This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize alllist pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theInternet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles abouttelevision programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you canjoin the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to thestyle guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Since miniseries usually do premiere and end on the same day, I think we should consider a period of time for keeping them on the current programming page instead of moving them from upcoming to former immediately. How about keeping them for a month after the premiere before we move theese shows to the former programming page?Picsovina (talk)11:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure tbh but I agree I don't think it's right to move them straight here. I'm thinking that they could be on the current programming page for as long as they are eligible for Emmys, because even though they aren't currently airing they are still seen as current by the Academy. The eligibility window for this year for example would be June 1 2020–May 31 2021 (I think), so that will be around a year for some but a couple of months for others. A month could work too, it just doesn't have much context around it though imo.Apd9696 (talk)11:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did read about this and I don't think it matters – when I proposed the idea I didn't mean that if they weren't actually eligible they should be left on one page and if they were then they should be left on a different page, that would just be confusing. The Emmy eligibility window was just some background for as to how long they should be left on the current programming page, and even if they weren't eligible I just thought it should apply to all miniseries. That was my initial view and I think regardless of what category certain miniseries fall into then we should leave them on the current page until the next eligibility window starts, but if anyone objects then that's absolutely fine and we can change what we do with miniseries.Apd9696 (talk)11:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The title of this draft is currentlyList of former Netflix original programming however this, in my oppinion implies that a show has stopped being "Netflix original" rather than the show/series has completed its final season. I have a few examples of other options, such as:
That's a very good point, thank you for bringing it up. I think ended and former are both widely used to talk about ended shows but I think ended will actually work best for the reasons you brought up and the fact that we used "ended" in the other article. Isupport moving the article toList of ended Netflix original programming.Apd9696 (talk)19:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's more than ready to go in the mainspace. Just looking at the article I'd think it would be more helpful to readers if we ditched the "ended original programming" section and instead we made all the genre sections collapsible if you know what I mean, because then readers can see ended shows from a particular genre section more easily. That's my only suggestion, but otherwise go for it.Apd9696 (talk)09:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind explaining this a little more? I'm a little confused on what you are suggesting. Do you mean like making each genre table we have on here collapsible? --Jonathan (talk)22:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that explanation was a bit rushed, but I didn't mean collapsible tables (if they're a thing). I said "collapsible sections" but I forgot that they only collapse on mobile. What I mean is that I think it's pretty useless to have a setion called "ended original programming" with lots of sub-sections when the article is called "List of ended Netflix original programming". It's also much harder for mobile users to navigate as there is no contents page and a lot of scrolling is involved to get to docuseries (for example). I can't explain it here very well, do you mind if I can tweak the draft a bit to show what I propose in practice?Apd9696 (talk)22:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you are thinking the page should just contain their ended drama/comedy/reality programs and not have sections like ended foreign language originals, for example? --Jonathan (talk)02:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything should be included and the article is basically ready to go live in the mainspace, I was just suggesting a change in section layout. I have done what I think should happen to the article so you can reply or revert with what you think.Apd9696 (talk)08:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't Voltron Legendary Defender listed as Anime?
I'm confused as to why Voltron: Legendary Defender isn't listed under the Anime section here when it's a remake of the Anime series Voltron: Defender of the Universe.DigificWriter (talk)15:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Netflix does not categorize it as anime. There was previous debate about categorization, what should be considered an anime (only Japanese productions or animations that have the trademark anime style) and there was no end of it, so in the end consensus was to call those shows anime that even Netflix itself calls anime.Picsovina (talk)18:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We need more details in the Notes column or a single word at least as we cannot tell if the series:
a) 'Completed' the full story and properly ended
b) 'Cancelled' and ended at a point mid-story or not fully completing
c) 'Ended' production
We personally would prefer to only START watching a series if we KNOW they will complete the story properly ('Completed') - as otherwise it is like buying a book with the last chapter ripped out.
This page has questionable scope and an extremely flimsy definition of what constitutes an "ended" series. Why is it arbitrarily assumed a series has ended if there hasn't been an episode after a year? Sometimes they take longer, especially in a pandemic. There is no precedent for this that I can find. An encyclopedia includes facts, not assumptions.WP:CRYSTAL, etc.
