Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Frequency allocation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 8 months ago by Wtshymanski in topic Incorrect wavelength?

Frequency Allocation Chart

[edit]

I'd like to suggest a section on how the Frequency Allocation charts are organized. Specifically, how are the allocations split into Primary and Secondary service? A brief description of the less self-explanatory legend items such as "FIXED" could also be included. I would enjoy initiating this section myself if it weren't for my complete lack of knowledge on the subject.
Cheers,Wolfworks 06:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Horrible writing

[edit]

The writing style here is horrible. The whole article would do well to be rewritten from scratch. 121a0012 (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

WP:SOFIXIT is the canonical answer to such complaints. Anything specifically disturbing to your God-like eyes, or just a general uninformative rant? If you're looking for bad writing on the Wikipedia, you'll never be disappointed. [citation needed] [original research?] --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
So many bad articles, so little time. 121a0012 (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
If we each just do a little...no, that isn't working. I took out some of the really icky bits but this still needs work. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Proposed merge with Frequency allotment

[edit]

Articles appear to be covering the same ground with only minor changes in wording. McGeddon (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Agree I see no clear reason for a separate stub covering essentially the same topic. –Sparkgap (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Example section

[edit]

What is the example for? What is it trying to demonstrate? Some prose would be helpful. Corwin.amber (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Incorrect wavelength?

[edit]

Re "Amateur 222–225 0.1 (mobile) 1.25": Shouldn't it be 1.35 instead of 1.25?

--Mortense (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yep, but that's what the ARRL calls it in their chart . Don't know why so many meter-band nicknames are off, I suspect hams just like round-ish numbers. 2 metres ought to be 150 MHZ, 7 MHZ is closer to 43 metres,and so forth. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply