Number of digits in Wiki frequency lists

[ecps92]

In the Wiki it had been pretty standard to use out to the 4th decimal point for most of the common legacy frequencies, going to the 5th, most users would not know to search that and those generally were in the 700 Mhz band only.

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll watch for that. And, thanks for reverting them.

Edit: After a quick look, I agree, a more careful look is needed into that user's editing-history. It looks like some more his/her edits likely will need to be reverted.

 

[QDP2012]

In the Wiki it had been pretty standard to use out to the 4th decimal point for most of the common legacy frequencies, going to the 5th, most users would not know to search that and those generally were in the 700 Mhz band only.

Recently, I switched from using 4-digits to using 5-digits right-of-the-decimal in the Wiki because that's what the DB now shows for all listings, (which I think is a relatively recent change in the DB). As you mention, the need for the 5th digit does not exist in every band, but it keeps things consistent for both Wiki-page presentation (in columns etc), and for searching.

Until I just tested it, I thought a basic Google search for a frequency like "123.456" would also find matching frequencies that had digits in the 4th and 5th positions, but it does not. Instead, Google's Advanced-search offers a range-finding option for numeric values, which can be used in the basic Google search box also.

The following Google search-phrase does find both "123.456" and anything in the range "123.45600" to "123.45699"

123.456..123.45699 site:wiki.radioreference.com

I think we should use 5-digits right-of-the-decimal to be consistent with the DB.

Edit: Unfortunately, so far, I have not found an equivalent range-search method using the Wiki's search-box located in the left navigation column. But, once we get the format consistent across the Wiki, then it will be easy with the Wiki-search tool also.

Only one opinion,

 

[ecps92]

There is no search formula.
I've tried in the past, both for here and the SNE Wiki

Most of the wiki has been built on the "4th digit" with a few that have been fixed over time
Using the 5th should be for the 700 Mhz that use it, otherwise there will have to be major changes/edits done across the wiki and "honestly" there is too much still occuring for daily edits/category changes.

Use what the Scanner uses/Displays
ie 483.58750 is not what my scanner shows.

We need to keep it to what the basic user might search on

Recently, I switched from using 4-digits to using 5-digits right-of-the-decimal in the Wiki because that's what the DB now shows for all listings, (which I think is a relatively recent change in the DB). As you mention, the need for the 5th digit does not exist in every band, but it keeps things consistent for both Wiki-page presentation (in columns etc), and for searching.

Until I just tested it, I thought a basic Google search for a frequency like "123.456" would also find matching frequencies that had digits in the 4th and 5th positions, but it does not. Instead, Google's Advanced-search offers a range-finding option for numeric values, which can be used in the basic Google search box also.

The following Google search-phrase does find both "123.456" and anything in the range "123.45600" to "123.45699"

123.456..123.45699 site:wiki.radioreference.com

I think we should use 5-digits right-of-the-decimal to be consistent with the DB.

Edit: Unfortunately, so far, I have not found an equivalent range-search method using the Wiki's search-box located in the left navigation column. But, once we get the format consistent across the Wiki, then it will be easy with the Wiki-search tool also.

Only one opinion,

 

[QDP2012]

Good afternoon ecps92,

There is no search formula. I've tried in the past, both for here and the SNE Wiki

• That is inconvenient, but thankfully still manageable by using the Google range-search option. I recall reading in past threads here, that Wiki-searching has been a topic of study for the RR staff over the years, and that after trying other search-tools, they found that the current solution gives the best overall performance. My thanks to those who in previous years struggled with earlier options to determine what the best option was.

Most of the wiki has been built on the "4th digit" with a few that have been fixed over time
Using the 5th should be for the 700 Mhz that use it, otherwise there will have to be major changes/edits done across the wiki and "honestly" there is too much still occuring for daily edits/category changes.

• Even with your good consistent efforts for many months to standardize frequencies to 4-digits, my opinion after helping ka3jjz with his "Wiki Frequencies" categories-project, and working on some other categories-projects since, is that though there are many frequencies showing 4-digits right-of-the-decimal, there are still many that are 1, 2, and 3-digits also; meaning that most every page which contains frequencies will need some type of adjustment, whether the effort is to get to 4-digits or 5-digits.
  
  
• Another effort or project that began recently is to standardize the method of displaying conventional frequencies in-general, by using Template:Table_DB_ConvFreqs where practical, because it displays the results in a table that matches the RRDB's table column structure.
  
  As this template is applied, the convenient opportunity is also taken to add trailing zeroes appropriately, because a uniform number of digits improves the appearance of data which is listed in the table and makes it easier to read. So, this Template project itself will require inspecting and touching, if not also updating, most every frequency-listing in the DB for at least table-formatting purposes, if not also to append trailing zeroes.
  
  Even though, hopefully, the template will get a lot of use, we should be consistent with the number of digits regardless, because some frequencies will be listed without using the template.

Use what the Scanner uses/Displays
ie 483.58750 is not what my scanner shows.

We need to keep it to what the basic user might search on

• My 28-year-old scanner displays out to 4-digits right-of-decimal.
  My 10-year-old scanner displays out to 6-digits right-of-decimal.
  I would expect new scanner owners to have today's (or tomorrow's) technology; which I'm guessing does (or will) display to 6-digits.
  I would expect the basic user to search on anything up to the maximum number of digits displayed on their scanner.
  
  
• My thoughts about the number of digits to the right-of-the-decimal are focused on
  • (1) consistency across the Wiki for displaying on-screen, and for searching convenience, and
  • (2) not having to redo the same update-effort to add additional digits when the next generation of scanners or some new radio-technology is released.
  
  As we know, since the DB tables are DB-driven, the SQL statement can auto-append zeroes as needed for each row returned; and the entire DB can be "upgraded" to the newest level of precision by simply changing the SQL statement, not every frequency listing individually.
  
  Since, in-general, any effort to increase trailing zeroes in the Wiki involves inspecting and touching every frequency on each page that lists frequencies, my opinion is that we should choose a standard number of digits to the right of the decimal that will be sufficient for years to come, and hopefully thereby avoid or at least significantly prolong having to reexamine and retouch the Wiki's frequencies for the purpose of adding more trailing zeroes.
  
  Since 5-digits is already being used uniformly by the DB, and since actual frequencies used by scanners now included some that are 5-digits, I believe we should show Wiki frequencies with at least 5-digits right-of-the-decimal.
  
  When mentioned earlier that I recently changed from 4-digits to 5-digits, I didn't mention that I had at that time considered updating the Wiki to show 6-digits, simply to get the Wiki ahead of the curve, so that someone won't have to come back in a couple of years and do this all over again, and because my 10-year-old scanner shows 6-digits, so I guessed that many people would be used to seeing 6-digits in their displays, too.

Again, only one opinion.


ecps92, thank you for really getting this ball rolling, and for all of your work to standardize the number of digits. Uniformity in how the frequencies are displayed in the Wiki significantly improves its appearance and its usefulness, in my opinion. For me, right now, uniformity is the top issue. I find some sections of the Wiki to be nearly unreadable because of the inconsistent number of digits. Whether it is to 4, 5, or 6 digits right of the decimal, I will be glad to help you standardize the number of digits in the Wiki's frequencies. I'm not sure what the Admins prefer, so I'll ask here. Maybe they have other factors that need to be considered, too.

Admins, what is your preference on how many digits should be displayed right-of-the-decimal for frequencies in the Wiki?



Edit: After re-reading my post, I think I might be guilty of getting this thread a bit off-track from the OP's original intent. Moderators, if this post and the earlier related ones need to be split into another thread, please do, with my apologies.


Thanks,

 

[DaveNF2G]

Some of the new digital allocations on UHF (450-470 MHz) are also on 5-digit frequencies. It's not confined to 700 MHz any more.

 

[ka3jjz]

And I believe VHF narrowband would, in many cases, require a 5 digit display. Mike

 

[QDP2012]

I was beginning to lean towards the 4-digit standard if there was only one exception (the 700 MHz listings), but with the recent comments, now I'm wondering whether 5-digits should be the exception, or should be the rule.

The thing that leads me to lean back toward 5-digits is that when the frequencies are right-justified in a table-column, having a uniform number of digits to the right of the decimal makes the decimals line-up vertically which makes it easier to read, and makes the legitimate 5-digits frequencies look less like errors. If 5-digits is more commonly used than initially thought, maybe 5-digits should be the rule instead of the exception.

I'm not that familiar with how many band-segments use 5-digits, so I'm relying on the experts here to clarify which way we should go.

Thanks for your advice,

 

[ecps92]

Guess it's been limited in my region, to 700 and a few of those pesky Part 22 channels

And I believe VHF narrowband would, in many cases, require a 5 digit display. Mike