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

Website era[edit]

I have just removed this (uncited) text from the "History before website" section:

...but by 1993 had been moved out of the Usenet group as an independent website underwritten and controlled by Needham and personal followers.

Other website users were invited to contribute data which they may have collected and verified, on a volunteer basis, which greatly increased the amount and types of data to be stored. Entire new sections were added. Needham also promulgated "guidelines" for the form acquired data should take in screen display, some of which (such as cast ordering) are explicitly and rigidly enforced while others (such as credits ordering) are in rudimentary form and subject to wild variations.

Other demographic data, full production crews, uncredited performers were also added as the site grew. Needham's group allowed some advertising to support ongoing operations of the site, including the hiring of full-time paid data managers. All the primary staff came (and still come) from the burgeoning computer industry and/or training schools and did not have extensive expertise in visual media. In 1998, unable to secure sufficient funding from limited advertising and contributions, and unable to raise support from the visual media industries or academia, Needham ultimately sold the site to, on condition that its operation would remain in the hands of Needham and his small cadre of managers, who soon were able to move into full-time paid staff positions.

Clearly this is not "before website". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

TMDB mentions[edit]

The Movie Database is currently up at AFD, because that article has a total lack of reliable sourcing. Given that there are no reliable sources, I don't see how similar content here could possibly be appropriately sourced - indeed those citations which are to reliable sources don't mention The Movie Database at all, unless I'm missing something. Without reliable sourcing, we really should not have this content. - MrOllie (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The section is not about TMDb it's about "Comparisons" of which TMDb happens to be just one. There are reliable sources in there including from Letterboxd mgmt, Plex, The Guardian, BBC, IMDb itself, et al, so plenty of reliable sources. Jimthing (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
It definitely should be removed. At best, these sites would be mentioned in a "see also". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Because...? Comparisons are valid content and exist throughout WP articles, giving information about how sites compare to others within their market sector. Jimthing (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
And just to reinforce the original post, while the section cites to various reliable sources, the most reliable of those sources mention only IMDb and not the other sites at issue (making them irrelevant with respect to those sites). The AfD faces the same issue. --Floatjon (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
+1 for removing the section for WP:SYNTHESIS. Betty Logan (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see that at all, but if you think so then we edit, not delete the whole lot. Jimthing (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
If there is going to be a section called "Comparisons" then it should be sourced to independent secondary sources that explicitly make an objective comparison between the IMDB and these other sites. In reality, what we do have is citations to a Reddit (not reliable), TheMovieDatabase (a primary source therefore not appropriate for claims about the IMDB) and secondary sources (which do not mention the other websites). Betty Logan (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with Betty. The comparison proposed is pure WP:OR. It would be okay with citing a reliable source that made comparisons, and summarizing them here; but editors should not be doing that ab initio. (All of which is a longer way of saying "Yeah, WP:SYNTH") TJRC (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Concur with both of you. Original research is unacceptable under WP:NOR. That kind of comparison is utterly inappropriate unless it is adequately backed up by citations to multiple reliable sources that compare and contrast IMDb with the competition. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior[edit]

Please let's let this matter rest now. I comment at the end, if anybody wants my rationale. Bishonen | talk 16:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have concerns about the behavior of Pocketthis who is edit-warring and removing valid citations, and generally being disruptive. Lugnuts removed a sentence from the article that served little encyclopedic value. Poketthis restored the content which was removed once again by MrOllie. Pockethis restored the content again, but in a slightly different form. In doing so he also eliminated a source from the the article and replaced it with a general URL:

  • Original sentence and source:

    Col Needham also mentioned in a post some months earlier that the boards received less income from ads, and that their members only made up a very small part of the website's visitors. The boards were costly to run due to the system's age and dated design, which did not make business sense.[1]

  • New sentence and source:

    Col Needham also mentioned in a post some months earlier that the boards received less income from ads, and that their members only made up a very small part of the website's visitors. The boards were costly to run due to the system's age and dated design, which did not make business sense. A member can subscribe to getsatisfaction, and discuss issues about the site with other members. If an issue needs to be addressed by an IMDb staffer, designated staffers including Col Needham himself.[2]

