This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Terminator 2: Judgment Day article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Films     (Rated C-Class) Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. This article is within the scope of the American cinema task force. This article is within the scope of the Canadian cinema task force. Improving this article: See how this article can be improved to B-Class status. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated B-Class, High-importance) Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science Fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: March 7, 2008

Contents 1 Wording 2 Literary criticism? 3 GA nomination 3.1 GA review 4 GA fail 5 Citations for use 6 Plot Cleanup 7 Problem with a link on the page. 8 Spelling 9 Book adaption 10 Trailers and the T-1000 11 Followed By? 12 Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters 13 The Hand 14 Ten years after the first? 15 Year-in-film template 16 #1 sequel in terms of Monetary Percentage Improvement 17 Merging T-1000

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. [[User:SonicNiGHT|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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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) 08:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations for use

• "James Cameron, Terminator 2: Judgement Day (Part I)". Syd Field. 2008-03-17. http://www.sydfield.com/featured_jamescameron.htm. 
• "James Cameron, Terminator 2: Judgement Day (Part II)". Syd Field. 2008-03-17. http://www.sydfield.com/featured_jamescameron2.htm. 
• "He's Big, He's Back, and He's a Pretty Nice Guy Once You Get to Know Him". Entertainment Weekly. 1991-07-12. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,314824,00.html. 
• "A New Body of Work". Entertainment Weekly. 1991-07-12. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,314767,00.html. 
• "Brave New World". Entertainment Weekly. 1991-08-30. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,315300,00.html. 

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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)

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] 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) 11:14, November 4, 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: [1] - 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)

(removed personal attacks as per WP:NPA)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] #1 sequel in terms of Monetary Percentage Improvement

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

[edit] 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)

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 inofrmation 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)

(Outdent) 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: [3]

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)

(Out-dent)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 [4]; [5]; and [6];. 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. -- Collectonian (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. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. 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: [14], 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.

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)