Talk:Amateur radio/Archive 1

message: Most of the discussion that purely involved movies, etc, was moved to Talk:Amateur radio in popular culture
:Where can we find Amateur Radio in popular culture today? Well we all know ad nauseum that we can find it in TV and movies. We can also find it in Music. Such as RUSH's song YYZ and a Group called "The Ham Band". 
:What might be more interesting is something about how and why these little bits of ham radio end up in our popular culture. Minor references are all around us if we happen to see or hear them.  I have seen episodes of Jeopardy where i could faintly hear morse code in the background sound track. 
:When on the 2005 QCWA convention I listend to Chip, K7JA discuss how he ended up on the Tonight show sending morse code against some text messengers - In this case the interesting point here is that many of the staff at the Tonight Show are hams.
:What about some of the experts brought into your local news broadcasts? Many times there is something related to Amateur Radio and you will find HAMs on TV or (BC) Radio talking about something. 
:Other hobbies too... Remote Control planes, cars, boats etc. seem to be very popular and a place where people are exposed to Amateur Radio. Same thing for model rocketry, SWL and Weather aficionados. Computer Networking is an other place you see regular people being exposed to amateur radio.
:Where have you found Amateur Radio?
:Anonym1ty 22:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I do believe Amateur Radio is essentially a grouping of 40,000 different hobbies with a common thread. I think that because of the scope of ham radio, a larger article is warranted. That being said, some of the aspects of Amateur radio in this article, should be farmed out to articles in their own right. We can then keep to an overview of Amateur Radio in this article and include the appropriate links. I will take a look at the new article...Anonym1ty 14:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All true.  I've already tripped across some other articles (via :Category:Amateur radio and want to make sure they are properly represented here.  I think that's the right track - 30,000-foot (about 9144 m) view here, separate articles for the details.  Let us know when you're done!!  :-)  --N5UWY/9 - plaws 00:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't know if I can tell you when *I* will be done. This will be a collaborative effort of many of us to complete successfully I think. We'll all just have to take little bites.. report here on which section went where... then we can check up on the work and keep each other honest :) I have actually made pages on my clubs that were once listed here... But i haven't included a link in this section as it is not appropriate, but should we start a club page, then I will put it there.  But I think we are getting a good working outline of how we want to present this stuff, I wouldn't mind hearing from any others, if someone has a good idea let us know so we can all try to work towards the same end! As for the Amateur radio in popular culture I am still trying to formulate the best way to put in my tid-bits. Anonym1ty 19:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amateur Radio in Popular Culture 

message: I see that the International Operation has been greatly expanded.      To me, it's far beyond what an encyclopedia ought to be and more of, well, a rule book extract.  No matter.  It's time (IMHO) to move this into it's own file as had been done with the band plans, pop culture references, etc.  Any suggestion for an article name?  --N5UWY/9 - plaws 21:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I didn't even notice this in the Talk page before I just moved it. I had been thinking of doing it since October. It is now in Amateur radio international operation  -- Anonym1ty 19:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fabulous!  A few more radical wordectomies and we'll start to get this thing in shape.  Thanks.  --N5UWY/9 - plaws 19:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably do this with just about everything in the article. Once we whack it all up into little pieces, then we just have to make sure it flows well when reading what's left over in the main article. I was thinking about an article on Amateur radio licensing or something to cover the topics of Amateur radio requirements, responsibilities and how to become a ham. I'm kind of thinking it over because I suspect we could use 3 sections of the main article to make one new article. -- Anonym1ty 20:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Operation 

message: I've been working on the Amateur Radio Direction Finding article, and would really appreciate peer review and feedback from others with amateur radio expertise. --Kharker 00:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does everything an encyclopedia is supposed to, IMHO.  I'd never heard of ROCA or Fox Oring before.  I look forward to your editorial help on Amateur radio --N5UWY/9 - plaws 20:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Amateur Radio Direction Finding]] 

message: I just zapped the whole list of modulation modes.  None of those were particularly special, and the most frequently used modulations were not even listed.  I made sure that all of them are now in :Category:Radio modulation modes, which is already a subcat of :Category:Amateur radio. --ssd 15:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Radio modulation modes]] 

message: Hello to all.
I today have added a section under "What can you do" entitled Vintage Radio.
Included are two famous hams who directly contribute to the body of the text by virtue of their participation in this facet of the hobby. I envision a reader seeing the "celebrity" nature and imagining they could actually talk with these people, hence their inclusion. 
I also have uploaded an image of an AM Special Event Station, but am not yet sure I've formatted the page version (at 300px) and the thumbnail that is supposed to get you to the fullsizer. Editing help appreciated if that didn't turn out.
If there is a revision that cuts down the size of this overall entry (as discussed here), I would be glad to re-write an introductory paragraph and link it to a more comprehensive version elsewhere. Drop me a line or post it.
Tnx es 73 --Paul/WA3VJB 27 Dec 2005
::Vintage Radio should be made into an article of it's own. Right now it's just more of a smattering of too much detail on a very specific aspect of Amateur radio. It really shouldn't be so fully detailed as it is within the main Amateur radio article. However, it does have some good information, and could verywell be a good start to a new article. Anonym1ty 23:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section: Vintage Radio 

message: The article would read better if we picked a term and stuck to it.  Example:  ham radio or amateur radio?  Given the articles title, I'd say the latter should be used.  Example:  "amateur radio operator", "ham radio operator", "amateur", "ham", or "radio amateur".  I believe the last is most common outside the USA.  So?  What's the concensus? -- N5UWY/9 - plaws 21:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent terminology 

message: This is a well written article, however, I do have one criticism.  The introduction should be shortened.  Generally the introduction/lead should give succint overview of the topic which is being discussed in the article.  Specifics are usually relegated to the remainder of the article.  However, the lead section is currently about seven paragraphs, while the Manual of Style recommends having three or fewer paragraphs.  [Guide to writing better articles - lead section]
Just a thought.  -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See what you think now.  I moved the stuff that was clearly license related to the appropriate section and redid some other stuff.  I'll work on Amateur_radio#Exams.2C_licences_and_privileges when I get some time.  I've been trying to get this article down to about 32k, but that's hard.  :-)  --N5UWY/9 - plaws 02:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Now we need to flesh out the new article.  Ideally, it would look at ITU allocations by region, then representative national allocations, and finally national society bandplans.  --N5UWY/9 - plaws 21:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Allocations and band plans

message: I would like to suggest mentioning that there exists several amateur radio satellites and that the ISS and Space Shuttle carry amateur radio tranceivers aboard.
146.6.205.149 21:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ham Radio in space 

message: In the US, FCC part 97 is the primary source for rules and regulations.
ARRL has a nice html formated version here.  While this primarily pertains to the US and region 2, it does include the authorized frequency bands for all three regions.
I think this document deserves a mention somewhere prominent in this article.  I would have linked it in the governance section, but I didn't see an appropriate place.  It would be nice if similar documents for other regions could be found and listed. --ssd 13:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FCC part 97 

message: "Most of the modes noted above [FM, SSB, CW, RTTY] rely on the simplex communication mode, that is direct, radio-to-radio communication."
This is not strictly true. The modes are direct and half-duplex. The term "simplex" Simplex_communication is often misused in the radio amateur community. I have reworded this as:
"The modes noted above are typically used in direct, radio-to-radio communication."
Sound reasonable?
Andrewjuren 22:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is written for everyone to become familiar with Amateur radio. Not for Amateur radio operators. It is important to make sure the article is written in such away anyone can understand the concepts included, not just someone who is familiar with the subject matter. GOOD JOB. keep it up. We need to keep revising this article until it makes sense to the reader who may not be familiar with ham radio. Anonym1ty 23:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  simplex or half-duplex? 

message: I thought that Morse code was required to work frequencies below 50 MHz, but now I see references to bands below 30 MHz.  I was looking through part 97 rules and couldn't find a definitive stament.  Is there a difference between ITU and US rules on this?  Kd4ttc 18:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the 30MHz limit wasn't in American law, but international agreement. This had to do with treaties and the ITU, not the FCC. The limit was 30 MHz. The FCC never needed to codify it, rather the FCC license classes were made to comply with the international agreements (The creation of the Tech No-Code License). In the US it doesn't matter if it's below 50 or 30 MHz as there are no ham bands in that range. Now that limit does not apply due to any international agreements, effectively it exists in the United States as all ham licenses that allow for operation under 30 MHz currently require morse proficiency. Anonym1ty 17:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'm making a minor edit re Morse and such.  Steve Kd4ttc 18:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are we still introducing US-centric content into this article?  If this level of detail needs to exist in the encyclopedia at all, it more properly belongs in an article about the amateur radio license --Kharker 23:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this info is appropriate in this article. It's good info, yes... but I think it's really beyond the scope of this article. We have to remember that too much information is a bad thing in one dose. As an encyclopedia, the idea is to give someone the general idea in any particular article, not for any  one article to be a single authorataive source on the minutiae ad nauseum. This type of information may be appropriate in a different article, but not this one. This is a general article on Amateur radio. There is an article already on Amateur_radio_licensing_in_the_United_States which would be a far better place for this type of information. Anonym1ty 23:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There was a comment in the article already about morse code and operating below 30 MHz.  The article talked about the ITU decision to drop the Morse requirement.  I added that the US is in the middle of deciding.  My comment was about the US status.  I like the idea of having international flavor (especially since I am looking forward to getting on HF when the US goes no-code).  When I was reading this article it is about amateur radio, but I don't get a sense that it speaks to an individual about how to become a ham.  Do we need a series of articles about getting a ham license with details for each country? Steve Kd4ttc 02:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Excuse what is going to be some thrashing about by myself while I get the hang of the organizational issues on amateur radio on Wikipedia.  I just looked at the US licensing article.  It will be interesting to see how we can get useful info on why one should want to be a ham and to give some guicance about where to go to do it, and have an encyclopedia article about the general issues.  Actually, an interesting set of requirements. Kd4ttc 02:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There was some discussion on this matter several weeks ago, and I believe that the editors agreed that the article read far to much like an advertisment. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. We must remember that, unlike so many website about amateur radio, this is an encyclopedic article, not an ad. Andrewjuren 19:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  30 MHz or 50 MHz for Morse code requirement question 

message: A lot of the content here is based on information that can be found in the books listed in the Publications section. Ok, I've looked at other articles... I've read the style guides about citations in Wikipedia, and now I wish I hadn't. If I didn't I would have just done it rather than second guessing what might be the best way to do it. Apparently there is no one agreed on way of doing it for wikipedia. And it depends on a number of things relating to the style of the type of article and the type of source you are citing. I don't have a clue which way is the most appropriate way to do it in this article. What is the best way to cite the sources for this article? Anonym1ty 22:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest using the same citation system used by the Amateur Radio Direction Finding and Contesting articles, which both use m:Cite/Cite.php markup.  This seems to be the format that is used in most of the articles that have been accepted recently as Wikipedia Featured Articles.--Kharker 19:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do the Amateur radio demographics come from? I have seen the US number and I think It comes from the FCC, I have also seen the Japanese number before, but I have no Idea where the rest of those numbers came from. Looking on the internet for some clue, the only thing I find are sites that are quoting this article. Where did we get those numbers? I believe that I have see at least the US and Japanese numbers are in the "Now You're Talking" book and maybe also the others. If that's true then I don't think it's as of 2004 either. But I am not sure and I can't find my copy right now. I know for certain the 3 million world wide number is in the "Ham Radio for Dummies" book, but I'm not sure if is echoed anywhere else as well. Anonym1ty 21:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only stats I've seen:  http://www.iaru.org/statsum00.html --N5UWY/9 - plaws 15:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: How 'bout a section on Famous Hams, like Barry Goldwater, King Hussein, and Robert Swirsky?
*Could be interesting, but how many thousands of them are there?  I bet half of the old school news anchors and DJ's are hams.  A surprising number of movie stars are hams.  A list could be very large. It might be more interesting to limit it to those famous hams (like Walter Cronkite and King Hussein) who contributed significantly to the hobby. --ssd 06:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is his call sign?  What has he contributed to the hobby?  Without an answer to the first, it is barely worth mentioning on the talk page.  Without the second answer, it isn't worth mentioning in the article. --ssd 01:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know his call sign but I knew some hams who used to chat to him on a regular basis, and his QTH was somewhere in London during the early 1990s. I think that it might be possible to find out who he is with the right web search.Cadmium 09:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think famous hams are important, but your question "How does that add value to the article?" or more properly, "How does that add value to THIS article?" is a very good one. The answer simply is that is doesn't help this article one bit. If someone would like to start an article on famous hams, that would be far more appropriate than cramming all of that content in here. We also need to keep looking at what is already in here that ought to be farmed out to other articles. On the plus side, we have gotten some good articles out of turning sections into full blown articles. It allows us to fully describe things we could never do well enough in a single article.  Anonym1ty 17:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just a List of ... type page?  --N5UWY/9 - plaws 21:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: List of Amateur Radio Operators, with a redirect from List of famous hams? (There's now a :Category:Amateur radio people.) -Will Beback 10:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No, actually, promotional information is explicitly against an official policy of Wikipedia.  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not some sort of online promotional brochure pushing a particular point of view or agenda.--Kharker 18:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have many lists of people, by ethnicity, occupation, hobby, crime, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion, manner of death, etc. Those lists are not necessarily promoting anything in  particular. The category automatically creates a listing, but an article-list has the advantages of being able to annotate entries and being able include people who don't have an article yet. Cheers, -Will Beback 19:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A famous hams list in this article is an EXTREMELY BAD IDEA. I truely understand the point of view you are coming from and yes it does have its merits, however the list would be a wild unruly monster of a mess to keep up. It would be far better to create a wikipedia article on each individual person and then add them to a category. Or Maybe... and I think it's a stretch, put it in the Amateur radio in popular culture article. Anonym1ty 22:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Hams