Talk:The Terminator/Archive 2

AMT
I'm quite surprised the tidbit I added a while back didn't get included in the overhaul of the article. It's only a few sentences and the production section isn't terribly large:

"One of the guns seen in the film and on the film's poster was an AMT Hardballer Longslide modified by Ed Reynolds from SureFire to include a laser sight. Both non-functioning and functioning versions of the prop were created. Due to cost considerations, the laser sights used an external power supply that Arnold Schwarzenegger had to activate manually. Reynolds states that his only compensation for the project was promotional material for the film."

I'd add it back, but I get the feeling I'd get reverted, even though it is properly cited. So, whatever. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A rundown of some of the Terminator's weapons, .45 ACP AMT Hardballer Longslide manufactured by Arcadia Machine & Tool, Franchi SPAS-12 made by Luigi Franchi S.p.A., IMI Galil AR, .9mm IMI Uzi.Ncsr11 (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

How did MGM get the home video rights to this film?
How did MGM get the home video rights to this film? I know that Live Home Video/Artisan released on VHS around the mid-90s and that Image released it on DVD in 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.187.195 (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hemdale originally produced the film and was subsequently acquired by Orion Pictures, which in turn was eventually acquired by MGM. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct. Uncited, but inside, source at WB Home Video wanted to release a discount DVD pack of all four Terminator films, but MGM drew a line in the sand, and now the rights, that's to C2 going bankrupt and kaput, has both sides fighting for the rights. Ironically, Orion, MGM, and a few other companies all had WB "ghost" publish their VHS releases in the mid 1990s. Making it more strange, Cinemax has the rights to air Terminator (not a syndicated TV package. like Sci-Fi or your local independent station), and their owned by WB, too. Anyways, 'til sources can be found for my true claims, don't bother adding to article. Thanks. Apple8800 (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Plot summary
"In a post-apocalyptic 2029...". I just watched the movie with this wikipedia article in mind. I didn't see any mention in The Terminator that the apocalyptic future takes place in 2029. This is specified in the sequal(s) or spinofs. So, unless I missed it while re-watching the movie, the year 2029 shouldn't be mentioned in this article. My bad if I'm wrong, but I'd like someone to double check. Munin75 (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The very first thing on screen, even before the opening credits, are the words "Los Angeles 2029 A.D.". Here's a youtube clip of the opening. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Cult and historic status
It should be noted that Skynet has achieved iconic status among many fearful of developments in our world. Wblakesx (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * . Sounds like load of POV to me. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that would be good in the Legacy section Sean 16:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean199813 (talk • contribs)

Plot details
IllaZilla reverted me here, giving the reason, "no she doesn't. at least not in the events of this film." This concerns whether Sarah decides to tell John that Kyle Reese is his father. Now, I think I know the events of The Terminator as well as you do, IllaZilla, and I'm pretty sure that in the last few scenes of the film Sarah does, in fact, make up her mind to tell John that Kyle is his father (eg, in the scene where she says, "Will it affect your decision to send him back, knowing that he is your father."). So respectfully, I think your revert was a mistake. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, she doesn't. here's the scene. The whole point is that she struggles with the decision, now that she has knowledge of the future and her role in it. There's no need to speculate beyond the events of the film, the plot summary is quite complete without this. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose you're trying to be helpful, but that's a very patronizing response. As I pointed out, I'm quite as much The Terminator fan as you are, and I do know the plot. I don't need the YouTube link, as I own all the Terminator movies on DVD (and FYI I hardly use YouTube, as I don't have an internet connection fast enough to make it worthwhile). As I said, at the end of the film Sarah first debates whether or not to tell her future son that Kyle is his father and then in the end she does decide to tell him - why would you suggest otherwise? It's not speculation. The specific line of dialogue she uses when deciding to tell him is, "I suppose I will tell you." Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In the dialogue says "I suppose I will tell you, I owe him that much", but my point is that whether she eventually tells him isn't really relevant to the plot of this film. What's important is that she's struggling with the decision, as she realizes it'll have important repercussions in the future. Also from the way she says it it's not really a firm "yes, I will tell you", it's more of a "I suppose I'll probably end up telling you". Anyway, it's her debating the consequences of the decision that's important to the scene and to the flow of events, not whether or not she makes a definite decision, as the decision doesn't impact the events of the film. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Have to agree with IllaZilla; whether or not Sarah tells John about his father (which she pretty obviously did, given that John talks about him in T2) isn't terribly relevant to this film. From a writing standpoint, it reads better to say that she debates whether to tell him or not. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * From the way she says it, it's apparent that she has decided that she will tell him - it's pedantic to insist that she hasn't simply because she doesn't say something like, "I'm absolutely sure I will tell you this." "I suppose" might suggest uncertainty taken in isolation, but from the scene as a whole it's clear that she has actually made up her mind. That being the case, my change to the plot description was accurate. There's no point in using a wording like "debates" - that's misleading as it implies that there's genuine uncertainty. "Decides" conveys the point of the scene, and it's no less relevant than "debates." Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are right that she decides to tell him, but the point of the scene is the nature of the deliberation, whether she should tell him about events that lie in his future—events that could affect his very existence. The scene is basically about the potential of a paradox rather than the actual decision. I think we could probably do with an extra sentence or so of exposition, because the decision itself isn't really that important, the scene hinges on why she debates about telling him. Betty Logan (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

country
after regularly revisiting i noticed that in the infobox the section "country" has been resetted as i filled in United States numerous times now, to straighten things out i decided to comment here accordingly. since the movie was produced by Gale Hurd (American) through her American company, and written by Bill Wisher (American) and James Cameron (Candian/American) and distributed by Orion (American), with Hemdale at the time (when it was still existing) being largely involved in American movie pictures "Hollywood Company" and having it´s operative Headquarters in both London as well as Los Angeles, and the movie cast being all American actors (technically at the time Arnold did not have U.S. citizenship just yet but still) and with the movie shot in Los Angeles (again America) i guess it is legitimiate that section country reads "United States". therefore i am going to fill just that in for the umpteenth time now and i hope it will not be resetted again ! (same goes for Terminator 2 likewise !) kind regards from germany, yours truly Terminator feind :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.87.84.94 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The film was produced by a British studio, and made by Americans; just like the new Batman films are produced by an American studio and made by a British production outfit. The nationality is not clear cut, and in accordance with the infobox guidelines the nationality is omitted when it's not clear-cut. Betty Logan (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above Hemdale wasn't an exclusively british company, its headquarters were both in Los Angeles and in London! Terminator was done in America by Americans, financing deals don't matter! even the two outer limit stories who are reported to have inspired The Terminator plot/story are American! try and go to Rolls Royce and Bentley and tell them their products are German since they are all owned and governed by German Corporations! :D likewise Batman is "All-American" but for all i care in terms of involvement that makes batman begins&the dark knight accordingly United Sates/U.K. productions.  i don't make the guidelines here but i can tell you that this is beyond stupid in this case ! Terminator1/2 = United States i suggest you set that straight. greetings from germany  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.87.84.94 (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree in some respect, they "feel" American, but Hemdale was a British registered company and there are plenty of cases where the reverse is true, Bond and Harry Potter being notable examples. They are made by British production teams in Britain but the Americans chip in so they aren't proper British films; we can't just ignore the corporate authorship. If you feel it's important to cover then you can detail the particulars in the production section of the article, but the infobox is for documenting clearly unambiguous information. "Country=US" can be interpreted in different ways, the IMDB for instance list it as UK/US, so there clearly isn't a common interpretation for what is denoted by the nationality of a film. For some people it's the director (Canadian), for others the nationality of the studio (British), in other cases where it is made or even the financing. If I had to come down on one side of the fence then I'd list it as an American film, just as I would list Bond films as British, but Wikipedia discourages pushing one point of view over another. In cases like this it's best just to cover the production history and leave the field blank. In terms of the infobox the field isn't that important since it is only peripheral to the film itself, unlike director, writer etc. Betty Logan (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Relevant prior discussions here and here. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hate to bring up something that's been done over and over again, but while browsing the British Film Institute's site, they have The Terminator listed as an American production and list the production companies ( here) as   Pacific Western Productions (American) (American), Hemdale (American), and Orion (obviously American . As it's something as strong and notable enough as the BFI who list everything here as American, is that enough to add the American info to the infobox? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's obviously been updated in the interim then. It seems that Hemdale was bought out in the early 80s by Americans, so it's possible that the BFI weren't aware of that when they had it down as British. On that basis if the BFI are happy to classify it as an American film then I have no objection to that being incorporated into the article, since my objection was purely based on the contradiction in the sources. The BFI don't speak for French/German films though, so even if this resolves the issue on this article it's still an open debate on the T2/T3 articles. Betty Logan (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Cyborg is incorrect.
The definition of a cyborg is a "person" enhanced with machine or robotic parts. The Terminator is a machine with an artificial intelligence C.P.U. as its brain; therefore, not a cyborg. The terminator is an android. I truly think the article should reflect this. LogicalCreator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This was discussed at length at Talk:Terminator (character) and Talk:The Terminator/Archive 1. The consensus was to refer to them as cyborgs, since every single piece of media in the entire franchise refers to them as cyborgs or "cybernetic organisms: living tissue over metal endoskeleton". --IllaZilla (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Kyle refers to the Terminator as a cyborg in the movie, so it really doesn't matter what you think the article should reflect. That's what they call them in the future.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.33.5.111 (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thu, 12 May 1983
I've corrected the dates in the article to 1983, since Kyle's arrival into his past is Thu, 12 May 1983 (not 1984). See, for example, scene 14 in the script here, wherein Kyle asks a cop what the date is, who then responds, "Thursday... uh... May twelfth". 12 May 1983 was a Thursday, but 12 May 1984 was a Saturday. — Loadmaster (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I won't deny that this was a goof from the script, but the film itself clearly states it takes place in 1984. You can see that here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge soundtrack?
The Terminator (soundtrack) is not independently notable. Therefore, since this article is a Good Article, there must be a way to merge without ruining the Good Article. --George Ho (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability of The Terminator (soundtrack) is questionable. The article is small currently, so should it be expanded or merged into The Terminator? --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That seems like a good idea. The soundtrack is a relatively small article, and I've seen quite a few articles on movies with "soundtrack" sections. Meeples10t ~ c 00:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Yes, absolutely merge them. This should be a "no brainer". --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

