Disputatio Formulae:Pagina infeste propagata

De nomine formulae[fontem recensere]

This is a very good idea. I'm thinking about the name. Even bad pages may have several editores before they are deleted; and even one who is an auctor conexus can theoretically produce a good page. Moreover, it is rarely possible to demonstrate that an editor is conexus: we are guessing. It is really the page that we have to deal with, not the editor. So what can we say instead? We long ago called this kind of page Vicipaedia:Propaganda, but that's not a good name because we might be using it positively ("a page that we need to propagate"!).

I suggest something like "Pagina male propagata" or "infeste propagata", but I'm sure there will be a better proposal from someone else. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:14, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they had the same doubts on English Wikipedia as well, which is why they gave it an incomprehensible name :) I had created already a redirect named {{Celebratio suimet}}. Technically you are right, ours are just guesses, that is why I chose a text that says “Aliquibus usoribus Vicipaedianis ... videtur”. Maybe we could be more precise concerning what is wrong and change the incipt of the text to:

Aliquibus usoribus Vicipaedianis auctor princeps huius commentationis quandam conexionem cum re dissertata videtur habere, quia notiones expositae vel processus scriptionis se gerunt quasi propaganda infesta vel celebratio suimet. ...

As for the name, I like {{Pagina infeste propagata}}. What do you think? --Grufo (disputatio) 09:44, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To me the text on the formula was already suitably vague and all-embracing, so I wouldn't necessarily lengthen it. If you think {{Pagina infeste propagata}} is a good name, let's use it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:00, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Moved without changes in the text. --Grufo (disputatio) 11:14, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]