Talk:Frequency allocation

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 articles

???

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]