Wikipedia

Talk:List of lists of lists/Archive 1

< Talk:List of lists of lists
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Michael Bednarek in topic lists of lists of historic sites
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

[Untitled]

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion

This is the most spectacular redirect in the history of Wikipedia. - Kookykman|(t)e 14:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I was sad to see that we still don't have List of lists of lists of lists. Maybe one day, god willing. --Xyzzyplugh 13:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
We'd had it twice already at the time you wrote that, and now again almost four years later. I'm going to put in a salt request now. Feezo (Talk) 01:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It appears that those were only fake pages. If a real list of lists of lists of lists was to be created, could there be any content for it? Surely there are some topical lists of lists of lists that could go onto the list. Dylan16807 (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
A brief search yields at least one: List of animals contains List of endangered species, List of mammals, Lists of mammals by region] etc. List of books also appears a likely target, qualifying both of these for List of lists of lists of lists. Such brief sampling suggests that this article could be quite substantial. Estel (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this page itself could be on a list of lists of lists of lists. And if we split that page up into two sub-lists, then we can enter those sub-lists into a list of lists of lists of lists of lists. Clearly, this is the best page since Disambiguation (disambiguation). Cakedamber (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a joke article, right? BigSteve (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.194.182.150 (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Article title inaccurate

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Some of this content clearly only qualifies to be in an article on lists of lists, not lists of lists of lists.92.39.205.100 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Like what? I could only find one non-example, List of metal bands, which I removed. Everything else is either "Lists of ..." or "List of ... lists".
In any case, the article title should be List of "List of" lists. Sorry to be pedantic about it, but, there you are. BigSteve (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This is really disappointing. Came for a list of lists (of lists) and found that that is not what this is. However I understand if this is the wikipedia policy on lists. Seems like this article is evidence the wikipedia policy on lists is broken. Themusicgod1 (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

What were you expecting to find, if not this? Every article in this list is a list of lists, as advertised. Pburka (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Rename the page

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I propose to move this page from List of lists of lists to Lists of lists of lists per WP:LISTNAME. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to make sense. The primary difference between the current title and the proposed title is the difference between whether this page shows lists of lists, or whether it shows lists of lists of lists, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with the naming guideline. Do you mean to propose that the title be changed to "Lists of lists" (which would be a different name with the same meaning as the current one)? Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I reexamined my above proposal and I agree it is not entirely correct. This list lists multiple "Lists of ..." lists. My understanding is that pages listing multiples pages which are called "List of ..." are called "Lists of ...". The correct term to insert in place of ... per the topic of this list would be "List of lists". Thus I think the correct title would actually be "Lists of list of lists". Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that's correct. I'm still not sure what kind of change you are proposing. The current title of this page says that this page is a list of X, where X = "lists of lists." Your proposed title says that this page shows lists of X, meaning that this page is a list of lists of X, meaning a list of lists of list(s) of lists. This is a different meaning from the current title. A title that would mean the same thing as the current title would be "Lists of lists", in the same way that the titles "List of famous people" and "Famous people" mean the same thing. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I have to admit have confused myself a bit. Compare this for example with Lists of banks. It shows multiple "List of banks in ..." pages and is therefore called "Lists of banks". In direct analogy, this page shows multiple "Lists of ..." pages and should be called "Lists of lists of lists" or perhaps "Lists of 'List of' pages" to make it clearer. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm out of energy for trying to find a way to write about this topic, because it's just too confusing. I suggest posting your proposal using the directions at Requested Moves in order to get more feedback, maybe from people with a better gift for explaining such knotty concepts. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The current title is correct, and User talk:Toshio Yamaguchi is mixing up the two parts. The content of the article is a single list, whether its entries are lists or not, and therefore "List of ..." is accurate. The "List of ..." could also be omitted, in which case the title would be the (slightly more ambiguous) "Lists of lists". "Lists of lists of lists" is flat wrong. Think of it this way—if we call lists of lists (e.g. pages like Lists of state leaders) "yodawgs", then this article is a "list of yodawgs", not "lists of yodawgs". --24.128.245.107 (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
As per my previous proposal, the article should be renamed "List of 'list of lists' articles", as it only mentions Wikipedia lists, not lists in general. If one counts lists as being separate from articles (even though they are actually a subsection), then this title can be shortened to "List of list of lists". "Lists of list of lists" is inappropriate as there there is only one list article.--Coin945 (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible additions (November 2011)

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

During the last few days, I have scoured WP:QI for possible new entries, and I have found the following pages.

See also these sets of pages.

