Inconsistent delete error messages

[TheRareFox]

For deletion error messages, this error message is thrown.

However, when the index is big enough, the error message thrown is different.

There is inconsistency with what the error message displays, especially since the index is still a positive integer, and it is not a invalid command format, hence the error that is thrown is inaccurate.

[nus-se-bot]

Team's Response

Thank you for your report! This has been mentioned in planned enhancements, where we aim to standardise error messages and make them more specific.

The 'Original' Bug

[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]

Not specific Error Message

From this error message, the user would not know what are the requirements for duplication and which field is duplicated. A more concise error message is preferred.

---

_{[original: nus-cs2103-AY2425S1/pe-interim#1883] [original labels: type.FeatureFlaw severity.Low]}

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]

Thank you for your report! We have mentioned in our Planned Enhancements that we aim to have more targeted error messages.

Additionally, our User Guide mentions what a duplicate entry entails:

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue duplicate status

Team chose to mark this issue as a duplicate of another issue (as explained in the Team's response above)

• [x] I disagree

Reason for disagreement: This is different from the duplicate issue as the duplicate issue is about an error message being not concise, while this issue is about a completely wrong and misleading error message.

This error message is wrong as the index entered is clearly a positive integer, but it is still being rejected.

---

## :question: Issue response Team chose [`response.Rejected`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** Thank you for responding! I believe this is not covered under planned enhancements as this is a wrong error message, while your planned enhancements mentioned to just make error messages more specific and standardised.  However, this is not just about standardising error messages, as the error message in the screenshot is wrong.  Even though the index entered is clearly a positive integer, but it is still being rejected with an error message. This I believe is an unintended feature and not fixed by the proposed change of `introducing more specific error messages for the command format`, since this already has a specific error message to address the issue. Instead, this error message should be coded to cover a wider range of integers, or limiting the integers you can enter to a certain size. 

---

## :question: Issue severity Team chose [`severity.Low`] Originally [`severity.VeryLow`] - [ ] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** [replace this with your explanation]

---