SPUI wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
If it's a _widespread_ error, then people are likely to come across it independently. The information that it's a widespread error is quite useful in this situation. We have whole entire articles on urban legends and the like, adding a line to an article like this doesn't seem out of line to me.
It wouldn't be adding a line. The IP continued to change the mileage in the infobox, the description of the route, and several other articles to show that the bridge is part of SR 913.
The inclusive version wouldn't necessarily have to be an exact hybrid of the two versions you're fighting over. The information on the widespread error could be in a footnote that all of the "disputed" facts get labelled with, in which case it would be a single line or so of text which gets linked to from multiple places within the article.