Template talk:IMDb title/Archive 1

New category
This needs to go into Category:Film templates too. Lady Aleena 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Format
I want to alter the template to include a link to IMDb. I propose: Internet Movie Database entry on  producing something like I propose a similar alteration to Template:imdb name. Any objections?--Phil | Talk 11:46, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Entry on A Clockwork Orange at the Internet Movie Database
 * Well, I too thought that when I first proposed this template, but Nunh-huh said something important : "it would be better if it were all formatted as an external link instead of an internal link to Wikipedia's IMDB article and an external link. We don't really want 100s of articles pointing to our Internet Movie Database". And he's right. Would be wrong to directly connect all movie and actor pages to our IMDb article, because the what links here page would be overloaded.
 * But, there's a solution for that. We could create a redirect page to IMDb on an article Internet Movie Database references, and then we link to this page on the template. This way, all links to IMDb with the template would be under the same redirect page, and that way it'd be easier to differ from these template links to normal ones. What you think?   &mdash; Kieff | Talk 03:21, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Slightly spurious argument, because every page on which this template appears will then turn up in the "what links here" for the template anyway. As far as I am aware it's not really possible to overload the links page, it just makes it slower (although that might be what you mean). I am attempting to follow the guidelines in Describe external links, and I think it would be better to have an internal link so that the user can find out what this Internet Movie Database thingy ishere rather than make them click the link and jump through hoops. YMMV HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 07:52, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * What I mean by overload is, we'd have lots and lots of links with no particular sorting or organization. I proposed to create an special redirect page because, as you can see on the "what links here" page, when articles are linked to Internet Movie Database from a redirect page (IMDB or IMDb), they are placed together. This is what I'm suggesting. We could even make two redirect pages, Internet Movie Database/Movie links and Internet Movie Database/Name links, so we can even separate people's links and movie's links on the WLH page.   &mdash; Kieff | Talk 08:04, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Responding to Phil's comment on my user talk page. Rambot created 30,000 town and city articles all linking to the same few articles, and the wiki coped with that. I don't think you have to worry about a few hundred movie titles. Redirects are bad for performance because caching is suppressed. I think it's better if you avoid them. -- Tim Starling 08:15, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * I know it's not a technical limitation to the Wikipedia software to make thousands of links to a page. What I'm worried about is how this links will interfeer in the current links that are not titles or names of actors and such. I'm just trying to say we should be able organize the links so the "what links here" page from IMDb doesn't turn out to be a "List of movies, tv series, directors, actors, writers and other cinema related subjects". If a simple redirect page is such a bad idea, and if there's no other way we can solve that problem, then I'd be against the link to the imdb article.   &mdash; Kieff | Talk 08:34, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * I just realized that the WLH pages only show up to 500 links. Then what I was proposing wouldn't be much of a help anyway... I'll go change the templates then.   &mdash; Kieff | Talk 08:41, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * My objection is to the internal link to the Internet Movie Database. I dislike internal wikilinks in the External links section because (a) it can get really ugly (especially if you have links with numerous wikilinks) and (b) I think it makes the section confusing, especially for newcomers.  But I think I am in the minority here, so I guess my objection is falling on deaf ears.  I like uniformity, but not the internal wikilinks.   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 15:40, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

interwiki
When the interwiki map gets updated, we can change the link to ]. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 07:33, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
 * ex: Beetle Juice Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 02:22, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
 * It's been updated, I've updated the template. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 06:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Format change with Imdb logo
The proposed change switches from a text format to a table format and would require editing of most of the pages using the template, which I think is a pain. Hektor 21:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The template has been changed by User:SuperDude115. I have reverted the edit because I would like some discussion before such a radical change.

Image
Image:IMDb.Logo.png - do you think we should add this IMDb logo to the template because some other templates use images/logos to identify them? -- Thorpe talk 12:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Our IMDb templates are used to generate links to imdb (and nothing else), not to categorize or mark articles (like you'd have with stub notices, for example). Using the imdb logo along with an external link would be no good at all. ☢ Kieff | Talk 13:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

