Knowledge talk:Citing IMDb/Archive 1

3630:. An article whose subject "directed a Julia Roberts film" could be researched in several places and probably would not solely rely on a credit listing in the database, where as an article whose subject was "in a Julia Roberts film" may be harder to research. Overall if there is shot in a film and it contains hundreds of people (ie - a street scene) the films credits may not list every single extra but the imdb could because any person in that scene could submit their information and now there would be a listing for "man/woman in crowd". The question would be though is that a real credit? Does that really translate to "in a Julia Roberts film"? Anyone who has been in the industry for longer than a day knows that resumes can be padded, as can the imdb and Knowledge. Which of the following statement would aid in establishing notability? "The subject was in a crowd of people who were on a street corner in the scene were Julia Roberts walks across Broadway in her new film" or "The subject was in the new Julia Roberts film" with a citation to the imdb? Again, I really don't understand why that concept is hard for some editors to understand, unless the editor was the subject of a deleted article that tried to use the imdb as a source. Also I get the impression most people are saying the imdb should not be used to aid in establishing notability and the core issue here is about using it to verify certain facts. And I already have said that is fine. Which would bring us to the need to define 2775:

handled and iterpreted through humans. The "record of editorial oversite" is as subject to the whims of those editors as anything ever written or spoken anywhere. If you posted online a video of a yellow car crashing into a blue one, and then tried to use that video as a source for an article about the yellow car crashing into the blue, it would be rejected as unacceptable being original research on a self-publisjhed source. However, if a reporter for The Times hears from witnesses that may or may not have seen the crash, and writes an article about the crash, without ever seeing the crash himself and relying solely only upon the "testimony" of others, his article would then be acceptable. If I saw a film and then reported the credits from my personal notes, that would be dismissed as OR. Fine, but that a list of credits on IMDB, taken from the on-screen credits, can be dismissed as unreliable, does not make sense. It is best to use industry specific informations from an industry specific website. There is a quibble factor here that is being beaten to death. No one is advocating the use of IMDB triva. To disallow ALL of IMDB is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. What should be decided is just which of their informations IS "generally" acceptable and just which is not. Then we can begine deciding just how really reliable most of WIKI's other "reliable sources" really are, as ALL are subject to error. Nothing is absolute and a blanket ban does not improve Wiki.

852:

released. It's verifiable via the episode, but easier to do if you can just click a link. I don't have a current opinion on release dates, I've seen some controversial dates for some films where they were listed as one thing on one page and another on a different page. My concern is on "real" information. A list of cast members doesn't make a film article. I'm talking about the meaty information, like how they made the film or tv show. If IMDb doesn't cite the source of that information, then it cannot be considered reliable information. There shouldn't be a "oh, cite it until someone finds something better", because that will only open the door to other things being cited "until something better comes along", things that wouldn't normally be allowed on a page. Yes, we can verify that IMDb has posted something, but we can say they are a reliable source themselves in instances such as production information (which tends to fall in their trivia section anyway). I think this proposal should be clear on that (if others agree that IMDb isn't "reliable" when it comes to that particular type of information). You wouldn't cite Knowledge in a paper, even though we have clear editorial oversight guidelines and policies posted.

4333:, "f the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." IMDb is not an open wiki, but since its primary authors are people like you and me and not people who are considered trustworthy or authoritative, it seems to parallel a typical self-published source. My issue with this proposal is that it is a dissection of a website to determine what components could be reliable and what components could not be reliable. I think that when one starts working hard like this, it is a good idea to step back and reconsider this approach in defining the nuances of the system. This kind of tip-toeing through a minefield seems to be overreaching. I know good faith is intended, but IMDb is not the arbiter of basic film information. Perception is probably part of the equation, too. When one thinks of IMDb, one knows that it runs on user submissions, where if one thinks of a national newspaper, one knows that it runs on the work of journalists. People may not be convinced by this body of work, which is too overly investigative for what should be accepted with a small glance, if you understand what I mean. Anyway, apologies for the extended comment; I'd understand if you invoked 3374:←See my response above, we were both posting at the same time. But to re-re clarify: the imdb has a pay portion that "continues to help industry professionals make better business and creative decisions with our recent addition of FilmFinders, while we help filmmakers and festivals promote and distribute their work with WithoutaBox." The meat of the site, the database, is still the credits. That is user submitted. To take another direct quote form the site: "The IMDb started as a hobby project by an international group of movie fans (see history), essentially something by movie fans for movie fans. And despite our incredible growth, we retain that sensibility." Has the imdb changed over the last 18 years? Yes it has. Do you have to pay to use it? No. Do you have to pay to submit information? No. Do you have to pay to have your film listed? No. Do you have to be in the industry in order to submit information? No. Can an editor here use the imdb to verify if something exists? Yes. Should it be used to establish notability? No. Could it be used for research in order to find leads that could help to establish notability? Yes. 3028:: It is good for some things but overall it is not fully accurate because it is user created. There are sources to projects I have worked on that contain incorrect information. Trying to correct them does not work because someone else can come along and "re correct" them. Films that have the same name often get combined into a mishmash of incorrect info. Other times information is split up leading one to ask "Now is Actor (I) the same a Writer (III)"? A person may want to verify somehting like a release dates or a distributor and those things I feel can be looked at and used to assist in verification. Chances are in a film has a distributor listed it can be further researched using that information. As far as using the IMDB to establish notability I would say no. In no way, shape or form, does being included on a list such as this establish notability. 4326:, IMDb goes far, far beyond this... it indexes foreign-language films, independent films, the most ancient of films, and overlaps of these. Is the vetting process going to be as strong in these lesser-known regions? Is higher faith placed in the users' submissions? IMDb may be self-correcting, but do we know if the information is final or if the rotating-door changes still go on? Editors who have edited film articles for some time seem to note mistakes in these user submissions. In my area, IMDb also seems weak on basic information for upcoming films; cast lists are mish-mashes of user submissions since an official cast list is not available until right before its release. (That's why I advocate reliable sourcing of each cast member until the cast information becomes unchallenged upon the film's release.) 4451:

a news reporting agency. The parts of IMDB being addressed in the proposal are a compendium of imformation like Encyclopedia Britanica or any dictionary. We are not given, nor do we require the listing and background and schlarship of the individual author/contributors, as the publisher themselves has the responsibilities for vetting informations before publication. And defining "what part" of IMDB is a reliable source and what part is not is why we are here. You might say the New York Times is a reliable source, but you do not include the want ads, horoscope, advice colimns, and letters to the editor or Dear Abby... though they are "part" of the Times. Same process here. We are determining just what parts of this source are acceptable, and which are not, and why. No minefield here. Just simple logic.

4359:

and supported, but does not in and of itself confer such. I only made mention of this above to pre-emptively address arguments against the clarification guideline that being IMDB does not make one notable. I agree with that. We all do. I just did not wish it to be rehashed in further rebuttal. Inre "user created" versus "user supported": John Doe might submit an update about a film, just as might production company XYZ. IMDB does not publish such unless the material is vetted. The author is not the concern here... the publisher is. Any "reliable source" must have a process in place to correct the inevitable errors that happen in any system. IMDB is actually better than many considering the amount of data they vet... and I have not seen any evidence offered that they are less so that the

4322:

the work. All three affect reliability." Obviously, user involvement makes this claim to verifiability problematic. Michael seems to indicate that there is a sort of AGF-based vetting system, which seems unconvincing to me considering the unevenness of editorial control throughout IMDb. Don't get me wrong, as an editor of recent film articles, I look to IMDb for basic details. From what I have seen, IMDb is probably the "strongest" when it comes to mainstream Hollywood films of the past decade, as I imagine submitting information electronically is easy. (I think that's why you'll see some cast lists sorted by importance or by first appearance just like in the film's credits; correct me if I'm wrong about this.)

3148:

database. Again, they prefer truth AND verification. Different in process from Wiki's requirements for notability, and much like the fact-checking that is preferred fron any reliable source. You yourself deal with IMDB occasionally and know how disheartening it can be when you KNOW you were in a project, but are unable to prove it to them until your name shows up on a company site or somewhere in the press. This is why they encourage screenshots showing particpation, or callsheets showing same. And too, you know how we actors may have have access to copies of our works months before the project is officially released and can thus provide them with their required proofs long before such may be found in the trades.

1354:

scientific polling system regarding the "views and opinions of the public", since it is not based on random sampling. Nor is it a collection of the views of notable film critics and film historians...it is just a collection of votes from anonymous Internet users. As such, I argue that "viewer ratings" from the IMBD website are non-notable and not usable on Knowledge, any more than the results from the little "VOTE HERE" buttons on ABC news websites should be usable in Knowledge. If ABC News puts a little infobox on its website with a question such as "Should the US get out of Iraq...Vote YES or NO below", the results of this non-scientific "survey" of website viewers is not useful from a research perspective.

1375:

as reliable. If you do not believe me, register on IMDB and try submitted a salary, you will notice a huge red notice which indicates they all salaries submitted need a reliable URL, in other words all salaries need a reliable source. Which makes them reliable. And i noticed that the Mat Damon page has IMDB references for his salary, but the problem is some admins on wikipedia think that all imdb references are not reliable and tend to pick on one editor who disagrees with those and pick on one page with this issue while hundreds of other pages have IMDB references, which cite trivia (not acceptable). But this must be a random move on this site. Admins get away with abuse and every one else goes quiet.

3071:

might come along with proper evidence and request IMDB correct your erroneous correction. Just as in Wiki, informations can be submitted incorrectly, but just as with Wiki, there are procedures for having these corrected. A submitter has to be able to show that he is aware of and can proof the difference between actor (I) and writer (III), else his submission is rejected. And yes, though a distributor's website might have information about a film, they rarely list all the minor crew posistions the way production or promotion departments might on IMDB. Please, feel free to contact me off-wiki and I'd be glad to help you through their processes... which can be even more daunting than Wiki to a newbie.

3481:". So I put this question to those particpating... how many errors per year is a reliable source allowed before it is deemed unreliable? One? Ten? Twenty? How many errors have been discovered in the Washington Post, the New York Times, et.al. that still allows them to be used as RS? And if discovered errors are then corrected by the source's oversight, does this still allow such sources to be considered reliable? A reliable source can accept "user" input but does not publish such until the information has been vetted and confirmed. A reliable source must strive for accuracy in its publications and correct or retract errors if found and confirmed. By all definitions in the guideline for 4062:. IMDB staff confirms informations and if a submitter includes proofs for their editors, it makes their job simpler. A submiter's user name/account creates a "cookie" in their system that keeps track of the number of successful submissions by that account. Submitters who have a poor track record will get continued bounces unless they submit proofs. Fact submissions are vetted, and are confirmed. Just as on wiki, any submitter who continues to submit poor or unsourced informations will eventually have all his submissions looked at with a jaundiced eye and disallowed if not sourced, as submitters with good track records create a reputation for quality and accuracy. 152:

the same way, putting together information about a future film piece by piece. However, unlike Knowledge, there is no indication of the information's source; information is user-submitted to this gated wiki, and IMDb pages on future films have had an inconsistent track record with newly-added information. Many cast lists on IMDb pages of future films are often incomplete or questionable up until before a film's release. In addition, when a film is announced, it is typical of IMDb to create an "in development" article for that project with their own estimated release year, which has misled quite a few editors in future film discussions that the film

3174:: It is not that is contains anything "exclusively", it is just that, as you say, people turn it to for ease in order to find things such a "who was the best boy?" on a film. The same information could be gotten by simply watching the film as well. On the other hand it also contains production details that may not be found by watching the film, such as a budget or boxoffice. In that regards it becomes an encyclopedia of sorts, although not a very accurate or complete one. Part of this, as I see it, is a backlash from Knowledge because an articles subject has to meet both verifiability and notability. I can come up with a quick example of this: 4367:. And just as even national journalists might receive informations from outside sources (tips, leaks, whistle-blowers, witnesses, ect.) that they then vet before publication, IMDB has editors that proactively seek out informations that do not come from users. In both examples though, informations from ANY source is vetted befor publication. HOWEVER... and just as the guideline proposal indicates, we are not referring to trivia or blogs or other such informations that are not vetted... only to those informations that are so. We are "tip-toieng through this minefield" to arrive at what IS and what IS NOT reliable on this broadranging website. 1465:

more reliable sources for film box office grosses. Given that the WGA doesn't release writing credits, nor the SAG release acting credits, till after a film is released, using it to verify upcoming films is unreliable. If by "Production Notes" you mean the trivia related to the production of the movie, then that's user submitted as well, and we cannot verify where any of it comes from (and many times it's inaccurate itself). Saying it's been getting community-generated content longer than Knowledge doens't mean anything, because we don't cite ourselves. Knowledge wouldn't even be considered a "reliable source".

226:

I edit film articles, I tend to them as if they may undergo the FAC process any moment. I work with more modern films, so there's better and more multiple coverages of most films that are in the public eye these days. The further disappointment with IMDb is that the trivia pages can contain potentially usable information about a film's production. IMDb doesn't provide a source for the user-submitted information or why they believe it's accurate, so I prefer the option of exploring search engines and databases with a trivia entry's keywords to track down a reliable source that carries the information. —

3182:

especially if one just places a citation that says "It is in the films credits". So editors turn to the imdb as it may list the songs and their writing credits. Once that is verified than it becomes establishing notability of the writer, which in this case would be partially establishing if the film was notable. This too may fall into the same cycle if it is a short film or an indy film. We have guidelines that state if a song was a "hit" or if an artists music was a "theme" for a film they would be notable (As would the song in that case) but what about having a song that is simply

180:

details in Infobox Film templates of released films' articles, but prior to a film's release, I find the cast/crew information, along with most other items, questionable. These items, questionable even post-release, include trivia, biographies, awards, technical specs, and filming dates and locations. I have found it best to seek out other citations -- usually, if IMDb is the only one to report new information, I would disregard it until reliable sources surface with that same information. I'm going to wrap it up here, but here is a recent example -- the film

3740:, but without acess to that movie, I cannot verify the fact. Since IMDB does vet screen credits and does require evidences before they publish any submitted fact and does have a policy to correct what errors inevitably slip by (as do ALL reliable sources), they should be acceptable as a source for such verifications. And yes, MAJOR roles in cast and crew can likely be verified elsewhere, but the minutae of lesser cast and crew are rarely covered in detail by anyone other than IMDB... and they pride themselves on their thoroughness. For 3309:... and it is a wise publication that includes a legal disclaimer somewhere in its pages. Information coming to IMDB, whether from me or you or Sony themselves, is vetted and confirmed before being included. If information is later shown to be somehow incorrect, it is corrected or retracted... just like a reader (user) calling a tip in to the Times. It is either confirmed and used, or unconfirmed and rejected. The initial source, no mater who it is, has their submissions checked and verified before IMDB authors the information. 2330:

attribute any specific information to any specific entity. The say that all of their Schedule Information, Grosses, Film Statistics, Production Notes and Custom Research Information comes from people in the industry - That is generally the information that you would find in the "Overview", "Cast" and "Additional Details" section of a page. None of that information, once a film is released, is really controversal in nature (i.e. though it needs a source, it isn't really challengable. No one is going to challenge that

4276:

reading it, for example a fact that a mr.X worked as a set lighter on movie Y might be a notable fact. But it doesn't meant that mr. X by himself would be notable enough to have an article on Knowledge just about himself. And it is spelled out that "A page in the database does not by itself establish the film's notability". Unless you're saying that notability of a person should be included to this, meaning: "A page in the database does not by itself establish the film's and/or the person's notability"?--

459:, in which I delve into the nature of the film industry and its unproduced projects. I have not pursued the matter further because the contesting creator/editor seems watchful enough over the article, but there is no certainty that this article won't be a perpetual stub... which brings me to mention the release year, which is 2009, despite no independent, reliable source outside of IMDb indicating that. Here are a couple of examples of where AfD or merger recommendations have mentioned IMDb: 3736:

Joe Smith states "Joe was in a Julia Roberts movie", and uses IMDB as a source to verify, any editor will be glad to check the source and modify the BLP to state "Joe Smith was background in a Julia Roberts movie". That IMDB source contributes no notability, only verifies the fact. I will never argue that IMDB confers notability (though it might be supportive in some cases)... I only argue that it is reliable for the context of verifying certain informations. It would be a wonderful to

3626:

example I gave above - there is an article that lists some sort of film credit How to verify? "Watch the films credits. But for some reason that is not always considered a good source, especially if one just places a citation that says 'It is in the films credits'." So people turn to the imdb and cite that. I fail to see why that concept is hard for anyone to grasp. And, as I am reading it, that core concept is not the issue here but what information is being cited and for what reason

508:, have "built-in" release years despite no indication that these films will not be produced anytime soon and may not warrant their own articles. Instead, they could belong in an article of a broader topic, such as a film series article, a director's article, or the source material's article. The fact that IMDb has never added a (TBA) after a future film's title, always some kind of release year, should warrant a word of caution about the certainty of a future film's production. — 3338:. Hate to pull WAX... but if Joe Smith called in a report to the Times, they might appreciate Joe's input, but not print it until it was confirmed. Just like IMDB. They accept "user" contributions but do not post such without confirmation. They also have staff that actively updates informations apart from user contributions. And these "users" are not simply fans. They include industry professionals whose submit latest informations about their projects, and expect accuracy. 3446:" that any US company lawyer uses, what has that do do with anything? You'll get that even with any cooking book in the US. Or are you suggesting that the legal disclaimer byitself makes the facts available in IMDb unreliable, a little like the recepies in a cooking book would be no good becouse of such a disclaimer? I'm sorry, but I'm clealry missing something here and that would be any hard evidence showing that the "recepies" in IMDb "cooking book" are no good.-- 1073:(which is now over ten years old) that have no IMDb entry. Like Knowledge, IMDb relies on submissions. This leaves it rather exposed to omissions, particularly in more obscure national cinematic traditions and less mainstream material, regardless of historical notability. The title addition criteria also oddly require films to be linked to a website, so this may be preventing otherwise worthy films with sufficient written critical noteworthiness from being added. 31: 3709:

other than just the imdb or the film itself. However if the subject of the article was in a crowd of people who were on a street corner in a scene that had Julia Roberts walking across Broadway and the article stated that the subject "co-stared in a Julia Roberts film" it should be checked out, verified, and cited. Even if the article only stated the subject was "in a Julia Roberts film" it should be verified. And in response to

2483:

of my professors would let me do that, nor would they let me cite IMDb because of the very reasons that we have explained to you (they do not attribute any information details to any actual source). Clearly, the many of us cannot convince you of anything otherwise. As such, you have a nice time editing the articles you're interested in, as these circular debates have distracted me from the ones I actually care about long enough.

2848:. Policy is policy, and ALL guuidelines contain the caveat "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Further, and addressing your example of the NYT, IMDB themselves have that same editorial oversite you admire: "occasional mistakes are inevitable and, when spotted/reported, they are promptly verified and fixed". Interesting to note that for IMDB, unlike Knowledge, their "threshold for inclusion" of facts 4414:

to have the necessary background to do the proper reporting. Can we say the same for the contributor? If there is a proactive effort, do we know for sure whether or not it comes from a mere contributor or an actual retrieval from the studio? Just not understanding the faith being put in this editorial process, nor the hubbub about letting IMDb be used. The tiptoeing through the minefield is my problem; defining a

2726:

good faith is that any "active" content in IMDb (ie anything that links to another place in IMDb such as actor names or film titles and stuff like that) is automatically checked for consistency with existing similar links. That sort of stuff could perhaps be assumed to be reliable and it sounds like it would be very difficult for someone with an axe to grind to sent up false links or false information.

2957:

checked. I'm trying to determine what exactly is checked and nobody is saying. It's also important to know what IMDb accept as a check. If there is uncertainty over what information is checked and whether the sources for those checks are reliable themselves, then all of it must be in doubt. Conversely, if we know exactly what information has been checked, then we can use that information in Knowledge.

2268:

process like so or being suggested by other editors to remove the references. For older Featured Articles, they probably reference IMDb, and there are probably other things wrong with them that wouldn't let them survive the FAC process today. It would be nice to go back and put some up for FAR processes, but I have a feeling that some people don't want WP:FILM to lose stars. :) Anyway, regarding

1591:

search does not mean that they are citing anything more than IMDb's cast listing. You're absolutely right that nothing is 100% guaranteed, but IMDb doesn't have a history of editorial oversight given the amount of errors they actually publish. They also don't identify any of their sources, so you're left to assume who was giving what information to that website, and that is why they are unreliable.

4084:, et.al. that still allow them to be used as RS because the discovered errors were then corrected by the source's oversight? Any reliable source can accept "user" input but does not publish such until the information has been vetted and confirmed. A reliable source must strive for accuracy in its publications and correct or retract errors if found and confirmed. By all definitions in the policy of 4035:. In creating a balanced article that is encyclopedic and valuable to the reader, minor facts make major portions of any article. Minor facts may be non-contentious to one editor and contentious to another. If an editor challenges a minor fact, that minor fact must be sourced to eleviate that concern. If that fact IS available through the vetted editorial processes of IMDB, it must be allowed per 4636:, imdb is reliable. For the second part of the current "suitable" section (cast/characters/crew/etc.) I'm not so sure. I think those uses of imdb need to be treated as some intermediate state, something like "acceptable as a convenience link for non-controversial info". If those elements are not disputed, imdb seems reasonable as a convenient single link to avoid dozens of links to other places. 4530:

was written. I personally think secondary sources are better than IMDb, I think that IMDb is somewhat more accurate than Knowledge (it would be nice if we had an editorial board, but that's another story), but I have this annoying suspicion that article writers for movies (especially upcoming ones) are a bit lazy in the way they access information from IMDb. Just feeling mind you.

4390:", that final, complete list will be available on IMDB... but NOT on sites which list only the principals... and IMDB uses the onscreen credits to confirm and list all involved parties. So yes.. I agree that IMDB is unsuitable for future films. My own work on Quantum Quest is a fine examle, as the preliminary cast, even though available all over the net, was not the final cast. 2404:

use it. Or, an actual example from the page above: "A second stage Scarecrow look was created for the hallucination scenes but was never shown on film. The mask was more organic and tighter around the actor's face." - Would be really useful with both a reliable source, and context to explain why it was removed. IMDb's "trivia" page is not the same thing as their "goof" page.

2965:

and what information is not reliable because it has not been checked against reliable sources, then nothing in IMDb can be assumed to be reliable. Put another way, is there anything to stop me from starting my own Film Blog, putting some ridiculous statement in there, then opening an IMDb account and repeating that information on IMDb using my blog as a source? If so, what?

2562:

indicates that some info in IMDb is only sourced from reliable sources and not from user-generated content, but it has been a somewhat bitty discussion. In the interests of feeding something productive into the attached policy proposal, can either Bignole or Termer (or anyone else) give a definitive list of IMDb information that does not derive from user-generated content.

422:

blanketed across the board in terms of films' articles. While I'm not advocating its removal, I wonder if it's a possibility to delay the inclusion of IMDb with upcoming films' articles. There just seems to be a mentality that if people see IMDb used in released films' articles, then its information for upcoming films would be just as appropriate for Knowledge articles. —

92:

some verifiable by watching the film. But when you start getting into the more technical aspects of the film, like the writing, the filming, the music —things that usually are not made public unless discussed in an interview— should not be cited by IMDb.com. Who's in a film is front page news. What went into making a film is called "behind-the-scenes" for a reason.

4092:, IMDB qualifies. Who has any quantitative evidence that IMDB is not reliable... specially when considering it has millions upon millions of pieces of information that are constantly being vetted? IMDB has a far better accuracy record that most other so-called reliable sources... and has more eyes perusing it for accuracy than does Wiki itself. Its time for a new 3394:, that simple fact should be acceptable if sourced to IMDB. We prefer not to use Joe's own website as SPS, and such facts of lessor crew are rarely included in mainstream trade articles of films. I am not here to argue that IMDB creates notability, only that it should be acceptable as reliable for such non-contentous and otherwise difficult to prove facts. 300:

more static forms of reference. Why not treat all of the aforementioned reference pools as tertiary, and provide them as guideposts to solid references. I personally think Imdb writers engage in either round-robin or wishful thinking contributions, and really have no business being cited - anything useful they might provide can be found elsewhere. -

1793:

and more reliable (on average) on pages unrelated to current events. The decade-long head start, the large (compared to Knowledge) paid staff, the subscription-based pro version, the focus on just a subset of pop culture instead of our encyclopedic charter, the partners they have, seem like reasons why IMDb reliability shouldn't be a major issue.

735:) discuss the sourcing of sources. What makes something acceptable at the latter page has to do with being published by a reliable source, and the former depends (if I have to sum it up) on the scrutiny the material receives before publication. Neither page considers whether the published material being sourced or unsourced affects acceptability. 3583:." reads better than "300 (2006) - Box office/business". Internet Movie Database." much the same way "The subject was in the new Julia Roberts film" is a better sounding statement than "The subject was in a crowd of people who were on a street corner in the scene were Julia Roberts walks across Broadway in her new film" in my example below. 2279:

springboard to finding where information could come from. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don't. I think that most items on IMDb have a grain of truth to them... for example, if it says, "Matt Damon was considered for this role before Leo DiCaprio," the only resources I can find for this bit are celebrity blogs that traffic in rumors. —

2988:. Please pick a random film in IMDb and compare and verify the facts to any other source out there. And surely in case IMBd was so terribly unreliable, you should be able to come up with pretty interesting solid evidence shortly in order to discredit IMDb for good and forever and we could put an end to this discussion.-- 3224:

reliability compared to any other source out there. Please feel free to prove us wrong by coming up with some hard evidence how unreliable IMDb can be. There is nothing else to it. Other than if needed, I can make a list of film historians who have used IMDb in their published books as a source of reference.--

4076:", I would like to see evidences and not simply opinion... specially when reliability "depends on context". So I ask this (as yet unanswered) question again: How many errors per year is a "reliable source" allowed before it is deemed unreliable? One? Ten? Twenty? How many errors have been discovered in the 380:

correction and deletion. I think the editors are overwhelmed and unable to accurately verify each and every change/submission. I doubt that they have a mechanism in place ot identify users whose submissions are regularly contested (I could be wrong, though). In fact, I'm beginning to get very grumpy about

2969:

assuming that I'm doing nothing but attacking IMDb since you're not helping your case in trying to change what appears to be an essentially Knowledge-wide view that IMDb cannot be regarded as a reliable source for anything. You're not going to suddenly reverse that view, but you might shift it slightly.

451:, a film that was announced to be directed by Robert Zemeckis and to star Jim Carrey. The problem with this, though, is that Carrey has at least four other projects -- Ripley's Believe It Or Not!, I Love You Phillip Morris, Me Time, and Sober Buddies -- from which to choose, indicated by the article's 4686:

Well, some things are self explanatory at least for people working in the industry. You simply can't have finalized credit list until a movie is released. Any movie that is still a work in progress and is not finalized, the same applies to credit lists, that's once again, is just common sense. But in

4581:

I think that Orangemarlin brings up an interesting point about URL specification that could be discussed further. I don't know if I would be for it since I have doubts about the editorial process, but a more narrow focus may be more welcomed. I don't think it is ideal to compare Knowledge and IMDb,

4529:

I might have missed something above (there's a lot of writing there), but my problem is that authors of movie articles will use IMDb sloppily. They'll cite the whole instead of say the specific subdirectory for cast. In a lot of cases, I need to poke around the IMDb article to actually confirm what

4498:

In addition, regarding the dissection, I am talking about parts of the website that are considered reasonable to cite. The proposal excludes message boards, user comments, and newsgroup reviews, parts of the website that are cleanly rejected (just like the want ads and horoscope columns). The parts

4229:

guidelines, not by any sources by itself. But sure, if that has been an issue that some people are not aware of it how "hot coffee can cause serious burns" and/or "how notability is determined on Knowledge", a notice could be added to this policy proposal if really felt it would be necessary to spell

3879:

The writing credits, if marked with "WGA", are very reliable, as they are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America (where applicable). Similarly, the MPAA ratings reasons, where they appear, are supplied directly by the Motion Picture Association of America, and are also very reliable (as to

3868:

Most other sections are based on submissions either by users or by official sources and are reviewed by staff before appearing on site, and can be considered generally reliable. This would include such sections as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards,

3735:

published is information that has been accompanied by vetted evidences of factuality. If Joe Smith was in a Julia Roberts movie as background, and if it is in the vetted onscreen credits as background, that is exactly what IMDB will publish, as that is exactly what has been confirmed. If an BLP about

3261:

Now, IMDb is not user created, never has been. As a user of IMDb Pro (costs money) you are able to suggest additions and submit your suggestions for consideration to this database but it only gets included if gets through verifiability check. I hear there have been occasional mistakes sneaked in. But

