Talk:Doncaster Sheffield Airport

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 articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the airport project.

Yorkshire Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Doncaster Sheffield Airport is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removing Information

Can other users please stop removing information before they have checked its accuaracy. E.g. i posted the news on Wizz Airs new twice weekley service to Wroclaw starting in February 2008, and someone has reverted it - even though it's true. Now, all be it i am not to good at adding references for proof but i would appreciate it if people would not revert edits or deleate them without evidence.

EDIT: Problem has been resolved. Information is back.

Finningley

Finningley WAS located in the West Riding of Yorkshire - it must be a very long time ago that Finningley village was in Nottinghamshire. I was wrong about this - Finningley WAS in Notts prior to 1973

The actual Finningley RAF base may have straddled the Yorkshire/Nottinghamshire border prior to the 1973 reorganisation of local government - certainly the airbase just before it closed, although wholly then in South Yorkshire, straddled the pre 1973 border.

The original Robin Hood legends were set in Barnsdale Forest, not in Sherwood Forest - these were later legends that became popular in the 20th century. Indeed the name Robin Hood for pubs etc, and even settlements, is widespread in South and West Yorkshire.

Robin reputedly died in Kirklees priory, near Brighouse, in Calderdale, West Yorkshire. A grave purporting to be his grave is in the grounds of the priory.

The entire parish of Finningley was part of East Retford Rural District until 1974. Morwen - Talk 21:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC) - I cannot locate the relevant reference.[reply]

And no; the village of Finningley is clearly shown as in the West Riding of Yorkshire in the 1" to 1 mile OS map of 1963. Sorry. Er - well - sorry again. I have now made a much more careful study of that map (actually 1961) and note that the village of Finningley was in Nottinghamshire. The village of Blaxton, roughly 1 mile due North of Finningley WAS in the West Riding, and is now in South Yorkshire/Doncaster Met. As soon as the A614 leaves Finningley heading North, it crossed the boundary into the WR. About 1/3 of a mile on (and so 2/3 of a mile from Blaxton) is an unnamed settlement, which once had a railway station and a pub (the pub may still be there). I do not know if this settlement was classed as part of Finningley or not. Finningley itself, though, was in Notts.

Perhaps a Rural District Council could straddle a county border (but this seems unlikely). And what is meant by a parish - this is usually an ecclesiastical term? In the local government sense, the "parish" would have been East Retford Rural District - since rural districts and urban districts and parish councils are all non-statutory councils.

I don't know what it shows on your map, but I have a copy of the Local Government Act 1972 and it clearly transfers the parish of Finningley to South Yorkshire from Nottinghamshire, implying that it was in Nottinghamshire before. It may be that the actual village of Finningley wasn't in the parish of Finningley. This would be unusual but not unprecedented - for example, the village of Paul in Cornwall isn't in the parish of Paul.

As I said, what do you mean by the parish of Finningley?

As to the districts and parish councils being non-statutory, that is nonsense. They were established by the Local Government Act 1894, which is a statute. civil parishes are quite well defined and shown on OS maps. Morwen - Talk 12:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my use of the term non-statutory. Statutory councils are ones that must exist by law. Parish and Town Councils (and Urban Districts and Rural Districts in the past) are PERMITTED by statute, and not REQUIRED by statute). Something is only statutory if it is required by statute.

Further to this, if you go <a href="http://www.abcounties.co.uk/newgaz/f.htm">here</a> and type 'Finningley' into the box, it tells you Nottinghamshire. [1] and [2] at Genuki has it being partly in Nottinghamshire and partly in West Riding of Yorkshire. The late 19th century saw all divided parishes assigned to one county or the other. I've no idea what happened before, but we can say with certainty that on March 31, 1974, it was being administered as part of Nottinghamshire. Morwen - Talk 12:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- the above reference is to a campaigning body who believe in "traditional" counties. As I said, in 1066 or whenever, Finningley might well have been in Nottigub, but from 1974 it is in Donny; and immediately prior to 1973 the village, if not the airbase, was in the West Riding. - See above - I was wrong about this. Sorry.

Everywhere in England outside of a borough was in either a rural district or an urban district, and they had to have a council - they had mandatory sanitary functions for example. Further, parish councils are mandatory for parishes with more than 300 inhabitants.

Where do you get your idea for the last sentence from? That is certainly not current.