External link icon
I'm just a newbie to the editing/technical side of Wikipedia, and as such I don't fully grok the template's implementation, but might I just point out that as I reader I find your lack of an external link icon disturbing. Template:imdb_name has one. KJBracey 13:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Link change
Fairly recently this template was changed to link to akas.imdb.com rather than www.imdb.com. The links still seem to work, but does anyone know why this change was made? Eric119 07:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The person who changed them didn't justify it. The difference at the IMDb end is that the "akas." site shows all alternate titles for every film, whereas the standard interface suppresses most non-English alternate titles. I believe English Wikipedia should link to the default English "www." interface; it's not up to us to override their default interface (although as a UK user, I would personally prefer "uk.") --KJBracey 13:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't think there's any need for using akas here instead of www. Jason One 01:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd also have to agree. I do not think that there is any reason for it.  AKA, as far as I can tell, only displays some of the extra, less important alternative titles.  If this were a matter of catering to international readers, it would be alright, but since, no matter your locale, you go directly to www.imdb.com, this doesn't make any difference, either.  I say it be reverted to www.imdb.com, since all aka does is add extraneous information, and the IMDB Linking Guide suggests you link directly to the www. entry. -imaek


 * Well, I agree too. As we're all in agreement, I'm going to change it back. Eric119 21:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Template substitution
I have proposed this template be substituted at Wikipedia talk:Template substitution. --AllyUnion (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Linked text
Could the "The" of "The Internet Movie Database" be taken out of the link and made normal text please? (e.g. "...at the Internet Movie Database) This would bring it in line with the Imdb name template. Thanks. &mdash;Whouk (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * At least make them consistent. I thought maybe I was spending a little too much time editing when I kept seeing "The..." and "the..." until I realized the difference between the two templates. Maybe the IMDb article should be renamed without the "The". Looks like it was moved in Oct 2005. Schmiteye 01:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded. --KJ 13:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to change one template or the other, but I'm not sure which one. The site calls itself "The Internet Movie Database", so my leaning is to change Template:Imdb name to include "The". But I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Why is the template protected, anyway? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mind which way round as long as they're the same. I think the "The" is a bit ugly, but thatcarries rather less weight than what the IMDb calls itself. I see unpiping the link in the name template has been suggested at Template talk:Imdb name &mdash;Wh o uk (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I changed it without realizing that there was a discussion about here - I was sure that it was a mistake. The thing is, The Internet Movie Database is a redirect page.  Isn't this an ugly thing to have in a template?  I thought it was.  If you decide to stick with the capital "The", at least don't make the link go to a redirect page.  Actually, I'll go ahead and do that myself... Esn 10:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see Redirect. In particular, the sentence "Most especially, there should never be a need to replace redirect with redirect ." (emphasis in original) -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting. Never knew that, since I see a LOT of redirects edited on Wikipedia so that they don't go to a redirect. I still think that it's an ugly thing to have in a template that appears on many thousands of pages, though.  See WP:Ignore all rules. Esn 04:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try to follow that rule from now on now that I know about it, though; although if I'm editing a page anyway for something else, maybe I'll sometimes fix the redirects while I'm at it. That doesn't seem to be against the spirit of the thing.  Esn 04:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link to vi:
Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

vi:Tiêu bản:Imdb title

Thanks.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done - Jmabel | Talk 04:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

class="plainlinks"
I see this has been protected. Hmph. Anyway, please remove the class="plainlinks". It's an external link, and needs the icon. Doubly so as it also has an internal link on the same line. --KJBracey 13:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, it needs to indicate it's an external link. Furthermore, it disrupts anyone who has set a custom icon for links to imdb. Lastly, it wasn't discussed, nor changed on the other imdb templates. —Fitch 20:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I changed it because I don't like the external icon. Who says they're needed, and why? I don't know every word of policy by heart, but I've never heard of that convention before.
 * 2) Why would having an internal link on the same line make a difference?
 * 3) I have no idea what this custom icon you're referring to is. Care to explain?
 * 4) You don't have to discuss every change ever. That's not a requirement, editors are encouraged to be bold in updating pages. However you are more than welcome to request discussion on Talk pages if edits are disputed.
 * 5) I didn't know about other ImBD templates, I was just changing the one on the page I was working on because I don't like the little external icon. I'd have changed the others too if I'd known about them, and would be happy for them to consistently use plainlinks. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 01:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The template is protected, and perhaps you didn't realize that, but being bold means that someone can revert, and not a lot of people here can, so it becomes accepted and final when its protected. Consider this us 'mortals' way of reverting it. The link you provided about being bold doesn't make sense on a protected page. However, did you unprotect it so that it could be reverted? Then why do you write to us as if we should know better?
 * An external link icon shows that this link will take you offsite. Plainlinks is offered so that you can create a link to wikipedia, like to an edit page (which is impossible to link to with wikilinks). If you do not like external link icons, you can change your stylesheet. To answer your other questions: internal link on the same line- so that you realize one takes you offsite, and one takes you to wikipeida, and not the home page of IMDb. You can read more about the imdb stuff at IMDb. Also, since you do not like external link icons, why not change you own CSS instead, but allow new visitors to be aware of the offsite links? —Fitch 14:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I unprotected it so that it could be edited by regular users, I didn't think it needed to be protected in general. I'm sorry if you feel I'm writing to you as if you should know better, that was not and is not my intent at all. I apologise if my tone was poor, I'm simply trying to explain my reasoning and my response to your concerns and comments. You may not feel that Be Bold applies to a protected page, and I see your point on that, but unprotecting it was part of my response to your comments. You can always ask for a page to be unprotected, or you can make requests for changes you feel are needed on the Talk page, as you did. However my response was not to change it myself, as I was not convinced that it should be changed back because I had questions about some of your reasons for wanting to change it back. I agree with Freakofnurture below that there's a difference in color that also helps indicate an external link versus and internal one. I understand that you feel the icon is helpful to indicate that a link points offsite, and I appreciate your stylesheet suggestion. However I'm still not sure I'm convinced that it's absolutely neccessary to have the external icon...if you can point me to a style guideline where that's stated I'd be interested in discussing it with other people there too. I just don't think it's that important to distinguish between internal and external links. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 16:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that the default behaviour and style of Wikipedia is for external links to have the icon. If someone doesn't like that generally, then they can choose a different stylesheet to remove all the external link icons. But what you're doing makes IMDb links look like internal links, and different to all other external links. It's confusing. Do you believe there is something special about IMDb links as opposed to other external links, so it should specifically lack the icon other links have? Manual of Style (links) and External links don't directly address this, but do consistently show the style in use. --KJBracey 21:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The links are already identified as external by the difference in color. Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to increase the level of contrast between the two colors? The "little arrow icon" is extremely obnoxious. — Apr. 7, '06 [15:02] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>
 * I think we all agree that consistency is very important in a large project like this. There is no style guide for External Links because there is a standing policy that the project keep consistant everywhere. A user should expect that icon in order to help navigation. Changing this template means changing all of the external link templates, but just changing one seems very out of place for the 'pedia philosophy. I would discuss it at the Village Pump or at least on Wikipedia talk:External links. Heh, KJBracey just said the same thing while I was editing this, but I'll leave it.
 * One could also change the color of the link through this template, but this wouldn't be the appropriate place to do it either. I feel pedantic writing all this, but it really seems pretty blue and white to me. —Fitch 22:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Description as an optional parameter
I'd like to propose a change to the template; it wouldn't break any current usages, but it would make it possible to use the template more descriptively in a consistent fashion.

Here's the problem description: sometimes several related works with the same title would logically appear in the same article (like, a movie and a remake of the movie, or a movie and the TV series that followed it.) The current options are: put an identifier in the "title" parameter, making the title technically incorrect:


 * The Fugitive (1968) at The Internet Movie Database
 * The Fugitive (2000) at The Internet Movie Database

or put the identifier after the entire template output:


 * The Fugitive at The Internet Movie Database (1968 original)
 * The Fugitive at The Internet Movie Database (2000 remake)

What I propose, however, is that a third parameter be added to the template. If no third parameter is present, the template won't output anything for it; if a third parameter is there, the template inserts it next to the title but outside the italicization that marks the actual title:


 * The Fugitive (1968) at The Internet Movie Database
 * The Fugitive (2000) at The Internet Movie Database

(I'm not sure whether the descriptor should be part of the link or not; I'm leaning towards "should be" so that both title and descriptor are visually separated from the "at". What do people think? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's great idea personally and might just use it a couple of the similar templates I've created. Jonathan D. Parshall 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You have my support. JonasRH 14:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, including making the year part of the link. -- Usgnus 14:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've done this; I've added a third parameter called "description". Note that the actual parameter has to go in parentheses in order to show up that way in the output; I don't think there's a way to arrange the syntax so that the parentheses are automatically inserted if there's a third parameter or one called "description", and left out if there's no such parameter.  I could be wrong, however; if anyone knows how to do this, please let me know. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Can someone please explain how to use this third parameter? Maybe update IMDb with instructions? Jason One 22:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's updated now. -Lwc4life


