Talk:Mission: Impossible

"Mission: Impossible"

The Mission: Impossible (film series) is proposed to be converted to a franchise article, see talk: Mission: Impossible (film series) for the discussion -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mission: Impossible which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

That was agreed, and is now at Talk:Mission:_Impossible_(1966_TV_series)#Requested_move_26_July_2019. – Fayenatic London 09:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

---

• Mission: Impossible (franchise) → Mission: Impossible
• Mission: Impossible → Mission: Impossible (disambiguation)

– Apperently it was agreed some time ago that the main franchise should be located at Mission: Impossible, and that the current disambiguation page should be at Mission: Impossible (disambiguation). ★Trekker (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support, as the editor who brought up the issue with the nominator. The previous discussion, linked in the above section, cake to the consensus that the franchise article should be at the base name. oknazevad (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Assuming the article will be improved. As it stands this is basically a clone of the DAB page. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• I will always support in general a move like this, but in the state of the article right now it's really hard for me to do. This is just a dab with empty tables and it belongs more in a draft than in main space. --Gonnym (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I was working on it, but then Oknazevad pointed out that my moves were misguided, so it got a bit akward. I will be working on it more of course until it's in good shape. But if you think moving it to draftspace first is for the best then I would accept that too.★Trekker (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

If you (or anyone) is actively working on making it better than that's great. My fear was that the article will be left as is. --Gonnym (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Would like to know how Mission: Impossible (film series) would fit in with this. Could it be expanded into the "franchise" article we want to go at primary? If separate, I could see some confusion. -- Netoholic @ 10:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The film series is only a sub part of the franchise. The two preceding TV series are the basis, and the first one was a major hit that ran for over a decade, so making the franchise article be predominantly focused on the films would be a mistake. Many of the production details would also be inappropriate for a franchise article as they're irrelevant to the other parts of the franchise. Having a separate article for the films as a daughter article for the overall franchise article and a parent article for the individual films is not uncommon for major media franchises. oknazevad (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom as a start. I think ultimately the film series might want the un-paranthetical title in the end?? Axem Titanium (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No, because it's not the entire franchise. oknazevad (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
    • But it is the primary topic, IMO. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Disagree. The original TV series was on for years, and has had reams of works written about it over the decades, plus is the origin of the cultural references. I state flatly that there is no primary topic within the franchise. But regardless, that's irrelevant to this discussion as there's no proposal to move the film series article. oknazevad (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
        • It was on for fewer years than the film series has been going on for. The page view stats show that the film series article has 10x the page views as the 1966 TV show. Even the first Cruise film has more page views. I don't think history is on your side on this one. But, as you say, that isn't the discussion at hand. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"This message will self destruct" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect This message will self destruct should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#This message will self destruct until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Numbering of novels

Are the books based upon the film series actually numbered in continuation with the obscure 1960s TV series spin-off novels or was that just added by somebody here? Since the TV and film series do not share continuity, unless the later books actually were numbered, those should be removed from the titles; the 1960s books were numbered as I have them and can verify from the covers but I have never seen the movie spin-offs. 2604:3D09:1F74:1C00:891:1835:7426:A2E8 (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The movies do share continuity with the films, despite the complaints about them. oknazevad (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Cast table

Should really boil that table down to only characters who appear in multiple instances of the franchise. 73.157.50.86 (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I concur, people who appear in multiple instances, and the main cast members of the TV Series. Otherwise adding the antagonists and agents who only appear in one film especially "Jane Carter" who has not been proved to be related to Cinnamon Carter. Keep in mind also that the "Paris" in the films is no way based off the Paris played by Leonard Nimoy. Maxcardun (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)