Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bttf.png

Back to the Future timeline

 * Reason:Not so much a spectacular image as an informative one. Buc 22:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles this image appears in: Back to the Future timeline
 * Creator:Breed3011


 * Support as nominator &mdash; Buc 22:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It actually is kind of confusing, even though I've seen all three films multiple times. First, it should be an SVG. Second, he blue star thing seems rather arbitrary, and the entire thing is somehow…lacking. Too confusing, I think. Is there a better way to present this information?--HereToHelp 22:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose larger resolution, perhaps? Text is barely readable. -- Phoenix  (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How about now. Buc 08:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Err, what was changed exactly? -- Phoenix  (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a parenthesis that was never closed in TL3, and capitalisation varies with Timeline, timeline, TL#, and Tl# all present. J     Are you green? 23:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was an SVG, that's be easy to change. If someone is going to make an SVG, that needs to be worked out.--HereToHelp 02:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've not seen them multiple times and it's even more confusing. Why are there 8 timelines for 3 films?  Is this something that's in the film itself?  I agree that the blue star is very arbitrary, perhaps there should be an indication on the diagram of which character is traveling and living in the particular times?  SVG would be nice too.  So in its present form, I oppose. |→ Spaully₪† 08:38, 6 May 2007 (GMT)
 * Ok, the article explains the timelines, perhaps there should be an indication of where each film starts and ends though? Also, information like "The blue stars represent the ensuing jumps by Doc’s DeLorean depicted in the trilogy." should be in the legend. |→ Spaully₪† 08:42, 6 May 2007 (GMT)

I may still have it - will take a look through some old CD-Rs. I have invited some people who view the BTTF timeline page to vote as i feel strongly about multiple timelines in the film and any attempt to use a single timeline diagram is futile as the film isnt written that way - but i really dont mind if anybody wants to make a better version - just as longas it obeys the rules set out in the film Breed3011 14:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC) I have edited the image toreflect some criticisms and converted it to a svg - i think i have done it right. Breed3011 13:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Interesting, but even though i know the films back to back it makes it very confusing. Also the resolution is too small (should be 1000px wide or tall at least). SVG would be good. The diagram itself seems to be a bit clunky with the thick lines. A better version would indicate who is travelling at that time (ie Doc, Marty, Einstein, Jennifer, or Biff), could just have different colours for each person. C  hris_huh talk 09:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just spoted a mistake. The 1985 in TL5 should be in TL4 and therefore there should only be 7 timelines. (incorrect see breed3011 below Breed3011 13:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Oppose From Time_travel, "In film, the Back to the Future trilogy also seems to feature a single mutable timeline." This disagreement between articles is there for a reason: time travel is complicated, and you can't codify the films into a single be-all, end-all diagram without losing various interpretations of the films. I saw a diagram--it isn't there anymore though--in one of the article that had a single timeline, with forward jumps above the line and backward jumps below the line (or the other way around; oh well). I think this did a much better job of explaining it. (And oh, I also agree with everything that everyone has said.) Collectively, that's enough for me to oppose.--HereToHelp 12:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I am the author of the image - the image which was previously in its place contained many errors. This does not contain errors. Chris_huh, the 1985 in TL5 is correctly placed. It is the jump to 1985A by Marty, Doc and Jennifer from 2015, it differs from the 1985A in timeline 3 by virtue of the fact that Marty, Doc and Jennifer are now in it. This is not original research or a personal theory but a diagram according the rules set out in the film - read the article itself. Interpretations of the film constitutes orginal research and belongs on IMDB, not here - this is not Original Research though. However, if someone feels they can create an improved diagram then I really don't mind. That is what wiki is about.Breed3011 13:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't say there was a mistake, that was someone else. Do you have a larger version available, preferably in SVG, as at the moment it doesn't meet FP criteria. It is a good diagram, which has good potential to explain the timelines in BTTF but i don't think it is FP quality myself. C  hris_huh talk 13:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think that the image size guidelines apply to diagrams. Of course, this has more problems than just size. J     Are you green? 17:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The word "lightning" is incorrectly spelled as "lightening", whether you are British or American. :)  pinotgris  00:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I spotted some problems with the new version - A: A huge portion is cut off; B: TL5 description says "The Doc," rather that simply "Doc" as he is referred to throughout the rest of the diagram ; C: TL8 description has overlapping text. J     Are you green? 20:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that two of these issues have been addressed. J     Are you green? 02:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 01:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose original and SVG Switching to SVG should almost be required, with that amount of text, and because it is a vector diagram, so the small PNG gets my oppose. I also do not like the SVG version, for two big reasons. Because the amount of text, the thumbnail version isn't readable (while it is scalable, someone with a vision impairment or someone who has their browser font set to large still won't be able to see the SVG text without some work, so it isn't accessible). Having the text in an image file doesn't really serve a purpose, and it seems like that much text should be put in the image description and summarized if possible for the caption. The design isn't that good either. Aesthetically, it doesn't work for me (especially the time jumps and ripple effects). The information isn't presented in the best possible manner, and the whole thing seems amateurish to me, so it isn't wikipedia's best possible work from a graphic design standpoint. -Andrew c 00:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Please use the caption for that amount of text. --Dschwen 13:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even it were SVG, I'd still oppose. The picture adds no real value to the article - it's the text that's important. Being able to draw a graph does not make this a FP. Otherwise why don't we start promoting some of those mathematical graphs of distributions?  C e n t y   00:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)