3124:

of the site to the extent that they would rather fight hard for its reliability than actually concede that better sources exist for most of the material to begin with. The "problem" is that they are more diffuse and in certain cases require leaving the internet. However, I don't believe that the IMDb

3003:

Sigh. You're still not helping and I'm now bored and irritated by your inability to see the point I've tried to make is as many different ways as I can only to be faced with your repetition of the same tired lines. By the way, my personal research into awards won by one particular film found a couple

2964:

Accusations are flying that those attacking IMDb are basing their attacks on anecdotes and assumptions but, as far as I can tell, the same is being done by those defending IMDb. Without a firm idea of precisely what information in IMDb is reliable in that it has been checked against reliable sources,

2794:

You're mistaking reliability/verifiability with accuracy. As the WP:V page says, we are not about "the truth", hard as that is to believe. There is nothing, credits-wise, which is exclusive to IMDb and cannot be found in other, more reliable sources. The question is not one of "how much is correct?",

2075:

brick walls? Things are getting more like silly. Removing anything that is proved to be factually incorrect would make sense. Removing the source even though factually correct but just because it's IMDb , perhaps it's just me, it simply doesn't make any sense. Why don't you do the article a favor and

1374:

IMDB salaries, which is the salaries listed in the performers page need reliable URL's, the editors seem to check through them daily. I have submitted a Mat Damon salary in the past with a reliable Forbes reference with got through in 2006. So it seem like those section should be mention on Knowledge

1353:

Hi, Based on my understanding of the IMDB "polling" system, anyone with access to the Internet can log on and vote for films. It is not like RottenTomatoes, which requires the reviewers to hold positions as film critics for newspapers, magazines, or online film review websites. As such, IMDB is not a

1017:

I agree with most of the arguments voiced out in the proposed policy. IMDb would not technically be a reliable source unless there are footnotes within the site that acually cite secondary sources. We should also consider that the database does not necessarily make a clear distinction between notable

818:

My only problem is with people citing is as a means to fill production information out in a page (though usually under a title of "Trivia"). If IMDb doesn't want to tell people exactly where they get their information, fine, but I don't see how we can cite them when it comes to this type of info, and

225:

In regard to the specific release dates and other non-cast/crew information about films back in the 1940s and other time periods, I do not believe that IMDb should be used. Perhaps such information would possibly be appropriate for an article that would probably not achieve GA or FA status. The way

151:

As an editor of mostly upcoming films, I generally expand articles on these films piece by piece. The most informative sources are those that contain interviews with prominent members of the cast and crew, such as, but not limited to, the director and actors in the lead roles. IMDb seems to operate

4661:

among many others). Should this guideline be accepted, there has to be appropriate wording included to this effect, otherwise arguments are bound to result. As for cast and crew, experience has shown me that it's not always the best for films that have not yet been released. For example, its page on

4450:

The newspaper comparison with IMDB is apt only in as far as the information being published has multiple sources and we depend on publication's vetting process to ensure accuracy. With IMDB, the specific author of specific bits of information is "not a concern" because we are not speaking of IMDB as

4413:

Why is the author not a concern? The piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work all affect reliability, as I quoted above. I don't think it is accurate to compare someone who contributes to IMDb and a journalist for the national newspaper... we expect a journalist

4195:

The discussion on this page and the RSN give insight as to where others may see weaknesses that can be addressed and clarified. I think it would be important to specifically stress that IMDB does NOT create notability. And yes, specifying what sections may be acceptable as a tertiary source is fine,

3708:

and that is my point. There would be a need to verify, for example, an article whose subject claimed to have "been in a Julia Roberts film" as much as if it said the subject "directed a Julia Roberts film". If the subject were indeed the director it would be much easier to establish via many sources

3648:

The whole credits verification issue is a straw man for two reasons. One, we don't require citations for material that is unlikely to be challenged, and two, we allow primary sourcing to the film itself without citation as long as the material is factual and NPOV. (This is the exact reasoning why we

3288:

active gathering of information, the bulk of our information is submitted by people in the industry and visitors like you." This is not a conspiracy of editors who "worked hard in order to discredit IMDb in Knowledge." and the imdb opinion on the issue being discussed is clear: "However keep in mind

3283:

How do you figure that? I, along with may other users, was adding information 10 or 11 years ago via the old email form. It assure you that it is much easier to add information now than it was, and users can still submit information. Matter of fact the imdb explains it pretty clear: "The information

3194:

So this is why I say you could use it to verify something but not to establish notability. Because it is user created content the fact it exists on imdb does not mean it is notable. And yes, for a larger indy or large studio film one could find information in "Variety, newspapers, publicly available

2799:

lies about his material, he gets fired. If errors are recognized, then addenda are made public. To not do so would directly compromise the NYT. There are no consequences for false IMDb information, nor are there any names or even online identities connected to either who submitted any given piece of

2733:

information in IMDb is reliable. First it says that "we use press kits", then it says "but there's no substitute for information submitter by movie buffs". Then it says "we check stuff for consistency" but fails to say what stuff or at what stage. No progress can be made here unless we know what, if

2725:

a user might submit. As Bignole has said, what about things in the (inappropriately named) "trivia" sections, or film synopses? How could that possibly be checked except by a manual confirmation process and how could it be known to us whether it has been checked? What I would be willing to accept on

2026:

I thought it through. I think that if you want to provide evidence, you should provide the revisions of articles that recently achieved Featured Article status. Obviously, articles can change over time, either for better or worse. I don't think that this discussion will get anywhere, though... we

1729:

Termer: IMDb does not identify what they get from "the industry" and what they get from "visitors like you". That's the problem with IMDb. When you don't identify your source, especially when you admit to getting information from regular 'ol people who aren't connected to the film in any regard, you

1691:

Termer: I totally disagree with those who believe that IMDB is unreliable, and no one has yet to show me any proof that it is, aside from a few anecdotal instances. My take is that it is certainly as reliable as a major newspaper such as the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Times of London or the

1165:

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS - Is one of the most important and yet overlooked part of any film. Color, sound, aspect ratio, lab, etc. IMDb's listings for these are so totally incorrect, I find myself trying to fix them, citing studio documentations, and then I have it turned back by someone who just

908:

found in secondary sources. No where does the policy say secondary sources are preferred over others (i.e. primary, tertiary) for the same information, much less anything that can be interpreted as "when two sources disagree, use a secondary over a tertiary". You misunderstand the intention of that

252:

Currently, the proposed guideline states: "The IMDb tends to be weak, or the least more open for abuse or misattribution when discussing less objective matters such as anecdotes and trivia, as well as films which have not yet been released to the general public." Bottom line, the only thing IMDb is

4358:

I will be as succinct as possible... and I am responding to the above before reading anything else contained below. Basically, what I an saying is that being listed on IMDB does not confer notability. We are all in agreement with that simple statement. It might confirm notability otherwise asserted

3915:

astonishing amount of the time. IMDb cannot maintain a staff large enough to compile the cast, credits, technical specs, etc., of those countless films. It is usually a film's publicist, distributor or even director or producer who supplies them. When an error appears, there is a mechanism for IMDb

3625:

To be clear: Any user on the internet that is viewing the imdb can submit information. That information may be 100% accurate or it maybe be 100% false. Unless a person has a copy of the film/tv show/game in question and can read the credits there is no way to know for sure. Lets go back to what the

3547:

being listed on IMDB creates notability? You mean if IMDb might "create notability" for WP purposes? Was that a joke? I can't speak for anybody else but I personally have never considered my real name to be notable enough by myself or by anybody else for WP purposes. Even though my real name has an

3046:

Not user created, but user supported. They rely on informations from many sources and require evidences. Even a trivia submission must be accompanied by a source for verification. They do not (or no longer) simply accept a bald statement as fact. They are as careful as possible in their handling of

2482:

I disagree, and will continue to be just as vehemently opposed to the inclusion of using such a source as you are in support of being able to use it. Would you cite Knowledge in a paper you write, because Knowledge is a tertiary source, and probably the world's largest free information source. None

2403:

Have you read the trivia page? Often times it actually contains production information (e.g. real production information, like "Director X used technique Y to achieve shot Z". This is the type of information you would like for a film page, but if you're getting it from IMDb then you cannot actually

2244:

instead of the content. For your request "please lists these films", the reason remains unclear why such a task would be necessary from my behalf. There was nothing wrong with the facts and the sources provided in those FA Film articles as far as I can tell. And replacing valid facts that are ref-d

1987:

Removing valid refs that back up the facts in an article is not exactly what I'd call a reasonable move. I'm sure you're going to reconsider once you think through what exactly did you do just a minute ago. And if not, the whole thing around IMDb is beyond reason and that's why the discussion never

1864:

You won't find it in FA film articles, which means that it's more than just "some editors", it's actually a community. The use of IMDb as a source is deemed by the majority to be unreliable (the "some" is applied to those that want to be able to use it). Also, IMDb is a source (though not useable),

1792:

I mentioned before). (2) I mentioned "getting community-generated content longer than Knowledge" because the two communities have some similarities: both depend upon the community for page content, both have added processes over the years to make their page content more reliable, and both get more

1559:

Well, I hate to see that you keep returning to this. Nothing on this Earth is guaranteed or 100% accurate as long as it has anything to do with human nature. In that sense IMD doesn't differ from any other source out there. The only thing, it's the most comprehensive source on movies available that

1464:

Reliability is based on a history of editorial oversight. Besides film grosses, MPAA ratings, and film credits, a good portion of the information is submitted (notice I say submitted, and not added) by users just like the ones here on Knowledge. IMDb actually has a history of being wrong. There are

1387:

Regrettably, the IMDb does not have any editorial transparency. While it is true that several sections do require online references, unfortunately these are not always reliably vetted by editors, and errors continue to be propagated across the site. Furthermore, the fact that a "reliable URL" needs

851:

The proposal needs to be precise. There are too many issues with other guidelines where people have left them so vague that there aren't cracks to slip through by trenches. I have no problem using IMDb as a reliable source for a list of cast members for films/television shows that have already been

841:

As stated above, the purpose of WP:V isn't to source sources, it's to source our material, mainly for indemnification against legal ramifications and to provide provenance. I don't regard this issue as a black/white IMDb is worthless vs. IMDb is infallible argument. The whole point of this proposal

808:

I don't believe that the IMDb is wholly worthless as a reference source, which is the question at hand. The whole distinction between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is a hierarchy in order to determine which references have higher preference (or trump, if you will). If the language of the

299:

Can they not be treated similarly to Imdb? Each of those cites usually have something to offer, but many of them present information with murky (at best) provenance. I remember that most students aren't allowed to quote WP, but instead are to use it as a source of info to guide them on their way to

91:

What is "technical specs"? Do you mean like what the film was shot in (e.g. 35 mm) type of information? For the most part, I agree with the way this is proposing IMDb be used, which is generally already the way it is used. Casting information, release dates, these things are usually found all over,

4321:

says, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and this sentence's footnote says, "The word 'source', as used in Knowledge, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of

3771:

using IMDb as a tertiary source for reference in Knowledge. But it doesn't matter since most often decisions on WP are based on random opinions instead of reason and common sense. And because this is not going to change, the whole discussion is meaningless. By now it should be more than clear that

3147:

An example I can offer is that Wiki for instance dislikes facts directly from a film's oficial website, while IMDB accepts that the filmmaker will have the most recent and most accurate informations... so if a production company submits proofed informations, it is confirmed and then added to their

2960:

Regarding Tertiary sources: a personal blog is not a reliable source. A tertiary source that gathers together blog comments is not suddenly reliable or usable as a source. So, if IMDb is a tertiary source that gathers people's personal opinions, possibly sourced from unreliable blogs, then IMDb is

2329:

To quote: "Though we do some active gathering of information, the bulk of our information is submitted by people in the industry and visitors like you." - To interpret the reasoning for "We just don't know where the items come from": We do not know which items come from whom, because IMDb does not

1590:

First, please don't confuse Google Scholaring the words "internet movie database" with "Film historians cite it all the time". There is a difference between mentioning IMDb and actually citing it as a source. Please note that just because you see "According to IMDb" in a brief abstract in a Google

211:

The current version of this proposal does include provision that most other cites would trump IMDb info, if they appear. But as the proposal states, that would only apply to films in release - future films wouldn't be allowed any IMDb sourcing at all. What I'm keeping in mind here is that the vast

179:

For released films and their articles, I have seen editors recommend against IMDb as a citation. This applies to most items outside of the available cast/crew information, which is basically an electronic copy of what you see in the credits at the end of a film. I have used IMDb to fill out basic

4275:

Well, it seems to me that both things you linked here from the notability guideline are pretty clear and everything over there makes sense to me. It says because IMDb is such a comprehensive film guide, it doesn't mean that everything from there is covered by WP notability principles. The way I'm

3942:

have spelled out above makes sense and anybody who's familiar with IMDb could call it common knowledge. I think it's self explanatory that any user comments or goofs that happen to be present on any IMDb pages are not suitable for WP in the first place. At the same time IMDb is a valid source for

3683:

talking about whether IMDb is considered a reliable source. I once submitted information on a new film to IMDb and cited a Knowledge article as an external link to confirm the film's notability, as per IMDb standards. One of their higher ranking editors at IMDb told me he had to reject that link

3527:

And I don't think either of us are trying to argue that being listed on IMDB creates notability (though it may support other sources)... only that it should be allowed as a reliable reference to source facts for articles as "generally considered accurate for informaton in context to what is being

3389:

Gosh yes.. it sure has! IMDB is now owned by Amazon, and Amazon enforces accuracy above all else, as inaccurate informations directly affect their profits. And yes, simply being named in IMDB does not create a notability... we are of a mind there. And I am in complete agreement that IMDB can be a

3223:

You know guys, nothing negative anybody has said so far about IMDb doesn't have any basis to it until some hard evidence has been given. It's all an abstract rumor based urban legend I've heard so far, nothing else. You have 2 professional filmmakers here telling you that IMDb has no problem with

3070:

And I am sorry for any problems you yourself may have has with IMDB submissions. Correcting errors DOES work if you have supportive evidence for a correction submission.. which is then sent to their data editors for vetting. And if your evidence proves ultimately incorrect, then yes, someone else

2774:

Termer, the arguments being used above to continually discredit IMDB can just as easily be used to challenge the reliability of The New York Times, The Washington Post, or most any so-called reliable source, as ALL "reliable sources" have an error factor. ALL "reliable sources" have input that is

2748:

With respects, GDallimore, are you citing opinion or experience? As one invlolved myself in television and film, I have had submissions to IMDB repeatedly rejected by their editors with the admonishment, "Please include screenshots or links to the confirm the informations being provided", and had

446:

While this topic is again focused on future films, I think it's relevant to have a mention of caution in terms of applying IMDb's release years because I have encountered knee-jerk reactions in creating articles of announced films when production is not guaranteed to take place. A recent example

4494:

has credibility. A scientist writing for an academic journal has credibility. I am fine with IMDb's editors having credibility, but they are not always the creators; yet they are always the publishers. That's why I have an issue with the database being driven by user submissions. So yes, the

4308:

should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." If there is indeed some kind of challenge, this probably involves a more nuanced argument that would require citation. For example, with writing credits, there may be an uncredited rewrite as detailed by a reliable

2507:

This is your personal opinion that is not backed up by any of the Knowledge guidelines cited above. In case you can come up with any WP policies that could back up your opinion, please do not hesitate to bring it forward. So far nothing contradicts citing tertiary sources in Knowledge. And that

2440:

I don't see any reasons to mix up Trivia pr Knowledge and the IMDb "trivia pages". In case there is a reason to believe that a fact provided by IMDb, lets say "Director X used technique Y to achieve shot Z" is factually incorrect and contradicts any secondary published source out there, sure it

874:

The IMDb was designed as an information database for film characteristics (cast, crew, specs, etc). That it evolved to include things like trivia and movie connections was an attempt to provide entertainment. This guideline specifically proscribes usage of IMDb trivia. What do you perceive to be

421:

I've sometimes wondered why we would bother including IMDb as an external link before a film's release, considering that its content is questionable and not very supplementary in the light of a well-developed Knowledge article about a future film. It's basically a staple link that's pretty much

2561:

Now, I happen to agree with Bignole that IMDb or any other tertiary source for that matter which doesn't provide the sources for the information it cites or does not vouch for the reliability of those sources cannot be relied upon (eg, if the sources are users of the site). The discussion above

3094:

I just saw this way up here. I am guessing you are speaking to me? I have been using the database for 11 or so years. I am not sure how long you have been using it but as I said below somewhere it was far more difficult back in the day to manually format and submit information than it is now.

