Television Low‑importance

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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Video games C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games 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.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

You guys do know that the message boards and the website are completely seperate? People who use the forum usually do not like the TV show! They should be seperated. And Off-Topic should be seperated, because they are really their own special group.

I added discontinued shows that were previously on G4tv, but have been cancelled. Shows that never made it to G4 weren't added, they can stay on the TechTV page. Good, yes?

Sorry to allow it to happen, but a friend who barrowed my laptop, used my account to vandalize the logo here.

Sorry.

Therefore it is irrelavant to have the CRTC comment on any G4 related Wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahambrunk (talk • contribs)

Should it be mentioned that it's similar to Spike? I mean take a look at the shows.

See, Spike is absolutely intended for male viewers and just look at the shows. Totally Outrageous Behavior (which is basically the same as World's Amazing Videos and Most Amazing Cop Videos), The Man Show, and I'm pretty sure it's the only other channel that runs reruns of Star Trek: The Next Generation besides Spike.

Just for the record,BBC America also shows ST:TNG Karinagw (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the shows list :)

There is an incomplete list of the launch shows for G4 in 2002 in the article. The full list of all 13 shows is: Arena, Blister, Cheat!, Cinematech, Filter, Game On, G4tv.com, Icons, Judgment Day, Players, Portal, Pulse and Sweat

- Jimmy Fallon reruns - reruns of "party down" - Failed Starz programming - "How I rock it" - An MTV style show on the personal style of male celebrities with Baron Davis. Six Episode commitment - “Risky Listing,” - Another generic real estate agent show with the hook being that its about bars and clubs. Six Episode commitment - "Knife Fight" - Another cooking competition show with an obviously tiny budget. - "The Getaway" - Anthony Bourdain produced celebrity travel show. Ten hour commitment.

No identity for the network. Apparently a tiny launch budget. And a curious tendancy to stay among the "family" for the programming. This isn't much more than the old G4 budget redirected into really generic programming.

My guess is that the channel is going to become a dumping ground for the programming of the networks in its "group" if it doesn't get sold first. 70.234.245.226 (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just reading this lineup is making me depressed. G4 was never amazing, but it was still the best place to get news on Consumer Electronics that wasn't internet-based (the one thing Spike doesn't have). I really see no target audience in the lineup; let alone "For Metrosexuals". It seems to be more "throw it at the wall and see what sticks", except the wall is covered in oil slick. Goodnight, sweet prince. Smortypi (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably not the best place to discuss opinions about the channel, but to discuss ways to improve the article.  :/ Please see WP:FORUM Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The intent was/is placeholder information/discussion related to the esquire channel which would presumably eventually go into the new article on the channel when it is created. 174.46.28.58 (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newly added: Psych, Burn Notice, Parks and Recreation. More reruns.

Jimmy Fallon will be done on a one-week delay which is really weird.

American Field Trip (Six Episodes): An upscale version of what Larry the Cable Guy does on the history channel with odd travel to see America.

Ninja Warrior will continue to be a core offering of the network. They will now launch the Network around a new season of American Ninja Warrior this summer with no promotional budget (already spent), no media attention at the worst possible time of the year with no carry-over viewers at all. 70.234.237.246 (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be an ongoing dispute about the usage of the {{Start date}} template in this article, here are specific guidelines about the usage of the {{Start date}} template in infoboxes, with emphasis on articles about television and television channels: Template:Infobox television channel and my request for clarification at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Microformats. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than this article being "moved" to Esquire Network, I think a new article should be created for Esquire Network at the appropriate time. This is what has been done in the past for channel re-launches such as the Oprah Network. The G4 information is historically valuable, but not really all that meaningful to something describing the Esquire Network. 70.234.236.191 (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with this user. G4's article should stay and a new 'Esquire Network' article should be created to reflect that network, like TechTV, G4techTV and G4 all have their own articles because they are all valuable in their own ways. Nhlarry (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the article it has a pic of the new Esquire logo and in the box it says-Launch announcement and probable on air logo for Esquire network. When I clicked the Esquire logo file the source is a link to a blog named Idea Peepshow. Doesn't probable mean this is just a guess of what the network logo will look like? I clicked the link in the file of the Esquire logo and the logo comes from a blog that says 6 hilarious and free show ideas for the new Esquire network. I'm not sure a blog,much less one that is listing free show ideas is a reputable place to get a logo,since it seems they guessed or made the logo up. Is it ok If I remove the Esquire logo? The esquire network doesn't even have a launch date yet, it keeps getting delayed. And how can Wikipedia have a logo for a network that does not even exist yet?--BeckiGreen (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The network has a pre-launch website with logos (tv.esquire.com). They have also shown logos on broadcast television. I agree that a blog is not a proper source for the logo, but the network certainly already exists to a point where Wikipedia can have a logo (from a proper source) to represent it. 174.46.28.58 (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stated concerns on the editor's talkpage; logo has been used on-air and in all seriousness, I didn't care at all for the content of the article, just finding the correct logo image in a good image quantity; I only stated the source under proper fair-use disclosures. Also, under our guidelines, text is generally considered public domain in the first place, and though the name and trademark are copyrighted, the actual letters aren't, so it doesn't matter as it'll eventually be under a PD-textlogo license anyways. Nate • (chatter) 08:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]