Talk:List of lists of lists/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about List of lists of lists. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

list of lists of lists of lists

Can we make two of these so there can be a list of lists of lists of lists HeritageUnitRailfan8098 (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Separate them based on category so that the list of lists of lists of lists seems less useless. MrPersonMan69 (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that you need extra articles for each depth of category. Then we would end up with a list of lists of lists of lists of lists of lists. 109.42.2.159 (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I just think it would be useless, but entertaining; a little easter egg of Wikipedia. Although this article already is kind of "a meme", the list of lists of lists of lists would be just amazing. +1 for creating it. Note that there would probably be only one list of lists of lists in the list of lists of lists of lists so there really is no point of it's existence. So if that would be created, why not create the list of lists of lists of lists of lists and so on? Perhaps a bot creating those lists would really bring something to the table (-: --- (too embarrassed to sign with my actual account) 93.103.117.229 (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Russell's paradox mention

Just came across this page and noticed there was a recent discussion on the placement of this article within itself. While I don't really have an opinion on that part, I'm rather confused why there's a reference to Russell's paradox on the article – it reads more like something you'd see as a tongue-in-cheek mention on a WP:ESSAY rather than a mainspace article. I can't for the life of me understand why it's mentioned: this is not a list of lists that don't contain themselves, and the prose, as written, shoe-horns in the concept by saying

If this article were instead a "list of lists that do not contain themselves,"

which is already not a true proposition. It just doesn't fit with the tone or content of the rest of the article. Just my 2 cents. 76.121.3.181 (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, you're coming off of just under 10,000 words of discussion on whether that bullet point should be there. Of course, I'm completely open to rephrasing or reformatting it so that it meshes better with the rest of the article. I do think that mentioning the paradox of lists containing themselves is useful, and it's actually been added to the article maaaaaaany times in the past, as a "see also" or as an even more tongue in cheek link to List of lists of lists that don't include themselves. This is the only list on Wikipedia that can correctly list itself as an entry (correct me if I'm wrong), so the adjacent paradox is, well, an adjacent thought. Any explanation doesn't fit with the content of something that's just a pure bulleted list, but as above (see the giant discussion), an explanation was determined to be necessary next to the self listing. Leijurv (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I read the discussion before posting. Frankly, the above section doesn't seem to point to any actual consensus that a reference to Russell's paradox is necessary – it's decidedly a mixed bag from the other commenters besides yourself, and there was a notably more important main topic (namely, whether the list should be on itself at all). I love Russell's paradox as much as the next guy, but it's not necessary to introduce the adjacent topic in order to explain why the list is on itself, especially so clunkily. 76.121.3.181 (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Open to suggestions. Leijurv (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the mention of Russell’s paradox should not be included for the points 76.121.3.181 mentioned. Mysterymanblue (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

All right. What do we think of something like User:Leijurv/List_sandbox#General_reference? (since I pasted the source, the selflink is a real link and not bold, this is not an intentional change) Again, open to any suggestions to make the wording less clunky. Leijurv (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I support the change depicted at your sandbox, so long as the article continues to not link to itself. Mysterymanblue (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

All right, I'll make this change tomorrow morning (unless there are objections). Leijurv (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Did it. Leijurv (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! 76.121.3.181 (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Lists

If List of lists of lists lists all the lists that list the lists, what list would list the List of lists of lists? - 78.36.163.169 (6/10/2020) DD/MM/YYYY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.36.163.169 (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

As there is only one list of lists of lists we don't need a fourth-level list. --mfb (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the world is not yet ready. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that List of lists of lists of lists ought to redirect here. jp×g 00:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"List of lists of lists of lists of lists" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of lists of lists of lists of lists. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 22#List of lists of lists of lists of lists until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Zoozaz1 talk 21:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Lists of exoplanets

