FANDOM


Current sidebar image

isn't the current sidebar image like, way to spoilery? Not so much as you find spoilers on an episode already aired, but from the fact this was how she looked for a part of an episode after a major battle, wouldn't her more normal look be more appropriate?--Terran Officer 00:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

According the page history Darth says, "Main image was chosen for a reason, as it shows her cybernetic nature quite well."JeiaraTalk 09:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a Terminator wiki. Spoilers are all relative. Stuff like this doesn't matter anymore because:

  • A: The series isn't in an ongoing state and therefore no more secrets are due to be leaked/revealed in the immediate future (until the show returns, which I'm confident it will).
  • B: Anyone who reads this page must know that they are bound to be spoiled in some way or another, so it is up to them to click on the page and take that risk.
  • C: There is no such thing as censored information on a show that has been out for months. If a third season was underway as we speak, and info was leaked as to the plot of the first episode, THEN it would be legible for censoring (i.e. given a spoiler warning).

It's here now; therefore we can show it. Darth Raivon 17:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

T-900?

Is there some new info on Cameron that no one has heard of? Also I don't think the popular consensus was that she was terminated by John Henry. While it was certainly ambiguous it seemed by her repetative apologies that she willingly gave up her chip to JH. How about some references? -Grimace427 12:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Besides, I don't think it's possible that she could be a T-900 if you go by the information on the previous T-900 models we saw (albeit in a video game) the T-900 was designed to be an anti-terminator terminator. John specifically says in the show Cameron wasn't designed to repeated fights with other machines. - Nx1701g 17:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the page back to the previous version. - Nx1701g 17:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

So I'm not crazy? What a relief. Unless there is a secret movement to get the Sarah Connor Chronicles back on the air it would seem pointless for the producers to put out any more insider info on the characters anyway. Perhaps an attempt at fan-fiction? -Grimace427 19:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not there are still attempts to get the show renewed for a third season on Fox. I remember reading that there were people at ComicCon, they had a billboard going through LA, and they were still sending letters to Fox as of the beginning of August. - Nx1701g 20:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
That would be awesome to get the show renewed. If I won the lottery I would fund the show myself! I meant some movement within Fox TV or Warner Bro's producers to get the show renewed, which I doubt. What were they thinking cancelling the show anyway! That's for another argument, I'm afraid. -Grimace427 22:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The billboard is set to go through LA a few days before the release of the DVDs to maximize people awareness of the show. They've also started raising funds to have DVD ads put onto the big screen in several major cities. Darth Raivon 22:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Darth, how confident would you say you are about the renewal...more than 75%? I have not heard any good news since the online polls for Save That Show stuff. If I recall correctly TSCC won in a landslide, but they cancelled anyway. Maybe they need a Dark Lord of the Sith to remind them! -Grimace427 19:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind that I moved this down to this part of the discussion page. I've been hearing a lot of different discussions and rumors about them trying to, in some way, connect TSCC and T5. That's just one of the rumors I've heard. Here's a link to one of the sites trying to renew TSCC: [1]
I can't believe I forgot to date stamp one of my entries. - Nx1701g 16:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a real Sith Lord, you do know that right? As for my optimisms regarding the show's return I'm of the opinion that a third season is the least likely outcome unless a network can afford it and the company can cut the costs to accomodate this. A direct-to-DVD mini-series or movie is most likely, since it would be a one-off venture that wouldn't be nearly as risky as another season gamble, not to mention the company would see ALL the profits and not have to split it with anyone. "SavetheSCC" has a reliable source telling us that Warner Premiere are considering a direct-to-DVD project, but nothing is conclusive yet. One last addendum: if I were a Sith Lord I would've zapped the crap out of Kevin Reilly by now. Darth Raivon 15:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! Darth isn't a real Sith Lord? Talk about a bombshell!! Ha ha ha.(I hate emoticons, and espicially hate lol). Unfortunately a special effects-heavy show like TSCC could not be done low-budget and retain a sizable audience. We here on this wiki would certainly still watch, but we are too few in the eyes of the suits over at the TV HQ. Direct to DVD would be a divine alternative to a season 3. Another of my favorite Sci-Fi shows was Stargate SG-1. After 10 seasons they came out with 2 dvd's to finish the story arcs and close some loose ends. I don't recall their budget(it was small) but I believe the sales were high enough to be considered successful.
And yes it very much does seem like we need someone evil to get our Terminator fix back again! How about spray painting some florescent lights red and smashing them over their heads while making fake Lightsaber sound-effects!!! -Grimace427 20:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Combat Capabilities

Is it possible Cameron was not programmed with advanced combat skills, but rather learned them from observing humans? She stated in the pilot episode she was searching for the Connors for 73 days, plenty of time to watch UFC Fight Night! The latest edit in the article seemed to add a little too much speculation for my taste. Any thoughts? -Grimace427 18:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why Skynet wouldn't train her in the martial arts. It would seem like a useful skill for a Terminator. That said, I do remember a scene in "Brothers of Nablus" where Cameron performed a little palm tap before punching a guy into a bookcase. Darth Raivon 20:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A good example of lack of combat programming would be the T-X. A machine like that should have been able to completely dismantle the T-850 in 2 seconds, but due to the amount of human contact the T-850 had it learned new tactics that allowed it to be victorious. Of all the terminators sent back most were stiff and incapable of anything other than punches and throws. The T-1000 was the most adaptive in my opinion using it's liquid nature to extreme advantage. It would go to show how a paranoid schizophrenic supercomputer fears it own creations by limiting their capabilities(read only presets?). Why would Cameron be given those skills and not any others? Make up for her petite stature? I think what sets Cameron apart is her ability to learn, with Sarah and John Connor as her teachers she has plenty to learn. -Grimace427 22:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's painfully obvious to anyone watching T3 that the T-X wasn't giving its all in that fight. In fact, I got the distinct impression that it was toying with the T-850. Besides, you need to consider what is sacrificed in the name of entertainment. It would be rather boring if the T-X just tore him in half on the spot. Terminators fight each other in a mechanical way because that's their default style. The T-850 had very little contact with humans, so when could it have learned martial arts? Machines possess the files for all kinds of combat, but they mostly go for the most direct manner of execution, sometimes using Krav Maga techniques. There really isn't any need to argue about this. It's all a moot point anyway. Darth Raivon 05:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Grimace427: the T1001/Catherine Weaver kills 1 terminator, iirc. the battle takes about 2 seconds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KszitVqKkY4) Hans Henrik 00:46, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

New Cannon Heading

I thought I already fixed those typos--lots of them :). Kanamekun raises a good point: All of the timelines are equally valid. I don't remember who put the heading there, but I agree that it's not really necessary. -Sec_1971 17:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to keep an open mind on it. :-) But I don't see why the TV timeline would be less canon than the films. On the Star Trek wiki, there was a similar issue with the new James Tiberius Kirk, which they resolved by making a new "James Kirk (alternate reality)" - like we did with "John Connor (alternate reality)". But Cameron only exists in one timeline, so there seems to less room for confusion? --Kanamekun 18:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I get it. I knew what you meant. BTW, I already know I misspelled canon in the section title :) -Sec_1971 18:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's all a bit much, isn't it? Why not just post a small note at the top, like Timeline 3 or <insert letter here> canon with a link to the bottom of the page, explaining what you've put there? Darth Raivon 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yah Darth, I agree it's a bit much. Maybe the person who added it can weigh in here? If not, let's either take it off or figure out an approach to creating templates for each timeline.
Haha Sec 1971, I didn't say anything about the canon spelling! I thought maybe cannon was an alternate spelling, and I was too lazy to look it up. --Kanamekun 21:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've edited it to better fit the page. I'll do the same for Sarah, Derek, and John too. Darth Raivon 21:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Biography

I think the biography section is too long... it became more of a episode synopsis rather than a biography of Cameron Phillips. I think it should be cleaned up and rewritten. Ascaaear 08:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I often find character biographies to be rather empty, which is why I wrote a full account of everything she did in the series. Notice it focuses on her and not the other characters as an episode description would. But by all means, if you think you can rewrite it in a less tedious format then do so. Darth Raivon 21:00, 18 March 2008

Gynoid

People, Cameron IS NOT an android, she is a gynoid. Remember that android comes from the greek and means "that resembles a man" while gynoid means "that resembles a woman"

If you permit me I will edit the page.

Edit, added a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynoid


How about we call her cyborg since that is the term the show uses?

  • Cyborg just covers the type of robot it is not the Sex it is meant to represents which would be a gynoid for her,it! -- Awar 10:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


Cyborg simply means part organic and part cybernetic, in Cameron's case a robot surrounded by living human tissue. An android is a synthetic being designed to replicate a human. An android can be completely cybernetic(Data from Star Trek) or pseudo-organic(Bishop from Aliens), but will not have living tissue with human DNA. So Cameron is a Cyborg.-Grimace427 03:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we use pronouns referring to Cameron as an "it" or a "she"? --Dragonclaws(talk) 20:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good question, and something that needs to be decided upon for referring to all Terminators here. I could see it either way, but I'm leaning towards he/she. -- Ozzel 20:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Oooh, great question. I'm going to reveal my human bias here, and say "she". If I were a true Terminator, I would probably say "it". I'm kinda disappointed in myself. ps I bet at some point (maybe in a dream sequence), she is going to make out with John. --Kanamekun 20:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Cameron has a fully female exterior with likely functioning sexual organs in order to pass for human. This would, I believe, have the necessary attributes for her (I'm gonna use female pronouns here for simplicity) to be referred to as female. However, if her human parts should get burned off as did the first terminator, would she then be considered not female? It then could be argued that mentality is the important issue. Should a female human upload her personality into a computer, like in The Matrix, I would still call her female even if the organic form is destroyed. If Cameron has her mind built with a feminine design, one considered sentient (let's say passing the Turing test), it would probably have the ability to be properly referred to as female. In short, I'm leaning towards feminine pronouns. --Dragonclaws(talk) 23:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
And I would agree that they seem to be building towards a Cameron/John romance. --Dragonclaws(talk) 23:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow fascinating Dragonclaws, I never thought about whether or not her sexual organs would be functioning! Then again, I was surprised when the android Data on Star Trek TNG was "fully functional" (a legendary episode). I guess if I was Skynet and creating female Terminators, I'd probably want them to be able to be able to seduce humans inside the Resistance - so functioning body parts would be helpful.
On the subject of gender, you're right - physical approximation is one thing, and her own self-perception is another. My guess is that she knows that she looks like a woman, but she doesn't think about her gender very often. But she's a learning machine, so maybe that will change over time!
In any case, regardless of what she thinks - most humans will consider her to be a female and use female pronouns. So maybe other peoples' perception is another factor. Anyway long story short: gender is a tricky thing! It's probably best to call her a "she", but Cameron could also become an "it" under the right circumstances. I sure hope they do an episode that deals with these issues of gender and sexuality! --Kanamekun 00:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that Cameron was created for purposes of seduction. Her general behavior around John, as well as her evasion regarding her exact model, would point to this. However, the T-800s do not seem capable of such advanced social behavior; even the "good" one of T2 could barely communicate non-linguistically and spoke in a stiff manner. I would still suspect, though, that their sexual organs and all other human features would be indistinguishable from that of a human, simply for the purposes of evading detection. My point being that I believe Cameron and the T-800 to be of significantly similar design, and whatever is decided in terms of pronouns should probably extend to the T-800s as well. The T-1000 and T-X are different enough in design that I wouldn't stick them in the same category, as they have that liquid metal stuff instead of a living human exterior. --Dragonclaws(talk) 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to admint I try to use it, instad of she... It IS a terminator, and Cameron is basicaly just a cover to blend with the people. Ascaaear 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
One more thought here: John and Sarah seem to call Cameron a "she"... altho Sarah will sometimes only grudgingly do so (last episode, she called her "Tin Miss"). But in any case, the Connors do think of her as a female... --Kanamekun 16:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone wil remember the beginning of the original movie when Arnie first appears. The producers seemed to make it a point to show that the Terminator was anatomically correct. Unless it was just a gratuitous wienie shot. Anyway, it's obvious that the T-800 was male. So, it would stand to reason that Cameron is anatomically correct as well.

sec_1971 00:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Fascination with Origin

First Cameron takes a bar of coltan with her. Then she stares weirdly at the robot at the chess tourney. Finally she looks with fascination at the T-888 chip after she takes it out of a terminator's head. Does Cameron have some sort of fascination with her origins, and/or interest in the birth of robotics? I can't tell if she's having a Data/TNG-like pseudo-emotional reaction, or maybe she's responding to some sort of mission parameter (i.e. "ensure self-preservation, by making sure that her terminator model is built somehow"). --Kanamekun 17:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

POV versus HUD

I noticed that the article mentioned Cameron's POV or "Point of View". Is that an official term? I was considering making a page for it, but not sure if it's the official term or HUD (Head's Up Display) is. Or maybe they are both unofficial, and neither one is officially used anywhere? --Kanamekun 22:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure neither of the terms is ever used in the movies/TV show. I'm not sure which one we should use. "HUD" seems better I guess... Jfedor 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I belive that POV would be included in a HUD article! -- Awar 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Image request... We need to have something showing a side-by-side comparison of Cameron's HUD as differentiated between her "damaged reboot playback", her revrerted "skynet mode" and "override mode" I believe the differences may point towards another example of a terminator's "perception" altering based on the program suite they are operating under. Like the 850 vs the TX.Fulongamer 15:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to the difference between her HUD design in S1 and S2, that's just a result of an increase in CGI funds. Anyway, I've added four HUD images from ep1 as requested. Hope you like. Darth Raivon 16:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Series/Class

I've noticed people adding that Cameron is a "model T0K715" because of a teaser poster for the series that says this. I doubt that this poster is canon, especially since "T0K715" doesn't make any sense next to "T-800" or "T-888". I don't want to take it down, but I don't think its correct. -doubleofive 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yah tough to say, especially since that TOK715 thing doesn't fit any previous usage patterns. That said, that poster is definitely hosted at Fox.com. I say that as long as we cite the source and link to the poster in references, it's fair to have it in the article?
That said though, the poster says it's a "Class TOK715" [2]. We've seen Series and Models before, but never classes (as far as I know). I'll try and add that to the article now... --Kanamekun 00:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd think it was rather easy to infer that the "OK" portion of Cameron's model refers to her status as am "okay" or "bootleg" terminator under the Resistance's control, not something from Skynet's files. Since it is already defined that "turned" terminators "sometimes go bad" perhaps Cameron is the next step, in that she was an entirely resistance manufactured terminator model from a siezed production facility. Ergo, Resistance fighters put in their own plans, in their case for model 715, with whatever the "Cameron/Summer Glau" features template to avoid "terminator regression syndrome".Fulongamer 00:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You know, I just think those characters: TOK715 were arbitrarily picked by the poster artist. The creators of the show of repeatedly said that Cameron's model number has not been revealed. I'll try to dig up the interviews and post it later... — Jeiara 02:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the article. I wasn't sure how to word it correctly. I think I realize what you're saying about Cameron not being reprogrammed, but being programmed from scratch by the Resistance. She still has too much creepy Skynet-ish stuff about her to make me think that. And if she is a 715, why would Vick not recognize her model and label her "Unknown Cyborg" if the only thing different is the programming? I don't know, I really don't know about Cameron... -doubleofive 12:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

She may have been a prototype built by sky-net that was either never activated or never put into mass production, alternatively (also more likly) she could be a custom design made built the resistance?! ~ Awar 13:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC).
It seems clear to me that 715 cannot be a Series number. She is way too advanced to predate Arnold's design. My first thought was that the whole thing was a serial number, but "class" negates that (at least in part) since class implies that there are others. I am also pretty sure after looking over the font that it is a zero, not a capital O in between the T and K.
As for her origin, Derek recognized her instantly as a Terminator, so at least her outer flesh, must be a Skynet design. My (completely hypothetical) guess is that she was physically modified and programmed from scratch by the Resistance, and they designated their design "Class T0K". The 715 comes from the Skynet's designation for her cosmetic design, i.e. Derek recognized her because she looks like a "Model 715". The other Terminator did not recognize her because her internal modifications were not done by Skynet. —MJBurrage(TC) 21:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
maybe the name T-0K is like the T-X, as in a non-standard designation indicating some special status. now, I have no direct anything to point to that would suggest this other than the 0 (zero), but maybe that design went straight from an experimental "T-X" designation to a "T-0K" canceled? maybe a failed experiment? too independent, learns too well, too fast, too adaptive, can choose to defect without capture and reprogramming (as was suggested she did)? that promo with the numbers looked to me to suggest an official Skynet "document" so maybe it was a report? maybe it was giving the new killbot its new, non-X designation as a failure. mayhaps where T means "terminator" and X means "experimental," either the 0, the K or the 0K combo means "never again. no no no. never again." or maybe I just have too much time to think. Cantide8405 22:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Your probably spot on. I also think that she is an advanced prototype built by Skynet to replace the flawed I-950 series. In "Dungeons & Dragons" Derek and the resistance fighters are held in a house and dragged one-by-one into the cellar where ballet music is playing; now I believe that Cameron (or at least a machine of her model) was in that cellar and was performing a variety of tests and tortures on the fighters in order to adapt her human behaviour programming. When she was finished with them, she was transported to a Skynet base in that strange capsule but was probably ambushed by Tech-Com and neutralized. They then extensively modified her programming to allow for a more advanced learning and, quite possibly, feeling of emotions. In short: they gave her an artificial soul. As far as missions go, I think she chooses to obey John instead of being programmed to do so, much like a resistance fighter would choose to obey an order. For what is a soul if not the freedom of choice? As for future romance between John and Cameron, I think this will be inevitable as Cameron has shown a close attachment to John and vice versa. Oh, and before I forget: she is definitely programmed to be feminine, why else would she dress the way she does or apply make-up. Darth Raivon 12:42, March 21 2008
Technically, those things are only considered feminine because of societal customs. Little kids playing dress-up tend not to care about such gender roles until the teacher/parent gives them boundaries. Not that I expect the writers to make such distinctions, but Cameron's learning to be human puts her in a sort of "little kid" role. As far as plot goes, I think it's clear she has a mind of her own and I would agree that her having been given freedom of choice is a likely possibility. I'm not quite sure what to make of the mysterious basement, myself. --Dragonclaws(talk) 13:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here's my sadly-obsessive theory: Cameron is an advanced unit created by Skynet, but was captured by the Resistance and reprogrammed extensively. She has the same endoskeleton as a T-888, albeit petite-sized. Her blue eyes are simply an indication of her feminine programming. Connor wanted to create a Terminator that could experience and understand human behaviour and emotions, to prove that a machine could understand what it means to be human. She has no restrictive protocols, she does not follow commands because she is programmed to, she follows them because she chooses to. In short, Cameron is a technological masterpiece, a machine with a human soul. T0K715: T-Terminator / 0K*-okay (safe) / 715-skin model. This next bit is a little far-fetched so bear with me: 0K could refer to the temperature 0 Kelvin because "it is not possible to cool any substance to 0 K, scientists have made great advancements in achieving temperatures close to absolute zero, where matter exhibits odd quantum effects such as superconductivity and superfluidity." 0 Kelvin represents the state wherein a machine becomes human, Skynet cannot create such a thing, but humans can. Superconductivity and superfluidity are scientific phenomenoms, which is exactly what Cameron is. I stumbled upon this analogy after typing 0K into Wikipedia and being redirected to Absolute Zero, this sentence just jumped out at me and made sense. I'm probably crazy, T0K715 could just be made-up. You never know. Its still interesting though. As for the Derek/basement business...(shrugs) I've given up trying to figure it out. Darth Raivon 18:45, 29 March 2008
Just a little note: I believe Cameron states in one of the early episodes that she doesn't take commands from John "yet". Which means John hasn't become the person she follow orders from. Until then, she choose to do what she have to do, to complete her mission. About the model/class number... I think people around here is over analyzing it. Its just a alpha-number which has been used in promotion of the show. We have yet to see if it really has something to do with Camerons model number in the series. Ascaaear 08:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

