Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Continuity errors

T2 is notable for having a record number of minor continuity errors

Is this a real documented record (if so, documented by whom?), or just rhetoric? --Oliver P. 04:41, 15 June 2003 (UTC)

my vote: rhetoric. --Someone else 04:43, 15 June 2003 (UTC)

Ah, thought it must be. :) Wasn't feeling bold enough to change it myself, though... --Oliver P. 05:16, 15 June 2003 (UTC)

Buck up and be on about it! There is much to boldly change of late, and not only in this particular essay --Someone else 05:35, 15 June 2003 (UTC)

Unseen Footage?

For the record, the never-before-seen footage had made it into a comic book version, though I grant that it doesn't qualify as footage. --Kizor 20:39, 19 February 2005 (UTC)

Opening paragraph tense

Someone had started writing the opening paragraph timelines using the present tense, as a clever homage to the way Arnold-Terminator narrates near-future events when talking to Sarah Conner. So I made that consistent throughout the opening section. Also I removed the continuity errors bit; without a reference it doesn't belong there, and certainly not near the top of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.107.71 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 24 March 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

maybe move the quotes to wikiquote? --clem 17:00, 3 April 2005 (UTC))

Budget

In the article it says the movie cost $88 million, but the infobar on the right says the budget was $100 million. Shouldn't these numbers agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.148.206 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

DVD Art

Is it possible that since this article was originally written in English, an English DVD artwork picture can be uploaded? Possibly moving the foreign language version into a link in the article or something, just to stay with consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.233.16.228 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Linda/Leslie Roles

I've tried to locate a corroberating interview on-line for this, but have been unable to do so. Last time I watched the DVD version of this film (I'll verify which version, I believe it was the Extreme Edition) the commentary notably mentioned something that this article may have wrong: Linda played the 'T1000 Fake' in the climatic scene of the film. Linda's explanation (which I can't quote perfectly from memory) was that as the filming went on, Sarah Connor was becoming more and more like a Terminator, more ruthless and emotionless. And as she'd had so much experience doing this during filming, she had a hard time actually acting the part of the emotional 'mother rescueing her son' in that scene, and ended up actually playing the part of the T1000 fake, her sister Leslie being the Sarah Connor that actually rolls up the conveyor belt. Can anyone out there verify if this is correct? And if so, kindly correct the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.33 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Ultimate Edition, the T-1000 version of Sarah was played by Linda. --Rd232 ^talk 23:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"Speculation"

The additions to the plot holes section that keep getting removed are not speculation, their issues not fully adressed by the film, they belong in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.36.17.218 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The issues may not be fully addressed, but the speculation in question [1] is a waste of time to the extent it isn't just wrong; and certainly none of them are "plot holes" (as the section title in the article says). For instance speculating how John got from living in an LA suburb in 1995 to becoming leader of the post-apocalypse resistance is pointless: we know he did (because otherwise Skynet wouldn't have sent back the time-travellers) but the film doesn't tell us how. Speculating that Sarah wouldn't have escaped between 1995 and 1997 is pointless (and in the film, she was on the verge of doing so alone, had the terminators not shown up). Describing John as "well grounded into his life in foster care" is plain wrong - there's every indication he'd be willing and able to run away from his family by 1997, to who knows where. None of this speculation adds to the article. --Rd232 ^talk 09:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate the points with you other than to say that I disagree. There are numerous variables that could occur in the 32 years before John becomes leader and it's obvious that Sarah's solo escape attempts were worthless endeavours - she could never succeed in getting out. These issues are plot holes in that the film fails to give us a complete picture about the development of the war, it's impossible to view John as a leader when he;s only 12 years old, there had to be many things that changed about him in the 32 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.36.17.218 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the time travel element - "numerous elements that could occur" yes, but we know the end outcome. (I know a hamburger when I see one, but I don't need to speculate on whether the cow was happy.) And "it's obvious that Sarah's solo escape attempts were worthless endeavours" is (a) wrong - the attempt we see in T2 looks likely to succeed if no terminators had been involved - (b) irrelevant - her not getting out doesn't necessarily prevent John becoming the leader (it's perfectly plausible for that to happen whilst she remains stuck in hospital til 29 August 1997). --Rd232 ^talk 10:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In regards to Sarah's escape attempts, I don't see how you can just pan the point as "wrong". If the Terminator and John hadn't shown up, she would have been subdued in the hallway by Dr. Silberman's "goons" via sedative (they were about to inject her) and she would have been carted back to her room. Her getting out of Pescadero only occured because they were there to aid her. There's not much speculation neccesary to see that she wasn't going anywhere without help. In regards to John becoming leader, the whole thing hinges on the success of the mission in T2, without meeting the T-800 and realizing his mother isn't insane, he never would have persued the path of leader, and it's fair to assume that he would have died on Judgement Day because without having met the T-800, he wouldn't have believed that it was going to happen. I'll conceed that the 32 year gap is unimportant, because as far as the story of the first 2 films is concerned, it's no longer going to happen because JD has been stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.36.17.218 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but... You're wrong about Sarah's escape attempt: recall that the elevator opened in time for her to escape the 'goons', but she fled towards them because the Terminator came out of it. You're wrong to say "without meeting the T-800 and realizing his mother isn't insane, he never would have persued the path of leader..." - no basis for saying that, as if he survives Judgement Day (and by timetravel fact we know he does, though not the circumstances) he knows she was right! --Rd232 ^talk 00:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You're only speculating yourself that had she made it into the elevator she would have gotten away, she may have been captured on another floor of the building or in the parking lot (keep in mind that there was a guard at the gate who was only subdued via being shot by the T-800) or she might have been picked up by the police later on. I maintain that her escape hinged on the T-800s presence. Even if she had escaped and reached John, again, you're only speculating that John would have gone anywhere with her. He tells his friend near the ATM that he thinks she's "tottally nuts" because she tried to destroy Cyberdyne, he obviously does not believe in the existence to the Terminators or Judgement Day, it's only his encounter with the T-800 that convinces him of this truth. His encounter with the T-800 in the second film is the catalyst that sets up the timeline toward his leadership, and that timeline is squashed (as far as the first two films are concerned) when the Cyberdyne facility is destroyed and Dyson is killed in the explosion. So if anything, the events of T2 effectivly end any possibility of him becoming leader. This opens up another plot hole, that by sending the T-1000 back in time to kill John, prompting his future self to send back the T-800 as protection, the machines effectively destroy their own future existence, the same way that John creates his existence by sending Kyle back in the first film. John's becoming leader was enevitable after the end of T1, it's only the timeline between his childhood and his becoming leader we are unaware of, but that timeline and his eventual succession to leader is destroyed by the events of T2 - he never becomes that leader because Judgement Day is averted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.110.65 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said I thought Sarah would get away, merely that it was speculation to say that she wouldn't have without the intervention of the T-800. Equally, it's speculation that John wouldn't have become leader without her assistance. --Rd232 ^talk 00:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

T3 and "no fate"

It was said in the article that T3 contradicted the "no fate" hypothesis. It doesn't, but the point people constantly miss (and blame the creators of T3 for ruining T2's "happy" ending) is that Skynet must exist in the future for the Terminators to be sent into the past, otherwise, a paradox would occur. Consider this:

• if Skynet didn't exist, it wouldn't want to kill John;
• therefore, Skynet wouldn't send the T-1000;
• therefore, there would be no reason for John to protect himself;
• therefore, John wouldn't send the T-800;
• therefore, Sarah wouldn't know about Skynet's origins;
• therefore, Cyberdyne would be left intact;
• therefore, Skynet would exist.

As Skynet is necessary, we can assume that there is some sort of a Back to the Future-style "self-preservation effect" which prevents changes that would endanger the space-time continuum from ever happening. --Sikon 02:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to make this comment. If SkyNet never existed, the terminators never sent back in time, then a couple of things would happen. SkyNet would never exist, for it was the first terminator that gave Cyberdyne the idea for SkyNet. It was it's chip. Also, you left out the John Conner would never had been born, for Reese would never had been sent back. SkyNet caused John's birth by sending the first terminator back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geistson (talk • contribs) 01:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is science fiction and the logic presented above would go against John's father being from the future, because Reese was sent back to protect John's mother... without him being sent back John would have never existed and he would have never been sent back. So the way Time Travel works in the Terminator Universe is not accurate to the way presented above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.169.133 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There does seem to be a likely explanation for the course of events in regards to the time travel that no one has stated yet. Chances are that even without any interference, there would have been a Skynet and a Judgment day. In this first iteration there would have been no John Connor and Judgment day would have been later that in any of the films (say 2008 for instance). Someone else made trouble for Skynet in some way, necessitating the dispatch of the first Terminator. Kyle Reese was sent to stop it, and in the process of protecting an alternate target, met up with and got together with Sarah Connor. This led to John Connor's birth and an overshadowing of the original threat to Skynet. The second iteration is probably what we see in the first movie then, with its events pulling Judgment Day back to 1997. From then on, subsequent incursions make changes, but there are no fundamental paradoxes causing everything to unravel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.207.104.115 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"Paradoxes" section (removed from the article)

Reposting here.

There are a few paradoxes in the Terminator storyline (assuming a single-timeline model of time travel). If the Terminator did destroy Cyberdyne and Skynet, he and the T-1000 would never have come into existence. Also, if the Terminators succeeded in killing John Connor, there would no longer have been a reason for them to have been sent back in time to kill John Connor.

However, by adopting the multiple timelines model, the paradoxes mentioned can be resolved. In fact, the entire Terminator series demonstrates the 'NO FATE' hypothesis, by suggesting that Sarah, John and the T-800 changed the future. So when they blow up Cyberdyne, they end up in a timeline different from the one Cyberdyne's Skynet existed in.

Fortunately, John is not killed throughout the movie, so the paradox that would have occurred had he been killed never comes into being. Also, since Skynet and the Terminators must exist in timelines following the destruction of Cyberdyne, it must still be developed by someone else without using the cybernetic arm and processor chip. There are two theories to explain Skynet's creation.

The first theory assumes that the United States Defense Department, the ultimate developer of Skynet, is also its original developer - the same one that created it in the very first timeline, in which the Terminator and Reese did not appear in the past, John Connor had a different father, and Judgment Day occurred later than 1997 (it took longer because there was no future technology on which to base the research).

The second theory says that the new Skynet development could be based on the second T-800's severed forearm, which John and Sarah neglect to recover and destroy.

Thankfully for the timeline in general, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines satisfactorily answered most of these questions. Also, it may be postulated that SkyNet, being an advanced computer, may have realized the chance of paradox, and programmed the T-1000 to contact SkyNet once the relevant dates of time travel were reached, hence sending back the necessary Terminators (however, how to find Kyle Reese and change his memory would be a much more complicated endeavor).

It also stands to reason that since John sent his true father back in time to impregnate his mother, when the machine future is changed, John could never send his father back in time, and would therefore never be born, creating another causality parodox.

--Sikon 15:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed

*The never-seen computer network, Skynet, was never mentioned in The Terminator. Skynet was introduced in the Now Comics series of the Terminator. Cameron liked the character and decided to include it as canon when he wrote T2.

This is not true. Skynet is infact mentioned in The Terminator. Reese states "Skynet new almost nothing of Connor's existence..." during the police interrogation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.244.199.96 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Mossberg?

I coulda sworn Sarah Connor wields a Remington 870? --Cancun771 14:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I just watched the scene where she tries to blow the T1000 into the molten steel with multiple shotgun blasts and the weapon she was using was definitely not a Mossberg 500. If it's a Remington, I have yet to see it in that configuration. I'd bet money that it's a Franchi SPAS-12. --Wulfe 08:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Fifth Weapon ?

