Category talk:Wikipedian amateur radio operators

Sub-category of Amateur radio

I'm not sure what is meant by mix-up, please explain why this is not a sub-category of amateur radio. --Dual Freq 12:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who called it a mix-up, but I believe they meant that the categorizing of Wikipedians is not usually placed in the same category trees as main articles. CG janitor 13:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I am the one responsible for putting in the category. I am leaving it there as a marketing tool to get other hams to know about it. The category system is nice, but you have to know which categories are out there. There is a discussion at Talk:Amateur radio about how to approach the problem. Eventually the category will be removed from Amateur radio. Kd4ttc 18:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC) BTW, thanks for doing the subcategory edit. I was wondering how to do that! Kd4ttc

Categorization of Wikipedians, something that not even all Wikipedians themselves care about, definitely does not belong in the same category trees as encyclopedic articles.--Kharker 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Context of this category

Something probably needs to be cleared up regarding the context of this category. If it is a category for bio's of people who are or were licensed hams then the name is fine. If this is a category for editors who are also ham operators then the title probably needs to be something like Wikipedian Amateur Radio Operators. This will fit in better with the user categorization project. --StuffOfInterest 18:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I initially wanted to get a category you could go to for the purpose of meeting individuals on Wikipedia who are Hams. I found later there was a Amateur Radio People category, but that was a little lame of a name. I coined Amateur Radio Operator, but that had a connotation of active and licensed which is a bit exclusionary. I did not envision SK's like Goldwater or Husseir in the list. They ought to be in a Famous Amateur Category. I am comfortable with whatever consensus develops. I think whatever is done should take advantage of the database functions on the Wiki so users just add a category or template and the list generation should then be automated. By the way, where does this discussion belong to get it all in one place? Steve Kd4ttc 22:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is as good of place as any to talk about it. My idea would be to rework this category to become the repository for article/bio entries. We can create a new category called Wikipedian Amateur Radio Operators, which fits the format for collection of Wikipedia editors. After that it will only take a few edits to the templates and maybe a couple of quick user page edits to get people in the right places. Oh, and I threw in Hussein and Goldwater as examples. Was trying to figure out a way to get their old call signs to list with their names but didn't have any luck there.

If nobody raises any serious objection in the next day or so I say we go ahead. As long as we have agreement on the naming the rest is just grunt work. Still, easier to do now before too many people get listed into the categories.

One more thing, I found the name Amateur Radio People a bit lame as well, sorry to the person who created it. It doesn't fit the usual form of category naming in any way or shape. Once we get the other categories stabilized I'll probably put in a categories for deletion entry to request that one be merged into the correct place. Last I checked there was only one user listed. --StuffOfInterest 22:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Just had another idea. We could rename Amateur Radio People over to Wikipedian Amateur Radio Operators. This will preserve any memberships in that old category and save from having to do cleanup work later. I'll drop a note to the person in that category and see if he would object. --StuffOfInterest 22:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And yet another idea. We could just move this category to Wikipedian amateur radio operators (note the lower case to stick with WikiConvention), and leave the other category as is but move the article references here over to that one. Even not liking the name myself, it will work for now and if someone comes up with a better name it can be changed later. This would create the fewest redirect. *sigh* This is such a Monday. --StuffOfInterest 22:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That one sounds fine, sorry for the subcat mix up. Maybe next time I'll read the instructions. I should probably change the Template:user amateur radio as well, let me know what to change it, otherwise this is going to get out of hand and a bunch of people are going to be in the wrong cat. --Dual Freq 23:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If we go with this option the templates won't break as a redirect will be left behind on this name. That's why I like it the best as it creates the fewest headaches. --StuffOfInterest 23:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If someone will move the category, I'll fix the template, I'd hate to have the a template pointing at a redirected link. --Dual Freq 00:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Perfectionist! :) --StuffOfInterest 00:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What about Category:Wikipedians by interest sub category Category:Wikipedians interested in amateur radio? --Dual Freq 02:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I am really impressed by the ideas floating around. Glad I stirred up a little ruckus with googy edits. I think there are some general goals to keep in mind:

• Advocate Amateur radio by
  • Identify Famous Hams
  • Identify Wikipedian Hams (WikiHams, WikiPigs ;-), RadioWikians, RadioActiveWikipedians) is a short (and bad) list of some names.
  • Establish a community meeting area
  • Work on some Amateur radio articles on Wikipedia. Hmm, maybe just identify the wiki articles.
• Create a namespace strategy that
  • Names Famous Hams Category
  • Category (or template for Hams users on Wikipedia)
  • Make a place to build community
  • Isn't disruptive to useful things here
  • Works to wiki standards
  • Is editable in the database sense so that changes made in the future will propagate easily and changes are made.

I totally disagree that "advocating" anything is an appropriate purpose for the Wikipedia. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a promotional web site or marketing tool. I am also unsure about the appropriateness of using Wikipedia to "build a community." Aren't there already plenty of online sites where this occurs? Places like eHam.Net, QRZ.com, the thousand of discussion forums at QSL.net, and others already serve this function quite well. Those who contribute to the articles about amateur radio are going to naturally interact with each other - beyond that, I question the real purpose of trying to duplicate in the Wikipedia something that already exists elsewhere and that does not really contribute to the function of writing a high quality encyclopedia.--Kharker 02:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I mean advocacy in a positive sense. I am advocationg for users to participate. I want the hams to write great articles. Enthusiasm builds that. Comrardarie is fun. I'd like to see all the Wikipedia hams identify themselves. With great articles non-hams would consider entering the hobby. The community I am thinking about is a community of Ham Wikipedians. I agree I do not want a ham site like the ones you mention. We (U.S. hams) do have a duty to build internaitonal good will, and as responsible editors here we contribute to that. So I am thinking of community to enhance the interaction on Wikipedia. I agree with the sense of not taking advocay to the point of losing NPOV in articles. The Wikidoc pages are the model I am thinking of for community building, and the medical pages are showing tremendous improvment. Many have become feature articles. What better advocacy than to get great Wikipedia Amateur radio artices considered so good that they are featured to the hundreds of thousands of individuals that look at Wikipedia! (rah, rah!!) ;-) Kd4ttc 21:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am part of the WikiDocs. That place was created by another doc who has just built a huge community by being nice. There is a "Category:Physician Wikipedians" . Go also to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine. The last is a great place perhaps as a model of what could be done. I like the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine place, though, to jsut see whats up with the other docs.

So I am thinking (Famous Hams=>"Category:Famous Amateur Radio Operators", WikiHams=>"Category:Amateur radio wikipedians") and I also like Wikipedian amateur radio operators

Lastly, would it help to solicit experienced wikipedians to comment on the namespace issues? We are actually doing something smart by considering design issues before deploying a bunch of naming conventions. The old dogs around here may be aware of some gothchas. Kd4ttc 03:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding naming on the Wikipedian category, a decision has to be made if the categories will be inclusive or exclusive. If the word "operator" is used in the name then there is an implication that members of the categories are licensed amateur radio operators. (I'm sure we don't want to include unlicensed, aka pirate, operators in the category) If the word "interest" or "interested" is used in the category name instead then people may list themselves if they are learning about HAM radio but haven't gone out to get licensed yet. It really comes down to being "exclusive" or "inclusive". The name could also be affected if we choose to list in Wikipedians by interest or Wikipedians by skill. Being licensed implies a skill, so if the name includes "operator" then the category could be a sub of Wikipedians by skill. The interest category is sort of self explanatory.

With all of the babble above, what I'm basicly saying is that I endorse Dual Freq's proposal above to call the Wikipedian category Wikipedians interested in amateur radio and list it as a sub category to Wikipedians by interest.

Now, for the articles category, I'm not sure the word "famous" is needed in the category name. By fact that someone has a bio on Wikipedia they are supposed to be notable. Beacuse of this "famous" may be redundant. We need to look closer at the category naming conventions to come up with a better name here. Again, we may want to avoid the word "operator" as it comes across as exclusive. We may find people out there who made significant contributions to HAM radio without actually being a licensed operator. Heck, in a case like this, we may even want to list some of the famous pirates. For now, as much as I still dislike the name, Amateur Radio People may be the best for now.

