Talk:Japanese Movie Database/Archive 1

Archive 1

Commercial status

The website this points to contains "Amazon Associate links" which are paid-for links. Does it qualify as a non-commercial site (as stated)? JoshuSasori (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

For example,

http://www.jmdb.ne.jp/1976/cz003220.htm

contains a link on the right side of the page to

http: // www.amazon.co.jp /exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005OO66/ jmdb0f-22

which is clearly an Amazon Associates link. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-commercial sites can certainly have links to commercial sites, even associate links. Many non-commercial sites use them as a way to pay for the site so it can remain non-commercial (and/or free). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess this depends on the definition of "commercial". Maybe your definition is whether the website is selling something? I assumed it to mean whether the website is making money somehow or other. In this case the issue is about the infobox (I changed it to "commercial" about six months ago). JoshuSasori (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked here on the template box itself. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

True, though we've never had consensus that a site which simply "makes money" is a commercial site. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's more the main intent of the site. If the main intent is to provide information, and in doing so there are links to various commercial sites where someone may be able to purchase the items being discussed, I wouldn't consider that a commercial site. However, if it is simply a link farm to commercial sites, or is selling things directly on the site, that would be a commercial site. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

JMDB

JoshuSasori seems to think that no one but people on Wikipedia call the Japanese Movie Database "JMDB" as a nickname or short way of referring to the site. He bases this solely on a google search. He is edit warring to keep that out of the article (stubby as it is) despite no evidence that Wikipedia editors are the only ones who use the abbreviation. Anyone else want to chime in? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not edit-warring. If you have a reference to a reliable source which says that the Japanese Movie Database is sometimes or commonly referred to as JMDb, then add it to the article. If not then don't add it. Please refer to WP:BURDEN for the Wikipedia policy which explains this. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Beyond noting that the Japanese Wikipedia article (ja:日本映画データベース) notes the abbreviation, I can see some use of it both in casual internet talk ([1]) and at American universities ([2]). Michitaro (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Though, to be fair, the Yale link calls it "JFDB" ("F" for "film", I'm assuming). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As JoshuSasori notes below, there are two databases introduced at Yale, one is the JMDB and one is the JFDB. Michitaro (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Aha, I didn't notice the second one farther down the page. Thanks for clarifying. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

(Triple EC. Followed a link here from WT:ANIME.) "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."^WP:BURDEN Goodraise 00:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't help. Spouting stuff like that does nothing to further the discussion. Perhaps taking time to help instead? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's very helpful indeed to clarify the policy which applies here WP:BURDEN. If you have evidence for JMDb, add it to the article. What is annoying to me is that these people have been moving all the jmdb templates around and renaming them, resulting in chaos where the jmdb templates are doubly-redirected, and then they justify these template moves by adding the bogus JMDb to this article. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

How is it "bogus"? The URL of the site uses "jmdb", so it really isn't any kind of stretch at all to think there are some people out there who use "jmdb" as shorthand to refer to it. For instance, Facetten der japanischen Populär- und Medienkultur, Volume 2, by Martina Schönbein. In addition, if you view any of the individual entry pages on the site, the title of the page includes "JMDB" instead of 日本映画データベース (example). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I fixed all the template moving by putting them back at the neutral {{jmdb}}, {{jmdb name}} (or {{jmdb person}}), and {{jmdb title}}. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I originally created the "jmdb title" template. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

the Japanese Wikipedia article (ja:日本映画データベース) notes the abbreviation - The editor who put JMDb on the Japanese wikipedia article is the same editor who put it in this article. 'at American universities - ironically that page contains both JFDB and JMDB but not the disputed JMDb which the editor added to both this English language article and the Japanese one. Reliable sources, anyone? No? If not then this discussion is unlikely to be fruitful. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This is just plain false. I put it into the article here (see here when I created the article), and Sasdv put it into the Japanese article when s/he created it (see here). As for the capitalization, that's a style issue, not one needing a reference. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that the IMDb is often referred to as the IMDB, I don't think these capitalization issues are the point. The question is whether it is referred to either as JMDb or as JMDB and clearly it is. Michitaro (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So, is everyone fine with replacing "JMDB" (in all caps since it's an acronym)? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You can add it to the article if you want. I'm not edit warring. But what is the reliable source for JMDB or JMDb? I can't see the point adding this, really. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There have been a few reliable (and non-reliable) sources provided. Yale is quite reliable. I would consider that German book reliable. Even the site itself uses the "JMDB" as a self-reference. That's good enough for me. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• The site calls itself "JMDB". Add "JMDB". (By the way, if "IMDb", written like that, is a registered trademark, then (in my personal opinion) there's a strong similarity between it and "JMDb", and IMDb may request the site to stop using the abbreviation.) --Moscowconnection (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Where does it call itself JMDB? The URL contains the letters jmdb, but where is that on the site itself? JoshuSasori (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Click on any movie, then look at the page title. --Moscowconnection (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Click on any movie - ok I clicked the one at the top of this page, http://www.jmdb.ne.jp/1976/cz003220.htm. then look at the page title - ok, it says ひとごろし. Do I have to say a magic word too? I tried some more titles but could not see jmdb anywhere. I also looked at the page source code, and the only jmdb I found was in the Amazon associates link. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
        • The site's main page lists 5 latest additions to the database. All of them have "JMDB" in the page title. One of them: [3]. --Moscowconnection (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
          • I found it on those five pages, but I couldn't find on anywhere else. The link with the index.cgi? is differently formatted also. Actually I could only find films up to 2007. It's a bit strong to say that the site "calls itself JMDB" on this basis. Anyway, enough. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
            • All of the pages on this page have it in the title (meaning what shows at the very top of your browser, above the URL). Perhaps he's in the process of reformatting the pages and hasn't yet rolled it out to the entire site? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• The acronym is applied a couple of times in independent publications (see [4]). Normally you would expect a commonly applied acronym to pop up a few times in various reliable sources, but considering this is a foreign site and there aren't many references to it in English language sources, I am inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt given the fact there is some independent corroboration. Betty Logan (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all the inputs here. The part of this which was rather annoying wasn't the abbreviation itself but that there were some templates which were being capitalized to JMDB, and then recapitalized another way as JMDb, and the person doing this was then adding the various capitalizations in to the article, in rather a spurious way as if to justify all the exasperating renaming of the template using the article about the site. JoshuSasori (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)