Talk:X band

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Physics because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{Physics}} template, removing {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] Merge discussion

There really is no need to have seperate W/V/K/Ka/Ku/X/C/S/L-band radar articles (9 articles total) for each radar band. Suggest all be merged into the actual band articles. --Evmore 12:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Properly expanded (with history, uses, generation methods, etc.), these articles would be of approrpiate length for encyclopedia entires. And the current templates tie them all together nicely.:Atlant 13:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree as well... X Band is more than just radar. --Xephael 16:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree they should be merged, but only if the length of the radar article is kept sufficiently long to cover the details of each of the bands. If not, then each of the bands should retain their own entries. Mugaliens 21:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
X-band is about more than just radar - on spacecraft it often is a comm band. They should be kept separate. LeeWF 26 Sept 2006
What if the X-band article first introduced the band (its frequencies, etc.) and then had a Radar section, a Communications section, etc.? -- Coneslayer 22:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that's inverted from what the approach should be. I believe that all the bands should be lumped into radar, but if they're used for comms, then notice should be made, accordingly, as an aside. Mugaliens 19:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
no need to merge; the 'X-Band Radar' topic states info as required and can further specify with addition; the details of 'X-Band' can be greatly more complicated with further evolution; the link integration solves any issues of information access; one is sub-category of 'Radar', the other is sub-category of both 'Frequency' and 'Radar' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.156.100 (talk • contribs)
Please don't merge as there are several other non radar topics to discuss in X-band. Originally radar may have been the only application, but the term has far more use than just radar. Even though this is a stub there is more to write. —The preceding -- comment was added by GB 03:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
I think the articles on each band are short enough to merge into one article, but they're also OK to stand alone. However, the X band radar topic is much narrower than the X band topic, so the radar topic should probably be a section within the X band article. -Amatulic 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I work in satellite communication field and find it useful to have X-band satcom seperate from X-band radar. - M. Mead 25 March 2007
I agree, no need to merge. I work in terrestrial microwave and have worked in remote sensing; communications and sensing are entirely different disciplines and should be kept separate. For any band, satcom, telephony, networking, etc. belong together while radar and remote sensing belong to another discipline. Altaphon 03:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)