Talk:Paramount+

Orphaned references in CBS All Access

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of CBS All Access's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "SeriesOrder":

• From Star Trek: Lower Decks: Goldberg, Lesley (October 25, 2018). "'Star Trek' Animated Comedy a Go With 2-Season Order at CBS All Access". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on October 25, 2018. Retrieved October 25, 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Interrogation (TV series): Andreeva, Nellie (November 12, 2018). "CBS All Access Orders 'Interrogation' True Crime Drama Series, Sets Unusual Release". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved November 12, 2018.
• From List of adult animated television series: Andreeva, Nellie (September 25, 2018). "Fox Orders 'Bless The Harts' Animated Series Starring Kristen Wiig & Maya Rudolph From Emily Spivey, Lord & Miller". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved September 25, 2018.
• From Why Women Kill: Andreeva, Nellie (September 24, 2018). "CBS All Access Orders Infidelity Dramedy Series 'Why Women Kill' From Marc Cherry & Imagine TV Studios". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved September 24, 2018.
• From The Stand (upcoming miniseries): Andreeva, Nellie; Petski, Denise (January 30, 2019). "Stephen King's 'The Stand' Ordered To Series At CBS All Access From Josh Boone & Ben Cavell – TCA". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved January 30, 2019.
• From One Dollar (TV series): Andreeva, Nellie (August 2, 2017). "CBS All Access Greenlights Drama Series 'Strange Angel' & '$1', First Comedy Series 'No Activity', Mulls More 'Big Brother' – TCA". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved February 25, 2018.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Short description dispute

This discussion is instigated per WP:BRD.

I object to the changes made by @Dan Harkless:, as it is too wordy and feels like something PR would use. I feel that this takes the letter of Wikipedia:Short description (which is marked as information and not a guideline per se) too literally (see talk page). Per your principle the Netflix shortdesc must be "Internet media streaming and video on demand service featuring acquired series and original content, e.g. Stranger Things". Besides this so-called "information" there is no real guideline on how this is to be used. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with the first version I put in place, «Video streaming platform providing access to CBS network TV content, exclusive content such as new "Star Trek" series, etc.», being considered too wordy. However, reverting it to simply "Video streaming platform" clearly ignores WP:SHORTDESC § Content's guidance:

The short description should focus on distinguishing the subject from similar ones rather than precisely defining it.

If I'm "taking that too literally", what is the correct way to interpret that guidance, in your opinion? Removing all information distinguishing CBS All Access from other streaming services does not seem like a reasonable interpretation. I believe the current version, «Video streaming service with CBS TV and original content, e.g. Star Trek», is a reasonable compromise between brevity and an all-encompassing definition. The information I added is simply factual, not "marketese" as you characterize it (and of course, I have no connection with CBS or Star Trek).

I could see an argument for taking it back one revision, to just «Video streaming service with CBS TV and original content» (for one thing, that would get it closer to the 40-character soft limit that's suggested), but I think the exclusivity to the service of new content for as notable a property as Star Trek is a significant enough distinguisher from other streaming services to warrant inclusion. --Dan Harkless (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

P.S. As for your characterization of what I'd do with the Netflix shortdesc, in its current one («Internet media streaming and video on demand service»), «Internet media streaming» and «video on demand» appear to be wholly redundant to me, and the article appears to bear that out with phrases like «Netflix's video on demand streaming service». I probably would (and likely will) make it «Internet video streaming and DVD-by-mail service with original and licensed content». The first «and» could be shortened to «/», and the second one to «&» to get it shorter, though I'm not sure whether such abbreviations are considered desirable in short descriptions (I didn't find any discussion of that on WP:SHORTDESC, its Talk page, or talk archives). As for mentioning Stranger Things, that show is simply not on the same level of cultural notability as a special case like Star Trek, and Netflix has a very wide range of original content, so I don't think mentioning a specific property is needed there. --Dan Harkless (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Available in just English?

Is this service available in any other languages other than English or is that just for the U.S.? Do they have shows in French in Canada? -- sion8 ^{talk page} 21:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 10 All Access.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Paramount+

As we approach the March 4 rebranding/relaunch of CBS All Access as Paramount+, we're see more and more over-eager editors (some are the same people) making changes to this article. Paramount+ has been reverted as an article at least once, and probably will be again before the launch.

We probably need to decide whether or not we'll rename/move this article to Paramount+, or make this one about a defunct service, and create a new article for P+. There is no one method recommend on Wikipedia, and this is usually done on a case by case basis.

I can see reasons for doing each option, but the community needs to make a decision one way or another, preferably before March 4. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm for a split of the pages, and keeping this for a defunct service. I think the most similar parallel to this is HBO Now and HBO Max. Like CBS All Access, HBO Now was launched by one company, merged/acquired by another, and is being rebranded/rebuilt into a new product by said "new" company, with the new product encompassing several other streaming services (CBS All Access, BET+, etc.). Since HBO Now exists as a discontinued OTT app page and in the navbox, I think the same can apply here. Cmahns (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a split as this is suppose to be a rebrand and not totally new like HBO Max. It will take awhile to make a full page as well. kpgamingz (rant me) 18:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

So will this article be split into CBS All Access and Paramount+? Anthony hello123 (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

K looking forward to it Dylan5068373 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not support split either, its the same service, just different name. Picsovina (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with no split. It's a rename with a marketing push. All the content that was on there on March 4 was there weeks ahead. oknazevad (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose fork/split. It's just a rename of the same streaming service, so it makes sense for us to just do a rename (not fork) of the same article. —Lowellian (reply) 22:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

International expansion

One year after India's Hotstar was merged with Disney+, Voot will be merged with Paramount+ to become Paramount+ Voot (like Disney+ Hotstar) this year. -St3095 ^(?) 13:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Where did you heard that news? Is it going to be merged or to rebrand? VernardoLau (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Subscriber Numbers

All the current subscriber numbers that have been released is CBS All Access and Showtime Streaming combined. Even on their investor page Maybe a footnote citing that fact or not have subscriber numbers at all. The citation in the article is only an assumption by the Variety article author BronzeCheetah44 (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Star track discovery, time line for New Zealand please

Release date for New Zealand, for Star Trek Discovery? 131.203.125.2 (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Is the article too technical?

I came to this article after hearing mention of Paramount+ and wondering what it is. Perhaps I'm in the minority here but having looked through the article I'm still none the wiser as to what Paramount+ is. The opening sentence describes it as a "subscription video on-demand over-the-top streaming service". That doesn't mean anything to me so I just wanted to check the article isn't using too much technical jargon. It seems to be some kind of web-based TV service, but how that service is accessed is not made clear in the article. Grand Dizzy (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, I believe that the introduction is too complicated. When other pages are looked at HBO Max, Netflix and Apple TV+ , they state that they are a subscription streaming service or subscription video on demand service. Would it easier to understand if the introduction is changed to that format?

E.G:

Paramount+ is an American subscription Streaming media streaming service

Seasickcake 7037 (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

International expansion (Caribbean)

I believe that this article has a misunderstanding about the availability of the Paramount+ service in the Caribbean, in terms of launch date as well as covered countries. This is likely due to the relative imprecision of the 'Caribbean' descriptor, and perhaps some ambiguity in the international launch dates expressed by Paramount on various occasions and/or outlets.

Launch Date for the Caribbean:

• Paramount tweeted in February 2022 that Paramount+ would launch in "the UK, South Korea & the Caribbean" by the end of Q2 (June) 2002 {emphasis mine}.
• Paramount generally treats that whole process as now being complete. E.g., in recent official news items such as 'Paramount+ Invests in Local Content, Expanding Its Pipeline of Premium International Originals' of 20th June 2022, the 'About Paramount+' section near the bottom mentions that "[…] The service is currently live in the U.S., Canada, Latin America, the Caribbean, the Nordics, Australia and South Korea." {emphasis mine}.
• Similarly, in recent official tweets such as this one of 20th June 2022, the visual map indicates that the Caribbean launch has already occurred.
• Overall this indicates that Paramount+ is available right now {i.e., not at/near the end of 2022}, in some form, at least for the covered countries {see next}.

Country Coverage for the Caribbean:

• However, at the moment, Paramount+ is accessible in only some of the countries in the Caribbean, whether considered in its broadest sense or as one of its cultural/linguistic spheres {'Anglo/Creole', 'Hispanic', etc.}. The service's presence in the region is via a partnership with multi-provider Cable & Wireless Communications (C&WC), and so is restricted to only those countries where C&WC's BTC (Bahamas) and Flow services (specifically, their higher-tier VOD Access "channels") are available. The third-party news item from April 2022 that's cited in this article itself {viz., 'Flow brings Paramount+ to Caribbean countries'} mentions launching in "[…] more than 15 new markets including Anguilla, The Bahamas, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Curaçao, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands. Additional markets may be announced in the future." {emphasis mine}; also note that only 11 countries are actually named.
• There might not be a definitive country-list published, but that could probably be gleaned from the BTC and Flow websites, taking care to consider only those countries where C&WC offers media Channels, with higher-tier VOD Access, typically via 'bundles' {there'll often be a dedicated Paramount+ page too, via a banner or a search, such as this BTC page for Paramount+ in the Bahamas}.

