[go: nahoru, domu]

Jump to content

Talk:Esquire Network: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
LukeBK (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:
==Not Much Here==
==Not Much Here==
So what gives? Why the absence of information about Style Network? Am I on the wrong page? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.228.133.208|71.228.133.208]] ([[User talk:71.228.133.208|talk]]) 00:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
So what gives? Why the absence of information about Style Network? Am I on the wrong page? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.228.133.208|71.228.133.208]] ([[User talk:71.228.133.208|talk]]) 00:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: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? [[User:Am86|Am86]] ([[User talk:Am86|talk]]) 07:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
: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? [[User:Am86|Am86]] ([[User talk:Am86|talk]]) 07:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
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. --[[User:LukeBK|LukeBK]] ([[User talk:LukeBK|talk]]) 20:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


==Requested move==
==Requested move==

Revision as of 20:21, 26 October 2013

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.