Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2008/June

This is an archive of discussions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals for the month of June 2008. Please move completed June discussions to this page as they are closed, add discussion headers to each proposal showing the result, and leave incomplete discussions on the Proposals page. After June, the remainder of the discussions will be moved to this page, whether stub types have been created or not.

Those who create a stub template/cat should be responsible for moving the discussion here and listing the stub type in the archive summary.

Stub proposers please note: Items tagged as "nocreate" or "no consensus" are welcome for re-proposal if and when circumstances are auspicious.

• Discussion headers:
  • {{sfp create}}
  • {{sfp nocreate}}
  • {{sfp other}} (for no consensus)
  • {{sfp top}} for customized result description (use {{sfp top|result}}).
• Discussion footer: {{sfd bottom}}

Category:Canadian actor stubs

{[sfp create}} Nearly oversized, undersorted to screen actor cat but I think it may be easier to sort if we finish off the template and create

• {{Canada-film-actor-stub}}
• {{Canada-stage-actor-stub}}
• {{Canada-voice-actor-stub}}

Waacstats (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Smoking stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.

Create

• {{Opera-bio-stub}}
• {{Opera-struct-stub}}
• {{Italian-opera-stub}}
• {{French-opera-stub}}
• {{English-opera-stub}}
• {{German-opera-stub}}

---

Category:Opera stubs split -- deja vu all over again

Recall these? How we split them by language? They were mass-undone for our trouble. Two axes appear to be viable:

• Category:18th century opera stubs 95
• Category:19th century opera stubs 140
• Category:20th century opera stubs 120

or

• Category:Italian-language opera stubs 140
• Category:French-language opera stubs 103
• Category:English-language opera stubs 78
• Category:German-language opera stubs 56

I don't mind which, just so long as it sticks this time, and whatever WPJ input we might get is at least vaguely stub-guideline compliant. Alai (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Might be an idea to speak to the Opera project to see what they want, It was one of them that undid the split I believe. Waacstats (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is one reason I'm highly hesitant about their "input". Alai (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the discussion wherein the opera folks decided on a course and acted upon it (without, I believe, discussing it here). I have suggested that they come by and give us their 2 pfennige. El Grutness beat me to it. <g> Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Waacstats (of WP:WSS) was invited to take part in the discussion - just as I invited you to take part in the current one. When a large number of articles are involved it's essential to talk to all involved. --Kleinzach 06:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was me who invited you to takee part in the current discussion. Since it's a stub-related issue, the discussions take place here, which is the central site for all stub-related discussions. As I said at the time of my invitation, anyone from the Opera project is more than welcome to join in here to help find the best way to split this category. Grutness...wha? 09:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion can't take place if no-one informs us. Why did it take 6 days to tell the Opera Project? --Kleinzach 11:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the nature of the "input" (rampant WP:OWNership, bold-faced melodrama, and demands that we ignore all normal stub-sorting criteria), and just how predictable that all was, I think a more pressing question is, why did we bother informing you at all? Alai (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't. I discovered the changes being made and a message was hastily put on the Opera Project. And you quote WP:OWNership! Well, this is certainly owned by you. Nobody else knew about it! --Kleinzach 14:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a remarkable construction on events. I think you might need to also review WP:AGF. Alai (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just informed the Opera Wproject. Hopefully we'll get some clearer idea from them which is the more appropriate. Grutness...wha? 03:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The previous discussion indicated that WP:Opera was most interested in classification by composer, which because few composers will have 60 operas let alone 60 stub articles about their operas, doesn't work well for stub sorting. However there's another axis that might work, though it doesn't match the existing categories.

• {{Austria-opera-stub}} / Category:Opera by Austrian composer stubs
• {{France-opera-stub}} / Category:Opera by French composer stubs
• {{Germany-opera-stub}} / Category:Opera by German composer stubs
• {{Italy-opera-stub}} / Category:Opera by Italian composer stubs
• etc.

Just throwing out another idea. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me, if the operistas would find it useful/acceptable/something they wouldn't unilaterally revert without at least telling us. A bit harder to bot-crunch, for the reasons you mention. Alai (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please have the courtesy to stop changing these cats until the editors at the Opera Project had had a chance to comment. I see some 60 or 70 changes have already been made to opera stubs by Pegship - changing librettists' opera stubs into playwrights stubs etc. Can this please stop? For your information we had a similar situation in December (see here). At that time the Opera Project decided against subdividing the stub tag/cat by language. --Kleinzach 04:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been sorting out the people in Category:Opera stubs into other more appropriate stub cats - such as {{playwright-stub}} for librettists, {{theat-bio-stub}} for managers, {{composer-stub}}, {{opera-singer-stub}} &c. A librettist is not an opera, thus does not belong in a stub category for operas. Splitting the stubs by language or period creates necessary distinctions for editors who may specialize in those areas, not to mention breaking the stubs cats into workable sizes, which is less likely to deter editors than a 700+ category. The stub system is not "owned" by either the Opera project or the stub project; the Opera project knows opera, the WPSS knows stubs. Trust us. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Stubs are part of a larger system. If you remove the opera stub it means that the article may not be picked up by bot (or manual) sorting and put in Category:WikiProject Opera articles. It then falls off the radar and is not picked up in bot-created cleanup listing etc. (The project has about 5,000 articles so maintenance is demanding.) It also means that the article is picked up by an unrelated project.

There is little logic behind the changes you are making. Somebody who has spent his whole life in opera administration should not be given a {{theat-bio-stub}} (with subsequent bannering by the unrelated Theatre project). Someone who is only notable as an opera librettist should not be given a {{playwright-stub}} (with a similar result).

The Opera Project is using the stubs everyday. Why not trust them to decide what is practical? --Kleinzach 06:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The stub-sorting project is using them every day, too - and finding the size of the category to be nearing the point at which it needs splitting. You seem to be a little confused about what stub templates are, though you're right about one thing: stubs are indeed party of a much larger system - larger than just your one WikiProject. There are thousands of stub types covering over half a million articles. They are not for the benefit of any one specific WikiProject; they are intended to be used by all editors across the entirety of Wikipedia. If you want articles to be marked for sorting by a specific WikiProject, you should use a WP talk-page banner assessment template. I find your comment that the article might be in danger of being picked up by another project both faintly concerning - if another WikiProject improves the article, has harm been done? Or are you for some reason jealous that one of your project's articles might be edited by other editors? Grutness...wha? 09:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It's fine as it is. Splitting the stub by language, period, composers or whatever is impractical. It only creates unnecessary maintenance work - and acts as a deterrent to new editors who will be put off by complicated choices. If it ain't broke. . . --Kleinzach 04:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment A stub category with over 800 articles is considered broken because it is too large, and this tye is nearing being broken. That said, a librettist who is not notable for non-operatic work should probably be double stubbed with both playwright-stub and opera-stub (which is about the genre, not just for individual operas, as its parent cat is Category:Opera not Category:Operas. Perhaps {{opera-bio-stub}}/Category:Opera biography stubs as a catchall for the various opera related professions? Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment No one involved in opera editing has said the stub category is broken. The project has just had bot runs without any related problems. --Kleinzach 06:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • (ec)Further background: There was a discussion in both Deletion and Proposals about operas by language, in April 2007. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Perhaps no-one involved in opera editing said that the stub category was close to being broken because none of them are regularly involved in stub sorting. If they had been, they would probably have proposed some form of split here themselves. But that is beside the point. The point is that from the point of view of stub sorting, this category needs splitting. As such, a split is likely to happen sometime soon. It would be nice if we could find a way to split this that is not going to cause problems for the opera project - and as such it would be useful for us if you could suggest the best possible split, given that a split by individual composers is unlikely to work. From the point of view of usual stub-sorting practice, some splitr that in some way mirrors that of the permanent categories would make most sense, but if a different method is preferable, please suggest it. We have suggested two possibilities - if one of them is to your liking, fine; if a different split is more preferable, tell us what.Grutness...wha? 09:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong see what I mean? Alai (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Question & suggestions One of those painful 'operistas' here.;-) I can see why there would be a need to do split some of these large cats, and understand your reasons. I think the question becomes, how best can it be done without sacrificing accuracy and causing unecessary work and/or confusion for either the Stub-sorting Project or the Opera Project. At the moment there are 714 articles in Category:Opera stubs. If all the articles there that were not about a specific opera were removed, that would take it pretty well below the "broken" criteria, even without splitting the operas themselves into subcategories. There are a couple of issues with subcategorizing the operas themselves, especially by composer nationality. First of all, it can lead to inaccuracies re what their nationality actually is given the changes in the map of Europe over the last 300 years. If anything, sub cats by century would be better and clearcut and possibly produce fewer separate stubs for the OP editors to deal with. But even then, you'd have 6 different stubs and starting with the 16th century and the first one would have potenially only 1 member. It's sort of pain for people writing articles on operas. Could we avoid this by having a sub cat for "Opera related bios", e.g. a catchall for the non-singers - librettists, opera critics, opera adminstrators etc. as Caerwine suggested above? Plus perhaps another sub cat for "Opera related topic" to mop up articles about opera companies, organizations, houses, publications, etc.? That would leave the OP with only 4 stub cats to deal with - 1 for individual operas, 1 for opera singers, 1 for opera-related bios, and 1 for all other opera-related topics. I wouldn't find that hard to cope with and actually think it might be an improvement on our current system. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• To clarify: at the moment the project lists 4 stubs:

• General opera topics: {{opera-stub}} (715 articles)
• Opera singers: {{opera-singer-stub}} (552 articles)
• Composers: {{composer-stub}} (shared with other projects) (480 articles total)
• European opera houses: {{euro-struct-stub}} (very little used by Opera) (276 articles total)

It's worth noting that many other classical music stubs cats are large, e.g. Conductors (546 articles), Classical composition stubs (513 articles) etc. --Kleinzach 14:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We could get rid of {{euro-struct-stub}} as one used by the OP. Not only is it very generic, it's no help for stubs about opera houses outside Europe.Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, use by the project is negligible. It's a survival from ancient times. I couldn't even get a figure for it. We can de-list it - but it's not an issue. --Kleinzach 15:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You may or may not want to list it on your project page, but opera house stubs certainly should have some sort of -struct-stub tag on them (in addition to opera-stub): bear in mind they're not just of operatic interest, they're very often of local and/or architectural significance as well. Accordingly it's appropriate to have them (also) in a stub category that facilitates those editors as well. Of course, an operahouse-stub (or opera-struct-stub, to be strictly hierarchicalist about it) is also something to be kept under consideration... (There's seem to be about 31 of them tagged as opera-stubs, there might of course be more lurking around elsewhere.) Alai (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a handful more in Category:Theatre (structure) stubs, at least half a dozen in Category:Music venue stubs, and probably more in other places. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• • It's not necessary, nor necessarily the case, that you all be painful. :) Firstly. at the current size level, it's not quite on the "officially oversized list", so if it would be helpful to 'adjourn with a view to medium-term contemplation', I'm not opposed to doing so. OTOH if we're just going to have the same issues arise next time it makes it onto the to-do list, perhaps better that we seize the nettle sooner rather than later. A split between actual-operas and opera-related topics seems like a good first step, though if neither is further subdivided, it does somewhat create the need for a somewhat artificial naming distinction, since by naming convention both Category:Opera and Category:Operas would map onto the existing {{opera-stub}}/Category:Opera stubs names, due to our 'avoiding double plurals' consideration. (We would ideally come up with some generic scheme for such cases, since this isn't the first time such clashes have arisen.) I'd wince a little at Category:Opera topic stubs or Category:Opera-related stubs, Category:Opera-related topic stubs, or something along those lines, but it would be a level of pain I could deal with under suitable medication.
  • On by-century: what we'd do is to create templates for all possible/sensible centuries, for the sake of consistency, but for the 'undersized' ones (16th and 17th) we'd "upmerge" them, either to the existing parent, or to some "consolidated" pre-18th (or perhaps pre-19th) category. But I can't comment on whether it's a good or useful split in and of itself. (I know that certainly some scholars of opera are especially concerned with particular periods or particular languages, but that doesn't much help us if that doesn't align with the army-that-we-have-that-we-go-to-war-with.)
  • An {{opera-bio-stub}} seems like an unqualifiedly good idea. As it'd have the existing Category:Opera-singer-stub as a subtype, we can cut it some slack on size considerations, and if the worst comes to the worst, upmerge it too, for now. Alai (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) There would be no point in seesawing articles between two equally large stub categories - the one getting larger while the other gets smaller - that's what would happen if we moved people into a new super-biography stub with {{opera-singer-stub}}. --Kleinzach 15:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And that isn't what was proposed. Alai (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • How about {{all-opera-stuff-that-doesn't-fit-anywhere-else-stub}} or {{random-opera-blither-stub}}? Just joking. Anyhow, we could start with {{opera-bio-stub}} and see how far that gets the Opera Stubs cat down before going any further? But it doesn't solve the problem of separating "the other stuff" from stubs about actual operas. I can't speak for the rest of the OP, but I'd personally find it useful for those stubs to be eventually separated out, provided it didn't cause too many problems for either project and/or its name wasn't too wince-inducing. Voceditenore (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

