Category talk:Wikipedian amateur radio operators

message: I'm not sure what is meant by mix-up, please explain why this is not a sub-category of amateur radio. --Dual Freq 12:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the one who called it a mix-up, but I believe they meant that the categorizing of Wikipedians is not usually placed in the same category trees as main articles. CG janitor 13:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I am the one responsible for putting in the category.  I am leaving it there as a marketing tool to get other hams to know about it.  The category system is nice, but you have to know which categories are out there.  There is a discussion at Talk:Amateur radio about how to approach the problem.  Eventually the category will be removed from Amateur radio.  Kd4ttc 18:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Categorization of Wikipedians, something that not even all Wikipedians themselves care about, definitely does not belong in the same category trees as encyclopedic articles.--Kharker 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub-category of Amateur radio

message: Okay, so I got invited here. I note that Template:User amateur radio is what got me involved in this -- whatever decision we make, that template should be updated.
I suggest we consolidate to two categories:
* :Category:Amateur radio contains encyclopedic articles about people, things, events, etc. regarding Amateur Radio. I do not believe we need a separate subcategory for people only, as they are perfectly distinguishable in the list.
* :Category:Wikipedian Amateur Radio Operators (case possibly different) for licensed (or previously licensed) hams. This sounds exclusive, but the fact is that the community itself draws a strong line between those that have and those that do not have their license. People are strongly encouraged in every part of Amateur Radio to get themselves licensed. A passing interest is nice, but not enough to be generally considered "included" by the community. I think we should acknowledge that.
-- Taral 20:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested split 

message: Essentially, my sentiments can be summarized as follows: 
*Wikipedia is not an amateur radio club! It is important that we recognize that any grouping of radio operators through Wikipedia should be for the sole purpose of facilitating the improvement of articles (especially coordinating articles so that information is consistant and accessible). What we're looking for are editors and admins (if we need the help of an admin, good to have one that's licensed and can make sense of the disagreement / vandalism.)
*Notable individuals involved in the hobby may be listed seperately. I think the category amateur radio people has he right spirit but the wrong title!
Andrewjuren 21:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a club 

message: Okay, so it looks like we've had quite a bit of discussion and it's time to make some decisions (please include your justification, if you feel inclined): Andrewjuren
----
===Change current "Amateur Radio Operators" to:===
====No change====
====Wikipedians interested in amateur radio====
#IANAH (I Am Not An Ham) but this seems to me to be the closest option to convention on categorizing WP users, such as e.g. :Category:Wikipedians in Washington. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Andrewjuren 04:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. --Anonym1ty 18:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've done the listings here for both the rename and delete.  The community at large will have to comment but I doubt there will be a problem. --StuffOfInterest 15:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

message: ====No change====
====Wikipedians interested in amateur radio====
#IANAH (I Am Not An Ham) but this seems to me to be the closest option to convention on categorizing WP users, such as e.g. :Category:Wikipedians in Washington. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Andrewjuren 04:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. --Anonym1ty 18:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've done the listings here for both the rename and delete.  The community at large will have to comment but I doubt there will be a problem. --StuffOfInterest 15:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

message: #IANAH (I Am Not An Ham) but this seems to me to be the closest option to convention on categorizing WP users, such as e.g. :Category:Wikipedians in Washington. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Wikipedians interested in amateur radio''

message: #I think this better captures that the editors in this category are "experts" in this field, rather than just people who are "interested". Would you like someone who is just "interested" in a topic to be a major editor of it?  Andrewjuren 22:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Wikipedian amateur radio operators''

message: Add other possibilites here...
Can we agree that consensus has been reached on Wikipedian amateur radio operators as the new target of this category.  If so I would like to go ahead with renaming and possibly relocating it as a sub-category to Wikipedians by skill.  Being that Amateur Radio Wikipedians is empty, we can do a CfD on it to get rid of the redundancy.  Any seconds on this? --StuffOfInterest 18:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Andrewjuren 04:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. --Anonym1ty 18:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've done the listings here for both the rename and delete.  The community at large will have to comment but I doubt there will be a problem. --StuffOfInterest 15:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

message: ====No change====
#Amateur radio people sounds the most Wikipedia like for an article category grouping at this time.  Note that this is only for articles and not for grouping editors. --StuffOfInterest 18:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Change current "Amateur Radio People" to:'''

message: #Amateur radio people sounds the most Wikipedia like for an article category grouping at this time.  Note that this is only for articles and not for grouping editors. --StuffOfInterest 18:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''No change''

message: #So far, I'd say this is my first choice, unless people have a better idea. In which case, the current category should be a subcat of "Category:Amateur radio" rather than the current "Category:Wikipedians by stuff" Andrewjuren 22:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Amateur Radio Operators''

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

message: I did the following google search to find some more Hams on Wikipedia: "my amateur radio call sign site:wikipedia.org/wiki/User" (sans quotes, of course) Kd4ttc 03:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that if you open the search from "amateur radio site:wikipedia.org/wiki/User" the results increase from 25 to 105.  I think you will find that a lot of editors (like myself) don't want to list their call sign on Wikipedia.  If you are an active editor you will attract trolls.  Unfortunately, if one knows what they are doing, a call sign can divulge far too much useful information to these trolls.  Same reason why I don't have my call sign on my license plate.  Regardless of that rant, are you going to drop a note to some of these new finds to see if they would like to chime in on the discussion? --StuffOfInterest 11:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please feel free to use this code fragment on your User page, to mark yourself as an Amateur Radio operator. The logo is that of the International Amateur Radio Union. A list of the possible user tags is at the category "Wikipedians by stuff". See also User:UBX/amateur-radio and User:UBX/amateur radio call (2nd example drawn fromKD4TTC.) Peter Ellis 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it's a good idea to use the IARU logo. Anonym1ty 17:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a big battle regarding fair use and user boxes over the US Democratic Party logo on the  template.  Checking the copyright on the IARU logo, the same issue probably applies here.  Although I like the logo, I think precaution would dictate not using it. --StuffOfInterest 18:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not use the box as I, myself am not a member of the IARU. Anonym1ty 18:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amateur Radio Operators I found 

message: Voting here seems to have died down.  Should this discussion be brought to the attention of folks on Talk:Amateur radio ? Kd4ttc 15:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't hurt.  The wider HAM aware audience involved the better the consensus. --StuffOfInterest 15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alerting other Hams

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