This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia: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)