Talk:IMDb/Archive 5

Just came across a bit of history
I was digging around on Newspapers.com and found a "compubug" article on December 18, 1994 in the Indiana, PA Chronicle, page E-8 (40 on the site) saying "the Internet Movie Database has over 80,000 movie titles reviewed". Found it interesting, so putting here in case anyone finds it notable or interesting.--Varkman (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Any IMDB editors here?
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

 * 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). SST flyer  14:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Internet Movie Database → IMDb – 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 &#124; 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

 * 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)

IMDb → You should not copy stylizations per MOS:TM. 31.52.4.146 (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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  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...
OK, I'll template this now with request edit -- 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 Amazon.com 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." --
 * 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 ..." [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..."
 * (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 IMDB.com 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 Amazon.com 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."
 * (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."
 * (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."
 * (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."

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 Floatjon (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll add that ebscohost.com 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)

Website era
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 IMDb.com site to Amazon.com, 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
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)

What a Waste of INK
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)
 * 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.


 * 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 &#124; talk 16:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC).

Disruptive behavior
I have concerns about the behavior of who is edit-warring and removing valid citations, and generally being disruptive. removed a sentence from the article that served little encyclopedic value. Poketthis restored the content which was removed once again by. 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."


 * 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."

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 http://www.imdb.com/helpdesk/contact?ref_=ft_con, 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)

Lead sentence
Currently, the first sentence of the article starts: The Internet Movie Database (abbreviated IMDb) is an online database of... However, searching through the website, nowhere does it currently state that the name stands for the "internet movie database", even in the About IMDb, What is IMDb, and IMDb history sections. Should we change the lead to IMDb (formerly the Internet Movie Database) is an online database of...? --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 22:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been a member of IMDb for 13 years. When I first joined, there was a small Internet Movie Data Base on the bottom of the Logo. It was removed long ago, because it was too long to be "catchy". If you check the site: http://www.abbreviations.com/, and enter IMDb, they show both what it means, and what others think it means. Many folks believe it means "International Movie Data Base", but that wasn't the original meaning. Even though today, the site is really known as simply IMDb, I think our opener is fine to mention what those initials originally stood for.→ Pocketthis (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * When it was acquired by Amazon in 1998, the company name was "Internet Movie Database Ltd." . Today, it's a Delaware corporation, "IMDB.COM, INC." The all-upper case is the Delaware SOS's, see and search on "imdb". You'll also see an "IMDB MOBILE LLC" and "IMDB SERVICES, INC.", which I assume are related entities (but you never can tell for sure).

PAGE ]]) 16:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'm fine leaving the article as-is; the subject of the article is the database, the Internet Movie Database, not the company. It could be changed to be about the company, in which case we'd use "IMDb.com, Inc."; that's the casing used in the Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. litigation, in its complaint, which is presumably correct. Note that that pleading says "Through its wholly-owned subsidiary, IMDb [which is previously defined as short for "IMDb.com, Inc."], Amazon provides free access to the world’s largest 'Internet Movie Database' at the website www.imdb.com.", so there's another potential source for "Internet Movie Database". TJRC (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The footer of the website uses "Copyright © 1990-2017 IMDb.com, Inc.", so I would assume that is the canonical formatting of the company name. However, company name aside, I can't find any indication that the database itself is still called the "Internet Movie Database", as that term is no longer used anywhere on the website. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IMDb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130324121844/http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/movies/ to http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/movies/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Self-reference
I'm not sure we should link Wikipedia guidelines from this article, as we are. This is a self-reference that is not really useful outside of the context of Wikipedia itself. That may sound a bit odd, but consider that Wikipedia's content is frequently forked or included into other projects, including printed books. Many people encounter our content outside of the context of this website, and including references to our guidelines is meaningless to them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Movie to add
How can i add details on IMDb about our new movie??? Saam zeas (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Start at https://contribute.imdb.com/updates?update=title, answer as many questions as possible -- SteveCrook (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

How come the casting in some movies are not complete Baallabder (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not connected to IMDb RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 18:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Because nobody's submitted the data. The data on the IMDb is mainly provided by their users, these might be the film-makers or just fans. any registered user can submit information (including cast & crew). The submissions wil be checked & if accepted, will be added to the database -- SteveCrook (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Add a section for Command Line Options
The usual IMDb URL format is https://www.imdb.com/title/tt########/. There are optional words you can add after the last / that will take you to a particular section of IMDb's information about a movie or TV show or other media. These words can be added by editing the URL in the address line. One is fullcredits which takes you to the full cast & crew page. Another is quotes which takes you to the page that users post quotes they think are important or very good. You could then bookmark that page in case you wanted to return to that page, such as the full cast & crew page or quotation page. It used to be that you could add the word complete to get a sidebar listing all of the categories of a media's information and it was always present so you did not have to go back to the media's home page. That was changed to reference a few years ago. But now reference does not work. Can a list of all of the words that can be added to the end of the IMDb URL for the media product your are looking for or viewing be added to this page? With a reference to where those words were found so the Wikipedia page can be updated as needed? I would but have not had much luck, so far, at finding a treasure trove of these words. I ask because I usually bookmark the IMDb page with the Complete/Reference modifier for every media product's page I visit if there is a possibility I will return to that page. And since I watch some movies over and over on DVD or TV shows on DVD, I am always returning that media product's page on my tablet or computer. Skeptic50Skeptic50 (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * These are not command line options, at most you can call them a rudimentary API. Such content may be removed from Wikipedia articles on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a software manual. There are various software libraries which collect this information in various ways and may be interested in a plain text description, for instance https://imdbpy.github.io/ (others were removed). Otherwise, https://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=The_Internet_Movie_Database could use expansion too. Nemo 09:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

IMDb Movie Keyword Analyzer
What's wrong about mentioning an important IMDb feature and comparing it to a similar feature from a Wikimedia project? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IMDb&type=revision&diff=986905351&oldid=986900559)

This can be useful information for people who did not know the feature. I think it is better to keep this contribution instead of doing censorship or vandalism by removing content that can help other users. There is also nothing wrong when people mention the new PlayStation on the new Xbox Wikipedia article. --Baptx (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it's encyclopaedic. I fail to see how it improves an encyclopaedic article about IMDb to talk up Wikimedia searches on the IMDb article. Anyway we're not a how to guide, we don't get to tell readers how to interact with something. There are thousands of ways of interacting with IMDb's open dataset, and there's no reason to call out a Wikimedia project over any of the other forms. Additionally please read what WP:VANDALISM is. My reversion of your edit is most certainly not vandalism or censorship and your accusation is definitely not appropriate. Do not accuse other editors of censorship or vandalism like that. Canterbury Tail talk 22:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request (COI)
I am requesting an edit, since I have a conflict of interest. In the section "As Amazon.com subsidiary (1998–present)" it says IMDb was acquired for "approximately $55 million" and cites to a page that is currently down, but is presumably the relevant portion of this page:. However, a careful reading of that page will show that $55M was the total purchase price for not just IMDb, but also a German bookseller and a UK bookseller ("The company will incur total charges of approximately $55 million in connection with all three transactions."). The prices of the individual components were, to my knowledge, never broken out publicly (and frankly, I've long since forgotten just how much was IMDb's portion). If a price is to be mentioned here, it needs to be qualified with the fact that it's an aggregate price for the three entities.

This is probably getting into the weeds, but note also that this was not an all-cash transaction; as it says, "Consideration was comprised[sic] of cash and common stock, and the company anticipates issuing an aggregate of approximately 540,000 shares of common stock as a result of these transactions." (As an original-research-using-public-data aside, note that this is before various splits, which means it's 12x540k or 6.48M equivalent shares of current stock; very roughly, $45M at the time, or at the current price of the stock, over $21 billion - though I'm sure some of that stock has long since been sold.) Floatjon (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

While I'm here, I'll also note that the section on Data Format and Access is outdated; most of the software referenced was for an earlier format. See the page referenced in that section. Floatjon (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I hadn't done this before. So here's the more formal version:


 * What I think should be changed: In the section "As Amazon.com subsidiary (1998–present)" change ...buy IMDb outright for approximately $55 million..." to "buy IMDb outright; Amazon paid $55 million for IMDb and two other companies..."; alternatively, you could delete the price, but that risks someone re-adding it incorrectly in the future.
 * Why it should be changed: See above. In short, the price for just IMDb was never broken out publicly.
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): -- note that this is the same document currently cited, but the version cited is currently offline.

I may come back and do one of these for the data format issue, but I need to look into the supporting software more before I do. Floatjon (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

heryn dizio school
Government of Indian please Help 117.194.249.71 (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your comment appears to be misplaced. This is the Talk page for discussing improvements to the IMDb article. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Review Manipulation
In view of the recent Rings of Power release, a new section is needed as IMDb is deleting legit reviews on their page. As IMDb is owned by Amazon, it is a clear attempt to control the narrative. This is not acceptable and should be made public. 2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:1CBE:C8DC:BE19:DAFB (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Removal of bad-faith content is a business-as-usual task for any website with user-generated contributions, so I'm not sure IMDb sets itself apart here. That the series got "review bombed" seems to be better brought up over at The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. Which it is. EditorInTheRye (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between actual content moderation (i.e. removing bad-faith reviews based on content) and removing any review with less than 6 stars--which is what they did in this case. --Kraligor (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

"Internet movie" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Internet movie and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 5 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media Innovations
— Assignment last updated by Mmonday17 (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)