Template talk:Ship-2

Wikicities Migration

This page migrated from Wikicities (now Wikia) in July, 2005. The following contributors agreed to relicense their material here:

• Yaten

Icon

I uploaded an icon that may work better than the shipwrighting one. It should be at Dpuzzles_icon.png. Thoughts? --Teeg 14:08, 15 February 2006 (PST)

Great suggestion. I've done it. --Barrister 14:34, 15 February 2006 (PST)

A sixth line?

With the addition of the gold ships, the top sloop line is getting to be a bit unwieldy... perhaps split the sloops onto two lines and/or make the whole template 6 lines long? Jlh0605 19:50, 5 April 2012 (PDT)

Perhaps a small bump for input here, seeing as steam class was now added? Jlh0605 15:09, 5 May 2012 (PDT)

Aye, I was thinking of doing it at some point soon. No reason you couldn't do it, though. =) --Belthazar451 20:53, 5 May 2012 (PDT)

rogue-class dhow?...

is there such a thing as a Rogue class Dhow? I've not found any evidence of such anywhere other than this one template. Franklincain 21:31, 8 June 2012 (PDT)

Look harder. It's right next to the Rogue Sloop in the ordering interface, and in the Trading Post (it needs a design). --Thunderbird 21:54, 8 June 2012 (PDT)

yup, you're right, it's in the game. sorry... but there's no article here yet for that design, nor is there an entry in the trading post's list of designs, nor is its recipe listed. --Franklincain 22:39, 8 June 2012 (PDT)

just added in entries into both of those lists (trading post; ships). but I'll need for someone who has a shipyard in game (or other means of data collection) to give the actual materials needed for that design, please... -- Franklincain 22:52, 8 June 2012 (PDT)

It's easy to see recipes. Just walk into any shipyard (stall or shoppe, not the bazaar lobby) and click "Shoppe Recipes". Also, the trading post requirements aren't unknown either. --Belthazar451 22:54, 8 June 2012 (PDT)

actually, I just tried that, earlier, in game, after seeing Thunderbird's comment up-thread. (of course, it is possible that I am going blind...sigh...) Franklincain 22:57, 8 June 2012 (PDT)

It's about halfway down the list, between the rogue sloop and war brig. --Belthazar451 23:00, 8 June 2012 (PDT)

no, I meant that I did not see anything when I hovered over the recipe icon; per my comment above, I -did- see the entry in the order interface; but I was -not- able to get the recipe data itself...(and I've already seen your update to the trading post, stating how much the design costs; thanks!!) -- Franklincain 23:03, 8 June 2012 (PDT)

You click on the ship, and it brings up the recipe in the box on the right-hand side. There's no mouse-over recipe icon. If you're being asked to buy a ship instead of being shown the recipe, you're looking at the order interface - click the "Shoppe Recipes" button instead. --Belthazar451 23:06, 8 June 2012 (PDT)

Seventh line?

I have played around with trying to get the ship template onto 7 lines, as it's getting unwieldy (in my opinion). I have mocked up a new version here that I think may work, but I have already found two minor issues with it.

• First, I must be missing something, because I couldn't get the 'Shipyard | Shipwrightery | Pillaging' to not be bold. To compensate, I made the bottom part bold as well.
• Second issue is that I had to split war brig onto two lines. I couldn't really think of a way to make it go to seven lines without splitting up the war brig ones, since the war brig line itself would almost be longer than any other line.

Thoughts? Constructive Criticism? Emotional outbursts related to the topic at hand? Jlh0605 05:20, 28 February 2014 (PST)

It's appearing in bold because you've used a header cell (!) instead of a regular cell (|). Otherwise it looks fine. Think it's about time they stopped adding new sloops, though. =P --Belthazar451 12:48, 28 February 2014 (PST)

Thanks for the tip. I'll give it a few days, and if there are no further objections, I will copy the new template. Jlh0605 11:10, 3 March 2014 (PST)

(Oppose): Actually, I prefer the current form -- keeping the sloop segment in just two lines looks perfectly fine to me. (I, too, wish Three Rings would add some non-sloop ships, though, FWIW...) The proposed seven-line reformat looks a little to "square-ish" / "block-ish" to me. Are you using a narrow monitor, or are you not maximizing your browser -- could that be why this template looks unwieldy to you? Just wondering... -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 11:45, 3 March 2014 (PST)

Now that we have an opposing view, I'll wait to change until consensus is reached. I'm not using a narrow monitor, nor am I using a non-maximized browser. Even with that, I still think the current one looks too wide, too unwieldy. I guess my basis for comparison is the other navbox templates. I guess the real question is one of "When should we move to a new line?" or "How wide is too wide for a navbox template?" Jlh0605 13:10, 3 March 2014 (PST)

Support the new template as proposed. As I squoze my Chrome window narrower and narrower, the existing one began to look mighty ugly, while the new compact one held up better and longer. I think it's a good idea not to target overly wide resolutions, and the proposal seems to do better with the, er, wealth of information we're trying to present now. Chupchup 16:57, 3 March 2014 (PST)

A note about Chupchup's comment: I forgot how lots of people play on mobile devices. Narrower templates would certainly help there. Of course, not owning a mobile device, I'm not one who can test... Jlh0605 08:06, 4 March 2014 (PST)

