Talk:Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Copy Vio

FYI, this article is a Copyright Violation, the Synopsis section (if not more) is copied Word for Word from here: [1]

From here: "The SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES reveals what happens when SARAH CONNOR (Lena Headey) stops running and goes on the offensive against an ever-evolving technological enemy bent on destroying her life, and perhaps the world. Her son, 15-year-old JOHN CONNOR (Thomas Dekker), knows that he may be the future savior of mankind, but is not yet ready to take on the mantle of leadership that he's told is his destiny.

John finds himself inextricably drawn to CAMERON (Summer Glau), an enigmatic and otherworldly student at his high school, who soon proves to be much more than his confidante she assumes the role of Sarah and John's fearless protector. On their trail are not only threats from the future, but an intelligent and tough FBI agent, JAMES ELLISON (Richard T. Jones), who soon becomes a powerful ally."

From that link: "SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES reveals what happens when SARAH CONNOR (Lena Headey, "The Brothers Grimm," "300") stops running and goes on the offensive against an ever-evolving technological enemy bent on destroying her life, and perhaps the world. Her son, 15-year-old JOHN CONNOR (Thomas Dekker, "Heroes"), knows that he may be the future savior of mankind, but is not yet ready to take on the mantle of leadership that he's told is his destiny. John finds himself inextricably drawn to CAMERON (Summer Glau "Serenity," "The Unit"), an enigmatic and otherworldly student at his high school, who soon proves to be much more than his confidante she assumes the role of Sarah and John's fearless protector. On their trail are not only threats from the future, but an intelligent and tough FBI agent, JAMES ELLISON (Richard T. Jones, "Judging Amy"), who soon becomes a powerful ally. Directed by David Nutter and produced by Warner Bros. Television and C-2 Pictures, SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES represents an exciting reinvention of the "Terminator" franchise, in which the strong and intrepid Sarah discovers that protecting her son and stopping the rise of the machines is more difficult than she had ever imagined."

Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 15:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm, its from FOX's Press Release. How is that copyrighting??? wouldnt FOX want the information they put out to be found on this page???—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tullyano7 (talk • contribs)

You copied and pasted word for word. You are not allowed to that on Wikipedia (source or not), you must paraphrase.. Copying and pasting IS copyright infringment.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Copying text from other websites is not allowed on Wikipedia as the text you copied is not released under the GFDL, please see Wikipedia:Copyright. Matthew 21:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow aren't you a fool Illyria05, you accuse him of a copyright violation and reprint the text you claim is a copyright violation. You are also wrong. Those who create text may give you specific rights with that text, since its a Fox pressrelease they specifically want people to reproduce it. Its possible its against Wikipedia rules, but there is no copyright violation which took place (I see the segment has long since been deleted)IceHunter 23:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

First, be civil. There's no need to call people fools, especially when they were by no means nasty to begin with. Second, the rules on Talk: and User: pages are different from those in the main article space. Third, desiring to have one's content redistributed does not mean that the license granted complies with the very specific requirements and rights laid out in the GFDL license. So, unless the copyright holder specifically releases something under a GFDL-compatible license (GFDL, public domain, some others) - it cannot be used (barring exceptions like fair use). — ceejayoz ^talk 02:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Title Image

Should we be using an image from a leaded version of an as-yet-unreleased show? Should we also put up the plot from the lleaked video? First, we don't know if this is the final product, and we shouldn't be contributing to the spread of this. ColdFusion650 18:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter any more? However the episode was leaked, it's been seen by lots of people now. How will you be able to tell the difference between an edit made by someone who has seen the leaked episode, as opposed to having obtained that information elsewhere? Even if the episode changes slightly from the leaked version, it seems likely that plot details obtained from it will be still be fairly accurate. Is there much point to pretending the knowledge doesn't exist? However I do think that the reference that links through to the torrent should be removed. I think that is endangering Wikipedia if it stays. BigBadaboom0 19:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out also I think, that the plot descriptions I added are supported by the Futon Critic article that is already referenced on the page. BigBadaboom0 20:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a screen shot taken from the FOX teaser promo, if somebody wants to use it (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2259/1676934991_4a2c9c383d_o.jpg) --Chibbie 18:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Leak

The pilot has been leaked onto the torrents. Someone should add that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.78.167 (talk • contribs) 13:59, July 22, 2007

First, look up a few lines on your screen. Second, read the article. ColdFusion650 19:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed the information about the leak. I think a pilot leaking out some five months before the air date is pretty damn significant information and should definitely be mentioned here. Music leaks like Systematic Chaos are always mentioned and when Dexter leaked it was mentioned. So why not this one? --Petska 20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not the one that removed it, but one problem I see with your reference is that it links through to the torrent site. Some litigious media company (is there any other?) might take a dim view of that. Can you perhaps find a reference that doesn't? BigBadaboom0 20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you mean. But technically the reference is a link to a site that links to another site that links to the torrent file. Not really illegal, but I'll try to find some other source. Anyway, I don't think information like this needs any sources since anybody can easily just google it and see for themselves. --Petska 20:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. It should not be up to the reader to Google to find a source for information in a Wikipedia article. It should be cited on the page. I'm not sure about this. I've requested some input from an admin who worked on the Terminator (character) article a while back. Let's see what he thinks. I still think we need more opinions. ColdFusion650 20:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Shows being "leaked", not really notable, it's not like it doesn't happen every year. Personally I don't care whether the information is kept, but you'll need to cite it to a credible source. The source given is unreliable, also policy prohibits linking to it (WP:COPYRIGHT). Matthew 21:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't we violate copyright just a little bit? It's one of those laws that nobody really likes anyway. :) ColdFusion650 21:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah. We wouldn't want to cause forest fires, would we ;-)? Matthew 22:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a television episode so the only real source for the plot is the episode itself. If you look at the list of 'featured sample articles' at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/How_to_write_an_episode_article half don't quote a source for the plot. One (Abyssinia, Henry) cites the episode itself and two cite only an episode summary elsewhere on the net. Can I suggest that a citation something like the following is used as a solution to this? BigBadaboom0 05:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have posed this question on Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources in the hope of getting the opinion of other experienced admins. BigBadaboom0 06:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The episode itself is not verifiable till it becomes legitimately available. So no, you can't cite it. Matthew 07:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's my opinion as well. ColdFusion650 11:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Matthew and ColdFusion650. This information needs to be sourced, and I don't think an illegally leaked pilot is usable as a reliable source. On Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows only information that appeared in reliable sources, like reviews of the book by people who legitimately received advance copies, was allowed. Plot summaries from illegally leaked copies were removed whenever they were added. TomTheHand 14:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What about a legally distributed pilot? The legal references from various sources match with what can be seen in the leaked pilot. The fact that a high quality leaked pilot is available on the net is very important information and definitely related to this article.Urbanriot 02:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. The thing is, our only source violates copyright laws by distributing the video. If we put it up without a source, it's uncited. If somebody can find a source that does not link to the file, we can put it up. ColdFusion650 02:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What I believe Urbanriot is referring to, and what I referred to in the other thread, is the Futon Critic reference, which described the plot in detail from what is apparently a legally distributed 'screener' copy that was sent to reviewers. BigBadaboom0 06:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read that, but anything from that, and sourced as so, would be fine. However, we should reiterate in that section that it will change before release. ColdFusion650 12:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the bit about the leak and used Zeropaid as source. I believe it is reliable, no? --Petska 13:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. We've always known it is true. I, uh, personally verified the story as soon it was posted on here. The problem was proving it without copyright violation. I think this works. I have no objection to the reliability of that site. ColdFusion650 13:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The majority of blogs are not reliable, the one cited in the text I've just removed does not appear to be reliable. I'm also still not convinced that the leak is notable and so I've removed the note that was added back in July. Any editor is welcome to establish notability/provide adequate sources if they so please (source #2 may violated WP:COPYRIGHT as well, in that it provides information on potential sources to obtain the leak). Matthew 12:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

T-888

http://www.terminatorfiles.com/news/2007/2007-09-26-a.htm

New model is the T-888. Stop changing it please, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.86.178 (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Terminator posing as a teacher attacking John at school

I've just seen the first episode and the aforementioned scene is part of it. Perhaps this should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.166.121.73 (talk • contribs) 16:48, December 17, 2007 (CST)

Where did you see the first episode? The show hasn't aired yet, and we can't just take your word for it. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Casting

I am curious if anyone else has noticed this, but I am having trouble locating a casting credit for the actor playing Charles Dixon, he doesn't appear on the IMDB page. What is the actors name? I think it looks like Dean Winters, but I wasn't able to catch his name in the credits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.228.116 (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dean Winters is indeed credited as a guest star in the overlaid opening titles (in the scene where Sarah confronts John in his bedroom and tells him they're leaving ("pancakes")). No character name is given. A Google search did find lots of press mentions, though. I've added a ref to the article. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Extended reality

Can a section be added outlining the Extended Reality promotion running alongside the series currently? Takebackthefuture.com existed pre-airing, along with Enitech research's site, and now Dyson Trust. Updates have occurred since the show aired, so it wasn't just a pre-airng promotion - it's anongoing extended reality, a trend shown with other shows, such as Heroes, Lost, Jericho, and others. --Thebruce0 (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

I put the following together by re-watching the DVDs and episodes, after coming across multiple inconsistencies. For example John could not be 15 in 1999, based on his birth date from T2. Also since I do not have T3 on DVD I only included a couple key dates from that film, referencing them from online sources.
Should this be its own article? and if not, how much should be in the various existing articles? —MJBurrage^(T•C) 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think most of the information is irrelevant. If we were going to use it, one of the major errors is that it contains both SCC and T3 which take place in completely different timelines. Sticking them into one timeline makes things very confusing. 1997 Sarah Dies, 1999 Sarah and John leave Charley. A proper timeline would create two branches after T2, one for SCC, one for T3. However, this is not really encyclopedic, and looks like it belongs on a fan site like Terminator Files. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

But will SCC really ignore T3, or could a future episode show in a flashback how the timeline changed from the T3 version to the SCC version? (They have referenced the cancer already for example.)
The reason I started putting this together (with the notes) was that a number of external sites would list dates without giving detailed sources, and I kept finding unexplained contradictions. It occurred to me that having it all in one place on Wikipedia might be helpful. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just removed an auto signature from my most recent addition to the material below. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the series creators, they really will ignore T3. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Chronological timeline

Dates and times in bold are direct quotes from dialog or shown on screen. Other dates are direct calculations. (Note, quoted dates are not linked so that they will not be reformatted.)

Some dates changing—such as the date for "Judgment Day"—fit changes to the timeline resulting from time travel, but some are obvious inconsistencies between—and sometimes within—productions.

The timeline also ignores Terminator stories from written media such as novels and comic books for clarity.

• 1959 – Sarah Conner born according to her tombstone.^(T3) This would make her 24 or 25 in The Terminator.
• 1963 – Security Trust of Los Angeles; bank vault and contents built by a time traveler under the name E. Boykins.^{(SCC Ep.01)}
• (1964-05-11 – 1965-05-15) – Range of dates for Sarah Connor's birth according to her being noted as 19 in the script for The Terminator.^(T1)
  • (1965-08-25 – 1966-08-23) – Range of dates for Sarah Connor's birth according to her FBI file which gives her age as 33 on August 24th, 1999.^{(SCC Ep.01)} This would make her age 18 during The Terminator.
  • February 4th – Sarah birthday according to Sarah Baum's drivers license.^{(SCC Ep.02)}

• 1984 1:52 AM – The Terminator (Series 800 Model 101) arrives from 2029.^(T1)
  • 12th… May… Thursday… – Date according to police officer.^(T1)
  • Friday night – Sarah is attacked by the first Terminator at the bar Tech Noir.^(T1)
  • Saturday – John Connor is conceived before Sarah destroys the first Terminator at the factory.^(T1)
  • 5/19/84 – Date Sarah Connor's current "Pay Period Ends" according to her time card.^(T1)

• 2/28/85 – John Connor born (from his police record).^(T2)
  • (1983-08-25 – 1984-08-23) – Range of dates for John Connor's birth according to Sarah's FBI file which gives his age as 15 on August 24th, 1999.^{(SCC Ep.01)} This entire range is too early to fit with the official date of The Terminator, but not the originally scripted date.

• (1995-02-28 – 1996-02-27) – Range of dates for when the Connors and Myles Dyson destroy his work at Cyberdyne. (John is age 10 according to his police record).^(T2)
  • The Sarah Connor Chronicles suggests that this was late 1997 ("Almost two years" before September 1999).^{(SCC Ep.01)}

• August 4th, 1997 – Skynet Missile Defense System goes online (original timeline).^(T2)
  • August 29th, 1997 – "Judgment Day" (original timeline).^(T2)
• late 1997 – Sarah dies of cancer after seeing "Judgment Day" pass uneventfully. Year from her tombstone.^(T3)

• June 25, 1999 – Cameron's arrival date, it took her "73 days" to find the Connors.^{(SCC Ep.01)}
• West Fork, Nebraska: August 24th, 1999 – Sarah and John leave Charles Dixon. It's been "almost two years" since Terminator 2. FBI file lists Sarah age 33, and John age 15.^{(SCC Ep.01)}
  • Red Valley, New Mexico: September 6th, 1999 – John meets Cameron.^{(SCC Ep.01)}
  • September 7, 1999 – Cromartie (Terminator) attacks John at Crestview High School.^{(SCC Ep.01)}
  • 09.10.1999 – Date the Connors and Cameron jump forward from.^{(SCC Ep.01)}

• July 24, 2004 – Skynet Missile Defense System goes online and triggers a nuclear apocalypse. (post T2 timeline, T3 version).^(T3) Date from the Series 850 Model 101's internal clock.

• December 4th, 2005 – Sarah would have died from cancer, according to Cameron.^{(SCC Ep.02)}

• September 10, 2007 (after 7:30 p.m.) – Date the Connors and Cameron arrive on (after twilight).^{(SCC Ep.01)} The time machine shows a jump of 78892.31163 units.^{(SCC Ep.01)} This number of hours is exactly consistent with a 9 year jump (the original script had them jumping from 1998), whereas the jump shown—around 9:10 a.m. on 1999-09-10 to around 7:30 p.m. on 2007-09-10—was about 70,138.3 hours.

• April 19th, 2011 – Skynet Missile Defense System goes online (post T2 timeline, SCC version).^{(SCC Ep.01)}
  • April 21, 2011 – Skynet triggers a nuclear apocalypse 2 days later (post T2 timeline, SCC version).^{(SCC Ep.01)}

• August 29th, 2027 – In a future where Skynet was never able to launch its war on humanity, Sarah (now a Grandmother) watches John (now a Senator) playing with his daughter while she reminises on the original "Judgment Day".^{(T2 Alternate Ending)}

• 2027 – Cameron's year of origin (post T2 timeline, SCC version).^{(SCC Ep.01)}
• 2029 – Year of origin for the Series 800 Model 101's,^(T1) and the Series 1000 (original timeline).^(T2)
• 2032 – Year of origin for the Series 850 Model 101 (post T2 timeline, T3 version).^(T3)

Please think before you revert

The final pilot for the show was made publicly available on tv.yahoo.com one week before it was shown on TV. It showed that several of the rumored changes to the pilot were false. I then removed this false information from the article. Users ColdFusion650 and AlistairMcMillan added this false information back to the article without verifying it.

I suggest, in order to improve the article, that when a user removes information and provides a reference to show that it is false, other editors check the source before blindly putting the information back in. 76.31.249.88 (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What? I don't even under stand what you are saying. The article says, "Fox Entertainment Chairman Peter Liguori said that a certain aspect of the pilot, involving a Terminator posing as a teacher attacking John at school, would be changed following the shooting at Virginia Tech." That information is true. Regardless of what aired, the guy said that. It is not false information. About not checking a source: I did see the show on Yahoo TV, and did see that the scenes remained. I didn't blindly put anything back in. However, as I said before, the information was true. The Fox Chairman said those things. Whether or not he was correct, he said them, and that should remain in the article, along with a note that he was wrong. And that's exactly what's in the article. So, I really don't understand the complaint. What are you complaining about again? ColdFusion650 (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

His statement was false. Why was it relevant to leave it in? Additionally, the antagonist terminator in the pilot, Cromartie, was not recast. The other actor plays another terminator who is first seen in the second episode. 76.31.249.88 (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

His statement showed that they at least briefly intended to remove it. Now, in the second episode, Cromartie had his face covered. We know he is missing his skin. It's possible that once he gets a new biological covering, the new actor will portray Cromartie. In this instance, our source would be true. Since we don't have any evidence that the source the article cites is wrong, we should leave it. Remember, if you want to contradict a reliable source, you have... another reliable source. Until we can say for absolute sure that the new guy will not be playing Cromartie, we should not randomly remove information from the article. ColdFusion650 (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

info

in terminator 3 it is said that Sarah Conner died 1997 in the tv series after they time traveled to 2007 the terminator states that sarah conner would died in 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.245.210 (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This information is already in the article. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to wonder if this information really belongs here in the entry for the series, or whether it more properly belongs (solely) in the entry for Sarah Connor (Terminator) (where it currently also exists)? If people do think it should be here, perhaps at least a re-naming of the entry to something about date inconsistencies rather than just "birth and death"? --Umrguy42 (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sourced criticism in major newspapers

I've returned some of the criticism that was deleted with no edit summary, or with misleading edit summaries. When major newspapers are printing criticism, and we source it, it deserves to be included, especially as users are adding glowing reviews. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. ColdFusion650 (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why are you cutting sources and content? As in the other criticisms, or praises, it's relevant to say what the criticism or praise is, and as so many newspapers have now covered the same criticism, I think it's relevant to include them as sources, both to show how widely the issue has been covered and due to additional info in the different articles. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first way was basically a direct quote from the article, but not in quotes. That's plagiarism. Calling Lena Heady emaciated is what Wikipedia calls POV. Everyone else calls it biased writing and loaded language. Second, the Guardian article didn't add anything other than to say, "Oh, yeah, and them too." ColdFusion650 (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

ColdFusion, "emaciated" was in quotes, the other part of it was briefly paraphrasing the debate. I think you need to look into what plagiarism is. Please stop revert-warring and removing sources. You are also using misleading edit summaries, posting that you're "adjusting a source" while also cutting content and other sources. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Two complaints in one day. Most of the time its only two a year. Anyway, I'm not removing it because I don't like. In fact, I'm not removing it. It's still there. It's still sourced. I just made the sentence shorter. You realize how long the sentence was before? After reading it, I felt tired, like I just ran a marathon. What information have I removed? I cut two sources down to one. Besides, the LA Times article requires registration to read, which means most people can't read it in the first place. Wikipedia has a policy against writing content that is biased, and that sentence is it. It's Headey bashing. It is obviously written that way. We are the Fox News of encyclopedias. We report. You decide. Just saying that she has been criticized and why and then linking to the article is enough. ColdFusion650 (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The LA Times article, when I click the link, says "Please Register or Log In The story you requested is available only to registered members." It's not like I can make this up. As far as misleading edit summaries... what? ColdFusion650 (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Continuity Errors Section

The events of T3 might have been put aside because of the time traveling bit, but that would have not changed the year that Sarah Connor died. If they would have wanted to put the cancer issue aside as well, they would have, but they kept it. Also, if something is relevant or not is your personal opinion and that does not count. I await your response. Duhman0009 (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC) (cross posted from User talk:ColdFusion650)

Your first sentence is wrong. If they ignore T3, they ignore T3. Therefore, there can be no continuity errors springing from differences with T3. Your second point is also wrong. Relevancy does count. Imagine what Wikipedia would be like if every article contained tons of irrelevant information. What if the article for George Bush contained an explanation on why the sky is blue? How stupid would that be? It has to be pertinent to the topic. As far as it being my opinion, of course it is. You cannot scientifically prove what is and is not relevant. It is a judgment call, which by definition calls for an opinion. It is your opinion that it is relevant. See how pointless it is to bring it up? ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevance is a PPOV, not acceptable on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duhman0009 (talk • contribs) 15:53, January 20, 2008 (cross posted from edit summary)

Are you saying that relevance does not matter on Wikipedia? What about [[WP:Topic], or Wikipedia:Relevance of content? And again, relevance is a judgment call. It requires an opinion. You are asserting your opinion that the content is relevant. Don't bash me for asserting mine. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How dare you post for me, I'm reporting this. Duhman0009 (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not posting for you. I'm taking the comments you made in many and varied places (edit summaries, my talk page) and moving them here to make things easier to read and keep up with. And it clearly says "cross posted from [[User talk:ColdFusion650]" or "cross posted from edit summary" along with the time you made the edit so someone could look up the edit summary if they didn't believe me. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact that you did this proves that you believe that you're in charge of this situation, making this even more important to request the help of an admin, which I already did. I'll wait. Duhman0009 (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Well it seems that this is actually a rule, so me being pissed about it won't do much good, however, one admin felt that you should have done a better job to make it more obvious that you weren't the one posting it. Anyway, I'll start posting below so that it doesn't get mixed up with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duhman0009 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear that, for all intents and purposes, this show is ignoring T3. Therefore it's not a continuity error if something in this show contradicts something from T3. In any case, to include any "continuity errors", there would need to be a reliable source stating that it's a continuity error (per WP:V and WP:RS). Without one, it's original research which isn't permitted. Chaz ^Beckett 02:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree regarding the timeline issue, mainly because it's been stated and that it's obvious that if they go after Skynet before it's being build/rebuilt, that they have a chance of preventing Judgment Day, making the T3 timeline disappear, but changing the future doesn't change the past.

Let's play make belief, let's pretend that you have cancer and that before dying from that, you get hit by a car and die, that makes the original timeline of your life. Now let's say that I travel through time and push you away from that car, that would be timeline line #2 of your life. Now in timelife #2, I saved your life, but you still have cancer.

I have nothing against them wanting to get rid of the T3 events since I personally hated that movie, but unfortunately, they added information that took place before T2 and that's Sarah Connor gets diagnostic with Leukemia before the events of the 2nd movie, so how would changing the timeline after the 2nd movie change the timeline from before that? If the producers wanted the remove the entire concept of Sarah having cancer, they would have removed it, but they didn't, they changed the date of her death. The events of T3 takes place well after her death (1997) and the events of the series takes place in 1999.

Since the series to take place a few years after T2, the only possible conclusion would be a Continuity Issue where the writers either goofed or decided to change the date for whatever reason. In any case, this is common in movie sequels or series that follows movies, which is why they're called Continuity Issues. Hell, there's even one that goes on between T1 and T2.

Duhman0009 (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's the deal. You don't know how she got cancer. You don't know where the timeline split. It split sometime after T2. It's possible that the timeline split before she encountered whatever gave her the first cancer. Then, she encountered something that gave her cancer later. Perhaps in the series timeline she quit smoking. The damage was already done. But since she wasn't smoking anymore, it took longer to develop the cancer, or for the cancer to grow strong enough to kill her. The point is, we just don't know where the timeline split. In your example, what if we went back in time and prevented that person from getting cancer and prevented them from getting hit by a car? Lets say they got cancer from working around asbestos. Removing them from that job could keep them from getting cancer. See how easy it is to use time travel to remove (or delay) cancer? See, your just not thinking far back enough. You assume that she had cancer in T2, and therefore both timelines must be equal in that regard. ColdFusion650 (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I need to ask, have you ever watched Terminator 3? I'm asking this because all of your questions can be answered in this movie. She got cancer in 1994, before the events of the 2nd movie which took place in 1995 (stated by John Connor in T3) and the cancer she got was Leukemia, which is not something you easily get like lung cancer (smoking). So it doesn't matter when the timeline splits, she got Leukemia before the events of the 2nd movie.

But then again, there's another contradiction in the series regarding the dates. T2 takes place in 1995 and in the series, John says that it's been 2 years since the events took place, meaning that it should have been 1997 and not 1999. You see how easy it is to goof up (and this has nothing to do with T3)?

Duhman0009 (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen T3, but T2 does not explicitly say that it takes place in 1994. You assume that. And the cause of leukemia is unknown. ColdFusion650 (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't. John said that she learned that she had leukemia back when they were living in Baja, before she got put in the mental institute and before the events of T2. John also says that the doctors gave her 6 months to live, but she lasted 3 years, just so that she could make sure that Judgment Day didn't happen. 1997 - 3 = 1994 and the events of T2 took place in 1995. As for leukemia, the most common reason why you have this cancer is because you were meant to have it (genetic defect), outside influences are rarer case and smoking is not one of them.

Off topic, an admin stated what I didn't which is that you are aggressively reverting everything you can on this article. Not that I care or anything, but you need to remember that this article does not belong to you and that anyone is free to add things to it that are legit. I don't know if you've seen T3, if you remember the events or if you're simply trying to avoid the facts, but what I just stated regarding the events are true. Duhman0009 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also important to remember that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If a statement is not based on verifiable information from a reliable source, it may not be included in the article. In this case, there isn't a source stating that anything regarding Sarah's cancer is a continuity error. The arguments that have been made on this talk page are fine for discussion, but would constitute original research if added to the article. Unless verifiable information on the continuity error is found, it simply can't be added to the article. Chaz ^Beckett 13:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Since when is common logic an original research. Do I need to show proof that 2 + 2 = 4? The T3 movie stated that Sarah died from Cancer 1997, she had it for 3 years, meaning 1994, the T2 movie too place in 1995. The series takes place in 1999 and guess what, with the 3rd episode that has just been shown yesterday, she doesn't even have cancer anymore, so they pretty much dropped the entire issue. If this is not a continuity error, what is it then? Duhman0009 (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's original research because it's a textbook example of synthesis. You've taken information from several different sources and come up with your own conclusion. This isn't at all like simple addition (2+2=4). An example of that would be stating that they travled eight years into the future, using the dates of September 1999 and September 2007.

One of the main issues here is that T3 is being ignored by the creators of the series. So any argument that relies on information from T3 is almost certainly flawed. But let's put aside the T3 issue for a moment. Let's assume for the sake of argument that T3 isn't being ignored. The main issue here is that you've made the conclusion that the only possible explanation for the alleged discrepency is that it's a continuity error. But what if characters from either T3 or the series are lying? What if Sarah didn't actually die from cancer? Now we could debate this until the end of time, but the point is that this is another possibility. Therefore, it's quite possible that it wouldn't be a continuity error even if T3 isn't ignored.

Wikipedia policy is quite clear that the burden of proof is on the editor wishing to add or retain information in an article. The information must be verifiable and cite a reliable source. If a source can be found that labels Sarah's cancer as a continuity error, only then can it be added. Chaz ^Beckett 12:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, it's called connecting the dots, the dates are there, the facts are there and I didn't make any of them up. The example you gave about the characters lying, now that would be making things up. Please explain to me, in your own words (stop quoting Wiki and talking behind huge words) how this is not a continuity error that Sarah is not dead after John said in T3 that she died 3 years before 1997 (1994) and that the series takes place in 1999 with her alive and kicking.

Also, do keep in mind the the producers said that they're simply going in a different timeline from T3 and not ignoring everything that was stated in T3. Like I said before, the concept of taking another timeline is to take a different path to your future, not to change the past. If Sarah would have gotten cancer from being exposed to something in the 3rd movie and died from it, then yes, taking a different timeline and not having the events of T3 take place would make Sarah's existence perfectly plausible in the future (2007). But according to John, she got cancer before T2, so how's changing the future of 1999 change anything before that? Even if time traveling is pure fiction, simple logic is still very real. Duhman0009 (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is true or not. If it is not cited to a reliable source, you can not put it in the article. That is long held policy, and just good sense. As you put it, "connecting the dots" is illegal. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that both of you are twisting some Wikipedia rules in order to make your point stand. I'm all for relying on statements and facts, but process of elimination and connecting the dots are another ways to find facts and answers. If a person was born on January 1950 and dies on February 2010, would it be wrong for me to state that this person would have died at 60 years old even if no news report have ever stated his/her age, only date of birth and date of death? Anyway, I'll see if others have opinions about this. Duhman0009 (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no twisting of Wikipedia rules here, the verifiability and no original research policies are quite clear on standards for inclusion. Wikipedia contains facts, not opinions. You may be basing your conclusion on facts, but it's still an interpretation, which is an opinion.

Once again you're using a comparison with simple math, which is completely different from the argument you're making about Sarah's cancer. You're going well beyond simple math and making several assumptions, including that information from T3 should be considered and that no other explanation exists. This last part is particularly important because a continuity error only occurs when it's impossible for there to be consistency. I've already provided one possibility (John wasn't telling the truth in T3), and plenty more exist.

We could back and forth on this forever, but the bottom line is that you need a verifiable source stating that this a continuity error. You can chalk this up to "twisting some Wikipedia rules", but that's simply what the standard for inclusion is. Chaz ^Beckett 13:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide me with the exact sentence in these rules you pointed out that states that the evidence I brought up should not be accepted. Duhman0009 (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the whole first paragraph of the verifiability policy is relevant:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

The first paragraph of no orginal research is also quite pertinent:

"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 opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

I'd recommend reading the complete text of both of those policies as they provide an excellent background to editing on Wikipedia. Chaz ^Beckett 20:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that's all? I'm asking because once I contradict that, I don't you copy and pasting another "quote" from the rules in order to keep this going? Duhman0009 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The policies stand whether I quote them or not. Seriously, just let it go. Chaz ^Beckett 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You'd like that wouldn't you :P. No, I can't let it go, mainly because I was right, you are twisting a rule to put the situation in your favor, not by much, just a bit. Going by what these rules are saying, everything needs a source. Well no, problem I could either link to video segments of the movies or simply scripts of them. You see, the sources are in the movies and yes, it is simple math to calculate dates, it's not a theory or assumption like saying that John Connar must have lied. Duhman0009 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you're wrong on several levels. What is it about original research that you don't understand? Since you apparently want one-sentence summaries, try this one: ...to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. Go read the no orginal research policy. Then read it again. Keep reading it until you actually understand it. Or go and try and find a reliable source that states that Sarah Conner's cancer is a continuity error. Your argument doesn't make sense and I'm starting to think you're just interested in arguing. Chaz ^Beckett 23:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

By presenting reliable sources which indicates the dates of the events, I would be able to prove that Sarah Connor was to die in 1997 from cancer which she was diagnosed with in 1994, gotcha. Duhman0009 (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That would actually fall under the "unpublished analysis... of published material" in the OR policy. Any way you slice it, the policy has been written in such a way that loop holes are nearly impossible, and if they exist, it won't be that simple. ColdFusion650 (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Since when are movie quotes and scripts are considered unpublished? Sorry, I don't buy it. Duhman0009 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You said in your previous post, "I would be able to prove". That is unpublished analysis. It's not allowed. ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would be able to prove by showing movie clips from the Terminator movies and scripts which state the dates of the events. Either you have problems understanding what I'm saying or you're dancing around the main issue here. Duhman0009 (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, either you're not understanding what I'm saying, or you're dancing around the issue. The point is, you think that if you can analyze published sources and come up with an argument, you should be able to put it in the article. What I'm saying is, that's explicitly not allowed. You may want to read WP:SYN. It talks about exactly what you are doing. ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, a Wiki rule is being twisted in order for a user to make his PPOV seem valid. The Terminator movies are pretty much the same source, hell they're not even an outside source, they're THE source, you can't get any higher than that. I'm not combining different sources, I'm using the same source. Duhman0009 (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add something else, I don't really need to post any movies quotes or YouTube movies, everything I need is on the Wikipedia pages of John and Sarah. Also, you'll noticed that similar "Connect the Dots" conclusions are already posted on Sarah's page. Now if that was against the rules, wouldn't these be gone by now. Duhman0009 (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's another rule. Just because another page does it one way, doesn't mean its right. No one is bending any rules, the entire purpose of these rules is to keep out our own ideas and theories. If you have to work out anything, or connect any dots, then your doing it wrong. It should all be sourced. Some dots just arn't meant to be connected. Just go find a good source that supports your claim and use that. OR won't last without it. 125.253.33.233 (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And who are you Mr. IP ? Duhman0009 (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter who the IP is? His/her point is valid: you find a source that explicitly states what you're trying to add (no "connecting the dots") or the info doesn't go in. It's that simple. Chaz ^Beckett 13:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For all I know, it might be one of you in disguise trying to get more votes. Anyway, I still don't buy that entire concept that unless it's written word for word, that it's not true. Next thing I know, you'll be telling me that I can't post a picture of a Duck and claiming that it's a Duck unless the word "Duck" is located on the picture. Duhman0009 (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, randomly accusing people of sock puppetry is probably not a good way to win them over. Second, on Wikipedia, we don't do voting. And you don't have to copy sources word for word. In fact, it's discouraged. Paraphrasing sources is fine, but drawing a conclusion that is not in the source is not allowed. ColdFusion650 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, folks, please don't take this war of edits too seriously. The wiki article is about a piece of FICTION. There are umpteen interpretations of time travel and associated paradoxes that have been bandied about since the days of H.G. Wells. One of the most often cited is that there could be an infinite number of parallel universes, depending on what forks in the road of history are taken. So please don't get agitated about whether or not a difference between T2, T3, and TSCC are continuity errors. Let's try to keep this wiki entry unbiased, straightforward, and non-divisive. Fair enough? Trasel (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Source for ratings

ratings for heavy metal episode were incorrect in the article I find this source has the highest credibility... http://pifeedback.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/63310451 for references we should use this daily blog http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/newsletters/proginsider/index.jsp --195.250.222.164 (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring T3 completely?

So, Sarah Connor died in 1997, yet we see her alive and well in 1999. Then we travel to the future, 3 years after judgement day was supposed to have happened and the world is still in one piece. It seems like they are completely ignoring T3, but is there any official word on this? The article states that T4 will be tied into the TV series as well, does this mean it will also ignore T3 and that T3 is just being completely retconned out? Uniqueuponhim (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The article states that they are ignoring T3, and cites it to an interview with one of the creators. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Join the battle in my topic. Duhman0009 (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a battle, and it's not your topic. ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Terminator 3 did not bother with basic math or research into the series history when determining the dates and ages given in the movie. The events of Terminator 2 took place in 1995, and yet Terminator 3 asserts that Sarah moved with John to Mexico, was later diagnosed with cancer, and died three years after learning she had it. The earliest possible date for her death given these numbers would be 1998. Ignore not just the events of Terminator 3, but the information given in it as well, as the creators of the Sarah Connor Chronicles have done, and all is well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.224.190.142 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Different timelines, and ones that keep shifting. That's all I can say of it. -- Riffsyphon1024 (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

LA Times chart

I have used the Zap2It.com link for the LA Times chart only because I expect the LA Times to place its online version behind a subscription wall in the coming days (whereas Zap2It keeps its articles openly archived). I would prefer to use a citation for the LA Times since it's their chart and their judgement that the show is "on the bubble". Does anyone out there have a print version of the newspaper that can be cited instead? 68.146.41.232 (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Virgin1 promotion

What's the music used for the ad on Virgin 1? It was also used for various BFME2 and Sky Sports ads too. --01:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's Gothic Power by Christopher Field. Kelvingreen (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Who keeps messing with the ratings?????

-Someone keeps messing with the ratings. Whoever is doing this, please just STOP already! -- MisterRandom2 (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Futon Critic

Hi -

It appears that parahraph that quotes the futon critic should be removed. According to the attributed piece,

Please note: As a courtesy, please do not reproduce these comments to newsgroups, forums or other online places. Links only please.

I think that we qualify as "other online place" but I'm not sure if technically he can request that we not attribute his critique. It does mention as a courtesy so I was thinking we ought not to go against he explicit wishes. Perhaps if we removed the direct quotes to the piece and just describe what he has to say without quoting from his article directly, that would be better? JPotter (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so quickly. I saw the text you're referring to, but I don't know if it it applies to Wikipedia in this context; Futon Critic gets quoted and referenced fairly often, and I've never heard of any requests from the site to remove material. However, I will do a search and see if the subject has come up previously. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Characters

Somebody stop undoing the character info on Cater, getting locked in a bomb shelter. Mg.mikael (talk • contribs) 02:29, 1 March 2008

That was removed for a reason; please read through the edit history to see why. Further to this, please stop removing referenced material - you have repeatedly deleted properly referenced criticisms. We have to present a balanced view, not just positive spin. (Feel free to ask if you have questions about this, rather than reverting. Thanks.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the history and I see no reason why info on Carter was removed.

Petitions

I've removed the recently added text regarding a petition for a second season. First off, there's been non announcement from FOX regarding cancellation or renewal. Secondly, as with other series such as Jericho, we don't write about fan campaigns until they become noteworthy. At this point, a forum posting trying to raise support for a petition is just not notable. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

continuity error in the intro

For any continuity error section... In the intro voiceover, they say that Skynet sent one Terminator to protect John Connor. Ofcourse this could be something other than an error, but a hint for the future... 70.55.84.253 (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any continuity error section -- it's trivia and original research unless it cites independent sources commenting. But I agree the intro narration is silly. It also says Skynet was "programmed" to destroy the world, but the whole idea of the show is that Skynet came up with that idea on it's own. Whatever. Fritter (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically, it reprogrammed itself to destroy the world. -- MisterRandom2 (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The snack chip

I feel stupid even mentioning this, but this is the kinda thing that people tend to obsess about, so: I removed the comment about Cameron (Glau's terminator) eating the snack chip being "never seen before". There's actually a deleted scene from the first film where the original terminator eats a candy bar. It's on the 2003 "Special Edition" DVD if you want to verify it. I played around with the text for a bit, trying to come up with wording that could allow for this, but everything I came up with was really cumbersome. I eventually just gave up, as it really doesn't add anything special to the article. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to see someone else caught this. I, however, think the entire mention of Cameron being the first terminator to consume food should be removed entirely, as it's clearly not fact. Regardless of weither it was in the final product in the first film or not, it was James Cameron's concept that the T-800 could consume food to extend the life of the biological components (the skin began to necrotize almost instantly, at a very slow pace, however) and it is as a whole, accepted by critics, fans, and viewers in general as a fact. Victis Kato (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's worth noting, but if you have a citation for Cameron's concept (to satisfy WP:V), I think it could be worth changing the sentence to say that it was the first time "onscreen" for a Terminator, possibly with a parenthetical comment about James Cameron's original concept. (Or possibly, leave "onscreen" in here, or just expand the main article on Cameron Phillips.) --Umrguy42 (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Judgment Day

Can we finalize the year? Constant editing and changing is getting old. Tool2Die4 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's annoying, but ShadowHawk doesn't know what he's talking about. See [2]. But if you have a DVR of the last episode, it says so right in the show that it's April 21, 2011. 2029 makes no sense, as Cameron was supposed to have been sent back in 2027. Fritter (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

2011 is the correct year that needs to be listed for the sake of this article. Other dates listed for other Terminator media are different, I understand, but I concur 2011 is the year for this article. Tool2Die4 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

T-800 = Arnold Terminator

Will people stop changing Cromartie's description to "Arnold Terminator". That specific model is the T-800, calling it an "Arnold Terminator" is not only redundant, but incorrect, as he was but one of many models of the series. So please, leave it as T-800.

While I absolutely agree that the "Arnold Terminator" description should be removed, it has not yet been revealed what model number Cromartie is. So assuming it is a T-800 is incorrect. (For Eg: Arnold in T3 is a T-850 as he has modifications from the T-800 Units. In SCC we are dealing with essentially a different Skynet, which goes online in 2011, so Cromartie could clearly be a further modified version. Until it is revealed what model Cromartie is, the description should just detail the abilities we know he has.Tullyano7

Of course, Cromartie really can't be a T-800, as he (in all likeliness) comes from a future, where the T-800 never came into existence, or at least, not as we would know it. However, it's still true that Cromartie's model has a lot in common with the T-800/850.

I thought the first movie referred to Arnold as Cyberdyne Systems Model 101. --Neilrieck (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In Terminator and Terminator 2, Schwarzenegger played a Cyberdyne Systems Series 800 Model 101. Series 800 is the endo-skeleton, and Model 101 is the Arnold-looking outer body. Meaning that a Model 102 would look like someone else. In Terminator 3 Schwarzenegger played a Cyberdyne Systems Series 850 Model 101.
The older fake/rubber looking Terminators were Series 600. See Terminator (character) —MJBurrage^(T•C) 06:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As the Terminator (character) article states, in the first two movies he is only called "The Terminator" and a "Cyberdyne Systems Model 101". T3 calls him a T-101. Anything with an '8' in it, is not in the movies. So, yes, Neilrieck, you are correct. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Series 800 Model 101 Version 2.4 is shown on-screen in the director's cut of Terminator 2. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kyle Reese says he's a T-800 Model 101, in the "very tough" line, with the specs for the titanium battle skeleton. 70.55.84.253 (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. He doesn't. He just says Model 101. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the conclusion that Arnold's Terminator was T-800 in the fan community seems to come from Kyle Reese's reference to the 600 series having rubber skin and being easy to spot, combined with the fact that the advanced prototype in T2 was a T-1000. Logically Arnold's model is somewhere in between. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.111.115.81 (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Episode 4 of season 1 - "Heavy Metal" - shows a short sequence in which Cameron displays a video for the Connors. She zooms the video in to show Cromartie's head lying behind Sarah on the film. The on-screen 'head-up display' identifies the head as a component of a 'T-888' model. - Shrivenzale (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But we already knew this, didn't we? :o) - Shrivenzale (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What model would the infiltrating terminator played by Franco Columbu in T1 be then? Alexsanderson83 (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be heresy to suggest that it probably doesn't matter all that much? That's a brief clip of Kyle's dream or a flashback; it doesn't really go into detail except that a terminator got into the resistance compound. It fooled the humans but not the dogs - but it was fairly dark, so we can't even rule out a 600. In the end, though, the movie doesn't give any indication, and it's not really all that important. - Shrivenzale (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Not important. Especially not important to this article. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Finally, a Continuity Error that no one can argue with

I started a topic a while back regarding a Continuity Error, but no one seems to believe me because it required actual research and people were using this as an excuse not to break the continuity of the series with the first 2 movies. I decided to let it fly because I knew that the series would screw something else that would be even more obvious.

Now the wait is over, the series blew it. In the episode that just played tonight (EP7), Sarah talked about the date on the tape that John saw when she signed the papers that would remove her parental rights, the year of that date was 1997. Now Terminator 2 takes place in 1995, so unless any of you are willing to say that the events in that movie took place in the cycle of 2 years (from when the T-1000 arrive until they break Sarah out of the metal institute), then the writers $#%&-up.

I appreciate the T1 and T2 references in that series, but they really didn't do their homework, putting aside T3 is one thing, but screwing dates from the previous movies and trying to state the the series is a sequel, then that's just wrong.

Anyone wishes to argue with me before I add this Continuity Error to the article?

Duhman0009 (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for adding this to the article. But for me personally, they already broke continuity back in episode 4 when Cromartie's metal head went through the time dilation device, breaking the major conceit in T1 that Terminators cannot travel through time without an organic covering. Annie D (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh ya, I forgot about that. Kyle did say that this was the only way the Terminators could travel through time. Duhman0009 (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Terminator head had enough "flesh" on it to pass through the time portal. But the flesh burned off immediately after it entered 2007. And I noticed that 1997 error too. But it's already been established in the series that T2 happened in 1994 (they say so in the first episode). It's just a minor mistake that's not worth whining about. -- 134.154.122.221 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

True about the head, I just watched in slow motion, he was already in the time portal when Sarah shot him with the big electric gun. His body was repelled but his head remained in the portal, de-fleshed. As for the date issue, I'll continue below. Duhman0009 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You'd still need to find some source to make this observation, or otherwise validate it. The problem is in avoiding original research and forming our own conclusions about material. You might be better off developing the text here, rather than in the article, and then adding it to the article when consensus is reached. Just a thought... -Ckatz^chat_spy —Preceding comment was added at 04:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You sing an old song, but it's not going to work this time. All I need to find is a reliable source that states that T2 takes place in 1995 and that will be the end of it. It's probably somewhere in the movie, so I'll just pop this bad boy in my DVD this week and check it out for myself. Duhman0009 (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; see in particular WP:SYN. You should find a third party reliable source noting the continuity error. Even if you find a source claiming T2 takes place in 1995, your inference, however true, amounts to OR. This may seem too strict, but think about it: if it's allowed then anyone can use Wikipedia to publish their personal opinions, and Wikipedia becomes a battle between people who disagree with each other's inferences, or disagree with the significance of each other's conclusions. WP:OR forces you to find some other, independent source that thinks your criticism is important, which increases the likelihood that it actually is important. I, for one, do not think continuity errors are important; a more consise answer to you woud be: "A Wizard Did It". Just enjoy the action and the beautiful actresses. Who cares about continuity errors.Fritter (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Who cares about minor continuity errors like this? You could always say that Sarah was just mistaken - anyone could make that mistake (today I accidentally put down on a piece of paper that date was the year 1998). They've already established in the first episode that T2 happened in 1994 (the 1999 Agent Elison said something on the lines of: "Your fiance killed a man five years ago"). So, there's no need to get all excited and start shouting "Ooohhh! Error! Error!" -- 134.154.122.221 (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about when James Ellison told Charley Dixon about Sarah after she and John left him, then that's wrong. I just watched EP1, he said she blew up Skynet 2 years earlier, making this 1997, not 1994 (series takes place 1999). Also, since you kind of broke the ice with the mockery here, I might as well do the same by accusing you of fanboyisim, I mean after all, you're entire posting history as to do with this TV series, so perhaps your opinion is in regards of preventing negative aspects to the article. Duhman0009 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't really recall that part. I thought she meant "two years before the original Judgement Day (which takes place in 1997)." What was the exact line? -- 134.154.122.221 (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

