SPUI wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:11:27 -0400, SPUI
<drspui(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So you'd like to fill up road articles with
reports of maps that show
them still existing, or not existing, or going incorrectly?
Sure, it's very useful to know when a map is wrong, don't you think?
Yes, and the description given in the article will disagree with the
map. You don't need to actually say "maps that show otherwise are wrong".
But it's not unreasonable to say "these specific popular and
widely-known maps show otherwise, but they are in error."
However, none of this deals with the actual problem:
the IP kept
reverting to say that SR 913 uses the causeway. I think he even reverted
when I said that it doesn't but some maps say it does.
Do you know if this non-logged-in user even knows that such a thing as
"edit summaries" exist, and can be viewed with that "history" link he
might never have clicked on before?
If you put it right in the article, either inline or as a footnote, then
that guarantees that not only will the current guy you're disputing see
it but also all future editors who stumble across it and would otherwise
think "hey, that's not what my map says. Stupid Wikipedia!"