Template talk:ScoreError

From ChoralWiki
Revision as of 06:13, 27 August 2009 by Choralia (talk | contribs) (Editions without errors)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)

Hi Robert, I sincerely don't know what's the best alternative in this case. More than one contributor has been irritated to discover that their editions had been reported as having "errors" that were in fact just differences between printed editions. So, the text of the template was purposely changed in order not to sound so conclusive. Can you think of a better way to deal with this situation? I'd be glad to hear other suggestions. —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] Email.gif] 23:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carlos, to be honest: everyone can make mistakes. Even a score error can be reported erroneously. So, by contributing to CPDL one should be prepared also for critical feedback. I want to emphasize the idea of improving the quality behind the error reporting option! But how could we design a more moderate template … First, I think the warning icon itself draws attention enough; the yellow background is truely an eye-catcher ;-) Second, ‘error reporters’ maybe could classify type or severity (just as we can mark minor edits to pages): error type e.g. note/text; importance e.g. minor/critical/severe. Anyway, users should be advised to discuss errors on the respective talk pages aiming to answer editorial questions—and to remove the warning!
I hope my thoughts are of some help. —Robert Urmann 06:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 20:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


How about something like:

Error.gif Error alert. Please specify in detail any score errors on the discussion page. For help on how to report and classify score errors or variances with other editions, see the ScoreError documentation.

Of course, documentation would have to be added to the ScoreError page; indeed, there should be instructions somewhere on how to make a Score Error report. I removed the gold border and lightened the yellow background somewhat in an effort to soften then harshness of the appearance of the template.

I've recently checked a relatively large work (Spaur-Messe by Mozart, edition by Michael Gibson), and, for the first time since I check editions at CPDL, there was no difference at all with respect to a well known commercial edition: all notes were absolutely identical. Can we also somewhat represent the fact that an edition has been cross-checked with others, and found fully consistent? Max a.k.a. --Choralia 06:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)