Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 11

Removing external link fields
Hello, consensus has been reached at this discussion to remove the external link fields from Infobox Film. The following coding can be removed:

Please let me know when the change will be made, and I will revise the documentation to note that the fields are deprecated and to add the external links to the "External links" section of a film article. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the question! in fact User:Blofeld_of_SPECTRE clearly says keep, User:TheBlazikenMaster agrees and so do I actually. --Termer (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Consensus seems to be in favor of removing them. Consensus does not mean a unanimous view is required, and frankly it seems the folks who do want to keep it are more in favor of doing so for their own personal convenience and most do not address the issue of link preferences. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion is far from what the WP:Consensus is all about and anybody who'd take their time to read it can see that. In fact a number of editors disagree with the proposal and as far as I'm concerned more seem to favor the inclusion of IMDB and AMG in the infoboxes.--Termer (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PS.Sorry for not commenting the idea before, I just didn't think the suggestion was serious. But better late than never, I've left my few cents to the discussion page. If you want to go ahead and delete it, it would be a blow to the functionality for the film articles and the info-boxes that would not improve WP in any way. Other than that IMDb including IMDbPro.com is the most respected source among professional filmmakers and it doesn't make any sense to compare it with Rotten Tomatoes page or Box Office Mojo. I most likely am not going to return to the subject since I wouldn't have much more to add to this.--Termer (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * . Reading the discussion reveals there is sufficient ongoing opposition to removing the links. Consensus is not a tally count, it represents a level of agreement, and I can't see any. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 16:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree with this - just because one side is more vocal does not mean that consensus does not exist, or is overwhelmingly split. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, consensus is not a majority vote. Too many people disagree with the change and present valid arguments against it. Declaring a consensus in an ongoing discussion is premature. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 23:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to weigh in. I did not declare consensus in an ongoing discussion because at the time I posted my request, there was no further dialog from any editors.  I had tried to heighten the visibility of the discussion some time before my request by mentioning it in the community's newsletter.  Apparently, the request finally attracted some extra opinions. :)  Consensus will never be universal, so I was not sure what necessitated one for a systemwide change like this.  The tally was mot meant to be the deciding factor and more to gauge which grouping of arguments was more prevalent among these editors of good standing.  Obviously, though, Wikipedia will now collapse because we will not be able to remove these external links from the film infoboxes. ;)  So again, thanks for your time! — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm curious Edokter, what exactly is the ratio of people for/against something that is needed in order to determine consensus? It certainly isn't 100%. What constitutes an overwhelming sense of consensus? Simply saying, "Too many people disagree" provides no actual definition of no-consensus. What constitutes "too many people". So please, enlighten us so that we don't make this mistake of assumption in the future.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Read WP:CONSENSUS. In short, consensus isn't based on numbers at all, but by the sum of arguments presented, and how much of these arguments are supported by others. Too much opposition, even from people in the minority, that cause the parties to go into a debate that does not resolve, is bases enough to have no consensus. At least, that is how I see it. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read it before, it doesn't actually give a clear definition of when consensus is really met (not unless there is universal agreement). If you're basing your opinion on the idea that consensus is not reached just because people keep debating something, even when the vast majority believe on thing, then I'm afraid you have a skewed idea of what consensus really means. By your definition, If I go into a debate (with the best intentions, but with passion) and I'm the only one opposing something, but I continue to respond to people's arguments with rebuttles of my own then that means no consensus can be formed for whatever is being debated. Unless you're saying that more than one person must keep the debate going? If that's the case, I believe we've now just circled back around to my initial question, which was, "what is the ratio that determines consensus". No matter how you slice it, it DOES come down to numbers. Whether superficially or not, numbers always play a role in consensus. Otherwise, a single person, who continues to provide sound arguments, can keep a debate unresolved until everyone else is tired of debating it.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If concensus is determined (in part or in whole) by the weight of the arguments presented, then I would have to disagree with the evaluation above that "Too many people... present valid arguments against it". It seems that the main argument for retaining these links in the infobox is one of convenience, which IMHO does not outweigh the reasons for removing them. PC78 (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Bignole and PC78 here - the keep debaters essentially are arguing WP:ILIKEIT, while the rest of the editors have substantive reasons grounded in policies and guidelines as to why excluding these parameters may be in the community's interest. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The main problem is that the link is used on 10.000+ pages, with propably half of these not using a link in the 'External links' section. Removing the link has too great an impact on those pages. A bot has been suggested to move the links, but as long as that has not actually been done, removing the links is akin to beaking all those pages. I say that is sufficient argument to not remove the link. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 16:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not a problem, that's merely an asthetic issue. "Too great an impact"? I would bet that more than half of the 10k pages you're referring to are not even viewed regularly, or substantially (since I cannot prove my assumption, and you cannot prove your assumption that half don't have a link in their EL sections...that part of your argument is moot). Even if they are, now you're saying that the real problem is that we just don't have a bot that will move the links from the infobox to the EL section. I'm slightly confused, because you said that the issue before was because there was some overwhelming opposition to the change, but now you're saying that it's just because we don't have a bot implimented that will make sure that a link to those pages exists in the EL section of the article. Also, why is one person's opinion that not having a link in the EL section "sufficient argument"? Peculiar, peculiar. Here's the point. If there is no link in the EL section, and we remove the one in the infobox, it's not a hazard to the article. People will notice that there is no link and put one in. We don't flip out when an article is deleted and there are thousands of redlinks in other articles that linked to said page; why we would flip out when there isn't a link to IMDb (a site we don't even trust to begin with) is beyond me. That is all irrelevant anyway, because we're looking for what the consensus actually is. If the consensus is, "the links shouldn't be there for 'blah blah blah' reasons", then we'll remove the links. Here's the catch, we aren't going to go remove them manually; we're going to do it with a bot. Now, why would we spend the time creating a bot if someone is going to come along and claim there isn't even consensus to use the bot. That's a waste of time and energy. Generally how things work is we debate, form a conclusion and then work out the mechanics of how we are going to impliment that conclusion. So, if we're going to have a bot remove the 10k infobox links, we can also have it place a link in the EL section as well. That all depends on if we have consensus or not. So, given that, is there consensus (if so, then we can start working on that darn bot :D ).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody can reasonably say what percentage of film articles don't have an "External links" section. Again, I disagree with the belief that "removing the links is akin to beaking all those pages"; AFAIK there is no compulsory requirement for any of these links to be present in an article. PC78 (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, nothing has to be removed - the old parameter info can remain indefinitely - the only thing that would be removed is the support for that parameter in this template. This would "turn off" the parameter without any article editing required. Second, of all of the tens of thousands of articles we have, the least of my concern is how the EL section is doing - we have 30k+ Stub-class and almost 10k Start-class articles which require substantial editing of the body of the text itself! And this says nothing about the thousands of articles we've tagged as needing particular sections, such as cast, infobox, synopsis, etc. Whether or not the article has an IMDb link is of very little consequence in the long run, and I'm more willing to stomach the idea that it might not exist on a large quantity of articles than these other deficiencies that are a much greater concern. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the IMDb links most useful for quickly verifying the most basic facts given in the infoboxes and therefore it makes sense to keep it a part of it. There were reasons why it was added to the infobox in the first place and nothing has changed since, other than some editors seem to dislike it for some reasons including claiming that IMDb is not reliable. I think there are better things to do than arguing over such an issue at the time when there is no comparison in what a state are the majority of film articles on WP compared to IMDb. --Termer (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You like it, that's clear. Unfortunately, consensus has found IMDb not to pass the RS test every time it's been brought up, so that point is neither germane nor reflecting of current practices, your opinions notwithstanding. (And this is the wrong place to address whatever perceived grievances you have with the RS issue.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you still keep missing what exactly WP:Consensus is all about and and throwing WP:ILIKEIT to anybody is not going to help the agenda.--Termer (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. And I have no glue what are you exactly talking about while referring to whatever perceived grievances you have --Termer (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We've already cited policies and guidelines. Multiple times. Your argument has virtually none, aside from complaining that if two people are against it - even without any substantive line of reasoning that conforms to our guidelines - that equals a lack of consensus. This is incorrect, and I'd advise you to actually read the consensus guideline, unless you want me to recite it chapter and verse back. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My argument is simple really, if it isn't broken, don't fix it--Termer (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it was pointed out that there potentially were problems: preferential treatment (perhaps viewed as endorsement) of certain external links, precedent in other infoboxes to explicitly avoid non-official external links, and linkage to a site which is not currently considered a reliable source. These are all valid concerns, which is why at least ten separate editors, all considerably experienced with the film guidelines and the project history, each came to the conclusion that there were problems involving conflict of interest, neutrality, reliability, and infobox style. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * These are all opinions I hope I have made clear I don't share. the only valid argument I can see would be perhaps viewed as endorsement the only difference, I'd never hesitate to endorse IMDB because once it's about movies, it is the most valuable source out there.--Termer (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you overestimate the value of IMDb. It's a useful website, sure, but it's certainly not a valuable resource for all films. PC78 (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You know Churchill once said that democracy isn't perfect but that's the best we have. The same goes for IMDB.--Termer (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't possibly be serious. The two things aren't remotely comparable. PC78 (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * you don't need to compare the "things" when the example was about comparison. And yes if I need to spell it out: I think IMDB isn't perfect but that's the best we have--Termer (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your love for IMDb couldn't be clearer if you used flashing neon lights, but you do appear to have missed my point: IMDB is not the "best we have" for all films. In the external links section of an article you can have the link or not or use better alternatives, but in the infobox you're stuck with it, regardless of how accurate or sparse its information might be. PC78 (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Termer, "There were reasons why it was added to the infobox in the first place" -- yeah, that was because at one point, a long time ago in a Wikipedia far far away, IMDb was used as a reliable source of information. Fortunately, we've come to our senses about that and we no longer allow it as a source of reliable information but just a general website where you can find thing that Wikipedia does not include. Ironically, that seems to be the definition of what is expected to appear in the EL section of an article. This isn't about "convience", it's about following a system of guidelines and policies that we have enacted. What makes IMDb and AllMovie.com (virtually the same site) any different than say a fansite that carries all that same information? Nothing beyond the fact that IMDb just bigger. The information is still just as unreliable. By leaving it in the infobox, we're contradicting ourselves because we're insinuating that we pride IMDb with having something so important that it must be at the top of the article so a reader can immediately click it and leave Wikipedia. Since that isn't the case, why exactly should we be keeping it in the infobox, beyond your personal "convience" meter?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If "the most basic facts" in the infobox require verification, then they should be appropriatly cited with reliable sources. What happens if the info on IMDb doesn't match what is in the infobox? PC78 (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

For my money these links should've been taken out ages ago. I actually brought this up here, when the amg field was added. How about we try taking them out - we can always restore them. And when people come here to complain we'll see if there's any better arguments for putting them back in. Flowerparty ☀ 22:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'd be happy with an internal link to the "External links" section of a given article, which would resolve editors' annoyances about having to scroll all the way down a long article to get to the IMDb or AMG links. But the infobox links are no longer required, IMO. There might have been an argument for it in the past, when the IMDb was the only good game in town, but its prominence, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned, has waned since we began to question its reliability. Steve  T • C 22:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This idea was brought up before, and I still don't like it. Implementing it would be problematic I think, as it would require every article to have an "External links" section and for such a section to be correctly named, not to mention that it would be redundant in most cases to an article's TOC.
 * For what it's worth, I think we might be best discussing the merits of each link individually. We've been treating it as one thing, but the three links are not all equal, and a lot of the discussion has been (unhelpfully, I think) focused on IMDb. PC78 (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Girolamo... Throwing around WP:ILIKEIT to those not agreeing with you is inapropriate; it applies to deletion discussions, not these type of discussions on wether to include a link in the infobox. There is nothing wrong with liking it. I could just as easily counter those proposing removal with WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which would be just as misplaced. Also, the link is not used as a source, but as a means to point to extra information. There is also no policy prohibiting a link in the infobox, so the case for removing it is growing thin. The fact is, noone has given a pressing argument for removal. Removing the parameter removes the link, and that simply does not help our readers. People keep forgetting that. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 23:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Edokter, I am not sure why you don't think there are any pressing arguments for removal. The links are nearly always found in the "External links" section, and their redundant presence in the infobox implies their standardized importance above other external links.  Nobody is wanting for the links to be completely excluded from the article, just kept in the "External links" section where all useful links are gathered fairly.  There is very little effort to follow the anchor-link to the "External links" section, so convenience seems more based on tradition.  Tradition does not necessarily equate effectiveness; the redundancy of these links have been brought up multiple times in the past. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 00:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That only unnecessarily compicates navigation, and not all articles have a link in the External links section. And what is wrong with convenience? — Edokter  •  Talk  • 00:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It does not complicate navigation; it only standardizes it. We could include other external links at the top of the article because it's easier than the click to jump down to the "External links" section, but that kind of acceptance seems to drift away from having the article coming first and providing the supplementary content afterward.  At the WT:FILM discussion, I was hoping to find a way to move the websites to the section by using a bot, so if something like this was pursued, would it be less of an issue?  There is certainly convenience for a selected number of links.  It just seems to me that if for whatever reason we had links like Rotten Tomatoes or Box Office Mojo in the infobox, it would also be argued that they should be kept simply because they've been around. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 02:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Just because this isn't an XfD doesn't mean that this isn't a deletion issue - we're talking about deleting a parameter. I like/I don't like is a form of argument, and those pages discuss why the argument is invalid. You seem to be suggesting that suddenly it becomes a logical argument outside of a Wikipedia process. And I have explained, in terms of policy, not why I don't like it, but why I feel it is detrimental and compromises the project. As have almost a dozen other editors with extensive experience across the project, so I find your complaint a bit disingenuous. With all due respect, I think that you are taking our dissent from your actions somewhat personally. We can surely have five, ten, twenty links to sites with "extra information", but where does it stop, and on what basis? No one seems to be arguing for more links, but there's no rationale for including these and not others, no? Plenty of things can "help", but at the end of the day, not all information is equal, not all sites are equal, and we're not going to include a comprehensive list of relevant links in the infobox. And if you can show me where I said there's a "policy prohibiting a link in the infobox", I'd be ever so grateful to be informed of that. Far be it from me and ten other editors who regularly work on film articles to so much as a suggest that perhaps the film infobox template should be edited... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a content issue, not an XfD. Again, you hit the wrong spot. Throwing I(DONT)LIKEIT at editors is simply another way of not having to bother with their arguments. Convenience is a valid argument, not a matter of taste. You cite policy as a basis for your arguments, implying such links are not permitted int the infobox. I also never opposed the removal perse; My main problem remains that as long as there is no consistent presence of the link, either in EL or in the infobox, the parameter should not be removed. Work on that first, then we can talk about removing it. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 00:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out to you earlier, there is no requirement for there to be a "consistent presence of the link". If this is your main problem, then I believe it is invalid. PC78 (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The parameter is not even used across all articles with the template - and we have several thousand articles without the template, as well. Asking for a perfect implementation on a wiki across 45k+ articles before we change the template never going to be realistic, nor is it necessary. We don't have to link to the IMDb or anything else. However, we already have a bot request pending to handle this, which should be sufficient enough for your concerns. And for the last time, please show me where I've cited policy regarding using links in the infobox, or stop making the fallacious claim. I expect better of an admin. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Edokter, I love how you throw those "I Don't Like It" and "I Like It" out the window for being invalid arguments, but then say "Convenience is a valid argument". Maybe you looked down that "things to be avoided in a deletion discussion", you would have noticed the WP:USEFUL. It clearly says, being "useful" (or in your terminology, "convienent") is valid only when, and I quote, "if put in context". What exactly is your context for including a link to a site that we have deemed unreliable to cite as a source? Is it because it has a lot of extra information that Wiki doesn't have, because IMDb isn't the only website to do that. Please, enlighten us, because all you've basically done here is tell us many why our arguments suck in comparison to your stand alone, administrative opinion.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, this is not going anywhere. In case anybody want's to claim that lets say IMDB is not a worthy sources and that would be a reason why it should be removed from the infobox, please refer and cite any film historians, critics etc. in any secondary published sources who do say so.--Termer (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And will you likewise be presenting your evidence why we should regard IMDb as a reliable source, worthy of retaining in the infobox? PC78 (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem IMDb gets gouted 2,910 X google scholar  and in case anybody can find anything negative out there, please let me know--Termer (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A mere google search is evidence of nothing; pick out some examples which support your case. It's up to you to support your own arguments, not others. PC78 (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * evidence of nothing and my case? I have no "my case", I support the status quo like many other editors at WT:FILM and just pointed out that there is no new consensus on the subject that was confirmed by an administaror. And since there is nothing more to it really, in case there are any valid arquments why the status quo should be changed, I'd be willing to engage in further discussions. But for now the discussion just keeps going in circles and there is no reason for anybody to keep repeating themselves.--Termer (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've worked on several dozen films which have IMDb listings, and I can say, without a single exception, that all of them have errors across the spectrum, some big, some small. IMDb may be comprehensive, but it doesn't have a source attribution system, it doesn't have a open editorial policy, it doesn't disclose the names of its contributors or editors, it allows anyone to suggest updates - most of which don't require source material - and it does not have a reputation as a fact-checking organization with editorial accountability. That is why it is disqualified as a reliable source. Even if it were 100% accurate, it would still fail this test, because the WP:V and WP:RS policies are about reliable citations, not "the truth". Consensus has consistently upheld this view on Wikipedia, and unless either IMDb or the RS policy are radically revised, that is unlikely to change. But feel free to keep on shouting back at us "nah-uh" all you want. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a fair argument that the films you have worked on have errors on IMDB. unfortunately I can't confirm the pattern from my personal experience since out of exactly 22 films that have been listed under my own IMDB ID, there are minor errors if any.--Termer (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Here you go Termer. It's a small list, but it's something that Erik and I have been looking into for awhile now. Here are three examples of people basically talking about how IMDb reports false information. There was another one, awhile go but I cannot find the website for it, that talked about how IMDb actually reported that Aunt May was going to play Carnage in Spider-Man 3. That's right, one character playing another character. IMDb isn't worth the website domain it pays for, at least not when it comes to citing reliable information it isn't.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's very impressive for such a huge database like IMDB if people have been able to dig up, what is it, 3 or 4 factual inaccuarcies from there according to this list.--Termer (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether imdb is reliable or not is surely a red herring. Flowerparty ☀ 01:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are recent films, and only "examples"...not a whole list. Hell, they still have misinformation on Superman Returns on their site that they have yet to actually correct. If they're doing it now, then they were doing it then. The fact that IMDb lacks any credible editorial oversight is why we don't use them as a source. But hey, if you prefer them then they have an IMDb community (just like this community) that I'm sure would welcome you with open arms. Doesn't make the place any more reliable over here.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This chat seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that the more you repeat something the valider your argument is. As I see it there's a good case to remove the links from the box and broad support for their removal. I think we should at least give it a try. Clearly people are accustomed to having the links at the top, though, so removing the links is almost certainly going to bring a bunch of people here complaining. If only we could phase them out gradually. (Like ebay, who apparently once spent 30 days changing their background from grey to white.) How about this: we try removing the amg link - which no-one seems that bothered about having anyway. And if that doesn't bring the walls crashing in we can try removing the other two as well. If dozens of people are really upset, on the other hand, then we should probably just restore the link and move on. Flowerparty ☀ 01:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Section break
This discussion seems to revolve around to fundamental misconceptions: Asuming that any of those two statements is true is a big mitake. The "source" argument doesn't fly; in none of the articles, IMDB is used as a reference. The link is merely there to provide readers more information. Wether that information is reliable or not is not an issue (the same goes for all the Wikia projects). Also, at least FlowerParty acknowledges that removing the link will upset a lot of readers. Why even risk that when it is so easily avoided? We are writing Wikipedia for the readers, so I fail to see the benefit of upsetting them. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) That the IMDB links are used as a source.
 * 2) That readers won't care if the link disappears.


