Talk:Procedure word

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This Is

The section on This Is seems pretty absolutist. I've worked with law enforcement and SAR on the west coast who have it in their procedures to reverse the order from what's described. If it's "Never" allowed, it should specify by whom. JeffreyBeckman (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broadsword calling Danny Boy - a very famous example which presumably should be, "Danny Boy, this is Broadsword" --84.69.14.30 (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Send

I changed the word 'pass' to 'send me'. "Pass" is ambiguous, and could also mean its opposite, either I 'pass' or decline the rest of the message, or 'please send the message on to someone else'. --Boldklub-PJs (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omissions

I read this article when I was revising for my VHF licence exam, and updated it from my course notes to contain the prowords SAY AGAIN and STATION CALLING, which are used in cases of poor reception. I also added prowords for distress, urgency and safety calls in a separate section as they are important calls. Tuesday 09/04/07 1438 UTC.

I noticed the omission of READ BACK FOR CHECK, I READ BACK and CORRECT. These have been added under a new section 86.143.162.224 19:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reformating

When I initially started this page I'd done it from the perspective of the radio communications doctrine of the US Army. But now with the additions of other editors I now see that there is an wide variety of different prowords from all different places (maritime, aviation, military, Ham, etc.). The article looks really sloppy now, and I'm thinking that perhaps to straighten it out we should create different sections (Maritime, Aviation, Military, Ham, etc.) in the article so the prowords will be organized by their respective uses. The problem arises that many prowords are universal like "Roger", "Over", and "Out". Perhaps a "Universal Prowords" section could also be created. I'd like to hear the input of other editors before beginning this undertaking. Ultratone85 20:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, agree with you there. For example, in the example of the proword REPEAT, this means different things in maritime radio and military fire discipline parlance. Editus Reloaded 20:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I split Universals from MVHF prowords; we really need a CB or Ham enthusiast to fill in civilian uses, and the rest is up to you - you're the soldier here. Editus Reloaded 20:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I read you five by five"

I saw that somebody changed the radio check demonstration response to "I read you five by five". I've never heard this before and I wonder if someone could enlighten me as to it's origin, use, and meaning? Ultratone85 20:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. But "read you lima charlie", means read you loud and clear (in response to a comms check). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 18:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 by 5 is taken from the Amateur context of Radio Traffic. This refers to the RST Readability Strength and Tone. Tone is only used to describe the pureity of a CW signal CW relates to Morse. all the signals are graded from 1 exteremly poor to 5 very strong. "R" is Readability and "S" Strength. therefore 5 by 5 is readability 5 by strength 5 a very strong signal that is broadcast quality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.82.187 (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5 by 5 is sometimes subbed for "Radio 5" in the UK, meaning good signal. I have no sources though. ZellDenver (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ZellDenver: I'm pretty sure you mean

"5 by 5" is sometimes replaced by "Radio 5" in the UK

or

"Radio 5" is sometimes subbed [substituted] for "5 by 5" in the UK.

--Thnidu (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When to say 'over' or 'out'?

I notice from playing too much Call of Duty 4 that sometimes people will use the words 'over' and 'out' and sometimes they will not. I know what they mean and when they should be said, but why is it that sometimes they are not? An example would be on this page, when it states that there are two helicopters in formation and they are communicating, but neither say out or over. Why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.12.18 (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio users, certainly in maritime VHF and probably in other systems should ALWAYS use over or out; the idea is to differentiate between the end of a message and a message interrupted due to interference. Editus Reloaded (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say either "over" OR "out". "Over" means you are done transmitting, but await response. Essentially you are done saying something, waiting for the other party to talk. "Out" means you are done with the conversation. Saying "over and out" is something little boys do because it sounds cool. But it is not proper radio talk.

Pronunciation of PAN PAN and SECURITE

I added IPA pronunciations to PAN PAN and SECURITE. I made my best effort to sound them out and pick the right characters but no guarantee that I got it exactly right. Rsduhamel (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about PAN-PAN, but SEELONCE, MAYDAY, PRU-DONCE, and FEENEE are English respellings of French silence (silence), m'aidez (help me), prudence (prudence, cautiousness, discretion), and fini (finished, done), respectively. MAYDAY from m'aidez is well known, but I'm not familiar with the others. Such respelling makes sense in a code/regulation intended for English-speakers. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wilco

I believe in the US Navy, only the commanding officer of a ship is allowed to say "wilco", can someone verify? Mcswell (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Module 5, page 2-20, of the U. S. Navy Nonresident Training Course for information Systems Technicians (NAVEDTRA 14226 dated October 1997) states "Only the commanding officer or his or her authorized representative can authorize communications personnel to send an acknowledgment." and "The reply is the proword WILCO."

I was taught in Radioman "A" School back in 1970 that pilots were considered "commanding officers" when they we in command of their plane and could use WILCO when required. Robertshobe (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught in Signaller School back in the seventies that "Wilco" abbreviated "Will comply". In ordinary traffic, a radio operator would acknowledge receipt of a transmission containing an order, but this would not constitute an acknowledgement that the order was received qua order. So the RO would take it to the skipper, and come back with acknowledgement of the content later. However, when said CO was present during traffic, he could enter the conversation with "Wilco" to shorten the reception handling procedure, acknowledging the order as order directly. And that is also why only commanding officers may use it, as only they have the authority to order orders to be followed. Sorry for the long expl., EN not my first, etc.. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roger out

Just a comment.. I was bitched out by my CO for saying "Roger out" over the radio during a training exercise. Ether my CO was wrong or this is wrong..—Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎159.247.3.210 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SEELONCE FEENEE etc.

I'm a bit confused by the use of spellings like "SEELONCE FEENEE" in this article. Surely this is just the French words "SILENCE FINI", and the entry below should give pronunciation advice, as with the "SÉCURITÉ" entry. -- The Anome (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Any good reason why WP:ALLCAPS doesn't apply?

The only reason I see is that radio procedure words normally are written in all capitals. --Vbakke (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which, really, is a mediocre reason at best. The question should be, What is helpful to our readers? Putting everything in caps is less helpful than parsing out emphatic syllables, I think. A loose necktie (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Over

The text in this section is confusing at best. It says:
"Over" and "Out" are never used at the same time, since their meanings are mutually exclusive ...
as well as
... the same meaning can be communicated with just "OUT", as in "Ops, Alpha, ETA five minutes. OUT."
which is in opposition. Perhaps the last sentence in this section should just be omitted.

23.28.177.232 (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned that this is advisory-- and that Wikipedia is not meant to advise anyone about anything at all. "Over" and "out" are indeed sometimes used at the same time, at least in Hollywood, though their meanings are mutually exclusive. What is the reference? What is the source? Without direction, we cannot know. A loose necktie (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be referring to newer devices that produce a distinctive sound (such as a chirp or short burst of static) when transmission ends with the release of the push-to-talk button. With that indication I believe it's no longer necessary to say "over". If so, the sentence should be changed to say that.

(and it adds another layer to Stewie's behaviour in https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vp1GQvWMYkk )

-- 82.40.14.9 (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collate

Hi, "collate" is a term I've seen listed (but never used myself); IIRC it is used to announce or request a checking of numbers transmitted, e.g. for positions. Wrt. "over and out", I was taught that "over" was a remains from the days when only one person could talk at the time ("single sideband transmission" ...?), and it was useful and polite to indicate that your transmission was over, allowing the other party to reply. I guess modern (post-1970 ...) radio technology ("Dual" or "Double sideband"....?) made this requirement superfluous. All this in a military setting, btw. T 46.212.185.190 (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This would be useful if referenced. Single- and double-sideband has nothing to do with the interaction of conversing parties - perhaps you are thinking of "simplex", "full duplex" and "half duplex" ; the chances that these are explained properly on Wikipedia are ever-variable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thx. Sorry, my mil. clearances expired in the previous millennium, no access to those signal books ... and I can't find "collate" online; for the same meaning I now see "I Verify". March of time, perhaps; best to wait until ref pops up somewhere. Thx also for the simplex/duplex, that was it. Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-way_radio . I'll not pretend to be a judge of content, but seems straightforward enough. Good summer to you. Regards, T 46.212.185.190 (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That linked article needs work. Obviously written by someone trying to sell the latest gear to the Podunk Falls Police, Fire and Gamelaws Department. Anything that uses "architecture" twice and "legacy" at all is not sound. Sorry if this confused you even more. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's nearly impossible to make med more confused than I am. But then I'm no longer in radio, and was never in procurement - no harm done :) Thx for info, KUTGW and have a good one. T 46.212.185.190 (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ACP 125(F)

Is there a reason why this section is still based on ACP 125(F)? Would revision G not be a more up to date source? Pedlan (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]