Talk:Paramount+

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information WikiProject Media To-do List:, Contribute to the project: ...
Close

Orphaned references in Paramount+

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 Paramount+'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":

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:

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

Star track discovery, time line for New Zealand please

Is the article too technical?

International expansion (Caribbean)

Requested move 20 May 2023

Move discussion in progress

Merger proposal

Would Paramount join forces with Max?

Logo with the Mountain or without

My question.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2025

Paramount+ is now available in the Philippines

Talk:NCIS: Sydney has an RfC

Paramount+ already available in Africa as a dedicated hub

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI