Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion leading to the creation of this proposal can be found here.

Contents 1 What is? 2 Upcoming films 3 Cast and crew from released films only 4 IMDb use as a RS, and as an EL 5 Release years 6 Primary, secondary, tertiary 7 Nutshell 8 One user's opinion 9 Technical specs, etc. 10 Budget and box office 11 IMDB as a reliable source

[edit] What is?

What is "technical specs"? Do you mean like what the film was shot in (e.g. 35 mm) type of information? For the most part, I agree with the way this is proposing IMDb be used, which is generally already the way it is used. Casting information, release dates, these things are usually found all over, some verifiable by watching the film. But when you start getting into the more technical aspects of the film, like the writing, the filming, the music —things that usually are not made public unless discussed in an interview— should not be cited by IMDb.com. Who's in a film is front page news. What went into making a film is called "behind-the-scenes" for a reason.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant the Tech Specs section of the site. Generally, this is not controversial info in and of itself. Girolamo Savonarola 02:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was what I was asking, because I was looking over a film article and I saw a section that said "Tech specs"...and that was what was there. I was just making sure that is what was being considered.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upcoming films

As an editor of mostly upcoming films, I generally expand articles on these films piece by piece. The most informative sources are those that contain interviews with prominent members of the cast and crew, such as, but not limited to, the director and actors in the lead roles. IMDb seems to operate the same way, putting together information about a future film piece by piece. However, unlike Wikipedia, there is no indication of the information's source; information is user-submitted to this gated wiki, and IMDb pages on future films have had an inconsistent track record with newly-added information. Many cast lists on IMDb pages of future films are often incomplete or questionable up until before a film's release. In addition, when a film is announced, it is typical of IMDb to create an "in development" article for that project with their own estimated release year, which has misled quite a few editors in future film discussions that the film will be released that predicted year. There have been numerous false listings with the crew as well -- Sam Raimi is listed as the director for Spider-Man 4 despite no confirmation about him returning to film another sequel. IMDb even resorts to reporting rumored casting, such as Jonathan Frakes for Castlevania.

For released films and their articles, I have seen editors recommend against IMDb as a citation. This applies to most items outside of the available cast/crew information, which is basically an electronic copy of what you see in the credits at the end of a film. I have used IMDb to fill out basic details in Infobox Film templates of released films' articles, but prior to a film's release, I find the cast/crew information, along with most other items, questionable. These items, questionable even post-release, include trivia, biographies, awards, technical specs, and filming dates and locations. I have found it best to seek out other citations -- usually, if IMDb is the only one to report new information, I would disregard it until reliable sources surface with that same information. I'm going to wrap it up here, but here is a recent example -- the film Valkyrie recently had a press release (with that title), yet its IMDb page calls it Rubicon. Sites and forums have been curious about this title change, which seems to have been solely IMDb-based. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The current version of this proposal does include provision that most other cites would trump IMDb info, if they appear. But as the proposal states, that would only apply to films in release - future films wouldn't be allowed any IMDb sourcing at all. What I'm keeping in mind here is that the vast majority of entries on the IMDb are not recent films, and it may be difficult to otherwise cite, say, the release date of a film shot in 1946. Girolamo Savonarola 02:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the specific release dates and other non-cast/crew information about films back in the 1940s and other time periods, I do not believe that IMDb should be used. Perhaps such information would possibly be appropriate for an article that would probably not achieve GA or FA status. The way I edit film articles, I tend to them as if they may undergo the FAC process any moment. I work with more modern films, so there's better and more multiple coverages of most films that are in the public eye these days. The further disappointment with IMDb is that the trivia pages can contain potentially usable information about a film's production. IMDb doesn't provide a source for the user-submitted information or why they believe it's accurate, so I prefer the option of exploring search engines and databases with a trivia entry's keywords to track down a reliable source that carries the information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cast and crew from released films only

Currently, the proposed guideline states: "The IMDb tends to be weak, or the least more open for abuse or misattribution when discussing less objective matters such as anecdotes and trivia, as well as films which have not yet been released to the general public." Bottom line, the only thing IMDb is good for is citing cast and crew information from released films: that should be the only acceptable criteria for using IMDb - anything else is unverifiable. Since that basically eliminates the need for this proposed guideline, I recommend merging whatever is left into Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, and widening the scope into Wikipedia:Film citation guidelines. —Viriditas | Talk 09:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

While I would not oppose the proposed act, to what other extents should film citation guidelines reach? The verifiability of movie sites like Moviehole.net, CinemaBlend.com, JoBlo.com, IGN, ComingSoon.net, or SuperHeroHype.com? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Can they not be treated similarly to Imdb? Each of those cites usually have something to offer, but many of them present information with murky (at best) provenance. I remember that most students aren't allowed to quote WP, but instead are to use it as a source of info to guide them on their way to more static forms of reference. Why not treat all of the aforementioned reference pools as tertiary, and provide them as guideposts to solid references. I personally think Imdb writers engage in either round-robin or wishful thinking contributions, and really have no business being cited - anything useful they might provide can be found elsewhere. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's an example: Moviehole.net interview with Danny Boyle. The content is valid, but the site's appearance would be fairly questionable. I've seen interviews and set visits from movie sites like these. How should they be regarded? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that the site is valid and reliable, then I'd add it. Should objections be raised, address them then. Girolamo Savonarola 15:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IMDb use as a RS, and as an EL

I don't have specific feedback for the proposed guideline (other than, "Good show!" to the author). I too find IMDB very unreliable as a source of trivia, anecdotes, even quotes, as I often find errors based on the film right in front of me. Much of my editing has changed from submission to correction and deletion. I think the editors are overwhelmed and unable to accurately verify each and every change/submission. I doubt that they have a mechanism in place ot identify users whose submissions are regularly contested (I could be wrong, though). In fact, I'm beginning to get very grumpy about Trivia sections in film articles on WP as they often repeat rumor, myth, and nonsense, some of it just copied from IMDB. Why copy it here if it's already there? I think we ought to start deprecating use of IMDB as a source, and limit it to a common EL in film articles (the infobox, External Links). David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've sometimes wondered why we would bother including IMDb as an external link before a film's release, considering that its content is questionable and not very supplementary in the light of a well-developed Wikipedia article about a future film. It's basically a staple link that's pretty much blanketed across the board in terms of films' articles. While I'm not advocating its removal, I wonder if it's a possibility to delay the inclusion of IMDb with upcoming films' articles. There just seems to be a mentality that if people see IMDb used in released films' articles, then its information for upcoming films would be just as appropriate for Wikipedia articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Release years

While this topic is again focused on future films, I think it's relevant to have a mention of caution in terms of applying IMDb's release years because I have encountered knee-jerk reactions in creating articles of announced films when production is not guaranteed to take place. A recent example would be A Christmas Carol (2009 film), a film that was announced to be directed by Robert Zemeckis and to star Jim Carrey. The problem with this, though, is that Carrey has at least four other projects -- Ripley's Believe It Or Not!, I Love You Phillip Morris, Me Time, and Sober Buddies -- from which to choose, indicated by the article's Variety citation. You can also find further discussion about that film here, in which I delve into the nature of the film industry and its unproduced projects. I have not pursued the matter further because the contesting creator/editor seems watchful enough over the article, but there is no certainty that this article won't be a perpetual stub... which brings me to mention the release year, which is 2009, despite no independent, reliable source outside of IMDb indicating that. Here are a couple of examples of where AfD or merger recommendations have mentioned IMDb:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice (2007 film), the comment by Edison
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gears of War (film), the nominator and 23skidoo's comments

