From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Internet Movie Database)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Any IMDB editors here?[edit]

Seeking an active authenticated IMDB editor. Ping me. An abuse investigation and cleanup on Wikipedia turned up evidence of a likely need for investigation and cleanup on IMDB as well. Alsee (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind. IMDB has been notified. They have investigated and taken down multiple listings. Alsee (talk) 08:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
IMDB took down some of the listings, but they didn't get all of them. I'm still looking for an IMDB editor to take our info to there to get additional listings considered for deletion. Alsee (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 March 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move per the unanimous consensus (non-admin closure). SSTflyer 14:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Internet Movie DatabaseIMDb – I'm kind of shocked that the full name is still used when the initialism is by far the most commonly used name. Unreal7 (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support – per WP:COMMONNAME. BBC, for example, is not at British Broadcasting Corporation. sst✈ 05:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - per WP:COMMONNAME. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm OK with either title, but "IMDb" is probably the more common name. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support since it seems to meet WP:CRITERIA. I admit I thought it was a bad request at first, but looking at the evidence, it seems fair. "IMDb" is indeed recognizable among casual moviegoers, who in turn are likely to look for it. It is precise already and cannot be confused with anything else (except for in-memory database, heh). It's concise as well. Not sure if the consistency criterion really applies since other movie websites are not really abbreviated ("RT" for Rotten Tomatoes isn't a thing). Not to mention that the website uses "IMDb" on its home page with no full name in sight. I would not necessarily compare it to BBC, though. BBC is so commonplace that nobody even bothers to write out what it means. For IMDb, it does seem that articles like this do flesh it out. But that article says "IMDb" in the headline, so that makes the initialized name more commonplace. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - although it seems fairly pointless because anyone searching Wikipedia for "IMDb" will quickly find the page for "Internet Movie Database". I don't see why the OP should be "shocked" to find the full name still in use. But the initialism is by far the most common way of describing the IMDb -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and speedy close - this seems like a no-brainer. InsertCleverPhraseHere 00:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, sorry, another snow close. Please get acquainted with Wikipedia's article titling policy and read a bunch of move debates before submitting more suggestions. — JFG talk 22:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

IMDbIMDB You should not copy stylizations per MOS:TM. (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Except see MOS:CAPSACRS which states "Some acronyms (mostly trademarks like Yahoo! and Taser) conventionally or officially use a mixture of capitals and lower-case letters, even non-letters; for any given example, use the spelling found in the majority of reliable, independent sources (e.g., LaTeX, M&Ms, 3M, and InBev)." Floatjon (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Floatjon Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Floatjon. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 19:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per CAPSACRS; it's not a marketing stylization; the lowercase b in Db is lowercase because it's part of one-word contraction–truncation abbreviation (of "Database", which is not "Data Base"), and this is common practice for the word "database" when used in acronyms (though not universal; see, e.g., RDBMS). Many mixed-case partial acronyms arise this way (e.g. SoHo), and even pure acronyms can retain simple stylization if the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that refer to them do so (e.g. OSGi).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dredging up my previous request...[edit]

OK, I'll template this now with

-- from Archive 4, minus a few sections no longer relevant, and with some improvements to the reflist and other updates to make the requests more concrete:

As a former employee/co-founder, I probably shouldn't make these edits, but let me point out a few problems with this article that someone else may care to fix:

  • History before website: Last sentence makes it sound like IMDb was desperately looking for a buyer, but in fact Amazon approached them. In fact, the way the current last sentence is written I find highly objectionable and a complete misstatement of history. True, Amazon's purchase allowed IMDb to go to the next level, but it's not something IMDb was actively seeking. See various references below.
  • [Second request already acted on]
  • Arguably, the last 'graf of "History before website" should become the second graf of "on the web" to maintain chronology. The last sentence of the graf duplicates some of the material in the section, particularly the parts I'm disputing in my first bullet above. Admittedly, some of the allegations (particularly the background one marked cn) are still unsourced.

I have some other quibbles, but I probably can't discuss them in public without violating confidences.

Some references for early history from my (paper) archives; these should answer several of the "when?" and "citation needed" tags, and hopefully get rid of that whole "Unreferenced section" box. All italics and brackets in originals, as well as all strange capitalizations of IMDb.

  • (history before website / On the web) "The site developed as part of a USENET discussion thread in 1989 and grew to the point where it became a sponsored (and therefore potentially profit-making) site in 1996." -- [1]
  • Sites in various locations (cn at end of current "On the web" first graf): "Our experience with the site in South Korea was very negative. The best sites are the original Cardiff host ... and the one at the University of Mississippi ..." [2] [the problems were with response time and timeliness of updates]
  • (history before website ref) "...having originated in August of 1990 in the rec.arts.movies newsgroup... The IMDB moved to an FTP site in 1991. Then in July of 1993, the IMDB moved again, to the Web..." [3]
  • (Second cite for On the web cn as well as my disputed point in the intro): "The Web traffic soon overwhelmed Cardiff's server capacity, and Needham put out calls for more universities to host. He ended up with sites in Mississippi, Germany, Italy, Australia, South Africa, Korea, Japan and Iceland. ... In January 1996, Needham launched as a commercial Web site. ... By January 1998, IMDB was becoming one of the most popular Web sites in the world... Next thing Needham knew, he was contacted by founder Jeff Bezos (one year before Bezos was named Time magazine's Man of the Year). ... The two men talked about potential partnerships and decided that acquisition would be the best route. 'Amazon was looking for someone to help build out the video store. And we were a scrappy little start-up looking to grow bigger,' Needham says." [4]
  • (Date, additional detail -- maybe too much detail) "In February 1996, the hobby turned into a business. IMDb sold its first banner ad for $25,000 to Digital Equipment Corp., which was testing software that predicted which movies people would like based on what they had seen -- similar to what Amazon does now." [5]
  • (On the Amazon acquisition, Needham): "We had been approached before, but we were not interested. We had a very clear direction that we wanted to take the company, and we were profitable, so we didn't necessarily need to be in that position where we needed to raise capital. [Amazon founder] Jeff Bezos explained how Amazon was moving from, at the time -- don't forget, this was 12 years ago -- from selling just books into music and then into VHS tapes and these shiny new things called DVDs. He could see that it would be beneficial for Amazon to partner with a movie-related site, and how IMDb data could be used in the Amazon Video Store." [6]
  • (Again, on the buyout) "By 1998, the database had established itself as a favorite on the early Internet, and Mr. Needham was amused to receive a number of buyout approaches. One was an invitation to a London hotel in January to meet with Jeffrey P. Bezos, the founder of Amazon. Mr. Bezos told Mr. Needham that he thought the movie database could help Amazon sell VHS cassettes and DVD's -- Mr. Needham points out that it was in that order in those days -- but also recognized that the site would need to be run separately to maintain its personality." [7]

I hope these references are useful for someone to improve the history section.

I don't happen to have a copy, but as far as I know, the first published article about IMDb was in Database, about a year before the one quoted above, cited in that article as [8] Floatjon (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Collins, Boyd R. (1 September 1996). "WebWatch". Library Journal. p. 125. 
  2. ^ Jacso, Peter; Tiszai, Judit (February–March 1996). "Now Featuring... Movie Database: A Sequel". Database. 19 (1): 58–69. 
  3. ^ Gordon, Alex (January 1997). "a closer look at this month's #1 site". Internet Underground. 2 (2). p. 60. 
  4. ^ Finke, Nikki (August 6–12, 2004). "Do You IMDB?". LA Weekly. pp. 29, 35–36. Archived from the original on 8 March 2006. 
  5. ^ Gaither, Chris (4 June 2004). "Amazon's Latest Offering: Hollywood's Inside Track". Los Angeles Times. pp. C1,C9. 
  6. ^ Kaufman, Amy (14 October 2010). "His film database informs millions". Los Angeles Times. p. B3 – via Popmatters. 
  7. ^ Siklos, Richard (28 May 2006). "From a Small Stream, A Gusher of Movie Facts". The New York Times. p. 4. 
  8. ^ Jacso, Peter; Tiszai, Judit (February–March 1995). "Now Featuring... Movie Databases: Get the Popcorn!". Database. 18 (1): 22–32. 

I'll add that has the Database articles, though they're behind a paywall/library wall. Also, there's a TOC of the Internet Underground issue online but not the actual article as far as I can find. LJ only goes back to about 2008 online, unless there's another host for older issues. Finally, the Database referenced above is not Database (journal) as that one has a much narrower focus and is much newer.

I'll note that there were fewer dates in the history section, or at least a lot of "when?" tags, when I posted the earlier version, so some of the refs above are to provide sources for timeline. Feel free to ignore as superfluous.

--Floatjon (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

And since I made my earlier post, a new error has been introduced, in the first graf of the Amazon history section. IMDb was not bought for $55 million; that was the total value of Amazon's purchase of two European booksellers plus IMDb (this is detailed in the source linked there). Amazon has never broken this figure down further, though clearly IMDb's portion of that was less than $55 million. --Floatjon (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)