Talk:Back to the Future Part II

Back to the Future Day - Day Recognition

Hey, I've put a little note on the October 21 page to recognise Marty's arrival in the future. Anyone have some notes on the notability of the arrival/day/etc? Just thought it'd be amusing, and something good to note. Thanks! LHefferman (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Theaters are doing a limited theatrical run in celebration of BTTFD, so will the additional box office gross be added to the total? 2601:4C4:2:2263:85F5:1E8F:F96E:49F3 (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This documentary[1][2] also seems to somehow tie in with BTTF day. Could this be the final title of the Kickstarter documentary that had Back in Time as its working title? In Germany, it was broadcast on 21 October for BTTF Day, while the funny thing is that when Doc and Marty arrive at what is 4:30pm on the 21st in California, it's really 1:30am on the 22nd in Germany. --2003:48:2E4C:B138:D9EB:E63B:7E6E:F500 (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

' The date also occurred during the 30th anniversary of the first Back to the Future‍ '​s release on July 3, 1985. '

What does that mean? Also, can we change 80's to '80s ? As the cafe didn't belong to the number 80. Beingsshepherd (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My photo BackToTheFutureDayBoiseCosPlay.jpg was deleted as being not special, despite depicting cosplay on the day. Further photographs and citations are welcome for a gallery. kencf0618 (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one who deleted it. There must have been dozens of BTTF day events making hundreds of pictures. We can't start adding them just because they were taken on BTTF day or related to it. Wikipedia is not Pinterest. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

As it is the cosplay and events aren't illustrated at all. You've thrown out the baby with the bathwater. kencf0618 (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove a free image here, if it was a photo taken on the day of the event. Yes, I'm sure hundreds of ppl in the world dressed up as Doc and Marty and stood in front of DeLoreans, but we have a free image of one. That's completely acceptable. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Based on your comment on readding, Lyverbe, a thing to note: if 2000+ ppl want to provide us with freely licensed images of their BTTF Day cosplay and other celebrations, great! That's what we have commons for and if that becomes large enough then on this page we can link to the Commons category page so that a reader can look for more free media. But key is that it has to be freely licensed and that's not always going to happen. If it ends up that we have dozens or more BTTF Day cosplay pics to choose from , then we'll have to have a discussion on consensus of what might be the best representation for this page here. But right now we only appear to have one image so the choice is moot. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, Wikipedia is not Pinterest. I don't believe we should add pictures just because they're free (whether they're included in an article or not), but hey, that's my opinion and I always go with the majority. -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

halloween clearly omitted from film, oct21 date just exposes giant blunder in the film.

everyone is going to celebrate a day that was clearly chosen purely randomly, and just illustrates a giant blunder?this is very clear due to the lack of one single bit of halloween flavor or acknowledgment in the film. The creators of the film clearly chose this date randomly. and this shines a spotlight on how they made a big mistake choosing oct 21st as the day the character went. they clearly were not mindful of the fact that during that season in time, there would be halloween decorations everywhere. even in 1955 im certain that halloween was still a widely celebrated holiday. this would be like them choosing randomly, december 21st 1955 for the character to go back, and then failing to remember to include any christmas decorations anywhere! clearly this just highlights what a giant blunder this was by randomly choosing oct21st. this just illistrates that 80's movies often did not pay much attention to details!

Has any reliable source discussed this? I tend to doubt it. DonIago (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

How is this helping the article (which is what talk pages are meant for)? -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

They mentioned the Cubs winning the world series, so the date would have to have been around the end of the baseball season (which, as explained in 2015_World_Series#Historical_notes, would have ended around October 21 if not for the Division Series being added in 1994), so the date is not entirely random. Also, the present time for the trilogy's characters are between October 25 and 27, 1985, and we don't see Halloween decorations in the 1985 scenes either. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Found: Source of the idea of an almanac from the future?

I think I may have found the source of the idea for bringing back an almanac from the future: Conflict (TV series) had an episode called "Man From 1997" (broadcast 1956 November 27). The protagonist, a poor immigrant janitor, is in love with a woman who does not want to marry a poor man. He buys the almanac and, after realizing it is from the future, decides to start betting on the horses and from there move on to other things so he can marry his love.

You can watch it on Youtube at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWlxHUmzecE

Phantom in ca (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a common enough trope that it's unlikely that this is the specific source for the idea. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Back to the Future Part II. 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/20151222094821/http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/september-2015-update/new-words-notes-september-2015/ to http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/september-2015-update/new-words-notes-september-2015/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The Accolades section

@Tajotep: Why the undo on the paragraph->table of the Accolades section? I personally find it so much easier to read in a table than messy paragraphs. -- Lyverbe (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

And what is the reason to add it? Some people find it easier to read it in a table, and other people find it easier to read it in a paragraph, so...it is arguable. --Tajotep (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Arguable indeed but there was no discussion because you just removed it on behalf of "some people". You ask the reason to add it which is something I already explained: It's much easier to read. Cleaner too. I guess we'll see what others have to say about it. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Making cars run with food waste

In Back to the future III they explain that the fusion machine powers the flux condenser. It isn't to make the car run. The text should be changed "to extract electric energy from food waste." 190.234.181.123 (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything relevant to your concern in the plot summary for this film? Did you misplace this note? Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably referring to the "Depection of the future" section where it says "Cars and other vehicles have been able to be run using fuel generated from food wastes, though not through a fusion reactor as suggested in the film" -- Lyverbe (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Since BttF2 (via BttF3) basically says that the fusion reactor doesn't run the car, should we just strike that part? That section's detailed enough that I'm not sure that would be a significant removal. DonIago (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm OK with that -- Lyverbe (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

N Deleted DonIago (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"Biff has [...] become one of the wealthiest and most corrupt men in America"

Can someone confirm the bolded part? I watched the movie less than an hour ago, but don't remember that being stated explicitly. My suggested replacement (if "in America" is found to be speculation) is "Biff has [...] become extremely wealthy and corrupt". Glades12 (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The quote I found is "Inside you will learn how Biff Tannen became one of the richest and most powerful men in America." Cheers. DonIago (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured it would be stated at some point in Biff's 1985. Glades12 (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I suppose we could argue that the narrative is essentially a propaganda piece and consequently not necessarily reliable... :p DonIago (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Isn't this a real problem for researchers of highly authoritarian states (both past and present)? That the only information available is what the government itself puts out? Glades12 (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably; happily for me, I don't tend to edit articles dealing with subjects of that nature. DonIago (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Me neither. I got a bit speculative (for lack of a better word) there; I'm nowhere near certain on the veracity of that. Glades12 (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop the revert war on my Cubs-Marlins edits!

I made several edits yesterday (mostly via hidden notes to minimize impact) to point out, using the history & structure of Major League Baseball as well as a name conflict with the Florida Gators, why anything resembling this movie's predicted 2015 World Series between the Chicago Cubs and the "Miami Gators" was all but impossible, whether in 1989 when there were no MLB teams in Florida, or in real-life 2015 when there were two such teams but the Miami Marlins (not "Gators") were in the National League together with the Cubs while only the Tampa Bay Rays (neither "Miami" nor "Gators") were in the American League as the World Series' own structure requires in order to face the Cubs -- or ever as it's extremely unlikely that either the Cubs or Marlins will ever move to the AL (or that the World Series itself will be restructured to permit a single-league match-up like NL Cubs vs. NL Marlins).

Instead of accepting my points it seems a revert war has been started against my edits (as well as some edits before mine), even though my edits were acknowledged as "good faith" by one of my opponents, because they’re seen by some as "trivial" (though they disprove the very premise behind its seemingly eerie prediction as to when the Cubs would finally win the World Series) and now "unsourced" (even though they are self-referenced by the facts I cited in my edits). First, User:Doniago claimed they were "(a) whole lot of trivia about one minor point"; I reverted that (with a minor fix to my earlier Texas Rangers link which was flagged by a bot as pointing to a disambig page instead of the baseball team) using basic undo, stating his explanation was even more trivial. Right after that, User:Masem started their multiple attacks on BOTH my edit AND earlier edits I had nothing to do with that, expanding on the earlier "trivia" claim by demanding "sources" that are "'specific' to BTTF Part II" even though that is absurd in ACTUAL context. (The only reason I didn't revert the last one was WP:3RR; I technically may have exceeded that as my attempt to rollback Masem's first revert was redirected to the intervening second one by RedWarn.)

My edits, in whole, are NOT trivial and do NOT require references (specific to BTTF II or otherwise) as they are backed by COLD, HARD FACTS about both MLB and sports in general. I won't argue if others agree that the other edits (some of which probably ARE trivial, such as the movie not catching more recent changes in the AT&T logo) should be removed, but I insist on MY edits. I need to back off anyway for unrelated reasons, but after any 24-hour period expires (due to 3RR or any 24-hour ban that might result from my technically exceeding it), I intend to restore my edits unless you can provide MORE SPECIFIC reasons WHY they're inappropriate that do NOT require unnecessary BTTF II-specific references. --RBBrittain (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Given that the article is about the film, and not about the Cubs or Marlins for more than about ten seconds, I don't think it's ridiculous or unnecessary to ask that you provide sources to indicate that this element of the film has received the kind of coverage that would merit the amount of discussion you'd like to devote to it, in accordance with WP:UNDUE.

As an aside, I personally become very skeptical when anyone claims that sourcing isn't necessary. The easiest and least wasteful way to resolve such scenarios is typically to provide a source rather than argue about the need for one.

In any case, you've added your edits and now been reverted by both myself and other editors, so continuing to push for them without a consensus would be edit-warring and might result in you being blocked from editing, so I would encourage you not to go that route. DonIago (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It is original research and trivia, not so much in terms of the facts that are true and verifiable to baseball sources (I don't question that), but their relevance to BTTF2, per WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR. We do talk about the 2015 MLB season and how by coincidence certain things lined up with the film because that coincidence was noted by multiple reliable sources. Other facets that you are trying to add, however, while true, are not notable by other sources. It is original research on the order of synthesis, as well as in line with UNDUE, to include this, unless you have actual sources that discuss these facets in context of the film. This is why I also removed the unsourced paragraphs about the changed logos or the car design changes. We're not TV Tropes or a fan wiki where such content would be fine. And it should be unstated that if you can find reliable sourcing that places these MLB factors in context of the film, hey great, its no longer OR or trivia. --Masem (t) 16:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Just as a warning note to RBBrittain, I'll point out that WP:EDITWAR states in the lede that "[a]ny appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring" - so I would consider very carefully your statement that "after any 24-hour period expires (due to 3RR or any 24-hour ban that might result from my technically exceeding it), I intend to restore my edits".

For the record, I'm on the side of DonIago and Masem - this is clearly OR trivia, and would probably be considered trivia on the Cubs, Marlins, or any respective team article as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, I didn't restore it because I gave up on it shortly thereafter; I only mentioned any of that in case you used that technicality to drop a 24-hour ban hammer on me. I still consider your "trivia" claims inappropriate in the broader context, especially since (a) the Cubs' real-life World Series win was within a year of BTTF II's prediction, yet (b) BTTF II's predicted 2015 World Series match-up was never possible due to both team name (the University of Florida owns the trademark on "Gators") and league alignment (the Marlins were & still are in the National League like the Cubs, not the American League like ANY World Series opponent of either team under the format used for well over a century), much less the Marlins' poor record at that time. Nonetheless, I have much more important fish to fry than your petty revert war. --RBBrittain (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Locking This Article Against Vandalism

Someone keeps repeatedly, according to the history, changing dates in the article from 2015 to 2021. Perhaps it should be locked down to keep further vandalism from occurring? --2600:6C67:897F:EC43:A559:1B27:F76E:C7EE (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Biff and Trump?

Is this worth adding to the article? After rewatching, one of the most striking ‘predictions’ for me in Back to the Future Part 2 was the movie’s villain. Biff Tannen is directly inspired by Donald Trump, as outlined by the movie’s writer:

> Asked if Trump was on his mind during the writing process, he replied: “We thought about it when we made the movie! Are you kidding?”

> “You watch Part II again and there’s a scene where Marty confronts Biff in his office and there’s a huge portrait of Biff on the wall behind Biff, and there’s one moment where Biff kind of stands up and he takes exactly the same pose as the portrait? Yeah.”

The movie effectively predicted the rise of a corrupt gambling magnate to become the most powerful man in America - in the same year when it happened, considering President Trump launched his campaign for president in 2015. For me, this is one of the movie’s most impressive predictions, and well worth mentioning in the article. 109.38.132.213 (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Let it go.

Trump derangement syndrome Jack Meihoffer (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Nike Mag Side View.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Plot question

So, about the recent expansion to the plot summary, I have a few questions.

Since Marty being easily goaded is a major theme in this film and Part III, is it relevant to mention Marty being called "chicken" in the summary? Also, what should we do regarding the climax (in this case, it's Marty retrieving the almanac from Biff)? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)