Talk:Hill Valley (Back to the Future)

message: My  tag was removed, but it seems to me that this article is (necessarily?) riddled with original research.  "By the 1950s, the downtown area was in its heyday, with a grass-covered town square just in front of the courthouse. Business in the square was booming." "A few decades later, Twin Pines Mall opened on the edge of town and many of the town square businesses relocated there. The square fell into a state of decline as businesses and stores closed down and were replaced with adult book stores and second hand shops." What reputable reference material does this come from?  Even the movies themselves can't be used as a reference for these statements, because I've watched the movies plenty of times and stuff about heyday and businesses moving to Twin Pines Mall is never stated, so it's obvious that someone just did an amateur analysis and came up with this stuff.  Those two statements are just an example, this entire article is filled with this kind of stuff.  That's original research. —Cleared as filed. 14:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who removed the OR tag. You had (rightfully) tagged two quotes as unsourced and put an "unsourced" tag on the page, which is ok. The OR claim, though, was at the time unjustified and added along with the "unsourced" tags. Without any other information, I assumed you used it in the sense that the unsourced claims were original research, which is both redundant and a misuse of the OR tag. That's why I removed it.Now regarding your justification for OR. I'll have to say I disagree. Watching the movies, it's clear the town square was in a much better state in 1955 (nice & clean, with reputable businesses all around) than in 1985 (bums sleeping on the benches, cheap adult stores, some businesses such as the theater closed completely, courthouse ageing poorly), and is once again in a good state in 2015 (there's a cineplex, lots of trafic, the courthouse is renovated). That's the point the article is trying to get accorss. It could use better language and loose the absolute adjectives such as "hayday" and "booming", but the basic facts are backed by the movie. -- Ritchy 16:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But what you're talking about is exactly what original research is.  You watched the movie, and came to some conclusions.  That's all well and good, but it's original research.  Especially the Twin Pine Mall example; how do you know that the town square businesses relocated there?  Was there a JCPenney in the town square in 1955?  Did an interview with the script writers say that?  And if so, it should be cited next to that assertion.  But I seriously doubt there is a reference for it. —Cleared as filed. 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the "history" section. I believe this new version eliminates all the problematic bits. Hope you like it. -- Ritchy 19:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent.  I think it is much better now.  I removed one more line, "Overall, the town square was far from its glory days in the 50s."  From the rest of the information, the reader can judge that for him/herself. —Cleared as filed. 19:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research?

message: The old section layout has many advantages over the new table layout. Each time period has its own subsection, withing which each place is numbered, making them easy to track. The image of the clock tower in each time period is in the matching subsection, which keeps things ordered and tidy. Granted, in the new table, it's possible to follow the changes to each place by going left-to-right, but that could already be done by following a number up-to-down in the old layout. And in this new layout, the images are not matched to their time period but just thrown at the end.
Moreover, the table layout assumes that people have a display resolution set high enough to see it properly. People with resolutions set lower will see a long, narrow table. The old layout did not have this problem, and was tidier and nicer to read at any resolution.
Given all this, I've reverted to the old layout. -- Ritchy 00:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't see any advantages at all to the old layout, but now that you've explained it, I accept your criticism. Especially the part about people with low resolution --- universal access and non-discrimination at very high priorities in my book. Thanks for setting me straight. (And I honestly had not noticed that the five pictures each corresponded to one of the time periods; I really thought they were pretty random! I feel like an idiot!!!!) --Keeves 01:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout of the "Recurring places" section 

message: I've removed the "unreferenced" tag, having just spent a couple of days adding "out of universe" data and lots of citations from DVD extras and other sources. I also rewrote the intro and added an intro to the overall History section, removing (or at least deemphasizing) the fan research angle and stressing that these places and dates are all taken from the three films as a primary source. If someone feels that more citations are needed for business names, dates, or the degradation of Hill Valley between 1955 and 1985 (not to mention 1985A), I suggest references to the various DVD extras, a few of which I've already cited here. The same can be done for the Timeline article, but for some reason I'm having trouble making myself tackle that one. Karen | Talk | contribs 09:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I'm taking off Zales as a one era location, as we know it is in the mall in 1985. Citation, look at the bench Marty was standing on in the first movie. --72.194.110.83 06:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the Bank of America is listed as being a "unique location" in both 1955 and 1985. Daibhid C  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daibhid C (talk • contribs) 23:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One era locations

message: I removed the Prod on this article, as the reasons given (non-notable, trivia and in-universe) seem unjustified:
*Back to the Future is an important, popular and influential film of its era, with two popular sequels; and Hill Valley is a key element of the film series. Marty's travels, successes and failures are all measured in part by what version of Hill Valley he sees around him.  He directly affects it with his actions, and it functions as almost another character in the films. 
*Because of Hill Valley's importance in the narrative, the filmmakers took considerable care in developing its real estate to reflect and create Mary's changing world. To take notice of this aspect of the films is not to celebrate trivia, but to be properly aware of the intricacy of the world the filmmakers made, and how it matters in the context of the films. I would further note that similar objections were made to the Timeline article.  It not only survived AFD but also became the subject of links from at least two high-traffic sites.
*The article covers such real world elements as shooting locations used and a bit of their histories, quotations from the filmmakers and suitable out-of-universe phrasing.  It is not very in-universe at all, as such things go.
On the other hand, there is a Merge suggestion to fold Twin Pines Mall into this article. As important as Twin Pines/Lone Pine Mall is to the first film, there really isn't all that much to be said about it. The Twin Pines text can and probably should be worked into the Hill Valley article. --Karen | Talk | contribs 02:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a strong point, so I won't put this up for AfD. Would a possible merge with Back to the Future and Back to the Future timeline be in order, though? I don't see much information here that couldn't be covered in either of those articles. - Chardish 12:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prods and Merge suggestion 

message: Location 13 (Sheriff/Police) is missing from the 1955 era.
:More to the point, location 12 is Police, which should be 13, while 12 (Hilldale) is the one missing in 1955. TheHYPO 12:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing location 

message: This article repeatedly states that Biff literally owns the Hill Valley Police Department.  In the second film in the alternate 1985 when Marty threatens to call police, Biff claims "I own the police!", but this is most certainly boasting of his influence in this town and his ability to get away with anything, and not a claim that I think was meant literally.  In this timeline, Biff "owned" the whole town of Hill Valley, not just the police.  I don't think it's necessary to include this in comparisons of timelines.
Mal7798 01:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biff "owning" the police?

message: I would like to make a comment on the location of Hill Valley.
In Back to the Future pt. 1, when Marty goes back in time and is going through the city before he enters the soda shoppe, you see road signs for US 395 and I-8.
I-8 runs from the southern edge of Mission Bay at Sunset Cliffs Blvd. in San Diego, California, almost at the Pacific Ocean, to the junction with Interstate 10, just southeast of Casa Grande, Arizona.
As for US 395, the southern terminus of the route is in the Mojave Desert at Interstate 15 near Hesperia. The northern terminus is at the Canadian border near Laurier, Washington, where the road becomes Highway 395 upon entering British Columbia. At one time, the route extended south to San Diego.  Perhaps that "at one time" took place during the 1950's.
Given these pieces of evidence, I would recommend that Hill Valley is not located in Northern California (near San Francisco) but probably located in Southern California (near San Diego).
I welcome any responses to this post at tinyoscar3162@yahoo.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.90.45 (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute the Location of Hill Valley 

message: :Image:ClockTower1885.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ClockTower1885.PNG

message: :Image:ClockTower1985.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ClockTower1985.PNG

message: :Image:ClockTower1985A.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ClockTower1985A.PNG

message: The image :Image:ClockTower1955.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:ClockTower1955.PNG

message: This is a table of plot summary, the inclusion of which violates WP:IINFO. It is sufficient to have the (cited) quote from someone part of the production staff explaining the reason for recurring locales; a semi-exhaustive table of names and places (and "unknown"s -- unknown to whom? the editor? the producers? God?) is WP:ORish and inconsequential. Can someone substantiate a rationale for its inclusion beyond "It's useful" or "I put a lot of work into it"? --EEMIV (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of places 

message: A series of edits to this article were made by an unknown user (IP address on title) on the date of Sunday, 5 June 2022. These edits were made between 0318 hours and 0354 hours, save for the most recent one, which was made at 2040 hours on the same day, according to the timestamps on the "Revision History" page. The aforementioned edits contain several formatting and spelling errors, as well as information that is not shown in or outright contradicts what is shown in the movies. As such, I am reversing these edits to the last prior revision made by user with IPv6 address 2603:6000:9803:a062:d7a:c994:811d:9d6d and additionaly request that this article be given semi-protected status to prevent further vandalism.
Signed, 179.73.177.113 179.73.177.113 (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible vandalism by user with IPv4 address 177.12.44.88 on 5 June 2022 

message: In BTTF I Doc Brown says the Delorean is electric.  However in BTTF 3 the Delorean ruptures a fuel line while being chased by Indians! 74.215.54.206 (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deloreon