Category talk:American people stubs
Too any entries in this category?[change source]
I assume the purpose of a stub-category such as this one, is to have those who are interested in expanding biographies of Americans have a look at some of them. However with 7,573 stubs I wonder how one would be able to pick a candidate? Any thoughts? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Some categories, such as this one are meant to just be a dumping pot and have a lot of entries and will likely always have a lot of entries. Really its just a tracking category. Really we try to have as few stub types here as possible and do not want to replicate the en system that has a lot of stub types. (We don't even allow for creation of a new stub until it has a thousand entries it could be used on) The way you would choose one if you really were going to choose from the category itself would be to start at the beginning I would think. Personally I don't think many people would work from a category like this, they would most likely just work in a subject they know already and already know has some stubs in. -DJSasso (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- I believe there are editors around who would be interested in adding to stubs, say for example stubs for African-americans? 18:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think you missed the point, we don't want more stubs. We want them to be as generic as possible. Ideally we never would have gone past the plain Template:Stub. But since a few already had been created rather than going through them all and changing them back we put very stringent limits on creating more. Essentially they are mostly under a creation freeze. I don't think we would split up any further past country. If we did try to widdle this category down it would most likely be by profession but I doubt that would happen either. -DJSasso (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I miss the point. Why have stub categories at all if they are not built to help editors find articles to improve?Ottawahitech (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Because our project's mandate is to be Simple. That doesn't just mean in language, it also means in infrastructure. Its why we also try to have as few categories as possible. We don't want an overly complex infrastructure. So the stubs need to be as generic as possible. People still can find stub articles to improve, they just can't find some super niche category of them. You also have to remember the more unnecessary task we have such as stub sorting, the more time gets wasted by the very few editors we have that could be used on the articles themselves. And really very few people are ever going to go looking in stub categories to improve articles, they are just going to improve articles in subjects they are already interested in and know about. -DJSasso (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I miss the point. Why have stub categories at all if they are not built to help editors find articles to improve?Ottawahitech (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think you missed the point, we don't want more stubs. We want them to be as generic as possible. Ideally we never would have gone past the plain Template:Stub. But since a few already had been created rather than going through them all and changing them back we put very stringent limits on creating more. Essentially they are mostly under a creation freeze. I don't think we would split up any further past country. If we did try to widdle this category down it would most likely be by profession but I doubt that would happen either. -DJSasso (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- I believe there are editors around who would be interested in adding to stubs, say for example stubs for African-americans? 18:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)