Jump to content

Talk:International Amateur Radio Union

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:Iaru logo.png

[edit]

Image:Iaru logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been addressed by inclusion of the appropriate fair use rationale template on the image description page. Those fair use templates hadn't been created yet back when the image was first uploaded.... --Kharker (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs on stubs for member societies

[edit]

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) to consider the handling of stubs as are being used in the list of member organizations here. There are about a dozen AfDs for the stubs for these organizations open at this time, and if they are deleted, changes will be required to this article, and particularly external links to individual member web sites would be needed here. Probably the best place to make a decision as to how to handle the list or stubs would be here, that is what is suggested by WP:CLUB. This is a list of open AfDs, plus closed AfDs with result. This list is updated as AfDs close, this note added 22:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

AfDs are normally open for seven days. The opening date is shown for open AfDs.

Closed Keep.

  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand Association of Radio Transmitters The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 00:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Union of Belgian Radio Amateurs The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 01:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hong Kong Amateur Radio Transmitting Society The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 11:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Réseau Luxembourgeois des Amateurs d'Ondes Courtes The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 11:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association Royale des Radio Amateurs du Maroc The result was keep. (X! · talk)  · @953  ·  21:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asociatia Radioamatorilor din Moldova (relisted) The result was keep. (X! · talk)  · @958  ·  22:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club de Radioaficionados de Guatemala The result was keep. (X! · talk)  · @961  ·  22:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aruba Amateur Radio Club The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liga Panameña de Radioaficionados The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lietuvos Radijo Mėgėjų Draugija reopened after original Delete close by Cirt The result was keep. There is a reliable source used to verify some of the article. It also seems clear that as a member representative of a majorinternational organization this group is notable. JodyB talk 22:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Amateur Radio Society relisted 10:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC) The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jujutacular T · C 19:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed Delete.

  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magyar Rádióamatõr SzövetségThe result was delete. I would like to remind the people who wanted the article to be kept that notability is not inherited, and reliable, third-party sources must be found in order to establish notability. (X! · talk)  · @955  ·  21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked the Closer to reconsider after reading this conversation. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 02:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other close.

