QSL Card and QSO Log Translation Guide

How do you translate amateur radio QSL cards, QSO logs and UTC signal reports correctly? The answer is to preserve the original record’s identifiers, sequence, measurements, status and limits before polishing the language. This practical guide explains translating the evidence of a radio contact—its call signs, date, UTC time, band, mode, signal report and confirmation route—without fabricating a completed exchange or changing the identity of either station. A reader should be able to use the translated material to understand the same recorded event, without finding new facts that the original never supplied. The worked examples below are invented training records, not copies of actual client files, operational instructions or official approvals.

People searching for how to translate a QSL card, QSO log translation, amateur radio call sign meaning, UTC radio contact time, RST signal report, and ADIF log fields often meet the same hidden problem: a short field may be easy to read linguistically and difficult to interpret operationally. A number can be a reference code rather than a quantity; a note can describe an observation rather than a decision; and a checkbox can leave an essential action unresolved. Correct technical translation protects these distinctions. It also keeps privacy, accessibility, version control and the needs of the eventual reader in view.

Quick summary: (1) identify the source and its authority; (2) separate fixed identifiers from language; (3) verify domain vocabulary; (4) preserve numbers, units, times and status; (5) make uncertainty visible; (6) translate natural wording without strengthening claims; (7) compare the target line with the original; and (8) refer unresolved operational questions to a competent person. The purpose of this article is education and translation quality assurance, not permission to make professional decisions on another person’s behalf.

Definition lock: what this article does and does not cover

A QSO is a two-way radio contact; a QSL is a confirmation of contact, historically often represented by a card and now also through electronic systems. A listening report is different from a completed two-way contact. A log is an observation record, not a story to reconstruct from memory. This guide considers language surrounding these records and the field boundaries that protect identity and chronology. It does not give transmitting permission or award credit.

This article has one canonical job: translating the evidence of a radio contact—its call signs, date, UTC time, band, mode, signal report and confirmation route—without fabricating a completed exchange or changing the identity of either station. It is different from a general guide to literal versus meaning-based translation, and it does not attempt to replace a domain manual. It focuses on the difficult boundary between recorded data and the conclusions a hurried reader might draw from that data. An accurate translation protects that boundary even when the target language prefers a simpler sentence.

The examples use English sample entries to expose meaning and risk before translation into any other language. They are not presented as verified bilingual equivalents; target-language terminology still needs review by someone fluent in that language and competent in the relevant field. That design lets readers practise source analysis without pretending that every language uses the same syntax, measurements or administrative conventions.

The visible problem: an attractive sentence can be a false record

Imagine a translated card that preserves the call sign but shifts a near-midnight UTC contact to the translator’s local calendar date. Or a log that changes ‘heard only’ to ‘worked’. The original operator knows these are different claims; the reader of the translation may believe a valid two-way contact occurred when the record only reports reception. Technical shorthand must therefore remain attached to verifiable definitions.

A polished sentence can be more dangerous than an awkward sentence if the polish erases evidence. Readers often assume a fluent translation is trustworthy; specialists know that fluency and record fidelity must be checked independently. A field marked pending, a note made before verification or a measurement taken under limited conditions must still read that way after translation.

Imagine two reviewers reading a translated form. The first checks whether the sentences are grammatical. The second checks whether every reader can still distinguish an observed condition from an approved outcome. They can reach opposite conclusions. The most useful quality assurance combines the two inspections: language first for comprehension, evidence second for faithfulness, and a final check for the actual decision the reader might make.

First principles that make these records readable

1. Call signs are identities, not ordinary words

A call sign may contain digits, letters and portable indicators. It names a station or operating identification in its recording context, and casual translation of its apparent syllables destroys that function.

Why it matters in amateur-radio contact records: Preserve the complete sign, including relevant suffixes and any slash, exactly as supplied; explain how it is written rather than translating its letters. The translator should be able to show exactly which part of the source licenses each statement in the new language. If a reader asks why a term or number was rendered that way, the answer should be an observable field, a documented convention or a clearly labelled question—not personal confidence.

2. The calendar date travels with its time zone

UTC timestamps often cross a different local calendar date. Time is not correct merely because the clock digits are correct.

Why it matters in amateur-radio contact records: Keep UTC clearly labelled and never convert into a local date unless a reliable time zone, offset and conversion request are supplied. The translator should be able to show exactly which part of the source licenses each statement in the new language. If a reader asks why a term or number was rendered that way, the answer should be an observable field, a documented convention or a clearly labelled question—not personal confidence.

3. A QSO is not an SWL listening report

Receiving a signal and exchanging messages are different events. Some forms log both, but their status cannot be merged.

Why it matters in amateur-radio contact records: Identify whether the record reports a two-way contact, reception alone, a scheduled attempt or a rejected log claim. The translator should be able to show exactly which part of the source licenses each statement in the new language. If a reader asks why a term or number was rendered that way, the answer should be an observable field, a documented convention or a clearly labelled question—not personal confidence.

4. A band label is not a literal measurement guess

Radio bands can be indicated by band, frequency or both. A brief value may be a standard band identifier.

Why it matters in amateur-radio contact records: Retain recorded frequency and mode; do not silently replace a precise value with an approximate range or infer a missing band. The translator should be able to show exactly which part of the source licenses each statement in the new language. If a reader asks why a term or number was rendered that way, the answer should be an observable field, a documented convention or a clearly labelled question—not personal confidence.

5. Modes are controlled vocabulary

CW, SSB, FM, FT8 and other mode labels carry operational meaning beyond their ordinary letters.

Why it matters in amateur-radio contact records: Keep established mode labels and define them separately where the audience needs help. The translator should be able to show exactly which part of the source licenses each statement in the new language. If a reader asks why a term or number was rendered that way, the answer should be an observable field, a documented convention or a clearly labelled question—not personal confidence.

6. Signal reports describe reception in context

A signal-report code is not a guarantee of intelligibility for every audience, and codes differ between contexts.

Why it matters in amateur-radio contact records: Keep the report value and state its role without upgrading it to a universal or independently verified performance claim. The translator should be able to show exactly which part of the source licenses each statement in the new language. If a reader asks why a term or number was rendered that way, the answer should be an observable field, a documented convention or a clearly labelled question—not personal confidence.

7. Confirmation status needs its own field

Sent, received, requested, matched and confirmed are not interchangeable stages of a QSL workflow.

Why it matters in amateur-radio contact records: Preserve the actual confirmation state and whether it concerns a paper card, an electronic record or an operator’s note. The translator should be able to show exactly which part of the source licenses each statement in the new language. If a reader asks why a term or number was rendered that way, the answer should be an observable field, a documented convention or a clearly labelled question—not personal confidence.

8. Privacy and provenance still apply

Cards may include addresses, names and station information that do not need public repetition.

Why it matters in amateur-radio contact records: Share only authorised personal details and keep the original record traceable for approved private review. The translator should be able to show exactly which part of the source licenses each statement in the new language. If a reader asks why a term or number was rendered that way, the answer should be an observable field, a documented convention or a clearly labelled question—not personal confidence.

A repeatable twelve-stage translation method

Stage 1: Identify the original record

Keep the actual page, screenshot or source export alongside the translation. Do not rely on a summary forwarded through a chat because it may omit an identifier, a negative finding or a handwritten correction. Preserve document version, origin and date.

Applied to amateur-radio contact records, Check whether the source is a paper card, an ADIF export, an award-system record or an informal handwritten note. This second pass has a specific purpose: it reduces the chance that a correct dictionary word will produce a wrong action, finding or historical claim. Keep the unresolved source wording attached to the review note instead of silently inventing a missing value.

Stage 2: State the reader’s task

Decide whether the reader needs to locate an item, compare a measurement, understand a warning, request a correction or act on an instruction. Different tasks require different levels of explanation, but none permits altering source evidence.

Applied to amateur-radio contact records, Determine whether the reader needs contact identification, QSL routing, chronological comparison or clarification of an unconfirmed entry. This second pass has a specific purpose: it reduces the chance that a correct dictionary word will produce a wrong action, finding or historical claim. Keep the unresolved source wording attached to the review note instead of silently inventing a missing value.

Stage 3: Segment the source

Separate labels, values, narrative comments, status codes, instructions, qualifiers, times and sign-offs into coherent units. Do not translate isolated fragments when their meaning depends on a nearby heading or a preceding field.

Applied to amateur-radio contact records, Split call sign, date, time, band, mode, reports, QTH and comments into separately auditable units. This second pass has a specific purpose: it reduces the chance that a correct dictionary word will produce a wrong action, finding or historical claim. Keep the unresolved source wording attached to the review note instead of silently inventing a missing value.

Stage 4: Lock identifiers and units

Mark serial numbers, IDs, signatures, dates, times, units, coordinates and prescribed codes before replacing ordinary words. Keep original values verbatim except when an explicitly approved conversion is documented and checked.

Applied to amateur-radio contact records, Lock calls, UTC dates, frequencies, signal-report codes, locator strings and serial numbers before writing prose. This second pass has a specific purpose: it reduces the chance that a correct dictionary word will produce a wrong action, finding or historical claim. Keep the unresolved source wording attached to the review note instead of silently inventing a missing value.

Stage 5: Resolve specialist abbreviations

Check the authoritative glossary or the recording organisation’s own conventions. A familiar abbreviation may have a different domain meaning; an unclear mark may be a correction rather than a valid code.

Applied to amateur-radio contact records, Verify QSO, QSL, SWL, RST, QTH, CQ and the mode names against operator conventions rather than everyday English. This second pass has a specific purpose: it reduces the chance that a correct dictionary word will produce a wrong action, finding or historical claim. Keep the unresolved source wording attached to the review note instead of silently inventing a missing value.

Stage 6: Translate statements, not assumptions

Write a plain-language paraphrase of the record first. Distinguish observations, requests, decisions, pending actions, confirmations and conjectures before constructing the target-language sentence.

Applied to amateur-radio contact records, Distinguish a contact actually completed from an attempted exchange, reception report or an unverified claim. This second pass has a specific purpose: it reduces the chance that a correct dictionary word will produce a wrong action, finding or historical claim. Keep the unresolved source wording attached to the review note instead of silently inventing a missing value.

Stage 7: Preserve time and sequence

Track what happened first, what was planned, what was completed and what remains pending. An apparently small tense change can turn a preliminary record into a completed event or an expired notice into a current instruction.

Applied to amateur-radio contact records, Check the UTC date at midnight and distinguish TIME_ON from TIME_OFF where present. This second pass has a specific purpose: it reduces the chance that a correct dictionary word will produce a wrong action, finding or historical claim. Keep the unresolved source wording attached to the review note instead of silently inventing a missing value.

Stage 8: Retain uncertainty and negation

Protect words equivalent to possible, suspected, not checked, unknown, failed, pending and not approved. If the source offers no determination, the translation must not produce one through confident grammar.

Applied to amateur-radio contact records, Retain incomplete information such as ‘operator unsure’, ‘not matched’ or ‘card not received’. This second pass has a specific purpose: it reduces the chance that a correct dictionary word will produce a wrong action, finding or historical claim. Keep the unresolved source wording attached to the review note instead of silently inventing a missing value.

Stage 9: Draft in natural target language

Choose clear target-language sentence order and standard field labels while keeping the information structure traceable. Where a code has no safe common equivalent, retain the code with a short explanatory gloss.

Applied to amateur-radio contact records, Make a compact bilingual field layout rather than a flowing narrative if the audience must check individual log values. This second pass has a specific purpose: it reduces the chance that a correct dictionary word will produce a wrong action, finding or historical claim. Keep the unresolved source wording attached to the review note instead of silently inventing a missing value.

Stage 10: Check with a paired evidence table

Compare every translated field against the original one by one, including blank fields and handwritten amendments. Use two reviewers where risk or institutional requirements justify it and keep questions visible for resolution.

Applied to amateur-radio contact records, Run a field-by-field call-sign comparison and compare every time and band against the image or export. This second pass has a specific purpose: it reduces the chance that a correct dictionary word will produce a wrong action, finding or historical claim. Keep the unresolved source wording attached to the review note instead of silently inventing a missing value.

Stage 11: Test the reader’s action

Ask what a reasonable reader would believe or do after reading the translation. If they would operate equipment, declare completion, file a claim or move something differently from a source-language reader, review the wording again.

Applied to amateur-radio contact records, Test whether another operator could accidentally claim a contact that the source did not establish. This second pass has a specific purpose: it reduces the chance that a correct dictionary word will produce a wrong action, finding or historical claim. Keep the unresolved source wording attached to the review note instead of silently inventing a missing value.

Stage 12: Release with provenance

Record the source version, translator, review date and unresolved questions. A translation may communicate a record, but it does not replace the authorised original or become a new professional certification merely by sounding polished.

Applied to amateur-radio contact records, Record whether the translation is of a physical card, a log export or an informal operator message. This second pass has a specific purpose: it reduces the chance that a correct dictionary word will produce a wrong action, finding or historical claim. Keep the unresolved source wording attached to the review note instead of silently inventing a missing value.

Twenty worked examples: from original evidence to trustworthy translation

The examples are constructed to teach analysis, not to certify an actual log. Treat each quoted source line as the record you have received. The ‘faithful reading’ is an English meaning check, not a substitute for a target-language translation. These examples show why a sound translation can be natural in wording while extremely conservative about evidence.

Worked example 1: Midnight UTC crossover

Source specimen: “QSO_DATE 2026-05-02; TIME_ON 2358 UTC” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is moving the contact into the local next day without saying so A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: The recorded contact began at 23:58 UTC on 2 May 2026; no local-time conversion is supplied. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Match the original date and the explicit UTC label before creating any local display. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Worked example 2: Portable call-sign suffix

Source specimen: “Worked call: AB1XYZ/P” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is dropping slash P because the suffix looks optional in a sentence A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: The logged operating identification includes /P exactly as recorded. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Compare every character with the source; do not infer where the station was located. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Worked example 3: Listening rather than working

Source specimen: “SWL heard AB1XYZ at 14:06” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is writing ‘I contacted AB1XYZ’ even though only reception is mentioned A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: The station was heard; the source does not assert a completed two-way QSO. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Find an exchange or completed-QSO field before using a word that means contacted. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Worked example 4: Uncertain handwritten zero

Source specimen: “Call appears AB0?YZ” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is choosing O or 0 based on visual preference A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: One character is uncertain and needs checking against the original or an authoritative operator record. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Enlarge the original image or ask the record owner; preserve a query marker meanwhile. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Worked example 5: Mode abbreviation

Source specimen: “MODE FT8; BAND 20m” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is interpreting FT8 as a file or changing the mode to a generic digital contact A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: The record states FT8 mode and the 20-metre band; both labels should remain stable. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Validate labels against the log software or a recognised amateur-radio glossary. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Worked example 6: Signal report digits

Source specimen: “RST sent 599; RST received 579” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is treating both as the same score or rounding the lower value upward A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: Two separate reports are recorded: 599 sent and 579 received. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Check direction of the report and preserve every digit. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Worked example 7: Two different times

Source specimen: “TIME_ON 1014; TIME_OFF 1021 UTC” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is replacing the start time with the end time because one field is shorter A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: The entry records contact start at 10:14 and end at 10:21 UTC. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Keep the source field names visible in the QA sheet. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Worked example 8: QSL requested

Source specimen: “PSE QSL via bureau” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is rendering the request as proof that a confirmation has already arrived A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: The operator requests a QSL via the bureau; receipt is not established. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Separate requested, sent and received status in the target text. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Worked example 9: Manager route

Source specimen: “QSL via ZX9MAN” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is treating the manager call as the worked station A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: The contact’s QSL should be routed through the stated manager identification. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Identify the worked call separately from routing information. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Worked example 10: Mixed time conventions

Source specimen: “Time 1830; zone not stated” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is automatically attaching UTC because most amateur logs prefer it A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: The time is written as 18:30, but its zone is unspecified. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Request the source system’s settings or operator clarification. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Worked example 11: Exact frequency

Source specimen: “FREQ 14.074 MHz” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is changing MHz to kHz without displaying an approved conversion A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: The recorded frequency is 14.074 MHz. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Compare the unit and decimal point character by character. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Worked example 12: Unmatched electronic entry

Source specimen: “LoTW upload made; no match yet” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is writing that the contact has been electronically confirmed A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: An upload is reported, but the match remains outstanding. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Check the source for an explicit matched or confirmed status. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Worked example 13: Locator string

Source specimen: “GRID FN31” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is translating the letters as a place name A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: The record gives the grid locator FN31 as a code. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Preserve the string and do not invent a full street address. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Worked example 14: Ambiguous slash

