Talk:List of air display teams

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

That's better. Why have a list with no links in it?Petebutt (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of flight demonstration teams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015144513/http://dir.yahoo.com/Government/Military/Aviation/Demonstration_Flight_Teams/ to http://dir.yahoo.com/Government/Military/Aviation/Demonstration_Flight_Teams/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobatics

These lists need to be merged and de-duped, so that the table sorting can work properly. Before that can be done, there needs to be a decision on whether to indicate if the team is aerobatic or not, and if so then what is the best way to do that. One way would be a new column, another would be to add text to an existing column, for example adding "Aerobatic" or whatever as the first word in the Notes column. I have no strong views on this, as long as the solution is practical to maintain. Doers anybody else have any ideas/preferences/comments? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think just a new column with a check box would suffice. - Ahunt (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a new column called "Type of Display" would work best. Sario528 (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What other types of air display have dedicated teams? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now identified a couple of other display types and added sample teams to the list. I'll add a new column for them, I think just Display would be an adequate title. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next issue is, where to add it? Does this look OK?

Team	Display	Country	Operator	Latest aircraft	Formed	Status	Notes

Or should it go after the Country, etc, say like this?

Team	Country	Operator	Latest aircraft	Display	Formed	Status	Notes

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the second column works better. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done and merged. Phew! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! - Ahunt (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion

Do we need to build a consensus on criteria for inclusion? While I was researching the upgrade/merge, I discovered there have been a large number of minor teams formed for a short period, sometimes even for a single event. Insisting that a team be notable enough for its own article seems a bit harsh. A middle way might be that a team should be listed if and only if reliable sources (RS) can be found to demonstrate some significance beyond its mere existence. But then, I found that RS for such significance seems surprisingly hard to come by - few go beyond a team web page and a bunch of fan sites. That could lead to deserving teams being deleted. Any thoughts? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a tricky issue, so thanks for bringing it up. With minor, and especially non-military, teams, even ones that have been around for some years and flown in dozens of airshows, you may find nothing more on them than their own website, listings in the airshow programs and perhaps some fan videos shot at the airshows of their performances. For teams from the pre-internet days, there will be less than that. It is pretty rare that these teams get any mention at all in the local mainstream media or even in the aviation media, unless some journalist does an interview with the team lead or similar. Often these teams just do their shows and fly home afterwards with nothing much written about it. All that said, for sake of completeness, perhaps we can just include any team that there are refs to show they existed and did more than one show. At least that will demonstrate that they were not just an ad-hoc team put together for a single show and had at least some sticking power. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]