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

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.

This is the most spectacular redirect in the history of Wikipedia. - Kookykman|(t)e 14:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I was sad to see that we still don't have List of lists of lists of lists. Maybe one day, god willing. --Xyzzyplugh 13:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'd had it twice already at the time you wrote that, and now again almost four years later. I'm going to put in a salt request now. Feezo (Talk) 01:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that those were only fake pages. If a real list of lists of lists of lists was to be created, could there be any content for it? Surely there are some topical lists of lists of lists that could go onto the list. Dylan16807 (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A brief search yields at least one: List of animals contains List of endangered species, List of mammals, Lists of mammals by region] etc. List of books also appears a likely target, qualifying both of these for List of lists of lists of lists. Such brief sampling suggests that this article could be quite substantial. Estel ^(talk) 01:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that this page itself could be on a list of lists of lists of lists. And if we split that page up into two sub-lists, then we can enter those sub-lists into a list of lists of lists of lists of lists. Clearly, this is the best page since Disambiguation (disambiguation). Cakedamber (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke article, right? BigSteve (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this content clearly only qualifies to be in an article on lists of lists, not lists of lists of lists.92.39.205.100 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? I could only find one non-example, List of metal bands, which I removed. Everything else is either "Lists of ..." or "List of ... lists".

In any case, the article title should be List of "List of" lists. Sorry to be pedantic about it, but, there you are. BigSteve (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia, not a computer science problem. :) Stevage 01:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It was added on the 20th April. Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

That's almost disappointing. It ought to have been added on the 1st of April. Collabi (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I propose to move this page from List of lists of lists to Lists of lists of lists per WP:LISTNAME. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to make sense. The primary difference between the current title and the proposed title is the difference between whether this page shows lists of lists, or whether it shows lists of lists of lists, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with the naming guideline. Do you mean to propose that the title be changed to "Lists of lists" (which would be a different name with the same meaning as the current one)? Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reexamined my above proposal and I agree it is not entirely correct. This list lists multiple "Lists of ..." lists. My understanding is that pages listing multiples pages which are called "List of ..." are called "Lists of ...". The correct term to insert in place of ... per the topic of this list would be "List of lists". Thus I think the correct title would actually be "Lists of list of lists". Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's correct. I'm still not sure what kind of change you are proposing. The current title of this page says that this page is a list of X, where X = "lists of lists." Your proposed title says that this page shows lists of X, meaning that this page is a list of lists of X, meaning a list of lists of list(s) of lists. This is a different meaning from the current title. A title that would mean the same thing as the current title would be "Lists of lists", in the same way that the titles "List of famous people" and "Famous people" mean the same thing. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit have confused myself a bit. Compare this for example with Lists of banks. It shows multiple "List of banks in ..." pages and is therefore called "Lists of banks". In direct analogy, this page shows multiple "Lists of ..." pages and should be called "Lists of lists of lists" or perhaps "Lists of 'List of' pages" to make it clearer. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm out of energy for trying to find a way to write about this topic, because it's just too confusing. I suggest posting your proposal using the directions at Requested Moves in order to get more feedback, maybe from people with a better gift for explaining such knotty concepts. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is correct, and User talk:Toshio Yamaguchi is mixing up the two parts. The content of the article is a single list, whether its entries are lists or not, and therefore "List of ..." is accurate. The "List of ..." could also be omitted, in which case the title would be the (slightly more ambiguous) "Lists of lists". "Lists of lists of lists" is flat wrong. Think of it this way—if we call lists of lists (e.g. pages like Lists of state leaders) "yodawgs", then this article is a "list of yodawgs", not "lists of yodawgs". --24.128.245.107 (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per my previous proposal, the article should be renamed "List of 'list of lists' articles", as it only mentions Wikipedia lists, not lists in general. If one counts lists as being separate from articles (even though they are actually a subsection), then this title can be shortened to "List of list of lists". "Lists of list of lists" is inappropriate as there there is only one list article.--Coin945 (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During the last few days, I have scoured WP:QI for possible new entries, and I have found the following pages.

• Listing priority number
• Lists by country
• Lists of ABC shows
• Lists of Britons
• Lists of Catholicoi
• Lists of Christmas number one singles
• Lists of Commissioners' churches in southern England, the Midlands and Wales
• Lists of Crayola colors
• Lists of Czechoslovakian films
• Lists of Knight Rider episodes
• Lists of Spanish provinces
• Lists of bus routes in New York City
• Lists of Danzig officials
• Lists of people executed in Texas
• Lists of people from Camden
• Lists of promoters of the Rosary

See also these sets of pages.

