Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Video clips?

Does anyone know the policy on including video clips from films? I was considering replacing Patrickterminator2.JPG from the production section with a 3-5 second clip that shows something with the T-1000 morphing, perhaps arm->weapon or more likely silver T-1000 morphing into Robert Patrick to better demonstrate the visual technology that the film pioneered. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the policy with respect to fair use, but it can be done. Some featured articles do such a thing, like American Beauty (film) and Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, the latter being a good parallel to what we're trying to convey here. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That's quite a long clip as well, thanks for finding that example. Seems like if its justifiable, which I think it would be in this case, it should be OK. If anyone has any recommendations for a good scene let me know. Off the top of my head I would've probably gone with him walking out of the truck collision as liquid metal or perhaps something from the steel factory that really shows off the tech, like when he gets slammed into the wall face first and completely reverses his body. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a few moments where one of the actors portraying the T-1000 look at their forearm with a sort of detached gaze as it changes form (Patrick and Goldstein definitely do this, though it's been a while since I've seen the film). That would provide a good short instance of the effect, whilst also keeping away from any "key" moments of the film (so as to strengthen to rationale that the non-free file does not infringe upon the owner's ability to market the source). And since the T-1000 is portrayed through a complex mix of physical and digital effects (obviously the mercury puddles are physical, but so is, for instance, most of the final grenade volley scene in the steelworks), this would be a clear example of specifically digital effects being used, as the physical effects are no more groundbreaking on their own than the first film's use of them. GRAPPLE X 16:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5gGV1WB-xg How about the scene about 3:10 here? Or is that too iconic a scene? Or 5:12 here. The arm thing is very specific, you'd have to give me a time frame. (I've figured out what you meant by Goldstein so that is a possibility too) NOTE: I can cut out anything not involving the T-1000 in the first scene.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Right after Goldstein's T-1000 has stabbed John's foster dad in the face, she withdraws the blade arm and watches it become a hand again. I can't remember a time for it but it's not too long after that big ol' lorry chase scene, which is hard to miss. Can't immediately recall a specific moment Patrick does it though. GRAPPLE X 16:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That scene isn't too bad (watching it now) as it shows minor blade transformation and then full body from Goldstein to patrick in under 20 seconds, displaying the CGI model. But we'd need to know the policy on blood as there's some in that scene with the guy on the ground. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR. A tiny spattering of blood in a clip used to illustrate the article for an action film with a certificate rating can't be seen as unreasonable to the article's audience, as they should expect the treatment of the topic to be as frank as the topic itself. (tl;dr - blood in film, blood in article) GRAPPLE X 16:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will give it a go later, and try to upload it (My upload is terrible but I'm sure I will make it). Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, you have a flavour of three to choose from at the moment, further suggestions not withstanding.

1. Mill scene (This is my personal preference as it shows morphing, practical, reflections(refractions?) and movement.
2. Goldstein Kitchen scene - The scene mentioned by Grapple, shows morphing
3. Bridge scene - Shows movement and minor morphing
4. Copter Scene - ANother option, movement, morphing, animation
5. Hospital Floor scene - Morphing, some movement

All under 20 seconds long.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No input?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My preference is for the kitchen scene, as it shows the transition back & forth between real actors & CGI. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think any of them will be ok; the main thing is they have to demonstrate a technique/effect that is described in the prose, rather than just used for illustration. Betty Logan (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• What happened to this proposal in the end? Was it dropped? If this article is going to a GA review it would be good to send it on its way with a video clip. Betty Logan (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I can still do it, just didnt have the sources at the time to justify it. Gimme 20 minutes and can have that kitchen scene done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that kitchen scene is the one I'd go for. A variety of CGI effects, also shows a morph from one actor to another. GRAPPLE X 14:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

K, I added it to the page, see what you think Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• So are we happy with the video in place? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think it really makes the article. Betty Logan (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Good, good, I like listening to the music personally :P Actually kinda remarkable how well the effects hold up even against stuff from today. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Final Cut

I want to add that Cameron had Final Cut Privilege!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.112.178 (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying Cameron had final cut privileges? If so then it should be added.Beefcake6412 (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

