Talk:Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles/Archive 2

Second season
There will be a 2nd season on September, no?--69.70.33.100 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, as it says in the first paragraph of the article. Fletcher (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Catherine Weaver
I know there's an obvious similarity to Robert Patrick's T-1000 character, but until we see a model number confirmed on the show, or people find a link to corroborate this, leave it out of the article. And stop adding Cromartie as a T-888. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a way to dissuade people from continuing to add that is to mention the possibility of it, something like Catherine Weaver (Shirley Manson) is a shape-shifting Terminator disguised as the CEO of a multinational corporation called Zeiracorp, which seeks to bring about Judgment Day. --P shadoh (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good call. Added the 'shape-shifting', and a note to editors about the model number. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the official Fox site, she is a T-1001 you need to go to the "SAMSON AND DELILAH" episode and go to the bottom of page 3 for confirmation. Is that enough to warrant adding her model number? magnius (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Just didn't want people jumping to conclusions and thinking she's a T-1000. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, she's a T-1001, does that need a new wiki page creating? magnius (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * maybe when we find more information about a T-1001, for the moment, we could probably add information to the bottom of the T-1000 page.--C.J. (talk • contribs) 00:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing for less dedicated viewers
I am reluctant to wade in too heavily, due to the enormous amount of excellent work that has been done. The article is very good for the dedicated fan. The density of the text, however, is a bit much for a reader with little background or a more casual watcher, so forgive me if I add a few sentences to make it more available to that group.Apollo (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Kyle Reese
Kyle Reese is mentioned only briefly in the list of characters. Does Warner Bros. consider him to be a major character or a minor character? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At present he's only been featured in Derek's flashbacks, so I would say...minor. – xeno  ( talk ) 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No,he has  been  seen  in  dekker's  birthday  as  a  kid.(sorry,but  don't  tell  me  to  call  deker  john  ecause  nobody  but   Furlong(as a kid)  and  nick  is  john  in  my  point  of  view.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.42.137 (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of not confusing people, you should refer to the character by their character name, not the actor's name. Don't get all emo and ruin everyone elses knowledge just because you don't like something. 192.158.61.140 (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnius (talk • contribs)

Terminators and Cylons
Is it just me, or does the behavior of the T-1001 greatly resemble that of the humaniform Cylons in the first two seasons of the newer Battlestar Galactica, particularly ine her constant religious references? LordShonus (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Never seen BG, but that reeks of original research and cannot be added, unless you can find a third party to cite this. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I'm a huge fan of BSG and a big sci-fi nerd in general, and that never crossed my mind.  Even now that you mention it, I don't see it. --P shadoh (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Cancelation?
A lot of rumors going around that Fox cancelled the show, but others say that Fox said it was not true. Can anyone confirm/deny this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.137.151 (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

These rumors are not true. Reliable news sources such as Variety and Hollywood Reporter reported today that the second season has been expanded to 22 episodes (the order was initially for 13, later upgraded to 15 and now 22). I think the links to those rumors should be removed now that they've been proven to be false. Kasnie (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Derek Reese
Currently Derek Reese is a redirect. If he is a series regular now, perhaps someone should turn that into an article. Note that there's a discussion on the minor character list's talk page about it when Derek Reese had more screen time that other so called regulars. 70.51.8.219 (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there enough information there to warrant it's own article? I would say probably not. ColdFusion650 (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We should move the minor character list to a full one then, create little intros to John, Sarah and Cameron's articles, and merge Cromartie and Ellison into there then. Alientraveller (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Cromartie and Ellison articles seem to be large enough to be on their own, unless a lot of that is unimportant and can be taken out. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Alientraveller has the best idea. Look at List of Torchwood characters for a good example of how that is done. Even the characters for whom there is a lot of real-world information can still more suitably fit that article (as for example, the John Hart character in Torchwood).~ZytheTalk to me! 16:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Dudes,the shitty  characters  introduced  in  TSSC  doesn't  need  main  page.Dekker's  John  and  Lena's  Sarah  needs  their  main  page  just  like  Optimus  of  Unicorn  Trilogy.I  won't  let  them  ruin  the  original  film  trilogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.42.137 (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic new source
About the casting of Manson, Dillahunt's role, guest characters, not seeing John in school anymore, the development of the series, etc. etc. Gotta incorporate it later. ~ZytheTalk to me! 16:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Critical Reception
This whole section is totally out of date, all quotes relate only to the pilot. If there is to be this section we need quotes on the series as a whole. If the section is only about the pilot then its simply not worthy of having its own section.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but the negative reviews were dug out of who knows where.. What is "La Lámina Corredora"?? They don't even have a wiki-article.. Why is their brief, non-descript opinion worth noting? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure who added Tim Goodman's opinion, but they neglected to make it more clear that he too had only seen the pilot at the time of writing the review. Taken out of context this kind of criticism could appear to be directed at more than it actually is, and trick people into thinking that the reception section applies to the series beyond the pilot rather than needing further improvement. Faijer (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler alert anyone?
The last senctence in the character description of Summer Glau is a huge, orbital spoiler. It isn't needet at all and curiously lacks any source references. Maybe a bad intentioned spoiler? 81.182.236.100 (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This was in one of the episodes during the fall. So I don't think it's a spoiler any longer.  --TreyGeek (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That, and Wikipedia policy is pretty explicit in the fact that spoiler tags have no place in articles. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

International distribution
I removed the large table outlining the channels and times TSCC airs in other countries, under the pretense that Wikipedia isn't TV Guide, and was reverted. After a cursory glance at other TV show articles, I did not find any similar tables. What is the rationale for having such a table? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps ask about past precedent at WT:TV. As to its rationale, perhaps because it lends to the notability and international impact of the subject. – xeno  ( talk ) 15:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Such a table can be found here and a similar list can be found here. kingdom2 (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that one of the talking points of the article has been ratings both local and international. Basically, the international releases are pertinent to this show, but not to all shows.  Not all shows are even internationally released, for starters.  --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Question
In the previous episode that aired on March 6, "Ourselves Alone", in that at the shooting range scene Derek asks Jesse that "April 21st 2011 is his Judgment Day" Then asks Jesse for her date. So wouldn't that confirm that they might not be from same timeline. So could something about that be added here? -- Gman 124 talk 14:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this alternate timeline thing first came up when they had kidnapped the guy that tortured Derek (in Jesse's timeline) and Derek didn't recognize him. So yes, it should probably be worked in there. –  xeno  ( talk ) 14:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One more thing, could that also mean that whenever someone comes back in time they change the timeline so history is rewritten and they two different timetravelers never experience the same thing, or would that mean that when they come back in time, that they may end up on an alternative past (not necesarily the past of the future they came from). Gman 124 talk 14:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, here comes the science:
 * By all observations of events, the show would seem to be using a paradox-possible theory of time travel. Meaning that changes a traveler makes do not alter their own timeline but do alter the timeline from that point on.  For all intents and purposes, the timeline after the traveler jumped ceases to be and the timeline between the future exit point the the past entrance point becomes a closed segment in regards to the traveler and future movements of the entrance timeline.  The only flaw in this is John's existance (since he is something on par with a Grandfather Paradox; I'm sure there is a correct term but I'm not really going to look it up), but that can be explained by the fact that Skynet got initial development and control of time travel and that very event changed the timeline drastically.