  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinidad and Tobago Amateur Radio Society The result was No consensus. This can be revisited if/when the larger issue is resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will update it if more are opened or results are determined. (I have requested that the nominator stop until a global consensus can be confirmed or formed on the issue of using stubs as have been used), or anyone else is welcome to update this). --Abd (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to encourage anyone reading this to please actually read the recently updated WP:ORG, and especially the WP:CLUB section, instead of relying on third-hand rumors about what someone once thought it said. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I appreciate WhatamIdoing's efforts to clarify this, it's odd that he points to a guideline that the editor just changed, as if others referring to this guideline, or reading it, were depending on "third-hand rumors." I reverted the changes to the guideline, because they have not been established by consensus yet. Here is a diff for the changes.
  • The basic issue here is whether or not to follow a policy interpretation of the notability guideline that would disallow all stubs without proven independent notability, ipso facto, regardless of how useful they might be as a means of categorizing verifiable information, over which there is no controversy in itself. I.e., the information, in this case, about the more than one hundred national affiliated societies, could be in this article or in a List article, or it could be in linked stubs, the same information. --Abd (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:ORG actually requires (and has for a long time) evidence that someone outside the organization has noticed it. ORG does not support zero-source claims of notability.
The misrepresentations of CLUB (not by Abd) in some of these AfDs have been astonishing, including, for example, claims that meeting half of a two-part criteria is the same as meeting the whole requirement. Editors are encouraged not to automatically believe everything they hear about the contents of this guideline; it has apparently changed quite a lot compared to several years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines improve and guidelines decay, sometimes, and some editors push for changes, long-term, and manage to sneak some in that seem reasonable, until applied to specific situations that were behind ambiguities in the first place. To the issues here: nobody is proposing that any article be permitted on a "zero-source" claim of notability. Rather, a very narrow claim is being made, that sufficient notability for a separate article (a "stub") is established under certain conditions, which, themselves, do not establish that the article is legitimate, there are additional conditions proposed for that.
  1. There is a notable international association with an article.
  2. It has member national societies.
  3. The international association publishes information about its member societies, such that information about them may appear in its article or in a "List" article. (I.e., in this case, it would be List of member societies of the International Amateur Radio Union.) (See WP:SELFPUB, this is an example of an allowed use of self-published material).
The additional conditions would be:
  1. There are too many member societies for inclusion of specific information about each to be practical in the international article.
  2. The extent of the additional information to be presented for each society would be impractical to present and maintain in a list article.
  3. The above conditions are confirmed by editorial consensus at the international article.
And then there would be a desirable characteristic:
  1. The stubs are created uniformly, following a consistent format that then allows additional material to be added if found. Information from the national society web site may be used if it would be allowable in an international article -- if not for the sheer number of the member societies.
Notice that:
  1. This is approximately the status quo with IARU member societies; what was missing was an explicit decision and broadly supported consensus to allow all member societies their own page, with no need to defend each one against AfD based on apparently difficult searches directly attempting to establish the individual notability of each national member society, though such sources as newspapers or other reliable sources. In the case of many IARU member societies, it is quite clear that such sources must exist, but, for lapse of time and web inaccessibility, they are difficult to find. Considering that these two wings (national scope and verification of notability through the international organization) are adequate for a stub would mean that there would be no need for desperate searches for sources while under an AfD gun, with, then, more argument about whether a source is adequate or not. National scope and independently verifiable international recognition should be adequate.
  2. Contrary to what has been implied in some of the arguments, recognition of the national society by the international organization is "independent" notice. It is not "self-published," i.e., this is not establishing the notability of an organization (the member society) by means of what it has published about itself. Rather, the international society is an independent publisher for this purpose.
  3. The decision of whether or not to actually allow the stubs for IARU member societies should take place here. Apparently, in response to a previous AfD, for List of amateur radio organizations, it was an operating consensus to create the stubs. As noted consensus can change, but it's not necessarily wise to change a consensus on purely theoretical grounds that then requires an unspecified group of editors to do a lot of work to fix the situation to match this new "consensus" that didn't include them! Clearly, the community of those concerned with these articles prefers the stubs to remain, so the question is whether or not the larger community will permit that. I suspect that it will, assuming that the issues are explained clearly enough. No harm has been alleged. --Abd (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, your final #2 is purely your opinion, and it's an opinion that has been rejected (so far) by everyone that's addressed it on the other pages. Your proposal in general is failing to win any support at WT:ORG or elsewhere -- and I say this while hoping that the AfD outcomes WP:PRESERVE all the information in these articles, regardless of whether they are WP:MERGEd or not.
Could we please try to have fewer conversations scattered about? Responding on every possible page, especially under-watched pages like this, really seems like a waste of your limited time and energy, and it might make someone think you were forum-shopping. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is where I believe the decision on these stubs should ultimately be made, with RfC if necessary to gain wider participation. I did not file the AfDs and I asked the nominator to ask for speedy close without prejudice. You are correct that most comment has apparently been contradictory to my position, but this is a case where people who actually edit the articles seem to have a different view than those who focus on guideline pages and run deletion process. The jury isn't in yet, WhatamIdoing. As to independent notice, I fail to see how recognition by vote of an international organization that the subject national society does not belong to yet isn't independent notice, and it appears that others feel the same. They just haven't commented yet on WP:RSN or WP:CLUB.
I see few fundamental policy issues here, beyond a general attitude, possibly, leaning toward fixed exclusionary rules (which is probably contrary to policy). There is just a matter of clarifying guidelines and their application, then making editorial decisions with consensus. I'm trying to centralize, not spread out, but because there are varying issues (i.e., RS issues and notability issues), there are discussions on a guideline page and the RS Noticeboard. And then there is the pile of AfDs, which I'd greatly prefer to see coalesced to one, but the nominator was not responsive to that suggestion. Perhaps that will change. The solution I'm suggesting, if considered acceptable, would not only reduce present disruption and cumbersome process, but would prevent it for the future. A premature decision, which it seems you might support, will result in long-term dispute and extra editorial work. So please understand the goal, which is, in fact, consensus.
There will still be plenty of non-notable individual radio club articles for editors to clean up. My attention was attracted by the efforts to delete national radio society articles, societies recognized as such by the very notable and recognized (by government agencies) IARU. I've started, as well, suggesting cleanup at List of amateur radio organizations, which is very spotty, and I'm surprised that the AfD attempts began with national organizations, IARU members, attempting to pick them off one at a time. I'm pretty sure what the ultimate status of those national society articles will be, they will be kept, or, if deleted, restored, so all the work nominating, defending the article, and defending the nomination, and arguing about sources, will be wasted, contributing very little to the project. Meanwhile, see below, after my next edit. --Abd (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem stems from a paradox of Necessary and sufficient conditions that has befallen the original Amateur radio Article and the spunout List of amateur radio organizations. I refer you back to the original AFD for affermational consensus that "The List" is appropriate for the Wiki. A useful application of WP:IAR (a policy I might point out) should have been applied somewhere during The second AFD, but instead, we must follow form. I should have pointed out WP:WIARM then, as many Editors, then and now, can benefit from reading it. Now, to follow form, are we to revert what was done then, under consensus? Are we to allow the List to be a Linkfarm, or are we to allow each their own sparsely Cited Stub? I saw this coming a mile away. :/ There is little likelihood that there is going to be consensus in any case, in any possible outcome. The only Guideline anyone really has to go by for stubs, is the woefully lacking WP:IDEALSTUB. All that says is "... a critical step: add sources ... ". Its unfortunate that it mentions nothing about AFD mandated creation of stubs that, by process, do not have a Cite. Although I personally think all these stubs are a waste of space, AFD consensus is, currently, that they are better than a linkfarm. I also feel that Sources _are_ out there. The wiki has the time to wait to discover them, be they online or offline. If I had my choise, I would have allowed the List to be one of the few permitted linkfarms. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my opinion was asked. I will confess to knowing almost nothing about amateur radio, and nothing at all about amateur radio clubs, but the general rule is that national organizations in any field and for any country are notable , but nothing under that unless them is some special circumstance like very good sources for notability In my opinion., there are sometimes countries where the national association for a sport of hobby or whatever is so small, that they might possibly be an exception, but it's simpler to permit them all. . It's established practice that there is nothing wrong with a stub article, either. If all that can be said is very little, we say it. Most encyclopedias have had very small articles, amounting just to listings or definitions. Diderot's Encyclopedie did, and most Brittanicas. We have real problems in that most of our articles on anything are inadequately sourced, or not up to date , or both, so why should we bother about trying to eliminate 100 stubs or thereabouts. If only marginal notability were the worst difficulty we face! Live and let live is the only practical way of coping with a very large scale voluntary organization DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the handling of member society information

[edit]

Currently, member society information is handled in three ways.

  1. There is a list of members here, with wikilinks to articles. For some members, there is no article.
  2. There is a List of amateur radio organizations which duplicates the list here, plus there are additional organizations listed, a scattering, with no consistency as to what is listed and what is not. Very notable individual organizations are not listed, and probably not notable clubs are listed.
  3. There are individual articles or stubs on member societies.

If there is consensus here, among those concerned, and as long as this is consistent with policy and general community consensus on what is allowable for articles and article text, it will generally prevail, if skilfully advocated. As a general principle, editorial consensus trumps theoretical statements of guidelines at guideline pages. It does not trump fundamental policy, such as WP:V.

So let's work on determining what we, all editors concerned with radio amateur articles, want to see in the encyclopedia. I'm going to solicit participation in this at WP:WikiProject Amateur Radio, and this will take time. The editors who know the most about this subject are not those who check Wikipedia every day. You can see some of the issues and proposals above, but what will ultimately satisfy everyone would be the discovery and citation of sources other than the IARU and individual national society web sites. An obvious one is back issues of QST. There is support for accepting this as reliable source for this kind of information. Some radio amateurs may have back issues of the magazine, before what is available on-line to ARRL members. ARRL members may assist with finding references to IARU recognition of more recent national societies. And some clubs may have back issues going all the way back to the early days. --Abd (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proceeding to deal with deletion issues on national member societies.

[edit]

One article earlier closed with a Delete close, but was reopened on request by the admin who closed, who relisted it to gain more comment. Another article just closed delete, whereas all seven other closes so far, have been Keep. There was no substantial difference between the situation with the Delete close and the two other Keep closes by the same admin, so it's a bit mysterious.

Still, rather than questioning this Delete at this point, I prefer to see what happens with the rest of the AfDs first. Meanwhile, I've asked for assistance at WP:WikiProject Amateur Radio in finding sources independent of that IARU for these national societies, even though I believe that IARU recognition is sufficient. This comment is intended to lay out, roughly, my plan.

After all the AfDs have closed, I and other editors can request that any close be changed. There would be a very substantial basis for this request in the case of the single Delete close so far, but it will help if additional sources have been found by that time. The basic principle is to handle a situation with minimum disruption, and the only reason I've been to a noticeboard so far with this was to attempt to gain advice on the issue of using the IARU as an "independent source," which might have shortened the process.

If we do not find what we consider a satisfactory response from this administrator, then we can go to WP:DRV and request review. However, many or most administrators will reconsider fairly upon request, so it's better to ask first. Nicely.

We may also request userification of any deleted article, and it will normally be granted. I would permit any of these articles to be moved to my user space. Categories would be disabled, but, otherwise, anyone could work on the articles to improve them pending a reconsideration, perhaps based on improved sourcing.

I also intend to improve the list of member societies here so that it contains some basic information about each member society, instead of relying entirely on the article links. A founding date would be of interest, for example, as well as a link to the official society web site. The deleted article was about a member society that two years ago celebrated its 80th anniversary.[1] --Abd (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regions

[edit]

(On lighter topic...) The page says that IARU regions "correspond with" the ITU regions. I believe the regions are geographically identical with the corresponding ITU regions. The exact definition of regions is available on the IARU web site, but is hard to find on the ITU site. Does anyone know the history? I presume that IARU chose to use the ITU definitions, but it is odd that their documentation is not written that way. In the amateur radio context, it is not always clear when you should speak of IARU regions or ITU regions. It might be worth a note here.--Albany45 (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on International Amateur Radio Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on International Amateur Radio Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union&oldid=1195561902"