Talk:Times Radio

Presenter notability

I have reinstated Luke Jones (co-presenter of the weekend breakfast show) and Calum Macdonald (presenter of the weekday early breakfast show). They appear to have been removed because they did not have their own pages on Wikipedia and were considered "not notable". Since they are both presenters on a national radio station they are, by definition, notable even if no one has got round to creating a Wikipedia page for either of them yet! GDBarry (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC) e

Unfortuntately being a presenter on a presenter national radio station does not make someone notable. I will be removing them again now. If you wish to start a discussion for a change in Wikipedia policy over this, this article and its talk page is not the place for it. Thanks. The boss 1998 (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

So what does make them notable then? Luke Jones has previously presented iPM on Radio 4, and been a stand-in presenter on PM, The World at One and Broadcasting House, as well as programmes on the BBC World Service. He was the youngest person ever to present a BBC news sequence programme, having presented Saturday PM when he was 24. By rights he should already have had his own page. There seems to be a "chicken-and-egg" situation here - you can't get a Wikipedia page until you're notable, and you're not notable until you get your own Wikipedia page! GDBarry (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I have just checked the notability guidelines. They say "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article". They do not say that you can't even mention someone in an article unless they're notable. I see no reason for not including Luke Jones and Calum Macdonald in this article, because it's not about them specifically. GDBarry (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Should I also remove the references to Ross Kempsell and Charlotte Ivers because they're "not notable"? Or to Tim Levell, the station's programme director? GDBarry (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I have now checked the Wikipedia page on Radio 4's PM programme. Luke Jones is listed there as a stand-in presenter, with no hyperlink in his name. If he's good enough to be listed there, he's surely good enough to be listed on Times Radio, where he's one of the main presenters. I'm putting him back. GDBarry (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I would also point out that Luke Jones is name-checked in some of the articles about Times Radio that I have cited as sources for this article. Therefore, if Times Radio is notable, he must be as well. GDBarry (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Presenter importance

I have removed Amber Rudd, Rachel Sylvester and Alice Thomson from the list of presenters. They are not regular presenters of the main live sequences and only present pre-recorded features in the evenings. If Luke Jones doesn't deserve to be listed when he's on the air 12 hours a week, then they don't either. GDBarry (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed Digby Jones for the same reasons - plus he's not even on air yet! GDBarry (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Someone has taken Luke Jones and Calum Macdonald out again. I have now removed the entire list of presenters as this seems to be the only way of dealing with the issue. GDBarry (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have also removed the section on "Correspondents", which mentioned Ross Kempsell and Charlotte Ivers, who are "not notable" by this definition. I have also removed the section under "History" that refers to programme director Tim Levell, because he's "not notable" by this definition either. Best to be consistent.

I was not aware that there was a rule on Wikipedia saying that no article may contain a reference to any individual who does not have an article on Wikipedia. Will someone please point me to this rule? Thank you. GDBarry (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have now included a quote from one of the referenced articles (by Mark Lawson) which mentions Luke Jones specifically. Is this all right or will it have to be removed because Luke Jones is "not notable"? GDBarry (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have now reinstated the "Presenters" section, with Luke Jones but without Calum Macdonald. The link in Luke Jones's name goes to the "Critical reception" section of this article, where Jones is referenced in a reputable source. When I find a similar source for Calum Macdonald I will reinstate him. I don't expect to see Luke Jones removed again. GDBarry (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have cited the Radio Times for Calum Macdonald's programme. GDBarry (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have now completely rewritten the "Presenters" section. I hope this is within the Wikipedia guidelines. If you have an issue with it, please alert me here on the Talk page rather than simply deleting bits of it. I really don't want to have to do it all over again. Thanks. GDBarry (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

As editors of Wikipedia, we have the right to delete names from lists who have no article without notifying anyone (ie. you). I do feel you are an insider who has a bee in their bonnet about no having an article. If someone meets the WP:BIO and WP:GNG criteria, then they can have an article created and can then in turn be added to a list of presenters. This isn't just the case for Times Radio, but all radio stations. Non-notable people shouldn't be added to an article. This isn't a CV or a programme schedule, this is a platform for encyclopedic information. - Funky Snack (Talk)

Who are "we"? I am not an insider - I have no connection with Times Radio or Luke Jones whatsoever. I am simply trying to write as informative an article as possible, while staying within the guidelines. Luke Jones's name appears on the page for Jenny Kleeman, with whom he co-presents. It also appears on the page for PM, where he was a presenter until recently (the page in fact needs updating, because he's no longer current). The latter page lists several former presenters who don't have their own Wikipedia page, such as Susannah Simons. Should their names be removed as well?

In any case, I note that you have retained the Mark Lawson quote about Luke Jones's debut on the station, which makes a mockery of the whole thing. There is now more information about Luke Jones on the page than about any other individual presenter. Also, I note that you have left Flora Gill's name under "other presenters", even though she has no Wikipedia article either. Why didn't you remove that as well?

See also WP:LISTBIO - "Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including Wikipedia:Trivia sections)". The criteria listed there are "Therefore, all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well." Nothing about having to be notable or to have their own Wikipedia page, as far as I can see. GDBarry (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It appears our submission for Luke Jones has been declined many times, so sadly we are unable to add this to the article. - Funky Snack (Talk) 11:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Who are "we" again? The submission was declined before Times Radio came on the air. Since then, Luke Jones has received press coverage in both the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph, thus satisfying the requirement for coverage in "multiple independent sources", and I have rewritten the article accordingly. It is now in the queue awaiting approval, and I would expect it to be approved without any difficulty.

The notability guidelines are a criterion to determine whether a subject merits a stand-alone Wikipedia article, not the other way round. It is ridiculous to suggest that a subject is "not notable" until they get their own Wikipedia article. Otherwise you're saying that they can't get their own Wikipedia article until they've already got a Wikipedia article! GDBarry (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I have put this to admins of Wiki here as you clearly don't have any understanding and are quite abusive in your tone. We will see what they have to say. I have removed Gill from the presenter list so you can't accuse us editors of bias. If you look at the majority of radio stations, only "notable" presenters have their names listed in the article. Otherwise, it tuns out to be a promotion for the radio station. This goes against the Wikipedia guidelines. Your article for Luke Jones was declined on 7th July and then again on 8th July, so it looks like this won't be possible to add him. See here. - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not submit an article for Luke Jones on 7 July - that was another user (User:Thson10). I took Thson10's article and rewrote it so that it met the notability guidelines, and resubmitted it on 8 July. It was not declined as you say - it is in the queue waiting approval. Please withdraw your comments above. I repeat that I am not writing a promotion for the radio station. I have no connection with them whatsoever. GDBarry (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stick with the Wiki guidelines. The Boss 1998 suggests above, just because someone is on a national radio station doesn't make them notable. Please also stop with the rudeness or I shall report you. Thanks. - Funky Snack (Talk) 14:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section on "Presenters" until we hear back from the admins. You misspelt "notable" as "notbable", which made it look ridiculous. You also made it look as though Rachel Sylvester, Alice Thomson and the rest were not notable presenters, even though they all have their own Wikipedia pages. I can't keep up with what you're doing I'm afraid. GDBarry (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've left it as "Notbable Presenters" since that's clearly what you want. I've also left Rachel Sylvester et al. under "Other presenters" even though they meet exactly the same notability criteria as the people on the first list. I have no idea what your rationale is. GDBarry (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Funky Snack: Excuse me for butting in, but whilst you wait for the admin response, is there a specific policy you can point to that says that a person shouldn't be mentioned if they don't have an article? I notice WP:NNC says The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists which restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Am I right to interpret this as meaning that WP:GNG wouldn't apply for Luke Jones, as he is mentioned within an article, and is not the subject of a standalone article? Thanks. Andysmith248 (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Andysmith248: I agree completely. There has been no response from the admins. Instead, the argument between me and "Funky Snack" just carried on over there with no resolution. I don't understand what that process is supposed to achieve.

My submission on Luke Jones has now been declined, on the grounds that a paragraph each in the Guardian and Telegraph is not considered "significant coverage", so he's going to be without his own page for some time. It seems utterly ridiculous that one of the main presenters on a national radio station can't be mentioned in an article about the station simply because he doesn't yet meet the criteria for a stand-alone Wikipedia page. Some of the other presenters listed contribute far less to the station, yet they get a mention because they're "notable" for some other reason. If this is the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work then I have a lot less faith in it than I did before I started editing this article. This is the first "full-length" article that I have tried to create, and it will probably be the last. GDBarry (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@GDBarry: Hi, disappointing you haven't heard from a third party yet on the presenters issue. My view is that unless Funky Snack or another editor can give a reason not to mention the presenters within this article, all of whom have appeared in reliable sources (Press Gazette, The Telegraph, etc), there should be no reason not to include them. In terms of your second point, I would say that since Luke Jones hasn't been at the forefront of any articles, the coverage isn't there yet for him to be significant enough, but as he becomes more eminent in radio he could well qualify at some point in the future. Andysmith248 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Andysmith248: I would agree with you again. I'm disappointed that the article on Luke Jones was rejected, but he's only 27 and there probably hasn't been enough time for enough significant coverage to emerge yet. The very fact that he's landed a plum breakfast job on a national radio station is likely to generate media interest before too long.

The decision of the admins was this: "User:GDBarry and User:Funky Snack are both warned against edit warring. Whoever reverts the article next is risking a block, unless they have received a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. Speaking of 'a definitive pronouncement': an admin board like this one won't make a content decision for you. The question of including Luke Jones or other presenters needs editor consensus. See WP:DR for some options."

So - as was my wish in the first place - a decision needs to be made here on the talk page. Do we include Luke Jones in the list of presenters or not? So far it looks like two votes in favour and one against. GDBarry (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I will start a WP:RfC asking the question shortly. Andysmith248 (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I have now resubmitted the existing draft article on Luke Jones for inclusion as a separate entry. GDBarry (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOURCELIST is the appropriate policy for what can and cannot appear in a list inside an article. Canterbury Tail talk 14:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on presenters list

Should Luke Jones be included in the list of presenters? Andysmith248 (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Not if he’s not notable. See Here. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

At the moment David Aaronovitch heads the list of presenters, purely through alphabetical ordering. He's not even a presenter on Times Radio! He's one of the presenters of the Stories of the Times podcast, which is sometimes played in off-peak and overnight slots. I only mentioned him as an afterthought in my original article.

Surely presenters' names should be organized according to their importance to the station. Aasmah Mir and Stig Abell do 16 hours a week (Mon-Thu 6-10), so they should be first. Jenny Kleeman and Luke Jones do 12 hours a week (Fri-Sun 6-10) so they should be of the same rank as Matt Chorley, Mariella Frostrup, John Pienaar, Phil Williams and Carole Walker, who also do 12 hours a week each. That should be the overriding criterion, rather than either alphabetical ordering or the side-issue of whether they have an existing Wikipedia article or not. GDBarry (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Please note that the guidance cited by Funky Snack above applies specifically to "stand-alone lists" - lists that are the subject of an article in themselves. It does not apply to "embedded lists" such as the one under consideration.

