This is anessay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts WP:CITINGIMDBWP:CITINGIMDB WP:CITEIMDBWP:CITEIMDB

This page in a nutshell: Anecdotes, trivia, and unreleased film information fromIMDb do not meet thereliable sources guideline. TheIMDb should be used only as atertiary source for hard data on released films.

Citing theInternet Movie Database (IMDb) on Wikipedia raises questions if such references do not follow the important points given in thereliable sources guideline. This is because much of the database content in IMDb iscontributed by users, not by experts. Plus, the editorial oversight by IMDb staff is minimal and not stated on the site, so you don't know what was edited and what was not.

The following essay addresses the usage of IMDb as a reference source, where its weaknesses and strengths lie with regard to content and policy, and the resulting ways you can and can't use it in Wikipedia's articles.

IMDb content that is acceptable to reference on Wikipedia includes:

1. Thewriting credits marked with "WGA" that are supplied directly by theWriters Guild of America (where applicable). For released films, citations are typically not necessary because the film itself is implied to be the primary source.
2. TheMPA ratings reasons, where they appear, that are supplied directly by theMotion Picture Association.

IMDb content which is in dispute about whether it is appropriate to reference on Wikipedia:

1. Released films only: Sections such as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications.

IMDb content inappropriate to reference on Wikipedia:

1. Any potentially contentious material aboutliving persons (BLPs).
2. Cast lists, etc. for films and television programming that are still in development or production, and have yet to premiere.(These could change at any time.)
3. The user comments for each title (this includes user reviews and ratings), which are pure user-generated content (WP:UGC).
4. Sections written in wiki-style with minimal editorial control. Those would be the FAQs for particular titles (not the database FAQ), the parental guides, and the plot synopses (not to be confused with the plot outlines or plot summaries, which are subject to editorial control).
5. Newsgroup reviews, which are archivedUsenet postings.
6. The trivia and goofs sections that are based on user submissions.
7. The recommendations.
8. While not "citing", do not useinterwiki links to create links to IMDb thatlook like a wikilink, likeJames Acaster: Repertoire. This goes against theWP:EL guideline. In the external links section of an article the templates{{IMDb name}} and{{IMDb title}} are commonly used. The latter givesJames Acaster: Repertoire atIMDb, for example.

• Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites (WP:ELP) – further info onwhen to use IMDb (e.g., as anExternal link, not as a source)
• Template:BLP IMDb refimprove
• Template:BLP IMDb-only refimprove
• Template:Media IMDb refimprove

• Wikipedia essays