 | Film Template‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Science Fiction Template‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
I'd suggest this is large enough on its own to warrant a hide wrapper and when it combines with other large templates it is realy important: Aliens versus Predator versus The Terminator - note the AvP template has the hide wrapper. ( Emperor 16:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC))
We all know "T-800", "T-850", and "T-101" are essentially the same character, but finding the canonical explanation for each has been difficult. I have attempted to put all the information regarding the discrepancies here: The Terminator (character)#Character nomenclature, and also in Terminator (character concept).
I include T-101 because it is canon. In dialogue in Terminator 3, Arnie's character refers to both himself and the character he portrays in T2 as a "T-101". I'm not wild about having to wrangle the unexplained variations, but I have tried. Dialogue in a film equals canon, so T-101 must be included.
I welcome further discussion. Thanks.
— ManfrenjenStJohn 04:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- As noted by ManfrenjenStJohn, the director's cut of Terminator 2 (see Special Edition DVDs), makes it clear that the full name of the model sent to 1995 is Series 800 Model 101 Version 2.4—see
Terminator (character). So the three short names are just that, short easy to say versions of the actual full name.
- Terminator – Series 800 Model 101 Version ?.?
- The "rubber-skin" Series 600 is described by Reese
- A Series 800 (but not a Model 101) is shown in the scene where Sarah's picture burns.
- Terminator 2 – Series 800 Model 101 Version 2.4
- Terminator 3 – Series 850 Model 101 Version ?.?
- Terminator – Series 800 Model 101 Version ?.?
- — MJBurrage( T• C) 06:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted a couple of low-budget movies that ripped off the "Terminator" name from the template :
Terminator II (1990 film) and The Terminators (film)
Neither was was authorised by the franchise, which is what the heading of this template links to, and equally importantly, neither followed the continuity in any way, didn't have any of the characters of the movies or TV show, no mention of Connors, Skynet; they just had killer cyborgs. There are quite enough articles if it's just limited to those that are really part of the franchise, and this seems a simple and sensible place to draw the line. Other media might be mentioned somewhere in a relevant article, but shouldn't be part of the template. I'll note that no one has bothered to even mention the two movies above in Terminator (franchise). Barsoomian ( talk) 06:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Similar to your edits to {{ Alien}}, it does not matter that these are not part of the franchise or that they follow the continuity/feature the characters/etc. They are "related" because they are rip-offs and thus can hardly be discussed without mentioning their close relationship to the Terminator franchise. That's exactly what a "Related articles" field is meant for. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 16:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, congratulations. Now you've given equal prominence to these garbage movies as the real thing. Let someone make a Terminator vs Alien brand of viagra and we can link that in to both navboxes too. Barsoomian ( talk) 16:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- It seems the fundamental bias of your edits is that you associate being linked in a navbox with "giving equal prominence" to "garbage movies" that you have disdain for. A navbox has nothing at all to do with notability or prominence; it is simply about linking between Wikipedia articles. One cannot deny that there are Wikipedia articles about these things and that they are topically related. You need to remove your emotions from the equation and think of this in terms of inter-article navigation. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 17:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- That these moves are garbage is certainly why I don't look for reasons to include them. However, T3 is crap, but I wouldn't exclude that. My fundamental objection is as stated above: they are NOT related in any way other than the sleazy marketing trying to suggest they were part of the franchise. As for "inter article navigation", I became aware of them purely because of being led to them via the navbox, and realising that I'd been misled, sought to correct this. There are dozens of cyborg movies that are much more "topically related" than the crap movies you are insisting be listed purely because of the misleading titles. Your criterion is unclear and inconsistent. Barsoomian ( talk) 17:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- You weren't "misled". You clicked on a link to an article related to the topic of Terminator, and you were taken to an article related to the topic of Terminator. The criteria are simple and fact-based: these films were clearly and specifically intended to link themselves to the Terminator franchise (albeit unofficially and in a sleazy way), therefore they are not part of the franchise but are "related" to it from a topical standpoint. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 19:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Terminator Genisys: Future War under Video games. 37.26.149.198 ( talk) 16:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Done
DRAGON BOOSTER
★ 16:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)