As we can see the the first citation specifically addresses the closure of IMDB by Col Needham. The second citation is just a link to a general message board and no longer corroborates the statement about the closure of IMDB. I restored the sentence and source to its original form, explaining that Pocketthis had removed the source being used as a citation. Pocketthis reverted me under the false accusation that I lied in my edit summary. By simply comparing the two versions it is obvious that the two sources are not the same and take the reader to different pages, and that Pocketthis is using false edit summaries and generally being WP:UNCIVIL. Moreover, Pocketthis is now edit-warring against three editors who all have issues with his contribution. I strongly suggest that Pocketthis discusses his edits here and obtains a consensus for them before restoring them, because at present there seems to be WP:NOCONSENSUS for his latest additions. Betty Logan (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Neither reference can't be used to support the statement in the text. They are a forum unconnected to IMDB and fail WP:VERIFIABLE. IMDB themselves put out statements about the message boards, we should use their references not links to a forum post elsewhere to back up this info.
The edits by Pocketthis seems just to be advertising Get Satisfaction which is not what this article is about. If you want a link on the Get Satisfaction article then fine it may be relevant (though you'd need to make a strong case for it.) For something tangental to IMDB however, doesn't belong on the IMDB article. What people decided to do after IMDB closed their boards is not particularly relevant.
Additionally stop accusing each other of lying, comment on edits not user.Canterbury Tail talk 11:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Getsatisfaction is the support community for IMDB, as can be verified at, so under my interpretation it would seem to fall under the narrow criteria of use outlined at WP:SPS. The problem here is three-fold though. The main problem is that the content itself is not particularly encyclopedic i.e. most websites have support mechanisms, but as a rule they do not receive coverage at their respective Wikipedia articles. The content does not highlight anything substantive about the support feature, so basically we are writing about a general support feature simply for the sake of writing about it. Secondly, the main point I am making is that—regardless of whether the Getsatsifaction source is reliable or not—the general link does not support the actual claim i.e. it takes the reader to an index rather than Needham's specific response on IMDB board closure. The final problem is the behavioral issue: I disagree with you that it is inappropriate to comment on particular editors, when the behavior itself is an issue. Maybe I should have raised the behavioral issue at the editor's talk page rather than on the article discussion page, but it should be addressed somewhere. Betty Logan (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It's as simple as this: Someone else put the Get Satisfaction addition before I did. I saw the advertisement and reworded it, but left a live link to the board. Then a Mod took the whole reference out, and called it spam. I reverted, and told him it was factual and relevant and not spam. He then reverted, and left me a note "Remove live link". I removed the live link, reworded it and all was fine until WHOEVER BETTY LOGAN IS, came along and took the whole sentence out again, and used the excuse she was putting back a deleted citation. I caught her BS and reverted, and then finally re-wrote the sentence to fit right into the previous one, and used the same reference that was originally there, that goes directly to the boards. If I mistakenly removed another citation along the way, it wasn't done purposely, but in error. Now do what you like with that paragraph. I WON'T BE BACK THERE! Pocketthis (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Again BETTY LOGAN LIES right in your face. She makes an edit to her own rhetoric, and then in her edit summary calls it (Undid revision 774459655 by Pocketthis (talk)). Betty Logan must be Drunk or crazy.Pocketthis (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I simply reverted your alterations to my comment, which I am entitled to do. Here is your edit and here is my revert. Betty Logan (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I NEVER made alterations to your comment. I made corrections to MINE. Please stop this BS Betty Logan, and let's get back to work improving this site. Pocketthis (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
You are not being truthful. How do you explain how this change to my comment was made during your edit? Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I swear to God, I have no idea how: "adto sound more encyclopedic. dressed" got shown as an edit of mine. Perhaps my touchy laptop added a partial sentence into your section. I apologize if that's what happened. I would have no reason to add that rhetoric, and I NEVER alter another editor's comments. Sorry about that. There was one edit I was trying to make in "my comments", and it was blocked do to an edit conflict. That may be the tweak. Again, sorry that happened. Why don't you just delete this entire mess. You'll have no objections from me, and probably no one else. What a useless mess from two experienced editors. Pocketthis (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I removed the original text (diff above), as it looked like spam. I even checked the URL before removing it, and it didn't even look like it was linked officially to IMDb. Pocketthis - I would take on board the comments above, but resorting to posting in all caps/bold and accusing other editors of being drunk or crazy is not on. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

What a Waste of INK[edit]

  • In all years here on this site, I have never seen a greater waste of space, and valuable time, as seen in the previous discussion. If Betty Logan would have simply put a true edit summary in the IMDb article to begin with, I wouldn't have reverted her. I would have gone to her page and asked her why she eliminated a certain sentence. However, since she deleted a sentence, and didn't mention it in her summary, and taking into account that her name is in RED, which is a vandal flag in many cases, I reverted her edit, and in my summary, I said the previous editor lied in her edit summary. This led to a 'backlash by her, and a waste of time and effort for all involved. All the facts are true, and easily verifiable in "view history", if you go back far enough to see the events that lead up to this mess. I regret that I said she lied in her edit summary, because even though it is true, I could have worded it differently, like: Omitted part of her edit facts. Then perhaps this entire affair wouldn't have occurred. I believe we all had good intentions in this mess, but miscommunication, and ego got in the way of it never happening.

I try and keep ego out of my edits, and summaries, and now I've learned another lesson: It is just as easy to lie in an edit summary, as it is to be blatantly honest. Pocketthis (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  • It's obvious to me that Pocketthis must have had the phrase "to sound more encyclopedic" in their clipboard, and accidentally pasted it into your comment here, Betty Logan — actually into the middle of a word — while posting. Of course they didn't mean to change your comment, as they said when apologizing, they would have had no reason to. Pocketthis, when Betty Logan used the edit summary "[ Undid revision 774459655 by Pocketthis (talk)]", you'd have done yourself a big favour by looking at the diff (which showed all she did was indeed remove your accidental insertion), instead of exploding into inappropriate personal attacks ("BETTY LOGAN LIES right in your face.. Betty Logan must be Drunk or crazy"). I hope you have already realized this. Also, it's none of your business who Betty Logan is. You simply shouldn't ask questions like that. The log of the moves of her userpage have no business here, and neither does it show any shady dealings on her part. Floquenbeam has already removed that part, I'm too late as so often. Anyway, I'm going to close both these regrettable threads. Pocketthis, next time think twice, three time, four times before using the word "lied" in any context. It's likely to come back to bite you. Bishonen | talk 16:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC).