This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It was added on the 20th April. RichFarmbrough, 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)
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 188.8.131.52 (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)
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)
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.
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. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
What has changed since the previous request last January which was most participates opposed?--184.108.40.206 (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.
I cannot figure out if this type of simple list should contain itself. Any suggestions? NevilleDNZ (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
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)