Template talk:ScoreError

From ChoralWiki
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 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 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)

Doesn't the problem stem from the use of the very word error? The template is being used for blatant mistakes as well as editorial variation, such as the one highlighted by Max. Would a more cautionary wording perhaps solve the issue: users have commented on this score - see the talk page for more details or something of the kind? Cordially, joachim 07:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


I found this template page by searching "Template error" after several guesses like {{Error}}, {{error}}, {{Err}} &c . If there cant be redirects, shouldn't there be a little how-to info below the template? Richard Mix 03:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Chuck recently created a help page to assist users in reporting errors. This is linked from the help contents page so should be the first port of call for any new user who wants to help. Do you think this is insufficient? --Bobnotts talk 09:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I've just copied the help page instructions over to the {{ScoreError}} page for documentation on how to use the template. I hope this makes the template easier for others to use. – Chucktalk Giffen 15:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Pages with (possible) Score errors

Wouldnt it be helpful if this template categorized pages somewhere that could be patrolled? Ideally the message text would have pointer. Richard Mix 00:52, 12 February 2011 (CST)

It already does, Richard: Category:Sheet music errors. Check also this listing, based on the category: Editions with score errors. Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 07:24, 12 February 2011 (CST)