This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Libraries Low‑importance 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.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is actually a potential practical argument here:

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

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

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

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

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

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