1372:
it represents opinions dominated by
American white males (presumably) are exactly those leveled at Knowledge. Knowledge still works, because it allows anyone to contribute. Ditto IMDB. The fact that its voting system is open to all, if controlled for obvious attempts at manipulation, is not a bug, but a feature. As IMDB states, they exploit the concept of the "Wisdom of the Crowd". It bears repeating this 'wisdom' works if people think for themselves, without social influence. Anonymous voting is a genuine tool to achieve it.
275:
1399:
115:
174:
146:
238:
160:
358:
1814:, a paid IMDbPro member can request to claim a page and "should receive an email notice within 24 hours" before the request is "reviewed and verified". A free member must specify the page to claim and provide a payment method when signing up. It's not clear how long it takes for a free membership request to be processed.
1424:
It is worth considering editorial intent, what does including IMDB scores do except indicate popularity that is already being shown by other more reliable sources, such as critics and box office. There are some exceptions, and when the IMDB score is noteworthy or "culturally significant" enough to be
1371:
IMDB ratings are culturally significant. When
Shawshank Redemption deposed Citizen Kane, 20 odd years ago, it was both major news, and an important reality check. Kane is a fine movie, but was reified by film schools. Shawshank may not be the greatest movie ever, either. But IMDB's flaws, namely that
1706:. BLP tells us it is better to omit things like birthdates and middle names if they are not common knowledge, for privacy reasons. And the way to judge whether it's common knowledge is if it's been published in reliable sources. And IMDB is not reliable because it's self-published. Hope this helps. –
1436:
As the IMDb user voted scores are not a reliable source the policy against including them (except in very limited circumstances) is unlikely to change. Comments on this essay are unlikely to change anything either, and if you want anything to happen you would probably need to make your case with the
1367:
I notice that most
Knowledge articles about movies do not include their IMDB rating. This is a remarkable decision for an organization that is based on the virtual, largely anonymous, crowd-sourced knowledge of empowered users. IMDB ratings are the product of something rather similar. If IMDB voters
1817:
So should we consider self-verified information on IMDb to be an acceptable ABOUTSELF source? Or is the verification process too opaque? On the one hand, IMDb claims to review the user contributions too and it's our collective experiences that have found the process so porous it's not an RS. On the
1887:
It sounds like opening a can of words here. I would put the verification on a lower spot than the usual social profiles. (Twitter would also be lower.) It just seems like IMDB would be a last measure for making a case if information is correct about someone, perhaps better as a case-by-case basis.
1497:
How are IMDB ratings "excluded"? They would not be being "used" for anything except to state that "the IMDB rating for this film was 7.8 on 21st June 2022". That's a reliable and accurate statement of what the IMDB rating is. It is not a reliable indication of how the film is generally regarded,
1559:
Again,so what. IMDB ratings are a thing, and they are a notable thing. Saying that a film has an IMDB rating of 9.0 may simply be noting that IMDB has been manipulated to have a rating of 9.0 for this film. You don't seem able to divorce yourself from the idea that reporting an IMDB rating is
1621:
a film, by linking to its title page. Is this essay arguing against such use? IMDB serves as the largest publicly available database of films. Sure, it has user generated content, possibly messy, but still adding some more bits to help decide what is what. It would be silly and arrogant from a
1459:
The Essay doesn't mention IMDb
Ratings. It doesn't state that they are good, bad, or indifferent. They aren't mentioned. If editors shouldn't use IMBd ratings, the essay should state that they shouldn't be used. Editors are pushed to use Rotten Tomatoes scores, which are highly misleading. For
1563:
If Roger Ebert liked a film, that doesn't mean the film is good, it just means Roger Ebert liked it. If IMDB users have rated a film at 6, it just mean IMDB users have rated a film at 6. It's a popular website, people use it, and this is notable. 23:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
1416:
If you really think
Knowledge competes with IMDB, then you should pay close attention to the much bigger competitor which is information panels that appear on search engine result pages, which give readers the answers they want so they never bother coming to Knowledge at
1530:
This is no answer at all. So what that it's just based on users? It is what it is. As long as it not presented as anything other than what it is, why should it be excluded? Both an IMDB rating and a Rotten
Tomatoes rating just reflect the opinions of a set of people.
