Talk:Netflix/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Netflix. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Since Netflix is really into making overall and first look deals with producers, I think it would be great to list them all under a designated section. Nearly every day news break with netflix making a new deal, many of them are going unnoticed by the public. It would be a nice overview what to look forward in the future. BrightEye87 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

These references will be helpful

• https://www.npr.org/2019/01/01/681469011/netflix-drops-hasan-minhaj-episode-in-saudi-arabia-at-governments-request
• https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jan/01/outrage-after-netflix-pulls-comedy-show-criticising-saudi-arabia
• http://time.com/5491414/netflix-saudi-arabia/
• https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/01/middleeast/netflix-patriot-act-hasan-minhaj-jamal-khashoggi-intl/index.html
• https://deadline.com/2019/01/netflix-pulls-patriot-act-episode-critical-of-saudi-arabia-after-government-complains-1202527776/
• https://www.ft.com/content/5121f014-0db8-11e9-a3aa-118c761d2745
• https://ew.com/tv/2019/01/01/netflix-patriot-act-hasan-minhaj-saudi-arabia/

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, the article doesn't mention that Netflix content is available both as a standalone service and integrated into streaming services like Sky in Britain, Movistar in Spain, and Verizon in the United States. Can you add a paragraph about it? --179.28.229.136 (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

These are just apps. Like every other platform. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

However, I add a short blurb mentioning this (along with the idea of, a la X1, showing Netflix content as part of search) ViperSnake151  Talk  05:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

In the middle of section 1.2 of the Netflix article, two sentences currently appear as the following:

• But then the sales of Apple Products finally took off as they became more affordable, selling for about $2,000 around Thanksgiving time, becoming one of that year's most popular Christmas gifts. By early 2002, Netflix saw a huge increase in their laptop business.

Note that I have boldened three words in the above two sentences. It is these three words that seem to me to be out of place here. I believe that instead of "Apple Products" it should probably say something like "DVD players", and instead of "laptop" it should probably say something like "DVD-by-mail subscription". I feel pretty confident about this because the following two sentences appear in the Netflix article's reference number 34 (which is cited at this point in Section 1.2) and thus appear to be what the two sentences in Section 1.2 are trying to convey:

• Then, a bit unexpectedly, DVD players became the hot gift that Christmas. By early 2002 our DVD-by-mail subscription business was growing like crazy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmith1426 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

These errors were introduced by 169.235.208.165 23 January 2019 (vandalism). I have manually reverted the deliberate errors 169.235.208.165 introduced. 45.72.170.23 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Could someone discuss about the many series and movies on Netflix with a specific multiculti, multiethnic standpoint?

I think video games made on Netflix originals should be mentioned somewhere in the article too? As of now there are video games: Stranger Things (mobile), Stranger Things 3, The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance Tactics, Narcos: Rise of the Cartels and Voltron: Cubes of Olkarion. 85.11.107.21 (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I think a relevant game (but not relevant enough to get its own article) about Stranger Things should probably be mentioned in the Stranger Things article. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Netflix was criticized by some actors & directors about this feature. This is not to be confused with skipping. They said speeding up content messes up their timings. Speeding up content has been available on You Tube for a number of years. This should be in the criticism section. (78.16.154.120 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC))

Can you provide a reliable source for this? BernardoSulzbach (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Netflix has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Netflix expanded its business in 2010 with the introduction of streaming media while retaining the DVD and Blu-ray rental business." to "Netflix expanded its business in 2007 with the introduction of streaming media while retaining the DVD and Blu-ray rental business."

Reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/technology/16netflix.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share Anitasvv1 (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

That article was written before the streaming service had actually begun, and it says the service would be "introduced over six months". For this change to be made, someone will need to find a source that talks about it after the introduction. It's possible, for instance, that they trialed it in 2007 but then stopped due to technical issues, and then didn't do a full rollout until 2010. --Dan Harkless (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

What fresh hell is this? Since when can an editor who isn’t even autoconfirmed move popular pages without consulting the talk page for consensus? Netflix is the common name and the page must remain that way. --Trillfendi (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I undid it. I agree it was disruptive (WP:RM process problem) and I oppose it being done on editorial grounds as well (WP:COMMONNAME). DMacks (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoutstheman (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Scoutstheman, you can see this page's move log here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians. Full disclosure, I work for TaxWatch.

In January 2020, we published an article on Netflix, claiming the video streaming company had moved up to $430 million into tax havens in 2018.

This research featured widely in the press, in over 40 publications - including The Telegraph, The Mirror,and The Guardian.

The report lead to a debate in the House of Commons of Netflix's tax practices, with calls from MPs to extend the Digital Services Tax to online video services, and Dame Margaret Hodge MP calling it a "superhighway robbery".

I would like for a small section to be included in the Tax Avoidance section of the Netflix page. However, given the conflict of interest, I believe that someone else should make that edit.

Happy to answer any questions on the report.

Thanks, --Alex0190 (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It's been pared down before but keeps expanding here despite there being a full article over at Criticism of Netflix. I expect there'll be a push to include the Criticism of Netflix#Cuties controversy here soon enough, so can we discuss exactly what aspects of criticism belong on this page and what belong on the separate article? --occono (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed a large section of poorly referenced and highly editorialized material but it's been continually added back by @Doady: repeatedly such as here. Problems with that section include unsourced editorialized statements, and poor sourcing (such as NY Post, Fox News, the Hill's blog, etc).

And here I removed more language that was unsourced or sourced to material such as twitter. The first section cites rotten tomatoes for the claim it's a "softcore porn film" (the link says nothing about that) and also cites twitter, while using very POV language. Here I tried to rebuild the section to summarize the controversy as best I can. It's merely a start, and I'd like others to add to it. But it's better than the previous section because it tries to be neutral and avoids sensationalized editorializing without citations. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The statement in question is as follows, and it has nothing to do with NY Post, Fox News, or The Hill sources:

Although Netflix did change the promotional poster and description to be less sexual/provocative and supposedly more "representative" of the film, the film itself still includes the three–minute dance scene, the source of the objectionable promotional image, in which the eleven-year-old child actors wear revealing costumes and perform a provocative adult-dance including simulated sex acts and the touching of their genitals.

The sources of this statement and description are Netflix's public statement on the matter and the film itself. The film exists, and Netflix stated the following apology on their official Twitter feed in response to criticism of the image they originally used to promote the film:

We're deeply sorry for the inappropriate artwork that we used for Mignonnes/Cuties. It was not OK, nor was it representative of this French film which won an award at Sundance. We’ve now updated the pictures and description.

@Harizotoh9: seems to contend that media content cannot be summarized unless a third party recognized as a reliable source does the summarizing, and then a wikipedia editor summarizes that content. I find it hard to believe that every plot or content description of media on Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced in this manner.

Additionally, Netflix did apologize for the image they originally used to promote the film. Netflix described the image as "inappropriate artwork" and stated that "[it] was not OK, nor was it representative of this... film...." Further, the film itself does contain a dance scene with the eleven-year-old child actors in identical costumes and in identical poses (and many more) as seen in the "inappropriate artwork".

It is not clear how a description of the existing film content in relation to the removed promotional image is "unsourced editorialized statements, and poor sourcing (such as NY Post, Fox News, the Hill's blog, etc)." These facts are very clearly sourced, and the inherent conflict is directly relevant to the controversy.

In reference to the reliable source question: Harizotoh9 removed content here with the summary, "Removing unsourced POV commentary and some flat out incorrect information. I have not seen any sources explaining the MA rating. NY Post is also not a reliable source." Harizotoh9 later removed content here with the summary, "The Hill blog, NYPost, DailyMail, Fox News, are not reliable soruces. The rest is original research, unsourced editorializing, and WP:SYNTH. (sic)"

According to WP:RSP, The Hill and Fox News are listed as generally reliable, while there is currently no consensus for the New York Post. Harizotoh9's statements that these sources are not reliable is false.

I have repeatedly requested that Harizotoh9 recognize their error on source reliability and stop making bulk content removals with ambiguous reasoning, and that Harizotoh9 instead clearly treat each issue they find individually and with clear reasoning. The bulk removals and false claims about unreliability have continued.

On my talk page, Harizotoh9 stated

I would also recommend actually seeing the film rather than just relying on a few short clips. Most of those who have seen the film tend to have a positive view of the film.

— Harizotoh9

Harizotoh9 admits which side of this controversy they are on, explaining that in their view, the source of the controversy is generally from people who are simply ignorant about the film. Harizotoh9 has repeatedly made edits to the relevant pages (Netflix and Criticism of Netflix) to bulk remove any material on the opposing side of the controversy. I wouldn't necessarily suggest that someone should recuse themselves from editing an article where they ideologically disagree with one side of the issue, but for Harizotoh9, I think they should step back. They don't seem capable of including or even understanding both sides of the issue.

The children in this movie are real 11-year-old girls. They are not CGI. They are not animated. They are not adults or even older girls dressed up to look like younger girls. They are real 11-year-old girls. The director herself stated the following in her exculpatory Op-Ed in the Washington Post,

The problem, of course, is that they [preteens] are not women, and they don't realize what they are doing.... The girls [portrayed in the film performing in the local dance contest] don't have the maturity, however, to realize what their gestures and dance moves look like to the audience.

— Maïmouna Doucouré, Director, Cuties

If that is true, and most people apparently agree, then how could the girls involved even have consented to be in this film? The director herself maintains that the things portrayed in the film, including specifically the very dance scene that was the source of the image in the controversial promotional poster, are things that these children do not and cannot understand. In describing the plot, she explains that these girls in the story "don't have the maturity... to realize what their gestures and dance moves look like to the audience." Yet she took real children, dressed them up in sexualized costumes and makeup, and had them do the very things that she is ostensibly criticizing. We are now the audience for those child actors performing the sexualized dance scene, just as the crowd in the film was the audience for the characters in the story. It doesn't matter what the message is, or what the film is trying to say, or whether it is well constructed, shot, edited, etc., or whether someone has seen the film or not. What matters is that the director used real children to make this film, whom she freely admits "don't realize what they are doing."

When you get someone to do something where they don't realize what the are really doing and probably would not do so if they had the understanding and power to refuse, you are exploiting them. When you do this to a child, we call this child exploitation. When it involves sexuality, we call this child sexual exploitation. This is the reason that the people who are upset about this film are upset about this film: Children were sexually exploited to make this film.

I fully support the inclusion of both sides of a controversy. I do not support the intentional censorship and mischaracterization of issues in Wikipedia articles by an ideologue intent on promoting their personal views, especially when innocent children are involved.Doady (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I can chime in a little bit as someone who doesn't know anything about the movie in question and doesn't have an opinion on content, just regarding the first statement.

• I'm not a fan of "supposedly more "representative" of the film". I would not use the scare quotes or the term 'supposedly' unless you're directly quoting someone, as otherwise you're injecting a lot of opinion and unencyclopedic tone into the article. Wikipedia's voice should be unemotional and simply and plainly state the facts of a situation.
• Regarding the summary of media content, yes, a third party has to do the summary, otherwise it is WP:SYNTH. You can summarize any single reliable source, but drawing a conclusion from reading multiple sources, that doesn't exist in any single source alone, is original research and outside of Wikipedia's purview.

This controversy should certainly be in the article if it has received as much news coverage as it appears it has. However, the language in the article needs to be impartial and unemotional and the content can't be original research. Paisarepa 01:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The key issues are sourcing and tone. We have a source attesting to one thing, then this user disagreeing with it and then inserting their own analysis, which they think is straight forward and objective when it's still their own analysis. In regards to film's plot sections, they should be sourced but often they're not controversial so people don't bother. However, once something has been challenged and removed, it can't be added back until there's sources. And note that this text has been since re-inserted into the Criticism of Netflix article, here. When third party sources have discussed the contents of the film they use much more cautious language and avoid editorializing.

