Talk:Amateur radio/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article Length

The article is far too long and estoteric to get any non-amateur intereted. When editing you get the Wiki warning about length. I started tightening and pruning. GCW50 16:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (K2GW)

you may want to continue breaking out sections as separate articles. with a summary left in the main one. Even if the broken out articles start as stubs. cmacd 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a silly argument! Is the goal of Wikipedia to "get people interested?" You have a non-neutral agenda. Think how silly this would be if you complained that the article on serial murder is too long and esoteric to "get people interested" who aren't already serial murderers. Please don't ruin Wikipedia with your non neutral POV 76.126.242.132 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC).

Amateur Radio Activities and Practices

We need to clean up the introduction here. It's a little over the top, but it contains a lot of good info. Anyone want to help? Anonym1ty 17:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed a troubling part: "...Hams led the development of packet radio, which has since been augmented..."

We hams have justly been accused of too much chest-pounding, and I fear it's being done in this claim. The AX.25 protocol, which was the first one used by hams, was extracted from the commercial X.25 protocol, which was already used on the air for commercial datacomm services for many years before hams started using it. It might be less of a fabrication to claim "hams were early adopters of packet radio, and derived the AX.25 protocol from the commercial X.25 protocol." We might be able to do some accurate chest-pounding with APRS, which I believe represents a tracking capability not otherwise available to the ordinary citizen.192.65.41.20 01:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that understates the packet radio work. X.25 was a point to point wire protocol, used on dedicated telephone company wires. Except perhaps for Aloha, it seems fair to say that packet radio is a ham creation. AX.25 changes the addressing, and it changes what was point to point into a multi-access protocol (like Ethernet). About the only thing that carried over is the packet format after the addresses, and the connection-oriented nature -- both unfortunate mistakes, actually, but that's how it was done. In other words, the significant parts of packet radio are all new, and they originated in ham radio (TAPR and other early pioneers). Paul Koning (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

DXing, QSL cards and awards & Contesting

These two subsections are covering a lot of the same material. They also both have main articles associated with them. We need to take the contesting info that is in the QSL section and put it in contesting and vice versa. Since these areas both have their own main articles, we should take care not to be too verbose on these subjects while providing an appropriate introduction to the material Anyone want to help? Anonym1ty 17:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Split section into its parts. QSL cards, DXing, Awards, & DX-Peditions Anonym1ty 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

VHF, UHF and microwave operation

I moved information on EME to its own section and linked it to the EME main article. We need to do the same with the rest of VHF, UHF and microwave operation. Anyone want to help? Anonym1ty 17:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I split it to a new article: Amateur radio high bands. take a look, help clean it up a little. Anonym1ty 17:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I helped. Kd4ttc 17:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Organization

To help Amateur Radio Activities and Practices flow better, we should probably rearrange it a little. I'm not sure what migh be the best way. Perhaps split it up in to two parts... that are basically by What Amateur radio operators do, How Amateur Radio Operators do it. The things Amateur radio operators do would be: Contesting, QSL, Round Table Discussion Groups and the like. How amateur radio operators do something would be VHF, UHF and microwave operation, EME, Low power operatiopns and the like. Comments? Anonym1ty 17:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Amateur Radio Operator

It strikes me as a missed opportunity not to take advantage of the category mechanism is wikipedia for Hams to identify themselves on Wikipedia. I created a category Category:Amateur Radio Operator and stuck a link into this article as a way for people to find the category. I'd like to keep the category somewhere in the article as a way of familiarizing people with it. I looked for other categories that did something like this, such as hams, ham radio, and other terms, but didn't find any. Steve Kd4ttc 20:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Since then the [[Category:Amateur Radio Wikipedians]]

I am inviting people to discuss the issue here. I finally found a link with a template to IARU, but now I cannot find it again. Hmpf! Kd4ttc 23:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Here it is Template:User amateur radio Kd4ttc 02:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the template is a good idea, however, I think the person's call should appear in that template. N0YKG 14:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User:UBX/amateur radio <- link Andrewjuren 20:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

History of Amateur Radio

• As much as I find the history of amateur radio interesting, I don't think it's the best way to start this article. I also agree that it is very fragmented. Before working on it, I'd like to suggest that this section be split into a seperate article History of amateur radio, with the important moments in history briefly outlined in this main article. Andrewjuren 23:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

An article on the History of amateur radio may not be a bad idea. My concern is that the History section now is pretty much an outline as it is and could be expanded. As it stands now you could even get away with calling the History section a time line. If we make another article it will need to be expanded quite a bit. I would like an History of amateur radio article but not if its just going to be what we already have in this article. I do believe something on the history does need to be said in this article and I would not be against moving the History section to a better place within this article. Anonym1ty 15:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"Popular bands?"

Looks to me more like a list of all US bands, 440 MHz and below, save for 60 m and 222 MHz. It doesn't fit, it's US-centric (check 40 m!) and we already have Amateur radio frequency allocations.

In the past, I'd have just whacked it, but the article has come a long way since then. --N5UWY/9 - plaws 18:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am also tempted to remove that section. Or, at least, move it the Amateur radio frequency allocations article. It feels odd, and although I've improved it slightly, my first reaction was to just delete it. Can we get some consensus? I've added a straw poll under this section's subtitle. Andrewjuren(talk) 18:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. It was a copyvio from [1] among other places. I was going to do that late last night (14:30 UTC, but the servers were painfully slow at the time so I wasn't able to remove it. Graham talk 04:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspected that it was copyvio from the way it was added, but who knows, maybe this was just from memory of a new editor. Unfortunately, not. In any case, the article is better without the table, IMHO. Andrewjuren(talk) 04:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Smackdown - Privileges of the amateur

I put the smackdown on this whole passage. The last change in the history caught my eye and, in reading the changed passage, I also came across the "out of band" stuff.

