Talk:List of lists of lists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:


Self-reference?[edit]

This is clearly a list of lists (of lists). Therefore, it should be included on a list of lists. Thus, this article should link to itself. 130.207.70.171 (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a computer science problem. :) Stevage 01:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Why don't we create an article named List of lists of lists that don't include themselves? :) 201.66.171.62 (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
At minimum, I think we can agree that this page is itself a list of lists of lists. It follows that our list of lists of lists is incomplete since it doesn't include itself in either the list of lists nor the list of lists of lists page. 141.156.47.45 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It was added on the 20th April. Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC).
That's almost disappointing. It ought to have been added on the 1st of April. Collabi (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
April 20, 1889. Close enough. Paradoctor (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Now that this page does include itself, the question becomes this: can we prove that it is a comprehensive list of lists of lists? Cakedamber (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Alright, so I've looked through the history of this page and often find the comment "Do not add List of lists or List of lists of lists." Why exactly? For all intents and purposes, this article and List of lists are lists of lists and should thus be in a list of lists of lists which this article claims to be. So, why do all changes adding List of lists or List of lists of lists to this article always get undone? 82.83.79.50 (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This is "List of lists of lists" rather than "List of lists of lists and of lists of lists of lists" (in other words, we list here lists of lists but this page itself is list of lists of lists so it is not a list of lists) Bulwersator (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Lists of lists of lists are a subset of lists of lists, therefore while it may belong in your hypothetical category, it also certainly belongs in its own category. It's undeniable that List of lists of lists belongs in List of lists of lists, the question is whether it's against Wikipedia policy or style guides to include it. If the goal of lists is explicitly to be comprehensive, then the article should be added to itself. If you're just trying to get a central repository from which people can navigate to lists of lists, then since you're already here, there's no reason to add List of lists of lists. 0x0077BE (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. A list of lists is a list and a list of lists of lists is a list and a list of lists. The List of lists of lists is a list and a list of lists and should certainly contain itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.38.9 (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying the article should contain itself, just that the list of lists of lists belongs in the set defined by the list of lists of lists. That's undeniable. The question is if you're aiming for completeness or if this is simply a navigation page, in which case there's no reason to include it. 0x0077BE (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
In our axiomatic systems we tend to sacrifice completeness where is conflicts with consistency, valuing the latter over the former. WP is certainly a system, axiomatic or not. 72.37.249.60 (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
But inluding the list of lists of lists in the list of lists of lists page does not conflict with consistency. So that would not be an argument against reaching for completeness in this article. 2002:4E68:976A:5:ED6F:39C9:CCF0:98C2 (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I find the self-reference confusing and pedantic. I accidentally removed it again from the page. I'll revert my changes, even though I completely disagree with this bizarre argument. JakeZ (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

So is this list an universal set? --Constructor 04:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

This should include itself. This would not be a problem because self referencing does not result in a clickable link I suspect? SirKitKat (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 September 2016[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 19:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


List of lists of listsWikipedia:List of lists of lists – Belongs in project space. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Maybe all navigational lists should be moved to projectspace, but there's no reason to move one and leave e.g. all of the lists of lists this list lists, which are also purely navigational. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
What has changed since the previous request last January which was most participates opposed?--64.229.164.105 (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Navigates to, serves, mainspace articles, and therefore belongs in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Portals also "navigate to (and) serve mainspace articles", but they have their own namespace. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 14:15, 23 September 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.

Proposal: A list of lists that don't contain themselves.[edit]

I cannot figure out if this type of simple list should contain itself. Any suggestions? NevilleDNZ (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Russell's paradox --mfb (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
There is List of lists that do not contain themselves. – Uanfala (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Rename to "Lists of lists"[edit]

Would be less confusing. Xeoxer (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, this article is exactly what it says in the title: a list of list of lists. "List of lists" would be inaccurate and ergo, confusing. Also, then this article wouldn't be funny. --2602:306:334C:4DA0:7DDA:6BB6:26C0:5C4A (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

"List of lists" would indeed be inaccurate. Fortunately, no one suggested that. – SmiddleTC@ 16:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

AFD Lists of people by occupation[edit]

FYI Lists of people by occupation is at AFD, but probably not in much danger Siuenti (씨유엔티) 12:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)