Source specimen: “Station identification AB1XYZ/QRP” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is dropping slash notation without asking what the operator intended A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: The recorded sign includes the literal suffix shown; its convention requires confirmation if material. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Check the actual operating identification and the logging system’s code definitions. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Worked example 15: Exchange fragment

Source specimen: “Heard partial exchange; call unverified” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is reframing a partial reception as a complete contact A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: The operator heard only part of an exchange, and the call remains unverified. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Retain both limitations rather than replacing them with a plausible call sign. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Worked example 16: Power value

Source specimen: “PWR 5 W” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is making the operator sound more powerful or substituting another unit A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: A power value of five watts is recorded, with no change in unit authorised. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Inspect adjacent header for whether this is transmitter output or another field. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Worked example 17: Physical card dispatch

Source specimen: “Card printed; not mailed” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is writing ‘QSL sent’ merely because a card exists A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: Printing is complete, mailing is not recorded. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Compare the dispatch checkbox or mailing date to the prose. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Worked example 18: Duplicate record flag

Source specimen: “Duplicate QSO suspected; review pending” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is deleting the entry or marking it invalid as a translation choice A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: The source flags a possible duplicate and awaits review. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Keep the uncertainty and do not merge rows without authorisation. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Worked example 19: Operator identity and address

Source specimen: “Name and private QTH in attached card” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is copying a personal postal address into a public article without permission A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: The name and address are source data subject to sharing permission. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Use redaction in public examples while retaining private source linkage. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Worked example 20: Award status

Source specimen: “Claim submitted; award status pending” This is a compact record line. Before writing a sentence in another language, identify the document field, the person or object it refers to and the difference between the visible characters and the explanation you are tempted to supply. The surrounding record may be necessary to settle a code, a reference or a date.

The tempting wrong reading is telling the reader the record has been accepted for an award A translator who follows that path may produce fluent target-language prose, but the prose would say more than this particular source proves. Mark the risky phrase and ask whether it changes a status, assigns responsibility, merges two identities, erases a limitation or implies an action that was never recorded.

A defensible English meaning check is: A claim was filed, and the outcome is not yet known. For the actual translation, preserve the source values and reproduce the level of certainty in the closest natural target-language construction. Where local convention differs, a parenthetical explanation may help, but an explanation must remain visibly separate from the original field or data.

Verification task: Inspect the actual award decision rather than the submission date. Compare the proposed target sentence line by line with the specimen. Then ask a second reader to recover the original status, value and scope from the translation alone. If they cannot do so, revise for traceability. This exercise trains the same habits needed when forms are scanned, source documents are handwritten or several revisions circulate at once.

Failure modes: how good-looking translations go wrong

Failure 1: Erasing UTC

Converting the time to a local clock but leaving out the zone can change the apparent calendar day and affect comparisons. The correction is to return to the field that created the problem and record the smallest justified meaning. When the source is incomplete, do not repair its incompleteness by guessing. Make a note for the document owner and give readers a translation that remains clearly limited rather than falsely complete.

Audit question: What would a reader do differently if the careless wording were accepted? Identify the new assertion and compare it with the original. The change may be a missing not, an unlicensed category, a misread unit or a hidden implication of approval. A useful quality-control process is designed to catch such differences before release.

Failure 2: Assuming a QSO

A hearing report or failed attempt may be phrased as a completed exchange because the translator recognises both call signs. The correction is to return to the field that created the problem and record the smallest justified meaning. When the source is incomplete, do not repair its incompleteness by guessing. Make a note for the document owner and give readers a translation that remains clearly limited rather than falsely complete.

Failure 3: Changing a call sign

One lost slash, transposed digit or inserted letter can identify a different operating record. The correction is to return to the field that created the problem and record the smallest justified meaning. When the source is incomplete, do not repair its incompleteness by guessing. Make a note for the document owner and give readers a translation that remains clearly limited rather than falsely complete.

Failure 4: Misreading mode codes

A common-language expansion of a specialist mode code may be grammatical and completely wrong. The correction is to return to the field that created the problem and record the smallest justified meaning. When the source is incomplete, do not repair its incompleteness by guessing. Make a note for the document owner and give readers a translation that remains clearly limited rather than falsely complete.

Failure 5: Reversing reports

Sent and received signal reports may be switched because both are short numerical fields. The correction is to return to the field that created the problem and record the smallest justified meaning. When the source is incomplete, do not repair its incompleteness by guessing. Make a note for the document owner and give readers a translation that remains clearly limited rather than falsely complete.

Failure 6: Confusing request with receipt

A QSL request is translated as a confirmation, misleading someone reconciling their logbook. The correction is to return to the field that created the problem and record the smallest justified meaning. When the source is incomplete, do not repair its incompleteness by guessing. Make a note for the document owner and give readers a translation that remains clearly limited rather than falsely complete.

Failure 7: Hiding missing fields

A blank frequency or unclear operator name is silently completed using a nearby plausible value. The correction is to return to the field that created the problem and record the smallest justified meaning. When the source is incomplete, do not repair its incompleteness by guessing. Make a note for the document owner and give readers a translation that remains clearly limited rather than falsely complete.

Failure 8: Dropping routing labels

A QSL manager becomes the station worked, distorting who participated in a contact. The correction is to return to the field that created the problem and record the smallest justified meaning. When the source is incomplete, do not repair its incompleteness by guessing. Make a note for the document owner and give readers a translation that remains clearly limited rather than falsely complete.

Failure 9: Mixing multiple QSOs

Rows from separate contacts are combined because they share a date or a call sign. The correction is to return to the field that created the problem and record the smallest justified meaning. When the source is incomplete, do not repair its incompleteness by guessing. Make a note for the document owner and give readers a translation that remains clearly limited rather than falsely complete.

Failure 10: Publishing private QTH

The public translation repeats personal address details that should remain within the operator’s authorised workflow. The correction is to return to the field that created the problem and record the smallest justified meaning. When the source is incomplete, do not repair its incompleteness by guessing. Make a note for the document owner and give readers a translation that remains clearly limited rather than falsely complete.

Failure 11: Overinterpreting RST

A code is described as an objective quality measurement or formal approval without source support. The correction is to return to the field that created the problem and record the smallest justified meaning. When the source is incomplete, do not repair its incompleteness by guessing. Make a note for the document owner and give readers a translation that remains clearly limited rather than falsely complete.

Failure 12: Treating uploads as matches

An exported or uploaded contact is called validated even when a matching confirmation is still absent. The correction is to return to the field that created the problem and record the smallest justified meaning. When the source is incomplete, do not repair its incompleteness by guessing. Make a note for the document owner and give readers a translation that remains clearly limited rather than falsely complete.

Guided practice and transfer exercises

Practice 1: The midnight check

Translate two fictional contact rows separated by two minutes across 00:00 UTC while preserving both calendar dates. Begin by drawing a two-column worksheet: ‘what the record actually says’ and ‘what a reader may wrongly assume’. Produce a short neutral paraphrase, draft the translation, and then examine which words came from the source and which were added for clarity. Preserve the first column as evidence throughout.

To deepen the exercise, create a second source version containing one changed value, status or qualifier. Ask a partner to identify that difference from your translation without seeing the original. If your version prevents them noticing, the translation is not yet robust. This is a stronger test than merely asking whether the prose sounds natural.

Practice 2: Different ways of confirming

Distinguish a paper QSL requested, a paper card mailed and an electronic QSO match in three separate translations. Begin by drawing a two-column worksheet: ‘what the record actually says’ and ‘what a reader may wrongly assume’. Produce a short neutral paraphrase, draft the translation, and then examine which words came from the source and which were added for clarity. Preserve the first column as evidence throughout.

Practice 3: A smudged identifier

Take an invented call sign with one ambiguous glyph and write a conservative query to the log owner. Begin by drawing a two-column worksheet: ‘what the record actually says’ and ‘what a reader may wrongly assume’. Produce a short neutral paraphrase, draft the translation, and then examine which words came from the source and which were added for clarity. Preserve the first column as evidence throughout.

Practice 4: The SWL boundary

Translate a note about hearing a station and compare it with a fully logged two-way exchange. Begin by drawing a two-column worksheet: ‘what the record actually says’ and ‘what a reader may wrongly assume’. Produce a short neutral paraphrase, draft the translation, and then examine which words came from the source and which were added for clarity. Preserve the first column as evidence throughout.

Practice 5: One value, two units

Keep a supplied MHz value unchanged while preparing a clearly optional conversion note for a technical reviewer. Begin by drawing a two-column worksheet: ‘what the record actually says’ and ‘what a reader may wrongly assume’. Produce a short neutral paraphrase, draft the translation, and then examine which words came from the source and which were added for clarity. Preserve the first column as evidence throughout.

Practice 6: A partial RST row

Decide which sentence preserves sent and received reports when one field is blank. Begin by drawing a two-column worksheet: ‘what the record actually says’ and ‘what a reader may wrongly assume’. Produce a short neutral paraphrase, draft the translation, and then examine which words came from the source and which were added for clarity. Preserve the first column as evidence throughout.

Practice 7: Portable operation

Explain why a logged suffix stays attached to the call sign even in fluent prose. Begin by drawing a two-column worksheet: ‘what the record actually says’ and ‘what a reader may wrongly assume’. Produce a short neutral paraphrase, draft the translation, and then examine which words came from the source and which were added for clarity. Preserve the first column as evidence throughout.

Practice 8: An unmatched upload

Write the status of a submitted electronic QSO record that has no confirmation match. Begin by drawing a two-column worksheet: ‘what the record actually says’ and ‘what a reader may wrongly assume’. Produce a short neutral paraphrase, draft the translation, and then examine which words came from the source and which were added for clarity. Preserve the first column as evidence throughout.

Practice 9: A QSL manager

Construct a translation that clearly distinguishes the operator contacted and the manager handling the card. Begin by drawing a two-column worksheet: ‘what the record actually says’ and ‘what a reader may wrongly assume’. Produce a short neutral paraphrase, draft the translation, and then examine which words came from the source and which were added for clarity. Preserve the first column as evidence throughout.

Practice 10: Date without zone

Prepare a translator query for a timestamp whose timezone was omitted. Begin by drawing a two-column worksheet: ‘what the record actually says’ and ‘what a reader may wrongly assume’. Produce a short neutral paraphrase, draft the translation, and then examine which words came from the source and which were added for clarity. Preserve the first column as evidence throughout.

Practice 11: Independent record audit

Compare two handwritten versions of a fictional card and note each change without merging the records. Begin by drawing a two-column worksheet: ‘what the record actually says’ and ‘what a reader may wrongly assume’. Produce a short neutral paraphrase, draft the translation, and then examine which words came from the source and which were added for clarity. Preserve the first column as evidence throughout.

Practice 12: Privacy-aware summary

Produce a public explanatory sentence that omits a private postal address but retains relevant contact fields. Begin by drawing a two-column worksheet: ‘what the record actually says’ and ‘what a reader may wrongly assume’. Produce a short neutral paraphrase, draft the translation, and then examine which words came from the source and which were added for clarity. Preserve the first column as evidence throughout.

A practical review rubric for teachers, translators and teams

Review each translation in six separate passes. Identity: do the record and reference numbers match? Time: are dates, time zones and sequences preserved? Quantity: are units, measured values and ranges exact? Status: do pending, completed, rejected and unknown still mean what they originally meant? Language: is the target wording intelligible and appropriate? Action: can the reader decide what the document does and does not authorise? A strong answer passes all six, rather than receiving one vague overall score.

For teaching, ask learners to highlight every fact carried into the target text and draw a line to its source. If a fact has no line, question it. If a source fact has no counterpart in the target, question the omission. A second learner should repeat the process without discussing the intended answer. This procedure reveals whether the problem is vocabulary, formatting, interpretation, domain knowledge or insufficient source evidence.

For a team, keep a small change log with the original phrase, chosen translation, reason, reviewer and date. Do not turn every uncertainty into a glossary rule. A glossary is useful for stable labels; an ambiguous handwritten remark may need a one-time query. Likewise, a general style guide may settle punctuation, but it cannot decide whether a real-world task has been authorised.

Frequently asked questions

What information belongs on a QSL card?

A card typically identifies the station contact and practical details such as date, time, mode and band or frequency. Exact conventions can vary, so translate the fields actually present rather than treating one sample card as mandatory for everyone. The governing principle is to communicate the same evidence and scope to the next reader. A translation can clarify a specialist expression, but it must not upgrade an observation into an approved conclusion or erase the original document’s limits.

Should QSO times be translated into local time?

