after we've moved on, it will keep changing, but is there anything else you think we need to do in the short term? --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * After taking another gander at the beast of a summary we've created comparing it to the one in 2018, it definitely seems like a lot more can be trimmed. Do we need to mention "Twin Pines mall", the full date "November 5, 1555" (which is actually listed twice), siblings fading from the photo, or all the details about Marty getting locked in the trunk? I'm sure a lot of this can be further simplified or omitted altogether. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You read my mind. I was literally writing out all of those suggestions (dates, mall, trunk) but you beat me to it. I would also update "Marty concealed a handwritten note in Doc's coat, warning him about his future death" to "..warning him that he will be shot by terrorists in 1985" or "..warning him about the future attack." Other than that, I think you summarized my general concerns well and think there is certainly more we can cut/clarify.  — Schistocyte  ( talk ) 06:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Awful lot of complaining from people, not much praising for the amount of work and time and effort I've put into the article as a whole. Where's the talk page section that? It's always nice to feel appreciated. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * DWB, this isn't helpful. An editor like yourself that has been doing good work in a lot of articles over the years should know this is about collaboration and compromise. When asked for your input, you disappear only to reappear with comments like these. If you have something more to add to this discussion, please do, but this isn't the way forward. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty poor attempt at a thank you there. I disappear because I'm working on other articles that again no one else saw fit to bother with. As I said before, a lot of complaining, not a lot of thanking ever goes on. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all of your contributions. Remember, we are all on the same team!  — Schistocyte  ( talk ) 18:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Schistocyte, right on. I took a stab at fixing that as well. Don't hesitate to tweak it further as you see fit. Perhaps we should let the other points stew for a bit to see if anyone else wants to weigh in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * GoneIn60 I think that sounds like a solid plan. — Schistocyte  ( talk ) 18:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, doesn't appear anyone else is going to weigh in. How would you like to proceed? Maybe try a few edits, and if needed, I can sweep in behind and tweak a bit? --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent updates

