Talk:List of lists of lists/Archive 2

Self-reference?
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)
 * This is an encyclopaedia, not a computer science problem. :) Stevage 01:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * It was added on the 20th April. Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC).


 * That's almost disappointing. It ought to have been added on the 1st of April. Collabi (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * April 20, 1889. Close enough. Paradoctor (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * But inluding the list of lists of lists in the list of lists of lists page does not conflict with consistency. So that would not be an argument against reaching for completeness in this article. 2002:4E68:976A:5:ED6F:39C9:CCF0:98C2 (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I find the self-reference confusing and pedantic. I accidentally removed it again from the page. I'll revert my changes, even though I completely disagree with this bizarre argument. JakeZ (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

So is this list an universal set? --Constructor 04:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

This should include itself. This would not be a problem because self referencing does not result in a clickable link I suspect? SirKitKat (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 September 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000  ( talk,  contribs ) 19:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

List of lists of lists → List of lists of lists – Belongs in project space. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Maybe all navigational lists should be moved to projectspace, but there's no reason to move one and leave e.g. all of the lists of lists this list lists, which are also purely navigational. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What has changed since the previous request last January which was most participates opposed?--64.229.164.105 (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Navigates to, serves, mainspace articles, and therefore belongs in mainspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Portals also "navigate to (and) serve mainspace articles", but they have their own namespace. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal: A list of lists that don't contain themselves.
I cannot figure out if this type of simple list should contain itself. Any suggestions? NevilleDNZ (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Russell's paradox --mfb (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is List of lists that do not contain themselves. – Uanfala (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That just redirects of Russell's paradox. It's not an actual list. TheKing44 (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * It seems that 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)
 * I am one of the editors who have been reverting the addition of a self link to this article because I agree with WP:SELFLINK that self links are usually not recommended. I would not oppose adding a sentence to the end of the lead saying "This list is also a list of lists" if others feel the need to point out the obvious. There is no need for a link because the purpose of a link is to take readers to other pages. If logical "completeness" is an issue, then the aforementioned sentence can be added to the lead without a link. Biogeographist (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * While I agree with that guideline in general, I think it makes sense for this article to list itself in some capacity, considering it is a list of lists. --Sensorfire (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, the sentence "This list is also a list of lists" can be added to the lead if you think it is necessary to point out that this list is a list of lists. Adding a wikilink is contraindicated by WP:SELFLINK and pointless since the point of a link is to take readers to a different page (except in the case of internal wikilinks to a section of an article, which the proposed link is not). Biogeographist (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Rename to "Lists of lists"
Would be less confusing. Xeoxer (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

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)
 * "List of lists" would indeed be inaccurate. Fortunately, no one suggested that. – Smiddle TC@ 16:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

Addition
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)

Why
Why does this exist? ThePRoGaMErGD (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It enables you to see the structure of the list tree from a reasonably high level. It also helps you to find lists where you don't know the exact name.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC).

Include the List of Lists of Lists in itself
The list of lists of lists is of cause a list of lists and should be contained in itself. frclde (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * LISTCEPTION 2001:56A:F390:2A00:F82B:FD95:E054:FEED (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe you may have just broken the internet. 2600:1702:43A0:1C00:B4B9:22EA:82AA:5E53 (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No: Wikipedia pages do not link to themselves, per WP:SELFLINK. This has already been discussed at Biogeographist (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have changes the definition to say "list of other articles that are lists of list articles", which eliminates any need for self-inclusion. The title stays the same as per WP:COMMONNAME.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC).


 * Does this page appear on the list of lists of lists of lists? 58.6.173.177 (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"List of stuff" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of stuff. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Questions on self-reference in lead and linking, hoping "consensus" can change
I have seen the past discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_lists_of_lists/Archive_2#Self-reference? here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_lists_of_lists/Archive_2#Proposal:_A_list_of_lists_that_don't_contain_themselves. here]. I recognize the existence of WP:SELFLINK consensus that it is generally not recommended, but of all times to WP:IAR that I can't help but think that this is the article to do it.

To, who seems to be enforcing the current status: I am also a bit confused since you link to that second talk page archive (this one) in your edits reverting (such as here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). I assume this is a way of citing past consensus, but when I click that link all I see is you taking this point of view of no self-reference in the article body, and the other editors such as Sensorfire, Mysterymanblue, and MBCallahan disagreeing and believing that this article should be an exception to that rule, and should reference itself. So I don't actually see any consensus unless I'm missing something.

As this article is factually a list of lists, there is no reason to exclude it. I am having a hard time understanding the argument for why WP:SELFLINK trumps completeness. Even if WP:SELFLINK were taken religiously, one could imagine something like this:

General reference

 * Lists of academic journals
 * List of lists of lists (this page)
 * List of lists of lists (this page)

That would not violate any guideline.

Furthermore, WP:SELFLINK explicitly states that section links within an article are permissible, so I believe that a section link back up to the top is actually within the scope of WP:SELFLINK, counterintuitively. So, alternatively, instead of italics, it could be a link to the top of the page, like this. Or it could remain italics or bolded. Or the link could look like this: Or this: I understand your position that links are intended to take readers to other pages, however it should be weighed less because this isn't a "normal selflink". The reasons for avoiding self-links are that it's unexpected and that it's not useful. In this case, it is useful because the purpose is to convey what is an evidently unintuitive fact (judging from the talk page archives) that a list of lists should contain itself. While a link to Russel's paradox would hardly be in order in the article – except perhaps as a "See also" — there could instead be a micro version of that on this page, correctly listing itself (whether it's linked or not). The unexpectedness as a reader of being returned to the top of the page is quite small, even in comparison to the benefit of conveying that this page is indeed a list of lists.
 * This page
 * List of lists of lists (this page)

tl;dr I'm looking for clarification on two things: Why is the "self-reference" up in the lede, instead of down in the body (either as a link, or as normal text)? And the correctness / potential educational value of this article linking to itself, while small, outweighs in my eyes the small downside of an intentional exception to WP:SELFLINK per WP:IAR. Leijurv (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Avoiding a WP:SELFLINK is appropriate because the purpose of a link is to take readers to other pages. In a list of lists, the purpose of a link is to take readers to other lists. That's why WP:LISTSOFLISTS says all the links in a "lists of lists" should be active (blue, not red) and why the essay WP:Lists of lists says in its first sentence that a list of lists is a list of other stand-alone list articles. The purpose of a link in this list, as in any other list of lists, is to take readers to other lists. "This article is also a list of lists" is stated in the lead because the body of the list is for links to other lists (of lists). In other words, per the definition of WP:Lists of lists as lists of other stand-alone list articles, this list is really a "list of other lists of lists" but the inclusion of the word "other" could be confusing because some readers could think "Other than what?" and it's not necessary to include the word "other" in the list title because a list of lists is a list of other lists by definition. Biogeographist (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, I hear you, however, it isn't true. How do you explain the fact that WP:SELFLINK explicitly states that links within a page are allowed, to section headings?  My position is that you've, well, completely made up this purpose. I believe that, really, a list should contain all articles matching what the list is purported to contain. I don't accept that essay as consensus because it says right at the top  . And you cut off the previous few words of that quote, it actually says , so it wouldn't even violate it to include one link to itself.
 * It’s difficult to see where any consensus is coming from when you're really only arguing on the behalf of two people who together made 100% of the textual edits to the essay you cite, thus (inadvertently) pushing for what's likely the worst of both worlds. There exists no interpretation in the article's current state where the title is correct, barring the weird relocation from the body to the lede. Quite simply, there are two solutions to this issue. The first: Fix the content of the article to be correct, which does not violate any of the Wikipedia guidelines you’ve referenced thus far and has been advocated for through previous conversations and edits. Alternatively, you could change the name of the article (which would then become the only article of its kind, proven by searching for the word 'Other' on Wikipedia) to reflect that this is not a list of list of lists, but rather a list of other list of lists (which, by your own admission, would be confusing to the reader. I agree! So let's fix the article so that it isn't the confusing option.)
 * I demonstrated a way to 1. satisfy the constraint that all links should be active, blue not red 2. satisfy SELFLINK by linking to a section heading (the one at the top).  By whose definition again? I don't appreciate how you took the definition of another editor in an essay (not a guideline) then treated it as the actual definition of the word "list". How do you reconcile your statement "a list of lists is a list of other lists by definition" with the fact that the first paragraph of the actual article currently states "This article is also a list of lists, and also a list itself"? The only consensus I saw was 3 people disagreeing with you on this, now 4. By what rational definition of "list" is a list of lists not itself a list? (And, even if you include every editor who wrote even a single letter of that essay as on your side, it's still 4 to 3)
 * I believe that the "other" on WP:LISTSOFLISTS is likely intended to make clear and state that, for example, the article Lists of American films should only contain things that are, themselves, a list of American films. It would be inappropriate to link to itself, since it is not a list of American films. The things on it, are lists, not American films. I think that's what the "other" conveys. This situation here is an exception (in fact, the only exception), since the contents of this list are intended to themselves be lists of lists, which is a constraint that the article itself fulfills. Therefore it is completely correct for this article to link to itself. Same as "List of lists", if it existed. A list of lists is a list!
 * And again, the core of what I'm saying is WP:IAR; the downside of making this article accurate is just that it barely, when read technically and myopically, goes against what those two people wrote. And the upside is that it becomes accurate and might teach someone something.
 * Maybe you could explain to me the upside for having this article be "other" lists? Why do it that way? I've explained why I see it as beneficial to include itself, but all I see from you is arguments to "authority" (mostly circular or reaching). Leijurv (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't "completely made up" the fact that the purpose of a link is to take readers to other pages; it's the definition of a wikilink: a link from a page to another page within English Wikipedia. You cite section links as evidence that I have "completely made up" this definition; obviously section links take readers to section headings, but a list of lists is not a list of links to section headings; it is a list of links to other lists. I use section link often, but it is not relevant in this list.
 * You asked: How do you reconcile your statement "a list of lists is a list of other lists by definition" with the fact that the first paragraph of the actual article currently states "This article is also a list of lists, and also a list itself"? Logically there is no contradiction between these statements: since a list of lists is a list of other lists, "This article is also a list of lists, and also a list itself" means "This article is also a list of other lists, and also a list itself".
