Talk:WSJT (amateur radio software)

So...

This needs expansion, some cleanup, definitely a wikification, some actual sources (shouldn't be hard), maybe a mention of WSJT (JT65a) being used on HF (I believe QST was a recent source for that). It's also basically an orphan. Iknowyourider (t c) 21:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed everything except the orphan thing. See also this comment. ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 08:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I tried to add a resource link, http://nw7us.us/jt65a.html where I post a two-part PDF series that I co-authored with David (as cited in this wiki article). Someone thought I was trying to enhance search engine ratings. I am not. I am trying to promote JT65A and JT65-HF as digital mode options for the Amateur Community. I gain nothing from this. I think this link should still be included. I have videos and help information on this link, and am trying to make this as useful to new-comers to the digital mode. This is a resource, and since the wiki lists this work but does not link to it, it would make sense to link to it. I am NW7US, one of the authors of the articles. NW7US (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

HFLink Issues

There is a discussion going on in the amateur radio digital community that the resources found at the HFLink website are causing problems. The problems are stemming from the promotion of inaccurate information by the HFLink website. The frequencies suggested by the HFLink website are not always correct for each of the modes for which the HFLink website offers information. HFLink is a commercial entity promoting their ALE software and mode; they are trying to claim certain operating frequencies as 'exclusive' slices of spectrum that they use only for themselves. This is where the controversy starts. The other modes share (legally) the same spectrum. The HFLink website, with the aid of search engine optimization and other promotions, seems to attempt to educate the public to use only the frequencies that they have deemed "official", leaving their ALE mode frequencies clear for their use. This is not in keeping with the amateur radio code of ethics. It is for this reason that I attempted to remove the HFLink link -- they should not be considered an authority (even if they might get some of the common frequencies correct). They try to appear as an authority, but they are self-promoting their mode on an amateur radio service. NW7US (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

JT64?

"...and a preview of JT64A). As of version 8.0 (referred to as colloquially as WSJT8) the available modes changed completely such that WSJT8 now offers 5 different modes (JTMS, ISCAT, JT64A, JT8, and Echo) -- none of which are back-compatible with WSJT7 or earlier releases.[4] This backwards-incompatibility includes JT64A, such that the preview release of JT64A in WSJT7 cannot communicate with the stable release of JT64A in WSJT8."

What is this JT64A? It's hard to keep track of all the modes that have come and gone in WSJT, but I think we're talking about JT65A only! Why do we want to talk about incompatibilities between obsolete versions? Probably best to remove such historical details.--Albany45 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this article definitely needs to be updated. I'm not familiar with the other modes, but I'm working on the FT8 section. Qslcard (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Split WSJT from it's digital modes

Modes like FT8 have a lot more to them then just WSJT. It might be a good idea to make a new article covering FT8 in more depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr vulpes (talk • contribs) 21:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

FT8 article

I replaced the FT8 redirect with an article on FT8, but it was reverted. FT8 is probably the most popular ham radio mode, and ham radio publications have covered it extensively, so it shouldn't be hard to show that it's notable. Should I split the article again with more citations? Qslcard (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You'll need a citation to WP:RS, preferably multiple citations, to say "FT8 is the most popular ham radio mode" definitively in Wikipedia's voice. You could probably cite something like this [1] to say, "according to the ARRL, FT8 accounts for nearly two thirds of HF activity". - - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

When adding content to articles, keep WP:V in mind. Details, specifications, technology updates, etc. may be self-evident to you, however they do need to be cited to a reliable source. See WP:RS for what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh okay. Is the WSJT-X Web site a reliable source for information about the features of WSJT-X? Qslcard (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

If you mean this [2], yes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was referring to. Thank you! Qslcard (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Read over WP:N to see what criteria justifies a new article. If multiple reliable sources discuss a topic specifically and in-depth, it's usually a good indication that a stand alone article can be justified. What you want to avoid is sourcing to blogs, forum posts, personal webpages, etc. Authoritative sources like the ARRL are best, example [3]. Books by reputable publishers are also good, for example [4]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the FT8 redirect and recreated the FT8 article with more sources and expanded the article a bit. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Move to WSJT-X?

WSJT is discontinued; WSJT-X is the current program. --Qslcard (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)