Talk:Esquire Network

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Home Living Low‑importance

	Housing portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Home Living, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of home-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Home LivingWikipedia:WikiProject Home LivingTemplate:WikiProject Home Livinghome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Television: Stations Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Not Much Here

So what gives? Why the absence of information about Style Network? Am I on the wrong page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.133.208 (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct cable channels usually are not merged into articles for their replacement networks. (Discovery Health and Soapnet have not been redirected to Oprah Winfrey Network or Disney Junior for example). It's odd to have the page for the Style Network redirected to Esquire Network. Why was this decision made? Am86 (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the Style Network should still be its own section. There is a great history there that should not be lost by redirecting to this page. --LukeBK (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move per request. Sorry, my fault, you shouldn't have had to make this request. What happened was I was mass reverting moves of numerous pages from "(TV network)" to "(TV channel)" and in my haste, moved this not back to the name it was at before the move, but to the form of name others had been moved from.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Style (TV network) → Style Network – First of all, there was never any discussion or consensus reached to change the name to Style (TV network) in the first place. Second, Style Network was the established name of the article for quite a while. Why would it be changed in favor of a name that needs further clarification/disambiguation from parentheses? Despite their on-air branding, the official name of the network is the Style Network. After their rebranding, it appears as though they are even beginning to revive this name to some degree; they've changed their web address from mystyle.com back to stylenetwork.com Relisted. BDD (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC) 68DANNY2 (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

The history of the style network

I added a summary history of the style network such as it was. Briefly, the network spun off of E! in 1998 and offered serious coverage of designers/fasion for about three years (give or take). Then it shifted to makeover shows. Then a few years later it shifted again to personality based reality shows. Then it was killed because it was easier to give its channel to esquire than to get direct tv to pick up esquire.

The sources for the history of the network are really thin. The best information is often to be found on the resumes of people who worked there.

Its not much history for something that lasted so long. But thats part of the reason it died. It was a place for shows, but it lacked any sort of identity or brand as a network. The programming was also by its nature not things that tended to last. It mostly disappeared as fast as it was created. The lasting irony is that in creating esquire network, they have basically re-created all the problems of the style network over again. 209.163.167.156 (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Style Network (Australia) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Esquire 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/20130929150139/http://www.nbcuni.com/corporate/newsroom/style-media-embraces-stylish-living-with-glossy-bold-rebrand/ to http://www.nbcuni.com/corporate/newsroom/style-media-embraces-stylish-living-with-glossy-bold-rebrand

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Past or Present Tense

Since the shutdown of Esquire Network, there's some editing squabble on using past (Esquire Network was an American digital cable network...) vs. present tense (...is a defunct American digital cable...). Which do y'all think makes more sense. Me, using past tense. Because once a network is shut down, it's gone for good. It would be one thing if said channel is in the process of relaunching (There were talks in revamping Esquire Network as an online only service, but that has yet to happen), but until the channel comes back to life, I'm using past tense. Look at Turner South for example. I welcome all comments, please be civil.

Mbrstooge (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]