The VFO bit, to me, aside from being elitist (IMHO) isn't the nut of the matter; it's that hams are NOT assigned a particular frequency as are users in other services (licensed or not).

As to out-of-band operations being "legal", well, MARS ain't out of band! MARS is MARS and has its own frequency assignments - could the editor be confusing MARS and the Armed Forces Day Communications Test?

As to the other part, yes, the US FCC does grant licensed amateurs the privilege of communicating with other FCC-regulated services in an emergency, but that's not spelled out by the editor. It's all in 97.111(a) ...

MARS and CAP are separate services, but don't they require the participants to hold amateur licenses? Regarding out of band operations, in at least one country I know of, certain frequencies out of band are permitted to be used by radio amateurs. This is in Trinidad and Tobago, where local amateurs are allowed to use a repeater on 148.800 MHz (-600kHz offset). This frequency is outside of the 2 meter band and normally assigned to commercial fixed and mobile services. In fact the local police operate on 148.300 MHz! The repeater is owned by the local emergency management agency (NEMA). No other authorization is required other than a ham radio license. However, other non-hams are allowed on that repeater - NEMA staff and registered REACT volunteers. So there is at least one case of out of band operations being allowed. Ryan 05:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting (and I think should be mentioned somewhere in the article), but I don't think it's representative of most amateurs worldwide. It's IMO quite an exceptional cirumstance, and should if it's discussed, I think it needs to be phrased as such. I don't know of any other countries where out-of-band transmissions are authorized, except in an emergency. --Kadin2048 18:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I will put it as an exception. I agree, it is certainly not the norm. In fact there was quite some controversy when this new repeater was introduced. It was often seen as a ploy for the Government to see who modified their amateur equipment to transmit out of band. It was also seen as a means to justify allowing REACT members (who mostly don't have ham licenses and who use commercial land mobile radios on a fixed frequency) on a NEMA repeater in the 2 meter band. None of these came to pass, of course, it was all just a conspiracy theory. Ryan 21:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I recently had removed "2 kW in most countries of former Yugoslavia" sentence due to obsolence, than another user reverted that asking "When did it change?" I did gave accurate links in his talk page, but he never answered. So, here it goes:

> When did it change?

Wrong. Yugoslavia ceased to exist as one country. Its components are referred to collectively as Former Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. Former Yugoslavia cesed to exist in 1991. Today, maximum power limits differ from country to country, but nowhere exceeds 1500 W:

Croatia - 1000 W (source: Official Gazzette of the Republic of Croatia, http://www.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeno/2003/3165.htm )

Serbia - 1500 W (source: http://www.yu1srs.org.yu/dl/srs_doc/Pravilnik%20o%20radioamaterima.pdf )

Slovenia - 1500 W (source: Post and Electronic Communications Agency of the Republic of Slovenia, http://www.apek.si/datoteke/File/ZEKom/pogoji_za_uporabo_amaterski_radi.postaj.pdf )

Montenegro - 1500 W (source: Agency for telecommunications and postal service, http://www.agentel.cg.yu/regulativa/radioamateri.pdf )

Macedonia and Bosnia & Herzegovina - sorry, unable to find internet source atm, but limit is 1500W also.

So feel free to edit out that - it is not true for some 15 years. Cheers, Alek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.210.254 (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing these sources, hopefully we can find a way to use them in the article or elsewhere. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

VFO Section

A distinguishing privilege of amateur radio is the ability to use a Variable-frequency oscillator (VFO) for controlling the frequencies of communications. Usually, the only other radio services granted the use of a VFO are the military. All others services including aircraft, police, fire, Citizens' band, and business radio services are restricted to designated channelized frequencies. Amateur radio operators gain the privilege to use a VFO only after they have demonstrated the understanding of the frequency ranges under which the license is granted by taking an examination at the time of licensing. Amateur radio operators also are allowed to operate "out of band" in certain situations. For example, facilitating emergency communications or participation in the Military Affiliate Radio System (MARS) to exchange radio telegrams on military frequencies.

--N5UWY/9 - plaws

I think the VFO part is actually wrong. Nearly all modern radios use a VFO, including standard AM/FM broadcast receivers. In particular, airports use frequencies, not channels, so even the channel distinction is wrong. And, as you say, most amateur radios are restricted to only transmit in the amateur band. The only distinction I see is that nearly all commercial amateur radios can RECEIVE a bit out of band, and amateurs are allowed to build their own radios without the FCC looking over their sholder too much. (Many MARS radios are home build mods, rather than commercial.) --ssd 11:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree this VFO-as-privilege business just seems wrong. Amateur operators have the privilege of transmitting on certain frequencies, not of using a VFO. Most receivers today use VFOs as part of their tuning circuits, at least as I understand them, and there's no rule that says you can't build a VFO as long as it doesn't emit anything. (Anything else would be a bit silly.) Perhaps the writer was thinking of how amateur equipment doesn't (sometimes) have provisions that keep it from transmitting out-of-band, while almost all commercial/CB/unlicensed-tx equipment does? Or maybe the comment is somehow true in other countries? (I can't imagine how it'd be enforced...) Without more information I think it should just be removed. --Kadin2048 18:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I see it differently than either. The VFO versus channelized contention does not apply to receivers. Perhaps that is why the original entry caused confusion. In all other radio services, the users are restricted to transmitting on a specific list of frequencies. This is, per the FCC the definition of "channelized" operation. Whether the frequencies are listed by frequency or channel number is of no relevance. What is relevant is that the operation is confined to specific, designatied frequencies. Only within amateur radio is the operator allowed to select any frequency within an upper and lower boundary.

While this may seem a minor distinction, it in fact points out a crucial differentiation between amateur radio and every other radio service: amateurs must possess enough technical knowledge to be able to perform such frequency selection and in fact, understand enough about signal bandwidth to predict that they can use a given frequency without their emissions going out of band.

Does the VFO section belong? Maybe...but not named "VFO". Rather, the "any frequency within upper and lower boundary" would be a way to represent the fact that hams have to pass a theory exam, therefore they are allowed more lattitude in how they operate as a result.192.65.41.20 01:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit late on my part but I think frequency-agile is the term we're looking for. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Childish

moved from my talk. Re your recent vandalism and nit-picking on Amateur radio, and your own comments above: Yes, you ought to get out more and try to think of something constructive you'd like to contribute to Wikipedia, in my opinion. --Nigelj 17:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh please grow up! Nit picking is what makes articles GREAT (and accurate). As to my contributions- you can look them up yourself! 8-|--Light current 17:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Amateur radio license

I've created a new article on the amateur radio license. This article is intended to describe what an amateur radio license is, how people around the world acquire amateur radio licenses, and what having an amateur radio license permits. I think it would also be an appropriate article to document reciprocal licensing and regulations regarding third-party traffic (the use of an amateur radio license to provide communications for non-licensees). The article should be kept at a high level with just enough examples of worldwide variations for someone reading about the topic for the first time to understand what a license is all about. Even more detail can be broken out to daughter articles like Amateur radio licensing in the United States. Some of what is in the amateur radio license article is redundant with material in the main amateur radio article, which I see as an opportunity to tighten the main amateur radio article - perhaps someone will take that on...--Kharker 22:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Amateur radio stubs

There's a new category of stubs for articles related to amateur radio. This collects a lot of stub articles that had previously been erroneously listed as broadcast radio stubs or wireless stubs, as well as stub articles not previously categorized as such into one place. I encourage everyone to check it out, see if there is some topic on which you can contribute, and expand one of the stub articles.--Kharker 14:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In Space

I've rewritten this. It's still rather short though. I would actually like to know whether the astro/cosmonauts actually have ham licenses, as previously claimed, or whether such contacts are made under other arrangements. M0ffx 12:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

They actually have licenses. Some of them are even avid operators, such as Bill McArthur the astronaut who was on Expedition 12 on the ISS, worked really hard at getting contacts for WAC, WAS and DXCC awards. --Altailji 20:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if some of them had licenses; even astronauts have hobbies. As not even an amateur radio operator, though, I suspect that when acting in their professional capacity they probably are free from licensing requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a matter of "some"...the majority modern U.S. and Russian 'nauts have licenses, especially those who stay on the space station. The ISS itself has amateur licenses, as can be seen here, that the astronauts (licensed and unlicensed) can use in a semi-official capacity, especially when taking part in scheduled events with educational facilities. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 17:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

New Article: Vintage Amateur Radio

I have created a new article called Vintage_amateur_radio. LuckyLouie 04:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Misconceptions about licensing fee

The writer wrongly conveys that the licensing fee in Asian countries can be prohibitive; at least this can be stated wrong in case of india; it ranges from 15 to 20 rupees; more info can be found here http://www.wpc.dot.gov.in/Static/amateur1.asp --Aileronajay 06:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit of "Amateur radio activities and practices" section

Each entry (Emergency Communications, QSL Cards, DXing, etc.) can easily have photos removed and text be edited down to 2 or 3 sentences, including in each case, links to the articles. That will save a lot of space. However some entries do not have separate articles and the entries are rather detailed. In those cases, stubs should be created and linked to. --- LuckyLouie 03:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. I took a stab at it. I moved lots of content and photos to separate articles, and merged some trivial content into the main intro. Anyone who's personal specialty interest (Space comms, etc.) who feels they are not getting enough ink, please see the sub-articles, or feel free to create a new stub. --- LuckyLouie 00:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it. i get a feeling that the list of Specialized Interests and modes should be located more towards the bottom of the article. To me this would be more visually appealing and also make more sense as a place where people will "branch off" into those articles. Was wondering what others thought. El hombre de haha 05:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved some sections and consolidated more. See if you prefer the Specialized Interests where it is now. -- LuckyLouie 06:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing and citations

Let's try to avoid having "fact" tags plastered all over an otherwise good article. While many facts quoted in the article may seem self-evident to Wikipedians who hold amateur licenses, they need to have their sources cited in order to meet WP:V. FCC amateur regulations, ARRL publications, etc. are all good resources to obtain such cites from. All citations should be done using the inline method when possible. -- LuckyLouie 16:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Article lead paragraph

I think describing ham radio primarily as a "public service" is POV pushing. I understand that the hobby is fighting to justify itself, but defining it as a public service first and a hobby second is a little over the top. The lead para. mentions public service three times. -- LuckyLouie 16:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that the USA is the only country in the world that treats amateur radio as a public service. Certainly not so in the UK. Dsergeant 17:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ham radio is described in the terms of a public service in many places throughout the world.... That being said, the opening paragraph is misleading. Ham radio is indeed a hobby first, with some public service aspects to it. Public service is a big part of Ham radio both officially or in practice, but defining ham radio as a public service before defining it as a hobby is not right. Anonym1ty 17:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I made the edit to reflect what I believe is the correct weight for the definition. Public service is mentioned now only two times in the lead. -- LuckyLouie 17:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict.... :) You did just about what I was going to do, but you were faster on the submit... Anonym1ty 17:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

the problem i've always had with it being called a hobby is that few hobbies that i know of are sanctioned and licensed by the government. for example i don't know that there is a golf license, gardening license or photography license. maybe in areas outside of the US there is. personally, i'd like to see "public service" in the lead sentence, but i do not have a problem with how it exists now.

im not complaining and not going to change it :) but this is one of those discussions i've gotten into a lot and wanted to jump in to it.

btw louie, nice work with the Specialized Interests and modes box, i like it. 73 El hombre de haha 23:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah...it's not the hobby that is licensed. It is access to the airwaves that is licensed. The government agencies are licensing the right to use the airwaves as a service. Whether you choose to use that service as a hobby, to serve the public, or other usage is up to you...the only prohibited usages are that of making money or broadcasting.

