HF, VHF, UHF definition

[AC2RL 2]

Question ID274 shows 160 and 6 meters as HF bands, and 1.25 meters as UHF.  When I went to school MF was 0.3 to 3 MHZ, HF was 3 to 30 Mz, and VHF was 30 to 300 Mhz.  Shouldn't 160 meters be MF, and 6 and 1.25 meters both be VHF?

[K3MRI 56]

Hi again John. You're absolutely right. One need only pick up a plain ol' dictionary and sure enough, MF and UHF are designated as you indicate. Here's my problem (and I admit that I do not have a solution). It seems as though the majority (not evidence-based, just a vibe) are merging MF into HF and 6 VHF and 1.25 into UHF. This said, I am a purist at heart and would rather stick with an accurate definition over an accepted one. Give me a couple of days to ponder but, my gut, tells me that I'm about to go through some pain and make some changes 😰

Thanks for the heads up!

[N7BUP 2]

I'm also a traditionalist in this regard.  For many years, "hf" rigs included 160M.  When some manufacturers started including 6M they were advertised as "hf + 6M".  Now days the trend seems to be a little more specific such as "80 - 6M" which makes the coverage clearer.  In terms of propagation, 6M is sort of a transitional band with both HF and VHF characteristics.  I think that some of the confusion about the classification of 6M 1.25M comes from the prevalence of "VHF/UHF" ht's, which are really "2M/70CM" ht's.

I am a big fan of the "magic band" 6M.

[K3MRI 56]

6M is my favorite automobile band. I have a Yaesu 891 in the car and though I do get good QSOs all the way up to 40M, 6M is the sweet spot. Magic indeed!

This said, as regards the Census, I may have to do some minor surgery to change the answers in question. I will do it, but it's SQL scalpel time (a shortcoming of the plugin that requires manual labor to change the text of answers once the question is published). But it will be done 😎