Template talk:Imdb title

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Template
This article has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] New category

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

[edit] Format

I want to alter the template to include a link to IMDb. I propose:

[[Internet Movie Database]] [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt{{{id}}} entry on ''{{{title}}}'']

producing something like

I propose a similar alteration to Template:imdb name. Any objections?--Phil | Talk 11:46, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I too thought that when I first proposed this template, but Nunh-huh said something important [1]: "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? — 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 Wikipedia: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. — 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. — 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. — 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. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:40, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] interwiki

When the meta:interwiki map gets updated, we can change the link to [[imdbtitle:{{{id}}}]|{{{title}}}]]. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:33, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

ex: Beetle Juice Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:22, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
It's been updated, I've updated the template. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Format change with Imdb logo

  • The template has been changed by User:SuperDude115. I have reverted the edit because I would like some discussion before such a radical change.

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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Template substitution

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

[edit] 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. —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#Piped link? —Whouk (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 Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. In particular, the sentence "Most especially, there should never be a need to replace [[redirect]] with [[direct|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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Ëvilphoenix 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 Wikipedia: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. Ëvilphoenix 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? Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:IMDb with instructions? Jason One 22:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/m/d/Template_talk%7EImdb_title_db56.html"