Talk:List of Netflix original programming/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Narcos season 3

What's the tipping point for something belonging in the Foreign Language section? Narcos season 3 was about 75% in Spanish at least.--occono (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You could make the argument it belongs there. It's one of those shows that doesn't neatly fit into just one of the categories we use on the page. I recall there were a couple reasons why it was kept in the Drama section, when this was discussed previously. I think a major one was that Narcos is still partly in English and, unlike the other shows in the Foreign Language list, is still targeted heavily towards an English speaking (particularly American) audience despite also being in large part Spanish. I know Netflix advertises Narcos heavily in the US, but not the other Foreign Language shows. So an English reader to this page may wonder why it's not in the dramas since its among the shows they watch alongside HoC, OITNB, etc. whereas they may have little interest in the other Foreign Language shows. They may or may not be the strongest reasons why and you could probably dispute them, but back then it was enough that most editors didn't feel much in favor of moving it. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Netflix has advertised some other foreign language shows though: Club De Cuervos, Ingobernable, Suburra, Terrace House, 3% and Las Chicas Del Cable have all had Twitter/Youtube promotions on their US feeds, and in many other countries as well (where people are used to subtitles for English language content). Narcos became a hit so they promote it heavily now, but it had the same level of promo the aforementioned shows did at first before they were sure about it.--occono (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: In the first place, is the Foreign Language section necessary? See the sections of stand-up comedies and films. Because they have a language column in a sortable table format, they do not separate tables between English programs and foreign ones. Non-English-speaking markets are growing faster than ever. This means you will face the same issue as Narcos more frequently in the near future. Considering the maintainability by multiple editors, I suggest you to remove the foreign language section, create a language column in TV programs and then relocate foreign language programs. It sounds the easiest way to me.　Mis0s0up (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

That's how it originally was, it was changed. I already made the same argument as you but was outvoted.--occono (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should get rid of the Foreign Language section now... But if we do, we have to create a language column in a lot of categories for consistency. If we would put it to a vote again I would be for it. It's a fairly big change and would take time to implement properly (we would have to check/decide what it's the OV when it come to some of the co-productions for example), but I think its time to do it. Netflix is truely international now and foreign productions are no outliers anymore. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

We already had the language column, I added it to all the sections myself. It can be taken from history to save time (with updates). I HAVE BEEN PROVEN RIGHT IN THE END WHERE'S MY HONOURARY AWARD. --occono (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should scrap the foreign language section. I was originally in favour of it, but Netflix is producing a lot more foreign language content nowadays, so I don't think an almost random collection of shows (spoken in a foreign language) helps the reader, so it would probably be for the best to remove that section, and put the associated shows into the other appropriate sections. Somethingwickedly (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep the foreign language section. This debate keeps popping up, but there's never a good argument presented to get rid of it. We've taken votes and debated this way too many times. We've been using the Foreign Language section for years now and for the sake of consistency, it should stay. Netflix is an American company and this page is in English. A Foreign Language section makes it much easier for viewers who only watch English language content. Muddying up the categories will only create confusion. The assertion that because Netflix has been producing more foreign language content so the section should be eliminated is not a strong argument, because the more titles exist, the more need there is for category distinction. Further, as Netflix creates more English language content, those sections are already becoming huge. Why make it worse? It has also been suggested multiple times that once the Foreign Language section grows big enough, it should have subsections. I fully support that. Foreign Language series viewers watch those series because they are in a particular language. This categorization makes that easier for such viewers. Thus, dividing up Foreign Language into sub-sections based on language makes it easier for overall readability as well as for those who specifically want to seek out content of a particular language. Jaydangerx (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Also of note, Netflix, itself, has distinct foreign language sections for viewers. They even have subsections based on language. They just call it "International." If the term "foreign language" is unsettling to you, then use their own terminology and call it "International Programming" or something like that. Either way, it's clear that Netflix intends for this level of customization and distinction to exist for its viewers. Jaydangerx (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Estocolmo no longer available?

Is Estocolmo no longer available on Netflix, even though it's an original? I can't find it when searching for it.

Not every original is available in every region. Estocolmo might come to more regions when it has dubbing and/or subtitles for those regions. Netflix doesn't seem to think people would watch it without that or at least that's the only explanation I have apart from abstruse licence problems with the studio that made the show or somebody else.-Abyss Taucher (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

New Netflix Stand-up brand?

I posted 3 new upcoming comedy stand-ups from this source (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbwy3VuoK7fVC1IN5R52hfw) and they were deleted, because "Nothing proves this youtube account is affiliated in any way to Netflix…" It is true that there is no definitive prove that the clips were posted by Netflix, but there is certainly much more to the channel then just someebody posting random clips. Put aside the fact that the clips are very well nade and certainly look professional, the channel also links to a Netflix looking site, which has a link to Netflix.com on it (https://www.netflixstandup.com), a facebook account (https://www.facebook.com/netflixstandup), a instagram account (https://www.instagram.com/netflixstandup/) and a twitter account (https://twitter.com/netflixstandup). That really looks like a full-blown campange to me and I can not see why somebody would go to all that trouble just for the hell of it. If you ask me then this is a real campange from Netflix, but again, at the end of the day i can not a 100% prove that.

Lets vote on it. Do we think that there is enough evidance that this is real and enclude the 3 comedy stand-ups in the list or do we leave them out? -Abyss Taucher (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

N I vote no. I just don't see any evidence that they are actually affiliated or from Netflix. The most obvious point is the lack of a blue check mark on any of the accounts, but there are many other red flags that signal these aren't actual Netflix accounts -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

N It's better not to rely on this Netflix Stand-up YouTube account as a reference for several reasons. First, no other sources reported the new stand-up comedies – I googled but only this YouTube account reports with a title “Netflix is the Joke”. Second, referring to the YouTube account maybe violates the copy right. I don’t find an official Netflix Original logo on the video. If it is an official trailer, Netflix definitely puts the official logo and spread on its official YouTube account etc. Please always validate the reliability by searching for multiple sources. --Mis0s0up (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That's settled then. I guess we'll see if the 3 specials turn up officially. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

In addition the channel links to @NetflixStandup on twitter, but their new official verified twitter for that is @NetflixIsAJoke. It's a clever fake.--occono (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This is now officially a parody : SplitSider published an interview of the creator. http://splitsider.com/2017/11/netflix-is-a-joke-when-the-platform-becomes-the-bit/ Armos (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Dinotrux franchise

As of today (Nov. 12, 2017), the original program list has Dinotrux (S1-S5), and Dinotrux Supercharged (S6), both of which are not streamed on Netflix Japan. Instead, Netflix Japan streams a short content, Dinotrux: Happy Birthday! (Dinotrux: ハッピーバースデー! written in Japanese). This one-minute content is labeled as Netflix Original and categorized as Series, not film. No information about the short content available on Netflix Media Center. Could anyone tell whether the short content is only for Japan or for global streaming? Thank you, --Mis0s0up (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Netflix came out with 16 "Happy Birthday To You!" shorts this year featuring both Netflix original franchises (like Dinotrux) and non-Netflix original franchises (like Pokemon). -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. According to USA Today, Netflix released 10 short films, not 16. Am I missing the other 6 ones? Anyway, if some of those are labeled as Netflix Original and assigned to an independent title page on Netflix, should we list them under the Specials section, no matter how short they are. --Mis0s0up (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Technically the shorts are Netflix Originals, but they are so short that they're not relevant imo. We also didn't include 'Horsin' Around' (https://www.netflix.com/title/80004447) for the same reason. Abyss Taucher (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion sounds like the following analogy to me: you were creating a list of countries in the world, and you intentionally excluded some countries such as Vatican City and Falkland Islands from the list simply because of their population size. Wikipedia editors are supposed to be objective and expect different uses by a variety of readers. On the Netflix original program list, some people are probably looking for a trivia (say, which is the shortest program Netflix produced), some parents are selecting short contents for their kids (academic studies prove that small kids cannot concentrate on something more than 10 minutes), some anime fans want to know the entire portfolio of a certain franchise. The only criterion every editor can agree with is whether Netflix labels as Original or not. --Mis0s0up (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, apart from the thumbnail they are actually not labeled "Netflix Original" and of course Netflix Exclusives get labeled "A Netflix Original Series/Film" as well these days, so just the labeling isn't a clear point of reference anymore. It isn't quite as easy as you make it sound. - But hey, I'm just telling you what we went with. There is a case to be made to include the short clips, but it might go against Wikipedia:Notability "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." As I said it isn't quite so easy. Open a topic about it of you want, I might even side with you. ;) Abyss Taucher (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

My mistake it's 15 shorts (if you just type in Happy Birthday as I originally did, the 15 shorts come up plus an unrelated Barney birthday special which I original counted). The USA Today article also states 15. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's one way we could add them (probably to Specials):

Title	Genre	Premiere	Length
...	...	...	...
Happy Birthday To You	Birthday / Animation	September 16, 2017	15 shorts, 1 min. each
...	...	...	...

