Talk:Esquire (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Magazines (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Cnet[edit]

About the link to C|Net I don't see where the spyware is.

And about the vanity. Is just a reference to the encyclopedia, and if we are going to delete, delete the links to the article in Wikipedia too.

I don't see the point in deleting the reference to Wikipedia. -- (Said someone who didn't know that they could sign their comments using ~~~~)

(I know, just forgot to do it

Albert 16:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the spyware isn't there. I noticed three variants Doubleclick, Mediaplex and Avenue A Inc. I don't know why you can't see it. I notice that there are actually complaints about this on C|Net's TechRepublic discussion forum. People are particularly unhappy that the TechRepublic article warning people about spyware installs spyware onto their computers. Who can blame them. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

CNet have moved now removed the spyware from their site, so I have reinstated the link. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:ITAAW[edit]

I just came to this page and had no idea what the Improve this article thing was about, but having researched the history I found the deleted explanation in the form of the following:

In September 2005, the Esquire writer A.J. Jacobs ran an experiment and posted an article in Wikipedia with factual errors with the intention the community would fix it. The experiment was a success and the article was improved and expanded with the factual errors corrected in the first 24 hours.

It is madness to have an unexplained link to something that on the surface has no links to Esquire, removing its explanation because it is a self-reference. If it is important enough to have as a link it is important enough to have two lines explaining that link. I will reinstate the paragraph shortly unless a better option is presented. Driller thriller 14:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Esquire.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Esquire.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cover update[edit]

Where's the 2008 cover? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.139.145 (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Napkin Fiction Project[edit]

This section is incomplete. There is no indication as to why or how a cocktail napkin elicits the writing of a story. Were the napkins accompanied by a request? Is it a "standard" cultural thing? (If so, it needs to be explained.) 125.138.191.93 (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I must agree that this is just about the most piss-poor piece of writing I've ever seen on wikipedia. Apparently, some cocktail napkins were sent to various writers by a person or agency unknown (how tough would it have been to use the active voice, and to have identified the sender?) and magically, Esquire received a bunch of short story submissions. Did the short stories have to fit on the cocktail napkins? Obviously, one of my students must have written the section. 13:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)RKH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.65.28 (talk)

Sexiest woman area[edit]

Nevermind. I had my years backwards! :) 204.17.31.126 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:A Great Day in Harlem (picture)[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:A Great Day in Harlem (picture)#Article name. What is the actual name of this photograph (if, indeed, it has a name)? Thanks. Gyrofrog (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Centerfolds[edit]

I would appreciate information about the centerfolds, especially in which issue the first (pin-up) centerfold was published, and when this practice was abolished. Thanks, Maikel (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Glitch[edit]

Quote: 2008 Finalist for Magazine Se

This needs fixin' please. Maikel (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)