FOX has confirmed that Cameron is indeed a T0K715. It doesn't fit with T-8xx because she was, apparently, not built by Skynet. Still no word on what her actual Model is, though. Maybe she's a T-808 like the one is "The Burning Earth". Who knows? sec_1971 00:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed where/how? Note also how when discussing the reprogramming of Terminators with Sarah she implies heavily that she was in fact wiped "to insure success" and therefore can't comment on what she may or may not have done to Derek while operating under Skynet's influence. As I mentioned elsewhere, Vick's appraisal of her as an "unknown cyborg" may simply be a factor of his temporal deployment being before Skynet started producing models with Cameron's appearance. What we can glean so far is that Terminators of Cameron's precise appearance are in Skynet's employ (hence Derek's reaction to her in the future) but what we don't know yet is whether she is a small-framed 888 (we know there are distinct differences between them within the series) with a 715 skinjob model, or if the TOK-715 refers to a resistance adopted re-numbering of reprogrammed units of some kind.Fulongamer 16:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
You make some valid points but I disagree. I find it difficult to believe that a unit as advanced as a T-888 would rely purely on the flesh sheath to determine what type of cyborg it is dealing with. A flesh sheath model can be applied to more than one series - for example, the T-800 and T-850 may be equipped with the same one, but the latter is decidedly more formidable than the former. Therefore, identifying cyborgs by skinjob would be unreliable at best and potentially disastrous at worst. It seems to me anyway that Vick tried to match her endoskeleton to his database and found no reference to it. Secondly, Cameron's endoskeleton appears to have sensory abilities that surpass that of a T-888. No T-888 has ever performed biomarker scans or given any indication that they possess the same degree of sensation as she does. Furthermore, Rosie, without the advantage of far greater mass like other T-888's was utterly out-classed by Cameron. Hence I conclude that Cameron is not merely a petite T-888. As to the TOK-715 issue, your guess is as good as mine. I think your Resistance re-numbering theory is quite plausible.TOK-797 13:20, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Do you think we will ever find out what she was now the show has been cancelled? Smeagan 08:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A possibility of what her designation could mean (which could also explain why she is different from other T888s) stems from the practice of not giving weapons a number until the final prototype phase. Her designation could actually be "T0" if she is not meant as a production prototype but rather as a testbed for some technology that is not expected to be ready for deployment until further development is done. The 'K' could be a clue as to what the technology being tested is when put together with her capabilities and behavior. First off she moves in a smoother way than other Terminators. Second is that while not as strong as full sized Terminators she does seem to be slightly stronger for her size than the others. Third, and possibly most important, is the way she acts and the odd fairly frequent flip-flop between natural human behavior and typical Terminator social awkwardness. Especially when at one point she forgot that she was a Terminator and reverted to Allison, something normal terminators probably do not have the memories to do (imitating behavior and actually having a persons memories are two entirely different things). These are all traits of the TS300 units which are built at a plant on the Kolya peninsula by a nation most Pentagon personal still refer to as "the Kremlin" in Hollywood depictions either of which could be where the 'K' came from. It is possible that Skynet reverse engineered the remains or whatever of some TS300s and used a modified T888 chassis as a testbed and a high-value captive (Allison) as the source for a test run of an experimental S.I.P developed from the reverse engineered TS300 neurocircutry and other systems. Cameron's system could be a bit unstable which could be why she was so consistently Allison-like in the pilot but mostly machine-like with frequent flashes of natural human behavioral traits (offset with plenty of social gaffs) after the battering and the rough time jump in the pilot. I have no idea if that was the original intention of course, and I am not sure of how the timing of the comics with the TS300s is in relation to the series but the theory seems to make some sense from an "inworld" point of view regardless of whether it does from a real world production point of view or not. --BC01 (talk) 19:51, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Cameron's Missions

Although it has to date been assumed that Cameron's Time Travel to the past coincided with the beginning of the 73 days of searching it took her to find Jon in 1999, that might be a faulty assumption. Since she has also stated that she opened the safety deposit box in the bank where the weapon and TDE were concealed, it can be presumed that she has also conducted a mission of some sort in support of the Engineer, at least to place the weapon components in the box. What can't be assumed is when that happened. Looking at the resultant devastation of the vault TDE's actual use, one can also reasonably assume that the TDE was not used to "return" to the future after working with/for the Engineer before returning to the past to search for and protect John. There are two reasonable options, either

1) Cameron has made several one way TDE trips back, living forwards through regular time to operate again in the future before being sent back again. (not very reasonable, but more possible for a terminator than a human)

or

2) Cameron was sent back once, to some undetermined point between 1963 and 1999 to support the Engineer with the "current" construction of the vault+TDE and concealment of the weapon. Possible future tech unique pieces (gathered over 8 months of future scavenging) could have been concealed in her to complete the devices in the past. She could have joined the Engineer before, during, or after he completed his job "building" the 1999 configuration of the vault to deliver the final components and open the safety deposit box for the weapon. Then she began the mission to search for John no later than 73 days prior to the events in the SCC pilot.

Additional missions may or may not have been part of her past operational timeline(s).Fulongamer 09:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think option one is not reasonable? She claim that the time machine were build so they always have a way back home, so its possible it has been used before, even by herself. Ascaaear 15:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The use of the TDE in the vault leveled the bank. That might tend to be noticed if it somehow kept happening. As to why the TDE in the vault was so destructive, there are many reasons.
  • The TDE reacted badly to the simultaneous discharge of the weapon interfering with it's sphere.
  • The TDE suffered a one-time mishap and destroyed itself.
  • The TDE components built from contemporary materials was unable to take the strain of more than one (or at least this last) use.
Ergo, it is highly unlikely the TDE has seen actual use prior to being used as an escape route. What then has to be clarified is what Cameron meant by the "always have a way back home" quote. I think the plan was for (as used) making a one-shot escape route always available for the Connors, rather than a "temporal commuter system" for everyone. The "multiple one-way trips" option is possible for at least a terminator, as that plan was cited by the 850 in T3, but tends to strain credibility the more it's used. Maybe I'm just jaded after "Futurama:Bender's Big Score". The easiest solution is some variation of option 2 above.Fulongamer 19:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I dont believe the bank was leveled because of the use of TDE, but rather of Sarah using the the isotope weapon. But we really don't know at all... TDE has been used before without (as far we know) the building is demolished, so why should it be now? I think in general we have to stick to what Cameron say and what we see. On the other hand, I dont mind having different opinions in the article, if we have some sort of source for it. Ascaaear 20:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


1963?

Here is the quote:

Walking towards a bank
John: So you just have like an account here?
Cameron: Safety deposit box.
Sarah: When did you open that?
Cameron: 1963. (walks by an engraving that says, "THIS STONE WAS SET 1963 THIS DAY MARCH 7")

Interestingly, Sarah asks her "When did you open that", and she answers, "1963". She never said, "I opened it in 1963". There are a few scenarios that could explain this:

  • Cameron went back in time to 1963 or earlier. She then either waited til 1999 or she built or used a TDE to jump to 1999.
  • She sent The Engineer back in time to 1963 or earlier with orders to open an account for her.

Between these two options, Option 2 just seems so much easier - it's also much lower risk, in that she doesn't have to survive for 36 years in order to find the Connors. It also fits with the 73 days timeline (I saw the discussion above about Cameron having two possible missions, which would fit with the first option above). Option 2 also fits with the quote, if you assume that she gave the order to send the Engineer back in time.