As an example of another "hobby" that requires a license: driving. You must obtain a driver's license before driving on the road. Once licensed, you may use the privilege to drive as a part of your job...or as entertainment, like driving to relatives' homes for vacation, or going on a Sunday drive with the family. 192.65.41.20 01:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

LowFER

Can anybody familiar with this practice/aspect of the hobby check this page for accuracy? LuckyLouie 00:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This article, referring to unlicensed operation of a transmitter, has nothing to do with Amateur Radio. IMHO, it is the license requirement that defines Amateur Radio Lighthouse7 (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Licensing data

This (below) sounds like an educated opinion, however opinions can't be cited as fact. We need to source these facts if it to stay in the article:

In some countries, however, amateur radio licensing is very bureaucratic (for example in India) or challenging because some applicants must undergo difficult security approval (as in Iran). Currently only the nations of Yemen and North Korea do not permit their citizens to operate amateur radio stations at all, although in both cases a few visiting foreign amateurs have been granted temporary operating authority.

In some developing countries, licensing fees can be prohibitive in terms of local incomes. This is a particular problem in Africa and to a lesser extent in poorer parts of Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean. Small countries or those with weak administrative structures may not have a national licensing scheme and may require amateurs to take the licensing exams of a foreign country in lieu.

LuckyLouie 00:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Echolink and other edits

Hi all

I have added a paragraph about IRLP and Echolink which are often used tools in Amateur Radio today. I noted that my previous links to Amateurlogic.Tv and Soldersmoke have been deleted and the deletion was notated as 'Advertising'.

First I am not a producer or participant of either show although I can disclose that have recently made a video submission (a tape of an Amateur radio lecture I attended recently in Kyneton) for inclusion in Amateurlogic.TV in response to a request for video articles from the Producers who are based in the US. There are very few radio or TV shows that have Amateur Radio as their subject matter so the inclusion of these two shows is I believe relevant information that other Amateurs generally would be keen to know about. The two shows are also notable because they have both used Echolink so that the producers of each show (who are in different states and countries) can communicate during the show. It should also be mentioned that both shows are not done for profit. As an Amateur this is information that I would regard as topical, relevant and useful. I note that Hancock's Half Hour get's a mention in the article. I would suggest that the two shows I have cited have greater claim to citation and relevance than this program which was a comedy and not specifically Amateur Radio related. Also Rick and Bubba does not appear ro be a specifically Amateur radio related program unlike Soldermoke.

cheers Peter VK3PB Pberrett 09:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL and WP:OR and WP:NOT about the use of links. No matter how relevant, we cannot promote blogs, tapes, or websites. Also while the echolink information is relevant, it doesn't deserve an entire paragraph, and should be trimmed to be in balance with other digital modes. - LuckyLouie 17:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As an alternative, rather than just providing links, perhaps you could start a section on Amateur Radio in multimedia, mentioning a few examples of what they are and what relevance they hold in the world of Amateur Radio. Just make sure it is well referenced...just providing links is not enough. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 18:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps, since the "Activities and Practices" section is meant to be a short summary and not in-depth descriptions, the relevant content could be added to articles such as Internet_Radio_Linking_Project, which are linked to in "Activities and Practices". - LuckyLouie 18:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(deindenting; I was replying to Pberrett) While that could be done, I meant that an addendum or subsection could be added to the existing Popular culture section to cover the Soldersmoke and Amateurlogic material, so long as it can be proven as notable (i.e. provide third party citations per Wikipedia guidelines). Most anything is better than just supplying some random link, though care must be taken to not go overboard on the descriptions. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm this seems a bit harsh to me but I don't want to start a flame war and I respect the difference of opinion. I notice that the Hancock's Half Hour and Rick and Bubba links are still in which seems inconsistent to me. I do think readers are being disserviced by no mention of all of two program that would certainly be of interest and relevance to the Amateur World and particularly as there are so few programs about the subject. The idea of adding it to the IRLP page has some merit but both programs in fact use Echolink to build their shows and in any event the general topic of Amateur Radio has greater relevance.

As an alternative would it be possible to start a new page "Radio and Television Shows about Amateur Radio"? This article could simply say "there are not many radio and television shows about Amateur Radio" and then embed the link in the sentence to the new page. Acceptable? That way if people are interested in seeing what media is available on the subject of Amateur Radio they can follow the link.

I should add that I did read the guides beforehand particularly re advertising. I did at first simply paste in links but after that realised the proper thing it do is to use references so I corrected it. I have studied at tertiary level so I was acutely aware of the need to cite references for any statements I was making hence the references leading back to the websites to support the statements made regarding the programs use of Echolink. Some refercne to radio and television shows is permissable if it is relevant to do so. Mind you relevance is subjective subject.

cheers Peter

Pberrett 09:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not quite sold on the idea of including such links on the IRLP page...seems too narrow of focus, as mentioned. I would definitely be opposed to creating an entirely new article based solely around such multimedia shows. It would simply be a mostly unsourced stub article, and would likely be AfD'ed rather quickly. Best to find a way to fit them in this current article or leave them out completely. I'd suggest waiting several days to see if anyone else comes along with something to say. After that, a further course of action can be decided on. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A late addition - look at the Wikipedia article on Journalism and the direct references in there to Entertainment Tonight, National Enquirer and Inside Edition. If I was to reword the paragraph I had written to read "Amateur Radio is seeking a broader audience through the medium of IPTV and Podcast shows such as Amateurlogic and Soldersmoke" There would be little difference.

I agree though let's see what others have to say...

cheers Peter

Pberrett 09:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(Deindenting) Well, not to be a WP:DICK, but I do want to point out that just because another article does something one way, doesn't make it right. That's a problem Wikipedia is constantly facing. Also, that last statement might have worked except for the opener. Basically, "says who?" Sure, it is common sense that any organization will seek to broaden its audience through whatever means are at its disposal, but Wikipedia doesn't aim to broadcast all that is common sense; rather, it seeks to report facts that are verifiable and notable.

To get back to the relevant issue, I could start a podcast for Amateur radio, but that doesn't mean it would be notable enough to warrant entry on the article. That's perhaps the primary concern here, that those two original links don't have enough verifiable notability to be included, just like any generic homebrew kit probably doesn't warrant inclusion. And to address your concern regarding "Hancock's Half-hour", it is included as an example of a mention of ham radio on a popular television series, not as a series about ham radio itself.

Am I making sense as to why this is a problem? (I really don't mean to drag this on-and-on...I'm just hoping to fully address the situation.) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 10:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Peter: If you want to promote Amateurlogic and Soldersmoke try an ad in eHamnet or QRZ.com, their rates are reasonable. By the way, the mention of Hancock's leads to a seperate article Amateur radio in popular culture. A completely new article on the same subject is not needed. Also, Rick n Bubba are mentioned specifically in a section about famous hams (Rick is a ham). - LuckyLouie 17:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the Morse Code test requirement elimination

I have adjusted the part of the article where it states that Morse Code was eliminated because the FCC believed it served as a barrier to qualified individuals. This is incorrect. This view was actually one of No Code International, not the FCC. The reason as stated in the R&O was that the FCC believes that morse testing should be treated like any other mode, and that written testing was sufficient to determine whether someone is qualified to hold an amateur radio license. - Ryan 14:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite the full story. The elimination of the Morse Code requirement in the US was also about US getting into line with most of the rest of the world after a decision of the ITU to eliminate it as a requirement. Roger (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed section - legal issues surrounding ham radio

I would like to add a section called "Legal issues." I believe it is important, because hams are involved in legal battles to defend spectrum, resolve interference complaints and also dealings with local Governments and homeowner associations to erect antennas. It would cover such things as PRB-1, CC&R's, ARRL spectrum defense etc. I think that this is an important issue in ham radio today and should be documented. What do you think? - Ryan 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The main article is meant to be a quick overview, not an in depth on everything. I would add the material to a sub article such as amateur radio licensing or the spectrum allocation article. Also bear in mind that amateur radio is an international subject. The article is not just about the USA. - LuckyLouie 19:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay cool. I hold call 9Y4RAJ and have been licensed there before I got my license here in the USA, so I'm very familiar with ham radio being an international hobby. :) I've had reports from contacts in Europe as well saying that their antenna restrictions are getting worse too. Where can I put information about that and special protection afforded to radio amateurs? - Ryan 21:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC) (I logged in after I made the comment, LOL)

Looking around, I admit I don't see any existing article where it might fit. You might consider starting a stub entitled ""Amateur radio legal issues" or something similar, and we can link it to the main article with a descriptive sentence. - LuckyLouie 21:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Alaska emergency frequency

Isn't the Alaska statewide emergency supposed to be 5167.5? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.36.213 (talk • contribs)

ICT in amateur radio

User:LuckyLouie summarily reverted an edit of mine recently [2] with the comment, "Clarifying. Conforming claims to source. Rem. opinions about IT. Significant contrib of hams is covered in History." I would like to challenge that stance.

The current lead claims that "Amateur radio operators ... often support their communities with emergency and disaster communications". I have been licensed for many years and, like most amateurs have never been called upon to support any community in any emergency or disaster. I changed this to "They are able, if necessary, to support their communities..."

The current lead claims that apart from 'enjoying' certain things and 'often supporting their communities' as above, the only other central aspect of amateur radio is, "increasing their personal knowledge of electronics and radio theory". If this was the case, this would indeed be a moribund pastime.

I tried, as succinctly as I could, to add another central plank of the modern hobby, namely ICT or IT. As the article goes on to list in the 'Activities and practices' section, "Modern personal computers have led to a boom in digital modes... Hams led the development of packet radio... TCP/IP... PSK31...Voice over IP... internet-connected repeaters... IRLP ... FSK441... software such as WSJT". As per WP:LEAD, the lead section of an article should "summariz[e] the most important points" of the article that follows. Surely these are important? They are vital. I have plans to add something soon about software-defined radios as these are a current area of great activity, development and research. Then there's digital filtering and audio signal processing, fast- and slow-scan television. And of course the DX cluster websites and telnet feeds. And many amateurs use computer-based logging software. The list goes on. This is all heavily documented in any radio text book, and all over the www, so can easily be referenced, but hardly needs to be: WP:LEAD says "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." This is hardly 'challengeable material' and is well covered in the article's cited and general references.

I also added a few words to make the point that amateurs learn about these things both in theory and in practice.

The final point I had tried to add to the lead was that, "over the years, amateur radio practitioners have also contributed considerably to these fields in terms of research, developments and discoveries." As I said above, hams do more than 'enjoy', help disaster-struck communities and learn electronic and radio theory. LuckyLouie says that, "Significant contrib of hams is covered in History". Well that is the point of the lead - to summarise the main points - isn't it?

He also says, "Rem. opinions about IT". I am offended that he is prepared to write-off all the above as if it was just my personal opinions. How rude. He should read some of the article's existing references before accusing me of peddling my personal opinions here, I feel. If I did so, it would be a gross violation of one the central tenets of WP, and I think I have been involved for long enough to be aware of these.

His other point, "Conforming claims to source" is probably the most interesting. The source that is referenced at this point in the article is Amateur Radio for Dummies (2004). Well, if he is going to take it upon himself to limit the vision of this article to that dated and basic text, then maybe all hope is lost.

Seriously, it is all right for people to police these articles with regard to occasional vandalism, beginners and ignorant editing, but I think it comes close to a kind of self-satisfied ownership when edits such as this are reverted within minutes of their being made, with such dismissive comments as I received in this case. --Nigelj (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nigel. The article lead parapgraoh really is an attempt to give a very general overview of ham radio, and frame it in an international sense. I don't think we're trying to exclude all the various interests and contributions of hams. But I'm sure you realize that if the lead sentence were to include every significant thing about ham radio and radio hams, it would be pages long. So the job is to have a description one might find in the opening paragraph of a book meant to introduce the subject to laymen in a way they can understand.

And you're right, I should have done a little explaining here on the Talk page rather than try and fit it into an abrupt edit summary. Let us know what you think belongs in the opening sentence, and hopefully give a reference work that describes ham radio (as an introduction to the subject) in those terms. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I "let you know" what should be in the lead when I typed it into the article. Please review WP:OWN. There is no need to broaden this discussion onto my personal talk page - we are talking about the article, not me. --Nigelj (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

??? He just copied his reply here to your talk page, in case you were not directly monitoring here, I assume. Personally, I agree with Louie's edits. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just copied the message to your Talk page as a courtesy. Sorry you got the wrong impression. There is no WP:OWN on my part, I just wanted to help improve the article in my spare time. If anyone is not happy with the article lead, they are welcome to improve it. Here's a couple of promising sources [3], [4]. These two ham org's treatment of the subject [5] [6] are rather stuffed with promotional lingo but helpful for scope. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

THERE. Leader text problem is SOLVED, and I recommend that it NOT be changed back, or I will kindly RFC this as quickly as you can say "QSL". This is NOT a question of WP:OWN, this is a matter of "does the article represent the facts?" As stated NOW, it does. As stated previously, it DIDN'T. Simple enough. Nigelj was correct in his edit, and I've replaced it. 7-3! Edit Centric (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture movie Frequency reference

I changed the wording of that sentence, since the previous instance was decidedly biased; "mocked" and "misrepresented" both seem like biased terms from a Wiki point of view. Now understand that I am ALSO a licensed amateur, so I understand the bias intimately, however it has no place in-Wiki. The ability to dissociate one from the other is key to the success of this article... Edit Centric (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo caption; the _display_ is the most notable thing about the radio??

For the radio pictured at the top of the page, is it really that important that we mention it has an LCD or TFT-LCD display? Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

IMO, it's all about making the article user-friendly for the layman reader. Is it better to just describe the photo as "an amateur transceiver" or to add a little more description such as display and signal processing technology? Personally, I like a little descriptive detail, as it tends to draw people in to further explore the subject.- LuckyLouie (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's what I was thinking of, in trying the alternate caption A modern HF transceiver with spectrum analyzer and DSP capabilities. My thinking is that someone who's likes gadgets but might have an outdated idea of ham radio, will look at it and say, wow that has a color LCD like all my other toys, it wouldn't need any further introduction. What he might need to know would be, what kind of radio it is, HF, VHF, etc, and what that spectrum display at the bottom is for.

The caption that was there before, Amateur radio station with modern solid-state transceiver featuring LCD display and DSP capabilities, seems more suited to someone who's been a ham for many years. i.e. "station" is just an FCC formality, the average person assumes anything post-1965 is solid-state, the LCD a layman can see from the picture, and DSP can mean different things depending on the application. Squidfryerchef (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are some great ideas. You should rework the caption along those lines. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just did. Let's see how it goes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Request Article Update: VOX

DX Mexico

Went looking at the VOX article disambiguation, and saw an entry for "voice operated switch". If I remember my old ARRL manual (which I lost 1½ decades ago) and F.C.C. regimentæ (probably a pompous made-up word : Þ —there was a definition for "voice operated transmit". I'm unclear, but if this is correct, I'd appreciate it if a more experienced and/or informed hand would contribute the appropriate cross-reference.

For that matter, could someone who remembers the QSL card, "OSCAR" days make a reference to DX meaning "distance communications"? Again, uncertain, and again appreciating confirmation or disabuse. Manuelcuribe (talk) in México, D.F. a.k.a. o.a.t. "Moonbouncer".

P.S. I'd especially like them as historical markers. Subordinated as such by time, but available. And if you’re going to chew me out in a sub-post, I’d appreciate it if you held a “Technician” or “Advanced” ticket, in old FCConeese; or consider yourself at least equivalently certified in the -ehem- "old-schooled" sense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelcuribe (talk • contribs) 07:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I hold an Amateur Extra class license, and I was first licensed in 1980.  :) X is shorthand for the syllable "trans" and implied another syllable or syllables to follow. Thus, X-verter is transverter, xmit is transmit, VOX stands for Voice Operated Transmit, and DX stands for Distance Transmitted. On many models of older equipment, the red light illuminated when the transmitter is keyed is labeled "XMIT", while the green one illuminated at all other times is labeled "RECV." Lighthouse7 (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Amateur Radio Activities and Practices, redux

I have added (and now restored) a brief paragraph to include the vintage radio facet of the hobby. There is a link with greater detail elsewhere, but the reference needs to be included among Amateur Radio Activities and Practices. Please do not delete unless you're prepared to establish and discuss criteria for what activities "get included" in this section. --WA3VJB 12 Feb 2008 10:22:20 EST WA3VJB (talk)—Preceding comment was added at 15:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Having written the Vintage amateur radio article, I know where you're coming from, Paul. But take a look at the article sidebar that lists "specialized interests and modes". AM and vintage is right there along with QRP, Packet, homebrew, contesting, etc. Showcasing AM/vintage in the "Practices" section without showcasing all the other specialized interests is not very balanced. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, how's this for a compromise? [7]. I think the weighting of the subject is a bit more appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Amateur radio

The WikiProject Amateur radio page has recently been extensively upgraded, and the WikiProject template now supports tagging articles by quality and importance to the project. This should help those interested in improving the coverage of amateur radio on Wikipedia identify the articles that need the most attention. Quite a few articles need photographs as well, and there's a link to a new category where those articles are collected. Several amateur radio-related articles are also within striking distance of being good articles, and there's a list of requested new articles that need to be created. I invite everyone to check it out and find some articles to improve.--Kharker (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

New sections: Increasing range ; DIY radio's

A new section should include the use of VoIP to increase the range. The range can be increased to almost extent around the earth using this technology. The project is called the Internet Radio Linking Project and has its website at irlp/net.

Also include a section about diy-construction of regular amateur radio's/radio stations.

KVDP (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

HAM RADIO AND HOME BREWING

Ham Radio as a hobby was very popular with home brewing only. Slowly the hobby was commercialised to a level that people have forgotten about home brewing. I hope there is a section regarding home brewing in the article. vu3ktb --Vu3ktb (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, there currently isn't. Can you write something? I agree that this is a subject worth mentioning in the article. 73, paul ni1d Paul Koning (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the article, under the section "Activities and pratices". It is also in the info bar on the right and has its own article: Amateur radio homebrew. (EhJJ)^TALK 21:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Famous Italians record secret Soviet transmissions

What is so notable about the Judica Cordiglia brothers' claim to have recorded transmissions from secret Soviet space missions? There are many people (not only hams) who routinely tune into astronauts and satellites transmissions - secret and otherwise - of course encryption makes getting any actual information out of the transmissions difficult to impossible, nonetheless simply recieving the signals is no big deal. So what is so special about these guys? Roger (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If they could at least be confirmed as licensed amateurs that would be nice. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wonder the same thing. I just cleaned up the language a bit because another reverted the removal, so I figured if it was going to stay it should be intelligible. Moreover, I am American, so I considered the possibility that they may be "famous" somewhere besides America.

Also, judging by the article on Judica Cordiglia brothers, I think the notable claim is that they recorded these while the Soviet Union was not known to be in space...? I am ignorant on the subject matter and unsure if they warrant a mention in this article. daveh4h 20:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I too don't think there's any real reason for this to be mentioned, however, my revert was itself reverted, so I'll have no further say in this. Further, I really don't see a need for the entire "Famous Hams" section. Yes, though, they are apparently known because these supposed "secret" USSR missions were before the publicised Yuri Gagarin space shot. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Before Gagarin? Well then in that case do we need a "Suposedly famous, deluded nutcase, alleged hams" section? NOT! I propose that it be deleted, unless proof of their being hams and notability is forthcoming. Roger (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Judica Cordiglia brothers article is listed under the Pseudoscientists category. Not good. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, with the rationale that there simply isn't enough evidence of notability in this field for inclusion. Now, how about getting rid of the entire section...any takers? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bravo, Huntster. Re the entire section....I believe it grew to epic proportions, was split off into a separate article, and WAS deleted at some point in the distant past, but sprang anew. I personally wouldn't mind keeping it as a single paragraph, but that paragraph has a habit of growing like a weed until it's several inches long! - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. THat is a trivia section in disguise and does not belong in an encyclopedia.--Kharker (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

← I've gone ahead and killed off that section as being trivia and crufty. As I wrote in the edit summary, if a well-written and well-sourced paragraph can be developed, that would be great, but that wasn't it. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal. I believe that there was an "in popular culture" ham radio article, which I didn't mind at all, since it kept that stuff out of this article. It was deleted and some of the content ended up here, if I remember correctly. daveh4h 17:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Greetings all. This is my first GA review, so please give my comments appropriate weight. First, the article may not make it past the "quick-fail criteria" . There have been more than 20 revisions since the article's nomination on March 25, only a couple of which are vandalism reverts. The bulk of the changes are minor, so I'll consider this a pass.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The writing is appropriate, but there are some issues with organization:

• Lead - This is probably a forest-for-the-trees type of statement, but the lead should mention that worldwide communications are possible. To me, this is the big deal aspect of the hobby. Done.
• References are not required in the lead.
• The description of the term "amateur" is not needed in the lead. If it's going to be there, it at least should be incorporated better. Its current placement feels defensive -as if it's anticipating a challenge that may never come.
• History section - too short and needs references. The article Amateur radio history has some that perhaps could be incorporated. I know that main article repeatedly has become bloated, and had sections spun off to keep things managable. However, history helps put a human face on the hobby, and the connection with the sinking of the Titanic is the kind of hook that can hold an indifferent reader's interest.
• Activities and practices section - Of all the sections, this one could benefit the most from some reorganization. The first sentence presents the reader with lots of jargon -"mode of transmission" could be "way to communicate" while keeping the wiki link, for example. "Voice transmissions" could be "talking over the radio" and so on.
• The information about proficiency in Morse code doesn't need to be addressed here, it belongs in the licensing section below.
• Licensing, band plans, and privileges all strike me as candidates for culling if there's a need to shorten the overall article.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The entire history section is unreferenced. It wouldn't hurt to incorporate the references more in other sections as well

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This one is the deal breaker for me. The article does a wonderful job covering the U.S. aspects of the hobby, and pretty well with EU countries. However, there is zero mention of the practice in any of the Asian countries. Given that Japan has more licensed hams than any country in the world - according to our article 1.2 million to around 800,000 in U.S., followed by Thailand and South Korea. Germany is fifth with a whopping 80,000 licensees. According to Google the Japan Amateur Relay League has an English language page that may be helpful; it's also possible that some of the WP:Japan/WP:Thailand/WP:Korea folk may be able to help translate some of the other web pages. I don't think that there needs to be exhaustive coverage since the focus will be on English language readers, but the survey of practices in other countries surely must at minimum include Japan.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Subject to my preliminary comments

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Subject to my preliminary comments

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Based on the foregoing I've put that nomination on hold. As I said this is my first review, so I would welcome a review from someone with more experience, and if any of the regular editors simply want to put this in for a second opinion I have no problem with that at all. Good luck. Xymmax (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

N.B. I have failed the articles this date. With the exception of the stricken comments, the above concerns have not been addressed, and only LuckyLouie has commented upon the points raised. I would like to see the article stay a bit more stable, and I really do think that an article abount amateur radio in general, as opposed to in a particular country, should address the practices in the countries that rank 1, 3 and 4 in terms of number of license holders. I would be happy to conduct another review if desired. Xymmax (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

From Xymmax GA Review, above: "Activities and practices section - Of all the sections, this one could benefit the most from some reorganization. The first sentence presents the reader with lots of jargon -"mode of transmission" could be "way to communicate" while keeping the wiki link, for example. "Voice transmissions" could be "talking over the radio" and so on." - Interesting. It is a technical subject, as well as a hobby, so I don't know if translating widely accepted amateur radio terms into layman friendly language would be appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

• Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

• If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

• Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

Much of this article looks like it is written by enthusiasts. Some of the enthusiasm has spilled over into hyperbole. Much of this article would benefit from a more sober objectivity and a tone more appropriate to an enyclopedia rather than a fan page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.137.24 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that knowledge of Amateur Radio outside of "enthusiasts" is practically zero. The world is divide into two groups: Those who are Hams and those who have never even heard of Amatuer Radio. The "middle ground" is practically non-existent. That makes writing for a general audience very difficult. Roger (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked for the hyperbole you mention. The only place I could see any was the sentence in the lead, "amateur operataors enjoy personal (and often worldwide) wireless communications...". Yes, "enjoy" might not be objective. "Have" is probably a better word. As for the rest of it, hams really do have the capability of aiding in times of distaster, and their historical contributions really have "founded new industries, built economies, empowered nations, and saved lives", as reported by our WP:RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the whole article is very euphemistic and tries to depict ham radio as a young and living hobby activity and does not reflect the reality of fast diminishing active licensees, missing newcomers, vandalized bands, the boredom of contests and all the grumpy old men pissing off 90% of the few new people interested in radio and many other licensed OMs.--213.39.213.133 (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't reflect the "reality of fast diminishing active licensees", because that reality doesn't exist. As to the rest, that sounds like an unfortunate personal experience that I didn't and don't have. --ssd (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed...I consider myself fairly young (20s) and have had nothing but a great experience with my license. Certainly different areas of the country, and definitely different areas of the world, have lower turnout, but locally speaking, the bands are quite active. Yes, there is a major disparity between the number of users over thirty and under thirty, but consider that ham radio isn't the cheapest hobby ever, and many youth prefer cheaper and more exciting endeavours. These attitudes change over time. The hobby is certainly not dying...else manufacturers would not continue to develop more powerful and more feature-packed rigs. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the typical age range for licensed hams is 7 - 100, over 30 / under 30 is not even close to median. From this perspective, I can see why someone looking would think "There's no new hams" when the real issue is that the age range of involved hams is just quite wide. There are at least 2 hams in my area that are under 10, and more than half the hams I see every day are under 30. --ssd (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dubious claims of originating technology

The history section claims that amateur radio research originated a whole bunch of innovations -- "satellite communications" is mentioned. That seems implausible. Satellite communication was proposed by Arthur C Clarke around 1945, and while amateurs built a number of satellites they certainly were not the first satellites, nor the first communication satellites. Paul Koning (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a hit and run so I removed it, however the IP that added it is welcome to revert upon supplying WP:RS sources. Also rem. sentence about the amateur op with the pseudoscientific claim of a cancer cure, It doesn't fit with the mainstream technological innovations in that section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Although ham radio operators did not invent satellite communications have helped make advances in the field. Ham radio operators have made new innovations over the years including SSB (single side band) although I admit I don't have a reference readily available at this time. Donkyhotay (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What is consensus on articles on specific repeater stations etc ?

I just came across GB3DR, which was nominated for deletion (PROD). Could someone here tell me what current community consensus is on keeping such articles. Sure won't pass WP:N, but information is factual and verifiable, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. The PROD was soon to expire, so I declined it, mainly on grounds of lack of time. I suspect the isssue will be pop up at WP:AfD and I would just as well like post this enquiry here now, sooner better than later. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and requested speedy deletion for this article, as it definitely does not assert any kind of notability. Existing links are just a homepage of sorts and a directory. If it has been covered in the media, or can otherwise express some degree of comparative importance, there may be grounds to keep it, but otherwise this feels more like a vanity article than anything else. I sincerely doubt Hams will be coming to wikipedia to search for their local repeaters...they'll use Ham-specific resources for that. I would certainly not expect Wiki to have any articles for my local stuff. Another thing: all articles really should have at least one or two other articles that link to them. I cannot begin to guess what other articles might link to this, other than a town article saying something like "...is home to amateur radio repeater GB3DR." Besides, that is more trivia than anything else. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Interested editors can comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GB3DR Power.corrupts (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

How many Radio amateurs today ?

You deal with hams, but how many are they ? I know that they were over 3 million licensed hams in 2004. How many today ? Thierry, ON4SKY, LX4SKY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.240.255.17 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Photos

Nothing against Chileans, but I feel the shack photo being placed here and the overly large portraits of the op being placed here are not the best visual examples of ham operations that can be found for our articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: I was unable to verify the subject of the photos as a licensed amateur. Therefore I removed them per WP:VER. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems Mario Grez is a CB enthusiast with a flair for self publicity. Funny prank, but enough is enough. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

looking closely at Amateur radio equipment.cropped.jpg, those don't look like typical ham gear and do resemble Citizen's band equipment - big channel selector knob, no frequency display are what I notice. Probably not representative of amateur radio gear. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Callsign errata

The section about regional locators for callsigns is incorrect with reference to the UK at least. All UK callsigns if they are NOT in use in England must use a regional locater, so a Scottish station will be MM0ABC for example, but if the station moves to England it will become M0ABC. This needs I think some rewriting - I am happy to do so if people really thing it is worthwhile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.105.192.19 (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Might be worth adding to show just how non-standard the UK system is. It probably just needs a short phrase after the "Full License Holders M0xxx and M1xxx" bit, though if you want to rewrite the entire UK part for clarity, that would be okay. Just keep it approximately the same length as it is now. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3