Talk:Frequency allocation

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Radio

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

Frequency Allocation Chart

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

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

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

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]