Template talk:Untested-build

Clarification of policy on build stubs?
I think the current ad hoc policy of introducing all new build articles under the banner of "build stub" before they can be voted off the sandbox and into the real world needs a good bit of tweaking and reconsideration. Some recent build articles (eg. Team - 5 Man Farming (Tomb Ruins)) have been contributed in a very substantially completed form, and it sems insulting to require the authors to call their articles "stubs". This is in direct contrast with throwaway contributions such as Hamstorm that truly deserve the "stub" label because the author put no effort into them. Another important failing, I think, is that the build-stub template is currently thought to override other suitable categories.

I think the proper procedure should be: This build is currently under discussion (&larr; link to talk page).
 * The author submits a properly categorized substantial build article, but the build is labelled as an "unvouched" build. That is, the build article notes that it has the sole backing of the author when contributed. Perhaps a banner such as:

If you have experience with this build, please add your insights to the discussion, and vote for this build if you think that it is solid.
 * There begins a 7 day (or however long) vouching period, similar to the current voting scheme, where the build is discussed in its talk page.
 * After the build has been "vouched for", the warning is removed.

Comments? 11:20, 27 February 2006 (CST)


 * Still waiting for the deafening chorus of responses that you are all no doubt waiting for the right moment to make. 03:45, 7 March 2006 (CST)