If you look at User:Erik/Link repository#Redirected projects, these are film articles that I've seen that have been created all-too-quickly. Most of these articles cited IMDB release years for films' releases; you can see that in several redirected titles: Captain America (2009 film), Escape from New York (2009 film), Logan's Run (2010 film), and Street Fighter (2008 film). Something interesting about Logan's Run -- IMDb had the release year as 2007 up until two months ago or so, then the year was updated to 2010. Two existing film articles, Fahrenheit 451 (2008 film) and The Hobbit (2009 film), have "built-in" release years despite no indication that these films will not be produced anytime soon and may not warrant their own articles. Instead, they could belong in an article of a broader topic, such as a film series article, a director's article, or the source material's article. The fact that IMDb has never added a (TBA) after a future film's title, always some kind of release year, should warrant a word of caution about the certainty of a future film's production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point. I presume that their software probably requires a year parameter, hence no TBA. Again, I believe that the guidelines already state that films which have not entered production yet should not be created as articles, so that can be considered grounds for deletion (see WP:NF). Girolamo Savonarola 16:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a trick, though... in a few AfDs about future films, some editors tend to believe that WP:CRYSTAL's wording enables articles on future films that are not certain to be produced, reporting verifiable speculation, especially about films based on franchises or familiar topics. For A Christmas Carol, the contesting editor said this. I realize we're drifting away from actual IMDb discussion, and this should probably take place elsewhere. However, there may be a conflict between WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NF that needs addressing -- where WP:NF fails, WP:CRYSTAL can be invoked. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking over WP:NF, I agree that the terms could be more bare-bones and thus reconciled. But that's a separate conversation... Girolamo Savonarola 19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Which I've now raised... Girolamo Savonarola 19:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I need nothing more than WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL to determine if an article about a proposed film production is notable, reliable sources or not. WP is not a news source (e.g. Variety), but a reference work. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to mention a situation about the release year for Spider-Man 4. It was recently added to Spider-Man film series#Future that, according to Variety, the studio planned the film for a 2010 release. However, this edit reflects that someone attempted to change 2010 to 2009 (even with the citation present), and I assume that this is based on IMDb, which says 2009. Now, I tried to proceed to correct that information on its page by updating it, but I found that there was no evidence required to correct the release date. I had planned to provide the Variety link as evidence, but the lack of inquiry for such a source seems to make IMDb susceptible to anything. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary, secondary, tertiary

I think this language would be best removed from this page completely. First off this content of this page is basically about whether IMDb is reliable. The terms above have nothing to do with reliability.

• On the whole, the IMDb should be regarded as a tertiary source, and generally treated accordingly. This is meaningless since there is no particular treatment given to tertiary sources in general.
• It is unsourced, which makes it borderline-acceptable with regards to WP:RS and WP:NOR, This is meaningless since neither of the pages linked to (WP:RS and WP:NOR) discuss the sourcing of sources. What makes something acceptable at the latter page has to do with being published by a reliable source, and the former depends (if I have to sum it up) on the scrutiny the material receives before publication. Neither page considers whether the published material being sourced or unsourced affects acceptability.
• However, if the IMDb is found to contradict another source which meets WP:V(preferably a primary or secondary one), then that source should be considered to trump IMDb This is also meaningless. Sources don't "meet WP:V", WP material does.

Basically this whole piece is saying any reliable source can overrule IMDb, because while much of the information turns out to correct there is no oversight. If any reliable source can trump it, that means IMDb is unreliable. I would suggest encouraging people to treat IMDb like other wikis, which it is essentially on the tier with for reliability. Link to it as a resource, not a reference.--BirgitteSB 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I would go further and state that people treat IMDb as an approximation to a blog - a resource, and not a source. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as levels of sources go, the policy states that most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources. That implies that secondary is better than tertiary. (The limitations of primary sources are discussed following this.) So there are distinctions. Actually, re-reading the tertiary section, it looks like it considers reference matter signed by experts as secondary, so this would imply that unsigned reference material by non-experts would be considered tertiary.

I don't believe that the IMDb is wholly worthless as a reference source, which is the question at hand. The whole distinction between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is a hierarchy in order to determine which references have higher preference (or trump, if you will). If the language of the proposal needs fixing, though, that seems reasonable. Girolamo Savonarola 19:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My only problem is with people citing is as a means to fill production information out in a page (though usually under a title of "Trivia"). If IMDb doesn't want to tell people exactly where they get their information, fine, but I don't see how we can cite them when it comes to this type of info, and do so reliably. SuperHeroHype isn't a reliable source for random information, but if they conduct an interview personally then that is usually considered reliable information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, the purpose of WP:V isn't to source sources, it's to source our material, mainly for indemnification against legal ramifications and to provide provenance. I don't regard this issue as a black/white IMDb is worthless vs. IMDb is infallible argument. The whole point of this proposal is to identify and isolate the most salient problem areas, so as to minimize likely problems. Girolamo Savonarola 20:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The proposal needs to be precise. There are too many issues with other guidelines where people have left them so vague that there aren't cracks to slip through by trenches. I have no problem using IMDb as a reliable source for a list of cast members for films/television shows that have already been released. It's verifiable via the episode, but easier to do if you can just click a link. I don't have a current opinion on release dates, I've seen some controversial dates for some films where they were listed as one thing on one page and another on a different page. My concern is on "real" information. A list of cast members doesn't make a film article. I'm talking about the meaty information, like how they made the film or tv show. If IMDb doesn't cite the source of that information, then it cannot be considered reliable information. There shouldn't be a "oh, cite it until someone finds something better", because that will only open the door to other things being cited "until something better comes along", things that wouldn't normally be allowed on a page. Yes, we can verify that IMDb has posted something, but we can say they are a reliable source themselves in instances such as production information (which tends to fall in their trivia section anyway). I think this proposal should be clear on that (if others agree that IMDb isn't "reliable" when it comes to that particular type of information). You wouldn't cite Wikipedia in a paper, even though we have clear editorial oversight guidelines and policies posted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The IMDb was designed as an information database for film characteristics (cast, crew, specs, etc). That it evolved to include things like trivia and movie connections was an attempt to provide entertainment. This guideline specifically proscribes usage of IMDb trivia. What do you perceive to be unclear? (Please feel free to edit it, too.) Girolamo Savonarola 20:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent ED}The whole distinction between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is a hierarchy in order to determine which references have higher preference (or trump, if you will). This is is incorrect. The whole distinction is in order to warn editor of the pitfalls original research issues with primary sources. Please consider the context that this terminology comes from the original research page not a page about reliability of sources. The policy reads: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. This reliance is about the "generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims" found in good secondary sources, because that the kind of information that makes an article encyclopedic. The kind of information that is only found in secondary sources. No where does the policy say secondary sources are preferred over others (i.e. primary, tertiary) for the same information, much less anything that can be interpreted as "when two sources disagree, use a secondary over a tertiary". You misunderstand the intention of that policy, if you are still uncertain of what I say please read some of the discusssion at Wikipedia talk:No original research--BirgitteSB 20:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think IMDb should be treated as what it is -- a secondary source -- much like any other printed book about movies. Bearian 16:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with this view is that IMDB, unlike a reliable book, does not cite its sources. You can't cite the source of an IMDB items like "Christopher Lee considers this his favorite film," or "The Japanese release included 10 extra minutes which the director did not approve of," because the contributor of such nuggets of rumor or OR are not noted so that anyone can corroborate them. We have a higher standard here. You are expected to cite your source in a way that can be verified. IDMB isn't such a source. So I would consider it a tertiary source. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nutshell

The nutshell now states Anecdotes, trivia, and unreleased film information from IMDb do not meet the reliable sources guideline. Did someone go through each IMDb post and confirm this? With absolute language like that, Citing IMDb will never be more than an essay. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed that to the absolute. It's the whole reason that this issue has been raised - IMDb has minimal internal sourcing and limited editorial oversight/fact-checking. Therefore these areas run into the most trouble. Girolamo Savonarola 21:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One user's opinion

I agree with most of the arguments voiced out in the proposed policy. IMDb would not technically be a reliable source unless there are footnotes within the site that acually cite secondary sources. We should also consider that the database does not necessarily make a clear distinction between notable and non-notable films, which means that some of the films may not be compatible with the notability guidline for films. My opinion on IMDb as a source can be boil down to three statements.

• If a film is not on IMDb, it is almost guaranteed that the film is not notable or the film does not exist. We can say this because the database covers practically all films in existance, notable and non-notable.

• In a Wikipedia entry, IMDb should not be the only source or reference within the article. We can say this because IMDb is not necessarily considered a reliable source unless footnotes are cited there, and again, because the database covers practically all films in existance, notable and non-notable.

• IMDb can cite basic information on an already released, notable film. IMDb has a good track record on well-circulating films; IMDb should be able to cite the date of release, cast...etc. on a particular film. But if there is a better source citing different information, that information should supercede the IMDb source.

Finally, we should remember that IMDb is very similar to Wikipedia in many ways, and citing IMDb should be used with caution. Sr13 00:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on almost all points except for the If a film is not on IMDb, it is almost guaranteed that the film is not notable or the film does not exist. This is actually quite wrong - I've found a good number of titles discussed in the Oxford Book of Film History (which is now over ten years old) that have no IMDb entry. Like Wikipedia, IMDb relies on submissions. This leaves it rather exposed to omissions, particularly in more obscure national cinematic traditions and less mainstream material, regardless of historical notability. The title addition criteria also oddly require films to be linked to a website, so this may be preventing otherwise worthy films with sufficient written critical noteworthiness from being added.

