Talk:Cramlington Aerodrome

Improvements (November 2024)

I could litter this article with {cn} templates, but I would rather put right as much as I can, and pose relevant questions & comments here. I may also leave a sprinkling of {cn}s behind me, depending on how it goes.

• The airfield officially became RFC Cramlington
• When the RFC became the Royal Air Force on 1 April 1918 the airfield became RAF Cramlington.

In either case, did it actually appear as such e.g. in official documentation, on signposts, or maybe on a large board at the main entrance? I have my doubts.

• Extensive buildings / important function / high intensity = peacock terms, or am I being harsh?
• No. 36 Sqdn RFC Formed at Cramlington on 1 February 1916, moved to Newcastle 12 October 1916

I wonder if this is a misreading of the situation. In October, detachments were stationed at Seaton Carew, Ashington and Hylton, leaving the HQ at 'Newcastle', which could be taken to mean Cramlington. If correct, then 36 sqdn never moved, but they did spread themselves around. It was from Seaton Carew that Lt Pyott shot down German Navy Zeppelin L34.

Overall it is a good article. WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE; regarding No. 36 sqdn moving to Newcastle. There is mention of HQ moving to Jesmond, but I'm guessing that could just be ground personnel. Later on the HQ moved again to Hylton / RAF Usworth where it was joined by one of the detachments mentioned above, comprising a mix of Sopwith Pups and Bristol Fighters, but that story really belongs within the 36 sqdn article, not here. Meanwhile, the summary here in this article is clearly a little 'light'. Maybe delete 'Newcastle' and leave it as 'moved out' + date? WendlingCrusader (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - I'll take them in order:

As it was a station of the RFC and RAF and its official name was Cramlington (as referenced by Jefford), and those names would have ben applied, as confirmed by the Airfields of Britain Conservation Trust (ABCT). Why would you doubt that? According to the Wikipedia RFC article the official name should be "Royal Flying Corps Station Cramlington", so I'll remove the word "officially" from the article as I don't recall ever actually seeing that name.

There are good reasons for retaining the other adjectival things that you removed - I think you're either being over-enthusiastic about peacock-spotting or you're not reading the references. Taking each one individually, I intend to restore "industrially vital" as that is the reason for locating the airfield in that particular area, as stated in the cited reference (Davis).

"Extensive" is the term used in the cited reference. It means covering a large area, nothing to do with importance or intensity, and its large area is confirmed by the ABCT map and the photo in the Davis article referenced. I think the word is relevant as the area of buildings is large compared with many other WW1 airfields, evidencing its more permanent nature.

“High intensity” is there to contrast it with other WW1 RFC/RAF airfields which were much quieter. With all the operational flying, plus the training and testing that was going on, plus the local airship operations, this was a busy place during the War.

Training is an activity that happens in almost all military establishments, so saying that it was "a function" is redundant. The point is that the site became home to several training squadrons and became a Training Depot Station (No.52) (again- see Davis).

As to where 36 Sqdn moved to, I am quoting the reference (Mick Davis) who goes into more detail including that the HQ moved to Jesmond, Newcastle on 12 October 1916. Jefford says "Newcastle" (plus more detail of individual detachments), so I think we should just leave it at that, or add "Jesmond, Newcastle" if you prefer. I recognise that I should have added a ref to Davis in the preceding para, and will do that soon. As you state, further discussion of this tangential detail is for another article.

Regarding the removal of "Main" in the Units list, it would now appear to a casual reader that these were the only users of the airfield. As the article has already mentioned other units using the airfield, and even more are mentioned by Davis and the ABCT, I believe that the heading of just "Units" is misleading, so I intend to restore the "Main", the list coming from the cited reference (Jefford). I think a full list here would be too long and not interesting or helpful for most readers.

I acknowledge that your edits were made in good faith, and won't make the changes I've noted above until you have had a chance to reply. Hope that's OK. Lestocq (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that this article is your baby, so I fully understand your concerns.

RFC Station Cramlington?

Airfields of Britain Conservation Trust (ABCT) are a well-meaning organisation, I am sure, and I have come across them many times before. Let's just say they would not be my first point of reference if there are alternatives, and fortunately you have ensured that your article is well-served with plenty of alternatives. ABCT use the phrase 'also known as', but that does not confer any official status.

Next you say 'according to the Wikipedia RFC article', but this is self-referencing, so that is discounted straight away, see WP:NOTSOURCE. All it does is tell us what format the official name would take, if Cramlington was at some point properly christened. However if you look properly into the relevant section at the Royal Flying Corps article, you will see just how poorly referenced that article is, and that the one solitary reference it offers is about 'Saundby Aerodrome', another RFC Station, except that source completely fails to mention the magic words 'Royal Flying Corps Station'. Why is that?

You ask 'why would I doubt it?' For the very simple reason this format does not appear anywhere, except perhaps in obscure dusty corners, and ABCT.

I suggest you return to the Royal Flying Corps article, and look at the section headed 'Home Defence'. It lists 11 squadrons at 11 bases, not one of which bears the title 'RFC Station {insert name here}'. Do you not find that curious? Although to be fair, in using that article, I have now failed WP:NOTSOURCE.

