Talk:T-1000/Archive 1

Comics aren't canon?

I've replaced the information removed for the following reasons: 1. The fact that the canonicity may be in question is included in the description, but the decision should be left to the reader. 2. The information appeared in a comic that was an officially licensed T2 movie tie in. 3. The mention of comic universe details for many other SciFi creations already exist on Wikipedia. (seeYautja,Xenomorph (fiction),etc)

I've updated the origin back story for the T-1000 as outlined in the official licenced comic tie-in to the movie from Malibu Comics. I've also cleaned up the fragmented sentences in the opening paragraph to better outline the T-1000. Hope it worked. --15:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)DMD 15:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I always assumed the "gitches" at the end of the movie were a result of the unusually high temperatures in the smelting facility. Any other thoughts? Bihal 04:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The T-1000 that appears in the film is apparently the only one ever developed, as a prototype with the specific task of killing John Connor. It exhibited basic emotion - it seemingly took pleasure from causing its victims to suffer before dying. While the T-800 series was a systematic killer that ensured the target was dead, the T-1000 would often strike a blow before taunting his victim. Examples of this are when he stabs Lewis (a guard at the mental hospital) in the eye while watching him twitch, and especially when he stabs Sarah Connor in the shoulder, asks her to call out for her son whilst extending his finger towards a point, aimed directly at Connor's eye. He also waves his finger at Sarah and John when their attack fails, as if to reply to their actions with a paternal display of condemnation.

I removed the above text because I believe the author is personifying the T-1000, which fails the NPOV criteria. These examples are a stretch at best, and classic of how human most film viewers are -- that is, personifying non-human entities with human characteristics. Simply, the T-1000 is a more elegant killer, with more detailed information on how to use humans to betray humans. Just as the T-800 is loaded with anatomical information to make them more efficient killers (as stated in the T2 film), the T-1000 most likely has received psychological information useful in torture tactics. Intently watching Lewis react to an occular stabbing probably amounts to little more than "data gathering". Commanding Sarah Connor to cry out for her son is a torture tactic decidedly in greater favor of retriving and terminating John. Waving his finger, although most probably near-end-of-film fan pandering, within the film's context probably could be written off as a demoralizing "psych-out" against his human enemies.

Your ananlysis is quite interesting and I think it would deserved to be in the article. I suggest you consider creating an "robot-human interaction/tactics"-like chapter with your comments (and the arguments that you refutates, of course). Reply to David Latapie 06:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

the torture of sarah connor is easy to explain, even bearing in mind that after the liquid nitrogen incident the T-1000 was still an excellent mimic and so didn't actually need her to call for John. There was a reasonable chance that by body language or otherwise sarah might provide clues as to john's location. Rd232 ^talk 20:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's also possible that the T1000's decision to torture Sarah rather than mimic her to call for John was a result of the glitches it was experiencing after being frozen (as better depicted in the deleted scenes of most DVD

releases.)--DMD 07:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Making a T-1000

Where is it stated the information about pressing the liquid metal together to make a T-1000? And, wouldn't it require more than just pressing it together, he'd need some kind of control system as well as power, like a liquid microchip, or some kind of "network" which knows where each blob of metal is, and can come back together? Like what happens when it changes shape, it has to adjust it's dimensions, and each atom has to align at a certain point, how does it do so?

And, pressing two 20 ton masses would not change it's mass, it would still be 40 tons mass, thus it would be too heavy to go places without breaking the pavement and wouldn't have brought down the helicopter it was in, etc. 68.112.248.69 20:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the information comes from an officially licensed comic and thus some would see this as canon. As for why it would be done, Titanium is a type of "memory-metal", it remembers its shape when it transitions from liquid to solid and thus i would assume the liquid mimetic polly-alloy needed to have a base shape to form when making this first tranistion. The nanites would be self-powered and would be small enough to exhibit qualities of liquid (see Quantum theory and the whole wave/particle issue). Enigmatical 01:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe he meant the press dies were 20 tons, not the mimetic alloy.75.21.125.177 00:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And it would also need some kind of "computer" of sorts to store information, whatever kind of form that would take. We never got to see a scene looking out of the T-1000's eyes, unlike the T-X and T800. In a deleted scene (spoiler) we see the T-1000 Malfunctioning, it's hand turning to a checkerboard pattern, and it sticking to objects when he doesn't intend to. The snare 06:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder also, what would have happened if John hadn't thrown the solid piece of metal of the T-1000 from the car(and why couldn't have liquified and attacked him?),how far apart the pieces can be, if the T-1000 would have been able to track them wherever they went. The snare 07:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that it's made of nanites? The dialog between John and the T-800 goes like this

John: This other guy, he's a terminator like you, right? T-800: Not like me, a polymimetic alloy John: What the hell does that mean? T-800: liquid metal

Do you think he just distorted the truth somewhat, gave John something he could understand better, even though it wasn't totally accurate The snare 07:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Other references: simpsons?

The point when a hand was stuck in Homers gut was a reference to X Man supervillain 'The Blob' who would often do the same thing........No?

Writing in past tense and speculation.

Scifi articles should be written in past tense form ie;(is=was, can=could, grabs=grabbed, ect). I removed anything that was pure speculation, there were sentences that said things like,"It may be that" or, "It's possible that." When writing any article on Wikipedia, state only the facts. I think I fixed most of the article, but there still may be a few areas that need work. Otherwise the article was very well written, and I could tell a lot of time was put into it. Good Job to the original author. Lobot72 06:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, all the examples in project pages like WP:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction), WP:Plot_summaries, and WP:How_to_write_a_plot_summary are written in present tense. Just because stories are usually written by their authors in past tense does not mean that an article should summarize the stories' fictional events in the same tense. Foogus (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Original research

This article reads like a bunch of original research. I may be wrong, and there may be canon sources for all of the information in the article, but if that's the case then they need to be cited. Wikipedia cannot contain speculation, however logical; it needs to have happened or been directly stated in the movies, books, etc or it needs to be removed. TomTheHand 21:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See T-800 talk for longer reasoning. Suffice to say, done. ColdFusion650 23:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

1994/1995 edit

doh, I figured how to start a discussion here. re: coldfusion's personal Talk page (subject: 1994/1995 edit).

Anyway, awaiting any response HERE. Thanks.

172.167.182.97 17:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Ed

Ok, from what I understand about the issue, there is a contradiction: information from T2 implies that it takes place in 1995, but information from T3 implies that T2 took place in 1994. I believe we should trust T2 over T3 in this case because this article is really on a T2 topic.

I would especially lean toward T2's information if T3 says "ten years ago" rather than "in 1994". In that case, there might not even be a contradiction: it could simply be a case of rounding to a number that sounds good. TomTheHand 17:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and that was what I was driving at. My distaste for T3 aside, this IS a specifically-Terminator 2 entry we're talking about here. It's only fair to the reader that we don't let the article get polluted by data from a whole other movie (a SEQUEL no less). 172.128.190.243 23:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Ed

Oops I see we all reached a consensus. 172.128.190.243 23:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Ed

Yeah, if you are trying to make references to dates in different works make sense, it means you're adopting an in-universe perspective. It's good practice in writing about fiction to avoid that. Writing from out-of-universe, it's obvious that writers sometimes mess up dates for their own reasons or (quite often) because they're human and don't get their sums right, so it isn't necessary to try to reconcile dates in different works. --Tony Sidaway 04:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would he be naked?

We see him naked in T-2, but why? He could easily create the illusion of clothes, surely he must have seen some in the future, been programmed with some knowledge of them by skynet. The snare 07:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tastefully displayed naked guys == good cinema. Besides, you're supposed to think he's human at first, or at least to be uncertain. --Tony Sidaway 04:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well put! (Um, not the naked guys part, the thinking he's human part :) I'm a pretty discerning fan, and I hadn't thought of that (though I'm sure I would have eventually. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 05:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

it was my understanding that only human flesh or mimetic polly alloy imitating human flesh can survive the time travel so thats why hed come through naked81.108.233.59 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The filmmakers wanted you to assume the character was human when you saw him come through the time machine, and they really didn't want you to go back later and wonder how he ever got through the machine when there was no flesh on him. Did they "retcon" an exception to the only-life-can-go-through rule, just so they could play this game? Really who cares, they were jerking us around either way. Foogus (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Misdirection?

This passage seems really POV to me:

Up until this point, the audience has been misdirected. In the first film, two men show up from the future, one an evil Terminator, the other a human protector. In this film, two show up, a Terminator like the one from the previous film, and another man. The audience is left to assume that the other man is the human protector. When the two meet, there is a plot twist. The type of Terminator from the previous film is now the guardian, while the other is the terminator sent by Skynet, a reversal of the roles from the first Terminator film.