In short, don't trust IMDb to be 100% comprehensive. Girolamo Savonarola 02:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's true also. When I wrote that, I was going by the assumption that there are no other citations. For example, if there is no IMDb source and no reliable external sources for a particular film, than it would be non-notable. Sr13 07:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I can attest to IMDB's lack of completeness. AND to difficulties in submitting. I submitted Roger Donaldson's documentary on Burt Munro, Offerings to the God of Speed, after watching it on the The World's Fastest Indian DVD. Twice it was rejected even though I had the film right there in front of me. So you will not always find films (notable or otherwise) listed in IMDB, simply because it's community-driven, and some contributors may give up after trying to add data. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technical specs, etc.

First off, I'll make my intentions clear up front. I wouldn't depend on IMDb as a source, period. It is NOT a source that is written by experts, but rather amateurs, and quite often is inaccurate in the following fields:

• Cast and Crew (too often is someone listed as "uncredited" simply because an extra vaguely looks like that person).
• Trivia (has been mentioned, but is often hearsay and is almost never cited)
• Release dates (as a writer about films, this has been my number one complaint with my proofreaders. IMDb 9 times out of 10 never has the correct premiere date for a film)
• TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS - Is one of the most important and yet overlooked part of any film. Color, sound, aspect ratio, lab, etc. IMDb's listings for these are so totally incorrect, I find myself trying to fix them, citing studio documentations, and then I have it turned back by someone who just "disagrees." This is highly unencyclopedic to be used as a source for an encyclopedia.

The biggest issues with IMDb not being a source are:

1. Sources are seldom and almost never cited.
2. Submitters are by mostly anonymous amateurs and false information and manipulation can be planted and go unnoticed for days, weeks, months and even years if obscure enough.
3. From my experience as someone who has submitted hundreds of corrections, the staff at IMDb has about a 1/3 hit rate for fixing things when corrections ARE submitted.

We should be discouraging using IMDb as a source, and encouraging using books by well known authors, and even more importantly, studio documentation as sources! Just my two cents. --The Photoplayer 00:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's the straw that has broken this camel's back. I'm withdrawing the proposal unless I hear any objections. Girolamo Savonarola 01:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur, I think a proposed guideline which deprecates use of IMDB is useful. It seems that the consensus is that IMDB is not a reliable source, such that we can cite it for almost anything. (Sorry to hear that even Technical Specs are regularly incorrect, I like being able to see what aspect and lens-type a film was made in.) So ... perhaps we need a guideline which clarifies WHY it's not acceptable as a primary or secondary source? - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a guideline, it would most likely be an essay. I think an essay would be preferable, then we could get consensus on the essay's linkage on other guidelines.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Budget and box office

The box office information in IMDb, are those considered reliable? What are other sites for business information? Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

IMdB doesn't cite its sources, so it's not reliable. I'm not sure about other sites. Cop 663 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IMDB as a reliable source

I just stumbled upon this talk page. It seems that consensus here is that IMDB isn't a reliable source. There are editors at Talk:Films considered the greatest ever who are arguing that it is. Some of them think that while it may not be considered reliable for trivia, it should be considered a reliable source for its user ratings, so it's ok to include them in articles. I tried bringing up the issue on WP:RS/Noticeboard to get an outside opinion, but nobody seems that interested. I see that the discussion about IMDB as a general source has also appeared before in WikiProject Films Archive and the same more recently specifically regarding user ratings. Would be good to resolve it finally. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Based on my understanding of the IMDB "polling" system, anyone with access to the Internet can log on and vote for films. It is not like RottenTomatoes, which requires the reviewers to hold positions as film critics for newspapers, magazines, or online film review websites. As such, IMDB is not a scientific polling system regarding the "views and opinions of the public", since it is not based on random sampling. Nor is it a collection of the views of notable film critics and film historians...it is just a collection of votes from anonymous Internet users. As such, I argue that "viewer ratings" from the IMBD website are non-notable and not usable on Wikipedia, any more than the results from the little "VOTE HERE" buttons on ABC news websites should be usable in Wikipedia. If ABC News puts a little infobox on its website with a question such as "Should the US get out of Iraq...Vote YES or NO below", the results of this non-scientific "survey" of website viewers is not useful from a research perspective.Nazamo (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)