As far as I know, its still current. The LGA 1972 specifies it - repeating a provision from 1894, and that part's not been superseded to my knowledge. Obviously, nobody is going around actually enforcing it, and nobody really knows how many parishes don't have active parish councils. Morwen - Talk 17:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, I may have myself been misled about Urban and Rural districts - but as far as I was aware, they took powers down from the County to which they belonged, and if they didn't exist, then the County provided the relevant services.

I've never heard that before, and I've been reading and researchin about history of local government for quite a while. That's certainly how parishes work, though. Morwen - Talk 17:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, this is not really relevant and I'm not even sure why you bring it up. I mean the the modern civil parish of Finningley, as shown on maps (have a look at [3] if you want to see its borders, which are quite unambigious). The LGA 1972 basically has a list of pre-existing local government districts that corresponds to the new ones, and in the entry corresponding to the Metropolitan Borough of Doncaster it says "In the rural district of East Retford, the parish of Finningley." Could you at least concede this bit of factual information? Or are you accusing me of lying about the contents of a law?

Whoa! I'm not being nasty! I WILL go back and relook at the map; because I used to think that Finningley village was in Nottinghamshire, but other things over the years have led me to think otherwise. I may have misread the map (which I think is 1961, not 1963). I WILL check!

Ok, thanks! I can see various possibilities here, but given the events surrounding the passage of the 1972 act, where every boundary change was fought over, I don't see that there could have been an error. What I think was the county boundary passed very close to the village - just north of it, between Finningley and Blaxton (following the modern parish border), and oddly the southern part of the airfield would have been in a West Riding parish. 1 inch to 1 mile isn't particularly detailed. The village Hayfield Green, to the west of the airfield would have been West Riding, too. Morwen - Talk 17:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - all what you say above is correct. I have noted furhter above that I was wrong. I wonder if the station that I refer to above was actually Finningley station? If it was, then it was in the WR. Once again, sorry about letting my confusion about the actual village of Finningley cause an unnecessary discussion,

I'd really like to see your map, because it doesn't correspond with any resources I'm able to find. Could you scan it and put a tiny bit online? Morwen - Talk 12:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry if I caused any upset. I've uploaded a thing here, which shows what I'm guessing was the county boundary. The blue splodge is where I guess the station was - the road there is called Station Road. It appears to be a southern outlier of the village of Blaxton and probably didn't have a seperate name. No idea what the station was called though. I wonder if they'll be actually re-opening the station now that the airport is there? Morwen - Talk 21:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops - sorry about the 1973 bit! However, the South Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council Elections were held in May 1973, so I could not imagine the Councillors having no powers until 1 April 1974 - they would have taken over the PTE (Passenger Transport Executive) in 1973, surely, (I understand that these bodies were set up by separate earlier statutes - and still exist) and probably the relevant part of the Police and Fire Authorities for the West Riding; In Nottinghamshire's case, there would be nothing to take over as the "shire" counties continued as they were (I think) - but the police and fire (and public transport) coverage would have switched from the Nottinghamshire force/brigade to the South Yorkshire services.

Education, bin emptying, housing and so on would have presumably transferred from Nottinghamshire, and East Retford Rural District to Doncaster Met on 1 April 1974 - but the elections to Doncaster Met weren't until May 1974 (I think) - if so, how did they administer the Mets in the meantime? (I assume that Bassetlaw came into being at that time).

The blob does indeed mark where the station was, and there is talk of opening a station for the airport (in the days of the Finningley air show, I understand that they used to open a temporary station, presumably to the west of this station - or they may have temporarily reopened the exisiting station). I presume an airport station would, likewise, be to the west, almost within the airport area.

I notice that your map has the airfield as disused. I assume therefore that your map is around the mid to late 1990's as I think it was only then that the airbase closed - certainly I remember the last air show was not so long ago.

Apparently the air base finally closed in April 1996. I am reasonably sure that there was an airshow in 1994, but do not know if there was one in 1995.

I cannot find any further information about when the Met Counties were actually set up, as obviously even their abolition (1986 I think) more or less predated the internet - certainly wide use of it.

Basically, there were elections in spring 1973 to all (districts & counties) the 'shadow authorities', that then proceeded to arrange things and took over actual control on April 1, 1974. I remember finding a source saying the metropolitan districts and council elections were on the same actual day, but I can't find where that came from.

As to the actual date of existence, well, conventionally they are dated from 1st April 1974. The wording from the Act says:

"For the administration of local government on and after 1st April 1974 England (exclusive of Greater London and the Isles of Scilly) shall be divided into local government areas to be known as counties and in those counties there shall be local government areas to be known as districts."

(It doesn't seem to specify the exact dates for elections, though, just saying 1973 - must have been specified by Order later). They had a kind of semi-existence before then as electoral areas, but usually areas are dated from when they come into force for all purposes, rather than when they are defined. I suppose its rather tricky setting exact dates otherwise. We've got reasonably good coverage on stuff here - Local Government Act 1972 is mostly my work from books & the act.

Formally, also the creation of South Yorkshire Police happened on that day. As to what happened with that operationally I have no idea. I would assume the former West Riding Constabulary had prepared a 'South Yorkshire Division' and a 'West Yorkshire' division in advance, so they could split. I guess the place to look for more info on this would be internal police literature from the 1970s - which is not exactly found in a public library. Also it would be good to check the PTA stuff. I know that in some areas the previous PTAs had covered a much larger area - SELNEC covered Glossop for example, so the area had to be reduced when the met county council took over as PTA.

I don't know exactly when the map was - probably reasonably recent OS map. I found a press release talking about the possibility of a station so added that - but it doesn't look like a big priority. I wonder what state the existing station is in.

Down here, East Midlands Parkway railway station is about to start construction if it hasn't already, so certainly possible (in about 10 years following East Midlands' schedule). Morwen - Talk 23:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting points, thanks. I have logged in properly this time (having previously been idenitified only by computer number - the 212 ..... one and the 86 ...... one are both me). And sorry again for adding my 2p worth when it was really only 1p worth because I remembered stuff wrongly - I hadn't realised that ALL the Councillors had been elected in 1973 and formed "shadow" authorities. So, some district councillors (a third) must have served 5 years - 73 to 78, with a third serving 2 years - 73 to 75, and a third 3 years 73 to 76 with no elections in 74, and the 77 elections being the "all-out" county elections again.

As I have family and friends in that general area, I might try and go to where the station is supposed to be and have a look; though I suspect any new one would be nearer to the actual airport, even virtually within the airport site. Knowing the Long Eaton area reasonably well, I realise that the proposed station for "Castle Donington" airport (as I knew it) is quite a way from Nottingham East Midlands airport.

Am I right, by the way, that the airport is in Leicestershire, but the nearest city is actually Derby, so that there was some controversy about the Nottingham name? Derby claiming the name on proximity, and Leicester (or Leicestershire) on 'political' administrative area grounds.

Another by the way - the village Hayfield Green is a new creation (I think). My wife went to Hayfield school, but the area where the school was, was, I think, classed as Branton. Hayfield may have been a name of a small Hamlet; but Hayfield Green is a new name as far as I am aware. I wonder if Hayfield Green is either a new housing estate or an estate of former MOD houses that have been sold off, or a combination of both - I rather suspect the last, and again, if I get chance, will go and look.

I currently attend the Hayfield School, it is classed as being in Auckley, Hayfield Green is merely a housing estate (the former military officers homes) at the far south end of the village

Finally?

I am still intrigued by your comment about the Parish Councils being a requirement, and wonder whether it is something that was never specifically repealed or amended, but is somehow or other contradicted elsewhere - I wonder if it has been tested in court and found that it has been somehow superseded?

And I note that you have drawn the pre 1973/4 border accurately on your more recent map. Do I assume that you have another source showing the border?

destinations, lake garda?

lake garda as a destination is surely incorrect as it does not actually 'fly to lake garda' it must be either brescia airport or verona airport?

I've cleaned up the destinations section to follow the standard format but I've only listed the scheduled services. The charter services were confusing (as mentioned above) and in my view they're not as important. There is a timetable here which lists all services using the airport. If anyone feels there's a need I could do the same for the charter flights as I have for the scheduled services. --Fozi999 11:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added destinations such as Florida to the scheduled services as, although these are holiday flights, they will run weekly and can be booked as just flights. Remove if incorrect Dbertman 19:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

history

As most of the history of Doncaster Airport is included in RAF Finningley should these two articles be merged as: it is effectively the same airport BUT RAF Finningley was effectively a different operating airport, 'Robin Hood' is just on the same site. So should the articles be merged or should a separatye history section be added to the current article, what do people think?

