Talk:MAKS (air show)

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.

Russia: Technology & engineering / Economy / Military High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the economy of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

Rtnews template

I've removed the Russia Today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap ☏ 03:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to MAKS Air Show based on talk below. (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MAKS (air show) → Moscow Air and Space Show – Use full name per WP:AT and WP:UE policies, and for consistency with other air shows worldwide as listed in {{International Airshows}} — JFG ^talk 13:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 21:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to MAKS Air Show, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL. "Moscow Air and Space Show" is rarely used. Google Trends data SST flyer 10:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC: Details

Yes, the article had "waaay too much detail" before YSSYguy removed the big chunk. (And I wonder why he didn't comment in this RFC.) So the present version is acceptable. But it needs a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE history section. If a detailed history is desired, then a new, separate article on the history this, and other Russian air shows can be developed. – S. Rich (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Russian counterpart of this page holds the detail of every airshow held until this day in detail, while the detail on this page got deleted for having "way too much detail". Should a Wikipedia article such as this one possess detailed information about its past, or only a general description about it? Edit history of this article Varxo (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree it was far to much detail for an air show article, although it would not be unreasonable to list milestones and important events in the shows history. Things like the actual dates and list of statistic are just not need and most of the text added is just not notable. A quick look at the mainly unreferenced text that was reverted show that some of the years were not that significant to mention. MilborneOne (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MilborneOne's points. Some portions of the article came off as advocating and advertising for the show, with certain sections being lifted directly from the show organizer's website. Having said that, it was kind of a dick move for someone to unilaterally remove your work, especially given the time and effort you've put into the article, without opening a discussion on the talk page first. GrapefruitSculpin 18:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria does the text need to satisfy in order to be considered "notable" and does this revert somehow signal that some parts of the Russian article needs cleanup? I attempted to make a draft about a potential highlights list from the pre-revert revision but failed to find anything besides new works from different OKBs. Varxo (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There clearly is some stuff that could be included like the first inclusion of foreign aircraft or particularly outstanding introduction that was noted by the mainstream (non-trade) press, but most of it was "show opened, planes wizzed by and show closed and we sold some stuff" which is trivia. MilborneOne (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, there is no notability criteria within articles, only "weight". Notability is justification to create an article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is still as sense that the information has to be notable enough to be included (which has nothing to do with article creation) in that it adds to the article and not what in this case is really trivia. MilborneOne (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to:Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article CuriousMind01 (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Include the detailed information about the event's past. One suggestion would be to have it in a "collapsed" section, where it can be toggled on and off screen by the user. -The Gnome (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed sections are just a sign that some people dont think this is notable for inclusion so we will hide it away so nobody knows it is trivia. MilborneOne (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence to support that claim? It sounds false to me. CuriousMind01 (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MilborneOne Where do you get this notion about people thinking a collapsed section is not "notable for inclusion"? If something is not notable, it is not included at all. Collapsing is available to be used e.g. in case of long lists that take too much space in an article but are nonetheless deemed worthy of inclusion. -The Gnome (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just something you notice after being around for a while that most times content in hidden by collapsing it should not be included for a variety of reasons in the first place, in the case of a list that is to long then it should be moved to a daughter article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Include. I think the detail is important, the tables could be collapsable for easier readibility per WP:MOS.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to pick out the highlights and put them into the article under "Background and history" together with some other translations. Is it appropriate for the time being? Varxo (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only include the main points: The level of detail on the Russian page and the previous versions of this page was simply too much for an encyclopedia article. We're supposed to summarize topics, not be a trivia database. --Slashme (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MAKS Air Show. 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/20110202194808/http://vyazmarus.com/ to http://www.vyazmarus.com/

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) 19:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page to MAKS (air show), per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MAKS Air Show → MAKS air show – MAKS essentially stands for "Moscow Air Show" so the "air show" in the title is a generic qualifying term which is not actually part of the air show's name and should therefore be lower case. I am aware that the name of this article has already been changed once before but I don't see why consensus was reached on upper case A and S for Air and Show. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support alternate move to MAKS (air show). It cannot be referred to as "MAKS air show" which would be akin to "Moscow Air Show air show"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with that, but MAKS (air show) already exists as a redirect, so how would that work? Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects can be deleted by the closer of this vote and overwritten._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackFlanker, YSSYguy, and Varxo: – do any of you have strong opinions one way or the other on this? Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dont have a problem with MAKS air show as it is used by publications like Flight International so is probably the common name in English. MilborneOne (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with the MAKS (air show), this should be probably the correct form when it is obvious that the "air show" is already included in the "MAKS" name. BlackFlanker (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as MAKS is the name of the airshow itself and the "air show" part should be something to clarify that this is an "air show" but not "something that's part of the name". Varxo (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support MAKS (air show) to remove the tautology. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.