Talk:Esquire (magazine)

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

Where the hell did those last three come from? As far as I can tell its vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.140.158.106 (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Centerfolds
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
Quote: 2008  Finalist for Magazine Se

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Esquire (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081018043654/http://www.observer.com/2008/beloved-esquire-franchise-dubious-achievements-becomes-one to http://www.observer.com/2008/beloved-esquire-franchise-dubious-achievements-becomes-one

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Esquire (magazine). 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/20100617005121/http://www.esquire.com:80/women/sexiest-woman-alive-2005/ESQ0207SEXIEST to http://www.esquire.com/women/sexiest-woman-alive-2005/ESQ0207SEXIEST

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) 09:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Esquire (magazine). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.esquire.com/women/sexiest-woman-alive-2005/ESQ0207SEXIEST
 * Added tag to http://www.hiesquire.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013082158/http://www.theadvertisingshow.com/attachments/articles/488/051106_lois.mp3 to http://www.theadvertisingshow.com/attachments/articles/488/051106_lois.mp3

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) 17:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Esquire (magazine). 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/20110512210337/http://www.esquirechina.com.cn/ to http://www.esquirechina.com.cn/

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) 12:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Political
Esquire has become extremely political. It is biased toward the Radical Left. As such, it loses the Middle and the Right.96.248.101.32 (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)De'Wayne Johnson

Redundant
It seems to me that "During this time, New York Woman magazine was launched as something of a spin-off version of Esquire aimed at a female audience. In 1986, the 13-30 Corporation (renamed as the Esquire Magazine Group) launched the New York Woman magazine as something of a spin-off version of Esquire aimed at a female audience. " is repetitive, saying the same thing more than once.Kdammers (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

online
When did Esquire go online? Kdammers (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Sexiest Woman Alive: Criticism
This section is way too long. It uses 1/5 the article's total word count, to criticize a feature that only ran 11 times, and took the form of a quite short actor interview/profile (and an excuse to get a famous woman on the cover). Moreover, it attains this length by exhaustively summarizing a brief op-ed in Slate (the only ref of merit), using more than half that original essay's word count to recapitulate every minor point of the original piece. A detailed analysis/polemic (with extended quotes) of a single ref, for this quite minor section, seems unwarranted and not in-line with the overview scope of this article. In any other wiki page this would probably only warrant 1 or 2 sentences, just mentioning the fact of an op-ed which characterizes the feature as insubstantial and objectifying, maybe with the most relevant half-sentence quote. People can follow the link to Slate if they want more detail of this one person's opinion.

The next 2 refs are of extremely minor relevance, should probably just go. The BuzzFeed article (about an entirely different article in Vanity Fair) just mentions Sexiest Woman Alive in a set of 3 examples of objectifying journalism; this is not a reference, it is a link, and at most establishes that another journalist found an Esquire interview with Cruz to be a fluff piece. It does not deserve multiple sentences here just to explain the ref's tertiary relevance. The next ref (Lainey Gossip) is similarly included solely because it uses the phrase "Esquire-level bullshit" in a brief article describing the same Vanity Fair article on Margot Robbie. These aren't criticisms, they're offhand characterizations. Chronometric (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Cover
We going to stick with Obama forever or the 90th anniversary cover? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.85.205.175 (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)