Talk:Terminator (character)

Suckage

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)

This is all I have to say: featured... featured... featured. ColdFusion650 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And what about the title, its name is T-800;NOT THE TERMINATOR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.42.137 (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Cyborg or Not?

from dictionary.com

cy·borg /ˈsaɪbɔrg/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-bawrg] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

A person whose physiological functioning is aided by or dependent upon a mechanical or electronic device.

Well, first of all, I wouldn't consider it a person, the organic systems are meant as a disguise, and his brain isn't organic at all.

Second, he is aided and has biological systems, but he is not dependant upon them, as we've seen in the original Terminator he can function even when all his organic systems are completely destroyed. Would he be just a robot in disguise?

Response

The term cyborg, a portmanteau of cybernetic organism, is used to designate a creature which is a mixture of organic and mechanical parts. Generally, the aim is to add to or enhance the abilities of an organism by using technology.

I can understand how some people might mistake the Terminator for a cyborg but I sincerely believe that this view is mistaken. The terminator without his skin is undoubtedly a robot but wrapping him in skin doesn't make him a cyborg. There is no connectivity between the Terminator and its skin and it certainly didn't grow the skin. Just as a human wearing armour cannot be called a cyborg neither can a robot wearing 'organic armour' (skin which is not connected to him in any way) be called a cyborg.

Leighpower 19:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not connected? In Terminator 2, the T-800 quite clearly shows some level of connection with the organic components, the first of which was learning how to smile. Given that the endoskeleton's head has no visible mechanisms for actuating the tissue, one can surmise he was probably controlling them directly. CABAL 05:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think moving his mouth as he does talk is moved by the same thing that allows him to smile, there must be something that allows it The snare 08:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point (what was stated above). In addition, when dealing with fictional creatures,we can't just stick with a dictionary's -ANY dictionary's -definitions if they apply only to those cyborgs in the real world. The vast majority of Cyborgs exist in fiction, and therefore we have to rely on the fictional definition of Cyborgs as well.

Very few Cyborgs (remember, most of them are fictional) NEED the cybernetic enhancements to "aid their physiological functioning" as the cited Dictionary.com definition states.

Therefore, based on the observation that terminators can interact with their fleshy parts, it seems quite fair and proper to classify them as Cyborgs (at least the T-800s and T-850s), after all...Thanos777 14:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think interacting with it/utilizing has anything to do with it being a part of itself. Cyborgs are part machine, part organic/biological. The fact that it's can move it's flesh regardless of whether it's done by it's skeleton or it has muscles is irrelevant. I can use my flesh to use a pair of scissors or a drill but that doesn't make me a cyborg. The snare 03:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Factually, the correct term for what the Terminator is, would be android, despite the fact that the terminators are repeatedly referred to erroneously in the films and series as cyborgs. Cyborg, as noted, is a neologism for cybernetic organism. Cybernetic, in this term, is an adjective modifying the noun organism. These androids are not organisms. The organic part of them is just a super advanced form of camouflage. I have a hunch that the people who developed the idea thought the term cyborg probably sounded cooler and scarier than the term android. Using the term robot to define what the terminators are, is overly simplified and uninformed.Jkhamlin (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Unclarified sources

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)

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)

The designation is on the bonus DVD, if you check the Skynet files. Schrodinger82 05:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not a Terminator Junkie, but I know the differences between a T-800 and a T-850 when I see them. For instance, the T-850 in T3 displayed a level of intelegence far beyond what the other two did in t1 and t2 (different director maybe, but it was officially clarified when the video game T3 the Redemption was made). And one other thing I found that was interestingly different between the two is the way their eyes are built and how they focus, the Terminator in the first film showed that it could actually dialate it's eyes and the T3 terminator's eyes lit up when it focused or "Widened" it's eyesight (when he says "you are terminated" and shoves the fusion cell down the T-X's mouth). And that the Eyes of the T-800 appeared smooth, while the the one it T3 had some kind of texture in a grating formation on them like a 1950 car's headlights. One last thing too is, the T-850's damaged powercells explode after a time to exposed atmosphere, so why didn't the terminators in the earlier movies explode when atmosphere hit their power cells? a Steak was driven through one of the models, and the other one was crushed, thus proper atmosphere was able to get to both the powercells, sure they put on a light show, but not explode. Same models? Maybe, but I don't think so. Cyberdyne Systems built Skynet classified them as T800's, maybe the CRS Version classified them T-850's. I think the Article should be left alone. Victis_Omega 10:29, 11 August 2006

While all of those are really good points (the different power cells especially) alot of people are unhappy because it uses info from several fansites (eterminator and goingfaster/term2029) which, though excellently done, are still fansites and therefore of dodgy reliability.SMegatron 10:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

wounds healing?

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)

He does indeed say this in Terminator 2 when Sarah is pulling the bullets out of his back, wouldn't he need to eat to get material to make new cells, which he would also need a respiratory and digestive system? Also, when he cuts all the skin off his arm in front of Dyson in Terminator 2, he'd never be able to put it back on The snare 04:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

T-1

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

We?

Anyone else find the first person plural `we' annoying to read? I also agree with the below poster that this sounds like it was taken from an overzelous fan site. CGP 18:55, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

Copyvio?

This reads very much as though it's been ripped off from somewhere... — OwenBlacker 15:00, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

Title

I moved this from T-800 (fictional character) to T-800, as there was no page at T-800, and wikipedia naming convention is to have the simplest possible article title. Boffy b 11:08, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Edits

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)

Cyberdyne article updated

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)

Who designed the terminators?

Considering Reese refers to the Terminator in T1 as a "Cyberdyne Model 101" it's not hard to believe they were created before Skynet became sentient. Otherwise why would they be given a designation that make it sound as if they were a product of a human corporation?

Dunno. The "Sergeant Candy" deleted scene on the Terminator 3 DVD shows what appears to be T-800 endoskeletons under testing, indicating it is pre-Judgement Day. That said, pehaps Skynet just had an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" complex and just never bothered to change things.--SMegatron 13:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, why does so much of the article appear to have been lifted from the old eterminator site?--SMegatron 13:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Anything from Terminator 3 is hardly cannon when you consider that both original films

were for the most part Cameron's concept and creation, and he had nothing to do with the 3d installment, so the whole "Sergeant Candy" thing is out. A cyberdine systems designation was likely used to make it coherent to the viewers, rather then have Reese spout a 20-digit numeric sequence. As an internal explanation, machines could simply use designations from factories that already existed at the time, to them series of words were probably just as good as numeric code. Tani unit 04:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

T3 is canon, whether you like it or not. Your statement that cyberdyne made up that name is nothing but pure original research with no backing whatsoever. Voicingmaster 00:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

T3 is canon, but not to T1 and T2. The whole point of T3 is that it is set in a different future to the one outlined in T1 and prevented in T2. They really should have used T2: Infiltrator as a sequel, it addressed these issues far better. 88.111.13.125 16:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In T3 Kyle says that there was a 600 series before the T-800 "cyborg" series. Unless Skynet had some kind of knowledge of Sargeant Candy and decided to model those particular T-800's (that look just like Arnie) on Sargeant Candy. Remember, we also see a Terminator in the original who doesn't look anything like Arnold on the outside. The snare 01:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You all forget one fact that makes the creation of 600-800 terminators a post-judgement day occurence, the a fact that the terminators were created to mimic humans. The terminators were created by Skynet to mimic humans, infiltrate their bases, and "terminate" humans; while it is possible that humans could have made some effort to create androids like that for infiltration purposes, with the chaos of the war that would make human ID diffcult, such methods would have been more effective, and where there is need, there is invention. Oh, and the cyberdyne systems designation could simply have been hard-wired into Skynet so that the system couldn't change it, but that's just a small theory, don't "kill" me over it. I hope I'm getting my point across.24.131.170.13 (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

According to James Cameron, The Terminator Series was developed by Cyberdyne Systems while they were developing Skynet. The most advanced model that humans designed was the T-70 which was humanoid. However, since T3 takes place in an alternate future where Judgment Day was delayed, things have changed by then so it becomes possible that humans designers skipped past the Series 70 by copying the Series 800, when the military resumed Dyson's work. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the discrepancies between the terms used in the films (and their official novelizatons)? This is an important question to address, when dealing with the origin of terminators (since it is only possible to understand the origins of a thing when one understands what that things means conceptually. It requires saying, in an effort to contribute to this discussion, that in The Terminator and Terminator 2 the cyborg - portrayed by Schwarzenegger in both films - is referred to as a 'T-800' (or a series 800 terminator - incidentally, it may be inferred that the use of the 'T' (as in T-800) refers to 'terminator'). Additionally, in both films (and books) this cyborg is called a 'Model 101' - its full designation being 'Cyberdyne Systems Model 101' (or CSM 101). Other terminators are discussed / seen in these films. For example, the character Kyle Reese mentions, when talking to Sarah Connor, both 'T-600' and 'T-700' series cyborgs. He indicates that these were in some ways less advanced than a T-800 (especially regarding their camouflage skin, which was rubber rather than organic - and therefore these earlier series were not as successful in their efforts to infiltrate human communities). Only one other terminator (besides that portrayed by Schwarzenegger) is seen in the first film (and discussed in its novel), during a recollection by Reese, and it is reasonable to assume that this other terminator is a T-800 (since its skin looks organic, as opposed to being rubber, and it successfully infiltrates a human settlement. Yet, although in probability a T-800, this other terminator is different in appearance than the one portrayed by Schwarzenegger - and hence it is also reasonable to suggest that this other T-800 is not a CSM 101, but a different model number (say, a CSM 100 or 102). In Terminator 2 a new terminator is introduced - the T-1000 (played primarily by Robert Patrick in the film). The T-1000 is presented as technologically superior to a T-800. Also, the T-1000 is not a cyborg (as it does not incorporate organic components, and it is never attributed a 'Cyberdyne Systems' model number).

