Talk:MAKS (air show)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rtnews template 

message: 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 articleVarxo (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  I was referring to:Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an articleCuriousMind01 (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

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

text: @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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  RfC: Details 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified