| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aberporth Airport article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Expansion
editExternal links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aberporth Airport. 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/20070628053955/http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/375/srg_asd_ordinarylicences.pdf to http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/375/srg_asd_ordinarylicences.pdf
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) 08:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
RAF Aberporth
editHello, I propose to split out RAF Aberporth into its own article and include RAF Blaenanerch and RAE Aberporth in it, leaving this article to focus on solely on Aberporth Airport / West Wales Airport with links between the two pages. Any valid reasons not to, or any objections? Mikeyp72 (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Mikeyp72 what is your reasoning for making a split? There is little material in this article and no Blaenannerch or RAF Blaenannerch article (note spelling).SovalValtos (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- @SovalValtos: My thinking is, and maybe split is the wrong term here, currently both the RAF Aberporth and RAF Blaenannerch pages redirect here, and I get that logic, however, I would like to leave this page solely for the commercial airport the site now is, but add the history around RAF Aberporth and subsequently RAE Aberporth into its own page, as a separate article, much like RAF Haverfordwest / Haverfordwest Airport, RAF Llandwrog / Caernarfon Airport and RAF Fairwood Common / Swansea Airport. I think a clean separation, in terms of articles, between the two entities of the same site creates a clear distinction between the military use and civilian use. I wanted to put the idea out there rather than just do it and then end up getting into some sort of editorial dispute. Mikeyp72 (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Mikeyp72: The best thing to do is to add information on RAF Aberporth, RAF Blaenannerch and RAE Aberporth into this article. Once you've finished, come back to this talk page and formally propose a split. I'm afraid I've seen far too many short articles (like this one) which are split into even smaller stubs that are then never expanded. I'm sure you have the best of intentions, but I'd like to see the content that you are proposing to split out first, before supporting a split. If you are only going to be able to add a single paragraph, then my strong preference would be to keep everything together. Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Mertbiol: thanks for you thoughts and happy to take that advice. I agree, there are far too many short articles that could be expanded. I do intend to add more than a small paragraph! However, I think pragmatism is the best approach here so I'll update the current article as some point soon, and solicit advice and thoughts afterwards around a split, if needed. Best regards, Mikeyp72 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Mikeyp72: The best thing to do is to add information on RAF Aberporth, RAF Blaenannerch and RAE Aberporth into this article. Once you've finished, come back to this talk page and formally propose a split. I'm afraid I've seen far too many short articles (like this one) which are split into even smaller stubs that are then never expanded. I'm sure you have the best of intentions, but I'd like to see the content that you are proposing to split out first, before supporting a split. If you are only going to be able to add a single paragraph, then my strong preference would be to keep everything together. Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- @SovalValtos: My thinking is, and maybe split is the wrong term here, currently both the RAF Aberporth and RAF Blaenannerch pages redirect here, and I get that logic, however, I would like to leave this page solely for the commercial airport the site now is, but add the history around RAF Aberporth and subsequently RAE Aberporth into its own page, as a separate article, much like RAF Haverfordwest / Haverfordwest Airport, RAF Llandwrog / Caernarfon Airport and RAF Fairwood Common / Swansea Airport. I think a clean separation, in terms of articles, between the two entities of the same site creates a clear distinction between the military use and civilian use. I wanted to put the idea out there rather than just do it and then end up getting into some sort of editorial dispute. Mikeyp72 (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)