@Pburka: the reason is simple: We have an entry Lists of astronomical objects. Lists of lists of astronomical objects should be under that header. Exoplanets are astronomical objects. The same pattern is used everywhere on the page. I put the exoplanets to the planets, but an alphabetical sorting is probably better. --mfb (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mfb: I agree exoplanets should be under astronomical objects, but planets are also under astronomical objects, and expolanets are a subset of planets. I'm saying that exoplanets should be under planets under astronomical objects. pburka (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You removed them from astronomical objects altogether in your revert. The IAU has a very narrow definition of planets that doesn't include exoplanets, while some others include them, it's not so easy. Lists of planets largely covers Solar System planets, and then copies Lists of exoplanets in addition. Might be best to merge these two lists anyway. --mfb (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You're right. I was on mobile and misread the diff. Apologies. pburka (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Confusing

This burns my brain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitsua2018 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Don’t feel bad, it burns my brain as well. —-66.154.208.12 (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This is (rightfully if you ask me) one of the most mocked pages on all of English Wikipedia, but it has been to WP:AFD six times and kept every time, so it seems we're stuck with it. I suppose it is worth noting that at the last AFD in 2019 the only deletion rationale was "Self-referential meta nonsense page." which is not a policy-based argument and so was never going to work. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

List of lists?

Why is this a list of list of lists and not a list of lists. Im confused — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.220.3 (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It is both. All pages here are lists that have other lists as entries (compared to most lists that have items as entries). --mfb (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s too deep. It’s a list of lists. The fact that those lists are lists of lists doesn’t change the fact that this is a list of lists. If we need to be so specific than the the title should be list of lists of lists of articles.

Think of lists like ships. Lots of ships carry cargo, but only some ships carry other ships. This page is a list that only include lists that contain other lists. pburka (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

And if a ship carries cargo unevenly, it may list to one side. If it helps, 'list of lists' redirects here; although I wonder if 'index of lists', 'list of indices', or 'index of indices' might be clearer. The current title is wild, like the final boss of Wikipedia... Arlo James Barnes 00:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Guideline for lists of people

Is there a guideline for what should be included (apart from the person's page link obviously) in each entry of a list of people? Is there a limit to what can be included, for example, in a list of alumni of a college, for a person's entry, can we add birth year, death year, profession, birth place, nationality, nick names, etc.? Jay ^(Talk) 08:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists (talk page) would be a better place to discuss that. Or look how existing similar lists handle that. This talk page here is about improving this specific list.--mfb (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, moved there. Jay ^(Talk) 12:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Mention of Russel's paradox

@Leijurv: sorry, I didn't know this was discussed before (I should probably have checked). However the only discussion about this that I can find is this discussion, which appears to me mostly about whether there should be an explanation; not whether specifically Russel's paradox should be mentioned. I personally don't think that the paradox has much to do with this article, because nobody would make a "list of all lists that do not contain themselves" regardless. If this list were to be excluded, then it would be a "list of lists except itself" which is not at all paradoxical. The reason why the list is included is for completeness, not to avoid Russel's paradox. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah yeah, there is also another discussion here: Talk:List_of_lists_of_lists/Archive_3#Russell's paradox mention

Right, "list of lists that are not themselves" is fine, but "list of lists that do not contain themselves" is paradoxical.

Well if you look at Russell's_paradox#Applied_versions, it uses this example directly, the column example is List of all lists that do not contain themselves.

I'm open to some other way of presenting the information. Perhaps a "See also"? But I do think a footnote is a reasonable place to put a link to Russell's paradox, because this page is a bit meta in and of itself, so the place where it links to itself is perhaps the best place I can think of to illustrate such paradoxes, in a meta Wikipedia fashion. :) Leijurv (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Why exactly does this information need to be listed at all? - Aoidh (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It's cheeky, it's fun. I'm not really for keeping the mention, but I am not against it, either. Mysteryman blue 02:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It also is genuinely educational. It is no doubt a relevant concept to someone who is looking at a very meta Wikipedia page, and notices the most meta element listed in the page, and clicks a footnote of said element. It explains paradoxes of self-reference. It's clearly pertinent because the linked example on the Russel's paradox page is literally about this exact idea, List of all lists that do not contain themselves. Leijurv (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The article on the use–mention distinction uses cheese as an example, but the article on cheese doesn't mention the use–mention distinction at all, because it's simply not relevant. The same applies here. If this were a project space page I would be happy to include it for the same reason as Mysteryman, however we're talking about a formal encyclopedia article here, where we should stay on topic.

That said, looking at this page, almost none of the things listed here are relevant anyway, other than the fact that they exist on Wikipedia. So maybe mentioning Russell's paradox (which I apparently kept misspelling, oops) doesn't really hurt in this already overly meta article. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree with all that. This article is unquestionably a bit of meta fun on Wikipedia. There is practically zero actual utility to this page if you think about it. The categorization is simply "all the things on Wiki that people decided couldn't be put into one list, so they used lists of lists". That is a totally arbitrary grouping of a practically random subset of everything in existence. I think it doesn't hurt, it's hidden in a footnote, it's pertinent to the location where it's placed, and it contributes to the meta fun by making it a little bit educational. Leijurv (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The comparison to use–mention distinction and cheese is absurd. Multiple users were confused why this list contains itself, see the talk archive. Russel's paradox is clearly a relevant concept for a list that contains itself as entry. --mfb (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I used that comparison specifically for why being an example of the paradox doesn't per se mean the paradox should be mentioned. Of course there can be other reasons why you'd want to mention it anyway, which I discussed as well later in the comment. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Too long?

This article is quite long, it's a bit daunting to scroll thru all that. Perhaps it could be broken up into several articles along general subject matter lines? This article could list those new several articles and be renamed to "List of lists of lists of lists". Just a thought. Herostratus (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why the title is not simply "Lists of lists"

I'm not trying to be contrary here, I really don't understand. I have read the previous move request discussion from 2015, but the reasons given don't seem to add up. While this list is obviously a list of lists of lists, it's also itself a list of lists. Every other list of lists on Wikipedia uses the article name "Lists of X". For example, just to pick the first example on this list, Lists of academic journals. We could have called that article "List of lists of academic journals", and the title would still be correct, but we don't do that, because it's superfluous. It's clearly a list of lists, so we don't need to put the "list of" prefix. Instead of "List of lists of academic journals", it's simply called "Lists of academic journals". In a similar way, this list should simply be called "Lists of lists". Can anyone explain why this is not the case for this article? Kidburla (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Lists of lists does exist, and is a redirect (or alias) for this page. You're right that they mean the same thing. Wikipedia's policy is to use WP:SINGULAR nouns in titles, which the current title satisfies. On the other hand, there are many examples of Lists of ... pages, as you correctly pointed out, so we are inconsistent in that regard. By policy, these should all be titled "List of lists of ...", but perhaps people feel that's awkward. pburka (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems strange to think that actually this list of lists is the only one which conforms to policy, and all of the other hundreds of lists of lists on Wikipedia don't conform. I don't get that from the policy. WP:SINGULAR which you refers to, links to WP:PLURAL for more information, which lists two exceptions, one of which is "Articles on groups or classes of specific things". I think that clearly applies here.

Furthermore, WP:LISTNAME comments on this, although I don't fully understand the comment. "A list of lists of X could be at either Lists of X or at List of X: e.g., Lists of books, List of sovereign states; the plural form is more prevalent." At first glance this seems to favour either way, however I don't understand from the example given as List of sovereign states is not a list of lists. Kidburla (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Well.... it is true that (for instance) Lists of musicals could be called List of lists of musicals... in one sense that would be more correct than the current title, but it wouldn't be particularly helpful to the reader to rename the article, I don't think (and that's more important tham being "correct"), and anyway what is "correct" is kind of arguable. It's kind of like, renaming Eiffel Tower to Article about the Eiffel Tower would be more "correct" and descriptive of what you are actually looking at. You are not looking at the Eiffel Tower (if the article was just a live video feed of a camera trained on the Eiffel Tower, then Eiffel Tower might be more appropriate). But does that mean the article title "Eiffel Tower" is wrong? Well... not really, because "right" = being clear to the reader, and "wrong" = confusing the reader. We figure that the reader knows that clicking on Eiffel Tower will not cause the actual Eiffel Tower to appear on her desk, so just "Eiffel Tower" works fine and is therefore de facto "correct", and the extra verbiage may be dispensed with,

So, when the reader clicks on Lists of musicals, that's what she gets, a list of musicals. Sure, for organization and readability and handiness they are put into several different articles. We could combine all of that into one huge article, and rather than a link to different sub-articles we could just have a table contents for the one huge article. That would be pointless so we don't. Either way, the reader will probably expect a menu of links (whether to other articles, or a table of contents with internal links to sections -- same different to the reader, really) rather than a colossal wall of text. So, since the typical reader will not be confused, angry, lost, or generally all at sea upon finding a list of links rather than a table of contents, we don't really need to add the meta-info. She doesn't care. So there's no gain to adding the extra verbiage and renaming the article to "List of lists of musicals".

But this page is different. Here, we have a high-level "menu" that exists purely for organization, and does not contain material, and also does not point to articles that contain material. That stuff is two steps below. This page is really about the Wikipedia and its organization. Lists of musicals will mostly be accessed by people wanting to read about musicals. I don't know who reads this page, but I'd think it's mostly or partly people wanting to get a high-level overview of how certain large swaths of material covering a broad topic area is organized rather than people wanting to read about, specifically, curling clubs in Manitoba or whatnot. The user (maybe) does want the meta-info. So, here we want to be more precise about the organizational form of the entities listed on this page. They are lists, not text articles, and it's worthwhile making that clear in the title of this page. That is why it is named List of lists of lists.

Actually, we should probably further clarify the matter by more than just the page title, we should rewrite the text for the links on this page, so that (for instance) the link to Lists of musicals would display as "List of lists of musicals" to the reader of this page. In fact, I think we should do this. It would be a couple-few hours of work tho. Herostratus (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Lists of Lists?

Should this page be moved to simply "Lists of Lists"? Philosophy2 (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

See the section directly above this one. --mfb (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Most hilarious title

The List of Lists of Lists. Also known as the "Weird Wikipedia Article". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdjectiveGuy (talk • contribs) 10:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

haha 149.20.252.132 (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Pretty funny, to be honest.

THE LISTS... OF LISTS.... OF LISTS!!!!! 2600:1702:170:2D30:F196:B040:12A8:78AA (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"List of goods" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of goods and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 6#List of goods until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Mention of Russell's paradox

This keeps getting removed or questioned by various editors and re-added by one or two people, pointing to "consensus" on the talk page. I have read the talk page archives and it seems clear (especially from the most recent discussion) that there is not consensus to include this. The previous discussion before this one was about moving it to a footnote instead of being mentioned explicitly in the first section, but there was hardly consensus for this either - about half of the commenters just seemed to want it removed.

I am happy to start a discussion about this again, but I agree with User:Aoidh: "Why exactly does this information need to be listed at all?"

74.85.93.42 (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Without that comment we have various people asking if this is an example of it, or why there is no paradox here. It's a highly relevant concept in this context, shown by the older article edits and the discussions on the talk page. And besides, where is the downside of having that footnote? Wikipedia doesn't have a page limit. --mfb (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

This is very obviously not an example of it. This is clear from the fact that the footnote starts with If this article were instead a "list of all lists that do not contain themselves, which it isn't! Why do we have a footnote that starts with a supposition that isn't true in the first place? It's like having a footnote at the bottom that says "If this were a list of people from Brooklyn, it would include Eddie Murphy." It's irrelevant because that's not what the list is.

Most of the talk page messages on this subject from the last year seem to be about removing this ridiculous sentence. Based on the previous discussion, it seems like it was mainly kept because it is a bit of "cheeky fun". From my perspective, this is a dumb reference to a fairly unrelated concept that is basically thrown in to the article in order to make a funny-but-irrelevant reference to a well-known paradox. This makes the article more confusing and throws readers off the actual purpose of the article.

There's no page length limit, but we shouldn't make these massive stretches to include dubiously connected topics just for the sake of a laugh. And that's really all it's there for, let's not pretend otherwise. 74.85.93.42 (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The idea "what if the list did not contain itself" is fairly clear. You may disagree, but in the minds of other editors, the idea "a list of lists of lists contains itself" naturally leads to "well that's silly, let's just have a list of lists of lists that don't contain themselves". The fact that that's a paradox isn't immediately obvious, and a link does a good job of explaining it.

