Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Uzi Gal

<sigh> it is quite possible he is not Uziel Gal: I checked the sources they do not write "Uziel" and imdb, although not a RS, says he is not. See aslo photos here of Uzi training Linda; definitely not Uziel. And here is the same guy training Robert Patrick (his trainer is known as "Uzi Gal" as well). I am pretty much sure if he were the Uziel Gal, this fact would have been mentioned in RS about Terminator 2. --Altenmann >talk 21:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Terminator character names

The "advanced" Terminator has T-1000 in edit but in read only has Terminator. The reprogrammed Terminator should have T-800 in front of Terminator. ☉Qψîδịzഴ^ⓧ•—>Quisizyx _talk 14:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Suggested edit in last top paragraph sentence.

I think this sentence should be altered:

Although Cameron intended for Terminator 2 to be the end of the franchise, it was followed by a series of sequels—Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003), Terminator Salvation (2009), Terminator Genisys (2015), and Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)—as well as a television series, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.

My proposed alteration:

Although Cameron intended for Terminator 2 to be the end of the franchise, it was followed by a 2003 sequel Rise of the Machines, as well as the 2008-09 television series The Sarah Connor Chronicles. An alternate sequel released in 2019, Dark Fate, is set directly after Judgement Day and ignores all other succeeding installments.

My reasoning for these changes being the looser connection(s) with some of these entries; Salvation is a unique case of being a sort of semi-prequel, Genisys is a reimagining of the first two Terminator films set in its own universe, and Dark Fate isn't in the same continuity as Rise of the Machines. It appears more confusing to readers to label all as sequels, giving the impression of a more streamlined continuity than reality. IAmNMFlores (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

As per the edit summary explanation, this change makes the lead significantly worse. The current wording is clear, concise, and appropriate for a lead section, summarizing the franchise's continuation without getting bogged down in unnecessary detail. The proposed version replaces that with overexplanation, selective inclusion of entries, and an undue focus on the continuity status of Terminator: Dark Fate as well as a link away from the page to explain "retroactive continuity", which is not appropriate at this level. Per the Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead should provide a straightforward summary of the topic. It is not the place to explain continuity distinctions, alternate timelines, or canon debates. Those are matters for the body of the article, where they can be covered with proper context and balance.

Describing these films as sequels is also not inaccurate in this context. Wikipedia commonly uses "sequel" in a broad franchise sense to refer to subsequent installments, even where timelines diverge or are reworked. Introducing exceptions and caveats in the lead only reduces clarity and makes the sentence harder to follow. Additionally, a sequel by definition is "a work of literature, film, theatre, television, or video game that continues the story of, or expands upon, an earlier work." Each successive entry is continuing, based on, expanding and often attempting to replicate the first two films, they are by definition sequels. As mentioned in the edit summary, it also went through Featured Article nomination in this exact format. Additionally, the proposed change is inconsistent in its coverage, omitting entries like Terminator Salvation and Terminator Genisys while still attempting to explain continuity. The proposed change is also longer than the existing text while simultaneously omitting all the easily accessible entries to focus on two but also discussing those films omitted by referencing them being ignored. This makes the result more confusing, not less (not that it is confusing in its current state, at all). The existing sentence is doing exactly what a lead should do. The suggested rewrite introduces undue weight, unnecessary detail, and reduced clarity. There is no positive to such a change.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Listing all the sequels isn't really concise to begin with, especially one with that many succeeding installments. My change only notes ones with more-direct connections to T2. I could do without the mention of Dark Fate to reduce the explanation of continuity An alternate change could be:

Although Cameron intended for Terminator 2 to be the end of the franchise, it was followed by continuous installments starting with Rise of the Machines (2003), as well as the 2008-09 television series The Sarah Connor Chronicles.

Your definition of "sequel" would technically include prequels, remakes, etc. Wikipedia typically specifies the exact relation between films, rather than reducing successors as "sequels". Also, per MOS:FILMLEAD, the term they use is "spin-offs" (ie. Other paragraphs in the lead should cover aspects not yet mentioned. Examples include[...]spin-offs (such as sequels, remakes, or other media). I would argue specifying connection increases clarity.

P.S. Did you use AI to write some of this? Some parts sound very AI-like. IAmNMFlores (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The comment about AI is unnecessary, bordering on inappropriate, not relevant to the content discussion, and I'd advise you to strike it. I'd prefer to keep this focused on the article. The current wording is already concise and accepted by the long-term status quo and was in place during the thorough FA reviews it underwent. Listing the principal film sequels and the television series is a straightforward summary of the franchise's continuation and core components. Your offering basically ignores all other sequels, mentions Dark Fate in a specific chronological context of taking place after 2, but doesn't do the same for Terminator 3. So what is Terminator 3's context, then? Why does Dark Fate ignore these other sequels? You introduce a question we do not have the space to answer in that section. What of the television series which also ignores Terminator 2 sequels? More importantly, specifying degrees of continuity in the lead, or "more-direct connections", introduces unnecessary interpretation and complexity. There is nothing improved by your suggestion, it simply singles out one sequel and dedicates half of the section previously used to neutrally identify all major installments, to instead explain the chronological context of Dark Fate. It also violates WP: EGG, by linking "ignores all other succeeding installments" to an article not about those installments, but something else entirely. Additionally, Dark Fate is not set "directly after Judgement Day", it takes place decades after. Effectively, just to omit Salvation and Genisys, you propose taking somehthing that works, and reworking it to give undue weight exclusively to Dark Fate. To be clear, I don't agree with you, I'm not going to, you do not need to reply to me. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually I'm going to keep my AI comment, because it wasn't an insult but a genuine concern. Per WP:AITALK, Comments, nominations, and opening statements that are obviously generated (not merely refined) by a large language model or similar AI technology may be struck or collapsed with {{Collapse AI top}}. Given it's not obvious I won't do anything, but I feel it would be most helpful if an honest answer was provided.

Anyways, I would argue saying I don't agree with you, I'm not going to is really unhelpful to enriching this discussion, and goes against WP:COMPROMISE. I'll try reaching out for a third opinion if nobody else arrives to this topic on their own. IAmNMFlores (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes it is an insult, even if not intended that way. You're accusing someone of using AI because the response is clear, policy based, and generally well-written, when I've written 28 Featured Articles (with more on the way) that required a high-level of prose quality, and dozens of more typical articles, including special effects articles that canbe over 10000 words alone. It's an insult and a distraction. You have quoted WP:COMPROMISE and one of the first things it mentions is not to make personal attacks. I also do not see anything that requires compromise, I have set out in detail why the status quo remains the best option, there is no justified reason to change it to your alternative, which I have explained is a net negative, selectively omitting two sequels, overexplaining Dark Fate, and including an WP:EGG violating link. The alternative offers a less precise and longer outcome. There is no positive to making the change. A discussion that was only opened yesterday doesn't require an immediate third opinion either. If people do not engage with this discussion after a week, it should be taken as an endorsement that your suggestion is not supported, as this is a high traffic article. As I said, you do not need to keep replying to me, it bogs down the discussion and prevents others getting involved. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't an accusation, it was a question because I thought I recognized AI-like structure in a few sentences. Having a high reputation and the ability to use AI isn't mutually exclusive. Caring for the discussion's integrity is not a personal attack. I genuinely don't know why you would refuse to answer, but I won't pursue the matter further if you don't wish to adress my question.

Back to the real discussion, a lot of the issues you have listed can be fixed just as easily without needing to scrap my suggestions entirely (eg. to avoid violating WP:EGG we simply don't need to make the respective line a link). You also never adressed my alternative which is significantly shorter and utilizes some of your concerns, which I'll repeat here:

Although Cameron intended for Terminator 2 to be the end of the franchise, it was followed by continuous installments starting with Rise of the Machines (2003), as well as the 2008-09 television series The Sarah Connor Chronicles.

Adutionally, adding all titles of the film installments just makes the sentence clunkier and is destined to be clunkier as its been suggested that the franchise will continue with more installments.

I'm not pursuing a third opinion right away either, and please don't discourage me for possibly wanting to reach out in the near future. You don't have to respond to me either, but for as long as I have points to make I'll continue to add on to this discussion. IAmNMFlores (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

What may or may not happen in the future of this series is of no relevance to our existing policy or content, especially as there is a minimum of 4 years between films, typically 6, it's currently been 7, with no announcements at all, and the series is 42 years old. It is not a rapidly changing environment. If it becomes a problem in the future, it can be addressed then. Until that point, your suggestion, even with the removal of the EGG violating link and Dark Fate, still remains a negative change, replacing comprehensive, precise, and brief content with nothing. I did not notice your shorter version, but all it does is remove mention of Dark Fate, it still is lesser than what is there currently, removing content and replacing it with nothing. You've given no meaningful justification for changing such long-standing, stable, precise and approved content. The explanations you have given for the change are switching (initial concern was the use of the word "sequel", now it's different), and have gone back on your original suggestion already, making me question what you're intending to actually achieve here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Came here from WT:FILM. I think the proposed change is for the worse, and significantly so. I would instead suggest replacing "a series of sequels" in the current version with "several additional films", which would sidestep the issue of in-universe continuity (which Darkwarriorblake correctly notes has no business being in the WP:LEAD) and match the later "as well as a television series" better. The end of the paragraph would then read:

Although Cameron intended for Terminator 2 to be the end of the franchise, it was followed by several additional films—Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003), Terminator Salvation (2009), Terminator Genisys (2015), and Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)—as well as a television series, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.

The very end of the paragraph could also be rendered as "[...] as well as a television series, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles (2008–2009)." to let the reader know when the series is from. I think that would be preferable. TompaDompa (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a solid suggestion if canonicity and sequel status remains the major concern. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds fair. It covers the core of my concerns. I'll concede my gripe about the number of titles listed as just one stylization option I prefer but doesn't need to be instated, especially in status quo. IAmNMFlores (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I've implemented it, including the "(2008–2009)" part. TompaDompa (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I support TompaDompa's revised version. I really don't think we need to get into the canonicity (if that is even a word) of the sequels in the lead. If it is considered necessary to get into that here, the "sequels" section would be a more appropriate place to cover that sort of thing. Betty Logan (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Summary accuracy about T-1000's demise

but Sarah intervenes and, along with the reactivated T-800, pushes it into a vat of molten steel

I rewatched the film and still remember that probably it is not exactly what happened. Sarah shoots the T-1000 multiple times to a chain rail, but then T-1000 regenerates. Then the arriving reactivated T-800 shoots it with an exploding bullet, causing T-1000 to weaken and then fall into the molten steel, where it disintegrates. I thought about changing it right away, but it's a Featured Article, so... George Ho (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)