This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists List‑class 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 List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Libraries List‑class 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 List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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