Template talk:IMDb title

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Film (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Spacing[edit]

Is there a reason why Alexandre on IMDb isn't Alexandre on IMDb  ? I added the space before "on IMDb" because, well, words are separated from other words and usually from symbols. There's a space in the template, but apparently it gets trimmed. So I added nbsp in the sandbox version, and it works OK at Template:IMDb title/testcases. The only problem is, the template has existed for years without the space, so maybe the rest of the world knows something I don't. Art LaPella (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The space will appear when the 3rd parameter is used: "Alexandre (2019) on IMDb ". Also, with only 2 parameters, I notice an unnecessary space between the last letter of Alexandre and the little icon that represents an external link. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
PS: {{IMDb name}} exhibits the same symptoms. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Please do the same for {{Tcmdb title}}. Art LaPella (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

More allowable values for "section"[edit]

Right now the only allowable value for |section= is "awards". I would like to add some more options, starting with the following:

fullcredits 
Full Cast and Crew…
releaseinfo 
Release Information…
alternateversions 
Alternative Versions…

I have found all three of these in use, so they would be of immediate help. Looking at the code for the template, I think adding these—and others as they come up—would be extremely simple! TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 12:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that would be useful. However, there's no need to restrict and test for certain permissible sections, which would make the template even simpler. It's up to the user of the template to provide a valid section; the template should simply append the provided section name to the URL. No text modification is needed as that also can be provided by the user:
  • Full cast and crew of {{IMDb title|0111282|Stargate|(1994)|section=fullcredits}}
  • Full cast and crew of Stargate (1994)
(Note Wikipedia MoS re: caps.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea, but I think I'd like to add in those explicit cases, not least because of the MoS issue you raise (I copied and pasted directly from IMDb which I suspect many will do). Let me see, it's a while since I did this…OK, @Michael Bednarek:, how does that look? Does the rust show? ;-) —Phil | Talk 15:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Either way, I agree that more sections would be useful. I will be away for a bit and can't contribute any further. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
All of these can be accessed at IMDb by a reader when they click on the link that already exists. There is no need to add them to Wikipedia's EL sections. First, the clutter they would create in the ELs is not worth contemplating. Next the fact that their info is unreliable should abrogate the need for any of these. Once you start down this road you would have to do the same for Allmovie, TCMDB, AFI, BFI etc etc. Eventually the EL section for some film pages would be bigger than the rest of the article. Remember this is Wikipedia not the "all access to all parts of IMDb" website. MarnetteD|Talk 05:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
But the fact that the data exists elsewhere on the internet is, on its own, poor justification for exclusion. On that basis there are huge chunks of the encyclopaedia that would disappear (detailed election results is just one example) and, by extension, you could argue for deletion of most of WP! I share the view that we don't want the entire credits dumped into every film and tv article, but this can't just be because another site is already compiling the data? MapReader (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
You have missed completely missed the point. Nowhere did I say that we should delete or exclude the basic link to IMDb. It is just that we don't need the new sublinks. All of that info is available after a reader clicks on the existing link to IMDb. MarnetteD|Talk 07:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I expected these objections when this thread started. Taken to their conclusion, the current allowance for |section=awards should be removed, no?
The argument against extended use of external links is somewhat blunted because there's also the syntax IMDBTitle:0111282/fullcredits (which doesn't show as an external link! Now there's a can of worms.) is also available and can be used to construct links to a section, not to mention ordinary full URLs, of which there are thousands around. Note that IMDb has been at m:Interwiki map since its inception in May 2004.
In detail: It's not suggested that multiple IMDb links for the same film are breeding in "External links". I understand that the proposal asks for a handy way to link to sections when appropriate, e.g. in running text or tables of an article where the IMDb section is more relevant than the main entry. I know that IMDb is regarded as not a reliable source, but let's not kid ourselves, neither are all newspapers articles, academic journals, books. Where would one go and look for the release details of The Birth of a Nation in Finland? IMDBTitle:0004972/releaseinfo seems appropriate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Again the release info can be reached through the existing IMDb link. There is no need for multiple links to the same IMDb article. MarnetteD|Talk 13:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
BTW as IMDb never provides a source how can anyone confirm that the first ever showing in Finland was 1964 or that the first showing in Greece was not until 2010. Most of the later dates in the section you linked to are dubious at best. MarnetteD|Talk 13:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
By this logic, why bother linking to a particular story on a news website when the user can simply look it up on a table of contents? Why bother specifying a page number in a book when the user can simply look it up in an index? Heck, why not add {{LMGTFY}} to every page? The point is to direct the user as quickly and simply as possible to the particular place where they can read something interesting and informative. There's little point in having Wikipedia conform to some ideal set of rules when nobody wants to use it because it isn't helpful. —Phil | Talk 16:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
That is pure sophistry. Stories on a website have one link not three or four. MarnetteD|Talk 16:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
As IMDB is not a reliable source in itself, then there's no point in linking to various sections of a film page from a WP article. If someone wants to look at the trivia, cast or release sections (for example), they can access it via the main IMDB link. News stories or book sources that need a specific URL/reference, do so, because they're being cited as reliable sources themselves. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

IMDb and Wikidata[edit]

Hello, what do we prefer as IMDb data source, direct addition {{IMDb title|xxxxx}}, or fetching from Wikidata {{IMDb title}}? --Titodutta (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)