Talk:Air show

message: Although "Safety at airshows" is good topic for this page (especially after the disaster in Ukraine), the current paragraph only gives some safety measures when attending one; hardly encyclopedia content in my view, especially the "shouting". I'll remove it if nobody object; perhaps also write a new paragraph, but I can't promise that. Jeronimo 14:11 Jul 28, 2002 (PDT)
Well, I at least think it is marginally important -- otherwise I would have deleted it along with the other advice (just look at what I deleted). But I have no strong feelings on this, so do what you think is best for the article. --mav
Well, you deleted a lot of "crap", so good work. I don't think it's real content, or will we put at the page for knive: "Watch out, knives are dangerous. You could really hurt you or somebody near you. Please take care when using a knife." I hope not... But yes, it's not really harmful. Jeronimo 14:32 Jul 28, 2002 (PDT)
:LOL -- I needed a laugh. :P --mav
::I've bitten the bullet and removed the entire Safety paragraph because it spoilt the quality of the entire article. Hope this doesn't cause too much annoyance to whoever wrote it - Adrian Pingstone 20:36, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety 

message: Surely Farnborough Air Show isn't considered one of the "2 major" air shows?  It's just a trade show, with a few token flying exhibits... Ojw 23:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farnborough 

message: There's a separate fly-in article. I think it should redirect here, but I'm not sure what to do with the two NZ airshows listed there, so I'll leave it up to someone else to redirect it. PeepP 11:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fly-in 

message: Correct me if I am wrong, but "airshow" is actually two words "air show." Flyguywayout (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as Google is concerned, usage appears to be about equal.  Rklawton (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Air show" 

message: This section is turning into a spam magnet, do we really need it. Its not as bad as the external links section used to be, but I find it really hard to belive all of these could be considered "major." I'd suggest either removing the section, proseifying it (I think the list form attracts more spam and cruft), and/or creating a definition of "major" to use in the section. Mr.Z-man 17:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks interested in air shows will likely be interested in major air shows.  Let's just define "Major airshows" as the "top 5 by attendance" or perhaps "top 3 by attendance in each continent".  This would reduce spam by defining the list as finite and by measuring using objective numbers (reliable sources, etc).  Rklawton (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or re-label the section "Notable air shows" or "Significant air shows" and only include shows that are truly significant in the history of air shows, much like was done in the Snowbirds article where only major/significant historical milestones are mentioned .-BCtalk to me 23:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This approach would be difficult to objectively measure.  We'd end up wasting a lot of time arguing about whether or not an airshow was or was not notable - and it would allow the list here go grow without limit.  Rklawton (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Dont have a problem with only airshows with articles but I have deleted the Sunderland International Airshow. Despite having an article is is not significant just one of many seaside airshows in the UK. MilborneOne (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major airshows section 

message: The line on the Grande Semaine de l'Aviation de la Champagne  ends with the sentence:
This show inspired John Moisant.
What did it inspire him to do?  Become an aviator? Start an air show? Fly a kite?  What? 
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This show inspired John Moisant...