VDT: At present we have two large stubs - 'Opera" and 'Opera Singer' . The problem with turning this into three - Opera, Opera-singer and Opera-not-singer-bio - is that there are relatively few non-singer, non-composer biographical articles. --Kleinzach 15:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You may well be correct about that: that's why I included the caveat about an upmerged template. It's hard to get a reliable count from the category information I have to hand, since it's outdated wrt the recent re-sorting, the bios aren't in any single opera-related permcat subtree, and not all the candidates will have been tagged with opera-stub, anyway. Alai (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that the Opera stub category is verging on too large; so changes should be made so it doesn't get to that point. Here's my basic idea of what would be useful.

• {{opera-stub}} for all articles related to Opera that do not fit into one of the sub-templates
• {{opera-singer-stub}} for Opera singers (Maybe break into sub-templates by nationalities with over 70 people)
• {{opera-composer-stub}} For composers related to the Opera field
• {{opera-struct-stub}} For all Opera houses and similar places.
• {{euro-opera-struct-stub}} For consistency we change {{euro-struct-stub}} to fit with the new scheme.

How's that look? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There's not enough articles to have to worry about the same thing WP:FOOTBALL does atleast. :D §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as those structure ones go, there should be enough for a category (I reckon just over 60) with the euro- template upmerged to it with just over 30. Severo^TC 17:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That's a pretty good scheme at the template level (categories we can judge on a size basis as things go along). The only quibble I'd have is that the euro- one isn't a very useful template: better to replace it with country-specific templates, ideally. (Those can then feed into both a country-related and an opera-related category.) Alai (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you there, I just wasn't sure what the norm was here at SS. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Numbers

This is a bit of an arbitrary section break as it's getting awfully long to edit easily. (Feel free to remove it). Even so, it might be worth looking at numbers. I've just had a look over the Opera Stub Cat. Kleinzach is right. There are relatively few non-singer bios in there, at most 10. So I don't know how much mileage we'd get out of a an "opera bio" cat. Overall there are about 135 "non-operas" in there - the vast majority are for companies, festivals and houses. There are also a few miscatergorized ones in there which we can remove now. But presumably not all the ones which Her Pegship removed have been restored?. It's also the case, that quite a few of those articles may not be stubs at all - they have been expanded without removing the tag. That would take some time to check, but would further reduce the size. If this project really considers that our current "Opera and opera related stub" cat is too big at about 715 or will soon become too big, what else can be done?

