Storing freqs in the wiki

[QDP2012]

Yeah, I think that deserves a little more thought. Let's shelve that for the moment, and move on. We have a lot of other data that needs attention.

Makes sense. I certainly don't want to slow the project's overall momentum.

We're going to need to keep track of these super categories - I plan to create an article where a user could either look at a super category or one of its subordinates. I'm certain the number of categories we have now would overwhelm a newcomer looking for a specific organization, so having an article with them more logically organized around the super category would, I think, help immensely.

An explanatory article sounds like a good idea. Maybe putting a link to it on the Collaboration page would help people find it readily.

Right now I'm installing the FreqWiki template in all the statename/frequencies articles. Once that's done I will distribute them to their state collaboration pages; when that's done, all of them will have a logical home. That will also set up the next bit of checking...which is to look at each county page for every state and see if they have any frequency information on it. Since we now have a category for it, it shouldn't be too hard - tedious, but not difficult. I suspect most of the county level articles don't have this information.

We're making progress - slowly, but getting there...we're doing a lot here, no doubt about it...To be honest I didn't think we had this much frequency data in the wiki, but man, do we ever....Mike

I was just looking at the "Louisiana Frequencies" category-page, and noticed that it says that it is a sub-category of "Louisiana". But, I also noticed that it has not yet had "Category:Louisiana" applied to it, so that it becomes a child of "Category:Louisiana".

Is this on the yet-to-be-done list, or on the not-to-be-done list? If it is yet-to-be-done, I will try to help update the categories that need it, when I can. I'm still very busy with several non-RR projects at the moment.

Thanks again,

 

[QDP2012]

We're going to need to keep track of these super categories - I plan to create an article where a user could either look at a super category or one of its subordinates. I'm certain the number of categories we have now would overwhelm a newcomer looking for a specific organization, so having an article with them more logically organized around the super category would, I think, help immensely.

Continuing in this train of thought, we might also consider using a uniform naming-convention to our advantage here also.

Much like the consistency of the "US..." category-names and the "... Frequencies" category-names, do you think it would be wise to uniformly name the business-related categories with (something like) the prefix "Businesses - ..." as a category-naming standard? ...something like this:

(Below are only existing-categories for discussion and example purposes; "Frequencies" categories would certainly be added later as appropriate):

• Businesses (super-category)
  • Businesses - Attractions
    • Businesses - Attractions - Casinos
  • Businesses - EBay
  • Businesses - Fast Food
    • Businesses - Fast Food Frequencies
  • Businesses - Media
  • Businesses - Medical (which is different than public-safety agencies, but could include paid ambulances, helicopters, etc.)
  • Businesses - Motor Freight
  • Businesses - Railroads
    • Businesses - Railroads - CSX Transportation
  • Businesses - Sports Events and Organizations
    • Businesses - Sports Events and Organizations Frequencies
  • Businesses - Transportation
  • Businesses - Utlities
    • Businesses - Utilities - Frequencies

The upside to this would be that, in the master list of categories, all "Business" related categories would be alphabetically-sorted together instead of spread all throughout the list.

Obvious downsides include: each category-name gets longer, each requires more typing, each might be more confusing if word-wrapped on an article which has many categories assigned to it, etc.


This is just a quick attempt at the list, for discussion purposes. Several things might need adjustment.

Your thoughts?
,

 

[ka3jjz]

I'll go and fix the Louisiana article today. I just haven't gotten to everything quite yet :.>>

Looking at the super list, I'm not sure that repeating the parent category is worth the effort of typing each one over and over again. But what you have there is a good start. If it were made into a table with a little pretty printing (a little shading in the title, ect.) it would be very readable, and no one would have to worry about drilling down (something that you need to do with the database, and also can confuse newcomers).

I think one of us should start a page with this structure just to see how it will flesh out - we can then play with it until we like it. It can be an orphan for now, as it's strictly a test page that will get attached, as you suggest, to the collaboration page when we're done. But this is a while down the road yet.

Mike

 

[AK9R]

To be honest I didn't think we had this much frequency data in the wiki, but man, do we ever.

How much of it is unique to the Wiki and really should be in the DB?

 

[ka3jjz]

Bob I couldn't even begin to answer that. There's just too much to evaluate. At least some of this is very likely unvalidated, so it doesn't belong in the database (A lot of the USFS stuff, for example- there are a few 'validated' entries but chances are they haven't been submitted to the database).

QDP, I think using a list like you have right now and keeping that in a page is probably better than setting up tables at this point. That way if we find something has to be changed or copied, it's done easily. Tables can be a pain in the arse to edit, and besides that list you have will get lost in this thread eventually.

There's at least 2 other super categories I can think of at this point - Aircraft and Transportation (which clearly overlap one another, but that's the nature of the beast)

 

[ka3jjz]

Looks like I'm going to have to go back and add the state category to each of the state frequency categories - I thought I had done that while adding this stuff but I didn't - rats....

 

[QDP2012]

QDP, I think using a list like you have right now and keeping that in a page is probably better than setting up tables at this point. That way if we find something has to be changed or copied, it's done easily. Tables can be a pain in the arse to edit, and besides that list you have will get lost in this thread eventually.

There's at least 2 other super categories I can think of at this point - Aircraft and Transportation (which clearly overlap one another, but that's the nature of the beast)

I will take a few minutes right now to build a page showing the existing tree-structure (parent-child relationships) between categories. I will post a link to it here when done with the "first draft".

Thanks,

 

[AK9R]

There's at least 2 other super categories I can think of at this point - Aircraft and Transportation (which clearly overlap one another, but that's the nature of the beast)

"Ground Transportation" instead of just "Transportation"?

 

[AK9R]

I will take a few minutes right now to build a page showing the existing tree-structure (parent-child relationships) between categories. I will post a link to it here when done with the "first draft".

Good idea. With at least three of us working on this (you and Mike are doing most of the work...I just dabble), it will be good to have a common road map.

 

[ka3jjz]

"Ground Transportation" instead of just "Transportation"?

Aircraft includes airborne transportation - but we may need to sub divide it out further. Let's see where that goes

 

[QDP2012]

I will take a few minutes right now to build a page showing the existing tree-structure (parent-child relationships) between categories. I will post a link to it here when done with the "first draft".

Thanks,

Per an earlier suggestion, the Wiki article Categories-Tree is orphaned for the moment, and ready for your review.

Your thoughts?

 

[ka3jjz]

One word - Wow!

A very extensive listing, and well organized. Time now, I think, to chop the extra branches so the trunk is exposed.

I'm not sure that having every category on the page is worthwhile - a link to the categories page would be sufficient, I think. It just makes things very busy, and right now, we need simplicity to see where we're going. Anything that isn't likely to be part of this project should be dropped. Things like equipment (scanners, antennas, etc.), software, trunktracker categories, HF stuff - all of it, should go. We don't want to have a lot of unrelated clutter in what we're attempting to do.

Once that's done, the super category listings (similar to what you have, but in a more list style, like you have in message 42) can begin. That will formulate the 'road map' toward where we should go. Another advantage here is that once the lists are complete and everyone is comfortable with them, they can be changed to tables and indexed.

Keeping it in a list format also makes it real easy to copy/paste a category from one place to another. Flexibility is the key here. We want to be able to move things around as the need arises (and it's very likely that one or more of the sub categories will be repeated in a super category. It's not hard to understand why this is). Making one section per super category will suggest the structure of the table. And just use the titles - no need to use the actual links just yet. When we build the tables, we'll need them at that point, but right now a simple outline will do what we want.

By the way, in case you didn't know about it, you have your own private work area attached to your ID in the wiki. Everyone does. I use mine constantly when I'm developing something. It keeps everything active, but not in the public eye (unless someone knows how to access the user lists) until it's ready for prime time. Just click on your ID and see where you go. If you need to develop multiple pages, be sure to store them in a text format (Notepad ++ is excellent for this, but there are several other such packages). I'd avoid Word - it tends to put wierd characters all over the place that gets to be a royal pain if you forget to save as text...

A very good start - what say you, W9BU? Mike

 

[ka3jjz]

One other thing - unless we have to because the category has articles for it, let's try to be US centric for now, and leave the Canadian stuff alone. Lord knows we have a TON (no not a Metric Ton, hi) of US stuff to handle...

Besides once the US side is done, we will have a base line for doing the Canadian and other regional stuff as well

Mike

 

[QDP2012]

I'm not sure that having every category on the page is worthwhile - a link to the categories page would be sufficient, I think.

I understand. It was the first step, done primarily to get a convenient list of the category-parents.

Once that's done, the super category listings (similar to what you have, but in a more list style, like you have in message 42) can begin. That will formulate the 'road map' toward where we should go. Another advantage here is that once the lists are complete and everyone is comfortable with them, they can be changed to tables and indexed.

I had thought about these becoming "lost" in the long page, so I just finished adding "second-level node" headings to this section. The two super-categories (that act like their own full tree) thus far are on the page at these headings:

• Top Node: Collaboration -- the super-category that begins with the Category:Collaboration.
• Top Node: Wiki Frequencies -- the super-category that begins with the Category:Wiki Frequencies

The second-level categories like US Federal Government, etc. now have their own "Edit" feature beside their heading, so that they are easier to find and update..

Keeping it in a list format also makes it real easy to copy/paste a category from one place to another. Flexibility is the key here. We want to be able to move things around as the need arises (and it's very likely that one or more of the sub categories will be repeated in a super category. It's not hard to understand why this is). Making one section per super category will suggest the structure of the table. And just use the titles - no need to use the actual links just yet. When we build the tables, we'll need them at that point, but right now a simple outline will do what we want.

ok.