In the production section, it states that the T-800 uses four weapons. What about the gun he uses to shoot the T-1000 full of holes while it is driving the tanker truck? Looked like an AR-15, but I haven't seen the movie in awhile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.174.97 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

regarding the alternate versions (Sarah's behavior)

I stumbled across the following line: "While not a scene exactly, an explanation as to why Sarah attacks one of the wardens so violently during her escape with the broom handle is seen, showing two of the men attacking and harassing Sarah as to make her take her pills."

As I have just watched the "Ultimate Special Edition" of the movie I can add that she attacks this one guard so violently because there is a scene included in which he is licking her face after he has bonded to her bed. I don't know whether this scene is also in any other version. However, this is the best explanation for the behavior Sarah shows later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.35.46 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI the licking of the face scene is in all versions of this movie. --Spazm 15:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Why Schwarzenegger good

Would it be Wikipedia:Original research to say that in this movie, the terminator is a good guy because the career of Schwarzenegger had advanced and he wouldn't play villains? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.17.84 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, unless you can find a 3rd party reliable source who has stated it. --Ashmoo 05:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What did you mean by unsourced weasel words?

I posted this twice, and it's been removed for this particular reason stated in the heading. In the first movie, the Terminator's left eye is damaged by Michael Biehn's character, and eventually loses his left arm. In this movie, the Terminator loses his right eye while fighting Robert Patrick's character, and also loses the left arm again. Some fans consider it poetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.234.166 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Basically, it means a person feels you're adding personal insight/opinions into the article and adding the weasel word "some fans" to cover it up. In this case, "some fans" wouldn't be an authority on the subject anyway, and unless you have a specific source for the statement, it doesn't belong in the article. --Bobet 18:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

August 29, 1997

In the plot holes section the date of Judgment Day (August 29, 1997) is linked to the Wikipedia articles for August 29 and 1997. Why? Being as that this is the fictional date of Judgement Day within the context of the film, it's a date of significance in a fictional universe, while the pages being linked to discuss events that really happened. One doesn't have anything to do with another. The link provides no related or relevent information to readers of this article. The link should be removed. --65.120.75.6 16:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Plot holes" section

I think this section needs to go altogether. It is 100% original research. --Hnsampat 18:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the bit about the "no fate" quote isn't original research; it simply is different between the first and second movies. The bit about time travel (the third item) is most certainly OR, and the first one (about the years)... yech, that's very borderline OR in my book. --EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The "no fate" quote is different between the two films, but to call it a plot hole is original research. There are tons of potential explanations for the difference (e.g. Reese not remembering the quote properly, Sarah changing the quote when she taught it to John, etc.) and attributing any explanation to it (such as by dismissing it as a plot hole) is original research. If we want to keep this tidbit, we need to incorporate it into the article elsewhere. The rest of the section needs to go (especially the third item). --Hnsampat 20:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be fine with documenting the comment elsewhere and scrapping the rest. For lack of a better place, I shifted it to the trivia and terminated the rest. --EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing template

I removed the {{Infobox movie certificates}} template. Why? It doesn't convey much information (the rating in two countries is hardly exhaustive), plus is severely screws up the article (shifting edit links around, causing text to reflow oddly around images). I'd rather see the information in it get moved to the body of the article, rather than this template. --EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Director's Cut

While the Director's Cut is considered the definitive version by now, would it be worth mentioning what the differences are between it and the original theatrical cut? Some differences are mentioned here and there in the article, but not the full list. --Annie D 06:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, be bold. :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

T-800?

I believe the model is T-101 and the series number (i.e. serial number) is 800, not the other way around. But where did you find the reference to 800? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyQBachler (talk • contribs) 12:37, 21 November 2003 (UTC)

I can't remember any references to the number 800 off the top of my head, but in one of the films (I think the first), Reese says "the 600 series had rubber skin, we spotted them easily", or words to that effect, and I have seen several occurences of T-800 and T-101 used (confusingly) interchangably in the imdb's trivia/goofs pages for these films. --Boffy b 23:37, 27 November 2004 (UTC)

The T-800 is "Cyberdyne Systems model 101" as quoted by Arnie to John Connor in the second film. Robert Patrick's charcter is the T-1000. I remember this from the time. --Ethikos 11:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The exoskeleton is a T-800 and the "skin" is a model T-101. Combine them and you get the "Arnie" version of the killer cyborg. --HDC7777 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please leave the incontinuity part alone.

The part which reads, "At one point during the end of the film the T-1000 tortures Sarah in order to attempt to get her to call to John. This makes little sense given the fact that this machine can copy anything it has touched. But perhaps the Terminator knew it wouldn't sound convincing enough, seeing as it doesn't appear to feel pain (except in the death scene), it would have a hard time simulating Sarah's voice in agony." Should be changed. I have attempted to do so and it seems have been over ruled. Please realize the self-defeated logic at use here-in by the poster of this bullet:

the terminator knew it wouldn't sound convincing because it doesn't feel pain..except in the death scene.

The continuity break is there and there is little justification for it. The logical result is that the Terminator 1000 violates the primary programming (kill Sarah Connor) in order to do something that it can do itself (use Sarah's voice to call for John). While this might make for a bit of cinematic melodrama it is in fact utter lunacy on the part of the writer.

I suugest it should read as follows:

At one point during the end of the film the T-1000 tortures Sarah in order to have her call to John. This makes no sense under the realization that the T-1000 has voice reproduction capabilities which includes the ability to reproduce painful outcries. The continuity of this scene breaks down even further as the T-1000 leaves Sarah alive in order to search for John after she does not comply and call for him.

Or something close to that.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.248.133 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree about that. --Admiral Roo 10:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The T-1000's primary mission is to kill John, not Sarah. --Sikon 02:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The following extract from the article is not true: "The continuity of this scene breaks down even further as the T-1000 leaves Sarah alive in order to search for John after she does not comply and call for him." The T-1000 does not leave Sarah alive as stated here, but is attacked by the T-800 because of which he turns and retaliates, ignoring Sarah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby1011 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Another possibility is that being frozen by liquid nitrogen in some way damaged the ability of the T-1000 to copy Sarah Connor's voice. I agree totally that not killing Sarah Connor when it had the chance makes little sense as she was actively protecting John throughout the movie. The fact the primary mission is to 'kill John' doesn't mean the T-1000 would spare her. Just look at the scene where Arnie almost kills the two thugs in the parking lot before John stops him. He says "I'm a Terminator" as justification for any killing. --Ethikos 12:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The T-1000 doesn't simply "leave her alive" during that scene, as the T-800 arrives and engages in a battle with the T-1000. This means she was simply abandoned to deal with the bigger threat. --HDC7777 18:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Conner is a Terminator?

I've heard before (on a documentary on the DVD I believe) that James Cameron thought of Sarah as the third Terminator when she decides to go and kill Dyson. Her coldness and devotion to her "mission" parallels the actual cyborgs. Should this be mentioned in the article? --HDC7777 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Easter Eggs Mentioned

The section on the Extreme vs the Ultimate DVDs specifically outlines the Easter Eggs on the Ultimate version, but only vaguely mentions the Extreme version's Easter Eggs. I don't presonally care whether those are in there or not, but shouldn't either both be outlined or both excluded? I dunno, maybe I'm nuts. --68.102.179.135 04:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Exact info on the eggs can be found here: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.34.95 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The T800 leaves his arm in the press!

I watched T2 again last night and realised Arnie leaves his arm in a giant cog after the a physical fight with the T1000 in the steel mill (remember he prys it off with the pipe the T1000 later stabs him with) This means he left a part of his technology in our time, so Cyberdyne could learn from his arm, like they did of the arm of the first terminator. Ironic as they then actually destroy him and the 1st terminator's arm n chip. Anyway I added this to the trivia section but user Mgiganteus1 reverted it. This definitely qualifies for the trivia section, so I will be adding it again in the future. But I thought I'd mention it on the discussion page if anybody wants to debate it first and why I added so nobody else will revert it. --Ryan4314 20:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be mentioned. Consider this a vote for adding it back in. --Val42 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The main difference is that the arm from the first terminator was intact - whereas this one was severely mangled by the cog, which would prohibit any research from it. That isn't to say it shouldn't be mentioned in the article per se, but the trivia section should be cut down, not added to. If you want, put an Interpretation (or some such) heading and put this in, and perhaps some other trivia points too. --Desdinova 12:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The arm from the first terminator was mangled in a press. We know that the first one was intact enough for them to do research on. We don't know about the second arm. --Val42 15:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've watched the first one, but the arm reaches out from the press to grab Sarah, and was the only thing (apart from the CPU) not to have been crushed. The one in the cog was in much worse condition as it had been crushed. It's all speculation anyway, unless someone mentions it on one of the commentaries. --Desdinova 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In hindsight I will concede that the mangled 2nd arm (and it was mangled in the cog) would not be sufficient to recreate Skynet, as Cyberdyne examined the technology of the 1st Terminator not it's metal alloy, or they would have the crushed remnants of the 1st Terminator at Cyberdyne. Although as Desdinova said, perhaps it would be nice to have it mentioned in our already over-filling Trivia section. But we should be making the Trivia smaller not bigger. I vote NOT to add it, until our Trivia section gets smaller --Ryan4314 14:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming anything that happens after the film ends is effectively original research. Yes, they could learn from it, or they could not learn from it. Doesn't warrant a mention. --EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

John Connor's Age

The article says that he's supposed to be 10 years old. I find this a bit young...cite? (I always thought it was more around 13) --65.24.24.173 14:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, John can only be nine in this movie! His birthdate in February 1985 does, indeed, flash on the screen early in the action. This means that he will not turn ten until February 1995. However, Judgment Day takes place in August 1997, and John is told by the T-800 that this is still more than three years away (i.e. Judgment Day takes place more than three years after the Dyson chip is released, which has not yet happened). Thus, T2 takes place no later than about mid-1994. The published script refers to John as being ten, but this seems to forget the nine months that Sarah was pregnant. It looks as if the events take place pretty much ten years after the events of T1 (one character says in T1 says that it's May 1984, which fits John being born nine months later in February 1985).

(T3 fudges all of this by retrospectively making John at the time of T2 considerably older than he could possibly be in the established timeline of T1 and T2.)

However, as someone has already noted, there is no problem about the fact that John becomes a leader. He is 12 at the time of Judgment Day, and grows up afterwards. He is close enough to 45 during the 2029 scenes, old enough to be a veteran warrior and to have risen to lead the humans. --Metamagician3000 12:04, 23 December 2005

The problem is this: John would be 44 years old in 2029, but he would be only 12 when Judgement Day occurs. That leaves 32 years (1997-2029) where he's doing god-knows-what. Los Angeles would be a target for Skynet's nuclear launch, so how comes John doesn't die on JD, what's he doing for 32 years before he becomes leader, and how did he get to be leader? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.36.17.218 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The suggestion in both T1 and T2 is that Sarah planned to flee across the border to Mexico (and possibly even further south?), to avoid being nuked on Judgment Day. In fact, we know he spent some time in the jungles of Central America (I'm now not sure how clearly this is shown in the movie itself, as opposed to the script) in between the events of T1 and T2. So in the "original" order of events, in which Judgment Day happens in August 1997, John is not in LA when it is hit by Russian nuclear warheads. There is obviously a lot of scope here for the depiction of events between Judgment Day and 2029, but we learn nothing in much detail about this in T1 and T2 -- and it is not really relevant to T3, which takes a different approach. However, we do know that John emerges as a leader well after Judgement Day, after Skynet's machines have been built, have taken over, and have even created extermination camps for the surviving humans ... and he teaches the humans how to fight back. (Some novels written for the Terminator franchise have explored the events of these 32 years further. I expect that future Terminator movies might also explore the events in John's life after T3's version of Judgment Day, though John is much older at the time of Judgment Day in this version.) --Metamagician3000 04:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any indication in either film - especially the first - that there is a definitive plan to flee south of the border. It's obvious that Sarah didn't intend for John and the T-800 to follow her back to Dyson's residence during T2, and that she had wanted them to stay in Mexico with her contact, but there's no way to know where they would have gone from there had they stayed and Sarah had not returned. In addition, keep in mind that until John and the T-800 free her during the 2nd film, Sarah is in state custody, has on several occasions unsuccesfully attempted to escape and that John is convinced she is insane. Had the T-800 not show up, John probably would have stayed in foster care, convinced that his mother was dellusional, and died during the Skynet nuclear strike on Los Angeles, so even if Sarah did have an escape plan, it was moot until she was freed from Pescadero, and was changed immediately because of the information given to her about Judgement Day and Dyson. All of this becomes moot by the end of the film though, because as far as the storyline of the first 2 films is concerned, JD gets stopped when Dyson dies and the research is destroyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.36.17.218 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I do think that we should avoid getting bogged down in these supposed "plot holes", or whatever they are. The movies give us some hints about possible answers, but I agree that I lot of it is moot. OTOH, because there are hints of answers (e.g., one way or another, John could have been somewhere south of the border on Judgment Day), these potential problems are not really holes or errors, just things that are left not fully explained ... it's always possible to come up with possible answers based on the hints. It's not much use swapping theories about what "would have happened if" in the part of John's life story that we are not shown. Although it's fun, I think it's more for a fan site than an encyclopedia. The only serious problem that I see is that John just can't be more than 9, but looks and acts older. I think we just have to accept this as a bit of licence taken by the moviemakers.

Then we get T3, of course, which retrospectively changes his age and the whole timeframe that T1 and T2 have established with at least a degree of care. There really are serious and unresolvable continuity problems between T1/T2 (on one hand) and T3, but that is another issue, not relevant to this article. If it were up to me, I'd drastically cut back the material in this article on plot holes, or whatever. However, there seems to be a general view that something is required here, and I don't want to vandalise other people's hard work. So, I've just expressed these opinions for others to consider and left it for someone else. :) --Metamagician3000 09:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that these holes exist, or at least that certain people regard them as being plot holes. However, one thing I think needs to be removed from this article is any reference to "fixes" that T3 may have provided for some of those plot holes. As far as I'm concerned, the happenings of T3 should be adressed in that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.110.65 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In T3 it is clearly stated 'when I (John Connor) was 13, they (the terminators) tried again (to kill him)'. --Raystorm 15:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

T3 is full of BULLSH!T. JOHN IS 10 for T2 - FACT shown by the police computer T-1000 looks at in T2. I don't give a rats rip what Mostow had to say because Ed Furlong did not look Ten. HE WAS 10, END OF DISCUSSION —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solidsnake2006 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Johns age is the fact theat that T1 and T3 take place in the years they are made in. Then T2 takes place three years after the movie was made thus being a possible explanation of the tree years til JD. This keeps his age at 10 or 11 not younger or older. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.4.87 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A nuclear strike on LA wouldn't kill 100% of the humans there, John Conner could have just happened to be a lucky survivor --Tomgreeny 22:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Cultural And Trivia

I propose the 'Cultural References' and 'Terminator 2 In Popular Culture' (And Trivia) just outright go. Normally I'd merge the first two sections but I thought that'd be silly since I think they should be gone. --Lots42 19:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia template for the lead??

I was surprised to find the trivia template for the lead abstract on this article, loud and clear at the top. I've read the lead, and while it contains some diverse information about the film, I don't think any of it qualifies as trivia. I think the film was impactful enough to warrant all of the information in there. If you disagree, please go ahead and move/remove it according to (WP:RELEVANCE). As for now, I think the template is not only unnecessary but an indication of a flaw in the article, where I don't believe the flaw exists. --ManfrenjenStJohn 04:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, upon review, the lead was pretty bloated. I trimmed out all unnecessary stuff and left one important item that I believe deserves to stay, but is still wanting for a cite. (The assertion that the CGI effects in T2 were a watershed in CG and film history -- please help find a cite to that if you can). Cheers, --ManfrenjenStJohn 04:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"mimetic poly-alloy"

I realize that the community has come to a consensus that the phrase "mimetic poly-alloy" is the best one to describe the material the T-1000 is constructed of, and it may be used in other sources, but in this movie, Schwarzenegger's character refers to it as a "hemi-meti-poly-alloy" (when he's explaining things to John while they're riding the bike). I think in this article we should use that phrase, since it's a direct quote from a major character in this movie. --Middlenamefrank 18:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In Terminator 2, Schwarzenegger says "Not like me. A T-1000. Advanced prototype. A mimetic polyalloy". --[User:Mgiganteus1|Mgiganteus1]] 18:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed mimetic polyalloy. I'm not sure where you got hemi-meti-poly-alloy. --ColdFusion650 18:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I just listened to that scene again, very carefully, and I swear I hear him say it the other way, though the subtitle does indeed say "A mimetic poly-alloy." I'm more than happy to leave it though, based on the subtitle, and cause I always thought the other was really lame anyhow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Middlenamefrank (talk • contribs) 18:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not dubbed or anything is it? It's very clear on the Extreme Edition Region 1. --ColdFusion650 19:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. I got my DVD as soon as they were available, before the special editions came out. We obviously have different DVD's. Closed issue as far as I'm concerned anyhow. --Middlenamefrank 19:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to plot summary

People, another user and I have been having a 'discussion' over some changes I want to make to the plot summary, which you can see [3]. He insists that the entire change is detrimental to the article and has reverted it in its entirety several times now. I maintain that the changes I want to make are beneficial and want them included. I'd appreciate if anyone with this page marked would read over my proposed changes and weigh in on the subject. Thanks for your time! --Middlenamefrank 19:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

For an extensive discussion on user of T-101 T-800 and other terminator designations, you can read Talk:Terminator (character). That's basically where the decision to avoid use of those terms when possible was decided on. The Character Nomenclature section of Terminator (character) analyzes sources that lead to the confusion. --ColdFusion650 20:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I hereby retract the entry I made concerning a personal difference of opinion I had with one of the contributors to this page, and I hope all of us can act together to improve the quality of this article. This was a great movie, part of a great trilogy of movies, and deserves much better than a B grade.

Regarding the naming convention of the Terminator characters, which seems to be a big point of contention, I propose that this movie must be considered the highest 'canonical' authority to itself. I realize there's a whole 'Terminator universe' out there, with many sources, authors and ideas, but I think we have to treat the movie as the ultimate authority regarding itself.

I just finished watching the movie again, and the only references I found to model numbers or designations are when Schwarzenegger's character tells John that it's a "Cyberdyne Systems Model 101." Moments later it tells John that the other one is a "T-1000. Advanced prototype." (Can we agree that none of the Terminators should be referred to as "he" or called a "man"?)

I don't think any other source can be more 'canonical' in this context than that. As far as I'm concerned, the director's cut of the movie, any comments made by the producer, the actors or even the author(s), and any other source in the 'Terminator universe' (even the first movie!) have to be considered of only secondary authority.

So I propose that in this article, we refer to Schwarzenegger's character as the "Model 101" and Robert Patrick's character as the "T-1000". No other designations seem appropriate. --Middlenamefrank 17:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sarah refers to Arnold as "The Terminator" several times, and the credits call him "The Terminator", so I think that would an okay name to avoid repetition of "Model 101". In the garage scene, while the Terminator is deactivated, Sarah and John fight over whether it is a "he" or an "it", with John insisting that it is a "he". So, I think it would be appropriate to refer it interchangeably as a he or an it. I also think that the movie should be taken in context as a part of the overall franchise, so disregarding anything except this movie would not be the best thing. I don't see this being a big thing as this article doesn't heavily rely on other stuff, but it is possible. --ColdFusion650 17:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A) I think we should most often use more specific terminology than "Terminator", since there are two in this movie. That said, I think it's fair to call Sarah Conner "the mother" and John Conner "the kid", since it's fairly obvious who we're talking about in context of this movie...and I think that's pretty much equivalent to Sarah calling the Model 101 "the Terminator". I don't really have any problem with using "the Terminator" where there is no potential for confusion, but I do think we should prefer the terms "Model 101" and "T-1000", especially where we're discussing them both, as in the plot synopsis. Clarity is far more important than avoiding repetition.

B) Because one of the characters in the movie thinks a machine should be referred to as 'he' doesn't necessarily mean it should, especially when there is no consensus among the characters. Proper English usage dictates the use of 'it' to refer to machines of any sort, with occasional exceptions for boats and some other vessels, which may be referred to as 'she'. I'm not aware of any common usage of 'he' to refer to machines of any sort. I think it's pretty clear that John's feeling that the machine should be referred to as 'he' is meant to demonstrate John's attachment to the machine rather than an actual challenge to proper English usage. (At least I'm assuming that's the case, since I haven't seen that scene....is it a deleted scene? It's not on my DVD.)

C) I'm not saying the rest of the 'Terminator universe' should be ignored, on this page or anywhere. I'm saying that where there are conflicts, as there are bound to be when there are so many sources, authors and ideas, this movie should be seen as the most authoritative source for this article...especially when one of the main characters definitively states something. So when Schwarzenegger's character calls itself a "Cyberdyne Systems Model 101", and the other Terminator a "T-1000", that should be the preferred designation for those characters in this article. The T-800 designation may have a place in other articles but it doesn't belong here, unless it's in a note that mentions the discrepancies. As I've said before, I'll even go so far as to say that deleted scenes, director's commentary and even author statements elsewhere shouldn't be viewed as being as authoritative as scenes in the released movie. It's an article about the movie, after all. --[User:Middlenamefrank|Middlenamefrank]] 00:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

B) Commander Data is commonly referred to as he. The only difference between him and the terminators are that Data is not designed to kill. --ColdFusion650 00:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with so many things on both sides, gentlemen, that I barely have time to enumerate them here. So I'll go for my overall vision for the article: It should be readable. And, this being an encyclopedia, we should make it especially readable by those not familiar with the material at all.

On the he/it issue, I tend to prefer 'he', since I think we can all agree that (like Data) The Term., especially the one played by Arnold, is more than just a machine -- in fact, that's a core issue of this Terminator movie in particular. Vis-a-vis Sarah's closing monologue, We're meant to see Arnie as developing human traits. (With the T-1000, I could go either way. Since even John calls it an "it", I'm cool with that. It's only when the T-1000 is specifically emulating a human trait, and not just acting like a robot, that "he" is applicable.)

With the he/it variation as well as the "Model 101"/"The Terminator" usage, I again think that readability should be paramount. In short: For the ease of the reader, Arnie's character should be referred to "The Terminator" whenever that name is not likely to be confused with the T-1000, or with the 101 from the first film. I inserted a sentence reiterating Arnie's expositional dialogue to John (and more importantly to the audience) who he is... A) in relation to the 101 from the first film, and B) in relation to the T-1000. My opinion is best put like this: "Where clearest, call him 'The Terminator' When needed, for distinction, call him 'the Model 101', 'the model 101 Terminator', or even 'Schwarzenegger's character in this film', for maximum real-word readability." That's my opinion.

I similarly put a synopsis of the actual "he"/"it" dialogue btwn John/Sarah (in the Spec. Ed. cut scene) in the plot section, but I think it may have since been removed. Consider, if you will, if it can provide a similar clarification to the reader. Thanks. - ManfrenjenStJohn 17:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree on all your points. --ColdFusion650 17:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Real-world phrasing needed in the lead

Hi, ColdFusion650, glad to be working with you on the Terminator 2 article.

I'm writing about your recent revert, effectively reinstating a paragraph from the lead that I removed. I removed the paragraph from the lead because it conflicts with the rest of the lead by not being in a real-world perspective.

I appreciate that you cited WP:MOSFILMS in your edit summary, but I can't discern from what you wrote exactly which aspect of that policy you were trying to assert as your basis for the edit.

I hope I might be more thorough by pointing out the following. I'm using the policy Writing about Fiction: Real World Perspective as my guideline WP:WAF#Real world perspective. Specifically:

Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, must be written with the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information.

Here is the paragraph you preserved, which I find inconsistent with the real world perspective policy (preceded by the acceptable paragraph with which I believe it conflicts):

T2 was a significant box office and critical success. It had an impact on popular culture, and is considered by many to be hugely influential in the genres of action and science fiction.[1] The film's visual effects include many breakthroughs in computer-generated special effects, marking the first use of natural human motion for a CG character and the first computer generated main character.[2]

After the Terminator failed to kill Sarah Connor in 1984, thus failing to prevent her son John from being born, the machines try again, sending a more advanced Terminator to attack John himself in his childhood. As in the first movie, the future John Connor sends back a protector for his younger self, this time another Terminator.

The in-film events that I believe you are trying to retain in the lead can be kept there; however, in order for it to be done in a readable/policy fashion, it needs to be consistently real-word.

In plain terms (sorry if this sounds in any way condescending -- my goal is to be clear without sounding pedantic!) "After the Terminator failed to kill Sarah Connor..." is not written in real-world perspective, whereas "T2 was a significant box office success..." is.

I hope WP:WAF#Real world perspective, or simply the excerpt I quoted above, will explain this to your satisfaction. If not, I happily welcome you to discuss it with me. I'll place this discussion on the talk page for Terminator 2 in case you'd like to continue to work together towards the goal I think you're going for.

Furthermore, you may want to consider that the first paragraph in the "Plot" section essentially duplicates the paragraph in question. And, according to WP:MOSFILMS, that's where it belongs:

Lead section

The lead section of an article serves as a quick introduction to the film. The very first paragraph should cover the basics, such as the film's release year, alternate titles, genre(s), setting, country (if not the US), stars, and director (and possibly writer in some cases), as well as one or two of the most notable, verifiable facts about the film, such as "At the time of its release, it was the most expensive film ever made". The second paragraph should be a brief look at the film's impact: whether critics liked the film or not (and why), whether it was a commercial success or not, whether any sequels to or remakes of the film were produced, and whether it had any lasting influence or significant impact outside the world of film.

Plot

(...) Describe the basic premise of the film in a couple of sentences. Introduce key characters, with actors' names in parentheses after them, Character (Actor).

Now provide a more comprehensive plot summary.

Cheers, --ManfrenjenStJohn 15:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Leads summarize the entire article; it is not uncommon to have a brief synopsis about the film in the lead, as the plot itself will contain actual spoilers is just about every occassion. The way I've seen it, that synopsis usually comes at the end of the first paragraph. Also, general production information goes in the lead as well, but that paragraph doesn't mention that. --  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Noted and agreed, but that's not among my points. My points are: Real world perspective is non equivocal. I'm fine with it as long as it's in proper perspective. Mixing real-world with in-world is (to me anyway) just as confusing as mixing tense. Secondarily, reconsider the need to duplicate info. According to the policy ColdFusion650 himself cited, it's already in the proper section. Cheers. --ManfrenjenStJohn 17:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This:

• After the Terminator failed to kill Sarah Connor in 1984, thus failing to prevent her son John from being born, the machines try again, sending a more advanced Terminator to attack John himself in his childhood. As in the first movie, the future John Connor sends back a protector for his younger self, this time another Terminator.

Should probably read like:

• The film picks up ten years after the events of The Terminator. It follows Sarah Conner, her son John, and a reprogrammed Terminator as they try and prevent Judgement Day.

It's pretty basic, and can be tacked on to the end of the first paragraph. Summarizes the plot pretty concisely, identifies the events as being fictional and not actually taking place. As for the MOS where it states the first few lines of the plot should describe the premise of the film, that is rather out dated. I've been finding a few guidelines which were not updated with new information. Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section says that an article should be split at 30kb (equivalent to about 30,000 characters), but WP:SIZE no longer says this. It isn't common practice to put a premise in the same section as the plot, since we pretty much don't use "spoiler" tags any longer either, which would have separated the two in those cases. --  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! That's an excellent way for how it should read. Also, I completely agree that certain policies are in the midst of change, and hence conflict is brewing across the wiki-scape. I'm seeing the whole changing Spoiler policy in particular frequently cause a lot of frustration, disagreement, and back-and-forth rewriting of articles on fiction. --ManfrenjenStJohn 17:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll let Cold review it, to see what they think. The problem with all the changes is that you live by one set of rules for a long time, then they change everything without warning (without posting some nice bulletin to let everyone know there is a change) and they expect you to just understand it. So far it hasn't been too bad. I don't care about spoiler warnings, I don't typically read sections of films I have never seen, but plan to one day. --  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to keep my comments pithy. I agree with Bignole, as is often the case. Premise in lead is definitely standard, as a quick review of FA film articles shows. The part of the MOS that I was citing, sorry I wasn't specific, was about "plot details and actor names already mentioned in the lead section" under Plot. The first message in this section is really long, and I want to make sure that that's all we're talking about, right? --ColdFusion650 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure which you were citing. I thought his concern (beyond the real world context) was that a premise didn't appear in the lead, because WP:WAF doens't mention it in the "lead" section of its guideline. And that the Plot section mentions a "premise" statement in the beginning. --  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I had essentially one simple point, which was the need for Real World Perspective. But I'm overly formal when talking to someone new, so yeah... I was kinda wordy. :)

Bignole nailed it with "The film picks up ten years after the events of The Terminator. It follows Sarah Connor, her son John, and a reprogrammed Terminator as they try and prevent Judgement Day.", and I'm thrilled you both agree. Reaching consensus always makes you feel good about yourself. :) --ManfrenjenStJohn 18:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We finally reach consensus, and I'm waiting for one of you guys to make the edit (it was your words, after all!) I'm putting Bignole's line in, but I still give you guys due credit. --ManfrenjenStJohn 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Terminator Striving to be more Human (Was: "Thumbs up": thumbs up or down?")

The thumbs up issue is certainly minor, and not worth getting in even the mildest of edit wars about. But what's really paramount to me is this. The following deserves acknowledgment in the article: The arc in which The Terminator (Arnie) grew to be "more human" (John Connor's words) is significant, and deserves to be demonstrated with verifiable character action in the article. (Citing observable fact as opposed to original research, of course). That's why I kind of liked the thumbs-up mention. Cold, Bignole, and anyone else -- it's obvious to us, especially since we include Sarah's closing monologue that Arnie "Learned the value of human life" -- that there is some mention of the theme, and perhaps it's enough. But I wouldn't mind if it was more demonstrated -- again, primarily for the first-time reader.

Secondary argument (for your consideration): Did John teach Arnie the thumbs up? Coldfusion is correct that there is quite arguably no direct evidence that John taught him the thumbs-up. However, consider that it's STRONGLY implied. Right after John explicitly teaches Arnie to high-five as part of his "you gotta be more human" program, Arnie is shown emulating thumb gestures from John. However this is done with no sound -- the sound is Sarah's voiceover musing that "the Terminator is the only father he would ever have". Also, it is quite implied that this is where Arnie learns his "Remote control!" thumb gesture which pays off with Dyson. You could use this fact either way in the "Did John teach him" the thumbs up argument, or not at all.

So my paramount concern is getting the "Terminator trying to be more human" theme arc demonstrated in the article. I feel it's not only a central theme to the film, but one of the many well executed themes that makes this film so significant.

Cheers mates, --ManfrenjenStJohn 13:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion, a proper "Themes" section, with reliable sources discussing such things. Becoming more human is part of the plot, but the plot section itself shouldn't be so detailed. Details are meant to provide context for real world information, and are usually best used when they are right next to that information (which usually happens to be in the "Production" type sections, or a "Themes" section, and not in the "Plot"...though you can write a plot with actual real world commentary, that's what I did here). I'd much rather see a trimmed, concise plot (kind of like this), with scene descriptions attached to real world context. That includes monologes and quotes, as without real world context surround it, you end up venturing really close to copyright issues. --  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the plot should be short and to the point, kind of like I had it before? Not to say I told you so to anyone who disagreed with me or anything. :) --ColdFusion650 14:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer shorter plots, with summarized battles and events, instead of giving descriptions of what happens. People can watch the movie for the details. The details are really only important if you have a reason to explain them. Also, at the moment none of the images in the plot meet fair use criteria. Two of them are not even near the events that they are illustrating. --  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So, would this be better? It is indeed shorter. --ColdFusion650 14:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It summarizes things a bit better, but sentences like--Then, there is a twist: the unknown man is not a human protector, as the audience assumes based on the first film-- need to be rewritten. How do you know what the audience assumes? We don't know, not unless a survey is taken. I'll see what I can do with what is there now and I'll bring it here for everyone to see first. --  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are fast! I was busy revising the plot section again so I just now read your responses. I think I made improvements towards goals claimed by each of the 3 of us. I reduced certain complex sequences, such as multi layered fight sequences, to "a fight began here, and ultimately ended here", with only the most necessary details. I also -- without explicitly stating themes -- laid some breadcrumb facts such as "At John's insistence, the Model 101 Terminator avoids killing anyone (in the Cyberdyne escape)". So I think I preemptively met our consensus, but you guys are certainly entitled to see if you have any quibbles.

Regarding assumptions, I like to assume the reader of the article has no knowledge of the first film. Primarily driven by James Cameron's claim that he took pains to make T2 stand alone for new audiences, not requiring viewing of the first film -- But also b/c I believe WikiP has, or should have, a comparable policy. So, where applicable, I included helpful references to the first film "XYZ, (as in the first film)", while trying to match Cameron's goal of not relying on a reader's (viewer's) knowledge of T1. Thanks, guys. --ManfrenjenStJohn 15:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So the audience may not assume the T-1000 is a human, but that's the intent, according to the DVD commentary. Cameron intended for them to believe things were the same as the first time until the hallway shoot out. Maybe this information belongs in another section. --ColdFusion650 15:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What he intends may not be what he gets. That should be part of the production section (whenever that develops into a more full fledged section). --  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been around this article long enough to seen it laid out both ways -- all cards up front, and now laid out gradually like the film itself. Normally I prefer the former, but the way Cold wrote it out naturally, I think the current as-it-unfolds method of plot summary works great, and doesn't break the first rule. However, I'm open to improvements as always -- whatever's best for the article and reader. --ManfrenjenStJohn 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think I can speak for all of us by saying that Bignole's largely right about separating observable events (plot section) from themes intended by the filmmaker (themes section). But if you're like me, your initial response was, "Great! But that requires finding cites by poring over the interviews and commentaries again!" Well, there's no shortcut for hard work, and a good article is that. :) --ManfrenjenStJohn 15:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Judgment Day" link

The definition of "Judgment Day" as used in this article is defined in this article: "...Judgment Day — a day in the future when machines will start to exterminate the human race..."