 * Notice that I am not the only editor who has been removing the WP:SELFLINK from this article, so this issue is not "me against everyone else" as you have portrayed above.
 * You argued: the article Lists of American films should only contain things that are, themselves, a list of American films. It would be inappropriate to link to itself, since it is not a list of American films. The things on it, are lists, not American films. I think that's what the "other" conveys. This situation here is an exception. No, your argument changes the subject to the content of target lists; "other lists" means other lists (congruent with the definition of links as links to other pages), not just lists that have a certain content specified in the article title. One can imagine a Random list of lists that would be a random selection of links to list articles (it would be best if such a list were automatically generated, like WP:Random), and even though there is no specific content restriction on a random list of lists that would prevent the list from linking to itself, still the list wouldn't properly list a link to itself since lists of lists are lists of links to other lists, per WP:LISTSOFLISTS, and congruent with the general avoidance of self links per WP:SELFLINK. There would be no practical benefit of generating a link to itself in such a list either, since readers use lists for links to other pages. Both the WP:LISTSOFLISTS guideline and the WP:Lists of lists essay say "other lists" or "other list articles" but easily could have said "lists" instead of other lists, but they don't, and with good practical reason. The definition of a list of lists as a list of other lists does not require this list to be an exception.
 * I am not appealing to authority; I am appealing to practicality, the same practicality that I see in the WP:LISTSOFLISTS guideline, the WP:Lists of lists essay, the WP:SELFLINK guideline, and the definition of a link in H:LINK. There is no practical benefit to including a link to this list in this list, and it is logically consistent to exclude a link to this list from this list, because lists of lists are lists of links to other lists, and links (except for section links, which are irrelevant here) are for taking readers to other pages. Biogeographist (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC) and 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Above you said: I assume this is a way of citing past consensus, referring to my reference to past discussion on this matter. That's not a correct assumption; I recognize that there has not been consensus on this issue. The past resolution of the lack of consensus is the sentence "This article is also a list of lists" in the lead. That's the existing compromise solution between those who argue for and against the WP:SELFLINK. When I cite past discussion, I'm not citing consensus (which doesn't currently exist on this issue); I'm citing the compromise solution to the lack of consensus. Biogeographist (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC) and 18:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You contradicted yourself when you said that links are only to take readers to other pages, but then conceded that section links do exist within the same page. That's all I was trying to say: links are sometimes within the same page, that makes them section links (which are still links!). They exist!
 * And, yet again, in the exact article that you linked (H:LINK) it states . So, it does permit linking within the same page!
 * I think you’d also find that most web standards would completely reject the notion that a link must take you to another page. We could get nuanced in what exactly a link is, but that would be pointlessly semantic and muddy what is already a very circular argument.
 * Logically there is no contradiction between these statements Actually that's correct, my apologies. I got confused by the wording. I'll respond further and more generally below.
 * If we wanted this page to list itself, there are many ways we could do it that don't violate any guidelines, as I presented above. I understand that you want to follow these guidelines to a T, but this is exactly the situation that WP:IAR was meant for. For example, this page currently has many section headings that are just listed in bold, such as "Lists of films by genre". It doesn't exist but we have it here, and this is fine since it is a conceptual category that belongs on this page, and doesn't have empty contents. So, we are already WP:IARing a bit there, since we have something that isn't a blue link. It would thus be completely kosher to just add an entry such as "List of lists of lists (this page)" in bold, not even as a link. That would violate no guidelines, so what's the problem?
 * A list of lists is a list of other lists This is nearly always true, and is a good rule of thumb. However, it doesn't define what this article should contain. I explained what the rule of thumb represents in my example about American films. Maybe in more specific language: a List Of (List Of (XXX)) should only contain things that are themselves List Of (XXX). It cannot contain a List Of (List Of (XXX)) since that isn't a List Of (XXX) because it doesn't contain XXX, it contains Lists. It isn't an exception to apply this rule to this article. List Of (List Of (List)) is an example of a List Of (List). Therefore it can and should be listed in itself, since it "passes the test" of membership.
 * No, your argument changes the subject to the content of target lists; Not quite. The point of the argument is what belongs on a list article. It's an illustrative example since that demonstrates that Lists of lists should almost never include themselves... because it isn't logically correct to do so in nearly all cases. However, if you think about it logically, this article is the only one where it is correct to do so.
 * To make it crystal clear: what should be included in an article entitled "List of XXX" should be every article that is an XXX. No more, no less. Is there any reason to reject this definition, except for the sole point that you don't want this article to list itself?
 * It seems you would be hard pressed to find someone that would agree with you outside the context of a very specific Wikipedia guideline that "a list of lists" refers implicitly to "a list of other lists". There is a reason that the word "other" is necessary to convey what you mean; were you not to include it, people would assume it is, in fact, a list of lists.
 * I am not appealing to authority; I am appealing to practicality What is impractical about listing this page just below the table of contents, instead of above it? Furthermore, I'm appealing to neither; I'm appealing instead to correctness. As we both agree, and as the lede states, this page is a list of lists. Everything on this page is itself a list, and the page is a list. That makes it a list of lists.
 * There is no practical benefit to including a link to this list in this list As I said in my initial message, it is useful because the purpose is to convey what is an evidently unintuitive fact (judging from the talk page archives) that a list of lists should contain itself. The benefit is correctness and the potential for someone to learn something new.
 * it is logically consistent to exclude a link to this list from this list It is, only if you take that recommendation as gospel truth and at literal face value. In any other context, it is not. The constraint that lists don't contain themselves is logically correct on every single other page on Wikipedia. This should be the only page on Wikipedia where applying the definition of a list will lead you to a conclusion that doesn't match WP:LISTOFLISTS.
 * That's not a correct assumption; I recognize that there has not been consensus on this issue. My apologies. I still see it as citing past discussion, or "status quo" at least, if not consensus.
 * There shouldn’t be a compromise on this page if this page is simply incorrect. Again, the outcome of this argument should lie near the two solutions I've laid out to make this page accurate and internally consistent. Leijurv (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I added a counterexample to my previous response above before I saw your edit; if I had seen your edit first I would have added it here instead of above. The counterexample (copied from above) is: One can imagine a Random list of lists that would be a random selection of links to list articles (it would be best if such a list were automatically generated, like WP:Random), and even though there is no specific content restriction on a random list of lists that would prevent the list from linking to itself, still the list wouldn't properly list a link to itself since lists of lists are lists of links to other lists, per WP:LISTSOFLISTS, and congruent with the general avoidance of self links per WP:SELFLINK. There would be no practical benefit of generating a link to itself in such a list either, since readers use lists for links to other pages. This should be a clear example of why it is not true, on Wikipedia, that a list of lists should contain itself as you claimed above.
 * I think my position is both more practical and more correct than your position; indeed I see practicality as the main arbiter of correctness, and such practicality is well expressed in the Wikipedia guidelines. What is impractical about listing this page just below the table of contents, instead of above it? The practical reason for the lead above the table of contents is to describe the list, which it does. The practical reason for the list below the table of contents is to provide links that take readers to other lists, which it does, and that's why this list, like any list of lists, exists. There is no reason why a list of lists should contain itself on Wikipedia, and none of Wikipedia's guidelines says that it should. There shouldn't be a compromise on this page if this page is simply incorrect but it's correct as it is. In that sense, the compromise solution maintains correctness and practicality while conveying, in the lead, the perhaps unintuitive fact that this list of lists of lists "is also a list of lists, and also a list itself". Biogeographist (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You're sort of misquoting me. If you see the context of what I was saying, a list of lists only should contain itself if it is an unencumbered list of lists, i.e. a general list of all lists. Not anything specific like the American films example. If it's a list of specific types of lists, it should not contain itself. So you're completely correct: on Wikipedia, a "list of lists of XXXX" shouldn't contain itself. That would be incorrect. Unless "XXXX" is just "lists", (and not "lists of YYYY"), in which case it becomes accurate to contain itself. This is simple logic.
 * Regarding your example about random: I'm not quite sure I understand. Special:Random takes you to a random article, not to a random page (it'll never take you to a Talk: or to a Wikipedia:). However, we have a clear precedent for lists containing other lists; that's the very foundation of this page. So I'm not seeing any issue here I don't think. Are you imagining that, say, Special:RandomList would take you to a random list article? Or would it also allow "lists of lists"? Would it perhaps take you to this page here? Or would it be a list OF such links? I think that is more likely. If the page RandomList was autogenerated as a random selection of links to lists on Wikipedia, why shouldn't it include links to things that are lists of lists? Why shouldn't it perhaps link to List of American films, or to this page, or to itself?
 * Can you say more about what you mean by practicality as the main arbiter of correctness? I'm quite sure I don't understand.
 * The practical reason for the lead above the table of contents is to describe the list, which it does. Right. We could just as easily pull more entries into the lead too. But what we expect is for the contents of the article to BE the list of all the lists of lists. Including one more in the lede (the self reference) is simply misplaced!
 * The reason why this article should contain itself is that it would be accurate and correct.
 * but it's correct as it is It is not. If the page were entitled "List of other lists of lists", it would be correct, but, as you said above, that would be confusing. True! So why make the contents of the article match the confusing title that we don't use? Why not make it match the title that we do use?
 * I'd also be interested if you responded to my point here: If we wanted this page to list itself, there are many ways we could do it that don't violate any guidelines, as I presented above. I understand that you want to follow these guidelines to a T, but this is exactly the situation that WP:IAR was meant for. For example, this page currently has many section headings that are just listed in bold, such as "Lists of films by genre". It doesn't exist but we have it here, and this is fine since it is a conceptual category that belongs on this page, and doesn't have empty contents. So, we are already WP:IARing a bit there, since we have something that isn't a blue link. It would thus be completely kosher to just add an entry such as "List of lists of lists (this page)" in bold, not even as a link. That would violate no guidelines, so what's the problem? Leijurv (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that you actually edited the Help:Link page during this discussion... to remove a selflink. This comes across as modifying the guide page so that it's more in line with what you believe, while in a disagreement on here about that topic. This seems inappropriate. (Here) Leijurv (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I made a couple of 100% appropriate edits to Help:Link that are irrelevant to this discussion (see also here). None of the advice on the page was changed, just some formatting. I make formatting edits to pages whenever I notice issues (as everyone should, to improve the encyclopedia), and I noticed the issues on that page today because I reread it today and noticed the issues. Biogeographist (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't indent this, but I suggest something like this:

