Talk:Frequency allocation
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Frequency Allocation Chart
editI'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)
Horrible writing
editThe writing style here is horrible. The whole article would do well to be rewritten from scratch. 121a0012 (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- So many bad articles, so little time. 121a0012 (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- So many bad articles, so little time. 121a0012 (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Proposed merge with Frequency allotment
editArticles appear to be covering the same ground with only minor changes in wording. McGeddon (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree I see no clear reason for a separate stub covering essentially the same topic. –Sparkgap (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Example section
editWhat is the example for? What is it trying to demonstrate? Some prose would be helpful. Corwin.amber (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)