Storing freqs in the wiki

[ka3jjz]

It seems we have accumulated a fair amount of frequency information in the wiki. While it's true the wiki is a database of sorts, it's not the source that's used by our web service and made available to many applications. So it's not quite as readily available for use, although there are utilities that will allow you to copy it (such as EZ-Grab in FreeScan), as long as the frequencies are listed in a tabular format.

Frequency data that has been validated should be submitted to the database - then if you wish to continue to list it, there are extensions you can use to pull data from the database down to the wiki. These extensions are described here

RR Wiki Extensions - The RadioReference Wiki

The wiki can always be used to store frequencies that are not yet solid enough to be submitted. That's one of its better uses.

I am considering setting up a master category (with sub categories) to gather up all the wiki articles that list frequencies (such as the various listings of amateur repeaters). Once that's done I'll probably ask Bob to add them to one of the gateway pages to make them more visible.

Your thoughts on this are solicited. Mike

 

[ka3jjz]

Just to give all of you an idea of what we have stored in the wiki, here are just some of the categories that have frequency information

- Sports
- Amateur Radio
- Federal
- Milcom
- Trunking Information
- Air Shows
- Special Events

As you can see even just these categories alone have a substantial amount of information.

These categories can become sub-categories to a main 'wiki frequency' category.

Mike

 

[DaveNF2G]

With respect to amateur radio, I cannot imagine how ham repeater information could be tentative enough to preclude inclusion in the DB if it is "verified" enough for someone to bother putting it into the Wiki. A repeater either exists or it does not.

 

[ka3jjz]

Actually Dave that's a whole lot easier than you think. There are lots of folks that lift frequency information from other sources that may, or may not necessarily be, reliable (think ARTSCI) and present it as being 'verified'. Remember that this application can be used by anyone and we don't have the stringent reviews that the database team enforces.

Besides how many times have you seen a listing for a repeater only to be told that it was taken down or the trustee let it go? Just because it's on some listing - even in the wiki - does not insure that it's really on the air. We can err on the side of being on the air, but it's up to the membership to fix it if it isn't (or perhaps has had a callsign change)

I've been down this road with the db team...

Mike

 

[QDP2012]

Just to give all of you an idea of what we have stored in the wiki, here are just some of the categories that have frequency information

- Sports
- Amateur Radio
- Federal
- Milcom
- Trunking Information
- Air Shows
- Special Events

As you can see even just these categories alone have a substantial amount of information.

These categories can become sub-categories to a main 'wiki frequency' category.

Mike

Good evening sir,

I might be wrong, but from what I can tell, not every page in the above categories contains frequencies (though many do). As such, we might not be aiming at the right target, if we make the above categories become children of a "Wiki Frequencies" parent category.

It might be more accurate to assign the "Wiki Frequencies" category directly to pages that have frequencies, so that pages without frequencies will not be included.

This might already be your plan. If so, I apologize for misunderstanding. Thanks for the idea. It is an interesting one,

Respectfully,

 

[ka3jjz]

My idea involves just gathering the pages that have frequencies into a category (the amateur radio repeaters category is a very good example of this). There will be overlap with other categories because many pages have other information on them (as you rightly pointed out)- that can't be avoided, given the amount of data we have in the wiki now, Besides multiple categories on a page isn't a big deal.

Right now I think it would be a good first step to simply create a new 'wiki frequencies' category and start gathering everything together. Once all the pages have been identified and categorized, we can then see how it can be presented. Fortunately this can be done with a single line of code - tedious but hardly complex. I suspect what will happen is that the 'wiki frequencies' category will be the master, with the ones like amateur radio repeaters, air shows, etc. becoming children, but let's see how that shakes out

One other thing we'll probably need is an article to identify which applications have the ability to copy the frequency data into their application editor. This would parallel somewhat the applications page which lists everything that can communicate with the web service, but again, the overlap is unavoidable. That article will be helpful for newcomers - particularly so because they won't be aware that we have a 'frequency database' in the wiki separate and distinct from the database for the web service that can be used as a data source.