✅. The whole page needs cleanup after merge. George Ho (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sophia the real creator of both The Matrix and The Terminator
http://jasonskywalker5.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/black-author-wins-matrix/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4TQg-1LWY4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.197.61.87 (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please direct any responses to this to Talk:The_Matrix where the same issue is being discussed. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Reddit interview
Just curious about the Reddit interview. I personally have no doubt that's it's actually Arnie in the interview but I'm not sure if it follows WP:SOURCE that says "the information on the site must be 'reliable, third-party, published... with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". As Reddit isn't really that kind of a site like a published magazine or online newspaper, I'm not really sure if we should use it in an article that's already a GA. Should we take this up further or has it been brought up already? Thank you! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There are multiple ways a Reddit AMA done by a verified participant qualifies, but one that comes to mind immediately is WP:ABOUTSELF. Ylee (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Unmerge soundtrack
A while back I added a lot of more information to the soundtrack section of the article. Can anyone give their opinion on whether or not it's enough to deserve it's own article again? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that it is NOT notable per Notability guidelines. I don't see where the soundtrack "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The citations pretty much are AllMusic which lists information on all albums. You would need at least 1 or 2 citations (apart from general album databases) which discuss the importance of the soundtrack to indicate it is notable.AbramTerger (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If I can find more sources or anything, I'll ask again. Thanks for the quick input! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Siri's Movie Review
Thought this was funny enough to mention. When you ask Siri about the first movie, sometimes she replies: "Oh, just more misunderstood cyborgs getting fried to a crisp. But I heard that the Governor of California was in it." --Zhane Masaki (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Another influence or inspiration
A number of reviewers have noted that there's another source that most likely inspired Cameron to the film, which is Saturn 3 (1980) where a homicidal robot goes rampant on people and has a fixation on a woman. Some reviewers have gone so far as to call it "the blueprint to The Terminator" both in story elements and especially the look of the T-800 exoskeleton:, ,. One film geek forum post (unreliable for just being a forum post) even said that some scenes from Saturn 3 are copied shot-by-shot in The Terminator (1984), Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991), and Aliens (1986). --80.187.110.67 (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Minor Plot Q: Gas truck driver killed?
The Plot section of the main article currently says, "When the [gasoline] truck driver gets out of the truck to see what happened, the Terminator kills him, hijacks the truck, and resumes the chase." All I see is the first driver get knocked down or out. No shredded torso or blood fountains. Did Terminator really kill him (documented in the script?)? Terminator gets into the cab and says to the co-driver, "Get out." and that driver flees (without being killed or harmed). Minor point, but just wondering. AdderUser (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Rewatched last night. You are correct! This has been changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Lady who wrote the script for Terminator and other franchises
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/matrix.asp

http://racismws.com/2014/02/17/original-writer-of-the-matrix-and-terminator-wins-2-5-billion-dollar-lawsuit/ I don't know how true it is.

Majinsnake (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed before, but your second source is a blog and Snopes which I don't believe we use here has already proven that the case has not been won. If such a case had gone through, then there would be a lot more reporting about it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Monthly Film Bulletin source
Leaving this in as a source as unlike a webpage which will can give a 404 error, the print material backs up what was previously discussed on the talk page earlier pertaining to the production countries of the film, and is backed up by the same source (The British Film Institute). I suggest we keep that one for now. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to back up other points, earlier in this talk page history, there was controversy over whether this film was also a British co-production. We moved towards the idea that since the British Film Institute didn't have anything to say about the film's British production (i.e: it not being one), we moved to go with that source. That source originally used to prove that (The BFI Film Database link) had died. Therfore, Using print material published by the same source that states the same information, I feel we should use that one. There is no reason to back it up further than that as it has not been a controversial post since. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Production companies
Unless you have a source, please do not add those as production companies. They are not included in the sources I have, and should not be added. The credits for this film have changed over the time so we need actual sources, not original research. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Original research? Are you serious? The film credits are the source, the primary source. The cast and crew aren't sourced in the infobox because they are already in the film credits. Or do you think we should also source them? Hemdale, Pacific Western, Euro Film Funding, and Cinema '84 are similarly in the film credits, that is source enough. If you believe that these companies do not appear in the original credits and only appear in the changed credits then prove it. At the very least tell me of a version of the film that does not mention, for example, Hemdale in the credits. Even the credits of the 1984 theatrical release poster mentions Hemdale. Also, just because the source you provided doesn't mention Hemdale doesn't mean Hemdale wasn't a production company involved in the film. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Furthermore, the AFI does indeed mention that Hemdale, Pacific Western, and Euro Film Funding are in the credits. Similar to the cast and crew, I will be adding Hemdale, Pacific Western, Euro Film Funding, and Cinema '84 back to the infobox without sources because the film credits already mention all four. The overwhelming majority of film infoboxes list cast/crew/companies without sources simply because they are already in the film credits, the primary source. -- Wrath X (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Mentioning Hemdale isn't enough. And just because it's listed in an introduction "Hemdale Presents" doesn't make it the a production company. Sorry Wrath. Find a source first. "Hemdale presents" "production company = Hemdale Pictures" I'm afraid. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto with the prove it. I have, the production companies are listed in the Monthly Film Bulletin article which I've cited, and you've removed twice. AFI's production lists Hemdale, but it's not a British production and "Hemdale presents a Pacific Western Production of James Cameron Film

A Euro Film Funding Limited Feature An Orion Pictures Release" doesn't really tell us who is doing what. I'm sticking with the Monthly Film Bulletin source which is far more specific in what is a production company.Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, "A Euro Film Funding Limited Feature An Orion Pictures Release" tells us that "Euro Film Funding Limited" was a production company and "Orion Pictures" was the distributor. It's common industry formatting. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Things that can be sourced from the film credits don't require another source. They are common knowledge that anyone viewing the film can verify. They can't be used to establish notability, though, as they are not third-party sources. But that's neither here nor there as far as this discussion. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that information from the film itself should generally resolve conflicts over credits. If that's not possible (for whatever reason), then I prefer to cite reliable sources.  Anyway, BFI explicitly says Hemdale was a production company. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with NRP. I will further add that I don't see a problem with sourcing in the infobox as it helps editors unfamiliar with the subject quickly spot any questionable changes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * From further research, Hemdale appears to be a production company as well. This article here notes some details about it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If the film credits say "X presents..." or "made in association with X" etc then that is not necessarily a sufficient basis for a production credit. There are different types of corporate involvement and we should look to secondary sources to interpret the credits for us unless the credit is explicit. Betty Logan (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Cyborgs are modified humans.
Cyborgs are augmented humans whereas androids are synthetic humans in this case. The skin was artificial and only for transport back through time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.154.31 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but in the film they refer to it as a cyborg. It doesn't matter if they called them cyborgs or birthday clowns, we'd have to go with what the films plot says. Even if it isn't 100% correct use of the term. 09:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Would that not only apply to in-universe plot summaries below the introduction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.154.31 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of tags
Please do not remove tags suggesting users to enter a discussion on this page. There is no consensus yet. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Production companies, continued
Please do not add unsourced content to the infobox. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You know darn well that very few film articles have sources for the production companies in the infobox – in fact, it is very rare for the production companies to be sourced – and it is also rare for the production companies to be discussed in the body of the article. Are you making a point of removing said information from other film articles, or are you making a special effort only for this article?  It really feels ridiculous, but it is really not worth my time to argue with you about it. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  00:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't mean that it's right. I try to focus on articles I have worked on or have interest in, especially ones where it was a) controversial to find proper sources (as you mentioned by our discussions, especially since it lead to the idea that this was a British production (something IMDb still states)) and that I try to have state my sources. Just because other articles are not doing it, does not mean we just pull things from IMDb as you have sated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

So now we have contradicting statements, which doesn't help our case. I've added a tag until more information can arise to what the real production companies for the film are. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no controversy here. The film clearly credits Hemdale, as does the AFI and BFI. That is more than enough. There is no need for to clutter the infobox with spurious claims of a contradiction. As Wrath X said in the discussion above, just because the source you provided doesn't mention Hemdale doesn't mean Hemdale wasn't a production company involved in the film. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And then, Andrzejbanas posted this above:


 * From further research, Hemdale appears to be a production company as well. This article here notes some details about it.


