Jump to content

Talk:Amateur radio operator

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

HAM

[edit]

Could we add the story behind "HAM"... if I remember correctly, it's the initials of three people who operated a station, and who campaigned the US Congress to avoid radio-amateurs once again being showed-out of the bands they'd been able to prove could be used for communication. koppe 15:40 12 March 2007 (CET)

There's already an entire article about it (see: Etymology of ham radio), and it's linked to in this article's introduction.--Kharker 15:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an invented story. It didn't happen that way. Michael (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Banned countries

[edit]

I would like to update the list of countries that do not allow citizens to hold amateur radio licenses but thought it best to discuss first.

The government of Iraq has banned the use of amateur radio see below link http://www.showmeblog.com/ham/2007/03/amateur_radio_n.html

Saudi Arabia only allows members of the royal family (not citizens hold an amateur radio license see below link. http://members.aol.com/k3uoc/saudi.htm

cheers.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.172.130.146 (talk • contribs).

The information on Saudi Arabia is outdated. There are several local and foreign licenses now.


Three photos?

[edit]

Seems a bit crowded. - LuckyLouie 16:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see about uncrowding things a bit. It's unnecessary to stack them atop each other. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
checkY The only way I could manage to keep the images alongside the table was to arrange them in a table. It isn't glamourous, but it seems to work. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photos at the bottom of the article are OK, but the picture of the "Chilean amateur radio operator" is not what the caption says. The original source describes him as a "radio afficionado", which he may well be, but ALL of the gear shown in the photo is for Citizens' Band radio, which is NOT amateur radio. It would be a safe bet that the fellow in the photo is likewise not an amateur radio operator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.205.190 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given this, I've reverted the image changes. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, radio aficionado is translated as something like an amateur radio operator, a person who likes using radios, but not on Citizen's band. Reverting. --MisterWiki talk contribs 00:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion below. The individual named in the photo cannot be verified in international amateur callsign records as a licensed amateur radio operator. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content

[edit]

Strikes me as quite kooky that half this article is about age and gender. How about less on that, and more on the activity, technology, and its history?Dxco (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, throw in the opener of the section, and full seventyfive percent of this article isnt about HAM, but about HAM demographics.Dxco (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an article about amateur radio. (EhJJ) 13:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could see renaming the article to Amateur radio demographics. It would fit the content better and matches up better with the other child articles under Amateur radio. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly could do a rename, but what about the nearly 150 articles that link here? (EhJJ) 14:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easiest would be to just repoint all the links to Amateur radio using AutoWikiBrowser. If some of them are related specifically to demographics, then they can be pointed back at this article. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A further thought. If this article is renamed, and then the left over redirect is repointed at Amateur radio, there is no need to do anything with the inbound links, except for one or two which are already redirects. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, so there is an Amateur Radio article. I think what might be a contributing problem is which of the two articles are used in links. Perhaps a quick review of the highest profile articles/links might be in order. What I found was that when I got to this article, I thought that *it* was the main article on HAM.Dxco (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article could also be a dumping ground for all the "famous amateur radio operators" cruft that is collecting at the bottom of the main article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. The main Amateur radio topics is big enough to have child articles, and demographics is a good candidate for one. There may be some bits and pieces in the other child articles (Amateur radio history, Amateur radio license, and Amateur radio frequency allocations) worth moving into this article as well. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article, and a couple of other child articles of the main amateur radio article. The amateur radio license article, for example, is a great place to put content related to the history and variety of license plans, the Morse code requirement history, etc. in a level of detail that would not be suitable for the main amateur radio article, but that someone might want to be able to look up in an encyclopedia nonetheless. The amateur radio station article is a great place to document all the different kinds of stations (mobile, satellite, portable, fixed) in a level of detail that would overwhelm the main amateur radio article. The main point for an amateur radio operator article was to spin-out in more detail information about amateur radio demographics. It's worth noting in the main amateur radio article that most amateur radio operators world wide are located in North America, northeast and southeast Asia, and Europe, but the main article probably does not need a table of amateur radio operators licensed by country, or information about the YL, XYL, and OM abbreviations used in telegraphy, etc. If there is real confusion about the amateur radio v. amateur radio operator articles, there are two things that can be done: we can change the name of the article to Demographics of amateur radio and keep the focus of the article there, or we can expand the article to include additional sections (perhaps a "notable amateur radio operators" section) and improve the intro section to make it clear that there is a main article on amateur radio. I am not particular about either solution.--Kharker (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer & Elmering?

[edit]

Any thoughts on adding a reference or section regarding the term Elmer and Elmering new operators? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 17:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is covered here, and probably should be specified as a US-centric term. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looks good. Agree on the US-specific suggestion. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 19:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

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)[reply]

Update: I was unable to verify the subject of the photos as a licensed amateur. Therefore I removed them per WP:VER. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems Mario Grez is a CB enthusiast with a flair for self publicity. Funny prank, but enough is enough. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not selfpublicity, but I just added that pic because of a VARIETY thing. --MisterWiki talk contribs 22:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not the best description, but you are continuously going against the consensus of other editors by adding these photos. Please do not continue. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If vandalism by User:Diego Grez persists, I recommend taking it to WP:ANI. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amateur radio operator. 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) 09:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amateur_radio_operator&oldid=1195561960"