Talk:Inverted vee antenna

Merger proposal
This article describes the short dipole in informal terms with some minor technical inaccuracies. The short dipole section is extremely technical, and probably could use a paragraph excerpted from this article that is a bit less formal. --ssd (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Terminology is the only real difference, along with the far more technical nature of the dipole article. The terminology used in this article is easy to understand, and familiar to most amateur radio operators. I'd hate to see the familiar hidden in some deeply technical article, and propose no merge. --User:gwiziwg, 18 April 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwiziwg (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I Vote against the merger. The other article is horrendous. It should probably also be broken up into smaller articles on various dipole types. The section on shortened dipoles is particularly bad, the term usually is reserved for a loaded dipole (a dipole with inductors in the legs), but the article actually covers a regular dipole operated below its ideal frequency.Skeptonomicon (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)