 * How come when it's used, you have to use:
 * instead of:
 * That is, you can't use spaces and "parameter=" when you want to add a description. -Lwc4life 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is, you can't use spaces and "parameter=" when you want to add a description. -Lwc4life 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That is, you can't use spaces and "parameter=" when you want to add a description. -Lwc4life 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See m:Help:Template.--Patrick 22:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm...why does it matter that "description" is numbered "1" in these mix paramters? -Lwc4life 18:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The template code uses 3 or "description", so put "3=" or "description=" before the description.--Patrick 23:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

External Link issues. WWW.imdb.com does not exist.
I have attempted to look for a discussion on this matter and have come up empty. In every instance where I have attempted to click on an external link to IMDB, the link has not worked. However, if I change the link to start with US instead of WWW, it does work.

After doing some research, I find that IMDB does not use the WWW format at all. It uses US, UK, ITALIAN, GERMAN and something called AKAS.

I would think that it would be better to have the template point to one of these then for the link to not work on the first click.

D8a 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, the links work fine for me. Eric119 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am perplexed, I can't get any of them to work by just clicking on them. I have to insert a US in th front to see anything.D8a 15:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki map
Why does this template not use the Interwiki map for the links? Being $1 for. Regards, G.A.S 11:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, that's interesting. However, because of its hardcoded trailing slash, using it here would remove any and all chance to fix the templates for linking to useful IMDb subpages such as document "Episodes cast for 'Jeeves and Wooster' (1990)" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098833/epcast ) Cf. the "Problem and suggestion" below and its followup-to. &mdash; Komusou talk @ 16:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you; I noticed the latter problem more recently as well, but using a manual link was much easier. G.A.S 19:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki it:
Please insert the interwiki to it:Template:Imdb if possible--Gacio tell me  14:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ The interwikis are on the unprotected doc subpage, anyone can do it. &mdash; Komusou talk @ 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem and suggestion

 * Problem

The current IMDb templates (name and title) can't be used for referencing useful direct links inside IMDb, such as:


 * Document "Episodes cast for 'Jeeves and Wooster' (1990)"
 * @ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098833/epcast

Because even using "id=0098833/epcast", the template will add a trailing slash that breaks the URL for IMDb. Since this actually concerns both IMDb templates, please see code suggestion and discussion at


 * FOLLOWUP-TO Template talk:Imdb name

&mdash; Komusou talk @ 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Per WP:TEMPTEST I've added the sandbox and testcases subpages. The current Imdb title/sandbox implements a solution to this problem. Visit Imdb title/testcases#Detail pages 2 to see the results. – Conrad T. Pino 19:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

full stop
editprotected

Can we have a full stop at the end. It is a sentence, and proper punctuation needs to be used.    The Windler      talk   09:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a sentence, as there is no verb. Shall we add a verb? --ST47 Talk&middot;Desk 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Code without id
With this: [http://www.imdb.com// should work fine if the title is the same on IMDb as on Wikipedia. --Steinninn 01:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Similarilly:

[http://www.imdb.com//
 * Should work in Imdb name --Steinninn 02:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to try it out, preview on any film title. --Steinninn 00:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I made the change and updated the documentation. Note that the search should be a preparation, the link to a specific page is still superior.--Patrick 07:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit from sandbox request 15-Oct-2007
The current sandbox Imdb title/sandbox implements two new behaviors:


 * 1) Retrieved on:
 * 2) Detail pages:

The current sandbox is well tested in Imdb title/testcases with
 * Imdb title test cases above and
 * Imdb title/sandbox test cases below.

