Template talk:ScoreError

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? -- Chuck_talk 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]] ] 16:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Carlos, using #ifexist sounds like a good idea. -- Chuck_talk 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)