1791:, IMDb allows individuals to "claim" IMDb name pages about them and "self-submit/verify their age/year of birth, birthname, alternate names, and other demographic information", including "gender/gender identity, race/ethnicity, disabilities, and sexual orientation" (
1699:. I find it good for looking up stats about an actor, such as what films they've been in and how many appearances in a TV show and if they had a named role. But information in articles shouldn't be cited directly to IMDB. It should be cited to other sources.
1822:
that eventually led to this self-verification system, and verified social media profiles turning out to be impersonation is not unheard-of so doubts regarding authenticity may be hashed out on each article's talk page just like any other platform.
1483:. There is no obligation for this essay to repeat what has already been made clear elsewhere. It is not unreasonable for this essay to focus on the positive and recommend how to do things better (and not go into details about what not to do). --
1870:
says a verified social media account "may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it". I'm asking if there is. You seem to think yes; care to elaborate on why? (What are you referring to with those quotes around "good enough" and "source"?)
996:
1460:
example, the Kim
Possible movie has a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 100% based on 6 reviews. Those reviews are NOT reliable resources based on Knowledge's standards. That leads readers to this essay, which fails to bring up the topic.
1243:
991:
480:
1445:). (I understand this is an old discussion and my unoriginal responses are even older, but I write this as much for the many people reading without commenting than I do for the person who asked the original question.) --
960:
1238:
475:
1622:
generalist, completely user generated encyclopedia to fully disregard a specialist one with its core content created/supervised by editors just because there are also unreliable pieces of information there.
1279:
1231:
1474:
They are not mentioned here because this is an essay, and it comes below guidelines, and below core principles of
Knowledge. The IMDB ratings are already excluded because they are user generated content
955:
972:
1183:
1420:
Knowledge is crowd sourced but emphasizes using reliable sources to confirm that information. User generated information such as from other Wikis or user voted web polls are not reliable sources.
1274:
1226:
1039:
948:
1267:
1207:
1027:
936:
1375:
It does seem, from 30,000 feet, that
Knowledge HQ competes with IMDB, and refuses to allow IMDB ratings because they think they're superior. It's amusing, I suppose, but also rather dubious.
1147:
1075:
1015:
924:
1255:
1219:
1171:
1135:
1087:
1063:
967:
912:
857:
1195:
1178:
1159:
1123:
1111:
1099:
1051:
1788:
1034:
943:
893:
869:
251:
1939:
1262:
1202:
1022:
931:
845:
218:
1754:
Thanks lot, guys. For additional context: I saw that this particular reality TV personality's date of birth is all over the place in Google searches, but not in reliable sources.
1343:
1142:
1070:
1010:
919:
881:
1250:
1214:
1166:
1130:
1082:
1058:
984:
907:
852:
797:
1598:
In the section on disputed uses, the meaning of "released films only" is unclear. Does it mean that it's okay to cite IMDb as a source for those sections for released films?
1190:
1154:
1118:
1106:
1094:
1046:
398:
888:
864:
715:
840:
876:
550:
979:
1866:
I'm not saying it should be given precedence over other social media profiles when they are available, I'm suggesting we consider it an option when they are not.
811:
729:
705:
427:
39:
1650:
1512:
There's no basis for including them as it's just based on users. For instance, Rotten
Tomatoes is used because the score is based on reviews from critics. –
646:
634:
537:
1949:
545:
1819:
697:
522:
454:
74:
806:
789:
765:
724:
583:
512:
467:
1433:) then Knowledge does mention it, but even then it isn't the score itself that is important, the point is to say that the film is enduringly popular.
