Talk:Cinemax/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merger proposal

I propose that the Max After Dark article be merged into the Max After Dark section of this article. Its just a stub article consisting of a list of shows (half of which are red links) and it isn't long enough for its own article. However, since Cinemax is most known for this programming block (it even has a separate section in their official site), I think the list of shows and movies both past and present produced for or shown on it should be kept in that section for historical and notability purposes. I also think the original Max After Dark series should have their own articles, since there is continuity and drama like regular serial shows, not just sex scenes. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of content

RE: [1]

I don't see why the pop culture references section was deleted. It proves that Cinemax IS most known for the Max After Dark block an has therefore been mentioned in national TV shows an Hollywood films. Also, the shows were de-redlinked so there was no reason to delete them, they ARE mentioned on Max After Dark's website (referenced properly) so there they exist and are currently in production. I never said they deserved their own articles, I agree they don't. That's why I got the red out. Please reply here before removing more content to avoid an edit war. TomCat4680 (talk)

Proves how? It's all just trivial mentions. Calling that "proof" smacks of original research to me. As for the list of shows, if someone were to want to look them up, there is a link there for that. There's no reason to list stuff just for the sake of listing it, and the shows that *are* listed are notable enough to have articles for them, so that should be enough. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A. I don't see how its trivial, its shows that Cinemax is most known for its softcore porn shows. B. the shows you listed have been canceled, so its a misnomer to say they're current. I never said build an article for them, nor did I say they deserved one. I just want the article to be factually accurate and up to date. The current shows that are now airing new episodes are Co-ed Confidential, Zane's Sex Chronicles, Sex Games Cancun and Forbidden Science, and on weekends, the movies are shown. I watch MAD often. Do you? TomCat4680 (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please leave the content you question in and put up the tag that explains why you object to it so other can comment too. I want a consensus with more opinions, per content dispute policy, I don't want an edit war. Again I appreciate your co-operation. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and just deleted the line, since it really duplicated a line in the first paragraph of the section, and moved the schedule link to a more appropriate spot. As for "what the network is known for", that's already sourced with a proper citation in that section, so an unreferenced trivial mention is not called for. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree about branding it "trivia" . The in pop culture section still belongs IMO. Someone who has never watched Cinemax may want to know "Oh yeah, how so?" when they see its most known for the porn etc. You have to assume the reader knows nothing and is learning about Cinemax / Max After Dark for the first time ever. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, then a series of trivial mentions is just that: trivial. The term "skinemax" is already mentioned in the article, with a proper cited reference. It's up to you to prove that these mentions are notable - you have not done that, other than variations on WP:ILIKEIT. That's not enough. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether you think it is true. Right now it's original research, which doesn't cut it. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA is an GUIDELINE and WP:ILIKEIT is a PROPOSED guideline. Neither are policies. However my information is verifiable per points a and b of notability standards (both are which ARE policies), because they are from published media works. I'm putting it back in. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Argue semantics all you will, but there is nothing notable about the section. You claim that it meets Wikipedia:GNG#General_notability_guideline - well, right off the bat it fails #1, significant coverage... one-line references is not "significant coverage" - had an entire story, plotline, or episode been about the subject, then maybe - but everything you added back was minor, trivial mentions. WHat's sugnificant about these mentions, other than their existence? Are we going to start listing every single one of them? Where do we stop, or draw the line? We're back to WP:ILIKEIT, which is a poor excuse for inclusion. The term "skinemax" is already mentioned in the article, with a proper cited reference. Anything more is fluff. If you want to add this material back in, I'd suggest you find ofther sources that establish that's notable enough to warrant more detail past the existence of the term, or RFC the issue - because right now, you're not convincing me, and the burden of proof is on you to prove why this should be in the article. You have not done that. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine I'm putting up an RfC. I'd appreciate it if you stopped commenting further for now.

Request for Comment

Please read this and the above discussion and decide whether or not it passes notability and verifiability standards. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• meets noatbility and verifiability requirements. anyone could watch those shows and see what they are talking about. Also this may help: Google news on Max after dark Ikip (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• does not meet notability and verifiablity There are no third party sources that make these one line jokes about Cinemax notable. While yes, anyone could watch these shows and agree that their content is pornographic, I fail to see what that has to do with Cinemax's pop culture reference. All the Google News articles reinforce the fact that Cinemax after dark is pornographic. Livewireo (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the reference to

I deleted the reference to "and recently earned reputation of being a porn channel" because that carries a biased stigma. The adult content was adequately described earlier in the article, and a true cable "porn channel" would be more suitably applied to an all-adult programming network.72.226.202.64 05:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that when Cinemax First rolled out, circa 1980 or so, it was known as "Take2" 70.156.236.228 21:44, 05 July 2006 (UTC)

History

What does this sentence mean

" Cinemax also airs half-hour adult erotica series proceeding and/or following adult films, sometimes not airing at all."

And what in the world is "Cinemax . . . has ran . . ." the summer of 1000 films. "Has ran"???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.117.253 (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)