Template talk:Artists

Open to ideas
Quite a few names here. What types of sorting seem reasonable? An "active in the last x years" group? I'm also open to cutting a lot of names into the generic list article for lack of notability. --Corveroth (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Grouping them for years or blocks should be fine. There is no problem for cutting some artists; we can solve it through putting "notable artists" as a group name, and to see the rest you can go to the list article. --Tuamir (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think "last active in 20xx" groups might just lead to a ton of rows, though, even if a lot of these artists are cut. --Corveroth (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Art credits
This is a year or so out of date, but I just recalled that I do have a list of artists sorted by productivity sitting around: | here. --Corveroth (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * | Here is a new list updated through Aether Revolt. Notably, yikes: AER alone had 86 different artists. An additional 50 had art printed last year, 50 more in 2015... a "recent" group would be huge. Easy for me to maintain, but huge. --Corveroth (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, nice! I think a navbox with mostly red links is redundant. A list would be nice though. --Hunter (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm less concerned with whether or not we currently have articles for each of them, and more concerned with the sheer number of them. Nearly 550 separate artist credits (some of which are "Artists A & B" and would rightfully be separate articles in many cases). There needs to be some criteria for relevance. I don't think sorting out just the Alpha artists is adequate. I think that splitting out the most recent set's artists is still too many entries, and relatively high maintenance. Trying to choose simply based on quantity of art doesn't seem very effective, because big recognizable names like Rebecca Guay don't show up til #32, and we have articles for some artists much further down the list.
 * Currently, I'm considering: Alpha, Top 25, Art Directors, Artists Who've Moved To Other R&D Positions. It's not perfect, but at least it's objective. --Corveroth (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice! Although I don't know why you consider so important the Alpha artists but do as you like --Tuamir (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Really, it's not so much that I consider that a particularly interesting group, although I could argue that it's useful for comparing the oldest art to the modern for the sake of understanding the evolution. It's more that most of those artists already have articles, and those articles consistently note that they were among the original set, so it is/was relevant to someone. --Corveroth (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)