This is the talk page of the page notice for List of common misconceptions. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of common misconceptions can only be edited by administrators, page movers, and template editors. All editnotices (except those in userspace) are protected via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, so the "protection" status as set by the protection tab is mostly irrelevant.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Number "1" in the list: "misconception's" → "misconception." Also, add commas after "misconception" and after "topic." –– Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 06:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Question: I think that it's intended to be a possessive. How about "The topic which includes the common misconception has an article of its own." -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC) reply

It is a possessive, but it's badly phrased regardless. "Include" isn't a great term either. I've switched it for the simpler "The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Gray ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

(1) Immediately after "text=" insert a first line to say:
"Whether an item should be included is often a contentious issue. It is preferred to propose new items on the talk page first."
(2) change existing "must at least fulfill" to "should at least fulfill" _signed, Willondon ( talk) 17:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I believe there is consensus for both changes at Talk:List of common misconceptions#Vetting new entries first, on the talk page. _signed, Willondon ( talk) 17:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^put'r there  18:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I think the current version is an improvement. However, it's a little awkward in that it recommends proposal on the talk page in two places for (perhaps) two different reasons. I'd suggest the following language:

READ THIS FIRST: Criteria for entries to this list A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list does not exist, but an item added to the list should at least fulfill the following: The topic to which the misconception is related has an article of its own. The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception. The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources. The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete. Whether an item should be included is often a contentious issue. It is preferred to propose new items on the talk page first, especially if your suggested item does not fulfill these criteria but you still think should be included.

To editors Willondon and Mr swordfish: looks as if this needs further discussion. Suggest that it be brought up on the article's talk page to draw more attention. P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^put'r there  16:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Paine Ellsworth Apologies for not addressing this sooner. Somehow I missed seeing this discussion and didn't see it until now - I was not deliberately ignoring it.

That said, the article is currently under discussion at AfD and in a few days there might not be an article. So, I'll wait until the dust has settled to initiate the discussion. Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 02:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Description of suggested change: Revert 1) on previous edit request. As flagged on that entry by P.I. Eslworth, after implementing the change, the consensus that the text be included on the edit notice was lost as the discussion continued, after the change was made.

Rollinginhisgrave ( talk) 01:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

As per the last thread, we should wait until after the article survives AfD before investing any more time in tweaking the edit note and inclusion criteria.

As it stands now, the edit notice and inclusion criteria notices are not in synch with each other; my opinion is that they should say the same things, so both this template and the inclusion template are ripe for a reconciliation. I'll start a thread about the inclusion criteria and edit notice if and when the AfD nomination fails. Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 02:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Apologies for my ignorance on this subject, but it appears that the inclusion criteria at the top of the talk page is editable and not a template like the edit notice. Is there a way to just include the edit notice on the talk page so the two are always in sync? Yeah, off topic in this thread, but I'm curious. Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 02:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sounds like a great idea to wait until the AfD is done. I've set it to answered, and I'll reopen it when / if the AfD doesn't go through. Rollinginhisgrave ( talk) 04:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply