# Talk:T2-3D: Battle Across Time

I posted that bootleg copies of the movie part of the "ride" are available to watch on youtube and download on most torrent sites. however, this keeps getting deleted because it's not cited. how the hell do you cite a fact/verb? I could cite the download link if needed. i think it should be stated in the article though cuz it's pretty relevant. 74.76.96.112 (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Even though i didn't put forward the merge its pretty obvious that the two articles are of the same attraction so there is no reason why they should be merged with a wikilink placed on the article that will lose its information. 
As for which page should be merged, well the article's name should be the same as the ride it is about however i'm not sure which it is so someone else will have to do the merge to make sure that it is correct. TheEnlightened 21:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The Florida & Japan sign says

    T2
TERMINATOR
   3-D

The California sign says

TERMINATOR 2: 3D

--blm07 19:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if this experience was universal among ride visitors but, when my family went to this attraction in Florida, a man was planted in the audience pretending to be someone waiting on the ride. After a certain time in line, he would begin screaming about the dangers of what Cyberdyne is doing and basically warning everyone about Cyberdyne's plan for the terminator robots.  
Almost immediately after he begins his rant, two security guards in Cyberdyne uniforms rush into the line and drag him, kicking in the air and yelling further warnings, out of the line and through an employees only door. 
Has anyone else shared this experience? This was around the time when the ride was a new attraction, so this bit of theatrics may have been abandoned later.  It certainly added to the audience's sense of immersion however. Palehorse864 04:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope not when I went through it.
Me neither, though (irrelevently) I notice actors are putting their CVs up--TimothyJacobson (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Image:T-70.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The onscreen title does use the subtitle "Battle Across Time," and nor do the Orlando Hollywood and Orlando Japan official sites; additionally, the hostess in the Orlando Hollywood video clip does not title it that. "Battle Across Time" seems an unofficial marketing title, like Die Hard 2: Die Harder, the latter part of which is not part of the Wikipedia article's name (but is mentioned in the intro as a marketing line). As we do with Die Hard 2 and Superman (for which Wikipedia does not title its article with the incorrect "Superman: The Movie"), I'm wondering whether we should go here with the most accurate, encyclopedic title rather than a marketing phrase.--24.215.162.198 (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would there be an onscreen title. It ruins the verisimilitude--TimothyJacobson (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The subtitle is included in the official name of the attraction, at least in Orlando: http://www.universalorlando.com/theme-parks/universal-studios-orlando/attractions/terminator-2-3-D.html
Agreed.  I just meant it was not used onscreen as part of the attraction--TimothyJacobson (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

During the Preshow the Skynet AI "talks" to the audience using a text promter, inviting them to "Freak out" the tour guide by calling his/her name. Also, during the transition to the future, The Terminator appears in the present fully clothed in a leather jacket, and riding a motorcycle. CthulhuRlyeh (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with your first comment (very similar to the prompter at Muppetvision) but don't see the relevance of the second--TimothyJacobson (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I initiated the Production section two years ago for the original article but immediately decided to yank the info that I had added about the initial mock-up, because it could not be properly referenced to any published works. "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences."
Unfortunately, somebody reverts the edit, against Wikipedia protocol, whenever I try to remove my own contribution. So here's the deal: if you can find published references to this material, then please add the citations. Otherwise, when I attempt to delete my contributions yet again, please resist the temptation to revert.
Thanks for your consideration. Projection70 (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted some of the information regarding an initial mock-up that I added  a couple years ago. I don't know who later inserted the line about a full-scale mock-up. That edit makes it look like the rest of my data (re: the six synchronous Electrosonic projectors, the 70m film, 3-D triptych, Cinerama, etc.) applies to the full-scale mock-up rather than the original one. I didn't bother to delete it, but I have doubts about whether he/she can verify that those facts apply to both mock-ups. Did the full scale mock-up really use that specific brand of projector, too? Without citations, we may never know. So this section may contain erroneous information about T2-3D, but I'll leave it to other editors to decide how much the truth matters in this article. Projection70 (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The truth matters a lot. I believe that some of it may come from the documentary on the T2 Ultimate Edition DVD, which is why I haven't removed it. That edition of the DVD is out of print, but there is a copy at the university library, which I can watch in the fall. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Great; thanks very much for taking it seriously. If you do get a chance to watch that, it would be cool if you could compare it to my edits (which are too old to be listed under my user name since the article has been merged, but basically it's almost all of the Production section) and remove any that the DVD doesn't support. I'm not real comfortable with the way my edits are being applied to a mock-up (the full-scale version) with which I didn't participate and know nothing about. Projection70 (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The combined infobox is better than a bunch of separate infoboxes. However, it doesn't add any new important information.

Area- not infobox worthy
Attraction type- 3D is in the title, not really needed in an infobox
Theme- Again, not needed. T2 is in the title
Opening Date- already in the main infobox
Ride Duration- already in the main infobox
Parental rating- this needs a source, and it can easily be incorporated into the main infobox
Previous attractions- not infobox worthy, and can be incorporated into the main infobox if needed
Having a separate infobox with mostly trivial or duplicate information is just a waste of space on the page. ColdFusion650 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to merge the two infoboxes together, rather then only deleting the amusement ride box, since the article is also about the attractions, not just the film.--Snowman Guy (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The only thing that needs to be moved over is the rating, which needs a source. ColdFusion650 (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, The article is meant to cover the attractions also, not just the film. The Amusem,ent ride content is not meant to be trivial, as it has been approved by Wikipedia. Take Shrek 4-D for an example. The areas and theme is important for the attractions themselves, and should not be removed.--Snowman Guy (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to say, "Theme: Terminator 2". It's in the title. You don't need to say, "Attraction type: 3D". It's in the title. While it's fine for the lead, putting in the infobox is just silly. ColdFusion650 (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your problems:
1. The entrance images don't clutter anything, they are needed to inform of the attraction, NOT JUST the movie.
2.The other infobox IS needed. This article is supposed to be about the attractions in general, Not just the film, the infobox needs to stay there.
You seem to act like this was a theater released film. To remind you, It is actually a 3-D show attraction at the Universal Studios theme parks. Besides, the whole thing isn't even completely a film anyway.--Snowman Guy (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, a suggestion: per Wikipedia's policy, it is better to make a compromise with other users in situations like this, rather then just reverting the article's content.--Snowman Guy (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the article covers the attraction. Policy is not to add images just for eye candy, which is exactly what the images of the front of the building are. They server no purpose at all. And as I've said before, the second infobox mostly just duplicates information from the existing one. I'm not trying to remove information about the attraction. You keep saying that I'm trying to make the article only about the movie. Obviously that's not true. I'm trying to remove duplicate information and clutter. As far as compromise, you said that it would be good to merge the infoboxes, and yet, here they sit, unmerged. ColdFusion650 (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to merge the two yet as one is for film usage, and the other for amusement ride usage. A generic one would be good, though I'm not sure exactly how to create one. THe article needs to use at least one entrance photo, most likely in the infobox. The only duplicate information is the theme and type, as for the dtaes, the film box only states the years. Not the actual dates.--Snowman Guy (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so then we eliminate the other two images. Now, that the dates have been moved over, the only thing that needs to be moved over is the rating, complete with a {{fact}} tag. Again, saying that it's based on T2 and is in 3D is kind of pointless. The infobox is the highlights, and we have big bold letters at the top saying T2 and 3D. The area possibly could stay. Previous rides is definitely not important, especially for the infobox. ColdFusion650 (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The source for the PG-13 rating can be found on Universal Studios Florida's attraction page for the show. Under Reccommended For it lists:
PG-13 Rating
As for the previous attraction at Hollywood, it should at least be mentioned under the Production section--Snowman Guy (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Production is fine. ColdFusion650 (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Still needs mention.--Snowman Guy (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
What I meant was, it's fine to put it in production. ColdFusion650 (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Apologies. Did not understand.--Snowman Guy (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In the Production section, this appears: "The unique 3-D film format used six, solid-state Electrosonic projectors that were electronically interlocked to run 70mm film synchronously" Electrosonics is a company specializing in presentation technology for theme parks, museums, etc. To my knowledge, there is no "Electrosonic projector." This mistake is probably the result of a press release or similar material stating that projectors were provided by Electrosonics. Additionally, there's a disconnect between "solid state" and "70mm film." This and other info in the production section is a bit unclear. Some good information can be found here: Soundelux Florida's multi-channel surround-sound system for T2:3D in an article by Mel Lambert. Though the source is cited as "unknown" for the article, it reads like something Lambert would have written for Mix Magazine. MRJayMach (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2008

This basically is a repeat of what was posted in the talk page for Disaster! ...
I undid the edits made saying that the attraction would be going to a seasonal operating schedule. Universal has made no such statements, or at least none in the media. The rumors I have heard, on the other hand, have stated that the show will actually run daily, but with fewer shows per day.  This makes sense actually; maybe opening at 11am instead of 9am, running one show an hour until closing (I think they run 2 or 3 now per hour). Again, this much is still rumor. Until something verifiable is posted, no mention needs to be made.  --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Twister...Ride it Out and Fear Factor Live have seasonal operating schedules confirmed, and I have added reliable sources to those articles. I don't know if there are any reliable sources available for this one though.--Snowman Guy (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Noted, and I concur. Of those, only the article cited for Fear Factor specifically mentioned the economy (and I had to clean it up because it lifted lines and phrases directly out of the news article, something we must avoid). The Twister article merely said it was going seasonal. In those cases, we can't make assumptions as to why the attraction is closing. Further, based on the closure of Hollywood's Fear Factor (it wasn't popular), this one may well be permanent, too, but not because of the economy.
Saying "due to the worsening economy" is editorializing. I could cite articles that said that the last quarter's fall-off in GDP was less than expected, which I could interpret as saying that the economy may be turning around instead of getting worse ... or at least it was before Chicago on the Potomac got involved, but I digress (and am, thus, editorializing myself). As I stated earlier, we need to stick to the facts and not attempt to read between the lines.
McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

See above. Look at attraction videos or pictures and look for these actors, which they aren't in any or have anything to do with the attraction.
--Pathollywood06 (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)'

I Don't See That? I looked everywhere on the internet and couldn't find source. could someone show me where they have that? OTherwise This Page should be deleted!24.7.204.215 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:T2 3-D: Battle Across Time/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Comments

Infobox title of the attraction is not in italics, unlike the rest of the mentions.
WikiProject Amusement Parks had a discussion a while back and we agreed that italics shouldn't be used for the ride that the article is about so I removed the italics.--Dom497 (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm confused, the title of the article is still in italics, and is the only place italics is used... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I can't figure out how to un-italicize the title.--Dom497 (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Well the film infobox was causing the italics in the title. I have restored the italics in this case because T2 3-D: Battle Across Time is the name of a film and I believe MOS:ITALIC would take precedence over the WikiProject. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
If the lead is a summary, why the one odd reference [4]?  This can be placed in the main article where you expand on the lead.
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
"It was previously at Universal Studios Hollywood." the sentence before you said there were multiple attractions, are you saying that it was launched at Universal, then versions appeared elsewhere?
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
"most expensive film per minute" did you mention in this section how long the film was?
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
"to rave reviews" a bit POV, rave-> very positive.
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
" actually Polarized 3D glasses" no need for "actually" or capital P.
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
"Cyberdyne security - either being" en-dash required.
@The Rambling Man: I actually have no idea how to make an en-dash on a computer. Can you help please?--Dom497 (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
You can use the code –.  Or the template {{ndash}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Where are the statistics on visitors?
Finding stats on visitors is very hard to come by. Almost all the amusement park/ride GA's don't have stats on visitors.--Dom497 (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Putting on hold for a week as there are a few issues.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I will help address the issues that you brought up as the nominator doesn't seem very active right now.--Dom497 (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, let me know when you're ready for a re-review. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I have addressed all your comments.--Dom497 (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Will re-review as soon as I get the chance!  Thanks for your attention.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Further comments

Ref 1 is missing a publisher.
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Ref 22 needs an en-dash in the title instead of that spaced hyphen.
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
It has a 4D films template and a 4D category but no mention of 4D in the article.
"where live performers interact with a 3-D film" - Isn't it common sense that this statement = 4D? However, I'm not to certain if this ride is really 4D anyways. Please see my comment at the very bottom.--Dom497 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I have refocused that template because I'm skeptical that a couple of the other attractions should be considered 4D too. So now, we have 3D and 4D films at Universal Orlando
Going back to "making it the most expensive film per minute", what is the context?  Is it the most expensive film in the history of movies, for example?
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Just re-check the numerous red links, can any of them be turned blue by creating stubs?  Can any of them be unlinked as they'd be unlikely to meet the notability requirements for Wikipedia in the short term?
Yes, some can have articles created but that's outside of the GA criteria.--Dom497 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Image licences seem fine to me, although the image of the pre-show room is a little odd, not particularly enlightening and of low quality, is it really helpful?
How is it odd, it shows what the room looks like. Does it really matter that its a little blurry?--Dom497 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Otherwise a good piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I'm leaving to go on a vacation on Sunday so I not be able to address any more comments. I have emailed the nominator to see if he can come to finish addressing the issues and determine if this ride is 3D or 4D.--Dom497 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
@Dom497: Firstly, thanks for picking up this review while I've been away. It's greatly appreciated. @The Rambling Man: I think I have addressed the two issues above that were outstanding. Please see my comments above. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on T2 3-D: Battle Across Time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120722135839/http://www.universalstudioshollywood.com/attractions/terminator-2-3d/ to http://www.universalstudioshollywood.com/attractions/terminator-2-3d/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Why did the terminator ride closed in Florida? Stitchosaurus (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)