 * As the articles says The script was picked up by John Daly at Hemdale Pictures.  There is no doubt that Hemdale was a production company. John Daly and Derek Gibson of Hemdale were executive producers of the film. Enough is enough. I'm removing the claim of "Contradiction" from the infobox, as it is invalid clutter. Andrzejbanas can continue with his arguments on the Talk page, but he has no standing to put that tag in the article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Funny as there are no other mentions of the other production companies. So there clearly is discrepency. Also, stop removing tags until we've reached a conclusion as that constitutes WP:VANDALISM. Being an executive producer, does not relate you to a production company either. Stop applying your original research to state that things are the way they are. As we are really just comparing sites and sources that say "Production Company: blah, blah and blah", we do not really have strong justification with anything. Why would Hemdale be left out of the source I have? Just because you have come to a conclusion, does not mean there is any consensus. I'll stop the contradiction tag, but let's at least have a discussion tag to bring others to the table. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Since when does your source need to be used as the be all end all? It does not override what the film credits, AFI, BFI and other sources indicate. You have no response to the point that Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that you yourself admitted Hemdale appears to be a production company as well. Stop putting in your invalid tags. Anyone watching the page will see this discussion. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm not saying mine is the end all be all. I'm saying there is a contradiction, and you are saying "well doesn't matter", without pointing me to rules that consider this. I'm trying to figure out how to handle it. Also, it's against rules to remove maintenance tags before solving problems. Give me a break! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * When multiple sources and the film itself contradict your one source, there is no contradiction worth discussing.Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And you are not discussing it. You are ignoring all my points above. You're just being contradictory. So your tag is spurious and unnecessary.  - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have other sources that mimic the Monthly Film Bulletin statements (Sean French's book is one). I asked what do we do from here? I want to solve the problem, but you are just throwing me websites at me. I've addressed the Hemdale item on other talk pages which was a stament made years ago when I pushed the article to a GA status. So you gave me two sources (AFI and BFI), and I gave you two as well. Where's this "multiple sources" unless two is considered tons. ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's three, with the film itself. There are others. I don't need to go find them all. Those three are more than adequate. You are not doing anything to "solve the problem". You ignore Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Did your sources say Hemdale was not a production company? Of course not. John Daly and Derek Gibson of Hemdale were executive producers of the film. They bought the script and got the film made. Cameron himself talked about dealing with them at the time of the film's release. You have brought nothing to this discussion that says they were not involved. You are just wasting time. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring absence, i'm acknowledging inconsistencies. It would be absence if I claimed "you can not prove Warner Bros. had nothing to do with the film!" then add it as a production company. Honestly, from all the reading I've done from production companies, it's not always going to be people who worked for companies making it part of the production company. I good example is Iron Man 3 where it had Chinese funding, but apparently didn't become an official US-China co-production. I'm not saying Hemdale is not involved (which you have proven), but I'm trying to figure out why they might not be labeled as an official production company in a good amount of sources (which we have not solved). So we have inconsistency which is not being addressed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Iron Man 3 did not have a "presents" for its Chinese company in the opening credits, so that is not analogous to this. You admit I have proven Hemdale was "involved". Yet you insist on wasting more time on this, while not providing any valid counterpoints to what I gave, as I showed above. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not denying Hemdale is in there somewhere, but we aren't resolving anything. Per These_are_not_original_research. Iron Man 3 was just a random case, but if you really like, I can provide more. I guess providing counterpoints is subjective cause I read your posts, which mostly are saying "oh but this guy is the executive producer, so therfore it's a production company too right?" I'd say no, because it does not mean much and I don't believe it just makes someones related companies become anything else. I mean, a lot of people on this picture worked for New World pictures, but it's not related that way, is it? I'm more concerned is that we have a few high quality sources giving us inconsistent information (which I think you don't seem to deny, but you also don't really want to acknowledge?). I'm trying to find a solution, and I suggest we move forward with following some instructions on These_are_not_original_research. Could anyone help out in this area? it would be greatly appreciated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no contradiction between sources here. Your source not listing Hemdale is most likely an oversight, not a contradiction. Again, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Therefore These_are_not_original_research is not applicable to this. Your bringing up New World and misrepresenting what I said shows you are engaging in straw man arguments. You are not doing anything to find a solution here. This is not a discussion. This is you demanding your source is the be all and end all, even though you denied that. But your behavior is entirely consistent with that. You have no source that says Hemdale was not a production company, so there is no contradiction. Just an absence. You can claim the discussion is ongoing, but it isn't. This is just you demanding your source must agree. Well we don't usually use your source for this purpose, we do use the AFI, the BFI and the film's credits, and you have no consensus for your invalid tag in the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to bring up straw man arguments, I was trying to compare my argument to the nonsense that was being written by Gothicfilm. I am trying to find a solution, like, I said "hey, let's look at These_are_not_original_research" to see what to do next, while you remove my tags (which I can not find any rule saying they require a consensus to stay up btw). I'm trying to figure out why the sources contradict each other. You seem to say "doesn't matter. I found these. Don't care that you found another one that backs up what your saying, I have found this." And excuse me? We don't usually use my source? Do you know what it is? Monthly Film Bulletin is published by British Film Institute. Just because "well I like AFI/BFI more!" does not mean mine is wrong or any less valid. So please stop removing tags, which are still being used and don't assume because you found someone who likes reverting edits and not contributing to the talk page that a solution has been found. I don't think I need to post the rules stating that consensus doesn't mean a vote, it means finding a mutual solution to the problem among editors. I suggested to move forward with These_are_not_original_research. You just haven't shown me anything other than "I don't know what the Montly Film Bulletin or that published book you read is or states, so AFI and BFI are correct"." So when you have time, (and same for me) lets try to dig up more information and see what can be found to get to the bottom of this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again you have no response to what I laid out. Instead you call my points "nonsense" and continue with more of your straw man argument. I never said I didn't know your source. I said we don't usually use your source for this purpose, but we do use the AFI, the BFI and the film's credits. The AFI and BFI (along with the film's credits) are more than enough. You have no answer for that except your straw man argument. You are just repeating the same invalid argument that comes down to your source is the be all and end all. You have not responded to any of my points, particularly that there is no contradiction between sources here. Only an absence. Your source not listing Hemdale is most likely an oversight, not a contradiction. Again, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Therefore These_are_not_original_research is not applicable to this. And consensus does not mean "finding a mutual solution to the problem among editors" when you have an editor such as yourself who refuses to accept what others are telling him. If it did mean that such conflicts would never be ended. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment There is no real contradiction between the sources. Pacific Western is the company that physically made the film while Hemdale financed it and Orion distributed it. The production background to The Terminator is outlined in this Den of Geek artice. The key point here is what is and what isn't a production company is open to interpretation. If you limit the definition to just the company that physically made the film then that is Pacific Western, but if you extend the definition to financiers/rights-owners too then that includes Hemdale (Cameron also had to sell the Terminator rights to Hemdale to secure the funding). Inconsistencies in sources is why we have WP:DUE: if prominent sources (of which the American Film Institute surely qualifies as) count Hemdale as a "production company" then there is no basis for excluding it here. Betty Logan (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in Betty, a few things to add. The Den of Geek article seems to use fan sites as sources, but beyond that, it doesn't address what I think is the new problem is that even the sources mentioned by GothicFilm do not seem to add up. BFI only states that Hemdale "presented" the film as does the opening credits in the film which state "Hemdale presents a Pacific Western Production of James Cameron Film", I'll allow you to correct me if I'm wrong, but from my knowledge, none of these are specifically stating either of them as a production company. Unless you can show me some source suggesting this means this, I'm down. These intro questions just make it more confusing honestly. Gothic also metnioned that "Your source not listing Hemdale is most likely an oversight," "most likely" is the key phrase here. We have no proof of that, and we could run around all day finding a dozen sources and different interpretations. My own conclusion honestly is for now would be to remove the production company credits from the infobox as we can not seem to find a solution to our problem, and not having them does not really limit anybodies understanding of the article or The Terminator, as it does not really enhance or remove any of the prose, especially when we have different sources saying different things. Until more detailed information comes forward that's not out of a database updated from anonymous staff. I'll be happy to do more research at home, but I'm currently on a lunch break. : )Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand the problem here. The AFI count Hemdale as a "production company" while it appears Monthly Film Bulletin do not. This isn't a contradiction it is matter of interpretation. The job of Wikipedia is to present all credible points of view, not to cherry-pick the one that conforms to our own views. The fact that the AFI considers that Hemdale's involvement qualifies it as a production company is not really for us to question, just to document. Betty Logan (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm not cherry picking (or at least, I'm not trying to). But it's beyond AFI and BFI and the MFB and the other published sources stating things that we understand on a talk page, but are not appropriately expanded on the article. For example, as mentioned above, we have about four different sources suggesting what is and was not a production company. Are some there because they are? or are they just not including things? It is not easy to tell, but the fact remains that some state it, some do not and I do not think it is fair for us to assume they are all valid and present it this way. It would be misleading for readers. I'm not even 100% on the MFB being accurate anymore, but it does not make me think that any of the other ones are any better. Basically, BFI does not label it a production company either nor does the opening credits as GothicFilm mentioned above. Wouldn't this be placing WP:UNDUE weight, as WP:UNDUE states that "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.", this is fine when it comes to numeric data where we can say "the population has been stated to be 5000 to 7000 people" or something, I feel like we'd have to expand on it in the prose somewhere stating that "the production companies have been listed as Hemdale, Cinema '84 and ____" instead of just stamping it in the infobox, because I do not think any of us can say just listing them is the accurate way of displaying it here without being somewhat midleading. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of film articles that list production companies without sources giving the specificity Andrzejbanas is demanding. As Betty said if you extend the definition to financiers/rights-owners too then that includes Hemdale. She concludes there is no basis for excluding it here. Andrzejbanas' response is let's take out all production companies from the infobox. He refuses to give up the argument. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm actually moved on to the point where I'm saying either "yes include it in the prose so it's clear" or "remove it, because it's not clear" with me leaning towards the previous statement. Your argument of "thousands of articles not doing this" does not really hold ground with me, as there are several articles that state release dates with out a single source. That's against WP:RS, and these articles can (and eventually will be) fixed. ;P Betty can state "if you extend the definition to financiers/rights-owners too then that includes Hemdale", but that's giving into our own personal definitions which we are not allowed to do, because we are not supposed to interpret things. If it says it's a production company than we have to consider that until someone says it is not. As we've found several inconsistencies, I suggest we expand on this in the prose. Thoughts on that? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no real contradiction between the sources. Two editors have told you that. Repeatedly I have pointed out Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no problem here except your inexplicable determination to exclude Hemdale from the lead and infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not *my* personal definition! It is simply what many sources do. It is why the American Film Institute include it. It is why countless books list Hemdale as a production company. Betty Logan (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll try one more time and keep it short and sweet. I'm cool with it being there, but I'd like to expand on it in the prose to avoid having citations in the infobox where we don't have to. As WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE states, " the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored).". Which is what i'm trying to do. Thoughts? I've said twice (maybe three times now?) that i'm willing to have it there, I'm just trying to have it better. Please assume good faith. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You have worn out good faith with your straw man arguments and relentless disputing of numerous edits. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but I think you are generally a good editor and we're both in a bit over our head. :) I want to make this work, so I propose in the production section discussing the funding, we can add a sentence stating something like "The Terminator has been stated as having Hemdale, Cinema '84, [etc.] as it's production companies after release" or something. That way, we follow WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and we don't have to worry about my issue about the gaps. I think it's a healthy compromise. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit pedantic to me, but go ahead. As long as the companies stay in the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hemdale's role in the production as a financier is already covered anyway. There is no formal "production company" credit. Many companies are listed in the credits and a production company is one that is significantly involved in producing or backing the film. This isn't brain surgery folks! Individual sources have different criteria for what qualifies as a production company and that is why sources are inconsistent in this regard. The AFI count Hemdale as a production company along with many other sources. WP:DUE does not require unanimous agreement between sources. If the AFI count something as a production company that should be enough for Wikipedia editors, unless there is a demonstrable error, but a mere inconsistency is not evidence to that effect. Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm good with Hemdale, but just getting funding is even more confusing. The article currently states that the film was backed by HBO and Orion as well, but they aren't production companies, right? Or are they? Because by the logic of funding they should be, but by every source I've seen, I've never heard them being listed as one. That's why I'm particular to only listing ones that were stated as production companies. How did you feel about the statement that GothicFilm seems to be okay with above Betty? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If I may suggest an alternative approach, we could create a "Notes" section that details all of the companies' involvement and link to it from the "Production companies" field (e.g., "(see notes)". I did this with Wolf Totem (film) because of how many different companies were involved with that film in different capacities. This would give us some breathing room to provide more detail. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea either. I'm good with either. Good show Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Executive producers in lead
Not sure why we have the executive producers listed in the lead of the article. It seems to break several rules:


 * 1) MOS:INTRO states "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." The executive producers are not particularly important as Gale, Cameron or the writers in the project. One sentence is given to Daly, none to the other person. Why are we adding this?
 * 2) Per WP:FILMLEAD, "The first paragraph of the lead section should also identify the director and the star or stars of the film. If any writers or producers are well-known, they can also be identified in the paragraph." Daly I suppose could be, the other person does not seem nearly as important. Personally, I don't think either are as important as Gale.
 * 3) Again per WP:LEADCITE, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." The fact they are executive producers does not seem to be "Complex, current, or controversial subjects", so why bother add it? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:UGC, we don't use wikipages as a source, so, do not remove tags that are being discussed here because another wiki article states something. That's now how we do it (see WP:UGC). Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Daly is mentioned five times in the prose in three paragraphs, not including the lead. He was essential to getting this film made. He was also involved in casting. He and Gibson worked together and were credited together, so it would be inaccurate to leave him out. Stop cluttering the article with your tags. I added a posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film regarding Hemdale, which should bring more people here than your unnecessary tag on the page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

"inaccurate" to leave out sounds strange. I'm not against having Daly in the lead (Honestly, I think the lead needs a re-write). I do not think his credit as the executive producer really needs a mention though. As for the tags, I do not like them either, my advice is to re-write content so it a) matches the source and b) makes it better for readers. So, I'm leaning towards we re-write the lead as a whole, but I'd like your input on that too. My personal preference would be to not include citations in the lead, but am open to it if is required to write something really good that follows MOS:FILM and MOS:INTRO. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As per the "Derek Gibson of Hemdale" tag, Gibson is not mentioned in the book at all. Why did you add that as a source ? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a source for Daly being with Hemdale, only added because you were disputing it. I do not want to clutter the lead with yet more refs regarding every credit. It is a fact Gibson worked with Daly at Hemdale and they were credited together on multiple Hemdale films, including The Terminator. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not what I was saying. You said here "Daly and Gibson were indisputably with Hemdale. See the Daly and Hemdale articles. And this one." But Gibson is not mentioned in The Terminator article. This is followed by a revert, then you adding it back saying "This ref, already in the prose on this page, states it." Not sure what it means, but the book did not state Gibson at all, anywhere, even beyond the page source. I'll assume you either took the source for Hemdale's relation with Daly, but Derek is just not in there. You also just now said that "It is a fact Gibson worked with Daly at Hemdale and they were credited together on multiple Hemdale films", but that's original research and assuming things cause you lack a reliable source. :/ Care to expand on that?Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're disputing of every damn thing is incredibly tiresome. A little research will give you all the films they were credited on together if you're so interested. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid per WP:BURDEN, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" so as it was you who added the content, it's up to you to do it. Not me. But as shown above, you seemed to have grabbed at one that did not source what you want. You just need to find a source that states why an audience needs to know that they they were executive producers. Specifically Derek.Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Any more to add ? If not, I might just try to re-write the lead to cover the article a bit better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing the tag and not dicussing it is not how Wikipedia is run . If you feel it should be used in the lead, please explain. Otherwise, you are just saying the conversation is over, when there was no conclusion observed here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Both executive producers are sourced in the prose and, though it should be unnecessary, in the lead. Their role in Hemdale and that company's importance in getting the film made is not in dispute. It is detailed in the article. Yet you want to endlessly challenge their inclusion in the lead. I do not believe one editor who fails to get consensus for his demand of removing sourced information should be able to endlessly tag an article claiming there's an ongoing discussion when it's only that one editor who refuses to relent. I have once again alerted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film to this dispute, which as I said before, should bring more people here than your unnecessary tag on the page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand one half of their importance, but Gibson is barely mentioned in the article, except once and never mentioned again. Why bother have this in the lead? I'm glad you sought out more people, but as I've shared on your page over 10 times now, you do not remove templates until the problem is resolved. You said it was, but that was with production companies, this is has to do with information (which is at least partially trivial) in the lead. I even asked you if you thought the articles lead could use a re-write or if you could find the importance of him being an executive producer in the lead. Which you have not done yet and only seem to be uspet that an a maintenance tag was added. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You just repeat the same things over and over. As I said before, Daly and Gibson worked together and were credited together on many Hemdale films, so it would be inaccurate to leave Gibson out. You may not like it, but you seem to have a bizarre bias against Hemdale, given how long you demanded Hemdale be removed from the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As an objective observer here... It does feel like the statement, "John Daly and Derek Gibson of Hemdale were executive producers", is kind of thrown-in without any relevant context; it seems random and out-of-place. It should probably be rewritten in a way that shows its significance to the film and possibly combined with the preceding statement covering Hurd. The statement should reflect why it's important enough to be mentioned in the lead. What actions did these individuals take that were instrumental in the film's release? Is there a way to summarize that in one sentence? If not, then it probably shouldn't be in the lead. My 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Their involvement is detailed in the article. The film would not have been made without them. We can add that to the lead if necessary. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that would be useful to add in some limited capacity, being that the lead should be able to stand on its own as a concise summary. Without at least a little more context, executive production would seem random to most readers, as it is usually irrelevant information they would expect to only find in the body. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not random, mentioning them with Hemdale would lead most readers to correctly assume they arranged the financing and got the film made. I don't think more detail is necessary in the lead. Those interested as to why they're in the lead can look at the Production section. But if arguments against their inclusion persist, we can expand the lead and explain their role. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is their role important? Why is their role of executive producers needed? I mean, one is important, but I am curious why we need both and their title credits. As stated before, I don't mind expanding the lead, including Daly's role, but not sure why the credit is really needed in the lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered above. You just repeat the same things over and over. As I said before, Daly and Gibson worked together and were credited together on many Hemdale films, so it would be inaccurate to leave Gibson out. They arranged the financing and got the film made, as detailed in the article. You may not like it, but you seem to have a bizarre bias against Hemdale, given how long you argued that Hemdale be removed from the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not really inaccurate because it's not clear what he has done outside being credited. As there is not references whatsoever to his unique contributions, it seems unimportant. "They arranged the financing and got the film made" is an interesting statement because there is not statement of that in the article, it only mentions Daly. You seem to be putting two separate items together hoping it will connect, and I'm not discrediting Gibson, but so far there's no information outside the credit of what he did or did not do in the film and assuming he did stuff because his partner in the company did would not be accurate. So no, I don't understand why the role crediting them is important, because other than finding out that they did it, it doesn't seem to have a lot of historical relevance to The Terminator's production. Might be a better fit on a page for Gibson. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Andrzejbanas, regardless of how right you believe you are, that does not give you a right to edit war, and especially not to violate WP:3RR, which you have done twice within the last 24 hours. If you keep up this behavior, you will be reported here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Gothicfilm, I just want to make it clear that I'm not taking a position against having it in the lead, but from the perspective of the average reader who isn't likely to know the significance of Hemdale or what it stands for, the last two sentences of the lead's first paragraph (especially the last one) are ambiguous and trivial without additional context. I shouldn't have to read the body to understand why they're there, and just calling them executive producers isn't enough to justify their inclusion. The change that's needed could be something as simple as:
 * I'm not proposing that exact change necessarily, but something along those lines would show why they're being mentioned. Also, Hemdale's full company name would be preferred to add some needed clarification. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what said. If you want it in the lead, it needs more context, and currently it does not. And, I'd like to focus on the discussion at hand, which you have just attempted to derail and deleted any attempts I've tried to discuss it with you on your talk page. Before threatening me with bans and reporting, let's discuss it on your or my talk page and focus on the issue at hand here, not between personal squabbles between editors. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As I would prefer to remain accurate, I would tweak that to:
 * This is because Daly and Gibson did not get involved at the time of the film's "eventual release". They got the film financed and produced. If this version can be agreed upon we can close this discussion. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That change would satisfy my concerns, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I just put it in. Andrzejbanas (the only one who was challenging Hemdale's inclusion since at least November 2015, despite it being in the film's credits and multiple sources like the AFI - see the two sections on Production companies above) has now been blocked for edit warring. No one supported his position, and he had plenty of chances, given his tags and my multiple postings at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film regarding his relentless demands to keep these disputes going. I believe we can now call this issue resolved. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I think the lead looks better now outside the excess sources. There is very little on the reception and other items and I personally feel it's a bit short for a longer film article. I think you have still misjudged my motives on the article, but I do think it is a bit better and less misleading as has said before. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I just put it in. Andrzejbanas (the only one who was challenging Hemdale's inclusion since at least November 2015, despite it being in the film's credits and multiple sources like the AFI - see the two sections on Production companies above) has now been blocked for edit warring. No one supported his position, and he had plenty of chances, given his tags and my multiple postings at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film regarding his relentless demands to keep these disputes going. I believe we can now call this issue resolved. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I think the lead looks better now outside the excess sources. There is very little on the reception and other items and I personally feel it's a bit short for a longer film article. I think you have still misjudged my motives on the article, but I do think it is a bit better and less misleading as has said before. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Another paradox.
I don't have it with me, but I've read that the crushed terminator was examined by scientist & the 'future' info retrieved, was used to create Skynet. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In a cut scene from the film, this is implied, but as its cut and we do not have any sources discussing it, then I would not worry about it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Chase film category
I have re-added the split 1980s chase films cat. Whether or not you think it was necessary to split the category, the category has been here for a long time and not contested. Personally, I do not think it belongs, but it's a relatively minor thing that boils down to opinion on whether the article should exist. Anyhow, the article has been split up. If you think it doesn't belong, I suggest we discuss it. If you think it was Unnecessary to break down this category to decades., then propose the category for a deletion/merging. Looking forward to the comments from, and. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that this is a chase film. Category:Chase films and Category:American chase films survived being nominated for deletion. Jim Michael (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd it really only becomes a chase between the points where the the Terminator has found Sarah Connor, he's really just mimicking Halloween before that stalking and killing. But as I said, i'm not really picky about these kind of trivial details. I'm more against the removal of a category because someone felt it shouldn't have been split. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

