Talk: Terminator

This page uses content from Wikipedia. The original article was at Terminator (character concept). The list of authors can be seen in the page history. As with Terminator Wiki, the text of Wikipedia is available under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Cyborg

Are all terminators cyborgs? The ones made up of pure metal endoskeletons seem like plain ol' robots to me... --Kanamekun 18:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

By the standard English definition only the models with living tissue over a robot endoskeleton would be cyborgs. Having said that, the franchise itself defines the T-1000, and the T-X as cyborgs also, based on the poly-mimetic alloy being "living-metal".

If they are alive enough for the universe to let them time-travel, then they are alive enough to be cyborgs. :-)

So all Terminators are robots. Since the Series 70, they have also been androids; and since the Series 800, they have also all been cyborgs.

Side note: The I-950 is actually a human cyborg, rather than an android cyborg. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the proper name for a terminator is actually android, and not cyborg. Cyborg is actually something that is part human and part machine, where both the mechanics and real organism has a true function. A terminator is therefor not a cyborg since the living tissue is not actual real in strict sense. An android is a machine that is made to be as similar as human as possible. I actually like using cyborg instead of android of a terminator, beside its what they use in the movies. Ascaaear 21:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article does gives a pretty good history of the term and its linguistic roots. While the majority of the examples are of humans with implants; by definition a cybernetic organism can be any synthesis of biological and technological parts that interface in one combined entity. So not all androids are cyborgs, not all cyborgs are androids, but the 8xx Series, and the I-950, (and arguably the newer series also) are both. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 14:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I meant was this: let's assume that cybernetic organisms are any entity that contains both biological and robotic parts (I personally groove on the symbiosis definition, but let's put that aside).

By that definition, the 8xx series is an android and *can* be a cyborg, but not all 8xx's are cyborgs. But interestingly, when the terminators refer to themselves as "cybernetic organisms" (in Arnold in T2 & T3, and Cameron in TSCC), they all have living tissue on. So they could be referring to themselves with living tissue, not to all terminators in their series. In other words, the Model 101 in "The Terminator" would be a cybernetic organism. But once he is stripped of his living tissue in the truck explosion, he would no longer be a cybernetic organism; he is then just a robot. --Kanamekun 15:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree there, the 8xx series are only cyborgs when they have the living tissue exterior. Now as for the T-1000 and the T-X, it all depends on how alive the "liquid metal" actually is It can time travel after all). —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yah for the mimetic polyalloy, I'm not sure how it's able to generate that bioelectrical field. If it's actually simulating biological cells, then maybe that makes it a bit more cyborg-ish? But let's say that that's true; I think that would be a pretty loose definition of cyborg! :-) But glad to work it into the article, and map out these arguments to and against cyborg status for the liquid metal terminators. I love capturing this sort of discussion in the articles themselves... I think it makes for a much stronger wiki. --Kanamekun 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

An android is a synthetic humanoid. There is no human tissue with DNA, by definition. Data from Star Trek and Bishop from Aliens are androids, however there are no living cells in their skin and tissue. On the other hand, the terminators have real living human tissue and blood that can heal itself from injury like a normal person. Therefore terminators are cyborgs. While the human tissue is not required for the terminator to live, it would not be able to function as an infiltrator without it. There are scientists today working on technology that will allow parapelegics and amputees to control artificial limbs with their brains. This will in effect make them cyborgs as well, however they will not die without it. I think it should also be noted that a cyborg will have some degree of control over both biological and cybernetic components, and not simply have one attached to the body(i.e. pacemaker). The terminators did have control over the living tissue, especially for facial expression. The skin was not simply wrapped around the endoskeleton. Grimace427 13:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Android"...a machine or synthetic being designed to closely resemble a human being in every respect, with no real human parts.

"Cyborg"...a being incorperating both biological and cybernetic components, the balance of those components is not defined. Some measure of control for both is required.

"Machine"...an object or device that when given a source of power is capable of doing work.

"Robot"...a machine with the design and intent of completing a specified task or tasks. Debatable definition. Grimace427 17:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is it proper to refer to them as "Terminators" with a capital T? --Dragonclaws^(talk) 00:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure whats normal in english language, but in my language it would be proper to use low capitalization since it's about several terminators and not one specific. Ascaaear 04:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A capital T would be appropriate for a "Proper Noun" - i.e., something like Crystal Peak or Terminatrix. I guess if it's not a name for something, it would be lower case like a normal word - like "assassin" or "ninja". --Kanamekun 04:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

References to Terminators by Series, Model, and Serial number can be extrapolated from numerous sources. To identify the various terminators originating in the comics series without spawning off an unending thread of Series 8xx versions beyond the 800, 850, and 888, it may be possible to apply the Serial Number Naming convention from The Terminator: Secondary Objectives a bit more broadly, ie..

Series 8xx

• Z000.M (a female Terminator, dark hair, Amazonian build) is stated by the comic narration to weigh 400 lbs (about 182 kg).
• ?101.? (classic Arnie)
• ?102.? (female Redhead with Amazonian build from Hunters & Killers DVD / “Terminator: One Shot”)
• D800.L (Asian Woman) Hunters & Killers / “Showdown in Death Valley”
• ?808.? (blond female named Aurora) Now Comics “Burning Earth”
• D810.X (Burly redhead guy) Dark Horse Hunters & Killers / “Showdown in Death Valley”
• С890.L (a male Terminator) is stated by Mary to weigh about 500 lbs (about 227 kg). This could be inaccurate, since she is guessing at the weight.
• I825.M (aka “Dudley”, reprogrammed Terminator) eats potato chips, which is unusual for an 8xx Terminator.

Because the various comics that took the time to identify individual terminators vary from run to run, there is no unified identification system. With James Cameron stating that "all Model 101's" look like Arnold, perhaps the unique identifier combines the "skin" Model Number with the identification codes before and after (?101.?). Expanding the code beyond just letters for the "?" element gives a hefty population of each type to work with, kind of like Skynet's version of Hexidecimal notation. If the TT:SO naming is in addition to simple Series and model, then even more unique terminator designations can be derived. Of course, where we have functional proper names / known aliases for individuals, we make use of them too.Fulongamer 09:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody correct me if my calculations are off, but considering the reduced population of humans in the Skynet dominated future, oversaturation would potentially be a problem for the effectiveness of Terminator Infiltration, so @xxx.@ yeilds 26x26=626 individuals of any particular xxx skin model. Expanding the @ to include numbers as well as letters (beyond the comic convention to date) yeilds 36x36=1296 identifiable individuals per flesh model. The entire naming convention could be reused uniquely as far as Skynet was concerned across all the various 8xx Series.Fulongamer 10:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Another thought, this convention could be expanded further by allowing numbers and letters in more or all 5 code locations to explain an alternative to the source of Cameron's designation of TOK715, if read as T-OK71.5 aka "Terminator-@@xx.@" if you don't like the "Resistance reprogrammed okay terminator = TOK" option. Of course this also lends us more individual units with 26 or 36 cubed, to the 4th power, or to the 5th. This pattern could then lead us to Alias based incorporation into the Serial number, generating a presumptive designation in the SCC of

• Series UNK / Model UNK / OK71.5 or C715.P identifying Cameron Phillips
• Series 888 / Model UNK / Vxxx.C identifying Vick Chamberlain
• Series 888 / Model UNK / ?xxx.C or ?888.C identifying Cromartie (original skin version)
• Series 888 / Model UNK / ?xxx.C identifying Carter

Just as Arnold lays claim to the 101 designation as a skin model being the first seen, I'd give Cromartie the same recognition for the 888, simply from a tradition standpoint.Fulongamer 10:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

List Incomplete

The list of terminators on this page is incomplete. We should probably add the others, like the T-Infinity and the T-1000000, shouldn't we?

We need to decide which series belong in this category. Also the list should probably be in chronological order. Sould we add the infinity and the meg? Or should we remove them? It all depends on whether or not they fit into this category or a HK. I'm not sure what to do. Toolen

T-1000000 and T-infinity

Could someone else decide whether to readd the T-meg and T-infinity? On one hand, I would like to see them on this page. But on the other hand, I'm not sure whether they belong here. Could somebody help me out.

I already sorted that out. I know what I'm doing, I've been on this wiki for a long time. So don't worry about it. Darth Raivon 00:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

T-1002

Could someone link the T-1002 in this article to the T-1002 section of the T-1000 article. Or does this section need to be removed. Toolen

For the last time: STOP REMOVING THE T-MILLION AND THE T-INFINITY FROM THE PAGE. Darth Raivon 23:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I didn't mean to cause any problems. I was simply unsure of whether the two models belonged on this page since they don't fall into any of the five categories. I hope you can forgive me. If we are keeping the models we should probably make a new subtype to put them in.

STOP!

STOP REMOVING THE T-90 FROM THE LIST I NEED TO LINK AGAIN THE T-90 EVERY TIME GHPhenomGod 14:32, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't There Be More?

Looking at the list of Terminators listed, the I-950, TS-300, Class TOK715, and T-Infinity. If those are listed, shouldn't all other Terminators introduced in other comics, and ect. be added, or is that all there is? Zalbaag 21:38, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

I counted 24 total. How many were you expecting? To what sources are you referring to? -Grimace427 00:42, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Not really any source in particular, I just thought there were more. Like the I- Series had more, right? I just could have sworn there were more, that's all. If there are no more, sorry for the trouble. Zalbaag 02:40, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Concept

I think "Terminator" should be counted as a Real-word concept. If no objection, it'll be added to Category:Real-world concepts‎ on April 4th. --TX55^TALK 08:42, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

T-Series?

"The Terminator, or the T Series, is a type of Hunter Killer created by an artificially intelligent computer, Skynet, to wipe out the remains of humanity after the Judgment Day."

Where does the phrase "T Series" come from... anyone know? --Kanamekun 11:20, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's like "F-15 and F-16 are F Series". Just like the term "8xx" (which is like "286 and 386 are X68s") is yet not officially used in Terminator franchise. --TX55^TALK 06:38, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

American fighter aircraft are definately NOT referred to as "F series". "F" stands for fighter like "T" stands for Terminator, however the "series" lies in the numerical designation(-16, -18, -8xx, etc.). The fighter aircraft have generations similar to the terminators, such as the F-16B(Twin seat) or F-16C(Single seat). It is my opinion "T-Series" is an incorrect title as the series refers to the generation(8xx, 1xxx). -Grimace427 11:48, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

I just worry that if we start off the article with the word "T Series", than people might think that it's an official term. We could move it later maybe, and say that many Terminators are part of Series and are referred to individually as T-###. I'll try and make some illustrative edits, if you guys don't mind taking a look! --Kanamekun 17:33, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Classifications

What do you think of trimming down this section a bit... we list almost every series out there, including the ones from the card game! Any objections to trimming it down a bit? --Kanamekun 18:13, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I trimmed it down about a month ago, but I think the section still needs to be simpler. But, I have no idea how. --TX55^TALK 01:02, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I think maybe we can focus the examples on the movies and TV show? Then the links to the Infiltrator and similar articles should take care of the rest! I'll take a cut at it... --Kanamekun 17:33, April 22, 2010 (UTC)