 * For what it's worth, I think the recent copyediting changes involving the plot summary were good improvements. There's definitely less fat now, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am trying to tighten the article to stop the new bugbear that articles are too comprehensive to be featured articles. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Bullied into submission
The plot states, "George arrives expecting to find Marty, and Biff bullies him into submission." I really don't think "submission" is accurate. Marty later says that (in the original timeline) George never stood up to Biff in his life. Although Marty was probably mostly referring to when George punched Biff's lights out, when Loraine asked for George's help then George said, "No Biff: You leave her alone," he is being assertive towards Biff, which is noteworthy in that it shows the character overcoming a major obstacle (his fear of standing up to Biff). When Biff responds by twisting George's arm, I don't think George is being submissive. I think he is in a lot of pain and finding it difficult to fight back. I suggest changing it to "George arrives (expecting to find Marty) and demands Biff leave Loraine alone. Biff responds by fighting George." and then continuing with the rest of the plot summary as is, with "After Biff hurts Lorraine, an enraged George knocks him unconscious." Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the phrasing is problematic. "Bullies him into submission" doesn't make it clear that Biff is assaulting George at the time, and it implies there's some level of compliance on George's part, where there isn't. However, I also loathe parentheticals as I don't feel they're consistent with the tone we should be striving for. How about: "George arrives expecting to find Marty; when he demands that Biff leave Lorraine alone, Biff assaults him."? I guess we could say "begins twisting his arm", but I'm not sure that conveys the level of violence implicit in Biff's actions. DonIago (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "restrains him"? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That could work. DonIago (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. I would only suggest making an attempt to remove the semicolon. Maybe something like: "George arrives expecting to find Marty, and after making the demand to leave Lorraine alone, Biff restrains him." --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Doniago's suggestion is fine. I think "restrain" is also acceptable, though I would prefer "assault" over "restrain". Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I think it should be something like "George arrives expecting to find Marty, but still tells Biff to leave Loraine alone." Saying "but still tells Biff..." is to explain that George arrived expecting to confront Marty, when he saw Biff was there instead, George still went through with the plan to say to leave Loraine alone (just by saying it to Biff instead of Marty). So I suggest making the whole statement one of the following:
 * "George arrives expecting to find Marty, but still demands that Biff leave Lorraine alone, so Biff assaults him."
 * "George arrives expecting to find Marty, but still demands that Biff leave Lorraine alone, as he had planned to say to Marty. Biff begins assaulting George."
 * "George arrives expecting to find Marty, but when he sees Biff instead, he still demands that Biff leave Lorraine alone, so Biff assaults him."
 * Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of the "but still demands" language. It suggests that if George hadn't been expecting to find Marty then he might not have said anything. Building off GoneIn60's suggestion that I lose the semicolon, as an alternative to my original suggestion: "George arrives expecting to find Marty. When he sees Biff instead, he demands that Biff leave Lorraine alone, but Biff assaults (incapacitates?) him." I find this clumsier than my first suggestion, but it does eliminate the semicolon if that's a significant concern. DonIago (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess "but still demands..." is not really needed. It seemed to me that saying George expected to find Marty needed an explanation that he improvised when his plan with Marty couldn't go as expected. I suppose the purpose of mentioning that George expected to find Marty is to explain why George approached the car with Biff and Loraine. My primary issue is really to remove the word "submission" since that is the opposite of how George responded to Biff at this point in the movie. Beyond that, the wording of this part of the article isn't too much concern to me. We can remove the semicolon by converting it to a period: "George arrives expecting to find Marty. When he demands that Biff leave Lorraine alone, Biff assaults him." Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that wording as well. I think the only reason I'd prefer a semicolon is that I'm not personally a fan of such short sentence structures, but there's nothing really wrong with it. DonIago (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The emphasis on George talking back to Biff is overstated. He stands up to him about the homework too, he just ends up cowering immediately when confronted. Him politely wagging his finger and telling Biff to stop doesn't matter, it's the part where he finally takes action that does. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed this discussion previously, but I recently made some small copyedits to the plot . – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Back to the Future
Rick and Morty is a spin off of a spin off of Back to the future and it should be references on this page 2600:1010:B15F:CF3B:C0D7:28F8:F5E1:7AE (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source? DonIago (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article's "Cultural influence" section already mentions that the film inspired the characters in Rick and Morty. "Spin off" implies that Rick and Morty is set in the same universe as Back to the Future, and that is clearly not correct. Mz7 (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Gaines, Chang and Olsen clarifications and corrections sought

 * Gaines source
 * The Gaines source does not state that the ad was full page, it only states that it was an ad. If the ad was full page, then the Variety ad itself should be cited using cite magazine.  Confirmed as full page
 * As "normal shots" is not a technical term, it's unclear what is meant here. The terms that Gaines actually uses for the different models are clearer than these approximations are.
 * This should be cited to pages 4 and 5, not just 5
 * This is pages 21 and 27, not 22 and 27. Even though the source does not give the date of the 30th, only stating that it was a "Sunday" and "the day before New Year's eve", this is still correctin that the penultimate day of 1984 that year was, indeed, a Sunday.
 * should be cited to Gaines page 43, not 42.
 * is page 32 only, not page 2 and 32.
 * This is pages 41 and 43 through 44, not 41 and 43.
 * This is pages 21 and 27, not 22 and 27. Even though the source does not give the date of the 30th, only stating that it was a "Sunday" and "the day before New Year's eve", this is still correctin that the penultimate day of 1984 that year was, indeed, a Sunday.
 * should be cited to Gaines page 43, not 42.
 * is page 32 only, not page 2 and 32.
 * This is pages 41 and 43 through 44, not 41 and 43.
 * is page 32 only, not page 2 and 32.
 * This is pages 41 and 43 through 44, not 41 and 43.
 * This is pages 41 and 43 through 44, not 41 and 43.
 * This is pages 41 and 43 through 44, not 41 and 43.


 * Chang and Olsen source
 * Chang and Olsen state "a spirit of pioneering technological advancement married to a wellspring of nostalgia for ostensibly simpler times," they say nothing about self-reliance. If the definition of Reaganism listed in the article (as one including self-reliance, which was not specifically mentioned by Chang and Olsen) then this needs its own citation.
 * The America of 1985 at the beginning of the first film is not depicted as "run down and in decay", only the McFly family is depicted as such, unless we are suggesting that Marty's intervention in his parents getting together improves the entire world instead of just his (but not Biff's) family in the first film. It's only in the second film that we begin to see depictions of the entire world of 1985 as "run down and in decay". Chang mentions "the chills I got as I watched Doc once again harness the power of lightning to send Marty on his merry way back to a new-and-improved 1985", but in this respect, the improvements were for the McFly's alone and not world-encompassing, so the mention of 1985 as run down and in decay without this qualification does not seem warranted.
 * The America of 1985 at the beginning of the first film is not depicted as "run down and in decay", only the McFly family is depicted as such, unless we are suggesting that Marty's intervention in his parents getting together improves the entire world instead of just his (but not Biff's) family in the first film. It's only in the second film that we begin to see depictions of the entire world of 1985 as "run down and in decay". Chang mentions "the chills I got as I watched Doc once again harness the power of lightning to send Marty on his merry way back to a new-and-improved 1985", but in this respect, the improvements were for the McFly's alone and not world-encompassing, so the mention of 1985 as run down and in decay without this qualification does not seem warranted.
 * The America of 1985 at the beginning of the first film is not depicted as "run down and in decay", only the McFly family is depicted as such, unless we are suggesting that Marty's intervention in his parents getting together improves the entire world instead of just his (but not Biff's) family in the first film. It's only in the second film that we begin to see depictions of the entire world of 1985 as "run down and in decay". Chang mentions "the chills I got as I watched Doc once again harness the power of lightning to send Marty on his merry way back to a new-and-improved 1985", but in this respect, the improvements were for the McFly's alone and not world-encompassing, so the mention of 1985 as run down and in decay without this qualification does not seem warranted.
 * The America of 1985 at the beginning of the first film is not depicted as "run down and in decay", only the McFly family is depicted as such, unless we are suggesting that Marty's intervention in his parents getting together improves the entire world instead of just his (but not Biff's) family in the first film. It's only in the second film that we begin to see depictions of the entire world of 1985 as "run down and in decay". Chang mentions "the chills I got as I watched Doc once again harness the power of lightning to send Marty on his merry way back to a new-and-improved 1985", but in this respect, the improvements were for the McFly's alone and not world-encompassing, so the mention of 1985 as run down and in decay without this qualification does not seem warranted.

