SPUI wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I suppose that in some ways this is related to
NPOV issues, but where
there is no real dispute. This kind of innocent error tends to be
perpetrated until they are widely pointed out, and that needs to be done
for as long as the error keeps recurring. In another area the term
"brontosaurus" was deprecated 95 years after it was introduced, but we
can't avoid the fact that this creature is still ubiquitous in
children's literature. Much of this is written by people with no
understanding of paleontology. We'll probably need to keep pointing out
this error much longer than the one about the Nassau County roads.
So you'd like to fill up road articles with reports of maps that show
them still existing, or not existing, or going incorrectly? Talk about
"cruft"...
There are probably a not insignificant number of editors who would
consider articles about roads to be _entirely_ "cruft". I don't agree
with that myself, but it's an indication of how cruft is in the eye of
the beholder.
Maybe if the article was about Florida as a whole, or roads in general,
then mentioning specific roads being mislabelled on certain maps would
be too niggling a bit of minutiae to justify including. But in an
article that's specifically about that one particular road, it seems to
me that within that context it's not necessarily trivial. Especially not
when the source-in-error is one that's commonly used.