Someone else can decide whether to list those in List of lists of lists.
(I found several entries redirected from “Lists of ..” to “List of ...” or to a section of “Outline of ...”, but I left them unchanged, partly because they might be changed back again. Someone might wish to run through the list periodically, to see what has been redirected.)
—Wavelength (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There is also All pages with titles beginning with List of tallest buildings Scalzi+ | (Talk | contribs) 04:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Really

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How necessary is this page, really? Mchcopl (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)!

Introductory sentence inaccurate

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"On Wikipedia, many lists contain lists that themselves contain lists." This implies that the following links all lead to lists of lists of lists, while the title and the content merely refer to lists of lists. The sentence describes the article itself but not its contents. I'm changing it to be more relevant. --69.106.227.60 (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Firstly, I made only 1 (major) typo not 2 (sorry about aricles or whatever it was... Oops.. *blush*) I thought about the title for a long time and came to the conclusion that the title should be something like List of "list of lists" articles. Secondly, my point still stands. I know how wonderful it is to have a wiki article with such a ridiculous name and we all want too keep it like that, just like Disambiguation (disambiguation), but the title of the article is just not true. An article on all lists of lists would be called this, but the article only lists wiki-articles that happen to be lusts of lists. Therefore the title must make it clear were talking wiki-lists over here. Thirdly, all lists are articles, so the title is correct. I guess you could also say List of "list of lists" lists, which might be the favorable option if decisions around here are solely based on if we can keep the funny name or not.--Coin945 (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want to move a page that's seen as much activity as this one, I think you should follow the instructions at WP:RM to list the requested move for discussion. I probably would have reverted the move for that reason, even if it weren't for the typo and for my (apparently mistaken, I see now) understanding that lists are not considered articles. I also think that, if the title were to be changed, the one you used was probably not the best. Maybe List of list-of-lists articles would be slightly clearer. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, something like that, or even without the dashes, would be favourable. The only reaosn I used the " was so I could split up the title into easily manageable chunks so you could decide for yourself if "list of lists" or "lists of lists" was correct. To me, the former is still the correct option, as this article lists the "list of lists" articles throughout Wikipedia. So, do you think an official move request is on order? Is my case strong enough? What do you think?--Coin945 (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: At least in my mind, lists are a subsection of articles. So are disambiguation pages. I'm not sure why there are both featured lists and featured articles though... that seems unrelated to my definition that an article is any page that would be used by a non-editor.--Coin945 (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I had thought I remembered reading in a guideline that a list is not an article, but WP:LISTS indicates I was mistaken. You haven't convinced me the move is warranted, but if you want to pursue it, the WP:RM procedure would be the way to do so (and I have no real sense of which direction the discussion might go, i.e. whether your proposal would be successful or not). Theoldsparkle (talk)
There's a discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of criticism and critique articles that's relevant to this page. The outcome of a related proposal will probably decide if the merge will go through or not.--Coin945 (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

List of lists

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Since there is a list of lists of lists, I suggest that a list of lists page be created. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you know how many lists there are on Wikipedia, and how enormous such a page would be? BabelStone (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Pointless

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

This article is pointless, the category already does a better job. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. I was originally confused when I found this page because it was obvious to me that this is really a job for Category tagging, but then when I saw that the 'List' and 'List of Lists' categories both already exist....I'm really confused. I propose that all articles listed on this page are confirmed to be tagged appropriately and this page gets deleted. If other people support this idea, I'll take it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lists (provided I remember to...if someone else wants to take responsibility that would be great) since this is clearly their bag and I'm not invested in this at all. I feel like tagging the linked articles could even be accomplished fairly easily by a bot. --Shaggorama (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is useful. Please see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
A few thoughts:
  • Category:Lists of lists has 320 entries currently (plus this page).
  • This page has 466 entries/lines of content (not including headers, blanklines, seealso, appendices, etc), of which 15 are disambig pages (I used the linkclassifier script to highlight pagetypes. I'm not insane ;)
  • If those numbers matched, it'd arguably be a non-useful overlap of content, because:
  • As a straight alphabetical listing, it is duplicating the category. (Although that still has benefits: All on one page, searchable, and trackable changes. - and cons: it has to be manually updated). -- However, we could potentially (if anyone was interested) reorganize the contents by topic, in the same way that the Portal:Contents/Lists is. (Actually, that Portal should already contain quite a few of these (but is not intended to be exhaustive)).
  • I'd suggest either A): 1) Check the list against the category, to add any missing pages into the category. 2) Merge any particularly useful/interesting lists into the Portal. 3) Add a link in the Portal Intro, to the category. 4) Redirect this list, to the Portal.
  • or B) re-structuring this listpage into a topic-section-based collation (instead of plain alphabetical). —Quiddity (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOTDUP. Any argument saying that a category is better than a list is a non-starter. SilverserenC 02:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm an incredibly strong supporter of WP:NOTDUP, but context-based. Sometimes there are realistically unnecessary overlaps. (I.e. we don't make a list-article for every single category, and we wouldn't want to.)
E.g. a perfect case of NOTDUP would be something like Category:Timelines compared to List of timelines. That list is structured and annotated, hence vastly beneficial in addition to the category itself. (NOTDUP is particularly relevant there, because the page is a "navigation aid" and not really a citable list on a "topic" (it's never going to get FeaturedList status). Some editors say that type of page should be removed from the mainspace entirely, but NOTDUP and commonsense-context are part of the reason that we don't. I've got an entire RfC-draft on that canofworms issue...)
I've rewritten the last 2 bullet points above, to make my suggestions a bit clearer. I'd be strongly in favour of B) if anyone is willing to have a go at it. Parts of A) would still be useful though. Improve all the things! HTH. —Quiddity (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
What should be groups be? Off the top of my head:
  • Lists of people
  • Lists related to biology
  • Lists related to culture (including entertainment)
  • Lists related to geography
  • Lists related to economics
  • Lists related to society
  • Lists related to politics
  • Lists related to space
  • Lists related to sport
  • Lists related to technology
  • Lists related to transportation
Pburka (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
When in doubt, I usually check the Featured examples for ideas. So, we could structure the groups to match Wikipedia:Featured lists. Or if that's too many subgroups, then we could match the structure of Portal:Contents/Overviews. (Or Category:Main topic classifications but that's erratic). Whatever works. —Quiddity (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I hadn't seen that article before. It looks like an excellent starting point. Pburka (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please protect this article against edits from unregistered users. -- Petru Dimitriu (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary at this point. The page isn't a particular target, although there has been a bit more vandalism than usual the last few days. Pburka (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, see WP:SEMI for details on when it is a necessary/recommended solution. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

So it is true

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The legend is indeed true then - An article named List of Lists of Lists.. It sounds like the title of a 1001 Nights story. 89.89.92.100 (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Name should be "Lists of lists"

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I believe the name of this list is inconsistent with its contents. Every entry is a list of lists, but almost all of them are called "Lists of X", not "List of lists of X". This page is also a list of lists. Therefore, if we are trying to be consistent, the title should be "Lists of lists." --Albany NY (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on naming lists of lists. On one hand, Wikipedia's naming convention calls for using the singular whenever possible. On the other hand, "Lists of XYZ" is more concise and less awkward than "List of lists of XYZ". Pburka (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Eg List of lists of films‎, List of lists of stadiums, List of lists about Omaha, List of lists of women, List of lists of settlements in the United States, List of lists of people from Kansas, List of lists of ancient kings, List of lists of tennis records and statistics, List of lists of Empire ships, List of lists of municipalities in Spain, List of lists of painters by nationality, List of lists of national institutions and symbols, List of lists of artists by nationality, List of lists of islands of the European Union ;) (I think that's all of them, with that exact word order) It might be worth renaming all of these, but would need a central discussion somewhere. (I've insufficient coffee in me, to guess at where, or what ramifications ought to be brought up. Maybe later). —Quiddity (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC):
Might be better to merge each of these into one article. E.g. Merge each list artcile linked to in List of lists of films‎ to a new Lists of films‎. Did you check for the case Lists of Lists of ...? — Lentower (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree Given that this renaming has happened across the board, it seems like this page should become "Lists of lists" as well. Personman (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Disagree. The title as it is now[1], is very descriptive of it's contents, which is valuable to all the readers of Wikipedia. There is at least one essay or guildline in the Wikipedia namespace, that states that consistency is not a goal here on Wikipedia, but is best used whne it helps our readers. — Lentower (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment There are quite a few sections on this Talk page bringing this possible renaming and related matters up. I see no clear consensus. — Lentower (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Referencing Wikipedia

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The first sentence mentions that the lists are on Wikipedia. Doesn't this violate WP:SELFREF? --Yair rand (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. First sentence should probably be re-worded. The only wordings I can think of are confusing, such as: "This is a list of list articles which are themselves lists." or "This is a list of articles which list lists." Maybe the first one will do? --0x0077BE (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Change the title of this page to "List of Lists."

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article is a list of lists. It is not a list of "lists of lists."

I would change the title, but I am not sure if that's something that regularly happens on Wikipedia. That seems a little bit more significant than a simple typo change or rephrasing of an article. Can someone let me know? If no one says anything within seven days, I will attempt to change it and see what happens. LogicalCreator (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Every article in this list is itself a list of lists. Therefore this article is a list of lists of lists. A list of all Wikipedia lists would be unmaintainable due to its size. Pburka (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Should the title change from "List of Lists of Lists" to "Directory of Lists of Lists"?