753:
571:
558:
287:
1661:
1390:
641:
629:
532:
391:
228:
777:
181:
692:
449:
441:
80:
1954:
1484:
1446:
784:
760:
741:
578:
462:
304:
299:
294:
1461:
1294:
748:
566:
1944:
1702:
But anyway, to answer your question, no, I think using a self-published source such as IMDB to cite a birthdate is definitely against
504:
384:
772:
492:
190:
1842:. If a subject really wants to make info like this available publicly, they generally have social media accounts, which do pass
1811:
1769:
1682:
736:
419:
1350:
670:
658:
436:
20:
607:
602:
499:
159:
69:
1852:
1740:
1315:
487:
151:
126:
1603:
337:
60:
1660:
Context: I added a "citation needed" tag to a draft and the draft creator provided a link to IMDb and referred me to
1888:
Even the help page suggests an account can be owned by a talent manager or someone other than the actual person. –
1569:
1536:
1503:
826:
685:
622:
411:
364:
1386:
1301:
665:
653:
194:
316:
94:
1430:
1488:
1450:
1368:
are less 'transparent' than Wiki authors (who certainly aren't nakedly obvious) they are far more numerous.
1716:
1465:
1382:
247:
1664:
which claims that some sort of proof (official document, social media link or LinkedIn link) is necessary.
1565:
1532:
1499:
1599:
1406:
1329:
1308:
1322:
132:
24:
1545:
And one is far more vulnerable to manipulation by a small if dedicated group of people than the other.
1867:
1839:
1654:
1649:
Could you please clarify whether using IMDb to support a BLP date of birth is okay or inappropriate?
1378:
1843:
1804:
1763:
1676:
1426:
50:
1895:
1818:
other, one would think they keep a better eye on IMDbPro given it's their cash cow and there was
1707:
1638:
1627:
1519:
322:
99:
65:
1696:
1402:
46:
1918:
1876:
1856:
1828:
1744:
1703:
1550:
595:
318:
274:
186:
96:
189:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
1838:
My $ 0.02 would be "no" – this is not a "good enough" "source" to get around things like
1756:
1669:
1438:
1290:
822:
681:
618:
1933:
1889:
1796:
1731:
1623:
1513:
1476:
1336:
1911:
an account can be owned by a talent manager or someone other than the actual person
1800:
1480:
1442:
1421:
320:
98:
1922:
1914:
1901:
1880:
1872:
1861:
1847:
1832:
1824:
1776:
1749:
1735:
1721:
1689:
1631:
1607:
1573:
1554:
1546:
1540:
1525:
1507:
1492:
1469:
1454:
1410:
590:
357:
237:
173:
145:
1907:
I would put the verification on a lower spot than the usual social profiles
1792:
1617:
I am confused. I think the main context and reason to cite IMDB is to
348:
1795:). This seems like a resource that could be used on BLPs as regards
1647:
1. Any potentially contentious material about living persons (BLPs).
185:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of
1498:
but as long as it just states what it states, it is accurate.
323:
268:
108:
100:
15:
376:
352:
236:
416:
1783:
Add "Self-verified on IMDbPro" to appropriate uses?
1651:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#IMDb
1940:Low-impact WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
1807:sources like verified social media profiles.
392:
331:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
1653:doesn't mention DOB, either. I've also read
1913:Isn't that the case for most social media?
1846:(provided they are "verified" accounts). --
254:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.
1560:implying some kind of judgement on a film.
399:
385:
140:
125:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
1645:The "Inappropriate uses" section reads:
142:
1910:
1906:
1646:
341:when more than 4 sections are present.
7:
1734:) – that is long-standing policy. --
114:
112:
1479:and they are not a reliable source
131:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
1950:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
992:Avant-garde and experimental films
209:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
193:. For a listing of essays see the
14:
1662:IMDb Biographical data guidelines
335:may be automatically archived by
179:This page is within the scope of
1397:
356:
273:
172:
158:
144:
113:
40:Click here to start a new topic.
1574:23:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
1411:10:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
1:
1730:acceptable for bio info (for
1239:Soviet and post-Soviet cinema
37:Put new text under old text.