I generally agree with you, because your argumentation makes sense in theory, but practice is a whole different thing. Most shows do not have official endings or confirmations that they ended. They just stop and there is silence. So in my opinion the"1 year passed since the last episode without news of renewal" is a good and practical rule, because this is the most common industry standard (a new season every year) and because otherwise we would end up keeping shows on the other page forever which is dumb. It can happen that we mark a show as ended, but for some reason it gets renewed after years of hiatus - then we just move it back to the other page when we have the proper confirmation and reference. ThereforeI oppose any changes to this rule.Picsovina (talk)17:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not industry practice. What happens when a show is cancelled is that the cast and crew then talk about it thus telling the general public that it's cancelled. If none of the cast and crew have come out and said it's cancelled, then it hasn't been.2A00:23C7:F296:9F01:FD14:A449:94AE:90F5 (talk)00:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to split this list. It's currently 513,238 bytes long. I think it could be split by era,decade, or another fixed amount of years. For the eras, it could be like one for after the2023 SAG-AFTRA strike to the present, for example. Not sure about the exact eras that it would be split into. According to theLilyhammer article, its the first original Netflix programming. TheTemplate:Netflix original ended series (2012–2018) template also uses 2012 as the first year. So the first list could start in 2012. Not sure about the exact end year. I know the template uses 2012-2018, but I am not sure what happened in 2018 or 2019. It could be just an arbitrary year. It could have something to do with COVID-19, but I am not sure. If something changed or happened around that time, then the eras could be 2012-2018, 2019-2022, and 2023-present. I think the templateTemplate:Netflix original ended series (2019–present) is too long. It's almost double the byte size of the 2012-2018 template. That's why I propose something like 2019-2022 instead.
IfLilyhammer is the first Netflix original programming, then Netflix has been doing original programming for two decades. So a split by decades would potentially just split the byte size in half. This might be good enough or too long. The problem about eras is that nothing much might change for a really long time. So an era could last for decades, making the list too long. Split by decades, or another fixed amount of years, would eliminate this problem. However, split by decades, or another fixed amount of years, could be problematic because some years has less Netlfix original programming published than other years.
I would like to see people discuss the alternatives and reach a consensus. I am not sure exactly how this list should be split, but it should be split somehow. However the list gets split, the navboxes should be split in the same way. -Sebbog13 (talk)15:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like the article to be split in accordance with the ended programming categories. One article would contain shows from 2012-2018, and the other article would have shows from 2019-present.NacreousPuma855 (talk)15:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NacreousPuma855: I don't agree with this argument. The 2019-present template was created in 2020. (Special:Diff/983667303) It has been five years and a lot more Netflix original programming has been released since then. Why exactly do you want the categories to be 2012-2018 and 2019-present? Just that those are the current navbox scopes isn't a good argument, in my opinion. Because, like I said earlier, the navbox was created in 2020 and it has been a while since then. -Sebbog13 (talk)18:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it because of the templates. My other suggestion is that we split off the Miniseries, and the foreign language programming (they would each have their own article).NacreousPuma855 (talk)18:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer splitting by eras, decades, or some other type of time. The miniseries and foreign language programming will never stop coming, making those lists longer and longer over a long time. However, stuff that first released between 2012-2018 has stopped coming. Because it's no longer 2012-2018. It's 2025. You shouldn't split by periods not related to time. Also, the argument about doing it that way because the templates does it that way is bad. The template was made in 2020, when not much content was first released since 2019 (2019-2020). It's 2025. That navbox is now way longer, containing everything from 2019 to 2025. There hasn't been a new navbox created in a while. It's outdated. I don't know how else to explain it. -Sebbog13 (talk)23:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright. It's just that if it gets split in a non-time way, then the list would get too long eventually and we would need to perform another split. I am not sure how to explain basing the eras/years from the navboxes. It's just that at the time, the 2019-present was only 2019-2020. Because the navbox was created in 2020. Making the scope relatively small. But now the scope is 2019-2025. -Sebbog13 (talk)10:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with splitting, would suggest by decade of premiere date (2010s and 2020s), though I don’t know if that would make the article sizes small enough. We could also do 5 year increments, with shows prior to 2015, 2016-2020, and 2021-present. Then next year, change to 2021-2025 and create a new 2026-present article. –Nisf (talk)20:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a pretty good idea. Sebbog already mentioned that the 2020s would be a little too long, but I agree with the 5 year increments if we begin splitting at the end of this year.NacreousPuma855 (talk)00:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. There could be a problem with less stuff being released in some decades/half-decades compared to other decades/half-decades. So, the list for a specific period might be too short/long. I am not sure if this is an issue at the moment, but could be one in the future. -Sebbog13 (talk)18:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can the page be split into Different Categories such as Drama, Comedy, etc., based on the Size of that particular Category. This is just a suggestion from my side.A Rohith Kumar (talk)03:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
