Was there some connection here between Trek and MI, or were they just in production at the same time and pressed for budget? That's a lot of names. Weyoun 22:38, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Apparently, the only in-Trek reference is the "Future's End" ref it gives, but that's enough to make it canon. As for the list of names, I'm not sure if that's quite needed. -Platypus Man | Talk 22:46, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, I didn't mean is it canon. Sorry, I was just referring to the immense list of names. :-) Weyoun 23:12, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I removed:

Star Trek Actors Who've Made Appearances on Mission: ImpossibleEdit

This article is specifically for canonical references in the Star Trek universe. Because these names were not referenced on Star Trek, they do not belong in the article. --From Andoria with Love 07:33, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The current background comment about Nimoy being a regular is all that is needed, the list from above is overkill and not compatible with MA rules -- Kobi - (Talk) 12:56, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. As exhaustive as I'm sure the research was, the list above is just way too much for an article based primarily on canonically referenced material only. Thanks, Kobi. --From Andoria with Love 23:11, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Actor listEdit

I'd like to propose either removing the list of crossover actors or placing the list in a drop down menu to save page space, preferably the first option as I don't see the relevance of having it here. --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:48, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

The should not be removed, it's entirely relevant. That said, there are several formatting options for reducing the length of the page. - Archduk3 13:58, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a drop-down menu or something akin to that would be a good idea. :) --Defiant 14:00, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and inserted such a menu. This, of course, can be altered/removed – whatever other archivists feel they'd like it to be. My intent, in the meantime, is just to hide the lengthy actor list, tidying the page a little. --Defiant 17:32, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

That looks much better. --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:03, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

It may be prudent to split off a real-world Mission: Impossible article to serve the role of a Doctor Who-type page, while keeping the in-universe reference at the natural title. This would seem to better reflect the two aspects of the current page.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 03:09, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
IMO, it now looks fine the way it is (more-or-less). Are there any precedents for the suggested page split? --Defiant 09:53, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
There's not really any direct precedent. I was thinking of the general idea of splitting pages when they get too long, or are really two different topics (which I think is the case here, due to our POV). Things like Stephen Hawking/Stephen Hawking (actor), or having Constitution class model split off from Constitution-class. But I'm happy to have the info remain here if others are; I was just presenting another alternative to consider. :-)–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:48, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
I think this page is OK the way it is, but if we did split it we would also need to split the Shakespeare references in Star Trek from William Shakespeare.--31dot 00:53, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
Ha. I'd forgotten about that one. Probably best not to re-open the "essay" can of worms. ;-) Anyway, I'm cool with this page as is if y'all agree.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:24, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
As I said, I'm fine with its correct format... though I do appreciate you bringing forth an alternative option, so thanks for that, Cleanse. :) --Defiant 08:46, August 14, 2011 (UTC)