Category talk:Articles sourced by IMDb
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Sxg169 in topic What happens when a BLP dies -- i.e. no longer a BLP but still sourced by IMDb?
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles sourced by IMDb category. |
|
![]() | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Scope
editIs this category solely for BLPs? or also for film articles only sourced to IMDb? Perhaps the category should be renamed to "Biographies sourced by IMDB"? -- Ϫ 09:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's probably for pretty much anything that has IMDB as a reference. If someone can tell me why we don't like IMDB though I'd like to know. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 18:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to know too. I think the original intention was to tag articles that use IMDb and ONLY IMDb as it's only single source, which is usually insufficient for BLP's. -- Ϫ 21:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- What OlEnglish said. In past discussions some editors strongly dislike IMDB as a source because it is open to user editing or user contributions, i.e. it is like sourcing from another wikipedia. An actor can enter or submit his/her own bio information. However IMDB is generally reliable for what movies an actor has appeared in I believe, and apparently has sections of data that are centrally controlled and verified and regarded as reliable. So in practice many articles do use IMDB as a source. The articles that have the "IMDB-only" type tag on them are being criticized for having too much reliance upon IMDB. The category allows editors to navigate among them. I don't think we really want to add this category individually to any articles. There is no intrinsic interest in all articles having IMDB as a source; just the thinly sourced ones need to be identified. Perhaps this should be named "Category:Articles seeming to be inadequately sourced by IMDB and little else", but the current wording "Articles sourced by IMDB" was thot to be more polite. --doncram (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- But is it necessary to tag film articles too? Shouldn't we restrict this to just BLP's? The template is {{BLP IMDB refimprove}} after all. And why do we need to separate these from Category:Articles sourced only by IMDB? They should all be in one category. -- Ϫ 21:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Request to populate "all" category
editI have created requests here to populate a category All articles sourced by IMDb with pages in subcategories of this category. Please weigh in here. —swpbT 19:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
What happens when a BLP dies -- i.e. no longer a BLP but still sourced by IMDb?
editFor example, François Perrot died, and had
This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification, as its only attribution is to IMDb. (August 2016) |
" in his article. He is no longer a living person so "BLP" doesn't fit but "{{IMDb-only refimprove}}" doesn't exist. What template is best used here? Sxg169 (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)