• All pages with titles beginning with List of busiest airports
• All pages with titles beginning with Listed buildings

Someone else can decide whether to list those in List of lists of lists.
(I found several entries redirected from “Lists of ..” to “List of ...” or to a section of “Outline of ...”, but I left them unchanged, partly because they might be changed back again. Someone might wish to run through the list periodically, to see what has been redirected.)
—Wavelength (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also All pages with titles beginning with List of tallest buildings Scalzi+ | (Talk | contribs) 04:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How necessary is this page, really? Mchcopl (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)![reply]

• • Necessary until Wikipedia gets a vague sense of humor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.68.96.140 (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"On Wikipedia, many lists contain lists that themselves contain lists." This implies that the following links all lead to lists of lists of lists, while the title and the content merely refer to lists of lists. The sentence describes the article itself but not its contents. I'm changing it to be more relevant. --69.106.227.60 (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I made only 1 (major) typo not 2 (sorry about aricles or whatever it was... Oops.. *blush*) I thought about the title for a long time and came to the conclusion that the title should be something like List of "list of lists" articles. Secondly, my point still stands. I know how wonderful it is to have a wiki article with such a ridiculous name and we all want too keep it like that, just like Disambiguation (disambiguation), but the title of the article is just not true. An article on all lists of lists would be called this, but the article only lists wiki-articles that happen to be lusts of lists. Therefore the title must make it clear were talking wiki-lists over here. Thirdly, all lists are articles, so the title is correct. I guess you could also say List of "list of lists" lists, which might be the favorable option if decisions around here are solely based on if we can keep the funny name or not.--Coin945 (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to move a page that's seen as much activity as this one, I think you should follow the instructions at WP:RM to list the requested move for discussion. I probably would have reverted the move for that reason, even if it weren't for the typo and for my (apparently mistaken, I see now) understanding that lists are not considered articles. I also think that, if the title were to be changed, the one you used was probably not the best. Maybe List of list-of-lists articles would be slightly clearer. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, something like that, or even without the dashes, would be favourable. The only reaosn I used the " was so I could split up the title into easily manageable chunks so you could decide for yourself if "list of lists" or "lists of lists" was correct. To me, the former is still the correct option, as this article lists the "list of lists" articles throughout Wikipedia. So, do you think an official move request is on order? Is my case strong enough? What do you think?--Coin945 (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: At least in my mind, lists are a subsection of articles. So are disambiguation pages. I'm not sure why there are both featured lists and featured articles though... that seems unrelated to my definition that an article is any page that would be used by a non-editor.--Coin945 (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought I remembered reading in a guideline that a list is not an article, but WP:LISTS indicates I was mistaken. You haven't convinced me the move is warranted, but if you want to pursue it, the WP:RM procedure would be the way to do so (and I have no real sense of which direction the discussion might go, i.e. whether your proposal would be successful or not). Theoldsparkle (talk)

There's a discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of criticism and critique articles that's relevant to this page. The outcome of a related proposal will probably decide if the merge will go through or not.--Coin945 (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a list of lists of lists, I suggest that a list of lists page be created. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how many lists there are on Wikipedia, and how enormous such a page would be? BabelStone (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is pointless, the category already does a better job. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I was originally confused when I found this page because it was obvious to me that this is really a job for Category tagging, but then when I saw that the 'List' and 'List of Lists' categories both already exist....I'm really confused. I propose that all articles listed on this page are confirmed to be tagged appropriately and this page gets deleted. If other people support this idea, I'll take it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lists (provided I remember to...if someone else wants to take responsibility that would be great) since this is clearly their bag and I'm not invested in this at all. I feel like tagging the linked articles could even be accomplished fairly easily by a bot. --Shaggorama (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is useful. Please see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts:

• Category:Lists of lists has 320 entries currently (plus this page).
• This page has 466 entries/lines of content (not including headers, blanklines, seealso, appendices, etc), of which 15 are disambig pages (I used the linkclassifier script to highlight pagetypes. I'm not insane ;)
• If those numbers matched, it'd arguably be a non-useful overlap of content, because:
• As a straight alphabetical listing, it is duplicating the category. (Although that still has benefits: All on one page, searchable, and trackable changes. - and cons: it has to be manually updated). -- However, we could potentially (if anyone was interested) reorganize the contents by topic, in the same way that the Portal:Contents/Lists is. (Actually, that Portal should already contain quite a few of these (but is not intended to be exhaustive)).
• I'd suggest either A): 1) Check the list against the category, to add any missing pages into the category. 2) Merge any particularly useful/interesting lists into the Portal. 3) Add a link in the Portal Intro, to the category. 4) Redirect this list, to the Portal.
• or B) re-structuring this listpage into a topic-section-based collation (instead of plain alphabetical). —Quiddity (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTDUP. Any argument saying that a category is better than a list is a non-starter. Silverseren^C 02:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an incredibly strong supporter of WP:NOTDUP, but context-based. Sometimes there are realistically unnecessary overlaps. (I.e. we don't make a list-article for every single category, and we wouldn't want to.)

