Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of common misconceptions

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.

Edit request (06:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC))[edit]

‹ The template below (Edit fully-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

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]

Template-protected edit request on 16 July 2022[edit]

‹ The template below (Edit template-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

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]