body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents
Former FLCList of common misconceptions is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. 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


All Mammals being endothermic[edit]

Contrary to popular belief, not all Mammals are warm-blooded or endothermic. Some Mammals such as Sloths and Naked Mole Rats are cold-blooded or ectothermic, meaning their body temperature depends on external temperature. 37.47.187.207 (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be solid sourcing of the claim that not all Mammals are warm-blooded or endothermic. The naked mole rat and sloths are poikilothermic or heterothermic not ectothermic. However, unlike most mammals they are not homeothermic, so the misconception would be "Not all mammals are homeothermic" which I do not think is all that common.


What I'm not seeing in any of these topic articles is that this is mentioned as a common misconception, so it seems to fail the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Poikilothermic" (also "Heterothermic") is technically a synonym of "Ectothermic", so these mammals also technically count as ectotherms. 37.47.187.207 (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're going to have to take that argument up with the editors at the various articles in the Thermoregulation in Animals category. Good luck! Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name of Microsoft's paperclip-shaped Office Assistant[edit]

It seems to be readily accepted in popular culture that the anthropomorphic paperclip, the default Office Assistant included in Microsoft Office software in the late-90s and early-2000s, was named Clippy. The use of this name appears everywhere, from comedy sketches to factual articles about the infamous assistant.

However, it wasn't. The character's name was Clippit.

This might be invalidated as even Microsoft have begun to refer to the character as Clippy in recent years, but that was never the character's original name despite the seemingly widespread conception that it was. Valid entry or no? beeps (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We would need to find some reliable source that states this is a misconception. Simply observing that most people called it Clippy when the official name was Clippit is not enough. See the inclusion criteria at the top of the page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic surgery[edit]

Do we have any evidence that there is a misconception that "plastic surgery" has something to do with plastics? I don't see it in plastic surgery article. --Macrakis (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons has a page about misconceptions about plastic surgery here. [1] It doesn't mention this "misconception". That's not dispositive, but I haven't found anything else that supports the contention. I'd say yank the entry and if someone wants to restore it the ball will be in their court to provide support. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Macrakis (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ending a sentence with a preposition - proposed entry?[edit]

Today's article got me thinking that this might be a candidate for inclusion: [2]

The topic article's treatment is at Preposition_stranding#Controversy.

Perhaps this is a "controversy", but since "nearly all grammarians agree that it's fine to end sentences with prepositions, at least in some cases." it qualifies as a misconception. Thoughts? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how disagreements about good English style can qualify as "misconceptions". Are we going to add a section on other cases where prescriptive grammarians and popular usage disagree?: split infinitives, singular they, fewer versus less, inanimate whose, etc. etc.?
Are we also going to list other disputes about what is in good taste? Should we list "cheese must not be eaten with fish" as a misconception?[3][4] How about "red wine with meat; white wine with fish" -- wine specialists often call this a myth, but in the end, it's a matter of taste.
These aren't misconceptions one way or the other -- they are just disagreements. --Macrakis (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, As It Happens posted an article today to complement their radio broadcast.[1] From the article: "Context always matters," [Peter Sokolowski, Merriam-Webster editor] said. "It's true that because this is one of those superstitions or myths or bugaboos that people have, that if it draws attention to your writing in a way that distracts from your message, then maybe you would avoid it." It's treated as a misconception. I suspect there are still a large number of people that believe it's "incorrect English". The NPR article cited above describes it as a "stubborn taboo", and states "Many were adamant that a concluding preposition is lazy, or just sounded plain weird." signed, Willondon (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this were a matter of taste of style I would agree. But my understanding is that many people think this is a hard and fast rule of grammar, not just a matter of taste or style. Agree that there are other things that are not rules of grammar that many people think are rules, eg split infinitives, but this one seems to be the most pervasive.
Our entry on Irregardless mentions a few other words that are often claimed to not be words, but irregardless is the poster child for that genre so it is given more prominence with other examples provided later. Perhaps that would be a good model for this entry. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The underlying misconception for both irregardless and preposition stranding is that languages are defined by experts, whether dictionaries or (prescriptive) grammarians. It is the very notion of "incorrect English" that is the problem. --Macrakis (talk) 15:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that there is no such thing as incorrect English grammar is an overstatement. (Or perhaps I should say: No such that idea is as the grammar English incorrect overstatement is an.) See the articles on Standard English and English grammar for details.
That said, I agree that the underlying misconception is that there is some official set of rules and I think we cover that in the irregardless entry. The alleged prohibition on ending a sentence with a preposition is similar to the irregardless is not a word claim, although irregardless is less accepted in formal written English than preposition stranding.
Seems to me that if we place this proposed entry immediately after the irregardless entry your concerns about the underlying misconception would be addressed. I don't know that we need to list other examples such as infinitive splitting but a select few might be in order. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed entry:

It is permissible to end a sentence with a preposition.[2] This supposed rule originated in the 1500s in an attempt to imitate Latin, which has more strict grammar than English, but modern linguists agree that it is a natural and organic part of the language.[3] Similarly, modern style and usage manuals allow split infinitives.[4]

Comments? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would strike the "which has more strict grammar than English" part -- Latin is "stricter" in some ways, but much looser in others (word order).
has a of English course grammar, but I was referring to the prescriptive grammarians' notion of "incorrect English". --Macrakis (talk)
Ok. Done. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr swordfish How about:

Prepositions are permissible to end a sentence with.[5] This supposed rule originated in the 1500s in an attempt to imitate Latin, which has more strict grammar than English, but modern linguists agree that it is a natural and organic part of the language.[6] Similarly, modern style and usage manuals do not require writers to always avoid split infinitives.[7]

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's clever to phrase this with a final preposition, that isn't really idiomatic. And both this and the previous (29 Feb) wording refer to a "supposed rule" which is never stated. How about:
It is permissible to end a sentence with a preposition. Starting in the 1600s [see source article], some grammarians deemed it bad usage because it did not follow Latin grammar, but ...
--Macrakis (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From [5]:
Although many people were taught to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition, nearly all modern style guides say it's not a rule, and if your sentence sounds more natural with a preposition at the end, it's fine to leave it that way.
So I think we are on solid ground calling it a supposed rule. I could add this as a cite if requested. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Thompson, Oliver (February 28, 2024). "Why Merriam-Webster says it's OK to end a sentence in a preposition". CBC Radio. Retrieved February 28, 2024.
  2. ^ https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/prepositions-ending-a-sentence-with
  3. ^ https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/sentence-preposition-webster-1.7127397
  4. ^ Fogarty, Mignon (2011). The Ultimate Writing Guide for Students. New York: Henry Holt & Company. pp. 17–18. ISBN 978-0805089448.
  5. ^ https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/prepositions-ending-a-sentence-with
  6. ^ https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/sentence-preposition-webster-1.7127397
  7. ^ Fogarty, Mignon (2011). The Ultimate Writing Guide for Students. New York: Henry Holt & Company. pp. 17–18. ISBN 978-0805089448.

Back to irregardless[edit]

I'm not entirely happy with the wording of irregardless. It reads:

Irregardless is a word. Nonstandard, slang, or colloquial terms used by English speakers are sometimes alleged not to be real words, despite appearing in numerous dictionaries. All words in English became accepted by being commonly used for a certain period of time; thus, there are many vernacular words currently not accepted as part of the standard language, or regarded as inappropriate in formal speech or writing, but the idea that they are not words is a misconception. Other examples of words that are sometimes alleged not to be words include burglarize, licit, and funnest which appear in numerous dictionaries as English words.

(my emphasis) This wording endorses the notion that being in a dictionary is what defines something as a word. Here's a proposed alternate wording:

Irregardless is a word. Nonstandard, slang, or colloquial terms used by English speakers are sometimes alleged not to be real words. Words in English become accepted by being commonly used for a certain period of time; thus, there are many vernacular words currently not accepted as part of the standard language, or regarded as inappropriate in formal speech or writing, but the idea that they are not words is a misconception. Other examples such words include burglarize, licit, and funnest. Dictionaries do not determine whether a word is "real"; they only document words after they have become widely used.

Thoughts? --Macrakis (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to say anything about dictionaries? The proposed entry looks fine without the last sentence Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the misconception is that only words found in dictionaries are "real". --Macrakis (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's obviously a misconception, but is it a common misconception? And do we have sources that say that? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to find sources for the commonness of the misconception:
  • Generally, there is a common myth that dictionaries are the ultimate authority of language. In arguments, perhaps you have heard people say things like “The dictionary defines X as…” or “That’s not a word because it’s not in the dictionary.” [6]
  • I'm a lexicographer. I make dictionaries. And my job as a lexicographer is to try to put all the words possible into the dictionary. My job is not to decide what a word is; that is your job.... Everybody who speaks English decides together what's a word and what's not a word. [7]
But our current dictionary article (which has many problems...) simply says that some dictionaries are prescriptive and some descriptive. --Macrakis (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Perhaps this would qualify as an entry.
What gives me pause about your proposal is that all the examples - irregardless, burglarize, licit, and funnest - are in the merriam-webster online dictionary so it's a weird segue. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. Maybe it's a separate entry:
Dictionaries record usage, they do not prescribe it, although they may label some uses as nonstandard.[8] There are also specialized usage dictionaries which do give advice on usage.[9]
Of course, we'll need to discuss this in the dictionary article. --Macrakis (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casual sex[edit]

[10] Contrary to stereotype, women who engage in casual sex don't have lower self-esteem. Benjamin (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed entry: mantis shrimp can see more colors than humans[edit]

A common myth on the Internet is that mantis shrimp can see more colors than humans can, even "unknown/unknowable" colors, because their eyes have more types of color receptors. Potentially started by this Radiolab episode [11] and later spread by a comic by The Oatmeal inspired by it [12], although I'm not sure. Article directly referencing the myth and its debunking from Nature: [13]

While mantis shrimp eyes do contain 12 unique photoreceptors for detecting color, some of which are sensitive to wavelengths outside the human visible spectrum, they do not compare signals from multiple receptors to perceive colors "between" each receptor's sensitive range, the way humans and other dichromats/trichromats do. Instead, they can only detect the 12 specific colors those receptors are tuned to, and use scanning eye movements to incrementally trigger those receptors to identify an object's position and color. [14] LooseElectronStudios (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem like a misconception so much as an exaggeration for the sake of website clicks.
Mantis shrimp can detect light with wavelengths between 300 and 720nm, compared to humans who can see wavelengths between 380 and 750nm. So, they clearly can see colors we can't. OTOH, we can see longer wavelengths that they can't. Does this really count as a misconception?
Mantis shrimp have 16 color receptors as opposed to our three which seems to be the main source for the claim that they can see more colors; this does not imply on it's own that they can see more colors, but it sounds cool so people hype it on the internet. In addition, some species can detect circularly polarized light which is an unusual ability. Add it all up and their compound eyes, 16 receptors, and limited brain power means that they see very differently than humans.
Anyway, I don't see anything in the topic article that mentions this alleged misconception, so it would fail our inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed entry: Wikipedia is not a reliable source[edit]

See title. Some sources:[15],[16], [17], [18], and [19] 68.188.156.135 (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories