Talk:Showtime (TV network)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Audience size

How many viewers/subscribers does Showtime have? --209.161.165.94 06:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Showtime channels

I removed the merge tag from this page and redirected showtime channels here; all the content on that page was already present on this page. phoebe 07:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Showtime Beyond

I deleted the digital cable only tag from this channel info, as it's available on Dish Network, as per their channel list and my EPG. Ehren 02:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is the main website, US only?

It seems strange that they do this, and yet HBO, CBS, NBC et al are all readily available.

I watch a Showtime US program that isn't available in Australia and wanted to get some more information, but due to my geography, am locked out. Is there a reason? Neolux 14:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just asked the question to the official website support. I'm French and a few months ago I remember trying to access Dexter official website and got a Restricted access, USA residents only page. To tell the truth I was completely stunned. The Web with restricted access ? A website forbidden to non-US residents ? I couldn't believe it ! For me the Web should remain free of any restricted areas, specially when it comes to foreign residents. The annoying thing was that they didn't even consider explaining the reason. See the official answer to the Non-US Resident: Why can't I access your website? question for example : Showtime is available in the United States only..

What's next ? Hopefully it seems the website is now accessible to everyone. That's why I've just removed the USA access only notices from the article, and hope we won't have to add them again ! I really thought something was wrong at Showtime, like it they were against Freedom and Liberty, foreign cultures… I'm glad the website is now opened to Earth residents. Can't wait to read the answer to my question. --Goa103 23:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The FAQ question has not been removed from the site, so unless we have proof that Showtime has opened their site to international viewers, we cannot be for sure. I have reverted your edit because Showtime has been very strict about access of their site to international viewers unless they were behind a US proxy server. Even then, some restrictions will most likely remain on the site's video offerings due to licensing conflicts in other countries. Nate 00:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Showtime Logo Is Incorrect

The current logo is incorrect... The arabia logo is said to be the USA logo which is not correct... this needed changed.

That's just the Nick Jr. Vandal, Jamesinc14 (under various IP socks). He always does this, and we will always revert him. Nate 00:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

SOME ADDITIONS

• 1: The logo that appears is not Showtime US' logo. It will never be. It is Showtime Arabia.
• 2: Sho.com is open all over the world, and is not just restricted to the US.

Koolgiy 01:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Chrono Crusade????

Can someone explain to me how chrno crusade is Showtime's "original programming"? Maybe I just don't understand the definition of "Original Programming" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.32.227 (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering the same thing. I think it needs to be removed. DeMyztikX (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusing?

Some parts of this article seem confusing or inconsistent. The History section is the most confusing bit. And there is no mention of the rebranding of Showtime 2 except for the gallery. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Split Original Programming into own section?

I suggest that the section original programming be separated from the main Showtime article and split into two articles: one for original series and one for original movies. The section is entirely too large for the article now. BTW, if anyone has any info on which made-for-cable movies are Showtime Original Pictures/Original Pictures for All Ages and know when they aired please submit them. tvtonightokctvtonightokc 22:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Time References

Just a minor fix. Saying 'just recently' fixes the article's creation date. I change "An example of this is the 2004 version of The Punisher, which debuted in January 2006 and just recently (November 2006) premiered on basic cable channel FX." to "An example of this is the 2004 version of The Punisher, which debuted in January 2006 and then premiered November 2006 on basic cable channel FX."

well, i wrote that and that's fine. but, then, someone added "MISSION IMPOSSIBLE III" in lieu of "THE PUNISHER". so, i just opted to delete that part of the paragraph in favor of just leaving it at the simple fact that their premieres do tend to show up on TNT shortly after premiering on the network. and i also changed the 16-month window between cable premiere and broadcast premiere. the movie "MEAN GIRLS" premiered on showtime and then later on TNT in the same year, (MARCH 2006 on Showtime, NOVEMBER 2006 on TBS and TNT).

and the window in-between THEATRICAL and CABLE PREMIERE is LARGER than that of STARZ and HBO. this weekend (april 14, 2007), HBO is premiering "UNITED 93", while a film like "HOSTEL" (which will be shown exclusively on Showtime) is set to premiere in JULY (nearly 2 years AFTER its theatrical premiere).