2968:

Basically, from my perspective there is absolutely zero chance of EVERYTHING in IMDb being deemed reliable. But, there is a chance that SOME of the info in IMDb is reliable. I'm asking for help in identifying what that information is since I'm not an expert in IMDb. Termer and MQS, please stop

2956:

A quick repeat of my original question since the essence of it is still being avoided and, to me, it seems vital to all of this. What information in IMDb can we know for certain has been checked? MQS, you question what I'm basing my opinions on, but all you give is some examples where stuff is

2267:

I don't think that we are going to accomplish much here, but I do think we need to take a step back and breathe. Termer, what Bignole is trying to say is that articles that have undergone Featured Article candidacies in recent memory have excluded references to IMDb, whether coming to the FAC

943:

The problem with this view is that IMDB, unlike a reliable book, does not cite its sources. You can't cite the source of an IMDB items like "Christopher Lee considers this his favorite film," or "The Japanese release included 10 extra minutes which the director did not approve of," because the

3181:

A writer has their own article but it is questioned when it is said they "wrote a song that was in a film". If there is no soundtrack, no "hit single", no Mtv video the issue is how to, first, verify it. Watch the films credits. But for some reason that is not always considered a good source,

527:

That's a very good point. I presume that their software probably requires a year parameter, hence no TBA. Again, I believe that the guidelines already state that films which have not entered production yet should not be created as articles, so that can be considered grounds for deletion (see

1494:

Most editors, I think, will tell you that it is true. The issue with IMDb is that it depends in part on user-submitted content, so it cannot be guaranteed beyond a reasonable doubt that the content is valid. The website has been repeatedly rejected as a reliable source in Featured Article

379:

I don't have specific feedback for the proposed guideline (other than, "Good show!" to the author). I too find IMDB very unreliable as a source of trivia, anecdotes, even quotes, as I often find errors based on the film right in front of me. Much of my editing has changed from submission to

4312:

In addition, while I am glad to see that we can agree that the trivia pages cannot be relied upon, how are we so sure that the editorial control is only weak in that area and not with the rest of IMDb? Like Michael quoted, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable

2278:

article that stated the budget. That's great! I've gone ahead and included it. Nobody is saying that every single item on IMDb is completely false. We just don't know where the items come from since information is user-submitted and there is no transparency. I've used IMDb myself as a

1643:...and I can confirm this from my personal experience. All my credits on the films I've worked on during the last 20 years have been submitted directly by the studios to the IMD. So as a professional I trust IMDB, exactly like the film historians who use the source for reference among many 4486:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. → The word "source", as used in Knowledge, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect

2172:

Please Termer, lists these films. When you do, please list the date in which they were promoted as well (as I'm sure that paid college education you like to talk about taught you how to do a little research). Let me give you some. FA articles that currently have IMDb as a source:

4648:

On the WGA, I believe it's broadly accepted that the IMDb's information is reliable here. However, whichever way this discussion ends, we need to be careful about using the IMDb to cite writing credits, as the WGA credits do not always reflect who contributed to the script (e.g.

4687:

case needed, it shouldn't be a problem if such self evident note would be added to the guideline. That in fact it's impossible to predict what is going to happened to the final credit list until the movie is finished and therefore the guideline only refers to released films.--

4299:

as Knowledge defines it, or the importance or relevance of a piece of information? There's quite a difference, and it would be appreciated if another term was used. :) Also, regarding minor film facts like the runtime, this kind of information is clearly unchallenged. Per

1560:

gets cited by film historians like already pointed out 100 times with appropriate citations from secondary published sources above. And again, as long as anybody keeps bringing up the subject, my opinion is that removing it from the film infobox was not a reasonable idea.--

2889:, please stop questioning intelligence of your opponents. In case you have solid facts showing how inaccurate the facts in IMDb are, please do not hesitate to line up the pattern by providing solid facts side by side. So far I've seen one example given by Bignole out of 4008:

So, without actually addressing just which portions of IMDB are reliable and which portions are not so, detractors pronounce the entire IMDB database as unreliable and sweep it into the ashbin. With respects beforehand, these arguments are flawed and fly in the face of

2844:. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication". Finding one or two or even a hundred "errors" out of over a million titles speaks well toward overall reliaability 4224:

Perhaps it's just me but a notice like "IMDB does NOT create notability" would be a little like "this coffee container contains hot liquid, do not spill, hot coffee can cause serious burns" if you know what I mean. Notability for Knowledge purposes is determined by

4046:

Allowing an article to be directly sourced from the film is fine, but if the film is not available or if an editor cannot afford to search for and either rent or buy a film if it were available, an editor is unable to verify or cite. One might always wish that

3390:

terrific tool for research. I feel that IMDB should be considered a reliable source for facts, but not to directly source notability (though it may support such assertions if sourced elsewhere). If a BLP about Joe Smith stated that he was production dsigner of

1777:(that link highlights the accuracy issues "especially on yet-unreleased films"); the comment about IMDb being rejected as a reliable source in FA noms was also helpful. The latter prompted me to look around at the FA process guidelines and related links, but 801:. That implies that secondary is better than tertiary. (The limitations of primary sources are discussed following this.) So there are distinctions. Actually, re-reading the tertiary section, it looks like it considers reference matter signed by experts as 1117:

DVD. Twice it was rejected even though I had the film right there in front of me. So you will not always find films (notable or otherwise) listed in IMDB, simply because it's community-driven, and some contributors may give up after trying to add data.

3477:". What some here seem to be saying is that IMDB is NOT "generally trustworthy or authotitative in relation to the subject at hand", whne quite the opposite is true and I see no evidences offered to support that opinion... specially when reliability " 4499:

that could be considered reasonable to cite are the items in suitable #2 and the items in suitable #4 and #6. Like I've said before, too much effort is being devoted to picking apart the website and claiming the reliability of some of these parts. —

4156:. That's an area not covered yet in this discussion it seems. I mean, it has to be spelled out that any potentially contentious material about any living persons should be avoided, that citing IMDb on WP should be strictly about solid facts only.-- 2184: 3922:

Thus, I disagree with the belief that since IMDb incorporates user-submitted content, it is as unreliable as a wiki. Many of its sections are more reliable than a wiki because they are subject to editorial control before going live on the site.

3552:(LOL) a celebrity ID at hollywood.com and has been mentioned in coupler of books, by so called "secondary sources". Still I've never considered my real name to be notable enough for an encyclopedia such as WP. So I have no idea from where this " 1045:

IMDb has a good track record on well-circulating films; IMDb should be able to cite the date of release, cast...etc. on a particular film. But if there is a better source citing different information, that information should supercede the IMDb

2457:

needs to say. The bottom line: there is no sensible reason to dismiss IMDb as one of the most comprehensive tertiary source on movies out there from Knowledge, and that includes using it in featured articles as a source for any related solid

3186:

a film? It becomes harder if the film was have been mentioned in Variety. It may never have been released to theaters so there may not be any boxoffice numbers to report. Again editors turn to imdb to verify the film exists and than go from

1325:

who are arguing that it is. Some of them think that while it may not be considered reliable for trivia, it should be considered a reliable source for its user ratings, so it's ok to include them in articles. I tried bringing up the issue on

3864:

The trivia and goofs sections are based on user submissions; while they are subject to editorial control (and are reviewed by IMDb staff before appearing on the site), there is enough skepticism about them that Knowledge should avoid using

3238:

I never said that there was "no problem with reliability compared to any other source out there". Don't put words into my mouth. What I said was "It is good for some things but overall it is not fully accurate because it is user created."

4672:

as starring, a couple of months after he'd jumped ship. That's why it's always best in my view to use information from other reliable sources. After the film has been released, and can be checked as a primary source, it doesn't matter.

2217:(in which case, I believe that it has in regards to the use of IMDb as a source), the fact that these pages still have the source is neither here nor there because it just means that no one went back and removed/replaced the source. 903:

This reliance is about the "generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims" found in good secondary sources, because that the kind of information that makes an article encyclopedic. The kind of information that is

4610:

I think how any editors cite the sources and provide refs for inline citations is a completely different question and the thing pointed out by Orangemarlin is a common problem on Knowledge, just that it's not limited to the use of

280:

While I would not oppose the proposed act, to what other extents should film citation guidelines reach? The verifiability of movie sites like Moviehole.net, CinemaBlend.com, JoBlo.com, IGN, ComingSoon.net, or SuperHeroHype.com?

4069:

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on

3474:

2558:/ This says: Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. 4495:

author is a concern. This setup is not comparable to a slip-up in some newspaper... the "three related meanings" are assumed to be reliable until shown otherwise. The users who contribute to IMDb do not have this privilege.

1413:. Some of the discussion became heated so some of the less friendly comments have been removed. Comments directed towards the infobox rather than the reliability of IMDB have also been removed to focus on the subject at hand. 1151:

First off, I'll make my intentions clear up front. I wouldn't depend on IMDb as a source, period. It is NOT a source that is written by experts, but rather amateurs, and quite often is inaccurate in the following fields:

4151:

would be a good starting point, it would just need to be tightened up a bit and made more clear what from IMDb is suitable for WP and what not. I also think the policy should pay a special attention to anything related to

3437:

I don't know what are you saying. Are you suggesting that you have submitted bad information to the database and it has become easier than even to get it published by IMDb? And that's how it's related to unreliability of

1001:

I changed that to the absolute. It's the whole reason that this issue has been raised - IMDb has minimal internal sourcing and limited editorial oversight/fact-checking. Therefore these areas run into the most trouble.

948:

are not noted so that anyone can corroborate them. We have a higher standard here. You are expected to cite your source in a way that can be verified. IDMB isn't such a source. So I would consider it a tertiary source.

753:

Basically this whole piece is saying any reliable source can overrule IMDb, because while much of the information turns out to correct there is no oversight. If any reliable source can trump it, that means IMDb is

4196:

but underscoring it not creating notability will defuse an "argument" before it is made. I also suggest a qualifier or caveat might be included that directly addresses just how some parts of IMDB are in line with

3856:

In the following sections, there is some editorial control exercised by IMDb. That is, a user cannot just submit something and see it go live on the site. They have to wait for the staff to review the submission.

257:

films: that should be the only acceptable criteria for using IMDb - anything else is unverifiable. Since that basically eliminates the need for this proposed guideline, I recommend merging whatever is left into

4489:

The way I see it, the "creator" is a contributor like you or me because we are providing new content. We are not reliable; we have no claim to credibly adding new content. A journalist writing an article for

1037:

We can say this because IMDb is not necessarily considered a reliable source unless footnotes are cited there, and again, because the database covers practically all films in existance, notable and non-notable.

2338:, is usually stuff submitted by users (with no outside source attributed to the information). This type of stuff is not acceptable to be sourced by IMDb - The front of this failed page actually explains that. 1869:, again, because we'd have to include all the sources that we cannot use (which is far to great a list). Oh, that "15-0" discussion is two years old (far passing the time when a new consensus can be formed). 1224:

are regularly incorrect, I like being able to see what aspect and lens-type a film was made in.) So ... perhaps we need a guideline which clarifies WHY it's not acceptable as a primary or secondary source? -

122:

Yeah, that was what I was asking, because I was looking over a film article and I saw a section that said "Tech specs"...and that was what was there. I was just making sure that is what was being considered.

2188: 2191:(the catch here is that, even though they used IMDb, and I still wouldn't use it for what they did, they only used an interview that IMDb posted and an award nomination. Nothing really challengable under 1865:

and we don't create guidelines specifically for a source. We'd have thousands of guidelines out there for all the sources that we cannot use, and that isn't what a guideline is for. It's not including in

2927:

Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed

893:

This is is incorrect. The whole distinction is in order to warn editor of the pitfalls original research issues with primary sources. Please consider the context that this terminology comes from the

4329:

IMDb is rejected at FAC processes for film articles as far as I can tell, and film articles survive without needing to cite IMDb. I am probably meeting Michael's expectations here when I quote from

480:, these are film articles that I've seen that have been created all-too-quickly. Most of these articles cited IMDB release years for films' releases; you can see that in several redirected titles: 3485:, IMDB qualifies. WHo has any quantitative evidence that IMDB is not reliable... specially when considering it has millions upon millions of pieces of information that are constantly being vetted? 1751:

BIGNOLE, anybody who can read the link you provided can see that your construction of "how IMDB works" is based on your own theories that has very little to do with what the text actually says.--

3876:. Other external reviews may or may not be reliable. For all of these, though, IMDb just furnishes a link and the actual source to be used is the original review at the site where it is hosted. 3786:

Then the default to this latest discussion is "keep" since no policy is being violated. And like any source, it must be used with wisdom and descretion, as no source is perfect for all things.

3513:

You're not the only one, so am I. Just that as long as I haven't seen any hard evidence, until IMDb has not been proven "guilty in unreliability", there is nothing new to add to this really.--

4309:

source, and Knowledge does not merely project "official" writing credits that are published by the WGA. It would be pretty strange to see a footnote for every name in the infobox, I think.

3846:

Some other sections have been added in the relatively recent past which are wiki-style with minimal editorial control. Those would be the FAQs for particular titles (not the database FAQ at

668:. Now, I tried to proceed to correct that information on its page by updating it, but I found that there was no evidence required to correct the release date. I had planned to provide the 3731:

Yes, IMDB "allows submissions" from anyone. But if the submission is not accompanied by evidence to prove factuality, the submission is rejected and the submission is not published. What

1327: 3665:, and I doubt most editors would feel otherwise. This is my point - if the number is truly reliable, then it will exist in other, more reliable sources, which should instead be used. 3443: 3125:

has any meaningful content that can't be sourced to clearly more reliable sources such as Variety, newspapers, publicly available press materials, commentary tracks, interviews, etc.

549:'s wording enables articles on future films that are not certain to be produced, reporting verifiable speculation, especially about films based on franchises or familiar topics. For 332:. The content is valid, but the site's appearance would be fairly questionable. I've seen interviews and set visits from movie sites like these. How should they be regarded? — 819:

do so reliably. SuperHeroHype isn't a reliable source for random information, but if they conduct an interview personally then that is usually considered reliable information.

4180:, please anybody feel free to copyedit, make suggestions, make it more clear help out any way you can etc. Just that, lets keep it simple and straight to the point please. -- 469: 758:. I would suggest encouraging people to treat IMDb like other wikis, which it is essentially on the tier with for reliability. Link to it as a resource, not a reference.-- 1257:

It wouldn't be a guideline, it would most likely be an essay. I think an essay would be preferable, then we could get consensus on the essay's linkage on other guidelines.

1177:

Submitters are by mostly anonymous amateurs and false information and manipulation can be planted and go unnoticed for days, weeks, months and even years if obscure enough.

891:

The whole distinction between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is a hierarchy in order to determine which references have higher preference (or trump, if you will).

3619:

I don't know what are you saying. Are you suggesting that you have submitted bad information to the database and it has become easier than even to get it published by IMDb

3548:

IMDb ID with a credit list including exactly 22 movies at this point, even though my real name has been listed by The New York Times and CNN etc. and yes my real name has

1495:

nominations. We accept it as an external link, though, since it is very well-known and has some uses. I think that it can be treated as a springboard to other sources. —

1162:

Release dates (as a writer about films, this has been my number one complaint with my proofreaders. IMDb 9 times out of 10 never has the correct premiere date for a film)

3872:

The external reviews are links to other sources, some of which are clearly reliable sources such as mainstream newspapers and magazines or industry publications such as

3861:

The recommendations are based largely on an algorithm; they are not generated from user contributions but there is no reason we would want to refer to them in Knowledge.

3767:

well, there is basically zero zip no communication going on in this discussion. Everybody just keeps repeating themselves. The bottom line, there are no restrictions pr

1335: 463: 2907:

As I have said, the problem is a systemic one and extends beyond accuracy concerns (which many others have already broached and I have no intention of recapitulating).

2729:

To be honest, however, your constant linking to this page alone is not very helpful since it provides virtually no information that can help make a decision about what

2240:

You know, simply because I rejected your free lectures mentioning it once that I already have "paid education" doesn't mean that it gives you the right again an again

557:. I realize we're drifting away from actual IMDb discussion, and this should probably take place elsewhere. However, there may be a conflict between WP:CRYSTAL and 3562:

by leaving the fact rather without any ref as long as IMDb is not listed. and only adding an alternative source after I provided it that says exactly the same thing

3257:! I never did speak to you personally, it has been a long discussion and my post was directed to anybody who has worked hard in order to discredit IMDb in Knowledge. 1180:

From my experience as someone who has submitted hundreds of corrections, the staff at IMDb has about a 1/3 hit rate for fixing things when corrections ARE submitted.

1445:), and since for other areas it has been getting community-generated content for about a decade longer than Knowledge, it seems odd to question IMDb's reliability 2129:

PS.A quick look through showed that at least every second-third FA film article uses IMDb as a source in the references section. So the claim made by BIGNOLE "

3943:

hard facts and using it as a source of reference for such facts like credit lists, release dates, awards, budgets etc. should be clearly not in conflict with

3289:

that our service is provided for the information of users only. It is not provided with the intention that users rely upon the information for any purposes."

3954:

accordingly so that we can have a clear policy how to go about it instead of some people add and others remove randomly IMDb from WP articles all the time.--

1188:

using IMDb as a source, and encouraging using books by well known authors, and even more importantly, studio documentation as sources! Just my two cents. --

259: 4248:

You are of course correct. I was only thinking of pre-emptively addressing the first complaint some others might make. It will also be required to correct

1331: 2885:

Thanks Schmidt for providing some common sense and reason to this discussion. regarding "mistaking reliability/verifiability with accuracy" according to

1814: 1085:

I guess that's true also. When I wrote that, I was going by the assumption that there are no other citations. For example, if there is no IMDb source

1692:

LA Times -- in fact I suspect that it carries fewer mistakes than those sources, which are indisputably "reliable" as far as Knowledge is concerned.

3849:), the parents guides, and the plot synopses (not to be confused with the plot outlines or plot summaries, which are subject to editorial control). 2530:. No, I would never consider doing it. But it's not because WP is a tertiary source, it's because WP articles are often based on user opinions and 4153: 1330:

to get an outside opinion, but nobody seems that interested. I see that the discussion about IMDB as a general source has also appeared before in

1322: 3047:

all informations. And like wikipedia, when a fact is shown to be in error, or a source faulty, the information is either corrected or removed.

695:

I think this language would be best removed from this page completely. First off this content of this page is basically about whether IMDb is

212:

majority of entries on the IMDb are not recent films, and it may be difficult to otherwise cite, say, the release date of a film shot in 1946.

664:

reflects that someone attempted to change 2010 to 2009 (even with the citation present), and I assume that this is based on IMDb, which says

1238: 1131: 985:

Did someone go through each IMDb post and confirm this? With absolute language like that, Citing IMDb will never be more than an essay. --

962: 637: 409: 71: 66: 1107:

I can attest to IMDB's lack of completeness. AND to difficulties in submitting. I submitted Roger Donaldson's documentary on Burt Munro,

3897: 1844: 1794: 1704: 1446: 910: 2984:

Nothing should be easier than going out there and checking it out by yourself in case you have any doubts regarding IMDb's reliability

3836:

I do have IMDb experience, as a longtime user and data contributor. Here are some comments about the less and more reliable sections:

2812:

one. Accuracy is one factor in credibility, but it is not the only one, nor - in our RS criteria - is it even the most important one.

1437:

content in Knowledge articles?" I looked around for a guideline or other WP: article that says that, and couldn't find one, not even

456: 4256:

which does allow that IMDB has "some" uses... as detractors will cite current guideline in refuting the creation of a new consensus.

3852:

Newsgroup reviews are archived Usenet postings. I would not consider them reliable unless they were written by an established critic.

4388:

That's why I advocate reliable sourcing of each cast member until the cast information becomes unchallenged upon the film's release.

2311:. In case this is not transparent enough that can be back tested by anybody, I don't know what would be transparent enough at all.-- 597: 500:-- IMDb had the release year as 2007 up until two months ago or so, then the year was updated to 2010. Two existing film articles, 2961:

unreliable. That situation changes if we know what sources things are being checked against, which comes back to my question above.

2800:

data, or which IMDb editor approved it, or what the IMDb content-standards even are. In such circumstances, this cannot be seen as

1527:

page, as it's slightly different than the one you linked above, and explains a little better about how they get their information.

1235: 1128: 959: 634: 485: 406: 80: 1788:

To answer two questions: (1) "Production Notes" is information that the IMDb partner Exhibitor Relations says it provides (see

1441:. I know that IMDb gets WGA writing credits, MPAA ratings, Grosses, Film Statistics, and Production Notes from partners (see 583:

Looking over WP:NF, I agree that the terms could be more bare-bones and thus reconciled. But that's a separate conversation...

1050:

Finally, we should remember that IMDb is very similar to Knowledge in many ways, and citing IMDb should be used with caution.

4317:." The authors are the users themselves, not IMDb. It's like saying "IMDb authors IMDb," which is a little circuitous. ;) 1321:

I just stumbled upon this talk page. It seems that consensus here is that IMDB isn't a reliable source. There are editors at

166:

despite no confirmation about him returning to film another sequel. IMDb even resorts to reporting rumored casting, such as

2645:

the bulk of our information is submitted by people in the industry and visitors like you... main sources of information are

3559:-What I'm talking about, for example removing IMDb as a completely valid source of reference from an article like this one 1287:

The box office information in IMDb, are those considered reliable? What are other sites for business information? Thanks.--

3670: 3130: 2912: 2817: 2451:

Knowledge articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources

2179: 1393: 448: 392:

I think we ought to start deprecating use of IMDB as a source, and limit it to a common EL in film articles (the infobox,

3120:- what exactly does the IMDb contain exclusively? Because what I'm mainly sensing here is that a lot of editors like the 2210: 2201: 263: 2677:

is based only on these sources and not on user-generated content. Is there anything that users cannot edit and change?

3880:

the MPAA's own evaluation of the film; I am not saying the MPAA is the final word on how "adult" a film's content is).

2840:: "...generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is 1113: 2925:. And no opinion so far has contradicted any related WP policies, the use of IMDb as a Tertiary source in Knowledge : 1200:

Okay, that's the straw that has broken this camel's back. I'm withdrawing the proposal unless I hear any objections.

930:

I think IMDb should be treated as what it is -- a secondary source -- much like any other printed book about movies.

777:

I would go further and state that people treat IMDb as an approximation to a blog - a resource, and not a source. -

360:

If you believe that the site is valid and reliable, then I'd add it. Should objections be raised, address them then.

4051:

would allow an editor to accept at face value any minor fact in an article, but that is sadly not always the case. "

4657: 4593: 4510: 4433: 4348: 3869:

soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications.

2555: 2509: 2290: 2038: 1958: 1506: 1430: 1410: 1343: 1156:

Cast and Crew (too often is someone listed as "uncredited" simply because an extra vaguely looks like that person).

681: 570: 517: 493: 431: 341: 290: 235: 201: 47: 38: 17: 4460: 4399: 4376: 4265: 4213: 4105: 3795: 3753: 3537: 3494: 3403: 3347: 3318: 3157: 3080: 3056: 2873: 2784: 2758: 2377:

in wikipedia all together. therefore I miss how is any trivia in IMdb relevant to Knowledge in the first place.--

1782: 1216:

I think a proposed guideline which deprecates use of IMDB is useful. It seems that the consensus is that IMDB is

481: 501: 3927: 3888: 3701: 3666: 3126: 2908: 2886: 2813: 1389: 1232: 1201: 1125: 1077: 1003: 956: 876: 843: 810: 631: 601: 584: 533: 477: 403: 361: 213: 114: 3917: 2213:; What you will find that a lot of these FA film articles that are using IMDb were promoted awhile ago. Since 3901: 3704:'s comment about verification. I am not sure if it directed at my example but if so please re-read. You said 2302:

We just don't know where the items come from since information is user-submitted and there is no transparency

1848: 1798: 1450: 1380: 489: 3718: 3639: 3588: 3379: 3294: 3244: 3200: 3100: 3033: 1700: 1434: 192:. Sites and forums have been curious about this title change, which seems to have been solely IMDb-based. — 4418:

of the website as a reliable source? It seems like a lot of effort where other trustworthy sources, like

4131:

then everybody could go and suggest additions or clarifications or raise any concerns etc and than either

1067:

If a film is not on IMDb, it is almost guaranteed that the film is not notable or the film does not exist.

1027:

If a film is not on IMDb, it is almost guaranteed that the film is not notable or the film does not exist.

653: 505: 329: 3706:

we allow primary sourcing to the film itself without citation as long as the material is factual and NPOV

672:

link as evidence, but the lack of inquiry for such a source seems to make IMDb susceptible to anything. —

4560: 4128: 3951: 3843:

The user comments for each title are also pure user-generated content, and they are not reliable either.

3528:

sourced". No one has proven that it is not reliable for such... only shared (sometimes strong) opinion.

1828: 1821: 1810: 1695: 1376: 1339: 1059: 1029:

We can say this because the database covers practically all films in existance, notable and non-notable.

983:

Anecdotes, trivia, and unreleased film information from IMDb do not meet the reliable sources guideline.

113:

I meant the Tech Specs section of the site. Generally, this is not controversial info in and of itself.

3623:

Even though my real name has an IMDb ID with a credit list including exactly 22 movies at this point...

1947:

to Featured Article status, did not reference IMDb. It should never have had IMDb. I've removed it. —

1905:

made by BIGNOLE are simply not true: Anybody who can read can see that even the very first film on the

4664: 4453: 4392: 4369: 4258: 4226: 4206: 4098: 3788: 3746: 3689: 3530: 3505: 3487: 3396: 3340: 3311: 3150: 3073: 3049: 3009: 2974: 2866: 2777: 2751: 2739: 2697:

goes through a large number of consistency checks to ensure it's as accurate and reliable as possible

2682: 2622: 2567: 1843:, which on the surface looks similar to what IMDb says about the reliability of its box office data. 1419: 1292: 4637: 4148: 4144: 3980: 3939: 3924: 3885: 2446: 2175: 1648: 1438: 1226: 1189: 1119: 950: 805:, so this would imply that unsigned reference material by non-experts would be considered tertiary. 625: 397: 271: 156:

be released that predicted year. There have been numerous false listings with the crew as well --

4140: 3714: 3635: 3584: 3434: 3375: 3290: 3254: 3240: 3196: 3096: 3029: 2795:

it's one of "what are the editorial controls, and are they generally up to par?". At the NYT, if

2197: 713:

This is meaningless since there is no particular treatment given to tertiary sources in general.

384:

sections in film articles on WP as they often repeat rumor, myth, and nonsense, some of it just

2643:

OK, how about if I make a some kind of summary instead of pasting everything they say up here:

2080: 2079:, in order to back up the production budget of $ 65 million. For example it's also available @ 4714: 4696: 4681: 4642: 4620: 4597: 4572: 4545: 4531: 4514: 4465: 4437: 4404: 4381: 4352: 4285: 4270: 4239: 4218: 4189: 4165: 4110: 3963: 3930: 3891: 3800: 3781: 3758: 3722: 3693: 3674: 3643: 3592: 3574: 3542: 3522: 3499: 3455: 3408: 3383: 3352: 3323: 3298: 3271: 3248: 3233: 3204: 3162: 3134: 3104: 3085: 3061: 3037: 3013: 2997: 2978: 2943: 2916: 2902: 2878: 2821: 2789: 2763: 2743: 2708: 2686: 2660: 2626: 2604: 2571: 2543: 2521: 2498: 2493: 2467: 2419: 2414: 2386: 2353: 2348: 2320: 2294: 2254: 2232: 2227: 2206: 2150: 2092: 2042: 1997: 1962: 1922: 1884: 1879: 1852: 1802: 1760: 1745: 1740: 1709: 1660: 1606: 1601: 1569: 1542: 1537: 1510: 1480: 1475: 1454: 1423: 1397: 1363: 1347: 1308: 1296: 1272: 1267: 1244: 1204: 1194: 1137: 1098: 1080: 1006: 995: 968: 934: 924: 879: 867: 862: 846: 842:

is to identify and isolate the most salient problem areas, so as to minimize likely problems.

834: 829: 813: 792: 785: 769: 685: 643: 604: 587: 574: 546: 545:

Here's a trick, though... in a few AfDs about future films, some editors tend to believe that

536: 521: 435: 415: 385: 364: 345: 315: 308: 294: 274: 239: 216: 205: 138: 133: 117: 107: 102: 4563:

proposal? , + the reasons for it. please everybody state your position in the survey below.--

3912:

I often consult IMDb, and considering that it indexes virtually every film, it is correct as

3684:

because their site wouldn’t take anything from Knowledge as a serious source of information!

4710: 4692: 4616: 4568: 4301: 4281: 4235: 4185: 4161: 3959: 3777: 3570: 3518: 3451: 3267: 3229: 2993: 2939: 2898: 2704: 2656: 2600: 2539: 2517: 2463: 2382: 2367: 2316: 2250: 2146: 2088: 1993: 1918: 1756: 1656: 1565: 1359: 743:(preferably a primary or secondary one), then that source should be considered to trump IMDb 3833:

recently in response to a request for information about which IMDb sections were reliable:

3661:

put my faith in IMDb budget figures, especially not when I have my pick of the IMDb versus

3579:

The concept is that "Corliss, Richard (March 14, 2007). "7 Reasons Why 300 Is a Huge Hit",

1388:

to be submitted indicates that better and more accessible secondary sources already exist.

4360: 4313:

publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative

4077: 3996:

such minor film facts do not require sourcing as the film itself is considered the source,

3710: 3685: 3580: 3005: 2985: 2970: 2931: 2735: 2734:

anything, in IMDb is not susceptible to user vandalism, practical jokes or drunken typos.

2678: 2618: 2584: 2563: 2454: 2134: 1840: 1832: 1415: 1288: 1220:

a reliable source, such that we can cite it for almost anything. (Sorry to hear that even

1019: 915: 760: 182: 167: 3993:

verificatons of non-notable facts have no place on Wiki as Wiki deals only in notability,

1809:

P.S. After googling I found some FA discussions about IMDb (a handful) and I found this:

1035:

In a Knowledge entry, IMDb should not be the only source or reference within the article.

4295:

Michael, I am a little confused about your points of notability. Are you talking about

3916:

users to correct it. These corrections are vetted by IMDb. It is usually safe to trust.

3468:

Termer... I am confused with how IMDB is not considered a reliable source for facts. In

3195:

press materials, commentary tracks, interviews, etc" but that leads into another topic.

2695:

There is no "user-generated content". whatever corrections or data any user submits, it

909:

policy, if you are still uncertain of what I say please read some of the discusssion at

4589: 4506: 4429: 4364: 4344: 4334: 4081: 3947: 2450: 2442: 2286: 2245:

to IMDb with alternative sources that say the same thing just doesn't make any sense.--

2034: 1954: 1644: 1502: 1166:"disagrees." This is highly unencyclopedic to be used as a source for an encyclopedia. 1094: 1055: 677: 566: 513: 427: 337: 286: 267: 231: 197: 2581:

a definitive list of IMDb information that does not derive from user-generated content

2139:

an attempt to address valid concerns about the usage of the IMDb as a reference source

4669: 4330: 4093: 4048: 4000: 3830: 3822: 3444:

not provided with the intention that users rely upon the information for any purposes

3262:

I've only heard so, never seen any hard evidence that would have defined a pattern.--

2528:

Would you cite Knowledge in a paper you write, because Knowledge is a tertiary source

2241: 2214: 1304:

IMdB doesn't cite its sources, so it's not reliable. I'm not sure about other sites.

1018:

and non-notable films, which means that some of the films may not be compatible with

988: 895: 732: 722: 613: 4651: 4197: 4089: 4014: 3944: 3768: 3482: 3469: 2857: 2837: 2796: 2531: 2484: 2405: 2339: 2218: 2185:

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

1906: 1870: 1866: 1731: 1592: 1528: 1466: 1305: 1258: 1069:

This is actually quite wrong - I've found a good number of titles discussed in the

945: 931: 853: 820: 778: 728: 718: 617: 558: 529: 301: 124: 93: 1089:

no reliable external sources for a particular film, than it would be non-notable.

2890: 2696: 2644: 2588: 2305: 1774: 1636: 1524: 4706: 4688: 4612: 4564: 4481: 4422:

film overviews, could be used without question. (Yahoo, kept this one short.) —

4318: 4296: 4277: 4231: 4201: 4181: 4157: 4085: 4036: 4032: 4028: 4010: 3984: 3955: 3905: 3773: 3614: 3566: 3514: 3447: 3276: 3263: 3225: 2989: 2935: 2894: 2853: 2829: 2700: 2652: 2596: 2535: 2513: 2459: 2378: 2312: 2246: 2192: 2142: 2084: 1989: 1914: 1836: 1752: 1652: 1651:. The bottom line, so far I haven't seen any valid reasons for dismissing IMD.-- 1561: 1355: 746: 740: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3565:. If such removals make sense to anybody, we must live in parallel universes.-- 4674: 3847: 2335: 2270: 1910: 3840:

The message boards are just message boards which are inherently not reliable.

2852:

truth and accuracy... making them suitable as a reliable souce for facts per

2334:

is 140 minutes long). All that other stuff, like, what you would find in say

1913:, the very first source provided for reference in this article is the IMDb.-- 4701:

PS.a note added to "IMDb content suitable for Knowledge" that it applies to

4583: 4500: 4423: 4338: 2280: 2028: 1948: 1496: 1091: 1052: 673: 562: 509: 423: 333: 282: 227: 193: 157: 2649:...also rely on press kits, official bios, autobiographies, and interviews. 1159:

Trivia (has been mentioned, but is often hearsay and is almost never cited)

186:

recently had a press release (with that title), yet its IMDb page calls it

3511:

I am confused with how IMDB is not considered a reliable source for facts.

2617:

Is that all? Is that the sum total of non-user-generated content in IMDb?

1789: 1442: 4074:

generally trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand

4039:. When editing ANY page, this phrase is directly below the edit window: " 3284:

in the Internet Movie Database comes from various sources. Though we do

2921:

Again, I don't see any facts listed that would back up opinions such as

901:

Knowledge articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.

665: 616:

to determine if an article about a proposed film production is notable,

561:

that needs addressing -- where WP:NF fails, WP:CRYSTAL can be invoked. —

187: 171: 161: 2832:

back to the conversation: "The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge is

2556:

Knowledge:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources

1022:. My opinion on IMDb as a source can be boil down to three statements. 739:

However, if the IMDb is found to contradict another source which meets

2076:

at least provide an alternative source instead to the one you removed

717:

It is unsourced, which makes it borderline-acceptable with regards to

4634: 1043:

IMDb can cite basic information on an already released, notable film.

4631: 3556:" ever came from and who exactly has come up with such a silly idea. 1779:

I still can't find any WP codification of the IMDb reliability issue

79:

Discussion leading to the creation of this proposal can be found at

2923:

the problem is a systemic one and extends beyond accuracy concerns

2721:

Hmmm. I don't believe that such checks are or even can be made on

2587:

read the discussion above or the link provided by Bignole: IMDb's

2304:, please let me cite the link provided by BIGNOLE further: IMDb's 1641:

the bulk of our information is submitted by people in the industry

2512:

that has got things "wrong" probably even more often than IMDb.--

660:, the studio planned the film for a 2010 release. However, this 81:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Films#IMDb as Valid Reference Material

455:

citation. You can also find further discussion about that film

4253: 4249: 3825:-- comments in favor of establishing some reliability for IMDb 709:

On the whole, the IMDb should be regarded as a tertiary source

25: 4551:

The only thing that is relevant at the moment: does anybody

2534:

rather than on solid facts and works of professionals etc.--

899:

not a page about reliability of sources. The policy reads:

799:

most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources

4252:

which is often read as disallowing IMDB, and strengthening

3649:

don't require sourcing for plot sections - the film itself

727:

This is meaningless since neither of the pages linked to (

648:

I'd like to mention a situation about the release year for

2673:

Except that doesn't answer the question. What information

1813:, a failed proposal from July 2007 that includes links to 3990:

that anything notable on IMDB can be confirmed elsewhere,

4127:

If anybody could spell out the exact proposal for a new

2195:. Still not the best source, but negliable nonetheless; 1835:

and it doesn't mention issues with IMDb. I also found

4178: 3563: 3560: 2077: 1944: 797:

As far as levels of sources go, the policy states that

661: 554: 4024:

being advocated that IMDB be used to prove notability.

809:

proposal needs fixing, though, that seems reasonable.

1170:

The biggest issues with IMDb not being a source are:

1076:

In short, don't trust IMDb to be 100% comprehensive.

1065:

I agree with you on almost all points except for the

4072:". If an editor is making a claim that IMDB is not " 1409:The comments below were moved from a discussion at 470:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Gears of War (film)

253:good for is citing cast and crew information from 3772:this discussion never is going to get anywhere.-- 464:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Alice (2007 film) 2445:for WP purposes IMDb is a Tertiary source, not 745:This is also meaningless. Sources don't "meet 4147:on the question. I'd suggest the list made by 3442:And the standard legal privacy policy notice " 3653:the source.) As far as the example regarding 3634:facts should the database be used to verify. 1633:They also don't identify any of their sources 875:unclear? (Please feel free to edit it, too.) 478:User:Erik/Link repository#Redirected projects 8: 1635:" is in conflict with the link you provided 1429:Is it true that "IMDb is not deemed to be a 388:from IMDB. Why copy it here if it's already 260:Knowledge:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines 4386:And in addressing your sensible statement " 3950:. Therefore I'd suggest spelling it out in 2891:over a million titles and 2.3 million names 2371:Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts 4582:though... they're very different setups. — 4058:IMDB is not "user created" but is in fact 3738:allow primary sourcing to the movie itself 2749:submissions accepted only after doing so. 2133:" has no basis. On the contrary there is 1631:Only one thing that would need a comment " 1174:Sources are seldom and almost never cited. 3999:IMDB is user created and so is a type of 3281:IMDb is not user created, never has been. 2027:are two anthropomorphic brick walls. :) — 3987:. The responses from detractors will be 2554:Here is a specific, relevant guideline: 944:contributor of such nuggets of rumor or 330:Moviehole.net interview with Danny Boyle 4053:Encyclopedic content must be verifiable 4041:Encyclopedic content must be verifiable 3904:), cited a recent opinion expressed by 3554:being listed on IMDB creates notability 2141:" has been dismissed by WP community.-- 1338:. Would be good to resolve it finally. 1323:Talk:Films considered the greatest ever 472:, the nominator and 23skidoo's comments 2441:should be dealt with accordingly. pr. 1383:) 19:07, Monday 18 August 2008 (UTC) 248:Cast and crew from released films only 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4306:challenged or likely to be challenged 2131:You won't find it in FA film articles 1903:You won't find it in FA film articles 1817:in favor of keeping the IMDb link in 1773:First off, thanks for the pointer to 711:, and generally treated accordingly. 7: 4143:that would be a start for getting a 3621:. No more that you are when you say 1831:of IMDb's reliability. I looked at 4304:: "All quotations and any material 3829:I posted the following comments on 3004:of mistakes on IMDb for that film. 2846:in context to what is being sourced 1336:specifically regarding user ratings 911:Knowledge talk:No original research 701:have nothing to do with reliability 4315:in relation to the subject at hand 2137:, a failed proposal showing that " 1775:"Where our information comes from" 1637:"Where our information comes from" 1525:"Where our information comes from" 986: 264:Knowledge:Film citation guidelines 24: 2862:context to what is being asserted 2375:Trivia sections should be avoided 1645:Hollywood Cinema, An Introduction 1020:the notability guidline for films 620:. WP is not a news source (e.g. 4154:WP:Biographies_of_living_persons 2930:the citation kindly provided by 2589:main sources of information are 2306:main sources of information are 486:Escape from New York (2009 film) 29: 1523:You may want to look at IMDb's 1231: 1124: 955: 630: 496:. Something interesting about 402: 3713:- exactly! It goes both ways. 1404:New discussion (November 2008) 1109:Offerings to the God of Speed, 375:IMDb use as a RS, and as an EL 262:, and widening the scope into 160:is listed as the director for 1: 4682:19:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 4643:17:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 4621:17:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 4598:17:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 4573:16:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 4546:16:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 4353:14:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 4286:20:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC) 4271:19:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC) 4240:18:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC) 4219:10:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC) 4190:08:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC) 4166:07:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC) 4111:06:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC) 3964:05:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC) 3931:05:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC) 3892:07:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC) 3801:11:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC) 3782:06:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC) 3759:05:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC) 3723:02:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC) 3694:18:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 3675:18:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 3644:12:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 3593:12:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 3575:03:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 3543:00:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 3523:23:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 3500:23:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 3456:23:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 3409:23:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 3384:23:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 3353:23:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 3324:23:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 3299:23:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 3272:22:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 3249:22:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 3234:22:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 3205:19:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 3163:22:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 3135:17:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 3105:01:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC) 3086:04:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 3062:22:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 3038:16:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 3014:11:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 2998:22:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 2979:10:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 2944:20:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2917:20:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2903:20:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2879:20:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2828:Giro, thank you for bringing 2822:20:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2790:19:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2764:22:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2744:19:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2709:18:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2687:18:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2661:18:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2627:18:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2605:18:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2572:18:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2544:17:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2522:17:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2499:17:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2468:17:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2420:17:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2387:16:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2354:16:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2321:16:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2295:13:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2255:16:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2233:12:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2151:07:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2093:06:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 2043:04:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 1998:04:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 1963:04:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 1923:03:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 1885:12:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC) 1853:10:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC) 1803:09:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC) 1761:03:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 1746:12:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC) 1710:11:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC) 1661:06:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC) 1607:06:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC) 1570:05:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC) 1543:05:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC) 1511:05:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC) 1481:05:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC) 1455:05:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC) 1424:11:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC) 1348:17:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 1309:16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 1297:15:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 654:Spider-Man film series#Future 553:, the contesting editor said 449:A Christmas Carol (2009 film) 4715:16:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 4697:16:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 4515:23:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 4466:15:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 4438:00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 4405:00:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 4382:00:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 1364:15:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 989: 691:Primary, secondary, tertiary 652:. It was recently added to 3896:In addition, another user, 3330:Clarification: IMDB is not 1398:18:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC) 1334:and the same more recently 1071:Oxford Book of Film History 482:Captain America (2009 film) 4733: 3305:Again, I am sure he meant 2449:, and that + the reminder 2242:comment on the contributor 1411:Template talk:Infobox Film 1114:The World's Fastest Indian 502:Fahrenheit 451 (2008 film) 494:Street Fighter (2008 film) 18:Knowledge talk:Citing IMDb 4177:PS. OK, I roughed it out 2211:Promoted way back in 2004 1943:The article, when it was 1768:(eliminating indentation) 1332:WikiProject Films Archive 1317:IMDB as a reliable source 1273:13:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1245:13:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1205:01:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1195:00:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1138:13:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 1111:after watching it on the 1099:07:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 1081:02:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 1060:00:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 1007:21:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 996:21:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 969:18:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 935:16:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 925:20:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 880:20:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 868:20:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 847:20:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 835:19:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 814:19:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 793:19:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 770:16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 686:21:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 644:02:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC) 624:), but a reference work. 612:I need nothing more than 605:19:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 588:19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 575:16:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 537:16:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 522:15:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 436:15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 416:13:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 365:15:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 346:15:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 328:Well, here's an example: 316:15:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 295:14:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 275:09:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 240:14:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 217:02:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 206:02:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 139:02:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 118:02:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 108:02:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 4630:As a medium for the WGA 2834:verifiability, not truth 981:The nutshell now states 3979:I am in agreement with 3744:use they improve Wiki. 2510:Encyclopædia Britannica 1730:lose your reliability. 1012: 618:reliable sources or not 490:Logan's Run (2010 film) 466:, the comment by Edison 4088:and the guideline for 2180:Promoted Dec. 16, 2006 896:original research page 506:The Hobbit (2009 film) 3884:I hope this helps. -- 2508:includes things like 1811:Knowledge:Citing IMDb 1283:Budget and box office 1147:Technical specs, etc. 42:of past discussions. 4067:In WP:RS it states " 2300:if that is the case 2263:New discussion below 2215:consensus can change 1370:IMDB salary sections 749:", WP material does. 4703:Released films only 4658:The Incredible Hulk 3702:Girolamo Savonarola 3667:Girolamo Savonarola 3127:Girolamo Savonarola 3020:courtesy line break 2909:Girolamo Savonarola 2887:Girolamo Savonarola 2814:Girolamo Savonarola 2808:assessment, not an 2176:The Boondock Saints 1833:Knowledge:FILMR#FAR 1649:Richard Maltby, Jr. 1439:Knowledge talk:IMDb 1390:Girolamo Savonarola 1202:Girolamo Savonarola 1078:Girolamo Savonarola 1004:Girolamo Savonarola 877:Girolamo Savonarola 844:Girolamo Savonarola 811:Girolamo Savonarola 699:. The terms above 656:that, according to 602:Girolamo Savonarola 585:Girolamo Savonarola 534:Girolamo Savonarola 362:Girolamo Savonarola 214:Girolamo Savonarola 115:Girolamo Savonarola 4668:was still showing 4492:The New York Times 4420:The New York Times 4139:it like a regular 3679:It is ironic that 3479:depends on context 2842:depends on context 2202:Promoted Feb. 2007 2198:Cannibal Holocaust 1909:list: for example 1215: 1013:One user's opinion 614:WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL 4662:forthcoming film 4544: 4017:. In countering, 2647:on-screen credits 2591:on-screen credits 2496: 2491: 2417: 2412: 2351: 2346: 2308:on-screen credits 2230: 2225: 2189:Promoted May 2007 1907:featured articles 1882: 1877: 1743: 1738: 1604: 1599: 1540: 1535: 1478: 1473: 1328:WP:RS/Noticeboard 1270: 1265: 1213: 1192: 865: 860: 832: 827: 790: 551:A Christmas Carol 313: 136: 131: 105: 100: 77: 76: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4724: 4679: 4586: 4543: 4541: 4536: 4503: 4456: 4426: 4395: 4372: 4341: 4261: 4209: 4101: 4033:verifiable facts 3948:Tertiary sources 3791: 3749: 3533: 3508: 3490: 3399: 3343: 3336:is user suported 3314: 3153: 3118:Another question 3076: 3052: 2869: 2780: 2754: 2494: 2489: 2485: 2415: 2410: 2406: 2349: 2344: 2340: 2283: 2228: 2223: 2219: 2031: 1988:gets anywhere.-- 1951: 1901:The claims like 1880: 1875: 1871: 1826: 1820: 1790:the partner link 1741: 1736: 1732: 1602: 1597: 1593: 1538: 1533: 1529: 1499: 1476: 1471: 1467: 1340:Chris Bainbridge 1268: 1263: 1259: 1241: 1190: 1134: 994: 991: 965: 922: 918: 863: 858: 854: 830: 825: 821: 789: 786: 783: 767: 763: 640: 412: 312: 309: 306: 134: 129: 125: 103: 98: 94: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4732: 4731: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4675: 4584: 4537: 4532: 4527: 4525:Arbitrary break 4501: 4454: 4424: 4393: 4370: 4361:Washington Post 4339: 4259: 4207: 4099: 4078:Washington Post 3938:Everything you 3827: 3789: 3747: 3531: 3506: 3488: 3397: 3341: 3312: 3253:You're welcome 3151: 3074: 3050: 3022: 2867: 2778: 2752: 2487: 2408: 2342: 2336:the trivia page 2281: 2265: 2221: 2029: 1949: 1873: 1841:Box Office Mojo 1829:this assessment 1824: 1818: 1734: 1707: 1595: 1531: 1497: 1492:(edit conflict) 1469: 1431:reliable source 1406: 1372: 1319: 1285: 1261: 1242: 1222:Technical Specs 1191:The Photoplayer 1149: 1135: 1015: 979: 966: 920: 916: 856: 823: 787: 779: 765: 761: 693: 641: 596:Which I've now 476:If you look at 444: 413: 377: 310: 302: 250: 168:Jonathan Frakes 149: 127: 96: 89: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4730: 4728: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4699: 4628: 4627: 4626: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4576: 4575: 4561:WP:Citing IMDb 4526: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4496: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4408: 4407: 4384: 4365:New York Times 4293: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4243: 4242: 4194: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4149:Metropolitan90 4129:WP:Citing IMDb 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4082:New York Times 4065: 4064: 4063: 4060:user supported 4056: 4044: 4031:, but also in 4027:Wiki deals in 4025: 4006: 4005: 4004: 3997: 3994: 3991: 3981:Metropolitan90 3971: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3952:WP:Citing IMDb 3940:Metropolitan90 3925:Metropolitan90 3920: 3919: 3886:Metropolitan90 3882: 3881: 3877: 3870: 3866: 3862: 3854: 3853: 3850: 3844: 3841: 3826: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3762: 3761: 3726: 3725: 3700:In regards to 3646: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3557: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3440: 3439: 3412: 3411: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3307:user supported 3259: 3258: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3176: 3175: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3138: 3137: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3089: 3088: 3065: 3064: 3041: 3040: 3021: 3018: 3017: 3016: 2982: 2981: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2727: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2690: 2689: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2575: 2574: 2559: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2502: 2501: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2324: 2323: 2274:, you found a 2264: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1857: 1856: 1815:this 15-0 vote 1771: 1770: 1764: 1763: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1699: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1459: 1458: 1405: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1371: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1318: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1284: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1230: 1227:David Spalding 1208: 1207: 1182: 1181: 1178: 1175: 1168: 1167: 1163: 1160: 1157: 1148: 1145: 1143: 1141: 1140: 1123: 1120:David Spalding 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1074: 1048: 1047: 1039: 1038: 1031: 1030: 1014: 1011: 1010: 1009: 978: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 954: 951:David Spalding 938: 937: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 872: 871: 870: 839: 838: 837: 806: 751: 750: 736: 714: 692: 689: 629: 626:David Spalding 610: 609: 608: 607: 591: 590: 580: 579: 578: 577: 540: 539: 474: 473: 467: 443: 440: 439: 438: 401: 398:David Spalding 394:External Links 376: 373: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 321: 320: 319: 318: 249: 246: 245: 244: 243: 242: 220: 219: 148: 147:Upcoming films 145: 144: 143: 142: 141: 88: 85: 75: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4729: 4716: 4712: 4708: 4704: 4700: 4698: 4694: 4690: 4685: 4684: 4683: 4680: 4678: 4671: 4670:Edward Norton 4667: 4666: 4665:State of Play 4660: 4659: 4654: 4653: 4647: 4646: 4645: 4644: 4641: 4640: 4635: 4632: 4622: 4618: 4614: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4599: 4595: 4591: 4587: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4574: 4570: 4566: 4562: 4558: 4554: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4542: 4540: 4535: 4524: 4516: 4512: 4508: 4504: 4497: 4493: 4488: 4483: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4467: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4458: 4457: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4439: 4435: 4431: 4427: 4421: 4417: 4412: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4406: 4403: 4402: 4401: 4397: 4396: 4389: 4385: 4383: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4374: 4373: 4366: 4362: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4350: 4346: 4342: 4336: 4332: 4327: 4325: 4320: 4316: 4310: 4307: 4303: 4298: 4287: 4283: 4279: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4263: 4262: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4228: 4227:WP:Notability 4223: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4211: 4210: 4203: 4199: 4192: 4191: 4187: 4183: 4179: 4167: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4150: 4146: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4130: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4112: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4103: 4102: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4079: 4075: 4071: 4066: 4061: 4057: 4054: 4050: 4045: 4042: 4038: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4023: 4019: 4018: 4016: 4012: 4007: 4002: 3998: 3995: 3992: 3989: 3988: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3965: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3946: 3941: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3929: 3926: 3918: 3914: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908:on his blog: 3907: 3903: 3899: 3898:72.244.200.30 3894: 3893: 3890: 3887: 3878: 3875: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3851: 3848: 3845: 3842: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3834: 3832: 3824: 3820: 3802: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3793: 3792: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3779: 3775: 3770: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3760: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3751: 3750: 3743: 3739: 3734: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3724: 3720: 3716: 3715:Soundvisions1 3712: 3707: 3703: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3691: 3687: 3682: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3672: 3668: 3664: 3663:Time Magazine 3660: 3656: 3652: 3647: 3645: 3641: 3637: 3636:Soundvisions1 3633: 3629: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3612: 3594: 3590: 3586: 3585:Soundvisions1 3582: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3561: 3558: 3555: 3551: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3535: 3534: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3520: 3516: 3512: 3509: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3492: 3491: 3484: 3480: 3476: 3471: 3467: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3441: 3436: 3435:Soundvisions1 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3410: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3401: 3400: 3393: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3381: 3377: 3376:Soundvisions1 3354: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3345: 3344: 3337: 3333: 3329: 3325: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3316: 3315: 3308: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3291:Soundvisions1 3287: 3282: 3278: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3269: 3265: 3260: 3256: 3255:Soundvisions1 3252: 3251: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3241:Soundvisions1 3237: 3236: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3206: 3202: 3198: 3197:Soundvisions1 3193: 3192: 3185: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3173: 3170: 3169: 3164: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3155: 3154: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3136: 3132: 3128: 3123: 3119: 3116: 3115: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3097:Soundvisions1 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3087: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3078: 3077: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3063: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3054: 3053: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3039: 3035: 3031: 3030:Soundvisions1 3027: 3024: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2924: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2871: 2870: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2804:, which is a 2803: 2798: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2782: 2781: 2773: 2765: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2756: 2755: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2671: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2648: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2592: 2586: 2582: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2560: 2557: 2553: 2552: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2500: 2497: 2492: 2490: 2481: 2480: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2421: 2418: 2413: 2411: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2369: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2355: 2352: 2347: 2345: 2337: 2333: 2332:Batman Begins 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2309: 2303: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2277: 2273: 2272: 2262: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2243: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2231: 2226: 2224: 2216: 2212: 2209: 2208: 2203: 2200: 2199: 2194: 2190: 2187: 2186: 2181: 2178: 2177: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1946: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1886: 1883: 1878: 1876: 1868: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1845:72.244.207.57 1842: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1823: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1795:72.244.207.57 1791: 1786: 1784: 1781:mentioned in 1780: 1776: 1769: 1766: 1765: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1744: 1739: 1737: 1711: 1708: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1697: 1696:Ed Fitzgerald 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1608: 1605: 1600: 1598: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1544: 1541: 1536: 1534: 1526: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1493: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1482: 1479: 1474: 1472: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1447:72.244.207.57 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1414: 1412: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1382: 1378: 1377:Lungsmore2323 1369: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1324: 1316: 1310: 1307: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1282: 1274: 1271: 1266: 1264: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1246: 1240: 1237: 1234: 1228: 1223: 1219: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1206: 1203: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1193: 1187: 1184:We should be 1179: 1176: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1164: 1161: 1158: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1146: 1144: 1139: 1133: 1130: 1127: 1121: 1116: 1115: 1110: 1106: 1105: 1100: 1097: 1096: 1093: 1088: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1079: 1075: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1058: 1057: 1054: 1044: 1041: 1040: 1036: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1021: 1008: 1005: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 993: 992: 984: 976: 970: 964: 961: 958: 952: 947: 942: 941: 940: 939: 936: 933: 929: 928: 927: 926: 923: 919: 912: 907: 902: 898: 897: 892: 881: 878: 873: 869: 866: 861: 859: 850: 849: 848: 845: 840: 836: 833: 828: 826: 817: 816: 815: 812: 807: 804: 800: 796: 795: 794: 791: 784: 782: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 768: 764: 757: 748: 744: 742: 737: 734: 730: 726: 724: 720: 715: 712: 710: 706: 705: 704: 702: 698: 690: 688: 687: 683: 679: 675: 671: 667: 663: 659: 655: 651: 646: 645: 639: 636: 633: 627: 623: 619: 615: 606: 603: 599: 595: 594: 593: 592: 589: 586: 582: 581: 576: 572: 568: 564: 560: 556: 552: 548: 544: 543: 542: 541: 538: 535: 531: 526: 525: 524: 523: 519: 515: 511: 507: 503: 499: 495: 491: 487: 483: 479: 471: 468: 465: 462: 461: 460: 458: 454: 450: 442:Release years 441: 437: 433: 429: 425: 420: 419: 418: 417: 411: 408: 405: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 374: 366: 363: 359: 358: 357: 356: 355: 354: 347: 343: 339: 335: 331: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 317: 314: 307: 305: 298: 297: 296: 292: 288: 284: 279: 278: 277: 276: 273: 269: 265: 261: 256: 247: 241: 237: 233: 229: 224: 223: 222: 221: 218: 215: 210: 209: 208: 207: 203: 199: 195: 191: 190: 185: 184: 177: 175: 174: 169: 165: 164: 159: 155: 146: 140: 137: 132: 130: 121: 120: 119: 116: 112: 111: 110: 109: 106: 101: 99: 86: 84: 82: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4702: 4676: 4663: 4656: 4652:Leatherheads 4650: 4638: 4629: 4559:the current 4556: 4552: 4538: 4533: 4528: 4491: 4487:reliability. 4485: 4461: 4459: 4452: 4419: 4415: 4400: 4398: 4391: 4387: 4377: 4375: 4368: 4328: 4323: 4314: 4311: 4305: 4294: 4266: 4264: 4257: 4214: 4212: 4205: 4193: 4176: 4145:WP:Consensus 4136: 4132: 4106: 4104: 4097: 4073: 4068: 4059: 4052: 4040: 4021: 3970: 3921: 3913: 3895: 3883: 3873: 3855: 3835: 3828: 3796: 3794: 3787: 3754: 3752: 3745: 3741: 3737: 3732: 3705: 3680: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3631: 3627: 3622: 3618: 3553: 3549: 3538: 3536: 3529: 3510: 3495: 3493: 3486: 3478: 3473: 3404: 3402: 3395: 3391: 3373: 3348: 3346: 3339: 3335: 3332:user created 3331: 3319: 3317: 3310: 3306: 3285: 3280: 3183: 3171: 3158: 3156: 3149: 3121: 3117: 3081: 3079: 3072: 3057: 3055: 3048: 3025: 2983: 2926: 2922: 2874: 2872: 2865: 2861: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2833: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2797:Jayson Blair 2785: 2783: 2776: 2759: 2757: 2750: 2730: 2722: 2674: 2646: 2590: 2580: 2527: 2495:(Contact me) 2486: 2453:is all what 2447:WP:SECONDARY 2416:(Contact me) 2407: 2374: 2370: 2350:(Contact me) 2341: 2331: 2307: 2301: 2275: 2269: 2266: 2229:(Contact me) 2220: 2205: 2196: 2183: 2174: 2171: 2138: 2130: 1902: 1881:(Contact me) 1872: 1822:Infobox Film 1787: 1778: 1772: 1767: 1742:(Contact me) 1733: 1728: 1694: 1693: 1640: 1632: 1603:(Contact me) 1594: 1539:(Contact me) 1530: 1491: 1477:(Contact me) 1468: 1408: 1407: 1373: 1320: 1286: 1269:(Contact me) 1260: 1221: 1217: 1186:discouraging 1185: 1183: 1169: 1150: 1142: 1112: 1108: 1090: 1086: 1070: 1066: 1051: 1049: 1042: 1034: 1026: 1016: 987: 982: 980: 914: 905: 900: 894: 890: 889:(outdent ED} 888: 864:(Contact me) 855: 831:(Contact me) 822: 802: 798: 780: 759: 755: 752: 738: 716: 708: 707: 700: 696: 694: 669: 657: 650:Spider-Man 4 649: 647: 621: 611: 550: 497: 475: 452: 445: 393: 389: 381: 378: 303: 254: 251: 188: 181: 178: 172: 163:Spider-Man 4 162: 153: 150: 135:(Contact me) 126: 104:(Contact me) 95: 90: 78: 60: 43: 37: 4141:WP:PROPOSAL 3906:Roger Ebert 3472:it states " 3122:convenience 2928:discussion. 2806:credibility 498:Logan's Run 173:Castlevania 36:This is an 4297:notability 4029:notability 3711:Ecoleetage 3686:Ecoleetage 3657:, I would 3006:GDallimore 2986:GDallimore 2971:GDallimore 2932:GDallimore 2736:GDallimore 2679:GDallimore 2619:GDallimore 2585:GDallimore 2564:GDallimore 2207:Casablanca 1911:300 (film) 1416:GDallimore 756:unreliable 547:WP:CRYSTAL 4639:Gimmetrow 4633:and MPAA 4302:WP:BURDEN 4230:it out.-- 4094:consensus 2583:? Please 2368:WP:TRIVIA 1435:verifying 1289:Dwaipayan 1214:I concur, 803:secondary 447:would be 268:Viriditas 158:Sam Raimi 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 4455:Schmidt, 4394:Schmidt, 4371:Schmidt, 4260:Schmidt, 4208:Schmidt, 4100:Schmidt, 3790:Schmidt, 3748:Schmidt, 3532:Schmidt, 3507:Schmidt, 3489:Schmidt, 3398:Schmidt, 3392:Film XYZ 3342:Schmidt, 3313:Schmidt, 3152:Schmidt, 3075:Schmidt, 3051:Schmidt, 2934:above.-- 2868:Schmidt, 2810:accuracy 2802:reliable 2779:Schmidt, 2753:Schmidt, 2731:specific 2723:anything 2488:BIGNOLE 2458:facts.-- 2455:WP:CIMDB 2409:BIGNOLE 2343:BIGNOLE 2222:BIGNOLE 2135:WP:CIMDB 1945:promoted 1874:BIGNOLE 1735:BIGNOLE 1596:BIGNOLE 1532:BIGNOLE 1470:BIGNOLE 1262:BIGNOLE 990:Jreferee 977:Nutshell 917:Birgitte 857:BIGNOLE 824:BIGNOLE 762:Birgitte 697:reliable 255:released 183:Valkyrie 128:BIGNOLE 97:BIGNOLE 87:What is? 4611:IMDb.-- 4594:contrib 4553:Support 4511:contrib 4434:contrib 4349:contrib 4335:WP:TLDR 4324:However 4133:support 4070:context 3874:Variety 3617:asked: 3475:context 3026:Comment 2675:IN IMDB 2443:WP:PSTS 2291:contrib 2039:contrib 1959:contrib 1783:History 1507:contrib 1306:Cop 663 1046:source. 932:Bearian 781:Arcayne 682:contrib 670:Variety 658:Variety 622:Variety 571:contrib 518:contrib 453:Variety 432:contrib 382:Trivia 342:contrib 304:Arcayne 291:contrib 236:contrib 202:contrib 189:Rubicon 39:archive 4707:Termer 4689:Termer 4613:Termer 4565:Termer 4557:Oppose 4539:Marlin 4534:Orange 4337:. :) — 4331:WP:SPS 4278:Termer 4232:Termer 4182:Termer 4158:Termer 4137:oppose 4080:, the 4049:WP:AGF 4020:It is 4001:WP:SPS 3985:Termer 3956:Termer 3928:(talk) 3889:(talk) 3831:WP:RSN 3823:WP:RSN 3774:Termer 3615:Termer 3567:Termer 3515:Termer 3448:Termer 3334:, but 3279:said: 3277:Termer 3264:Termer 3226:Termer 3187:there. 2990:Termer 2936:Termer 2895:Termer 2836:. And 2701:Termer 2653:Termer 2597:Termer 2536:Termer 2514:Termer 2460:Termer 2379:Termer 2313:Termer 2247:Termer 2193:policy 2143:Termer 2085:Termer 1990:Termer 1915:Termer 1753:Termer 1653:Termer 1562:Termer 1356:Nazamo 733:WP:NOR 723:WP:NOR 598:raised 492:, and 390:there? 386:copied 4677:Steve 4198:WP:RS 4090:WP:RS 4015:WP:RS 3945:WP:RS 3865:them. 3821:From 3769:WP:RS 3681:we’re 3659:never 3483:WP:RS 3470:WP:RS 3438:IMDb? 3172:reply 2858:WP:RS 2838:WP:RS 2532:WP:OR 1867:WP:RS 729:WP:RS 719:WP:RS 559:WP:NF 530:WP:NF 16:< 4711:talk 4693:talk 4617:talk 4590:talk 4585:Erik 4569:talk 4507:talk 4502:Erik 4482:WP:V 4480:See 4430:talk 4425:Erik 4416:part 4345:talk 4340:Erik 4319:WP:V 4282:talk 4254:THIS 4250:THIS 4236:talk 4202:WP:V 4200:and 4186:talk 4162:talk 4086:WP:V 4037:WP:V 4013:and 4011:WP:V 3983:and 3960:talk 3902:talk 3778:talk 3742:that 3719:talk 3690:talk 3671:talk 3640:talk 3632:what 3589:talk 3581:Time 3571:talk 3550:even 3519:talk 3452:talk 3380:talk 3295:talk 3286:some 3268:talk 3245:talk 3230:talk 3201:talk 3131:talk 3101:talk 3034:talk 3010:Talk 2994:talk 2975:Talk 2940:talk 2913:talk 2899:talk 2856:and 2854:WP:V 2830:WP:V 2818:talk 2740:Talk 2705:talk 2683:Talk 2657:talk 2623:Talk 2601:talk 2593:etc. 2568:Talk 2540:talk 2518:talk 2464:talk 2383:talk 2373:and 2317:talk 2287:talk 2282:Erik 2276:Time 2251:talk 2147:talk 2089:talk 2081:Time 2035:talk 2030:Erik 1994:talk 1955:talk 1950:Erik 1919:talk 1849:talk 1837:this 1827:and 1799:talk 1757:talk 1657:talk 1566:talk 1503:talk 1498:Erik 1451:talk 1443:this 1433:for 1420:Talk 1394:talk 1381:talk 1360:talk 1344:talk 1293:talk 906:only 747:WP:V 741:WP:V 731:and 721:and 703:. 684:) - 678:talk 674:Erik 666:2009 662:edit 600:... 573:) - 567:talk 563:Erik 555:this 520:) - 514:talk 510:Erik 504:and 457:here 434:) - 428:talk 424:Erik 396:). 344:) - 338:talk 334:Erik 293:) - 287:talk 283:Erik 272:Talk 238:) - 232:talk 228:Erik 204:) - 198:talk 194:Erik 170:for 154:will 4705:.-- 4555:or 4363:or 4135:or 4022:not 3655:300 3504:RE: 3433:RE: 2893:.-- 2864:. 2860:in 2699:.-- 2526:PS. 2366:pr 2271:300 2083:.-- 1839:at 1785:. 1647:By 1639:... 1218:not 1087:and 532:). 266:. — 4713:) 4695:) 4655:, 4619:) 4596:) 4592:• 4571:) 4513:) 4509:• 4484:: 4436:) 4432:• 4351:) 4347:• 4284:) 4238:) 4204:. 4188:) 4164:) 4096:. 4055:". 4043:". 3962:) 3923:-- 3780:) 3733:is 3721:) 3692:) 3673:) 3651:is 3642:) 3628:is 3613:← 3591:) 3573:) 3521:) 3454:) 3382:) 3297:) 3270:) 3247:) 3232:) 3203:) 3184:in 3133:) 3103:) 3036:) 3012:) 2996:) 2977:) 2942:) 2915:) 2901:) 2850:IS 2820:) 2742:) 2707:) 2685:) 2659:) 2651:-- 2625:) 2603:) 2595:-- 2570:) 2542:) 2520:) 2466:) 2385:) 2319:) 2293:) 2289:• 2253:) 2204:; 2182:; 2149:) 2091:) 2041:) 2037:• 1996:) 1961:) 1957:• 1921:) 1851:) 1825:}} 1819:{{ 1805:. 1801:) 1759:) 1703:/ 1659:) 1568:) 1509:) 1505:• 1453:) 1422:) 1396:) 1362:) 1346:) 1295:) 1243:) 1136:) 1095:13 1092:Sr 1056:13 1053:Sr 967:) 946:OR 921:SB 913:-- 788:() 766:SB 680:• 642:) 569:• 516:• 488:, 484:, 430:• 414:) 340:• 311:() 289:• 270:| 234:• 200:• 176:. 83:. 4709:( 4691:( 4615:( 4588:( 4567:( 4505:( 4428:( 4343:( 4280:( 4234:( 4184:( 4160:( 4003:. 3958:( 3900:( 3776:( 3717:( 3688:( 3669:( 3638:( 3587:( 3569:( 3517:( 3450:( 3378:( 3293:( 3266:( 3243:( 3228:( 3199:( 3129:( 3099:( 3032:( 3008:( 2992:( 2973:( 2938:( 2911:( 2897:( 2816:( 2738:( 2703:( 2681:( 2655:( 2621:( 2599:( 2566:( 2538:( 2516:( 2462:( 2381:( 2315:( 2285:( 2249:( 2145:( 2087:( 2033:( 1992:( 1953:( 1917:( 1855:. 1847:( 1797:( 1755:( 1705:c 1701:t 1655:( 1564:( 1501:( 1457:. 1449:( 1418:( 1392:( 1379:( 1358:( 1342:( 1291:( 1239:✍ 1236:✉ 1233:☎ 1229:( 1132:✍ 1129:✉ 1126:☎ 1122:( 963:✍ 960:✉ 957:☎ 953:( 725:, 676:( 638:✍ 635:✉ 632:☎ 628:( 565:( 512:( 426:( 410:✍ 407:✉ 404:☎ 400:( 336:( 285:( 281:— 230:( 196:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Citing IMDb/Archive 1 - Knowledge

Index