By the way, in case you didn't know about it, you have your own private work area attached to your ID in the wiki. Everyone does. I use mine constantly when I'm developing something. It keeps everything active, but not in the public eye (unless someone knows how to access the user lists) until it's ready for prime time. Just click on your ID and see where you go. If you need to develop multiple pages, be sure to store them in a text format (Notepad ++ is excellent for this, but there are several other such packages). I'd avoid Word - it tends to put wierd characters all over the place that gets to be a royal pain if you forget to save as text...

I never use Word for things like this--usually TextPad.



This is just a rough draft, first cut. I put the instructions at the top of the page in case someone unfamiliar with your project stumbled upon the page, and felt an urge to change something. Certainly you and W9BU can "have at it" and change whatever you want, make the lists contain what you want, trim out what you don't want. It's fine with me. I need to get back to the non-RR stuff, and will be busy with that for several days. So, go for it, Whatever you want to change on that page is fine with me.


Also, something I noticed, and don't have time to play with right now, is that maybe there should be another category added called "Aircraft Monitoring Frequencies", as a child under "Aircraft Monitoring" and "Wiki Frequencies". -- just a thought.

Thanks,

 

[QDP2012]

One other thing - unless we have to because the category has articles for it, let's try to be US centric for now, and leave the Canadian stuff alone. Lord knows we have a TON (no not a Metric Ton, hi) of US stuff to handle...

Besides once the US side is done, we will have a base line for doing the Canadian and other regional stuff as well

Mike

makes sense.

 

[ka3jjz]

I'll likely take a look at chopping that up tomorrow in earnest, but I'll start by removing all the non-frequency related stuff - Bob will have his hand in it at some point...Mike

 

[ka3jjz]

OK I've put 4 proposals at the bottom of the category tree article - they're not necessarily complete, but they give a good idea of a simple structure we can use to develop tables for all these categories. The simpler it is, the easier it will be to move things around until we're happy with it

Of course, there would need to be sections built for each of the US regions, and something for Aircraft Monitoring Frequencies, and I'm sure there are other divisions we'll probably need (a miscellaneous one for some of the oddball categories that don't completely fit others, such as Education, for example)

I'm almost done giving the state frequency categories a home, but then I've got to wander through each of the state categories and see what needs to be filtered into the state frequency category. It's tedious but necessary.

We'll also need to walk through each of the organization and functional categories (like businesses) to see if there's anything there that needs to be filtered. For example, any of those business articles followed by a state abbreviation will probably need to be checked. Another example would be something like 'Federal (TX)' which would potentially cross into at least 2 categories. But at least now that the statewide categories have been constructed and distributed, they will have a home

Mike

 

[ka3jjz]

A little progress report -

a. I've added a <statename> frequencies category to every US state page in the collaboration section. Unless something comes up I think we can mark these categories as pretty solid (barring anything that might have been missed, which after all of this, is quite possible)

b. I've gone through the entire list of categories - hopefully I didn't miss any - and wrote up some ideas about the structure of the tables for each category. Just as a reminder, they're on the bottom of;

Categories-Tree - The RadioReference Wiki

Comments, thoughts, brick bats are solicited

c. I've begun the process of browsing through every state category - article by article - and seeing if there's frequency information on it. If there is, it gets at least one new category. This is extremely tedious and time consuming (I just got to Illinois), but when it's done, the only thing that will be left to walk through would be the various super-categories that have been identified on the tree page. They're identified by the topic name on each section

d. I suppose that if everyone is in agreement, the coding of the tables can begin. We'll see whether any of the categories that don't have a 'frequencies' name to it now will get it after all the data has been walked through, but at least now there's a road map of where I see this project going.

Mike

 

[DaveNF2G]

Some of the proposed categorization comments in this thread do not square with the actual operations and structure of the entities under discussion, or with the practices and thought processes of scanner listeners. Some are linguistically ambiguous.

For example:

Also, something I noticed, and don't have time to play with right now, is that maybe there should be another category added called "Aircraft Monitoring Frequencies", as a child under "Aircraft Monitoring" and "Wiki Frequencies". -- just a thought.

Monitoring is not a function of many of the agencies we scan. That is what we hobbyists do.

Aircraft Monitoring Frequencies = Frequencies used by people who monitor aircraft. This would be a set with zero members.

On the other hand, Railroad Monitoring Frequencies would include the frequencies used by railfans who have ham or GMRS licenses and/or use two-way radio in support of their railfanning. (If there are such frequencies for aviation buffs, then I withdraw my comment above.)

Another example:

"Milcom" is a made-up word, known to hobbyists. It has no real-world connection to defense, military, or "support" operations of any kind. Why not just drop it and use language that means something in the real world?