 * At least, those are the theories. Current research into recursive time loops should pan out one way or the other soon enough to see how paradox actually works. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While I love trying to wrap my head around time-travel paradoxes (paradoxii?), we should really only report here what can be gleaned from watching the show or in reliable sources about the show. – xeno  ( talk ) 15:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In English, paradoxes, or for someone who's picky, paradoces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.36.74 (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd made a normal response, and then the edit above mine conflicted it. Decided to go with the flow.  If you want, I could source my response properly. *chuckles* I'm just paraphrasing actual research in context of the show.  At any rate: The original issue of diverging timelines is covered pretty clearly though the aformentioned "kidnap episode".  It's not even close to OR to state that the two characters come from differing timlines, though it would be OR to allude to possible/likely reasons why. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't that question supposed to mean "when did Judgement Day come to Australia?"163.1.208.204 (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the question in the show is referring to the differences in their individual timelines, not regional differences. By all information seen in the movies, Judgment Day was a simultaneous global event. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesse
I have to agree that she is a very important character, so I undid the removal of her section. Rework it, but removing it entirely isn't doing a service to our readers, "guest star" or otherwise. – xeno  ( talk ) 18:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is she listed in the main cast credits, or is she still listed as a guest star? If she is still listed as a guest star, then she should be removed from the infobox and the characters section. A character is not considered "main" until they are listed in the opening credits. kingdom2 (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you link me to where it says that? – xeno  ( talk ) 20:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Precedent. Tradition. Whatever you want to call it. Examples: Firefly (TV series), Angel (TV series), Dead Like Me, Lost (TV series), Eureka (TV series), Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series). It was actually decided in discussion on the Buffy article that only 4 of the 12 main characters would be listed in the infobox due to length. With things like this, deciding what constitutes a "main" character and such, because it involves such a high level of POV (proven by the fact that there has been disagreement), there has to be a firm line in the sand. A firm, definite, unarguable line that dictates what constitutes a main character. I was part of a similar discussion awhile back - see here at the "02:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)" stamped comment (the section is really big, I thought I would make it easier on you). Whether or not a character was listed in the opening credits is a perfect line because it neutralizes all those " but he/she is important to the series" arguments. If you let just one thing pass the line, the floodgates open and you are left with this. kingdom2 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have to take a look again to see if she's listed there; is Riley? (especially seeing as how she's dead) – xeno  ( talk ) 21:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This comes up every so often with series articles, but the established practise is that "main character" status is only decided by the producers/network, not in any way by Wikipedia's editors. (This reflects the fact that such status is a contractual matter, not one of screen time, plot involvement, or any other such factor.) As well, per the guidelines for fiction and the television project, we treat the main characters as being all who have held that status throughout the entire series. Accordingly, we keep characters and/or actors in the listings of "main characters" even if the character is dead or the actor has since left the series. If the actor who plays Jesse is only in a guest or recurring rolle, she doesn't fit under "main characters" and should be removed.
 * Again, this is a common question. At the Heroes series article, the same issue arose repeatedly with Zachary Quinto, who plays the role of "Sylar". He did not join the main cast until the second season, and as such was not listed under "main characters" until proof of that change was available. Similarly, Tawny Cypress left that series after the first season, but remains lists as a main character because the article reflect the series as a whole, not "in the moment". Hope this helps. --Ckatz chat spy  18:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * if that's common practice, then have at it, I suppose. – xeno  ( talk ) 18:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Continuity error
Cromardie shouldn't have been able to go through the portal in the first season without artificial skin. Should this be mentioned in the article? -- DataSnake my talk 16:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think without a reliable source pointing this out it would be considered OR. – xeno  ( talk ) 16:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this appears to be erroneous, and IMO it deserves mention. Although I loved the series I wouldn't be surprised if a Continuity Errors section (perhaps including other simple ambiguities) could soon gain a little traction. In response to xeno's objection, the inability to transfer inanimate objects through time (unless they're wrapped in flesh) is an established part of the franchise's creed. I'm not sure how you'd cite, for instance, the scene from the original movie in which Reeve explains this to the LAPD holding him, but it would support the assertion. Stroller (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)  (hope my indentation / threading of this comment is correct)
 * Disagree. Different devices.  Requiring skin was a requirement on the device to send people/terminators BACK in time.  This device moved people/terminators FORWARD in time.  It also seemed to operate in different ways than previously shown. MJ56003 (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically it's odd, but we have no evidence to support that it's a continuity error and even less to make it notable. T-1000s have zero flesh, and yet they make it through just fine; based on that what makes you think that a T-888 can't?  Or that Kyle Reese knew what he was talking about?  For all we know things just have to be "alive" in a sense other than biological, but Future John doesn't want to entirely demoralize humanity by making it known that on some fundamental level of physics the "metal" is alive.  Basically we have no evidence to support any theory one way or another, so there's no point in discussing it since it would all be original research anyhow. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article used to fill a gap
In S02E16 a Wikipedia Article about Insomnia is shown for a few seconds, as the patients file of Sarah is opened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.165.242 (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Canceled
The show has not been renewed for another season.

121.215.210.58 (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not official. It's just some blogger speculating. ColdFusion650 (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree we should wait for official confirmation before editing the article, but come on. Everybody knows it's coming. 75.158.30.198 (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)illisium
 * "Everyone knows" is not really accurate. You think so, but many do not. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't even count the number of times I've seen rumor-blogs like this post about anything from the cancellation to a series to... well, just about anything. Until there is an official source, it's just pointless to make any inclusions. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't give a damn about what some blog says - especially one not involved with the production of the show. If you actually think that's a source that is credible for wikipedia, you have no business editing here. 66.153.225.243 (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but it is by a self-promoting blogger who is posting fake stories in order to drive traffic to her site. Therefore, I'm deleting the link above. 68.73.93.130 (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: it's very unlikely you'll get an affirmative statement from Fox announcing the show's cancellation. It's more likely that, if Fox has decided to cancel it, Fox will simply not announce the third season during their up-fronts, which I believe are in May.

So you need to be prepared for the best way to handle that. It's going to look very silly if, after a couple of years with no episodes and with everyone involved working on other projects, if Wikipedia still reports T:SCC as in production. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow... really helpful there. For what it's worth, I and most people here are well aware of the timeline as to when things will/won't be announced.  So yes, thank you for the obvious, but there isn't any necessity to "prepare".  If it is not announced as renewed with the rest (barring and more detailed announcements before or after), then that is exactly what the article will state.  It's not a difficult edit, really. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really sure what the hostility is for. I was responding to the people commenting above that there should be "official confirmation" or "an official source". I'm glad you understand that no such thing is ever likely to happen, but it's clear at least two people, including some guy who posted under your name above, think that there will be something from an "official source". That's not likely to be the case, especially as WB would be fairly upset if the show was explicitly announced as canceled a few days before the premiere of the movie. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of if there will be a statement released by FOX, as of this point in time any information regarding cancellation of the show is unsubstantiated rumor. As such, it should not be put into the article.  If there is an official statement from FOX or the production company, or if the series is not 'renewed' for the fall television series, then the article can be updated as such.  But again, as of now, there is nothing but rumor and speculation.  --TreyGeek (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the track record of FOX decision making, I wouldn't get too hopeful for a third season. Quite possibly the only show on FOX that isn't likely to be canceled is House. I am convinced that FOX executives throw darts at show titles to figure out which will be in the line-up and which will be dropped. 64.138.206.159 (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a forum for discussion of FOX's unsavory and unwise decision making policies. *cough* So basically, take it to a forum, thanks. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a note. Saw Shirley Manson (Catherine Weaver) on The Late Late Show w/ Craig Ferguson last night (Apr 27 09) mentioning how she was now "A completely unemployed actress and musician" darrennie (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since not a single person seems to remember it:
 * Unless she stated that it was canceled, or any more direct reference was made, that information just isn't usable. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless she stated that it was canceled, or any more direct reference was made, that information just isn't usable. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Debunking cancellation rumors
T:SCC writer Ashley Edward Miller and runner Josh Friedman have debunked the cancellation rumors, as reported here:. (Yes, it's a blog, but it links to the primary sources.) Someone who can get through the semi-block should post this in the article. 68.73.93.130 (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the blog entry or the articles it links to are official. There's a twitter entry from a writer saying that the EW.com report is untrue.  That doesn't mean FOX will pickup the series for a third season though.  It mentions an interview with Brian Austin Green who describes some plot lines for the third season "if it happens."  Still nothing official, and therefore it's still unknown if there will be a third season.  --TreyGeek (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, exactly. As I said, the article "debunks the cancellation rumors", which is important to add to this article given all the, well, CANCELLATION RUMORS.  I did *not* say that the article proves that the series will be picked-up.  Get the diff?  And as far as the Green interview, there's some interesting stuff in there to add to the article regarding the third season IF IT HAPPENS. 68.73.93.130 (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently there should be no cancellation rumors in the article, as there is no evidence to support any. We can't add in info only sourced by blogs and the like, and that goes for both cancellation and non-cancellation information. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my long-winded point. There's no official, verifiable decision made on the third season.  Until there is, there should be mention of cancellation or no cancellation.  --TreyGeek (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since rumours don't belong in wikipedia articles, it would seem to reason rumours about rumours not being true also don't belong. Let's wait for Fox to make it official.  24.222.54.66 (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the conclusion which has been reached. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to announce fellow TSC fans but the show has been cancelled. FOX has taken on a major budget cut due to the trembling economy. TSC budget was too high as it included special effects and etc. You can tell in season 2 the budget was less as the CGI and episode length is less. MAD TV was also cancelled by FOX due to budget. Hysteria2424 (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not on Fox's fall schedule. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i07c80a70350aca7269b65c4c5b987d11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.3 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability of International distribution section?
The international distribution section is useful to readers who want to learn when the show is on in their area but it just isn't encyclopedic and not well supported by citations. Also the requirement to constantly update it and keep it even slightly relevant or accurate is a lot of effort that might otherwise go into improving the rest of the article. Strongly tempted to remove that section entirely. -- Horkana (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally don't care the end result one way or another. However, this issue was discussed here previously and has been archived.  --TreyGeek (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, I guess I'll leave it for now as it still has some relevance but if the show is cancelled it will quickly become less and less relevant and deletion will be easily justifiable. (IF Wikipedia is really trying to be an encyclopedia as some claim then this kind of transient information and news should not be encouraged, but that's a big IF.) -- Horkana (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to disagree. Having an international distribution section appears in some of the few TV show articles I monitor.  In all cases they are largely unsourced.  Using that as a reason would be the easiest way to justify its removal.  I think the claims that the list shows its reach and popularity internationally could be satisfied just as easily with a paragraph or two of prose stating as such, with sources.  --TreyGeek (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

T3 Timeline
Since the article is now semi-blocked, I'll just want to say that I think this info "Furthermore, Friedman stated that the events of Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines occur in an alternate timeline from that of the TV series." should be up in the first summary when talking about that the show follows Terminator 1 and 2. EzelMannen (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to think of a way to word that in without it being too clumsy.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Main Characters correction: Catherine Weaver
Correction and addition to final two sentences: In the episode "Born To Run", Weaver hints at her motives when she asks Cameron, "Will you join us?" through Agent Ellison. In the future, Cameron explains that John Connor asked the same question of a T-1001 during the episode "Today is the Day, pt.2" as an attempt to forge an alliance against Skynet. Feel free to mark, since I haven't yet posted the verifiable source, which are the two episodes mentioned. --AManangan (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Renewal rumors and verifiable sources