I think that if you add the Happy Birthday shorts, you'll have to add the new year's eve countdowns (even if they are only available during a month or so…) Armos (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

 request for help Sorry for the delay in response. AnonWikiEditor & Armos: thank you for your replies. Unfortunately I cannot add the happy birthday programs because some of them are not available on Netflix in my country. It would be much appreciated if someone could do that. Armos' suggested table format would be fine if the end footnote would have the 15 names such as Lego and Dinotrux for a search term purpose.--Mis0s0up (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Definitions of Self-commissions, Co-productions, Continuations, and Acquisitions

Some of the editors seem to misunderstand the concepts and thereby several programs are/were located in the incorrect sections. As a former industry insider, let me humbly explain the definitions by referring to real estate cases. Should you have different understanding, please feel free to explain it.

• Building owners, building construction companies and building tenants are totally different.
• Building owners are like self-commissions, co-productions, or continuations as licensers (i.e. commissioned by Netflix).
• Building construction companies are like production studios as vendors.
• Building tenants are like steaming/broadcasting right holders as licensees (i.e. acquisitions).

If the building (co-)owner is Netflix, the building (a drama program) is labeled as Netflix Original. So as Trump Inc names its building as Trump Tower. Even after the building owner as a licenser lent some rooms to other TV broadcasters or VOD servicers, the building is still called Netflix Original. Exclusivity is NOT the matter in this case. So as tenants of Trump Tower are not only the Trump family but also some rich people.

If the building owner is not Netflix but Netflix as a tenant occupies all of the rooms, the building is also labeled as Netflix Original. The building owner is the decision-maker on tenant selection. Therefore, Netflix can be easily kicked out if Netflix does not wish to pay extra exclusive fees.

There are two types of exclusivity in acquisitions: Global or Regional. If Netflix occupies all floors, it is a global licensee (i.e. the entire building is Netflix Original). If Netflix selects several countries only, it is a regional licensee (i.e. Netflix occupies only the first floor and it is called Netflix Original).

Most of Netflix Original TV programs in Japanese language are co-production. Some of the co-production partners are Japanese TV broadcasters, but some are not. If the co-production partner is a TV broadcaster, the Original program is aired on the TV as well as streamed on Netflix Japan simultaneously. Thus, it is not exclusive. However, the building is still co-owned by Netflix and the TV broadcaster, so it is called Netflix Original.

The co-production partners are also able to sell the airing/streaming rights to the third parties. For example, Netflix is responsible to sell the right to Western countries whereas a Japanese co-production partner is responsible to do so to Asian countries. It is like to recruit Western tenants by Netflix on the first floor and Asian tenants by a Japanese partner on the second floor.

The most complicated case is probably Hibana: Spark. Hibana is co-produced (co-commissioned) by Netflix and Yoshimoto (a talent agency). Thus, Hibana is Netflix Original. A year later from the first run on Netflix, Hibana was also broadcasted on NHK (a TV broadcaster). Even during its airing period, Hibana was labeled as Netflix Original in Japan. You cannot put NHK’s name in the co-production partner row of the list table because NHK is a licensee. This is a good example why exclusivity is not the point to define Netflix Original or not. Furthermore, you cannot put Hibana under the section of self-commission. The building is co-owned. To expand Tower 2 and Tower 3 (i.e. renew or cancel the next seasons) is decided by the co-owners.

I also found and already fixed a bug in the Acquisitions section. A Japanese anime Kuromukuro: P.A. Works is a production studio (i.e. a construction company), but the name was listed as the building owner…

One more bug is American Crime Story in the Acquisitions section. Netflix obtained an exclusive steaming license but the exclusivity does not apply to preventing other TV broadcasters. Thus, American Crime Story is not labeled as Netflix Original, and was removed from the acquisitions section. --Mis0s0up (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I am of the belief that there needs to be a greater discussion, and eventual delineation, regarding the films listed on this page. Several of the films listed as Netflix originals were merely purchased by Netflix at various film festivals and then distributed by them. Others, like all of their Adam Sandler films from Happy Madison, were developed and commissioned by Netflix themselves. I agree with Mis0s0up that most editors on here seem to have confusion over what television shows or films were actually developed by Netflix and those that they merely purchased and distributed. BoogerD (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference. but the list isn't called "List of original programs developed and commissioned by Netflix" it's called "List of original programs distributed by Netflix" as in programs that aired first on Netflix with the Netflix Original brand. I'm not saying that the list is without fault, it probably has a mistake here and there, but the overall classification is correct. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Table update

Since we have a lot of information and it needs to be useful info, I propose for the tables to eliminate the length column, first of all no one cares, and Netflix it’s not constricted by time slots. So I saw times ranging from 31 min to 71 min, or 21 min to 57 min. I don’t think it matters. And we should abbreviate the dates and the seasons/episodes. Just like all of the other companies do it. People will know that (1 S, 10 ep.) S stands for season and ep for episode. Also it takes one less line and looks better. Let me know what you guys think. I changed it on the first table just to show how it looks like.

Drama

Title	Genre	Premiere	Seasons	Status
House of Cards	Political drama	Feb 1, 2013	5 S, 65 ep	Renewed for final season/Indefinite Hiatus
Hemlock Grove	Horror/thriller	April 19, 2013	3 S, 33 ep	Ended
Orange Is the New Black	Comedy-drama	July 11, 2013	5 S, 65 ep	Renewed for S 6-7
Marco Polo	Historical drama	Dec 12, 2014	2 S, 20 ep	Ended
Bloodline	Thriller	March 20, 2015	3 S, 33 ep	Ended
Sense8	Science fiction	June 5, 2015	2 S, 23 ep	Renewed for final episode
Narcos	Crime drama	Aug 28, 2015	3 S, 30 ep	Renewed
Stranger Things	Science fiction/horror	July 15, 2016	2 S, 17 ep	Renewed
The Get Down	Musical drama	Aug 12, 2016	1 S, 11 ep	Ended
The Crown	Historical drama	Nov 4, 2016	1 S, 10 ep	S 2 due to premiere on Dec 8, 2017; renewed for S 3-4
The OA	Mystery	Dec 16, 2016	1 S, 8 ep	Renewed
A Series of Unfortunate Events	Black-comedy mystery	Jan 13, 2017	1 S, 8 ep	Renewed for S 2-3
13 Reasons Why	Teen drama/mystery	March 31, 2017	1 S, 13 ep	Renewed
Gypsy	Psychological thriller	June 30, 2017	1 S, 10 ep	Ended
Ozark	Crime drama	July 21, 2017	1 S, 10 ep	Renewed
Mindhunter	Drama	Oct 13, 2017	1 S, 10 ep	Renewed

Andres balbuena (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I care about the runtime. It tells you right from the start how much of a time commitment a piece of content is. To have it for TV shows is a little debatable, since we don't list it for all the episode, but it's nevertheless useful information. To have it for movies is even more useful. We could maybe shorten some of the content in the tables, I agree that thsat's worth thinking about, but overall the tables are fine as they're imo. Abyss Taucher (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree for movies we should keep it, but for shows maybe we should just put 30min or 60min format since most of them will be around that. Andres balbuena (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I support keeping runtime. While not everyone is concerned about it, there are likely enough people who appreciate that this column exists.Jaydangerx (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Netflix Original Anime: Adult Animaiton, Foreign Language, or New Section?

Currently we have Devilman Crybaby under 'Adult Animation', and B: The Beginning under 'Foreign Language'. Now that Netflix is producing their own anime and not just acquiring licenses, I think we need to decide if these should populate under 'Adult Animation', 'Foreign Language', or make an entirely new section just for Netflix anime. Thoughts?Minion Max (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Putting 'B: The Beginning' under 'Foreign Language' was an error on my part. It's under 'Adult Animation' now were think it should be, because imo genre is more important than OV. Also, afaik Anime is per definition japanese, so we don't need to comment on the OV in that case, which makes it easier to put it there than in other cases. - I do think we need to finally make a decision on how to handle the foreign language problem overall. Tt's getting harder and harder to categorize that content, but I haven't come to a good solution yet... -Abyss Taucher (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that the solution is simple. If the anime shows are in English, place them under "Adult Animation." If they are in Japanese, please them under "Foreign Language." If Foreign Language continues to expand, then we ought to consider sub-sections for it. Just as Drama has Marvel, Foreign Language can have Anime. Jaydangerx (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The upcoming anime with definite release dates (B: The Beginning and Devilman Crybaby) have both Japanese and English casts. However, the staff and studios are Japanese, and in some cases these series are being directly adapted from a Japanese work. The English language is simply a dub. Furthermore, many of these series could potentially be considered co-productions as well. Sword Gai was announced in 2014, without even a mention of Netflix -- it's very possible that Netflix picked it up later in its production, rather than greenlighting the project itself.

Add on to that the other complicating factors with foreign works, and I think it might be best to alter the sections entirely. Would it be feasible to merge the co-productions into the main foreign language list, and simply add some sort of note to series that were co-produced? I am not opposed to having an entire anime section. It's a bit early now, since only two have solid release dates, but it seems there will be a slate of them eventually. This does bring up a separate issue, though: what to do with programming like Rilakkuma and Kaoru, which is a children's stop motion anime series? If an anime section were added, I would rather have it there, since it reflects its language and origins. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Would it be feasible to merge the co-productions into the main foreign language list, and simply add some sort of note to series that were co-produced?" The problem with that is, that we also have co-produced content that is in english. - We could change "foreign language" to something like "foreign productions", but even that doesn't work, because we have "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency", "Damnation" and "El Chapo", which are co-production with US networks. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, and scanning the list, about half are English-language. With anime specifically, I suppose it becomes a question of whether genre, medium, or country of origin takes precedence. Currently, country -- or at least language -- overrides genre for live action series. An alternative would be to merge foreign language productions into the general genre lists, with an added "Language" column. I believe it's come up a few times that the current article takes an "English-speaking American" angle, which may not mesh well with Netflix currently operating on an international level. Anime series could then be placed in animation categories without issue, with the exception of co-productions. It's already been done to some extent, since the Spanish-language "The Day I Met El Chapo" is listed with the documentaries. Perhaps a general discussion is needed on which headers are appropriate for this article. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The Foreign Language debate was resolved multiple times over multiple years. At this point, it's well settled and we should move on from continuously rehashing the same debate. Here, the question concerns what to do with Japanese animation (anime) shows. I see four options: 1.) Include them in the Foreign Language section; 2.) List Anime as a sub-section under Foreign Language; 3.) Place anime titles under Adult Animation; and 4.) List Anime as a sub-section under Adult Animation. Options 3 and 4 feel like better options to me, but I would be supportive of either of these four scenarios. Jaydangerx (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

My vote would be option 3 for now (since there are just 2, neither released) with eventual plans for option 4 (when we have, say 3 released anime series). With how ambitious Netflix's plans are for anime, I think they should (eventually) be categorized by themselves. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The issue with 3 and 4 is that at least two upcoming series are not adult animation, they're aimed at kids or general audiences. This isn't so much an issue if "anime" is its own separate section, similar to how the MCU stuff is completely separate from the drama section. Doing so would also bypass the issue of "anime" fitting foreign language and adult animation categories equally. The alternative is to stick the kid's anime under the children's animation section, but I feel hesitant about that. For one, one would expect an anime section to contain all anime, and two, eventually we could wind up with series that are general audience appropriate but would not be considered a kid show. This isn't a what-if, either, since several anime each season are appropriate for all ages while airing in late-night slots and aimed at adults. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It could certainly be its own section. It doesn't need to be a subsection. We don't necessarily have to wait for a certain number before creating the section either. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

So the issue seems to be whether or not we ought to list "Anime" as its own section, or list "Anime" as a subsection of "Adult Animation." Much of this seems to hinge on the nature of the upcoming children's anime shows.Jaydangerx (talk) 04:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

After having looked at the number of upcoming anime titles, it's clear that "Anime" will need to have either its own section or sub-section (under Adult Animation). We just need to decide on which one. I'm hoping we can achieve some consensus on this matter quickly so that we can properly arrange the page as needed. Jaydangerx (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I think having its own section might be best if we plan to include the kid's anime with the others. It's also an early measure for future series that may be difficult to delineate between "adult" and "kids". WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I know there are a lot of anime coming, but at the same time there won't be that many adult animation there is only one in production, so I think it should be merged. Plus Castlevania I thought was anime, still in adult animation. But merging them will fix the adult/kids problem. A style of animation like anime shouldn't be further subcategorized. We have plenty of that. Andres balbuena (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consider "Anime" and "Animated Comedy" because the describes the two types of shows. Regardless, I support the new Anime section. I'm not sure which category is ideal for Castlevania as I can see it being placed under Anime as well as the current Adult Animation.Jaydangerx (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Castlevania is an entirely American production, just based on a Japanese property and influenced by the original art. Neo Yokio likely doesn't belong there either; it's something of a co-production, with input from Production IG and Studio Deen, but it was primarily made in the US, for an American audience, and animated in Korea. (There could be a whole discussion about that show's odd development; for instance, there are a fair number of storyboard revisionists listed -- Deen was responsible for the original ones.) So, in that vein, Animated Comedy doesn't quite work, since Castlevania -- and perhaps more in the future -- is not a comedy. Of course, I'm not exactly a fan of "adult animation", since the series aren't necessarily adult-oriented. They just aren't children's shows. Also, the separation isn't about "style." It's about place of origin. The issue is more that anime could reasonably fit into several categories (namely, foreign language and animation). WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I did some research and yes Anime was created in Japan but it is also a style from Japanese animation, and other people have copied it. But there is also anime for kids, and there is anime for adults. So I feel that it starts breaking it down a lot, and I am sure that Netflix is working on both projects. And then we get into the fighting of where to put the show, because it is too hard to determine like neo yokio and castlevania, that is why I think we should combine all the animation together. Just separate it from kids and adults, and on the genre it could say anime or animated sitcom. Andres balbuena (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

There are stylistic tendencies associated with anime, but there is no singular anime style. Its function as a loanward applies to Japanese cartoons, encompassing anything from claymation to animated pornography. There is discussion over whether something created outside Japan can be "anime," but it is currently used by all major anime-related sources (including the anime and manga Wikiproject) to mean animation primarily created in and for Japan. Wikipedia reflects this. Regardless, this does not dissolve the issue of why anime should be placed in the animation category instead of foreign language. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Renaming Adult Animation to Animation

To branch off what was being discussed here (maybe I should make this it's own section)...would any else be in favor of renaming "Adult Animation" to "Animation"? It seems unnecessary to label it adult since every other section is also adult (but we don't say Adult Drama, Adult Comedy, etc.) and the kids section is labeled as Kids/Teen/Family to distinguish it. -Crabipedia (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't have an issue with it. Also, perhaps that section could be called "Kids and Family" instead of using all the slashes? It looks a little messy as is, and none of the shows listed are really aimed at teens. Some follow teenagers, but they are kid friendly; I'd liken it to how Nickelodeon has had several live-action shows that might appeal to teens but are kept pretty clean. (Even the sources are calling them "tween" dramas, rather than teen.) Shows actually targeting teens tend to be more mature in content. Not to mention a good portion of Netflix shows are appropriate for and target teenagers, but they aren't considered the primary or sole audience. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both ideas (Adult Animation to Animation) and (Kids/Teens/Family to Kids and Family) -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should combine all of the animated sections. Children's cartoons have no business existing in the same category as F is for Family, BoJack Horseman, Castlevania and Big Mouth. It's important to segregate children's programming from adult programming. I think that this discussion is best served by deciding whether or not Anime should be its own section, or whether it should be combined with Adult Animation. I'm amendable to both options. Jaydangerx (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Crabipedia was suggesting that they be merged, just that the "Adult Animation" section be renamed "Animation." Since the other sections aren't called Adult Drama and whatnot, and the children's animated shows are already clearly placed under the kids' section. Also, "adult animation" implies that it's aimed at just adults, when this isn't necessarily the case. It's just not aimed at child audiences. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, but how else do you plan to separate children appropriate content to the not appropriate one, give a suggestion because I think "adult" is the only simple self-explanatory one. I know we will have shows like "The Simpsons" or even now "Voltron" where it is ok for children to watch but more geared for teenagers and young adults. And I think keeping all adult animation under one umbrella is the easiest, because if not we will start subcategorizing with no end between (anime, comedy, tweens, foreing, etc). Andres balbuena (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying Andres. Children's content is already separated. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Right, I'm not proposing anything in either category be switched, just that the title itself be changed to just "Animation" or something. For example, there are comedies and dramas in the kids section, but we don't refer to the general comedy section as "Adult Comedy." And that wouldn't be quite appropriate, either, since something like A Series of Unfortunate Events -- based on a children's novel but targeting a wide audience -- is not in the kids section either. Voltron definitely appeals to teens and young adults, but I'd peg it as something more like Steven Universe: wide appeal but kids are the target audience. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm cool with changing Adult Animation to Animation and including Anime with that. However, this is only a temporary solution as Netflix appears to have multiple anime titles in the pipeline. At some point, we will have to properly address this.Jaydangerx (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Currently, they're planning on having 30 new series for 2018. Granted, I'm expecting most of these to be acquisitions (which perhaps will eventually require a second article? there are already so many...) but if it's any indication of what's in store, it should probably be solved sooner rather than later. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

First of, I'm also okey with changing Adult Animation to Animation) and Kids/Teens/Family to Kids and Family. As for the article getting too big (it really does, the visual editor pretty much doesn't work anymore on some low end devices) I have been in favor for quite some time of makeing a new page for 'Acquisitions' since that content isn't really original when it comes down to it. Maybe we should move ahead with that? -Abyss Taucher (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with a split. It would also allow that acquisitions list to be split be genre/medium, too, without clogging this list further. I'm gonna go ahead and change the kid/family section. If people do wind up opposed to it, then it can always be switched back. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I would also support a split out of the acquisitions. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I also support this. As Netflix releases more content, this page will become more cluttered. We have to make sure that we are keeping everything as organized and as accessible as possible. Otherwise, the categories will turn into bloated messes.Jaydangerx (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

On that note, are we also looking at an eventual split for movies too? There are many already and several upcoming, and it would allow us to split films by genres and such like the television series. (Or maybe that's going overboard with splits?) If we did, this article could be switched to "original series." WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

We might have eventually have to do that, yes, but I don't think it will be necessary in the near future. We can split films into more sub genres on this page if we on to. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Categorize as Stand-up comedy, not as Specials

The definition of stand-up comedy is a comic style in which a comedian performs in front of a live audience, usually speaking directly to them. Netflix categorized the following three programs as Stand-up comedy. However, the current wikipedia page lists them under the Specials section. Should we relocate them to Stand-up comedy? I can't watch the first one in Japan, but Paisley's and Def Comedy Jam 25 seem to be live comedy performance to me. --Mis0s0up (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Especial de Ano Todo com Clarice Falcão
• Brad Paisley's Comedy Rodeo
• Def Comedy Jam 25

I am open to putting them back to stand-up comedy. The reason that they are categorized as specials is because two of these shows are more like variety shows (Brad Paisley is not even a comedian) and the Def Comedy Jam 25 is clearly a special gala held to honor the original Def Comedy Jam. It is stand-up comedy alright, but still different as it is taped on a gala. -Picsovina

Thank someone for relocating the programs from Specials to Stand-up comedy - not sure it's Picsovina or not. And sorry for the delay in response. There are only two editors including me who manage the Netflix original list in Japanese. Too hectic. --Mis0s0up (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Stand-up comedy specials

I believe Stand-up comedy specials should be moved out of the TV Shows section. They are not shows or series because they are stand-alone pieces. I recently made this edit and it was reverted. After checking out the Netflix menu, I noticed that these comedy specials are listed under the Moves and TV Show section. In my opinion, in order for a title to be in a TV Series or Show section, there should be numerous episodes to a season. This is not the case with the Stand-up comedy specials.05:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Goldeneyed (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of original programs distributed by Netflix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170302030237/http://www.todotvnews.com/news/Netflix-to-Take-Antena-3-La-catedral-del-mar-Worldwide.html to https://www.todotvnews.com/news/Netflix-to-Take-Antena-3-La-catedral-del-mar-Worldwide.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.unogs.com/video/?v=80123792

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Cleaning up Foreign Language

There have been some discussions about inconsistencies with how we handle Foreign Language. I recently deleted the last thread because one of the participants continuously made personal attacks, even after he was advised to cease such behavior. Regardless, it is still apparent that we should consider taking steps to improve the Foreign Language section. As more content is released across all categories of programming, I think we should consider creating subsections within Foreign Language and moving applicable content (from various other sections as need be) to those subsections. There is likely enough programming to warrant a Spanish subsection and a Japanese subsection (whether now or in the very near future). Doing this will allow for fans of such programming to locate all programming within that language with ease. If a viewer specifically enjoys and intends to seek out Japanese programming, they ought to be able to have one easy-to-find location to view all of the Japanese programming. I believe that this approach is something that could be palatable to the broad spectrum of views on how to approach the subject matter. Jaydangerx (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to adding subsections, and if we do move acquisitions then that will shorten the article decently to make room for added subsections. However, the Spanish language works are a mix of different types of Spanish, and most of the Japanese series are in the co-productions section. To be clear, are you suggesting splitting that section? Also, if we did add subsections to Foreign Language, we could place anime as a subsection there. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

If we do create foreign language subsections, I suppose we could add a dialect column on each table. Also, I am proposing that we keep an eye on the foreign language section in that as it expands, we can't reasonably place every applicable program in one non-English catch-all box. The purpose of the section is to appeal to audiences who specifically seek out foreign language programming - often times, a specific language. Is it the right time to enact this change? I'm not sure, which is why I felt it was important to acquire some additional input. I do think that foreign language subsections should be our goal though. Jaydangerx (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone else notice the disappearing of stand-up specials?

I dont know about you, but for me a few early netflix stand-up specials and a few spanish language ones disappeared from netflix. These for example:

Craig Ferguson: I'm Here to Help
John Hodgman: Ragnarok
Jim Jefferies: Bare
Chelsea Handler: Uganda Be Kidding Me Live
Doug Benson: Doug Dynasty
Nick Offerman: American Ham
Ricardo O'Farrill Abrazo Genial
Sofia Niño de Rivera: Exposed

etc.

Can someone else also check if this is a global thing? If it is, then it is likely that these shows were not originals, only aquisitions and rights expired.

US here. The only one that didn't show up for search for me right now is Nick Offerman: American Ham. Also Ragnarok lacks Netflix branding. -AnonWikiEditor (talk)

Sweden here:

Craig Ferguson - not available

John Hodgman: Ragnarok - available

Jim Jefferies: Bare - available

Doug Benson: Doug Dynasty - not available

Nick Offerman: American Ham - not available

Ricardo O'Farrill Abrazo Genial - not available

Sofia Niño de Rivera: Exposed - not available

Just a reminder that not all Netflix Originals are available in every region (meaning true originals here), especially stand-up specials. - If stand-up specials indeed disapearing, then that's strange, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't (true) originals as I understand it. I'm pretty sure Netflix pays a licence fee for (most) of their originals and when they chose not to pay the fee for a piece of original content anymore they lose it. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It is pretty strange though. One would think that an original content is something that you own for good. I agree with you, that it can also be the case that they made deals with comedians in the early days that Netflix would own the rights for a couple years and then they could move the shows from there and own it themselves after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.140.56 (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to the sweden list above, I don't know if it's been available here earlier or not. So it might be the case that they've never been available here. Also, Craig Ferguson: I'm Here to Help is available again! Might be a temporary thing.

Anime

Someone eliminated the Anime section without achieving a consensus first. We discussed including this category, but I'm not sure that we ultimately settled on how we were going to handle it. I'm opening the discussion back up so that we can be more certain of how we want to proceed. I'm fine either way.Jaydangerx (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

If we do decide to keep Anime, we need to establish a set of rules so that we can easily classify programs as need be. Castlevania and Neo Yokio seem like question marks.Jaydangerx (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

If you cannot define what "anime" is, you should not have a category. Castlevania is American, yet is in the anime section. Whereas Neo-Yokio is a Japanese-American co-production, but in the animation section. Given that Anime is animation, and there are only a handful of titles across both, there is no need for a separate Anime section. 81.147.9.221 (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that "anime" is an ambiguous term in general. The Wikipedia page for "anime" denotes that usage can mean one of two things to those who live outside of Japan: 1). Animation that originates from Japan, and 2.) Japanese-style animation. Because there are two schools of thought, we need to decide which one would apply on this Wikipedia page if we keep the section. The prior discussion on the subject matter resulted in the creation of the section because of Netflix's commitment to create numerous new "anime" programs. It was also believed that these programs were very different from animated sitcoms (the former name of the animation section). Thus, we need to decide if the animated sitcoms ought to be cagtegorized separately from the anime programs. If so, we need to adopt one of the two criteria for determining what is classified as "anime" because the definition is widely disputed. In other words, we have the following options to choose from:

1.) Animated Sitcom & Anime sections (in which any shows created in an anime-style would be considered anime)

2.) Animation & Anime sections (in which anime programs must originate from Japan)

3.) Animation section (in which no distinction is made between anime and the animated sitcoms)

I'm fine with wherever the consensus lies. Jaydangerx (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with either splitting or keeping them as one. Keeping them split does mean that we need to establish criteria. The issue with defining "anime" as being of a particular style is that it is both too broad and too narrow. It excludes entirely Japanese productions that do not fit into this mold (see: The Flowers of Evil (manga)#Anime or Rudolf the Black Cat), encompasses Korean and Chinese productions (ignoring these countries' own cultural histories), and includes any American production with vaguely "anime"-ish qualities (see: Kappa Mikey). My belief is that we go with what professional anime sources use, such as Anime News Network which defines anime by origin [1]. For the purposes of this list, I'd ask two questions: Was the work primarily produced in Japan? and Is there a Japanese audio option?. Those are good indicators as to who the product is for and what it should be considered. It's also important to consider animation work is sometimes outsourced to Japan. More commonly in decades prior--now it's South Korea--but it still happens. Essentially that's what Neo Yokio is, and people do not generally consider Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (TV special) to be anime despite animation being done in Japan.

Keeping one section means, though, that we need to make more concise rules regarding the foreign language section. These series are originally Japanese, just dubbed into English and whatnot. At that point, we need to ask when language trumps media (and vice versa). WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that a distinction can exist for anime when the program can be viewed in both English and Japanese. Animation can easily be dubbed which makes it more traversable for different language audiences. Programs in the foreign language section are not in English, thus any anime programs who ave an English option would not be placed there. This discussion only becomes an issue if Netflix begins to release original anime programs that are only in Japanese, however, that would likely increase the need for a standalone anime section. Jaydangerx (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

That isn't exactly correct. Dark, for example, is available in its native language (German) as well as other dubbed languages -- English among them. We could be seeing more of this in the future. So, we need to decide whether or not media overrides language in the case of animation. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

how Neo Yokio in animation and Castlevania in Anime makes sense? it should be the other way around, Castlevania is an American production, while Neo Yokio was co-produced by Japanese anime studios... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.11.107.21 (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

If you ask me, I think we should have just one Adult Animation section and no Anime section. Anime is japanese for Animation, so we should just merge these two categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.131.149 (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Just reiterating my point above (I'm the editor that remerged it originally), I agree that it should be one section. But I also don't read a consensus in the section above agreeing to split out Anime at all, so unsure why we need to go round in circles in reverting it. - 81.147.9.221 (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Quick question: do we know how many anime titles Netflix is planning on producing in the future? Jaydangerx (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

there are websites claiming that Netflix will produce 30 anime series in 2018, not sure if all will be original series Renusek (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You guys. Considering Netlflix has genres for "Anime" and "Anime Series" could we not use them? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

New section for removed content?

Should we add a new section with a list of removed content, like the disappearance of the stand-up specials mentioned above?

I would say no, at least for now. There is an argument to be made for including removed originals (this list is about 'original programs distributed by Netflix' and maybe that should include removed programming), but we have no official conformation that these stand-up specials are gone for good from all regions. We have to keep an eye on this, but let not rush things. I think it is okay to remove titles from the list, if all points to them being gone from Netflix, but they might turn up again. There might be contract talks about the specials right now, we simply don't know. Lets wait a while and see what the time brings. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Split the page?

Main page: Wikipedia:Splitting § When to split

As some of you have already noticed, this article page is so big that it takes long time to view the entire content. According to the aforementioned Wikipedia how-to info page, an article page almost certainly should be divided when the page exceeds 100KB. Currently the Netflix Original list is over 253KB (= 259,147B). Should we split the page, and how? My answers are yes and splitting between TV shows and movies - The current Netflix Original page remains but be renewed as a summary page, and then create two sub-pages (TV show list and Movie list) under the summary page. Any thoughts? --Mis0s0up (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I would support a different split, between originals and aquisitions. (Wakawakaheyheyho) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.138.43 (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I support that split as well. We have talked about it for quite some time now and I think its time to simply do it. If there is no opposition I will do it some time tomorrow. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not support that split, the wiki how-to page is referring to the readable prose size (all the text data, without references or markups size). The readable prose size of this page is much smaller than 253KB (it's around 75 KB). Moreover, these guidelines apply les strongly to list articles. - Armos (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The primary reason of my proposal is the page loading speed. I visit the page from Japan on the country average condition, but apparently it takes much longer time than other Wikipedia pages do. I also have work experience in developing countries with poor internet infrustructures. This page is certainly the one readers in such countries get frustrated with. A short-term solution for downsizing would be MOS:DUPLINK (e.g. one wikilink for the same genre name). But it won't help so much for downsizing, unfortunatelly. Therefore, I propose the split. Re: how to split, I am not for IP: 199.67.138.43's idea for two reasons. First, some of editors and readers are confused about the difference between Self-commission and Acquisition. Second, some TV shows are continuations and their previous seasons are also listed on the Acquisitions list - for example Glitch Season 1 is under the Acquisitions list and Season 2 is under the Continuations list. If we split the page between Self-commission and Acquisition, it is more difficult to explain such continuations.--Mis0s0up (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