[1] There it sais he had final cut!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.112.178 (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Could someone tell me on which films did Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarrantino, and Ridley Scott have Final Cut Privilege??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.112.178 (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This whole business is confusing and unnecessary. What is "final cut privilege"? Is it unusual for a director to have it? One would normally assume that the director, as the one creating the film, has the final say or at least makes approval of changes made to it in post-production. Rather, it would be unusual (and noteworthy) if a director didn't have final say, especially if the studio made changes to the film that the director didn't agree with (as sometimes happens, resulting in "director's cut"s that are significantly different). However, if all we're going to note is that the director had final say, which is pretty much what one would expect to happen anyway, and there wasn't any significant conflict between the director and studio which resulted in this "privilege" being exercised over some key decision, then there's really no reason to note it. Also, you can't cite youtube, especially if it's copyvio (which that link appears to be). --IllaZilla (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that unless you are a big time director, generaly the studio can force changes based on test screenings. Still don't know how notable it is though Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not unusual for a director to get locked out of the editing suite by producers. It happened to Orson Welles on pretty much every film he made after Citizen Kane. Some are too big to touch, like Stanley Kubrick (but I hear even he received a bit of editing "help" on 2001). In other cases there can be a transition of power. Tim Burton dislikes the first Batman film because the "producers took over", but had total creative freedom on the sequel, whereas Francis Ford Coppola reckoned only 60% of the first Godfather film was his work, so demanded final cut in his contract for the sequel. In that sense "final cut" isn't straightforward, so stating who has final control over the creative decisions is a legitimate inclusion in an article about the film. That said we obviously need a source, but even then that leads me to question the authenticity of the claim considering there are other versions floating around. Are we to assume he didn't exercise final cut? Was he obliged to contracted to bring the film in at a certain running time? If the claim can be substantiated, I think it would be best to cover it in regards to his motivation for releasing the other versions. Betty Logan (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, if there were some context to it (why he was granted this authority, did he exercise it in regard to some significant change that the producers wanted to make, did it affect the theatrical version of the film or later editions, etc.) then there'd be something to write about. But if all we're going to have is a 1-sentence blurb thrown in at the end of the "filming" section then it's not worth mentioning. We've got to explain to the reader what it means and why it's significant. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK it means he is the guy who got to decided what scenes and how much of the scenes that are included made it into the final version of the film.--Marhawkman (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that as he and his friend Gale Ann Hurd were the primary financiers, he had final cut. Had he not, it probably would have been shorter. In any case, I don't think it's important; explaining what that is and how it works would take up a great deal of time. It's kind of an "inside the film world" sort of thing anyway. And yes, not every director gets final cut (hence the original concept of the "director's cut"). And just because a film gets cut after focus groups see it doesn't mean that the director doesn't end up agreeing with the focus group (often making a fatal error and wrecking his/her own film), so the whole issue is too complicated to put in here. I say No. The extended version released later on DVD is NOT the "director's cut", but rather an extended cut which includes things that were shot but then deemed extraneous to the main story. Most filmmakers shoot things and then discover they don't work, so the absence of deleted scenes doesn't mean anything. --TEHodson 03:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Complete agreement about the extended version not being a director's cut; the (ample) bonus content provides reasoning for each cut that makes it back into the extended version, and none of it was "because someone other than the director wanted it that way". Most of the time, it was cut for pacing, which is decidedly something the director can dictate. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Step to GA

Expansion of "Production"

I guess with more than 100 watchers of this page, and many thousands more fans of the movie, that there would be at least one person who owns the book Terminator 2: judgment day : the book of the film, an illustrated screenplay. I don't possess own myself; if there's anyone who has the book, please tell me because without it, I don't think this article is going anywhere with the lack of coverage regarding the movie's production. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Did I miss the discussion about this that involved the deletion of the article and merge with history from your userspace where your edits have been done without warning or adequate description and so we can't track what has been changed without looking through each edit? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the histmerge was totally unnecessary. You could've just copy/pasted your revised text over the old text, as it's all your own contributions. I do that all the time when drafting stuff in userspace that I'm going to apply to an existing article. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I was told differently by several editors about merging, that it is preferable if I request a history merge, rather do a copy-paste. According to Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves, "a cut-and-paste move is [...] highly undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons." It never occurred to me to take the copy-paste step since that was what happened to Tupolev Tu-142 -- user Gfoley4 misunderstood a request of mine, and as a result, he merged the sandbox on which I was talking and the Tu-142 article. From then on I thought the right thing to do in any merger situation is to ask an admin to do a history merger. I apologise for the inconvenience caused by yesterday's merger. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. For the record it is perfectly acceptable to copy material into the article provided you provide the source of the material in the edit summary i.e Merged content from UserSp33dyphil/Sandbox to here. History merges are usually reserved for articles that have been copied to new names and have lost their page histories, you certainly don't need to do one just to merge content into an article. Betty Logan (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessary to history merge if you wrote the new content yourself in userspace. The point is that the material has to be attributed to the editor who wrote it. For example, if I start a new article in userspace and work on it for several days until it's ready to launch, I can either (A) use the move function to move it to article space, or (B) copy and paste it to article space. Either way the content is properly attributed to me, the sole author; It's not necessary that every step I took in crafting it be preserved. It's the same principle by which I could type paragraphs of text in my word processor and then copy-paste it into an article. You don't even need to say where you pasted it from as long as you're the sole author. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. But is the history merge still relevant even if I was the sole editor in my userpage? What if, let's say, you've edited the article in your userpage 80 times, and you're in the WikiCup (which I am, although I was editing this article purely because I love the subject, not for the points), a history merge might still be useful to help the Cup's judges to decide whether you had worked on the article or not. It might also be useful for future references, because anybody wanting to improve the article further might need/like to contact you for advice. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 09:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the WikiCup? To answer your question, no, the history does not need to be maintained if you were the sole editor in your userpage. The reason that article histories have to be maintained is to properly attribute the content to its authors. If you write a paragraph in userspace, even if you make 100 edits to it in the process, the entire block of content is still attributable only to you; you can copy-paste it into an article and that attribution is still there as long as you're the one doing the pasting (the edit in which you pasted it in would be there in the article history, so people could still see where the content came from and contact you if they wished). Those 100 individual edits it took you to put the paragraph together behind-the-scenes don't need to be preserved. Like I said above, it'd be just like if I spent a week typing 5 pages' worth of text in Microsoft Word, then copy-pasted it into a Wikipedia article. The content is still properly attributed to me, the author, even if I put it all in in just 1 big edit instead of 100 little edits; All the little edits I made to it in MS Word don't matter for attribution purposes, because no one else contributed to it but me. For example, I spent months working on a rewrite of Alien (film) in my userspace, then I pasted it in in 1 big edit and deleted the user subpage I'd used by placing {{db-user}} on it. If the WikiCup involves edit-counting, I don't think you need to worry: Your userspace edits and even your deleted edits are reflected in your edit count. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The historymerge is kind of important considering you are still apparently editing the entire page every time you make an edit and just using ADD or TWEAK as a description of what you're doing. So its not only not clear what you are editing but what you are doing to it until you follow the about fifteen edits since yesterday. And what is this DIV doing to the music box? Whatever it is you think it is fixing seems to only be affecting you, I can see nothing wrong when the music box is allowed to stretch to a natural width, no other soundtrack table has ever required a DIV as far as I have experienced Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not what Sp33dyphil did, though. It's hard to tell now that the history's been merged, but what he did was work on some stuff in a user subpage, but then instead of just pasting his new text into or over the existing article he merged his subpage, including the history, into the article. Even if he'd copied the entire T2 article into his userspace and worked on it there for several weeks, he'd still just have to paste his finished product over the existing article, not history merge the thing; the changes would still be properly attributed to him. History merges are for fixing cut and paste moves, or merging 2 extant articles together, not for moving userspace drafts into article space (unless the userspace draft had more than 1 contributor, in which case the history of the drafted material needs to be retained for proper attribution). It's kind of a moot point since it's already been done, but basically doing a history merge instead of just pasting in the new text made it confusing for those of us who wanted to see exactly what had been changed. The changes can still be viewed, however, by selecting a revision from before the history merge took place and then clicking "compare selected revisions": [2] --IllaZilla (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I don't know about you Illa but I find that many changes really difficult to read through. It's just a wall of red text on a yellow or green background. And at the moment the changes continue without any description or even a hint of what section is being changed, and Wiki doesn't seem to load very fast for me. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It is really difficult to pick out all the changes, but that'd be true even without a histmerge, & there's no requirement that changes be incremental, or that there be time allotted in between edits for other editors to review them. It's not uncommon for an article to undergo a complete overhaul as part of a GA push; Sometimes there are so many changes that we just have to read the new version over from start to finish and see what shape it's in. I've certainly done some total article overhauls in my time, either all at once or in a flurry of edits over a few days' course. Sp33dyphil's clearly doing a good-faith GA push here; We can probably just wait a bit until his editing dies down and then give the "new" article a thorough look-over. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Information about the film's release

