Talk:500 kHz

Curtail the Amateur Radio Section?

I propose severely curtailing the section on Amateur radio, instead linking to the 630-meter band article. This will avoid duplication of data, noting that the section on countries Amateur radio allocations in this article contains obsolete information and is not being kept in sync with the 630-meter band article. I'd also argue that information on nearby amateur frequencies goes against the main thrust of this article (which is about the use of 500 kHz), albeit some basic information should be retained, as 500 kHz was considered for amateur use before its allocation to NAVDAT. TheBlokeAtTheBar (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

As no objections to the above, the amateur radio section has been curtailed. Instead a link is given to the (more complete) 630 metre amateur radio band article.TheBlokeAtTheBar (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Move back to 500 kHz?

The articel to place under 500 kHz is a very good idea. Nearly 100 years this frequency was in use in maritime service and even if not used any more it's original purpose should be recognized in the future. There are effords of former radio officers to launch this 500 kHz to an heritage. Jotge (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In February, this page was moved to International Distress Frequency from 500 kHz. I question whether that was a good idea. There are other international distress frequencies (121.5 MHz, Marine Ch. 16, etc.) and in most places 500 kHz is no longer one of them. Maybe 500 kc would be the best name.--agr 16:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll move the page to 500 kc if there are no objections.--agr 18:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Most nations ended monitoring of transmissions on 500 kHz, but Indian Navy is still using it as dstress frequency and monitoring 500 KHz in all its stations and ships.

Absolutely, this must be moved back to 500 kHz, where it sits nicely just like 2182 kHz. It is currently factually incorrect, as 500 kHz is NO LONGER a recognized international distress frequency!!! --Nigelj 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

500 kHz or 500 kc, which is what it was known as for most of its history?--agr 03:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes its current title seems totally wrong as it is no longer used as a distress frequency. With up and coming new uses of the frequency - several countries have now special permits for amateur radio which may become widespread and there are talks of making it a 'heritage frequency' - these need splitting into either a new section or a new article. For all of these 500 kc is meaningless, kc has been obsolete and replaced by kHz for many many years, though some diehards find it hard to grasp. Dsergeant 06:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved the page to 500 kHz, fixed links and made International distress frequency a more general page, linking to this and other frequencies.--agr (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WRC-12 has identified 500kHz for new maritime navigation use and a separate band at 472-479kHz for amateurs so the time may have come for a separate amateur page on 600 meter band — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.164.212 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Alaska 590

What does the last paragraph about Alaska AM stations have to do with the 500 kHz distress frequency? Perhaps a clarification...or deletion...is required?. William Hepburn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.19.130 (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, that does not seem to belong in this article. I've removed the paragraph.--agr (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed content split of Maritime and Amateur Radio

Now that WRC-12 formally approved an amateur radio allocation at 472-479 kHz today, I feel there's an impending need to split this article into two, along Maritime and Amateur Radio lines. The Amateur Radio Service did not get worldwide access to 495-505 kHz, which is what I believe the focus of 500 kHz article is about. Also, the few countries that domestically allocated a ham band, which includes 500 kHz, apparently did so as a temporary measure until WRC-12 identified an international band. The Amateur Radio section is likely to grow over the coming year as countries start allocating it domestically, and if it gets the attention that 60-meter band has, it could become blog-like. Thus, I propose moving the bulk of the Amateur Radio content into it's own article named 600-meter band (this is currently a redirect to 500 kHz). A top-hat can be added to the top of both articles so that they can refer to each other, in case a reader mistakenly goes to the wrong article. –Sparkgap (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with creation of a new article for 600-meter band about the amateur allocation, as it will be compatible with the others in Category:Amateur radio bands. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

French: 500 kHz (maritime et aéronautique), Bande des 600 mètres --F1jmm (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

500 kHz is 600 meters, but this allocation is 635 to 625 meters. It may end up getting the name "630 meters". Either way, I would agree with the creation of a new article once a national regulator makes an new allocation based on the WRC12 frequency band. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. I strongly suspect that 600 moniker will be more common than 630, but we shall see. The rational being that this band was carved out of the greater 600 meter maritime band (415-526.5 kHz), the goal was to acquire an allocation around 600 m, and the historic tendency to round:

• 60-meter band: 57.1 to 55.0 meters
• 40-meter band: 42.8 to 41.0 meters
• 20-meter band: 21.4 to 20.9 meters
• 15-meter band: 14.2 to 13.9 meters

–Sparkgap (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would argue for 600-meter amateur band as the name for the new article. It doesn't match the names of other amateur radio bands, but they are largely unambiguous, whereas 600-meters was and is still associated with the maritime mobile service. Per WP:NAME: "Titles usually use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." If and when some other usage is well established (e.g. 630 meters), we can easily change the article's name.--agr (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity of 600-meter band. Also, I agree the article's name can be easily changed later, if necessary; however, I would like to propose an alternative name scheme for consideration, 600-meter band (amateur radio), with 600-meter band being a disambiguation page. Any thoughts? –Sparkgap (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NAME says not to use parentheses if a natural way to disambiguate exists, So I'd prefer 600-meter amateur radio band, otherwise, I agree with what you suggest.--agr (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, there is concensus to split, will someone make the split? If not I will have a go in May. Op47 (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. I created 600-meter amateur radio band, and I copy-pasted all the amateur radio material from here to there. However, more work is needed on the new article. –Sparkgap (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou Sparkgap. Op47 (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Argentina

While cleaning up the list of countries with allocations, I saw that the entry for Argentina was a copy of the entry for Australia, but without citations, etc, and a stray quote mark. I had moved that one-liner from just above the section heading to just below a few minutes earlier, and fixed the punctuation error, before I noticed the duplication. Since it was in the wrong place, and had a formatting error, and had no citation to go with it when I found it, I decided that it wasn't reliable. So I removed the duplicated Australian-entry text, and replaced it with "citation needed".

Would someone with convenient access to the Argentine transmitting regulations please repair it?

208.54.5.246 (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)