The community recently voted to expand the scope of this site to include questions regarding Morse code that are not also about amateur radio or the technology of radio.

Should we make changes to our tags so that such questions are tagged differently than questions about Morse code in a radio context?


1 Answer 1


Yesterday there was one tag for everything related to Morse code, , and two tag synonyms, and . Now that we are allowing questions regarding Morse code by itself, this has caused a situation that is slightly absurd. Specifically, if someone who isn't a ham comes to our site to ask a question about Morse code, such as asking about a scene in a movie that has some Morse code in it, then the proper tag is , which is an abbreviation that non-hams know nothing about. I believe that we would be better-off with tags that distinguish between questions about Morse code by itself, and questions about modulation modes commonly associated with Morse code.

I propose that we delete the and tag synonyms, create a new tag, and keep the tag. I further propose:

  • The tag should be for questions about Morse code by itself, including questions about learning to receive Morse code or learning to use sending devices (straight keys, bugs, paddles, etc). Also questions from pop culture about Morse code, and questions about computer input devices for the handicapped that use Morse code.
  • The tag should be about radio modulation modes associated with Morse code (OOK and MCW), questions about keying radios, and questions about radio procedure related to Morse code (Q-codes, abbreviations invented for radio, etc).

According to the scheme I propose, the general rule would be that if a radio is directly involved, or if the question only makes sense if a radio is involved, then the question should use the tag; if not, then it should use the tag. If it's still not clear which tag to apply to a question after reading all this, then I see nothing wrong with tagging such a line-blurring question with both and tags.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Where in this division should questions about radio procedure when using CW and Morse code fall? They are about radio, but not about the modulation scheme except incidentally; they only apply to using Morse code, but they aren't questions about the code itself. Personally, I'd be inclined to have them tagged procedure cw because "use Morse code" is just a particular part of the procedure that everyone agrees on, but on the other hand, Q-codes and abbreviations, for example, are part of Morse code (though less "objective" than the alphabet). $\endgroup$
    – Kevin Reid AG6YO Mod
    Commented Oct 7, 2021 at 0:02
  • $\begingroup$ Excellent question @KevinReidAG6YO! I hadn't thought that far ahead yet. I think questions regarding Morse-code-related radio procedures, such as Q-codes and abbreviations invented for radio, should use the cw tag (also using the procedure tag couldn't hurt). I have edited my answer accordingly. $\endgroup$
    – rclocher3
    Commented Oct 7, 2021 at 1:13
  • $\begingroup$ This might seem like a lot of hair-splitting, but the guidance would be in the tag descriptions, and questions that might be referred to Solomon for tagging would be fairly rare. $\endgroup$
    – rclocher3
    Commented Oct 7, 2021 at 1:29
  • $\begingroup$ Do we have enough questions about Morse modulations that it's necessary to distinguish them from questions about Morse code? I suspect the CW enthusiasts will be looking for morse anyway. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 30, 2021 at 9:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .