Talk:Amateur radio licensing in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article, image, template, or category is part of WikiProject Amateur radio, which is an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating 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.

Contents 1 Novice Enhancement and "No-Code" Technicians 2 Morse Code 3 Pre-1964 license classes 4 Significant rewrite pending, please review the work in progress

[edit] Novice Enhancement and "No-Code" Technicians

The section is confusing. The information jumps around in date without specifying when it is talking about. Better dating of events would be helpful. Could be cleared up a bit. Anonym1ty 20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC) The section makes it appear as though The no-code technician license was introduced in 1987 when it was introduced in the early 1990s Anonym1ty 20:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing needs a good and thorough cleaning. I can see the fingerprints of the code whiners, too.  :-) Going backwards, and ignoring the 2007-02-23 changes: 2000-04-15 - removal of 13 and 20 wpm Morse tests, shortening of written test regime (5 to 3); 1991-02-14 - Removal of Morse testing for Technician license, inadvertent creation of "Tech with HF", later Tech Plus; 1990-??-?? - Novice enhancement, addition of 10m SSB, vhf/uhf priv to Novice; 1987-03-21 - Tech test cut in half, part made into General test ("3B") (Same with Advanced/Extra?) -- plaws 22:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morse Code

Am i incorrect for saying that there is no more morse code reqirement? if not this should be changed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.129.99 (talk • contribs).

No, you're not incorrect...at least, not as of two weeks from today. A change would bea ppropriate. -- Jay Maynard 19:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-1964 license classes

I have reverted to the earlier edit which explained the license classes pre-Incentive Licensing. Another user here blew it all away because of one line which was removed, which suggested that the Advanced Class existed prior to 1964.

My ARRL license manual from that era stated that there were 3 classes (Novice, General and Conditional), with an insert put in to explain (and promote) Technician, Advanced and Amateur Extra. This was a question on the exam, too. If anyone has any proof that Advanced predates Incentive Licensing, let's work it into the article instead of just blowing everything away. Critic-at-Arms 06:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OOPS! The A, B, C classes weren't Novice to General/Conditional, they were General to Advanced. Fixing the article now. Critic-at-Arms 06:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There, now it looks right, and the Incentive Licensing stuff is fixed. Critic-at-Arms 06:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone blew away a lot of MY other work because they remembered it wrong. Novice and Tech were introduced in the early 1950s, and Advanced was present (but not issued) since that era, as well. Before relying on faulty memory, why not refer to actual sources? How much time did you spend reading the QST discussion of the license changes from that era? (I did, more than I should, rather than actually doing the college work I should have been...) -- Jay Maynard 09:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Significant rewrite pending, please review the work in progress

All, I've attempted a significant repair and reorganization of the article in a sandbox. This article is very complex and difficult to work, mainly because there are few sources. I have focused on reorganizing and matching up the pieces that were already in the article.

Please review it here and comment on its talk page or here. I plan to merge it with the live article after 10 days (March 22nd). Thanks - Davandron | Talk 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks better than what we have now. I did do a little formatting cleanup down in the refernces section. One suggestion, if possible, when you are ready to bring the new text in, please merge it in a section at a time rather than a whole sale copy/paste of the entire article. This will help provide some path through the edit history to see which sections morphed. --StuffOfInterest 11:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Merged a little later than I thought. Sorry I just merged the whole thing instead of piece by piece. The substantial re-write made it difficult to show what was kept. - Davandron | Talk 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)