I take issue with the word "mistakes". A more neutral term might be "changes", or perhaps "work". Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
:There were many less neutral alternatives to 'mistakes' available but I decided against using them. On the contrary, and despite the circumstances, I preferred to make the assumption that that your basic intentions were not bad. --Kleinzach 11:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
::There were also more positive terms which could have been used, and since Pegship was carrying out a split that had been agreed to here, it was hardly a mistake on her part. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
::::So it was a mistake on the part of the group as a whole? Is that what you suggesting? --Kleinzach 04:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::On the contrary. Quite clearly it wasn't a mistake of any kind. It was deliberate work, undertaken affter a decision was reached through a standard stub-splitting discussion. Calling it a "mistake" suggests that it was somehow wrong for Peg to have done that work. it wasn't wrong. Suggesting it was a mistake on the part of WP:WSS suggests that there was something wrong with the discussion, or that no discussion should have takeen place. This also isn't the case. As such, using the term "mistake", which implies that things were either done accidentally or not in accord with standard practice, is both wrong and seemingly deliberately emotive. Please try to use less biased language when discussing Peg's perfectly legitimate work. Grutness...wha? 06:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes, I don't understand this either. When we complained that well over 100 articles been changed with no notice at all to the Opera Project until 6 days after it began, we were told by Alai that there was no plan being implemented and things like changing opera librettists to playwrights (and presumably also starting to remove :Category:Operas from all actual operas) weren't part of the current proposal.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera&diff=next&oldid=223553336] Now Grutness says that they are part of a plan agreed here (prior to notifying the OP).
::::So which is it? If it is part of a plan you all agreed, then those edits were not "mistakes", from the WPSS point of view. But in terms of accuracy, I'd consider it a mistake to tag an article about a writer known only for their opera libretti as being a "about a playwright" instead of "about an opera or opera-related topic". Ditto removing the current "opera or opera-related" stub and replacing it with "theatre bio" for someone who spent their entire career directing operas or running opera houses, and whose principal notability derives from that. Ditto adding {{tl|opera-singer-stub}} to Ioan Holender who had a very brief non-notable career as a singer, but then became a theatrical agent in 1966 and is chiefly notable the director of the Vienna State Opera for the last 17 years. In that sense "mistake" doesn't imply bad faith at all, quite the contrary.
::::Also, can you all clarify whether it had been the WPSS intention to completely remove :Category:Operas from all actual operas? If so, why? We use that cat for all operas, regardless of their subclassifications by composer, genre, etc., to enable readers to access a single page with an alphabetical list of all operas with articles in Wikipedia, with the added benefit of links to the operas subclassified. I'd consider it a mistake on the part of WPSS to remove a really useful tool for readers. Voceditenore (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Well, as far as the last point is concerned, WP:WSS doesn't have anything to do with removing permcats from articles - we're only bothered with stub cats (although we'll add permcats if there aren't any on an article). So we've got no reason to even think about the permanent {{cl|Operas}}. As far as the earlier point is concerned, bio-stubs (i.e., stubs about specific people) are generally not included in stub categories for the general subject - they usually have specific categories relating to biographies. As such, it wouldn't be normal practice for {{cl|Opera stubs}} to contain biographies of librettists, any more than, say, for {{cl|Geography stubs}} to contain articles about cartographers. As such, it is normal practice to remove bio-stubs from categories about specific subjects, and to replace them with some specific bio-stub type - it's not specifically connected to discussions about splitting this category, but it is quite often the case that a discussion about whether a category needs splitting will lead to it getting a bit more attention and a bit of a clean-up (which would include removing any incorrectly assigned stubs). Unfortunately, in the current case, there is not a specific librettist-stub or theatricalagent-stub (hence discussions above about a possible opera-bio-stub). Perhaps upmerged templaes of those types could be considered, but chances are they would still be upmerged to categories that are strictly-speaking only approximations of what they should be. Grutness...wha? 09:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Here is an example of Pegship removing :Category:Operas, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%27impresario_in_angustie&diff=223378168&oldid=220468511]. --Kleinzach 09:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::And here are five more examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_naissance_d%27Osiris&diff=prev&oldid=223378318], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Le_donne_rivali&diff=prev&oldid=223378419]; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eine_florentinische_Trag%C3%B6die&diff=prev&oldid=223366490]; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Il_barone_di_Troccia&diff=prev&oldid=223377902],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Le_postillon_de_Lonjumeau&diff=prev&oldid=223378558]. Presumably this would have gone on had Kleinzach not asked that it be stopped. And Grutness, I understand your point about our current "opera and opera related" stub not being "normal practice", but it doesn't cover the error of adding a singer bio stub to someone not notable as a singer (Ioan Holender) or adding :Category:Opera directors to someone who is a conductor has never directed an opera in his life (Giuseppe Patanè). All we're asking is that care be taken to avoid this kind of stuff, and that the wholesale and extremely unhelpful removal of :Category:Operas from articles about actual operas be stopped. I take it from your comments above, that the category removal was not part of the WPSS proposal and isn't going happen again. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I don't mind at all if you call it a "mistake" on my part. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