Too much entushiasm?

I feel, during the reading of this article, too much enthusiamsm about the opportunity of this airport, and to much pride when compared to other near airport (that are explicity called competitors). -- AnyFile 14:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re history

The history of RAF Finningley was between the years 1935 to 1996, the history of DSA started 2005. I think they should be kept seperate with a link between them both.

--Derek 11:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

As the airport appears to be owned by Doncaster Sheffield Airport Limited and licenced as Doncaster Sheffield, I propose that this article should be renamed/moved as Doncaster Sheffield Airport.MilborneOne 21:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the airport has NOT been renamed. The website still refers to the airport as Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield. As far as I can tell, this is an erroneous move, and if people can not at least show evidence for this move, it should be reverted to its title in general usage (as per the logo) Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield. M0RHI | Talk to me 22:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said the airport had been renamed if you read my post above the aerodrome licence (a legal document) is Doncaster Sheffield the airport operator is called Doncaster Sheffield Airport Limited - the 'marketing name' is Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield, so I have no problem with us using the marketing name as an article title but the text should show the proper name. The use of different titles as amended by M0RHI is the right balance. MilborneOne 11:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to an earlier move to actually rename the article "Sheffield Doncaster Airport". Apparently the person who moved it was caught up in a practical joke, and has since rescinded the necessity for the move. The above post by myself was not regarding your suggestion but the actual change to something inaccurate that occurred. Kind regards. M0RHI | Talk to me 12:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this page after starting at Wikipedia:Requested moves and casually following wikilinks from users to pages and so on. Found my way here eventually. Anyway, while I'm not particularly bothered about it, if Robin Hood Airport is the official name then:

Shouldn't the page name simply be Robin Hood Airport? Calling it that would be more in line with the article naming convention followed by every other airport in Category:Airports in England.
If you insist on having the full name as is, shouldn't there be some kind of punctuation or parentheses, i.e. "Robin Hood Airport, Doncaster, England" or "Robin Hood Airport (Doncaster, England)"? The current form does seem to ignore several WP guides (see WP:MOS, WP:NAME and WP:PLACES).

Regards, --DeLarge 16:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In actual fact, it shouldn't be named "Robing Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield, since CAA Guidance says it should be named after it's principle settlement, then the settlement it's nearest to, ie "Sheffield (Doncaster) Airport", "Sheffield (Finningley) Airport" or "Doncaster (Finningley) Airport. (but that isn't what the discussion is about). The Full name is "Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield", and in this way, shares a lot in common with "Liverpool John Lennon Airport", George Best Belfast City Airport and "Nottingham East Midlands Airport". L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we discussed this just a few lines above ! - the official names is Doncaster Sheffield Airport its marketing name is Robin Hood Airport the article title we ended up with Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield was a comprimise as wikipedia articles should use the common name even if it is un-official. (it was RAF Finningley when I lived there !) MilborneOne 20:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links

SempreVolando the links in place have been there for over 2 years without a problem. Both the EGCN link and Veterans link provide useful information which cannot be found elsewhere. I do not own either website but realise what value they have to readers. For some reason in the last three months since you took it upon yourself to be the self styled page editor you have not taken issue with the links and so it seems you are now just nitpicking at the page. Neither lnik is spam so they should be left alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willuk 2k (talk • contribs) 14:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I am not the only editor to have removed this link, so please don't feel this is a personal attack. How long the link has been there is not relevant and as you will note I contribute to many airport and airline articles, not just this one, to ensure consistency and compliance with both the Wikipedia and Wikiproject Airports / Airlines policy (not my own 'nitpicking' or personal opinion, I'm sorry if that's how it comes across). The issue here is that this link does not comply with Wikipedia guidelines for external links. It fails WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest. Clearly you feel that the link does contain valuable information and I would ask that you list the points of information you think it provides which are not already included in the article but which have encyclopedic relevance. Since you feel the link should be there and I and at least one other editor do not, I have removed the link for now to allow neutral and independent Wikipedia editors to decide whether it is relevant for inclusion by contributing here on the talk page, in line with the Wikipedia advice on WP:EL. Thank you. SempreVolando (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone takes your argument seriously then both non-official sites should be deleted. Both carry no form of advertising for other products/services, and both carry unique information that cannot be found elsewhere. The EGCN site includes an in depth terminal guide, a site guide, aircraft movements from day one of operation and many relevant information PDF files which are unique to that site that will interest readers. The Veterans site carrys much unique information about the RAF's past at the site, if anything it does not contain any material about the sites present use - Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield making the link irrelevant. However I state both links should be included until such a time that a concensus (not just you) disagree.Willuk 2k

