Talk:Call sign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Radio
 Radio Portal
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article attached to this page and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. From Call Letters to call sign. Call Letters was obviously wrong. If we need to decide between call sign and callsign, we can propose another move and then discuss between those two apparently equally correct options. –Hajor 19:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

See #Requested move below.

Contents

[edit] Preferred name

In U.S. dictionaries, the term is two words: call sign. Furthermore, the preferred term in dictionaries is call letters. I propose this article be moved to Call letters, and that Callsign and Call sign be redirected to Call letters. Kingturtle 18:37 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Or is this article about ham radio licenses? Kingturtle 18:38 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be about both. And never heard Call Letters used in reference to an amateur radio designation. Also, Google finds a million and a half uses of callsign and only 237,00 uses of "call sign". It also offers to correct call sign to callsign. OTOH, the form prefered by the American Radio Relay League is call sign. Still, I'd counsel leaving things as they are. Bill 15:41 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I really prefer tactical designation to tactical callsign. Uniqueness is an important characteristic of a callsign. Unless there's strong objection, I'm going to rewrite the article to observe this distinction. Bill 16:16 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Move proposal: Callsign (radio) → Call sign

Call sign was an unnecessary disambig page. I merged it with Callsign (radio) which had the bulk of the content. I think the main article should be at Call sign. (If someone strongly prefers Callsign, I won't argue much.) -- agr 21:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I prefer callsign. (Why would I call a sign?)   – radiojon 04:29, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
  • Support (I prefer call sign) —User:Mulad (talk) 07:15, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral: It is fair to note that www.dictionary.com redirects "call sign" to "call letters". (My last vote on RM, since i'm not wasting my time finding stuff on talk pages...relish it folks...don't say I didn't warn you!) —ExplorerCDT 17:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I don't believe that "callsign" is a word. —Michael Z. 2005-03-14 00:42 Z

Looks like an old copy/paste move from callsign to callsign (radio). Page histories need to be merged but they both use block-compression. Listed on WP:RM.violet/riga (t) 00:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Temporary fix done. violet/riga (t) 21:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have done a permanent fix. This was somewhat complicated by the fact that since then, someone had done yet another cut and past move on the article. So, in a personal first, I merged three different histories into one! Sigh, now I discover that there were three separate talk pages, too. OK, I already merged one in, guess it's time to fold in the last one. Noel (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

I have noted on the moves page that the proper title of this article should be Call sign, not Call letters (couldn't make the move myself -- got caught up in a tangle of redirects I didn't know how to deal with). The reasoning is that "call letters" are a special case of a general "call sign", mostly as applied to broadcast radio and TV stations in North America. In any case, there are other uses of the term "call sign" mentioned in this article that have nothing to do with letters, making the title of the article misleading. Haikupoet 04:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Call sign sounds good. –Hajor 20:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Is Call sign correct? Wouldn't it be Callsign? I would Support Callsign. (note mine -->) -- N5UWY/9 - plaws 01:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd say it comes down to a matter of personal preference. I do think one should be a redirect to the other, whichever way it goes. Haikupoet 01:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Hey, I used to have one of those... A quick check of their front-page websites (uh... "web sites"?) shows the ARRL using "call sign" and the RSGB using "callsign". ITU's Termite database seems to prefer "call sign". I'd prefer the two-word version, but either would be better than the current location, with its capital and all. –Hajor 02:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd be willing to go along with the ITU! It should be noted that there are well over 500 links to the various previous flavors, so we may need help from an experienced Wikipedians (of which I am not) --N5UWY/9 - plaws 02:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Here's some data on the usage levels of various terms, from a web search:
    • about 2,550,000 for "callsign"
    • about 2,370,000 for "call sign"
    • about 801,000 for "call letters"
IMO Call Letters is out, it doesn't follow the Wikipedia standard for article titles (no capital letters unless it's a proper name, which this isn't). Noel (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Call Letters is wrong per wikipedia convention, which is why someone proposed moving it to Call letters ... HOWEVER, as we've all noted, it should be Call sign (ITU form) or Callsign (apparently most popular form). Everything else (and a bunch more) will redirect to whatever we decide. --N5UWY/9 - plaws 19:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'd say in this case ITU usage trumps everything else, as they're the ones responsible for allocating the damn things anyway. Haikupoet 18:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
There's some background reading on the callsign vs. call sign phenomenon at English compound#Types of compound nouns. See also Talk:Copy editing (wrt copy editors, copy-editors, and copyeditors) and here for thoughts on website vs. web site. Essentially, there's pressure on such compounds to join up, and that pressure's at its highest among the initiates (hams with callsigns, webmasters with websites); conversely, the process tends to be less far along among the general lay public (and actively resisted by the Competent Authorities). –Hajor 19:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
As I've said, I don't much care one way or the other (call sign or callsign), and I have two ... but Call letters is wrong. I say let's just move it! -- N5UWY/9 - plaws 01:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

moved from WP:RM:

