Talk:Rockford Airfest

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation

	Aviation portal 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
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:

[[Blue Angels#2010s|May 23 safety stand-down]] The anchor (#2010s) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.

Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

Merger proposal

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.

I propose that Rockford Air show should be merged into Chicago Rockford International Airport. Both this article and the section on Rockford airport are about the same size about the airshow. The Chicago Rockford International Airport article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Rockford Air show will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. KDTW Flyer (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is I can understand the logic behind the proposal (and to a point I do agree with it), but even with its status as a stub, this article is a similar size or larger than some other airshow articles. I think it would be better developing this article further rather than merging it back in to its parent article. --SteveCof00 (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2016 (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.