Talk:DWRT-FM

99.5 RT/99.5 HiT FM

• RT, the predecessor of HiT FM, is on separate article, but the callsign today is using RT (DWRT). Since the ownership is still the same before the station becomes HiT FM, why not merge those two articles into one, into the article that identifies the frequency or station (that is DWRT). -Frj1947 14:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge first both WFAN and WEAF (AM) then we'll talk. Actually, much of 99.5 RT was owned by a different entity. --Howard the Duck 13:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:995HITFM.png

Image:995HITFM.png 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 10:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect this page

THIS PAGE SHOULD BE UNPROTECTED TOMORROW. Retired username (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Move

Can't this be moved now to the most popular name? The offending user is now indefinitely blocked. --Howard the Duck 15:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Page now unprotected.--Hu12 (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't move it. --Howard the Duck 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

campus 99.5 logo

About the logo image at Image:Campus995.jpg. It was removed as "factual corrections of information posted based on heresay" [1]. However, google show lots of philippine forums saying that the station is now called "Campus 99.5", so I don't know why this logo was removed, so I restored it for now. Maybe it's a fake logo or an incorrect logo? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

Wasn't Up and Coming different from the RT 40? I believe it wasn't split into two: RT 40 was there before Up and Coming, as far as I can recall... --Nickcolby (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Since 99.5 DWRT has reverted to a DJ-less & generic programming, whoever added this information here could please state, if he/she has any information, if the DJs made any announcement before the programming shift and to add it here. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.192.49 (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

An image on this page may be deleted

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:995rt logo.jpg, found on DWRT-FM, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

New DWRT-FM and 99.5 RT (Defunct)

I have mixed feelings about this. Part of me feels like this is a good change because it cleans up a lot of the clutter. However, DWRT-FM is still a single entity and its history should be included in the page. It would be a pretty big project to merge and clean up the page, but I think it's what's needed to be done. Sadly, I don't really have the time right now. |bibboorton| (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 18 December 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved as proposed. This is an unusual case, but as noted, a clear common name can trump a local naming guideline where there is consensus for the move. Disambiguation does not seem to be an issue here. There is no other "99.5 Play FM". bd2412 T 15:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

DWRT-FM → 99.5 Play FM – Per WP:NC, one of the characteristics of a good article title is recognizability. So to comply with the policy mentioned, we should use the station name—which is more recognizable than its call sign—to name this article. —theenjay36 (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The WP:RADIONAMING convention provides for exceptions for countries in Central and South America, and Australia. I'd like for the Philippines to join that exception list. Unlike with AM stations, people are not very familiar with the call signs for FM stations. So per the recognizability and naturalness criteria of article titles policy, the station name should be used instead of the call sign. —seav (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Want to join the discussion, BarrelProof? —theenjay36 13:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Thanks for the ping. I don't think I've encountered the WP:RADIONAMING convention before. Here it seems like that convention may conflict with the WP:COMMONNAME convention, since here it seems that the "99.5 Play FM" is likely to be more familiar to readers and more commonly used. I hesitate to say it, since I'm not familiar with this topic, but WP:COMMONNAME is Wikipedia policy and so it appears to support this proposal (as do I). —BarrelProof (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME specifically allows for the possibility of exceptions, however — there are some subject areas where for very real and very encyclopedic reasons, we have to privilege a less common name over a technically more common one. (For just one example, we title most plant and animal species with their Latin scientific names, even if they technically have a much more common everyday name that could be used instead.)

In the case of radio and television stations, the issues that were considered were as follows:

1. A call sign is almost always a completely unique identifier of that one station alone, whereas an on-air brand name will almost always end up having to be disambiguated from other stations with the same brand. For just a few examples, there are fifteen radio stations that would be in competition for the title Q107, three that would be in competition for 100.3 The Beat, five in competition for B95, four for Channel Z, and on and so forth.
2. While radio stations do occasionally change their call signs, they change their on-air brand names almost infinitely more often. If we used the brandings as our article titles, we would end up having to move hundreds of articles to new titles every year, compared to maybe a dozen or so if we use the call signs. Using the brandings would end up creating a lot of pointless and unproductive disruption, and WP:WPRS simply does not have the resources (human or otherwise) to actually stay on top of all the problems it would cause. And in addition, using the brandings would open us up to constant arguments over whether "New Brand 106" is a different radio station which should have a separate article from "Old Brand 106". (Again, using the call signs doesn't completely eliminate such arguments, but it vastly reduces them since the call signs don't change as frequently.)
3. Finally, the rule has to be consistent for any given country. It can't be left open to subjective "my favourite station should be subject to different rules than the station one town over is" debates — either all stations in any given jurisdiction are at call signs, or all stations in the jurisdiction are at brands. We can't mix the two willy-nilly.

So the rule about using call signs, when such things exist, wasn't made up to be arbitrary or to violate policy — it was chosen after very careful deliberation as the least problematic option among several different possibilities. And the Philippines aren't unique in this regard, either, because even in North America radio and television call signs aren't nearly as well known as the on-air brandings are. But for the reasons I pointed out, radio and television broadcasting is, like the naming of plants and animals, one of the domains where using the technically "more common" name would actually cause more problems than it solves — the common names of broadcast radio and TV stations are neither unique nor stable enough to be viable as the primary article titles. WP:RADIONAMING was set the way it is, after very careful consideration of the options, for very real and legitimate reasons — and WP:COMMONNAME explicitly allows for exceptions to it in situations where such an exception is warranted. Accordingly, I have to oppose the nomination as constituted. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

While I respect that WP:RADIONAMING was formulated the way it is, it is still just a guideline and not policy unlike WP:COMMONNAME. And per the recognizability and naturalness criteria of the article titles policy, I believe that using the common name instead of the obscure call sign is the way to go despite the problems encountered. The articles on various species was brought up as an example of not using common names but even then we have plenty of exceptions too, such as dog instead of Canis lupus familiaris, Philippine eagle instead of Pithecophaga jefferyi, and blue whale instead of Balaenoptera musculus. The primary reason why most species articles use the scientific name as the article title is because most species don't have any other names. For the rest, there are species that have far many non-scientific names that using the scientific name resolves the debate on which is the WP:COMMONNAME. This is a completely different problem from radio stations.

Now let me address the 3 points:

1. This is not a problem. This is why we have WP:DAB. Non-unique names is not unique to radio stations and the rest of Wikipedia is fine with providing disambiguation whenever necessary.
2. You seem to think that every radio station article that is renamed needs a lot of effort. Anybody can simply just click on the "Move" link to rename an article if the move is uncontroversial. (And we can follow WP:BRD if not.) You overestimate the disruption. And the problem of whether a new radio brand requires a separate article or not is not solved by using call signs for the article title. If a radio station was bought by another company and the station format was completely revamped (and usually with a new set of staff and DJs), I would argue that the old station needs a separate article anyway. And what would you use to title the separate article on the old station? The call sign? See this example in the Philippines: DWNU (aka Wish 1075) and the former NU 107. Both use the call sign "DWNU" but the old station (which was very popular back then) is titled NU 107.
3. I agree that consistency is nice. But using call signs for all radio station articles in a country is as consistent as using the common name for all those same articles. Heck, with my example, NU 107, radio station articles in the Philippines are no longer as consistent as you would want. In addition, this particular WP:RM is to test whether radio stations in the Philippines should use the common name instead of the call sign with the eventual goal that all stations will become consistently titled. So I don't think that opposing this RM because it will cause inconsistency in the short term is valid.

So in short, you overestimate the problems, you are willing to violate policy (WP:COMMONNAME and the recognizability and naturalness criteria of WP:AT) in favor of a niche guideline (WP:RADIONAMING), and where the guideline provides for exceptions anyway, which I would like to apply for the Philippines. —seav (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Additional Info from a PEx thread

In October 1985, when 101.1 Kiss FM (now Yes the Best) was launched, with most of the RT jocks manning that station, RT's ratings and revenue dropped. As a result along with Tuason's retirement, OB Hollywood Andrew bought a majority stake in Trans-Radio. After a few months, RT reformatted as the Red Hot Radio, with Hollywood as Station Manager. It played only new wave music similar to the defunct WXB 102, albeit more commercial. This proved to be unsuccessful. After 2 years, it reformatted back to its old format under the name 99.5 Rhythm (and later back to its old name) and regained its success. In the early 90s, the Tuasons bought back the majority shares held by Hollywood, who later on resigned from the station.

Got that info from the a PEx thread about RT. I'm not sure if I should add it in. SUPERASTIG 13:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Information from a public forum without credible citation is hearsay. Maragool (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)