User talk:Fadhly Rahman

This is Fadhly Rahman's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This page has been mentioned by a media organization:

"The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009.

Accessing IMDb content from Wikipedia
[edit]

Further information: Wikipedia:IMDb

A link to a page on IMDb about a title (a movie or a tv series), a person (actor, actress, etc.), a company, a character, or tv episode, can be made by means of five templates: {{imdb title}}, {{imdb name}}, {{imdb company}}, {{imdb character}}, and {{imdb episode}}. Instructions about the use of these templates can be found on their respective document pages. Note that these templates should be used in the "External links" section.
There is also another mean: using InterWiki by adding [[IMDbName:ID]] or [[IMDbTitle:ID]]. Just replace "ID" with the IMDb code (at the end of the URL) for a given title/person (eg. Frank Sinatra's is "0000069", and Ocean's Eleven is "0054135"). Example:

[[IMDbName:0000069]] is rendered as IMDbName:0000069

[[IMDbTitle:0054135]] is rendered as IMDbTitle:0054135

You can also make a piped link to use a text for the link:
[[IMDbName:0000069|Frank Sinatra]] is rendered as Frank Sinatra

[[IMDbTitle:0054135|''Ocean's Eleven'']] is rendered as Ocean's Eleven

This method should only be used where in-article links are needed. For the external links, the use of the imdb name, title, or company templates is preferred.

Financial reason for creditcard verification

This article reads completely like a commercial and ad. Imdb is now owned by Amazon. They require an Amazon purchase to use their forums. This is clever business exploit but at what price. Where is the integrity that they want people to talk about their movies? They obviously want financial information for other reasons than verification. This is fact. Deleting this and calling it vanadalism is ridiculous. --69.154.214.28 (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn, not this old complaint again. If you look through the talk page archive it's already been covered many times. You don't have to buy anything from Amazon to become an authenticated user. That is one way to do it, there are other ways. Read the page at [1], particularly the details when you open the sections on the right Do I have to pay for this? and Isn't this really just a way for you to make money? -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by "vandal control"

It is ironic that Beeblebrox boasts about his vandal control, when he is actively vandalising other people's contributions.

On 15th September IMDb rolled out one of its biggest developments yet - the ability to actually WATCH the items which you look up. As a thorough encylopaedia it is important that Wikipedia mentions this, as lacking one of the main features in an article damages its credibility. Beeblebrox's continual vandalism of this new information shows bias against IMDb, and makes his own position on this site extremely questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.108.154 (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you finally came to the talk page instead of edit-warring. I tried to explain to you on your talk page that this information needs to come from a reliable source, and that your analysis of the "irony" and use of hyperbole like "orgasmic" was the problem. Your accusation that I have some prejudice against IMDB is ridiculous. I can see as well as you that this feature actually exists, but the way you described it was wholly inappropriate and your accusations of vandalism were completely unfounded. Feel free to re-write in a way that does not express your personal opinions, and maybe try to find appropriate sources. This is the talk page for discussing this article, if you actually believe I am a vandal, you need to go here to report me. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were so busy removing my work that you failed to notice that on my 2nd edit I actually added the reliable source which linked straight to the announcement page on IMDb itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.108.154 (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS for details on what constitutes a reliable source. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 09:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is IMDB listed here?

I understand it's a pretty big website. Very popular. Giant and all that. But it's still another 'website'. So the page looks more like an advertisement for that site. Seeing that, other people would want their sites listed and detailed here as well. No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaunty mellifluous (talk • contribs) 18:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol what? Should we also delete the article on George W Bush since he's "another 'politician'", and other politicians will want their sites detailed here as well? I hope you're trolling. 96.237.59.92 (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets start deleting with Google, Microsoft, EA Games, Half Life, Coca Cola... they are all advertising here I suppose... WHAT A BRILLIANT IDEA!!! "Delete IMDB, it is advertisement" I cannot believe those people are using and EDITING Wikipedia. Get A LIFE kid.--hnnvansier (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there's an article on Wikipedia that effectively promotes and advertises Wikipedia! Quelle horror! Quick, get rid of it before it makes anyone use the Wikipedia site :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeh. .. hehe. . . what he said. . . yeh. . . hehehe. . . delete. . .. yeh. . . . .i love ducks. CarmenAutre (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Equipment Alpha involvement

I recall back in 1995/1996 at PC Expo in NY that Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) was showing off their Alpah Chip technology by showing off imdb.org -- which they claimed was their "technology demo" site for their product. It was really fast for the time. I can't seem to find any record of this. But they seemed to claim that they sponsored and built the site to show off how fast they could search data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.178.192.1 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Website is not working

This website does not work at the moment... or at least for me. If it doesnt work for everyone it should be noted on this page

I've been having the same problem for several weeks now. Jellevc (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Spanish and the UK sites are working. The US is not. Perhaps it is just a matter of them moving pages.--Nauki (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV discussion

It seems to me that a lot of the article about IMDb's recent history and practices is rather negative in tone. It sounds as if the author of the article is unhappy with IMDbPro, and the purchase of IMDb by a private corporation. It seems to me that, after reading the article in full, the specific locations of the negative tone and POV should be apparent. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 07:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you cited the "specific locations of the negative tone and POV" you are unhappy with. Some things just are negative, no matter how you look at them. But if your POV is brighter, why don't you just add it?

By the way, I am quite sure the article wasn't written by one person. 62.226.3.143 (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want examples? Here are some POV sounding bits:

"and the need for more full-time managers, who would of course want to be paid"
"None of this activity was made known to the several hundred volunteers who were contributing the vast majority of information now incoming to IMDb."
"Volunteer contributors were not advised in advance of even the possibility of IMDb—and their contributions along with it—being sold to a private business, which created some initial discord and defection of regulars."
"Thus non-US and non-European contributors are effectively excluded from ever achieving complimentary IMDbPro membership via this incentive scheme."
"This lack of oversight is acceptable, however, because very little new data is sent in"
"giving the impression that it is generally the work of Col Needham and his small staff of "data managers""
"The fact that the primary qualification for section managers is their knowledge of programming, rather than film or the parts of film with which they deal, also allows for addition of misinformation, urban legend, rumor and human error by relative novices."

Peter Ballard (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pieces like that are usually added by people who have tried to get a credit listed on the IMDb and found that they don't meet their eligibility rules. So they come here and say nasty things about it :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet "Media" Database

Does anyone know if IMDB has ever considered calling themselves "The Internet Media Database"? As the article states, "The IMDb website consists of one of the largest accumulations of data about films, television programs, direct-to-video products, and video games", and has profile pages for people in all forms of media. I can foresee the whole operation undergoing a name-change soon, because new IMDb visitors have no way to get the drift that they cover a lot more than just movies, and thus will utilize the site a lot less. Unsigned comment from 68.111.167.64 14:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's in a name? The biggest selling TV listings magazine in the UK is still called the Radio Times. I don't think anyone ever buys it thinking that it only contains radio listings. Does anyone ever use the IMDb thinking that it just contains information about movies? Most people will find it by doing a search for a title or person that they are interested in rather that hunting around for a web site with a name that implies that it will contain what they want -- SteveCrook (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cite #4

cite #4 says "post deleted" on all posts for me. 212.247.86.210 (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality of Website & Headquaters

I was just wondering why it doesn't like several pages on websites (EG. Google, Yahoo, Amazon.com) (Google is an American public corporation) how it is not listed as a certain nationality, british, american whatever it is? Someone explain that to me please? thanks. Secondly why is there no "headquaters" is this information missing or unknown. Thanks --Tukogbani (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says in the body it's incorporated in the U.K. Also, they use British English in their news feed (series instead of season, drink driving instead of drunk driving, etc.) Ace of Sevens (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay cool, do they have a headquaters or is it strictly based online?--Tukogbani (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authentication in the message boards

I have an account on imdb and participate in the forums, and have never used any of those features to activate my account. I created the account several years ago, have they changed the requirements and just grandfathered in those of us who have had accounts for years? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original research of the Message Boards' section wrongfully makes it look like authentication was always a given. It was only something IMDb added a decade later. Alas, IMDb also had a grandfather clause that let existing unauthenticated users post and report about bad posts. In other words, the authentication demand was only applied for new users (since the moment of the demand).

That is, until they recently abolished the grandfather clause out of the blue without any explanation. Is there any reliable source that discusses this whole situation?