So we have Jim Michael, who has been asked repeatedly at WP:FILM to stop creating these small decade categories that go against WP:SMALLCAT, and we have Andrzejbanas, who doesn't even agree with the category but seems to have nothing better to do than promote debates on this page and elsewhere. As can be seen in the discussions above, he argued for weeks to exclude sourced information from the lead and to keep unnecessary tags on the page even though consensus was against him (repeatedly claiming incorrectly that removing them was vandalism), and now he wants us to spend more time debating something he's not even for. If there's no consensus to keep a cat, we can remove it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As ever WP:CATDEF is the policy. If there is no sourced info in the article to support the cat it does not belong here. We don't use an editors interpretation of what the film is. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not a chase film. It's not mentioned in the lead of the film, as it's not a defining element to the film. It does have chase scenes, but that doesn't make the film one. Also, lets look at what the article for chase film states. Oh, wait....  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 18:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hol-ee crap Gothicfilm you are so bitter. :D Chill out dude! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Soundtrack having its own article?
I know I've brought it up before, but I believe the soundtrack can have its own article at this point. Per WP:NALBUM, which states that if the album "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.", I believe the album has now received signifigant coverage from multiple sources (Pitchfork, Spin, Slate, books, etc.). Should it be moved to its own article now? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been over a month and no one has come to discuss this (hey, it doesn't involve the lead paragraph, why would they? ;) ). If there are no further comments, I'll move this to its own article soon-ish. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There have been no further replies. If nobody else wants to comment on it, I'll move it to its own article now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Terminator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512032708/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927235924/http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=132648 to http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=132648
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/67oI7bsRP?url=http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/handv100.pdf?docID=246 to http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/handv100.pdf?docID=246
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716070844/http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/quotes100.pdf?docID=242 to http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/quotes100.pdf?docID=242
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140123115358/http://www.totalfilm.com/news/who-is-the-greatest to http://www.totalfilm.com/news/who-is-the-greatest

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

OR
The Terminator received critical acclaim and many consider it one of the best films of 1984. Positive reviews of The Terminator focused on the action scenes and rapid pacing. is unsourced. Blue sphere  10:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Cameron wrote Terminator
There is no shortage of citations showing that Cameron wrote Terminator in this article, and he is widely, famously known as the author of the screenplay. To not mention, in the first sentence, that Cameron directed and wrote the Terminator is a major omission. The only contentious part is how much Hurd wrote, which according to Cameron was zero, but that doesn't seem to me to be reason to omit Cameron's well-established authorship from the first sentence; we can mention Hurd's credit later in the lead, or put her in the first sentence too if need be. Popcornduff (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Popcornduff and Gothicfilm: OK, let's hash it out here. While technically it is correct to state it was written by Cameron, it is more correct to say co-written, since the credit is officially shared by both himself and Hurd. Therefore to alleviate any confusion in the opening sentence, I tend to side with this edit which defers to the 4th sentence. While there may be some controversy noted in the body about Cameron's claim, it doesn't seem to get a lot of play in sources. Therefore, we should probably avoid taking sides in the lead, and stating written by in the opening line would be a subtle way of taking sides. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We do not put contentious credits in the lead sentence. The writing credit is indicated in the 4th sentence of the lead section. It should not be in both the 1st and 4th sentence, especially when they are in conflict. We reflect the credit, we do not split it, mentioning only one writer and then later a second one. They go together. The 4th sentence was my attempt to indicate there was something unusual, but it would be WP:UNDUE to go into it farther in the lead as Cameron has done very little to draw attention to this. It's mentioned in the article, where it belongs. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Who wrote a film is important and should be mentioned in the first or second sentence of the lead. Right now it's kind of buried, and phrased in slightly mysterious terms. I think either outright stating in the first sentence "written by Cameron and producer Gale Anne Hurd" or moving the current fourth sentence to the second sentence would be an improvement. Popcornduff (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support moving it to the 2nd sentence and rephrasing if necessary. I think trying to incorporate into the 1st would overload it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:FILMLEAD favors putting the stars more prominently than that would allow. And it hard to be "buried" in the lead section. Those interested will read farther. It works good as it is. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see where you're getting that from WP:FILMLEAD. Correct me if I'm missing something, but the only relevant part I can see here is: "The first paragraph of the lead section should also identify the director and the star or stars of the film. If any writers or producers are well-known, they can also be identified in the paragraph." That doesn't say anything about which order to put things in, only that they should be in the first paragraph; additionally, the writer in question (Cameron) is well-known as a director and writer so seems to qualify. Popcornduff (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "The first paragraph of the lead section should also identify the director and the star or stars of the film." is given first in its own sentence. That indicates an order. In this case the star made a major breakout with this film. Most readers are going to expect to see some indication of that in a prominent place. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that's a hell of a stretch, I read no indication of order there, but perhaps other editors might disagree. Popcornduff (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * All due respect Gothicfilm, that is an implicit interpretation of the style guideline that shouldn't prevent a workable compromise. With that said, I think you make an excellent point about the star's breakout that I didn't think about before. What if we change to this:
 * Just a suggestion that actually addresses several minor tweaks. We could just leave it alone as well, but I thought I'd throw this out there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's an improvement. I realise this makes it look like I'm desperate to put the information in the first sentence, but I'm just concerned that your suggested version puts a lot of information in the second sentence when we still have room in the first, so I'd suggest:
 * Popcornduff (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I struggled with finding a way to insert into the first sentence. To me, it's a bit awkward to have more than one "and" along with mentioning Cameron twice, but I appreciate the effort! --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand, but these "ands" are kind of different: one links clauses, the other nouns, so I think we get away with it. Popcornduff (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I struggled with finding a way to insert into the first sentence. To me, it's a bit awkward to have more than one "and" along with mentioning Cameron twice, but I appreciate the effort! --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand, but these "ands" are kind of different: one links clauses, the other nouns, so I think we get away with it. Popcornduff (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

You started by wanting to emphasize Cameron as the writer alone. This does not do that. "The screenplay is credited to Cameron, along with producer Gale Anne Hurd" works best to reflect the situation without misrepresenting the credit, as it's clear it's not the actual credit. But it would look awkward as the second sentence. But it's okay as the 4th sentence. So I still believe the best compromise is to leave it as it is. Don't forget the credit is also in the infobox, above the stars. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "You started by wanting to emphasize Cameron as the writer alone. This does not do that." Indeed. Because you reverted my edit doing that, I'm now proposing a compromise. Keeping your version is not, as you suggest here, a compromise. Popcornduff (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't feel too strongly either way at this point, so perhaps we should ping the WikiProject to generate more feedback. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Should Terminator be denoted as Him or It?
Came across an article Enthiran where the character Chitti (whose a humanoid by default) is denoted as IT as a machine. However, just to clarify that Terminator, whose also a humanoid should be denoted as It or not? SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 18:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Why does the article have a picture of old Arnold?
Why not put pictures of the main actors as they appeared in the movie? Are we going to keep updating the images as the actors age? Banaticus (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger/Reagan photograph
What is the point of this? It's not like it's actually at the premiere, and there's already a photo of Schwarzenegger on the page. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I added that photo originally as it was a free of any copyright photo we could use for the article. It was mostly because the photo was around the time of the premiere of The Terminator. That part of that sentence was eventually removed. And then much later, someone added the new pictures of the main actors in the cast section. I kind of like having photos of the era as photos when I can, but I don't think there are any guidelines for that...just personal preference. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I support keeping the photo. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Terminator technology used to build Skynet
In the plot, doesn't the technology from the crushed Terminator get used to build Skynet? Thus another paradox? GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Film scenes shot without permit
I saw a very interesting YouTube video that made some very shocking claims about how the movie was filmed, particularly that several scenes were shot without a permit. However, as I've looked into this more, there are actually only two post-production scenes I can find good sources saying they were shot without permit: specifically the scene where Arnold punches through the car window and the ending scene where Linda drives down a highway. The video strongly implies that many night scenes were shot without permit, but I can't find evidence of that.

The video's claim that the scene with fog was actually pesticides is supported by this article, but I wasn't sure how or if to incorporate this info.

The permit issue in the movie's final scene is described by Cameron and Hurd themselves in an interview. This is very notable because it is a seemingly anecdotal story you will find repeated on other sites but the filmmakers indeed confirm this particular incident of a cop confronting them and convincing the cop that they are UCLA students.

Anyway, I wanted to briefly mention this... Ender and  Peter  03:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Article title vs. 2019 film's article title
I see that the 1984 film's article The Terminator was moved to The Terminator (1984 film) because Terminator (2019 film) was created. I can't quite tell if the 2019 film is officially and ultimately titled Terminator, but if so, it begs the question about whether or not "The" is sufficient disambiguation. I can't find anything at WP:DISAMBIG or WP:THE about that specifically. The only film-based example I can think of right now is Changeling (film) vs. The Changeling (film). I invite other editors to use this space (unless there is a dispute about the 2019 film truly being titled Terminator, then it would not be necessary to discuss). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The original film is clearly the primary topic for now so I have moved it back. Betty Logan (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The Terminator is not just a science fiction piece - it's a horror movie!
It has all the tropes of the slasher subgenre such as the monster (being the eponymous Terminator), the female protagonist being targeted by said monster, and the stalking/pursuit of female protagonist by said monster. The scenes are really terrifying, too. The horror of being helpless as a series of serial murders committed towards people with your name are taking place? The thought that the killer is a face in the crowd and can attack you at any minute? That's scary! And then after your protector/lover dies, you become the final girl of the narrative? Horror movie right there. Like the Terminator itself, it is a horror movie wrapped in the flesh of a science fiction setting.
 * Although I do not argue with you (in the prose itself, the film is compared to Halloween), but the film is not promoted, received or made with the idea of being a horror film by any evidence I have really found. We also do not choose what genres we think are appropriate for films on wikipedia based on our own opinions. Please read WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:SUBJECTIVE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a genre mash. However, sources have it down as ostensibly science-fiction though, and the sub-genre as action. It has horror overtones and may feature on horror lists but it's not the primary genre. Betty Logan (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Horror movie is probably not appropriate as it would be at best a sub-genre. However it should probably be "science fiction action film" because all the different sites linked at the bottom of the article such as iMBD, RT, etc list it as such. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree but this has also been the subject of dispute (see above). Betty Logan (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I need your help. Some editor is constantly removing the action genre and is saying only science fiction should be listed which is not right. I request you to participate in the above consensus debate at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Terminator#Sci-Fi_Action because the editor is not listening to any of my arguments and is constantly ignoring me since I'm the only one contesting this against him. Since you too support the sci-fi action genre, please join me. Thanks. (77Survivor (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC))

Critical acclaim
It received critical acclaim for its pacing, action scenes, soundtrack, script, and acting, in particular Schwarzenegger's performance as the Terminator.

You don't need to write "critical acclaim". "Acclaim" is perfectly sufficient. It is clear that the sort of acclaim we are talking about here is critical. Readers will not be confused. Popcornduff (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Is there even a reliable source for that whole sentence? I cannot see anything in the article body that supports all of the highlighted elements. It would be WP:SYNTH to read into individual reviews and to claim overarching trends. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also a fair point. I'm only thinking about the copyediting element. Popcornduff (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems like "Acclaim" by itself could mean both critics and audiences. "Critical" means critics (hence the "Critical response" sections we write). So I'm fine with "critical acclaim". It can also be worded something like, "Critics praised the film for..." if the rest of the sentence is sourced. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that "acclaim" might refer to audience reaction (or something else), but what will readers really assume here? Will they think "hmm, I wonder if this means acclaim from YouTubers or IMDB ratings"? Will it cause confusion? It's just not something worth worrying about. In the worst case scenario they will assume the film got acclaim generally (which is also true). In any case your point about it not being actually based on anything concrete is more important. Popcornduff (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sometimes a film can win lots of awards, without being critically acclaimed. Even critical acclaim itself can be somewhat hard to characterise: there is a world of difference between the acclaim that The Terminator gets and the acclaim Citizen Kane gets. It is a phrase that tells us essentially nothing. From the review section I get the impression it was a well-reviewed film with some dissent, so what do the words "critical acclaim" or even "acclaim" actually tell me? It is a meaningless phrase that should be removed in my opinion, and replaced by something that accurately summarizes how the film was received and in which way. Betty Logan (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I generally try to summarise reception in concrete terms, eg awards received (as I did for A Moon Shaped Pool, for example).
 * As you can see from the edit history of this article, I also dislike the shopping list of things The Terminator received acclaim for - if it's just a list of general stuff then it loses any sense really. Popcornduff (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like too much time and effort for such a small bit of copyediting, especially since "critical acclaim" and "critically-acclaimed" are two phrases frequently found in publications. But before we get too far into the weeds on that, it's worth pointing out that the claim itself lacks sufficient sourcing. While the critical response section implies that reviews leaned positive overall, a significant number of mixed and unfavorable reviews exist as well. The balance in this section is nowhere near the lead's claim of critical acclaim. Going even further and looking at a source that examines the film's reception in 1984, we get more contradicting information:
 * What Critics Thought About 'The Terminator' in 1984 -- Film School Rejects, 02-14-2019
 * The reception was more positive than negative, but it doesn't appear to have even been in the ballpark of being universally positive. That article surveyed a good representation of reviews and came to the conclusion that it would have been the rough equivalent of a 69% today on RT, and we don't even know what the average rating per review would have been. So regardless of how you feel about "critical acclaim", the claim probably shouldn't even be there to begin with, and certainly not without a rock solid source supporting that conclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, as discussed above the citation is the bigger issue. Popcornduff (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And something like that also presents another issue... Are we talking about at the time of release or over time? That needs to be clear. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the removal of material from the lead that was done here, and I don't believe there is any consensus for it. The material should be restored. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it should be restored? Do you disagree that it's WP:SYNTH?
 * In any case, at some point over the next few days I'll do the source work to replace it with something more concrete and citation-y. Popcornduff (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of synthesis. The material should be restored because it is useful and informative, obviously. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that it needed to be removed in its current form. Apart from the citation issue it is clearly inaccurate. One out of every three contemporary reviews was negative; the reputation of the film has clearly grown in stature since its release, and it would be beneficial to the article IMO if that were clarified in the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It should only be restored with proper sourcing. If one review praised the soundtrack and another liked the pacing, we can't have a statement that says critics in general liked both elements. That's misleading and not representative of the critical response as a whole. A source must be cited in the article that comes to that conclusion. We cannot form that on our own by cherry-picking a handful of reviews. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

17 lines
Please do not attempt to correct sources. Entertainment Weekly claims "Schwarzenegger speaks only 17 lines in the film", and a comment directly under the article claims they were wrong and there were in fact 18 lines. We have to go with what the source actually says and not make corrections based on original research. I have corrected the article to use what the source actually says. It is unfortunate that Entertainment Weekly did not update or amend the article but unless someone can find a better source (or possibly use WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to override the source, and include a comment in the Wikisource to clearly mark that there was a consensus to do so) we have to go with what the source actually says. (I skimmed the talk page discussion archives, this doesn't seem to have been discussed previously.) -- 109.76.142.35 (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Sci-Fi Action
This is with reference to what an editor called Popcornduff has been doing. The film was already labelled as a sci-fi action film on the page. Everything was fine. We all know it's a sci-fi action movie. But then...

This editor removed action and made it just science fiction. Like really? And when I reverted his edits, he cross-reverted my edits and told me to read WP:LEAD. I even attached sources, all notably eligible, but this guy is hell-bent on rejecting everything even though he told me to get consensus first.

And when I actually happened to come across WP:FILMLEAD, it said the main genre or subgenre can be there with verified sources. And then, I suddenly realized what all most people are getting wrong.

Don't know how it didn't come to mind earlier, but any sane person who watch SF and action movies or just even reads Wikipedia properly will be knowing science fiction action is a subgenre. Yeah, it does look like two different genres listed as one but facts are facts. Search anywhere. It's a subgenre of action.

Now someone tell that duff guy to stop doing actual vandalism and accept that Wikipedia is not going to work if you just keep reverting other user's edits without complete knowledge and post blocking threats on his talk page.

The genre should be sci-fi action. Had it been something like "action sci-fi thriller" or "action adventure sci-fi" I could've agreed that we must pick up two as a subgenre or just one as a main one.

