Jump to content

Talk:List of common misconceptions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 17 hours ago by Pppery in topic Requested move 11 November 2026
Former FLCList of common misconceptions is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 29, 2006Articles for deletionNo consensus
March 24, 2009Articles for deletionKept
February 8, 2011Articles for deletionNo consensus
April 25, 2011Featured list candidateNot promoted
September 26, 2018Articles for deletionKept
December 22, 2023Articles for deletionKept
Current status: Former featured list candidate



why "list" singular and not "lists"

[edit]

this is a list of lists, so why does the article title say "list of common misconceptions" instead of "lists of common misconceptions"? did we simply just forget to do this or is there some weird esoteric reason for keeping the name as is EditWarCriminal (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The list was recently split into three. Renaming it never came up in the discussions, so the answer to your question is that nobody bothered to change it after the split.
Perhaps there would be some objection for renaming (moving) the article, so I'd give it a few days to see if there is any and if not then follow the procedure at WP:MOVE. UPDATE: after reading WP:MOVE I see that there are several technical issues related to moving this page. So, it's not that simple. Doing it properly will take some care and attention. That doesn't mean it can't be done. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've made a request for this in the technical requests section of the move requests page. MudPi314 (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Additional lists

[edit]

Most of the recently added "additonal lists" are not list articles. And the verbiage at the top of the page about each entry being a correction rather than a restatement of the misconception does not apply to many of them.

I have no issue with any of these articles being linked at this page, but we should present them differently than the current presentation. See also? Related articles? Open to suggestions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Yes, good point. One possible approach would be to put all the current "additional lists" into the "see also" section, leaving only the three big ones that were originally included in this article. I would favor doing that, I think.... — Mudwater (Talk) 12:45, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
...put all the current "additional lists" into the "see also" section, leaving only the three big ones that were originally included in this article
That makes sense to me. I'll give it another day to see if there are objections or other suggestions. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Seeing no other suggestions or objections I'll implement this approach. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Mr swordfish: Very good, thank you. Also, would it be better to have the "See also" entries in alphabetical order by page name? I can sort them if that's agreeable. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:26, 4 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Alphabetical sounds good, unless someone has a better idea. Go for it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Done — Mudwater (Talk) 20:55, 4 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think the list article for misconceptions about false etymologies of English words still counts as a list. AaronNealLucas (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia misconceptions

[edit]

Floating the idea of common misconceptions within Wikipedia. Something like:

  • Misconception: "If something passes for notable, it should have its own article."

Wikipedia:Notability says: "(notability) is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." \\ref any merge request on the afd page. It doesn't take long to find someone who opposes a merge because the subject is notable and therefore deserves a standalone page\\

  • Misconception: "A long list of sources proves significant coverage"

Wikipedia:Notability#significant_coverage says: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." This refers to the amount of coverage in a single source, not how many sources with coverage exist. \\ref afd nominations for small groups or businesses. Theres usually one advocate misrepresenting sigcov\\

Just a shower thought I had this morning. Do whatever you want with it. Sesamehoneytart 16:05, 13 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

We would need reliable sources establishing that these are common misconceptions to include them in the article(s). Note that Wikipedia itself is never a reliable source as per the definition of reliable source. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think I see where you're coming from. Even if there was a reliable source about it, only someone familiar with this environment could write it, so it wouldn't be independent of the subject. TLDR; this just isn't the appropriate place for a list like this. Is that more or less what you mean? Sesamehoneytart 12:05, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 11 November 2026

[edit]

List of common misconceptions → Lists of common misconceptions – This page is a list of lists, not a list. See Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#why_"list"_singular_and_not_"lists". MudPi314 (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2026 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). * Pppery * it has begun... 02:38, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm marking this as "contested" and converting this to a discussin since the fact that none of the admins patrolling WP:RMTR have seen fit to action it in a week makes it potentially controversial. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:38, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply