Talk:Amateur radio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeAmateur radio was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
March 25, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
April 12, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former good article nominee
Stock post message.svg To-do: E·H·W·R
Updated 2007-03-30

  • Sourcing and citations: while many facts quoted in the article may seem self-evident to Wikipedians who hold amateur licenses, they need to have their sources cited in order to meet WP:V. FCC amateur regulations, ARRL publications, etc. are all good resources to obtain such cites from.
  • Future expansion: Need information on digital modes. This would also seem to lead to where the future of the hobby is headed, such as the potential for pmail and an RF amateur packet net.
Priority 1 (top)

New Archive, 2007-2010[edit]

I've archived material from these years in Archive 2. I did NOT add descriptions of it to the "Moved to Talk Archive" section below. Maybe somebody would want to do that. Also, I did NOT archive the "Other Articles (List)" section below. Though it seems to be old, its contents seem to be still useful. Lou Sander (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Talk Archive[edit]

Please be sure to scan the archive before discussing a topic that was already discussed and resolved:

  • Origin of term Ham?
  • Amateur Radio in Popular Culture
  • My Two Cents
  • LowFER
  • Amateur radio clubs
  • What does one do with amateur radio?
  • International Operation
  • Amateur Radio Direction Finding
  • Television interference
  • Radio modulation modes
  • Too US Centric
  • New Section: Vintage Radio
  • General criticisms
  • Consistent terminology
  • Intro
  • Licensing Structures
  • Allocations and band plans
  • Ham Radio in space
  • FCC part 97
  • simplex or half-duplex?
  • What's with the Titanic?
  • 30 MHz or 50 MHz for Morse code requirement question
  • Citations
  • Famous Hams

Other Articles (List)[edit]

Below is a list of other articles that were split from this article or are closely related to this article which may need your help. Please take a look at these articles.

The following are Red links in the Amateur radio article which are links to articles not yet created.

Wikipedia's Category: Amateur radio organizations has a listing of clubs that have their own Wikipedia article, see if your club is listed. If it is, try expanding the aricle! If it isn't try creating the article! Anonym1ty 20:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice there are seperate articles for World administrative radio conference and World Radiocommunication Conference. WARC became WRC in 1992, surely we only need one article? Dsergeant 10:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Moved back to correct section Dsergeant 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The Amateur Net noted above in red is mentioned and has a link to Amateur radio net. Randydid (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Photos, layout[edit]

While I don't mind appropriate photos, the article is getting a bit crowded with them. Is it time for a gallery layout? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There's only four pictures plus the ARRL logo. At this moment, it isn't too crowded, and if it weren't for the "Specialized Interests and modes" box, we'd have even more space. That said, certainly no more are needed. Huntster (t @ c) 22:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd like the photos that are in this article to be representative of the hobby and to be high-quality. To that end, any objection to replacing File:AmateurRadioAntenna.JPG with File:Montreal-tower-top.thumb2.jpg? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The Montreal image is definitely better than the current one, but after looking through the available images on Commons, I see that we badly need better photographs of them. I encourage everyone to take pictures, especially full tower pics. Huntster (t @ c) 07:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, we do need better photos. I found some candidates on flickr with appropriate licensing. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Thoughts? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the "Montreal" image is best of those nominated so far. It shows greater detail of both a yagi and wire type antennas. It's important to be representative of ham installations. Most hams don't have towers and beams (?true?), but wire antennas for HF. So wire antennas should be included. I will overlook the CA-specific content :-) --Albany45 (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Some good "free" ham photos are at Wikimedia Commons. --Albany45 (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I just spent some time recategorizing the relevant photos on commons. See here: commons:Category:Amateur radio antennas. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
IMO, the "wire type antennas" in the Montreal photo are indistinguishable from guy wires. A clean and classic HF beam array would be good, like File:Hami2.jpg, File:Antenna kotakinabalu.jpg, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the wire antennas can be differentiated in that they have a feed line. Perhaps that is more obvious at thumbnail sizes in the cropped version I just made (at right). While File:Hami2.jpg is incredibly impressive, I'm not sure it is representative of the hobby. I could go for File:Antenna kotakinabalu.jpg if appropriately cropped, but I still might prefer [6] since it shows the whole mast. Any other candidates? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it important to depict a variety of antennas from simple to elaborate. I'd suggest an article on amateur radio antennas.--agr (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Voting for an antenna photo[edit]