General reference

 * List of lists of lists
 * Lists of academic journals

This was the status quo for about 6 weeks, up until a week ago. (from here to here). This doesn't violate WP:SELFLINK, but Biogeographist still reverted it citing WP:SELFLINK. Why? There was no link. Biogeographist has said that this violates WP:LISTOFLISTS just above on this talk page. The guideline in question states: On lists of lists, nonexistent lists should not be included. That is, all the links in a "lists of lists" should be active (blue, not red). This clearly is not in violation. First, nonexistent lists should not be included. We already have this on the page, for the purposes of clarity and navigation (see "Lists of films by genre"), correctly in my eyes, per WP:IAR. But that isn't a violation, since this list does exist, you're on it! Secondly, all the links should be active (blue, not red). This is satisfied since it is not a link. It is not red. (And if it were a link, it would be blue, as I demonstrated above in my initial suggestion)

I posit that adding this, as I just wrote out ^^, would not violate any guidelines, not WP:SELFLINK, not WP:LISTOFLISTS, and would not violate consensus. Leijurv (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This edit, mentioned above as not being the removal of a WP:SELFLINK, is in fact the removal of a WP:SELFLINK. It was in the list for a few weeks because I didn't notice it right away. (I have too many pages on my watchlist!) As I said above: Both the WP:LISTSOFLISTS guideline and the WP:Lists of lists essay say "other lists" or "other list articles" but easily could have said "lists" instead of other lists, but they don't, and with good practical reason. Lists of lists are lists of links to other lists. (This was explicitly expressed in the lead sentence from October 2019 until a few days ago.) What I mean by "practicality" above is just the practical purpose of doing something. And as I said above: There is no practical benefit to including a link to this list in this list, and it is logically consistent to exclude a link to this list from this list, because lists of lists are lists of links to other lists. And since you now are proposing to just list this page in the list without a link, I'll point out that there is no practical purpose to doing that either, unlike the bullet points already in the list that are not links but have the practical purpose of grouping similar links. Your argument that a list should contain itself seems to be confusing some formal method with Wikipedia's practical guidelines. As I said above: The practical reason for the list below the table of contents is to provide links that take readers to other lists, which it does, and that's why this list, like any list of lists, exists. There is no reason why a list of lists should contain itself on Wikipedia, and none of Wikipedia's guidelines says that it should. Biogeographist (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I did not realize that a link to the same article would render as being in bold, when I looked at the previous state of the page it simply appeared in bold. I should have looked at your diff and the source, my apologies.
 * Lists of lists are lists of links to other lists. Right, this is almost always true. I don't want to repeat myself, but perhaps you could look above at where I explained why it would be incorrect for any list to contain itself, except for this one.
 * The definition of a guideline is Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Imagine for a second that you agreed with the definition that what should be included in an article entitled "List of XXX" should be every article that is an XXX. If you assumed that, do you agree with my basic premise that this is the only list page on Wikipedia that could correctly include itself? This page has a special status as a collection of arbitrary lists of lists, which ends up meaning that it itself satisfies its criteria for inclusion. Based on that, this is a clear example of when an exception should be made to the guideline, since while it applies to all other lists, completely correctly, it doesn't here.
 * And since you now are proposing to just list this page in the list without a link Can you explain to me what the difference is between what I suggested (which is bold) and what the previous status quo was (which is linked with two square brackets)? Because to the reader, they appear the exact same. Practically, they both look like: List of lists of lists.
 * I'd like to very clearly state, again, that I do not believe this: Your argument that a list should contain itself. This is a bit of a strawman, I'd appreciate if you'd stop implying I believe this in general. For example, see what I wrote a few hours ago: You're sort of misquoting me. If you see the context of what I was saying, a list of lists only should contain itself if it is an unencumbered list of lists, i.e. a general list of all lists. Not anything specific like the American films example. If it's a list of specific types of lists, it should not contain itself. So you're completely correct: on Wikipedia, a "list of lists of XXXX" shouldn't contain itself. That would be incorrect. Unless "XXXX" is just "lists", (and not "lists of YYYY"), in which case it becomes accurate to contain itself. This is simple logic.
 * Your argument ... seems to be confusing some formal method with Wikipedia's practical guidelines. Your basis for why it's incorrect relies on how the guidelines say other, I believe. My response to this is simply the text of WP:IAR: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. If a Wikipedia guideline said that something isn't recommended, but in this article it's correct, then it should be done, no? Leijurv (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have patiently read everything you have written, and I disagree with your position for reasons already stated above. When I said that you said that a list should contain itself, I unintentionally omitted a couple of words (I have not intentionally misquoted you); I meant to say (correctly) that you said that a list of lists should contain itself, which is more or less what you think should be conveyed by including this list in itself. I and the other editors who have removed "List of lists of lists" from this list disagree. I have explained my reasons for my disagreement above; others may have other reasons for disagreeing, but there is clearly still no consensus on this issue. Biogeographist (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I meant to say (correctly) that you said that a list of lists should contain itself, which is more or less what you think should be conveyed by including this list in itself. Still, no! This indicates to me that you might not actually be reading what I've said. I'll say it again, completely clearly.
 * A list should not contain itself.
 * A list of lists should not contain itself.
 * This list of lists should contain itself, because it would be logically correct to do so. This is the only such instance in all of Wikipedia, and will continue to be the only instance in all of Wikipedia.
