Talk:Terminator Salvation

(Redirected from Talk:Terminator 4)
Latest comment: 2 months ago by 2603:9001:2F0:8D30:6E56:5051:D0E0:4D4 in topic uhh
Good articleTerminator Salvation has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 30, 2005Articles for deletionDeleted
December 4, 2005Articles for deletionNo consensus
January 22, 2006Articles for deletionNo consensus
March 24, 2006Articles for deletionDeleted
June 19, 2006Articles for deletionDeleted
January 27, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Terminator Salvation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit

In August 2017, User:Tdts5 inserted the copyright violation tag in the Casting section, because of how it may have possibly been copied over from here. I admit that there are many similarities verbatim. But that website links no source, and at the bottom of the left side, says: "Resources: imdb.com, imsdb.com wikipedia.org," which implies they copied from Wikipedia.

In fact, let's take the Moon Bloodgood example. Word-for-word, both Wikipedia and the ScifiMovieZone website say, "A 'no-nonsense and battle-hardened' pilot of the Resistance..." But if you go back to the history of this page, I was the one that initially included and sourced her in the article back in 2008, which was later brushed up and expanded in subsequent edits.

This could be said for the rest of the cast if one takes the time to look back at the history of edits in the article. I mean, it passed as a Good Article for a reason. - Enter Movie (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Too Long

edit

Greetings Wikipedians! I can tell that much effort has been expended on this article. But it strikes me as much too long for such an undistinguished film. The Plot section has 643 words, almost as many as the Plot of Gone With The Wind (688 words) and Lawrence of Arabia (706). Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:SOFIXIT? DonIago (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@DonIago Done! I have endeavored to condense the plot section without losing the key points. Regards, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Typo in lead

edit

Why was my edit reverted? "serving as a sequel to" makes more grammatical sense than "serving as sequel to" Elspooky (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

That was me, and I self-reverted my edit as it was a mis-click. DonIago (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

uhh

edit

"In 2020, following the critical and commercial failures of the two subsequent films"

this statement isn't even remotely accurate. Dark Fate was the third best reviewed film in the series. 2603:9001:2F0:8D30:6E56:5051:D0E0:4D4 (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply