This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Back to the Future article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on November 4, 2020.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skateboarding, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Skateboarding on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkateboardingWikipedia:WikiProject SkateboardingTemplate:WikiProject Skateboardingskateboarding
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
Here is a scan of the table of contents from Cinefex Issue 24, showing the author of the article Backyard Adventures — Spielberg Style as being Janine Pourroy. She's also listed as the magazine's associate editor. I'm not sure how the letter "Y" was initially left off from her name and not caught before, but it has been fixed now. Regards, Spintendo07:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it would be appropriate. The information is at best, trivia (which would be frowned upon in an FA-level article) . Although the video announcing the search on YouTube likely appeals to fans appreciative of rare appearances by the actors involved, the search for the guitar itself feels at worst, like an advertisement for Gibson (who is paying for the search). Regards, Spintendo01:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MyGosh789 use this talk page please. Please refer to WP: BRD. This is a Featured Article, WP: EDITWARRING is not acceptable. The last sentence of Box office encompasses all releases after the original, and specifically calls out anniversary related ones. The 40th is no different to the 25th, 30th, or 35th. Similarly, these new releases don't need daily box office breakdowns, they count towards the overall total gross unless there is something unique about their performance. Presentation in large formats isn't noteworthy, its trivia. If it was the first film released in those formats that would be noteworthy. I don't appreciate that I pointed you to this text and your response was wholesale reverts with no edit summaries per policy. It's not conducive to a collaborative environment. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editing has been modified to correct some of the potential issues. I have now directly included it the box office section and have used it to box office projections from yesterdays screenings. Those edits about previous re-releases also didn't note things like "IMAX, Dolby Cinema, 4DX and D-Box" screenings.MyGosh789 (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need a whole paragraph about the 40th anniversary re-release. The previous sentence that says it had several re-releases seems to cover it. We absolutely don't need a sentence giving its one-day gross on October 31. Are we going to add a new sentence for the daily gross every day for the next week? Regarding the sentence about large screen formats, I agree that this is trivia. (Even if it weren't, the sentence is insufficiently referenced: the LA Times reference says nothing about large screen formats, and the Collider reference says nothing about IMAX.) But overall I see no reason that the 40th anniversary release merits a separate paragraph more than any of the earlier anniversary re-releases. CodeTalker (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't find covering up its weekend box office gross, which was even higher than initially projected yesterday, to be helpful.MyGosh789 (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a news site. It's not plausible to cover every re-release the film gets in detail, especially as those re-releases, even if successful, are only relatively minor compared to the original release performance. That's why that one sentence at the end of the section provides coverage for any and all future releases, just requiring the total figure to be updated. In this case we'd wait for the run to end though so we have a total figure, not update it daily. I'm open to discussion from others but I don't really see being released in 4DX or D-Box as notable, it's a cinemagoer experience, it doesn't involve fundamental alterations to the film itself. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Formatted properly; cast lists on Wikipedia are always bullet pointed, and are not categorised by time"
"Nope"
You said they're always that way, there are dozens of Featured Articles in this format that prove otherwise. And, as mentioned, it's a Featured Article and went through the nomination process in this format. Prose is preferred over lists, so we list the top billed only and discuss the rest in prose. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