Mike

 

[QDP2012]

...I suspect what will happen is that the 'wiki frequencies' category will be the master, with the ones like amateur radio repeaters, air shows, etc. becoming children, but let's see how that shakes out...

• If individual articles will not be given the "Wiki Frequencies" category, and only the existing categories will be placed as children under the "W.F." category, then it seems that the "W.F." would include (by inheritance) all articles from the existing categories, whether the article has frequencies listed or not. If this is the intended approach, then a simple Wiki article (without creating the "W.F. category") with links to the categories would seem to be sufficient, along with an explanation that each category is often rich with frequencies, but that not every article will have them.
  
  
• But, if "W.F' is treated instead as a stand-alone category, and is placed only on individual articles which contain frequencies, then a Wiki-visitor could reasonably expect to find frequencies on every page listed in the "W.F." category. As you mentioned, multiple categories per article is no problem.
  
  
  • Additionally, if as a nwe standalone category, "W.F." is to have new children categories, then a new sub-category, like "Air Show Frequencies" could be created and applied appropriately, which would keep "Air Shows" intact as is regardless of whether an article has frequencies or not.

But, the above idea might be too granular in its approach. Like you say "let's see how that shakes out." It is certainly adjustable if needed.

Respectfully,

 

[DaveNF2G]

This might be off-topic, but what difference of rules and enforcement keeps amateur repeater submissions out of the database when they are acceptable for the Wiki, given that someone has heard (or used) a given repeater and provides the info to RR?

Unless the DB Admins are psychic, I don't understand how they have any more ability to sniff out bogus user submissions than do the Wiki Admins.

 

[AK9R]

I won't speak to the database submission rules because I am not the DB manager nor am I a DB admin.

The RR Wiki is a free-form user-supported resource. If someone puts bogus amateur radio repeater info in the Wiki and another user notices, the second user is free to edit the Wiki article to remove the bogus information. Likewise, if the Wiki admins are informed that there is bogus repeater info in the Wiki, we can remove it. The verification of the data is solely up to the users...which, I believe, is slightly different from the standard under which the DB operates.

 

[loumaag]

This might be off-topic, but what difference of rules and enforcement keeps amateur repeater submissions out of the database when they are acceptable for the Wiki, given that someone has heard (or used) a given repeater and provides the info to RR?

Unless the DB Admins are psychic, I don't understand how they have any more ability to sniff out bogus user submissions than do the Wiki Admins.

Dave, if you submit some data for the area around Saratoga Co., a DB Admin is much more likely to take you at your word than if you try and submit something for Orange Co., FL. Even if you say you were there. You have been in our shoes before, you know well how to sniff out bad data.

I won't speak to the database submission rules because I am not the DB manager nor am I a DB admin.

The RR Wiki is a free-form user-supported resource. If someone puts bogus amateur radio repeater info in the Wiki and another user notices, the second user is free to edit the Wiki article to remove the bogus information. Likewise, if the Wiki admins are informed that there is bogus repeater info in the Wiki, we can remove it. The verification of the data is solely up to the users...which, I believe, is slightly different from the standard under which the DB operates.

The standard should be the same, the difference is each registered user can add or remove data from the Wiki and if bad data keeps going into the Wiki sooner or later you will take action to see that it stops. On the other hand, a DB Admin has both the experience (like I referred to above) and a couple of tools at his disposal to help him weed out bad data before it appears in the DB. This of course doesn't preclude bad data from getting in the DB (just as it doesn't preclude bad data from being put in any Wiki) but it doesn't take long before a "bad submitter" is identified and ignored by the DB staff.

 

[ka3jjz]

OK I've done about 40 pages from different categories - the category is also constructed and ready...