Just have an extra {{opera related-topic-stub}}? Breaking down by century, language, or composer nationality (apart from the inherent problems with composer nationality) leaves the problem of what do you do with the opera-related articles? They won't fit in those sub cats because they're not operas. Would it be the case that they just appear in the current cat but not in the subcats, e.g. 19th century operas, etc.? I don't think §hep's proposal of an {{opera-composer-stub}} is viable or would reduce numbers much, since my understanding is that the current opera stub isn't used for them anyway. There are no stubs at the moment in "Opera" which are about composers. The only other way to reduce numbers significantly is to have some stub that includes both opera houses and opera companies.

Alternatively, if the threshold hasn't been passed and looks like it won't happen for a while, especially if we can naturally prune that category, perhaps we could put off making any changes until it's absolutely necessary. Or at least until the autumn? An awful lot of OP members are going to be away or already are away for the summer. Just a thought. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a realistic summary of the situation. I've been keeping figures on the ratio of stubs to non-stubs and it has been falling. We are gradually moving articles beyond the stub stage and that should remain the focus of our activity. --Kleinzach 01:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The idea for the opera-composer-stub was because it was stated that composer-stub has overlap with many projects. This would remove that issue and all articles in Category:Opera composers could be checked to see if the tag fits (of which there are stubs). Not all of my proposal was just to reduce the numbers, but also to sort things a little better. Also, as I proposed all articles that didn't fit into one of the sub-templates would go under the main opera-stub; as is what many other projects do. I hope that explains the point I'm trying to put across. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Opera composers is not exclusive. Yes, we've discussed this Composers/Opera overlap before - but the variability of a composer's involvement with opera means {{opera-composer-stub}} would be impractical. It would just encourage multiple stubbing. A (rediscovered) Mozart would end up with 'opera composer', 'symphony composer', 'piano concerto composer' etc. etc. stubs. --Kleinzach 01:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that relatively few composers will be notable exclusively for operas, so it may not be very applicable (unless it's used in addition to another composer tag, which doesn't really represent a lot of progress). I do still think that an opera-bio template is a sensible step, but that's not enough for a separate category, and even if it were, it doesn't represent a lot of numerical mileage. Voce, you're exactly correct about the "relateds": if we split all the operatic works (by century or by other means), that would leave only the remainder in the parent, so it solves the question of splitting out those without having to contrive a name for that class. That's not sufficient justification in itself for a split of the works, but it would be a pleasant side-effect, from my point of view at least, if that would itself be useful. If most of your non-works are "organisations" of some sort, an {{opera-org-stub}} would achieve a somewhat similar effect, without creating an arbitrary-sounding "related" category.

