Talk:QSL card

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Amateur radio (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amateur radio, which collaborates on articles related to amateur radio technology, organizations, and activities. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge both articles. I moved the content of Talk:QSL card to this talk page. -- Cyfal (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The article "QSL" was formerly moved to "QSL card" and changed into a disambiguation page, but currently both articles, "QSL" and "QSL card" have a wide overlap. I suggest we merge the text of the current "QSL card" into "QSL" and change "QSL card" in a redirect to "QSL". --Cyfal (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the merge proposal. Please do it. Sv1xv (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I will wait a few days and then tackle it. --Cyfal (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
----
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


I did some text rearrangement, so now there are definite sections about history, amateur radio and commercial broadcasting and no overlaps. A section about utility station QSL cards is still required. Sv1xv (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

QSL cards[edit]

question: does the sending station send the QSL card, the receiving station, or both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabereal (talkcontribs) 03:29, March 29, 2005

Both. --Anthony Ivanoff 15:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Those hams collecting QSLs for an award (such as Worked All States) should send a QSL card and a return envelope (with postage!) to a new contact, and the new contact would reply with their QSL card. I don't QSL 100%, but I reply 100% to those who request a card, whether they include postage or not. It costs me about $0.85 to get a QSL card back ( .01 for my card, .37 for postage each way, and .05 for each envelope) in the US. Johngriswold 17:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
An odd question -- An amateur radio contact (QSO) by definition is bi-directional. In practice, either party may send a card to the other and ask for a return card ("please QSL"). Often one person needs the card more than the other because one is working toward an award or one is a "rare DX" station. If the QSL is from an SWL - a person who is only listening, he/she can send a card to whichever station is heard -- this applies to shortwave broadcast reports as well as amateur radio. NB: It would be good if this article explained the QSL procedures, QSL bureaux, etc. a little more.--Albany45 01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

W8JYZ

Old QSL cards[edit]

For those interested in Old QSL Cards, I have written a Webpage called "QSL Cards from the Past". The legacy of "Old Time" Ham Radio Operators can be found in the QSL cards they left behind. I have a collection of Old (US) Ham Radio QSL Cards dating from the early 1920s that now totals over 20,000 cards and can be viewed at www.w8jyz.com


W8JYZ 00:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

W8JYZ's "QSL Cards from the Past" now totals over 15,000 cards!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.247.136 (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

W8JYZ's "QSL Cards from the Past" (www.oldqslcards.com.)now totals over 40,000 cards and 1500 online scanes of old QSL Cards!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by W8jyz (talkcontribs) 15:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Move to QSL card?[edit]

Since almost the entire article is about the cards rather than the QSL messages, should the article be moved to QSL card? --McGeddon (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Pros:
  • the article is currently mostly about cards
  • and it can't be said much more about the code QSL than in the first paragraph of the current article, thus also in future this article will be mostly about cards
  • in the most foreign language wikipedias, QSL is a redir to QSL card
  • when typing QSL into google or bing, the first sites displayed are about QSL cards and not about the code QSL
Cons:
  • the item "QSL card" is derived from the QSL code, thus it would be more logical to file QSL card under QSL code, than vice versa.
  • someone who is looking for SQL or the quebec sign language would be more surprised when getting redirected to QSL card than to QSL (however, we can add the header "... redirects here. For xxx, see yyy" to the QSL card article.)
Taking all this into account, I agree we you. Let's make QSL a redir to QSL card and fill QSL card with the current text of QSL.
--Cyfal (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree, it makes sense, as QRP goes to the QRP operation article (via disambig). - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
QSL card has its edit history and cannot be moved without an administrator's help. To avoid the long process of a formal move request prescribed by Wikipedia:Requested moves, I moved QSL to QSL cards, and moved QSL card to Qsl card, and then requested to move QSL cards to QSL card at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Now QSL has finally been moved to QSL card. --Neo-Jay (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A very important element.[edit]

Perhaps in the grand scheme of things it might be considered a minutae to overlook it, but in this instance after reading the article all I kept thinking is ... 'ok, so ... WHY?!'

Why the hell would you send someone a card saying "Yo dawg, I herd u like radios."?! Or rather, confirming that you spoke to someone on a radio the other day, or year given the Australian postal system. I mean, how redundant is that concept? Surely there has to be a valid logical and sane reason behind it. This article just doesn't volunteer a reason. Is it a legality? Is it customary for a specific reason that benefits both parties?

It just seems odd and bordering on outright daft! It made my head hurt, that's for sure. So please, PLEASE, someone extrapolate on the why of it all because this article just doesn't really imply why or what purpose it services besides, as I expressed, "Yo dawg," and that's about it. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Dude. I hear you. See if this helps. Regards, LuckyLouie (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)