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.

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

Suggestion: Russell's paradox --mfb (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is List of lists that do not contain themselves. – Uanfala (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That just redirects of Russell's paradox. It's not an actual list. TheKing44 (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wiki links don't seem to be able to link to the page they are in. However, since the article mentions that it contains other lists that contain lists of lists, it appears to me that it should reference itself. MBCallahan (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that #firstHeading is effective at navigating to the title. In addition, putting invalid section names after the # seems to just bring you to the top of the page. I am inclined to include this list within itself because it is accurate and also because this list will never be complete without it. I would like consensus to be gauged on this issue because I do think that this is a serious decision which needs to be made. It seems that people in the past have tried to include this list within itself, but have been reverted. Mysterymanblue (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

I agree that the suggested title is equivalent to the current title. Think of it this way: This article[][][] object is an array of article[][] objects, each of which is an array of article[] objects, each of which is an array of article objects, each of which is an article object. Now let "an array of article objects" equal "a list": a list contains articles (such as List of programming languages by type); a list of lists contains lists (such as Lists of programming languages); a list of list of lists contains lists of lists (such as this article itself, right here). Since this article follows the logical progression in that pattern, we should keep this as it is. Also, then this article wouldn't be funny. Gmarmstrong (talk)

"Lists of lists" is indeed equivalent to "list of lists of lists" because the first word being plural implies it's a list. However this implication is subtle. For example you know "Primate" goes to an article on primates. So would "Primates" be the proper title for a list of primates? No, because the difference is too subtle. "List of primates" is the proper article title. Confusingly though, the list of lists of animals is actually called Lists of animals but it shouldn't be. 206.190.86.2 (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should Category:Forms of government be added?

No. Because it's a category, not a list. (You can link to categories by using a leading colon, like so: :Category:Forms of government). Pburka (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]