Talk:Tay FM

message: Support (I am the original merge proposer): Two short articles, describing two stations run by the same company, and with duplication of content (the necessity of duplicating material between two articles supports the case for a merge IMHO). Fourohfour 23:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isin't that an oppose then? Ydam 12:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you kidding? There are two near-identical articles, so the information is already being spread too thinly. Three would make it worse. So minus that info, if all the common material went into "Radio Tay", the TAY AM and TAY FM articles would be virtually empty (schedules *don't* belong here IMHO). I don't have anything against stubs *if* they could potentially be expanded to a proper article, but that wouldn't be the case here- it just shows that it's a bad idea. Keep them together! Fourohfour 19:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal discussion

message: I agree with everything Ydam says. Radiotay 09 August 14:45
:but I haven't said anything about merging yet! my comment above is in reply to the one immediatly above it. That is why it is indented. the "support" for keeping all three articles and the schedules is by someone else I was simply replying to itYdam 13:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have demerged the articles Tay FM and Tay AM for the various reasons that I am about to give. Tay FM is as unique and distinct from Tay AM as Forth 1 is from Forth 2 & Clyde 1 is from Clyde 2 - if these stations merit seperate articles, so do Tay FM & Tay AM. Also, what these somewhat 2 small articles require is expansion of their various differences and the services they offer as seperate stations, rather than merging the two. Tay FM and Tay AM may be sister stations, but this doesn't mean they are similar in any way other than ownership & name. I suggest that if a serious enough counter-argument can be made, then I would suggest examples such as Northsound 1 & Northsound 2 as good candidates for a similar measure, however I believe that the articles should stay seperate. GTlikeitmatters 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: evidently there is little interest in separating the articles again. Actually you make no argument for two separate articles, just that (presumably) other members of EMAP group have added the various bits of their radio stations in the past, thus "meriting" the return of two almost identical articles. friedfish (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal discussion 

message: I'd like to draw everyones attention to the WP:NOT policy. Specfically the Wikipedia is not a directory section point 3 which states 
Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable). Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. See Yellowikis for a project with that goal.
Given this policy and the general consensous that exists on this page and elsewhere I would like to request that the schedules stay out and that users refrain from readding them Ydam 13:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Schedule