Talk:Manston Airport

Untitled
There is some serious POV in this article regarding the recent development. I am removing the most glaring examples and attempting to corroborate some of the other assertions. adamsan 16:06, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"There are some reports of expanding the runway to handle heavy loaded 747-400s and maybe the A380F" - what does this mean? Has it been reported that the runway has been extended or merely that extension has been suggested? Who reported it? Who suggested it? Be specific. Earldelawarr (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I'll remove that line as the runway is quite capable of that. It runs 747 heavy cargo planes all the time, and has had even the Antonov AN-124 and AN-225 take off from there. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Article title
The article title should be the airport's name, not it's advertising slogan. This is part of the POV problem identified above. --Stfg (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. Per WP:TITLE, "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." Manston Airport, I guess. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. A quick Google suggests that Manston Airport and Kent International Airport both seem about equally common. The current owners, Infratil, list it simply as Manston Airport. The slogan name actually does it no favours (pretentious unless it's deliberately humorous) and I think we'd be most sensible to use what the owners call it as the article title. --Stfg (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed the name to 'Manston, Kent's International Airport' after contacting the airport's press office. They replied with the following message:

"Thanks for getting in touch.

We are known as Manston, Kent's International Airport."

Personally I'd prefer Manston Airport. Harrison49 (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am supporting Manston Airport as well.--Abuk SABUK (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've had the article renamed to Manston Airport. Cloudbound (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Cargo Airlines

'''Please remove the link from Magma Aviation to the MK Airlines Wiki page. There is no assocication between the companies.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taes8484 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

discrepancies
The article states 7th longest runway in England. However, it lists Prestwick, which is not in England, but Scotland.

Do they mean "7th longest in the UK"? Or do they mean the 6th longest in EEngland?Halowithhorns89 (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It has since been amended to say 11th longest, however the list still omits longer runways http://www.ukairfields.org.uk/runway-lengths.html If you include only active civilian runways then it is 14th on the list and if you are including a disused runway like Manston on the list, then surely you should also include other disused runways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3031:2E0:315:3872:3E97:7A98:AD80 (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Manston Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070915192846/http://www.gpia.co.uk:80/general/newsItem.asp?NewsItemID=295 to http://www.gpia.co.uk/general/newsItem.asp?NewsItemID=295

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Manston Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110713143512/http://www.kentinternationalairport-manston.com/cancellations.pdf to http://www.kentinternationalairport-manston.com/cancellations.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Subject name
There is a series of edits currently that wishes to change the name to Stone Hill Park for this article. I wish to bring a few issues regarding this.

Firstly the article subject is Manston Airport. The Stone Hill Park is about a redevelopment of the site into a residential development with some extras. I believe that since the original subject is no longer the issue that this Stone Hill park should be a separate article and the Manston Airport article, while it should be put into the past tense and link to this Stone Hill park or have it briefly mentioned, should remain as the Manston Airport.

Second. The references for the Stone Hill Park name, including the official website at use the work proposed. The first line on the official website for the development is "Stone Hill Park is the name of the proposed mixed use scheme for the former Manston Airport site in Thanet." This means there is nothing official about it, no signs have been changed and nothing has been confirmed. It's purely at this stage a proposal. And since Wikipedia is not a WP:Crystal ball we shouldn't be using the name. Canterbury Tail  talk  12:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If Stony Hill Park is deemed encyclopedically noteworthy - which I doubt, there are thousands of development projects of that kind - it can have its own article. Referring to the grounds' previous use. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I cant see any reason to change the name of the article as this is an encyclopedia about notable things so articles about RAF Manston and the civil use after should be kept as a record. As Jan olieslagers has said if the development is notable it should have its own article with a couple of lines at then end of this article to show future use. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Again a user keeps changing the name to Stone Hill Park, despite this article is about the airport (or former airport) and not a housing development. Additionally even the official website for this Stone Hill Park mentions it is "proposed", yet the user insists on continually reinserting. They also add incidents that fail notability per WP:AIRCRASH. Canterbury Tail   talk  01:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The entity of Manston Airport has not been renamed. The land that the former Manston Airport may have changed names (however the sources don't indicate it has officially changed as even the official website states it's proposed) but the historical entity of Manston Airport has not changed names. There is clearly no support for this edit in the article and it has been reverted by at least 3 different editors. Please detail the reasoning here for changing it to a name for a proposed housing development. Canterbury Tail   talk  23:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Correct Subject name

 * Contrary to the claims made above, nobody has suggested changing the name of the article. The only correct edit that has been made, with citations, is that the ex airport is now known as Stone Hill Park. The "entity" that was Manston Airport no longer exists, it has no airport license, and is closed as a functioning airport. It's owners and indeed the county council now refer to the site as Stone Hill Park, as that is what it's new owners have decided to call it. It's not about a housing development (only partially true) it's about accuracy, not clinging to something you wish hadn't gone, but has. It is interesting that various "sock accounts" have been created, most within the Thanet area simply to try to make this factual correction go away. As regards notability, an event that lead to the banning of a whole airline from Europe I would think was notable, especially as the incident occured at the ex airfield. If wikipedia is to be viewed in encyclopedic terms, then the current situation when refering to an entity such as an ex airport is of course relevant, must be accurate and must be current, no matter how much those that wish it was still open would like that not to be the case. Again, the correction is NOT renaming the piece, merely adding information to makde the information box correct.:::  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Real world sanity (talk • contribs) 01:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The Former Manston Airport - past, present and future.
'''Can we be mindful of the former airport's history by placing correct information for past, present and future. ''' There is so much history that is of great interest to many but bickering over the owners plans awaiting approval for Stone Hill Park's developments, the present and future for the former airport site is taking away the importance of the past.

Past, present and future from WIKI should be truthful, not adapted to appeal just to the extreme avaition supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factful Facts (talk • contribs) 02:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm probably going to regret this - but I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. From the amount of reverting you and your alter ego are doing there is obviously something troubling you, please take a deep breath and try to explain what you want in simple precise words you are concerned about.  Andrewgprout (talk) 06:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I too have no wish to be in the middle of the dispute. I would like to leave a brief comment.  It's not at all easy for an uninvolved editor to quickly figure out precisely who wants what here, i.e. the root of the dispute.  It would be helpful if both (or all) sides could calmly and clearly explain their positions and how they believe the article should look.  From my point of view, there is clearly some important history which must not simply be lost in the encyclopaedia's past, like the site will probably / possibly be lost to the developer's bulldozers.  The use through the different wars, other significant military events, and the important parts of its period of civil aviation must be properly and fully preserved.  Preserving good historical knowledge is generally a good thing.   Murph 9000  (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to summarize. The core of the issue now seems to have boiled down to the addition of the text in the infobox beside the name "Manston Airport" of "now known as Stone Hill Park" a proposed housing development. There are several references provided for this but I don't believe they provide what they are actually being used to support. Since this article is about Manston Airport, an airport that has now closed, putting in the infobox that Manston Airport is now called Stone Hill Park is incorrect as Manston Airport as an entity was never renamed. This Stone Hill Park is a proposed reuse of the site, not a renaming/rebranding of the airport. Additionally the primary reference is the website for the development at stonehillpark.co.uk which states very clearly on it's front page that "Stone Hill Park is the name of the proposed mixed use scheme for the former Manston Airport site in Thanet.' Note the very clear word proposed. This is an idea for a development called Stone Hill, not an official name of the site. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball something proposed can't take such prominence as, with all such developments, the chances of it not coming to fruition is reasonable high. Even if it does come to fruition the name in the Infobox, I believe, should not be changed because the Stone Hill Park use is not the subject of the article. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me correct your "summary".

Your summary is wildly inaccurate Canterbury Tale. your position in favour of recreating an airport where Manston used to be is clouding your judgement. Editors will note that if you examine the vandalisation of the posts made re the correct name being pointed out, Canterbury Tales has used a number of dubious excuses to attempt to remove information he doesn't like. 1st time was that the information wasn't verified, and when verification was provided from various sources, the excuse then came to be a highly fanciful guess as to what the intention was of the person who originally wrote the wiki. The facts are that the site at Stone Hill Park is no longer an airport, and it's owners have changed it's name to Stone Hill Park, as verified by the 4 sources posted. Manston Airport as an entity no longer exists, and the sites new name is Stone Hill Park, it is entierly relevant, accurate and indeed essencial that this current fact is available. You will note that I have never suggested that the name of the page be changed, nor have I ever changed the name of the page, that would appear to be an attempt to cloud the issue by Canterbury tales. Manston Airport no longer exists, and reference to the site's new name is pertinent, relevant and justified. Anf for clarity, I don;t have an alter ego, and it's interesting that the person to once again valdalise the correct information that was "undone" did so from an IP whose only contribution to Wikipedia seems to be the vandalisation of that comment. I wonder whose alter ego that was. Real world sanity (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from making WP:Personal attacks on other editors. Comment on edits not motives or the editor. For the record I have no favour of recreating an airport on the former Manston Airport site, and I have no other IP address edits so please refrain from implying that they were done by myself.
 * In the interests of clarity can you let us know what your involvement with this proposed development is? Per WP:COI. Also please note that the principal reference and official site claims that it is a proposal not a done deal. Canterbury Tail   talk  19:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No personal attack was made, I simply described the process that Canterbury Tales has used in his attempts to find an excuse to justify the unwarrented removal of factual information, and this can of course be bourne out by even a cursory examination of the edit history of the site. I can only take your comments on face value, although the evidence seems to point in another dierection. I too have no other IP address edits, and I would invite you and other commenters on this page and elsewhere to refrain from implying otherwise. I have no connection with the owners of the site, developers, possible developers, builders or any other entity that is in any way involved with the Stone Hill Park site, or the ex airport. In the interests of clarity, can you please detail any pressure groups, Facebook groups or entities that you belong to that are campaigning to recreate an airport at Stone Hill Park? My citations are valid, hence why I posted several, sites name IS now Stone Hill Park. For further clarity, it must be noted that the ex airport is no longer an airport, as it is closed, and not in possesion of an airport/airfield licence. Real world sanity (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No affiliations or access to any groups whatsoever, solely an affiliation to Wikipedia through many years of editing. Not sure how a pressure group could force a re-opening of a closed airport anyway, that's not how things tend to go. Canterbury Tail   talk  22:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This article is about the airport and needs to remain about the airport. No one is saying your references are wrong or there is not a planned development. It is simply very very questionable that such detail as you are promoting belongs in an article about the now closed airport more than is currently mentioned.  No one is or will stop you from creating a new article on the Stone Hill Park development proposal (so long as it meets the notability guidelines) - this existing article is not the place for such detail.  Andrewgprout (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have to say I find your protestations somewhat dubious given your level of re-edtiting of factual posts on the site, and the evidence in the edit history, but can only take your claim at face value Canterbury Tales.Real world sanity (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * AndrewGprout, I couldn;t disagree more. The current staus and correct name of the area that used to be Manston is of course relevant to the story of the airport and it's failure. The facts are that it is no longer an airport, and it's legal owners have chosen to rename the site, these are factual events, no matter how much you may dislike them. An article about the development I have no doubt will appear at some stage, and will no doubt mention that it's on the site of an ex airfield, as that is just as relevant as informing the reader that the site that used to be called Manston Airport is now called Stone Hill park. It's a current fact about the site, and of course should be included in a fact box that claims to actually have some facts in it. As it is now, the reader could be fooled into believing that it's still open, even down to the fact I notice that any attempt to strikethrough now defunct airport codes is re edited. If there is going to be a site about Manston Airport, it needs to be accurate, not what some would LIKE to be accurate Real world sanity (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manston 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/20150402100618/http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=80&pagetype=88&sglid=3&fld=2014Annual to http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=80&pagetype=88&sglid=3&fld=2014Annual

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) 05:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)