Local editor feedback on these suggestions is much appreciated! Spintendo 21:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC);edited 22:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll fix the page number issues, some of these will be have sourcing other pieces of info such as hte page 2 (which covers the date) and page 32 source that is for the budget. I need to look at the Chang one. But the last one, in the opening 10 minutes you have overflowing trash cans, cracked roads, paint stripping from buildings, buildins darkened by stains from lack of care and graffiti all over the school entrance. Plus a homeless guy sleeping on a bench. It doesn't have someone shooting up heroin on a corner but it is rundown and worn out compared to the more pristine 1955, the point is valid. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but that would seem to imply that Hill Valley was "run down and in decay", not America as a whole, as that section of the text surmises. Spintendo  22:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to Hill Valley, but my understanding of the source is that Hill Valley is a slice of Americana, yes they don't show outside of it but it's emblematic of the whole.. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You read my mind, that was the exact suggestion I was about to make. Spintendo  22:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The part about the Variety ad being full page can be kept, I've found an image of it that shows it was full page. Spintendo  22:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know where the full page info came from originally as I've not seen that ad, maybe it was already in the article before I added to it. The bad part of book sources is that finding it would require reading like 260 pages. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making these changes. I've checked all 61 Gaines page references listed in the article and can confirm they are now all spot-on. Wishing you good luck on your FA candidacy. Spintendo  00:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Details of Stoltz firing
I added some details about how far along the film was when Stoltz was fired, all taken from the 2015 official book - "Back to the Future: The Ultimate Visual History." That book was the first one written with the full cooperation of all the filmmakers and access to all the original production records and paperwork, so the information is authentic. People seem to have always been unclear about just how far along the film was when Stoltz was fired. Portions of what I added were removed as being "obvious from the dates." However, I would think to most readers, it would not be immediately obvious. First, the fact that nearly almost the film had been completed is not clearly stated elsewhere. The prior sentence only says "much of the film would be re-shot." "Much" is vague and doesn't give a sense of the amount. Second, the span of dates is noted multiple paragraphs apart, and was over the end of 1984 into 1985. I would think most readers, like me, would not instantly be able to look at the dates and realize it had been seven weeks of filming, which is a much longer amount of time than I think people usually think the film had shot. I find this sentence extremely useful as a summary, so the reader isn't required to go back and do thirty seconds of math to figure out how long the film had been in production when Stoltz was fired. In addition, while I recognize that the location of his firing isn't 1000% vital to the sentence being comprehensible, it feels highly relevant, to me, that he was fired halfway through a day on set at one of the film's most iconic locations, and not elsewhere. jamesluckard (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Then change "much of the film" to "most of the film". It means exactly the same thing. The location of the firing and how "iconic" you deem it is not relevant, what's relevant is he turned up for filming thinking everything was fine, and then it wasn't. You've also changed information about the filming schedule, saying that this book was the first one, so why is Gaines's book inaccurate then? Gaines's book was written with their cooperation and is more recent, so why is one accurate and the other isn't? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked through the Gaines book. I could not find any quote where it says exactly how long the originally intended filming schedule was. I definitely found no quote that it was set to be 22 weeks. That must be a typo from whoever wrote it here. It is not realistic at all. No modestly-budgeted film goes into production with a schedule that long. 22 weeks is roughly how long the film actually shot, due to reshooting half of it. The 14-week intended shoot is accurate, the intended completion date is straight from the Klastorin book, which, incidentally, came out four months after the Gaines book. They both came out in 2015, but the Gaines book is not more recent. While the Gaines book apparently has interviews with those who worked on the film, the Klastorin book is the official history of the production, the filmmakers describe at length in it that it is the authorized book, to which they gave unique access to all production documents, many of which had never before been seen. This suggests that the dates in it, which are all extremely specific, day by day, based on official documentation, can be trusted.jamesluckard (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also not clear why you would say my summary sentence is redundant. The entire purpose of a summary sentence is to draw together, at a key moment, information that has been conveyed many paragraphs apart, in a scattered manner that isn't easy to synthesize while reading something. This way, the summary sentence conveys the full magnitude of things at a key moment, like Stoltz's firing. The sentence I had after the firing - "32 days of filming had been completed, nearly seven weeks, with almost half of the film shot." - is a specific and useful summary of where the film was, and gives a clear picture that it was not just starting production, as had long been popularly believed.jamesluckard (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you try looking in the Gaines book at the page number suggested in the reference? Because it's there. I didn't say it's redundant, I said it's not relevant. Noone is asking a reader to do math of days, November to January filming is lost, that is incredibly simple to understand. Also 32 days is not "nearly" 7 weeks, unless you're not including weekends, in which case you're making it more confusing and pointless. And considering the next segment includes weekend filming, your math solution is even unnecessary. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked in the Gaines book on Google books at the link posted here and couldn't find that quote. Ether way, the movie was set to wrap on Feb 28, that's not 22 weeks. No movie of the scale of this one goes into production intending to shoot that long, it's clearly the length of the final production, as a result of reshooting half the movie. As for the issue with the weeks/days, weeks of filming usually means weekdays. They fired Stoltz midway through the seventh week, on a Thursday, that's how it totals 32 days. They started filming on weekends the following week only because of Fox's limited availability, because he was shooting Family Ties. If anything, it would be useful to add a sentence about how they now had to film on weekends to get most daylight scenes, since Fox was mostly available at night during the week. It's all detailed, day by day, in the Klastorin book, which, again, had unique access to all the official documentation from the shoot held by Universal.jamesluckard (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's the days/weeks issue, how about we just have something saying they had been filming for seven weeks and had shot almost half the movie. That seems to make clear that they were significantly far into production. Then we can add something about having to add weekend filming due to Fox's schedule.jamesluckard (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's on page 2 and the Feb 28 date comes from a separate book. You have no input on what they were planning so your judgment on how long they planned to take is irrelevant. They might be including pick up shots and SFX, either way one book states one thing and a different book the other, both having access to official sources. You've yet to state why it;s important to state a number of days or weeks (32 days remains not 7 weeks) when we state a start date and a date Stoltz is fired. You're trying to imply that the number of individual days is important or infer some sense of scope of filming from the number of days filmed, when there's already a sentence that says they're going to have to reshoot much of the film. Fox's weekend filming is mentioned. This article has to summarize to the best of its ability because it will be impossible to promote it to a high quality article if it's too long. I've done this like 5 times now and every time the length becomes an issue. The number of days is not useful when we have already stated the days, and you believing the reader to be an idiot incapable of remembering two dates 4 paragraphs apart is not a reason. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the predicted length of filming, the crux of this seems to be the mention of where he was fired, and how many days of filming were lost. The former is unimportant, the latter is as well, but it's also covered in better ways by the existing information. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to help, as you are, I'm not doing anything destructive, I'm not starting an edit war, and I'm remaining open to your suggestions. I'm not accusing readers of being idiots. I'm an intelligent person and I wouldn't have instantly known that those dates equaled seven full weeks of filming. If you object to that fact so much, I'll move on. As for the filming schedule, again, it is detailed day-by-day in the Klastorin book which is A) more recent than the Gaines book (though only by four months) B) had unique access to all Universal internal production documents and correspondence (many of which are reproduced in the book), and C) was written by the unit publicist on the 2nd and 3rd films and had the official blessing of the makers of the film, who opened their own archives for it. The other book, as I understand it, simply had interviews. I just think it's valuable to know how long the filming was intended to take, and how much that changed. Let's just leave things as they are, with the added information about the planned 14-week shoot, set to end on February 28.jamesluckard (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I think it's pretty clear where the 22 weeks comes from. That's how long the shoot actually ended up taking. They shot for 7 weeks, shut down, regrouped for a week, and then had to restart the 14-week shoot from scratch. 14+1+7=22. They had a planned 14-week shoot, which ballooned into a 22-week shoot.jamesluckard (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Although this thread is almost a year old, I think it's important to state that the Gaines source does state the filming schedule as it was originally planned, albeit in a sloppy manner.

On page 2 it states "Increasingly, these meetings had become fairly commonplace by this point in the shooting schedule, weeks after their November 26th start date. The production team expected principal photography to wrap after about twenty-two weeks of filming, meaning there would be fewer than three months between the last shot being captured and Future's late May release date." Page 1 had stated that this 'late May release date' was Memorial Day Weekend.

What this shows is that there is a typo in the Gaines book. Where they state "fewer than three months between the last shot being captured and Future's late May release date," what they meant to say was 'fewer than three weeks', because November 26 plus twenty-two weeks equals April 29th, which is exactly three weeks and four days before Memorial Day Weekend, 1985.

I don't find evidence of a 'planned 14-week shoot' anywhere in the Gaines source, unless the 22 week number is the typo. In that case, November 26 plus 14 weeks equals March 3rd, which is 2 months and 19 days before Memorial Day weekend, which would fit Gaines original statement that 'there would be fewer than three months between the last shot and the late May release date.'

Either way, this shows the perils of listing dates the way Gaines does, through prose, instead of just giving the dates in a chart, for example, which would make all this deciphering unnecessary. Spintendo 01:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Music Contest vs Music Audition
As we have an editor who doesn't believe in discussing things or adhering to WP: BRD, but just textually-yelling very loudly as if this slight variation is gradually kicking his dog down a flight of stairs, I thought a discussion would be useful for others to give their say.

The WP: STATUSQUO version is "music contest". It's an audition for Battle of the bands, and an audition is part of the contest. If someone is qualifying the Olympics we don't call it a "sporting audition" it's an "Olympic qualifier" or "Olympic qualifying event". Music contest conveys, to me, that this is a competition between various bands and Marty's band weren't seen as good enough, feeding into the plot. A "music audition" on the other hand can mean anything, an audition for what? A play? A birthday party? A record producer?

It is a minor change I think makes a big difference, but rather than reverting and then adding repeated warnings to the editor's talk page for the WP: EDITWARRING they're taking part in, I thought I would open the discussion first. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Alright then, you want to talk. Ignoring the illogic logic you are trying to convey with the Olympics, the main question you have asked is "Music Audition" that it could mean anything because you don't currently know what the audition is for.