Please also note the time of this post, which I am writing while Luke Jones is actually broadcasting (06:13 BST). This should quash any further suggestions that I am in fact he. GDBarry (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

As there have been no comments so far, I looked at the guidance at WP:WPRS#Body. It says: "You may add properly sourced, encyclopedic content describing a station's programming, but a simple list of a station's on-air staff should not be added. To a reader who isn't already familiar with the station, a plain airstaff list doesn't do anything to help them understand or get a feel for the topic. Describing a station's programming gives the reader a much better sense of the station, its personalities and its on-air style than a meaningless list of people they've never heard of."

This says pretty clearly that the entire list should be removed. This is probably the best approach for a station that is not yet three weeks old. I don't want to get into "edit warring" again so could someone else remove it as per the guidelines please? Thanks. GDBarry (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Here we go again. No, because those in the lost are notable and sourced. - Funky Snack (Talk) 07:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

To take one example, Amber Rudd is "notable" because she used to be Home Secretary, not because of any background in broadcasting - she'd never presented a show before she joined Times Radio. What's she doing in the list?

You set great store by sticking by Wikipedia rules. The guidance at WP:WPRS#Body clearly says "a simple list of a station's on-air staff should not be added". I'm just going by the rules as stated there.

I thought the purpose of this process was to bring in outside opinion, but it's just yet another argument between you and me. Please can we have an outside opinion on this? Otherwise I'm tempted to delete the entire article, as this business is a colossal waste of time as far as I'm concerned. GDBarry (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Firstly you can’t delete articles and I doubt even if you request this, it’ll get refused. Secondly, read it properly. If someone is notable they can be added in a list of personnel. You’re getting your knickers in a twist for no reason and still basing this on the fact Luke Jones isn’t on the list. No wonder why it appears you are him. Unless you stick to the rules and understand notability, you won’t get anywhere. - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It says "a simple list of a station's on-air staff should not be added"! You can read it as well as I can. It says nothing whatsoever about whether they're notable or not. And for the umpteenth time, I am not Luke Jones. He is on the air right now and there is no conceivable way he could be writing this message, clearly.

I'm getting the impression you are simply a time-waster. I've looked at your editing history and it consists almost entirely of nominating articles for deletion and deleting presenters' names because they are "not notable". You don't appear to have contributed anything to Wikipedia whatsoever - just taken stuff out. I think I may very well report you because there is something extremely strange about your behaviour. GDBarry (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

UTC)

I’m merely sticking to Wiki guidelines. My input has been productive, removing articles who prove to be non-notable. All bar one has been agreed by consensus. If an article had no reliable links it content, they get nominated for deletion. ADMIN then deletes them on consensus. I think you need to stop wasting everyone’s time as it’s evident Luke doesn’t warrant an article and that providing they’re notable, lists are acceptable on pages. - Funky Snack (Talk) 09:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I say keep all presenters that have appeared in reliable secondary sources. This includes Luke Jones. No one can doubt that he's appeared in sources independent of The Times, The Sunday Times and Times Radio. Taking into account WP:NNC, since the list of presenters is a section within an article, the notability guidelines (WP:GNG) do not apply. Therefore it doesn't matter that he hasn't been the main focus in the source articles he's appeared in. Andysmith248 (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Funky Snack: Following on from me suggesting this same argument in the last section, would you be able to comment on the above reasoning? Andysmith248 (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Look, you know the rules and that of other editors in other pages where this has also happened. If the person isn’t notable, they shouldn’t be listed in a list of presenters. The coverage you mentioned only includes passing mentions of Luke. The mentions themselves aren’t enough for him to warrant an article on Wikipedia. As for the list, only those who are notable have their own Wiki articles, all of which match WP:GNG and WP:BIO. @The boss 1998: you may be interested in this. Please reiterate and support that fact that just because someone is on a national station, it doesn’t mean they auto-qualify as notable! - Funky Snack (Talk) 11:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The entire list should obviously not be removed, and deleting the article is a suggestion that's thoroughly out of the question. I completely agree that Luke Jones isn't notable enough to have his own article yet and wouldn't suggest he is. The requirements for appearing in a list, at the link you gave, WP:LISTPEOPLE, do say that the Wikipedia notability requirement needs to be met, along with the subject's membership of the list being established by reliable sources. In Luke Jones' case, the latter definitely applies. But for the first requirement, I now see that the "significant" coverage coupled with "multiple" sources just aren't there yet for Luke Jones, as they are required to be per WP:BASIC. These are the only articles of coverage I could find that give him more than a passing mention: [1], [2], [3]. I'm happy to conclude therefore that he doesn't satisfy notability for being part of Wikipedia at all as he fails WP:BIO. @GDBarry: Do you have anything to say about this? Andysmith248 (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I simply cannot see the sense in any of this. If you are saying that Amber Rudd, who has precisely three weeks' experience of presenting radio programmes and does an hour a week on the station at 7pm on a Sunday, is better qualified to be in the list than someone who presented high-profile radio programmes on Radio 4 for several years and now does 12 hours a week at breakfast time, I'm afraid the logic totally escapes me. You're essentially saying that being a former Home Secretary somehow "trumps" being an established broadcaster. The reason why Luke Jones has so little media coverage compared to most of the others is purely down to his youth - he's a 27-year-old doing a job that would normally be done by people in their forties. I would say that that fact in itself makes him noteworthy, even if not "notable" in the strict Wikipedia sense.

What I would like to suggest is that we abandon the idea of a list of presenters and instead have a list of programmes, as on the BBC Radio 5 Live#List of programmes broadcast on 5 Live page. Then all we need to do is list Times Radio Breakfast, without necessarily mentioning the names of the presenters. GDBarry (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t understand why you’re finding it hard to grasp the notability side of things. Amber Rudd is notable for other reasons, not because of broadcasting. Of course she deserves to be listed. She’s famous and notable, just like everyone else listed on the article. There are so any young people who are famous for other reasons who are broadcasters. Also, no - having a list of shows doesn’t work. This will then become a programme guide rather than an encyclopedic entry. This is a place for information and not programme schedules. Please understand and understand the article is fine as it is with a list of NOTABLE presenters. - Funky Snack (Talk) 17:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

If it's suitable for BBC Radio 5 Live, surely it's suitable for Times Radio? Radio 5 Live is probably the existing station that's most similar to Times Radio. Were you planning to take the list of programmes out of the Radio 5 Live article and replace it with a list of "notable presenters"?

And does Amber Rudd really deserve to be listed? She's "notable" because she's a former Home Secretary, and she's a "presenter" of three weeks' standing, but that doesn't make her a "notable presenter". She's not noted for presenting anything else. You might as well call Boris Johnson a "notable presenter" because he once chaired an episode of Have I Got News For You.

I once again repeat the guidance at WP:WPRS#Body, which is the official WikiProject on radio stations. It says: "You may add properly sourced, encyclopedic content describing a station's programming, but a simple list of a station's on-air staff should not be added. To a reader who isn't already familiar with the station, a plain airstaff list doesn't do anything to help them understand or get a feel for the topic. Describing a station's programming gives the reader a much better sense of the station, its personalities and its on-air style than a meaningless list of people they've never heard of." Simply telling people that Amber Rudd presents a programme on Times Radio doesn't give readers any sort of feel for what sort of station Times Radio is. Far better to describe what the programme is, I'd have thought. GDBarry (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

How are you oblivious to “notable” people? The likes of Amber Rudd are notable and in the public spotlight. Using Boris Johnson as an example is pathetic. He’s our Prime Minister, so clearly notable. Your ignorance amazes me. The bottom line, the presenters listed at the moment is more than suitable and should be left alone. As Andysmith248 suggests, no need to remove the list or touch what is there! - Funky Snack (Talk) 17:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know that Amber Rudd is (or was) in the public spotlight. But if you went up to 100 people and asked them "What's Amber Rudd famous for?", how many of them would say "Presenting a programme on Times Radio"? Almost none, I would imagine. Those who had heard of her would refer to her time in the Cabinet or some other aspect of her political career. And you completely missed my point about Boris Johnson - he is clearly notable, but not as a presenter. The world isn't just divided into "notable" and "non-notable" people. You have to be notable for something. This is the point that I think is being missed.

The list of presenters at the moment is not suitable. For example, you added David Aaronovitch and Manveen Rana to it, even though they present a podcast which is broadcast on the station, rather than a programme on the station itself - but that distinction seems to have passed you by. That's why I originally divided the list into "live presenters" and "other presenters", but you decided to throw the whole lot together in a highly misleading fashion. If you'd left the list how I originally had it we wouldn't be in this mess. I actually listen to the station, unlike you it seems. GDBarry (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you’ll find I didn’t add David Aaronovitch and Manveen Rana, thank you. I do listen to the station. Presenters are presenters, whether they’re live or not. Stop thinking you own Wikipedia when you don’t. You need to put this to bed and accept the list is now fine how it is. @Andysmith248: Agree that presenters are presenters? There is absolutely nothing wrong with the list that’s up now, so put this to bed now. - Funky Snack (Talk) 18:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You added Aaronovitch and Rana here [4], when you merged my two lists into one. I do not accept that the list is fine as it is, and my understanding is that we cannot proceed with any further edits until there is a consensus. There clearly isn't one yet. GDBarry (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, it’s two against one at the moment. Yes, I combined them but I didn’t add the two names listed at the start. Please give up and stop your abusive messages otherwise you’ll be reported again. There is NOTHING wrong with the list as it is. The names listed are notable and no more shall be added until they have articles. Thanks. - Funky Snack (Talk) 18:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

How can it be "two against one" when Andysmith248 hasn't even given his opinion yet? Anyway, "two against one" isn't a consensus. A consensus is a compromise that everyone can agree on. I've suggested having a list of programmes rather than presenters as a way out of the difficulty, but you're adamant that everything's got to stay exactly the way you left it. You don't strike me as someone who's trying to build a consensus. GDBarry (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You’re the only one who wants it that way. You’re being quite petty. There is nothing wrong with the list that’s currently online. Give up and please put this to bed. Why are you so determined to put everyone on the list? If you feel like you want to remove everyone from the list, then remove the list entirely. But remember, you’ll get a block. But you’ll get it done. - Funky Snack (Talk) 18:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

And you're the only one who wants it your way!

I am not going to get into another edit war. I thought this RfC process was supposed to bring in outside opinion, but no one from outside has commented. Let's see what Andysmith248 has to say. Perhaps he can come up with a reasonable proposal that has hitherto eluded us. If not, then it's back to square one it seems. GDBarry (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You’ll only get your knickers in a twist when he says like he did above and that Luke isn’t notable enough for his own article. If so, then you’ll need to give up. Again, there is nothing wrong with the list the way it is. It explains who the notable presenters are. - Funky Snack (Talk) 18:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don't pre-empt what other editors may or may not say. Let's just wait for his response and say no more until then. GDBarry (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what I said before but you thought you were the big I am. You wait, the consensus on all/most radio stations is to include only those who are notable. Yet you think you know best. - Funky Snack (Talk) 18:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I asked you nicely. Please don't say any more until Andysmith248 responds, and I won't either. Thanks. GDBarry (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You don’t rule Wikipedia, so please stop thinking you do. End of until anyone says further. - Funky Snack (Talk) 19:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I could see arguments for both cases, having originally wanted to keep all the presenters in the list, but then deciding to settle on saying that Luke Jones, along with anyone else who fails WP:BIO, shouldn't be there. That is my final opinion, having read that the notability requirement is needed for an appearance in a list - WP:LISTPEOPLE. The two outcomes at the moment are:

• Option A: Leave the presenters list as it is, with only those that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages listed.
• Option B: Include less notable presenters such as Luke Jones, Flora Gill and Calum Macdonald.

I think both live presenters and those in pre-recorded segments should be in the same block in the presenters section, but outside of this, it would be good if you could both find common ground. GDBarry, you're right that this RfC hasn't generated any outside attention yet - maybe in more time it will do. If more Wikipedians join in, we will be able to close it based on the most popular proposition, but if over time no consensus is reached then I will list it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Andysmith248 (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Basically what I’ve been saying all along then? Only include those who have their own articles as per Wikipedia guidelines. Leave the list as it is. Then, once more people have articles created (ie. Luke Jones) add them to the list. Right now though, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the list. - Funky Snack (Talk) 21:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, if that's how you want it. I can't be bothered to argue any more. I don't think either option is particularly satisfactory, as a bare list of names doesn't tell you anything about the content of the station - I'd rather have a list of programmes similar to one in the Radio 5 Live article, as I've said before. But I think I've done my bit in expanding the article from a stub, which is something I've never done before - and after this episode, will not be doing again. GDBarry (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

GDBarry, you did a pretty good job expanding the article. Also, forgot to add:

• Option C: Replace the presenters list with a list of programmes.

Are you going to agree with me and Funky Snack and form consensus over Option A? Andysmith248 (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No. I do not agree to Option A. I am simply withdrawing from the discussion. GDBarry (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, if that’s the case, please make no further edits to the Times Radio article. The presenter list will stay as it is. - Funky Snack (Talk) 07:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You have no power to prevent me from making edits to the Times Radio article. I am withdrawing from the discussion about the presenter list, that's all. If I want to make edits elsewhere in the article, then I will.

I am going to seek guidance from the admins about this. May I remind you that you were warned on the 16th July at the same time as me, and that that warning has not been lifted. GDBarry (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You’re the one being rude and keeping on. If you make edits or reverts you’ll be blocked. You’re the one who can’t accept a consensus. - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Funky Snack, the list of presenters is an embedded list, not a stand-alone list article, so as pointed out above, the correct guidance is at WP:SOURCELIST which requires verifiability, not an existing article for each entry. However, you also have cited WP:WikiProject_Radio_Stations#Body which states You may add properly sourced, encyclopedic content describing a station's programming, but a simple list of a station's on-air staff should not be added. To a reader who isn't already familiar with the station, a plain airstaff list doesn't do anything to help them understand or get a feel for the topic. Describing a station's programming gives the reader a much better sense of the station, its personalities and its on-air style than a meaningless list of people they've never heard of., so going by the project's recommendations, there shouldn't be a presenter list at all. Schazjmd (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd, I completely accept that a list shouldn't be there at all and will be happy for the list to be removed. The only thing stopping this was the user who has accused me of harassment as he was adamant Luke Jones and calum Macdonald needed to be included. Anyhow, if you're happy, let's remove the list from the article. - Funky Snack (Talk) 17:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Funky Snack, I have no opinion on whether the list should be included; I'm merely pointing out that you were using the wrong guidelines to refuse entries on that list while at the same time citing a project that recommends not having lists at all. It's kind of contradictory, don't you agree? Schazjmd (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you're wrong when you say it's contradictory. The main issue here was that one user wanted two people included in the list because he thought they were notable. When this was done based on a (small) consensus, he got upset the names wouldn't be included. To be honest, removing the list of presenters would do us all a favour and put the issue to bed. - Funky Snack (Talk) 17:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Your ability to rewrite history is extraordinary. Please re-read the transcript above.

At 14:35 on 15 July 2020 I wrote "I've removed the entire section on 'Presenters' until we hear back from the admins". Your immediate response was to revert my removal of the list. That's what got us into the edit war in the first place. If you'd just left it like that five days ago none of this would have happened.

I was also the first one to point out the guidance at WP:WPRS: "This says pretty clearly that the entire list should be removed. This is probably the best approach for a station that is not yet three weeks old. I don't want to get into "edit warring" again so could someone else remove it as per the guidelines please? Thanks. (15:17, 18 July 2020). Your response was "Here we go again. No, because those in the lost [sic] are notable and sourced." (07:50, 19 July 2020).

And I was not adamant that Luke Jones and Calum Macdonald needed to be included; indeed, I suggested a list of programmes instead of presenters to resolve the issue, which you rejected without any consideration (17:05, 19 July 2020) I still think that's probably the best approach.

So, unsurprisingly, I agree to the removal of the list, since I was the one who proposed it in the first place. I don't think any further discussion of this issue should take place for some time, and I don't think it should include either me or you. Let others decide, after the station has been on air for a few months. Three weeks is simply too early to make a decision about who's important to the station and who isn't. GDBarry (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Honestly pal, stop with the attitude. - Funky Snack (Talk) 17:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

So it looks like two of the three editors primarily involved in the discussion agree that the article shouldn't have a list of presenters. Andysmith248, what is your view on it? Schazjmd (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleting the list entirely? No, I wouldn't agree to that. In fact, I would say the people in the list as it stands are notable and should be there to stay. Many, many other UK radio station articles have a presenters list, so for consistency I think this one should as well. Those listed all appeared in enough press coverage, they even all have their own articles. For many readers I don't think it will come across as "a meaningless list of people they've never heard of". Andysmith248 (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