Does anybody have any info on the film's premiere and release? After the completion of the section "Release", I plan to take this article to GAN. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed text

I've removed a number of paragraphs due to the lack of reliable references and/or that the text themselves are intricately-detailed and/or that they're unnecessary:

• The shotgun used by Schwarzenegger throughout the film was a Winchester Model 1887, customized for the film to allow it to be "flip-cocked" by the actor in several of the film's scenes.
• Terminator 2 was later followed by two more sequels, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines and Terminator Salvation, as well as an alternate timeline TV series, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.
• Three versions of the film exist: the Theatrical cut, a "Special Edition" of the film for Laserdisc, VHS and DVD and an "Extended Special Edition" available only as an Easter egg on the Ultimate Edition DVD and later on the Skynet Edition Blu-ray disc. The "Special Edition" was titled the director's cut on the European high definition releases.
• The Special Edition has been the same from release to release, with all the scenes that Cameron reinserted intact. There are, however, two scenes that Cameron shot but chose not to reinsert into the film which have been included as an accessible extra on most "Special Edition" releases. The first scene shows the T-1000's tactile approach to acquiring information about the physical world, "scanning" John's room with its fingertips, and eventually finding a hidden shoebox containing pictures and tapes of Sarah, seen at the end of the first film. The second scene is an alternate ending set in 2029 with an aged Sarah Connor reflecting on how Judgment Day was averted. The addition of these scenes is the only difference between the "Special Edition" and the "Extended Special Edition". This version can be accessed by pressing 8, 2, 9, 9, 7 (based on August 29, 1997, the date of Judgment Day) on the main menu of the DVD. The Easter egg is only functional on the Ultimate Edition DVD (no longer produced); however, these scenes can be accessed at a certain point in the film with the interactive mode on the Extreme DVD. In addition, the Extreme Edition contains several Easter eggs, which include access to the theatrical version of the movie and a preview for the Ultimate Edition DVD.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs) 09:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) 03:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Starting review page, full review will be posted shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, review is now on hold pending changes. If anything needs clarification, just ask. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There are some remaining things to be improved, but all in all I think this is good enough. Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

As you know, the requirements for writing and formatting are significantly lower at the GA level than the FA. Thus, I'm being slightly stricter here than I normally would be for GA, but am still well below "brilliant" prose and nitpicky MOS details

• "required an unprecedented budget of more than $94 million (1991 dollars), much of which were" - should be "was", as the object is the budget

• ✔ Fixed.

• "has sent back a reprogrammed T-800 Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger), identical to the one that attacked Sarah" - if it's reprogrammed, how can it be identical?

• ✔ Replaced identical with similar.

• "The Terminator and the T-1000" - I thought the T-1000 is a Terminator?

• See Terminator (character) and Terminator (character concept).

• "The Terminator informs John and Sarah about Skynet" - but didn't you say earlier that Sarah had been preparing John to lead the fight against Skynet? How could she do that if neither of them knew what it was?

• Sarah knew that Skynet would fight the humans, but she didn't know when the machines would become self-aware.

• Which would still imply to me that she knew about Skynet...I'm not trying to be dense, but I've never seen this movie, so the description is a bit confusing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• "to protect the life of John Connor while he is still a child" - can this be worded more directly?

• ✔ Removed "the life of".

• Be consistent in whether or not Resistance and Terminator are capitalized

• ✔ Fixed.

• Check semi-colon use throughout. For example, "Hamilton underwent an extensive thirteen-week training regimen with personal trainer Anthony Cortes; training for three hours each day" - semi-colon should either be a periodcomma, or a colon if "training for" is removed

• ✔ Semi-colon has been replaced with comma.

• "ten-year old son" -> "ten-year-old son"

• ✔ Fixed.

• Dablinks

• ✔ Fixed.

• "Furlong had no prior acting ambitions at the time" - would normally say "no prior acting experience" or "no acting ambitions", but current phrasing seems odd

• ✔ Fixed.

• In general, your manner of introducing direct quotes could be smoother
• "A.D." -> "AD"

• ✔ Fixed.

• "both of whom portray John's foster parents, Janelle and Todd Voight, respectively" - could simplify "both of whom" to just "who" and remove "respectively" altogether

• ✔ Fixed.

• WP:OVERLINK - no need to repeat links multiple times, particularly not in close proximity
• "before starting to assemble the film crew for Terminator 2.." - punctuation error

• ✔ Fixed.

• "Starting with the Mojave Desert, principal photography spanned over 186 days between October 9, 1990, and April 4, 1991, during which the crew visited 20 different sites throughout California and New Mexico" - confusing as written because you're splitting the locations - keep days with dates and move the first location to the end

• ✔ Fixed.

• "These locations were varied" - if they're different sites, this can be assumed; suggest simply "These locations ranged from" (or "ran the gamut from" if you want to be colourful)

• ✔ Fixed.

• "which saw a full-scale helicopter crash, a sliding tanker, along with other elaborate paraphernalia" - should replace either first comma or "along with" with "and"

• ✔ Fixed.

• "The production costs itself...required $51 million in total" - two grammatical errors here

• ✔ Fixed.

• "the film had nearly recovered its budget prior to the its release"

• ✔ Fixed.

• "would integral to the critical success of the film" ?

• ✔ Fixed.

• You repeat a quote, only once it's "mimetic polyalloy" and later "mimetic poly-alloy" - which is right?

• ✔ "mimetic poly-alloy", fixed.

• "could be able to morph" - "could" isn't quite the right word here

• ✔ fixed -- "can morph".

• Journal/newspaper names should be consistently italicized
• "Terminator 2 was a box-office success, earning $204.8 million in the United States alone, and $519 million worldwide and was the highest grossing film of 1991, beating Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and being TriStar Pictures' highest grossing film to date" - awkward, needs rephrasing

• ✔ Fixed -- split into two sentences.

• "presented in a slightly washed-out 1080p transfer and included no special features" - grammar

• ✔ fixed "of the film that is presented in a slightly"

• Don't need caps for Cassette Tape

• ✔ Fixed.

• "a list of films considered the most thrilling contribution to cinema in film history"

• ✔ Replaced with "a list of films considered to be the most thrilling in film history"

• Spell out LAPD

• ✔ Fixed.

• Check dash usage - when using dashes for sentence breaks, pick either spaced en- or unspaced emdashes and stick with your choice for the whole article

• ✔ Fixed.

• I think the table in the box office section is excessive. WP:WHENTABLE states Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table. Clearly the information is not "tabular in nature" because there is only one row in the whole thing. I recommend remvoing the table and leaving it as prose. Betty Logan (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, I think for the purposes of that particular information it allows the information to be clearly access without filtering it from prose and allows for easy comparison of figures between budget and region. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy and verifiability

• Dead link

• FN 49 is actually Box Office Mojo, instead of Bafta.org as stated on Checklinks.

• FN 35: page(s)?

• I'm in the process of ordering the book.

-*✔ Fixed.

• FN 33: normally I wouldn't question this source, but the sheer number of grammatical errors gives me pause - who on earth is this author, and what is the site's editorial policy?

• According to [3], the editor is David Jefferson, who edited articles of the "The Magazine Library section from issue 9, between 1982 and 1995."

• Okay, he would seem to be reliable enough for GA, though I remain astounded. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• FN 45: publisher?

• ✔ Fixed.

• Technically I'm not supposed to say this at GA, but...citation format could be much more consistent
• What makes this a reliable source? This? This? This?

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#External links supports the addition of a film's IMDB page to the article's external links section. As for the other three, their inclusion is a matter of editorial judgments -- if you're not happy with them, I'll see if I can replace them.

• IMDB is fine for external links, but right now it's used as a source. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Looking back at Den of Geeks, I really don't think it's non-RS. I mean, its publisher Dennis Publishing is responsible for The Week, Men's Fitness, Auto Express and ten other magazines.