Note that some of this is 180 degrees from what I was saying yesterday. Amazing what a glass of wine and a good nights sleep can accomplish. --StuffOfInterest 12:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is annoying, I just found another category out there named Amateur Radio Wikipedians. There is going to definitely have to be some merging and cleanup done at some point in time. The only way I can see of getting around a merge/delete is to have two categories. One could be Wikipedians interested in amateur radio as a sub to Wikipedians by interest and the other could be Wikipedian amateur radio operators as a sub to Wikipedians by skill. Not sure which of the existing categories should be changed to which new name. Judging by the template linked to the newly discoved category it might be better if that one becomes the skills category. --StuffOfInterest 12:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of the items listed on Wikipedians by skill seem to be wiki editing skills like art, photographers, markup, translators, and stuff useful for making wiki articles. Do we need to call a vote on this matter or something? I think the templates need to be changed soon, because every time somebody adds the userbox to their user page their name gets put in this list. Now there are two userboxes pointing to this page and the numbers in the list are increasing. I'd vote to merge with the Amateur Radio Wikipedians then rename to Wikipedian amateur radio operators to conform with naming convention. Don't ask me what it should be a subcat of though. The skills cat is mostly editing skills, the interests category has other ones similar to this like interest in electronics, so maybe put it there. --Dual Freq 00:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about the users who have already joined the category either directly or through one of the templates. If we rename this category the members will come along with it being that a redirect will be left behind for the old name. On the skill issue, I'm not sure that Wikipedian martial artists would be considered an editing skill. :)

Unfortunately, we don't have many people contibuting to the conversation right now. It is tempting to invite some of the members of the category (and related categories) over to put in their two cents worth. If we tried to hold a vote right now it would be all of about three people. With patience I'm sure we'll get a good conclusion. Thanks for taking part in the discussion. --StuffOfInterest 01:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of Category:Wikipedians interested in amateur radio. It is inclusive enough and avoids the famous people issue. The point about having a bio on Wikipedia as an example of being important is reasonable. If the intro into the category:Amateur radio operators has a statement about it being a category about important Radio Amateurs it would suffice. there is user editing out there, an admin, I think, who is reverting back to Amateur Radio People. I think he is invbested it the term. Unfortunately he hasn't weighed in, but perhaps we are lucky enough to have him lurking. We should as a group tell him the consensus. He seems concientious and hard working. I agree with it not falling into the skill categorizaton tree.

I reinvited everryone in the category. Kd4ttc 03:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit that, at first, I thought the idea of an "amateur radio operators" category was rather poor. However, now that we're considering a Wikipedians category, I'm all for it. I'll be more specific in a future post (hopefully within 48 hours). VA7AJJ : Andrewjuren 08:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooooh! Ooooh! A Sked! 73's Kd4ttc 21:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

KD4TTC, I'm afraid you are mixing concepts a bit here. Categories with the word "Wikipedians" in the name usually hold editors. With that, we don't include article space bios. I do still think that Wikipedians interested in amateur radio is a good category for holding us editors while Amateur radio people is good enough for now (pending any possible better name) to hold bio articles about notable people involved with amateur radio. And just to keep it in the mix, I can still see a place for Wikipedian amateur radio operators to hold editors who have demonstrated the skill of becoming licensed. Hmm, I think my two cents has run into about twenty. It is good to see a few more people showing up and joining the conversation now. --StuffOfInterest 11:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not like Amateur radio people at all. it needs to be abolished, removed and forgotten as soon as possible. The very name is awkward and it seems almost like a derogatory term. Anonym1ty 16:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I miswrote. Yeah, we need a category for Ham Wikipedians and a category for notable Hams. I am not against adding a category for licensed hams. Actually a good idea, as there is a place for a list of licensees versus all the groupies that you find at field day. I couldn't put my finger on what I didn't like about the "people" category, but now that Anonymi1ty mentions it, I agree that it seems belitilling if not derogatory. Kd4ttc 21:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggested split

Okay, so I got invited here. I note that Template:User amateur radio is what got me involved in this -- whatever decision we make, that template should be updated.