I don't see how the T-1000 meeting the T-800 constitutes a "plot twist" considering that the T-1000 immediately murdered a police officer and assumed his identity upon traveling back in time. It's pretty obvious right away that the T-1000 is the bad guy. Nominate we remove this, it smacks of original research. KyuzoGator (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, it's in the DVD commentary. He also isn't shown murdering the police officer. Knocking unconscious, yes. It's just that people have seen the movie so many times, they automatically know the T-1000 is the bad guy and Arnold is the good guy. They don't even realize that there is a plot twist. A lot of the DVD extras talk about the attempt to keep the fact that Arnold is a good guy a secret. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Damage from freezing?

It is mentioned that after being frozen and shattering, then reforming, the T-1000 can be seen to be malfunctioning in the special edition. Been a while since i watched it but i specifically remember a hand sticking to a black and yellow striped rail and mimicking the colour and a foot sticking to a diamond plate floor and taking on its texture.

the article attributes these malfunctions to damage from the freezing process, but my interpretation has always been that it was a result of the high levels of heat in the steel mill. 80.5.213.17 (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Many people have modified the article to say that. In reality, the part about the freezing causing the glitches is from the Extreme DVD commentary with James Cameron. He specifically says that it was the freezing. ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Pontiac T1000

Is there anything about that car in the DVD commentary? Pontiac started selling their version of the Chevrolet Chevette in 1981, called the T1000. I've wondered if there was any connection to this movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 08:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Police

In the article it says that the T-1000 takes the identity of the police, but it clearly shows in the movie that the police looks different than the T-1000. Could somebody please correct that? 193.184.40.230 (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It says that it disguises itself as a police officer, which is true. ColdFusion650 (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Catherine Weaver"

I really don't think that "Catherine Weaver" is a T-1000, she's much more sophisticated in her interactions with humans. 71.145.131.230 (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A T-1500? Regardless, she's the same "endoskeleton" (if we can call a nanomorph blob that) series (eg. T-800 and T-850 are still Series 800s). The average viewer won't tell the difference, and that's why she belongs here. Alientraveller (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe FOX has stated that she is. I say return her information to the article. 70.198.201.248 (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link? A source of some kind? I would love to have a confirmation of this, but until there is you can't add conjecture to a Wikipedia article! --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Negative. Fox has stated that it is a T-1001: http://www.terminatorchronicles.com/sarah-connor-chronicles-t-1000-poster-possible-spoiler/ 71.145.131.230 (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a fan site, just like all the Terminator related Wikipedia articles are becoming. He only says that they are calling it a T1001. He does not say how he knows that. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

http://fox.com/blogs/terminator/2008/09/09/feedback/ 201.134.173.244 (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

SC Chronicles

I'm a fan of T-1 and 2 by James Cameron, I'm willing to accept T-3 as part of the series as well only becuase it is a movie. The S.C Chronicles have nothing to do with these movies, it's just a new popular TV series that been produced about 16 years after T-2 was released. To the point, when someone is looking for the T-1000, most of the times he/she is looking after the character that been played by Robert Patrick and not after one of the dozens new characters in SC Chronicles.--Gilisa (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And you object to a single paragraph dealing with an official branch of the franchise because why? ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Because there is still a big difference, big at least as the difference between the original transformers TV series and the following movie which was released many years after the series itself. When someone is looking for the T-1000 he/she is definitely not expecting to read about the T-1001. I can buy the franchise of Starbucks and make it a chain of shoes shops..it's not about the legal aspects we are talking about...well nevermind, enough with the metaphors: It's not even the same character so there is no reason to include it in this article. More, there is the series and there are the movies, and these are issues for two different articles, at least. --Gilisa (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gilisa, make a separate article. The TSCC articles are turning into a fan site. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I was about 13 years old when T-2 was released, so for me there is a huge difference between the movie and TSCC (actually, I can hardly understand how someone can find any resemblance), there is nothing realy in common between the movie and the TV series aside for the general subject and the names. Aside for my opinion about these differences, it will be suitable and respectful to make different articles.--Gilisa (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with ColdFusion650, you want info on the T-1000, that's the first thing you get when the article loads. Aren't the T-800 and T-850 models in the same article? It seems to me you don't want the T-1001 in the article due to your personal distaste for the T.V. show, or you would have complained about the comic book too. Which is funny since it talks about a female T-1000 being sent back to ensure Skynet get's created, where have I seen that scenario before? Victis Kato (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The all issue is that it's not part of the original production (by James Cameroon).--Gilisa (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia convention does not state to make different articles because of different authors. The most obvious example of this is comic book characters, where many writers work on the same franchise. As for the TV series having nothing to do with the movies, this is also false because event in the films are mentioned in TSCC. T-1000 (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cyborg?

The article describes the T-1000 as a Cyborg. How would someone come to that conclusion? It's a being made up of countless nanorobots (a collective intelligence) and doesn't contain any biological parts. I guess I could see it as a Cyborg if you want to compare the intelligence as a mimic of the human brain, but I thought that was Bionics. I see it's able to act like organic material, but that's bionics too, a clever immitation of the real thing. Nano-robotic mechanism is a better term for a T-1000 than Cyborg, just my 2 cents though. Victis Kato (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed it actually to Android, as yes, It doesn't have any organic parts, just looks like it's organic. The snare (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why T-1001 and not a TX?

Why is it that Catherine Weaver is listed as a T-1001 and not a TX? Just because of the liquid-metal stuff? didn't the TX have that too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.33.149.93 (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

TX had liquid metal, but the liquid metal covered a ridgid skeleton. T-1000 and T-1001 are all liquid metal with no skeleton. Though I admit that does raise the plothole of how they can time travel without organic coverings.Mustang6172 (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The liquid metal can form something similar to living tissue, maybe that counts? Jerkov (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

T-1000 is not T-1001

Please respect it and make different articles. It won't make the T-1001 to T-1000 if you keep them in the same article, only make the all article klutzy.--Gilisa (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Do we have two separate articles called T-800 (Good) and T-800 (Bad)? They are two different characters. The fact that they are the same model is from this source: [1].

"She’s the same liquid metal model, basically,” Kramer said. “She can morph into whatever she wants, to a point. Any inanimate object as long as there are no moving parts."T-1000 (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I realy dont understand the comparison between "bad" and "good" t-800, it's just an irritating comparison that was made just to give an argument for the t-1000 and 1001 in the same article. While the "bad" and "good" t-800 was actually not only of the same model (meaning they were not t-800 and t-801) but also the same cyborg itself, as the terminator said to Jhon Connor in T-2 (the movie, where he told Jhon that he "reprogrammed" him). While here we are talking on two different modles (1000 and 1001, if they were the same they wouldn't need different serial) it's not the same robot (t-1000 is a male and 1001 is women) and more importantly, the t-1001 "can digest food" while t-1000 didnt have this function. so, you are just insisting to put her here, because your'e fans and not because you can give an objective arguments for doing so.--Gilisa (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The good T-800 and the bad T-800 was not the same cyborg. When Miles Dyson talked about the chip, He said "It came from the other one like you". You can check the movie for yourself. In the opening of T-2, it was mentioned that Skynet sent two Terminators back through Time, thus stating that the good T-800 and the bad T-800 came from the same future, thus they cannot be the same one. Furthermore, their hairstyles were different when they just arrived. They were the same type of Terminator, but not the same one. This is analogous to the T-1000 and the T-1001. My source clearly states that they are the same type of Terminator (from someone who worked on the original Terminator movies), and that is why they belong on the same page. It is Wikipedia convention. What the T-1001 looks like is irrelevant, since this type of Terminator can morph into anyone, and there was never any proof that the T-1000 cannot consume food. T-1000 (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, youre wrong: when Jhone and the good T-800 first talked, after the escape from the mall scene, Jhone asked it who send him and he answerd " You did, xx years from now you reprogrammed me to protect..." . Anyway, no argue that they are of the same model. Your familiarity with someone who worked on the T-2 set has no relevance to here, as it's original research which is forbidden in Wikipedia. The actor haircut has nothing to do with the model itself, it's actually nonsense..And about her ability to consume food, it is the distinctive feature of T-1001 and thats way it's 1001 and not 1000, as the producers themselves told. to You are not objective regarding the difference between t-1001 and t-1000.--Gilisa (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The reprogramming statement does not mean that they are the same cyborg, since all of the T-800s are initally under Skynet's control, thus John Conner had to reprogram one to be his protecter. It does not mean it is the same cyborg that tried to kill his mother. The Two are both T-800 (the same type), but they are still two different robots from the same future. Furthurmore, the good T-800 himself directly said: "The CPU from the First Terminator" in Miles Dyson's house. The quote I cited is directly from Kramer who worked on the Terminator Franchise (you can check my link), thus Karmer is the source and it is not original research. As for the T-1000's consume food ability, please offer a statement from the producers themselves. T-1000 (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The link to see the good T-800 talk about the bad T-800 is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HdPDeVeJF4

No, I wont offer any statement from the producers themselves. We forgot for a moment who should carry the burden of evidence and it's you, not me. When you are writing about two models which even their serial numbers are different (what can be more notable?) are actually the same model-you should offer adequate evidence and you didn't. Your claims, all of them, even when they are leaning on correct facts, have no sense at all, you are just taking it out. If you dont offer evidence which support your claim that T-1000 and T-1001 are of the exactly same model (as T-800 bad and good was, and if they were not the same cyborg itself is not the point), I will remove the 1001 from the article.--Gilisa (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My evidence is simple, Kramer, who worked on the T2 and TSCC, said the T-1001 and the T-1000 are the same type. The Link is here: http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/09/15/how-billy-idol-and-lance-henriksen-were-nearly-james-camerons-terminators/. The direct quote from him is: "She’s the same liquid metal model, basically,” Kramer said. “She can morph into whatever she wants, to a point. Any inanimate object as long as there are no moving parts." Since Kramer is part of the Terminator crew, he is a reliable source. You did not provide any evidence at all, so your stuff is original research, as you are just a fan and Kramer is part of the producers. T-1000 (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I accept this as evidence for now, as I'm sure it's a limited one and there will be no problem to find an expanded explanation about the differences between the two models which will contradict with this one in short time. Not to mention that according to Kramer they are identical basically but he didn't say that entirely. In contradiction to what you have wrote, I never made any original research here, as I told, you was the one who should carry the burden of evidence and you did it only now.--Gilisa (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I gave the evidence since the first time I replied to you. Please read what I wrote on December 25, 2008. T-1000 (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Android vs Gynoid

If anyone has any evidence that the T-1001/Catherine Weaver is an android or a gynoid, please present it. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

An android is defined as a robot that looks like a man, and a gynoid is defined as a robot that looks like a woman. That is why labeling the T-1000 a gynoid is wrong. Robert Patrick may not be a he-man like Arnold, but he doesn't look like a woman. ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither could be considered acceptable as the forms that they take (the killed police officer/the real Catherine Weaver) are voluntary choices which they very often shed when the situation demands it. Production costs and demands and continuity are the only reasons that the writers have these machines take a regular form. I seriously doubt that, if such machines really existed, that they would choose a regular form unless they were undercover, as that would make them recognizable and would compromise their mission. If you have to fill the species spot, which I do not recommend, then the entry should be "robot" or something else to indicate the ambiguity of the situation. kingdom2 (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the T-1000 be labeled a a gynoid, just the T-1001. JCDenton2052 (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A while back on Terminator (character), there was a huge argument over whether it was an android or cyborg. I suggested that it just be called a "robot", but people thought it wasn't specific enough. I vote for just robot. ColdFusion650 (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Terminator (character) is definitely a cyborg. It is a robot surrounded by living tissue. And to JCDenton, I am saying that neither the T-1000 or the T-1001 can be labeled as either an android or a gynoid because the definitions clearly state that androids and gynoids are robots designed to look like men and women, respectively, and that is not how they were designed. By the very fact that they can change their form into anything from a men and women to urinals and tile floor, they cannot be classified as something specific as android or gynoid, either of them.kingdom2 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Split T-1001/Catherine Weaver?

Seven other T:TSCC characters have their own articles. Is the T-1001/Catherine Weaver less important than all of them? JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the history, this section is more than four times the size of the original Catherine Weaver article, so the original arguments for merging them may need to be reexamined. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been done before. We have one page for each type of Terminator, and Joel Kramer said that the T-1000 and the T-1001 are the same liquid metal model. T-1000 (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Catherine Weaver, and the majority of those other seven articles, do not have the notability to stand on their own. There is only one reliable source in the entire "Television" section of this article, and that source only confirms its existence, with the rest of the section being filled with nothing but plot summary with no real-world information on production, casting, writing, or any other behind the scenes details. This is called and in-universe perspective. The T-1001 has absolutely no real world notability separate from the T-1000 and as such is in no way notable enough for its own article. kingdom2 (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Weaver and the one on USS JC might not be the same.

I might be wrong, but isn't it a big jump to conclusion to assume that they're the same?

First of all, asking the same question does not make two individual the same. In war, people ask the same question all the time. 'Will you join us?' is rather common if you want to make alliance or recruit, which means it could come from any side, to anyone.

In Allison from Palmdale, Cameron's memories states that 'Because not all of us think alike. Some of us want peace.' And later, SkyNet tried to take over John Henry. Then Weaver ignored SkyNet's main targets and clearly worked to oppose it when it tried to kill Sarah and John, not to mention the fact that she cared about creating John Henry more than anything else. She also told Sarah that she did not try to build SkyNet at all. This indicates that there are at least two factions of the Machines. And Weaver is not in the SkyNet's faction.

This leads to 'Will you join us?' I don't think it is safe anymore to assume that Weaver and T-1001(?) on the sub were same. Because if Weaver was high up, it was possible that this question had been discussed and known. It is not uncommon that high officers know the other leaders' idea. It was very possible that she knew the question and John/Cameron stand point through other way, like intelligence, or reading through movements of war. Or that the idea and the question was not uncommon at all among leaders. She could know it not by just being the same one. She could ask it to convince someone from other faction to join her. Like John did.

Besides, how can you tell two of T-1001 apart? They shapeshift. And it has never been made clear that T-1001 in sub comes from which side, let alone being the same one. We're not even sure if it's T-1001 or T-1000. That means John could have asked ppl from SkyNet's faction to join, or even if he did ask someone from Weaver's faction, it could still be some other T, and not her. Anthonydraco (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you make an excellent point. I think most of us assumed that since the (two) liquid metal were privy to the same information, they were the same machine. How would you suggest we correct the situation, Anthonydraco? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What appears here is sufficient, I think. We've (you guys, actually) seperated asking the question twice into two seperate events already. The info placed there doesn't sound to vague or seems to cause ppl to assume they're the same. The problem remains now is that it's too long. Catch-22. Maybe you can wipe the USS JC part off and say 'In Born to Run, Weaver askes 'Will you join us?' to Cameron, using E as intermediary. The question is the same one asked by a liquid terminator --or whatever it is. Just don't try to kill each other reaching conclusion, LOL.-- on USS JC in the future. Though the relation of that termintor and Weaver remains only speculative.' Anthonydraco (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There is enough information about the T-1001 and Catherine Weaver for it to be in its own article. Also, the Sarah Conner Chronicles are in a different timeline than the films and the information on Catherine Weaver may continue to grow as the series develops, whereas the information on the films is pretty static. So I think the information about the T-1000 in Terminator 2 can stand on its own, just like Catherine Weaver or the T-1001 can stand on her/their own. Also, whether she is a T-1001 or a T-1070, she is clearly different model than Agent Doggett (Have you seen this boy?). Different models of Macintosh computers have different wikis, do they not? Let's put Apples with Apples. Erikeltic (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The series information will not grow anymore since it's been officially cancelled. I've found some interview dated on 18 May by some guys on Fox. The show has been killed. In the seperate topic regard, I doubt that we have sufficient info on a T-1001 that we actually know besides Catherine Weaver being officially announced as one herself. All info available for us to put there will be the difference between the T-1001 and T-1000, which is not much at all, and they're all based on speculation or original research. That and a duplicate information on traits T-1000 and T-1001 share. It can only be a few paragraph long at most, if not less. Nor that it will meet the notability required by Wikipedia. And I'm against seperating Catherine Weaver section, as only the most hardcore fans know about her being T-1001. The announcement is far from known. General audience will come and seek the information at T-1000 section first. I did. And most differences we spot are just speculation anyway. There's no way we can actually prove that it is as we think we see or not. And in films, too many things are not what they seem. We don't as much as you think. And these info are fancruft. See wp:fancruft. Besides, any search on T-1001 will be led here by keywords. This problem is already being discussed in the section above this one.Anthonydraco (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've performed a major edit of the section, which I think trims it down a great deal. I've done away with the vestigial infobox; the series is cancelled, so there isn't a reason to keep it within the section. Additionally, I've removed a lot of the play-by-play from the series, concentrating on the larger picture and focusing solely upon the subject of the article.

Thoughts?- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:34, May 22, 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. I wasn't 100% behind the idea of splitting the article anyway and since the series is finished, I see even less reason to do it now. Erikeltic (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; its nice to finally be able to fond something to agree upon, Erikeltic. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's bound to happen once in a while, eh? Erikeltic (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my delay, I was checking to see if the world was ending...lol. I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Decisively bold. I didn't have time then and was not so decive. I was about to ask a more decisive hand than mine to do that. Anthonydraco (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you live with the new edit, Anthony? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's no need to ask that, is there? This is Wikipedia. Whatever keeps the contents compact and accurate. And you boys did that. Anthonydraco (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)