Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


needs an entry for Jousting lists (the area down which the jousters charge toward each other). Thanks. -- 03:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Assuming I want to give a title to a list of item, I am not very clear, and nor is the article whether I should write the 'item list' or 'items list'.

Can someone clarify this please? (many of us non-native English speaker use Wiktionary). —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 00:29, 19 January 2010.

It would not be terrible to write "item list" or "items list", but better and more idiomatic would be either of "list of items" or "itemized list". —Stephen 02:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
"Items list" would not be idiomatic in American English. The best title for a list would be a phrase or clause that described the items. It is more-or-less self-evident that a list is a list. If you had a photograph of a flower, you wouldn't have its caption be "photograph", would you? DCDuring TALK 00:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I was looking up this word to find authority for the proposition that to list (meaning to mention elsewhere in a document a single item) is an improper usage. I couldn't find what I was looking for, but then I noticed with surprise that there is no definition here for (verb and noun)"list" as a nautical term referring to a boat or ship "leaning" to port or starboard. I don't have any reference, or I would do the same; perhaps I will get to it later. Terry Thorgaard (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's there, under Etymology 4. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

RFC discussion: June 2011[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


The encyclopedic LISP sense contains six clauses. IMHO, one or two seems the right number for a dictionary. DCDuring TALK 23:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I merged it with the general computing sense of a "codified list", because that's what it is, and cut it down a bit. It's true that lists are far more important in LISP than in most popular programming languages, but they are still the same kind of data structure. Furthermore we don't need technical details about the fact that lists can be recursive and so on. It's generally understood in programming that a structure may refer to similar structures, or to itself. We don't bother mentioning under pointer that the target of a pointer might be the pointer itself. Equinox 23:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)