There are a lot of folks adding statements and possible sources in regards to a renewal of the show regardless of this weeks announcement by Fox. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a source of facts, rumors and speculation do not belong (WP:CRYSTAL). Also, when you provide a source, please provide verifiable sources; as explained in WP:VERIFY wikis, blogs, and other forms of "self-published" sources (IE Twitter) are not sufficient for citing statements in articles. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a possibility that sci-fi might pick the show up i heard on terminatorwiki.fox.com. All i know is that it's probably cancelled. If Terminator Salvation is successful, that might bring the show back up, but i don't know. I'm praying to God that the show comes back. Anyway, i'm out of words, and i'm still angry about the show's cancellation! But one thing. Were there ever any shows that were cancelled, but picked up by another network? That might set a good example of hope. Ryanbstevens (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keeping WP:NOTAFORUM in mind and using this space to discuss how to improve the article... I'd have to reiterate my opinion on WP:CRYSTAL. Rumors and speculation do not belong in articles.  That's the reason why mention of the cancellation of the show has been removed from the article up until this week.  That, IMO, should hold true for any possibility of the show being renewed.  Until there is official word, it shouldn't go in the article.  --TreyGeek (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: Craig Engler, who is the senior vice president of the Syfy Channel has hinted he will bring up the possibility of purchasing the rights to the show. Whether this will include a brand new season or just the rights to air repeats of seasons 1 and 2 is unknown. This discussion has not yet occured.

http://twitter.com/Craigatscifi/status/1839918505 http://twitter.com/Craigatscifi/status/1952777168 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.184.41 (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Any possibility that SciFi (what what ever they will call themselves soon) picks up the series and in what form is pure WP:SPECULATION. Until there is confirmation of what will happen it is only speculation and rumor and thus does not belong in a Wikipedia article.  I also think that Twitter entries are not sufficient for WP:SOURCES. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that talk of SciFi picking up TSCC is little more than rumor at this point. If the parties themselves make an official announcement of talks, that would be much harder to dismiss as speculation. Third parties musing about the probability that such a discussion may have happened, on the other hand, seems unworthy. - JeffJonez (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why attemtpts to revive the show can not be placed on this page. Or at least offer a section that talks about the cancellation and maybe about intense support from the fans instead of just dismissing all the revival attempts as garbage or as unverifaible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoda317 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Lanie Grace Junk
I'm removing the following from the article. "Fox decided not to renew the show sometime late last year after the first part of the split second season tanked in the ratings. They also said the lack of interest in TSCC caught everyone off guard, especially since it was part of a billion dollar 25 year old franchise and in fact was “outright embarrassing ."

This woman is a false fountain of knowledge. She has repeatedly reported that the show got under 2 million LIVE viewers (WORLDWIDE) during its back nine run, and has claimed to have watched the season finale before it aired (irrefutably, she was proven 100% incorrect when the final episode didn't match her lengthy transcript of her "reviewer copy".)

To save face she deleted the blog about the finale, but she still has kept (to my knowledge)the blog where she claims that the worldwide ratings for the show were under 2 million LIVE viewers. Clearly this is complete and utter horsecrap, as the show didn't even dip below 2.5 million live viewers in its FOX run, during the back nine. Nielsen, and this wikipedia article, say as much... - Deadpool 12:25, 20th May, 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.44.1.200 (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Terminator 3 in Back Story?
In the back story section, it says that in Terminator 3 it was revealed that Sarah died of cancer and that in the show they traveled to the year 2007, jumping over her death. While it is true that she had cancer in Terminator 3, the Terminator 3 story line has nothing to do with the story line of the TV show. It was mentioned that she had cancer in the TV show as well, but it had nothing to do with the cancer she had in Terminator 3. I think the part mentioning the Terminator 3 cancer should be removed. BAD_JR (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Lena Headey in the character summaries
Critical remarks for Lena Headey being cast as Sarah Connor has popped up a few times in the Sarah Connor character summary, which seems to me to be misplaced. The fact that a few reviewers think she's not muscular enough for the role seems less than relevant in a summary section. Thoughts? - JeffJonez (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this really belongs in critical reception. –xenotalk 23:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)