Talk:Esquire Network

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Not Much Here

message: 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)
thread_title:  The history of the style network 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Past or Present Tense