E.g. a perfect case of NOTDUP would be something like Category:Timelines compared to List of timelines. That list is structured and annotated, hence vastly beneficial in addition to the category itself. (NOTDUP is particularly relevant there, because the page is a "navigation aid" and not really a citable list on a "topic" (it's never going to get FeaturedList status). Some editors say that type of page should be removed from the mainspace entirely, but NOTDUP and commonsense-context are part of the reason that we don't. I've got an entire RfC-draft on that canofworms issue...)

I've rewritten the last 2 bullet points above, to make my suggestions a bit clearer. I'd be strongly in favour of B) if anyone is willing to have a go at it. Parts of A) would still be useful though. Improve all the things! HTH. —Quiddity (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What should be groups be? Off the top of my head:

• Lists of people
• Lists related to biology
• Lists related to culture (including entertainment)
• Lists related to geography
• Lists related to economics
• Lists related to society
• Lists related to politics
• Lists related to space
• Lists related to sport
• Lists related to technology
• Lists related to transportation

Pburka (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt, I usually check the Featured examples for ideas. So, we could structure the groups to match Wikipedia:Featured lists. Or if that's too many subgroups, then we could match the structure of Portal:Contents/Overviews. (Or Category:Main topic classifications but that's erratic). Whatever works. —Quiddity (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. I hadn't seen that article before. It looks like an excellent starting point. Pburka (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect this article against edits from unregistered users. -- Petru Dimitriu (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary at this point. The page isn't a particular target, although there has been a bit more vandalism than usual the last few days. Pburka (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, see WP:SEMI for details on when it is a necessary/recommended solution. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The legend is indeed true then - An article named List of Lists of Lists.. It sounds like the title of a 1001 Nights story. 89.89.92.100 (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the name of this list is inconsistent with its contents. Every entry is a list of lists, but almost all of them are called "Lists of X", not "List of lists of X". This page is also a list of lists. Therefore, if we are trying to be consistent, the title should be "Lists of lists." --Albany NY (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on naming lists of lists. On one hand, Wikipedia's naming convention calls for using the singular whenever possible. On the other hand, "Lists of XYZ" is more concise and less awkward than "List of lists of XYZ". Pburka (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eg List of lists of films‎, List of lists of stadiums, List of lists about Omaha, List of lists of women, List of lists of settlements in the United States, List of lists of people from Kansas, List of lists of ancient kings, List of lists of tennis records and statistics, List of lists of Empire ships, List of lists of municipalities in Spain, List of lists of painters by nationality, List of lists of national institutions and symbols, List of lists of artists by nationality, List of lists of islands of the European Union ;) (I think that's all of them, with that exact word order) It might be worth renaming all of these, but would need a central discussion somewhere. (I've insufficient coffee in me, to guess at where, or what ramifications ought to be brought up. Maybe later). —Quiddity (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence mentions that the lists are on Wikipedia. Doesn't this violate WP:SELFREF? --Yair rand (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. First sentence should probably be re-worded. The only wordings I can think of are confusing, such as: "This is a list of list articles which are themselves lists." or "This is a list of articles which list lists." Maybe the first one will do? --0x0077BE (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a list of lists. It is not a list of "lists of lists."

I would change the title, but I am not sure if that's something that regularly happens on Wikipedia. That seems a little bit more significant than a simple typo change or rephrasing of an article. Can someone let me know? If no one says anything within seven days, I will attempt to change it and see what happens. LogicalCreator (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every article in this list is itself a list of lists. Therefore this article is a list of lists of lists. A list of all Wikipedia lists would be unmaintainable due to its size. Pburka (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the title change from "List of Lists of Lists" to "Directory of Lists of Lists"? I'm just asking the question, I'm NOT advocating such a change (and, at least in theory, neither am I opposing it). There are lots of proposals here for name changes, but the above one is the one that would make most 'sense' (IF 'sense' is what we want) - it describes the 'sensible' purpose of the article, and fatally undermines arguments about whether the list should include itself. It would also stop the article causing laughter around the world, which some will see as the strongest argument for the name change, and others will see as the strongest argument against it, on the basis that laughter is the best medicine, and there's much to be said for adding to the gaiety of nations - I only heard about the article because a French Wikipedian had it in the humour section of his user page.

Perhaps I should have pointed out that it's currently actually something like 26 Lists (the list of lists of lists under the letter A, the list of lists of lists under the letter B, ... and so on to Z).

So arguably we could legitimately achieve even more beautiful artistic symmetry by renaming it "Lists of Lists of Lists" :) Tlhslobus (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Most lists on Wikipedia are directories. "List" is the conventional name for these articles. Pburka (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that the title is not a major concern. - Improving the contents is vastly more important (and labor intensive, hence it gets ignored). See the thread #Pointless above, for a bunch of notes on improving this page's contents. –Quiddity (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily in Spanish Wikipedia, we do not need to have this kind of confusing titles, because list-articles (those which are not encyclopedic articles by themselves) are created under a different namespace than main namespace, obtaining instead this: Anexo:Encyclopedic-supporting-article name. Anexo is the 104 namespace under WP:ES. In the case of English Wikipedia, it could be something like this: Appendix:List of lists or Appendix:List of articles about lists. --Zerabat (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about it but, shouldn't "List of metalloid lists", "List of mountain lists" or even "List of film lists" be considered as lists of lists of lists of lists ? To a certain point there has to be some lists of lists of lists out there. Waiting for a benevolent wikipedian to list them. 83.137.242.27 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such a thing now exists: http://www.raikoth.net/lololol.html Calc rulz (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all lists of lists are lists of lists of lists, but all lists of lists of lists are lists of lists. 0x0077BE (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion last year, just above.

Last year there was some discussion about reorganizing this list. The current alphabetical order isn't a particularly useful way to organize the list, as it doesn't group related lists together. Grouping lists into related topics has several advantages. For example, it helps expose inconsistencies in naming conventions, which allows us to improve the the encyclopedia. I've had a go at reorganizing this list here. Please take a look and provide feedback on whether or not this is a good idea, and ideas to further improve the organization. (There are some comments in the markup which explain some of my organizational decisions.) Pburka (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a good format. As a small change, I suggest that the section titles to edited to remove "Lists of lists of" and "topics". The topic name alone is sufficient. Fitnr 17:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're probably right. I went back and forth in my head about that. My goal was to reinforce the "Lists of lists" rule so as to dissuade new editors from adding simple lists, but I think it may be too verbose. Pburka (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A sortable wikitable (MOS:TABLE) can accommodate alphabetical ordering together with other arrangements.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, and I did consider that, but it wasn't clear to me what columns such a table would have, and what the secondary and tertiary sort key would be. Additionally, I'm not convinced that the current alphabetical ordering provides any value. Pburka (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked last year's discussion at the top.

I like the look of your draft - which particular organizational scheme (as prev discussed) are you matching it to, or basing it on? –Quiddity (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The scheme is of my own invention. However, in reviewing the discussion from last year again, I took another look at Portal:Contents/Overviews. I think it would probably be better to base the scheme on that, and it will be simple to transfer the work I've already done to that scheme. I'll have a go at that in the next few days. Pburka (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It now closely matches Portal:Contents/Overviews. I made a few small adjustments. For example, "War" should be under "Philosophy", but there were no other philosophy topics, so I placed it under "Society", as it seemed awkward and confusing to have only topics about war in a section about philosophy. Pburka (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka: Looks great! I support replacing the alphabetical version, with your sandbox version. And thanks again for following up, and doing the sorting/classifying work. :) –Quiddity (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've made the changes. I'm curious under which category the next anon editor will try to add a recursive link. Pburka (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed. The anon listed it under "Miscellaneous". "Logic and Mathematics" would have at least demonstrated some understanding of the question. Pburka (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could I add http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energies_of_the_elements to the list of lists of lists? Because for each element, it has a list of the ionization energies, and there is a list of each element there with the ionization energies. Could I put that in physical sciences section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexDFischer (talk • contribs) 00:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, I don't think that's a list of lists so much as a table, which has been divided into three sections to prevent it from becoming too wide. Typically, a list of lists should be a list article which is a list of other list articles. Pburka (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to the different sections of the table (1-10, 11-20, 21-30 etc) but to the list of elements. The page of has a list of elements, and each element has a sub-list which is the list of ionization energies. Does that still not count as a list of lists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexDFischer (talk • contribs) 04:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By that definition all tabular data with more than one row and more than 2 columns would be a list of lists. That may be an accurate way to think about it, but it dramatically expands the scope of this article. 0x0077BE (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I won't add it then.AlexDFischer (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watchers of this page might wish to watch User:AlexNewArtBot/ListsSearchResult.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All pages with titles beginning with Lists of and All pages with titles beginning with List of lists of may also be of interest.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC) and 22:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]