Talk:Blue Grass Airport
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments) |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
Blue Grass Airport is part of WikiProject Bluegrass Region, a project which aims to coordinate work for and expand coverage of the Bluegrass region of Kentucky. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join or engage in discussion. |
[edit] Runways
The proper numbering of the runways:
08/26 and 26/08 04/22 and 22/04
Should the multi runways be parallel the modifying letters "R" and "L" will be added to corresponding runway numbers.
FAA Airport Advisory regulations.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.62.251.246 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-28T11:18:06 (UTC)
- Ok, but what is your point? Thanks/wangi 10:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The proper numbering of the runways:
8/26 and 26/08 or runway 8 and runway 26 4/22 and 22/04 or runway 4 and runway 22
Such are official AIRFIELD markings in complianmce with FAA.
Should the multi runways be parallel the modifying letters "R" and "L" will be added to corresponding runway numbers.
FAA Airport Advisory regulations.
DO NOT correect what you are alleging REDUNDANT numbers if you do not understand AIRPORT safety operation.
Altough the AIRPORT has only two (2) runways in reality from the operational point there are 4 runways depending on weather (wind) conditions.
The runways therefore are for runway 8/26 there are two (2) runways one knowm as 8 and other as 26 for runway 4/22 there are two (2) runways one runway 4 and one 22.
For people in AIRPORT operations that is a clear and only numbering system, for laiks it doesn't mean a crap!
If you do not understand AIRPORT markings stay a way from any corrections and leave it to peope who understand the international Airfield markings!
DO NOT VANDALIZE the articles.
- Can you please rephrase your concerns - giving examples in the article where you beleive things are incorrect. Please be civil, and assume good faith. Thanks/wangi 10:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Footnote [1] refers to a 2002 crash of a Learjet, not the Comair Canadair crash.
[edit] Runways again
The image of the airport has two runways labeled as "04" and "08". These labels are incorrect, as runways in the United States do not have the leading zeros. The runway labels should be "4" and "8". The article lists the runways correctly, so the image is 1) inconsistent with the rest of the article, and 2) just flat-out wrong. I'm going to remove the image. If someone could do us the favor of uploading a corrected image, that would be ideal. In the interests of using sourced information and accuracy, please do not restore the incorrectly labeled image. 65.127.231.6 08:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- You are splitting hairs, and making a point... Please do not. I will update the image when I get the chance (as in gasp, people have jobs) but until I do it does no harm at all to keep the existing image. Thanks/wangi
- Yes, it does do harm. It's incorrect, the labels are unsourced, and it detracts from an otherwise fine article. There is no good reason to have a known inaccuracy in an article. No information is preferable to wrong information. You can and should re-upload the image once you have had a chance to correct it. You cooperation in making this article better will be much appreciated. 65.127.231.6 09:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Which really does sap any will I have to use the little spare time I do have updating an image due to trivial reasons. You are making a point, please stop. /wangi 09:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- This article is highly visible at the moment due to the recent accident. It is important that we attempt to be as strictly accurate as possible, since this page will be viewed by many people and possibly members of the media. Allowing an admitted inaccuracy to remain is unacceptable in any article, but even more so in this one due to the attention it's receiving. Please consider the effect you will have, as an administrator, on Wikipedia's credibility by insisting that an inaccurately labeled image to remain on this article. It's just not worth it. 65.127.231.6 09:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- You're right, I will try to change the image. Wangi, this is not proving a point: it's pointing out an inaccuracy. —Mets501 (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. You should be handing this user a barnstar instead of warnings. This type of anonymous editor is exactly the sort we need around here. Mexcellent 12:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- You're right, I will try to change the image. Wangi, this is not proving a point: it's pointing out an inaccuracy. —Mets501 (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- This article is highly visible at the moment due to the recent accident. It is important that we attempt to be as strictly accurate as possible, since this page will be viewed by many people and possibly members of the media. Allowing an admitted inaccuracy to remain is unacceptable in any article, but even more so in this one due to the attention it's receiving. Please consider the effect you will have, as an administrator, on Wikipedia's credibility by insisting that an inaccurately labeled image to remain on this article. It's just not worth it. 65.127.231.6 09:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I was wrong adding the point notice, sorry. However I stand by my comment that this is not a major inaccuracy - it's just a style issue. For example had I annotated the runway with the length in metres it wouldn't have been wrong - just unusual to US customs. The correct fix is actually to have no annotation on the image. (and is there an echo?) Thanks/wangi 16:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
