This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amateur radio, which collaborates on articles related to amateur radio technology, organizations, and activities. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Amateur radioWikipedia:WikiProject Amateur radioTemplate:WikiProject Amateur radioamateur radio articles
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The band plan, although it is labelled as a sample, is US-specific. Should the article mention the differences in repeater bands and channel spacing? Many countries use 25Khz channel spacing and would have for example a call channel of 146.500 instead of 146.520. vk6hgr 13:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
2 Meters → 2 meters – {Not a proper noun, and consistency with other radio band articles. –Mysid(t)19:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)} copied from the entry on the WP:RM page[reply]
I'm surprised that discussion is required. New policy? I haven't been wikiing at the rate I used to, perhaps growth has taken its toll. ;Bear06:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
File:Quadantenna.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Quadantenna.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Move or delete general RF propagation sections[edit]
Terrestrial RF propagation is well-covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, one example being Skywave, another Tropospheric_propagation. There's a lot of general propagation information in the 2-meter article that doesn't directly relate to, or is not unique to, 2-meter operation. A lot of this information is redundant with respect to these other articles. I would think the general propagation content here should be deleted or moved, with the appropriate "see also" links added.
AKeenEye 04:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKeenEye (talk • contribs)
I've been seeing stuff about the loss of this band to amateur radio. Of course, I am not an expert and I came here to have a look. Is this topic worth inclusion in this article? -Roxy, the dog.wooF10:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Simple radios for FM repeater operation have become plentiful and inexpensive in recent years.[edit]
There is a {{citation needed}} for: Simple radios for FM repeater operation have become plentiful and inexpensive in recent years. Modern technology makes things like this inexpensive, and production in countries like China makes them plentiful. Is there something more that needs to be said? Gah4 (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone seems to have put {{cn}} on just about every paragraph. Some might actually be true, but most are so well known or obvious that they aren't needed. Even more, they didn't discuss any of them here! Gah4 (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are vast swathes of unsourced text in this article, and those tags are individually quite justified. I acknowledge that the text is not too bad in terms of an article on this subject if there were refs. Somebody has made a very valid point here, and I would hope that wikihams might provide some citations for us, there must be huge amounts of WP:RS judging by the verbosity of amateur radio enthusiasts. (that's an observational joke btw.)
So yes, perhaps the editor who tag bombed the article, and I haven't looked at the history yet to see, might have had the decency to discuss it here, but it is entirely possible that it was a good faith tagging spree by a newbie or a helpful passer by. Not sure what to do, as I agree that the text isn't unreasonable, it's just not sourced, and we require sources. -Roxy the dog.wooF15:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This diff added the tags, plus some other stuff in September 2021. The editor has made just two edits to the project, so it was a drive-by. If this was a controversial and disputed area, I might support removing the text tagged until citations could be supplied, and though this text might be trivially verifiable, I'm not comfortable leaving it all alone, but I'm going to. Happy to discuss further. -Roxy the dog.wooF15:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I didn't remove them all, partly because I didn't feel like doing it, but some might be good. It was the one that some people might put an antenna on the roof of their house that got me. For one, there is weasel words where the statement is generic enough not to be wrong. (They might, but it doesn't say that anyone did.) But some can probably use a good WP:RS. Gah4 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