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Should the title change from "List of Lists of Lists" to "Directory of Lists of Lists"? I'm just asking the question, I'm NOT advocating such a change (and, at least in theory, neither am I opposing it). There are lots of proposals here for name changes, but the above one is the one that would make most 'sense' (IF 'sense' is what we want) - it describes the 'sensible' purpose of the article, and fatally undermines arguments about whether the list should include itself. It would also stop the article causing laughter around the world, which some will see as the strongest argument for the name change, and others will see as the strongest argument against it, on the basis that laughter is the best medicine, and there's much to be said for adding to the gaiety of nations - I only heard about the article because a French Wikipedian had it in the humour section of his user page.

Perhaps I should have pointed out that it's currently actually something like 26 Lists (the list of lists of lists under the letter A, the list of lists of lists under the letter B, ... and so on to Z).

So arguably we could legitimately achieve even more beautiful artistic symmetry by renaming it "Lists of Lists of Lists" :) Tlhslobus (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Most lists on Wikipedia are directories. "List" is the conventional name for these articles. Pburka (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest that the title is not a major concern. - Improving the contents is vastly more important (and labor intensive, hence it gets ignored). See the thread #Pointless above, for a bunch of notes on improving this page's contents. –Quiddity (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Luckily in Spanish Wikipedia, we do not need to have this kind of confusing titles, because list-articles (those which are not encyclopedic articles by themselves) are created under a different namespace than main namespace, obtaining instead this: Anexo:Encyclopedic-supporting-article name. Anexo is the 104 namespace under WP:ES. In the case of English Wikipedia, it could be something like this: Appendix:List of lists or Appendix:List of articles about lists. --Zerabat (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

List of lists of lists of lists

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Not sure about it but, shouldn't "List of metalloid lists", "List of mountain lists" or even "List of film lists" be considered as lists of lists of lists of lists ? To a certain point there has to be some lists of lists of lists out there. Waiting for a benevolent wikipedian to list them. 83.137.242.27 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Such a thing now exists: http://www.raikoth.net/lololol.html Calc rulz (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Not all lists of lists are lists of lists of lists, but all lists of lists of lists are lists of lists. 0x0077BE (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Reorganize

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
The discussion last year, just above.

Last year there was some discussion about reorganizing this list. The current alphabetical order isn't a particularly useful way to organize the list, as it doesn't group related lists together. Grouping lists into related topics has several advantages. For example, it helps expose inconsistencies in naming conventions, which allows us to improve the the encyclopedia. I've had a go at reorganizing this list here. Please take a look and provide feedback on whether or not this is a good idea, and ideas to further improve the organization. (There are some comments in the markup which explain some of my organizational decisions.) Pburka (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a good format. As a small change, I suggest that the section titles to edited to remove "Lists of lists of" and "topics". The topic name alone is sufficient. Fitnr 17:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you're probably right. I went back and forth in my head about that. My goal was to reinforce the "Lists of lists" rule so as to dissuade new editors from adding simple lists, but I think it may be too verbose. Pburka (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
A sortable wikitable (MOS:TABLE) can accommodate alphabetical ordering together with other arrangements.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
That's true, and I did consider that, but it wasn't clear to me what columns such a table would have, and what the secondary and tertiary sort key would be. Additionally, I'm not convinced that the current alphabetical ordering provides any value. Pburka (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I've linked last year's discussion at the top.
I like the look of your draft - which particular organizational scheme (as prev discussed) are you matching it to, or basing it on? –Quiddity (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The scheme is of my own invention. However, in reviewing the discussion from last year again, I took another look at Portal:Contents/Overviews. I think it would probably be better to base the scheme on that, and it will be simple to transfer the work I've already done to that scheme. I'll have a go at that in the next few days. Pburka (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. It now closely matches Portal:Contents/Overviews. I made a few small adjustments. For example, "War" should be under "Philosophy", but there were no other philosophy topics, so I placed it under "Society", as it seemed awkward and confusing to have only topics about war in a section about philosophy. Pburka (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
@Pburka: Looks great! I support replacing the alphabetical version, with your sandbox version. And thanks again for following up, and doing the sorting/classifying work. :) –Quiddity (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've made the changes. I'm curious under which category the next anon editor will try to add a recursive link. Pburka (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm disappointed. The anon listed it under "Miscellaneous". "Logic and Mathematics" would have at least demonstrated some understanding of the question. Pburka (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Another possible item?

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Could I add http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energies_of_the_elements to the list of lists of lists? Because for each element, it has a list of the ionization energies, and there is a list of each element there with the ionization energies. Could I put that in physical sciences section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexDFischer (talk • contribs) 00:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Alex, I don't think that's a list of lists so much as a table, which has been divided into three sections to prevent it from becoming too wide. Typically, a list of lists should be a list article which is a list of other list articles. Pburka (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the different sections of the table (1-10, 11-20, 21-30 etc) but to the list of elements. The page of has a list of elements, and each element has a sub-list which is the list of ionization energies. Does that still not count as a list of lists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexDFischer (talk • contribs) 04:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

By that definition all tabular data with more than one row and more than 2 columns would be a list of lists. That may be an accurate way to think about it, but it dramatically expands the scope of this article. 0x0077BE (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I won't add it then.AlexDFischer (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:AlexNewArtBot/ListsSearchResult

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Watchers of this page might wish to watch User:AlexNewArtBot/ListsSearchResult.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
All pages with titles beginning with Lists of and All pages with titles beginning with List of lists of may also be of interest.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC) and 22:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Content in "See also" section

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Should the See Also section be on this page? I think it would be better for the page on Enumeration asmeurer (talk | contribs) 20:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether this article should have a See also section or not. The issue is whether the following content (wikilinks) should be in a See also section on this article:
* The Book of Lists
* The Infinity of Lists
This content does not belong on Enumeration, which is about a mathematical concept. This content does belong here, as these two articles are about lists of lists.
Asmeurer deleted it. I added it back. He deleted this content again, and started this section. — Lentower (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The editor(s) who added this content felt it belonged in this article. — Lentower (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Lists of philosophers

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Can someone who understands the organisational system a bit better add Lists of philosophers to whichever section it should be in (or create a new section if necessary, but I didn't know if we did that for only one list)? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not put it under People, specifically under Lists of people by occupation? Pburka (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, good call. So added. Jenks24 (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

LARGE ADDITION INCOMING...

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I've got a list of every list of lists of films sitting in my sandbox. Many would be difficult to find by name, as their names are inconsistent and not always indicative of the contents.

This addition would more than double the "Culture and the arts" section. Somewhere around 180 lists of lists of films. I did my best to appropriately arrange them alphabetically and by genre, country, language, and decade. I did ignore the difference between "list" and "lists" though, to keep this list of lists of lists consistently inconsistent.

If there are no objections, I'll add my list of list lists to the list of lists of lists in a couple of days. Also, on an unrelated note, the word "list" is starting to lose all meaning to me.

— Misha Vargas (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Misha Vargas: Did you see Lists of films already? (It's probably not complete or up-to-date, and could benefit from your fresh explorations/memory.) HTH. Quiddity (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Pburka (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
There are a number of these that are titled "List of X films" not "Lists of X films". Frankly, I'm a bit dubious about almost all of these lists of lists that are essentially just disambiguation pages for long lists broken up presumably because of WP:SIZE (e.g. List of Chinese films). These are not really lists of lists so much as index pages for a single list that is too long to be on one page. Under that definition, many of these additions should be removed from this page.
Alternately - and this is not something I'm in favor of - we might want to see about getting them changed to be titled "Lists of X films" rather than "List of x films", if they really are lists of lists. Personally, when I consider renaming List of Chinese films to Lists of Chinese films, I see how it changes the implicit scope of the article, and reinforces the point that these should not be included here.0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 22:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking an interest. When I compiled this addition, I looked at only the structure of the pages, not at the names. I agree that the naming of these lists are completely inconsistent. Something like List of film spin-offs is certainly not just a split up list, it's just a mis-named list. I felt it was consistent with other lists already within the List of lists of lists, such as Lists of The New York Times Fiction Best Sellers, or Lists of UK Compilation Chart number-one albums. In a way, any of these lists could be made into larger single-page lists if size weren't an issue. Something like Lists of hospitals in Africa could be a single list, broken into sections by country. But it seems the consequences of deciding to do it one way or another includes it ending up being listed here or not.
— Misha Vargas (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no problem with your addition - it's certainly consistent with the way things are currently done here, even though some of the pages are named inconsistently. I agree the point about List of film spin-offs (though that particular page happens to basically have a WP:2DAB problem) being named incorrectly. Regarding the naming issue, at some point, maybe we should take this discussion to WP:Wikiproject Lists or WP:Wikiproject Disambiguation to have a broader discussion about how split-up lists are named, since it seems to be implemented inconsistently at the moment. For now, it might be worth having a discussion about whether index pages to a divided single lists are really "lists of lists". I'll start a new section for that discussion, though, since it might be OT here. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 04:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Article scope

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the discussion above, the question of the scope of this article has come up, and I think it probably deserves its own section. From what I can see, the lists here are divided roughly into three categories, proper lists of lists like Lists of programming languages and Lists of academic journals, disambiguation pages like Lists of The Office episodes and Lists of V episodes, and what amount to index pages for a single list that, likely due to WP:SIZE, have been broken up into subcategories, like Lists of This American Life episodes, Lists of horror films of the 1960s and List of Chinese films.

I would propose that the scope of this article be narrowed to only include the first category, broadly defined. The second category technically contains lists of lists, but they are grouped by the fact that they have ambiguous nomenclature, not some property of the lists, so it seems like those don't really fit the scope of this article. The third category similarly contains a list of list articles, but it's really just a navigation aid for a single long list, not a categorization of distinct list articles. I would suggest that for borderline cases, we come down on the side of inclusion - so for example, List of horror films looks like a split-up list at first, but the "See also" contains lists of horror films. That can easily be re-organized under the new title Lists of horror films to be a proper list of lists. Thoughts? 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 04:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Why in mainspace?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As a WP:LISTS page useful. But how is it encyclopedic? I think it should be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists/List of lists of lists. (also, there can be a hidden maintenance category for these pages). -DePiep (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree. This is very odd -- at least Wikipedia:List of list of lists, surely. And the Wikiproject space makes even more sense, personally. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 09 December 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago28 comments11 people in discussion
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus at this time. There have been a number of sub-proposals, however as written, there is no clear consensus on whether to move the page at all, yet alone where it should be moved to. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC) --Mdann52talk to me! 15:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

List of lists of lists → Wikipedia:List of lists of lists – Move to WP namespace is the core of my proposal. This article has no encyclopedic meaning. It only gathers other articles (lists) for their structure, not by their content. Already these pages are listed in Category:Lists of lists, and nothing more is to be said about them indeed in mainspace. (Note: it might be reasonable to move this into a Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists subpage. That is fine, as long as that sub-discussion does not prevent this primal move out of article space. The same can be said about any pagename (from "LoLoL") change). DePiep (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The three deletion discussions for this page all ended in WP:SNOW keep decisions/withdrawn nominations, and there were arguments that it fulfills WP:LISTPURP, as well as references to WP:NOTDUP ("It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative"). This suggests that the mainspace is still the right location for the page, doesn't it? Dekimasuよ! 21:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not a deletion proposal. It's a move request, and for namespace only. If you think there are relevant arguments in those earlier deletion discussions, please quote (not link) I suggest. (1, 2, 3). DePiep (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
My point was simply that if the article were inappropriate for article space, we would have expected opinions reflecting that in the deletion discussions. Instead we saw guideline-based arguments that this is an appropriate topic for mainspace. A move request from the mainspace to Wikipedia space is not technically a deletion proposal, but it would result in the removal of an article from the encyclopedia. Dekimasuよ! 21:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Your interpretation, with extra steps added. No quote then? As for WP:LISTPURP you mentioned: all considerations there point to a topic (for category, navbox, list). No Reader of this encyclopedia enters in the search box "A list" → search. DePiep (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose index articles exist in articlespace not WPspace, so I see no reason to move this list of list of lists to WPspace either, as it provides an entry point for navigation into list articles -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
A fine point, but of theoretical interest only IMO. Such an entry point serves no purpose for the reader AFAIK. (warning, wp:otherstuffexists ahead:) In content space, we don't need an entry point for "all navboxes", or "all disambiguation pages" either. As for categories, there is Category:All cateogires (oops, I thought it existed; couldn't find it now), but that serves a structural issue -- proving that no category should be related to itself; the relationship is a content issue. -DePiep (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Historically, we haven't moved list of list or Index pages out of mainspace, for the same reason we haven't moved disambiguation pages. They become very hard to search for, and readers do want to find them. A new/separate namespace has been suggested before (for all these page types), but it always seemed like too much added complexity for minimal benefit (except preventing discussions like this). See Category_talk:Indexes_of_topics#RfC_on_indexes for more discussion, from 2012. HTH. Quiddity (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Except: this is not about index pages, disambiguation pages, not even list of lists pages. They are & can stay in content space. It's about the third "list" (first in the title), that one has no topic (no search term). -DePiep (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Ditto for List of decades and List of years and Lists of years by topic. I understand the argument, but moving them will cause more trouble than benefit:
They're widely linked navigational pages (both internally and externally), and if moved would warrant soft-redirects because of the cross-namespace target.
Links to the page(s) would then be covered by WP:SELFREF, causing more complication.
It would start a precedent for moving these types of 'non-articles' into namespace-x, which would cause (increase) ongoing disagreement.
All for what benefit? How will it help readers? - The problems seem to heavily outweigh the benefit. Quiddity (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
How will it help readers? ? It removes non-content out of content space. I don't get what the links & redirect problem you point to. Of course, we are not responsible for external links (that would freeze every page into mainspace; no AfD or cross-namespace move could happen). And of course when this page is in wp-namespace, no article should link into there (the selfrefs you mention would be exceptions). About the "ditto" you mention: 1. A cheap nullifying, but equally valid reply to "otherstuffexists" is: "then that other stuff should go too" (but that is not proposed here). 2. At least, the examples you mention do have an encyclopedic topic. This listlevel-3 has not. 3. "the page(s)" plural? is something I don't get. -DePiep (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
(that was re BD2412, at 05:47, I assume -DePiep (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC))
A cheap, but equally valid reply to "otherstuffexists" is: "then that other stuff should go too" (but that is not proposed here).
Cheap, yes, but not valid at all. The point is, this has repercussions for a great many other articles. Andrewa (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
No it has not. We can conclude here on this page only. When arguments are applicable in other — re-use them over there. This is not an RfC (no wiki-wide enforcements). -DePiep (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, the category you mention is only list level-2 "lists of lists", which is not proposed for change here. At least, Lists of A&M Records artists mentions a meaningful topic (search-worthy for the Reader). This page is level-3 (list3 in the title). We don't have a "list of articles". We don't have to provide a "list of all disambiguation pages" as content. Because: that is not a Reader's entry for the encyclopedia. -DePiep (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Disagree. What you seem to be saying is, we don't have these other things (true), so we shouldn't have them (a very dubious step), so we shouldn't have this one either (another dubious step).
Or alternatively, can you provide any policy or guideline that discourages creation of this level-3 apparatus? Or is that whole concept your own new proposal? Andrewa (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not saying "we should not have them because we do not have them" at all; you are putting those two dubious steps in my mouth. Also, I am not required to prove anything about other pages here. Then, when you write "your own new proposal" you are taking your assumptions one step too far: I am not required to defend or explain your fantasy assumption. And to cut things short: my reply is already in the nomination, quite in the beginning. -DePiep (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, that was not a helpful or clear reply so I struck. I'll never go into an "othersuff" distraction again. This is my reply: This page is not content. -DePiep (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support—I think this is navelgazing. The LoLs themselves seem reasonable; it's pretty easy to see how Lists of Brazilian films is meaningful outside of Wikipedia: it's basically a TOC for a too-large List of Brazilian films article. Fine. But there isn't anything, other than Wikipedia itself, that makes this LoLoL interesting. What if we didn't split out those Brazilian films by decades, and just had one giant list? Then they wouldn't show up at all in this article. So whether or not something is included is purely determined by Wikipedia's structure and limitations: navelgazing. Unless the idea is that this is a list of everything, but I don't think that is the idea and if it was then this is too awkward anyway. I think I'd say the same about the category, too, but I'm less sure that isn't useful for maintenance, etc. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

List of ABC shows is a disambiguation page

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure that List of ABC shows is a disambiguation page. Should it still be there? EMachine03 (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It shouldn't be here, and the page is miscategorized as a list.

"Entertaining" article

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

For your information. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added a Template:Press to the header. Pburka (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Title (List of Lists of Lists) is Correct

There seems to have been much confusion over the years and more recently regarding the title of this article. It can be a bit of a Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, but perhaps a quick illustration will settle things. A page containing...

  • Apricot (Armenia)
  • Pomegranite (Azerbaijan)
  • Jackfruit (Bangladesh)
... is a list. Specifically a list of national fruits. A first derivative of regular articles, if you will.

A page containing...

... is a list of lists. Specifically a list of national symbols. A second derivative.

and a page containing...

... is a List of lists of lists. A third derivative. This is what the article is.
In some cases, the linked articles can actually make this page a list of lists of lists of lists, or fourth derivative (e.g. This Article > List of cities > List of cities in Central America > List of cities in Costa Rica).

Requested move 17 February 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 12:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

List of lists of lists → Lists of lists – While a number of alternate titles for this page have been proposed and discussed over the years, looking through the above discussions, the name "Lists of lists" has only been mentioned in passing once or twice, and never given serious consideration itself. The current name requires a nontrivial cognitive leap to understand the page's scope ("it is a list that contains lists of lists"), whereas the proposed name is simpler, more concise, and more obvious ("it contains lists of lists"; the first identification of "it is a list" is no longer necessary to properly understand the title). In addition, while I am not aware of any specific guideline recommending "Lists of" in favor of "List of lists of" for lists such as this, informal usage definitely seems to prefer the former: compare the pages starting with "Lists of" versus the pages starting with "List of lists of"; while the former includes a large number of non-redirect pages across four pages of results, the latter contains only this and one other non-redirect page and far less than even a single page of results, even including redirects. Even broadening the latter report to "List of lists" only includes a handful more redirects and no additional non-redirect pages. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 07:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 8 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments9 people in discussion
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


List of lists of lists → Wikipedia:List of lists of lists – Inappropriate for mainspace, as it has no educational value and is not backed up by any reliable source, as the notability guidelines for lists say that for an item to be on a list, a reliable source must consider the item on the list to be an instance of what the page lists (the guideline currently being broken is Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Citing sources). The page is used only for navigation of Wikipedia, making it perfect for the "Wikipedia" namespace but inappropriate for the mainspace. Even if the article was backed up by reliable sources, the page would have to be called "List of lists of lists on Wikipedia" as "List of lists of lists" could refer to many things (Policy currently being broken is Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision). In the "Wikipedia" namespace, we don't have to worry about that. Proud User (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  • opposeSupport move--Although this has seemed fun to some, it is not encyclopedic per policy in nom. And the title has never been accurate (hence unencyclopedic in another way), I think, because some members of this list or sublists have included some final items where a list "should be", or have included lists where final items "should be". Or editing of the member lists has been artificially constrained by fans of this system, where usual considerations would say a sub topic ought to be broken out. Someone should write a clever book, instead, having interesting pure examples of 3-level or 4-level or 5- level "lists of". Developing pure examples would be a fun game to play, perhaps, but that's an idea for some other website. --doncram 03:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC) I was wrong. For one thing a "move" from main space is really a deletion and an AFD is required. Also this list is special in its popularity. To drop this delightful-to-many feature is bad for wilipedia PR-wise to drop it I _almost never_ invoke wp:IAR but now is the time. My initial vote wAs uninformed; I don't actually know of editing situations at related lists where there was any spillover issue. Michael Bednarek and Guy Macon made convincing objections.doncram 03:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: " 'List of lists of lists' has been viewed 20209 times in the last 30 days." Should an obvious demand be met with a cross-namespace REDIRECT if the proposal is accepted? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the reasons given at the last move request to move it into a different namespace. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose navigation remains in mainspace. There is no reason to move navigation to WP-space. If you want to move navigation to a new namespace, then create a new namespace. This page is the same as all the Special:Prefixindex/Index_of pages that are also in mainspace, and disambiguation pages which are also in mainspace. Indeed, Outlines, Indices, and lists of lists of should probably fit into a navigation namespace (This list of lists of lists seems to be an index of lists of lists) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I will repeat what Quiddity said when this last came up in December of 2014: "Historically, we haven't moved list of list or Index pages out of mainspace, for the same reason we haven't moved disambiguation pages. They become very hard to search for, and readers do want to find them." --Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment How would "Wikipedia:List of lists of lists" be any harder to find than "List of lists of lists"? Also, "easier to find" does not change that the page currently violates the policies/guidelines mentioned in the nomination. --Proud User (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
      • The default behavior of the search box does not find pages in the Wikipedia namespace, and the claim that the page currently violates the policies/guidelines mentioned in the nomination is a stretch. As 70.51.44.60 pointed out, all the Special:Prefixindex/Index_of pages are in mainspace, as are disambiguation pages. If you think the name is ambiguous, the answer is a rename, not a move to another space. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • How about moving it to index of lists of lists? It would require less head-scratching to figure out. Siuenti (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If aids to navigation are to be moved to a different namespace, or renamed from 'list' to 'index', we should apply the change uniformly. If we develop a consensus for such a change, it should apply to all of the pages listed in list of lists of lists, as these are all navigation pages. Pburka (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 24 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. Per WP:SNOW. Note to nominator: RM proposals should be nominated with sound reasons favoring the move. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 03:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


List of lists of lists → Index of lists of lists – Per above discussion. Proud User (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Length of Page

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is an incredibly long page for what it is. Maybe it should be broken up by category into lists of lists of lists, and a 'list of lists of lists of lists' page could act as a directory. Octaazacubane (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

We need to go deeper. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Tempting as it is, the page is only 27 kilobytes right now. Pburka (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

List of people by cause of death

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Shouldn't all those lists be included, not just people executed in Texas? JuanTamad (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No. The Texas executions article is a list of lists, so it belongs in this article. But most of those articles are lists of people, not lists of lists, so they aren't within this article's scope. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

lists of lists of historic sites

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Shouldn't some or all of the following be included on this page?

--doncram 21:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Lists of World Heritage Sites is shown overleaf under "Places". But generally speaking, I understand that every member of Category:Lists of lists qualifies to be included here (which begs the question: why do we need this list?). Of course, not every list of lists is categorized as such, e.g. List of U.S. National Historic Landmarks by state and United States National Register of Historic Places listings are not, but they should be. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_lists_of_lists/Archive_1&oldid=1214580787"