Additionally, the content is in a footnote. I'm having a hard time understanding what's so objectionable about that. If you're curious about the concept of the list containing itself, you click the footnote, otherwise, you never even notice it?

I don't have much more to say beyond what's covered in the last time this came up, chiefly: this page is already a bit of fun. It's ridiculous and silly to have the page to begin with. Adding the link to the paradox adds some genuine educational value to this page. It's hidden in a footnote and it's unobtrusive. Leijurv (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I just don't think we should make the page confusing just so we can have a bit of fun. If some random person added that footnote it would probably be reverted as vandalism. It's pretty clear from reading the previous sections that there's a chorus of people who (like me) find that footnote confusing, irrelevant and unnecessary. If that many people are independently raising their eyebrows at this, perhaps you should recalibrate. 74.85.93.42 (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it expands usefully on the concept of the list containing itself, and explains why there is no "list of all lists that do not contain themselves" on this list. Maybe it can be rephrased to be less confusing? ParticipantObserver (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

If there's a way to rephrase it that doesn't start with an "if <thing that is not true>", maybe. 74.85.93.42 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Have a look at the edit history and the talk page concerning this list listing itself. It might be obvious to you and me that it has to do that, but it's not obvious to everyone. I don't see why it would need rephrasing. The current version explains the situation nicely. The Brooklyn example is obviously absurd. --mfb (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't help but laugh a bit at "if <thing that is not true>". Have you never encountered a hypothetical? Leijurv (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

As one might conclude from the very first sentences below the title, originating from a template, this is indeed not a list of all lists of anything. And therefore neither a list of all lists of anything including nor excluding itself. Sivizius (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The template is there because we are not able to find all lists of lists on Wikipedia. The template explicitly asks for help adding missing lists. It's not an excuse to remove known lists of lists. Why this particular one? Can I remove "Lists of Hollyoaks characters" (randomly picked) if I don't like it? --mfb (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

That is not the point. Russels Paradox just does not apply to incomplete lists/sets and is therefore irrelevant here. Sivizius (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

It is relevant because the whole entry was removed with a rephrasing of the lead. Would you agree on adding it back if we don't mention Russell's paradox? --mfb (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Please don't put back the link to this page from itself. It only makes navigation harder for readers, and it's no longer logically in scope since the intro now says "this page links to other lists". -- Beland (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You are using your own modification (which was done without any prior discussion) to justify your own modification. Adding the list back has absolutely no impact on navigation for readers. I'm taking the BRD approach here. I reverted your edit, please seek consensus for it first. --mfb (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with mfb. With respect to the word other in the intro, I interpret it in the (in my opinion much more obvious) way of pages that are lists of other list articles meaning pages that are lists of further/additional/more list articles rather than pages that are lists of list articles that don't contain themselves. So, I think this still does rightfully contain itself. Leijurv (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps some bold action would revive this discussion since it's clear we have no consensus for including or not including the information. I've done as such: I believe that professionalism in this case states we should not include it. casualdejekyll 20:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

List of list-of lists

I understand why the page is not named List of lists, but what I do not understand is, why is it not simply named List of list-of lists, or List of list of lists, since it is a list of 'List of X' pages on Wikipedia, not a list of 'Lists of X' pages--MystiiFlareon2 (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

MystiiFlareon2, because it's not a list of 'List of X' pages, it is a list of "Lists of X" pages, in other words, there are lists of things on WP, and lists of some of those lists grouped together, and this is a list of those lists of lists. Hope that helps. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It has more than one entry. A list with islands as entries is a list of islands. A list with list articles as entries is a list of lists. A list with lists of lists as entries is a list of lists of lists. --mfb (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It took me a while to understand, but now I do. It's a bit confusing after all lol. --MystiiFlareon2 (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yup! Maybe it's time for an FAQ section on this talkpage... Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 03:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Musical instruments

Would something like list of guitars go under "music" or under "technology"? Orchastrattor (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Neither, because it's not a List of lists of guitars. (However, if it were, it could go under both. There's no rule that each list of lists can only be in one place.) pburka (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)