Talk:Terminator (character)

message: This article totally sucks- it's packed with information, granted, but it's also packed with a whole load of redundancy. It repeats itself so many times that after reading it I felt like I had been on some kind of incredibly-repetitive repeating thing. Whoever wrote this should've gone to school. =( - Khol
Yeah, there are some problems with it. BTW, the writers have said that the Sgt Candy scene was deleted mostly because of time, and because it would've seemed out of place tonewise in the rest of the movie. That certainly doesn't make it any less canon though... it was on the DVD, after all.
Canon = whats in the film, not whats in the deleted scenes.
Moreover, the following statement in the first paragraph of the article is technically incorrect:
"The first film in the series (titled simply The Terminator, like the character) features only one cyborg: the one portrayed by Schwarzenegger."
In fact, there is the notable appearance of a "future Terminator" played by Franco Columbu in one of Kyle Reese's "flashback/flashforward" scenes. 
(Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Columbu). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.41.122 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all I have to say: featured... featured... featured. ColdFusion650 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suckage 

message: I agree with Christopher Thomas, below, regarding unclarified sources for this article.  Specifically, I take issue with the entire "Differences between the 800 and 850 series" section, because I contend that there is no such thing as a "T-850".  Stan Winston Studios, which designed the terminators for the films, confirmed this to me via e-mail when I wrote to them asking their opinion.  Their response (direct quote): "I'm not sure where the T-850 came from.  As far as I know, Arnold's Terminator has and always will be the T-800, model 101.  Now, the robot Terminators in T3 are T1's and Kristana Loken is the TX.  I hope that clears it up..."  While the term "T-850" is somewhat widespread on the internet, even extending to T3-related merchandise such as action figures, its origin is, to my mind, something of a mystery.  --Rich 07:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, maybe . . . just maybe . . . Stan Winston Studios has no connection with the people who developed the story for the movie.  I do agree, though.  The article needs cleanup, but the T-850 debate doesn't need to be part of it.King Zeal 13:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The designation is on the bonus DVD, if you check the Skynet files. Schrodinger82 05:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't forget, ladies and gentlemen, that the T-850's Power Cell detaches in the first place...whereas we never even saw the one in the T-800. And, by the way, the Terminator detached his cell in the movie, not a fansite.Thanos777 03:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What about the novels? Those sites seem to quote from the novels; if the novels are considered canon, they can be used as sources. CABAL 03:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Seconded. Most of the material in that section doesn't seem to come from the movies; its source needs to be clarified. --Christopher Thomas 18:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclarified sources 

message: In T2 doesn't the Terminator specifically say that his bullet wounds will heal in time?
:Seconded. Most of the material in that section doesn't seem to come from the movies; its source needs to be clarified. --Christopher Thomas 18:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wounds healing? 

message: Did anyone else notice the T-1 models in T3? Should they be included? Bihal 11:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-1 

message: I took it upon myself to edit some of the content here so it makes a little more sence. 
specifically I removed the part about T-1000 beind discontinued due to it's succeptibility to temperatures, and being discontinued in general. Skynet could't discontinue it based on thermal trouble simply because it has no way to know how and why T-1000 failed. Also, saying it was discontinued due to that would make as much sence as discontinuing T-800 due to it being succeptible to an 80-ton hydraulic press and pipebombs.
Another major edit is removal of the part about T-X being an army general figure, because aside from unintelligent fan speculation there is nothing to support that. Also I would love for someone to explain how it could control modern vehicles,
specifically shfting gears and turning the wheel by using nanotech. It seems that the technological aspect of the movie haven't really gotten much thought. tani 06.07.05
:The control of modern machines by the T-X isn't all that difficult to understand.  Any vehicle with power steering and cruise control would lend itself rather easily to modification and manipulation by devices such as nanites.  As for the actual turning of the steering wheel, and physical movement of the gear shift, that can probably be put down to making certain that the movie going audience really understood what was going on.  Most of them would have gotten it anyway, but sometimes people manage to miss the obvious.24.69.167.159 03:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: Based on my understanding of the timelines of the three Terminator movies, I rewrote most of the Cyberdyne Systems Corporation article today in order to clean up its redundancies and remove irrelevant bits, and especially to take care of some inaccuracies relating to the company's role in the creation of Skynet and the creation of the Terminators. Please take a look at it and see if it you think it gets anything wrong. Thanks. — mjb 21:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyberdyne article updated 