I suggest we consolidate to two categories:

• Category:Amateur radio contains encyclopedic articles about people, things, events, etc. regarding Amateur Radio. I do not believe we need a separate subcategory for people only, as they are perfectly distinguishable in the list.
• Category:Wikipedian Amateur Radio Operators (case possibly different) for licensed (or previously licensed) hams. This sounds exclusive, but the fact is that the community itself draws a strong line between those that have and those that do not have their license. People are strongly encouraged in every part of Amateur Radio to get themselves licensed. A passing interest is nice, but not enough to be generally considered "included" by the community. I think we should acknowledge that.

-- Taral 20:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a club

Essentially, my sentiments can be summarized as follows:

• Wikipedia is not an amateur radio club! It is important that we recognize that any grouping of radio operators through Wikipedia should be for the sole purpose of facilitating the improvement of articles (especially coordinating articles so that information is consistant and accessible). What we're looking for are editors and admins (if we need the help of an admin, good to have one that's licensed and can make sense of the disagreement / vandalism.)

• Notable individuals involved in the hobby may be listed seperately. I think the category amateur radio people has he right spirit but the wrong title!

Andrewjuren 21:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Okay, so it looks like we've had quite a bit of discussion and it's time to make some decisions (please include your justification, if you feel inclined): Andrewjuren

---

Change current "Amateur Radio Operators" to:

Wikipedians interested in amateur radio

1. IANAH (I Am Not An Ham) but this seems to me to be the closest option to convention on categorizing WP users, such as e.g. Category:Wikipedians in Washington. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Rename Amateur Radio Wikipedians to Wikipedians interested in amateur radio and make it a sub-category of Wikipedians by interest. This will hold anyone with an interest in amateur radio. --StuffOfInterest 18:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian amateur radio operators

1. I think this better captures that the editors in this category are "experts" in this field, rather than just people who are "interested". Would you like someone who is just "interested" in a topic to be a major editor of it? Andrewjuren 22:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Aye! Kd4ttc 00:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
3. This one Anonym1ty 22:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Rename Amateur Radio Operator to Wikipedian amateur radio operators as a sub-category to Wikipedians by skill. This will only hold licensed operators. --StuffOfInterest 18:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Merge with the Amateur Radio Wikipedians then rename to Wikipedian amateur radio operators to conform with naming convention. --Dual Freq 00:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
   1. Aye! Kd4ttc 00:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
6. I also like the idea of Wikipedian amateur radio operator. It would provide a platform for all the radio amateurs on Wikipedia to put their profiles in the same artricle. Then we can do a better job of providing input to the subject. G4sxe 00:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
7. I support this change. Though I am not an amateur radio operateor, I used its brother the citizen's band radio. Lady Aleena 21:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Amateur Radio Wikipedians

Add other possibilites here...

Can we agree that consensus has been reached on Wikipedian amateur radio operators as the new target of this category. If so I would like to go ahead with renaming and possibly relocating it as a sub-category to Wikipedians by skill. Being that Amateur Radio Wikipedians is empty, we can do a CfD on it to get rid of the redundancy. Any seconds on this? --StuffOfInterest 18:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Andrewjuren 04:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Anonym1ty 18:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done the listings here for both the rename and delete. The community at large will have to comment but I doubt there will be a problem. --StuffOfInterest 15:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To those who have participated in the discussion I would like to ask for you to go here and here to vote. This will allow the admins to move forward with action. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 23:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Change current "Amateur Radio People" to:

No change

1. Amateur radio people sounds the most Wikipedia like for an article category grouping at this time. Note that this is only for articles and not for grouping editors. --StuffOfInterest 18:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Amateur Radio Operators

1. So far, I'd say this is my first choice, unless people have a better idea. In which case, the current category should be a subcat of "Category:Amateur radio" rather than the current "Category:Wikipedians by stuff" Andrewjuren 22:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Aye! Kd4ttc 00:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (and put in Category description it is for notables; OK with Notable prepended, too.) Kd4ttc

Notable Amateur Radio Operators

1. Add Notable to narrow the category to articles about famous / notable Amateur Radio Operators. --Dual Freq 00:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Add other possibilites here...

---

I'll get a vote, with comments, put in tomorrow. Still, I think we should keep the issue open through the weekend at least. There were around ten people in the existing categories and I believe we've only heard from four or five so far. Might as well give the weekend net-warriors a chance to chime in. --StuffOfInterest 00:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Amateur Radio Operators I found

I did the following google search to find some more Hams on Wikipedia: "my amateur radio call sign site:wikipedia.org/wiki/User" (sans quotes, of course) Kd4ttc 03:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that if you open the search from "amateur radio site:wikipedia.org/wiki/User" the results increase from 25 to 105. I think you will find that a lot of editors (like myself) don't want to list their call sign on Wikipedia. If you are an active editor you will attract trolls. Unfortunately, if one knows what they are doing, a call sign can divulge far too much useful information to these trolls. Same reason why I don't have my call sign on my license plate. Regardless of that rant, are you going to drop a note to some of these new finds to see if they would like to chime in on the discussion? --StuffOfInterest 11:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, silly of me to not say more. I put an invite on each of their User talk pages. The question also poses the question of is the categorization something we do to other hams or that they do themselves. I was categorized as a doc a while back on my suer page, but at that time had already been actibly participating in a number of medical article edits, so it was fine with me. My sense is that at this point the category link is something to tell other hams about and invite them to use it. Kd4ttc 14:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to use this code fragment on your User page, to mark yourself as an Amateur Radio operator. The logo is that of the International Amateur Radio Union. A list of the possible user tags is at the category "Wikipedians by stuff". See also User:UBX/amateur-radio and User:UBX/amateur radio call (2nd example drawn fromKD4TTC.) Peter Ellis 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have been directed to this talk page and I am not sure why. I am English and we call ourselves Radio Amateurs. G4sxe 17:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This user is an Amateur Radio operator.

This user has an amateur radio license with callsign KD4TTC.

{|align=right
|{{User:UBX/amateur-radio}}
|-
{{User:UBX/amateur radio call|KD4TTC}}
|-
|}

I do not think it's a good idea to use the IARU logo. Anonym1ty 17:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a big battle regarding fair use and user boxes over the US Democratic Party logo on the {{User democrat}} template. Checking the copyright on the IARU logo, the same issue probably applies here. Although I like the logo, I think precaution would dictate not using it. --StuffOfInterest 18:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I would not use the box as I, myself am not a member of the IARU. Anonym1ty 18:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Getting lost in the discussion

There is a lot of discussion on this subject (which is good), but despite trying to go through the history, I am starting to get lost on what is going on. What are the current issues, where have we reached a consensus? Anonym1ty 18:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

StuffOfInterest has summarized where the consensus of reasonable names has brought us. Individual are asked to vote which they recommend in the Vote section above. Kd4ttc 21:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean that section where I can't figure out the difference betwixed a choice, a suggestion or a comment???? It doesn't make any sense and it's worse if you look at it in an edit box! I will vote, I want to vote, but not for anything as much as a confusing mess as that! Anonym1ty 17:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions on how to clearify the voting process? If so, 'Be Bold!' Andrewjuren 21:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but take a look at Template_talk:User_browser:Firefox#Straw_Poll for a sample of how they have been voting over there. --Dual Freq 22:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Good advice! I've made the changes, but I can't avoid making a reference to the U.S. presidential election, 2000's butterfly ballots.

Alerting other Hams

Voting here seems to have died down. Should this discussion be brought to the attention of folks on Talk:Amateur radio ? Kd4ttc 15:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt. The wider HAM aware audience involved the better the consensus. --StuffOfInterest 15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Cagegory renamed

In case you haven't noticed, based on the recent CfD action, and due to Kbdank71 actions, the category has now been renamed. Thanks to all who took part in the discussions and voting to get this time. --StuffOfInterest 15:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)