But here, it's clearly sci-fi action. Remember, it's a subgenre and eligible as per WP:FILMLEAD. 77Survivor (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:FILMLEAD says the first sentence of the lead should contain the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. This is Wikipedia policy.
 * "Sci-fi action" isn't a subgenre. It's two genres: sci-fi and action. Pick one.
 * We don't want to include more than one genre in the lead sentence because people end up writing things like "science fiction action adventure chase drama film" and it becomes bloated. The lead sentence should be simple. Popcornduff (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Mr Duff, it IS a subgenre. Go read it anywhere. 77Survivor (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I know you don't want to read anything because that would mark your defeat. Go on: https://www.allmovie.com/subgenre/sci-fi-action-d564

"Sharing many of the conventions of the science fiction film, sci-fi action emphasizes gunplay, space battles, and invented weaponry. Through the Terminator films, Arnold Schwartznegger became the most visible hero of the genre, and James Cameron it's progenitor. In both The Terminator and Terminator 2, as well as Aliens, Cameron's focus was not on the possibilities for satirical comment or prophecy inherent in science fiction, but rather on the often brutal violence that could be inflicted with futuristic weaponry. Paul Verhoeven managed a more cynical and satiric blend with action in his films RoboCop, Total Recall, and Starship Troopers, but they remained in the world of the actioner. The subgenre was most popular in the late '80s and early '90s, perhaps in response to the more violent but cooler future that seemed imminent during the reign of Ronald Reagan and the Star Wars missile defense system." 77Survivor (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

And if even that hurts you, read the last line of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction#Film. 77Survivor (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

And don't worry, I never made it a ""science fiction action adventure chase drama film" . Don't forget that it was all fine until you made the move. Don't think other Wikipedians to be lacking knowledge. I agree, someone had made it sci-fi action horror. You should've deleted only horror because there's minimal evidence about the film as a horror. But for the rest...? Speechless. 77Survivor (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Redux
The Terminator is horror. It's a slasher movie with a sci-fi premise and action scenes. 2A02:C7F:8EA3:B00:BCC2:367F:52A4:A364 (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes ! Terminator is a true horror film, not T2, but the first Terminator is pure horror and not action ! --77.207.75.83 (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The hell are you smoking? It's a complete sci-fi action and not a horror movie. Do you even know what a horror and what an action movie is? It does have a few chilling parts but it's without a second thought just action and sci-fi. And someone said it's a slasher flick... Come on! There are no knives or bladed weapons used! It isn't about a serial killer but a cyborg on mission to kill. (77Survivor (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC))
 * A film can be more than one thing.★Trekker (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I've removed "action" from the opening sentence because it strikes me as misleading to use this and not "science fiction", which does not even appear in the lead section at all. Genres are going to overlap, but there is something remiss about simply calling this an "action film" as if it is a contemporary film with action in it. I think the case can be made to at least include "science fiction". Either we can decide on a sub-genre that includes science fiction, or we simply use "science fiction" and use the rest of the lead section to reflect the action in the film. But "action" should not be superseding "science fiction" entirely here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with 's (re-)inclusion here of simply "science fiction film". I don't think we need to get into sub-genre territory at all, but if other editors disagree, we can discuss. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * My vote is "science fiction film". Simple, supported by genres, makes scifi elements immediately clear. Popcornduff (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have restored the original genre. The film is about a time-travelling cyborg and is predominantly described by sources as science-fiction, which is what matters here. The AFI Catalog list the primary genre as "science-fiction" and the sub-genre as "action", which is probably reflective of how must sources describe the film.If we only list one genre then "science-fiction" is the obvious choice, and if we include a sub-genre too then "action" would be next up. Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, "action" was the genre classified by BFI (with no other genre classified), so I would not necessarily lean on AFI. I do agree, though, that the weight of sources favor science fiction, despite BFI's listing. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth the AFI doesn't exclude "action", it just lists it as a secondary genre. I personally don't have any problem following the AFI precedent here and listing both genres. There are plenty of articles that list two genres and this is generally not problematic. For example, if we limited ourselves to one genre at Pretty Woman which would we go with? We have to be careful to not over-interpret the MOS. What we are basically saying is that reeling off half a dozen genres becomes unhelpful. Less is more when trying to convey to the reader the essence of the film which is why most sources use just one or two descriptors. Betty Logan (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd really prefer to keep the sentence simple. One genre is enough. Popcornduff (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Betty, all I meant was if we are arguing source vs. source, AFI and BFI are similar sources with different genre classifications. I personally think it is odd for BFI to categorize it only that way, but beyond that direct comparison, I'm sure the weight of additional sources would favor science fiction. In any case, I don't think an inline citation is necessary, and hopefully we can point to this discussion if other editors try to get creative with it. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

And would anyone mind considering this: https://www.allmovie.com/subgenre/sci-fi-action-d564

As we also have the sci-fi action thing to make it. And no, it's not only two separate genres but a subgenre on its own. (77Survivor (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC))


 * I do not think it is necessary here. WP:FILMLEAD says, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." I think it needs to be a very well-weighed sub-genre to outweigh a primary genre. I would say "comedy" pairs well with other genres, but "science fiction" is less easily paired. Like with superhero films, I think action elements are implied in most science fiction films, except when sources call something a sci-fi drama. It's possible to have multiple genre classifications for a given film, but we have to keep it simple or sometimes leave out classifications entirely from the opening sentence. For what it's worth, the lead section continues with explaining the film's premise and says the film's action scenes were praised. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

So are you practically trying to say we must forget that something exists only because it feels a little long to read? Science fiction-action isn't that long to read. If it's displayed this way, at least the viewer can understand that he/she is reading about not just an SF but also an action movie. And why do you think science fiction normally contains action elements? And why does it have to be a only science fiction with action elements and not an action film with a sci-fi background as well?

Listen, everything was find until a user added horror to it although not too many sources confirm it, and this guy called Popcorn edited it as per his own. I guess everything was fine till then. But this guy is hellbent on turning down an established fact that sci-fi action is a subgenre. And I'm pretty sure he won't raise such questions when a film is written as a sci-fi drama/thriller because to such people, action becomes all too easy to dismiss as merely an element, while it actually might be a major element. 77Survivor (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The series isn't known merely for its tech or sci-fi story but also the action. It's thus necessary we highlight it because action is a major component. And I'm saying this only because we have a subgenre option. Had it never existed, I won't have argued in the first place. And this subgenre's very existence itself proves a sci-fi film on its own doesn't have action. 77Survivor (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

And yes Erik, if you're really adamant on the major sources thing, better not fake the fact that major sources describe it as sci-fi action and not just sci-fi. And only because action is written after sci-fi doesn't make it secondary. Despite of its high-tech background, the film remains nevertheless in the zone of action. Still I'm shocked YOU people still don't know there's something like sci-fi action. 77Survivor (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

And Betty, really?

Don't you know action is not a subgenre? Oh come on! It's an independent genre on its own! 77Survivor (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't stress simple subjective things like genre in the lead. Users can make up their own mind as interpretations of genre can be subjective. I would personally keep it simple and stick with genres in the lead that are key to understanding the the film. The user can fill in the blanks with the brief plot intro and reception sections. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Then Mr cool, first browse this thing called internet for a while and search "The Terminator genre". You will get that this is an action movie with sci-fi elements instead of just sci-fi. You wanna stick to main genre? Then it's action. I'm not saying it's a horror like some other user. Action is the main genre. Huh... First go and do some homework. 77Survivor (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be sci-fi action and not just sci-fi. Otherwise it'd be like calling The Martian and this one, the same kind of sci-fi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.220.48 (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Some time later, has tried to sneak their genre preference back into the article despite the local consensus here. Pinging editors involved in this discussion. ,, . I've watchlisted this article. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey sci-fi buff, can you please stop imposing your so called "consensus" everywhere? If you see the above consensus, not just you but anyone can see how everyone tried to avoid me or just tell me to shut up (in an indirect manner). Today, I'm not gonna buy this. You guys really seem to be ignoring the fact that sci-fi action is a subgenre. Yes it is, while the genres exist separately as well. Don't believe me? Read Science fiction action film portion and it'll become clear what I tried to say even months ago. All you editors did was pay absolutely no heed to the data I presented along with the definition of sci-fi action genre among which this film is a primary example. It's action first, sci-fi second and that's not just me but many critics saying. This case was closed before even a strong resolution was reached. No one listened to my reasoning. I can claim I was right because I can still guarantee you that search the internet and every site will show you these genres: sci-fi and action.

This consensus has to be revived. Because last time the editors who I suspect are sci-fi enthusiasts were hellbent on making this actioner "just a sci-fi". This time we need to ping editors more than the ones last time because they'll continue to stick to their opinions only. No, not this time everyone. With all due respect, this case isn't closed and won't be closed unless action is included.(77Survivor (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)) You again undid my revision claiming I don't care about the consensus. I'm gonna ask you this:

DID YOU EVEN READ WHAT I SHARED HERE?