 * If you see the context of what I was saying, a list of lists only should contain itself if it is an unencumbered list of lists, i.e. a general list of all lists. Not anything specific like the American films example. If it's a list of specific types of lists, it should not contain itself. So you're completely correct: on Wikipedia, a "list of lists of XXXX" shouldn't contain itself. That would be incorrect. Unless "XXXX" is just "lists", (and not "lists of YYYY"), in which case it becomes accurate to contain itself. This is simple logic.
 * This page is literally the only possible logical exception to the nearly-always-correct guideline that a list of lists should only have other lists on it.
 * I can't tell if you're following or not. Would you humor me and reply to this? Imagine for a second that you agreed with the definition that "what should be included in an article entitled "List of XXX" should be every article that is an XXX". If you assumed that, do you agree with my basic premise that this is the only list page on Wikipedia that could correctly include itself? This page has a special status as a collection of arbitrary lists of lists, which ends up meaning that it itself satisfies its criteria for inclusion. Based on that, this is a clear example of when an exception should be made to the guideline, since while it applies to all other lists, completely correctly, it doesn't here. Leijurv (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have read and understood what you have written. Your response to what I said about a hypothetical Random list of lists showed that you assume that any list of lists should contain itself when not constrained by a specific content criterion. I disagree with that assumption, because the purpose of a list of lists on Wikipedia is to provide links to other lists. Even any hypothetical Random lists of lists on Wikipedia would only provide links to other lists, and would not list itself. We are not building a formal system that requires that a list of lists should contain itself; we are building an encyclopedia in which the practical purpose of any list of lists (including this one) is to provide links to other list articles. Biogeographist (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC) and 14:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * you assume that any "list of lists should contain itself" when not constrained by a specific content criterion. Yes. This is objectively logically correct. However, your usage of any is quite misleading. The reason is that there is only one unconstrained list of lists. The list of, well, all lists. As soon as you add any constraint on what sorts of lists can be in it, you lose the property that it should contain itself unconditionally. This is especially true since every "list of lists" article that exists on Wikipedia is a "list of lists of Some_Type_Of_Thing_Here". None of those could correctly include themselves. While you did construct an example of a "Random list of lists" page, you can't extend that to a list of lists of anything, then use it as an oversimplified demonstration for why my position is irrational (e.g. "Your argument that a list should contain itself"), especially when I've clarified a half dozen times that it's incorrect to extend what I'm saying to any list of lists, let alone "any list". "Random list of lists" could be thought of as a random subset of a hypothetical "List of lists" article. An article that is just "List of lists" would be enormous since we have so many lists. It could contain itself correctly, but Wikipedia will never have such an article since it would be far too big (that's why this article exists instead).
 * It looks like you're also insinuating that I'm WP:NOTHERE (in how you stated that you support building an encyclopedia with the implication being that I don't) simply because I want this article to be accurate, which I don't appreciate.
 * Essentially I think you're weighing far too heavily the perceived impracticality / guideline "violations" of adding one more bullet point that's the title of the article (a very small sacrifice) against the (still small) potential upsides of adding it, which, in my eyes, are that it is useful because the purpose is to convey what is an evidently unintuitive fact (judging from the talk page archives) that a list of lists should contain itself. The benefit is correctness and the potential for someone to learn something new.
 * I think it might be time for me to just wait for a WP:3O before discussing further.
 * I asked for one two days ago, but nothing. So I'll ping the previous discussion before proceeding:       Leijurv (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This article lists all Wikipedia articles that are lists of lists. It is a list of lists, which means it should be an entry in the list. Not with a link because it wouldn't take the reader anywhere else, but it should be an entry. --mfb (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the time I made those comments, my opinion on the matter has changed. My comments from the original discussion were mostly designed to point out the technical possibility of self-linking; my support for self-linking was secondary to this goal. I now do not think that this article should contain a link to itself. I largely agree with Biogeographist on the issue of self-linking, so I do not wish to relitigate the points he has so carefully made. In brief, my feelings toward the matter of self-linking are:
 * If you are already on the page, it is not necessary to link to the page.
 * While everyone loves a cheeky circular self-reference, such a reference is not encylopedic nor professional in nature.
 * The truth of the list of list of lists being a member of itself is adequately transmitted in the lead in a manner which is far more informative than a simple self-link. In fact, including a link to the list of list of lists in the main body of the article would be quite confusing without explanation.
 * I am not necessarily opposed to (or supportive of) a bolded mention of the list's inclusion in itself to be present in the body as this is not a self-link. While it adds a sense of completeness, I also feel that it is still not encyclopedic in nature. If there are other instances of lists present in themselves on Wikipedia, we should conform to, or standardize, the style used in those articles. In any event, the "false link," if included, and the explanation should be proximal to each other and in the same section to minimize confusion about the "false link". Mysterymanblue (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing, and. I realized a little earlier in this discussion that linking to the same article has the effect of bolding the text, so I am completely fine with what you mention, which is a bolded entry in the article body (not a clickable link), with an accompanying explanation (maybe a note?), perhaps even linking to Russel's paradox. Here's an example of what I think might be good: (I can't figure out how to indent a bulleted list, sorry for breaking indentation again)

