316:
subsequent editors try to find supporting sources before deleting these edits. An bold editor that can not use IMDB as a reliable source could presumably still use it as a "working draft" or even lazily cut and paste from IMDB into a
Knowledge article. I am not suggesting that something like that should be done. In fact, I am horrified by the maintenance nightmare that something like that would cause. If most of the information "imported" from IMDB is probably true but not (yet) verified, should we delete all of it? Should we wait for volunteers to eventually find sources? What if it turns out that IMDB volunteers are doing a better job than ours? Wouldn't it be better to just add an external link (or something like it) to well maintained IMDB pages?
508:
to pay attention to these fine points. Your response helps me understand the
Knowledge process better and how it can be applied. I am still concerned about relatively new users that may cut and paste from IMDB. Their edit may be a copyright violation or be covered under "fair use". Either way if they are too lazy to reference their IMDB (or other tertiary) source - how can subsequent Knowledge editors who did not happen to read (and remember) the source know that a copyright violation happened that can be used to revert such edits?
648:. As Kingsif the awards subpage is not user editable. We seem to have moved to a stage where some editors insist that all awards should be fully referenced (they are probably right, but it is a lot of effort considering) more editors are objecting to the indiscriminate inclusion of non-notable awards anyway and trying to limit the awards lists and tables to more significant awards, awards that actually have a Knowledge page for example. (Meanwhile other editors are adding
84:...a list of good, approved movie information sources, curated sites, for people to use instead of IMDB? Or better, reference a tool that will, when supplied with the IMBD URL, pull up an acceptable alternative source? As long as IMBD is as thorough and easy to use and extract as it is, and as long as editors are unfamiliar with the acceptable alternatives, its use will continue to be pervasive. Sign me, "Not an IMDB fan as source, but understand why..."
31:
334:- that entirely depends on the film. IMDb is intended to be a database of production details, with cast and crew usually sourced to the film itself (which is what Knowledge can acceptably do) and box office sourced to Box Office Mojo (which Knowledge often uses). If IMDb stuck exclusively to its aim, it would be a tertiary source like Knowledge itself, so there is no reason to use it when we can use the same sources it does.
628:
supporting source to primary sources, should be fine for awards. These parts of IMDb are not user-editable, and we already have the policy that only awards with a
Knowledge article are considered notable and so there isn't the chance of falling into INDISCRIMINATE by allowing it. (I don't know how many people follow this page, so I might post at ELIMDB and WT:FILM in a few days.)
194:. Unless I'm missing something (a not uncommon experience), it looks like the editor just enters information in that template. It doesn't go out to some reliable source and fill the information for you. But since I'm not supposed to use data from IMDB, what sources are okay to use? I did take a look at
475:
Aren't cast changes taking a long time to update a good thing? Especially if there is some sort of approval with the studios? New movies no longer seems open slather, which makes me wonder if the citing IMDB policy is based on previous versions of IMDB - they now require you to be associated with the
348:
Any cast and crew for films which have not yet been released are user-generated. I am beguiled by how difficult it is to submit corrections to the cast list of films released years ago - any changes to films already out go through an editorial check - and yet anyone can add anything to a film not yet
507:
to my hypothetical scenario. I admit that I had not thought about looking at the IMDB copyright terms or of using them to prevent the maintenance nightmare that I was concerned about. I try not to violate copyright in my own work (regardless of whether it is on
Knowledge or not) so I seldom need
99:
I couldn't agree more. What is considered to be a
Knowledge-acceptable source for movie cast and crew information? I've done quite a bit of reference work on articles the past few weeks (mostly cleaning up dead links) and am amazed at what kind of crap is used as sources in some articles. I'm sure
280:
Knowledge guidelines state that a film/movie is an acceptable primary source for basic facts that can be gleaned by watching the film, e.g. the names of the characters appearing in the story. Presumably this includes the credits at the end of the film. So for a statement about who appeared in the
212:
If you're talking about his specific role in the Scooby-Doo cartoon, you can remove the stuff that is supported by IMDb and keep just the news article prior to that, and then combine that paragraph with The