Ok, well as I said there were two of us but nevermind 2 vs. 1 is clearly not a consensus in your view, I will keep you happy and not remove the link unless the consensus from this discussion is to do so. Unfortunately none of the items you have mentioned on which the link provides information are of encyclopedic value. Remember, this is encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. So terminal guides, site guides, aircraft movements, etc... are outside Wikipedia's remit. That's why they are not in the article in the first place, personally I feel that no more than the airport's official website need be linked as I see no added encyclopedic value from this particular link. Anyway let's see what other editors think as well. I agree with you, however, that the other link should also probably be deleted too. Thanks SempreVolando (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the egcn link being added and removed it because it's not really of any value to the article. Willuk, you state the site has historical aircraft movements but that information, if it's deemed encyclopedic and needed in the article, should be obtained from the CAA so the figures are consistant over all UK airports. There really is no need for large amounts of information on terminals and statistics. And yes I disagree with this as well but I know that a lot of airports have this sort of stuff. I also went through the RAF site and I don't think it adds much to the article. The only way that it might be of use is the few pictures from the early days but there isn't that many. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a full discussion has now been had by the consensus after all of 4 hours. Maybe other people can have their say before the link is deleted again, not just the two people who have deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willuk 2k (talk • contribs) 19:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think we have concluded the discussion? There was no point in discussing this issue if only the three editors whose views on the matter were already perfectly clear was to be seen as "consensus" (hence my statment above which you appear to have ignored that I wanted to allow neutral and independent Wikipedia editors to decide whether it is relevant i.e. not just me!). So get off your high horse for a minute and let others contribute rather than suggest the two of us will simply gang up against you please. My posts above have been prefectly polite and respectful, a little civility from you wouldn't go amiss. SempreVolando (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RAF Finningley veterans link should be removed as it not relevant to the airfield post 2005 and it should only be in the RAF Finningley article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately after several weeks there has been no further contribution of opinion on these links from other users, so I have removed both the EGCN and RAF links from the article on current consensus. Any future comments or opinions on this issue please discuss here first. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"stats" :
- [http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_data/2007Annual/Table_03_1_Aircraft_Movements_2007.pdf Movements], [http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_data/2007Annual/Table_01_Size_of_UK_Airports_2007_Comp_2002.pdf Passengers]
- Number of Passengers including both domestic and international.

DumZiBoT (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson Airways don't operate scheduled flights from here!

I have removed the Thomson Airways listing in the Scheduled Airlines section of Destinations, because these flights are no longer Scheduled flights, they are high frequency charter flights and some may operate throughout the whole year. However this in my opiniong does not make them scheduled flights because you cannot book one way flights, and you must originate from Doncaster Airport, ie. you cannot say as an expat return from Spain from Alicante to visit your family in Doncaster, however you did used to be able to do this when the airline was Thomsonfly.com, a scheduled airline, however this is no longer the case.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.130.153 (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is completely untrue. I have just been onto the thomson website located at (http://flights.thomson.co.uk/) and was able to book a one way flight from Alicante to Doncaster exactly as you said I couldn't.

I suggest you should try this yourself and validate your own opinions before stating untruths

Here is an abridged extract of plain text from the screen....