To blindly link the words "Judgment Day" to article on the biblical "Last Judgment" would be A) misleading to the reader, since wikilinks are intended to definitive and not whimsical, and perhaps more importantly, B) original research (WP:NOR), since nowhere in the film is it stated that "Judgment Day" as used in the film is a direct reference to the biblical "Last Judgment".

What you have done is comparable to making a wikilink linking the words "George W. Bush" to the article on "George Herbert Walker Bush". I think it's fairly self-evident why you can't do that, at least not without an explanation supported by cited fact.

If you're that determined to draw a link between "Judgment Day" as used in the Terminator film of the same name and the biblical "Last Judgment", you'll need to find a citation that effectively states "Judgment Day, as used in this film's title, is based on the biblical 'Last Judgment'", from a reliable source -- and that can really only be James Cameron or William Wisher. I know of no such reference in the films or in statements made by Cameron/Wisher in any supplemental materials. But if you can find them, you can add the assertion to this article, such as:

• Cameron states that Judgment Day, as referred to in this film, is a reference to the biblical Last Judgment.

Note that "Judgment Day" is not wikilinked, but "Last Judgment" is.

I vote no on the basis that this is Original Research, and a presumption that will confuse the reader.

You can define the term's meaning in the context of the article, as it stands now. You can draw the connection if you can find supporting citations. What you can't do is link SUBJECT A to ARTICLE ON SUBJECT B if the connection between the two is not made explicit.

If you really feel strongly that you can bypass the NOR policy, I'd be more than happy to put it to a vote here. --ManfrenjenStJohn 20:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The title says it all, and I agree. Judgment Day in the film and the real Judgment Day are not the same, so linking them would be inappropriate. We could go Judgment Day (disambiguation), but that links right back here. --ColdFusion650 20:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[ec]Holy shit, all you had to do was change the wikilink to Judgment Day (disambiguation), and it would have had the same effect. No need to go all-out over a stupid wikilink. Yeesh. --EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so maybe taking it to the talk page was a little cautious. I would have just waited for a couple more reverts, but cautious is good. Like I said, Judgment Day (disambiguation) just links here without any information on what this Judgment Day is. Linking there would be pointless. --ColdFusion650 20:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cautious? I had already reverted it twice in one hour, and I'm not about to get myself locked out via WP:3RR :-) --ManfrenjenStJohn 20:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

spoiler warning?

should these movie pages have a spoiler warning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.153.19 (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm sorry, but it shouldn't be surprising that the "Plot" section contains information about the plot. --EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor change in "Judgement Day" story

Someone typed it up saying that the Skynet supercomputer becomes self-aware on August 4th, 1997. In the movie, the Terminator says it becomes self-aware on August 29th, 1997. Just fixed it right now. If you don't believe me, there is a link at the bottom of the article that leads you to the script of the movie. I guarantee its accuracy. --71.154.233.235 03:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

More on "Plot Holes"

I went back and did some personal review regarding the debate over the old "Plot Holes" section of the article, and I'm confused about the removal of some of that information:

1. The section discussed John's age; he would only be 10 during the course of the film, and yet nobody sees it as unlikely that a 10 year old would have a Honda dirt bike that he's free to gas-up and use on crowded public roads in a subrub of Los Angeles any time he pleases?
2. If John is 10 during the course of the film, it means he's 12 at the time of Judgement Day. Obviously a 12 year old isn't leading any major resistance campaigns. I noticed some people arguing that maybe we're intended to believe that John does not become the resistance leader until 2029, but that's a 32-year gap that we're never given any information about. Doesn't that qualify as a hole?
3. Sarah is aressted, detained and questioned by both the police and Dr. Silberman during the events of the first film, and then is re-arrested when she's found along with Reese's dead body in the destroyed Cyberdyne facility at the end of the film. Somehow, we're expected to believe that she's not incarcerated in either a prison or a mental-health facility and that she survives for nearly a decade with John, traveling the world learning about defense, until she's inexplicablly put into Pescadero. Why was she never put away? Why did it take the authorities 10 years to try her?
4. This is related to the last point; John tells his friend during T2 that his mother went away for trying to blow up a factory, since we're never made aware of any more recent attempts, we must assume he's talking about the end of the first film. So, again, why the 10 year gap?

--69.237.151.163 03:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of plotholes, I just thought of one....if Skynet is smashed to bits right after sending the Terminator back in time, how does it get a second opportunity to send a T-1000 back to try again? The only way this is possible is if the events in Terminator 2 take place in is some ugly 3rd or 4th re-iteration of the timeline rather than the chronological continuation of the first film --Masterblooregard 05:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

An apparent "contradiction"

Removed from the article:

This theory is contradicted because August 29, 1997 is the date Kyle Reese gives Sarah Connor for Judgement Day, without research on Terminator parts taking place. Afterwards, research IS carried out on the original T-800's CPU and severed forearm, which would resolve to make Skynet and thus Judgement Day occur sooner. There is a 2 year window between when those parts are destroyed (1995, the time setting of the 2nd film), and Judgement Day (1997), which can be used to explain this paradox again and prolong Judgement Day. However, in the second film, the T-800 proceeds to explain about Miles Dyson and the developement of Skynet, indicating that it is at least 3 years before Skynet is developed. That was 1995, and the only thing so far in the story to affect Skynet is the accelerated research occuring from the study of recovered T-800 parts, making the earliest possible date for J.D. now 1998. So, in effect, the paradox explains ITSELF in that it actually takes LONGER for Skynet to develop with Cyberdyne Systems researching futuristic parts, rather than simply inventing them themselves. This solves the paradox, while adding an element of disbelief that it would actually take longer through reverse engineering to engineer Skynet.

The T-800 tells Sarah the same date as Reese: August 29, 1997. Also, T2 took place in a different timeline than T1; since in the T1 timeline Skynet was designed using the remains of the first T-800, it changed the future and the information Reese had about Skynet. Therefore, in T2 Reese and the Terminators came from the same timeline and had the same information about the date of Judgment Day. So there is no contradiction. --Sikon 11:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no suggestion in T1 that anything has changed. The events form a closed causal loop, contrary to what Skynet wanted.

On the timeframe thing, I don't recall Kyle Reese giving a date for Judgment Day. However, in T2 the T-800 does indeed give the date in August 1997 to John. In the very same scene he tells John that this is over three years in the future. Thus, T2 takes place in 1994, not 1995 as is sometimes claimed. --Metamagician3000 00:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The Terminator gives August 9th, 1997 as the date for Judgement Day while driving in the station wagon with John and Sarah. He explains to them that this is the date JD will occur unless they take action to stop it. If John were born in 1985, he would be 12 at the time of JD, far to young to be the leader of an armed resistance. You can claim that he was 44 (which he would be in 2029) at the time he became leader, but that leaves a 32-year gap of unexplained events.

The timeline Reese gives in T1 is meaningless, because the events of T2 either stopped JD completely, or altered when and how it would happen (depending on if you regard T3 as cannoical). Reese's birth could have happened at a different time and place than is sgguested in T1, simply because the entire timeline was adjusted by the evnts of T2.

Where did you get that John would be "about 45" when he becomes the leader of the human resistance? Reese says that he was born after the war ended, but makes no mention of how long the war lasted or his exact date of birth. In order for John to have been 45 at the time of his becoming leader, the war would have needed to last 33 years, from 1997 through 2030. --64.36.17.218 09:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

T2 implies that the movies take place in a mutable timeline, so no causal loops, every event must have a primary cause and cannot be its own cause (although it may seem so). --Sikon 11:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

But more importantly all this is unsourced original research. We could debate the logic of time travel forever, but wikipedia isn't the place to do it. If you've got sources that have analyses this, by all means quote them, but doing our own calculations and philosophising is forbidden on WP. --Ashmoo 05:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Long before T2 told us that the original Terminator's remains were the basis for the research that created Skynet, the first film established one fact that established the films as a causal loop: Kyle Reese is John Connor's father. He fell in love with Sarah Connor because of a photograph, the very same photograph that is taken of Sarah Connor at the end of the film, as she reflects on the time she spent with him. He also knows that John Connor's father dies before the war. Reese does not supplant another man as John Connor's father; it always has been and always will be Reese who fathers John Connor. Preventing Skynet or Judgment Day thus prevents John Connor's conception. Secondly, Kyle being Connor's father proves that every event, right up to the destruction of Skynet decades later, has been shaped from the outset by time travel. Time travel isn't a second chance at history, it's the way history always happened, and it only happens once. Time travel doesn't change the past, it locks it in place. Cameron can give us speeches about the future not being set, but in his story, the certainty of certain future events has been set in place by using time travel in an attempt to prevent it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenobifan (talk • contribs) 05:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The first Terminator film did become a causal loop. However, the second Terminator film gave a specific date when Skynet became self-aware. By the third film, we found out that this date had passed without Skynet having become self-aware. Therefore, either the terminator lied or the loop was broken in the second film. --Val42 (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Over the Top

The movie was made for approximately $100 million, and at the time was the most expensive movie ever made.

I somehow can not believe this was the most expensive movie made till 1991, 100$ million does not sound too much. For example I stumbled over the movie Metropolis just some minutes later and that cost about 200$ current million (I guess the USD has not decreased in its worth that much in the past 15 years), and I mean the 1927 film of course. --Darklock 02:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

While far from a verifiable source, I can vouch that I remember hearing about T2 being the most expensive movie ever made back when it first came out. --EVula 03:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Listen to the director's track. You will be suprised at how many times he will say what you are seeing is what really happened. That was a real explosion in the cyberdine building. That was a real truck turning over on the freeway. That helicopter that flew under the overpass, that actually happened. It's some pretty cool stuff. --God Ω War 05:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It certainly held the Guinness record. Intially they had its cost at $104 million in the '92 edition, however, this was downgraded to $95 million in the '94 edition, based on more accurate calculations. In nominal cost its only contender at the time was Voina i mir – one has to wonder though how accurately this figure was converted from Soviet currency, and can it really be considered a single film. Budgets really have increased considerably (at least nominally) since the early '90s: Waterworld was a huge leap from the previous record set by True Lies, with Titanic pushing the record even further, not to be broken until King Kong some 8 years later (it was apparently equaled by Spider-Man 2 earlier, but both seem to have imprecise data, and it may be impossible to determine which one was more expensive). Note that the pre-T2 Guinness record was held by Rambo III at $69 million in the '91 edition; I suppose $50+ million was quite unusual at the time. These figures are all unadjusted for inflation, of course. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

GA nomination

This article if very close to getting GA status. The references are clear and in my opinion, they are reliable. It's well written and contains a reasonably broad overview of the film story. But according the GA criteria all the images are copyrighted with fair use rationales and {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}} or similar tags. --David Pro (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (enough images: lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

David Pro (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

GA fail

I have made a second review as requested.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

T2 has good points, but two major aspects of the review need major work. Wording in the Release and Home video sections need work, and discriptions of the cast in the Cast section won't hurt. Also, the article needs more references. It only has ten overall, and some sections don't even have one reference. When these problems are fixed, it can be nominated again. --Limetolime (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I add that there is little point to the two images in the plot section, and the cast and production sections are barely fleshed out. --Alientraveller (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wording

It says "two men arrive in Los Angeles..." Isn't this a bit of a misnomer? --24.149.193.49 (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

At that point in the plot, that's all we know. --Tool2Die4 (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations for use

• "James Cameron, Terminator 2: Judgement Day (Part I)". Syd Field. 2008-03-17. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "James Cameron, Terminator 2: Judgement Day (Part II)". Syd Field. 2008-03-17. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "He's Big, He's Back, and He's a Pretty Nice Guy Once You Get to Know Him". Entertainment Weekly. 1991-07-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "A New Body of Work". Entertainment Weekly. 1991-07-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Brave New World". Entertainment Weekly. 1991-08-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

--Alientraveller (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Offline articles which one can read here. Obviously don't link to them as they are copyright violations, but still, an accessible form of citing old magazine/newspaper articles. --Alientraveller (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot Cleanup

The plot summary section is longer than it needs to be. It should only have points in the story that move the plot forward. Instead, it contains too many smaller details and some trivia of which necessary changes are being blocked. Wikipedia articles should be free from possession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senormime (talk • contribs) 19:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the size before your edits and the way it is now, it is significantly shorter. From the character addition/subtraction count, it appears you removed 995, and I added back 295. So, you know, the vast majority of removals stayed removed. I think the only thing I really put back is the fact that until a point, Arnold is still assumed (or was intended to be assumed) as the bad guy, which is significant. By your use of "details" instead of "detail", I assume that there is something else in addition to that, but I have no idea what it is. --ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the writing under plot, for every summary on WP, should generally steer clear of what filmmakers tried, in this case assumptions they tried to build on. I think something like that is more trivia than what is actually in the story. I understand the franchise and get what you're doing, but as it's own body of work I don't think T2's plot summary should include assumptions.

As for details I mean something like when Dyson is shot in the arm. It's not important where he was shot, but him being shot is important because it leads to the discussion in the house which in turn takes the to cyberdyne. --Senormime (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I see on the second thing. But I still think the plot twist is significant. --ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with a link on the page.

In the section called "cast", Leslie Hamilton Gearren is marked as a link, but this link mistakenly refer the user to Linda Hamilton's page. Leslie Hamilton Gearren is not Linda Hamilton, but rather her twin sister, which is stated in the same section of the article. Instead of refering to Linda Hamilton's page it should refer the user to a page of Leslie Hamilton Gearren, if there is such an article.

Please forgive me if this entry is wrong somehow, it is the very first entry I have made on an article discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AsgerJon (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The link you are referring to actually does point to Leslie Hamilton Gearren. You can tell my clicking on the link and then looking at the address bar. --ColdFusion650 (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

Am I the only one who has noticed that Judgment is incorrect. I'm pretty sure it's spelled Judgement. --Shawn Crapo (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It be a variant, yo! --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Judgement is the British variation. Judgment is its American counterpart, and the most widely used spelling. --WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Book adaption

The T2 book contains additional scenes and information that might enhance the enjoyment and understanding of the film. Would anyone object if I added a brief summery of the differences? A future war introduction that showed John Connor standing over comtechs dissecting Skynet's brain. Sarah dying in an HK ambush of a supply column. The information that Skynet didn't trust the T1000. A verification that only two bad terminators get sent back. That the terminator was 'playing dead' at the end of the film. An implication that the good terminator started to develop something akin to genuine emotion in the final scenes. It's not OR because it's all in the official book. I think it's appropriate to this page. Would anyone strongly disagree? --ANTIcarrot (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as you make it clear that it is from the book, then I don't see why anyone would. Which one played dead? Can you elaborate on "A verification that only two bad terminators get sent back." and "That the terminator was 'playing dead' at the end of the film."? --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Followed By?

I see that there is a dispute about whether or not Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles should be included in the "Followed by" field of this film article's infobox. It's not a clear call, but I think it would be best to limit the succession to Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines because this film is an indisputable follow-up. I am not sure it is as obvious at a quick glance that the TV show follows this second film. Because of that, I think it is best to explain an unusual circumstance in the lead section if necessary. We could add a slightly detailed sentence to clarify matters: "The film was followed by Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines in 2003, but the television show Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles was introduced in 2008 to follow the events of Terminator 2." This could give the TV show the right exposure at the top of the article without needing to fill the infobox with some disputable details. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It should just be left out. Otherwise it wouldn't be uniform with the rest of WP. For example, would we then have to fix Raiders of the Lost Ark and Temple of Doom? ToD follows Raiders, but comes before it in the timeline. Then there's the tv show to consider. Don't forget all the star wars stuff. There are others as well, but these might be most notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senormime (talk • contribs) 15:14, 4 November 2008

I really don't see the reasoning behind the deletion at all. The TV series is followed as an "alternate sequel" to Terminator 2. After all, Josh Friedman stated that the TV series takes place in an alternate timeline. --Dibol (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion taking place at Template_talk:Infobox_Film#Followed_By. No reason to have a TV show in a movie infobox, and vice-versa. --Tool2Die4 (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Two or three sentences does not equal discussion yet. We'll need two or three more input. --Dibol (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. --Ikip (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Year-in-film template

Why does the template exist if it shouldn't be used? --Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it shouldn't exist, but that's another can of worms. Please read Wikipedia:Linking for our manual of style with regard to links. WP:EGG is particularly relevant, as it deals with keeping piped links intuitive and contextual. Piping "1985" to "1985 in film" in the lead sentence is not intuitive. The proper place to provide a link to "1985 in film" would be in a "see also" section. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the linking guideline does permit links to "year in" articles, as per Wikipedia:Linking#Year linking. (See the "Year in science" example.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That does not deal with piped links, which are a separate matter. Providing the link is not the problem; providing it in a manner that is intuitive and contextual is the issue. It's the same issue as automatically piping the countries of release to "Cinema of..." articles: the presentation is not intuitive to readers. You need to find a way to make the link more intuitive. For example, in the "release" section, you could say: "T2 was released on July 3, 1991 (see 1991 in film)." That would be just fine. The use of templates encourages these dates and places to always be linked, which is not appropriate. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ten years after the first?

1995 - 1984 = 11. Seriously, people. --Jerkov (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Are the dates in the films clearly established? John says in T3 (which is cannon) that he was 13 the second time they tried to kill him, plus the actor was 13/14 when he played John in T2. If there is some discrepancy between the dates, I think it would be safer to err on the side of logic - there is no way that boy is a ten-year-old. --94.79.180.246 (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

T3 is mistaken, and the age of an actor is never a gauge for how old a character is.

There's an on-screen date for John's birthday when the T-1000 looks up John's address on the police computer. I can't remember if the exact date for the events in Terminator 2 is ever stated, though you could do some math based on the dates given in the film (ie: the Terminator's relating the history of Skynet's birth). I've got it in my head that he is indeed ten, but I'm not sure why. --EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The computer in T2 says John was born on February 28, 1985. Since he was conceived around May 12, 1984, that makes for a slightly long pregnancy, but it's possibly. The T2 computer says he's 10, and the film obviously takes place in summer. I.e. T2 is in 1995. I understand T3 making him older though; he looks way older than 10. Interestingly, Sarah Connor is said to be 29 in T2 (Silberman says it), i.e. she was in her late teens in T1 although she looked almost a decade older. --Jerkov (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the date is correct, May 1984 + 9 Months = February 1985, and John was born a little "late", but not so much as to be unusual. The film can take place anywhere between Jonh's 10th birthday to his 11th birthday, so it can be set anytime March 1995 - February 1996, in both cases the Terminator is mistaken with how far away Judgement day is, although he himself might be under the impression he's in 1993.

Secondly - to address the issue of John being "13" as reported in T3 - not only would this take place AFTER judgement day, but is impossible in the T2 film itself because for that to be the case the film would need to have been set in 1998-1999 which is at least "7 years" into the future (ie the film was released in 1991 and if set in 1995 that's 4 years in the future as it is).

Thirdly, Sarah does not look "older" than about 19ish in T1. Given that we're dealing with a 9 month window of possible time the film is set in, Sarah could easily be 18 or 19 in the original film.

Lastly a lot of people say John looks older than 10 in T2, I disagree. I've know a couple of guys who went through puberty at that age, it's not unheard of at all. --210.9.142.208 (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Enough of the forum chat, please. We are not here to play junior detectives. Two questions we need to ask ourselves (and only two):

1. Is there a citation that speaks to John's age explicitly? Without it, it is synthesis and original research to extrapolate. Indeed, the very act of extrapolating is original research.
2. Is it vital to the plot that we mention John's age? Does the article fall into utter ruin without it? If it does not, we do not need it.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, you want citations? Here: [4] - the film is set in 1995 - reliable citation, just as shown in the film. Happy? Sheesh, can't you find some other robots issue to play with? --TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you are going to want to dial that smart-ass talk back some, RFS. Seriously, it doesn't create an environment conducive to friendly interaction, and that is key in Wikipedia. I asked for citation, and you provided it. Thanks. Rather than argue, just provide the requested info - quickest way to resolve a disagreement, - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I had no idea this discussion had also erupted on this discussion area. Arcayne, you might want to dial down on the patronizing lecturing here, it tends to rub people to the wrong way. Your "forum chat" comments makes you come across like you think you own this discussion area. I don't think it's any of your business to tell others what they can and cannot discuss (as long as it's relevant, which this discussion is) and how they may or may not do this (as long as it's civil etc, which this discussion is). --Jerkov (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, Jerkov. I don't think that I own the talk page. I do, however, tend to know what I am talking about when it comes to policy and guidelines (though my understanding of FU and templates is often shaky), so if I seem to speak from a position of superiority, understand that it is a superior knowledge of policy and guidelines, and I am simply trying to impart knowledge to you. I do not mean to imply that I am smarter or more well-versed in the subject matter of the article than you; I don't feel that for a minute. I am just trying to channel that knowledge of the subject into the confines of our policies.

Our talk page policy (as well as our core policies) explicitly state and implicitly weave the idea throughout our guidelines that politeness and civility is the best way to further the ends of the Wikimedia Foundation. As the encyclopedia is composed of several disparate folk who must edit together for success, politeness is key. If someone is being unpleasant or aggressive, I am going to ask that they take a step back and reconsider their approach. This means if someone attacks an editor (and not their edits), they are going to get the pointy part of the stick, and rightfully so. I don't care what you (in the generic usage of the word 'you') have to do to make sure you edit politely - have a cup of tea, spank your inner child, pray to the Great Pumpkin, whatever - you need to make sure you do it before editing. If you don't make every effort to do so, your ass is grass and AN/I will be the lawnmower. Nuff said.

Now, I believe I thanked RealFennShysa for his having provided a citation, which is what this article about the film needed. Let's move on, shall we? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

#1 sequel in terms of Monetary Percentage Improvement

[5] This should definitely be noted somewhere in this article :) --SonicNiGHT (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Trailers and the T-1000

Just a pair of general questions that might be nice to have on the page - 1) who came up with the idea for a liquid-metal robot (because they're a damned genius)? Was it James Cameron himself or someone else? and 2) When was the T-1000 revealed to the public? Did the trailer and teaser contain scenes showing its abilities, or was it a complete surprise to the audience once the film started? --Mokele (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

1. The T-1000 was James Cameron's idea. According to the booklet guide of the Ultimate Edition version of Terminator 2, it specifically states that Cameron not only thought up the concept that would be the T-1000, but originally he wanted the T-1000 to be the main villain in the first Terminator movie- but changed his mind after learning that the technology for such special effects wasn't available at that time.
2. There was one trailer that did give some insight to the T-1000's abilities- the most noticeable was the constant showing of how the T-1000 acquired the police helicopter. However, there wasn't much insight as to what he could do- that was probably the only ability they showcased in that film (since they didn't wanna give too much away). Keep in mind, these were revealed after it was revealed that Arnold's character was indeed the good guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.15.24 (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit/addendum: Cameron invented the CGI technology for the water based aliens in The Abyss. (Because The Abyss was the testing ground for T-2 it's relevant) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Hand

Shouldn't somebody notice that the T-101's arm/hand is still trapped in the gears of the plant? Since the CPU "survived" in the 1st one, couldn't the hand still survive? --JoeLoeb (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You noticed. It shouldn't be mentioned in the article, though- none of the characters in the film make note of it, and the camera doesn't linger meaningfully on it - it's really not an important part of the movie. It probably belongs in some "movie mistakes" or plot holes web site, but not on Wikipedia. --Xsmasher (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the hand didn't survive- it was crushed by the gears of the plant; remember, when The T-800 amputated his arm, the machine continued to operate, thereby crushing the remainder of the arm into small debris.

At least this isn't like the first film though- how the arm and the chip managed to survive, yet the legs don't- after being blown up by that pipe bomb- is still beyond anyone's imagination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.15.24 (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer is the most simple: a (fictional) someone cleaned it up and threw it away without realizing what it had. Happens in real life all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Literary criticism?

I think this article would benefit from some literary criticism and consideration of how the film succeeds so spectacularly. While it's not my field, I can't help but be awed by the tremendous attention to detail in the plot and presentation that gives the film an organic integrity. For example, consider the motif of reversal: A car chase in reverse, the T-1000 reversing itself from the wall, Sara Connor acting as a Terminator, a Terminator acting as a father, John Connor teaching a Terminator how to mimic humans. But even small details: Sarah injecting the nurse with the sedative; the guard who is the real lunatic; when the laser dot settles on the back of the programmer's head, one of the pieces of equipment in front of him is displaying a similar red glow; a key is used to prevent a door from being unlockable; liquid nitrogen is apposed to molten steel, and so on. A similarly complex motif concerned the ability of machines to mimic people in the first Terminator.

By creating very general transformations of this type that appear to have almost mathematical validity within the aesthetic universe of the film, a framework is created by which nearly every event in the film recollects or foreshadows several others, and in this way a complex network of interactions is set up by which the film is crafted to hold together as a whole rather than a linear sequence of unconnected events. The existence of such a network, reminiscent of a biochemistry, or perhaps a Skynet, or perhaps most aptly the major connectives of a central nervous system, could act in my opinion as a definition of a life within the context of cinema. Wnt (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that makes these comparisons. Otherwise, this sounds like original research and prohibited on Wikipedia. — Val42 (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it's very eloquently laid out and I appreciated the thoughtfullness of your commentary Wnt! --GG The Fly (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm 90% sure all of that is coincidental but I must admit it's nonetheless fascinating to realize. I know this isn't a forum but It's definitely something to note. --SonicNiGHT (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

One more reason NOT to delete this "original research" is that Blade Runner has pages upon pages of OR within Wikipedia that has never been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAP is a non-argument. Just because another article is full of crap doesn't mean this one has to be. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging T-1000

This character only appears in this film, so it is really unlikely to have much potential for growth. The film stuff can be added to this article if it's not here already, while the television information can go to the relevant characters list. --TTN (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well...there have been pop culture appearances of the character, and the character's development information was a big thing in magazines back when I was young so it's available. All in all though it can be restored if anyone works on it, so not much qualms on the merge. --Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The separate article deals with the character in terms of it's capabilities, characteristics, the pop culture references etc. This article deals with the plot of the film, reception, production etc. When you're talking about the film, you're being factual. In concern with a character, you're being factual within a fantasy like theme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.15.24 (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The film is about the film, the T1000 is about a character. No point. --JoeLoeb (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There was never any consensus to merge, as there is three votes against it this discussion. I am opposed to the Merge, just like we don't merge Agent Smith and The Matrix. --T-1000 (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't count votes. The anon, JoeLoeb, and yourself do not supply anything related to actually improving the article, so there is little weight in your opinions. Smith is a character spanning three films and a few video games. The possible content is much greater than a character who only appears in a single film. --TTN (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia operate on consensus. Right now you are a minority of one. We have voting on page merges and redirects, for example, in Talk:China where they are deciding the name of the article. As others already said, there is enough pop culture references, and merging all the T-1000 would make the article too long. Please don't edit war until we have reached consensus. Thank you. --T-1000 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not based upon numbers; it is based upon arguments (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). And Kung Fu Man up above makes it two to two, as the anon could easily be anyone. Why do you think we would ever merge the entire article? The plot section is obviously redundant and the production information fits into this easily. That makes the only content left to merge the television character, which I have already added to the relevant list, and the details on this character, which can be summed up into a paragraph. The pop culture references are already in this article, and they certainly are not enough to hold an article. --TTN (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man is not supportive of the merge, he just doesn't mind it, as he said there have been enough pop culture references for the T-1000. "Consensus is not based upon numbers"? Sorry, members vote on matter like this, as I said in Talk:China and Talk:Ireland. The argument is that the T-1000 has appeared in televsion, computer games and comics, like Agent Smith. You have not addressed the arguments made by me or the anon. As of right now, there is no Consensus, thus it should not be moved. --T-1000 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not minding it is the same as being supportive. You don't need a bold "merge" to agree with it. Are you really trying to compare countries to a fictional character? Due to the large number of people who are going to comment on issues regarding those articles, numbers will probably prevail in the end. Does that make it the correct way to do things? No. Appearances in media do not demonstrate notability. They only help in an argument if you're using them to demonstrate possible sources. That is not what you're doing here.

Either way, can you honestly say that the current content is actually worthy of an article? In order to properly meet guidelines and the like, the plot section should only be a paragraph, the details on the concept need to be trimmed, the television character needs to be covered that series' character list, and the creation details need to be trimmed. That means you're left with three or so paragraphs and one of them is completely useless. --TTN (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, refer to Jason Voorhees as an example of a proper film character. Note that not one film takes more than a few sentences and the characteristics are all sourced. That is impossible for this character. TTN (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not minding is not the same as being supportive. I don't mind that articles on Manga characters are deleted, but I do not support it. "Appearances in media do not demonstrate notability."? That was your argument for Agent Smith. We differ on what is worthy of an article or whether or not the T-1000 article needs to be improved, trimmed or sources and I respect your POV, but we are not going to convince each other. Better to leave this open and see if anyone else has anything to say. As of right now, it's three against, one neutral, and one for. That's Consensus against moving. --T-1000 (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

←If you were to comment in an AfD saying "I don't really mind if this is deleted", it would be counted as being supportive. I said that the "possible [sourced] content is much greater" due to those appearances, not that the appearances define the character. So what exactly is your opinion on that featured article? Is it somehow completely wrong to expect this article to match that in some way? And once again, stop counting. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY exists for a reason. --TTN (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to spell it out then: "I support a merge without prejudice to restore if the article can be massively improved prior to restoration (meaning on a user subpage or similar)." There, no guessing on what I said now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kung Fu Man (talk • contribs) 20:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, Ku Fung Man gave arguments against the merge (T-1000's pop culture references). My opinion, like you for Agent Smith, is that the T-1000's appearances in various forms of media do gave him enough information to merit his own article, and the (possible) contents can sourced. The T-1000 needs to be better sourced but it does not need a merge. A merge would lessen the chance the T-1000 article is actually improved. As for this discussion, I was demonstrating no consensus exists, you don't need to count to see that. --T-1000 (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that was Kung Fu Man commenting. He forgot to sign. Do you understand what I mean by sourced content? I'm not talking about refining the current content and just sourcing it. I'm talking about getting actual information into the article, as shown in Jason Voorhees. Do you honestly believe that T-1000 can even get an eighth of that information? --TTN (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's where you and I differ, I believe that the current content is fine, like the Agent Smith article has stuff overlap with the Matrix films. It just needs to be sourced. "Note that not one film takes more than a few sentences" is your POV, as there are other Character pages that have a detailed film section, like Simba. Like I said, we have our different visions and we are not going to convince each other. So let's just wait for further input and consensus. --T-1000 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, did you miss the fact that Jason is a featured article? "Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia" signifies that Jason is certainly one of the few articles to use a basis of what belongs in an article like this one. Simba is a start-class article, so I don't see what you're getting at by bringing that up. --TTN (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I really think articles should have a quality icon on the page. Like Simba which was used as an example above but is only actually Start-class, meaning people would rather it get fixed or get gone. As far as this subject goes, it's going nowhere. T-1000, you clearly feel strong about this article. And to be honest, I think the only part of it that might be notable are parts specific to Robert Patrick's portrayal as the character. But that's my personal opinion from the impact on me, which is why I said what I did. Wikipedia has a notability guideline however that requires notability be established through reliable, third party sources, and in the case of a fictional character, demonstrate both reception and development through those references. If you feel that strongly about the article I strongly suggest you stop trying to bludgeon your way through, pick up google and a list of reliable sources, and try to develop the article into something sourced and encyclopedic. If you're not, well then please get out of the way until someone does. In its current form, I say merge until it gets worked on (which is a very common occurance).

Whatever the case as it stands I think we can all readily agree the television "T-1000" is a completely separate character and not needed in this article even if you do or anyone else does work on it. It's best to be merged rather absolutely into the Sarah Chronicles character list at this point. --Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Simba was not merged into Lion King despite it being start Class. If you want a Feature Article example, look at Cortana. Her section on Halo: Combat Evolved section is nearly as long as the T-1000's film section. There is no rule that states "that not one film takes more than a few sentences". But we are off topic anyways, I am not opposed to improving the T-1000 article. My point is that merger was done without Consensus. --T-1000 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the television T-1000, we have an article on each type of Terminator, the Terminator from T1 and T2 were separate characters, yet they are on a single article. --T-1000 (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You do notice Cortana has sourced development and reception info, right? Guess what both the T-1000 and Agent Smith articles lack.

Also for your other point, T1 and T2 were the same actor, same look. So in the eyes of the mass media, it the same or a very similar character concept, just different approaches. You can't argue that with the two T-1000. --Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I am not opposed to sourcing the T-1000 or the Agent Smith article to get them to be Feature Article status. I was only addressing TTN's "that not one film takes more than a few sentences" concern.

The source that the two T-1000 are the same type are here: [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by T-1000 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand: the issue with the article, and the reason for merging, is that it is unsourced. So far you've been complaining, but doing nothing to fix it (and before you retort, keep in mind the onus is upon those arguing to keep the article to improve it and prove notability). Also in all honesty, you have a decision to either approach the article as a character subject, or as an all-inclusive subject for the T-1000 itself. You'll find more readily if sources exist, they'll be discussing the character as seen in Terminator 2 (even the cameos seen in other films are to that end). The television version would be, to an effect, receive undue weight as it is a completely different approach to an existing character (an argument that, again, can't be used for those portrayed by Swarzanegger (sp?) in T1, 2, or 3, as all three were the same recurring concept character and are treated as such in the media). If you're not going to fix the article and still argue it should be there you're wasting everyone's time then. --Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

←We have an "This article needs additional citations for verification" tag for such situations. The proper procedure for merging would be to gain consensus with discussion, which was never achieved. But Yes, I will try to improve the T-1000 article.