715 is "large but not oversized" in terms of our quasi-canonical list, and admittedly-arbitrary size threshold. However, if most of Peg's re-sorting efforts get reverted, we may be back there relatively quickly, and it seems odds-on that without some sort of splitting scheme we'll get there sooner or later, as it seems to be a near-universal law for the vast majority of stub types. The most useful split is likely to be one that not just makes not just organisational sense, but that has the most likelihood of being "differentially expanded" by particular groups of editors. I don't know which of the ideas floated here pass that test best, but it ought not to be beyond the wit of man to devise one. Alai (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the easiest split would be this: change the scope of {{Opera-stub}} to only cover the operas themselves, and create a new {{Operatic-stub}} or similar to cover all other opera-related stub articles. The idea of a separate template (and possibly category) for opera houses is a good one, too. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with having {{Opera-stub}} and {{Operatic-stub}} is that no-one would be able to distinguish between them. I (and VocediTenore) check the new articles. Only about half the editors know how to use the existing stubs. Give them a choice between 'Opera' and 'Operatic': Editor A will probably use one type and Editor B will probably use the other. This leaves the main editors at Opera Project with hours and hours of donkey work switching around stubs. --Kleinzach 01:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It would still be a fairly clear and sensible split - and a useful one, too, I would have thought - and the difference would be explained on the templates and categories themselves. As to explaining to editors which one to use, given that most of the editors sorting are either in this project or yours, informing them of which to use shouldn't be too hard a job. If a better name for operatic-stub could be found, though, it would be good - one that make it clear it's not for the works themselves. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately most stub articles are started by new editors unaware of any instructions. They usually copy some article that they have found as a model. The Opera Project editors usually work to start class standard. We discourage starting articles that stay permanently as stubs. --Kleinzach 02:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'd tend to agree with KZ on the naming issue: neither that or the various other possibilities discussed earlier are at all obvious or natural, either at template or category level. Probably about the only reliable thing to do would be to create two name stub types, one for operatic works and one for opera-related topics, and turn the existing type into effectively a "container", cum holding pen for articles not yet re-split. I won't claim that's in the least elegant, just that it would avoid mis-tagging by default. Normally we end up finessing this by having a more thoroughgoing split in the first place, as I described earlier... Alai (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are updated figures: Opera stub =727, Opera singer stubs = 555 (I've done a check, removed some misstubbing, and finished reverting Pegship's mistakes). The figures could be reduced by 10 to 20% if the opera editors checked through the articles and uprated those that have now developed beyond stub stage. This would be the most practical solution.--Kleinzach 02:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Grutness: "lengthy irrelevant digression"

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.[1] 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 {{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 Category: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 Category:Opera stubs to contain biographies of librettists, any more than, say, for Category: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 [2]. --Kleinzach 09:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And here are five more examples: [3], [4]; [5]; [6],[7]. 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 Category:French-language operas and Category:1754 operas have no need of also being in Category: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 {{Opera-related-stub}} and/or {{Opera-bio-stub}} and indeed if this even needs to be done now that our total {{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 who it was who put the first tendentious header on this section and also 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 {{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 {{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)

The way forward

Some questions to consider:

1. What is a reasonable threshold for the necessity to split the stubs further? (The OP has nearly finished a stub review. The number in Category:Opera stubs currently stands at 561 with about 145 more articles to be reviewed.
2. If it is still necessary to split, would it be enough to split opera-related topics from actual operas, keeping Category:Opera singer stubs?

Voceditenore (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The two stubs: {{opera-stub}} and {{opera-singer-stub}} are now almost the same size. I don't think we will see the numbers climb back up significantly within the next six or eight months as we now have much better systems for monitoring and uprating articles. --Kleinzach 12:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Opera stub review

Inspired by the discussion here, the Opera Project has started a stub review drive. We're going through the members of Category:Opera stubs and removing stub tagged articles that had since been expanded, and removing the occasional mis-tagging of articles that are not actually opera-related. So far we've done A-F and the opera stub numbers are now down to 675. G-I will be done by tomorrow. It's been quite a useful exercise. Voceditenore (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We are about half way through now and the figures is down to 599. --Kleinzach 04:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The review has now finished. The figure is down to 547 -smaller than the number of opera singer stubs. --Kleinzach 01:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A final observation

May I remind everyone involved in this conversation that Wikipedia is a resource that anyone can edit. For every trained opera musician like myself, there will always be someone less-informed, though possibly as well-intentioned, as myself. If the opera project would prefer that others not contribute to opera articles, perhaps a separate opera wiki would be the answer. Signing off from Disneyland... Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia - that includes vandals, copyright violators, self-publicists, poseurs, hoaxers and people like Her Pegship who made 120-odd edits without (1) checking the facts, (2) informing the relevant project that systemic changes were underway, or (3) a whisper of an apology for disruptively creating work for other editors. (See the section that Grutness, tendentiously renamed as lengthy irrelevant digression (sic) for full details: Ioan Holender, Giuseppe Patanè pages etc.)

Voceditenore has just attempted [8] once more to move this back to the actual issue of opera stubs. Unfortunately instead of a discussion we get another display of hubris. --Kleinzach 00:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Apart from one or two slips, Pegship's edits were perfectly accurate in that they made the best choice of alternate stub given that the WPSS had decided to take a large body of articles out of their existing stub category. We pointed out some of the problems with using the alternate stubs from our point of view. But that's not the real issue as far as I'm concerned. The real issue is that WPSS decided to make and start implementing organizational and systemic changes affecting a large body of articles without even mentioning it to the project that looks after those articles.

From the discussions on the WPSS talk page and here, that seems to be your (collective "your") normal way of operating, and I acknowledge that none of you consider that way of operating to be a "mistake". But, really, was it so unreasonable for us to ask to be informed about the planned/proposed changes and given a chance for input before they got underway? This has nothing to do with ownership any more than the request in this WPSS banner which you (collective "you") put on the stub-category pages looked after by your project.

Now, is anyone here willing to return to actually discussing the proposal? Voceditenore (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WPWSS claims "at least 340 participants", so maybe someone will turn up? --Kleinzach 07:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Numbers/2

According to CatScan, there are 38 articles under Category:Opera stubs which could be marked with some type of opera-bio-stub, including articles from Category:Opera critics, Category:Opera composers, Category:Opera directors, Category:Opera managers, Category:Opera designers, and Category:Opera librettists. Other types which would be less viable would be Category:Opera houses (18 articles) & Category:Opera festivals (10). Although the Opera Project has done some superb housecleaning as noted above, if they are amenable to any further splits I would suggest a {{opera-bio-stub}} per the numbers I have given. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the small numbers involved, I wonder about the logic of putting critic/composer/librettist/manager etc. biographies under {{opera-bio-stub}} and all singer biographies under {{opera-singer-stub}}. Wouldn't this cause confusion? --Kleinzach 01:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

just a note to say that many of the active members of the OP are on vacation at the moment, including me (I'm on a hotel computer). Could we hold off on this discussion for about 10 days or at least until others from the OP return. Voceditenore (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

{{Opera-struct-stub}} should be viable - many articles in the recursive Category:Opera houses are not tagged with {{opera-stub}}. The numbers should be around 60 to 65 - I'm just looking through all the articles under 2kb. I'm very keen on this one. Severo^TC 19:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect. I've just been through the Opera house cats - it took me more than a couple of hours - and there are only 35 opera-bannered stubs. That's all. Not enough for a useful new stub IMO. --Kleinzach 14:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My numbers from CatScan, I'll produce a list. Severo^TC 15:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that just as most European opera houses are not called 'opera houses' per se ('Teatro' in Italy etc.), many of those so designated in north America (in the past) were really small general theatres that never produced opera. (Another example of why technical matters are really best left to the project concerned!) --Kleinzach 02:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No closure?

All the other discussions on this page have been closed. Will this be closed as well now? Or should I go ahead and close it myself? --Kleinzach 00:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

According to policy, someone who has an interest in the outcome of the discussion may not close the discussion. I'd rather not be accused of any further wrongdoing. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I won't close it either. --Kleinzach 02:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Still no closure?

Every other item on this page has been closed. Why hasn't this one? --Kleinzach 00:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think the consensus is? Perhaps no one is willing to sort out the threads. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's be as neutral as possible about what has been a contentious discussion. How about this as a final text:

The number of Opera-related stubs has been reduced during the course of this discussion. The Opera Project are asked to periodically review and de-stub as necessary. (Doing this at least once a year would be a good idea.) Any future proposals for new stub types need to be quantified and discussed between the WPSS and the Opera Project.

Can you endorse that? --Kleinzach 22:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As a policy guideline it's fine, but what is the outcome of this particular discussion? No consensus, opera-struct-stub, no action required? Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "no action required now"? How about that? --Kleinzach 22:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.