![]() | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
"lists of lists"?!? Is that all? Maybe we need "lists of lists of lists". I think that the user will be confused. Can be just get rid of this? -- Fplay 08:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
for on thta not ture lol 12345 if u like to tlak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.39.147.169 ( talk) 18:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I've been trying to figure out what a Structured List was supposed to be. If no one steps up with a better definition I have no problem with merging them. -- JeffW 04:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I contend that this is a reasonable category to be self-referencing. As per Wikipedia:Categorization: "However, acceptable loops also exist. Self-referencing systems such as the meta- fields naturally create cycles that provide many examples." This category is obviously a list whose members are also lists, and therefore falls under the category of lists of lists, which happens to be itself. - Heartofgoldfish 07:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I think there is some misunderstanding about what articles belong in this category. This category is for lists of lists - that is, the items in this category are lists that contain other lists. It is not for any List_of_* article. Many of the articles in this category do not belong here. -- 71.224.239.10 15:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously all of these should be here. So if anybody can be bothered it might be a good idea to write a bot to put all of those pages in this category. 82.35.84.214 ( talk) 10:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
For completeness sake, the artical List of Lists really should list itself under the initial L. Anyone to object? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.82.226 ( talk) 06:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Lists_of_lists#should_we_add_the_list_of_all_lists_that_doesn.27t_contain_itself.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.252.152 ( talk) 15:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Right now all (non-hidden) subcategories have names of the form "Lists of X lists", except for Category:Lists of lists of people. In most cases the semantics of the category is clear from the name, but in some cases there's an ambiguity: are these lists of lists of things of type X, or lists of lists related to the topic of X? e.g.
It so happens that 1 and 2 are, let's say, "set list categories" (lists of lists of books, lists of lists of films), and 3 and 4 are "topic list categories" (sports-related LoLs, video game-related LoLs). But the only way to tell is by checking.
For clarity, I would suggest we consistently use "Lists of X lists" for topic list categories, and "Lists of lists of X" for set list categories.
Another alternative would be to consistently use "Lists of X-related lists" for topic list categories (analogous to list cats like Category:Film-related lists, Category:Geography-related lists etc.)
Thoughts? Pinging Aymatth2 since they recently created a bunch of subcats (for which I salute them - happy to see some more structure being added to this category). Colin M ( talk) 19:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
|people=[[Category:Lists of lists of people{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{!}}{{{2}}}|}}]]
|people=Lists of lists of people
{{list of lists|people|fashion-related|media}}
would put the article into three categories and give a message like This article includes a list of lists related to people, fashion and media
. But that is probably more complicated than needed. The purpose of list-of-list categories is not obvious. They do not lead to all lists in a subject area, just ones that happen to be grouped into lists-of-lists. Maybe we should just live with the existing categories.Yeah, the question of purpose is an interesting one. Their usefulness to readers as a navigational device is pretty questionable. There's no obvious reason that someone reading
Lists of websites would be interested in other articles in
Category:Lists of technology lists. I think the most compelling reason for the category tree to exist is that it's really helpful for development. An editor working on a list-of-lists article may want to look to similar existing LoL articles to get a sense of how they're organized, and to use as a blueprint. It's potentially also useful for certain automated tasks. You could even argue that this means the whole tree should be marked as an administrative category, per
WP:PROJCAT, though I wouldn't go that far. After all, you could make the same argument about
Category:Lists (i.e. that it also violates the
WP:CAT advice that Categorization should not be made by the type of an article
), but it's such an extensive tree that's been around as a content category for so long, I doubt there would be support for reclassifying it.
Colin M (
talk)
19:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Why are these articles pinned to the top? What makes them more special than other lists?
-- 2A02:2F07:B10C:E300:CDE8:F75A:C2AA:4799 ( talk) 14:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Once you categorize it, it becomes a list of lists of lists because you are listing lists of lists. I'm pretty sure there's already a page called list of lists of lists, but I'd have to look it up.
![]() | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
"lists of lists"?!? Is that all? Maybe we need "lists of lists of lists". I think that the user will be confused. Can be just get rid of this? -- Fplay 08:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
for on thta not ture lol 12345 if u like to tlak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.39.147.169 ( talk) 18:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I've been trying to figure out what a Structured List was supposed to be. If no one steps up with a better definition I have no problem with merging them. -- JeffW 04:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I contend that this is a reasonable category to be self-referencing. As per Wikipedia:Categorization: "However, acceptable loops also exist. Self-referencing systems such as the meta- fields naturally create cycles that provide many examples." This category is obviously a list whose members are also lists, and therefore falls under the category of lists of lists, which happens to be itself. - Heartofgoldfish 07:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I think there is some misunderstanding about what articles belong in this category. This category is for lists of lists - that is, the items in this category are lists that contain other lists. It is not for any List_of_* article. Many of the articles in this category do not belong here. -- 71.224.239.10 15:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously all of these should be here. So if anybody can be bothered it might be a good idea to write a bot to put all of those pages in this category. 82.35.84.214 ( talk) 10:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
For completeness sake, the artical List of Lists really should list itself under the initial L. Anyone to object? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.82.226 ( talk) 06:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Lists_of_lists#should_we_add_the_list_of_all_lists_that_doesn.27t_contain_itself.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.252.152 ( talk) 15:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Right now all (non-hidden) subcategories have names of the form "Lists of X lists", except for Category:Lists of lists of people. In most cases the semantics of the category is clear from the name, but in some cases there's an ambiguity: are these lists of lists of things of type X, or lists of lists related to the topic of X? e.g.
It so happens that 1 and 2 are, let's say, "set list categories" (lists of lists of books, lists of lists of films), and 3 and 4 are "topic list categories" (sports-related LoLs, video game-related LoLs). But the only way to tell is by checking.
For clarity, I would suggest we consistently use "Lists of X lists" for topic list categories, and "Lists of lists of X" for set list categories.
Another alternative would be to consistently use "Lists of X-related lists" for topic list categories (analogous to list cats like Category:Film-related lists, Category:Geography-related lists etc.)
Thoughts? Pinging Aymatth2 since they recently created a bunch of subcats (for which I salute them - happy to see some more structure being added to this category). Colin M ( talk) 19:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
|people=[[Category:Lists of lists of people{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{!}}{{{2}}}|}}]]
|people=Lists of lists of people
{{list of lists|people|fashion-related|media}}
would put the article into three categories and give a message like This article includes a list of lists related to people, fashion and media
. But that is probably more complicated than needed. The purpose of list-of-list categories is not obvious. They do not lead to all lists in a subject area, just ones that happen to be grouped into lists-of-lists. Maybe we should just live with the existing categories.Yeah, the question of purpose is an interesting one. Their usefulness to readers as a navigational device is pretty questionable. There's no obvious reason that someone reading
Lists of websites would be interested in other articles in
Category:Lists of technology lists. I think the most compelling reason for the category tree to exist is that it's really helpful for development. An editor working on a list-of-lists article may want to look to similar existing LoL articles to get a sense of how they're organized, and to use as a blueprint. It's potentially also useful for certain automated tasks. You could even argue that this means the whole tree should be marked as an administrative category, per
WP:PROJCAT, though I wouldn't go that far. After all, you could make the same argument about
Category:Lists (i.e. that it also violates the
WP:CAT advice that Categorization should not be made by the type of an article
), but it's such an extensive tree that's been around as a content category for so long, I doubt there would be support for reclassifying it.
Colin M (
talk)
19:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Why are these articles pinned to the top? What makes them more special than other lists?
-- 2A02:2F07:B10C:E300:CDE8:F75A:C2AA:4799 ( talk) 14:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Once you categorize it, it becomes a list of lists of lists because you are listing lists of lists. I'm pretty sure there's already a page called list of lists of lists, but I'd have to look it up.