Talk:List of lists of lists

Should the list contain itself?

I hit the undo button on someone removing the self reference because I thought that I would have somewhere I could explain why I was undoing it, but it just went through. In my opinion, as this is a list of lists of lists, it should contain all lists containing other lists; and as the page does contain lists, it would be incomplete without itself. Is there a mention in a style guide somewhere that you shouldn't link an article back to itself or something? Will Hendrix (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed a lot of times in the talk page archives. Example: here. The argument in favor of including it is 1. it's technically correct. this page is a list, and everything listed on this page is also a list, so this page is a list of lists, so it belongs on this page. 2. there is some encyclopedic value in linking to recursion (last I checked it linked to russell's paradox but recursion is fine too). 3. it's fairly long standing consensus to include it. Arguments against including it were gut feeling / taste / WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It could make sense to argue that it's a bit silly and therefore takes away from the seriousness of this page... but this page is silly to begin with, so it's actually a net positive in my eyes. Another argument against including it is WP:SELFLINK which says it's generally not recommended, but obviously WP:IAR because this page is clearly a special case (I can't think of any other page that rightly ought to link to itself). Leijurv (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this page is purely for navigation. It only documents list of lists that exist on Wikipedia, thus its soul purpose is only to help in one's navigation of this website. To this end, documenting this article in itself is pointless and should be removed. Loytra (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this page is pretty impractical for navigation. This page is a curiosity, a bit of silliness. I can't think of any practical reason why one would want to see a list of all pages that are two levels deep of lists. Even if you had such a reason, this page does count as a list of lists :) Leijurv (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I think we just need a list of lists of lists of lists. That should solve it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

List of lists of lists of lists was salted until recently haha Leijurv (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The current list is getting too long to navigate comfortably so it seems inevitable. And even higher? Maybe in the next age. This would seem absurd, and these lists themselves aren't encyclopaedic but arbitrary categories, so I think technically it shouldn't fall into the same remit as the other Wikipedia rules. Lightbloom (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There is actually a potential practical argument here:

Let's say I am looking for some kind of overview about interesting topics related to Japan, then, using Ctrl-F "Japan" in this article is a decent option. More generally, this implies that splitting this article into smaller "Lists of Lists"-articles, one per potentially interesting high-level topic (like "Japan"), and then making one "Lists of Lists of Lists" article which lists all those "Lists of Lists"-articles, has some merit.

But... yeah, it's quite silly, but perhaps still worth a consideration. 2001:A61:2A48:B101:BCA9:1D1A:4901:401 (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

lol 2603:6011:9600:52C0:51F3:5E1B:CF43:D1CE (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

List to add under "Medicine"

A list of diseases / disorders could be added under "Medicine" easily since you already have such lists in Wikipedia. 2600:1700:7804:80:2E36:1C02:BDDE:5605 (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

But is there a list of lists of diseases? —Tamfang (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

---

List of lists of lists → Lists of lists – In accordance with the general title conventions for lists, a majority of titles listed in List of lists of lists are of the format ‘Lists of X’, rather than ‘List of lists of X’. List of lists of lists itself, from my understanding, should not deviate from this standard (with ‘X’, in this case, being ‘lists’). Additionally, some may find the existing title to be confusing, because each one of its five words is either ‘List’, ‘lists’, or ‘of’. Reducing the title length by two words may ease this confusion. I thus propose the renaming of List of lists of lists to Lists of lists. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 17:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose "Lists of lists" makes it sound like it's about a general concept. The current title makes it clear that the page itself is a list. This is a solution looking for a problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support, the proposed title seems clear enough, is easier to understand, and already redirects here so is not an unusual search topic. As an aside, maybe we can shoehorn another mention of "list" into the first sentence ("This page is a list of lists of lists—a list of articles that are lists of other list articles".) just to set some kind of record. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the new title would confuse more people than the current one. We already have people adding lists of non-lists now, I think this would increase with the proposed new title. --mfb (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ; there is a topic article that could be created for "lists of lists" as a concept, so it would be better if this was clear that this was a list article, and not a topic article -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support The current title is confusing and sounds like a joke, and the proposed title is clearer and more WP:CONCISE. No one thinks It's about the "concept" of lists of lists, which I doubt is a notable topic. Does anyone think that about the subject of Lists of dictionaries? It's just an essay, but Wikipedia:Lists of lists#Naming says "Lists of X" is "recommended." --Jfhutson (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. It contains some lists of lists, and it should contain them all. The slightly odd looking title is meaningful and causes no meaningful confusion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"List of lists" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of lists has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 17 § List of lists until a consensus is reached. – BrandonXLF (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Maintance page

I would consider this a maintance list, not in interest of a encyclopedia reader, move to Wikipedia namespace. Luhanopi (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)