If something in the Wiki (or in the DB for that matter) has been defined in the world external to RadioReference, then why establish and argue over made-up definitions and categories?

It might also be worthwhile to think about the questions being asked by scanner listeners, who are the Wiki's target audience. If someone wants to listen to communications relating to aviation, say, they often inquire about airline company frequencies, airline ramp communication systems, ATC frequencies, and airport operations frequencies. All of those things are part of monitoring "aircraft" to many hobbyists. At least the "super-" and "sub-categories" should be designed around such considerations.

 

[QDP2012]

Some of the proposed categorization comments in this thread do not square with the actual operations and structure of the entities under discussion, or with the practices and thought processes of scanner listeners. Some are linguistically ambiguous.

For example:

Also, something I noticed, and don't have time to play with right now, is that maybe there should be another category added called "Aircraft Monitoring Frequencies", as a child under "Aircraft Monitoring" and "Wiki Frequencies"

Monitoring is not a function of many of the agencies we scan. That is what we hobbyists do.

Aircraft Monitoring Frequencies = Frequencies used by people who monitor aircraft. This would be a set with zero members.

On the other hand, Railroad Monitoring Frequencies would include the frequencies used by railfans who have ham or GMRS licenses and/or use two-way radio in support of their railfanning. (If there are such frequencies for aviation buffs, then I withdraw my comment above.)

I understand the grammar-technicality you highlight above regarding the suggested "Aircraft Monitoring Frequencies" category, and in that context, I agree with you completely, because I also found/find the "...Monitoring Frequencies" description to be problematic (whereas the other subcategories, like "Air Traffic Control Frequencies" are grammatically precise and accurate).

As you probably guessed, the "Aircraft Monitoring Frequencies" suggestion was an unpolished-attempt to suggest a "...Frequencies" category that would:

• Be a child of "Aircraft Monitoring" since not all "Aircraft Monitoring" articles contain frequencies, and
• Follow the "...Frequencies" naming-convention as closely as possible and
• Allow "Aircraft Monitoring" articles that contain frequencies to be appropriately categorized with a "...Frequencies" category.

Maybe another approach would be two-fold:

• First, Eliminate/Avoid the "Aircraft Monitoring Frequencies" category or any such "...Frequencies" category that is so poorly-named, and then:
• Second, Create additional specific "...Frequencies" categories for the frequencies found in general "Aircraft Monitoring" articles. For example:
  • Airport Frequencies (proposed)
  • Air Show Frequencies (already exists)
  • Air Traffic Control Frequencies (already exists)
  • Airline Frequencies (proposed / see last comment below)
  • Blimp Frequencies (proposed)
  • General Aviation Frequencies (proposed)
  • Helicopter Frequencies (proposed)
  • ...etc.
• This way, any article listed in the "Aircraft Monitoring" category would also get a specific "...Frequencies" category as well, instead of the confusingly-named "Aircraft Monitoring Frequencies" category.

Thanks for pointing out the problem with "Aircraft Monitoring Frequencies".

Another example:

"Milcom" is a made-up word, known to hobbyists. It has no real-world connection to defense, military, or "support" operations of any kind. Why not just drop it and use language that means something in the real world?

As hinted in an earlier post, I am in-favor of losing the "MilCom" category all-together, and following the categories that correspond to real entities, like having "US Defense" (or whatever its updated name will be after the current revision-cycle) as a child of "US Federal Government", and under "US Defense" have all subcategories related to both the civilian-components of the US DoD, as well as those relating to the US military branches (currently listed under MilCom).

I think this would much more closely match reality, and make navigation-by-category more sensible for those who are listening/scanning and trying to match agency-articles with what they are hearing.

Since Wiki articles' contents and links can be customized as the author wishes, there could still be a "MilCom"-type article that summarizes Military Communications/Monitoring, and links to related articles. But, I think, the categories-tree should be structured to match reality, and where possible, match existing agency/organizational structure.

If something in the Wiki (or in the DB for that matter) has been defined in the world external to RadioReference, then why establish and argue over made-up definitions and categories?

Agreed. It seems like it would be better for both groups -- those visiting/searching RR, and those maintaining RR over time.

It might also be worthwhile to think about the questions being asked by scanner listeners, who are the Wiki's target audience. If someone wants to listen to communications relating to aviation, say, they often inquire about airline company frequencies, airline ramp communication systems, ATC frequencies, and airport operations frequencies. All of those things are part of monitoring "aircraft" to many hobbyists. At least the "super-" and "sub-categories" should be designed around such considerations.

As seen in the above list, something like "Airline Frequencies" could easily be a child under "Aircraft Monitoring". Others could be added, too.


Thanks again for the helpful ideas and comments.


Thoughts?




And, thanks to ka3jjz for all the continuing hard work. Non-RR projects are keeping me busy right now, but I will jump in to help when I can.