This use of terms, and the designations referred to in both films and books, is coherent, consistent and logical. But in “Terminator 3” things change. The cyborg portrayed by Schwarzenegger in Terminator 3 is referred to as a 'T-101', and there is no reference to a T-800 CSM 101. (Note, the official novel of this film uses the designation ‘T-850’ when referring to this terminator. For an explanation on this, see my comments elsewhere). Why this alteration, a shift between ‘T-800 CSM 101’ and ‘T-101’? It's possible that the writers / makers of the third film made a mistake - that, because of a lack of knowledge on the matter, they inaccurately called this cyborg a T-101. It's also possible that, when reference is being made to the designation of this terminator, that 'T-800 CSM 101' is simply being abbreviated to 'T-101'. If this is the case, it's a poor use of abbreviation - as it fails to accommodate other terminator series (e.g. a T-700) and their model numbers. It is plausible that a T-700 may utilise a CSM 101 - and, if so, applying the method of abbreviation used in the third film, this T-700 CSM 101 would also be called a 'T-101'. As such, use of this designation in the third film is problematic - questionable at best, and in the worst case just plain wrong.

Note, the novel of the film, written by David Hagberg, attempts to address the issue in a different way - with this terminator being called a T-850. Obviously this terminator is possessed of the identical skin camouflage as the ones seen in earlier films - as it looks like the cyborg portrayed by Schwarzenegger - and hence it is a 'Cyberdyne Systems Model 101'. As discussed elsewhere, there are identifiable differences between, on the one hand, the first and second films and, on the other, the third film - in terms of the cyborg portrayed by Schwarzenegger. It is appropriate, I suggest, that this terminator - from the third firm - be called a 'T850 CSM 101'.

Yet, notwithstanding the efforts of the novelist, the third film fails to clarify the matter. The issue is further compounded by the fact that additional inconsistencies exist. In various clips from Terminator 3 terminator chassis - apparently those of T-800's - can be seen. How is it that, prior to Judgement Day (and the war between man and machine), such advanced terminator models have been manufactured - when, as revealed in the first film, such terminators are 'new' only towards the end of the war? Again, has a mistake been made by the makers of the third film - inasmuch as they fail to adhere to the story (and its 'facts') as laid out in the earlier films?

While it is probably the case that such inconsistencies are based on error, a further explanation presents itself: The events at the end of Terminator 2 are meant to alter history (to change what was to occur). For instance, Cyberdyne Systems was destroyed (or at least its premises) - and the character Miles Bennett Dyson died (which established an alternative history, since Dyson was meat to have designed Skynet). In Terminator 3 we are told that such events have not sufficiently altered history as to avert Judgement Day - rather, the war has simply been delayed a few years. What has been created is an alternative time-line, and as such certain possibilities exist. It is feasible that, since Cyberdyne was destroyed, a different company (utilising Cyberdyne's research) developed Skynet. Further, in the intervening years between the events portrayed in the second and third films, a series of terminators have been designed prior to Judgement Day (as seen in Terminator 3). During the war, Skynet further advances these terminators - but now does so without the designation 'Cyberdyne Systems Model ...'; and, possibly, it by-passes what in the original time-line were 600 and 700 series terminators. Just as in the 'original' time-line, Skynet may opt to utilise the looks of the model 101 (as portrayed by Schwarzenegger), since in both time-lines it may consider this 'look' as effective for infiltration purposes (on the basis of whatever criteria is uses). In both time-lines this particular model may be called '101'. In the first time-line it's known as a T-800 CSM 101, but in this alternative time-line (created by the events of Terminator 2) it becomes simply a T-101.

If the discrepancies between the designations used are meant to be the result of alterations in history, the third film does not adequately explain this. Given other inconsistencies raised by “Terminator 3” (in terms of how it relates to the earlier story-line), such as the age ascribed to John Connor during the events of Terminator 2, it's probable that the film-makers made mistakes. The explanation outlined above is the only means of circumventing these mistakes so as to view the designations (and origins) of the 'T-800 CSM 101' / 'T-101' (and 'T-850') as consistent. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to pretend I read all of that, but I did read enough. If you read the discussion (or watch the movie), you will realize that he is never referred to in any movie as a T-800. Kyle Reese never refers to a T-700, only T-600. And no matter reasonable your assumptions are (you do indeed admit that they are assumptions), they cannot be included without a source. So, essentially, nothing in the first paragraph is correct. I'm just going to skip the rest. No reason to believe that it will be any more accurate. ColdFusion650 (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon P Blackburn (talk • contribs)

I'm pleased ColdFusion adds to the discussion, as debate is a useful means of elucidation. Unfortunately, he acknowledges he didn't read 'the above', but still says that it is essentially incorrect! Then he say that I should read the discussion (or watch the movie) to realise your version of the truth ... Well, no.

Unlike him, I have read the discussion (and watched the movies). Also, I've read the official novels (and the screenplays) for The Terminator and Terminator 2.

Here are just a couple of examples of the 'facts':

(1) Kyle Reese does refer to both 600 and 700 series of terminator (as well as series 800) in the official novel of The Terminator (written by Frakes and Wisher, based on the screenplay by Cameron). See, for example, page 113 ('Is he a seven hundred or an eight hundred. Reese hoped he was a seven.'), page 115 ('He must have been a seven hundred, Reese thought to himself.'), page 126 ('The six hundred series had rubber skin. We nailed them easy. But the eight hundreds a new.'). The clearest account is provided on page 123 - where Reese says 'A machine. A Terminator. Cyberdyne Systems. Eight hundred series. Model one zero one.'

(2) In a scene in the second film, where John Connor re-inserts the terminator's CPU, we 'see' from the perspective of the terminator - and his display clearly designates itself as a 'SERIES 800 MODEL 101'. As such, this is a series 800 terminator - or T-800. Its display also refers to 'CYBERDYNE SYSTEMS'. Earlier in the movie, just after this T-800 first saves John from the T-1000, it acknowledges that it is a terminator - and refers to itself as a Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 (or CSM 101). So, in terms of what kind of terminator it is, it's a T-800, and in terms of its model number it is a CSM 101.

There are many other instances where the designations 'T-800' and 'CSM 101' are used by the makers and writers of The Terminator and Terminator 2. The full designation of the terminator (as portrayed by Schwarzenegger) as T-800 CSM01 is adhered to by Cameron, the creator of the story-line, in interviews and commentaries. I could, if needed, cite these - but if the already presented evidence is not enough to convince, then what's the point? One either listens to reason, or doesn't.

The use of the term 'T-101' (as used in Terminator 3) is inaccurate. One may, for reasons of brevity, refer to this terminator as a 'CSM 101' (or 'Model 101') - but it's not a T-101. The use of the letter T is reference to the kind of terminator, e.g. series 600, 700, 800 or 1000. The terminator portrayed by Schwarzenegger is a T-800. As such, if T is to be used, it must be in terms of 'T-800' - otherwise one is confusing the kind of terminator with its model number.

The only justification for the term 'T-101' is if one accepts that the events of Terminator 3 are set in an alternative history to those of The Terminator and Terminator 2 (see my account presented above). If this is the case, fine - but that does not alter the fact that in the earlier films/books, the terminator portrayed by Schwarzenegger is a T-800 CSM 101.

Finally, the use of the designation 'T-850' with regard to the terminator portrayed by Schwarzenegger in Terminator 3 just adds to the problem. The official novel of the third film uses 'T-850' in an effort to explain that this terminator is somewhat more advanced than the T-800's (from The Terminator and Terminator 2). Once again, this is evidence that the actual designation of these earlier terminators is 'T-800'. If one accepts that this is a T-850 (rather than a T-800), then the full designation of the terminator portrayed by Schwarzenegger in Terminator 3 is: T-850 CSM 101 (and not T-101). Simon P Blackburn (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I did eventually trudge through it all. I think you are getting Wikipedia talk pages confused with fan forums. I don't see why any of this stuff is relevant to the article. Your thoughts on Terminator inconsistencies really don't matter here. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant because in order to address the design (and therefore also the origin) of terminators, it's important to know which terminators are being referred to. This discussion is about the design of the terminator as portrayed by Schwarzenegger in the films. As such, we need to know what kind of terminator he portrays. Is it a T-800, a T-101, etc.. To engage in this matter is not to indulge in a 'fan forum' - but seeks to provide strict definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon P Blackburn (talk • contribs) 23:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is for discussing specific changes to the article. What specific changes are you suggesting? So far I haven't heard any. How does anything you just said affect the article? ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion I advance serves a useful purpose - clarity. By more fully understanding the design (and origin) of the terminator, so this may enrich the article. What I suggest, here as elsewhere, is that the terminator (as portrayed by Schwarzenegger) is in fact a T-800 CSM 101. This is true of The Terminator and for Terminator 2. As for Terminator 3, things are a little more problematic - and, hopefully, further discussion will allow for increased clarity. I suggest that with regard to Terminator 3, it is reasonable to consider the cyborg portrayed by Schwarzenegger as a 'T-850 CSM 101'. Nowhere should the designation 'T-101' be used (and this is especially so with regard to The Terminator and Terminator 2). It's mentioned many times that this terminator is not 'officially' deemed to be a T-800 - but I contest this (and offer evidence in support of my argument). I therefore conclude that the article should be changed, so that the terminator (with regard to The Terminator and Terminator 2) is re-designated 'T-800 CSM 101'. And, in relation to Terminator 3, the terminator should be classified as a 'T-850 CSM 101' (although this latter designation still requires further debate). Simon P Blackburn (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In your overly long way, I think what you are saying is that all articles should consistently refer The Terminator as a T-800. Unfortunately, most of what you posted above constitutes original research, that is using sources to create an argument to further a point of view not explicitly stated in the source. As it stands now, the Terminator is (as far as I know) referred to as either "The Terminator" or as the "Model 101" as those are the only two things that it is unambiguously referred to as (throwing out T-101 as somewhat controversial). There is a section in the article discussing naming, and that is good enough. This is basically the consensus reached through the multiple sections on this talk page. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What I suggest is that the 'official' sources should be utilised in order to seek clarity. The problem is that multiple terms are used in these sources - and it is only possible to gain a fuller understanding of the matter by making use of a holistic approach. This allows for an understanding that the rm 'T-101' is inaccurate - and that 'Model 101' (or CSM 101) is only partial. The evidence, when looked at as a whole, provides for the designation T-800 CSM 101 (in relation to The Terminator and Terminator 2). This conclusion is not a 'pov' understanding - but an objective finding. The point of all this is to allow for discussion on issues which need to be further clarified. As such, I'm contributing to the discussion. By removing my contributions - because you personally disagree with them, so you are exhibiting a subjective stance. In my efforts to elucidate the matter, I will continue with my posts - hoping that others also contribute. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You call it a "finding", and that is not allowed. Please read this section of the original research policy. And for the record, I'm not removing your contributions. Your stuff is still here, unless you can't find it in this section. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not making use of the term 'finding' in this way. I've undertaken no 'original research' here - rather, I've simply read / watched the films and books associated with the character. By reading / watching this material, so one 'finds things out' - but that's not a finding in the manner you're referring to.

The utilisation of evidence, to reach objective conclusions, is allowed. The article requires changing to accomodate this. In this way, the article will be a true and detailed reflection of the facts. Of course, to 'get to the facts' we need to engage in discussion on the topic - which is the point of this section. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And what is the point of the three nearly identical posts you've made in different sections on this page? Anyway, reaching a conclusion without it explicitly being in the source (which this is not) is not allowed. That's explicitly stated in the section of the original research policy I linked to. I guess as long as you stick to the talk page, it's harmless enough. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Each of the posts stresses and emphasises different aspects - relating to the specifics of the topic. There's a post dealing with the 'T-800', and one on the 'T-850'. To discuss either requires of course referring to both! Here, in this post, the issue concerns the design of the terminator - which, necessarily, involves discussing both the T-800 and the T-850. It's important not to confuse 'dealing with similar subject matter and related topics' with 'nearly identical posts'.

I aim to make conclusions only by referring to the source material, i.e. the films, novels, screenplays, etc. The fact is, by utilising these sources so it can be objectively shown that the designation T-800 CSM 101 is accurate (when referring to the cyborg portrayed by Schwarzenegger in The Terminator and Terminator 2). In this context, the term 'T-101' is factually inaccurate - and should be removed from the article. With regard to Terminator 3, the issue is a little more complex - as the sources are either lacking in clarity or are in contradiction with earlier sources. I suggest that, on the basis of the evidence, this terminator be referred to in the article as a T-850 CSM 101.

The point here is to discuss the matter with others - as I am with you. Lets debate the source material, bringing together all the evidence available. That's not 'original research' - it's arriving at a conclusion by way of the evidence, thereby producing a clear and objective article (the purpose of Wikipedia). So, hopefully, by using this page we can achieve this purpose together - and advance the article. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OR denial is fine, a frequent side effect of being new. Just don't mess up the actual article. ColdFusion650 (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To resort to derogatory comments far too often means you've lost the argument. Contributing to a discussion page is not a complex matter. My aim is simply to improve the article (i.e. make it reflect the 'truth'). To achieve this, I don't intend to bully anyone. Having read this discussion page, I find most of what has been said by others (including yourself) to be somewhat lax. As such, I've presented a discussion in an effort to advance things.

You seem to be overly concerned with the fact that I'm saying something (something which you clearly don't agree with). May I suggest that, instead, you offer a critique on the content of my discussion - for example, is the terminator portrayed by Schwarzenegger a T-800 or a T-101? Together we can discuss the source material - and hopefully arrive at an objective conclusion. Unlike you, I don't 'deny' the potential positive outcome this may have.

Or maybe I'm being too 'optimistic' - (a side effect of being new to posting?). Then again, since I've been using Wikipedia for the last 4 years or so, maybe not! Simon P Blackburn (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Saying what you're doing is "fine" is not a derogatory statement, and there is no argument. We're having two completely different discussions. You're discussing Terminator, and I'm discussing what is and is not admissible in the article. There's nothing to win or lose. And it's not that I disagree with your conclusions on what the name is. It's just that policy will not allow it in the article, and you don't seem to mind. The content, so long as it is synthesized from published sources (which it is), is meaningless. ColdFusion650 (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The article does not refer to a "T-101" except in the nomenclature section referencing Terminator 3, which seems appropriate. Fletcher (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

power of what now?

the same power as a miniature nuclear weapon.

that does not make any sense. You might as well say "power of a miniature supernova".

Missing arm

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)

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)

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)

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)

Past tense and speculation

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)

Firearms

"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)

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)

people keep saying that the shooter would be knocked down to. that is not true. the momemtum (mass x velocity) exerted on the target and shooter would be the same. therefore, a difference in mass would greatly affect the velocity that each flew back at, to the point where friction makes them not move very much. and the firearm itself harnesses this momentum to kicked the slide back and eject the round, thus reducing the momentum imparted on the shooter. ColdFusion650 13:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research

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)

I removed all of the information not appearing in the movies or not cited as coming from a canon source. That is with the exception on the name T-800, which does not appear in any movie. Removing that would be a job that spanned multiple articles. ColdFusion650 22:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

I also cleaned up the T-1000 and T-X articles. ColdFusion650 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

t-850

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)

ok, i just saw the first one. reese does make mention of the 600 series. however, he identifies the terminator at as a cyberdyne systems model 101. no mention of a t-800 here either. so, let's recap. the terminator says that the arnold model is a cyberdyne systems model 101. so does judgment day. rise of the machines calls him a t-101. so where does the t-800 or t-850 name come from? did somebody just make this up? cause its not in the movies. ColdFusion650 68.1.89.194 17:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

can someone please explain where the name t-800 and the entire t-850 section came from? if not, it should be labeled as OR. ColdFusion650 21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The scripts and novelizations. 24.14.120.92 01:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The article needs to be changed, with regard to this issue, as it does not adhere to the facts. There has been much said, often in terms of heated debate, but clarity has not yet been reached. The cyborg in both The Terminator and Terminator 2 films (as portrayed by Schwarzenegger) and their official novelizations is referred to as a series 800 terminator - or T-800 (the T referring to terminator). Additionally, this cyborg is identified as a Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 (or CSM 101). As such, its full designation is 'T-800 CSM 101'. The problem in terms of clarity on this issue is that at no point in these films is the whole designation used at any one time; rather different aspects of it are referred to at different times. Still, the novelizations do use this full term, and this use of designation is also adhered to in other official merchandise.

Other terminators are discussed in The Terminator and Terminator 2 - Kyle Reese, for example, refers to series 600 and 700 terminators. The main 'other' terminator shown is the T-1000. The T-1000 is never given a 'Cyberdyne Systems Model' number - possibly because it's not a cyborg, or because it's production had nothing to do with Cyberdyne (only with Skynet - since it was produced towards the end of the war).

For purposes of discussion, it is reasonable to say that the makers of Terminator 3 made a mistake when referring to the cyborg portrayed by Schwarzenegger. Here it's called a 'T-101' - and, unless this is an expression of an alternative time-line, it's a mistake. This terminator should be referred to as a T-800 CSM 101, and not the (inaccurate) abbreviation T-101.

The novel of the third film, together with certain official merchandise, refers to this cyborg as a T-850. This is logical only if one accepts that the endoskeleton chassis is different from that in the earlier films (i.e. it's more advanced in some way). Since it does appear somewhat different, the designation T-850 is appropriate. As such, it may be called a T-850 CSM 101.

Yet, notwithstanding this explanation, the third film refers to the terminator portrayed by Schwarzenegger as a T-101. As I explain above, other than constituting an error, only one valid explanation presents itself: The events at the end of Terminator 2 are meant to alter history (to change what was to occur). In Terminator 3 we are told that such events have not sufficiently altered history as to avert Judgement Day - rather, the war has simply been delayed a few years. What has been created is an alternative time-line, and as such certain possibilities exist. It is feasible that, since Cyberdyne was destroyed, a different company (utilising Cyberdyne's research) developed Skynet. Further, in the intervening years between the events portrayed in the second and third storylines, a series of terminators have been designed prior to Judgement Day (as seen in Terminator 3). During the war, Skynet further advances these terminators - but now does so without the designation 'Cyberdyne Systems Model ...'; and, possibly, it by-passes what in the original time-line were 600 and 700 series terminators. Just as in the 'original' time-line, Skynet may opt to utilise the looks of the model 101 (as portrayed by Schwarzenegger), since in both time-lines it may consider this 'look' as effective for infiltration purposes (on the basis of whatever criteria is uses). In both time-lines this particular model may be called '101'. In the first time-line it's known as a T-800 CSM 101, but in this alternative time-line (created by the events of Terminator 2) it becomes simply a T-101.

Since this explanation is not offered in Terminator 3, the use of the designation 'T-101' is a mistake. Yes, such a designation can be accounted for - but to do so goes beyond the explanation presented in the third film. The correct designation for the terminator portrayed by Schwarzenegger in the first and second films is T-800 CSM 101. If we accept that the film-makers of Terminator 3 made a mistake, so this terminator is also a T-800 CSM 101 (and not a T-101). If we accept the logic of the novel of the third film, this terminator is a T-850 CSM 101. Only on the basis of an alternative time-line can it be said that this terminator is a T-101 (or simply a T-850).

If we acknowledge that film-makers do make errors, then simply because the third film refers to the cyborg portrayed by Schwarzenegger as a T-101 is not a valid enough reason to accept this designation since it is inconsistent with the earlier films. While I like the idea of an alternative time-line (as it accounts for the use of the term 'T-101' / 'T-850'), I don't really think that the film-makers had it in mind. As such, I think they made a mistake.

All references in the article to the cyborg portrayed by Schwarzenegger in The Terminator and Terminator 2 should use the designation T-800 (or, more fully, T-800 CSM 101). The term 'T-850' may be objectively used when referring to the cyborg in Terminator 3. The article requires updating to accomodate this. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

article name change

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)

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)

Fine with me. ColdFusion650 20:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Well, it's been over 3 weeks since my first request for a T-800 reference. If someone had something, they probably would have come forward by now. ColdFusion650 21:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Backup power cell

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)

It doesn't say backup generator. It says alternate power source. The DVD commentary says that it's using heat sinks to harness the thermal energy from the very hot surroundings. So, still OR. If you want, you can say that it can find alternate sources of power. But the backup generator just isn't there. ColdFusion650 19:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Fine with me. ColdFusion650 20:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Go back to T-800

The name T-800/T-850 came from the scripts and novelization. Model 101 is the SKIN type. T-800/850 is the endoskeleton model. Model 101 looks like Arnold, Model 108 looks like a different person. Change it back. Thanks. 24.14.120.92 02:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What's the point of comparing the "Model 101" with the 600 series? Who says that there isn't a 101 Model T-600, T-1000, or T-X? I think that some of the editors of this page are taking the movie canon far too seriously. The toy lines, the novels, the comics, the scripts, and just about every other connection to the Terminator universe all call it the T-800. It needs to be changed back post haste. King Zeal 08:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Terminator in Kyle's flashback in the first movie was identified was Model 108 in the novelization, because it doesn't use the Arnold Schwarzenegger skin. 24.14.120.92 10:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Where were you people for the last three plus weeks? It would have been helpful if you had spoken up when I first requested a reference for the name. But no one answered. It's not like I posted four messages asking for it. You try to find out ahead of time, but nobody cares. You then act, and everyone gets upset. What is yall's problem? ColdFusion650 14:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't check the article 3 weeks ago. I can't predict events you know. That aside, the model of the endoskeleton is T-800 (T1, T2) and T-850 (T3) the skin tissue/appearance over the endoskeleton that looks like Arnold is Model 101. 24.14.120.92 22:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And each series has a "T" name to them. T-1(T3) -----> T-600 (T1) ---> T-800 -> T-850 --> T-1000 -> T-X 24.14.120.92 22:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot to mention, the T-850 is just an upgrade of T-800, not a completely new series model. It was upgraded to be more resistent to plasma attacks and to be able to fight stronger Terminators because the human resistance gained plasma rifles from fallen Terminators and they also have reprogrammed Terminators fighting for them. 24.14.120.92 23:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have heard all of that information before. But where did it come from? No one has been able to answer that question. ColdFusion650 23:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you not read? Scripts and novelization of the movies that provide more detail because of its format. 24.14.120.92 01:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I vote to go back to T-800. This is like that episode of Heroes, when Nathan Petrelli's sons were shown. Their names weren't mentioned on the show, but the scripts and the credits clearly stated they were Simon and Monty. Just because it wasn't mentioned on the show, doesn't mean they're unnamed. Same with the T-800 name, the scripts, the novelization, the official merchandise all say that the endoskeleton model is T-800 and the human skin is Model 101. So this should go back to T-800. WyrmKing 21:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know that, and my request to find out went unanswered. But I didn't change it, and I'm not changing it back. TomTheHand is an administrator, and he did it. It's up to him. ColdFusion650 22:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, hey ;-) I don't like the sound of that. It's not up to me.

Now, the script to The Terminator doesn't mention T-800s. It does mention "600 series" Terminators which have rubber skin. In the script to Terminator 2 Arnold's just called "Terminator" and the T-1000 is called "T-1000." If you want this page to be called "T-800" you're going to need to adequately cite sources per WP:CITE. Just shouting "It's in the scripts and books!" isn't going to cut it. TomTheHand 04:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is the best I could do with limited sources. Here are the exact words fromt the official Terminator 2: Judgement Day movie script:

We realize now that the cop is a terminator too. We don't know the details yet, but let's call him the T-1000 (since that's what he is). A newer model than the one we've come to know so well (the 800 Series "Arnold"). This guy's a prototype... and he's got quite a few surprises.

Here is the link where I found the script: [[1]]

As I said, I understand that Wikipedia requires sources and all, but I still find this to be going a bit too far". King Zeal 06:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the part I was talking about. They didn't mention it in the movies but behind the scenes they came up with "800" and it's what was used in the merchandise and the novelizations of the movie. 24.14.120.92 07:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Then why does the novelizations say he's a T-800? And why does the OFFICIAL merchandise calls him T-800? Then why does the novelization identify the other Terminator in Kyle Reese's dream as Model 108? If you wanna be techincal, then this article should be named "Terminator" since that's what Arnold was credited as in the the first three movies. Point is, the official merchandise calls the T1 and T2 models as T-800 with the skin type 101. While the T3 model is T-850 with the same skin type. And I agree with King Zeal, this is taking it too far. Official publication and merchandise already calls him a T-800/850 but still not good enough for you? Talk about crazy. WyrmKing 07:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm from Missouri. Show me. TomTheHand 13:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just look at the various official merchandise? 24.14.120.92 13:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Where? Show me! You want this information in the article. That's ok. Prove it should be here. This is not a competition and I do not have a personal interest in naming this article "Cyberdyne Systems Model 101," but if we're going to call it T-800 you must show me sources for it. TomTheHand 13:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My local public library appears to have the T2 and T3 novelizations. Because I am an awesome guy, I will do your research for you and go get the information from the novelizations so I can provide proper citations for the article. It may be later this week; feel free to do your own research like WP:V says you're supposed to do if you're impatient. TomTheHand 13:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you TomTheHand, for the link to the scripts because you HAVE to change it back to T-800 now. Because I skimmed the script and found this:

TILT UP, revealing a humanoid machine holding a massive battle rifle. It looks like a CHROME SKELETON... a high-tech Death figure. It is the endoskeleton of a Series 800 terminator. Its glowing red eyes compassionlessly sweep the dead terrain, hunting.

T-800 series, right there. Booyah! Go back to T-800 please. Thanks. WyrmKing 07:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean "800 series." TomTheHand 13:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

800 series means T-800! T = Terminator, 800 = series model T-600 = 600 series, T-1000 = 1000 series, T-X = X series, T-1 = 1 series! 24.14.120.92 13:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks here. If it doesn't say T-800, assuming it means T-800 is original research. TomTheHand 13:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

T-800 IS 800 series! Where did you think 800 came from? I gave you the source and it's still not good enough for you? The entire canon says it's T-800. It's far from original research. 800 series endoskeleton. T-800, they're the same! 24.14.120.92 13:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The script does not say T-800. It says 800 series. It is not a source for changing this article's name to T-800. Calm down and watch your language. I understand that you're new here, but please read over Wikipedia's core policies of verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research, plus the related guidelines on reliable sources, and you'll understand why the above example is not sufficient because it does not literally say "T-800". TomTheHand 13:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

LMAO I laugh at TomTheHand's overzealousness, they proof is right there because he won't accept it. How sad. I encourage everyone to vandalize this page, the worst wikipedia page that doesn't follow canon. Since TomTheHand doesn't care about it. It should be vandalized. WyrmKing 13:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoo-kay... welcome to Non-sequitursville. TomTheHand 13:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, if the 1000 series is T-1000? Then guess what's the 800 series is? And as stated here, in one of the discussion in this page:

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)

Stan Winston DESIGNED the Terminator, and he says it's T-800! 24.14.120.92 13:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Relax, relax. I know he's being unreasonable about this but no need to get mad. I just find it funny that Wikipedia is the only place that thinks T-800 is unacceptable when the movie studios and official merchandise like this [2] says it's T-800. I mean, people always make fun of Wikipedia for being an unreliable source of info and you're proving them right Tom, by going against official canon. WyrmKing 13:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

FINALLY. It's like pulling teeth. Honestly, was it so hard for you to find some proof of what you're trying to tell me? Alright, so where do we go from here? T-800 is never mentioned in the movies. I'm not sure if it's the best name for the article if only people who have contact with the expanded material would be familiar with it. Articles should be named to be most accessible to the average person who knows almost nothing about the topic. ColdFusion650 suggested "Terminator (character)" earlier, which might work well. We should discuss the Model 101 vs. T-800 issue in the body of the article. I'm going to open up an RFC to get more input. TomTheHand 14:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He's just trying to get to the truth. What's wrong with that? Without a rock solid reference, we're just trying to do the best we can, until we can find one. Now, as I said before, I've only seen the movies. I didn't buy the action figures or the books, or anything else. So, my stuff was based on what is and is not in the movies, and then I requested a reference from others for the stuff outside of the movies. But nobody came. So Tom agreed and changed the name. And then everyone started coming out of the wood work. With still no rock solid source. There is a source for "800 series". Got that, although does something in the script, but not mentioned in the film actually count? Regardless, saying "Check the books and merchandise" doesn't help. No one wants to find all Terminator books and merchandise just so that prove someone else right. Do the research yourself. ColdFusion650 13:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does count. Just because it's not mentioned on the screen does not mean it's canon. Like WyrmKing said earlier, Nathan Petrelli's sons' names weren't mentioned on the script but the credits showed their names. Does that mean, they didn't have names? 800 series is T-800. Merchandise says it's T-800. The writers says it's T-800. The creature desginer, Stan Winston says it's T-800. It's T-800. T-800. 24.14.120.92 13:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Next thing you will say that those robotic planes in the movie are not called "Hunter Killers" because the movie didn't mention their names even though it's in the script too. This article is stupid, and just like all the Wikipedia jokes, unreliable source for going against official sources. 24.14.120.92 13:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh and do the research myself? I don't need research, I already know the name. You're the only one (or two) in denial here. YOU DO the research. YOU go read every available source about the Terminator universe. I don't need to because I have and I know. 24.14.120.92 13:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to policy, the burden of proof, I guess you could call it, is on you. And "just knowing" doesn't cut it. Please read the policies. ColdFusion650 14:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's on the script, I also posted links to merchandise, so did WyrmKing. ColdFusion, thank you for making this the crappiest article in the whole of wikipedia. You must be proud for the only one of two people in the entire world that thinks that Arnold was a T-800 Model 101. 24.14.120.92 14:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked 24.14.120.92 for 24 hours for personal attacks. I've gone back and removed his personal attacks and foul language from this page. TomTheHand 14:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I googled something and hopefully, if any of you read it, will end this nonsense. This site mentions where you can find T-800 in the Director's Cut of Terminator 2 and which passages in the official novelization has those. To End it All WyrmKing 14:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good find. One last thing. The site you just linked to explains the "Model 101" thing as referring to the external appearance of the Terminator - the "Arnold type." You said something similar above. Do you have any similar source on that, or should we leave it out of the article for now? TomTheHand 15:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for? My references are mainly novelizations, comic books, and official (and very expensive) figurines/action figures). I don't have a scanner so I can't do anything about it. I suggest we just go with the endoskeleton model for now, which is T-800, rather than the physical appearance. WyrmKing 15:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if you want, I can link you to an archive of webpages from the now defunct eterminator.com. This fansite took all its info from official merchandise and most of their tech specs they got from the novelizations. You can double check the novelizations at your library if you want. But they didn't make anything up as far as I know. WyrmKing 16:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to finish the "T-800" discussion: along with the already mentioned T2 script, AFI, while doing the 100 Villains and Heroes, while in the final list uses only "Terminator", in the 400 nominated mentions "T-800". I changed the introduction to at least mention the most common designations (Terminator and T-800). igordebraga ≠ 00:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I sort of think that Terminator (character) might be the best name, with discussion of the various different names in the body of the article. I wish I had felt this way earlier, when ColdFusion650 suggested it as another possibility. TomTheHand 01:07,

21 December 2006 (UTC)

The term 'T-850' is causing confusion, and this is not aiding in the production of the article. No single, clear explanation of the terms has been provided - so, to assist this discussion, here is one. To understand the matter, it must first be said that the cyborg in The Terminator and Terminator 2 (as portrayed by Schwarzenegger in these films) is a series 800 terminator, Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 - or, abbreviated, a T-800 CSM 101. The reason for stressing this is, it allows for an understanding of the concept 'T-850'.

A clear example of evidence for the designation 'T-800 CSM 101' (outside the commentaries / interviews given by the creators and makers of this story-line) is provided in the official novel of The Terminator (written by Frakes and Wisher, based on the screenplay by Cameron), on page 123. Reese, talking to Sarah Connor, says it's 'A machine. A Terminator. Cyberdyne Systems. Eight hundred series. Model one zero one.'

Other evidence for this exists (e.g. in these films we 'see' from the perspective of the terminator, and its display says that it is a 'series 800 model 101'; in the novelization of the second film, and in the screenplays, this designation is used).

Yet, in the film Terminator 3 the cyborg portrayed by Schwarzenegger is referred to as a T-101. This is problematic - it is either a mistake on the part of the film-makers or a poor use of abbreviation (taking the T from T-800 and the 101 from CSM 101 - so that T-800 CSM 101 becomes simply T-101), and strictly speaking inaccurate (as it conflates the kind of terminator - its 'series' - with its model number).

The only other plausible explanation is that an alternative time-line exists, and in this 'other' history the terminator is a T-101. For an account on this explanation, see my comments elsewhere.

To confuse matters further, in the official novel of Terminator 3 (and certain official merchandise) refers to this cyborg as a T-850. Why is this? The novel attempts to explain that, because of the events of Terminator 2, history was changed - and, one result of this is, the future war continued past its 'original' end date. In this extended period, Skynet further advanced its terminator series - making a T-850 (which is somewhat more sophisticated than a T-800). It is a T-850 which is sent back in time, and portrayed by Schwarzenegger in the third film. Since it is the same model (in terms of the 'looks' of its camouflage skin), it is reasonable to assume that it's a CSM 101 - making its full designation: T-850 CSM 101.

Is it correct to refer to the terminator as a T-850? Or is the terminator a T-800? Or is it a CSM 101, or a T-101?

It is a mistake to refer to the terminator as a T-101 (unless one accepts an alternative time-line argument). The film-makers of Terminator 3 made a mistake. One can refer to it as a CSM 101, but this is a reference only to its model number - not its series - and as such its an effort in brevity (an abbreviation). The terminator in The Terminator and Terminator 2 (as portrayed by Schwarzenegger) is a T-800 - and its full designation is T-800 CSM 101. The terminator (portrayed by Schwarzenegger) in Terminator 3 is of a slightly more advanced series - it is a T-850 CSM 101.

One may or may not like these facts - but one's likes and dislikes do not alter the facts. If you don't like to refer to the terminator as a T-800 (and choose T-101 instead) or as a T-850, then that's up to you - but don't confuse your dislike with disagreement.

The article should be changed, to incorporate these facts. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

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)

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)

How do you get to this Request for Comment page? ColdFusion650 20:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

My ideas are either "T-800" (though this will be confusing due to the "T-850" from T3), "Terminator (character)" or (this could suit, like Predator (alien)) or "Terminator (robot)". igordebraga ≠ 23:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The correct name should be "Terminator (character)". EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The RFC consensus seems to be that this article should be titled "Terminator (character)"; however, someone moved the article to Cyberdyne Systems T-800 yesterday. There are a ton of double redirects that they didn't attempt to clean up. Could someone with AWB or something move this to Terminator (character) and fix the redirects? I won't have AWB access for a bit. TomTheHand 05:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what happens when someone completely ignores the discussion and decides to do what they want. Someone needs to slap him upside the head for all of the changes he made. ColdFusion650 16:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I undid everything he did. ColdFusion650 16:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved as you asked. And also re-did my edits before ColdFusion's reversal. igordebraga ≠ 12:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Article should be updated, as the model number "t-800" is referenced by the terminator in the third movie. I may be mistaken but I recall it. 68.116.244.252 02:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Anathema1917

We are not stupid. If it were said in T3, someone would have said that by now. And if you actually read the discussion, you would realize that we already went over what he is actually called in the movies. He is never called a T-800. You are mistaken. Please read the discussion before commenting, per SOP. ColdFusion650 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

"Android" is NOT the correct name for the Arnold Terminators

The Article's leading Paragraph listed Terminators as "Androids."

With the combination of Living Tissue and Robotic Technology, ANY such creature that fits this definiton is a "Cyborg."

An "Android" is a (100%)ROBOT that looks like a human being, and furthermore looks like a MALE Human Being -"Gynoid" refers to a 'femme' Robot(BTW, I wonder if the term "Android" has been applied in Science Fiction to any Robot that resembles a biological male/female member of ANY species: I mean, can there be such a thing as an "android" Dog or "android" Centaur??)

On the other hand, the T-1000 and the T-X are "Androids."

Examples of Robots

• T-101 Endoskeletons without Skin Covering
• Non-Model Number Cylons in new BSG Series
• Star Wars Universe Droids
• Ed-209

Examples of Androids/Gynoids

• Data/Lore/Lal/B-4/Julianna O'Donnell ("Mrs. Soong")
• FemBots
• Number Six
• The Twelve Model Cylons in the new BSG
• T-1000 and T-X
• T-101 with artificial (non-living) Skin/Flesh Covering

Examples of Cyborgs

• R. Daneel from the I, Robot Series
• T-101 Endoskeletons with real (living) Skin/Flesh Covering
• Bicentennial Man
• Robocop
• The Bionic Men/Women

My apologies in advance to all who may be offended by my Edit to the Main Article, but I feel that exactitude is a necessary thing in this regard (plus I love the Terminators so damned much). 'til next time, Thanos777 03:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a serious source for your claim that anything that combines living tissue with robotic technology is a cyborg. That definition is not supported by, say, dictionary.com. A cyborg is generally acknowledged to be a living creature with mechanical parts. Moreover, an android is a robot in human form, not necessarily a robot that is physically indistinguishable from a human. Terminator endoskeletons are androids, while the flying Hunter Killers are robots. I'm reverting your edits. TomTheHand 04:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'd like to see your serious source that says that any mechanical creature with a head, torso, two arms and two legs is an android. BTW, the T-800 series Terminators DO

combine living tissue with a robotic endoskeleton. Non-rhetorical question: are we allowed to debate this issue with sources or is futher debate closed by your status as Admimistrator (again, non-rhetorical question)?? Thanos777 04:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you could start at our article for android, and after that, move on to the link at the bottom of the page, [3], which is full of links to different androids. You'll see that they use the terms "android" and "humanoid robot" interchangeably. Also look up the definition at [4].

I know the T-800 series Terminators combine living tissue with a robotic endoskeleton. My point is that that's not a cyborg, and I'm asking you for a non-Terminator-fan-site source to the contrary. I know that the Terminators are referred to as "cybernetic organisms" in the movie but that's not a generally accepted definition of cyborg. A cyborg is a living creature with mechanical parts, not a robot with living stuff stuck to it. The Terminators, with living tissue or without, are what are generally considered to be androids outside the Terminator universe.

And no, this debate is not closed by my status as an Administrator. TomTheHand 13:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote from User:TomTheHand: "Ok, you could start at our article for android...."

I did; and EVERY Android listed on that very page featured Robots that PRECISELY mimic human form; in short, "Androids" refer to Robots that LOOK like humans, not just Humanoid (head, two arms, two legs) Robots. By the way, the [5] Website does the same.

Untrue on both counts; for example, our article for android has Kryten, C3PO, and Maria from Metropolis (film) as example androids, and the web site has ASIMO, the Honda P series, and HUBO listed as among the world's greatest androids. TomTheHand 05:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're JUST looking at a limited set of creatures that bear the moniker "androids," and applying that generic label; however, we are as Wiki writers required to go to Androids EVERYWHERE that they are found, and while a few selct sites and definitions are so broad as to classify even IG-88, Optimus Prime, and C-3PO as "androids," the fact of the matter is that THE VAST MAJORITY of Androids throughout all of literature don't just have a head, arms and legs, but ALSO pass for human (and sci-fi literature, of course, is where nearly all androids "originate"). By the way, the top of the Androidworld.com page defines an android as: (Quote) "...An android is an anthropomorphic robot - i.e. a robot that looks like a human..."

A Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 looks no more "like a human being" than my own endoskeleton does. That is, of course, unless said endoskeleton is fitted with either rubber skin or flesh and blood, of course.

In similar fashion, while the real-world definition of a "cyborg" MAY be "an organism that has cybernetics installed," we are once again dealing with a fictional charcater in literature, and in literature, THE VAST MAJORITY of creatures called "cyborgs" are creatures that combine living flesh and cybernetic technology in virtually any amount; and please note that the term "cyborg" has no definition anywhere that mandates exactly how the flesh and blood/cybernetics must interface with one another. And to repeat what was said previously, a fictional character in literature must needs be defined by contemporary literary terms as well as real-world ones, wherever possible.

(One might even argue that sometimes, perhaps, the literary definitons of a given person place or thing should supersede the real-world defintion of same.)

Really? Dump the weasel words and show me. TomTheHand 05:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To recap and restate my original argument:

• Cyberdyne Systems Model 101, type 600/800/850, without cosmetic infiltration enhancements: humanoid robots.
• Cyberdyne Systems Model 101, type 600/800/850, with rubber skin, as well as the type 1000 and type T-X: Androids.
• Cyberdyne Systems Model 101, type 600/800/850, with fully functional, flesh and blood cosmetic infiltration enhancements: Cyborgs.

Thanos777 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: TomTheHand, why don't you look at the very soruces that you cited: namely, the Android Article, the Androids.com Wewbsite that you cited, and the various defintions (and pictorial examples) of "cyborgs" given at any number of Dictionary Sites across the Web?? Not to mention the cyborg article right here in Wiki??

Seriously, what more do you want?? Thanos777 05:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, as I said, what you've said about the android article and web site is untrue: our article for android has Kryten, C3PO, and Maria from Metropolis (film) as example androids, and the web site has ASIMO, the Honda P series, and HUBO listed as among the world's greatest androids. The cyborg article says exactly what I said: a cyborg is a cybernetic organism, and an organism is a living creature, which a Terminator is not. "Android" is an entirely correct term to use in the article, and I've shown evidence that it is widely used to mean a humanoid robot. Using "cyborg" in the article is highly debateable and you've yet to say anything beyond "just look for the information and I'm sure you'll agree with me!" TomTheHand 13:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And so, the "Game" of Deconstruction begins.

Quoting TomtheHand (paraphrasing): "Kryten is an android."

Response:Presumably you've watched at least a few episodes of "Red Dwarf;" note Kryten's approximation of humanoid features. Of course Kryten's an android! Please note that no one here, nor any definition that you could find of "android," ever said that an android must exactly match a human in appearance; the determining factor seems to be, in all such instances of androids, that the robotic frame have at least some (usually otherwise useless) cosmetic enhancements to bring the robots appearance closer to human. Again, humanoid robots like C3PO and the CSM-101 'base model' don't fit the definition of "android" because their forms don't look human, nor are intended to be, which seems to be the case with the vast majority of 'androids' in fictional literature (where the vast majority of androids exist in the first place).

The difference between "androids" and "humanoid robots" is the attempt to make the robot in question resemble a human being. Once again, by your very loose, self-assigned definition of what consitutes an "android," virtually ANY robot with two arms, two legs, and one head would be termed an "android...." everything from the Transformers to Giant Robot. You may keep saying the same things, over and over again as many times as you want to, but at the end of the day the fact remains that the VAST MAJORITY of all Androids ever 'created' refers to robots that are not only humanoid in structure, but which also makes at least a partial, cosmetic attempt to appear either identical or close to human. Kryten is one such example; a Terminator Model 101, which looks AT BEST like the human skeletal system, does not.

Quoting TomtheHand (paraphrasing): "C3PO is an android, and the 'android' Article in Wiki says so."

Response: No, it doesn't, not per se; the Article says that by the most technical definition, C3PO may be considered an Android because he mimics human behaviors, NOT because of its humanoid frame. I'll point out something else: where else in all of literature does it say that an Android is an Android in part because it mimics human behaviour?? This Wiki Article is the very first place I've ever seen that uses this requirement as a definition, and by that arguably loose logic, Number Five, K.I.T.T., the Andromeda Ascendant, and the machine people of the "Batteries Not Included" movie would technically be considered androids, but of course they are not.

Quoting TomtheHand (paraphrasing): "Maria, from the 'Metropolis' Movie, is an android."

Response: Of course; for the same reasons as Kryten, above, even if the only thing that looks human is her face; the terminology of the "android" monikerlies in the attempt to give the robot cosmetic human features in whole or in part. Just having a head, two arms and two legs doesn't cut it, and a creaure that looks like a human skeleton certainly doesn't even go that far. (Maria even had breasts -and I'm pretty sure that they weren't for nursing future 'botlings.')

By the way, Maria is/was a gynoid.

Hopefully, you've watched the movie "Metropolis" by now (as well as the released-in-recent-years Anime that paid homage to same, but which name I forget right now).

Quoting TomtheHand (paraphrasing): "The Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 is an android; and the androidworld.com website says so, in so many words."

Response: You're probably better off sticking with the definition at the top of the page. Please notice that the various paragraphs, apparently written by a whole slew of different 'authors,' interchange 'humanoid robot' and 'cyborg' for any number of the robots on the site....some of which don't resemble humans in the slightest degree -one such so-called "android" is only about a foot tall and looks for all the world like the old 'bot' that you could get for the NES to use with gun shooting games(whose name escapes me right now) -nor do those bipedal 'bots even attempt to duplicate human behavior, apparently. Those paragraphs which describe the bipedal, non-human resembling robots featured as anthropomorhic robots, are probably the most accurately described robots on the page.

All androids are anthromorphic robots. Not all anthropomorphic robots, however, are androids...unless, again, you want to call everything from Red Ronin to Gigantor to Unicron "androids."

Taken in context, the differing authors of the differing Articles on the website don't even seem to have their own terminology right; again, were I you, I'd stick to the definition at the top of the page (which if I'm not mistaken they got from Webster's).

• And here: [6].
• And here: [7]
• And Here: [8]

Quoting TomtheHand (paraphrasing): "The Honda 'P' Series and the ASIMO are examples of androids, and the Website points this out."

Response: You'll need to try again. Honda owns both the 'P' Series and ASIMO anthromorphic robots; and even within the same site, they mix up the terms "humanoid robot" and "android," too. And when you go to Honda's Website, they NEVER use the term "android," neither for the ASIMO nor for the 'P' Series which it was developed from. Which means to me that at the very least, that it was not Honda which wrote the articles in the website, but the term-mixing owners of the site themselves.

I'll let you in one more tidbit of information: all over that Website, they refer to every human-like robot on the site as "androids."

This should help disabuse you of the notion that the site owners know which terms are the right ones: Robots that look like human females are called Gynoids, NOT Androids.

Quoting TomtheHand (paraphrasing): "The 'cyborg' Article in Wiki agrees with me in the definition of what a 'cyborg' is, and the Terminator simply doesn't fit this definition. Also, a cyborg is a living thing, and a Terminator is not."

Response: Once again, you seem to be reading only part of the article. The Wiki Article, in its entirety, describes real-life and fictional Cyborgs of all sorts, and of all different levels of mechanical/biological ineraction, from the real life examples of people with artifical hearts and prosthetic limbs, to the literary examples of Robocop (biological brain and face only), Motoko Kusanagi (Biological brain and spinal cord only), and even the Bicentennial Man, who started out as a humanoid robot (in the movie; I don't remember if he was an android in the book, as I read that literally decades ago), but added more parts to his body as time went on; by the end of the Novel (and it went pretty much the same way in the movie), he is almost completely human.

To "seal the deal," as it were, the Wiki "Cyborg" Article links to a subcategory called Cyborgs in fiction. You get two guesses as to the cyborgs listed there -as long as your two guesses are Cyberdyne Systems models "T-800" and "T-850."

And by the way, the flesh and blood attached to the endoskeleton is indeed composed of living tissue..as evidenced by the necrosis which took place after the Terminator's first series of encounters with Reese and Connor.

Quoting TomtheHand (paraphrasing, from Edit page): "The term 'Model 101' is apparently the Arnold-type and does not refer to the endoskeleton."

Response: Simply and in a nutshell.......incorrect.

The Model 101 is the "base" model, the endoskeleton without cosmetic enhancements seen in all three movies. It is what is added to the Model in the films, which determines the model's Type Number (also interchangeably called 'series').

By Kyle Reese's own words in the Movie (played by Micheal Biehn), the T-600, or 600 Series had rubber skin and were easy to spot -and which, by the way, 'transformed' the Model 101 from "humanoid robot" to "android" by technical definition.

The Terminators that appeared in the first two films were T-800s/Series 800, both the Arnold Schwarznegger and Peter Columbo version (Arnold's long-time friend and sometime stunt double, who appears in the future sequence in the first film); these were, according to Reese' the first of the new series of Infiltrator Units which could only be spotted by dogs. Here is the script of the Terminator 2 film, wherein we are told that Arnold is, indeed, a series 800. [9]

Lastly, the T-850/Series 850, in Terminator 3, had a detachable micro-fusion (fission??) power supply. By the way, here's a website showcasing the official merchandise from a release from McFarlane Toys, licensed to make the official toy line. [10]

For the record, apart from the clearly visible structural changes in the T-850 (namely, the detachable power supply), we the viewers are not, as a general rule, made aware of what changes (if any) are or were made to the endoskeletal structure of the Model 101 units from Series/Type to Series/Type.

I need to inform you in advance that I soon intend to alter the Article once more, pending your response.

Thanos777 05:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would request that you wait and allow others to weigh in on this issue rather than simply edit warring with me, as I will simply revert your edits again if you make them. Perhaps we could work out a compromise: what do you think about using the term "humanoid robot" universally in the article? TomTheHand 13:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not at all intend to perform an edit without further discussion, hence the "pending your approval" phraseology in my last missive.

And just like you, I too would like more people to join in on the overall "discussion;" unfortunately, Wiki discussion is so darned SLOW compared to the speed at which Forum discussions take place.

As to the compromise you discussed: Would there be any problem in calling the Terminator Endoskeleton either an "anthropomorphic robot" or a "humanoid robot," calling its endoskeleton with rubber-skinned cosmetic enhancements "android...."

...and waiting for more discussion/debate before coming up for a name ("Cyborg" or something else) for its endoskeleton/flesh-and-blood gestalt??

For now I would say, however, that IMO the "humanoid robot" moniker wouldn't fit the Terminator in all its guises, especially since it precisely fits every definition of "android" in its Type/Series-600 configuration.

Let's wait for some of these folks to show back up (most if not all of which I will send PMs to in the following days), and see what shakes out; in any event I will certainly leave the Article alone until further notice.

Thanos777 03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been keeping up with this discussion, sort of. Some of the messages are so long I ignored them. Read as: Keep it pithy. No bloviating. That's my job. Now, my opinion is this. The Terminator refers to himself as a cybernetic organism. So, I have no problem with that term being used. An android is a robot that looks like a man, so I'm down with android too. A humanoid robot is a robot that looks vaguely like a person. All of these terms fit. So, the question really is, which one should we use? Cybernetic organism sounds the coolest, and it's the only one used in the movie. But, I think everyone would agree on the term "robot". I say, in the interest of reaching a consensus, we should use "robot" as everyone will agree that that term works here. Thus, it shall be as I have said. The debate ends here. ColdFusion650 14:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. When TomTheHand said that Model 101 refers to the appearance, he was correct. Whoever it was that called him wrong, is wrong. For about $9 you can get the Extreme DVD and listen to the commentary. James Cameron his own self said it. "Model 101 refers to the Arnold appearance. A Model 102 would look like someone else." Please don't be so pompous when calling someone wrong unless you are absolutely sure you are correct. Because then you just look like an idiot, and in this case, a bloviating idiot. ColdFusion650 14:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, a few things.