Category:Wiki Frequencies - The RadioReference Wiki

As you can see we need an article to document the applications that can copy/paste data from the wiki. There are 2 articles we already have that can do it - the Excel copy article and the one on EZ-Grab from the FreeScan user guide. If we can get a listing of software (not links, just names) that has this ability, along with the name of the app in the software that one would need to use, that work work just fine. (For example, Scan Control has its Data Grabber - I don't have that software anymore, but I suspect it would work just fine). These apps need the data in some sort of table format - and a good bunch of this is already that way anyway. That's something we'll likely have to deal with down the road, but this is a good start

Mike

 

[DaveNF2G]

Thank you, W9BU and loumaag, for the clarifications. What you say makes perfect sense from a data submission and validation perspective.

The question with which I am left now is, What is the utility of processing any category of frequencies in two separate ways on RR? I mean, continuing with the example of amateur radio, that I don't really comprehend the purpose of having an amateur radio frequency collection in both the Wiki and the Database. Any duplicated frequencies are redundant, and any conflict between the two should be resolved in favor of the Database listing, for reasons enumerated earlier in this thread.

As I consider this, I can see the usefulness of listing amateur radio networks in the Wiki as such wide-area linked frequencies do not lend themselves to the usual county-bounded categorization of the DB. But normal standalone repeaters don't seem to need such treatment. This is, of course, my opinion, subject to adjustment in light of new information.

 

[loumaag]

Thank you, W9BU and loumaag, for the clarifications. What you say makes perfect sense from a data submission and validation perspective.

The question with which I am left now is, What is the utility of processing any category of frequencies in two separate ways on RR? I mean, continuing with the example of amateur radio, that I don't really comprehend the purpose of having an amateur radio frequency collection in both the Wiki and the Database. Any duplicated frequencies are redundant, and any conflict between the two should be resolved in favor of the Database listing, for reasons enumerated earlier in this thread.

As I consider this, I can see the usefulness of listing amateur radio networks in the Wiki as such wide-area linked frequencies do not lend themselves to the usual county-bounded categorization of the DB. But normal standalone repeaters don't seem to need such treatment. This is, of course, my opinion, subject to adjustment in light of new information.

Assuming we are staying on the amateur radio subject, your network comment is spot on. And, indeed, the county bound single standalone repeaters normally would not benefit from Wiki treatment; however, consider metropolitan areas that cover multiple counties and yet are served by standalone repeaters that cover the metro area. These repeaters will not be listed (cannot by the way the DB is constructed) in multiple counties and therefore cannot adequately describe their function. Listing them in the DB as Wide Area helps, but it doesn't really do a great job of helping folks "see" what is available. For example, I live in Katy, TX, it happens that the portion of Katy that I live in is in Harris Co. but the city of Katy (not really a metro area by itself, but part of the Houston Metro area) exists in three different counties, using the DB alone I would have to check 3 different county pages to see what was available in the Katy area. Knowing that Katy is in the Houston Metro area, checking a single page in the Wiki then becomes useful; although, to be frank that page is not the best example.

 

[nd5y]

Should I go back and add Wiki Frequencies category to all the articles that I made (or edited) that have frequency lists?

 

[ka3jjz]

Tom if you wish, that would be a big help

And that goes for anyone else that wants to jump in here. It's not going to be a small project, and the more hands we have, the better..Mike

 

[ka3jjz]

We're only a few days into the project, and already we have several hundred (!!!) articles that have frequencies on them

We're definitely going to need to organize this a bit better once all the articles have been identified. It's much too broad right now - too many articles with no organization for the topic

Just a reminder to all - any frequencies that have been validated should be submitted to the database for inclusion. They then can be put onto the wiki using the various extensions

Onward...Mike

 

[QDP2012]

We're definitely going to need to organize this a bit better once all the articles have been identified. It's much too broad right now - too many articles with no organization for the topic

Before you do a lot of work that you later change, you might want to decide on some dedicated sub-categories now, like:

• Wiki Frequencies
  • AirShow Frequencies
  • Amateur Radio Repeaters (existing category can be placed here)
  • Business Frequencies
  • Fast Food Frequencies (existing category can be placed here)
  • Federal Frequencies
  • Military Frequencies
  • Public Safety Frequencies
  • RailRoad Frequencies
  • US and Canadian Common Frequencies (existing category can be placed here)
  • Utilities (existing category might be a candidate here)
  • ... etc.

and make them members of "Wiki Frequencies".

That way you can avoid re-doing the work ahead of you, and simply apply the more-specific sub-category the first time around, instead of applying "Wki Frequencies" now, and later removing it in favor of a child-category.

This way, it will be much like the state-category structure, in that you won't apply "Wiki Frequencies" to any page (just as the region-categories are no longer applied to any page), but will only apply the appropriate sub-category/-ies instead (just like the state-cateogories). This makes it much easier to find information later.

Making the child-category choices now will definitely save you a lot of work in the future.

Hope this helps,

 

[AK9R]

Sounds like a plan!

 

[ka3jjz]

That's already being done. However the sub-categories are already mixed with articles that both have and dont have frequencies (in the case of states - things like Air Shows are pretty much self explanatory)

That's a start but more thought is needed...Mike

 

[QDP2012]

• Wiki Frequencies
  • AirShow Frequencies
  • Amateur Radio Repeaters (existing category can be placed here)
  • Business Frequencies
  • Fast Food Frequencies (existing category can be placed here)
  • Federal Frequencies
  • Military Frequencies
  • Public Safety Frequencies
  • RailRoad Frequencies
  • US and Canadian Common Frequencies (existing category can be placed here)
  • Utilities (existing category might be a candidate here)
  • ... etc.

That's already being done.

Only a few of the categories suggested already exist. The majority of those suggested are specificially named with "...Frequencies" and would thus be New categories created specifically as never-before-used children of "Wiki Frequencies".

This means that almost all existing categories get ignored, and would not be used as children.

For example, notice how "Business Frequencies" is different than "Businesses". Also, "Air Show Frequencies" is different than "Air Shows".

This would allow the current category to remain unchanged, and accurately doing its job--listing all businesses (with or without frequencies), whereas a New category "Business Frequencies" (yet to be created) would be applied only to pages with frequencies related to businesses, and "Air Show Frequencies" only to those with actual frequencies. The existing categories stay intact and undisturbed.

In the list suggested in my earlier post, "Amateur Radio Repeaters" could be ignored and a new category "Amateur Radio Frequencies" created. Same with "Utilities" vs a "Utility Frequencies", etc.

From what I saw during the states-project, the "Fast Food Frequencies" and "US And Canadian Common Frequencies" seem already fairly "clean", in that they have been applied to pages with frequencies. They could be verified and adjusted as needed.​

After doing the state-project, I just hate to think of your extra effort to later remove "Wiki Frequencies" from the individual articles so that a child-category can be applied, when the child-category can be applied now instead, preventing duplicative effort on over 6000+ pages in the Wiki. That's a lot of work to have to redo.


Much like the region=categories vs state-categories, it seems that the parent category, "Wiki Frequencies" should "never" be applied to the articles directly, but should only be applied to the yet-to-be-created child-categories, like "Business Frequencies".



Again, to save labor in your very good efforts, my recommendation is to:

• Stop adding "Wiki Frequencies" directly to articles
  
  
• Create all of the new categories that will be used as children under "Wiki Frequencies"
  • Create them with names similar to existing categories but with the word "Frequencies" at the end (like "Business Frequencies", "Amateur Radio Frequencies", etc.) and make them children of "Wki Frequencies"
  
  
• Apply only the new child categories to articles.
  • This leaves the existing categories undisturbed and ensures the new children categories are applied cleanly.
  
  
• Do the above now, so that you only have to redo the ones you've already done and don't have to redo them all later

I am busy on a non-RR project right now, and will help when I can with this one. I just wanted to speak-up early in hopes of helping you avoid doing all your work twice.

Hope this helps,