-79.176.10.57 (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason this kind of thing should be in the article? Doesn't seem at all encyclopaedic to me, it's a minor trivia. Canterbury Tail talk 12:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb's message boards are the unofficial official choice for the average user who wants to discuss a certain film, TV show or TV episode. Turning such a choice into a private small community within a click of a button (when it comes to posting, not reading) is not trivial in my eyes. -79.180.25.233 (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grandfather clause still works for me .I've never authenticated my account and can still post freely .Garda40 (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News to me. All I provided was an email address which is not the same as the email I have associated with Amazon... =//= Proxy User (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you two talk about the boards specifically? I too lost the grandfather clause in August 2009. It's very odd if you two claim you still have it unlike others. -82.80.56.119 (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd; I signed up with IMDb in 2006, never gave any 'financial information' and, to this day do not have ANY sort of registration with amazon.com, yet I can still post just fine; how long as that "citation needed" tag been sitting there? Empath (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rating People

So how does it end up coming with the change for rating people? MMetro (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of September 16, 2009 this site's look was updated.

The site has a new look. I tried to re-size this screenshot of the frontpage but it didn't look right. Can someone else re-size it upload the image on this side please? Thanks. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 16:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable?

Is IMDB a reliable source for Wikipedia?Iminrainbows (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've twice encountered Wik-users who reverted edits based on, in their opinion, IMDB not being reliable. That's just two times (articles Greater Manchester and Terry Ward) but its not like users leap up to defend IMDB. In my own experience at least, IMDB --at least for the last couple of years-- has been reliable and well self-policed. However, if a few users or admins disagree, it seems to be enough to taint it as a source for some articles. Cramyourspam (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)CramYourSpam[reply]

I should add that I'm speaking only of IMDB main, goofs, trivia, and extended cast pages. I do not claim the forum boards of theirs are reliable; by their very nature, those boards allow pretty much anyone to write whatever they want ---accurate or not. Cramyourspam (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)CramYourSpam[reply]

IMDb can be used for its news stories and its release dates. A lot of it is user submitted, making it not reliable, though. That is how I understand it. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 17:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Donald Fullilove article I created last year? He was in Up (as Nurse George) and quite a number of other films, but there are few other mentions of him on the Internet other than his IMDb page. It's not like he doesn't exist! Is there any way to keep this article, or will it be deleted solely because IMDb is its only source? dogman15 (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you find some other sources of information about him then they can be added to the article. It is a bit sparse. That's nothing to do with the IMDb being used as a source of information. There's just not a lot in the Wikipedia article about him -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i practically grew up with imdb. it is, perhaps, my favorite website. it was great in the early years of the site seeing listings for obscure (but arguably historically important) features come online. that, for me, was the real thrill of the site. but now imdb has become so exclusive in its approach to project listings that it has defeated its purpose (or one of its purposes), that of documenting filmdom's past. there are a lot of "undocumented" films still out there. ("undocumented" in the sense that they are not listed in the imdb, the de facto filmography site of record). due to these circumstances, an alternative to imdb should be found for films that, for one reason or another, DIDN'T make it into the database. does such an alternative database exist? if not, is there any chance that one might go online in the not-to-distant future? this is a real need that apparently isn't being met........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbecker03 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should you need an alternative? Have you had a few personal projects that haven't been listed? They have got a bit more exclusive over the years, they've had to. Otherwise every home movie video and YouTube clip would have to be listed to say nothing of all those student projects that won't be seen by anyone except the rest of the class and maybe the family of the people that made it. If there are any historically important, or even significant films that are missing from the IMDb then they can be added. The IMDb is only as good as we film fans can make it -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

I've removed the policy section as it is inappropriate for article space. The applicable policy and guideline pages concerning the reliability of sources are WP:V and WP:RS. Dlabtot (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That section was about IMDb's policy on Wikipedia, not Wikipedia's. Though I agree it shouldn't be in the article either, but wanted to clarify. Mike Allen 02:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! color me sheepish. Dlabtot (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Ahjdjabdjbajbdjbajbdjbb.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Ahjdjabdjbajbdjbajbdjbb.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 13:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Happ;lls.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Happ;lls.jpeg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Australiaan Maskot.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Australiaan Maskot.jpeg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:800px-City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:800px-City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Muhammad Fadhlurrahman.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Muhammad Fadhlurrahman.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 15:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]