Also, the sources used were things like Fox News, the Daily Mail, NY Post, and The Hill's blog section. Blogs are to be avoided at all costs, and NY Post is an unreliable highly editorialized tabloid. Fox News has been at least cautioned as to be avoided in topics regarding to politics, and this film's backlash has been obviously politicized. Daily mail has been decided to be outright unreliable. And it's even more important in a controversial topic to use only the highest quality sourcing possible. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's about it. If this material is actually so noteworthy as to justify the breathless claims about it above, it should be easy to find high-quality secondary sourcing; and if we use such sources, we should reflect how they cover it (which is far more cautiously-worded.) We cannot cite such shocking claims to an editor's personal viewing and interpretation of the film itself, especially on a controversial topic like this one. --Aquillion (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Especially given that said user has made it abundantly clear they haven't seen the film, which raises how they know this to begin with. It could be their interpretation, or who knows what kind of summary or clips they saw. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys Kittycat4452 (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kittycat4452: Hi. Article talk pages are not for general discussion. Did you have a concern regarding the article? Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

So... apparently... according to Marc Randolph, he initially called Netflix "Kibble". https://www.quora.com/How-did-anyone-come-up-with-the-name-Netflix

Is this worth adding to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyRRpage (talk • contribs) 00:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Trillion Netflixes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 8#Trillion Netflixes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Netflix Player. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 8#The Netflix Player until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Wrightnows. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 8#The Wrightnows until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is getting longer and longer. It is time to finally move the information related to the streaming service to another article about it. It is even too difficult to find information related only to the streaming service (launch date, etc). — HoneymoonAve27 (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This violates the spirit of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In fact, per that, I think the DVD service should be split out. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The history section needs to be de-WP:PROSELINE-ified. That probably means finding breaks in its history (its era as a mailer, then its transition to a streaming services , and then its transition to making actual content) and working all those "in <date>..." statements appropriately, so that it actually flows. This might take statements out of chronological order, such as keeping all the parts related to the mail service together. --Masem (t) 13:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

people are humans witch you are to we are caring kind and sweet i mean some of us are you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.60.254 (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is there almost no paragraphs in this entire article it bothers me lol 173.35.240.92 (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Juniper lightning bug.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The state of the Netflix article(s) right now is, to put it mildly, chaotic and hard to navigate. The history section is half the article, with most of the paragraphs two lines or less. I checked the history and it seems like someone just cut the "Content" section then dumped the rest to the "History" part. While it is very true that Netflix as a topic has ballooned so large it has to be split into multiple articles, the master "Netflix" one is lengthy and, compared to for example the "Disney+" article, an absolute mess. I restored the "Content" section and floated the links from the bottom of the page to a "further" template and will write a quick summary article. Other sections should be the same: "further" templates and a quick overview of the topic. Let's hope we can make this article somewhat navigatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quangson306 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

If you trace the article history, it's because of a series of odd edits by User:Ward330 last fall. Unfortunately, I have been too busy this winter to deal with this situation, but I concur with you that the result has been to make the article chaotic and hard to navigate. User:Ward330 appears to be quite good at removing tangents and redundant citations, but is not so good at regrouping content under first- and second-level headings, resulting in laundry-list tables of contents (see what they did to Remote work) and disconnected prose that is usually lucid at the sentence and paragraph level but does not flow smoothly when read as a whole. I propose reverting the article back to its last good version before User:Ward330 began to work on it last fall. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello

I propose adding the most important sections from Criticism of Netflix to the Netflix page. Criticism of Netflix is kind of a "wall of text" page which is bloated by relatively minor incidents. A problem the original Netflix page has too.

I suggest the three sections I thought were most interesting (I tried adding more, but it ended up looking messy):

Best Regards Surge Of Reason (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a comment at the moment about increasing the size of the section here, but I note that Wikipedia:Splitting states that the parent article (in this case, Netflix should summarize the subtopic article (Criticism of Netflix. It does not say that the parent article should regurgitate the text of the subtopic article verbatim. Repeating the text verbatim negates the whole reason for splitting content out into a child article in the first place.

I also oppose the inclusion of "DVD spinoff disaster" in either article. The language is not neutrally written (describing it as a "disaster" in Wikipedia's voice is not NPOV), but aside from that, it's not so much a criticism but a bad business decision. If it is discussed, it should be in the article or section describing Netflix's history. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Noting here that I have reverted the re-addition of the "DVD spinoff" language into Criticism of Netflix as two editors have noted their concerns about the language here. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello

There has been no response to my proposal. If I don't hear anything before then, I'm putting it back up. Surge Of Reason (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Aoi. Wikipedia doesn't need this kind of obsessive ranting. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Concur with the two of you. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The only obsessive ranting here comes from you. I disagree with Aoi. There is no good reason to keep something like DVD Spinoff of the criticism section, after all it was customer and investor criticism that started the whole incident. Aoi will refrain from removing my comments to make herself look better. A medium sized section summarizing the main points of Netflix criticism should be included on the main page. Surge Of Reason (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Just wanted to state that I agree with the previous editor Quangson306 that the article is a bit hard to navigate. What do people think about splitting the section "Expansion into gaming, Squid Game, decline in subscribers (2021–present)" into separate sections? It just seems really confusing that squid games, video gaming, information about a book club, and a deal with Jennifer Lopez are all under the same header. I would propose setting the main header as "2021 to present" then finding a way to separate the rest into subheaders. CroissantAvenue (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)CroissantAvenue

Hi everyone, I want to make a list of games that Netflix owned or published. Do you think it's too soon? If it is, what should I do first? Make an article about some of its games? Or just make a list draft about it? I would like your input. I'd appreciate your response. WikiNarco (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

With regards the section summarising Saudi and other Gulf States' reaction to the LGBT content, the last sentence makes a sweeping statement, namely "Conversely, the users in the U.S. and Europe have celebrated the featuring of LGBTQ+ content on the streaming platform, saying it sets a positive example for inclusivity and representation." Aside from the fact that the source makes zero reference to western audiences supporting this, the term "users in the U.S. and Europe have celebrated..." is misleading, leading the reader to assume that there's a wholesale consensus in the west regarding Netflix's promotion of such material, rather than the reality would be rather more nuanced.

Apologies if my English isn't very clear, it's not my first language. 205.239.40.19 (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Upon inspection, the cited part isn't even present in the BBC article used as the source, so I've opted to remove it altogether. Some research and polls might be sufficient to bring it back in some form, but that particular bit was more creative writing than a sourced fact. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

This article says Randolph was co-founder of Micro Warehouse, however, Wikipedia article on Micro Warehouse does not list Randolph as one of the three founders. I believe the confusion is because Randolph stood up a Micro Warehouse subsidiary, MacWarehouse.

https://www.syracuse.com/news/2018/09/marc_randolph_leadership.html

The bio on his official website does not provide clarity on the question Jtb323 (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YangyangF (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by YangyangF (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maloqueiro99 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Cooki3monster676.

— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Currently, the lede claims In 2013, the service began to acquire and produce original content, beginning with the political drama House of Cards. The claim is neither sourced nor repeated in the text... unsurprisingly, because it's false. House of Cards may have been the first show announced, but the Netflix coproduction of Lilyhammer hit the service in February 2012, a fact that can be verified by sources at that show's article. May I suggest "In 2011, Netflix began acquiring and producing original content,^[1] with the first scripted original, Lilyhammer, beginning to stream the following year.^[2]" (I'm avoiding making article edits myself at this time.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Nat Gertler (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. Lilyhammer was an acquisition that aired on television in Norway first and sold to broadcasters in other countries, with Netflix acquiring the streaming rights in other territories. House of Cards was the first series to be specifically ordered by Netflix from the beginning. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The first season of Lilyhammer launched as a weekly show on Jan 25 in Norway, Netflix released all 8 episodes of the first season on Feb 6, which means they released episodes 3-8 first (Norweigan dates at List of Lilyhammer episodes), making those episodes Netflix acquisitions and Netflix originals (although even the earlier episodes were labeled as Netflix originals on streaming.) That this was original scripted programming was well-covered at the time. So yes, with that they had begun acquiring original content. if you want to date things to when they first visibly started efforts, then yes, you can date it to House of Cards, but then the date should be 2011 when the deal went through, not its release date well after Lilyhammer. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/netflix-greg-peters-reed-hastings-amsterdam-europe-1235340108/

https://about.netflix.com/en/news/ted-sarandos-greg-peters-co-ceos-netflix

Reed Hastings has moved to Executive Chairman, and Greg Peters has assumed his seat as Co-CEO. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Maloqueiro99, just wanted to clarify why I removed some of the content you added - a lot of it wasn't formatted properly but the actual problem is that most of the data concerned streaming in general and not Netflix. I left in the IEA's report that specifically concerned Netflix as it is both a reputable source and one that directly talks about the service. The other data, if formatted well, could probably be at home on a page about streaming services in general, such as Streaming media. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Recently there have been found netflix search codes, which show you recommendations based on a certain genre of film. Should these codes be included in this article? Matthrew (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Are they notable enough/have they received substantial coverage? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I think they arent that notable, might be a cool piece of trivia, but nothing else

There are a few articles detailing these codes. 88.76.18.191 (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

One of the keystone deals Netflix made as it transitioned from DVD by mail to streaming was the Starz deal in 2008, but @Sr1jj decided this pivotal deal was just superfluous data in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netflix&diff=prev&oldid=1059329306 from 2021 well Sr1jj it seems like you don't really know what you were talking about then. This information is one of the big steps in Netflix's historic rise as the streaming leader. 107.11.6.4 (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

ok please put it back with proper sources if you have an issueSr1jj (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 29 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FamousMonster13 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Breadman10, JAVermont.

— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I was thinking about adding a recommendation algorithm section to the Wikipedia page. There is a section for recommendations and thumbnails, however, it has a lack of information regarding the actual recommendation algorithm and lacks detail. This is my proposition for the addition of a section, let me know what you think.

Recommendation Algorithm

The Netflix recommendation system is a vital part of the streaming platform’s success, enabling personalized content suggestions for over 220 million subscribers worldwide. ^[1] Using advanced machine learning algorithms, Netflix analyzes user interactions, including viewing history, searches, and ratings, to deliver personalized recommendations for movies and TV shows.

Netflix uses machine learning algorithms to process large amounts of user data and generate accurate recommendations. These algorithms use techniques such as reinforcement learning, neural networks, casual modeling, probabilistic graphical models, matrix factorization, and ensemble learning. ^[1]

The recommendation system considers individual user preferences, similarities with other users with comparable tastes, specific title attributes (genre, release year), device usage patterns, and viewing time. As users interact with the platform and provide feedback with their viewing habits, the recommendation system is able to adapt and refine its suggestions over time. Netflix uses a two-tiered ranking system, using the presentation of titles on the homepage for easy navigation to maximize user engagement. This is done by organizing content into rows and ranking the titles within each row based on how much the user would be interested in it. ^[1] Netflix also uses A/B testing to determine what causes the biggest interest and engagement related to options concerning movie suggestions and how titles are organized.

Typingstuff (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe the Netflix page could benefit from a short explanation of it's Privacy Policy. The following is what I think could be added to the page after the Criticism topic. Any and all feedback is appreciated. Thanks.

Privacy Policy

Netflix's Privacy Policy ^[1] outlines how the streaming platform collects, uses, and protects user data. It covers various aspects of privacy such as the type of information collected (like account details, viewing history, and device data), the purposes for which it's used (including personalization, account management, and content recommendations), and how it's shared (with service providers, for legal reasons, or with user consent). The policy ^[1] also addresses user controls, providing options for managing data preferences and settings. Additionally, it highlights security measures to safeguard user information from unauthorized access or misuse.

For California citizens, Netflix follows the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) ^[2], which “is a state statute that aims to enhance privacy rights and consumer protection”.

Horton Nazca (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I was thinking of updating the Subscriptions section of the Wikipedia page to mention the new policies Netflix put in place regarding household. This seemed to stir a lot of controversy when it happened and lots of people have questions about the new policy. I've included the new section I would like to add. Let me know if these changes are unnecessary or if anything needs to be changed! Thank you.

Subscriptions

Netflix announced in February that it was going to enforce stricter regulations for password sharing. In May 2023, Netflix began cracking down on password-sharing in the US, UK, and Australia. Under these new rules, multiple people can use and share one account, but they have to be under the same household^[1]. Netflix defines a household as people who live in the same location as the owner of the account. Users are asked to set a primary location based on the device’s IP address. Once this location is set, people who do not live at that location no longer have access to the account unless they pay an additional fee to become an extra member on the account^[2]. This decision has sparked controversy, with many saying the new rule is not fair to college students who do not live at home any longer.

Keene083 (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I hope I haven't destroyed the reference. I've only reverted vandalism from last November. --WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Netflix has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ayushsingh9878 (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Netflix new logo and new about customer

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Netflix television dramas has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 15:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

There is some material here which may be useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Most years in the Awards section have references to the movies/shows that were nominated or won awards. The source below, for example, details the 6 movies that received nominations for various categories from the Academy, including 3 wins:

https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/oscar-nominations-2025

I can make these edits, but the page said it is semi-protected so I wanted to come to the talk page first. I'm a bit of a newer editor so I don't know if that's the right protocol....Thanks! Ynwamerchant22 (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to request an edit to the section discussing Netflix’s transition to measuring viewership in “hours watched” (2021). This addition is based on independent third-party reporting from TheWrap, which cites analysis using datasets from PlumResearch.

The addition contributes neutral, verifiable context about how Netflix’s release strategies relate to viewership metrics and retention patterns, fitting directly within the topic of viewership measurement already discussed in the article.

Proposed addition (to be placed at the end of the paragraph describing the switch to the “hours watched” metric):

“According to a 2023 analysis cited by TheWrap and using datasets from PlumResearch, Netflix’s adoption of a two-part release schedule for certain series was associated with stronger second-week viewer retention compared to full-season drops.” [https://www.thewrap.com/netflix-two-part-release-schedule-analysis/]

Reasoning:

-TheWrap is a reliable independent secondary source.

-The addition does not promote any company and focuses strictly on release-strategy effects on viewership.

-It enriches the section by adding third-party analytical context related to audience measurement.

-It is directly relevant to the existing discussion on how Netflix defines and reports viewership metrics.

Thank you! Jakubeqz (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The current article mentions Netflix making a bid on December 4, but it should be expanded with the December 5 announcement of the definitive agreement.

https://about.netflix.com/en/news/netflix-to-acquire-warner-bros Bakerstreetirregular221 (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

As the pre-article note states, "This article is about the streaming service. For the company, see Netflix, Inc.". However, the article still covers a lot in relation to Netflix, Inc. that isn't directly relevant to the streaming service itself.

The 1997–2006 section could be trimmed down and replaced with a short "background" paragraph explaining netflix's background and with a reference to Netflix, Inc. as the main article.
Notes on the company structure like the history of (co-)CEOs also aren't that relevant to the subscription service itself and are covered in the company article.

From my PoV this would remove some bulk from the article itself and streamline its focus on what it is supposed to be about, i.e. the streaming service. What are your thoughts on this? Tainmere (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)