• First and foremost, throwing insults ("a bloviating idiot") around in a debate is not only uncivil, but entirely uncalled for and only weakens your position.
• Your opinion is not the only one that matters. Just because you want something your way doesn't mean that's how it'll happen. Please honor consensus.
• All that said, I most definitely agree that this entire argument has become bloated and very, very hard to follow. I've been reformatting sections of text where I can, but I found it a lot easier to just ignore the hard to follow back-and-forth and just give my two cents (below). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My entire point was to find a concensus, and I believe I said that. That having been said, my opinion is the only one that matters. ColdFusion650 00:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you're joking, and find the above statement amusing... EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was kidding. ColdFusion650 01:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Phew. I've heard the exact same words come from people who weren't kidding. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is James Cameron, not ColdFusion650. As the creator of the Terminator franchise, I feel as if I can authoritatively weigh in on this issue. I feel that, in the interest of reaching an agreement, the article should use the word "robot". I would consider this a personal favor. And remember, this is James Cameron, not ColdFusion650. ColdFusion650 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional discussion re: Terminator classification

My personal take on it:

• The base machine (the endoskeleton) is a robot
• The base machine with rubber skin... meh, I guess it could be called an android (to quote the article: "An android is a robot made to resemble a human, usually both in appearance and behavior.")
• The flesh-covered endoskeleton could reasonably be considered a cyborg, though we can complete bypass this by calling it a "cybernetic organism", which is the exact phrase used in Terminator 2 ("I'm a cybernetic organism. Living tissue over a metal endoskeleton." Source).

"Android" could be used as a general catch-all term for all three states, but is (apparently/obviously) not as specific in most cases as we could get (which, I think, is something to be strived for in this case). But that would be similar to calling a Sequoiadendron merely a plant (a true statement) as opposed to a tree (a true statement, but more specific). That make sense? EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the breakdown as far as considering the base chassis a robot, it's rubber-skinned infiltrator variety an android, and finally the flesh-covered variety a cyborg. The flesh may not be vital to the fucntionality of the robot itself, but it is vital to it's designated function as an infiltrator, and as it is living tissue, technically it makes it a cyborg. "Cybernetic organism" is a good alternative as well, we could go with that as well. Tani unit 04:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think sticking to "cybernetic organism" (and eschewing "cyborg" almost entirely) is the safest phrase; it is utterly impossible to argue against it, as opposed to "cyborg", which could conceivably be debated (I'm not as familiar with T1, so I'm not sure if it used in that... and I'm not in the mood to watch the abomination that is T3). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

To quote Kyle Reese in Terminator 1:

Alright, listen. The terminator is an infiltration unit, part man, part machine, underneath it's a hyper alloy combat chassis, microprocessor controlled, fully armoured, very tough. But outside, it's living human tissue. Flesh, skin, hair, blood - grown for the cyborgs.

I don't know if you'll consider this definitive evidence, but there you go. If you want to check, I got that phrase from this website: http://sphex.tentacle.net/respect/terminator.php King Zeal 13:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That was my thinking as well. In the car chase where they're on the run from the cops he calls it a cyborg, although he immediately clarifies it to cybernetic organism. I tend to agree with Evula that its a better term to use in regards to the 101 series. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SMegatron (talk • contribs) 13:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm not convinced that putting artificial skin on a 100% robot makes it a cyborg. By that logic I could glue a human finger to my bicycle and it's a "cyborg." This isn't any sort of official designation, just my gut: cyborgs are humans + machine parts, not machines + any living tissue. --MattShepherd 13:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, the skin is living tissue that is vital to terminator's function as an inflitrator. Also, terminator chassis is clearly designed to accomodate such disguise. Finally, while not specified in the film, but according to Randall Frakes' novellizations, terminator includes components that function to keep the skin alive. To reiterate - the skin is part of its design and function, which is a far cry from glueing a finger to a bicycle. Tani unit 16:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But it's still not an organism - a living creature. I'm aware that it's referred to as such in the movie, but it isn't one; the movie uses the term "cyborg" incorrectly. This is an encyclopedia, and we should use the most correct definition, which is "android." TomTheHand 19:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. A cyborg doesn't have to be originally organic creature with mechanical parts, it can be a mechanical being with organic parts. And live tissue including skin, blood, and probably some muscle as well is definitely "living". Tani unit 19:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A robot with living skin stuck to it doesn't meet definitions of life. A "cyborg" is a cybernetic organism, and an organism is a living creature. A robot with living flesh on it is not a cyborg any more than a rock with lichen on it is.

I don't see us agreeing on using the term "cyborg" in the article, and so I think we'd be best off seeking out a compromise term. I think "humanoid robot" works, as some of us find "cyborg" objectionable when applied to a non-living creature, and others believe "android" cannot apply unless the robot in question is able to pass for human. TomTheHand 19:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we just use "robot"? Skip the whole debate. Everyone agrees on robot, yeah? Then just do that. Unless you enjoy arguing, and then proceed as you wish. ColdFusion650 00:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see my statement above about how "robot", while technically accurate, is potentially not the best phrase. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

While I think all of us agree that a more precise term could be used, all of us disagree on the precise term to use: some of us think cyborg is wrong, some of us think android is wrong. TomTheHand 02:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea, ladies and gentlemen: Why don't we find a way to say that in the movie, the living tissue/combat chassis was called a cybernetic organism?

e.g., a sample sentence on this Article might read, "The CSM-101 T-800, which consisted of the Model 101 endoskeleton as well as its 'camouflaging' flesh and blood exterior, was alternately termed a 'cyborg' and a 'cybernetic organism' in The Terminator by Resistance agent Kyle Reese and by the T-800 himself in Terminator 2: Judgment Day (although there is ongoing debate both within and without the Terminator fan community as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of these terms)."

How's that, folks??

This way, we preserve the naming conventions applied to this character in the film while simultaneously maintaining Article neutrality.

I'm not saying we adopt my exact words or phraseology, but am just throwing this out as an idea.

What say you all??

Thanos777 02:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanos777, your overall idea sounds good to me, but I have a couple of issues:

I don't think it's necessary to say "the accuracy of the term is debatable" or anything like that. I think we can say in the introduction paragraph that the Terminator is referred to as a cybernetic organism or cyborg in the movies, without making any judgement in favor of or against the term and without implying that there's any problem with it at all, as long as it's properly qualified: "is referred to as a cyborg," not "is a cyborg." However, I'm opposed to replacing every occurrence of the word "android" in the article with "cyborg.". If "android" is unacceptable to you, I'd suggest that we use "robot" or "unit" throughout the article instead.

Also, as has been mentioned several times, "Model 101" does not refer to the endoskeleton. Per the script for T2, the endoskeleton is the "800 series." Per the novelizations, the Model 101 is the Arnold type, and other models have different external appearances. TomTheHand 02:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: the actual use of the words "android"/"cyborg": We don't have to use either of those words at all if the wording is done just right. For one thing, none of those words appear all that much; for another, we can simply get a bit more creative in our writing and put in the word "Terminator" or "it" or some other term instead.

I think that I'll copy the Article and start working on that, then presenting the "finished work" in my Talk Page or something for all to see before submitting the finished result....

====================================================================================

Okdoky...

Hes a fricken cyborg. Hes called a cyborg by an inuniverse chractor. If you want to argue that its not the correct description of a cyborg because it does not match his on screen description then you need to edit this entire article.

" The Terminators most common weapons are prop guns and rubber knives designed to look deadly but be harmless. Also he only drives cars that are being towed by trucks with cameras in them."

Requested opinion, and what should actually be done about this.

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)

Learning

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)

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)

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)

It's ludicrous to say that the ability to learn is turned off completely there must be some ability to do so, anytime he acquires new knowledge he is learning. Let's stay with what we know with the movies and not assume skynet gave it anything like swearing knowledge, etc. And the one in the first movie was not infiltrating a military environment, unless you consider a police station that, which he didn't know he would have to do ahead of time. I don't recall in any movie it says it's ability to learn was impaired, the only part I remember about this is when it tells John in the car it can learn, and not that it can be shut off, etc. The snare 02:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"T-800", where the term came from, and possibly the Mother of All Cites

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)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:T-800.jpg

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)

Kyle Reese refers to the Model 101 as "new", replacing the older rubber-skinned 600 series. However, the fact that the scene was deleted makes its canonicity dubious.

what kyle means "new" is that the t-800's disguise/camoflage covering is new, skynet had the infiltartion covering tech some time before 2029, and t-800 machine was perfected and finaly released in 2026 into the battlefields (3 years before skynets defeat in the old timeline) but only in 2029 skin covered infiltartors were deployed directly ans witnessed by techcom rebels —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.76.33 (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

T3 as canon

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)

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)

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)

T-101/T-800/T-850

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)

The Terminator 3 video games list him as a T-850. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.255.36 (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Video games are not canon, so therefor unless someone can find proof it is not true. General Mannino (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you would read previous sections in the chat, you would see that this has been argued about a million times. Read and see... GEM036 (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

20 century small arms cannot destory Terminator?

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)

Uncle Bob

Is there any specific reason for Uncle Bob to redirect here? Zazaban (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Should it be redirecting somewhere else? ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Bob's your uncle? Zazaban (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

A Free Terminator picture

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)