That's my opinion, although regrettably not in concurrence with the agreement the other two editors have come to. Andysmith248 (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Andysmith248 I’m even happier to keep the list. I was agreeing to the removal of the list to keep the peace and to avoid non-notable people being included. So therefore you and I agree. Please do keep the list as it currently stands. This was what I was trying to push for from the onset. - Funky Snack (Talk) 06:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems like GDBarry may not be returning to the discussion. Funky Snack, is there a way to attract more attention to this RfC? If not, what do you suggest should happen now to convert this into a consensus? I ask this because EdJohnston said on his talk page that the agreement of two editors wouldn't likely make the grade for a closure. Andysmith248 (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ignore what I said there, I just saw the WP:DRN listing. Andysmith248 (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have already given my views in my message at 17:33, 20 July 2020 UTC. "I don't think any further discussion of this issue should take place for some time." Let others decide, after the station has been on air for a few months rather than a few weeks. I do not wish to be further involved with this issue, which has caused me a great deal of distress. Those are my final words on the matter. GDBarry (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the rejection of presenters being added to a list has caused you a lot of stress, but OK. Let's leave the list as it is and when Luke Jones has an article, you may add him. I have requested for the RfC to be closed. - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The rejection of presenters from a list has caused me no stress whatsoever. What has caused me stress is your atrocious behaviour. As I said right back in my comment at 06:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "No. I do not agree to Option A. I am simply withdrawing from the discussion." It was quite clear then and it's still clear now. Instead of simply accepting that I was withdrawing from the discussion two days ago, you chose to hound me from pillar to post, first onto an administrator's talk page and then onto the Administrators' Noticeboard Incidents page after I reported you for harassment. You have caused me so much distress that I may not be contributing to Wikipedia again, certainly not under this user-ID. Why did you simply not accept that I was withdrawing when I said I was? GDBarry (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing else to be discussed here if User:GDBarry is withdrawing. All he appears to be doing is continuing his accusation of harassment. Andysmith248 and El_C, are you happy if I close this discussion? - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I told you I was withdrawing two days ago. Why did you not accept it then? GDBarry (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Because you carried it on along with an accusation of harassment. To be honest, I'm quite bored of it now. So please stop it. This RfC will close soon. - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I would also like this discussion to be closed, but El C said that RfCs are supposed to last for longer (around 30 days). Has the closure been requested at WP:RFCLOSE? Andysmith248 (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Andysmith248, the bot will remove the RfC tag once the 30 days are up. Then it would be appropriate to request closure at WP:ANRFC. But not every RfC needs to be closed. The question is why do you need it to be closed? To what end? For example, do you wish to create another, broader RfC? Or are you just wishing for the bickering to stop? Or both? Either way, I can help with that. Crucially, if GDBarry, as sole opponent, has permanently withdrawn from the dispute, then they have effectively forfeited their position, which would make this RfC redundant, in any case. El_C 13:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, El_C, I think that as GDBarry has "withdrawn" from the discussion it does make it N/A so where do we stand on that being a reason to close it? Nobody else has taken part in the RfC. Probably because it's such a petty debate on whether or not non-notable presenters should be added to a list of presenters. No further edits have been made to Talk Radio so it looks like the debate is now over. No doubt someone will bring it up again "in a few months". What's your take on this Andysmith248. - Funky Snack (Talk) 11:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an immediate reason why the RfC needs to be closed. Resolution to this dispute does not need to be codified by a close, in my view. Participation in this RfC was low, so it isn't indicative of anything beyond the WP:SILENCE brought by GDBarry's withdrawal. El_C 12:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way I can contact you and explain this from start to finish? Then it might make more sense. - Funky Snack (Talk) 12:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really feel it's appropriate to keep going on about this. If I missed something pivotal, maybe leave it to Andysmith248 to explain it to me...? Please move on, and try to avoid interacting with or commenting about GDBarry to the utmost for the foreseeable future. That is the path of least resistance here. In my view, it represents what is best for the project. Being uninvolved provides me with the insight to determine this, I think. El_C 12:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Over to you Andysmith248 as you know the story. - Funky Snack (Talk) 12:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The situation is that an editor called GDBarry, who previously carried out an expansion to the Times Radio (not Talk Radio) article, was adamant in his desire for the list of presenters to be longer than its current format. Along the way he refuted suggestions that he is in fact Luke Jones, one of the journalists he believes warrants inclusion in the list. However, since then he has cut himself off from a possible compromise in the form of a final resolution, saying he does not agree with Funky Snack and I and that he has been negatively affected by the discussion. Let's wait 30 days as there may still be editors who have yet to give their opinion on the matter. After that the RfC should be closed as a matter of consensus. If you want me to say something else, Funky Snack? Andysmith248 (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether the RfC will need to be closed when the 30 days are up is yet to be determined, is all I'm saying. WP:SILENCE may make that redundant. El_C 14:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I keep referring to it as Talk Radio, a station I avidly listen to alongside Talk Sport. I think you've hit the nail on the head User:Andysmith248. Nothing else to be added. Don't get me wrong, I think GDBarry did a good job of expanding the article from a stub, but the debate got out of hand when he wanted non-notables added to the list and someone "who should be on the list as he's notable from being on a national station". I've never had such a heated debate with someone over a list! - Funky Snack (Talk) 14:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Not to worry, that could happen to the best of us. Like you just mentioned and a few admins also said, it's clear that for now no more should be added. Andysmith248 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

FunkySnack "I think GDBarry did a good job of expanding the article from a stub". Thanks - it's very nice of you to say so. I thought you were probably a decent person at heart, but for some reason this dispute has got stupidly out of control. I think it's partly just the nature of the medium. I took a couple of days out to try to get a proper perspective on things.

I would very much like to put my side of the story, but in a non-confrontational environment. I don't think it's productive to continue things in this fashion. The reason why I got distressed wasn't because of the original issue, which is mind-blowingly trivial as far as I'm concerned. It was because when I tried to have a quiet word with an admin, one of the protagonists jumped in before the admin had had a chance to answer. I've never known anything like that anywhere else - usually there's some sort of private messaging facility where conversations like that can take place out of public view. On Wikipedia, it seems that there isn't one unless you avail yourself of the email facility, which not everyone uses. I simply didn't know how to have a private word with the admins, and I still don't to be honest. It seems to be a major shortcoming of the set-up on Wikipedia, but perhaps I don't understand the environment well enough.

I've had an account since 2011 but I've only ever really used it for minor edits until now. This was my first attempt at trying to expand a stub into a full article. I was very anxious about it and really wanted to make sure I didn't get anything wrong. Eventually I thought I'd got everything right except this one detail. Whatever I did to try to correct it, people kept changing it. It was so frustrating. I really didn't know what to do. I felt like deleting the whole article at one stage.

Please try to understand that I'm just a "rookie" as far as article creation is concerned. I tried my best. It may not be perfect but just picking away at one bit of it can be quite counter-productive, because the whole article can fall apart if you're not careful. I had previously organized the presenter list so that there was one list for live programmes and one for pre-recorded programmes, for very good reasons. The two lists were then thrown together with no obvious explanation, so that certain people who made very minor contributions to the station were given the same "rank" as major presenters. I tried to explain this but got nowhere. I also suggested creating a list of programmes instead of presenters as way of resolving the dispute, but this was rejected out of hand with no proper discussion.

I also suggested removing the list entirely, simply as a way of avoiding any further squabbling rather than because I thought there shouldn't be a list at all. My main opponent agreed to this, and I thought we had a resolution, but then the third person said he didn't agree and we were back to square one. That's why I decided to withdraw, because I could see we were getting nowhere. Unfortunately my withdrawing somehow made the whole thing worse. I don't really understand why - I would have thought it was the simplest way out. I've never been in a situation where I wasn't even allowed to withdraw from a dispute before.

I'm going to bed now. I'm not going to reply until I've slept on it. This episode has genuinely caused me a lot of distress. I'm sorry if I came across as abusive at any point - I certainly didn't intend to be. Good night and sleep well. GDBarry (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

GDBarry, thank you for your reply which I'm struck by the thoughtfulness and sincerity of. I also said that your expansion of the article was good, but I understand how the rocky road these discussions have taken isn't going to bring to pass a reposeful state of mind. From my limited knowledge of such things, the WP:EMAIL function works well as a way of talking in private, provided other editors use it that is. I was sticking by your argument to begin with. What swayed me was one of the Wikipedia guidelines Funky Snack put forward which said, and I was surprised to read it, that for someone to appear in a list, the prerequisite is that they satisfy the notability (people) requirement. This WP:LISTPEOPLE guidance spoke for itself for me. Trying to manage your distress is much more important than this minor issue at the moment. Sleep well. Andysmith248 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Andysmith248, thanks for your kind words. I'm glad you appreciate my expansion of the article - it was much harder than I thought it was going to be, and I'm still not entirely happy with it. Times Radio is not yet four weeks old and further changes will doubtless be needed in the coming months. I'm a keen listener to the station and I would have very much liked to contribute to the continuing development of this article, but this episode has put me off entirely.

I am still not entirely sure whether I'm allowed to make any further edits to the article at the moment. My understanding when I received the warning was that I was simply not allowed to revert any previous edits, and that making fresh edits elsewhere in the article was OK. This was the issue on which I sought guidance from the admins - however the ensuing squabble meant that I did not receive an answer to the question at all. So I'm playing it safe and simply not touching it.

Never mind. I'll chalk it up to experience. GDBarry (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It's always best when resolving an issue that the editors act affably and agreeably. Let me say that the admins warned you against reverting the article specifically but didn't say that anyone couldn't make other edits. Andysmith248 (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought before I was told "please make no further edits to the Times Radio article" (07:36, 20 July 2020). And when I tried to query whether it was legitimate for one user to try to prevent another user from editing an article, the same person simply intervened and effectively stopped the question from being answered. I think that sort of behaviour is atrocious, which is why I reported him for harassment, but the admins ruled that it wasn't. Well the Wikipedia definition at WP:HA says "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." That's precisely the effect it has had on me.

There seems to be no way of dealing with this within the procedures of Wikipedia as far as I can see. One person has effectively blocked me from editing an article by intimidation. GDBarry (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

GDBarry, yet again, not all disagreements necessarily constitute harassment. I'm not going to tell you how to feel, and while it still distresses me to learn you have felt it so, there are certain objective criteria for what harassment actually is, which this wasn't. So, please don't continue to repeat that falsehood. Anyway, the reason I told you two not to interact with one another for the immediate future was because I felt, in this case, deescalation was best — it looks like it made a difference, with thanks to Andysmith248 for also mediating. Anyway, if I thought sanctions were due, I would have done that. Otherwise, WP:ONUS is something to keep in mind in editing disputes. Hope it's all smooth sailing from here on out. El_C 15:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, Well OK, maybe it wasn't harassment by the Wikipedia definition. All I will say is that in pretty much all online environments other than Wikipedia that I've taken part in, it has been taken for granted that users can have discussions with administrators in private. That was all I wanted to do when I contacted EdJohnston on the 20th. I had a perfectly legitimate question for him, which he was prevented from answering. I don't think it should be regarded as legitimate for third parties to jump into discussions between users and administrators that are nothing to do with them. I found it quite distressing at the time, as I'm sure other people would. It's not something that I would ever consider doing to anyone else, whatever sort of disagreement I was having with them.

If this sort of behaviour is deemed acceptable on Wikipedia, then I think the policy should be reviewed. Can you advise me on how I might go about initiating a review of the policy? GDBarry (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

GDBarry, everything on-wiki is public and any user may engage any page as they see fit, with few exceptions. If you would like to have a private, uninterrupted discussion with someone, I suggest email. El_C 15:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, in that case, may I email you please? I tried to before, but you didn't have the email facility enabled. Not everyone does, which is what makes this entire process so difficult for me to get to grips with. GDBarry (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

GDBarry, my email is enabled, but I only enter into private correspondence with editors whom I already know well. Other admins may be less discerning. Good luck. El_C 15:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, I see. You suggest email but you don't want any email from me yourself.

This is like banging my head against a brick wall. It appears to be impossible to raise any issue privately on Wikipedia. Had I been allowed to raise the issue privately in the first place, I doubt whether any of this would have happened. It cannot be right that there is an environment here where anyone I'm in a dispute with is allowed to hound me from one place to another and prevent me from asking legitimate questions or raising legitimate concerns. I am very disappointed.

I'm going to think very hard about whether I want to take part in Wikipedia again after this episode. It's clearly not the accepting environment I thought it was. GDBarry (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, GDBarry, but I am not obliged to do that. You are entitled to email the Arbitration Committee at any time if you are otherwise finding it difficult to locate an admin to email to. Myself, I prefer to keep matters on-wiki and on the record, as a general maxim. El_C 16:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, Well, I think I may do that then because there seems to be no other way of dealing with the issue. Thanks. GDBarry (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Funky Snack, now that things have calmed down a bit, perhaps you could revise your interpretation of the result at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive412#User:GDBarry reported by User:Funky Snack (Result: Both warned)? What you said five days ago was commented on by GDBarry above, who would probably want to know whether you still think that he shouldn't be editing the article. Andysmith248 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in my reply. My interpretation is that during the time of the warning, no further edits or revisions should have been made to the Times Radio article, especially to the presenters list which caused no end of issues. I think we're now all in agreement, that unless the person is notable and has an article, they shouldn't be included in the list. Usually, if you look at many radio station articles, the presenters aren't "given rank", they are in an alphabetical list. perhaps now is the time to put this issue to bed and for everybody to start again? - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, that seems a reasonable call, and GDBarry corrected an unsourced part of the article, which feels acceptable to me. Andysmith248 (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Well Andysmith248, here we go again. I would have said the issue is now closed, but upon reading above, the user is still pursuing the issue of apparent "harassment" and has now suggested he's going to contact the Arbitration Committee over the claim. I feel the conversation in question should move away from this page as this talk page is about Times Radio and not allegations which have been dismissed by admin and El_C. If GDBarry feels like he's being harassed, how do you think I feel? I'm just thick skinned and can take it. I do feel this is in retaliation for a user not getting his own way? Anyhow, I still feel his claim should be separate from this page. - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

No more talking about harassment on this page, please. Anyone is entitled to contact the Arbitration Committee at any time for a private word, including in their own defense against accusations they deem unfounded. There's not much left to say beyond that. So, please drop it, you two. El_C 10:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, can I make it clear that I have not contacted the Arbitration Committee. I am simply looking for an assurance that, as long as I do not make any reversions on the presenter list, I am entitled to edit the Times Radio article in any way I see fit. So far, that assurance has not been forthcoming. My edit on 27 July 2020 was accepted without dispute. GDBarry (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there are no editing restrictions associated with this page that have been imposed on anyone, whatsoever. But it is still strongly recommended that the two disputants avoid interacting with one another for the foreseeable future. El_C 14:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, now I'm completely confused. You say "to my knowledge, there are no editing restrictions associated with this page that have been imposed on anyone, whatsoever". Surely this conflicts with EdJohnston's ruling on the "edit warring" page, namely:

"Result: User:GDBarry and User:Funky Snack are both warned against edit warring. Whoever reverts the article next is risking a block, unless they have received a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. Speaking of 'a definitive pronouncement': an admin board like this one won't make a content decision for you. The question of including Luke Jones or other presenters needs editor consensus. See WP:DR for some options. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)"

The warning has not been lifted to the best of my knowledge. GDBarry (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

A warning that users risk sanctions for edit warring is not an editing restriction. See also WP:RESTRICT.El_C 15:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, right, I'm going to take that as an assurance that, as long as I don't indulge in any behaviour that might come into the category of "edit warring", I can make any edits I like to the page. Thanks. GDBarry (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resolution for presenter lists

The above discussion has been passed onto the dispute resolution noticeboard. - Funky Snack (Talk) 21:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

...And already closed as out of process. This has to be one of the lamest disputes I've seen on Wikipedia in quite some time. I suggest that both combatants have devoted far too much attention and vitriol to a very minor issue already. I suggest everyone involved trying to "win" and start trying to improve the project. Preferably on another article, at least for a little while. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Broadcasting platforms

The article was edited yesterday to include an unsourced statement that Times Radio was taken off DAB shortly after launch. This is clearly incorrect since I was listening to it on DAB this morning!

I have thus corrected the statement. I still do not know whether I'm allowed to make edits to the article or not, but I'll just have to wait and see if anyone takes any action against me. This issue is entirely unconnected with the earlier one. GDBarry (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that says it's on DAB? Canterbury Tail talk 14:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Found one. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/radio/how-to-listen-to-times-radio Canterbury Tail talk 14:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

RefImp Template

I added a section template because very few of the presenters have a source to indicate they are presenters. Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)