Talk:Brighton City Airport

message: A new article has been created as RAFA Shoreham Airshow. When you remove all the non-NPOV comments this article does not say much more than in this article. I propose that it is merged and redirected into here.MilborneOne 13:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you should have been bold and just done it. The other airshow article looks like an ad. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, also re-organised the page to make the subjects clearer - may still need a bit more tinkering.MilborneOne 21:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Into

message: The most recent bit of history in the article is this:
On April 14 2008, it was announced that the parent company had gone into liquidation, and airfield managers blocked all flights amid fears that the required insurance cover had been cancelled. 
- which I think illustrates the problem of having news in a wiki article. Since there are aircraft operating out of there right now and it's November this is clearly not current. I feel that it would be better to remove this sentence than to leave it unqualified by any later news. 138.37.199.206 (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ermmm - helllooooo? Does anyone have a view on this, please? What it could really do with is a knowledgeable intervention, which rules me out. But if this sounds like you, please go for it! Otherwise, I am tempted to be wp:bold and zap it on the grounds mentioned above. Last time I was there was even more recent than my last edit and there were definitely aircraft-shaped objects making aircraft-type noises, appearing to take off and land, etc, though of course this is wp:OR and I shall now go and slap myself round the head for even mentioning it ... ow! There. 138.37.199.206 (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes there's a tension between original research and common sense! It's easier (and less likely to lead to accusations of O.R.) to remove stuff that's questionable, than it is to defend adding it. I'd suggest rewording the referenced sentence to say what happened but avoid implying it's still the case; something like, off the top of my head, "in April 2008 the parent company experienced financial difficulties leading to temporary suspension of flights". A bit vague, but that's the point: the reader should check the references and be the one doing the research. As soon as a reference is found to clarify the state of play, it can be added. But in general, if we're not sure, it's surely better to remove everything that's potentially misleading until we are sure. – Kieran T (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As there's a reliable source saying that flights have stopped then the article should say flights have stopped. Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not truth. A quick search on the BBC finds this article so the "truth" can be added ;) Bill (talk|contribs) 14:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill, I often find myself quoting precisely the "verifiability, not truth" pillar to people, and I believe in it as an important part of how Wikipedia works. But it's not necessary to state something simply because a reference exists; therefore one can leave out a fact one is uncomfortable with without breaking the "is it verifiable" test. Additionally, please consider that the WP:VERIFY article you linked to says that these policies should normally be applied; the word "normally" is linked to Wikipedia:Use common sense. – Kieran T (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Stopping flights is a fairly significant event for an airport and a reference exists to confirm it. To exclude it on the grounds somebody may believe that the airport is still closed would be excluding a very important event from the article. As User:138.37.199.206 said originally, This was a case of the article requiring updating, but I disagree with removing the information as neither the source or statement in the article stated that it was to be permanent. I certainly agree with you that common sense should be applied. In this case a source has been found stating the current situation, but if there hadn't been any sources confirming it then I would have sided with the reliable source. Due to the small scale I don't think it's visible enough to the general public to be obvious. Bill (talk|contribs) 15:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of business? (I think not) 

message: I don't quite understand what the anon editor is trying to do with this at present. I liked my compromise, which was to keep both the fact that there's nothing there at the moment, and the historical record of what used to be - this it seems to me is perfectly encyclopaedic and relevant, and enhances rather than harms the article. But the anon editor seems to feel that it should be shorter, one way or the other. If this is you, can you please discuss it here so we can understand what you're aiming at? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to say I cant see anything wrong with the current version by DBaK, if anything it should be expanded to cover other scheduled services in the past. It is not that big an airport and the efforts of some airlines over the years to establish a scheduled service is relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

text: It is not exactly the same as the one used on the airport website which says "Brighton City" rather than just Brighton. MilborneOne (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airlines etc 

message: Just want to ask can anyone upload the new logo for Shoreham Airport. If you use this link http://ksagency.co.uk/?p=258 then you will find the new logo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.173.221 (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not exactly the same as the one used on the airport website which says "Brighton City" rather than just Brighton. MilborneOne (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New Logo

message: Due to the continual nonsense edits concerning airlines and destinations by IP users I have semi-protected the article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected 

message: Shoreham airport IS served by 1 AIRLINE called Redair Charters. There routes/destinations are Shoreham to - Le Touquet, Paris, La Mans, Nice & Dublin. IF any of you wikipedia no it alls do not beleave me and therefore refuse to edit the page then here is the website with all the information you will need - http://www.redair-charters.co.uk/index.php. Hopefully you will finally get this page looking correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.101.86 (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember to be civil, nothing on the website you pointed to mentions anything about a Redair operating a scheduled service out of Shoreham to anywhere, they are just an aircraft charter business one of many. MilborneOne (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Please do excuse my behaviour above. On the website if you go to the Typical Prices area, it shows the prices of the 5 destinations that the airline serves from shoreham, i do agree that it dose not say that its a scheduled service but it is some sort of service. Hope this dose help and agian apologies from my behaviour above  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.101.86 (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Airlines

message: I recently added this photo. Another editor reverted, commenting "could have been taken anywhere and doesnt really add anything."
Um. Well, anywhere you might see a Fokker Dr.1 flyby, rather a rare event, even a replica! I definitely think we need an airshow photo, and there are plenty to choose from at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shoreham_Airshow . Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the image, I dont have a problem with an airshow image but it would be better if it actually showed the airport or even the crowd line, an image of just an aircraft even a Fokker replica could be taken anywhere and the type had no relevance really to Shoreham. MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

text: I have added a Vulcan image that show Lancing College to put it in context with the airshow just to show the sort of thing I mean. MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No photo of Shoreham Airshow? 

message: "Founded in 1910, it is the oldest operational airport in the UK"  Jack369squared (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y  S A Y L E S  16:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2015 

message: Why was this page moved to "Shoreham Airport LTD"? It looks very odd like that. Was something wrong with "Shoreham Airport"? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The article states that the name change in 2014 was to Brighton City (Shoreham) Airport. LTD would normally be written as Ltd.  your edit summaries do not give reason for page move. Courtesy dictates an awareness should be posted here. Please explain why the article has been re-named. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems totally wrong if it's (a) not in fact the name of the airport, i.e. Brighton City (Shoreham) Airport, and (b), is the name of the company, not the facility. Since the article is about the whole history of the site and facility, rather than one current limited company, it's important to consider what people may be looking for when looking for the article. Consider Wikipedia:Article titles has to say about commonly used names. – Kieran T (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This was part of a convoluted messed up page move to Brighton City Airport in the process of being fixed.PRehse (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, all, for the explanations and sort-out. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion