Talk:List of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes

Summaries, not recaps

This is a list of episodes, and should have a one or two sentence summary about major episode themes without "spoilering" the episodes. Detailed synopses should be left to individual article pages (see other series, such as House), or to the Terminator Wiki. I know that Wikipedia does contain spoilers, but on something such as a list of episodes, they should be very limited or absent. Look at Dollhouse or 30 Rock for lists that contain ideas and even major plot points with rarely describing their resolution. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, to be clear, I am aware of Wikipedia:SPOILER -- but "Series Overview" contains no implication of "Plot" or "Ending", as specified in Wikipedia:SPOILER. A "series overview" is more along the lines of "Two terminators are sent back in time -- one to protect, and one to kill, John Connor". This is in comparison to "A T-888 is sent back to protect John Connor, and a T-1000 to kill him. They rescue Sarah, then find Miles Dyson, who helps them blow up Cyberdyne and dies in the process. As the T-1000 chases the escaping Connors, he is destroyed in a vat of molten metal in a factory, and the T-888 allows itself to be destroyed to avert Judgment Day". Just my $0.02 -- I hope what I am saying is clear (and everyone reading this has seen T2!). Tigerhawkvok (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I messed up

I tried to add that there were 3 more episodes to Season 2 into the table and now the table is in the external links section :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.41.221 (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect?

I typed in "Self Made Man" in wikipedia hoping for an article about that (which there is), but it directed me here. Could someone fix that? I would but i don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.225.64 (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's an article, that's why you were redirected here. Fletcher (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Episode articles

Exactly where were all the episodes split from this page?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean 'when'? Not sure i understand the question. This page was created late December and it looks like the episodes were created early January -- in short, they were created as they aired, not split off all at once. Fritter (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than the pilot episode (and maybe "Heavy Metal", though the reception section needs some cleanup, it's a start), I don't see why any of the others should have been split (and/or created) to begin with. Scanning through, they're nothing but expanded plots. Not only do they violate WP:PLOT, but they don't even fit the spinout criteria at WP:SPINOUT or WP:FICT. Whether they were created at the same time, or not, they are classified as "spinout" articles from the LOE page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged all the episodes that fail basic notability. They either need to be cleaned up and sourced by independent sources, or redirected back to this article. (i.e. a single review from TV Squads questionable professional reviewers isn't enough. See WP:FICT for what needs to be done).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's been over a month. Other than the pilot and maybe "Heavy Metal", the rest of the episode pages need to be redirected back to this page. They contain nothing more than plot sections, and Wikipedia isn't simply a plot summary. The LOE page easily contains all the same information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been done. To all the nay-sayers, allow me to quote User:Sgeureka:

"The articles weren't deleted, they were transwikied and then redirected. None of them were ever AfDed, so what happened in another show's AfD is immaterial to the SG-1 articles. Proper procedure was followed with them (tagging, waiting and discussion), and everything (edit history) is still there. WP:NOT#PLOT says that an article should not consist solely of plot, but most SG-1 episode articles did not pass this inclusion criterion. Policy trumps my opinion, and it trumps anyone else's. If you wish to write an elaborate production and reception section that doesn't fit in the Season 10 article anymore, feel yourself encouraged to revive the episode article. If you can't or won't, then I oppose the un-redirection vehemently. – sgeureka"

Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

<====Bignole suggested above that the pilot and (maybe) Heavy Metal not be redirected. I helped rewrite and improve Heavy Metal, which then survived its AfD. I understand the desire for consistency, but then, I also understand the deletionist point of view that articles should stand on their own. If we don't have inherited notability, surely we can't have inherited NON-notability. It's my view that Heavy Metal did stand on its own. Furthermore, the real world info on that page was deleted, not transwikied, as it was not moved to Wikia. And while this was one of the best episode articles for the series, it has only a rather inadequate one sentence summary in the LOE. The redirection thus seems to be a net loss of information. Fletcher (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Fletcher's right, I was willing to give "Heavy Metal" some additional time to get cleaned up and expanded. With the DVDs coming out in a few months, they could have something to help "Heavy Metal".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Heavy Metal's real world info doesn't do anything to establish notability anymore than a review of a restaurant in a college newspaper does, in my opinion. That said, I am not uncompromising - I'd rather have an article on Heavy Metal than I would on every non-notable episode in existence. Feel free to revert the redirect. Misterdiscreet (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else agree with me that all episodes should have pages? Misterdiscreet thinks differently, need to know if I'm on my own or he is? Jonesy702 (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. What were the reasons for redirecting the articles, I wonder? The series easily meets notability requirements, as do individual episodes, having been featured on multiple mainstream TV channels. There is surely plenty of precedent for notable TV series having an article for every episode (e.g., every episode in List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes). WP:PLOT just means the plot shouldn't be too in-depth. At the least, a major change like this should be discussed on the Talk pages to see if there is consensus. If people really think they fail to meet notability requirements, then put them up for an AfD to see what the consensus is. Mdwh (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The reasons for redirecting the articles are discussed here. It's the result of a consensus between me and BIGNOLE. As BIGNOLE notes, the episodes had a notability tag for over a month and nothing was done, so the articles were redirected. Fletcher and Hazardous Matt have commented on the redirection since it took place and although they didn't explicitly say 'yay' or 'nay', I'd argue that they tacitly accepted it.

As for your "there is surely plenty of precedent"... wrong. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. What do you propose I do? Police every single episode article for every single series? That's insane. Policing the individual episodes for Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles is hard enough work, as is - I cannot monitor every single episode and if that's what you're suggesting I need to do for these redirects to be justified, you're insane.

And while we're on the subject of precedent, see List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. All of those episodes are being redirected and indeed, for the efforts that have been undertaken in that and it's associated articles, the list has been designated a featured list. That's what all articles should strive towards and your attempt to spin these episodes out into their own articles suggests that you're almost working against that. Why? Don't you want to write good articles?

As for my citing precedent when I've just condemned you for doing so... consider the fact that there's an article entitled WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but that there's no article entitled WP:OTHERCRAPHASBEENDELETED.

As for your AFD proposal... quoting User:Sgeureka:

WP:Articles for deletion should not be misused for merge/redirect proposals. ... Deletion means the edit histories are lost to non-admins, merging/redirection means anyone can access the edit histories.

I don't want to delete the articles or their associated edit histories - all I'm interested in doing is merging them and to that end, AFDs are inappropriate Misterdiscreet (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't read that last one, cause it's kind of too long for me right now, but I do agree that having an article with nothing but a plot section is kind of pointless. That's the kind of stuff for the wikia Terminator wiki or the official Fox Terminator wiki, not here. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that people should AfD them in order to redirect them, I was addressing the claims of non-notability. If they are non-notable, they should be put up for AfD. That's nothing to do with the issue of redirection. As for a consensus from two people - I'm just adding my voice to the consensus that disagrees, and trying to start up a discussion here. My argument is not WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - that refers to the idea of saying that crap is justified if other crap exists. Here I do not consider the articles to be crap, and I am referring to the likely established consensus. I'm not expecting you to police them - I'll be happy to do it, or maybe someone else is.

The SG episodes have been transferred to another wiki, and the link for each episode is given in the article list. It appears that someone has done the job of transwiki-ing but the links still need to be added here for each episode. I don't mind whether the information is on Wikipedia or another Wiki, but I would prefer the episode links being retained, rather than a half job of removing links but not adding in the new links. Mdwh (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In my initial redirection, wikia links existed [1], but they were later removed [2]. Since the featured list List of Stargate SG-1 episodes includes external links for every episode, I, personally, feel that their inclusion is justified and would not object to such links being readded Misterdiscreet (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see they were removed because they were embedded directly in the episode title, whereas the SG list has them in a separate column. I agree it would be a good idea to have them back. Fletcher (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree - and I disagree with this revert [3]. There is no reason against having external links inlined (this is often done in Wikipedia articles). Links are not distracting (if a link distracts them, their browser needs adjusting), and it's useful to have direct links rather than having to search around on a separate Wiki (especially as most readers won't realise they exist). The whole argument for deleting the articles here is that they are better hosted on another Wiki, and so it is inappropriate I feel to remove the article links too. Mdwh (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I kept breaking the table when I tried to add a new column for Wikia links (only hitting the preview button, of course). We need a good WikiGnome. Fletcher (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, tacit acceptance is a good way to describe my view. I like individual episode articles, if they're good. But these articles were lousy because people kept adding pointless trivia and bloating the plot summary, like it's a fan wiki rather than an encyclopedia. Then when "Heavy Metal" was put up for deletion, the fan boys were nowhere to be found when it comes to trimming plot and adding real world sourcing. If that's the way it's going to be, I'd rather use the list format to manage the content. Fletcher (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Right this long winded conversation is all well and good, but how do I get the episode articles back on here with getting into trouble? Jonesy702 (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Trim the plot summaries to no more than 500 words, and add a bunch of reliable sources that comment upon each article so that they are not all just plot summary. THen you can likely defend them against deletion/redirection. Fletcher (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

D&D? Huh?

There's a redirect to this article from Dungeons & Dragons (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles). How did that happen?  Hazardous Matt  16:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone redirected (most of) the individual episode articles into the List of Episodes. This is a common, and often controversial, practice for articles that are mostly plot summary. Fletcher (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that might have been it, but I scrolled through the episode list a bit too fast, it would seem, and I missed that particular listing. I guess it makes sense now.  Hazardous Matt  16:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

16th Episode

Should it really say ..As of November 3, 2008, a total of 16 episodes of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles have aired. It's only 7:40, the show doesn't come on until 8. So shouldn't it read 'As of Nov 3, 2008, a total of 16 WILL have aired'? And then at 9 it could be changed back to how it is now? HAHA..gotta go get prepared to watch it! :) Tydamann (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Self Made Man airing early??

A few mins ago I saw an advertisement running on Space (In Canada) that showed clips from self made man (showing Cameron using a Tommy gun) and it said 'Tommorrow'. Space usually airs a re-run of the premier on Saturdays. So 'Strange Things Happen At The One Two Point' should be airing tommorrow. I'm wondering if it's just a mistake, like they showed the wrong commerical, or will they actually show the new episode. It's just a head up for anyone who reads this, it MIGHT be a new episode on Space Saturday instead of the usual repeat. Tydamann (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it was a repeat. Aside from that, the real "Self Made Man" had a Terminator assassinating the Governor of California... seems to be a wink and a nod to knowing fans of the Governator 76.66.194.58 (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

01152315441736

should we put that in "Mr. Ferguson is Ill Today" derek Reese gets a phone call from 01152315441736, and if u dial that number, you get show information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.246.124 (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, not needed. Fletcher (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Links to Terminator Wikia

Can we put links from each episode to the terminator wikia? They have far superior articles than we have here, see [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.120.190 (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No one has gotten around to it yet apparently. Fletcher (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler Alert

Obviously this page contains major spoilers... I believe that this page should either have a major spoiler alert, or it should be changed, as the episode descriptions are not previews, but total episode summaries. I don't know if this is policy to review detailed information about episodes in the plot synposis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjrh (talk • contribs) 17:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains spoilers; this issue was settled a long time ago. It is a given that Wikipedia pages will tell you information about the topic so there is no need for spoiler warnings. Fletcher (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright thanks Fletcher for clearing that up. I was unaware of this new change away from Spoiler warnings. --Benjrh (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

episode summary of dungeons& dragons

In the episode description, it says that Reese experiences "flashforwards". This is not true. While they DO happen in the future, they happened in HIS past(before his trip into the past). Therefore, they are flashbacks. -78.51.16.224 (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep the speculation out, pls

As I've noticed that people keep adding in that Allison fm Palmdale is in the future. We cannot put it in, because its speculation. We don't know it is. We have pretty good idea, but that isn't good enough for Wikipedia. Find a solid source that says its her (not asks if it is, but tells us) and everything is copacetic. Keep adding it in, and I will keep taking it out. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely it's equally speculation to claim it was Cameron? Do you have a source for that? Perhaps we should say "it isn't clear if the character is Cameron or Allison". Mdwh (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious you were happy to phrase it as "an apparently human Cameron" [5] which also seems original research to me in the same way (and also just seems confusing, as Cameron can't be human, and suggesting she was is major original research). I think saying "and others", as you originally suggested [6] seems best (or perhaps something like "a group including Derek and Kyle Reese"? Or just don't mention anyone else at all?) until we have a source either way (I don't think her appearance, whoever it is, is of fundamental important to mention in a brief summary, so it's easier to just drop it). Mdwh (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that mentioning the reappearance of "Cameron" is important - as fundamentally important as that of mentioning Derek Reese, as both were "dead". Since it was established that Terminators have an adverse effect on dogs, and Glau's character is able to pet one, it would seem clear that it isn't Cameron. But, as John doesn't know Allison from Palmdale, and is not aware of what the machines did to create Cameron, we cannot call Cameron Allison. We only know the backstory via flashback, and it was never introduced into the main storyline. As well, no reviewer has established that it was Allison. As Glau's character for the entire series to this point has been that of Cameron, for the ease of use it is easier for the reader to identify the person seen as Cameron, but to qualify it as a living Cameron. We cannot seven say non-Terminator Cameron, since we didn't see bone or metal. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What was wrong with "a woman resembling Cameron" [7] ? –xeno ^talk 20:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Because, we cannot be sure that it is in fact a woman. In this storyverse, Terminators can inflitrate groups of humans. Ellison knew what a Terminator was and worked with one for almost an entire season. That isn't a failing of Ellison's but rather a nod to the success of the machines at infiltration.

That said, I think your proposed solution seems a closer example of what we need. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well we could say "female". Are we in agreeance that Terminators can be "male" or "female", in appearance? –xeno ^talk 20:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No, we cannot call Terminators male or female, any more than we can call a toaster or a ham radio a chick or a dude. I guess we can live with "a woman resembling Cameron" for now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

but...but... sex=/=gender ! –xeno ^talk 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol! smartass. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with "a woman/female resembling Cameron". I dislike "living Cameron" because (a) that is just as unsourced as claiming it's Allison, and (b) I'm not sure what it's meant to say anyway - is it saying it's Cameron alive again (which is unsourced, and unlikely to be true)? Or if it's meant to mean "the woman that Cameron was modelled off", we should say that. If you mean it could be another terminator that looks the same, again that's unsourced, and such a terminator wouldn't be called "Cameron" anyway (since that's specifically just her name). I do not agree with this rv [8], since your version is unsourced, whilst my version covers the possibilities. However, I'm fine with changing that to "a woman [or female] resembling Cameron" too. Incidentally, disagree that we can't mention Allison on those grounds - we're writing for the reader, and not from the point of view of John or anyone else - however I'm fine with not mentioning Allison on the grounds of speculation (just so long as we also don't claim it must be Cameron, or another terminator, which is equally speculation). If we're worried about it, the usual thing to do is to explain the uncertainty to the reader, but you reverted my change on that. Mdwh (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the opposing speculations not actually canceling each other out but instead failing to alleviate the problem. It was my intent to remove the speculation (as wel as resolving the gender issue with regards to machines), and you've pointed out that I failed there. Thanks. I really don't want to mention Allison, and I was trying to be brief in my earlier post (as I tend to get all 'wall of text' sometimes), but I wasn't concerned with John's point of view. Its just that we do not know who that person is, and any guesswork on our part - in the absence of definitive speculation - isn't allowed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

T-1000 or T-1001?