General reference

 * List of lists of lists: This article itself is a list of lists, so it contains itself. If this article were instead a "list of lists that do not contain themselves," that would create a famous paradox.
 * Lists of academic journals

I hope this is amenable to everyone? I believe it satisfies what both mfb and Mysterymanblue have put forward, and it draws a balance between the "cheeky" self-reference and actually being encyclopedic & educational. Leijurv (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose listing "List of lists of lists" in this list for reasons that I have already repeated several times above. We already have a compromise solution to this conflict in the article: "This article is also a list of lists, and also a list itself" is stated in the lead.
 * Responding to your previous comment above, I never said your position was "irrational", just incorrect. If I thought your position was correct, I wouldn't be arguing against it! As evidence for your claim that I was accusing you of irrationality (which I wasn't), you cite the fact that I said that you said that a list of lists should contain itself (you quoted a version with an unintentional typo that I later explicitly corrected, so I'm quoting here the version that I later clarified was what I meant to say). That's what you said in your first comment above, and you also said that List Of (List Of (List)) is an example of a List Of (List). Therefore it can and should be listed in itself, an argument which implies that a list of lists should contain itself. ( said the same thing above in different words: It is a list of lists, which means it should be an entry in the list.) But this argument ignores all the practical considerations that I have explained above and that are expressed in the Wikipedia guidelines that I have cited; that is why it is incorrect. The conflict here can be viewed as something like a conflict between two different rationalities: a formalistic one (represented by you in the discussion above) that applies to building certain formal systems, and a practical one (represented by me in the discussion above) that applies to building Wikipedia and is well expressed in guidelines such as WP:LISTSOFLISTS and WP:SELFLINK. That is the meaning of the contrast between building a formal system and building an encyclopedia: it does not imply that you are WP:NOTHERE, as you complained above; it implies that including "List of lists of lists" in this list, as phrased it above, is not encyclopedic in nature.
 * As long as we're pinging other talk page participants, let's not forget and, whose views are also welcome. Biogeographist (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said your position was "irrational" ... then ... The conflict here can be viewed as something like a conflict between two different rationalities. At the least it seems like you're calling me "differently rational" which I again don't appreciate. I am not solely focused on formal systems and ignoring practical concerns.
 * you also said that "List Of (List Of (List)) is an example of a List Of (List). Therefore it can and should be listed in itself", an argument which implies that "a list of lists should contain itself". Still no... The an argument which implies is incorrect. What I wrote (and you quoted with the parentheses and such) does not imply that a list of lists should contain itself. It implies that a list of lists of lists should contain itself. Mfb did not actually say the same thing in different words, what mfb said was correct, which is that this page is a list of lists of lists, therefore it should contain itself since it is a list of lists. Mfb did not say that this page just being a list of lists (two levels) was enough for it to contain itself, you need to look at the previous sentence which was This article lists all Wikipedia articles that are lists of lists.
 * I pinged every member of the previous discussion on this topic (the one that you link to in your edit summaries), I did not pick and choose (WP:CANVAS).
 * I'd also like to make it clear that this does not violate WP:SELFLINK, it wouldn't be a link, and it would not violate WP:LISTOFLISTS since this entry is not a link, yet it describes an existent list page. And beyond the fact that it violates neither of those guidelines, WP:IAR exists for genuine edge cases such as this (a point I have belabored to death). Leijurv (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I know almost nothing about you; when I said The conflict here can be viewed as something like a conflict between two different rationalities I was referring to the positions we have taken. The position you have taken (I will stop saying "you" if that is offensive) argues from the principle that a list of lists of lists should "contain" itself, like a list of lists "contains" lists and a set "contains" its elements, a principle which I see as formalistic and irrelevant. The position I have taken argues from the principle that the purpose of a list of lists of lists is to provide links to other lists of lists, like the purpose of a list of lists is to provide links to other lists (as expressed in the WP:LISTSOFLISTS guideline and WP:Lists of lists essay, and congruent with WP:SELFLINK and H:LINK guidelines as described above), a principle which I see as practical and relevant. That is something like two different rationalities, or if "different rationalities" is offensive, then arguments from two different organizing principles: perhaps the former could be called set-theoretical and the latter could be called teleological.
 * Regarding the pinging, I thought you were picking and choosing, so I picked a couple more. If I had known you had used an impartial decision rule, I wouldn't have done it; sorry about that. Biogeographist (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I said I'll ping the previous discussion before proceeding: @NevilleDNZ: @Mfb: @Uanfala: @TheKing44: @MBCallahan: @Mysterymanblue: @Sensorfire:. Even if I hadn't said it explicitly, please WP:AGF. But still, no worries. I don't see either of them here swaying it, so I'll WP:AGF myself.
 * I will stop saying "you" if that is offensive Come on.
 * a principle which I see as practical and relevant It is practical and relevant. It is a fantastic rule of thumb that prevents, I imagine, a lot of incorrect cycles or references from appearing. But it's the symptom and not the cause. Or rather, correlation doesn't imply causation. It exists, I believe, to make clear the one edge case of the general rule that lists should only contain what they describe themselves as containing. But you disagree on this, I recognize that. Leijurv (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misinterpreted the previous discussion—I thought you meant all previous discussion, and I knew that more editors had participated in all previous discussion than those you pinged, so I concluded that you were canvassing. You assumed that I was canvassing, but I was only trying to complement what I thought was your canvassing. I do try to WP:AGF, but sometimes what we say and do can be interpreted in various ways, as has happened a few times between us, I think (like your interpretation of my editing of H:LINK, which was not exactly WP:AGF). No worries.
 * I don't doubt that your principle is a very useful tool for appropriate problems. As you recognize, I don't think this page is one of those problems—we have a lead section, which bare lists lack, where we can clearly describe that the page lists links to other lists of lists. Biogeographist (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support as nom Leijurv (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support (found this discussion through WP:Discord) on merit of WP:IAR in an actual edge-case that is not (nor should it be) considered in WP:LISTOFLISTS.
