|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the High frequency article.|
|WikiProject Physics||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
- Shortwave radio operates between the frequencies of 3,000 kHz and 30 MHz (30,000 kHz) and came to be referred to as such in the early days of radio because the wavelengths associated with this frequency range were shorter than those commonly in use at that time. An alternate name is HF, or high frequency.
- High frequency (HF) radio frequencies are between 3 and 30 MHz. This range is often called shortwave.
The resulting duplication is highly undesirable, so I propose that the articles be merged. I further propose that the merged article be called high frequency, because this is consistent with the majority of other radio spectrum articles: ELF, SLF, ULF, VLF, LF (not the same as longwave, but that's another issue), VHF, UHF, and EHF. Shortwave would, of course, redirect to high frequency. I would also change the lead to say:
- High frequency (HF) or shortwave radio frequencies are between 3 and 30 MHz. ...
I feel that although the High Frequency is seemingly similar to Shortwave Radio, theres much history involved with shortwave radio that has little to do with sunspots and the other stuff in the high frequency article. Basically, what im saying is that SWR is the history of using HF as a communications medium. Also, the SWR article lacks quite a bit of information on this subject, although I wouldn't consider myself expert enough to write a full history on it. I do feel that the article title 'shortwave' should be changed to 'shortwave radio' instead Psycadelc 01:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the comment:
- Re "theres much history involved with shortwave radio that has little to do with sunspots and the other stuff in the high frequency article": what's currently in the two articles is not the point. The point is that we have one article that is about "between the frequencies of 3,000 kHz and 30 MHz" and another article that is about "radio frequencies ... between 3 and 30 MHz". The merged article would contain the sunspot stuff, which is obviously relevant to shortwave, and the other stuff. Splitting sunspot info away from broadcaster info (as we have so far) is daft, because you need to know about sunspots to pick up the broadcasters.
- I don't see how changing "shortwave" to "shortwave radio" would fix anything. We would still have two articles with the same subject. "Shortwave" already implies "radio", just as "HF" implies "HF radio" (unless there's a "shortwave surfboard", or something).
- Re the idea of an article on "the history of using HF as a communications medium": I think that's a great idea. But that article would not be called high frequency or shortwave. How about History of shortwave communications?
- Cheers, — Johan the Ghost seance 14:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Honestly I could go either way, but I definitely can see an argument for keeping the shortwave article.. especially since you can distinguish a boundary between the history of sw radio and the science behind high frequency waves. I just feel that frequency bands have multiple uses and the uses don't necessarily belong in the same article as the technologies associated with them. Psycadelc 03:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes I feel exactly as Psycadelc. It's absurd to merge these. 126.96.36.199 20:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Guys, there is absolutely no difference between "the science behind high frequency waves" and "the science behind short waves"!!! Short-wavelength waves and high-frequency waves are exactly the same thing. Therefore, if there is going to be any discussion of the science, it needs to be in both articles, since you can't understand radio without understanding the science. As I said before (and you haven't responded), you can't tune in to the short-wave broadcasters without knowing abut sunspots. As for history, you're saying that broadcasting on short wavelengths has a history, but broadcasting on high frequencies hasn't? Or what are you saying?
- As for "the uses don't necessarily belong in the same article as the technologies associated with them", I'm forced to repeat myself: the title "shortwave" is not "history of shortwave", or "uses of shortwave". You think the subject warrants separate articles about the technology and the history, I'm completely fine with that. But the title "shortwave" says nothing about "history". The "history" article would have to be called "history of shortwave raio", or something meaningful like that. Expecting users to infer that "shortwave" means "the history and uses of high-frequency radio" is completely unjustified — you may draw that inference, but it is not justified by the article title.
- I'm honestly not seeing any argument here for not merging. You say it's "absurd", but can you please explain why it's absurd?
- So: can I propose that:
- We put all of the science and technology stuff into "high frequency"
- We make "shortwave" redirect to "high frequency"
- We start a new "history of shortwave radio" article for the history, famous broadcasters, etc., and link to it from "high frequency".
- What do you think? — Johan the Ghost seance 11:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
"you can't tune in to the short-wave broadcasters without knowing abut sunspots" - What do you mean by that? Someone who is ignorant about sunspots can surely tune the dial of an HF receiver and hear all kinds of far away stuff. If you are implying that sunspots themselves are a requirement, then that is also very incorrect. They do help, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd be opposed to this - shortwave refers to a particular method of communication across those frequencies, while HF refers to the frequencies themselves. They are distinct and separate topics, and I do not feel that a 'history of shortwave' would cover it appropriately. -- Kuroji 05:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Although I can't really support the merger, I think we need to fix both articles. Maybe we can try and sort out the technology with shortwave radio and frequency ranges, fix what each article talks about it, and then mark shortwave (radio) as a stub so people can write more about the history of shortwave, radio communication, and why it was so awesome. If we wanted to merge anything, possibly we could merge all the frequency bands into one article similar to Stimac's previously posted one (maybe we could get permission to reproduce it on wiki?) and have a comprehensive article on the science of the different wavelengths? Psycadelc 18:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The idea of having one frequency page (or many individual frequency) and keeping them distinct from the [insert fav length]wave would be more in line with with the International Telecommunication Union. The Electromagnetic spectrum and Radio frequency pages already do act as one source of a "main" page. These are children of those pages. "Try and sort out" is probably the best idea, JIMO. 184.108.40.206 16:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't support the merger. Within 3 to 30, SHORTWAVE BROADCASTING is what 90 percent of the population understands it to be, but HF is the home to dozens of different services with very different purposes. Eventually those different services could be enumerated and described in one place; putting them together with shortwave does not do justice to BROADCAST -- for which NO adequate history exists -- nor would that move leave room to lay out the many continuing services which still use HF on a daily basis worldwide.
It'd be even dumber to combine Ham Radio ... the majority of the head count on HF ... with Shortwave using the same kind of reductionist model.
Wikipedia has no size limit, and suggested article lengths also suggest that big scope and room to grow encourage MORE articles ... not less. Personally I like the hypercard model better; shorter pages with more navigational aids. This is one of the great advantages of hypertext linkage. Long, long articles really ought to be going the dinosaur way ... I notice a LOT of white space on newer web pages lately. Another hypertext idea that isn't used (at all??) on WP is the idea of levels: some models have UP and DOWN navigation. Twang 02:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Three and a half years later... I agree that a separation of shortwave broadcasting and HF (as a medium of communication) makes sense, but why not make it more explicit? As it's currently set up, both articles are a bit ambiguous, and have titles that are essentially synonymous to some minds. How about redirecting Shortwave to Shortwave broadcasting, introducing that article with content more specific to the historical topic, and referencing (with a possible disambig link) the High frequency band on which such broadcasting takes place. /ninly (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Ninly! We already have a similar split with Medium frequency (300 kHz - 3 MHz) and Medium wave (the broadcast band, with a 'main' link to MF). I don't think it's too confusing as it is - maybe we need a 'main' link to HF at the top of shortwave. I'm surprised that Shortwave broadcasting is a red link; if it were a redirect to [[shortwave], then the discussion would simply be which should be the redirect and which the actual article. The pattern is similar between Low frequency and longwave to, but also without a 'main' template. I can't speak for the content of all these articles - I don't watch most of them. --Nigelj (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Missing meaning of the term "High frequency"
"High frequency" is also used as a superordinate concept of "radio frequency" and "microwave". This is missing in the article. Have a look at "further readings" and "external links"! Several times, when high frequency is mentioned, not the 3-30MHz range is meant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ax0p (talk • contribs) 12:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a click on to the concept of FOT (frequency Optimum de Travail) between the MUF and LUF click ons, i.e. the optimal frequency for a communications path at HF. AI8O If I knew how to do it I would do it myself,but I am a newbie at this and afraid I'd screw it up. AI8O
I agree with at least mentioning MUF and LUF. I also don't like the part that mentions sometimes power as low as "tens of watts" can be used. QRP ops prove all the time that using sub-five watts and even milliwatts can be quite successful. I'd mention my own positive experiences with operating with just a few watts but that would be original research, hi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)