I know some of the sources are identifying Manson's character as a T-1001, but a superior number of sources are calling the model a T-1000. When you have citation that contradicts other sources 3:1, what is the appropriate course of action? Clearly, stating both might give undue weight to an extremely minor opinion, especially when both sides are of equal reliability. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Fox.com calling it a T-1001: [9] , [10] , [11]. I would say T-1001 is accurate, the other sources simply mistaking it for a female robert patrick. –xeno ^talk 20:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I pity the person who would mistake the two. So, would it be better to maybe say "(sometimes misidentified as a T-1000)" after the first instance of T-1000? That would seem to cover the issue of the different citations. I get what you are saying, Xeno - the cites calling it a T-1001 are from Fox and therefore carry more gravitas for identification purposes than a reviewer site. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would probably be a good way to highlight the discrepancy. I note that in the T-1001 article section, it comments that it's able to maintain two forms at once , perhaps this is the subtle difference between Shirley Manson and Robert Patrick? (Also note! there they are claiming the Cameron-resembling-person-or-Terminator-we-haven't-quite-agreed is Allison) –xeno ^talk 20:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will make that happen. I would love it if we were able to have better citation as to the differences; it would make our job a lot easier. Maybe in the DVD releases, someone will address it.

And thanks for the Cameron-being-Allison thing. As there isn't any citation for that conclusion, I will be heading over there post-haste.

Lastly, is it me, or do you find it strange that there isn't a Terminator wikiproject? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat... But before starting a project maybe make a Task force of WP:TV =) –xeno ^talk 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not really sure what is composed of a task force. Could you contact me on my usertalk page about that? (no sense tying up this page with that) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, Edokter disagrees with adding it, having reverted for the second time. Perhaps he would be willing to explain his point of dissent here? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe give an example of a ref that called it a T-1000? Though, it seems more appropriate for the List of...characters article. –xeno ^talk 00:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I should try to find those; the problem being that there are so very, very many of them - which to pick?. We should have them, as each article is supposed to be able to stand on its own. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because it is not relevant here. This article provide brief episode summaries; what is the point of mentioning here that some sites mistake her as a T-1000? That information i much better suited at the T-1000 article. — Edokter • Talk • 00:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see your point. We shouldn't add information because people might want to know it, and its "obvious". Hmm, I seem to recall that argument coming from somewhere else, but okay - that's fine. I will provide citations. Y'know, like these:(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). the list goes on and on and on. I am guessing I could easily find about about a hundred that calls Weaver's model a T-1000. Therefore, it seems clear that the mistake is fairly common. Yes, it should be noted in Manson's article. It should also be noted here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've pulled both the aside as well as the bicker-y little tagging. Looking at it with fresh eyes, it isn't so vitally important that its worth fighting over. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Unaired Pilot

Why isn't the unaired pilot listed here. Differences with the aired version include John being in a class about to take a test when Sarah picks him. In the aired version he was in a library. In the unaired version a different actor plays Charlie.--The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because there isn't a citation discussing these differences? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not a good enough reason as the unaired pilot does exist.--The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to be flippant, but it is in fact good enough - we do not add information without a citation. Bluntly, if it ain't cited, it cannot be included. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What if you provide the unaired version as its own citation using Template:Cite video? (note that this is the first I've ever heard of an unaired pilot and that I'm not planning on adding anything about it to wikipedia; I'm only asking because I'm curious) TerraFrost (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Have a look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sJFr1GoTys 220.239.167.151 (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Dead Link.

JohndanR (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

"What He Beheld"

"an HRT team", isn't that a tautology? Swampy 138.130.158.92 (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Turtle on its back in s2e9 Complications

Holden: “The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.” Leon: “What do you mean, I'm not helping?”

Cameron looks closely to Sarah Connor pauses her vomit to flip back a turtle. Then, she's talking about her own senses. Cameron: “I have sensation. I feel. I wouldn't be worth much if I couldn't feel.” Is it passing a Voight-Kampff test? Is this about unnecessary turtle scene a reference to Blade Runner?

Lacrymocéphale 20:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)