:Having a look at them, these seem like perfectly normal edits. They're not stub-sorting - though they may have been done at the same time - but they seem like perfectly reasonable tidying. There's no point in having articles in a parent permanent category if they're already in several of that permcat's child categories - as is the case in all these examples. These clearly aren't mistakes - they're standard edits. To quote Wikipedia:Categories, In the "vertical" dimension, Wikipedia has traditionally been more frugal, placing articles only in the most specific categories they reasonably fit in. That is - articles in, say {{cl|French-language operas}} and {{cl|1754 operas}} have no need of also being in {{cl|Operas}}, and indeed it is traditional Wikipedia practuice to remove them from these more general parents. There was clearly no mistake in any of those edits. They may not have been stub edits, but I'm noit at all surprised that they occurred, and I can see no reason why they shouldn't have.
:As to the changes in the bio-stubs, you're right about Patanè - that appears to have been a slip. As to Holender, the article clearly states that he was a baritone, which is a term usually applied primarily to singers rather than theatrical agents. Was he, or was he not a singer? Clearly he was - although this was only part of his career. As such, opera-singer-stub is an appropriate stub, though an additional second stub template would also have been appropriate. Grutness...wha? 12:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Holender was not notable as a singer. On the other hand he now occupies (arguably) the most important administrative job in the whole opera world. That's why putting the man alongside singers is not appropriate. --Kleinzach 14:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
::Grutness wrote: In the "vertical" dimension, Wikipedia has traditionally been more frugal, placing articles only in the most specific categories they reasonably fit in. Perhaps "traditionally", but it's certainly not universal here or hard and fast policy. Is this an encylopedia for the benefit of its readers or just the benefit of Wikipedia? As I explained above, we use that cat for all operas, regardless of their subclassifications by composer, genre, etc., to enable readers to access a single page with an alphabetical list of all operas with articles in Wikipedia, with the added benefit of links to the operas subclassified. If you want all take umbrage at the word "mistake" fine, and/or discuss the gradations of meaning between "mistake", "inaccuracy", "potentially unhelpful", "slip", fine. But could we please also come to some kind of conclusion as to whether there should be a new {{tl|Opera-related-stub}} and/or {{tl|Opera-bio-stub}} and indeed if this even needs to be done now that our total {{tl|opera-stub}} category is down to 614 and falling. Voceditenore (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm, not quite sure why either of us is continuing with this, really, since you aren't going to convince me that normal editing practice is a mistake, and I'm clearly not going to convince you that normal editing practice is correct. No, it's not policy, it is a guideline - i.e., (in the words of the WP definition of guidelines) generally accepted standard that editors should follow. No, it's not universal - it's just usual practice. if Pegship hadn't done this, someone else would have soon enough. Yes, the encyclopedia is clearly for the benefit primarily of readers, which is why having smaller, more specific categories - rather than large vague categories - is preferable, especially when those specific categories are within a tree that can easily be accessed as subtypes of the vaguer category. Having parent categories as well as subtypes makes articles category-heavy, cluttering up the bottom of the articles. If you want a single alphabetical list, then make a separate list. This is the reason why list pages and categories both exist on Wikipedia. In any case, as you point out, this is completely irrelevant to the subject of stubs. Grutness...wha? 14:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Grutness: Please read the 'Secondary categorization rule' of WP:SUBCAT: "there are some articles which should be in both a subcategory and a parent category." This is the rule that the Opera Project follow - as explained on the project page. BTW It's a mystery to me why you think categories "clutter up the bottom of the articles" but not multiple stubs. --Kleinzach 15:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
:Multiple stub categories do clutter up the page - when have I ever said they do not? That's why we try to split stub types so that multiple stubbing is reduced as much as possible. And that is what we should be discussing here - NOT whether you think that our standard work on this project is a mistake or not, when it seems we are simply following a different Wikipedia guideline to the one you are using (if it's a mistake at all, it's a mistake on the part of Wikipedia for having two guidelines which are directly contradictory!) It srtill seems to me that an alphabetical list (separate from a category) would be far more useful for operas, since they could be listed along with the names of the composer, librettist and year, as well as including redlinks to indicate articles yet to be made. But if that's the way you do it, that's the way you do it. Now can we PLEASE get back on topic? Grutness...wha? 23:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
You continue to second-guess the way another (rather technical) project goes about building its corpus of articles. Why you do this is a complete mystery to me. The music and opera editors don't tell the Gastropod Project what to do, they don't teach rocket science to the rocket scientists, they don't reclassify molecular biology diagrams or redraw maps of Angola, so why do you interfere in the editing of opera articles that you don't understand?
As for getting back on topic. While you have been attempting to justify the unjustifiable, squirming out of making an apology and writing tendentious headings, the Opera Project has been at work carrying out a major sweep of opera stubs to uprate the (many) articles that have significantly developed over the last year. As I write this, there are now only 578 articles with the opera banner (down from around 750).
I hope whoever closes this down notes that in future stub reorganization should not be carried out by stealth. When WPWSS believe that re-organization is desirable, they should first ask those directly concerned, in order to get essential background information. --Kleinzach 01:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
:I give up. I offer a suggestion that seems sensible, on the basis of how other WikiProjects work, and you continue to act as though I'm telling you what to do. You continue to talk about "justifying the unjustifiable", when all I have done is pointed to the relevant guidelines which clearly justify what was done. But all of that is, as I have now pointed out three times, completely beside the point, and this massive digression would never have started if you hadn't insulted Pegship's perfectly legitimate work. I'm not sure why you don't simply start your own Wiki Operatica, since you make it crystal clear that you own the opera articles and that anyone else had better watch out if they try to edit them. Perhaps if you put a big sign at the top of each article saying "hands off - onnly Wikiproject opera people are allowed to edit this", it might have made things simpler all round. As to your comments qabout me "squirming out of making an apology and making tendentious heading", may I point out [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Stub_sorting%2FProposals%2F2008%2FJune&diff=224116564&oldid=224112109 who it was who put the first tendentious header on this section] and also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Stub_sorting%2FProposals%2F2008%2FJune&diff=223654818&oldid=223653886 who it was who first started insulting other editors' work] on this page. I have nothing to apologise for, and since you seem incapable of making an apology to Pegship I'm having nothing more to do with this pathetic argument. Grutness...wha? 02:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's be clear about this. Pegship made about 120 unannounced edits to opera artucles. As VocediTenore and I have demonstrated, many of these edits were wrong because she didn't understand about the work of opera librettists, managers, directors etc. and made no attempt to find out. This was disruptive. The Opera Project does not own anything here, however like other contributing editors we object strongly to time-wasting disruptions. --Kleinzach 06:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
:Well, I don't object strongly, and while it has been a bit disruptive, it has also resulted in a major stub review at the OP, which was very useful. But I do think this whole thing could have started out in a more helpful way for all concerned. Look at the very top of this discussion. It was begun on June 29th by Alai. The same day Waacstats suggested asking the OP for input, and Alai replied that after the previously proposed changes had been objected to and undone he was "highly hesitant about their "input"". Then on July 3rd, after no further discussion here or anywhere else, many opera stubs started being changed. We weren't told that this was being done as preparation for a renewed WPSS proposal to split opera stubs, or even what the proposal involved until July 4th.
:Nor do I think that the re-stubbing of articles to {{tl|theat-bio-stub}} resulted from the editor not understanding the subject. It was simply a different view of the issues involved. Besides, she caught several singer articles that had been incorrectly stubbed with {{tl|opera-stub}} and corrected them. The problem is/was that suddenly changing the stub classifications (and in some cases categories) for a large body of articles within any project can cause problems for those who are monitoring the contents, looking for areas to improve the coverage or key articles that need expanding. Different projects do those tasks in different ways for different reasons. The Opera Project currently uses :Category:Opera stubs for a lot for this work. None of the problems with splitting and/or re-defining the current opera stub (or stubs) are insurmountable, but some ways of doing it are less problematic than others, and will have less scope for generating classification errors which can be time-consuming to monitor and repair. (I'm not talking about potential errors by the WPSS. I'm talking about potential errors by the editors creating future stub articles.) I've started a new section below so these issues can be discussed.Voceditenore (talk)