 * Exhibit A Strickland 1985 quote: I notice your band is on the roster for the dance auditions after school today.


 * Exhibit B George McFly 1985 Quote: Belive me Marty you're better off without having to worry about all the aggravation and headaches of playing at that dance.


 * The Audition in question is for playing at the 1985 School Dance. Something he didn't get into because Judge "Lewis" claimed he was too darn loud.  Vindicated later by him playing at the dance in 1955.  The reason I gave such a minor edit is because this article most likely has a high importance, may have been nominated as "good" or had some other significance.  It's probably limited to a few letters at a time by now for all "I" know. Giving a detailed explanation to such a minor point is useless.


 * Exhibit C Time eight minutes and nine seconds into the movie, the sign in question that says "Auditions Battle Of The Bands" with corny cartoon figures in it.  I hardly think that this school audition sounds like the link you put up in this conversation just now especially when the "audience" in question are just 3 judges in an untelevised event.  Its similar to schools and offices making up some kind of event and attempting to make it sound cooler than it is just to get members to join in.


 * As for edit warring, I recall the rules of the site say I can revert up to 3 times before I start a discussion. You mister Blake have only reverted twice before starting this conversation.  Had you reverted a third time I would have stopped and waited for the inevitable moment someone else could have explained this to you, or re-written the paragraph.  As for my caps, "Am I just too darn loud" ?


 * Maxcardun (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "Edit warring" (WP:EW) describes the behavior of repeatedly restoring your preferred version of the page. This label can apply to any number of reversions. The three-revert rule (WP:3RR) describes a specific type of edit warring; do not exceed three reverts within a 24-hour period. Even if you don't cross that line, your behavior can still be considered edit warring. Typically, it's good practice to discuss at the article's talk page as soon as you realize another editor disagrees with you. WP:EPTALK is policy as well and worth reviewing.So disclaimer out of the way, does anyone know how secondary sources typically describe it? "Audition" sounds more natural to me in this context. The first two sources I came across – Rolling Stone and Uproxx – both describe it as an audition. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * One peer-reviewed source shows both terms being used (audition and contest). Namely, the audition is what the viewer sees onscreen, while the contest remains offscreen. Lewis is named as the "head juror" during the "audition for the Battle of the Bands (BOTB) contest".


 * It would seem that what needs to be defined here is which part the plot section of the article is discussing, the audition, the contest, or both. DARK is correct when they say that the audition is part and parcel of the contest. In the audition, one band is judged (apparently) by one juror. In the contest, the other bands are present (ostensibly) in the "battle" between each other.


 * So, because the other bands are not present or not entirely chosen during the audition phase, it can be surmised that, yes, the audition is part of the contest but that contest is not part of the audition (because the other bands to "battle" are absent). Thus, I think describing it as either an audition or an audition for the BOTB contest is the more accurate way to label it, more so than just describing it as an audition or a contest alone. To use the Olympics metaphor, it cannot be a true contest if most of the other contestants are not yet selected and/or missing in action, which would be the case in the audition phase.  Spintendo  06:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC); edited 18:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like a closed case at this point. The plot description reads, "After Marty's band is rejected from a music audition...", which would be accurate per the definition: an audition is a "trial performance to appraise an entertainer's merits". They are trying out for the contest hoping to be accepted, which is the audition phase. I agree though that if there's any confusion about what the audition is for, then it can be expanded to say "audition for the BOTB contest", but I don't think the expansion is necessary. Doing so wouldn't enhance my understanding of the plot. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that in the end, whether it was audition or audition for the contest, either one was preferable to contest alone, since the contest was offscreen and ultimately not part of the audition. Spintendo  18:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

5891
Hi, I'm just a reader, not overly familiar with this topic, but I keep seeing references to the year 5891. Wasn't it supposed to be in the late 20th century? Certainly Doc could not have had the idea for the time machine in 1955 and then lived until the year 5891. Has the page been vandalized or is this year number an in-universe correct number? It's repeated so many times on the page that I thought it plausible as an in-universe thing. 2601:5CC:C900:345:F8D3:2FD0:7F7E:8742 (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You're referring to this edit, which was clear vandalism. Looks like it was fixed already. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)