Talk:Shortwave bands

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: Expansion Needs

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  That makes very good sense. Thanks! Davidl9999 (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirection?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Two Tables of bands?