While I get were you are coming from with the confusion argument, I don't think it's valid at the end. It's good if wikipedia content is clear, but putting acquisitions on another page than true originals is actually more clear and more correct (since acquisitions arn't originals, regardless what Netflix names them). It's also not Wikiepdias job to avoid confusion at any cost. Some things are complex. I will not do the split today, since you voiced opposition, but would like to hear from others and hopefully we can finally come to a decision on this. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been thinking for some time that the page needed splitting, so yes I think it should be split. I'm going to agree with the initial proposal that it should be split into TV and movies, and not acquisitions. I think the fact that acquisitions aren't true originals means that they don't justify their own page. I think a separate films page makes sense because TV and films are essentially different things anyway. Netflix is releasing 80 films this year, so a split is going to be necessary at some point, and I think it s worth doing now, but as I say I'm not a great fan of splitting by acquisitions. Somethingwickedly (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"I think the fact that acquisitions aren't true originals means that they don't justify their own page." Interesting point. That's a line of thinking I can get behind. - At the end of the day I'm fine with either of the splits, but lets do one already. ;) -Abyss Taucher (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the movies/TV split Jaydangerx (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Guys, there is no such thing as "TV shows" on Netflix, come on. :D It is a streaming service, and some series can be considered "TV", but if you think about it, some movies can be considered "TV" too, they are like low budget TV movies. (Christmas Prince for example, it is like a Hallmark movie) - therefore I cannot support this split, we need to overcome the TV/movie categories, since streaming services crushed those. (Wakawakaheyheyho)

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. Of course there are TV shows on Netflix. Netflix uses the term 'TV series' vor it. That's the important part. Whether or not something is seen as a film vs. a TV series has nothing to do with quality, it simply means that the content (and most of the time story) is partitioned into episodes. Rarely you also have a true movie series, like the LotR films, but most of the time a series (not a franchise, like the MCU!) will air on TV/streaming. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

So you are saying you would like to split between shows with several episodes and standalone features (a.k.a. films)? Ok then, but dont call them TV shows. They are just shows. Its not TV. Its HBO. I mean Netflix. And also Specials and Stand-Ups should go to the movie page. Does not matter what Netflix says they are, these two never have been "TV shows". (Wakawakaheyheyhoho) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.236.188 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that, when it comes down to it, 'TV series/show' has become a misnomer, because of streaming and the internet as prodcast platform in general, but that really doesn't matter. People use these terms all the time when it comes to streaming, which makes it perfectly fine for wikipedia to do the same, especially when it comes to articles, because of WP:COMMONNAME. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with your point at all (and it is worth noting that Netflix themselves do categorise TV and movies as different). The move isn't about 'demoting' or punishing TV or movies; it is all about making that information easier to find and read. It is getting to the stage where information is hard to read on this page, and although several measures have been implemented (e.g. split by genre/sub-genres) to help combat this, a more drastic change is required sooner rather than later. Somethingwickedly

OK, I have had a look at other pages on Wikipedia, and this is my proposal:
1. This page remains with the same title. Everything TV related including TV acquisitions remains part of this page, including "Specials".
2. We create a new page List of original films distributed by Netflix with all Netflix films, and film acquisitions.
3. We create another page for stand up specials List of original stand-up comedy specials distributed by Netflix. This would be exclusively for the stand-ups as Netflix. I feel that stand-up is almost its own genre, and doesn't really belong in either of the other two places, and seeing as Netflix is putting out one or two a week these days that section is growing at a massive rate at the moment.

We would of course have links to 2. and 3. from the main page. As you can see these categories almost match up with Template:Netflix original series, Template:Netflix films and documentaries, and Template:Netflix specials. The only one that doesn't quite match is that the template for the specials includes both stand-up specials and other specials. The reason I haven't proposed including all specials on the new specials page is that some of the specials are associated with original content, and I think it would be confusing to separate them off on different pages. I'm happy to implement these changes myself, but I thought it would be best to propose them first so everyone can see what they think first. Somethingwickedly (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. The only change I would make to the proposal is to put the "Stand-alone"-specials on List of original films distributed by Netflix. It's a strange category in the first place ("Stand-alone"-special means "Movies we coundn't really fit in any category we have here", if we're being honest) and is only there, because "Related to original content"-specials and "Stand-alone"-specials were originally one category named "Specials" and it was split. - That would of course mean, that the "Stand-alone"-specials should be named "Specials" again after the split. EDIT: Documentaries would go to the film page, right? If so, be sure to let the two miniseries under 'Documentaries and specials' on this page. I would say simply put them under 'Future original TV Shows'.-Abyss Taucher (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I would do that with the documentaries. Look, with a change like this there may be a few teething problems at first, but I;m sure we'll be able to resolve any problems that do occur. Unless anyone has major objections, I hope to sort this out within the next couple of days. Somethingwickedly (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I can live with this. (Wakawakaheyheyhohoohlala) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.236.188 (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

As you can see I have just WP:SPLIT the page. We now have two new pages List of original films distributed by Netflix for all films, documentaries, one-time specials, and film acquisitions, and List of original stand-up comedy specials distributed by Netflix for anything stand-up related. The current page is basically for everything else.

Whilst every effort was made to ensure accuracy this was a pretty big job, so I can't guarantee that there are no errors somewhere along the line. There are almost certainly things that could be improved, so feel free to do just that. Hopefully the page will be a bit easier to work with, because whilst this page is still quite large, it is (hopefully) a lot better. As I said, I'm sure there will be a teething period as this is undoubtedly the biggest change in this page's history, but hopefully in the long it will be an improvement. I need a break now... Somethingwickedly (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think this change was necessary, but I don't mind it, what I would like is for all of the other pages to reference each other on the top of each page, so we can quickly navigate through them. Instead of finding the link in the middle of the page. They all should have a quick link at the top. Especially since I feel the gallery will only increase to the point of being divided even more, ex. "acquisitions" since I know it has been mentioned in the past before. Andres balbuena (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

A hat note has been added here linking to the two new articles. Will add to those articles too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Coach Snoop

Are we sure that 'Coach Snoop' really is a new show? I couldn't find anything definitive, but I'm almost a 100% it's just an old AOL series https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/watch-snoop-doggs-first-trailer-for-new-coach-snoop-series-20160428 . I will delete it for now. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you were probably right to delete it. I'm guessing the AOL rights expired, and Netflix bought them. I don't think we can say for sure that it isn't a true original, but in my opinion it is likely that it isn't one, so unless we get a good source saying otherwise it is best to keep it off for now. Somethingwickedly (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible Reordering

Would it make more sense to move up Reality and Talk Shows so that they are on top of Continuations and Co-Productions? The latter two feel different from the other categories. Jaydangerx (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes please. (Kohogazanyadpicsukajasiketmajomfakom)

Where to put Travelers season 3

There is some disagreement where to put Travelers season 3. Season 3 isn't a co-proprudation with Showcase anymore, so for now season 1-2 are under co-production (with an efn) and season 3 is under Continuations. Afaiks that the only way to make it fit in our current structure. If someone has a better, idee please let me know. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The End of the F***ing World

Why is this listed as a co-production? As far as I can make out, Netflix were not involved in production and acquired it later. Please could you discuss at Talk:The End of the F***ing World#Not a Netflix show. --woodensuperman 11:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, seems it is a genuine co-production. [2]. --woodensuperman 14:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Zumbo's Just Desserts

I'm not quite sure which section to add this into, so I might let more experienced editors decide. Australian reality show Zumbo's Just Desserts has been renewed as a co-production for a second season, between Netflix and its original producer Seven Studios (the first season was solely a "Seven Productions" title, which has rebranded as "Seven Studios" since). Note that the program is already in this article in the "Exclusive international television distribution" section, however I wasn't sure whether it should be cloned or moved to either "co-producitons" or "continuations" section. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I put it in. Thanks for the info. Abyss Taucher (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Special Content Hidden on Cells in Own Show

We need to continue to lump in alike content together just like the Miniseries got put on the other categories, which I agree. So I propose for all the special content that derives from a show to put it underneath as a collapsible content. Like 13 reasons why, Sense8, Marco Polo, Etc. It doesn’t need to be on its on category. Underneath is an example of how it can look like, instead of “show” it should say “special” but I am not so good at the codes. But someone that knows can do it.

13 Reasons Why 13th: A Conversation with Oprah Winfrey & Ava DuVernay

Andres balbuena (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Cells merging

Matt14451 is currently waging an edit war, trying to merge every cell he could find. This created huge cells, some of them spanning more than 40 lines making it impossible to find the information for the line… Moreover, the edition of the page (which is frequently updated) is more difficult and it is easier to create table errors. Do you agree that such a change is not a progress and should be reverted ?

Armos (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Armos What about a compromise? Limit cells to 40 lines in height as that is what you specifically mention. 40+ examples of the same word doesn't seem space efficient. Matt14451 (talk)

I dont support merging. (Kamakawiwoanyadfasapicaja) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:2E41:FE00:DD27:35BF:E7CE:8201 (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

May I ask why? Do you oppose merging cells regardless of height or do you think there should be a limit? 77.100.241.132 (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't support it either. Thornstrom (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

May I ask why? Do you oppose merging cells regardless of height or do you think there should be a limit? 77.100.241.132 (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I oppose merging regardless of height, makes it harder to update and read Thornstrom (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Matt14541, merging looks better except for cells of exceptional height. 77.100.241.132 (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I also don't support the changes. As Armos says this page is frequently updated, and all this would do would make it a lot harder to update things. It would also probably cause formatting errors when users update the page incorrectly, which would therefore create more work. I haven't really seen much of an argument for the change to be honest, nor do I appreciate the edit warring to include the change which others (not me) have has to clear up. You are hardly going to convince others that a change is required if you edit war. Somethingwickedly (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I oppose merging and echo the reasons put forth by Armos, Thornstrom and Somethingwickedly. Jaydangerx (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Foreign => Non-English

With Netflix being available globally, the term "foreign" seems wrong to me. How about changing the section header to "Non-English"? Thornstrom (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Saw this in the edit summaries. The section wasn’t “foreign” shows, it was “foreign language” shows. Foreign language is a normal term. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

But still, "foreign language" as in foreign from what? I don't think it's still viable for a global service. English is foreign from my native language.

That may be so, but this is the English language Wikipedia page. "Foreign Language" is a common classification for films and tv shows viewed in placed where the audience speaks a different language. The Oscars has a "Foreign Language" section. Netflix has one too. If there were the French, Spanish, German, Mandarin, etc. Wikipedia page, this classification would mean something quite different. It's also important to note that different nations have different Netflix offerings. What is offered in Australia differs from what is offered in Canada. For these reasons, the "global service" argument doesn't really apply here. Jaydangerx (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

This won't be an issue if you read what I put on top. Andres balbuena (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Integrating All Foreign Language Titles

We should integrate all the foreign language titles in its respective genre category. Having this category made sense before when the majority of the library was English and just a few other languages. But that is not and won't be the case anymore. Netflix is investing a lot in non-English shows and we can tell by the number of future shows coming in different languages, and it will become very confusing. Soon we will have to have categories in non-English language shows like reality, docuseries, etc. I propose to integrate to its respective genre and simply put in parenthesis the original language only for the non-English language shows, either next to the title or in the genre just like we do in the future content. I say let's move this now, before there is too much content and it will be more difficult to move later on. Andres balbuena (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I counted 26 titles so far, and 36 more coming in the next couple of years, that is almost 1/3 of all upcoming titles. Since Netflix became a global content distributor this category is irrelevant now. Andres balbuena (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not. The genre categories are already getting huge, and will only get bigger. Your proposal would only make the categories even more bloated. Plus, a lot of people specifically seek out foreign language titles. What we should do is organize the foreign language section into sub categories based on language. Also, we've had this discussion approx. 10,000 times and we always reach the same conclusion. Jaydangerx (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it does not make any sense anymore. The categories will get big regardless that is inevitable the content keeps coming. But it does not follow the other pages structure. I was also part of that discussion at the beginning and I agree with separate them when there was only like 6 titles. Now is different, Netflix does not consider a foreign language title any different than the rest. Then why should we? Andres balbuena (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It actually makes more sense now more than ever to keep a separate section. There is no logic to saying "this category is so big now that we should combine it with others." That's what you do when categories are too small. If Netflix is going to continue to make more foreign language titles, then we need to create sub-sections within the foreign language category (e.g. Spanish, French, Portuguese, Japanese, etc.) Your proposal doesn't work because it ignores the fact that many viewers specifically seek out foreign language titles, ignores the fact that Netflix has always had a foreign language section on their website, and would make the other categories unnecessarily bloated. Jaydangerx (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

New sections should be added to the bottom of a talk page, not top. Matt14451 (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Requiem (TV series)

Not wanting to edit war, so raising here. This show is NOT a co-production with Netflix. Netflix has international exclusive distribution rights, and so brands as a 'Netflix original' outside the UK - there are many examples of this arrangement (Chewing Gum, Marcella, Babylon Berlin, The Good Place just off the top of my head), which are quite rightly not listed here. Nothing on Requiem's page, or IMDb, or anywhere, to back up the claim that Netflix invested in the production. It needs to be removed. U-Mos (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Now I've scrolled down the page, obviously I mean that it should be moved to the Exclusive international television distribution section. U-Mos (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

According to the BBC website, https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2017/requiem Netflix coproduced the series. Armos (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Variety website https://variety.com/2017/digital/global/netflix-bbc-supernatural-thriller-requiem-1202013045/ also says it's a co-production of BBC and Netflix. These reference links had existed until the program was released, but were removed when the show was released. We should keep those links forever to avoid misunderstandings. --Iceandsnow7 (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. More importantly, this fact is entirely absent from the programme's own article. (NB the Variety source is only anticipating that Netflix will co-produce, but the BBC one is of course good.) U-Mos (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Small Change Proposal for the Status Column

Currently we have miniseries mixed in with regular series in each category. As miniseries are only a single season and not up for renewal/cancellation, we put N/A in the Status column to indicate this. We also, however, use N/A for the status of upcoming shows (if they haven’t already been renewed) regardless of whether they are a miniseries or regular series. To avoid any confusion of implying upcoming shows may be miniseries when they are actually a regular series, I propose that if we don’t know the renewal status of an upcoming show we leave the box blank (or if desired put Pending or TBA), but either way leave the N/A designation only to miniseries. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree there's a disjunction here, but it threatens OR if the page structure requires us to distinguish if a show is a miniseries or ongoing (this can only be asserted through secondary sources, which may not always be available). I don't think a list like this is a place for such a distinction - both Maniac and Everything Sucks have 'Ended' after one season, and their respective main pages can provide the information that one is a closed miniseries, and the other was cancelled. So I'd say 'Ended' for miniseries, with source to show no further episodes are planned, and continue with 'Pending' (or 'TBC' if preferred) for anything else. N/A is imprecise, and does not allow for the inclusion of sources. U-Mos (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Support. I was confused the other day when I sorted the drama table by Status and The House on Haunted Hill was grouped as a miniseries as I didn’t think it was. This is a good solution. -Crabipedia (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The case of upcoming shows has changed my mind, actually. 'Miniseries' would be appropriate for the status of forthcoming shows if we can source that they are limited, so should probably also be used for shows that have been released (I've also noticed that Netflix now marks 'Limited series' rather than '1 season' for miniseries, which is helpful). 'Ending' in the rare event that a new show is cancelled before it is released (or if it's a one-season continuation of a show from another network, I guess), and 'Pending' if its future status is unknown. Going to be WP:BOLD and make this change. U-Mos (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The Cuba Libre Story/Four Seasons in Havana