• Den of Geek solicits contributions from external writers, and writers aho aren't professional journalists. See [4] and [5]. On this basis, while DoG is a profesisonal media outlet since it has a professional staff, the author of the piece has to be taken into account i.e. if it is written "in house" fair enough, if not then it's not reliable. The Terminator piece is written by Ryan Lambie who is the assistant editor, so on that basis I would say DoG is a reliable source in this particular instance. Betty Logan (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Spotchecks of 4 sources found no issues with non-verifiability or copyvio

• There is an incorrect claim in the article sourced to Box Office Mojo in the Box Office section (see [6]): Made for approximately $102 million (after inflation),[3] the movie was, at the time, the most expensive movie ever made. There is no clause in there that corroborates the claim that is the inflated budget; in fact, BOM doesn't inflate budgets, it records the cost at the time (if you were to inflate it, it would be about $140 million). Box Office Mojo is actually saying that the film cost $102 million to make at the time. Now, this figure just about contradicts every other source about the budget that says it cost $94 million, and it wouldn't be the first time BOM has inflated the budget. I suggest the figure is removed, or at the very least the 'inflation' claim itself is removed. Betty Logan (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for shedding light on the fact that BOM does not include the inflation figure in its works. I will clarify the sentence. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• ✔ Fixed.

• The reliability of [7] at [8] is not clear. If these sites officially represent the actors fair enough, but if they are fan sites then they are not reliable. Betty Logan (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• The quote was taken from Arnold Schwarzengger's website Schwarzenegger.com. The previous attribution to this website was dead, so I did a search, and the Robert-Patrick.ws link came up. If it's a major issue, I will remove the quote. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's only an issue if they are fansites. If the site is Robert Patrick's official site it can be used, if we can't establish that then it can't be used. Betty Logan (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• As I said, the quote was taken from Schwarzengger.com, so all the scrutiny would be directed toward that w/s. And no, Robert-Patrick.ws is not a fansite. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There is equal scrutiny on where the information comes from and the site which we take it from. If I take something off the new York Times and put it on my personal web page, it ceases to be reliably sourced, because I could manipulate, fabricate, misrepresent or misinterpret the information. Betty Logan (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise the w/s was a fansite. I'll replace the photo with an image, until I can find a more reliable source. ✔ Replaced quote with an image.--Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Terminatorfiles.com is not a reliable source. It is a self-proclaimed fansite (see [9]) and therefore fails RS as per WP:SPS. Betty Logan (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• I thought about that too, but because I couldn't find any reliable sources, and due to my thought at the time that I was the only person who would be willing to improve the article, I took the plunge by deciding to use the website. I did ask people, mainly through the article's talk page, whether they own the book The Making of Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991), but there were no answers. I wanted to improve the article, but I didn't have to book, so I decided to do the next best thing -- use Terminatorfiles.com's articles. I would've thought it would be editorial judgment regarding the use of such websites, and also due to the circumstances at the time. If you're not happy still, then I will discuss with the reviewer Nikkimaria on the issue. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• [10] at [[11]] is not reliable. Like IMDB it is user generated therefore fails RS. Betty Logan (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• ✔ Removed.

• [12] at [13]. Another user generated site to source the track listings. Technically you don't need to source it because the CD itself serves as a primary source for the tracks. Betty Logan (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• ✔ Removed info.

Broad

• I've generally seen "Release" and "Reception" as two separate sections in this type of article - any particular reason for your organization?

• I've poured over Google Archives I couldn't find anything about the film's release or premiere. I'll search again tomorrow.

• ✔ Added a paragraph about premiere and release.
• I've found an IMDB page which lists the timing of the film's release and the amount of its gross in different countries. In light of your comment below, I assume that it can't be used. I'll hunt for more, but it looks like I cannot satisfy your request.

• Maybe add a sentence or two about editing and post-production?

Neutrality

• "to breath life into the main two Terminators" - try to avoid journalistic/PR phrasings like this

• I'm not sure how to rephrase this, well, phrase.

• Currently we have two figures for the budget: $94 million which seems to be given by most sources and $102 million given by Box Office Mojo. I generally suspect the lower figure is the more accurate one given the weight of sourcing behind it (the 102 million figure sounds like a marketing gimmick of the time so they could market it as the "first 100 million dollar film"), and the sources in the production section even give accounts for how the money was spent. While it is ok to include the BOM figure, the infobox gives too much weighting to it by choosing it over the 94 million figure. I think either the infobox should go with the 94 million figure (since this figure is better accounted for) or we should have a budget range as on some other film articles i.e $94–102 million. Betty Logan (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• There is a slight problem with the cultural references section. The cultural references are each cited to the works themselves i.e. primary sources, rather than secondary sources. As per WP:POPCULTURE, secondary sources are preferable to establish the significance of the reference as being worthy for inclusion in the article: However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. I did a similar section on the Don't Look Now article, and found film reviews or interviews with the director to be the best secondary sources for establishing the importance of these cultural references. The main thing there though, was that I tried as much as possible to avoid citing the referring film itself. For example, for the "Stallone as the Terminator" reference in Last Action Hero, this secondary source would be better, since it establishes the notability of the film reference and thereby places it into a cultural context. I don't think this issue should be a block to a GA though, it's just an area that could be improved IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed: would be nice to fix, but isn't an issue for GA status. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Stability

• Generally best to remove {{underconstruction}} and similar before GA-nomming
• No edit warring or major recent disputes, some vandalism but no serious instability

Images

• Being pedantic, but since File:Terminator.ogg is a temporal media, you actually have to explicitly say it's short in comparison to the original (and preferably give length of the original, if known)

• ✔ Fixed -- I've added "(Short extract)".

• File:T2soundtrackcover.jpg: this isn't used in the main infobox, but in a secondary

• Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.

• The FUR claims use in main infobox, which is the one at the top of the page; however, the image is actually used in a secondary infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've changed the purpose to "section". --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 22:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Captions should meet similar standards for prose and MOS as article text (with the caveat that only captions that are complete sentences should end in periods)

• Could you point me to the problem? I can't see it.

• "Hamilton returned to her role as Sarah Connor from The Terminator" is a complete sentence, so should end in a period
• "The film's visual effects used for the T-1000 were highly advanced for the time, combining state of the art CGI, prosthetics, and editing to bring the T-1000 to life. (0:20)": "film's" is redundant here, "state-of-the-art" is commonly hyphenated, "bring the T-1000 to life" is a journalistic phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree on "Bring the T-1000 to life" being a journalistic phrasing, it's just a more interesting phrasing.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• ✔ Fixed. While we're talking about the T-1000's abilities, I'm not sure how to rephrase "Terminator 2 made extensive use of computer-generated imagery (CGI) to bring to life the main two Terminators." I cannot apply the similar changes from the caption in this case.

• "vivify"? make realistic? make lifelike? My standard rephrasing for this cliche is "animate", but that's a bit trickier to use in the context of a film. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the phrasing is ok in this context; it gets to the point in a way readers can understand. If it is this tough to come up with an alternative phrasing then we risk losing the point by changing it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

John Conner's age as a boy

Sorry if I missed the discussion, the comments on the article said to refer to the Talk page but I see no information here about his age(I'm fairly new to wiki though). Yes, the years add up to 10- but in the very first scene of Terminator 3 as he talks riding the motorcycle through the forest he says that he was 13. What's the deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.246.20 (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terminator_2:_Judgment_Day/Archive_2#John_Connor.27s_Age_and_Setting Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been archived to Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day/Archive 1#John Connor's Age, and shows up again at Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day/Archive 2#John Connor's Age and Setting. The on-screen police records used by John Doggett a sitting duck Robert Patrick displays Connor's age as ten. What happens in T3 has no bearing on the previous film, it just establishes that T3's version of history is different to T2's. GRAPPLE X 16:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I guess this can be deleted then, or whatever the standards on wiki are. 71.211.246.20 (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Conversion to prose

Can somebody with the ability to do so please convert the "Accolades" table into prose? It's a step that needs to be taken to give the article legitimate FA potential. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of featured articles use tables, those with too many may have them on a different page, but tables are not an antithesis to FAness and for that many awards it would be inappropriate to replace it with pure prose. Is it your intention to add prose or outright replace the table? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Tables can be a good supplment to prose, but simply having a table of "accolades" without any prose to support and contextualize it is poor presentation. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, it needs prose, but it also needs the table, especially when there is a large amount of accolades. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I initially wanted outright prose as is the case with Titanic, but after having read the comments above, I think it'll good if some prose is provided, although I don't know for which awards. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I would stick to mentioning the awards it won, and maybe some contextualizing comments about what it lost out to. For example: "Terminator 2 was nominated for six academy awards, winning four: makeup, sound, sound editing, and visual effects, but losing to JFK in the categories of cinematography and editing." You could also have comments from the Academy or from whoever accepted the award, if such comments are available, or maybe something about the award/acceptance if there was anything noteworthy about it (sometimes a director or actor will accept an award on someone else's behalf, or will dedicate it to someone who was associated with the film or died during or after production...that sort of thing). --IllaZilla (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)