Talk:2-meter band

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Gah4 in topic [citation needed]

Requested move edit

Dead link edit

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

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.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Quadantenna.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

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 (talkcontribs)

Loss of band to Amateurs edit

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. wooF 10:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is it lost? Is there consideration on losing it? Gah4 (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2021 (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

[citation needed] edit

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. wooF 15:23, 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. wooF 15:36, 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