message: At end of the second film, both new terminators and the surviving components from the first are destroyed in a vat of molten steel.
This seems to miss the fact that the arm of the reprogramed 101 T-800 (main T-800 from T2 movie) lost its arm inside the metal works in the movie (had it ripped off).
The arm in questioned was never picked up and placed/dropped into the molten metal (on screen at least).  
Is this worth updating on the page to reflect that? Ravend 04:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? No one seems to care that in the original terminator both his legs were blown off and never made into the cyberdyne vault. The arm seems pretty irrelevant. Tani unit 00:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A hand and arm is much harder to recreate than a foot and leg.  The arm is smaller, so the construction has to be more delicate.  Also a hand needs to be vastly more complicated that a foot.  Overall, the computer that includes an AI program is the most important achievement, but when it comes to the Biomedical Engineering of the endoskeleton, the hand is the most complicated part to get right.Now moving on to speculation, I would guess that the other parts of the original Model 101, are at the backup site (which becomes Cyber Research Systems in T3). —MJBurrage(T•C) 21:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If you listen to the commentary on the T2 extreme edition dvd or watch it in enhanced mode, they realize that the arm is still there, and in the official novelization, John goes back and gets the arm to throw it in. ColdFusion650 13:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing arm

message: Scifi articles should be written in past tense, and personal speculation should also be avoided. 75.21.125.177 01:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past tense and speculation 

message: "and thus was rendered essentially immune to small arms fire (pistols, rifles, derringers, etc. although a shotgun actually had enough physical force to knock it down) "
I don't know if this happened in the movies or not because it's been a while since i've seen it, but this of course isn't physically possible. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If a shotgun blasts knocks a terminator over, then an equal and opposite force would occur, knocking over the shooter. The shooter isn't knocked over, so therefore, a person (or a terminator) would not be knocked over, either.--Stevekl 04:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article states knock "down", not "over". There are two instances where terminator was knocked down by quick sucession of shotgun blasts, mostly due to being knocked out physically and collapsing as a result. Besides, this whole physics thing is getting tired. A shot from .50 cal Barrett can pierce light armor and pullverize cinderblocks, but it doesn't mean that recoil will rip your shoulder off. Firearms are designed to absorb the impact from firing a projectile. Tani unit 00:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firearms 

message: This article reads like a bunch of original research.  I may be wrong, and there may be canon sources for all of the information in the article, but if that's the case then they need to be cited.  Wikipedia cannot contain speculation, however logical; it needs to have happened or been directly stated in the movies, books, etc or it needs to be removed. TomTheHand 21:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  I made a few more removals of stuff that seemed to be original research or speculation.  I think the article looks much better now. TomTheHand 22:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: ok, where did the t-850 designation come from? i haven't seen the original movie in a long time, but i do know that in t2, he identifies himself as a cyberdyne systems model 101, and in t3 as a t-101. now, if the original says that he is a t-800, i can accept the fact that t3 just goofed on the designation (i saw t2 before the original, so i thought he was a t-101 myself for a while). but it never says in any movie that he is a t-850. now, it may seem that he has some differences with the power cell. we really can't tell from the movie, because we never see his power cell in the first two. if there is a difference, it could be because the first two were cyberdyne systems models, and the third one was a cyber research systems model. i'm just not understanding where t850 came from. can someone clarify? ColdFusion650 128.186.126.81 16:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  t-850 

message: since no one has come up with a reference for the t-800 name, and i've already modified the article to eliminate it, i think it's time to rename it. perhaps it can be renamed to Cyberdyne Systems Model 101, although that seems long. maybe it can just be Terminator (character). i don't know. it just needs to be done. then t-800 should redirect and all occurrences of "t-800" in all articles should be changed accordingly. ColdFusion650 21:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, let's go for Cyberdyne Systems Model 101.  I'll make the change in a couple of hours if nobody has objections. TomTheHand 19:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Jeez, I started working on removing references, but there's just too much stuff. I removed some, and I fixed all the double redirects, which are the big problem.  I found one thing that could be a problem with this rename.  On the James Cameron page there's a quote: "I wanted someone who was extremely fast and agile. If the T-800 is a human Panzer tank, then the T-1000 is a Porsche."  I guess it's non-canon since it's an interview and never found in a movie, though. TomTheHand 21:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article name change 

message: I've put the little thing about backup power back into the article.  Toward the end of T2, the T-1000 drives a piece of rebar or something through the Model 101's power cell(s), and the 101's eyes go dark.  A couple of minutes later there's a scene from the 101's eyes showing it boot up and access backup power. TomTheHand 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, how about "If the powercell is depleted or damaged, the unit can access an alternate source of power that allows it to continue functioning for some time."? TomTheHand 19:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backup power cell 

message: Hi all, 
Just popping by from the Request for Comment page. As what I'd consider an "average" Wikipedia user on the subject, by North American standards -- I've seen the movies but don't have any vested interest in the character, haven't read the books, etc. To me, the character is "The Terminator," and were I looking for information on the character, "Terminator" would be the search word. Specific model numbers are useful, for sure, if you're working on the second or third tier of fandom, but I think "Terminator (character)" would be a much more useful and intuitive article name than T-800, T-101, etc. Obviously you are all fans of the series and the character and want to strive for the greatest possible level of accuracy, which is fantastic, but I think a concession to the non-fans who are casually looking for information wouldn't be out of place. --MattShepherd 19:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, the disambiguation page IS a bit too complicated.  I think that if it were simplified, that would be sufficient to address the issue you're bringing up.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention. King Zeal 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Head over to WP:RFC.  In this case, I listed our dispute under the Media, art and literature section.  I tried to describe it neutrally so that people could come and bring an outside view. TomTheHand 20:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Some people are really dumb. In T3 special edition it quite clearly states Arnie is a T-850 model-101. While in T1+2 it is clearly stated that Arnie is a T-800 model-101. The people who deny this are quite clearly American dumb asses who are blind to every thing around them...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.190.211 (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll agree with the first sentence, but seeing how there is no such thing as the T3 special edition (perhaps you're thinking of the T2 special edition), nothing else you said is true at all. ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: I was asked by Thanos777 (talk • contribs) to comment, so I'll do so briefly:
My own opinion:
* You're going to have trouble finding "official" definitions for most of these terms, so I doubt this issue can ever really be resolved.
* The term "Android" literally means "robot in the shape of a male human", so the 600 and 800 models would definitely qualify, and the endoskeleton would probably qualify.
* The term "Cyborg" generally refers to an entity that requires both its biological and mechanical components in order to function effectively. By this definition, the Terminator robots are not cyborgs, even when encased in living tissue, as the living tissue's function is purely cosmetic. The analogous situation would be calling a human clad in medieval plate mail a "cyborg". While in both cases the cladding serves a purpose (camouflage and protection, respectively), in neither case does its removal cripple or fundamentally alter the nature of the entity.
* The term "Robot" generally refers to a mechanical automoton. As the purpose of the living tissue is cosmetic, I'd argue that all versions could correctly be called "robots". I'm interpreting the terms "robot" and "cyborg" to be exclusive (i.e., an object dependent on biological components for essential functions would not be something I'd call a "robot"). However, I have no idea if this is a popularly accepted interpretation.
What should actually be done with this issue:
This is clearly a situation where WP:V should be used as the main guiding criterion. It doesn't matter what any of us think the Terminator should be classified as - it matters what it's been called in print. If it's called a "cybernetic organism" in the movie itself, the fact that the movie considers it this should be prominently noted. If press material for the movie, or published reviews of the movie meeting WP:RS criteria, call it an "android", "robot", "cyborg", or anything else, then these may be noted, to a degree proportional to the fraction of publications that use this term. If the definitions used conflict with other, published, definitions of the terms (such as those from dictionaries), then the difference should be noted, but devoting more than a paragraph to what the Terminator should be classified as - including noting controversies - is IMO pretty silly (there are more important aspects of it to talk about).
Your mileage may vary. I hope these opinions are useful to you. --Christopher Thomas 06:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested opinion, and what should actually be done about this.

message: It says in the article that his ability to learn is turned off by default. The T-800 in the first one learned the uses of and how to swear and say fu** you a****** to the janitor to get rid of him, and that one was not reprogrammed by John as was the one in T-2, and the one in T-3 also learned "talk to the hand" If it does have to be turned on, then skynet did want it turned on for the first terminator. The snare 04:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easily-explained. In the future war, Skynet preloads the Terminators with guidelines for language, behaviour and so on. It would not be out of the question to include information on swearing, especially considering the rough military environment one would be expected to infiltrate. Secondly, the one in T3 was captured by the Resistance before being sent back, as such it would not be hard to write into the storyline that they enabled the learning functions prior. CABAL 05:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't have to "learn" to talk to the hand.
Terminators take things literally (such as the time that Jon Connor told him not to kill anyone and he probably crippled that gate guard for life), remember??
The "T" in T-2 showed his learning in other ways, such as the facial half-smile gesture when he had the minigun and looked for the keys later on rather than smashing the sterring column.
And, of course, as pointed out in the response prior, a "T" wouldn't have to learn to be pre-programmed by Skynet to adopt idioms (such as the cursing sequence in the first film) that help it to blend in more efficiently, be it in 2029 or 1984/1991. It is an Infiltration Unit, after all.Thanos777 18:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Learning

message: In case anyone cares, I believe I have tracked down one of the original, and perhaps best, reliable source uses of "T-800". We'll all be happy to know that Mr. James Cameron himself referred to Arnie's character as a "T-800" in the making-of documentary on most home video and DVD versions of Terminator 2. You're welcome. : )  -- ManfrenjenStJohn 05:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Even my assertion above is hotly contested, and I'm talking WITHIN the DVD materials that I cite. I have modified this article to reflect the facts on hand. To see how the discovery developed, have a look at the talk page entry for Terminator (character concept) - Talk:Terminator (character concept). -- ManfrenjenStJohn 05:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "T-800", where the term came from, and possibly the Mother of All Cites 

message: :Image:T-800.jpg 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 23:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:T-800.jpg

message: Since T3 has been pushed into the realm of "alternate reality" by the people working on T:SCC, shouldn't the info taken from T3's version of canon be noted as being non-canon?? Why is it still up there as if it's valid, canon information?? --Promus Kaa (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because that doesn't make it non-canon, but instead a different canon from that of the SCC. -- 128.205.145.108 (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Verbum. (That's Latin for "word". That's what the people in the hood say, or what they would say... if they knew Latin.) ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  T3 as canon 

message: In the Terminator movies Arnold Schwarzenegger refers to himself as T-101 and not T-800 or T-850. I don't remember ever hearing him as T-800 or T-850. Please explain. General Mannino (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-101/T-800/T-850 

message: Some miltary small arms' firepower can easily destory most of cyborg or android heros or cyborg aliens.
These  which encompasses  rocket launchers,heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, man-portable anti-material rifles and anti-aircraft guns and missile launchers, recoilless rifles, and mortars with calibers of less than 100 mm (3.9 inches). 
Likes Ironman,Robocop,or cyborg aliens likes Borg,cybermen ,cylon,also Terminator(perphaps exception tx)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gx9900gundam (talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 20 century small arms cannot destory Terminator?

message: Is there any specific reason for Uncle Bob to redirect here? Zazaban (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it be redirecting somewhere else? ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps Bob's your uncle? Zazaban (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, John names this character "Uncle Bob", so I would say it's a better match here than there. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncle Bob 

message: I found an interesting one on Flickr from the San Diego Comic Con... I can only suppose that there was a display of movie props there?  The image is labeled T-1000, but it seems pretty obviously to be a T-800.   If someone likes the picture, it should be placed on the page.  Oh... and did I mention that the picture is Creative Commons 2.0?  Much better than copying movie screen shots.   http://flickr.com/photos/cplbasilisk/912990299/in/set-72157601039638745/  Azoreg (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, in the United States, we don't have freedom of panorama for pretty much anything other than buildings.  Which means, even though the the photo is CC licensed, the sculpture it depicts is definitely NOT, even if it was displayed in a public place.  Therefore the picture cannot actually be fully licensed under Creative Commons.  See also: Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama.  Ford MF (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Free Terminator picture 

message: First off, this whole article seems to be nothing more than a pasted copy of the Terminator (character concept) article, but only trimmed down with very minor changes.  Since this article is specifically about the machine portrayed by Arnold Schwarzzeneger, the article should specifically focus on his character.  It makes it rather redundant to have an article on the Terminator alongside an article on the (plural) Terminators if they are both pretty much the same.
To begin with, the article should probably start off with a picture of the Terminator in his classic shades and biker outfit, as opposed to the endoskeleton picture which also begins the character concept article.  There could also be a picture of him alongside John (and maybe Sarah)Connor, in order to emphasize the relationships the other characters have with him.
Also, instead of detailing the general design of the Terminators (which the character concept article already does as well), it might be better for this article to summarize what the Schwarzzeneger robot did in the films, i.e. a summary of the films which focuses exclusively on what this Terminator did.  Perhaps there could be some behind-the-scenes info on how the Terminator was portrayed by Arnie and special effects? and maybe also a brief section on the reactions of various movie critics to Arnie's portrayal? Abodos (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is an old post, but to correct one thing, this not a copy and paste job from Terminator (character concept). That would be impossible as this article is much older than that article. The copy and paste actually went the other way around, with the original, and the other the copy. ColdFusion650 (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, regardless of which article is the copy, they still need to be distinguished from each other. Anyone have a good picture of Arnie's Terminator with all the fair use and copyright stuff sorted our? Abodos (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-focus Article on Schwarzzeneger Robot 

message: Arnie has confirmed that he is NOT involved with the Salvation movie  magnius (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Terminator Salvation for why you are wrong. ColdFusion650 (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Arnie/Salvation

message: Quote from the Article § CPU: '... Sarah muses in the closing narration that the Terminator had "learned the value of human life". This emotion was so strong he was even able to defy John Connor's orders, thus defying his programming, for the greater good.'
Thesis: Arnold's Terminator never "defies his programming". His priority #1 is to save John Connor; #2: obey John Connor. Above line refers to the ending of Judgement Day, where the T101 disobeys John's orders (to stay alive & not commit suicide). But logically, committing suicide was his best to save John's life, because it destroyed (from his view) the last remaining piece of future technology. Thus he prefers rule #1 to rule #2 according to his programming.
A second questionable scene is in Judgement Day, when young John orders the T101 to help save his mother - thus seemingly preferring rule #2 to rule #1 against his programming. But looking closer, the T101 tries at first to convince John to restrain from that plan, seeing the danger for John's life. As this does not work, the Terminator accompanies John to the rescue of Sarah to save his life - doing his best to obey both rules #1 and #2.
peace, 77.117.248.152 (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: CPU - T101's programming