The answer is a big no because Mr Erik, one genre decision was made even below this incomplete consensus. Read that first and accuse me later. (77Survivor (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC))


 * Sheesh. Give it a rest, man.
 * One bit of advice: stop linking to Science fiction action film as an argument. A paragraph of original research in a Wikipedia article that doesn't even mention this film isn't the most convincing evidence for your case. Popcornduff (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Haha, it's easy to say give it a rest because you are the one who started this entire mess and is getting to control the page as per their will. And that stop linking... How can you say that? Read the above arguments I gave you months ago and that would easily suffice. You're not agreeing because you believe there should be just one genre for a film. No mister, that's not the case. You're not letting an editor follow WP:FILMLEAD to edit a film's genre and you expect him to be silent? Yes, because that lets you keep it sci-fi, your favorite genre I guess. Have a good day ahead. (77Survivor (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC))
 * Given how long this has gone on, would it be a benefit to take the discussion to the Film Project and just do a straightforward vote? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Do anything, but get this "consensus" created by a group of sci-fi fans, who believe true facts to be "original research/", changed. Even if that involves a straightforward voting. Because not a single person who has seen this film will deny that it's action as well. (77Survivor (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC))

Plot summary
, have there been any edits to the plot summary that meet your approval? I saw that you reverted 's efforts to remove details. In the past, you've reverted other editors' attempts to add details. You have a very, very long history of reverting any changes to the plot summary. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The policy page WP:OWNBEHAVIOR says, "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it 'unnecessary' without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version." Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, Erik. I have no interest in replying to vague, unsupported accusations, entirely free of details, directed against me as an editor and an individual contributor to Wikipedia. I believe you will find that, in general, editors do not respond well to queries directed at them that presume without evidence that they are guilty of something, which is after all insulting and hostile. I cannot imagine why you would suppose my response would be any different. If you wish to discuss the specifics of article content we can do that. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is evidence of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR in which you reverted as some form of being "unnecessary":
 * January 12, 2020
 * January 6, 2020
 * December 7, 2019
 * December 5, 2019
 * December 5, 2019
 * December 3, 2019
 * November 12, 2019
 * November 3, 2019
 * October 20, 2019
 * October 18, 2019
 * October 16, 2019
 * October 6, 2019
 * September 7, 2019
 * August 15, 2019
 * August 1, 2019
 * August 1, 2019
 * July 9, 2019
 * Pinging editors who work on this article:, , , . Notifying WT:FILM. Other editors are welcome to evaluate the above trend. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I took a look at all of the edits there and I agree with most of them - they largely removed redundant words or unnecessary detail, unencyclopaedic writing, and other stuff not appropriate for the plot summary. In that sense I think it's a good thing that someone is looking after this section, because plot summaries for popular films often end up becoming unkempt without active editors tending to them. I think you could accuse me of WP:OWN behaviour on many articles if this is the standard... gulp.
 * Perhaps Freeknowledgecreator could have taken more of these to the talk page instead of just reverting, but to be honest I think it's OK to be bold and revert unless it's obvious people are disagreeing and some discussion needs to happen. Popcornduff (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, it is appropriate to be bold and revert. It is not appropriate to revert every single change to the plot summary as "unnecessary". There needs to be better justification than "unnecessary" which means "I like the wording I'm protecting better". If an edit is ungrammatical, that should be stated. There isn't even a partial revert where part of an edit seems fine and another is reverted as actually problematic. Freeknowledgecreator is essentially the gatekeeper for the plot summary, and none shall pass. That can be a chilling effect. I noticed this trend from afar, but because Woodshed expressed explicit frustration about this gatekeeping, it seemed necessary to highlight. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly clear and specific edit summaries are better, though I probably get lazy there too myself. Popcornduff (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly clear and specific edit summaries are better, though I probably get lazy there too myself. Popcornduff (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Erik, I have no apology at all for reverting the really crappy edits that keep constantly getting made to the plot summary of the article. It makes sense that the plot summary should be short and stable; there should be no need for ongoing changes to it. On a different level, if you ever ping me again to make rude or hostile comments about me personally, or to ask bad faith questions that you surely don't seriously expect an answer to, I will treat it as a form of harassment and respond accordingly. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC
 * I'd agree that most of the edits wouldn't have been positive, some would made the article worse, but most were good faith attempts at improvement. In any event, very few were "really crappy" and there's a legitimate case that the edit summaries have been consistently insufficient. WP:BITE is also relevant here, these kinds of edits are often made by newcomers and we should be explaining why they aren't improvements. I also believe that Woodshed's edit did improve the article, and shouldn't have been reverted at all without some kind of indication about why the detail that was removed was needed. Like Popcornduff, I'm also occasionally guilty of using with boilerplate summaries, but usually only for obviously terrible edits where I judge that's probably more polite than telling them that they can't write. It is not a goal of Wikipedia to keep articles unchanged just for the sake of stability (even FAs), we should always be open to improving our content. As an aside, unless there's more going on elsewhere I'm unaware of, this is in no way a form of harassment. Scribolt (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with Woodshed's edits, or Erik's restoration of them, but as you may have noticed, I have not reverted Erik. So there is no ongoing issue here, except perhaps Erik's rudeness. I didn't say that Erik had harassed me; I simply noted that his comments were excessively rude and hostile, and that if he continues to make similar comments (and especially to ping me to get me to pay attention to rude comments he makes about me) that this would then be harassment. Let's hope he doesn't do it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In fairness to Freeknowledgecreator I would have reverted in many of those instances too. I would say that in 90% of my reverts to plot edits, it is simply to revert plot bloat. I am only familiar with Freeknowledgecreator at this article and I have to say I have not found his editing to be problematic. If his actions here form a general pattern across a range of articles then perhaps ANI would be a more appropriate place to raise concerns? However, in the case of Woodshed's edit I generally agree it is a slight improvement in that it removed some repetitive language from the first paragraph and removed an unnecessary final sentence from the plot summary. I also agree that "relocated" is the grammatically correct word in the context of the scene. Betty Logan (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe instead of an edit summary like this, then FKC could start the discussion here and drop a friendly note on the other editor's talkpage too.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit late to the party but most of the edits are seemingly as the user stated not really needed. As we've all worked on film articles, its very easy for users to to add more fan-oriented material (characters and descriptions, plot bloat, etc.). As time and time again comes to stop the slipperly slope of edits, its easy to fall into the biting new comers territory. I would suggest maybe giving it some breating room and letting other areas also input in on reverting or updating plot points. Giving a bit more than "unnecessary" might help users understand what should or should have been done in the previous edit. I know for example people were endlessly suggesting that the two characters "make love" and not "have sex" in the article, so its hard to not get too caught up. Anyways, a more specific response to editors or perhaps even just suggesting locking the article if its persistent enough might be a solution. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Horror film
While the film is more sci-fi and action, the "horror" templates should also be added. MrWii000 (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The label is not appropriate in the opening sentence. Horror elements of the film can be discussed in the article body, though. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any horror elements in this film, adding such content requires reliable source.--Editor-1 (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Although the film usually doesn't fall into horror history (I never see it discussed in retrospective articles and best of's lists), its shown in several contemporary reviews at the time that reviewers seemed to lean it towards horror. However, Without over-stuffing the lead with genres, I feel people will understand from the plot summary and lead that its a scary film about being chased by a killer robot. If there's one genre I would include is action to the lead which is also discussed through out the article but is hard to maybe understand via the articles prose, especially in the lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A "horror" film would usually be understood to include supernatural elements, which doesn't fit for a film like The Terminator. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Horror films definitely do not include supernatural elements. Caligari, Frankenstein, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and such would beg to differ. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * False. Just for an example: The Curse of the Werewolf, which is unmistakably and correctly termed a horror film in its article. Werewolves are supernatural creatures. Maybe you have a point that a horror film need not necessarily include supernatural elements, but they are common. In any case, Terminator is not a horror film. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Terminator can absolutely be seen as a horror film, per some reliable sources. Genre classification is inherently subjective. However, with this film, the weight of sources is toward science fiction. It does not mean that other genres are completely disqualified, just of lesser note. For example, Horror Films of the 1980s talks about The Terminator as a horror film. Action Speaks Louder: Violence, Spectacle, and the American Action Movie talks about it as an action film. Other films, like Fight Club, may not have one genre clearly above the others. If anything, we could use "Genre classification" sections in these articles, defining the predominant genre in the first paragraph and exploring secondary genres in subsequent paragraphs. It's something I've wanted to do for Fight Club but have yet to get to. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "I haven't seen any horror elements in this film" Really? The scene where the guy gets thrown through the door covered in blood and the woman crawls away in slow motion is pure horror stuff, for example. So are the scenes where Sarah Connor hides under the table in the police station while the Terminator mows down the local cops. The music in particular for those scenes is pure horror. Cameron was certainly using horror devices in this film to make up for a lack of a huge budget and spectacular effects. However, Erik is correct that the horror elements of this film have yet to be addressed in the article per reliable sources. Rodericksilly (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Is the Terminator a cyborg or an android?
A cyborg is an essentially organic lifeform enhanced by robotic parts. Whereas Arny is a robot shaped like a man (an android). Is the description in the article therefore incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.167.13 (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Researching this, I think sources use this interchangeably or say that the skin cover qualifies the Terminator as a cyborg (but also still call him a robot). We would need to pull from sources if we were to discuss it in the article body. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I am a huge fan of this movie, and up until a couple hours ago, always thought of Arnold's character as a CYBORG. But after doing research into the actual term and it's origin I'm not so sure anymore. "...the altering of bodily functions to suit different environments." Could be argued that a terminator definitely falls under that definition, but in the same article "...possible to achieve this to some degree without alteration of heredity by suitable biochemical, physiological, and electronic modifications of man’s existing modus vivendi." This would signify that you must start with the original design, a human, and then make alterations to best suit it's needs. The terminators are manufactured as androids then, some, not all, are covered in a living tissue exo-suit. I can see this delving deep into the meaning of CYBORG vs. ANDROID. Not sure any of this helps but I am glad we are discussing it.Mborchardt1977 (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The Terminator is not a cyborg, if we apply the definition correctly. However, the term "cyborg" is often used loosely, by the films and also by sources describing the films. It is not Wikipedia's place to settle this debate, but if there are any reliable sources around that debate this issue we can summarise those in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2021
2405:201:1C:710D:B158:E511:FCC0:8763 (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC) I'm writing a request to get the permission to edit this site. This site uses sexual words which makes it inappropriate for kids to read. I want a permission to just remove those words.
 * ❌. See WP:NOTCENSORED. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2021 (2)
2405:201:1C:710D:B158:E511:FCC0:8763 (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC) I'm just want the permission to edit this site. Just one important change. Please
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)