Template talk:Provisional-Build

Still need to determine how long a build should sit in testing before using this, but here's a potential solution to builds sitting in testing forever that would almost definitely be in a Good/Great category if we just had a couple more voters. -Toraen (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd consider bumping the threshold for a 'true' rating back up to 5 if this is implemented. Template colors are also open to suggestions. -Toraen (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So this template would be applicable with two to four ratings, a "final" tag with five? --Krschkr (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that'd be it. Even if the only vote isn't an author vote on a build with a single rating, that's still just not enough to make a call. You think two weeks is a good timeframe to remain in testing before getting a provisional tag? That would match the grace period for stub/trial/abandoned/trash. -Toraen (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it should be in the testing phase for a bit longer, like a month. Give people some time to try the build if they're interested in it. Especially teams require to set up equipment and possibly change Razah's profession, so it may take some more time for votes to roll in. But after a month it's apparent that no one seems to be interested to rate it, so that's when the provisional tag should probably kick in. I just wonder how many builds would have to be reverted to provisional because they're at 3 or 4 ratings. --Krschkr (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, month sounds good. I'll have to draft up some changes to vetting and we'll see if anything else needs to be added to this policy change. -Toraen (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We need a cooperation with ANet. The top PvX contributor of the month can use the /PvX emote for a month, displaying the templar armor helmet above him. Might attract enough people to get the voting more active again! (Heh, you can always dream) --Krschkr (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Any discussion about the policy should continue here. Design suggestions for the template are still welcome on this talk though. -Toraen (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How about a different background colour? Shouldn't be confused with the untested template, but also not look like good/great/meta. Blue isn't used much yet, is it? I suggest something around d6e9f8. --Krschkr (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Blue is the untested-testing template, unfortunately. A lot of the common colors are taken so we don't have much to play with:


 * Red: Trash
 * Orange: Trial
 * Yellow: WELL (previously also Other)
 * Green: Great (and light green for Good)
 * Blue: Testing
 * Purple: Meta (and light purple for Meta-good)
 * Grey: Abandoned (a dark grey)
 * So we really just have white to use and maybe variants of the above colors that look different enough to distinguish them. WELL is an accessory template rather than the main one so it might not be too confusing to use yellow again. -Toraen (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, untested-testing always looked grey to me. My bad, then. Will AutoToraen take care of applying provisional rating tags or is it something I should look into? I'd apply the provisional tag to all builds with 2-4 votes including the author vote. --Krschkr (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you see any builds that have 2-4 go ahead and change them. There isn't really a quick way to have Auto-Toraen check all the builds until I write up a script for it (yay custom extensions). If a build already has a meta tag just leave it as meta though. Don't know if there are any meta pve builds with less than 5 votes at this point, but it'd probably be silly to throw them back in provisional if so. -Toraen (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)