Thank you – Conrad T. Pino 19:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, I have removed the {Editprotected} for now because I think there are things to see about the two new codes before installing. Please see at Template_talk:Imdb_name &mdash; Komusou talk @ 18:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bug - additional square bracket in following link
At Light Years (film) there's an extra square bracket ']' on the link following the imdb title link. I played around with the template some and it didn't seem to be caused directly by it, but it'd be nice to have some confirmation of that by people that know the template code better before I go to WP:VPT or bugzilla. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It was an extra square bracket in a category tag.--Patrick (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't realize three newlines before the language and category links would collapse like that. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

An "accessdate" parameter is needed
This, and every other template in this series, needs an accessdate parameter just like all other citation templates. The code and documentation for this can simply be copy-pasted from Cite book. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a citation template. External link templates do not usually (ever?) have access dates. --- RockMFR 20:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Disabling the edit request, as there does not appear to be consensus for the change.  Pagra shtak  19:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Change to format
I would like to change this into a proper citation format. It would change from:

 at the Internet Movie Database

to:

--2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 08:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, but it's not a citation and should never be used as one, it's an external link (IMDb has proven time and again that it's not a WP:RS). Per WP:ITALICS the title of a movie should be in italics, not in double quotation marks, and the IMDb is not a periodical like a newspaper, so it should be neither in italics nor in quotation marks (putting it into the publisher field of would fix that). --  Amalthea Talk 14:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Please add this link
he:תבנית:Imdb title. Edenc1 • Talk 14:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅. Categories and interwikis belong on Template:Imdb title/doc, so you could have added it yourself. Cheers, Amalthea  15:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

interwiki
Korean template was changed, so please insert this interwiki ko:imdb 제목 --FriedC (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, but next time you can do that yourself with most template since the interwiki links are placed on the documentation subpage, in this case Template:Imdb title/doc, which isn't protected. Cheers, Amalthea  10:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Despite Korean WP is same, I didn’t realize... Thanks for your help! --FriedC (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

fix double redirect
Can an admin fix Imdb title, an edit-protected double redirect eventually pointing here? Thanks in advance -- saberwyn 10:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

non-English languages
How hard would it be to offer an option to cite IMDb in non-English languages, please? Thanks. 128.138.43.231 (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Linking
Do we need this template to systematically link to 'Internet Movie Database'? I warrant that it's sufficiently well known site that linking is unnecessary - iMDb is a reference, and is unlikely to be germane to the subject in the vast majority of articles (usually of films or actors). Again, in the vast majority of cases, an article has several of these templates, thus several links to imdb. Let's remove the square brackets... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohconfucius (talk • contribs) 03:27, 26 October 2011‎
 * ❌ Seek consensus first. You might start with WT:FILM. Anomie⚔ 04:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 September 2012
According to the imdb, "The Wrecking Crew" was technically released in December of 1968. Therefore it is a 1968 film and not a 1969 film. Please change the title template to reflect this. Thank you.

173.73.137.6 (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That information isn't coming from this template, you'll want to discuss any article renaming at Talk:The Wrecking Crew. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No id problem
Problem: There are loads of film articles using this template without an id parameter. Without an id, the template will automatically link the IMDb search results for {PAGENAME}, like this: The problem is that the results are not always very relevant.

Solution: Commons category has a similar problem. This was solved by adding functionality that adds articles to Category:Commons category template with no category set. I've copied/tweaked the code to add Category:IMDb template with no id set (see my sandbox User:Jonkerz/debug). This will make it 1000 times easier to repair these links. jonkerz ♠talk 13:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * They are easy to find with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2FTitle%3F -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I've made the change. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 3321 links, yaiks! jonkerz ♠talk 13:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Common error
Including the  prefix as  rather than the expected  causes the template to emit an invalid URL. It would be good if we could either trap and warn of such errors (perhaps with a tracking category), or accommodate them, using Lua. The same applies to IMDb name. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Added something in the sandbox to evaulate. No Lua involved. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)



Thank you. Let's deploy it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Title without disambig
Should we add the use of Title without disambig to this template so that it removes any part of the pagename in brackets automatically? -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata
Wikidata is currently collecting IMDb identifier numbers corresponding to film articles e.g. Q729788. Presumably this means that this template (and its related variants) could eventually pick up the IMDb link from the corresponding Wikidata value, especially once the syntax is enabled here on en:. Dl2000 (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it should still use the ID if that is passed through to the template as sometimes, there is more than one IMDb link included on a page. -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Property transclusion is set to be enabled on Monday, see . I think it makes most sense to insert the after the  -check but before the , but I'll leave the actual coding to someone more well-versed with this stuff. As you said, the id parameter provided in the invokation of this template should still override any value on Wikidata. Gabbe (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done in Template:IMDb title/sandbox but you'll have to wait until works before testing it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Documentation error
In the documentation, item 5 of the usage docs mentions a Title parameter but does not show this parameter in use, creating some confusion as to correct usage. —Leftmostcat (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice re: discussion on IMDb website showing different titles for different users
See: Wikipedia talk:External links to participate in the discussion.

