Talk:500 kHz

message: I propose severely curtailing the section on Amateur radio, instead linking to the 630-meter band article. This will avoid duplication of data,  noting that the section on countries Amateur radio allocations in this article contains obsolete information and is not being kept in sync with the 630-meter band article.  I'd also argue that information on nearby amateur frequencies goes against the main thrust of this article (which is about the use of 500 kHz), albeit some basic information should be retained, as 500 kHz was considered for amateur use before its allocation to NAVDAT. TheBlokeAtTheBar (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As no objections to the above, the amateur radio section has been curtailed. Instead a link is given to the (more complete) 630 metre amateur radio band article.TheBlokeAtTheBar (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Curtail the Amateur Radio Section?

message: The articel to place under 500 kHz is a very good idea. Nearly 100 years this frequency was in
use in maritime service and even if not used any more it's original purpose should be recognized
in the future. There are effords of former radio officers to launch this 500 kHz to an heritage.
Jotge (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll move the page to 500 kc if there are no objections.--agr 18:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely, this must be moved back to 500 kHz, where it sits nicely just like 2182 kHz.  It is currently factually incorrect, as 500 kHz is NO LONGER a recognized international distress frequency!!! --Nigelj 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 500 kHz or 500 kc, which is what it was known as for most of its history?--agr 03:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes its current title seems totally wrong as it is no longer used as a distress frequency. With up and coming new uses of the frequency - several countries have now special permits for amateur radio which may become widespread and there are talks of making it a 'heritage frequency' - these need splitting into either a new section or a new article. For all of these 500 kc is meaningless, kc has been obsolete and replaced by kHz for many many years, though some diehards find it hard to grasp. Dsergeant 06:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the page to 500 kHz, fixed links and made International distress frequency a more general page, linking to this and other frequencies.--agr (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move back to 500 kHz?

message: What does the last paragraph about Alaska AM stations have to do with the 500 kHz distress frequency? Perhaps a clarification...or deletion...is required?. William Hepburn.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.19.130 (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, that does not seem to belong in this article. I've removed the paragraph.--agr (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Alaska 590

message: While cleaning up the list of countries with allocations, I saw that the entry for Argentina was a copy of the entry for Australia, but without citations, etc, and a stray quote mark. I had moved that one-liner from just above the section heading to just below a few minutes earlier, and fixed the punctuation error, before I noticed the duplication. Since it was in the wrong place, and had a formatting error, and had no citation to go with it when I found it, I decided that it wasn't reliable. So I removed the duplicated Australian-entry text, and replaced it with "citation needed".
Would someone with convenient access to the Argentine transmitting regulations please repair it?
208.54.5.246 (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentina