Talk:List of Netflix original films (2022)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Netflix original films (2022) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 180 days

Text and/or other creative content from Lists of Netflix original films was copied or moved into List of Netflix original films (2022). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

making tables sort properly is controversial in what way?[edit]

Hey Picsovina, wasn't aware making tables sort properly was in any way controversial... and following guidelines like MOS:UNITNAMES is definitely not. Could you restore my edits, please? —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dont necessarily think its controversial, but considering that it has been in its current format since the beginning, it needs to be discussed first if we decide to change it. Personally I dont have a problem with changing the unitnames to the format that you are suggesting, although I think it is unnecessary to change it, but I definitely do not agree with the sorting method that you are suggesting - these are movie titles and definite and indefinite articles are integral parts of the title and should remain in the beginning. Picsovina (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you go into any library, you will find all lists of works (especially fictional one) are ordered by ignoring initial articles. Articles such as "A" (and "An") and especially "The" are deliberately left out because otherwise half the works in English would be sorted under "A" and "T". You can see this in action on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other Wikepedia articles, especially those pertaining to film and television series names. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After more than 7 days and not having heard any valid arguments for not sorting these film titles in the standard English language way (i.e. by ignoring initial articles like "A" and "The"), or any reason why we should be going against the MOS:UNITNAMES guidelines and using non-standard abbreviations for hours and minutes, I'll be restoring those changes shortly. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you havent heard what you consider valid arguments that does not mean that you can proceed. There is no consensus reached, as I still oppose it. Reverting it back to original. Picsovina (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you need to step down from your WP:OWN behaviour: this isn't your article and you don't get to be the final arbiter of how it's formatted. You have presented no good reason not to sort per standard title-sorting conventions and you also have zero leg to stand on for ignoring MOS:UNITNAMES. Please also note consensus is not about unanimity: plenty of people take issue with various consensus decisions on wikipedia—I myself really hate MOS:POSS but that doesn't mean I'm free to ignore it. Please revert your changes and stop edit warring. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table[edit]

The Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial says: "Do not place column headers in the middle of a table to visually separate the table. Assistive technologies will get confused as they cannot know which previous headers still apply to parts of the table after the first one." The accessibility guidelines rate this as a "high" priority.

Some of the tables in List of Netflix original films (since 2021) have an "Awaiting release" header embedded in the middle of those tables, which appear to me to look similar to (but not exactly like) the "bad example" given in the accessibility guideline. I think it would be straightforward enough just to split each of those tables ("Feature films", "Documentaries", and "Special") into separate tables (e.g., one for "Released" and one for "Awaiting release") like one of the "good examples". Are there any significant negative consequences here to splitting the tables in this way in order to align with the accessibility guideline? Or is there another better way to align with the guidelines? Or am I just misreading the guideline and its applicability here? What do you think? 108.56.139.120 (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point... I would read it that way too and separate tables sounds fine. Would also be good to address the MOS:HEAD issue where sections need to have unique names, whereas this article has a number of duplicate section names: "Feature films", "Documentaries", etc. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Its good the way it is now. This is the standard used all around these kind of pages. Picsovina (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And again... 108.56.139.120 has cited a foundational guideline's advice on this front—we don't get to pretend it's not real because WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFF. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regional original films[edit]

That film has been released in all territories now? So it should be merged into the other section. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sexcastle" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Sexcastle 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/2024 May 5 § Sexcastle until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]