This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
While describing the fictional elements is normal to a certain extent on wikipedia, all of the guidelines and policies on writing about fiction say that we should be looking to include real-world info from reliable, third party sources. For this article that means we need information about casting, about choices Cruise made in portraying the character, things the writers thought while writing the character, etc. The in universe tag should stay. The article, as it stands now, would be great on a wikia; such sites act as in universe encylcopedias for the fictional topics they cover. However, it is inappropriate for a wikipedia article to be limited to that information. Please read the appropriate guidlines before removing the tag again. Millahnna (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article certainly can use expansion, especially in the background info that you mention (I will note that, as executive producer and the man who controls the film rights to Mission: Impossible, no one other than Cruise was ever going to be cast as Hunt, but I digress). One thing I can and will do is rematch the films with the commentary tracks on, but I am not sure how to cite them. Also bringing over some information from the articles on the individual films could help.
That said, I don't know if an in universe tag is the right one, or an expansion tag works better. But I'll leave it for now, as it leaves me some work to do. oknazevad (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably either tag would work but in-universe is more specific in this case (pretty common problem on character and list of character pages). I'm not too clear on how to cite commentary tracks, myself. How I've SEEN it done (though I'm by no means certain this is done correctly) is for editors to use plain ref tags and note the time index of the commentary track (DVD Cast Commentary, 42:15). Barring being able to find an actual guideline on the idea (the folks at WT:FILM might have some suggestions) it seems to be the most clear way to note what you were going for so that it can be cleaned up if necessary later. As for other sources, if it's stuff with links, we can always start a "Sources to use" section here on the talk page and just drop the links there for ease if you find something but don't have time to create the content to plug it in with. Millahnna (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The in-universe tag is beside the point on this article imho. The plot details are properly written up from a real-world perspective, in publication order. What it needs is more {{context}} beyond just the plot details, but that template is too vague to serve any meaningful purpose (so is {{expand article}}). Maybe we need a new template like {{real-world context}} to address the issue of articles about elements of fiction (characters etc) where the plot info is already properly written up from real-world perspective but the article needs more real-world context beyond the work of fiction itself. --78.35.234.222 (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
