Talk:Mission: Impossible

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)[reply]

• 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

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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.

talk) 22:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • No, because it's not the entire franchise. oknazevad (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it is the primary topic, IMO. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

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.