[On a personal note, the current arrangement excludes various countries normally considered to be within the Caribbean, in particular its Anglo/Creole cultural sphere, such as Guyana and Jamaica which both are founding members of major Caribbean institution CARICOM. {As a Guyanese, I can attest that Paramount+ is not yet available in Guyana, whether via the website (paramountplus.com) or otherwise.} Although the Caribbean will hopefully soon have a fully fledged homegrown service to showcase its own films & series, of course international services are always most welcome too. Indeed, many other popular 'Western' services such as Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, HBO Max & Netflix are available {barring any embargoes} within the entire broad region; so, Paramount+'s relatively limited coverage here was rather unexpected. Oh well, I've already expressed my concerns in greater detail elsewhere {e.g., this post on the r/ParamountPlus reddit}, so won't repeat all that. ;-)]

In summary, if there's sufficient community agreement with the above discussion, then this article's table of covered countries/regions {in the 'Launch' section} should ideally be amended to reflect the current situation in the Caribbean. In addition, the related sentence clause just above that table {viz., "[…] followed by the announcement that the streamer will also expand into the Caribbean also due in the end of the year, […]"} should be likewise adjusted. PaulMikeC-GY (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 20 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Procedural early close as the wrong venue, going along with Showtime (TV network)#Requested move 20 May 2023. This one doesn't quite have WP:SNOW going for it, but the procedural concerns are enough where an early close is warranted in my opinion. If you want this move to happen without a merge, I would recommend starting a new RM as opposed to reopening this one, though I wouldn't object to undoing this close – if you want a merge, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Paramount+ → Paramount+ with Showtime – I propose that this page be merged with the page Paramount+ with Showtime because content from Showtime will be merged with content from the Paramount+ streaming service on June 27, 2023. AdamDeanHall (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. My understanding is that the "Showtime" brand will remain active as a distinct programming imprint, and will still be sold separately by all these providers. And "Paramount+ with Showtime" will just be the name of a premium tier that will be available on the overall Paramount+ streaming service. So unless the common name changes as such after the June 27 merger, the proposed title could give the misinterpretation that Showtime would be available on all payment tiers of Paramount+. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy procedural close WP:Requested moves is for renaming pages not merging them. Further Paramount+ with Showtime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a redirect with no content history, so there is nothing to merge. If you wish to propose a merger, you should use WP:Proposed mergers not "Requested moves"; if the target of the redirect Paramount+ with Showtime is in dispute, you should use WP:Redirects for Discussion --- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Showtime (TV network) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that this page be merged with the page Paramount+ with Showtime because content from Showtime will be merged with content from the Paramount+ streaming service on June 27, 2023. AdamDeanHall (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose merge with Showtime (TV network), which is a network with a lot of history. Instead, "Paramount+" should be moved to Paramount+ with Showtime when the rebrand is completed. BilCat (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
  • To correct myself, "Paramount+ with Showtime" appears to be the title of the nes premium tier of Paramount+, not the entire service. BilCat (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment- this is all quite confusing, as a merge proposal is also at Talk:Showtime (TV network)#Merger proposal, where another user has already commented with an Oppose. BilCat (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Just because the services may be merging to at least some extent does not obligate us to merge the articles, particularly since Showtime has a much longer history than Paramount+. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural close this is malformatted. I suggest this discussion occur at talk:Paramount+ with Showtime and that the merge banners indicate all three articles, Paramount+ with Showtime, Showtime (TV network), Paramount+. (ie. {{merge|Paramount+ with Showtime|Showtime (TV network)|Paramount+|discuss=talk:Paramount+ with Showtime#Merger proposal}} ) As it is currently, there are two conflicting double discussions (the other located at talk:Showtime (TV network)), which is not procedurally correct, as there should be one not two open discussions on the same merger. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think this merger would be a good idea since most of Showtime titles already appeared on Paramount+ outside United States, awhile some of other Showtime titles were available through third-party, such as HBO & other pay TV channels. Thus, "Paramount+ with Showtime" branding was only appealed for United States users. VernardoLau (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. My understanding is that the "Showtime" brand will remain active as a distinct programming channel/imprint, and will still be offered separately by other providers. And "Paramount+ with Showtime" will just be the name of a premium tier with Showtime content that will be available on the overall Paramount+ streaming service. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: It is now June 27. The Showtime website has been updated to read "Paramount+ is the New Streaming Home of Showtime" (emphasis added). But again, the Showtime channel that is offered independently to other cable providers and video programming distributors currently does not appear to be affected. Such as Amazon Prime, Fubo, Hulu, Roku, Sling, YouTubeTV. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Isn't Showtime and Parmount Plus two different things? Cwater1 (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  Wait, I just found that they are merging later on this year. Sorry about that. Cwater1 (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

My opinion on this is that showtime needs to be merged into this article since showtime is only on premium tier of paramount plus but it is still separate from the tv network so that still needs to be separate Hoopstercat (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I see. Cwater1 (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose "Showtime" is remaining active as a separate brand, they should remain separate with a section explaining the new merger. Since it's offered independently to Paramount+ it doesn't seem like a merger would be useful in this case. Lewcm (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose There already was a Showtime hub on Paramount+ since 2021 in countries like Australia. This talk should have happened then. This already is unnecessary and pointless to do just for the US version.101.115.178.53 (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.