User talk:Bluemoose/Untagged stubs

Portal transclusions

There are a large number of subpages of Portal:Trains (such as Portal:Trains/Anniversaries/May 14) listed here. These are not stubs; they are transclusion pages used by the main portal page based on the output of various date parameters like {{CURRENTWEEK}}. I've gone through subpage 3 here to strike out the Trains portal subpages, but there are more on the others as well. Thanks! Slambo (Speak) 13:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after I update after the next datadump I'll make sure to avoid that, thanks Martin 13:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Years in..."

Yesterday I tagged a bunch of articles like 1757 in art and 1519 in art with {{art-stub}} and {{hist-stub}}. Was thinking about doing a similar thing with the "(year) in music" and "(year) in Canada" ones, etc., but am now having second thoughts -- is it appropriate to tag these "year in" articles as stubs at all -- perhaps they will always be short? Any opinions? (And if I do tag, say, the music ones, should I do {{music-stub}} and {{hist-stub}}, or just {{music-stub}})? --Lph 23:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be tagged as stubs. There are in almost all cases lots of information that could be written about any topic like 1757 in art. 2005 in sports is an example of one such article with lots of information and even though 1757 in art could never hope to get close to the more recent years tagging the article as a stub would enable the art community to notice its small size and probably do something about it. 1757 in art could maybe be moved to 1750s in art, like 1750s in sports. That is not in the scope of this project though, i believe, but a stub tag might enable others to identify that as a problem.

Link Error

I believe there may be a bad link where it says (To make using the software easier the text file containing these lists can be downloaded here)