More information is needed on these two documentaries. Both are listed "n/a" for original network, which cannot be correct for the 'Exclusive international television distribution' section; to fit the criteria for that list they need to come from a place other than Netflix. Are they in the wrong section, or do they have other original networks? U-Mos (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Baki anime

Would appear to be a co-production of some sort considering its earlier release in Japan, and second run on television networks. [3] Can anyone confirm? U-Mos (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Status of Neo Yokio

I really think Neo Yokio should still be considered to be "Pending," not "Ended." There's a difference between having no news pointing toward either renewal or cancellation for a year (like some of the kids' shows) and having the latest news - which was in February of this year (so less than a year ago, even) - imply that it hasn't ended:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/neo-yokio-season-2-netflix-show-cancelled-renewed-release-date-ezra-koenig-latest-news-update-a8206106.html

I considered changing it back to "Pending" again and including that as a source this time, but I decided it would be better to have a discussion on the talk page instead so we can hopefully avoid an edit war. While that article obviously isn't a confirmation of a renewal, it at least seems like enough to make saying the show has "Ended" premature without confirmation of its cancellation, and particularly so in light of the fact that the official Instagram account for the show just started posting again this week after having been inactive since last year: https://www.instagram.com/neoyokio/

(The official Twitter account never even stopped: https://twitter.com/neoyokio?lang=en)

Alphius (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

When we have conformation we simply change it back, but we need that first. A twitter and/or instagramm account being active or the creator saying that the series is 'not dead' month ago isn't enough. Abyss Taucher (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

How exactly is it not more arbitrary to consider it to have ended without confirmation than to consider it to be pending? All that "Pending" requires, in a literal sense, is nothing more than for there to have been no definite news one way or the other. It makes sense for that to be the default. "Ended," on the other hand, is in this case making an explicit claim with no evidence whatsoever except for the period of time that's passed. Unless there's a concrete Wikipedia policy of always considering shows to have "ended" after a year without an official renewal confirmation (if there is, I can't seem to find it), the circumstances surrounding this particular show - which has at least some indications that it may still be running, as opposed to no indication of anything at all - seem like more than enough to continue to label it as "Pending," just not "Renewed." Alphius (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The default "Ended" should be "Ended". "Pending" means "about to happen or waiting to happen" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pending). Sure, setting it to "Ended" after a year of no info isn't perfect, but unless you want a bunch of shows to await renewal forever, I don't know what else to do. That is the main problem here. We have a lot of other shows that will most likely never be officially ended. If it would just be that one show, I would be on your side. Abyss Taucher (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, "Pending" means waiting to happen. Exactly, and in this case meaning waiting for official confirmation one way or the other. And like I said, there's a difference between shows that have had no indications of either cancellation or renewal for a year and shows that have had some signs pointing toward the possibility of continuation within the last year. Can you actually name any specific other shows that are in the same situation as this one? (As in, the creator has implied that they may continue, they still have a social media presence, etc.) And regardless, can you point to any actual consensus for the year cutoff? I don't necessarily have a problem with a cutoff per say, but I think it would be better to set it at a year with no indications of renewal or cancellation (or if that's too vague a standard, then make it a year after the latest news, which would currently put the cutoff in February of next year in this case), not a year after the last season ended. It's not unprecedented for shows to get renewed without ever getting an official announcement. Alphius (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why you have to make such a problem out of this. We have done it that way for years now and I have told you the reason why. Feel free to ask someone higher up if we should do it that way or not of course and if it turns out we really shouldn't we change it. You can also call for a vote if you like. Right now the status quo is the consensus. Abyss Taucher (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess I won't keep arguing this right now (though it would be nice if anyone who has thoughts could speak up, too, whichever side they fall on), but I'll just ask one question: If that's always how it's done, then why is Master of None still considered "Pending"? Now that I think about it, it falls into pretty much the same category. It hasn't had a new season since May 2017, but it's had news in the last year pointing to the possibility of renewal. I agree that it should be "Pending," but according to the system you're advocating for, it should be considered to have "Ended." Alphius (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is nice timing. It looks like the point in this particular case just became moot, anyway. But that just goes to show that "Ended" was in fact incorrect: https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2018-10-09/neo-yokio-animated-series-teases-christmas-special-for-december-7/.137925 Alphius (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It still is just a special. The main show isn't renewed or has any real info towards season 2. Thanks for spotting MoN. Abyss Taucher (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

But it's still part of the show (the separation of specials in this article is just an organizational decision) and thus should logically be sufficient to reset the "Pending" status even under a "one-year rule." I know I said before that I was done arguing for now, but now it's obvious that calling this particular show "Ended" is premature. You wouldn't even need to change what you've been doing to agree with that. And heck, you explicitly stated that "If it would just be that one show, I'd be on your side." Well, now it really is the only show in this particular situation. Alphius (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I do apologize for creating the duplicate info about the airdate of the special, though. I'll admit that in my haste to add it, I momentarily forgot that specials were listed separately and didn't notice it had already been added. Alphius (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

"the separation of specials in this article is just an organizational decision" It is not. Netflix lists them as separate titles. There are fringe cases IIRC, but that is the general rule. Look for example: "Stretch Armstrong: The Breakout" https://www.netflix.com/title/80135585. Look, create another post here and give others a chance to speak to the problem as well. Sounds cool? :) Abyss Taucher (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I do think that it is logical to assume for shows that havent aired an episode in a year or havent had any news about renewal in a year that they ended. It is very rare that a show gets picked up after this period, the general rule is, that they renew it within a year, everything else is the exception. Taking that into consideration, it is logical to assume that a show ended in this case, and we can still change to status to Renewed if something changes. For example there was the Tarzan kids show that was categorized as ended, but out of the blue netflix announced the release date for season 2, there wasnt even news about renewal. This is not standard. (Bekapodafaszomattetetvesgeciszajufasz) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.116.142 (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

A one-year year is applied on a show's status.The reasons have been outlined by others, so I don't see the point of repeating them. As Abyss says, specials are categorised separately by both us and Netflix, so we are simply following their lead. In some cases I wonder why they are separate, but as Netflix categorises them separately it is only right that we follow. To be honest Alphius, you have been given an explanation for the decision behind the one-year rule, and yet you continue to edit-war. Neo Yokio will remain classified as "Ended" until we get confirmation that it has been renewed (which may or may not happen). However, if you revert to Pending again before getting consensus you will be reported for edit-warring, so please stop. Somethingwickedly (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I won't change it again myself. I originally took it to the talk page to avoid an edit war, and then only changed it again myself after seeing the announcement of the special since I felt sure that that qualified as something that would reset the "Pending" status even under a "one-year rule." I'd consider that to be a separate issue, but apparently there isn't agreement on that, either, so I apologize for the change. But may I point out that every Wikipedia article with a "list of episodes" includes specials on that list? Even if Netflix lists them separately, that's still an organizational decision on their own part as well, and I don't think there's any question that they're still part of the show. Except in cases like the Harvey Birdman or 12 Oz. Mouse specials that are going to air after many years of nothing, I believe this would be considered to reset the status anywhere else on Wikipedia. But I could be wrong. I still disagree with the decision and I think there's a reasonable chance that it may be violating some Wikipedia policy or another (since it means intentionally having unsourced information that you know and even admit could be wrong, and even in the face of evidence pointing to the possibility of it being wrong), but now that there have been a couple other opinions given, I won't argue it any further right now. Alphius (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)