Disputatio Formulae:Not verifiable

What would be a good Latin name for such a template?

I am thinking of using this template in cases such as those referred to in Disputatio Usoris:Ioshus Rocchio/Index magistrorum linguae Latinae/Austria.

This article currently does not contain sufficient information that would allow its content to be verified.

Verifiability is one of the core content policies of wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

---

Possible solutions:

• Expand the article so that it describes the subject with sufficient accuracy as to allow verification.
• Add references to reputable sources to the article.
• Add interwiki links to articles about the same subject on other wikipedias.
• Or ask for help, maybe in the Vicipaedia:Taberna.

Note: Using the template {{Fontes desiderati}} is not a solution in itself, since this does not remedy the problem.

---

If this problem is not resolved within one week, the page will be deleted.

--UV 10:37, 24 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Patience

One week seems short to me. The template should have a timestamp (maybe we have to use "subst:" then, see en:Wikipedia:Template substitution). There should be the option to use {{in progressu}}_{Nomen formulae mutavit --Grufo} {{in usu}}. We should give an article time to grow and to maturate. During this time it should be clear that the article has a problem, thus the template. If - after some time - it looks like a bad article will not become acceptible, it should be deleted. The question is, how patient we want to be. I think we should be very patient. --Rolandus 11:03, 24 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Ok, one week is probably a bit too short. But in many cases, an article is created by an IP which will either come back rather quickly to expand the article or which will not come back any time soon, see the example at Disputatio Usoris:Ioshus Rocchio/Index magistrorum linguae Latinae/Austria. I would thus not make the timespan much longer than two weeks. What do you think? --UV 12:53, 24 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for the case you described, one or two weeks will be enough. But we should give registered users more time: In this case there should be signals that a registered user is interested in fixing the problem, maybe {{in progressu}}_{Nomen formulae mutavit --Grufo} {{in usu}} or (better) a specific template which says that someone is trying to make the article verifyable. For the second template we could have a longer period than one week. This is just an idea, it has to be improved ... ;-) So we make a difference between A) "there is a problem" and B) "there is a problem which is going to be fixed". Formula:Not verifiable could offer this option of using the other template and we would know that someone (to whom we can talk) cares about the problem. --Rolandus 13:14, 24 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Ok, for registered users that would be fine with me. --UV 19:23, 24 Februarii 2007 (UTC)