Simpsons episode. But if you find out from watching the actual episode that he is visibly
659:
This essay does already include awards on the list of disputed uses but it might be helpful to explain that IMDB awards references should not be removed but should instead be replaced with better references. (I expect
Kingsif knows all this already, I'm really only explaining it for anyone else
104:
article and one was placed on a paragraph that mentions some of his work in
Hollywood, all of which is listed at IMDB. Are editors expected to go out and find newspaper or magazine articles somewhere (for example) that specifically mention all of his credits and source them one by one? Is there
627:
This essay doesn't cover the awards pages, which I became aware of when someone removed it as a source from an article I've been maintaining (which doesn't totally need it) - I think that citing IMDb, perhaps with the recommendation that it shouldn't be the first choice or should be used as a
315:
Based on my experience IMDB information about movies and actors often (not always) includes details that are more accurate and/or more comprehensive than the corresponding
Knowledge article. Knowledge policy allows bold editors to add unsourced information and indicates an expectation that
299:
is better than ours. Looking at movies it is an immense amount of work, involving people searching for castings, based on IMDB. It is obvious that this is occurring because the editors starts off with one magazine, and then work through other magazines, until they get all of IMDB cast.
572:
Overall, I think we should get the
Foundation to contact the main non IMDB sources we use and confirm what sources they use, and liaise with IMDB and confirm their process, and the accuracy and source of data, and (if the lawyers think it wise) that Knowledge is not violating copyright
185:
is a sci-fi author who also worked as a writer, consultant and voice-actor in Hollywood in both TV and film. I have no idea if he is listed in the closing credits for the TV and film work he did over the last 60 years. Until now, I wasn't aware of the existence of
480:, which then are checked by paid staff who can also contact Studios , production companies, cast and crew via IMDBpro. It would be nice to see the references, but if not then it's the same as the New York Times - we just trust their fact checking.
556:
There is the earwig copyvio tool that (used correctly) can help detect copyvio. It compares the raw text of articles to, well, the internet and any book sources digitally available. Donāt worry yourself, none of your things are novel to Knowledge.
119:
I agree with more reliable. See my comments below. I also think it's a lot of work, especially if newspapers are using IMDB or the same sources that IMDB uses. The lack of sources for crew in many info boxes makes me wonder if IMDB is being used.
643:
If I recall correctly Knowledge went from no one bothering to include any references for awards, to editors thinking awards were uncontroversial and that a reference to the IMDB awards subpage was more than enough to simply confirm them
259:
380:- You say this like we don't already do it. Because, we do. Look at just about any movie article, go to the "External links" section. IMDb link is there. There are two templates dedicated to generating such links, in fact:
365:
also do. Since Knowledge allows CinemaScore - a film rating on letter grade scale based on responses of moviegoers surveyed when leaving theaters = it would also seem reasonable to allow IMDb user scores in a similar
356:
I would advocate for allowing IMDb to be cited for the Editorials, as it does have an about section regarding the staff it keeps. This includes IMDb lists (not user lists) and a few summary articles, similar to what
151:
the actual film and its closing credits, assuming the credit actually shows up and is matched to a named role. If it only lists the actor's name, it's no good, same with just "seeing" the person on-screen.
85:
100:
that IMDB has its problems, but I'd venture to guess that it's a heck of a lot more reliable than many of the sources used in articles out here. I'm working now on 'citation needed' tags in the
250:
Citing a movie cast and crew from closing titles - This seems error prone. If however, even in the interim, IMDB is uncredited then it is an issue. For instance, the upcoming January 2022
349:
out without any checks. Similarly, all goofs, quotes, and trivia, are user-generated and fairly easy to get on. Using IMDb to source this information would be treated the same as
143:
although some of these listed are not reliable and are there only to serve as a starting point for further research. The worst-case but most likely scenario is to go primary and
457:
Cast and Crew Reliability - "When I have to get credits I use IMDbPro." Spike Lee does sound pretty good even for a "Free Trial!" pageĀ :-); But I couldn't find any complaints.
432:
296:
332:
IMDB information about movies and actors often (not always) includes details that are more accurate and/or more comprehensive than the corresponding Knowledge article
428:
436:
410:. You'll see from the response above that it looks like you kind of misunderstand Knowledge editing, the make-up of IMDb, and this policy, quite a bit.
553:
It is impossible to argue that text, especially 100% of a source, could be fair use, because it is always possible to take the meaning and rephrase it.
477:
661:
195:
140:
64:
59:
139:, yes, the best would be newspaper articles that discuss the actor's role individually on each film. I would try looking at the lists in
89:
435:
and are all owned by Amazon. Update suggestions can be created by contributors, but are then vetted before update, and the pages
198:, but didn't have any luck there finding Ellison in the 5 or 6 sources that I tried (btw, a couple of those links were dead). --
236:
221:. I found some other articles that confirm he was portraying himself. I don't think it matters for how many specific episodes.
167:
105:
another acceptable movie- and TV-related site somewhere that has the same information that's relatively easy to work with? --
258:. When the is updated when more reliable sources are available, I highly suspect that those sources uses IMDB or the same
388:, depending on film or performer. Because we also add IMDb external links to actors, writers, etc. Very standard practice.
47:
38:
17:
345:
the user-generated content. These are the only ways in which IMDb can differ from Knowledge, let alone be better.
665:
321:
203:
189:
146:
110:
378:
Wouldn't it be better to just add an external link (or something like it) to well maintained IMDB pages?
216:
385:
230:
161:
600:
578:
537:
523:
485:
462:
448:
424:
381:
305:
267:
125:
669:
637:
633:
582:
566:
562:
541:
527:
504:
489:
466:
452:
419:
415:
407:
401:
325:
317:
309:
290:
271:
242:
207:
199:
173:
136:
129:
114:
106:
93:
649:
653:
358:
286:
222:
182:
178:
153:
101:
574:
533:
519:
481:
458:
444:
301:
263:
121:
629:
558:
498:
472:
440:
411:
350:
645:
254:
film has a cast but no references - no previews have occoured and no cast is on
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
362:
282:
394:- the assertion that this should be possible to start an article makes me
251:
427:
has IMDB (cast, crew) as disputed - Yet Box Office Mojo is considered
515:
255:
431:, however the Amazon companies IMDB Pro, IMDB, Boxoffice MOJO
25:
372:
Should we wait for volunteers to eventually find sources?
532:
Agree totally about the reference- see my comment above
518:. Do people think we should check with the Foundation?
392:
lazily cut and paste from IMDB into a Knowledge article
353:
because IMDb does not require a source to be added.
550:You need to sign your comments for pings to work.
503:Thank you for pointing out the applicability of
601:"IMDbPro Official Site | Start Your Free Trial"
8:
281:movie in which role, just cite the movie.
213:credited as voicing himself, you can use
656:with information about relevant awards.)
650:hidden tables full or irrelevant awards
592:
391:
377:
371:
331:
86:2601:246:CA80:3CB5:5CFF:D1BD:3C3E:9433
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
443:said is probably trivia and goofsĀ :-)
341:the more recent IMDb Editorials, and
7:
196:Knowledge:WikiProject Film/Resources
141:Knowledge:WikiProject Film/Resources
337:Then there are two other elements:
245:updated 01:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
24:
654:improving the text of the article
29:
471:Cast Change take a long time -
398:concerned about your editing.
326:10:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
1:
310:07:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
181:... Thanks for the feedback.
94:14:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
583:03:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
542:03:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
528:03:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
490:03:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
467:03:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
453:03:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
272:03:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
130:03:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
567:14:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
420:16:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
291:13:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
686:
670:16:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
243:01:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
208:01:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
174:23:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
115:23:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
18:Knowledge talk:Citing IMDb
514:the copyright terms are
638:13:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
437:watched by the industry
260:press kit used by IMDB
42:of past discussions.
439:. The exception as
386:Template:IMDb title
382:Template:IMDb name
227:
158:
478:submit references
433:share information
256:the official site
223:
154:
80:Why not add, here
77:
76:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
677:
615:
614:
612:
611:
597:
502:
405:
239:
233:
226:
220:
193:
170:
164:
157:
150:
73:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
685:
684:
680:
679:
678:
676:
675:
674:
625:
620:
619:
618:
609:
607:
599:
598:
594:
496:
399:
359:Rotten Tomatoes
237:
231:
224:
214:
187:
168:
162:
155:
144:
82:
69:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
683:
681:
673:
672:
662:109.76.139.151
657:
624:
621:
617:
616:
591:
590:
586:
570:
569:
554:
551:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
493:
492:
469:
455:
422:
389:
375:
369:
368:
367:
354:
346:
313:
312:
293:
277:
276:
275:
274:
248:
247:
246:
183:Harlan Ellison
134:
133:
132:
102:Harlan Ellison
81:
78:
75:
74:
67:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
682:
671:
667:
663:
660:reading.) --
658:
655:
651:
647:
642:
641:
640:
639:
635:
631:
622:
606:
602:
596:
593:
589:
585:
584:
580:
576:
568:
564:
560:
555:
552:
549:
543:
539:
535:
531:
530:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
506:
500:
491:
487:
483:
479:
474:
470:
468:
464:
460:
456:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
423:
421:
417:
413:
409:
403:
397:
393:
390:
387:
383:
379:
376:
373:
370:
364:
360:
355:
352:
347:
344:
340:
336:
335:
333:
330:
329:
328:
327:
323:
319:
311:
307:
303:
298:
294:
292:
288:
284:
279:
278:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
244:
240:
234:
228:
218:
211:
210:
209:
205:
201:
197:
191:
190:cite AV media
184:
180:
177:
176:
175:
171:
165:
159:
148:
147:cite AV media
142:
138:
135:
131:
127:
123:
118:
117:
116:
112:
108:
103:
98:
97:
96:
95:
91:
87:
79:
72:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
626:
608:. Retrieved
605:pro.imdb.com
604:
595:
587:
571:
494:
406:Please read
402:Annette Maon
395:
342:
338:
318:Annette Maon
314:
217:cite episode
200:sanfranman59
137:sanfranman59
107:sanfranman59
83:
70:
43:
37:
652:instead of
575:Wakelamp db
534:Wakelamp db
520:Wakelamp db
482:Wakelamp db
459:Wakelamp db
445:Wakelamp db
425:Citing IMDB
302:Wakelamp db
264:Wakelamp db
122:Wakelamp db
36:This is an
623:Add awards
610:2021-11-04
588:References
505:WP:COPYVIO
408:WP:COPYVIO
363:Letterboxd
225:AngusWOOF
179:AngusWOOF
156:AngusWOOF
71:ArchiveĀ 3
65:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 1
476:film OR
429:reliable
630:Kingsif
559:Kingsif
499:Kingsif
473:Kingsif
441:Kingsif
412:Kingsif
297:process
252:The_355
39:archive
374:- Yes.
295:Their
351:WP:OR
283:Mhkay
238:sniff
169:sniff
16:<
666:talk
646:WP:V
634:talk
579:talk
563:talk
538:talk
524:talk
516:here
486:talk
463:talk
449:talk
416:talk
396:very
384:and
366:way.
361:and
322:talk
306:talk
287:talk
268:talk
232:bark
204:talk
163:bark
126:talk
111:talk
90:talk
668:)
636:)
603:.
581:)
565:)
540:)
526:)
488:)
465:)
451:)
418:)
343:2.
339:1.
324:)
308:)
289:)
270:)
262:.
241:)
235:ā¢
219:}}
215:{{
206:)
192:}}
188:{{
172:)
166:ā¢
149:}}
145:{{
128:)
113:)
92:)
664:(
632:(
613:.
577:(
561:(
536:(
522:(
501::
497:@
495:(
484:(
461:(
447:(
414:(
404::
400:@
320:(
304:(
285:(
266:(
229:(
202:(
160:(
124:(
109:(
88:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.