Original programming

Showtime also ran a season of a sitcom titled "Hard Knocks", which is perhaps memorable only for featuring a young Bill Maher, who at the time had a mane of hair that even Dennis Miller would envy.

Showtime/Smithsonian controversy

Maybe adding something about the recent controversy would be appropriate. I don't know which article to put it in, this one or Smithsonian? See [1]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Showtime → Showtime (TV network) – Disambugation purposes. The word "showtime" is used for the meaning of the word, and not specifically for the TV channel. Kiddie Techie ^Talk 02:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support "Showtime" is very ambiguous. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Network's name is the most prominent example of the name, and the DAB is comprehensive and acceptable. Nate • (chatter) 06:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and turn to the second paragraph. Kiddie Techie ^Talk 06:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The TV channel is not "much more likely than any other [meaning of the word "Showtime"], and more likely than all the others combined", so does not satisfy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Showtime (disambiguation) should be moved to Showtime. Jenks24 (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support though I was skeptical at first. Traffic stats show that Showtime got less than an order of magnitude more hits than Showtime (TV series), despite being at the undisambiguated title, which is my threshold for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

King the Canadian TV series

I would like Showtime to pick up King the Canadian TV series

Michael Scobey — Preceding unsigned comment added by BatMobile65 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Showtime (TV network). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150204145451/http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/07/16/corneroffice_blank_corp/ to http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/07/16/corneroffice_blank_corp/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090316210556/http://www.mmaweekly.com:80/blog/2009/03/strikeforce-ceo-outlines-rough-events.asp to http://www.mmaweekly.com/blog/2009/03/strikeforce-ceo-outlines-rough-events.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 06 April 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closing with no action, and re-opening the last RM. This isn't a new discussion, it's tied to the last one, where the admin apparently disagreed with the non-admin closure. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Showtime (TV network) → Showtime – Per RM discussion on talk page. – SSTflyer 14:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• And Showtime → Showtime (disambiguation).

@SSTflyer: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Showtime" is listed with over 40 meanings. Is the TV network dominant over all those? Readers outside the USA may not think first about the TV network. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

  @Anthony Appleyard:, there is a consensus at #Requested move 22 February 2016, you can't simply attempt to use your adminship to decline a move and simply reopen a new RM immediately, that's an abuse of your position as admin. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 15:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, too many other listings for Showtime to choose this one as the main, and Americancentric. Confusing as to the close above, which was closed a few minutes before this 'new' topic. Randy Kryn 15:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• That's because @Anthony Appleyard: declined the move because... I don't know. The consensus above wasn't legitimate? This should be closed, and another technical request carried out. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This was a botched handling of the previous RM by Anthony Appleyard. This isn't a new RM. If he didn't like the closure of the last RM he should have just reopened it. Instead, the previous RM is left closed with the decision unfulfilled, and a new section opened. I'm going to close this new RM and reopen the last one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• It looks like that SSTflyer made a non-admin closure of the previous discussion and then put in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests an uncontroversial-type request for an admin to make the move. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries. It's just confusing to have a duplicate RM when the previous RM's closure was not upheld.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 22 February 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. In reviewing this, I couldn't help but think of WP:TITLEVAR. While that doesn't apply here, it rhymes with this in a way. If English Wikipedia was entirely a US-based project, I'd move it. But, while I see some respected UK-based admins opposing this, I also see some US-based opposition. And while the "usage" pier of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC supporting a move is strong, the other pier – "long-term significance", i.e. enduring notability and educational value – not so much. In such situations, we lean towards the conservative position of forcing editors to disambiguate links to Showtime. I don't see enough support here to overturn the move of May 2011. wbm1058 (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

---

• Showtime (TV network) → Showtime
• Showtime → Showtime (disambiguation)

– The TV network is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 94,000+ pageviews for "(TV network)" and 7,100 pageviews for "(TV channel)" vs. 18,000+ for the (film), 12,000+ for Showtime Networks, and 5,000+ for the Dizzee Rascal album (which was far and away the most viewed album; the others had negligible page views). Thorough Google and Google News searches confirm that the TV network is easily the most referenced "Showtime" with respect to usage and long-term significance. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support, easily the primary topic. Stats numbers are clear, and looking at Google News and Google News archives the network is the subject which is/was covered in the absolute majority of the news. Easy call. Cavarrone 19:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clearly no primary topic among so many uses of this common dictionary term showtime. If you want specific examples, Showtime (film), and Showtime (Dizzee Rascal album) are clearly major topics in their own right. With such a wide range of uses on the dab page, not to mention the wiktionary link, there is simply no way that the US television network (which is not widely known in other parts of the world) is "more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term", as required for a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The current disambiguation page serves readers best.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The US TV network is overwhelmingly the topic sought when a reader searches the term. A quick Google search (as well as a more thorough inquiry) proves that fact. And that the US network receives more than 5x the pageviews of the film and 20x the album on Wikipedia is supportive that this is the primary topic. I also don't know why you're citing the wikitionary page since the definition of a word does not have anything to do with determining the primary topic in the encyclopedia. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Amakaru. Not obvious for a primary topic use that is unlikely. ApprenticeFan ^work 04:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in terms of the page views, and a cursory Google Books and Google News search suggest it's the main topic in the sources as well. There isn't an article on the term "showtime"; I imagine this would be a WP:DICDEF, and in fact I'm not sure it could compete with the network as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Calidum ¤ 03:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I reopened this RM. It was closed by SSTflyer in a non-admin closure;[2] Anthony Appleyard evidently disagreed with the close and opened a new RM section below. I've re-opened this RM so that discussion can continue in one place.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • And to User:Anthony Appleyard- did you look at any of the evidence I presented above? The move request you opened seemed to ignore all of it, starting at square one treating the "40" Showtime pages as if they were all of equal weight. The US TV network is absolutely the primary topic with respect to pageviews, usage, and long-term significance. The other entries don't even come close. The disambiguation page to be hatnoted at the top of the main Showtime article will serve to adequately clarify where to find other Showtime articles. I also do believe that there is/was a consensus to move the page, so whatever just happened in the last few hours was certainly confusing. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The primary meaning of "showtime" is that found in theater scheduling, and its derivative usage, currently relegated to a Wiktionary link on the disambiguation page. The US Showtime channel is certainly a major usage of the term, but even so they have rented out the name so much that we have multiple Showtime television articles. The disambiguation page should be at the short title. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • That's the primary dictionary definition of Showtime, which has nothing to do with the primary topic of the encyclopedia. Users at Wikipedia are not looking for the "theater scheduling" usage, as evidenced by page views. With regards to your logic about definitions: "Rocky" literally means "consisting or full of rock or rocks" or "tending to rock or shake; unsteady" in a dictionary– by your logic, we should need to disambiguate pages like Rocky, which isn't sound reasoning. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I actually would disambiguate Rocky, personally - it's not clear to me whether the film, the character from the film, or the sequels to the film represent the more obvious primary topic. That's beside the point, though; even if readers are mostly looking for the media brand, it's not clear which of our several pages about aspects of the media brand they most want to read. That's reason enough for the dabpage. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"it's not clear which of our several pages about aspects of the media brand they most want to read." What does that mean exactly? It is quite clear which page is the primary topic- the TV network page. The other pages views don't come close. There isn't ambiguity. Traffic and usage is what determines the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. Looks like a primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – way too ambiguous for such a commercial primarytopic grab. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • If this graph is "ambiguous," then WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is meaningless. And the dictionary term has nothing to do with the primary topic of the encyclopedia, so regarding that charge, a hatnote suffices. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Showtime (TV network). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130211004650/http://www.sho.com/sho/home to http://www.sho.com/sho/home
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130211004650/http://www.sho.com/sho/home to http://www.sho.com/sho/home

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Help!

