Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a4492e85fd28f557

Jump to content

Talk:List of common misconceptions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 28 days ago by Mudwater in topic Additional lists
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



Asteroid belt

[edit]

It is a well documented misconception (reinforced by hit movies) that the asteroid belt is extremely dense and that spacecraft passing through the asteroid belt are in danger of collision with asteroids. This is unfortunately reinforced that any attempt at graphing the positions of asteroids at a reasonable scale produces a swarm of dots on top of each other, because space is big. This misconception is documented and sourced on the topic article as well as in general-audience sources from astronomers, e.g. https://lucy.swri.edu/MainBeltDensity.html - perhaps it should be included in this list. thunkii (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Table of Contents

[edit]

When we split the article after much discussion, the version of this page that emerged did not have a table of contents. The obvious reason being that it is merely a landing page to send readers to one of the three pages that the article was split into.

The directive to supress the TOC was recently removed without explanation, with the editor saying that there was "nothing to discuss". While I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about the TOC or lack thereof, this sort of call is exactly what the talk page is for.

So, TOC or no TOC? What do the editors think?

My take is that the article is too short to need one, and it just gets in the way of sending the reader to the actual material. Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

without explanation, with the editor saying that there was "nothing to discuss".

Well hold on— I've since explained and we've discussed it at your talk page. I initially said there was "nothing to discuss" because you didn't give a reason for your revert; please read WP:REVEXP. But we seem to be on the same page now, so I'm not sure why you're phrasing this like there's animosity between us. You also left out what we discussed, including that the TOC is inline in legacy skins, which puts it "in the way" as you said, while in the 2022 skin it's in the sidebar so that's a non-issue. — W.andrea (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC) edited 18:11; partially retracted 13:49, 15 JulyReply
Look at the timestamps. I started this thread prior to your reply on my talk page and the ensuing discussion. I left out what we discussed for the simple reason that it hadn't happened yet.
Agree that you've explained and we've discussed, but that was after writing the above.
Also agree that we appear to be on the same page now, now that I understand the reason for the edit and how the TOC is rendered in the various skins. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, my bad! I thought I did note the timestamp, but maybe I confused it with local time. Anyway... — W.andrea (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've drawn up an experimental template {{NOTOC inline}} to do what {{Hide inline TOC}} is supposed to do: disable an inline TOC but allow a sidebar TOC. Check out the demos here. I can add it to the article if you'd like, or anyone else can go for it. — W.andrea (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Looks good to me. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've added the template. Looks good so far, although I haven't tested all skins in all browsers. If anyone sees issues, please report. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

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