Shuffled a paragraph so that the list will be in alphabetical order. Also removed "The" from the section titles.
Eric K3NA 11:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Pete Smith, N4ZR 11:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
On reflection, do we want alphabetical order or chronological?
Pete Smith, N4ZR 11:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Most contesters don't know the order of manufacture, especially between manufacturers. Did the Heathkit SB-102 transceiver come before the Drake R-2? By placing the second-level headings in alphabetical order, the contents list at the top of the page will be easily scanned by the new reader.
When the list gets too big to scan quickly (~8-12 items, according to ergonomic specialists), it can be broken into groups (either using 2nd level and 3rd level subheads, or separate pages) by manufacturer.
Eric K3NA 13:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
OK - I was actually planning to add manufacturer headings above the individual radio subheads - just hadn't gotten around to it. Do you agree that within manufacturers it makes sense to list them chronologically? Pete Smith, N4ZR 20:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Grouping by manufacturer seems sensible. I still think it is better to list alphabetically, even within manufacturer listings. The descriptive text could indicate dates of manufacture, if that is important. Performance in a contest is more important - hi!
Eric K3NA 21:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm not really hard-over on it, but it seems to me that it makes the narrative clearer if the listing of radios follows the chronological order, which is usually also logical in terms of price and features being added. For example, the TS-930 requires a whole aftermarket microprocessor board for computer control, the TS-940 only requires a comm board, and adds an IF output for an SDR, the 850 only needs a level converter, but retains the IF port, and the 950 still needs a level converter but has a full set of contest features. The 930 is the cheapest of the lot, and a 950 will still cost you as much as a loaded MP.
Pete Smith, N4ZR 01:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
One could always include a chronological table at the top of each manufacturer's page, in addition to the alphabetical "contents" listing.
No,let's not make it any more obscure. As long as the list of candidate radios from each manufacturer is short (which it should be, so long as we don't try to capture every clunker they ever made for HF), the order doesn't really make a huge difference. I'll just go back through the writeups we have so far and make sure that any references to other models don't depend on sequence but use the model number for logical linking.
Pete Smith, N4ZR 09:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
For K3TN - Thanks for clarifying and improving on my reference. Do you know anything about the TS-940 or TS-950SDX?
I added a first pass at the TS-950 series and links to photos of the transceivers listed on this wiki page. I have owned the TS--940SAT, TS-950S and several TS-950SDX's (still using one this weekend). There's possibly some personal bias that needs to be weeded out of my text?