Apparently, when a movie has different names depending upon the region in which it was released, IMDb will sometimes display different movie titles depending upon the region of the computer linking to their site. (for example, reportedly http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0241527/ will display "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" when viewed from the USA, but will show "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" when viewed from the UK).

The discussion linked above is attempting to determine how best to reflect this when using this template. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for comments on "edit in Wikidata" links, for templates using Wikidata
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata&. Thanks. Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Untitled works
I noticed in Untitled 2017 Star Trek TV series that the template italicises the title parameter automatically. The problem is that it’s not the actual title, so it shouldn’t be italicised, only a part of it (Star Trek). Any ideas on how to change this? I’ve tried some bandaid solutions with  and additional '', as well as setting an empty title parameter with a description parameter, but it doesn’t seem to work.–Totie (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You might try  which renders as:
 * -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!–Totie (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!–Totie (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 December 2017
Why has the source been referred to by initials (acronym), as if everyone knows them?

I find it more encyclopedic in tone and explanatory to define clearly the source, such as "the Internet Movie Database" and not "IMDb" and that the preposition should be "at" or "in" and not "on". SidP (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 19:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.
 * That said, I fully support changing the template to say "at the Internet Movie Database". --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK

PAGE ]]) 22:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The main article is at IMDb.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You know, I never noticed that they completely removed the "internet movie database" title from their website -- it used to be down at the bottom of the page where all the Amazon links are now. In fact, even looking through the "About the IMDb" and "IMDb history" sections, the term is never mentioned once. Perhaps it's time to change the lead sentence of the IMDb article. I guess I have to change to oppose. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK


 * Oppose IMDb calls itself IMDb. The few who do not know what it means can click on the link. BTW there are dozens (if not more) websites that use the "IxDb" acronym - IBDb, IOBDb, IPDb and IFDb to name a few. There is non need to alter their templates either. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: IMDB is the site's brand identity, to the point where it may not be obvious to others that it stands for Internet Movie Database. --Deathawk (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Linking with http or https
A recent change to (all?) IMDb templating has changed the generated links from http to https. This doesn't seem like the preferred method outlined by IMDb (IMDb guidelines) so I was curious as to why this change was made and whether the specifications outlined by a website like IMDb should have any bearing on which method should be used as default. Thanks. - LudaChrisKlein (talk) 07:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspect staff in charge of that page forgot to update it when IMDb introduced https. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You know, that makes a hell of a lot of sense. I didn't realize the change on IMDb's side might have been recent, I only noticed that wikipedia made the change ... yesterday? Thanks for the reply -- LudaChrisKlein (talk) 015:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

More allowable values for "section"
Right now the only allowable value for section is "awards". I would like to add some more options, starting with the following: 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)
 * fullcredits : Full Cast and Crew…
 * releaseinfo : Release Information…
 * alternateversions : Alternative Versions…
 * 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 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,, 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&#124;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&#124;Talk 07:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I expected these objections when this thread started. Taken to their conclusion, the current allowance for awards should be removed, no?
 * I expected these objections when this thread started. Taken to their conclusion, the current allowance for awards should be removed, no?


 * The argument against extended use of external links is somewhat blunted because there's also the syntax 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 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? 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&#124;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&#124;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&#124;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
Hello, what do we prefer as IMDb data source, direct addition, or fetching from Wikidata  ? --Titodutta (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * IMHO you should always use the original (when it is available). —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Spacing
Is there a reason why isn't  ? 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: "". 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)
 * I'm not certain if this is the same thing, but currently there is an extra trailing space, which in e.g. "." gives (text-only result:) "V poiskakh kapitana Granta on IMDb ."). —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I notice that a lot of changes were applied to the template since WOSlinker's edits in July 2018, mainly by User:Zyxw. The extraneous space after "IMDb" appears every time: "" gives ""; "" gives "". All the examples in Template:IMDb title/doc exhibit it, it's just normally unnoticeable because the template gets very rarely invoked mid-sentence. I think the reason is &amp;#32; that precedes {{EditAtWikidata|… in the template. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

"on" change to "at" – to match other WP templates
Other movie/tv WP templates (and other media types, inc. music, et al.) use "at" as the linking word. So why is IMDb entirely different?

e.g. Oblivion (2013 film):


 * Oblivion on IMDb
 * Oblivion at the TCM Movie Database
 * Oblivion at AllMovie
 * Oblivion at Rotten Tomatoes
 * Oblivion at the American Film Institute Catalog
 * Oblivion at Box Office Mojo
 * Oblivion at Metacritic

templates:
 * IMDb title =
 * TCMDb title =
 * AllMovie title =
 * Rotten Tomatoes =
 * AFI film =
 * Mojo title =
 * Metacritic film =

It should be just "at" (as in: Oblivion at IMDb), rather than "at the" (as in: Oblivion at the IMDb), as the "the" is superfluous on an acronym version of the site's name.

Can we update all the IMDb templates so they are are no longer incongruous, and are finally in line with the others, accordingly. Jimthing (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This was changed from "at" to "on" by User:Codename Lisa (now blocked) on 28 May 2017. I don't care much either way, but if it's to be changed, "at IMDb" seems preferable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So it shouldn't even be "on", and should have remained "at". Ah yes, well spotted on who wrongly did the edit. Again, no need for "the" as its acronym version (IMDb not Internet Movie Database) makes its use superfluous: as per the very opening line on its page "IMDb is an online database..." not "The IMDb is an online database...". Jimthing (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps can fix this, as per the one they did previously above. I'll ping them. ;-) Jimthing (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've changed it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks! Jimthing (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

unimplemented section parameters
combined and reference are valid section parameters that are ignored by this template, q.v.: .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5458572/reference
 * https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5458572/combined
 * https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5458572/reference
 * https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5458572/combined
 * https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5458572/combined
 * https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5458572/combined
 * Only  is supported in that parameter. Nardog (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2021
Would like to request to change  to. If I am not wrong, the first parameter of preview warning should be the message itself. Thank you! Tjmj (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 April 2022
Hey, have added a check for same Wikidata to sandbox, copied from Template:Metacritic television and changed values, please add to live. Should populate Category:IMDb ID same as Wikidata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indagate (talk • contribs) 08:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * – is it just me? or is the text at the top of the sandbox page, and the texts on the test cases page as well, really screwed up? Seems we  on this edit, because until we're happy with the sandbox and test cases, there can be no change.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;-  ed.  put'r there 12:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey @Paine Ellsworth, thank you for responding, think it looks better now, can you take a look please? The live and sandbox look same as they should, difference should be adding to categories Indagate (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, very much – and ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 22:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reverted. The code is badly broken and incorrectly added thousands of articles to Category:IMDb ID different from Wikidata. The category should be created first if this is the right name. It shouldn't be added when no ID is even specified in the template call and the Wikidata default is used, and it shouldn't be added when the same ID as Wikidata is specified. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For example, Kill Switch (2017 film) was added and it just says . Alien 3 was added and it says   which matches Q108543 and makes the same link to https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103644/. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for implementing @Paine Ellsworth, and thanks for seeing issue @PrimeHunter. Thought should create categories when they have content as someone might delete if no content but will create first next time then. Not sure why it says different when pulling from same place it's checking. Issue with some is probably they have tt in front of ID there but not here so can setup ignore those letters. Will try and fix today. Indagate (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The check inserted a slash in . I don't think a slash should ever be there. There should be no check at all if   is unspecified. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @PrimeHunter, removed the slash and moved it up so part of the first if function so only called when ID entered, hope that looks better. Indagate (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * – thoughts?  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 00:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I created a new sandbox doing it differently. This should avoid any errors mentioned above and a few I noticed with the implementation that were not noted. This will not categorise templates with the same value as wikidata at the moment, as mentioned above. Terasail [✉️] 20:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sorting that Terasail, is same ID tracking possible like it is for other external link templates? Maybe with an if rule so only track if it has content to avoid issue PrimeHunter mentioned with Kill Switch (2017 film), issue they found with Alien 3 maybe possible to check for the ID with or without the tt? Indagate (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Indagate Adding the "same" tracking wouldn't affect Kill Switch (2017 film) or cause unwated tracking. The main issue with Alien 3 was that it was tracked as different, which it would no longer be. But I decided to be safe and just not track it at all for the moment, it is an easy change to turn it back on, in the future if no problems with the current implementation are found. (Just change 1 to nocatsame for both tracking templates). Thanks, Terasail [✉️] 20:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I have now added categorization to "same" id's Terasail [✉️] 13:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Link hide
Hey, please copy change from sandbox. Have added an if function to the wikilink so that it can be hidden. Use cases would be articles with multiple uses of the template such as List of accolades received by Marvel Cinematic Universe films where it only needs to be linked at first mention in section. No change to current results per Template:IMDb title/testcases so guess uncontroversial enough for above template. I can add to doc if accepted.



— Preceding unsigned comment added by Indagate (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Martin Indagate (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Episodes list category
Have also added new tracking category to sandbox, please copy to main with above. Adapt existing tracking category for uses of this template on episode articles, for episode list articles. Adding to category if WikiData P360 (is a list of) matches Q21191270 (television series episode). Thanks, Indagate (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Credits
Hey, please copy changes from sandbox, have copied the current switch function for the awards section for the credits section, example:



Use cases would be entries in Category:Lists of actors by series, some of which already have similar, e.g. one, two

Thanks, Indagate (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why it needs to point to #cast. Directors and writers are of course part of "full cast and crew". Nardog (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As I understand the proposal, it will save reader who click on an IMDb link the hassle of finding, and clicking, the "All cast & crew" link on IMDb's newly designed pages, where that link is now not in a prominent position. I think it would an improvement; in fact, this behaviour, although without the #cast part in the URL, could be considered as the default for this template. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The #cast part of url is because the use cases are just cast lists so thought better to link directly to that section. Current non-template links seem to favour #cast.
 * Don't think it should be default behaviour as there's lots of other information than cast & crew on main page for a title Indagate (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Creating a new template is another option, like Template:IMDb episodes, less code on article but another template. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (FWIW I highly recommend turning on the "reference view" at https://www.imdb.com/preferences/general if you have an IMDb account and haven't done so already. It saves you "the hassle of finding, and clicking, the 'All cast & crew'".) Nardog (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that having it point at #cast is a benefit just to hide writing and directing credits? It is a negative in my opinion and should be added as just "/fullcredits" rather than "/fullcredits#cast". Side note: I updated the sandbox so that there wasn't a duplicate switch. Terasail [✉️] 13:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The writing and directing credits aren't hidden, just page scrolled down a bit to focus on the part that's relevant to article, the cast. Articles where this would be used don't focus on the crew so don't need the link to focus on that part. Thanks, thought safer to just copy the switch. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

QID for ID retrieval
Hey, please copy changes from sandbox, fix for by  which seems to have broke the IMDb template, have tried to allign this with Template:Netflix title to hopefully fix. Converted that to sandbox and looks good in preview, and test cases look good. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Indagate I have just added the option use just the wikidata item without an id parameter. It wasn't so much that I broke the template but that my script just assumed that it worked the same way as the netflix template. Terasail [✉️] 10:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, other changes I made were alligned with Netflix title and wasn't sure if needed here Indagate (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I did forget to remove nocatsame, however the extra parameters of EditAtWikidata should be kept for this template since they serve a different purpose than the Netflix template. Terasail [✉️] 11:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Section: soundtrack?
Would be nice to be able to link directly to the soundtrack, just like linking to the awards. Seems to be working in the sandbox. Especially useful when linking from songs used in a film or TV series; those articles often have a "used in media" section. SQB (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Don't think it would be useful for "used in media" section as IMDb should only be linked in external link section, not in main body of an article. Potential use cases in Category:2020s film soundtrack albums, and preceding decades. Have added music as an alias as seems common alternative word. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to support links to the IMDb reference subpage
Cf. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6217926/reference vs. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6217926/

Unlike the main page for the movie, the reference subpage is not full of ads and contains the sort of information that Wikipedia users might actually be looking for. Right now the template doesn't support linking to the reference subpage.

There are two possible implementations:


 * 1) Make the reference page the default
 * 2) Support the reference subpage as a section parameter, giving editors the option of linking to the IMDb main page or the reference subpage

Brought here from Village_pump_(proposals), where the idea was put forward by Otto von B. Andreas JN 466 15:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose 1, provides less information overall, similar number of ads.
 * Oppose 2, not something that needs to be an option as isn't an article that needs it specifically, so would create inconsistency
 * Thanks, Indagate (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support at least number 2 (adding "reference" as a section parameter like "award"). The information on the reference page is the sort I am looking for from an IMDB link. I feel unqualified to support it as the default option, but I would not oppose this. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)