From the opening credit, 9 minutes and 30 seconds, James Ellison tells Charley Dixon this after he tells him that Miles Dyson is dead: Your fiancée firstly escaped from the Pescadaro mental hospital, blew him apart 2 years ago Duhman0009 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Guys, guys, guys.... I think we should all just calm down and treat this issue like Star Trek's infamous "How did Kahn and Checkov recognize each other?" issue. Or for that matter, in the Horatio Hornblower miniseries - the characters talk about King George II, when at that time it was actually King George III who was around. Or like that timeline error made in BSG's "Downloaded" - which was subsequently fixed in the DVDs. Just let it go for now. Maybe it'll be dealt with in the DVDs - or they'll correct it in future (hopefully) episodes. -- MisterRandom2 (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What? Dude, can you use examples that most people can refer to cause I have no idea what they hell you were talking about there :P. Getting back to the main subject, part of Wikipedia's existence is to give out facts about things, people and events, both good and bad. A large portion of people still consider Wikipedia to be a joke, let's not give them some more fuel for the fire by trying to leave out the negative aspects of things and make everyone here look like fanboys. Duhman0009 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But we're not talking about sources from a reliable website, we're talking about the media themselves, the T2 movie and the TV series. Like I said, I'll watch the movie this week and if I see anything indicating that it takes place in 1995, I'm putting it in the article. Duhman0009 (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is my take on this, and as always, you must all nod in unison. Continuity errors in general are trivia. They are not important, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Second, the series is internally consistent. They have always referred to the events of T2 as happening in 1997. Who's to contradict them? No matter how much anybody watches T2, they will not find a direct reference to the date. On a computer screen, it says John is 10. After some extrapolating with is birthday that is seen on the screen, it could be late 1995 or early 1996. Now, 1996 is suspiciously close to 1997.

The characters never actually say 1997. They say 2 years before 1999. However, has anyone ever heard of rounding error? If it was 1 day before John's 11th birthday in T2, and it was 2 years 5 months and 29 days after T2 in the 1999 segments of the show, it's possible that they could actually get within a few days of each other. I haven't done the actual calculations. But the "two years ago" remark can be attributed to them rounding down from 2 years and some change. So see, I can rebut OR with my own. That's why we need a definite source not only for 1995, but also for 1997. ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally a hawk for continuity, but I generally agree with the last poster. There are so many differences in the dates and what can be inferred from them between the movies and the series, why quibble. Perhaps we should just look at the movies in their entirety as another continuity. We can use T1 and T2 to give us general back stories, but shouldn't look at them as set in stone either. In T3 John states he was 13 during T2, while the computer screen in T2 says he's 10. Our first thought might be to blame T3, but he sure looked older than 10 in T2. A 1995 date for T2 doesn't even really work given Arnie's description of the three years time frame to the creation of Skynet and the 1997 Judgement day either. I don't point these things out to argue about them, just to say that the timeline was already dubious before we start considering the series. If the show's consistent within itself we should be happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.111.115.81 (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Futon Critic (again)

Any news on including this as per author's wishes? An editor is removing the entire paragraph about bad reviews, I think it should remain. Any comments? RaseaC (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely bad reviews should be included, as long as they're from reliable sources. The article should be a balanced look at the show, not a promotion of it. If it's the latter FOX should be paying us.Fritter (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just checked my mail, no cheque from Fox. I'll go ahead and re-add the paragraph, the other editor can raise his concerns here if necessary. You already did that! RaseaC (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph, but not because of the author's wishes; "Futon Critic" is really not a relevant source of criticism recognized beyond, well, the Futon Critic. --66.129.135.114 (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In your haste, you took out a few perfectly good cites also. I'd suggest you revert, then remove only the cites in question. I'd say LA Times is pretty certifiable. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Caution regarding cancellation/renewal rumors

I got it in the neck for saying this over at Bionic Woman (2007 TV series) but I don't care; I'll say it here, too. Until an official press release from Fox is issued or a major news source like Variety, AP, CNN, etc. reports it, any reports regarding cancellation OR renewal of this series needs to be taken as rumor. Among the rumors circulating is that the show is going to be back in 2009, and there's also a rumor (relating to the finale) that Summer Glau may or may not be back ... all of this stuff is unacceptable in the article per Wikipedia rules on verification unless and until we hear it from an official source. The reason I mention this is not that because it's been a problem with this article (unlike the Bionic Woman article where rumor is being considered verified fact by some) but I do expect it could become an issue if Fox takes its time making a decision. Technically they don't have to say a thing until May as to whether the show will come back or if it'll end with episode 9. That's plenty of time for rumor mills to start churning, especially if we start hearing news about the cast taking on other roles. 23skidoo (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If Fox doesn't announce that the series is coming back will fans flood the network with nuts (the metal kind that attach to bolts) until they do?

Sorry, couldn't resist, though I imagine I'm not the first to think of that idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.117.112 (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles).

unless this one's stopped, i fear we may soon lose all episode articles... 89.248.165.10 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuity

I think someone really needs to write a continuity section, or perhaps we can write an article about the continuity problems throughout the seriesDeftalC3AU (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you, like, read this talk page? Fritter (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Renewal

We're getting multiple online sources saying the show has been renewed, and they're citing some good sources in turn. Nonetheless, given Wikipedia's bias against blog-like websites (even news sites) the two links currently provided should be replaced by a "reputable" source (i.e. one of the trade papers cited, for example, or the AP) when this information becomes available. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Andy and Derek Reese

The current wording is a bit spoilerish and possibly incorrect as well; Derek claims that he did not kill Andy, although I guess he could be lying. Luis Dantas (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, after Derek claims he did not claim Andy a scene is shown where he does in fact walk in and kill Andy. Though, I don't recall if it occurred in the same episode or not. -- TreyGeek (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It was shown that Derek killed Andy, and furthermore, there's no concern of spoilers on Wikipedia. You assume the risk by opening the article. Tool2Die4 (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Just giving the official ColdFusion seal of approval, required for all decisions, public and private, the world over. ColdFusion650 (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Shirley Manson

Why is Shirley Manson being removed from the Starrng/Main Characters sections? The argument used is that sources say that she will be a "regular" and not a "star", but if that is the case, then Brian Austin Green needs to be removed, too, as the source for him merely says "regular". Ophois (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

True enough. Cromartie is a regular. He is in almost every episode, and he's listed as a minor character, for a good reason. He's no starring character. Derek Reese, although in almost every episode, is also more of a side character. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We should not list Manson as a "star" until we see how prominent her character becomes. --Fletcher (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not about how "prominent" the character becomes, as detailed in the note for Main Characters in this article. It is what the producers list them as. The term "series regular" means that they are starring in the show. As for the example with Harriman, he is a recurring character, not a regular character on SG-1. Ophois (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidently not everyone employs such a liberal definition. --Fletcher (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the media considers "series regular" as being a show's star. As most sources say that she is a "series regular", within the context of the article source, it means that she will be a star. Ophois (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet that does not seem to be the consensus here. While the word may indeed be used more liberally, in common usage a star is "an actor who plays a principal role" ( regular != principal ). Regardless of which if either usage is more "correct" please note that the narrower usage makes it easier to delineate the leading cast members and those with supporting roles. Perhaps more importantly, listing characters who have not even appeared yet strikes me as fanboyism, and may be confusing to readers who don't recognize the character/actress. It should suffice to note that Manson is joining the cast. --Fletcher (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, a star is someone who is listed as "Starring" in the opening credits and is thus a series regular. Otherwise, a person is a guest star or recurring, with the latter being the case of Brian Austin Green. This is similar to some characters on Stargate Atlantis. Carson Beckett is in about 21/22 episodes of the first season but is only a recurring character. He doesn't become a main/starring character until the second season, even though he is in more episodes than some of the starring characters. And I find it interesting that you think it is "fanboyism" when a person updates the article to reflect updates on the show...