Please sign your username by adding #~~~~ on a new line under the photo that you prefer, or list another photo for consideration. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  1. ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  2. Albany45 (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. agr (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC) including a private house is important.

Voting close[edit]

It looks like the Montreal crop is preferred 2-1. I will add it. To agr: I think a good crop of that photo would be usable in this or other articles as well. Please consider uploading it to commons. Thanks, all. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"Amateur radio" section of Radio[edit]

Anyone care to pitch in on the discussion at Talk:Radio#Revisions_to_Amateur_Radio_section? A user has proposed the paragraph needs to focus on certain specific ideas. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


Did you know that the ham radio was used in WWII — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarbyX.R. (talkcontribs) 21:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I believe by presidential order, ham radio was shut down during WWII, although many ham operators were used in the war effort. This is why RACES exits. --ssd (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll try to help this article[edit]

Hi everyone. I am an amateur radio enthusiast and think I'll spend some time on this article. I read about this 'good article' status and I'll see if I can do that. Ham Radio Microphone (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking about the sections for this article. I think the article is incomplete without an 'equipment' section. I think there might be some overlap with the Modes of communication section but not that much. I'll try to find pictures of the various pieces of equipment and add it all in. Ham Radio Microphone (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can improve the article, please have at it! Just remember everything needs to have a reference to a reliable published source. There's lots and lots of images to choose from at, though with that irritating side column under "Activities and practices", there's just not a lot of room to add more. Huntster (t @ c) 01:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The article already seems quite long and excessively detailed. I hope we can resist adding too much to the main article -- maybe breaking into sub pages at some point. A comprehensive list of "equipment" would be very long! If you have "microphone", you need "Morse key"/keyer, computers, software, rotators, power amplifiers, antenna tuners, test equipment, etc. That's too much. Maybe it would be better to give brief descriptions of "typical" amateur stations -- HF base, VHF mobile, HT "shack on the belt"? --Albany45 (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are good points. Maybe we can significantly trim the Modes section and make the equipment section very general? Ham Radio Microphone (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"Antennas are used as part of the amateur radio setup in order to receive signals that are transmitted from other machinery." Appreciate your willingness to improve the article, but radio isn't "machinery." And I agree with Albany45, if you want to compile an equipment list, perhaps Amateur radio station would be a better target article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
@Huntster. Remove the side column if it annoys you. Or reformat it horizontally and put it at the bottom of the article. It was (as I recall) created as a solution to the article becoming overly-long [9] at a time when each mode/activity wanted its info in the first section near the top. Cheers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you all think about removing the specific and detailed information and getting it general? I think the specifics could be spunoff into their own articles. Ham Radio Microphone (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As for equipment, there are quite a few existing ham-related articles (e.g. antenna tuner, communications receiver, telegraph key, etc) so you might do a search and look these over before starting any new ones. Regarding this article, not sure what you mean by "getting it general", but adding 3 more pictures of a beam, a hamshack and a transceiver in a section that infers amateur radio equipment consists of an antenna, a transceiver and a microphone is not an improvement in my opinion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I am very sorry you don't see it as an improvement. I am new to this. Please be kind and patient with me. Ham Radio Microphone (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't take offence at criticism...think of it as a way for you to learn others' opinions. Like you said, you're new, and there's a lot to learn. You're doing good work, so keep it up. If you wanted, you could copy this article to a subpage of your userspace, such as User:Ham Radio Microphone/Amateur radio, and you could play with formatting and ideas over time until you find a balance you like, then submit all the changes at once to the main article here. I do this kind of thing often. Huntster (t @ c) 08:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


The article on DXing is mainly about SWL and similar DXing, with little or no mention of amateur radio. IMHO it ought to at least have some sort of reference to ham radio. Also, I just noticed that the Amateur Radio article doesn't have any mention of DX. Don't people still pursue DXCC? I'll try to do something about these things, but my time is severely limited these days. Also, my knowledge of ham DXing is pretty old -- though I earned DXCC for my college radio station (W4AHY), and retain my call (W3BOA), and try to get to one hamfest each year, I haven't been on the air since the 1960s. Lou Sander (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Added here: DXing#Amateur_radio_DX. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Also a note regarding this article, Amateur radio: in the past, the Activities and Practices section included sub sections with descriptions of everybody's favorite aspect of ham radio, from T-hunting to emergency communications. The result was an article so overly long it was of little benefit to the reader. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


I agree that we need better coverage of ham antennas, either through photos in this article or maybe through a separate article. Many people's only contact with ham radio is through seeing antennas, and many antennas are mysterious and unknown objects to members of the general public.

The current photo of the beam with the Canadian flag is great to have, but it only tells part of the story. Also, it doesn't show a house, which somebody has suggested should be in all or most of the ham pictures. I have limited knowledge of the current state of the art, but I think we should have (somewhere) pictures of:

  • A multiband vertical at somebody's house
  • A wire dipole and/or a multiband dipole, also at a house
  • A simple beam installation (the present one is fine, IMHO, as long as there are houses in all or most of the others).
  • An antenna farm or very large multi-beam installation, possibly File:Hami2.jpg
  • Some sort of repeater antenna, with the explanation that they usually share tower space with other antennas.
  • Some sort of mobile antenna or antennas (whatever is popular these days)

I've put up a LOT of antennas in my day, but right now I don't have a single one. I know one when I see one, though. Lou Sander (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed from prior posts above that ChrisRuvolo has found and organized a lot of antenna photos at commons:Category:Amateur radio antennas. Some of them would fit what I outlined above. (I particularly like the Turkish ham with his antenna-decked auto.) Lou Sander (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This article has had some issues with length and overcrowding of photos in the past, so I would recommend the suggested content be placed at a new article such as Amateur radio antenna or an expansion of Antenna_theory#Antenna_gallery. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing about an antenna that makes it specific to amateur radio (except maybe frequency range). There is already a good article about antennas, we don't need a separate one for amateur radio antennas, it would just duplicate or fragment the material. --ssd (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Computer-control software[edit]

Extended content

There are several types of amateur radio software that a typical amateur radio operator will be concerned about. Almost all modern amateur radio receiver/transceivers have embedded computers that have firmware that is executed to provide the functions and features of the radio receiver or transceiver. This software must be provided by the original manufacturer of the equipment.

The second type of software is that required to control a radio receiver or amateur radio transceiver without a front panel provided. Examples of this are the Kenwood TS-B2000 and the Ten Tec Pegasus. Both transceivers come with PC software to provide the human interface for operation.

Most of the current amateur radio transceivers with front control panels, and many current radios popular with short wave listeners (SWLs) have a computer interface such as a serial port, USB port, or Ethernet port. These ports are especially useful for software programs to access for satellite tracking frequency control (Doppler tuning), station logging, operation on the new digital modes, internet and handicap access. In many cases the software adds improved or extra functions and features over and above that provided by the original design. It is for these reasons some operators are purchasing radio control software for traditional radio operations, even if their radio has a front control panel.

The software should work on all Windows 32 bit and 64 bit operating systems from Windows 2000 to Windows 7

If there is a version of the program for the Mac, or Linux, that is a positive indicator about the developer's confidence and experience.

A measure of experience with this software is having versions available for other target radios.

Does the installation require modification of the PC's registry? If so, you will need a special uninstall program to remove it from your computer.

Can you legally install the software on more than just one computer? You should be licensed to operate a specific radio with as many copies as you want.

How difficult is it to install the software? Simple is good.[1]

This content was added as an overview of ham software. But it's written as a "how to" and sourced to a QST review of a single software package. I don't feel it's appropriate to the main article. Where else could it fit? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Umm, I'm in the middle of a merge of Amateur radio software, which has had a merge-proposal tag since last September. I'm trying to clean up the merged content; please give me time to do that. Neither of us owns this article :-). All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey, no problem. Maybe others will feel a detailed discussion of ham software should be at the top of an overview article about about amateur radio. As for me, I'm not sure your merge target was well thought out. Amateur radio station might be a better location for this content. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Then please feel free to merge it with Amateur radio station; I didn't think Wtshymanski's removal of the merged content simply because they didn't like the citation was justified. Only contentious material requires citation, and QST article content hardly qualifies as spam. Miniapolis (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I see two problems here. First off, the content being merged in isn't really encyclopedic in tone and character. Secondly, we need to think about where the content should go in terms of the overall structure of this article. To the first point, I think there is text worth salvaging, but the "howto" stuff has to go, and that is most of it unfortunately. In terms of structure, I think this might work as a new subheading near the bottom of the article - it is not fundamental enough to the topic to need to be attached near the top. Thparkth (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
If it were an overview of amateur radio software, and the significance of software development to amateur radio, it might have had some use. Instead we have the observation that ham radios have embedded software (sometimes true) and some radios have personal-computer-hosted applications to control them. True, and trivial. Then we get into Windows registry maintenance trvia, and the desirability of Linux and versions "for other radios". I don't know what this was originally supposed to be about but it's too fragmented and focussed on minutia to be of much value as aon overview in this article. Hams write software, don't they? There's software for TNCs and antenna calculations, and big dumb databases for automating QSL cards processing, etc. Talk about that if you know anything about it, but don't focus on the hairs of one side of one leaf and call it an overview of sofware in the amateur radio hobby. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Re Miniapolis suggestion, I moved content to amateur radio station, with a little copyedit per WP:NOTMANUAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

New Experimental Modes[edit]

SMS to IRC/IRC to SMS Via Internet Gateway Using Mobile & HT Repeaters Automated IRC Channel Propagation Using DTMF from HT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:63:C2A2:AF00:E46C:4B23:7618:BADF (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Packet Radio[edit]

"Hams led the development of packet radio in the 1970s, which has employed protocols such as TCP/IP since the 1980s" While there were a few packet systems that used TCP/IP (KA9Q NOS and NET early, and linux later), the vast majority of the amateur packet network uses AX.25. This includes nearly every TNC made, and the entire NET/ROM system. If only one protocol is going to be mentioned, it should be AX.25 and not TCP/IP (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

American or British spellings?[edit]

It should be one or the other, if we observe WP:CONSISTENCY. License, practice are what we have now after recent changes, for better or worse. Thoughts? --Albany45 (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced contribution[edit]

The following was contributed to Linear amplifier. I think it really belongs here if anywhere. Since it is uncited I don't think it is appropriate for me to drop it in to the article, so I'll leave it here on the talk page in case anyone knows how to reference it. --Kvng (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The legal power limit for licensed amateur operators vary from country to country but in the United States it is legal to transmit up to 1.5 kW peak envelope power (PEP) output, in the UK the limit is 400 watts PEP and in Canada CA, the legal limit is 2.25 kW PEP.

Merge of List of amateur radio modes[edit]

Should this list be in a separate article, or merged into this article? At present it's duplicated in both, so clearly one ought to go (or at least be substantially pruned).

This is a big list. By line count, it's half the screen space of the whole article. It's also a pretty obscure list:this isn't just "HF SSB morse / VHF FM", it's all the arcane RTTY and moonbounce stuff too. IMHO, that's too much list for the lead article. This is a lead article, it has to be accessible and readable by naive readers who know no more than the term "radio ham" and are looking for the first intro.

AFAICS, the original merge was undiscussed, jut done as a spur of the moment thing by one editor, with a reputation for excessive and poorly executed merges. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't actually a merge at all because the separate list still exists - it's simply a duplication of content, which is not allowed. The modes section in this article should be reduced to an "introductory" paragraph and a link to the List page. Roger (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Take one out, agreed, but where best should we leave the remaining copy? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Take the list out of this article. It's too long and too much detail for this "overview" article. Roger (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree. No reason for anything more than a brief idea of the variety of modes that amateur radio offers. However, I would suggest replacing the list in the separate article with the one here (with attribution in the edit summary, of course), as this one is slightly rearranged and looks much cleaner than the older version. Huntster (t @ c) 11:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This should be a separate list. There are situations where merging a list into an article makes a lot of sense, but this is not one of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

HF frequencies[edit]

The HF frequencies are between 3 and 30 MHz. The article described HF as "frequencies below 30 MHz," which isn't accurate, since that would imply that 1 MHz is HF, when it isn't. I changed it to read "between 3 and 30 MHz."

73, Pianotech Talk to me!/Contribs 12:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Morse was needed for transmission on the 1.8 MHz band, as well as on the much lower bands that were around at the time too, e.g. 73 kHz (as well as a licence variation). In fact, it was the use of 'HF' that was wrong and the words you changed were actually correct before. --Nigelj (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong title[edit]

The article was moved to Amateur service without any discussion. This is the wrong title. In the context of a document about radio, referring to the amateur service makes sense, but out of that context it makes no sense. The serving of amateurs? Inexperienced waiters serving at table? This is not the WP:COMMONNAME and out of context makes no obvious sense at all, even to one who has had a licence for 15 years, has taught for the licencing exam, and has studied the literature. Please move it back to Amateur radio. --Nigelj (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. I agree with you. I've asked the move-r to come here to discuss. Jeh (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


As used in the second sentence of the lead, beginning with, "The term "amateur" is used to specify...". I agree this word is a bit too obscure to be helpful to readers. What are alternatives? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Amateur radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Image Dates[edit]

Image from 2005

Yesterday, I added dates to the images in the article, but Dodger67 reverted that, stating there's nothing special about the dates of the photos that they need to be mentioned.
But I think it's important to mention that the first image illustrating the article is more than 10 years old and so is the equipment shown in the image.
Are there any other opinions about that ? -- Juergen (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I really don't think the date is important here, since many radio amateurs use older equipment, and even newer equipment isn't terribly distinguishable from the older stuff. The image is really only to give readers an idea of what a ham shack or base station might look like. Huntster (t @ c) 18:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Internet Services for Amateur Radio?[edit]

I'd like to sound out the possibility of one or more articles dealing with the Internet aspects of Amateur Radio. AFAIK there are smatterings of this, for example in QSL_card mentioning eQSL and LoTW. I got into this by looking up Logbook of The World and being surprised by how narrowly it is written. (No comparisons with other services, comments on usability, etc.) LoTW and competitors are an important part of ham radio for many amateurs.

There are many directions this could go. QSL database services would be one, but you also have DXmaps, PSKreporter, etc. You have spotting services, remote receiving sites -- you might call them real-time info services. Then there are IRLP and EchoLink, D-Star, DMR, and remote base networks -- voice networks with some data/cw extensions. There is HSMM and Amprnet. Probably more. They could all be grouped as Internet Services for Amateur Radio.