Keep the original UTC date and time intact. A local rendering should be additional, clearly labelled and based on a verified time zone. A local display without its offset may create a false date near midnight. The governing principle is to communicate the same evidence and scope to the next reader. A translation can clarify a specialist expression, but it must not upgrade an observation into an approved conclusion or erase the original document’s limits.

Is a listening report the same as a QSO?

No. A reception report may document hearing a transmission without a completed two-way contact. This distinction matters when checking logs, contact confirmations and award claims. The governing principle is to communicate the same evidence and scope to the next reader. A translation can clarify a specialist expression, but it must not upgrade an observation into an approved conclusion or erase the original document’s limits.

Can I translate the letters of a call sign?

No. A call sign is an identification string, not an ordinary phrase. Preserve the characters and meaningful suffixes. Clarify ambiguous handwriting by asking the source owner. The governing principle is to communicate the same evidence and scope to the next reader. A translation can clarify a specialist expression, but it must not upgrade an observation into an approved conclusion or erase the original document’s limits.

What does QSL via a manager mean?

The note is about how to route a confirmation. It does not itself change the identification of the station contacted, establish a received card or promise successful delivery. The governing principle is to communicate the same evidence and scope to the next reader. A translation can clarify a specialist expression, but it must not upgrade an observation into an approved conclusion or erase the original document’s limits.

Do sent and received signal reports mean the same thing?

They are separate directions of reporting. A translator needs to preserve which operator sent each value, even when the two numbers look similar. The governing principle is to communicate the same evidence and scope to the next reader. A translation can clarify a specialist expression, but it must not upgrade an observation into an approved conclusion or erase the original document’s limits.

Is an uploaded record already confirmed?

Not necessarily. Upload, matching and confirmation are different states. Use the source system’s reported status rather than assuming the final outcome. The governing principle is to communicate the same evidence and scope to the next reader. A translation can clarify a specialist expression, but it must not upgrade an observation into an approved conclusion or erase the original document’s limits.

Should I expand abbreviations in the main table?

Usually keep stable field codes and add a nearby plain-language explanation. Replacing the code everywhere can make comparison with the operator’s original record harder. The governing principle is to communicate the same evidence and scope to the next reader. A translation can clarify a specialist expression, but it must not upgrade an observation into an approved conclusion or erase the original document’s limits.

How should I treat handwriting that could be a zero or letter O?

Do not choose a plausible glyph without evidence. Mark the ambiguity and request a clearer original, operator verification or another reliable record. The governing principle is to communicate the same evidence and scope to the next reader. A translation can clarify a specialist expression, but it must not upgrade an observation into an approved conclusion or erase the original document’s limits.

Can AI translate contact records reliably?

AI can draft useful language and spot unusual patterns, but it can also invent missing context or alter tokens. Compare its output field by field and keep a human check for identity and status. The governing principle is to communicate the same evidence and scope to the next reader. A translation can clarify a specialist expression, but it must not upgrade an observation into an approved conclusion or erase the original document’s limits.

Contextual next routes and source reading

To improve the general language foundations behind this specialised task, read the linked eduKateSG guides below. Each has a different job: one examines meaning, one social context and register, one non-literal language, one terminology and systematic quality checks, and the two hubs build English comprehension and vocabulary. Using the appropriate route prevents a technical translation article from becoming a duplicate general translation tutorial.

The external references below support domain vocabulary and record-handling practice. They are not a substitute for the current local rulebook, the organisation responsible for the original document, or a qualified review of a live high-stakes instruction.

Reference reading: ARRL — Keeping a Log; ARRL LoTW — Submitting QSOs and required fields.

The principle to remember

A QSL card is not a chance to tell a better story about a radio contact. It is a compact record whose value depends on the exact station, time, mode, signal details and confirmation state. Translate the words around those facts freely enough to be understood; treat the facts and their uncertainties with the discipline of an evidence ledger.

A successful translation leaves the reader with a faithful account, not an upgraded story. When in doubt, preserve the original identifier, show the uncertainty, check the operational meaning and ask the record owner before supplying any missing explanation. That is how translation becomes both readable and dependable.

Top Ways to Translate Correctly | Translate Amateur Radio QSL Cards, QSO Logs and UTC Signal Reports Without Inventing Contacts