message: Minor point, probably, but "The theft of the scientist's eyes suggests that Terminator flesh is capable of accepting some degree of organ grafts from ordinary humans, that it can circumvent transplant rejection, and is capable of sustaining the life of the grafted tissue via its own unknown biological process."
Having been watching the Terminator series as part of a swatting up for a sci-fi quiz at my local, it seems to me that the above quote can't really be justified. The original Terminator shows Arnie cutting free a contact lens type affair from his funky red robot eye - the implication must surely be that the Terminator's eyes are purely cosmetic.
Isn't it more likely that the Terminator in the Sarah Connor Chronicles improvises a replacement set of contacts from the stolen eyes of Dr Luckless than it grafts them to itself and actually uses them to see?
At any rate, near as I can tell the only things one can safely say are true, is that the Terminator appears unable to grow new eyes from the blood-goo bath, later appears to take the eyes from a human, and is thereafter seen with eyes of the same colour.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.236.245 (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eyes and biological questions. 

message: In T2, T-101 says to Sarah that his wounds can heal, is there any more info on this. (JoeLoeb (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skin? 

message: how about this wiki for all the detail:
http://terminator.wikia.com/wiki/Terminator_Wiki  
Japanscot (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  fancruft 

message: The article mentions a "C600" from "Terminator 4", but it's completely uncited and I can't seem to actually find anything about it. I'm going to go ahead and delete the line unless someone can source it properly. Xenomrph (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "C600"? 

message: Why is the article all in-universe? I think this article would rather benefit from the character's RL development from Cameron's dream of the T-800 skeleton emerging from a wall of fire. Lack of this information is certainly vulnerable to such weird scenarios as in the archived talkpage to the German article for the 1984 film, where somebody insisted that the T-800 would originally be "a Marvel comics character from the 70s", that the character would be referenced as an earlier film by "small action figures that can be seen in the 1982 film ET" and that The Terminator "really came out in 1982" (making the 1984 mentioned in the film "the near future for the original 1982 audience") because he "saw it in the theater in 1982 when I was still in school, and when I was serving my one-year of military service in 1984, the film was already available on commercial VHS and we saw it on tape at our barracks".
So, yeah: More information for the character's RL development is certainly needed. --80.187.110.67 (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-universe 

message: What is the reason for enclosing the name Model 101 in quotation marks as , as seen here for example? I've also seen it enclosed in parenthesis as . As far as I can tell, this practice only dates back to 2015 with these unexplained edits: 1, 2. Other edits have followed here, here, and here, all without explanation. Meanwhile, Template:Terminator currently has the character as , a change that occurred here. In this case, it's the "T" names that get put in parenthesis, and italicized too. Is there a reason for any of this formatting. Are any of these variations correct? This seems to only be a newer thing that then got spread around in recent years.  AJFU  (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Model 101 name variations 

message: I believe this page should be renamed Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 to avoid confusion with the page Terminator (character concept).
NameHasChanged (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Terminator" is the character's most common name, and I'm not sure that most of the general public knows the character by its technical designations ("Model 101", "T-800", etc.). Also, from a few quick Google searches, it looks like "T-800" might be more common than "Model 101". Anyway, there are already hatnotes at the top of this article and the character concept article which should help readers find what they're looking for. These two pages have had these names for more than a decade, and there doesn't seem to have been a problem so far. I don't think there is any serious confusion that would warrant a name change.  AJFU  (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the average reader looking this up isn’t going to type Cyberdyne Systems Model 101.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move request 

message: The article uses a mix of "he" or "it" - or equivalents - when referring to the Terminator.  Which is the preferred term?  "it" seems to have precedence, but one of the defining aspects of the Terminator is that it becomes less machine and more human as the films go on...  Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "He" or "It"?