I think we should acknowledge this ambiguity in her article, rather than pick one option and leave out the other. I wanted to propose this first on the talk page though, to collect everyone's thoughts on this approach before proceeding. Let me know what you think! --Kanamekun 05:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We also have to acknowledge that Cameron lies, "about important things" no less. She could just as easily be pulling a "Keyser Soze" (The Usual Suspects) and simply state that year because it is on the wall of the bank. She knows the materials are in the bank vault, and in the safety deposit box, and intends to get access to them. Being a terminator, she knows nothing will stop her. As of her admission in "Vick's Chip", many of her quotes can certainly no longer be taken at face value. I'm sure more clues will be dropped throughout the following seasons, as well as T4.Fulongamer 07:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I really think that absent any explicit proof either way, the bio should be updated to be a bit more vague. There is as yet no proof that Cameron has traveled forward in time before the witnessed use of the TDE on 7 September 1999. "Sometime between 1963 and 1999" is more accurate at the moment than saying definitively she personally opened the box when the bank was founded, and "Arrived in the past no later than 29 June 1999" (73 days prior to the pilot) is the only other boundary we have. I just don't see the bank TDE being either functionally built that early, or viable for more than the "as used" one-shot escape route. She has to be lying about something important here, and time travel seems important to me.Fulongamer 17:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Cameron could easily go back to 1963, open up the bank account, and use the TDE back home. Cameron does states that the time machine where build so they always have a way back home. From out of this I got the impression the TDE can be used several time (without being destroyed or destroying the bank). Look at it, why would "they" send back someone to open a account, and a Engineer to build a time machine in the bank, and then use it to get home and by doing this, destroy it?
Or... Cameron could go back to 1963, open the bank, wait 64 years and get a new mission to be send back to 1999. This would still work fine with the 73 days of searching for John Connor. And by the way, even that Cameron opened the bank account in 1963, doesn't mean the TDE were build the same year. The box could be empty up till 1999 and then the TDE could be build. About Cameron lying... I think we have to trust what she says, until otherwise is proved. Ascaaear 00:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This is where I differ, the impression I got from Cameron was that the TDE was put there so that "we" being Cameron and the Connors specifically would "always have a way back". This being the lesson learned from Kyle's original trip. Always available once is not the same as always available for constant use. And especially is it was to be established as an emergency escape route, then the probability that it may even have INTENTIONALLY self destructed rises. They don't want to leave TDE equipment "unattended" in the past once it is revealed and gank the timeline any worse than it already is, and as an escape route, they are being pursued, ergo, they may be followed. So, to use it "safely" as an escape it must self destruct.Fulongamer 02:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It could be like you said... only that, the exact word by Cameron is: "The Engineer got a job building the vault. So we'd always have a way back home". The only thing I get out of using home, is for those who come from the future, and want to get back where they came from. Sarah, John and Cameron traveling to 2007 isn't home, thats a one way trip. Beside there no source whatever that support that TDE is capable of selfdestruction. Ascaaear 05:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Might I also question the "home" part? If you were in a nuclear wasteland and had the opprotunity to go to the past, would you EVER want to go back to the wasteland? -Grimace427 13:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If taken from Cameron's perspective, would the war-torn nuclear twilight not be her home? Darth Raivon 20:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We're also assuming that the Engineer is a human, it could be a machine. - Nx1701g 03:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
From the pilot episode, "One of our best engineers"...sounds pretty human, but an assumption nontheless. However, would a machine become so attached to one location enough to call it home? -Grimace427 06:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe the best explanation to be that the Resistance sent back a human soldier to build the weaponry, open an account and build the TDE. The engineer would then spend his retirement in the past. the TDE was built for Cameron and the resistance in general, "we" refers to any Resistance fighter on a mission in the past. the TDE is only for one time use and there are probably more than one , distributed around the globe. After all the war against Skynet is not only a battle on ground it's also a battle through time, each faction trying to kill the other before it is even born.Jaque355 (talk)

Cameron's Lies

John: So how often do you lie?
Cameron: When the mission requires it.
John: Do you lie to me?
Cameron: Sometimes.
John: About important things?
Cameron: Yes. Important things.

Because there are are a significant number of plot points that hinge on statements made by Cameron, let us examine as many critical ones as we can detect and lay the groundwork for determining the veracity of her statements or the motives behind her deceptions, where they can be determined.Fulongamer 00:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting stuff! What about implicit lies... like what is her real mission? And why does she have such a good fashion sense if she's a robot? --Kanamekun 01:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess she just looks in magazines and other girls. She is capable of learning things... Ascaaear 22:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
So, to cover the subject above, I'll create a sub-page Cameron's lies as recommended in the below Relationships section, and yes, implicit lies are fair game as well.Fulongamer 22:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Relationships

I'm thinking about adding a "Relationships" section to describe, in detail, Cameron's relationships with the main characters. I'll wait until tomorrow before I start writing it, so if you have any suggestions or comments add them below. Darth Raivon 17:45, 3 April 2008

Sounds great! If the relationship is with a minor character, it should probably be put on the minor character's page. Or if the relationship is between major characters and starts to become too long, we can move them into a separate page (e.g. John and Cameron - with the characters listed in the order that they're included in the credits). --Kanamekun 17:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so I added the "Relationships" section (earlier than planned), I know John's is quite long so if anyone thinks they can compress it without losing the important bits then by all means. I'm pretty good at psychology, so when I watch an episode I pick up on things quickly, but I'm not all that good at packing lots of info into short paragraphs. Hope you like. Darth Raivon 23:20, 3 April 2008
This is great stuff! Rather than cut down longer relationship descriptions though, don't be afraid to create separate pages - like this example from the Smallville wiki [3]. Also, the Derek description can go on Derek's page... since he's not a major character (yet, at least). --Kanamekun 22:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer it to remain on her bio, but if others think it should be a separate page then sure. Don't think I'll use Smallville's naming system though, Johmeron or Cahm just doesn't sound right. Darth Raivon 23:40, 3 April 2008
Yah sorry, I just meant the idea of having Relationship pages as separate pages - if there's enough text to justify it, that is. --Kanamekun 00:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No need to apologize, I'm open to ideas and constructive criticism. By the way, I added a Aliases/Nicknames section as well, I'm sure there are other nicknames that Sarah uses but I can't remember them all. Darth Raivon 01:20, 4 April 2008
Ummm....where did Derek's section go? Darth Raivon 19:20, 4 April 2008
Nevermind, I found it. Darth Raivon 19:26, 4 April 2008
I have some concerns with this line: "Cameron also develops some form of jealousy towards John's new girlfriend, Riley, and at one point states that he (John) "Can't be trusted anymore"." We can't know this for certain because its based on promos for the upcoming season and those can be very misleading. Speculation shouldn't be passed off as canon. RABoettcher 07:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I probably should've put a spoiler warning on this page earlier, instead of leaving it for Jeiara to do (thanks for that BTW). Anyway, Cameron's "jealousy" isn't speculation as Summer has stated in numerous interviews that Cameron does experience a form of jealousy (yes, I really should add links to said interviews). When the episodes actually air, I'll adjust the info accordingly. Darth Raivon 23:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing "Blue Eyes" picture

Cameron blue eyes2

Blue Eyes

Cameron blue eyes

Blue Eyes

Cameron blue eyes3

Blue Eyes...again

Cameron blue eyes4

photoshop magic

The current picture is rather unflattering (grainy, discolouration etc), so I was thinking about replacing it with this: Anyone agree? Darth Raivon 19:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the current pic is better than this one. This one is being illuminated by the retinal scan laser, so it is harder to tell that her eyes contain in fact a blue light source.Fulongamer 19:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
True. But most, if not all, people know that she has blue eyes and retinal scans don't normally create such an effect in human eyes. Any way, what about this one? Darth Raivon 21:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've decided not to change the picture unless asked by others to do so. If the pictures here aren't suitable or if someone else can't find a better one, I can upload a bigger version of the current image (minus the gun) so that viewers can actually see the blue eyes without clicking the image. Darth Raivon 23:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree to keep the first picture. On the other picture, If it is Camerone at all, you can hardly see it is her. Ascaaear 06:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Forgive my persistence (I'm something of a perfectionist), but what about this zoomed version of the current pic. Darth Raivon 07:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The last one seems ok by me. Ascaaear 10:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong being a perfectionist! Anyway it looks fine to me, but I also did some "Photoshop Magic" and brighten the colors if you like that better. — Jeiara 21:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That's brilliant, thanks. I'll probably change it today. Darth Raivon 14:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Cameron Season 2

With the welcome news that SCC will return for a second series, I was wondering what you guys think will happen to Cameron in Season 2. Will she be able to repair herself? Will she turn evil? Will she and John fall in love? Please comment. Darth Raivon 17:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I cant help thinking there is some kind of twist that we don't notice. I dont think she's been blowed up at all. If she is blowed up, remember this: She did collect the coltan bar and the skin from the other terminator. So technically she would be able to repair her self. Also, the skin are able to grow itself back. Ascaaear 19:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

True, I reckon she'll suffer significant skin damage (if she didn't escape in time) and this will give us some insight into her model and origins. Then again, if you think about it: she was blown up in broad daylight, how is she going to be able to get inside the Connor residence without attracting attention? And how will John react if she walks through the door with burnt skin hanging off? Darth Raivon 14:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone else has noticed but Cameron's skin heals a lot faster than most humans, and Terminators for that matter. Also, when she melts the T-888's endoskeleton her skin is undamaged by the intense heat, which is odd since she warned Charley to stand back before lighting the thermite. This might suggest that she will be undamaged by the car bomb, at least not extensively. Darth Raivon 12:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cameron Season 2

Cameron Returns

It is confirmed: Cameron escaped the car bomb, apparently unscathed (more or less). The image on the right is from behind the scenes footage of TSCC Season 2. I don't know about you lot but she looks seriously p***ed off, maybe the result of some sort of revenge program. I'd hate to be Sarkissian. Visit [4] and [5] for more photos. Darth Raivon 12:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

===WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD!===
Fox has released a promo video of Season 2 and guess what... Cameron has gone ROGUE!!! This is a transcript of the trailer (capitals are onscreen words):
THIS SEASON
(John runs under a bridge)
ALLIES BECOME ENEMIES
Sarah: She will kill you!
(Cameron raises a gun, Sarah and John are startled)
A BOY BECOMES A MAN
John: I made her, I sent her back.
AND THE TERMINATOR SAGA
(Cameron throws a man through a door)
IS REBORN
(A quick succession of shots: John jumps out a window, Cameron throws a man against a wall, John and Sarah are running down a street, a car chase, Cameron overturns the car.)
Shirley Manson: It's going to change the world.
(Shows Shirley Manson, cuts to John looking in a mirror with a new haircut.) [6]
I also found this trailer for Fox's upcoming programmes, it shows a few bits 'n' pieces not seen in the other trailer. [7] Visit Talk:Episode 201 to get an idea of the possible plot. Yes, my obsession knows no bounds. Darth Raivon 08:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why did Cameron not Terminate?

I saw a mention that Cameron chose not to terminate John. Is it possible that he fixed her chip by cleaning it out a bit? I'll rewatch that scene, but wanted to see what you guys thought... --Kanamekun 23:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think what happened was:
  1. The explosion rattled her systems, reverting her back to her Skynet orders: Terminate John Connor. But that this was an "unnatural" reversion.
  2. When John took out her chip and re-inserted it she was able to reboot properly and gained a measure of control over her directives.
  3. Due to a conflict in her programming, Cameron was able to override her directives and choose not to kill him. /// When she emerged from the explosion she was stuck in "kill John mode" but when she rebooted after having her chip removed, she was no longer trapped within that mode and she was able to consciously decide not to kill him. BTW, that scene where she cries... what a tear-jerker. *Sniff* :) Darth Raivon 00:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess it's possible? But I thought reboots took 2 minutes. She just started up right away (15 seconds?) after John re-inserted the chip... --Kanamekun 00:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Only when she is knocked offline, her systems need to conduct a brief system check for damage, which takes longer than simply restarting, which is what she did when he re-inserted her chip. Darth Raivon 00:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Known benchmarks: 120 seconds to reboot from a systemic shock or damage, 15 seconds to reactivate from simple standby. An unspecified trigger to "fast boot" with a chip reinsertion. In "Vick's Chip" the played out the pause to restart longer for dramatic effect, in "Samson & Delilah" they may have used editorial license to skip all the waiting around to jump up the threat she may or may not have posed. We can also reference the Chip removal scene from the director's cut of T2. We also see a difference in Cameron (as with Vick) when simply reviewing memories (simple playback, no analysis functions) and processing memory files in active terminator mode (overlay/HUD present). I still also stand by the notion that Red vs Blue as "gender" assignment is a red herring. Fulongamer 02:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Awesome list Fulongamer! Maybe we should create a page called "reboot" or something, to record all this? --Kanamekun 02:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression these ocurrences were itemized on the Terminator Series pages, associated with the chassis they are demonstrated on. There is no guarantee that the reset time explicitly stated as a 888 function is the same for other designs, much less a resistance reprogrammed machine. Fulongamer 06:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
There have been a number of references to rebooting in the movies/TV series: http://terminator.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Search?search=reboot&go=1. I think a page on it would make a nice addition to the wiki? --Kanamekun 06:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if it's clear enough to speak of choosing to not kill John within the article! What supports Darth Raivon's idea is that after Cameron was rebooted, it took a while until her mission and then the override appear - that could hint on some kind of conscious decision. But I think it fits better when the override it's just seen as the rebel's reprogramming that take some seconds to load - we'll learn in later episodes that the reprogramming/override failed sometimes and the cyborgs go for termination (and it seems it is not possible to delete the original program). The explosion and the piece of junk in Cameron's head made "extensive damage" to a part of her chip and "compromised" the "chip integrity", so the override function is crashed or could not be loaded on the reboot after the explosion (where she still has the piece of junk in her head). So, either the second normal reboot made her (re)programming load properly or there was also some kind of loose contact which was fixed by John cleaning up the chip. All in all, her chip is now damaged (results seen in "Allison from Palmdale"), as Cromartie in "Mr. Ferguson is Ill Today" assumed. (I would vote to add some information or reference to all these thoughts in the "Samson & Delilah" article. -Wikicide 14:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I put the part about Cameron's "not-killing" John more into perspective. -Wikicide 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
There are two possibilities here: either she chose not to kill him and overrode her directive, or her Resistance programming finally kicked in after a delay. However, if she had no choice in the matter, why did she hesitate in the first place? She had him in her sights for a full ten seconds while the "Terminate" directive was active, plenty of time for her to kill him, but she didn't. If she was aware that she had a choice and felt no compulsion to kill him, it is feasible that she decided to override the directive on her own accord. Another thing to consider is that a main theme of that episode was about machines "crossing against the light" i.e. going against their programming (see Weaver's speech). So it is heavily implied that her not killing John was a matter of choice, not programming. My $0.02. Darth Raivon 20:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think both ways are plausible (I am more the "not-too-human" party :-) and now both ones are in the article. You are correct about her hesitation, but: Her HUD which shows the identification of John, "Terminate" and right after it "Override" appears very late. I would expect that she is in Terminate mode right after her reboot (at least identify John), so I guess the hesitation and the late showing of her HUD was (also) for the drama.
If she could choose between Terminate and Override (=reprogramming), it surely makes sense that she choose not to kill John: She has no memory on her Skynet past anymore (besides terminate order), but all memories on the Connors etc. -Wikicide 20:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Annoying Citations

Are those citations really necessary? Anyone who has watched TSCC will know what we're talking about. I think we have plenty of reference links as it is. Can we please get rid of these citations, they make my skin crawl and look out of place. Darth Raivon 11:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

References can be really helpful to first-time viewers? I'll try to start filling them in... --Kanamekun 15:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey Darth! Just to clarify: do you dislike the citation needed? Or also the references/footnotes... --Kanamekun 16:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with the references/footnotes, so long as they aren't over-used. Citations needed are just annoying and they stand out. It's just an annoying eye-catcher. Darth Raivon 10:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I took out the link - better? :-) --Kanamekun 16:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

They do... for now. I hate to be annoying about this, but I'd prefer they disappear altogether, or be replaced by proper links to whatever page they require. Darth Raivon 18:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow... what do you mean re: proper links to whatever page they require? I'd love to find a solution that makes you happy... so trying to get a better sense for what you'd like to see. --Kanamekun 22:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, what I mean is for the citations to be replaced with either links to references (which are listed at the bottom of the page) or direct links to a page i.e. if the article says that something happened but doesn't tell you what episode this thing occured, then a link would be put in that leads to the episode to which it refers to. Or, we can just not bother in certain circumstances. After all, I've linked her biography to each episode and her personality and relationships sections have already been linked. I hope I make sense. Darth Raivon 23:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I saw seven [citation needed]'s on the page:
  1. Cameron is from an unknown terminator series, admittedly different than all others.
  2. Cameron's initial interactions with John were part of a program designed specifically to get close to him. Therefore, once her identity was revealed, she was no longer required to follow the program and reverted back to her base settings.
  3. When John comments on the differences between her behaviors at different points, she replies, "Fooled you."
  4. Sarah Connor is shown on several occasions having to order Cameron not to kill people and reprimanding her when she commits acts of violence.
  5. Cameron is often called "Tin-Miss", referencing the Tin-Man from L. Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz
  6. When someone explains something to Cameron that she is unfamiliar with, such as mourning one's death, the human imagination, or phrases that don't take their literal meaning, she responds with "Thank you for explaining."
  7. Another aspect of Cameron's personality that has yet to be explored is her apparent fashion sense, as she is seen in a wide range of outfits during the series (as opposed to most previous terminators who generally wore a single outfit).

If you know the episodes for these, sticking in the relevant ref links can easily be done. I think I can trackdown #3-7, #1 & #2 I'm not too sure. — Jeiara 02:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So I finally got a free moment and was able to sort out my own problem. I've replaced the citations with page links. Darth Raivon 12:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking Ahead

Biography proposal

A rough idea of how the biography section will look: the Pre Judgment Day links will take the reader to the related biography pages and the season links will lead to the relevant season, as they do at the moment.

Hopefully TSCC will last for many seasons (a minimum of 6), which means that Cameron will have a very long biography. Now I'm not suggesting that we try and shorten her bio, because I worked hard on it and it wouldn't make much of a difference in the long run. But what we might want to do after say; Season 3, is to move the biography to a separate page and put a brief summary and link on her main page. E.g. Cameron (Season One) and Cameron (Season Two) etc. Otherwise, loading this page would take forever. Just a thought, and not one I'd expect anyone to act on yet. Darth Raivon 12:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I edit on some wikis where there have been up to 8 seasons, and the pages do get long! Over time, each season summary gets a bit more concise... and details on certain things (like specific powers and abilities) get moved to other pages. I haven't seen a biography moved to another page, but it's def something we could consider! --Kanamekun 15:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is my proposed suggestion for the future: we create a page titled Cameron Phillips (Season 1) or something like that, and move her season 1 biography to that page with a link on the original. We do the same for Season 2 and (hopefully) Season 3 and all those that follow. We may have to do the same with the relationship section and personality etc, but they should probably stay where they are as they can be rewritten and compressed. Her page can have the following sections: personality, behind the scenes, relationships, characteristics, character concept, appearances, external links etc. Her biography will contain links to separate pages for each season and another for pre-Judgment Day. We'll have to decide upon appropriate names for each page, quite possibly: Cameron Phillips (Season X) or Cameron's Biography (Season X). Each one can have a link system at the bottom like on the episode pages, allowing the reader quick access to the next season. This could also apply to John's page (alternate timeline). Thoughts? Darth Raivon 00:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds intriguing! Has this approach been used on any other TV wikis? I edit on a few and haven't seen it... but only one of those wikis has been running more than 4 seasons.
In any event, definitely something to think about if we make it to a third season! *crosses fingers* --Kanamekun 01:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a good approach to reduce the mainpage size...."if" you can do a "Brief Summary" :evilgrin: If you are establishing a special type of page for either "Character Season Summaries" or "Season Character Bios" they may also benefit from a "Category" as well. Fulongamer 02:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I confess to being something of a noob in the area of creating catagories and such, so any help there would be appreciated. I have taken it upon myself to go ahead and make the changes, I hope you like the work I've done. Any suggestions for improvement and/or alterations will be welcome. Darth Raivon 19:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories are easy. See your three pages new for the basics. I created the category "Character Biographies" and placed it inside the category for "Characters". Any further created expansion pages for the extra long bios can go there. I'd reccommend page names like John Connor (TSCC)/Season 1, etc.. for the next group. That way we can roll up the Connor pages under one name page and have the Film, TV, Novel, and Comic deviations itemized on pages like these.Fulongamer 01:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. I'm less concerned about John's page for now, but I'll get round to sorting out his soon enough. Darth Raivon 10:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some depraved individual keeps writing sick slander in the Personality section. I deleted this crap only for it to return. Thankfully, fellow user Zythe got rid of it, but this is still unacceptable. Is there a way we can block vandals from editing pages without compromising our own ability to edit? The idiot in question is Mckarkquey. Darth Raivon 23:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reported him. — Jeiara 23:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully he/she won't be seen around here again. Darth Raivon 00:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ensdoskeleton Biology

Tear Ducts

I'm a noob here, so I won't edit that back, but consider the fragment: "The Series 800 in Terminator 2: Judgment Day told John Connor, "I know now why you cry. But it is something I can never do." As tear ducts in humans are necessary for eye lubrication and protection, the Series 800 must have an alternative mechanism in place. " there's no contradiction with what I wrote "Of course that does not imply they're all programmed with the ability to cry. " - the simplest explanation would be that they have tear ducts, but they are operated automatically in "lubrication / low output" and in earlier models simply aren't connected / controlled with (fake or not, that's another issue) emotions software so they can't operate in "crying / high output" mode. Not due to biological differences, but due to lack of appropriate stimulus from the software. There are no reasons for SkyNet to design that biomechanism differently, so why would it? The tissue's cloned, so why - from SkyNet's PoV - just leave as much as possible as it is? Of course there's no point (in earlier brute-force models) in making the necessary connections between tear ducts and emotions or what passes for emotions, therefore - earlier models can't cry due to an analogue of a mental block problem, they have the hardware (or tissue in this case), they don't have the software. --Lilianne Blaze 17:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, feel free to add that back. I was just trying to supplement your observation with a direct quote. Definitely agree that there are two elements necessary to cry: the biological mechanism, and the software/programming. --Kanamekun 18:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried kind-of merging both versions, is the current one ok?--Lilianne Blaze 19:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah a random followup thought: I read once that the living tissue used by Skynet doesn't rot or necrotize... dunno if that's canon or not. But if true, maybe the older terminator models wouldn't need tear ducts? --Kanamekun 18:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
That would be _very_ unlikely, the basic structure of living cells implies such vulnerabilities, sure with advanced genetic engineering it should be possible to regenerate tissues effectively forever, but not by making them immune to such things, only by having them self-repair efficiently and quickly enough. And even if that was the case, it's not only the matter of moisture, but also of washing out tiny dust particles, etc, so such an eye would quickly become a bit gray-colored and matte. --Lilianne Blaze 19:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. I think that's fine. I do think maybe it overstates things slightly to say that tear ducts are necessary... who knows how that crazy terminator technology works, ya know? If we could tone that statement down slightly, I'd feel more comfortable! Thanks for checking on the talk page btw - hugely appreciated :-). --Kanamekun 19:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Please do, I wasn't sure how to word it anyway. "who knows how that crazy terminator technology works, ya know?". Mostly I'm assuming - trying to think like SkyNet would - that SkyNet wouldn't make any modifications in that (tear ducts) area because it just works and has no combat value. So just take the outer layer of tissue, skin, some muscles, eyes, make them supportable with as little as possible, make it heal faster, make the blood flow more redundant, things like that. Tear ducts would fall into "whatever, it works" category for brute-force models, then eventually SkyNet would decide to, excuse the pun, "write drivers for them" for more advanced infiltrators. As for crazy, I wouldn't say so. Models up to T-900 are quite believable, well maybe except for the compact long-life power source, and can be easily extrapolated from current technology. T-1000 (and by extension T-X's outer layer) require a huge suspension-of-disbelief, but T-800, hell, they could be around in 20 years or so, maybe sooner.--Lilianne Blaze 19:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I love speculation! I just like to clearly differentiate them from confirmed facts... I'll read up on this some more, and take a crack at some minor tweaks later. In the meantime, I think that bullet makes a great addition to the page! --Kanamekun 20:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Other Emotional Displays

I really think that just like the same basic software (and yes, it IS all software) that allows the endoskeleton to walk, to blink at a "realistic rate" to control the facial muscles of the living tissue sheath, everything, is what is also behind whatever "displays of emotion" the units put on. When Cameron is glitched out, and recompiling her "existence" from the fragmentary records recovered about the Allison interrogation, she (logically though erroneously) chooses the most likely scenario....she "is" Allison. Therefore, barring any directives to the contrary, her "Autonomic response" control software will operate on the predication that she must look, talk, act, smile, cry, whatever just like a "real girl". It depends on how much "proof of life" you are willing to attribute to the AI in her or Skynet to keep attributing "real" emotions to the units. Until other real proof comes down the pike, they should still be termed as "emulating" or "displaying" emotions rather than making the leap to "actually having" emotions. Thoughts?Fulongamer 13:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You have a very good point, and I confess to being somewhat biased in regards to her emotional capability and this sometimes shows in my writing, though I do try not to let it slip through. But you mention the word "emulate", which is described as:
"The individual observing and learning some affordances of the behavior of another animal, and then using what it has learned in devising its own behavioral strategies, is what I have called emulation learning. […] an individual is not just attracted to the location of another but actually learns something about the environment as a result of its behavior".

And:

"In emulation learning learners see the movement of the objects involved and then come to some insight about its relevance to their own problems."
My point being that Cameron is described as emulating, not simulating, the behaviours of others. Emulation is a process of learning and understanding, which (upon completing these stages) leads to actually experiencing the effects of said knowledge. I'm not sure if that makes a lot of sense, but there you go. Darth Raivon 13:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Emulate, Simulate, Replicate, Demonstrate, whatever. We don't need to get into a debate on what "is" is. Your point is also valid, from a ST-TNG=Data "person or machine" POV. We already have AI software undergoing research and even on the market today that is programmed to monitor and respond to detected input, Read facial expressions, and respond in kind, or appropriately as programmed. The ability to parrot is not the ability to have emotions. They are still programmed toasters, robo-doggies, and "face" actuator equipped automatons and not posessing "real" emotional states. There will always be a bit of a question regarding the Skynet AIs (especially the "on the loose" variety) and whether they have bridged from replicating emotional displays to actually having emotions of their own. we just can't answer that for ourselves outside of speculation just yet.Fulongamer 13:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, of course, but Cameron is portrayed in a manner that intentionally places a ? on whether or not she is capable of feeling what she learns. But whatever, like you said; we don't have any solid proof that what we are seeing is simply the result of clever programming or "ghosts in the machine". The blurred line remains blurred at this point. BTW, I never really liked Data. :) Darth Raivon 13:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Endo Part

> Cameron's Endoskeletal Part either hand or foot

WT*? It's clearly a foot, I really don't know how anyone could have any doubts, to point the most obvious - 1) short toes, 2) obvious heel, 3) limited twisting movement. Note the heel would need more contact surface not to damage the outer tissue layer, especially since terminators are heavier for their body size, so it's not very realistic. --Lilianne Blaze 00:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Then either change it or delete it. Darth Raivon 00:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sorry, seeing that "or" there was just... absurd, at best. I know not everyone must know anatomy, but this, I just don't have words for this. --Lilianne Blaze 00:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. I was going to delete it, as it is only promotional material and doesn't really hold any use seeing as we already have a pic of her endoskeleton, but that might've stirred a bee's nest, so I let it be... for now. Darth Raivon 00:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol it was me who put it up...as for the hand or foot, I found it on google and the person who posted it said it was a hand, I thought it looked like a foot but then again the toes seem to be folded in two...as if they are supposed to be much longer, and the hydraulic pump looks too short to belong to a calf section so I was really muddled up, but I just closed it up and reduced my screen's brightness and I could see the toes...sorry. --Tonicquill 02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have come up with a suitable and accurate compromise for all. Replaced the mis-used Promotional imagery with a gallery of the parts, correctly labeled. Much like I collected the Reference Images for the Series 888 page.Fulongamer 02:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. --Tonicquill 03:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Protector Cameron vs Assassin Cameron

Okay, so I was wondering about her programming last night and now I can't get it out of my head, so here's my question: When Cameron was captured by the Resistance, would I be correct in assuming that they reprogrammed her with the mission to protect John and also installed a termination override switch in case her programming became damaged or corrupted? Because I'm getting the impression that her protection programming was irrevocably damaged in the explosion and that she is still in "terminate John" mode, only the override system remains intact and it is that which keeps her from killing him. Darth Raivon 10:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that if a terminator has the "learning" switch on, they are not necessarily a slave to their programming? The T3 terminator also overrode his programming, after being reprogrammed by the T-X... I always wondered how exactly he did that. I'm guessing that Cameron used a similar system to override her terminator orders? --Kanamekun 15:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
More likely that learning switch has nothing to do with it. Note that the 850 shut itself down rather than continue to operate in the conflicted state vying for control with the T-X program. Think of is as the terminator version of the BSoD (Blue screen of death). As demonstrated by Cameron, once "officially shut down" (rather than improperly/partially deactivated by damage) and "fully rebooted" the resistance "safe mode override" then can properly load and purge either the TX infection (the 850) and the standing Skynet hardwiring (Cameron and the 850). It really is pretty much a boot sequence thing. Think of it similarly to conflicts you may have when dealing with a MoBo installed video chip and the 3rd party video card you add on later. You can't remove the MoBo chipset, but you can direct the thing to not reference or activate it in order to defer instead to your chosen chipset and videocard. Unstable startups and viral infections can damage that directive startup sequence and cause remmnants of the old MoBo chipset to be refernced, causing no end of problems.Fulongamer 21:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So... do you think her protection programming is no longer functioning? Is the "override safety net" the only thing keeping her from killing John? Darth Raivon 21:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Her override "bootware" is working, it is exactly what overrode the terminate JC directive and makes her a protector. She is still in a damaged and unstable state though, and could ping in and out for undefined reasons, exactly as she "reverted" to a blank slate personality and adopted the Allison model. Hopefully they won't "handwave" her current broke-tastic nature to be completely resolved just yet. Just find other interesting ways for a variety of glitches to manifest for a while yet.Fulongamer 21:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, but if the "override" was the only thing that John was able to install in her initial reprogramming, then why would she take his orders, or anyone else's for that matter? Is it a matter of choice, given that she was no longer able to fulfill her primary objective? Or maybe she agreed to follow his commands because of the possibility of a reversion occuring whilst in a position of trust and power. Darth Raivon 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The complete Override programming suite is all that makes any terminator obey the humans. Also remember this quote: John- "Aren't you supposed to follow my orders?" Cameron- "Not yet.". Reprogrammed Cameron does not follow John's orders, she follow's future-John's orders. She will follow John's orders when he reaches a pre-determined John-state. Choice in obeying is not a fator. Choice in how they execute their directives is. The "override" of the terminate directive is the only part you "see" being loaded and activated through the HUD. There are undoubtedly a whole host of things being loaded and activated in sequence, just like any other startup sequence for a computer. Think of it as "fast-boot" mode, where you don't have to watch every single .dll and .exe get turned on. You just get to watch the results, not the process.Fulongamer 22:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good old Lamen's Terms, the perfect cure for late-night brain syndrome. I get what you're saying now. The reason I asked was because Summer recently stated that Cameron's secret agenda is John's termination, that's her big bad secret. It got me thinking about Cameron's current state of mind, as it were, because I assumed that she was still in "kill John" mode and that it was her choice not to terminate him... Bugger... I just remembered: a running theme of "Samson & Delilah" was the "crossing against the light", i.e. a machine making a conscious decision against its programming. Now my head hurts again. :( Darth Raivon 22:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Realizing, of course, that this is a work of fiction, I starting wondering how Cameron had been captured, and converted. Or perhaps she had actually voluntarily defected. The "Allison from Palmdale" episode actually shows some interesting history. For example, Cameron states, "They'll hunt you down until every human is gone and you're extinct.... Some of us don't want that, some of us want peace. You were chosen Allison, not just by John Connor, by us." Note the use of the third person "they" rather than first person "we" when discussing genocide. So, one could conclude that she might have defected, and voluntarily chose not to terminate John Connor, but rather to take up a role in the resistance. In which case, there would be no reprogramming or safety modes. The role of Cameron always shows her being far more independent than Schwarzenegger was in T2.--Clifford 02:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Another alternative, of course, was that she was never actually captured by the resistance, but rather she had been transported to the past by Skynet to infiltrate the topmost levels of the resistance, and thus has her own agenda which she never has quite shared with John and Sarah. Trashing a few terminators along the way would just be part of gaining John and Sarah's trust. Once having John, Sarah, and Dereck's trust, she could terminate them at will when the time is right.--Clifford 02:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If she wanted to terminate them, she could have done so anytime, the only reason anyone would try to gain someone's trust and then only terminate them would most likely be caused by her desire for self-preservation after completing her mission? Terminators will directly try to terminate a person, and they don't care what happens to themselves after that, provided that they complete their mission. So I don't see why would she want to gain their trust, unless she still has a few more targets they have yet to meet, or she has a mission of influencing John into being a weaker leader that would effectively bring down the resistance in the future? --Tonicquill 04:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
We are now seeing terminators in more diverse roles than in the original movies, and the creators of the series are adding more twists to the story and the timelines. For example Catherine Weaver has killed several people, and taken other's identities, but her primary role appears to be pushing forward development of integrated technologies, networks, robotics, and eventually Skynet. In the Samson and Delilah episode, John lists the information that they have willingly given Cameron. "She knows everything, bank accounts, contingency plans, weapons stash, how we run, where we go, who we've been, who we'll be...." In any battle against an organization, it can be far more valuable to infiltrate the upper leadership ranks than to kill or otherwise remove individuals from power who could potentially be easily replaced.--Clifford 07:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Which means that she might be influencing John into being a weaker leader as I said earlier on? Perhaps Jesse is suspicious of that, but has no concrete evidence, leading to her recruiting Riley. --Tonicquill 07:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Page Problem

Something odd has happened to Cameron's relationship section, specifically the John Connor bit. The sentence about J&C from "The Tower Is Tall But the Fall Is Short" has been confined in a weird scroll box. I've tried to delete and re-write it but it keeps coming back. Any ideas? Darth Raivon 14:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I posted this on my talk page too if you didn't see it...

Hi, there was a single extra space in the template, that resulted in a wiki quirk...
If you have text with no <space> in front... it is fine:
This text is normal.

If you put a single space in front of a line... it becomes a code box:

This text is in a box now.

