Talk:List of accolades received by Netflix

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[One Day at a Time (2017 TV series)#Awards|List of awards received by ''One Day at a Time'']] The anchor (#Awards) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Change of title

An article named "List of accolades received by Netflix" would normally just inform about accolades received (exclusively/directly) by Netflix. As Netflix is a streaming platform, a US distribution company, an International distribution company and also a Tv and Film production company keeping the current name could be misleading into thinking that Netflix itself is in the receiving end of all those awards instead of the filmmakers and TV makers that really received them. A change to "List of accolades received by productions streamed by Netflix" or anything similar would solve the misleading problem. Following suggestion from User:CambridgeBayWeather I started this talk to see if we can avoid the current misleading title . As it is now, it seems to not follow the WP rules of precision, cohesion and lack of ambiguity Nitsugagmx (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Posible vandalism in the last revision. I am not familiar enough with the article to tell.Jtrrs0 (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of awards and nominations received 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:

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) 12:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and Colors

First this article has many problems. A large problem is the lack of proper sources. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores should all be properly referenced, every single one them, but at present none of them are. Not even one. Please note Wikipedia:Verifiability "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the material." This is me challenging that material for not having proper sources. I've seen too many articles where the wrong information went uncorrected or user scores were misrepresented as if they were the critic score, to accept tables full of information that does not include inline references allowing editors and readers to actually check it. I also have seen too many terrible quality list articles where no one has any interest in fixing these kinds of problems, so both tables should be probably removed entirely unless and until someone is willing to include proper sources. (I know there was already more citation needed banner tag at the top of the article but I do think it is necessary to specifically tag the sections that are not properly referenced to make this clear.)

Second, I have concerns about the use of colors in these tables. This is a more minor problem than the utter lack of proper sources but these colors just seems unnecessary. My preference would be to remove the colors entirely. Words have meaning, templates have semantic meaning too, and it does not seem appropriate to use the templates {{Won}} and {{Nominated}} to color the scores. Even if it was appropriate to use colors in this way there should have been a legend or key to explain what the different colors are supposed to represent.
I know what they mean but readers should not have to guess. There is also something disconcerting about using GREEN to represent positive scores (fresh 100-60%), and RED to represent negative (rotten 59-0%) when Rotten Tomatoes itself uses the colors the other way around.

I am not volunteering to fix the problems in this article myself. I have tried to improve low quality articles before only to see them deleted anyway. WP:V already allows me to challenge and remove material that is not properly sourced, so if after some time there has been no improvement (or even suggestion that someone plans to improve the article) I can still remove the unreferenced section. For now I have tagged the sections that need sources and I do hope someone might improve the article. -- 109.78.203.13 (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move"List of accolades received by Netflix" to "List of accolades received by productions streamed by Netflix"

Current name does not follow the WP rules of precision, cohesion and lack of ambiguity. The previous name could be misleading into thinking that Netflix itself is in the receiving end of all those awards instead of the filmmakers and TV makers that really receive them or that Netflix produced all those titles (sometimes Netflix only bought distribution rights) Nitsugagmx (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]