Editing Incubator escapee wiki:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive1 (section)

== illustrators ==

There are two possible places for stubs about illustrators of books: writer- or artist-. I ''suspect'' that people who know about writers will know about illustrators, whereas people who know about artists will not; if I'm right about that, then illustrators belong under writer-. But I really don't know whether I'm right. (If writer- does include illustators, then the text of the template should be modified accordingly, of course.)[[User:Msh210|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &mdash;[[User:msh210|msh210]] 18:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:It's not as to "who" should find them, but "where" they should logically go. Illustrators go under artists (rarely do they ''only'' do illustration AFAIK), and that's where I'm expecting them. At best(or is that worse?), they can be a subcat under both. --[[User:Circeus|Circeus]] 19:09, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

::I disagree. I think it '''is''' a question of who should find them. That's the purpose of categorizing stubs (as I see it, at least): to allow them to be more easily expanded. No?[[User:Msh210|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &mdash;[[User:msh210|msh210]] 19:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::I don't think someone actively looking for illustrator stubs (!) would be looking under writer stubs. I'd personnally check over [[:Category:Illustrators]] for stub articles, which would be an easier way (since illustration might include things like journals and magazine covers), while illustrators would be drowned away within either writer or artist stubs anyway. Wikipedia stub sorting should be logical, not analogical. The project could potentially list "see also" categories for stub categories, though. --[[User:Circeus|Circeus]] 19:36, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)