 * While evaluating this, there were two big things that Leijurv convinced me of. The first was that this information is unintuitive and notable enough to warrant the edit. Russell's paradox addresses something that is rarely encountered by anyone because it's so rare. Purpose states that one of the fundamental goals is to make accessible the sum of human knowledge. Making it easier for someone to learn something holds tremendous innate value. The second point I was convinced of was Leijurv's argument that List of lists of lists meets the criteria to be a list of lists. I think this was well described and holds a fair amount of weight in this discussion (more weight than it was given at any rate).
 * While Biogeographist's reference to WP:LISTOFLISTS is a reasonable response to Leijurv's argument, the WP:IAR response was never really refuted beyond re-stating the purpose of a list of lists is to provide links to other lists (as expressed in the WP:LISTOFLISTS guideline and WP:Lists of lists essay, and congruent with WP:SELFLINK and H:LINK. Since you never explained why WP:LISTOFLISTS should be held above WP:IAR, and WP:LISTOFLISTS both doesn't and shouldn't address this edge case, WP:IAR wins out here. The other guidelines Biogeographist referenced are fair concerns, but the proposed solution above does not seem to go against either of those guidelines. In this case, I think correctness should outweigh the practicality of not making this change. I support WP:BOLDness. -- OldGalileo (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:IAR applies because the proposal is not an improvement; if others want to use this page to teach about Russell's paradox, we can do that better in the lead—for example, the lead could say: This is a list of lists of lists, a list of links to other list articles that link to other list articles on the English Wikipedia. In other words, each of the articles linked here is an index to multiple lists on a topic. Some of the linked articles are themselves lists of lists of lists. If this article were instead a "list of lists that do not contain themselves", that would create a famous paradox. Phrasing the lead in that way would, I imagine, teach more readers about Russell's paradox, since readers would not have to scroll down to see it, and including "List of lists of lists" in the list itself is not correct if the purpose of the list is to provide links to other lists of lists, as I have argued. Biogeographist (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of the linked articles are themselves lists of lists of lists. Is this a typo or are there actually some of those? I haven't noticed any but I haven't looked that thoroughly... Leijurv (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Good call—I've never tried to verify that sentence. Whoever added it should have provided examples on the talk page or in the edit summary; if they didn't, it should be removed until evidence is provided. Also, perhaps on the English Wikipedia should be changed to in the encyclopedia due to WP:SELFREFERENCE concerns (to accommodate mirrors and forks). Biogeographist (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that I actually think you're reading way too much into the single word 'other'. Imagine the following: while describing the concept that Wikipedia has doubly and triply nested lists, you say "you've heard of list articles that contains normal articles, but how crazy is it that Wikipedia has a list article that contains other list articles!" I'm not so sure people would interpret that in this manner that you have, which is that this word "other" means that the list articles never have themselves as entries. The "other" plain as day means nearly the opposite... that they DO have lists as entries. "other" in the sense of "additional" or "more". It's the letter vs the spirit of WP:LISTSOFLISTS, in my eyes. Leijurv (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "if the purpose of the list is to provide links to other lists of lists, as I have argued" - you have said that multiple times but this seems to be (a) your opinion alone and (b) backed by arguments that can be summarized as "because I want it so". This is not List of other lists of lists. --mfb (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The arguments I have made are properly summarized not as "because I want it to be so" but rather because this list, like other lists of lists, helps a reader navigate to the article they want (to quote the essay ). Including "List of lists of lists" in the list doesn't serve that practical purpose. The purpose can also be called the reason for the list and the "spirit" of WP:LISTSOFLISTS. This list would not exist except to help readers navigate to other lists of lists. The reader who is reading this article is already at the "List of lists of lists" article, so they don't need to navigate to it. Therefore "List of lists of lists" should not be listed in the list. If others want to to use this article to educate readers about Russell's paradox, that is better accomplished in the lead. Biogeographist (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think we should discuss Russel's paradox in the lead, because the article is not an example of the paradox. Unless we add an arbitrary restriction that this article, and only this article, must not appear here despite being subject of this article. WP:LISTSOFLISTS only tells us to not include redlinks which is irrelevant here: The entry under discussion is an existing article. --mfb (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the argument from the set-theoretical principle (list of lists as set) considers excluding "List of lists of lists" to be arbitrary and irrelevant, and the argument from the teleological principle (list of lists as navigational aid) considers including "List of lists of lists" to be arbitrary and irrelevant. That's the conflict.
 * If you think a sufficient reason for not discussing Russell's paradox in the lead is because the article is not an example of the paradox, that is also a sufficient reason for not saying the same thing in the list itself as proposed above. Biogeographist (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I still don't accept your distinction between "me as the set theorist" and "you as the teleologist." This isn't, like, some arcane set theoretic trinket that only mathematicians will appreciate. It's quite simple logic. Explaining it, and maybe also providing a link to that paradox, has nontrivial educational / encyclopedic value. The practicality of that isn't to be dismissed, in my opinion. How do you see that as being outweighed by the "downside" of having one (and only one, ever) entry at the top of the body that isn't clickable, among hundreds and hundreds that are?
 * It's a false equivalency to say that because something doesn't belong in the lede, means it shouldn't belong in the article body either. Leijurv (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no false equivalence: the fact that the the article is not an example of the paradox applies to the whole article, so if it's an acceptable reason for not discussing the paradox in the lead, it's an acceptable reason for not discussing the paradox in the list. I don't agree with that reason (I think it's fine to mention the paradox in the lead, and my opposition to discussing it in the list is for a different reason) but there's nothing wrong with it.
 * As for the main issue, I still see the self link as a trivial formalistic game and think that any educational goal is better served by refining the lead, but I am so tired of arguing about it that I give up: Go ahead and add it to the list. You may as well go all the way and make it a WP:SELFLINK for consistency: . I appreciate the other editors who acknowledged the reasonableness of the position that I tried to argue for. Biogeographist (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I have made this edit since there are now no objections. Even though it's rendered the same way, I did use  so that it's consistent in the source editor. Of course, this is open to any formatting changes; any of that could be tweaked.

Even though this is a small change, it's good that a lot of thought went behind it. Perhaps too much I admit. By my count, this discussion is now 9,696 words in total. Wow.

Glad this is resolved. Thank you for taking the time. Leijurv (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)