Jump to content

Talk:List of common misconceptions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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


Title is Misleading

[edit]

While the title is clarified in the initial paragraph stating that "Each entry on this list of common misconceptions is worded as a correction", the title itself is misleading because of this wording. Instead of a list of misconceptions, as it stands it is a list of factual statements.

The misconceptions being implied leads less detailed readers to believe that this is a list of false facts, rather than a correction to said false facts, and they might leave this list believing that all of these corrections are false.

Leading each correction with a brief sentence saying what the initial misconception was, so as not to spread further misconceptions (while staying true to the title name by making it indeed a list of misconceptions [and their corrections]), would be more accurate. BoxedBunny.bb (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that searching for a misconception to verify if it is true will pretty much never lead you to this list, which is meant to counteract said misconceptions. The target audience will never be reached. Thus adding a sentence or two to connect the misconception to the correction would be a better use of this list. BoxedBunny.bb (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the title is confusing. To me this looks to be the usual trade-off between precision and concision in Wikipedia:Article titles, but I have no better title.
Also I don't think it is a good idea to repeat the misconception. For more details, I recommend to have a look at the Debunking Handbook 2020. Nuretok (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is something I've always thought as well. It would make more logical sense to me if each entry began with something like a that-clause, this being the misconception (but clearly not a statement that we are making). For example (this isn't a real one):

W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Headings

[edit]

The discussion below was started on the Science and Technology sub-article, I'm moving it here since it affects this "main" article and the three sub-articles.

I have changed the headings (despite the warning). I believe this solves it both here and on the "main page". Feel free to revert if I'm missing something. Dajasj (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr swordfish, what was looking weird specifically? The reason for adding a header with title "List" is because right now there is no h2-heading which is required for accessibility (see MOS:Goodhead. Dajasj (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The List of Common Misconceptions article was recently split into three separate articles due to size constraints with each sub-article transcluded into the main article. The lack of level-2 headings in the sub-articles is because the sub-articles are transcluded with the level-2 headings provided by the main article.
Thanks for the pointer to MOS:GOODHEAD; more info is available at MOS:OVERSECTION. I was unfamiliar with this material, and you are correct that it is an issue. Since it is an issue for all three sub-articles and affects the main article, we should move this discussion to that talk page - whatever we do with this sub-article we should also do with the other two for consistency. I'm not sure what the best approach is, so I'd like to hear from some of the other editors and I'm not sure everyone follows this talk page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of level-2 headings on the sub-articles does appear to be an issue. See MOS:GOODHEAD and MOS:OVERSECTION. Dajasj (talk) suggested this work-around which seems to address the issue, but looks "weird" to my eyes. Maybe there's a better way to do it? Ideas? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ideal way to do it would be to use "standard" level-2 headings in the sub-articles and push everything down a level when transcluding. But I don't know how to accomplish that. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving the discussion here. Could you elaborate what is looking weird, so I can help find a solution?
More rigorous options could be to move the transcluded pages to the Template namespace, where headings are no requirement. Another, perhaps already discussed and rejected when it was split off, is to make this a disambig page and only keep the transcluded pages. The latter not only fixes the heading issue, but also fits better with the requirement that there should be references where the information is shown. Dajasj (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems odd to have a heading labeled "List" for what is clearly a list. None of the other List of... articles that I'm familiar with have the list under a heading called "List".
Moving the transcluded pages to the Template namespace would seem to resolve the issue, but I'm not very familiar with that structure so I'd need to defer to someone who does. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree that it is a bit odd. We could also name it "Common misconceptions", but that is also obviously in the titel. However it fixes the problem and differentiates from References and Sources anyway. It is pragrmatic, but not perfect.
I could move it to template namespace, but I want to have more input before doing that. Dajasj (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that I understand the problem that is being addressed I'm not so opposed to your solution. I don't know how urgent the headings issue is, but if you think it needs to be addressed quickly I won't object to adding the "List" level 2 heading to the sub articles pending discussion and consensus here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any objection to moving the sub-articles to template namespace? Seems like a good solution to the heading issue, and comports with the consensus on the recent split discussion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will move it (hopefully) this week. If anyone objects later, we can just undo it :) Dajasj (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Territory of embassies

[edit]

Diplomatic mission#Extraterritoriality since this one is mentioned as a common misconception in its own article, it should be added here. People generally do incorrectly believe embassies are territory of the embassy country and not the host country. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about this:
Diplomatic missions do not necessarily enjoy full extraterritorial status and are generally not sovereign territory of the represented state. The sending state can give embassies sovereign status but this only happens with a minority of countries. Although they receive special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations the premises of an embassy remain under the jurisdiction of the host state.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Laws and Rules Regarding Extraterritoriality". integrity-legal.com. Archived from the original on 2021-04-14. There is a common misconception that Embassies and Consulates have extraterritoriality. As anecdotal evidence of this misconception, people will often say things like, 'the US Embassy sits upon United States soil.' For the most part, this is not the case as extraterritoriality is not conferred upon an Embassy or Consulate, but in some situations extraterritoriality may be created by Treaty.
Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canada mass graves reporting

[edit]

While I appreciate the caution, the entry was well sourced and accurate; I would say a dispute at another page shouldn't play into it as long as it's policy compliant and accurate.

let me know if there is need for changes to it though. happy to chat it out. AnExtraEditor (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the inclusion criteria listed at the top of this talk page. Reproduced below:
Also, there appears to be an edit war going on currently at the topic article's page. Please do not extend that to this page. Take a look at WP:POVFORK and try to reach consensus at the topic article. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
cheers, sounds good. I think it meets all these but yes I'll wait. AnExtraEditor (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]