Talk:List of amateur radio organizations

Organization

Under the US, I've added a list of the states so that the clubs can be alphabetically listed under their state. This also eleiminates the need for a lot of repetitive text saying "this is an amateur radio club in transyvlanaia", etc. GCW50 15:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge

After much thought, this is article isn't such a good idea. It's just a list and as such, the wikipedia would be better served by individual articles about clubs all in a category. The list here gets hard to manage instantly upon anyone touches and is ripe for abuse. Merging this article with the category would solve all these problems at once. Anonym1ty 18:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, no it's a brilliant idea (check who created the article). Why? Because it keeps it all out of the main Amateur radio article! Remember what that article looked like a few months back prior to the recent serious cleanup? All kinds of unrelated crap. There is, as noted, an category. Fine for clubs with articles but it doesn't solve the apparent need of everyone who's ever been in a club to add their (external) link to something. This article serves that need without cluttering up something important. Brilliant, IMHO.  :-) --N5UWY/9 - plaws 20:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed Merge Anonym1ty 17:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Make articles for your club!

Rather than fill this page up with a lot of outside links, why not make an article about your Amateur radio club or organization, or expand its existing article? Not only can it still be listed here, but also in Category:Amateur radio organizaion.

See also

notes below for info on using a template. Anonym1ty 17:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

• Oh my, this article needs some cleaning! Andrewjuren 00:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've sorted everything in an (alphabetically ordered) list by country. If there is a large increase of clubs in the US, then that section should perhaps be split by state. Andrewjuren 00:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Articles

Perhaps it would be better to link to wikipedia articles on these clubs rather than outside links. I know that if we did this now, there'd be a lot of redlinks. Anyone else have any thoughs on this? Anonym1ty 15:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It would only be worthwhile if we could write stubs for most clubs. Sounds like a lot of work, but in theory it should be done. Andrewjuren 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well if it should be done... might just as well start it... a little at a time. Well I suppose we can only hope people would read the talk page. How does wikipedia deal with notes only visible in the source but not in the article text... could we ask people to make the stubs as they add entries, or is it really only good form to put it here in the talk page? Anonym1ty 16:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, this list is already in bad form for an article. Ideally, there should be an introductory paragraph. Alternatively, we could change this Article into a Category, which would force editors to create new stubs instead of just external links. Additionally, if we create a template stub, it may be very easy to do this job quickly. I'll get started on the template stub and post a link to it here once I'm done. Andrewjuren 19:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess someone has beat me to the idea. See: Category:Amateur radio organizaion . Nonetheless, the list provides, in my opinion, a significantly more organized approach to accessing information about organizations by geographic location.Andrewjuren 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I've made a stub Template:Amateur radio organization stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which can be used as follows...

1. Search for an article to see if it exists.
2. If not, create a new article with an appropraite name.
3. In the blank article, type {{Amateur radio organization stub|Name of organization|external link}}

That should do it, tada, instant new stub article! Of course, the template could use some work, and that should be done as soon as possible. To see an example of this template in use, see UBC Amateur Radio Society. Andrewjuren 20:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I fixed all of the American clubs now, everyone of them points to an article. They are stubs now, however I did include some info beyond just the template. You should put even the littlest blurb with each of them to avoid having them just wiped out by editors not making sense of what's going on. I request that if you know something about any of the US clubs that you expand that club's article. Also the other club and organizations around the world will need similar attention. Anonym1ty 21:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

ARES and the ARRL

I was wondering, since ARES is part of ARRL, should it really be listed as a separate club? Rjairam 18:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think yes. This is a list of amateur radio organizations, and to my knowledge, ARES and ARRL are not equivalent, so they should be considered seperately. Andrewjuren(talk) 01:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

But ARES is an arm of ARRL, not an entirely separate organization. Sometimes it may act as a separate organization, and membership is not limited to ARRL members, however, it is tightly intertwined within the ARRL structure. In fact, anyone holding office in ARES has to be an ARRL member. Perhaps it would be better if ARES were placed under ARRL as a sub-organization of ARRL? As it is now, no one would know that ARES and ARRL are related, unless they go to the article itself.Ryan 13:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Great Britain - South Lancashire Amateur Radio Club

The link http://www.slarc.org.uk/ goes to somewhere totally unassociated. But I agree, this page is rather a mess. Dsergeant 09:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Time to reformat the list

As per the qualification on the keep decision for the recent AfD vote, I'm starting to convert over the list to an article list (mostly redlinks) with external links as a note afterward. My time is going to be limited for the next couple of weeks so anyone else with time is welcome (make that encouraged) to lend a hand. Feel free to adjust the format if you think you have something better. --StuffOfInterest 02:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation of the qualified keep decision is that the external links (to each clubs website) are only permitted to ensure notability. I think it would be better if the link were shown as a single number, such as [1] rather than with the word "website", as in website. Andrewjuren(talk) 04:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It makes little difference, unless you are a older person, as (generally) radio operators tend to be. I just feel website looks much more esthetically pleasing than leaving it to the default numbering. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-amateur organizations--delete?

Before making these deletions, I wanted to first bring the matter up for discussion.

RACES (under US) is not an amateur radio organization, but rather, a separate US governmental radio service that utilizes amateur radio operators and amateur frequencies during times of disaster. Ditto, MARS, the Military Affiliate Radio System depends upon amateur radio operators but is a separate radio service.

Unless I hear otherwise, I will revisit this page in 7-10 days and remove the two aforementioned entries.

-Ptemples K9HI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptemples (talk • contribs) 21:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and other issues

The tone of the intro is clearly involved and promotional, plus the external links in the article do not follow the external links WP:EL guidelines. Wikipedia is NOT a collection of links nor is it an instrument to promote amateur radio organizations. A major cleanup is in order, but I don't have the expertise to do it.--Boffob (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I have taken the initiative. My work in Wikipedia involves restructuring egregious and unrepresentable articles like this. I have removed the external links tag because we're now OK in that area. I have also removed the {{POV|date=October 2008}} tag. I am guessing that was placed because of the promotional tone? Anyhow, the article is closer to what we're trying to accomplish. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy in this list.

Many organizations listed here are also national organizations listed in the International Amateur Radio Union article. It will be better if the IARU is listed here as an international organization, and that only non-members of the IARU (and of other international or notable umbrella associations) are listed here. The former, possibly, will all be notable enough to have their own articles eventually. There are problems with this list, as it is, for example, a major association like the Radio Club of America, possibly the oldest amateur radio organization in the U.S., and about as old as they exist in the world, isn't listed, but local clubs of no particular notability are, and some of them even have their own articles, with only self-published sourcing. That isn't stable, and it will be better if we retract those articles back to listing here, assuming that even that can be justified. There must be some independent source for it, and self-publication is not adequate, there must be independent recognition. I'm proposing working in this direction, comments? --Abd (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Catalonia

Making header to discuss the splitting of Catalonia from Spain in this article, to keep discussion centralized. I don't think it should be done, they're all listed by country unless I'm mistaken, and it clearly specifies that Catalonia is an autonomous region of Spain, which I believe is the case. Views, especially from the ips that wanted it changed, are welcome :) Notifying the users involved. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Whilst I can imagine this could be controversial, I think that prior discussions - particularly on Talk:Catalonia - have established a consensus that we describe Catalonia a a part of Spain, and not as a country; therefore I agree that a separate listing doesn't seem appropriate. But, of course, I'd be happy to hear the other side of the debate, and we could sort it out here. I encourage all parties to discuss, not edit-war, so we can resolve this amicably.  Chzz  ►  17:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Catalonia is a part of Spain in the same way Scotland is part of the United Kingdom or Texas is part of the United States - that is a fact Period. To try to suggest otherwise is highly POV and simply a lie. I have repeatedly reverted the IP editor. I have furthermore posted a request for assistance on the Help page to get this article semi-protected. I'm sorry but I am wayyyy past AGF with the IP editor. Roger (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The IP has done it again, in spite of all the warnings and invitations to discuss the mater. It's time for AGF to stop and punitive corrective action to begin. Could someone please repair the article again. Roger (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the IP didn't enter into discussion, and has been temporarily blocked [2] - and yes, I removed the change. Chzz  ►  18:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, remove permanently Unió de de Radioaficionats de Catalunya of Wikipedia. We can not accept the manipulation of some people who do not understand that Catalonia is a nation, a country, with more than 1000 years of history within the Spanish state. The name can not be translated, the correct name is only "Unió de Radioaficionats of Catalunya" and has not translated into any language. Please remove the association. You have no right to make against our voluntat. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.220.20 (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have no right to have information added to Wikipedia removed. When you submitted your information, you granted Wikipedia the information transmitted irrevocably: By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. Also, you say it yourself: "within the Spanish state". Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't understand anything. I repeat again: Unió de Radioaficionats de Catalunya is the national association of Catalonia, and Catalonia is a nation. You can not impose anything. You must respect our information. You are not the owner of Unió de Radioaficionats de Catalunya and you can not manipulate this information. It is unfortunate the reactions so negative about our country, Catalonia. It's very sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.220.20 (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• I removed the 'Spanish translation', [3] [4], because I do not think we need it - and no explanation or reference was provided. The name of this organization is what it is; also, this being the English Wikipedia, why would we translate it into Spanish - any more than we might translate any of the other names? If there is information on any dispute regarding the name in reliable sources, then - if anywhere - it belongs on the target article, not here. Of course, I'm happy to discuss this point too - and removed it in accord with WP:BRD.  Chzz  ►  12:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In reply to the IP: Hello Sir, nation and country are two different concept, and nobody here is arguing about whether Catalonia is a nation or not. Just, as at the moment it is an autonomous region of Spain, and the list is by country. There was many cases like this around the world :) Seriously, don't worry, we're not even debating whether Catalonia is a nation, being part of another country hardly is relevant to that, just as being a nation is irrelevant here :) Cheers, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I believe we should only allow entries in the list that already have articles. An exception can be made for national organisations that officially represent a country at the IARU. Roger (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Propose removing "and local" from the list heading

I believe that only organisations that are genuinely significant at a national level should be included here. The "and local" part of the heading is currently simply an invitation for any random 5-member hicksville club to be added. The bar to entry here is set far too low, it allows this article to turn into a cruft collection. Categories take care of the "directory of all ham club articles" role, this article does not need to duplicate that function. Roger (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)