Template talk:Tested-build

Great template! Skuld  01:02, 7 May 2006 (CDT)

And it looks great, not like the rainbow terrors I dream up.. Skuld  16:52, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

New Icon
I like the new icon - visually distinct from the check that's also used on the policy and style/formatting templates. My only question is on the source; is this icon from either an original work for this wiki, or from a source that has no copyright restrictions on its use? If not, we'll need to use or create something else, although I like the thumbs up concept for this? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:18, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I like the Check Mark. It just looks more professional than this one. Plus, the background on this one isn't white. :P &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 14:17, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * The problem with the checkmark is it's not visually distinctive. The same blue checkmark that was here is also found on Template:Style and formatting and Template:Policy.  I think we could beg Lord Biro to look into creating a new thumbs up icon for this template, then try to decide which of the other two should also be given a new icon to make all three more distinct from each other. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:31, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

The community
Can anyone think of some better wording for this? I see tested on some pages and cringe to be considered a part of it.

"Some members of the GuildWiki community" isn't so hot, any better ideas? &mdash; Skuld 12:50, 14 January 2007 (CST)
 * How about simply saying 'This build has been successfully vetted in accordance with the vetting procedure' or something similar? Leave out any mention of the community, merely say it has successfully passed the vetting procedure. It's accurate and doesn't try and paint everyone with the same brush. - GregPalo 13:06, 14 January 2007 (CST)
 * Good idea, done that &mdash; Skuld 13:48, 14 January 2007 (CST)

Template width
An line return had been forced; which on higher resolution, forces a LOT of whitespace inside the template. I changed the template to use a 60% width setting instead. It should prevent the block from growing too wide (I believe the reason the BR was forced), while at the same time, not resulting in huge amounts of whitespace inside the template for higher resolutions. Discuss if you disagree. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:40, 18 January 2007 (CST)

After wipe
I've created a copy of this for the builds wipe. I'm worried, however, that if this template is deleted, the messages for the |farming}}, |cm|ra}}, and so forth won't be available. Can someone help me fix this, or is that going to require not deleting the template later? --Armond Warblade (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Unless a policy forms to support a vetting process, it'll be irrelevant. In a user space, everyone could vote unfavored, and the user of that space could still tag it as favored, there would be no policy to require the votes to mean anything.  If policy forms to support a vetting process, then these templates would be reworked to fit with the new policy.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:58, 13 April 2007 (CDT)