    • I would go so far as to suggest moving it back to Call sign or Callsign -- it's a more general term (call letters being a special case of call signs; not all call signs are call letters per se). Call letters should be a redirect -- I tried to make the move myself but got caught up in a morass of redirects. Haikupoet 04:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Should be Callsign. --N5UWY/9 - plaws 01:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • callsign is most proper. Using any capital letters is the title is absolutely completely wrong. Using "call letters" is really only apropos if there are no numerals, and the use of that term may have originated in North American broadcasting (i.e. CBFT, WABC, KCBS, XERF), where only letters are used for main stations. Therefore "sign" is better than "letters". A space in the middle is at least tolerable, but "callsign" gives 2,730,000 responses in Google, whereas "call sign" gives 1,780,000.  –radiojon 19:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aussie Callsigns

Can i ask where the information about "VL" being part of radio call letters in AU came from? 210.49.196.232 11:42, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to know this too. It has the ring of authenticity to it, but I've spent a fair amount of effort milking google to find some evidence for it, without any result so far. Bill 19:42, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

VL is one of the international callsign prefixes assigned to Australia, and the one which the government assigned to broadcast stations. (VK is still used for amateur radio licences.) The history of Radio Adelaide, which began with callsign VL5UV (now just 5UV), can be found by searching Google for "VL5UV". Apparently, since Australia has no neighbouring countries, the ABA (Australian Broadcasting Authority) has allowed stations to drop the VL since then. –radiojon 00:33, 2003 Oct 24 (UTC)

[edit] Television vs Radio

Does anyone know of any reason why Television call sign diverts here? Australia has a very different Television call sign format than radio call sign. --Chuq 01:40, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Probably because most countries that assign callsigns to television stations don't. 20:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The description of Australian television callsigns doesn't match what my older references show. When did the system change? (My old references, like the '94 WRTH, show callsigns in the "FM radio" format, so that the TEN station in Perth might by 6TEN, etc.) 18.26.0.18 07:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interesting.. I've read a lot of sites covering Australian TV history and none of them show or use any format such as 6TEN. Can you post a more complete list? I'll go googling for details! -- Chuq 00:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I just checked my '94 WRTH and it shows the format you describe. So either I was utterly confused, or I'm remembering something I saw in the '88 WRTH, which I don't have a copy of. 18.26.0.18 05:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Maritime Radio

Doesn't ships have callsigns, too? Scriberius 18:19, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

[edit] Why????

This article doesn't seem to answer my question: why do U.S. stations have these ugly names when we get on fine without them in the UK? What is the point? Who made the decisions that led to this state of affairs and why? They aren't exactly snappy marketing tools. Please explain in the ariticle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.34.11 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 28 July 2005.

Law. And way, way more of them than the UK has - some areas could have 7 or 8 terrestrial stations (although the combined programming quality would barely touch BBC1 alone...) --Kiand 15:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Try 30 to 50—or 90–100 in the top three markets, for a nationwide total of over 12,000. 121a0012 02:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't really answer the question very clearly I'm afraid and there is still nothing in the article. 62.31.55.223 11:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transmitters for long range navigation systems

Why did and do transmitters for long-range navigation systems (LORAN, DECCA, Alpha, Omega) not require callsigns? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.74.40.27 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 9 August 2005.

I can think of a couple of reasons.
  1. The navigation (or other information) signal format is fixed and does not have provision for inserting a call sign into the middle of the data stream.
  2. The specifics of the signal transmitted are fixed for a given transmitter, and distinct from that of all other transmitters in the service, so the identity of the transmitter is clear without the need for a call sign.
I don't have references for this, though a look at the LORAN signal format will show that inserting a call sign into that signal would make for quite a mess... Paul Koning 14:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double redirects

I haven't fixed the double redirects (both those which point here, as well as to the article) because as the page is likely to be moved, it will be a waste of time (they'll just have to be updated again then). Noel (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] removal of excessive inaccurate information

Just to document, I removed: "Excepting this and some specialized uses for VE and VF, only the codes CB, CF, CH, CI, CJ and CK are currently in use." This is because: VE and VA are commonly used by amateur radio operators, with VF and VG used for special events. Additionally, CG is a common airplane prefix. Furthermore, this information is excessive for that section of the article and, perhaps, that whole section should be drastically shortened... 13 examples is far to many! Andrewjuren 19:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian use of call signs starting with CB

To the best of my understanding, the CBC's use of call signs starting with CB is not the result of any international agreement between the governments of Chile and Canada. Rather, Canada unilaterally started using CB... call signs for CBC stations in 1937 — citing a 1932 treaty (the General Radiocommunication Regulations of Madrid) allowing the use of any call letters provided care was taken to avoid confusion. Since Canada is far away from Chile, Canadian officials concluded that there was no realistic possibility of confusion between Canadian and Chilean stations using CB... calls, and that there was therefore no need to get permission from Chile. The only source I can cite at the moment is that I sent an inquiry letter to Industry Canada on this subject in 1995 and got a letter back saying the above; I posted the details to the rec.radio.broadcasting USENET newsgroup on June 10, 1995. Richwales 19:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


Richwales's post should be visible here on Google groups. Andrewjuren 21:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


Although this does not directly answer this question, the CRTC website shows a history of broadcasting in Canada, including:

  • 1928: The Commission recommends the creation of a Canadian broadcasting network, to be supervised by an independent federal agency.
  • 1932: In response to the Aird Commission's report, Parliament sets up a special committee on broadcasting and acts on its recommendations through the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act. This legislation, amended in 1936, creates the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission (CRBC). The CRBC is to regulate and control all broadcasting in Canada and provide a national broadcasting service.
  • 1936: Amendments to the 1932 Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act create a Crown corporation: the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). The CBC is now responsible for providing a national radio service in Canada. The Corporation produces, broadcasts and regulates programming. The CBC replaces the CRBC and takes over the Commission's staff and facilities (8 public stations, 14 private stations).
  • 1937: Through the Minister of Transport, the CBC organizes the Havana Conference attended by the governments of a number of countries in the Americas, including the United States, Mexico and Cuba. They reach an agreement, called the "North American Regional Broadcasting Agreement (Havana Treaty)", on the allocation of frequencies. This will reduce interference. Under the Havana Agreement, Canada obtains six unoccupied frequencies as well as other limited or shared frequencies. These new acquisitions enable Canada to introduce more powerful transmitters and expand its network.

Another site that gives some information is CBC Radio-Canada French Radio Network history. It states:

  • 1937:Radio Canada changed its call letters from CRCM to CBF. On December 11, the French language CBF Montreal station was officially opened and it operated on 50,000 watts of power at a frequency of 690 kHz, thereby laying the foundation of the Radio-Canada French language radio network. The Federal Minister of Justice, Ernest Lapointe, and the Minister of Transport, C.D. Howe, attended the station's inaugural gala that was marked by a symphonic concert, excerpts from a few legendary operas and a number of traditional sketches. Paradoxically, "CBF" were not radio call letters that had been officially allocated to Canada, but had rather been assigned to Chile. CBF is the acronym for "Canadian Broadcasting French". An agreement had been reached between Chile and Canada regarding the use of these call letters, because there was indeed an "authentic" CBF in Chile, but it was a Chilean Coast Guard radio station.

Hope this helps lead someone in the right direction; I'd really like to know the answer to this question! Leave me a message on my User talk page if you discover anything new -> Andrewjuren 21:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out of interest by a radio ham

There is a tendency among radio hams to refer to a radio ham in Italy with bad operating practices (it is quite common for italian amateurs to tail-end or even jam transmissions from a DXpedition by constantly calling, even while the DX station is working someone) as an 'IQ zero', although the reason is obvious, I should explain that IQ0 is one of the Italy prefixes commonly allocated to amateurs. I bear no malice to the Italians, I just thought this piece of ham radio information might amuse some readers. CMIIW 17:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal from 'Aviation' section

I've commented the following section out from the aviation section:

For example a Canadian aircraft initially identified as C-GRTY might then identify as romeo tango yankee but the omission must be initiated by the air traffic services agency, not the pilot. The American aircraft mentioned above might then use seven six quebec.

as it doesn't seem to agree with either the CAA Radiotelephony Manual (paragraph 1.8.2 and table 9 being the operative sections) or the [http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0402.html FAA Radio Communications Phraseology and Techniques] manual. Does anyone know of a manual or some other source that mentions this use, or is it a simple mistake? Oh, and if anyone knows what me at one in the morning has got wrong with that second external link, feel free to fix it. --Scott Wilson 00:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The abbreviation to the last three characters of an American registration number is well known and used consistently. I thought I remembered reading that the abbreviation for foreign callsigns is the first and last two characters, but when I went looking, I couldn't back that up. The practice is documented in the Airman's Information Manual published by the FAA. Jay Maynard 04:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Is that online anywhere, and can we cite it? It seems to me that the 'N' can only be dropped when used with the aircraft type - both the links above seem to imply that. --Scott Wilson 16:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Look at paragraph 4-2-4(a)(2) of the AIM page you cited above:
ATC specialists may initiate abbreviated call signs of other aircraft by using the prefix and the last three digits/letters of the aircraft identification after communications are established. The pilot may use the abbreviated call sign in subsequent contacts with the ATC specialist.
It's very common usage in the US. Jay Maynard 23:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
In addition, paragraph 1.8.2 of the CAA manual you link to specifically shows allowing abbreviated callsigns when initiated by ATC, although their abbreviations are different from the US ones (to be expected, since the initial letter over there is not most often N). Jay Maynard 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know that. I'm quite happy with the N1234X -> N34X abbreviation and the N1234X -> Cessna 34X abbreviations - there's plenty of documentation on them, it's the N1234X -> 34X one that I can't find evidence of. -Scott Wilson 02:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Re-reading my earlier postings, I hadn't made the above at all clear - sorry, folks. I hope that one does - it's purely the N1234X -> 34X abbreviation I can't verify; I'm happy with everything else. --Scott Wilson 02:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
That one's informal, not sanctioned officially - but nevertheless, it's quite common, especially in cases where it's just an acknowledgement: "Tiger 446, descend and maintain five thousand." "446." Strictly speaking, the reply should be "Tiger 446, wilco.", but the informal usage is well understood. Jay Maynard 16:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/l/Talk%7ECall_sign_7927.html"