Select Select your flights Close Outbound

Alicante (ALC) to Doncaster Sheffield (DSA) Outbound Tue, 20 Jan 09 20:50 TOM 4654 22:50 Change datesNew Search

1 Adult £ 24.99 Taxes & Charges £ 2.50 Total £ 27.49

Select this flight Our internet fares offer a standard £5 / EUR7.50 / US$10 discount compared to our call centre fares. Please click here for a step-by-step guide to booking online. Please read our booking conditions before proceeding. If you wish to book a larger group than offered on this website, please click here for details.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.166.94 (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

easyJet Base

I have added easyJet under "Hub for" despite people removing it. easyJet themselves have recently confirmed Doncaster to be a "virtual hub" which is essentially the same thing, just without a crew base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.15.22 (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split Paul Chambers

Resolved

Hello. I don't feel strongly about the title, but this section needs to be beefed up and split into a separate article. It's a landmark case for freedom of speech in UK, there's been a strong reaction not just from twitter users, but from the press as well. It's been going on for almost a year and further appeal is guaranteed. 113.197.195.1 (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. May have to see how the appeal pans out. Such an article does not seem to meet WP:PERP or WP:VICTIM. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably far to much coverage in this article - not really that notable to the airport. Suggest if it cant be split out it should be either removed ~~or at the most a one-liner under accidents and incidents.~~ MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read some of the sources it appears to have no relevance to the airport, it just happened to be mentioned in the message so it should be deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previously I would have said no but it is becoming a little bit of a cause celibre. See how it is treated in the media. Mtaylor848 (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this to Twitter Joke Trial. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Railway station

Is there a railway station here? This link suggests that there is. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC

There is no railway station near the airport the closet railway station is Doncaster and there is a bus service i believer between doncaster station and the airport. miniwillde (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link now (if not before) mentions specifically BUS departures and arrivals! 86.181.177.63 (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External Links.

I know that the EGCN link has been controversial in the past but i think that these websites would add to the article and provide general interest to readers wishing to find out more.

1.http://www.fodsa.co.uk/ 2.http://www.dsaf.co.uk/index.html

Thanks Wilbur2012(talk) 11:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilbur2012 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Neither of them add any value to the article and in particular the blog would not be allowed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Point maybe a little to much attachment going on there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilbur2012 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Doncaster Airport - the original one

Intresting that there is no reference to the original Doncaster Airport which held the record for being closest to the town it served. It was across the road from the race course and nect to Doncaster Rovers Football Club.

Shame really as it was a nice little airport that was the assembly home of the Gruman light aircraft in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.242.9 (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Do we really need the 3 maps that have been inserted in the article or will a single one in the infobox do. I reverted an IP adding these but was reverted so thought that I would ask others over this. Keith D (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should leave it be, 3 maps are better than one? Stonecutter9 00:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No there is no need for 3 maps. Why not have 5 include the location in Europe and in the world. Also it removed the coordinates from the box and the top of the article. But they have been doing this in other articles so I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Maps. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would make more sense to use the UK map instead of the provincial one, it's hard to tell where exactly the airport is. Stonecutter9 05:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the size of the country. For the UK it works because it's smaller but it's not so great in Sable Island Aerodrome because of the size of Canada and Sable Island is far enough off the coast of Nova Scotia that you can't use the provincial map. What would be useful is if the regional map also included the country as well such as the ones used for Canada. See Toronto Pearson International Airport which shows the airport in Ontario and in the small box shows Ontario in Canada. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong flag.

Some silly boy had though that Vilnius is in Poland. Not anymore. --Jaankar (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield. 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:

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

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) 00:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

Requested move 1 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedily closed. Page was moved to a different title. Request withdrawn. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 20:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield → Doncaster Sheffield Airport (Robin Hood) – The airport has rebranded itself and now goes by this appellation rather than majoring on the Robin hood name Nthep (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep: I acted on a request at WP:RMTR and moved it to Doncaster Sheffield Airport. I should have noticed the move discussion first; sorry about that. Are you okay with the article being at "Doncaster Sheffield Airport" with the "Robin Hood" tagline noted in the article text, or would you rather it be at "Doncaster Sheffield Airport (Robin Hood)"? I can revert my move if you'd like, just let me know. Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 20:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NickW557: No problem at all with the new title. Probably better than having the Robin Hood on the end. I'll let you close the move discussions. Nthep (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Doncaster Sheffield 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:

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) 19:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Dsa-logo cmyk 1.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of use of talk

User:Air7777 since 31 December 2019 or even earlier in 2019 you boldly added new material which was reverted but have not come to talk here to discuss its inclusion. The material was added to this article so it is here it should be discussed not just in edit summaries. Please see WP:BRD and oblige. Meanwhile please desist from edit warring.SovalValtos (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Dsa-logo cmyk 1.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When we can buy shares for this robinhood airport

When we can buy shares for this robinhood airport ..? 92.27.41.109 (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]