Talk:Shortwave bands

Untitled

For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Shortwave bands

---

Extremely badly written, I believe it would be better to get rid of it completely and start from the scratch. Unless rewritten, I'll nominate it for deletion. - Mike Rosoft 19:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Beginning with the title: If it were named Amateur HF Bands, that would be better, since there are also the broadcast shortwave bands too. Roodog2k 20:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken a big hack at it, though I don't know much about commercial allocations outside the international broadcasting and amateur radio worlds. I'd like someone to take a hack at the Marine and Land Mobile section to flesh it out a bit. Haikupoet 02:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Expansion Needs

Basically work is needed to cover three uses -- military, commercial, and maritime uses of the HF bands. When I rewrote this article way the hell back in May, I didn't (and still don't) have the expertise to fill in those sections. Haikupoet 05:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirection?

I don't like the redirection from 12 Meters. There should be a separate page for 12M like the rest of the articles as some radios are sold to cover that band. Davidl9999 (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the redirect (along with that of 17 meters and 30 meters) to point to the WARC bands article. Given the small spectrum of these three bands (250 kHz total) and their related nature, I doubt that the individual bands warrant articles unless the WARC bands atricle has been extensively expanded first. Caerwine Caer’s whines 16:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That makes very good sense. Thanks! Davidl9999 (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Instead of directing the reader to a bunch of empty pages that say nothing, keep all the facts and figures about each shortwave band here until *this* article gets too long. Then, and only then, transfer each band to its own "featured article candidate" article replete with history, properties, diagrams,references (properly cited from reliable sources) and photos.

It's probably better for a reader to get an overview of all the bands in one place instead of chasing all over the Wikipedia to compare them. Surely someone out there owns a WARC handbook that isn't packed away in his garage until his renovation is completed...we should get a more authoritative, WARC-based reference for the band limits than someone's random table radio manual. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

My idea (which I only partially implemented before Wtshymanski reverted me) was to have one page per band (like there already are for many of the ham bands) and then they could be linked from any article that wanted them. Then they'd not have to be duplicated all over the place. I take your point that as it stood, my "per band" pages were mostly stubs - but that was because the job wasn't finished. Amongst the things that a "per band" page could list would be the typical propagation conditions to expect, details of the frequency allocation per WARC region, maybe even a list of transmitters known to operate on a given band (many of which have their own page already).

So - if I was wrong to attempt that, is it wrong for the ham bands to have "per band" pages? Probably not - because they have matured to the point of actually having details like band-edge frequencies per region, and a bit of history even. Steve Hosgood (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that having individual ham band articles was a good idea either. Anyway, as we say around here, there's no deadline. Put as many details as we can find in each band description and when each band has more than a couple of lines of description, it will be easy to split them out complete with references. I don't think there's ever going to be enough to say about any individual band to make it worth having its own article, and I think collectivitiies of trivialities should be discussed as a whole rather than individually. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Two Tables of bands?

Wtshymanski just added a table with the comment "nice table from Shortwave; let's have the same information at several places so we're never sure which is right". There's a lot of truth in that comment! However the new table just blindly repeats the same information that the existing one did! The "Shortwave" page should be referencing this article when discussing bands (that's what this article is for!) rather than have its own table. However I don't see that this page is improved by having *both* tables. One or the other please Steve Hosgood (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As if to prove Wtshymanski's amusing comment, the tables have a mutual contradiction already: "75m band – 3900–4050 kHz" or is that top limit 4000kHz?? Steve Hosgood (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Who knows? Not a reference to be had in either article. And yet somehow I think someone somewhere must be keeping the occult knowledge on a parchment locked in a vault under a mountain, somewhere...--Wtshymanski (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Pick the table you like. I like real tables for tabular information, as opposed to long bulleted lists. The "Monitoring Times" table is even better because it shows sb-bands within each range that have different authorizations in different parts of the world. If my World Radio Handbook wasn't stored away I'm sure I could expand this table with some kind of an authoritative reference. Not all the bands are available for broadcasting in all the parts of the world. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)