Template talk:Incomplete

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Change icon[edit]

Incomplete-document.svg

I think an icon like File:Incomplete-document.svg (left) would be more suitable than the current file, which is a "rewrite" icon. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 01:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing it. —Spangineer (háblame) 22:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding info to incomplete tag[edit]

The thought occurred to me that it would be prudent to add a couple lines to the inc. tag description stating the fact that along with the work being incomplete, it might also contain errors from the proofreading and/or validation process; and that even when a work is marked "complete" (i.e., fully validated), there may still be errors between what we produce here and the original source text. You may also wish to add a link somewhere in the template directing the editor/reader to a page that directs them to ways in which they can either link to the Index for the particular source for reference/comparison, or click on the page numbers in the Mainspace to link to the specific page that may be in question. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the notion, but I'm not sure the "incomplete" template is the right place -- because the general disclaimer applies even to "complete" texts. Do you still think this needs work @Londonjackbooks:? I feel that more clarity on this point, with a readily accessible link to the complete source document (and perhaps suggestions on how to view a DjVU file) would be worthwhile. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello @Peteforsyth: :) Wow, this was some time ago. Let me review it and try to think where I was "at" at the time of writing and whether it still makes sense to me or not. I'll get back with you! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I may have been being reactive at the time. Probably came across some work tagged as incomplete and took issue with the quality. I think "Incomplete" is sufficient to imply errors may be present. It may be redundant to link to the Index from the template, as the template is placed in the Main where there is already an avenue to the Index—which may not be obvious to a new editor, but hopefully new editors will alight on some beginner help page and familiarize themselves with the basics first... Further thoughts? Hope all is well... Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"...without a source" category[edit]

This template incorrectly adds the "incomplete texts without a source" (emphasis mine) category to this work. I'm not sure whether this is an occasional glitch, or something that gets added to all texts marked "incomplete" (I'm not great at reading complex template code). Any ideas how this can be fixed? -Pete (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You need to add the parameter "scan=yes" to indicate that it has a source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that. (example) But I think this is not the proper default setting -- it should be the other way around. If something is tagged as "incomplete," there's no reason to assume the editor wanted to identify it as lacking a source. Shouldn't it default to a value that indicates "unknown," and require "no" to be entered manually? -Pete (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Never mind, I realized there is documentation I had overlooked on the main page. Looks more complicated than I had realized, and I don't really see what the best improvement would be. -Pete (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)