Let's return to Jefford; you say he confirms it was called 'Cramlington'. I believe he is indeed a good source; so why didn't he use the terminology 'RFC Station Cramlington'?

I will attend to the other points in due course.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I've now removed the "official" and added two citations. Lestocq (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts, but unfortunately I consider both of your sources to be less than robust WP:NOTRS

• https://thefourprop.com/blogs/

Several clues here, including absolutely no indication as to exactly who takes responsibility as the author, but the alarm bells really rang loud when I saw the shopping basket, a very tempting 'Get 15% off', and the drop-down menu offering a choice of currencies for me to pay. It is at best a blog, and at worst simple commercialism.

• https://cxx.org.uk/about-cxx-squadron/

This is a much more genuine site, set up by, and for, former members of No. 120 Squadron. It should mean that between they bring some expertise to the site. But somewhat like the site above, there no indication as to exactly who takes responsibility as the author. The style is worrying too, with an over-emphasis on hyperbole such as 'one of the oldest', 'the most famous', 'the first RAF Squadron in history to be equipped with an American Maritime Patrol Aircraft'. These are attention grabbing headlines, that do not necessarily bear too much scrutiny. To be fair, once the hyperbole is discounted, the actual content seems ok.

But mostly, the issue is that they will, quite naturally, be most interested in the history of CXX Squadron, not any detail pertaining to Cramlington.

By far the best source you have provided is https://nelsam.org.uk/NEAR/Airfields/Histories/Cramlington.htm by Mick Davis. In his lengthy and detailed history of Cramlington on behalf of the North East Land Sea & Air Museums, he doesn't once mention RFC Station Cramlington.

BTW - if you think I am just throwing rocks for fun, be aware that I have spent many hours trawling through all sorts of records in order to make a case one way or the other. These include, the National Archives, RAF Museum records, Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and Hansard (UK Government Archives).

WendlingCrusader (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for the word "Station" to be included - I'm happy with what we have now. Those references, whether 100% authoritative or not, are examples of the place being known as RFC/RAF Cramlington, and the date of the transition is indisputable Lestocq (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Then, regrettably, we have a difference of opinion. I think it is time to request a third opinion. WendlingCrusader (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your objection is. Are you saying that the name "RFC/RAF Cramlington" shouldn't be mentioned in the article? Can you point to any Wikipedia article about any WW1 RFC / RAF airfield that doesn't use that style? Google searches give lots of results for "RFC Cramlington" and "RAF Cramlington". Are you saying that it should be "RFC/RAF Station Cramlington"? I'm confused. Lestocq (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Until a reliable source is found, you may only state that was used by the RFC and the RAF, but not that the name RFC Cramlington was ever attributed to it (with or without 'Station').

Can I point to any Wikipedia article about any WW1 RFC/RAF airfield that doesn't use that style?

Oh, please, spare me! Have you looked? Because as already stated, I have spent many hours been looking high and low for evidence. So, yes, there are numerous examples here on Wikipedia - how many do you need? On the other hand, why am I the one running around disproving your case? That is not how it works. WP:ONUS / WP:BURDEN

WendlingCrusader (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you are getting hung up about this. I can assure you that I've looked at a good selection of Wikipedia articles from the List of former Royal Air Force stations, and can't find any others with citations specifically sourcing the name of the airfield. I'm making no specific claim that the RFC and RAF did use the stated names, though I'd be surprised if they didn't. The article is now just saying "Known as", which is what the two citations prove.

Doesn't the fact that you claim to have spent many hours trying to disprove my case" rather prove mine?

Suggestion: I could drop the "Known as" and just say "RFC Cramlington was the first RFC airfield..." Lestocq (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, please be aware various phrases you use are coming across as hostile.

'You claim to have spent...' throws doubt upon my words, which is quite unnecessary.

'Can you point to any Wikipedia article about any WW1 RFC / RAF airfield...', suggests no such article exists. As you will see shortly, the exact reverse is the case.

Then we come to the mistaken idea that I have 'spent many hours trying to disprove your case'. Wrong! I have spent many hours trying to get to the truth of the matter, one way or the other, and if that means I have to eat humble pie then so be it. This isn't about winning an argument, it is about doing what is right for Wikipedia. Perhaps you will find this hard to believe but I am genuinely interested in finding a source that shows how and when these stations arose. My own impression is that in the midst of a war, it was a rather haphazard affair.

Moving on; I started not with a list of former RAF stations, but with Category:Royal Flying Corps airfields. There are around 40 airfields listed, in alphabetical order. I started at the beginning, and quickly found that what is typically missing from these entries is any reference to RFC (station name),

e.g. Biggin Hill (from 1916), Catterick (from 1914), Beddington (Croydon) (from 1915), Elsham Wolds (from 1916), Goxhill (no specific date given), Halton (from 1913).

The exception is RFC Acklington, and guess what, the only reference for that style of name is ABCT - the same source that you provided for RFC Cramlington. Once again, I hear alarm bells ringing.

Can I take you back to your earlier statement that Google searches give lots of results for RFC Cramlington. I was puzzled by that because I had already searched Google myself, and it only came up with very limited results, and certainly nothing new, but it also populated my list of answers with numerous links to RLFC Cramlington Rockets, a rugby league club. Close, but no cigar. So how did you get 'lots of results'? Please help me out here.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)