Groups[edit]

There is absolutely no justification to split this navbox down into groups of 2-3 (max) entries, when they can all sit quite happily as a single chronological list (with years in parentheses). Forcing this into arbitrary annual groups increases the size of the navbox unnecessarily and artificially. This is pretty much the same reason why we stopped arbitrarily splitting filmography navboxes by decade years ago, so there is prior consensus for this approach. This is a far more reasonable navbox. --woodensuperman 14:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrary? Check the other Netflix templates for an identical layout ("original current series", "original ended series", "original upcoming series"), it's anything but arbitrary. Years are not needed in the entries if they are already sorted by years, and the "finale" years are just not needed at all. The size difference is less than 400 bytes - if you're worried about size, I recommend you focus your attention on articles with sizes of over 400k bytes that need splitting (Mobile country code), this is barely anything, this is a tenth of a percent of such examples. -- /Alex/21 23:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Splitting by year is arbitrary. It's ridiculous to have groups for 2-3 entries each, when a single chronology works. As far as size goes, I'm talking about how this split forces the table to be a certain height unnecessarily. --woodensuperman 08:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there was no precedent for it, it'd be arbitrary. But given that there is, it is not. Your personal opinion on the topic is noted; try not to refer to another's work as "ridiculous". "Height" is trivial. -- /Alex/21 09:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is precedent. We stopped splitting filmographies by decade years ago, this is the same thing. Only if groups get too large should we even consider splitting, and we are nowhere near that situation here. And it is arbitrary. Why not split by month while you're at it? --woodensuperman 10:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did "we"? Who is "we"? What support did "we" have, what policies or guidelines? This isn't a filmography, so there's that idea unrelated to this discussion. There is no precedent for splitting by month, is there? There's a precedent for splitting by years. -- /Alex/21 11:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So now you've gone completely in the opposite direction from your original position and removed everything? Seems kinda WP:POINTy to me, but I'd say an improvement from your previous abomination. --woodensuperman 11:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you don't want personal attacks and the like, I recommend not using the word "abomination". You support the removal of all the content, but not part of it. That makes no sense. You have presented no legible argument to either fully display the years, or not to split by years. -- /Alex/21 11:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd prefer if it was left at the original format, but I object less to your new version than the travesty you previously presented. Others may disagree though, and prefer the version with the years and seasons, but I'll leave that for them. --woodensuperman 11:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You still have presented no legible argument to either fully display the years, or not to split by years. What policy or guideline supports listing them all, and including years? -- /Alex/21 11:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What policy or guideline supports removing them? --woodensuperman 11:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None. Are you able to support every one of your edits? But it is the "status quo" (careful of WP:SQS, which would support the restoration of my edits) that includes the years. There is nothing to support the inclusion of them, and Wikipedia is brought forwards by making edits to improve Wikipedia, hence the move from including the to excluding them. Hence, I already have support to make the edits, as it is you arguing the edits to move forward, not I. -- /Alex/21 11:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Double standards much? --woodensuperman 11:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is that all you have to respond? If so, the edits will be restored to help Wikipedia continue forwards, as you have no ground to stand on to revert. Unless you are, of course, willing to actually discuss the content. -- /Alex/21 11:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've already pointed out how splitting by years is both arbitrary and unnecessary with groups of this size, and how navboxes do not need to be populated by multiple groups of two entries apiece when they already work well as a single chronology. If you want to move away from presenting the entries as a single group, you need to be able to justify a reason for this, and find consensus for it. --woodensuperman 12:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Arbitrary": "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." Incorrect. It is based on the pre-existing system of other identical templates. Do find another word. I recommend you find another word. Two apiece? I recommend you recount, and again, look at other identical templates. And actually, it is you that needs support to revert it, else you are violating SQS and not allowing the continuing of Wikipedia's prime directive based on something you have no support behind or ground to base on. Stating that I cannot make such edits to this template without your singular approval is something that is given in very close detail under examples of ownership behaviour. -- /Alex/21 12:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop WP:WIKILAWYERING and justify why you think it would improve the navbox, and seek consensus for this change. That's how Wikipedia works. Just because an approach works in a different (not "identical") template, it does not necessarily work here, where there are far fewer entries, and where a single group is all that is needed to present the data to facilitate chronogical navigation. And maybe the said approach doesn't work elsewhere either. --woodensuperman 12:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I already have. It matches the style given in the templates of the same group, it removes the mass of series that reside on the same line and produces an order to them, and finale years are irrelevant when the seasons are already provided. Not every edit requires a consensus; that is indeed textbook wiki lawyering, and also status quo stonewalling, and you have no basis to revert such edits. If that were the case, then I could revert all of your edits without reason and tell you to gain a consensus for each and every one. As such, I will ignore the examples of ownership behaviour of requiring your approval, and note that I have every right to continue to implement such edits. -- /Alex/21 12:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it matches some of the templates in the same group. See ((Fox Business Shows)) and ((Paramount Network)) for a couple (of similar size) that don't. Or even ((History shows)). There is no "mass of series" when we are only only talking about a little over a dozen entries. If we were discussing 40-50 entries, then maybe there would be some justification for a split. But we're not. Oh, and pretty much every edit does have to have some kind of consensus, explicit or not. --woodensuperman 12:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It matches a number of them. I never said "all"; I recommend you cease putting words into my mouth, which can be considered a personal attack. I'm talking about the Netflix series templates. The original format forced the text into five lines on my display. That's a "mass of series". And it does not, else Wikipedia would not proceed at all. Per WP:CON, consensus is made through discussion. Also note that Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. As such, any editor, including me, is within their rights to restore the edits, as one editor does not mean there is not a consensus and that the edits cannot go ahead. -- /Alex/21 12:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Original is split over three lines on my display. Best to leave the navbox to find its own number of lines than to force it to use a minimum of six (but probably more on smaller displays - you'd probably see seven). --woodensuperman 12:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everyone's display is different. Best to adjust it for the worst displays, so that the site is accessible. The previous version is one line spread over five displayed lines. The new version is to display six displayed lines over one line each. A far better example, from five to one. Literally every navigational box with subgroups could be broken down and displayed on just one "line". Would that be beneficial? No. -- /Alex/21 12:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's because everyone's display is different is exactly the reason why we should let this navbox find its own number of lines, and not force it to a minimum height. There is no justification for splitting down arbitrarily into subgroups of just one, two or three entries that are unlikely to wrap of their own accord. --woodensuperman 13:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. That's why we need to accommodate for everyone. That's why WP:ACCESS exists, to make sure that everyone has a beneficial and accessible use to the site. And yet again, I need to repeat myself: "Arbitrary": "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." Incorrect. It is based on the pre-existing system of other identical templates. Do you know what that word means now? If they're unlikely to wrap, then that's even better! That means everyone sees the same thing and there's no wrapping! Great! -- /Alex/21 13:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it is your personal whim to split these by year without any real justification other than some larger templates do this. I'm well aware of the meaning of "arbitrary" thank you very much, and your condescendence could be seen as a personal attack. We clearly won't agree on the best way forward. I'd suggest you seek a WP:3O. --woodensuperman 13:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not. It is based on a reason or system, as provided by the definition, and that system is the identical format and layout in the templates of the same related group. As it is you that has the issue with the edits, I recommend you take it there, while I restore the edits as no policy-based reason has been given to revert them. -- /Alex/21 13:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Restoring them would be disruptive. Seek consensus for your change, as you also cannot give a policy or guideline reason for it other your personal preference. --woodensuperman 13:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To you, yes. But I don't need your approval for the edits; see OWNBEHAVIOR. It is you with the issue, so you need to gain further support for the edits to not be implemented. I see you are no longer willing to discuss the actual content. -- /Alex/21 13:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need consensus for your edits, and you need support for them to be implemented. I've popped a note on the relevant Wikiproject page for you, as you seem unwilling to ask for a third opinion to back up your proposed changes. --woodensuperman 13:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, not every edit requires consensus, especially not those that are disapproved by one editor. Requiring your approval means that you own this template... If other editors disapprove the edits, then I will happily accept the results. However, I still recommend you take your personal dispute to 3O. -- /Alex/21 13:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every edit does require some kind of consensus, albiet tacit sometimes. You need to respect the WP:BRD process, in which the onus is on you to seek consensus for your changes when challenged. --woodensuperman 13:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BRD is an essay, and not necessary in every situation. Please cite a policy. -- /Alex/21 13:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikilawyering again. It's a recognized process and clearly appropriate in this case. --woodensuperman 13:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, when there's clear disagreement against the edits. Requiring the approval of one editor who also edits the template is clearly not appropriate here. Wiki lawyering and status quo stonewalling. Did you take a read of that one? -- /Alex/21 13:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it seems like an unlikely navigational tool really, perhaps it should just be deleted. I think that there are a lot of these navboxes which are probably in breach of WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I mean, we don't have navboxes for every BBC programme ever, etc, etc, or every Motown record, or every RKO film, so why do these even exist? --woodensuperman 08:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was a discussion and consensus to split the main Netflix series out to separate templates, and thus they shall remain until you gain another consensus. If you feel it should be deleted, nominate it as such. I can guarantee it will remain. BBC have had thousands of series aired, and would be far too large to be beneficial at all. "It doesn't exist here so it shouldn't exist there" is one of the poorest arguments I have ever read. How do you expect Wikipedia to progress at all with that outlook? -- /Alex/21 08:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name of template[edit]

I've never heard the term 'continuation series' before. Is there a better term? Fuddle (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree: it is super awkward. Especially the combination of "original" and "continuation", which sounds contradictory. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of these template titles are awkward. The "Current," "Upcoming," and "Ended" ones would all sound much better with "Current," "Upcoming," or "Ended" as the first word of the template rather than "Netflix." I'm honestly kind of baffled as to why they are the way they are, and even this one would sound a bit better that way (though it would be better still to come up with something else entirely). Maybe break the format a bit for this one and call it "Series with continuations original to Netflix" or something? There could probably still be something better than that, but it would certainly be less awkward than how it is now. 75.88.80.165 (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

reference to "template" in article content[edit]

Hey Alex 21... I don't think I've seen reference to templates in content that is part of an actual mainspace article, so your recent additions seem a bit off. Shouldn't we, instead of linking to other templates, be linking to the appropriate lists of other Netflix series, like Netflix current series?

At the very least, if we continue linking to other navboxes, I feel like we should a) remove the template icon, as the template calling it mentions it's for meta-pages/non-articlespace content only and b) remove the text that says "template", going instead with "Current series" or "Netflix current series", "Specials" or "Netflix specials", etc.

Thoughts? Not sure where this "navboxes linking to other navboxes" is happening elsewhere or how it's overall useful, unless a navbox is specifically meant to be navigating other navboxes, and only other navboxes, as oppopsed to a mix of articles and navboxes. And even that's a bit meta. I think practically, given they are navigation aids for articles, no one should end up on a navbox template page unless they've planning to edit said template. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is most certainly a precedent for it: ((Adult Swim original programming)), ((Adult Swim pilots and specials)), ((Cartoon Network original programming)), ((Cartoon Network pilots, films and specials)), ((Discovery Family programs)), ((Disney Channel original series)), ((Former Disney Channel original series)), ((Disney XD original series)), ((Former Disney XD original series)), ((Nickelodeon original series)), ((Former Nickelodeon original series)).
There are just as many more that link to their respective book, portal and category links; a template link is no different. We certainly can't remove the icon and "template" text, and that will result in what would basically be an WP:EGG link; for example, a reader clicking "Ended series" would expect to go to an article regarding ending series, so clearly stating that it's a template resolves this issue. As for the use of the template being used in "non-articlespace content only", that is correct - the icon is not being used in the article space, it's being used in the template space. -- /Alex/21 22:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current vs Ended[edit]

Why aren't the Continuation shows divided into "Current" and "Former". I'd do it myself, but I am afraid of messing up the format, and that someone may undo the edit

Categories