500:Announcements and open tasks
223:This page has been rated as
203:Knowledge:WikiProject Essays
182:WikiProject Knowledge essays
1955:WikiProject Film talk pages
1608:04:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
1555:02:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
1541:00:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
206:Template:WikiProject Essays
45:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1971:
1470:13:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
1455:17:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
1945:NA-Class Knowledge essays
1722:22:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
1690:11:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
1293:
1002:
956:Marvel Cinematic Universe
899:
832:
825:
798:Spotlight cleanup listing
684:
621:
379:
244:
222:
167:
139:
75:Be welcoming to newcomers
1923:16:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
1902:16:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
1881:02:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
1862:02:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
1833:01:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
1777:06:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
1750:02:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
1632:00:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
1526:19:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1508:13:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1493:22:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
1363:The Missing IMDB Ratings
1316:DVD liner notes citation
546:Nominations for deletion
476:Copy-editing essentials
1227:Southeast Asian cinema
338:Lowercase sigmabot III
248:automatically assessed
241:
229:project's impact scale
70:avoid personal attacks
1004:National and regional
488:Notability guidelines
380:General information (
246:The above rating was
240:
1820:a whole legal battle
1637:Clarification about
1431:Shawshank Redemption
623:Project organization
603:Fiction noticeboard
428:Discussion archives
1179:New Zealand cinema
463:Naming conventions
242:
127:content assessment
81:dispute resolution
42:
1909:And why is that?
1860:
1774:
1748:
1720:
1687:
1641:for date of birth
1600:Laterthanyouthink
1429:sources (such as
1383:BrianMichaelCoyle
1381:comment added by
1360:
1359:
1356:
1355:
1285:
1284:
1275:Venezuelan cinema
1035:Australian cinema
944:Documentary films
817:
816:
676:
675:
613:
612:
412:Main project page
371:
370:
345:
344:
310:
309:
267:
266:
263:
262:
259:
258:
255:
107:
106:
61:Assume good faith
38:
1962:
1898:
1892:
1850:
1803:, comparable to
1772:
1766:
1761:
1759:
1738:
1714:
1712:
1685:
1679:
1674:
1672:
1566:Aredbeardeddwarf
1533:Aredbeardeddwarf
1522:
1516:
1500:Aredbeardeddwarf
1401:
1400:
1394:
1291:
1263:Uruguayan cinema
1203:Pakistani cinema
1023:Argentine cinema
932:Comic book films
823:
682:
666:Project category
619:
437:Style guidelines
401:
394:
387:
377:
365:WikiProject Film
360:
353:
349:
340:
324:
291:
290:
277:
269:
245:
211:
210:
207:
204:
201:
187:Knowledge essays
176:
169:
168:
163:
162:
161:
156:
148:
141:
118:
117:
116:
109:
101:
16:
1970:
1969:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1930:
1929:
1896:
1890:
1785:
1770:
1764:
1757:
1708:
1683:
1677:
1670:
1643:
1615:
1596:
1520:
1514:
1398:
1376:
1365:
1143:Japanese cinema
1071:Canadian cinema
1011:American cinema
920:Christian films
523:Cleanup listing
405:
367:
336:
325:
319:
282:
208:
205:
202:
199:
198:
195:essay directory
157:
154:
103:
102:
97:
87:
86:
56:
12:
11:
5:
1968:
1966:
1958:
1957:
1952:
1947:
1942:
1932:
1931:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1784:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1752:
1724:
1700:
1642:
1635:
1614:
1611:
1595:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1561:
1485:109.76.140.170
1447:109.76.139.151
1439:Knowledge:Film
1434:
1418:
1364:
1361:
1358:
1357:
1354:
1353:
1347:
1346:
1340:
1339:
1333:
1332:
1326:
1325:
1319:
1318:
1312:
1311:
1305:
1304:
1298:
1297:
1287:
1286:
1283:
1282:
1277:
1271:
1270:
1265:
1259:
1258:
1253:
1251:Spanish cinema
1247:
1246:
1241:
1235:
1234:
1229:
1223:
1222:
1217:
1215:Persian cinema
1211:
1210:
1205:
1199:
1198:
1193:
1187:
1186:
1181:
1175:
1174:
1169:
1167:Mexican cinema
1163:
1162:
1157:
1151:
1150:
1145:
1139:
1138:
1133:
1131:Italian cinema
1127:
1126:
1121:
1115:
1114:
1109:
1103:
1102:
1097:
1091:
1090:
1085:
1083:Chinese cinema
1079:
1078:
1073:
1067:
1066:
1061:
1059:British cinema
1055:
1054:
1049:
1043:
1042:
1037:
1031:
1030:
1025:
1019:
1018:
1013:
1007:
1006:
1000:
999:
994:
988:
987:
982:
976:
975:
970:
968:Skydance Media
964:
963:
958:
952:
951:
946:
940:
939:
934:
928:
927:
922:
916:
915:
910:
908:Animated films
904:
903:
897:
896:
891:
885:
884:
879:
873:
872:
867:
861:
860:
855:
853:Film festivals
849:
848:
843:
837:
836:
834:General topics
830:
829:
819:
818:
815:
814:
809:
807:Topic workshop
803:
802:
800:
793:
792:
787:
781:
780:
775:
769:
768:
763:
757:
756:
751:
745:
744:
739:
733:
732:
727:
725:Categorization
721:
720:
718:
711:
710:
708:
701:
700:
695:
689:
688:
678:
677:
674:
673:
668:
662:
661:
656:
654:Project banner
650:
649:
644:
638:
637:
632:
626:
625:
615:
614:
611:
610:
605:
599:
598:
593:
587:
586:
581:
575:
574:
569:
562:
561:
554:
553:
548:
541:
540:
535:
528:
527:
525:
518:
517:
515:
513:Article alerts
508:
507:
502:
496:
495:
490:
484:
483:
478:
471:
470:
465:
458:
457:
452:
445:
444:
439:
433:
432:
430:
423:
422:
414:
408:
407:
404:
403:
396:
389:
381:
373:
372:
369:
368:
363:
361:
343:
342:
330:
327:
326:
321:
317:
315:
312:
311:
308:
307:
302:
297:
284:
283:
278:
272:
265:
264:
261:
260:
257:
256:
243:
233:
232:
221:
215:
214:
212:
177:
165:
164:
149:
137:
136:
130:
119:
105:
104:
95:
93:
92:
89:
88:
85:
84:
77:
72:
63:
57:
55:
54:
43:
34:
33:
30:
29:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1967:
1956:
1953:
1951:
1948:
1946:
1943:
1941:
1938:
1937:
1935:
1924:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1899:
1893:
1886:
1882:
1878:
1874:
1869:
1868:WP:BLPPRIVACY
1865:
1864:
1863:
1858:
1854:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1840:WP:BLPPRIVACY
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1821:
1815:
1813:
1810:According to
1808:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1789:December 2022
1782:
1778:
1775:
1773:
1767:
1760:
1753:
1751:
1746:
1742:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1726:IMDb is 100%
1725:
1723:
1718:
1713:
1711:
1710:Novem Linguae
1705:
1701:
1698:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1688:
1686:
1680:
1673:
1667:Many thanks,
1665:
1663:
1658:
1656:
1655:WP:BLPPRIMARY
1652:
1648:
1640:
1636:
1634:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1620:
1612:
1610:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1593:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1562:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1523:
1517:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1462:97.82.165.112
1458:
1457:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1435:
1432:
1428:
1427:WP: SECONDARY
1423:
1419:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1395:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1373:
1369:
1362:
1352:
1349:
1348:
1345:
1342:
1341:
1338:
1335:
1334:
1331:
1328:
1327:
1324:
1321:
1320:
1317:
1314:
1313:
1310:
1307:
1306:
1303:
1300:
1299:
1296:
1292:
1289:
1288:
1281:
1278:
1276:
1273:
1272:
1269:
1266:
1264:
1261:
1260:
1257:
1254:
1252:
1249:
1248:
1245:
1242:
1240:
1237:
1236:
1233:
1230:
1228:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1218:
1216:
1213:
1212:
1209:
1206:
1204:
1201:
1200:
1197:
1194:
1192:
1191:Nordic cinema
1189:
1188:
1185:
1182:
1180:
1177:
1176:
1173:
1170:
1168:
1165:
1164:
1161:
1158:
1156:
1155:Korean cinema
1153:
1152:
1149:
1146:
1144:
1141:
1140:
1137:
1134:
1132:
1129:
1128:
1125:
1122:
1120:
1119:Indian cinema
1117:
1116:
1113:
1110:
1108:
1107:German cinema
1105:
1104:
1101:
1098:
1096:
1095:French cinema
1093:
1092:
1089:
1086:
1084:
1081:
1080:
1077:
1074:
1072:
1069:
1068:
1065:
1062:
1060:
1057:
1056:
1053:
1050:
1048:
1047:Baltic cinema
1045:
1044:
1041:
1038:
1036:
1033:
1032:
1029:
1026:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1017:
1014:
1012:
1009:
1008:
1005:
1001:
998:
995:
993:
990:
989:
986:
983:
981:
978:
977:
974:
971:
969:
966:
965:
962:
959:
957:
954:
953:
950:
947:
945:
942:
941:
938:
935:
933:
930:
929:
926:
923:
921:
918:
917:
914:
911:
909:
906:
905:
902:
898:
895:
892:
890:
887:
886:
883:
880:
878:
875:
874:
871:
868:
866:
863:
862:
859:
856:
854:
851:
850:
847:
844:
842:
839:
838:
835:
831:
828:
824:
821:
820:
813:
810:
808:
805:
804:
801:
799:
795:
794:
791:
788:
786:
783:
782:
779:
776:
774:
771:
770:
767:
764:
762:
759:
758:
755:
752:
750:
747:
746:
743:
740:
738:
735:
734:
731:
728:
726:
723:
722:
719:
717:
713:
712:
709:
707:
703:
702:
699:
696:
694:
691:
690:
687:
683:
680:
679:
672:
669:
667:
664:
663:
660:
657:
655:
652:
651:
648:
645:
643:
640:
639:
636:
633:
631:
628:
627:
624:
620:
617:
616:
609:
606:
604:
601:
600:
597:
594:
592:
589:
588:
585:
582:
580:
577:
576:
573:
570:
568:
564:
563:
560:
559:Popular pages
556:
555:
552:
549:
547:
543:
542:
539:
536:
534:
530:
529:
526:
524:
520:
519:
516:
514:
510:
509:
506:
503:
501:
498:
497:
494:
491:
489:
486:
485:
482:
479:
477:
473:
472:
469:
466:
464:
460:
459:
456:
453:
451:
447:
446:
443:
440:
438:
435:
434:
431:
429:
425:
424:
421:
418:
415:
413:
410:
409:
402:
397:
395:
390:
388:
383:
382:
378:
375:
374:
366:
362:
359:
355:
354:
351:
350:
347:
339:
334:
329:
328:
314:
313:
306:
303:
301:
298:
296:
293:
292:
289:
286:
285:
281:
276:
271:
270:
253:
249:
239:
235:
234:
230:
226:
220:
217:
216:
213:
196:
192:
188:
184:
183:
178:
175:
171:
170:
166:
153:
150:
147:
143:
138:
134:
128:
124:
120:
111:
110:
91:
90:
82:
78:
76:
73:
71:
67:
64:
62:
59:
58:
52:
48:
47:Learn to edit
44:
41:
36:
35:
32:
31:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1844:WP:ABOUTSELF
1816:
1809:
1805:WP:ABOUTSELF
1801:MOS:GENDERID
1786:
1755:
1727:
1709:
1668:
1666:
1659:
1644:
1618:
1616:
1613:Citing what?
1597:
1441:Project (or
1425:reported by
1403:Annette Maon
1396:
1377:— Preceding
1374:
1370:
1366:
1337:plot cleanup
1309:DVD citation
1003:
900:
889:Silent films
865:Film finance
833:
716:Instructions
642:Participants
630:Coordinators
533:New articles
346:
332:
279:
224:
180:
133:WikiProjects
123:project page
122:
19:This is the
1812:a help page
1771:Breadcrumbs
1684:Breadcrumbs
1639:WP:IMDB/BLP
841:Film awards
827:Task forces
686:Departments
591:Film portal
25:Citing IMDb
1934:Categories
1697:WP:SELFPUB
877:Filmmaking
693:Assessment
450:Multimedia
225:Low-impact
191:discussion
155:Low‑impact
1758:Esowteric
1704:WP:BLPDOB
1671:Esowteric
1594:Ambiguity
1295:Templates
980:War films
785:Spotlight
761:Resources
579:Spotlight
305:Archive 3
300:Archive 2
295:Archive 1
83:if needed
66:Be polite
21:talk page
1891:The Grid
1853:contribs
1741:contribs
1695:IMDB is
1624:Providus
1619:identify
1515:The Grid
1391:contribs
1379:unsigned
749:Outreach
567:Requests
333:365 days
280:Archives
51:get help
1793:example
1351:userbox
1323:infobox
706:B-Class
227:on the
1915:Nardog
1873:Nardog
1848:IJBall
1825:Nardog
1797:WP:DOB
1787:Since
1736:IJBall
1732:WP:BLP
1547:Nardog
1477:WP:UGC
1330:invite
1302:banner
773:Review
250:using
200:Essays
152:Essays
129:scale.
1481:WP:RS
1443:WP:TV
1422:WP:RS
901:Genre
288:Index
121:This
79:Seek
27:page.
1919:talk
1897:talk
1877:talk
1857:talk
1829:talk
1799:and
1765:Talk
1745:talk
1717:talk
1678:Talk
1628:talk
1604:talk
1570:talk
1551:talk
1537:talk
1521:talk
1504:talk
1489:talk
1466:talk
1451:talk
1417:all.
1407:talk
1387:talk
1344:stub
1280:talk
1268:talk
1256:talk
1244:talk
1232:talk
1220:talk
1208:talk
1196:talk
1184:talk
1172:talk
1160:talk
1148:talk
1136:talk
1124:talk
1112:talk
1100:talk
1088:talk
1076:talk
1064:talk
1052:talk
1040:talk
1028:talk
1016:talk
997:talk
985:talk
973:talk
961:talk
949:talk
937:talk
925:talk
913:talk
894:talk
882:talk
870:talk
858:talk
846:talk
812:talk
790:talk
778:talk
766:talk
754:talk
742:talk
737:Core
730:talk
698:talk
671:talk
659:talk
647:talk
635:talk
608:talk
596:talk
584:talk
572:talk
551:talk
538:talk
505:talk
493:talk
481:talk
468:talk
455:talk
442:talk
420:talk
252:data
68:and
1900:)
1728:not
1524:)
219:Low
1936::
1921:)
1879:)
1855:•
1831:)
1768:+
1762:+
1743:•
1681:+
1675:+
1657:.
1630:)
1606:)
1572:)
1553:)
1539:)
1506:)
1491:)
1468:)
1453:)
1409:)
1393:)
1389:•
796:→
714:→
704:→
565:→
557:→
544:→
531:→
521:→
511:→
474:→
461:→
448:→
426:→
406:)
49:;
1917:(
1894:(
1875:(
1859:)
1851:(
1827:(
1747:)
1739:(
1719:)
1715:(
1626:(
1602:(
1568:(
1549:(
1535:(
1518:(
1502:(
1487:(
1464:(
1449:(
1405:(
1385:(
417:+
400:e
393:t
386:v
231:.
197:.
135::
53:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
