Difference between revisions of "Template talk:ScoreError"

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 5: Line 5:
  
 
:: Hi Carlos, using '''#ifexist''' sounds like a good idea. -- [[User:CHGiffen|Chuck]][[User talk:CHGiffen|<sub><small>'''talk'''</small></sub>]]&nbsp;[[User:Charles H. Giffen|Giffen]][[Charles H. Giffen|<sub>'''♫'''</sub>]] 17:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 
:: Hi Carlos, using '''#ifexist''' sounds like a good idea. -- [[User:CHGiffen|Chuck]][[User talk:CHGiffen|<sub><small>'''talk'''</small></sub>]]&nbsp;[[User:Charles H. Giffen|Giffen]][[Charles H. Giffen|<sub>'''♫'''</sub>]] 17:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Possible errors if not? ==
 +
 +
Recently I’ve reported errors in a [[Es ist das Heil uns kommen her, Op. 29, No. 1 (Johannes Brahms)|Brahms score]] and wondered why the template now renders ‘possible’ error(s) identified. I understand Carlos’ reasons for changing the wording–but will someone sometime decide if it’s whether a possible error or not? Above mentioned edition shows ‘real’ errors (wrong notes). Should users report more explicit, say ''could/should'' or ''has to be'' this or that, or even ''definitely wrong?'' It’s bad enough that many scores won’t be revised after adding the error tag&nbsp;… --[[User:Robert Urmann|Robert Urmann]] 08:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:40, 25 August 2009

RedLink is informative, BlueLink for a nonexistent page is not

I recently clicked on a blue "discuss" link to see a discussion of the score error(s) on a page and was somewhat put off by there being no discussion there at all! A RedLink would have been much more informative to me (and others), informing me that there was no such discussion available and not inviting me to visit a page that doesn't exist; in addition, it might invite a knowledgeable user to provide information on the RedLinked page, thereby turning the link to a useful BlueLink. To me, existence of some RedLinks is not a bad sign at all. What do others think? -- Chucktalk Giffen 13:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Chuck, if you have a look in this newly created page you will understand the reason why I made the change to the template: of 194 editions with errors, in only 20 of them (10%) did the person decide to add a comment to the talk page (or no comment at all). In all other 174 cases the error report was added as a parameter to the template itself. In all these, a red link to the talk page was being added without need. I agree that the solution I found may not have been the most appropriate; what do you think of using #ifexist instead to display the link only when something has been added to the talk page? —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] Email.gif] 16:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carlos, using #ifexist sounds like a good idea. -- Chucktalk Giffen 17:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible errors if not?

Recently I’ve reported errors in a Brahms score and wondered why the template now renders ‘possible’ error(s) identified. I understand Carlos’ reasons for changing the wording–but will someone sometime decide if it’s whether a possible error or not? Above mentioned edition shows ‘real’ errors (wrong notes). Should users report more explicit, say could/should or has to be this or that, or even definitely wrong? It’s bad enough that many scores won’t be revised after adding the error tag … --Robert Urmann 08:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)