Talk:List of Netflix original films (since 2024)

2022 film

The Price of Family was released on 19 December 2022 in Italian-speaking regions. Shouldn't it be in the 2022 list?--Alienautic (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

If anyone has nothing to say about it, I'm going to move it.--Alienautic (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

"A Catfishing with a Happy Ending" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect A Catfishing with a Happy Ending has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 11 § A Catfishing with a Happy Ending until a consensus is reached. BOVINEBOY2008 01:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"Failsafe (film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Failsafe (film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 12 § Failsafe (film) until a consensus is reached. BOVINEBOY2008 12:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent move

Hi Seprentyu... for future reference, you did this move wrong as now List of Netflix original films (2023) has barely any history and that page's history is now all here. Next time, please move List of Netflix original films (since 2024) to List of Netflix original films (2024) at the appropriate time and start a new article for the actual new article (i.e. List of Netflix original films (since 2025)). —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick I agree with you. Either the move should be reverted and the List of Netflix original films (2023) should be deleted or merge the history of this article to the newly created list article I mentioned. ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 03:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, noted. I was just following the practice that its always the last page chronologically that should have the edit history (due to all the upcoming programming). I was told once that doing it the other way around (so creating a new page for 2024 and moving all data there) is a cut and paste move and is not allowed. Or do you suggest to wait until Jan 1, 2025 next time and only then make the move? Seprentyu (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

recent format change to this and related "List of Netflix films..." pages

posting this here as I assume this page has the most people watching it/engaged:

User Seprentyu has recently changed the long-standing format of this and several related pages:

• List of Netflix original films (2015–2017)
• List of Netflix original films (2018)
• List of Netflix original films (2019)
• List of Netflix original films (2020)
• List of Netflix original films (2021)
• List of Netflix original films (2022)
• List of Netflix original films (2023)

to list a film's release date as the first column.

The pages are literally called "List of Netflix films", not "List of release dates of Netflix films". The key element is the title of each film... when they were released is interesting information but their year of release is already given by which article they are part of. It should be included but it should not be the first thing a reader sees.

I reversed this change to the long-standing format, made without any discussion with other editors, although I did keep the change from "Premiere" to "Release date" that was concurrently made as that is an improvement. User Seprentyu has reinstated their changes on the above pages by reverting me (except on this particular article, as of the time of my writing this).

I'd ask that they undo their reversions and restore the existing consensus format and then, if they really feel they have a case for why listing the release date first in an article about a list of films is somehow the more logical format (it's not), then they can make their case here and we can figure out if there's a consensus for that or if it's just a case of one editor's preferences. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much every single "list of ... films" page lists release date in the first column - just picking a few for demonstration:

• List of Amazon MGM Studios films
• List of Universal Pictures films (2020–2029)
• List of Lionsgate films (2020–2029)

And why wouldn't they, sorting them alphabetically or by any other value makes no sense and would be arbitrary. Films are sorted by release date anyway even on the Netflix pages too, so what's even the logic in having the value by which the table is sorted by default as second column?

Also there was no solid status quo regarding this matter as the List of Netflix exclusive international distribution films has been already listing release date as the first column for years. I was merely standardizing the approach. Seprentyu (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Not talking about the sorting order. Release date is fine there, although I do think we could sort them by title just as justifiably. I'm talking about the order of the columns. Again, the article is not "List of Netflix original film release dates". However the various rows are sorted, the list is listing films and therefore the film title should be first.

There's no requirement for any table to be sorted by its first column values.

And since "Title" as the first column was the status quo for years for... what was it? Six? Seven articles? I don't think "well one of the Netflix articles was in this other format so that justifies moving 6 or 7 others to the same format" is a particularly strong argument. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no requirement for a table to be sorted by first column values, but it sure is logical to do so, isnt it? Also when I said I was standardizing the pages, I meant that I was aligning it to the structure that 90% of film list pages use (and also the Netflix exclusive film page used). I think one of the main objectives of Wikipedia is to work out and spread clear and universal best practices or standards (which can later become even requirements if universally acccepted), because that makes editing predictable and calculable and more attractive for new people to join, because they can rely on these standards. We could always keep these Netflix film list pages different like the Marvel film list page which is run by a close circle and is weird and totally unresponsive to any change, but why make these pages a reservation? Seprentyu (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Seprentyu: @Joeyconnick: I reverted this change at the 2018 article, see edit summaries there. Agree with Joeyconnick above. There doesn't seem to be consensus here for the mass changes to the long-standing consensus. WP:ONUS is on person changing the long-standing consensus to get consensus. A change being in place for a couple months after a different version being in place for years doesn't make it a new WP:STATUSQUO. Articles style shouldn't be changed like they were couple months ago without a substantial reason per MOS:VAR, the changes were made without edit summaries and doesn't seem be a substantial reason, the other articles mentioned are different styles which these don't need to copy. Indagate (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I still stick to my opinion, but I am going to revert back my changes which btw have been stable and only 1 person contested it at the time and even they gave up. I just dont care enought about this change to use a considerable amount of my energy and time to convince someone again who is absolutely not open to change and is suddenly, out of the blue protesting it for an unknown reason (btw reverting the change was your first edit on the page - on the page that I created and maintained). Seprentyu (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting to the status quo. Don't know why you think I'm "absolutely not open to change"? I gave reason when made edits because I use edit summaries which I've requested you do too, and agree with Joeyconnick above, the title column is the main identifier for a row so seems logical to be first for tables like these with full dates. Creating and maintaining a page isn't really relevant, you don't WP:OWN any page. Indagate (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

btw reverting the change was your first edit on the page - on the page that I created and maintained [emphasis mine]

Well I think that pretty much sums up the problem in a nutshell (and explains some other problematic behaviour too, like not understanding how sorting titles of works in the English language functions and reverting people who try to fix it): that is a classic WP:OWN statement.

Seprentyu, just because you've created a page and made some edits to it does (and I cannot stress this enough NOT mean your viewpoint gets any additional weight when deciding the trajectory of that page. You are one editor, just like the rest of us, and if you can't gain consensus for your changes and back up your edits with clear connections to the project's guidelines, those changes should be reverted. No one here owns article pages and no one person gets to be the final deciding authority on which changes are appropriate, no matter how many edits they may have made to any number of articles. That is a foundational policy of the project and if you want to continue being a part of Wikipedia, you need to abide by it, just like the rest of us. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)