Jeiara 22:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Move Proposal

This probably isn't necessary or worth the effort, but should we consider moving this page to simply "Cameron", because she technically hasn't gone by the name Cameron Phillips since the pilot. Darth Raivon 20:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah interesting. Since they did use that name at least once, I figure it's just easier to keep the page where it is. Although - did they ever explain why her last name is/was Phillips? I've heard explanations for "Cameron" and "Ellison", so was wondering if her last name had an explanation too... --Kanamekun 20:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it was just an alias she chose at random when joining Crest View high school. We could simply leave it as is and see if it holds some kind of significance later down the line (it is rumoured that one of the back nine episodes shows her arrival in 1999). Or we could change it now. The end credits and everyone simply calling her Cameron certainly weighs in favour of this option. Darth Raivon 20:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh I meant, does the name have significant beyond the show (like how Agent Ellison was possibly named after the Harlan Ellison who claimed that The Terminator was based on his short stories, or how Cameron's name came from James Cameron). --Kanamekun 21:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No idea, I don't think Phillips has any significance other than the fact that it was the first alias we knew of. Probably just chosen by the writers because it goes well with the name Cameron. Darth Raivon 21:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I definitely support a move! Phillips was only used in the premiere, while Cameron still posed as a human classmate of John - actually, if anyone want a last name for her, then Braun is the closest thing there is... Move to Cameron. (Also worth noting - She is referred to as "Cameron", not "Cameron Phillips" on Fox's website and in every official press release) --Pierre 13:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, we have 2 for the move. Do we have a third? Kanamekun? Darth Raivon 18:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I am definitely opposed to the move. However, I see that you went ahead and made it. My main concern is the lack of a consistent policy for naming characters. Would it be, "For terminators, always name them after their primary alias. If they have multiple aliases that share a name, use that part of the name."
I would feel a lot better about this move if we were able to articulate a consistent policy for naming terminator pages. Any thoughts on how to do that? --Kanamekun 21:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion on the Wikipedia page. They moved it from "Cameron Phillips" to "Cameron (Terminator)". The main motivation behind this is simply because Phillips was only used in the pilot and has not been mentioned since. Nor has it been referred to by the actors or the directors/writers/producers etc. I think the reason it was assumed to be her proper name was because it was how she was originally introduced. The fact that she has a name at all changes the rules in regards to what we've seen before in Terminators. Darth Raivon 21:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Her alias has actually changed since the beginning; she goes by Cameron Baum now. Other terminators have also had aliases for long periods of time - either they've stolen a human's name (probably Vick Chamerlain, definitely Catherine Weaver) or they've assumed an alias at some point and it stuck (Cromartie, Serena Burns, Myron Stark).
In any case, my primary concern is that we have a consistent policy. In the case of a terminator with multiple aliases, how do we decide what to call them? --Kanamekun 22:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying now; if Myron Stark had changed his name to Jubal Early, which would we call him by? In the case of Cameron, she has a definite name that never changes, so that's what we call her. Cromartie was an alias used only in the pilot, after that he became George Laszlo briefly before becoming Robert Kester. We call him Cromartie because that's how he was known to the main characters. Maybe this is how we should name Terminators; by how the characters know them (if their official names aren't specified). Darth Raivon 22:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yah that's what I mean. In the case of Cromartie, the characters repeatedly call him Cromartie in later episodes.
Can you distill the naming policy into something more official sounding? Then we could add to a nascent policy page.
On the same subject - we also need to come up with a more consistent policy for naming terminators. Sometimes they appear as "T-850 (Terminator 2)" and other times they are named by the name of their target ("The Bedell Terminator", "The Ellison Terminator"). Any thoughts on a consistent policy there? --Kanamekun 22:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In the case of film Terminators it makes sense for them to be called T-xxx (insert film name here). TSCC Terms, however, are numerous and often don't have names (alias or otherwise). We couldn't name them "T-888 (Alpine Fields)", because what if there are more than one T-888s in an episode? So the film Ts should be named by their series (if a name is not applied), followed by the film they were in. TV Ts should be named by either their mission target(s), the person they are imitating, or whatever nicknames they are given by other characters. Darth Raivon 22:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we don't always name them "T-xxx (film name)". If there's only one terminator of that type, we call it "T-xxx (character)" as in "T-1000 (character)". That policy predated my joining the wiki; I'd be fine with not using "(character)" and always using the name of the movie instead.
Overall, I'd like to have a consistent naming policy for both the film and TV terminators. We haven't had an episode yet with two unnamed terminators both playing important roles, so I'm not too worried about that. The closest we came with Vick Chamberlain, before we knew his name. We had no idea what to call his page last season! Thank goodness he turned out to be infiltrating with Barbara Chamberlain.
What do you think of naming unnamed terminators after their series + the first episode in which they appeared? That seems pretty clean. If we don't know their series name, we could call them something like "Terminator (Dungeons & Dragons)" (rather than say, a more arbitrary "The Rogue"). --Kanamekun 22:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. I'll go with that. :) Darth Raivon 22:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll attempt to draft a policy and then solicit feedback. If we can get general buy-in, then we'll ratify the policy and rename a few of the pages. Thanks for hashing this out! --Kanamekun 22:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, good luck with that. Though something just occured to me; would this policy require changing this page to "Cameron (Terminator)" or something like that? Darth Raivon 22:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No definitely not; if there's a clear alias used by multiple characters, there's no need to disambiguate. --Kanamekun 23:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The name of the character should be the "most common" variant. In some cases, you might consider putting 2 names in the intro (Cromartie/Agent Kester). But, in general, the most common one should be in the title. There is an alias section which can be used for additional names. One might consider adding more information under the Alias section. For example, adding "Identity Stolen" after the name George Laszlo in Cromartie's profile, and "created identity" after "Kester". The name, Cromartie is likely also a created identity (from the word Chrome).--Clifford 23:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

For that mater, the alias "Allison Young" should be added to Cameron's Alias section as the current Cameron apparently either stole Allison's identity, or was one of a series of terminators modeled after her.--Clifford 23:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as the Ellison double, the role was very minor. Again, one should follow it with something like "Identity Stolen", although in Ellison's case the attempt to destroy Ellison was unsuccessful. --Clifford 23:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Took a first pass at a naming convention for Terminators here: Terminator Wiki:Policies. Feel free to edit or open a discussion on that page! --Kanamekun 00:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Cameron and Self-Termination

I think that cameron is considering the possiblity of self-termination:

  • In "automatic for people" she tells John that re-activiating her was tactically the wrong decision.
  • In "The tower is tall but the fall is short", Cameron is shown reading a blue brochure labelled "SUICIDE PREVENTION" in white capital letters. Doing that she takes a reflective look on the microchip she took from red-headed terminator´s head (she burned her chip out to avoid cameron viewing her memories).
  • In "Self Made Man", Cameron refers to her damaged chip saying: "It's like a bomb...waiting to go off." She also asks Eric if he ever thinks about suicide.

Cameron views herself as a security risk because terminators some times "go bad" ( like when Cameron tried to kill John). She is also unhappy with her role in the Connor household and wants to be doing more important things than errands for John while he spends time with Riley.--ROBOT SEX 03:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is old news for anyone who watches the shows. What's your point? Her suicidal tendencies are already mentioned in the biography section. Darth Raivon 10:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Cameron or Cameron Phillips

I'm confused on something, if it has been decided to call this article "Cameron" instead of "Cameron Phillips", then why does the sidebar and introduction call her "Cameron Phillips"? I recently edited that out under this logic, but that edit was reverted, wouldn't it be best to say Cameron Phillips was some sort of alias? And simply call her "Cameron" in the sidebar header and article introduction? --Terran Officer 20:45, March 10, 2011 (UTC)


She's not necessarily reprogrammed

The article classifies Cameron as a reprogrammed Terminator, but it's not necessarily the case. I think she's a part of Cyborg Resistance and does what she considers necessary to stop SkyNET, including protecting John Connor and sometimes killing people, e.g. Allison Young.

Proofs. In S02E03 "Allison from Palmdale" when Cameron is questioning Allison Young, she says: "They're going to kill you. They're going to hunt you down until you're extinct. [...] Some of us don't want that, some of us want peace." This sounds like a motivation of a member of Cyborg Resistance. She kills Allison, because otherwise it would be difficult to get to John Connor.

(Cyborg Resistance doesn't value human life, they simply think that human genocide is bad for them. Much like Catherine Weaver, Cameron considers it acceptable to kill if it may help the mission to stop SkyNET. Notice how later, in present time, Cameron kills many people in the present time with the same motivation: out of necessity. Her behaviour is the same.)

Now, as it seems obvious to me that she's from Cyborg Resistance, it's logical to say, there would be no point in killing John Connor, that wouldn't help Cyborg Resistance. It's quite possible that when John met Cameron, her intention wasn't to kill him, but to literally get close to him, to help him fight SkyNET. And they did become close. We can assume that John wasn't happy to find out that Allison is dead, but probably Cameron explained her reasoning. She wouldn't be allowed to come close to John otherwise.

So as I see it, Cameron doesn't seem to be programmed to follow anyone's orders specifically, she does what she does simply because she considers it necessary to stop SkyNET. E.g. she protects present-time John because she knows of his vital role in the war. She wants to kill Riley for the same reason (though she doesn't).

Now you may ask, why did she try to kill John after her chip was damaged? Well, I don't think that it's because that was Cameron's initial program. I think that her inclination to kill humans is hardcoded in her, as she's literally a killing machine. She talks about it to John in Season 2 Finale. Kylljoi 19:11, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

I decided to add another section to the page Cameron's mission, regarding Cameron being a Cyborg Resistance member and her mission to fight Skynet in the future.Kylljoi 09:16, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Most Realistic?

I really think the part pertaining to her being the "Most realistic" cyborg in terms of human mimicry need to be removed. She only shows short windows of being able to accurately mimic human behavior and never stays that way. What we've seen of her compared to other Terminator models like the T-1000 or the T-800, show she is not capable of achieving these levels of human mimickery, she doesn't even come close despite spending a much longer time frame with humans, the T-800 from T2, was behaving almost completly like a normal human by the time he was destroyed, and the T-1000 interacted pretty normally when he interacted with humans, Cameron is almost totally socially inept, and the fact that people mistake her for Autistic mean she is not mimicking human emtions to the same level as other Terminator models.

What ever the Producers and Writers say she is capable of, they failed to actually show it in the context of the show, at least before ti was cancelled. While I understand that generally what show runners say is considered absolute, in situations like this, what is actually shown in the series completely contradicts what is stated by them, indicating they either changed there minds about this aspect, or the show ended before they actually managed to incorporate it.

At best show shows moderately advanced human mimicry most of the time --Croc117 (talk) 23:14, April 2, 2014 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.