 * Please, show me this evidence that removing it is going to "upset a lot of readers"? At what point did FlowerParty become the representative for "a lot of readers". Frankly, that is your misconception that it will. There is no proof that it will. So, why don't we try it out and see if it actually does.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that is a reasonable assuption to make. Why don't you, as a proposer for the change, prove that it will not upset readers? It's not my burden to prove anything. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, what an argument. Ask someone to prove it won't upset them. Let's see, there are two possibilities here. First, we send out a poll to every person that reads these articles and see how many actually respond. Since that isn't likely to happen, and if it did we probably wouldn't get responses from general readers that leaves only one other option. That is, we remove the link and see if people actually care. P.S. YOU are the one making the assumption that an emotion will occur if we remove the link. Since I say that nothing will change, the onus is really on YOU to prove that it will since you are claiming there will be a change. If you're going to quote me the philosophy of verifiability, it might help if you used it correctly.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you are proposiong the change, so you have the burden of building consensus, thus providing the proof, for that change. It is as simple as that. You are now twisting things around. You do not go around dismissing opposing viewpoint requiring them to back up their arguments with proof. It is the change that requires proof. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 23:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, dude, let's clear things up. First you claim that you do not support the removal because there isn't consensus for it (citing some overwhelming number of opposes). Then you claim that the reason we shouldn't remove the link is because we don't have a bot that will make sure that another link is put in an EL section. Next, you claim that it's because there will be some huge public outcry if we remove the link. Make up your damn mind, won't you? First, I challenge your understanding of consensus, and your dismissal that there was no consensus. You've provided no actual reasoning to justify why YOU believe that when more than a dozen people say one thing and less than half say another that there is no consensus. Again, you've never given us any kind of ratio that would signify what real "consensus" is. Then, you dismiss all of the arguments for support as invalid rationales, while citing yourself as the supreme opinionator of the discussion. Next, when you backtrack your argument, you make no effort to acknowledge the proposal that if we have a bot that puts a link in the EL section then we can go ahead and remove the link. Last, you claim that I need to prove why there WON'T BE some emotional outcry. HELLO! Do you really believe the things that come out of your typing fingers? The burden is not on me to prove people will get upset, that is on you. You cannot prove "change". Change is an event, not an outcome. Please learn the difference between cause and effect. The cause would be us changing the infobox. The effect would be whether people get upset by this. No one can prove one way or the other if this will occur WITHOUT actually doing it. IMO, we do have consensus to remove the link. If the link is removed, and people bitch and moan to kingdom come, then we'll know that the readers of the articles did not agree with the change and we can change it back. You've been dragging this whole debate out for no actual reason. You haven't provide a single reason why we need to have any of those links in the infobox (when they are already in the EL section of damn near all articles) beyond your simple "it's useful" argument. Prove that it will be a problem. You can't. Not without actually removing them and seeing first.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just before I sleep, I'd also like to repeat here another fundamental misconception, copied from below: Edokter, your original basis for opposing the change was that 10,000 articles use the link, and that half of them don't do it in the EL section. I checked 50 film articles at random earlier, the vast majority of which were start-class, and every single one of them had an IMDb link in the "External links" section. Now, I'm willing to bet you can find some that don't include the link, but it's pretty obvious to me that no matter the state of the article, an IMDb link is the first thing editors think of adding, and do so. This talk of having to go over thousands of articles is a bit of a red herring; it would be a handful at best, and these can be added as and when they're noticed. Steve  T • C 22:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I made a judgement call based on the then current discussion. Then I got dragged in this discussion rather unwilingly. I've had my say and I'm not going to repeat myself. I'm pulling out because I am way to involved now. I still stand by my opinion that there is no consensus, which, judging from the length of this thread alone, should be quite obvious. Make another edit request so that another admin can have a look. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 13:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The length has nothing to do with consensus levels, as should be clear from the number of editors on each side of the thread's debate. Just because one or two editors are more active in the discussion does not change the consensus levels. Of course, had you been more discerning in this regard to begin with... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Tagline
I'd like to suggest adding a "tagline" field. For example, the tagline for The Dark Knight was 'Why so serious?' Unfortunately, this viral tag line isn't even mentioned in the article until halfway down the page. Personally, I think it would fit nicely between the Caption and Director fields. Thoughts? --Non-dropframe (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed before, and as per WP:MOSFILM, taglines are considered trivia unless they have had an exceptional impact (e.g. "Just when you thought it was safe..."). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. I do disagree with the idea that they are trivia due to the fact that they are usually prominently displayed on promotional materials. Just my two cents. --Non-dropframe (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all information is equal. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Girolamo Savonarola about taglines. They are very common aspects of films' marketing campaigns, just like trailers and TV spots.  Taglines are written to draw in the viewer, so I do not think it is very neutral to display them so prominently in the infobox.  Like Girolamo said, if a tagline has garnered importance, it could be worked into the article body. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)