As for it being "confusing to readers", (which no offense, but that is an utterly ridiculous excuse), that is what the character description is for, to provide details about the characters. Ophois (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The "star billing" seems to matter only in the contracts between producers and actors. It should only be screen time and relation to plot that actually matters. If a star appears in 3 of 26 episodes, then that usually isn't an important character. 70.51.8.219 (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't find it confusing. Duben17 (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Except this particular character doesn't exist yet, and scant details are available about her. I think Wikipedia should reflect the body of work as it has been shown to viewers. It's silly to be listing characters we know next to nothing about. Please be patient and add the information when the episodes begin airing. --Fletcher (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ColdFusion650 (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the concensus is 2 to 2, so I'm going to add a request for comment. Ophois (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I count 2:1:1. 2 against, 1 for, and 1 commenting but not saying whether it should or shouldn't, but that's just a technicality I guess. ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The "star billing" seems to matter only in the contracts between producers and actors. It should only be screen time and relation to plot that actually matters. If a star appears in 3 of 26 episodes, then that usually isn't an important character. 70.51.8.219 (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Shirley Manson as cast member

Quick summary for reviewing editors: Between seasons, an actress is reported to be joining the cast of a television program. The actress's character has never before appeared and almost nothing is known about her. There is no dispute over mentioning that she will join the show, but there is dispute over whether our article should list and describe her with the other main characters, even though the character has never been shown to viewers. (Yes, it's that silly). --Fletcher (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In the same way that any article updates to keep with incoming news. So if a new series is going to premiere, are you saying that the article can't be updated until the show actually airs? I'll diret you to an earlier edit of this article, eleven months before the series premiered, which listed all the main characters/stars. Ophois (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say an article can't be updated. And you should be waiting for others to comment; otherwise, what's the point of an RFC? --Fletcher (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to your blatantly biased summary of the incident... And yes, seeing as you keep reverting updates with multiple cited sources, you apparenly don't want the article to be updated. Ophois (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I do want the article updated, and I did not remove any updates with sources. That I don't want it updated the same way you do does not mean I don't want it updated. Don't mischaracterize me. --Fletcher (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it was ColdFusion650 that removed the cited stuff. I apologize. Ophois (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's crazy. Making accusations like that shows how right it would be to just ignore everything else you have to say, at least until you have time to cool off and start thinking straight. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not crazy. You all have shown that you follow personal opinion rather than verifiable sources. Ophois (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the "it's your opinion" line. I was waiting. It's your opinion that it should be in there. It's our opinion that it shouldn't. So, bringing up that point is really irrelevant, because we're really on equal ground here. And saying that we don't want the article update at all, is either a bad case of hyperbole, or paranoia. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not "my opinion" that she should be added. I'm merely following the way that Wikipedia is supposed to go. When new information becomes available, the article is supposed to be updated to reflect it. Shirley Manson has been confirmed as being a star, and thus is supposed to now be added to the Starring and Main Characters sections. Ophois (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

She's already in the article. It's your opinion that she should be put in those sections. Having an opinion is not a bad thing. That's how the world works. Just don't get mad when other people express theirs as well. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in the "Casting" section, but not the actual "cast" section. If she's been added to the cast, then she needs to go in the cast section. This is the same case as with Brian Austin Green. The size of his role in the second season isn't known yet, but he is included as a main character and as starring on the show. You all are picking and choosing what to include. If, according to what you're saying, she doesn't belong there, then neither does Brian Austin Green. Ophois (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the difference, as pointed out above, is that Green has been on the show almost a whole season, whereas Manson has not been on the show one second. So, there is a difference between the two. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Using your own arugments, that shouldn't matter. His role in the second season could be bigger than it was in the first season, or it could be smaller. As you all keep saying that Manson shouldn't be added until we find out how big her role is (even though sources say she will be a main character), Brian Austin Green should be removed as well. Ophois (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Until she has actually appeared in an episode, you can't call her a character. Mentioning her in the casting section is adequate for now. As for Brian Austin Green, he's already been in several, and whether his role in season 2 is big, small or nonexistent is besides the point. Think outside the box 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That is contrary to other TV articles on wikipedia. So I guess that means that I have to now go through articles such as Dollhouse (TV series) and remove all the characters and stars because they haven't been shown yet? Ophois (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a wiki; anyone can create new articles, and it may be a while before questionable material is challenged. Pointing out that other stuff exists does not work as a counter-argument. If the character does not exist in the primary source yet (the show itself) I don't see the encyclopedic value in listing him or her, since there is so little information to be found. In general, our articles on fiction rely on the primary source to describe the work itself (bolstered by secondary sources to provide critical commentary). When the primary source doesn't exist yet (Dollhouses, or TSCC with Shirley Manson), the only information ultimately comes from what the people involved with the show choose to release. As a consequence, the Dollhouses character list looks really corny and TV Guide-ish, since we have no information other than brief sketches released to the media. In fact Topher Brink's entry is outright plagiarized [3]. So it looks like these types of entries will tend to suffer from copyright vios or synthesis as editors struggle to say something without being able to reference a primary source. --Fletcher (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the character, Shirley Manson will be starring in the second season, so there is no reason to not have her listed in the Starring section. Ophois (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OUTSIDE OPINION Okay, I don't know much about television programming in general, so this may sound naive. If it's sources with a reliable source, and if (this is what I'm unsure of) the previous season has closed, I'd say add it. If they've announced that someone is appearing starting next season, but they haven't finished filming this season, I'd say hold off until the off-season. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the first season finished airing three months ago. Ophois (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OUTSIDE OPINION This is quite a bit like the fights we had at Heroes over both David Anders and Kristen Bell. First thing I think we need to remember is - We do not need to "scoop" anyone. This is not a news service, it's a wiki. Getting it right means more than getting it first, so we have the luxury of waiting until the show airs and making sure reality happens the way everyone says it will. That being said, it's also not paper. Put it somewhere and say something - then change it if you have to. My feelings? I'd say, without a character I'd just list the actor in "Starring" and wait to see what else pops-up. When we can get a reliable source for character or status we'll update the entry. Padillah (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I use the word "starring" more restrictively than Ophois, and it still looks odd to me to see a name listed for character that hasn't been shown. But the situation should rectify itself in just a few months, so I'm ok with the compromise. --Fletcher (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

Alternate Timeline ,ALTERNATE TIMELINE,what do they mean?some sources show that it is a prequel to T3.eg-the military contract,it is possible that Derek changed time by killing Andy and instead the Japanese computer ended up with Kate's father and got built into Skynet with the military contract —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.42.137 (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It means the show is going to completely ignore the events in T3. -- 69.42.6.55 (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-Organic Material Through Time Portals

From IMDB, here are the significant parts of the conversation: Dr. Silberman: Why didn't you bring any weapons, something more advanced? Don't you have, uh, ray guns? Show me a piece of future technology. Kyle Reese: You go naked. Something about the field generated by a living organism. Nothing dead will go. ... Dr. Silberman: Okay, okay. But this cyborg, if it's metal... Kyle Reese: Surrounded by living tissue.

This remained true until this TV series came out and Cromartie's, bare metal skull comes through the time portal with Cameron, John and Sarah. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Could this be put as an inconsitantcy in this article? Fatekeeper (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If it were put in the article, it would a) trivia and b) wrong. The producer's blog clearly states that it does indeed have flesh on it when it goes through. It just burns off quickly. ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the I believe writers wanted to show the flesh actually burning off the skull, but FOX wouldn't let them. -- 69.42.6.55 (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "ign2" :
  • {{cite web | last=Goldman | first=Eric | url=http://tv.ign.com/articles/807/807974p1.html | title=SDCC: Terminating With The Sarah Connor Chronicles | publisher=IGN.com |date=2007-07-29 | accessdate=2007-08-03}}
  • {{cite web | last=Goldman | first=Eric | url=http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/07/terminator-less.html| title='Terminator' less serialized next season | publisher=The Live Feed

DumZiBoT (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thank you robot. The irony is noted. –xeno (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)