Kosovo is glitched in the map. 177.9.119.99 (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Paramount+ which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:48, 20 May 2023 (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. WP:SNOW and wrong venue. If you still want to proceed with requesting a merge, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Showtime (TV network) → Paramount+ with Showtime – I propose that this page be merged with the page Paramount+ with Showtime because content from the Paramount+ streaming service will be merged with content from Showtime on June 27, 2023. AdamDeanHall (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I understand it, this article is primarily about the actual Showtime network and programming imprint that is also available separately on various TV providers and streaming services that are independent of Paramount Global or Paramount+. What the merger actually is about is having the network available to stream directly on Paramount+. Showtime would still be available as a separate channel on these other TV providers and streaming services. For example, I do not current see anything on DirecTV, Sling, or YouTube TV that suggests that they will modify their Showtime service and have all Paramount+ content in the future. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Snow Oppose. This article is about the network, not the service, which is not changing. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, network page. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article is about the TV network and has nothing to do with the OTT service. LDM2003 (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• 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) 04:09, 24 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.

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 the Paramount+ streaming service will be merged with content from the Showtime network on June 27, 2023. AdamDeanHall (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: These are separate services with separate histories, and the mere fact that they're being offered as a bundled tier of the Paramount+ service does not mean that they are now ineligible for separate articles and that they must be merged. "Paramount+ with Showtime" is all but the same as the old "Crave + Movies + HBO" paradigm we had in the past up in Canada. ViperSnake151  Talk  07:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment- this is quite confusing, as a merge proposal is also at Talk:Paramount+#Merger proposal, where I have already commented with an Oppose. BilCat (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: As I said in the other concurrent proposal, 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 ☎ ✎ 23:51, 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, it is formatted to suggest a merge with nothing, as Paramount+ with Showtime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a redirect with no content, and the merge template {{merge|Paramount+ with Showtime}} shows this merger with nothing, so there is nothing to merge. The conflicting double discussions are also not procedurally correct (the other located at Talk:Paramount+), as there should be one not two. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  agree Michael H 14:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comments - I believe the best way forward is to create a new article at Paramount+ with Showtime for the merged service and channel. This way, the original articles stay as they are, and cover the pre-merger entities and histories. BilCat (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think a separate "Paramount+ with Showtime" article would just be as confusing and probably would not qualify under WP:GNG as a separate stand-alone article. AFAIK, "Paramount+ with Showtime" is just a branding for a new premium tier of the Paramount+ streaming service that will include programming from Showtime. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  My comments were based on reports that have since been disputed. This whole thing has been about as clear as mud. Even the reliable sources were confused about what to expect. BilCat (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Chalk it up to another case of WP:RSBREAKING. News reports may contain inaccuracies. I suspected as such when they never addressed what would happen to Fubo, Hulu, Roku, Sling, YouTube TV, or the other distributors that offered the Showtime channels separately. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:28, 29 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)

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.

What about the other Showtime channels?

I understand that the Showtime network will be rebranded to Paramount+ with Showtime, but what about the other channels like Showtime Showcase, Showtime 2, Showtime Women, The Movie Channel, etc.? Do you know whether or not they're going to shut down? AdamDeanHall (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Softcore

I don't like the use of softcore pornography as a descriptor in the first paragraph of this article. Some titles are definitely adult content which can be graphic but the use of softcore implies a moral or political values connotation that I don't think is warranted especially since showtime would not classify their own content as such. Without a citation to other work that calls showtime content softcore pornography I don't think we should be moralizing it here. Mendrykowski (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)