Is this a useful focus? Should there be an overview article spun off from Amateur Radio? Are there some specialized topics that deserve their own pages (eg QSL services)? Or should we expand existing articles(s)? What are the key references to include? Thoughts? I might start a page, but some early discussion would be helpful. --Albany45 (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Albany45, if you see a gap in our coverage, don't hesitate to fill it! I would suggest making a new article using the WP:Drafts guidelines, such as at Draft:Internet services for amateur radio. Just remember that any material needs to be reliably sourced, and, more importantly, that the topic is actually notable. See WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Let me know if you need any help or advice. Huntster (t @ c) 17:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Amateur radio. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 09:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

September 2018[edit]

In the Activities and practices section, we say, in Wikipedia's voice:

"Chasing Dx on the HF bands is a major pastime for many radio operators. Chasing DX entails superior operator attributes. Good hearing, patience, and station design is important for the overall enjoyment of this sector of the hobby. A better understanding of propagation is required for maximum enjoyment. Careful consideration should be considered by participating stateside operators as not to unintentionally interfere with other stateside operators not interested in DX. A willingness to QSL is required to participate in the DXCC award program."

IMO, this is poorly written, and claims of "superior operator attributes" are inappropriate per WP:NOTOPINION, admonitions like "better understanding of propagation is required", etc. are contrary to WP:NOTADVICE, and urging "careful consideration by stateside operators" etc. is overly US-centric and clashes with the global view of the topic reflected by the rest of the article. Thoughts? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted his changes yet again. If he continues he will be blocked. Huntster (t @ c) 14:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Amateur Radio in Portugal[edit]


I added this section in the Amateur Radio page:

Contrasting with the usually welcoming nature of amateur radio, Portugal codified laws specifically aimed at preventing newcomers from using the spectrum, mandating a full radio silence for the Categoria 3 (entry-class license), on autonomous operation, and restricting the upgrade to the Categoria 2 (intermediate-class license, allowed to transmit) after a minimum wait period of 2 years and a maximum period of 5 years, after which the entry-class license is revoked and the process must restart.[1].

You removed it due to the analysis being original research.

Considering that everything else is a direct citation from the law, is the analysis you refer to that the laws were specifically aimed at preventing newcomers? Would the removal of this passage cease to violate the WP:NOR?

The following are extra references, but I didn't include them due to two of them being petitions that have no real value other than reflecting the fact that these laws are preventing newcomers, and the third is simply an argument about the constitutionality of this law regarding free speech:

The following, more serious reference regards a parliament hearing with an amateur radio association in which these points are discussed:

About the law itself, and as stated in the hearing above, Portugal is the only country in the CEPT which forbids transmissions from entry-level licensees, and this resulted in the number of new licenses dropping to fewer than 200 in 3 years. I believe this fact should be noted, even if I'm not the one writing about it (because yes, I personally chose not to become an amateur radio specifically because of this law).


  1. ^ "Portuguese Decree-Law 53/2009, Article 8, Section 2a, 'Subject to the limitations established by law, CAN category 3 holders may ... Use their individual amateur stations (...) only in receiving mode'".

Thanks, and have a nice year — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Yes, opinions about the effects of a government policy would need to be cited to a WP:SECONDARY source, i.e. a journalist or editorial staff of a WP:RS third party source such as a news organization or trade journal. WP:PRIMARY sources (like statutes, petitions, etc.) may only be used for basic uncolored facts. Also I could be wrong, but I believe the issue of non-autonomous operation restrictions to entry level class licenses may be covered in the Amateur_radio#Licensing_requirements section of this article, e.g. A few countries may issue special licenses to novices or beginners that do not assign the individual a call sign but instead require the newly licensed individual to operate from stations licensed to a club or organization for a period of time before a higher class of license can be acquired. Best regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


I think this may be an archaic or very uncommon word in English.

The only time I've ever encountered this word is WRT to the definition of Ham Radio. I had to look up this word when I first encountered it.

I think "for-profit" conveys the modern understanding of this term better. (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It's linked to wiktionary on first occurrence, in the first para, and is exactly right as used. It should be left as is. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree, it's part of a direct quote, plus there is a parenthetical explanation right next to it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)