As for the Television T-1000, what or what not is " a completely different approach" is your OR. It could certainly be argued that T1 and T2 are a "completely different approach" due to one being a protector and the other being a killer. However, there is a direct source from Joel Kramer stating that they are the same. --T-1000 (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You're thinking way too strictly...let me try to explain. On wikipedia, third party sources are a big part in how an article goes: they determine it's name, whether it stays or goes, and so forth. Case in point, if you go to Metacritic or similar review aggregate sites and read through the reviews given, you'll find people will link the different "Arnie" characters together in a discussion. The character has the same look, approach as feel. Even bits such as development information are shared between the two. A better way to put it? Walk up to someone, show them that image and there's a good chance they're recognize it as one character. Third party sources will support having them combined.

But when you go back to the idea of the T-1000, you'll find reviews will treat the characters differently. What you're basically saying here is "they're both the same idea, they should be the same" which would be like combining articles about similar human beings together as they're all human. The sources, which do exist but I'm still supporting merge until they get put in there and this article gets some exlax, support one rendition of the character. If you read and consider WP:UNDUE, you'll notice that because the sources are supporting the character and not the concept of the T-1000 (which is a completely different element...sorry but mimics weren't THAT new back then) that the TV "T-1000" is in all aspects a different character: the sources don't exist to support having both in there.

Anyone else have any thoughts on that matter? --Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It may also be worth noting that the T-1000 article names the Shirley Manson character as a "T-1001", so it's not even the same model (in the fictional universe). All 3 Arnold portrayals (as well as the one that uses his likeness in Terminator Salvation) are the same model: T-800 model 101's. So it's the same character, played by the same person, in all the films, so they're lumped together in Terminator (character) as they clearly ought to be covered in the same article. The T-1000 in T2 and the Shirley Manson character in the TV series are different characters, played by different people. Now, clearly they're the same character concept, so I'm unsure whether they belong in the same article or not. It's sort of like the Predator or Alien; even though it's clearly different creatures from film to film, and not always the same actor in the suit, it's the same character concept, so clearly we wouldn't have separate articles for each one from each film. But a the same time, the Predalien, which is a new character concept, is covered in the Alien article. So I'm divided on this: on the one hand the character concept does appear in multiple works, and in theory it should be possible to gather a lot of real-world, behind-the-scenes info on it. But at the same time that info could well be covered in the film/TV series articles, and really ought to develop there first before a separate character article is started (see WP:SS). So for now I favor a merge. Later on, if the content in the articles about the works grows and develops along the lines we're looking for (lots of reliable 3rd-party source coverage & real-world info), we can reconsider a separate article. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the analogy with Arnold and the T-1000s are not accurate. Arnold in T3 is a T-850 model 101, yet he is still on the same page as the ones from T1 and T2. However, what we think is original research anyway, what we need is reliable sources. And there are certainly sources that link the Robert Patrick character and the Shirley Mansion character together, such as [7]; [8]; and [9];. --T-1000 (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

All three of the characters played by Schwarzenegger are built off of one another, and the connection is referenced within the films themselves. Add in actual sources and the like, and that mixes together fairly well. I've never seen the television series, but I cannot imagine that they actually reference the first T-1000 in more than a brief mention. They are two completely separate characters, and they don't need to be mixed together. Either way though, the television character doesn't really need more than a single paragraph for plot information, and I doubt any possible reception is going to make much of a difference on the article. --TTN (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Having watched the entire TV series, no, they never mention the T-1000 or the Robert Patrick character in the series itself. It's blatantly obvious that they're the same character concept, and Shirley Manson's character is clearly meant to recall the T-1000 of T2, with her character building off the one from the film, but that's really beside the point. As I said, I agree with the merge because the article in its present state is 80% plot summary. The content should develop in the main articles until it's deemed sufficient to stand on its own. At this point having a separate article is putting the cart before the horse. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the 80% from. If you want to get technical, as it currently stands, the film and Television appearances section of the T-1000 is about 1000 words, while the T-1000 article itself is about 2000 words. Thats 50%. Compare this with the Appearance section of the Master Chief (Halo) article. That section is about 1400 words out of a 3500 word article, or 40%. The Master Chief (Halo) article is a Featured Article. I agree that the appearances section of the T-1000 needs a bit of trimming, and a real world reception section needs to be added, but the length of the appearances is not that off the mark from a feature article. --T-1000 (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It was a guestimate based on eyeballing the page. But if you want to get nitty-gritty, the entire "Description" section is basically plot summary in that the description is more or less written as a blow-by-blow of the films' events. By copy/pasting into Word, I get a word count of about 1,600 for that section. By the same method, the "Creation" section, which is where all the real-world, behind-the-scenes (aka not plot) info is, is only ~350 words. The entire article being roughly 2,075 words, that means that only around 17% of the content is devoted to real-world information, while ~77% is plot summary/description is one form or another. Master Chief (Halo) is about 3,500 words, and roughly 1,600 (45%) of that is straight real-world description ("Character design", "Influence and analysis", "Cultural impact", etc.) Even the stuff like "Outward appearance", "Other appearances", and the first paragraph of "Personality" are written from a real-world perspective. Cortana is around 43% real-world description. You get the idea: T-1000 contains less than half the amount of real-world description as these FAs you're pointing to, so the comparison really doesn't hold up. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

We were comparing the length of the plot summery, are we not? The first paragraph of the description was not plot summery, it was describing T-1000's powers, simliar to Cortana's Attributes section, which also is in-universe stuff. As for the real world stuff, I agree that it should be expanded. However, that's why we have an "Please help expand this section" tag. --T-1000 (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The reliably sourcable Creation information should be merged to the film, and the article redirected. The rest is nothing but a repeat of the film plot with some serious WP:OR issues and excessive non-free images added in. The entire section on "Television" which is on the T-1001 is off topic and out of place. T-1000 was cool, but never gained the real world notability of the original and is not notable enough for its own article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge...at the moment - As it sits right now, it's just excessive plot information from the film, and the SCC. That isn't a reason to have a separate page. Neither is "because I know it's notable". That being said, I don't have a lot of doubt that something like this could have its own page, just that currently it doesn't warrant one. The idea that "sources are out there" is a novel one, because you still have to produce them. At best, I'd give the page a timetable to clean up and assert the notability that it is claimed to have, and if it can do that within the timetable, then I'd say leave it. Otherwise, like I said, merge it for the time being. --  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

←Oppose merge as notable character worthy of a separate article due to coverage in reliable sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the T-1000's notability is a problem, considering I was able to find seven sources that talk about his special effects or himself within 15 mins of google search. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. --T-1000 (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The first 4 of those are reviews of the film, and do not cover the T-1000 outide the context of critical analysis of the film as a whole. In other words, they give us nothing that isn't already covered (or shouldn't already be covered) in this article about the film itself. The next 3 amount to "ZOMG! Shirley Manson iz a T-1000!" without any significant coverage of the T-1000 character concept. The last one, an interview, does not even contain the words "T-1000" anywhere in it and again doesn't discuss the character concept of the T-1000 at all. I'm also going to venture that sites called "terminatorchronicles.com" and "geeksaresexy.net" are of questionable reliablity. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge because the T-1000 is a major character in the film and because it does not appear that the character has had such a prominent presence elsewhere. Most major coverage about T-1000 will be in direct relation to the film; other kinds of coverage is piecemeal. This film article at its finest should be able to adequately cover T-1000 and its chief attraction, the visual effects used to design him. This is one such resource to use. --Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the T-1000 has appeared in film, telvision, comics, and games. For comparsion, Yesterday's featured article was an episode of Family Guy. If a single episode can become a feature article, then the multiple media the T-1000 in should be enough. Even those who support the merge, like the above poster, found notable real world sources which could be used in T-1000s own article. --140.144.175.105 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAP is a non-argument. You need to show that the T-1000 is notable independent of just this film and its attendant merchandise. The only way to do this is by presenting reliable secondary sources devoting significant coverage to this character specifically. Notability is not determined by counting how many forms of media the character appears in. Nearly every major motion picture these days has a corresponding video game, comic book or novel adaptation, and toys. This does not automatically make every character from that film independently notable merely because they "appear" in marketing items directly tied to the film. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with IllaZilla. The misleading argument to preserve articles on specific fictional elements is that they appear in multiple media. While this this is an indicator of possible commentary, this does not mean there is sufficient commentary for a well-rounded article. For example, video game appearances would not always mean there is a lot to say about them, except that they appeared, and even if there is some commentary, it may be suited for video game articles. Otherwise, such details are just regurgitated from other articles in a different presentation. For example, the IP identified my Cinefex link as one to use for the T-1000 article, but why do we need to do this? The visual effects are in this film; to disjoint such detail from this topic is not ideal presentation. --Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I found this site that talks about the T-1000's real world creation: [17], and the T-1000 is the only character to use CGI, so it is specific to him, So a creation section can be written. Movie reviewers praised the T-1000's special effects, so a reception section can also be written. --T-1000 (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Movieprops.com? I'd question its reliablity as a source I think. In any case, as Erik says, separating discussion of the film's special effects from discussion of the film itself is disjointed presentation. No matter how you slice it, we're still dealing with a character that only appears in this film, so any discussion of it really has to be made within a larger discussion of the film itself, otherwise the discussion is robbed of its context. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, primarily because it's been expanded to be a catchall article for 1000 series Terminators. Thus it's NOT about a single character. --Marhawkman (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"A catchall for all 1000 series Terminators"...of which there have been 1 (2 if you count TSC's T-1001, which is a weak argument). Trying to prop this up with claims that it covers more than 1 character does nothing to address the real issues of critical commentary and secondary source coverage, of which there is very little devoted to this specific character or concept. As Erik points out so well, the argument that there are multiple characters or that they "appear" in multiple media is misleading. While it's an indicator of possible commentary, it doesn't mean that there is sufficient commentary for us to use in building a well-rounded encyclopedia article. Trying to justify a separate character article solely on the basis of there being maybe 2 different characters is really putting the cart before the horse. The character & behind-the-scenes info needs to grow & develop in the articles about the works first, before separate articles are considered. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

←There's actually 3 1000 series characters in the article. The third was a villain in the comic add on to T2. the T-1001 is a 1000 series Terminator. I don't see how it'd be a "maybe".... --Marhawkman (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The character is a staple of pop culture, appearing in of of the decade's biggest films, and later in Wayne's World, Last Action Hero and being spoofed in Family Guy, The Simpsons and other media too numerous to mention. Highly notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KorjokManno (talk • contribs) 20:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Exactly, it's a huge cultural reference point. Even if among people who haven't seen the film. Needs it own article. --LiamUK (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose All other T's have their own articel, why shouldn't T-1000? Being an important part of T2, that's another reason to have it's own article, but mainly, i say leave the article separated like all other "T articles", makes a better reading too. --Ricmetalster (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Director McG has stated that a T-1000 will appear in the upcoming fifth movie of the series, which makes it a part of more than one movie. --85.130.53.1 (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The T-1000 also appers in Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles as a T-1000 masquerading as Catherine Weaver the co-founder and current CEO of ZeiraCorp. So It should not really mearge with T2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.172.160 (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2009

Oppose - very lengthy article which, even if it was ruthlessly edited, would clog up the T2 article. Important character, much like the T800 (lesser characters have their own wiki page.) --Feudonym (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The T-1000 Terminator from T2 and the T-1001 Terminator from Sarah Connor Chronicles are different characters, with different backstories and are played by different actors. This isn't like Superman from Lois & Clark and Superman from Smallville, the Terminators are different people. --202.74.194.57 (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)