OK, upon reconsideration, and given your comment about mobile devices, which I'm forced to admit -is- the coming wave of the future, and GET OFF MY LAWN you young whipper-snappers! ;-) I'm rescinding my initial objection. However, I still do not like the proposed solution, as it is too "busy" (just as busy as the current version, albeit spread out over seven lines instead of five). Instead, I think we should consider using "show/hide" box(es) to contain all the type-specific details. For ex.: have a link for (generic) "Sloop" with a show/hide listing of all the specific sub-classes of sloops. A (rough, completely not-similar) example of what I'm talking about would be Template:Navigation_Trinkets. -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 11:37, 4 March 2014 (PST)

(Edit)... A slightly-less-awful example of what I'm talking about is now here. -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 12:16, 4 March 2014 (PST)

I would support a judicious use of show/hide but for their problematic status in the current MediaWiki software. They don't work for everyone, right? It requires fiddling with skins or browsers sometimes. Chupchup 12:42, 4 March 2014 (PST)

A nice proposal, Franklincain! (Though ironic that you use 8 narrower lines instead of 7 wider ones ;-) ). However, until the show/hide box issues is resolved (as Chupchup mentioned), I would vote against it. Perhaps we could put mine (or some other variant) up until show/hide functionality is fixed, then switch to the show/hide version? I do like the fact that the show/hide would be permanent, so that the base size never increases again (until/unless they release new ship types). However, personal preference here, I would put 4-5 variants per line instead of 3, since the 3 per line isn't nearly as wide as, say, the cutter/dhow line. And as an aside, I think the trinket show/hide navbox linked above is too wide, for the same reasons, which is why I wondered if we should have a maximum pixel width for nav templates. Jlh0605 13:04, 4 March 2014 (PST)

In my defense, this was pretty much my first time playing with the show/hide function, so hopefully my attempt didn't stink TOO badly. Getting back onto topic...

I think your proposed version should be slightly "tweaked", to have all the War brig entries on the same line, even if this adds another line to the total line-count. It just looks odd to me, to see War brig split into two separate HALF-lines (i.e. sharing each of its two lines with other entries). Specifically, I'm thinking the ships should be split up like so:

Sloop (line 1) (line 2) (line 3) Cutter - Dhow - Fanchuan - Longship Baghlah - M.brig - Junk War brig War frig - Grand frig

Does this make sense?

Other than this one remaining objection, I'm fine with proceeding with James' proposed revision (at least, until the show-hide function is improved to work regardless of the end-user's choice of "skin"). Thanks for bearing with me. -- Franklincain ^(t/c) 17:23, 4 March 2014 (PST)

Yes, that made sense, and what you did with show/hide was actually a really good idea (and so far, my favorite). Sadly, it wouldn't work (yet). So I tried your sggestion, and I think it looks really weird with the two super-short lines, hence why I broke up War Brig in the first place. Also, it'd only take one or two more war brig variants to break that line, too. My vote is for the first one, but I'd go forward with either. Jlh0605 19:02, 4 March 2014 (PST)

Bump for input - go with the first suggestion (some shorter lines, but war brig not split) or the second suggestion (with war brig types split between lines)? Jlh0605 10:39, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

I think you've got your parenthetical comments backwards, but I prefer the look of the one with the war brig split, simply because the line lengths are more even. --Belthazar451 15:16, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

Yes, I had the parenthetical comments backwards, good catch. Fixed now. Jlh0605 09:38, 14 April 2014 (PDT)

I agree, it's nice and rectangular. Test 2 feels a bit strange to me since some ships get their own linefeed and others don't. Annoying suggestion time...what about two types of ship templates? A main one, and a series of subclass ones for each type of ship. E.g. the main one would feature on the ship page and might list "sloop", "cutter"... etc, while we could add the main one and a subclass one listing "Standard", "Midas", "Rogue" onto the Grand Frigate page. Upshot as far as I see is that the whole darn thing would be a lot clearer and easier to manage at the cost of a few more templates :p --Therobotdude 15:42, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

Great idea, Therobotdude. Chupchup 06:40, 13 April 2014 (PDT)

I agree the concept could be useful (even though it would mean adding a Ship 3 template :P ). However, I don't think it would be practical - as a user, I WANT to be able to view any class page from the main ship page. Maybe I'm the only user who wants that, though. Jlh0605 09:38, 14 April 2014 (PDT)

If I'm understanding TheRobotDude's vote correctly, the voting so far is 3 for the wb-split, 0 against. I'll give it a day or two, then move forward with that for now. Though I do really like that show/hide idea... sigh. Jlh0605 09:38, 14 April 2014 (PDT)

Aye, my vote is for the wb-split until the show/hide issues can be resolved. Sorry for the incoherent ideaspamming :D --Therobotdude 13:31, 14 April 2014 (PDT)

But the idea-spamming is what we need. We need a more comprehensive solution, which may be unavailable until the show/hide box thing is fixed. (How many years has that been now?) Jlh0605 14:00, 14 April 2014 (PDT)

I implemented the seven-line (WB split) template when I added the Jungle sloop. Jlh0605 17:23, 14 April 2014 (PDT)

Re-design, Phase 2

It's been about a year and a half since we discussed this template design. In that time, (I hope) show/hide boxes have been fixed. I have made four mockups of what I think the template could look like. Template 1 is the closest to what we have now, it's just moved onto 8 lines due mostly to the influx of new sloops. Template 2 is basically the same as what we have now, except that war brig types aren't split between two lines. Templates 3 and 4 use show/hide boxes. Template 3 is very similar to Franklincain's original show/hide proposal (in fact, I used his proposal as a starting point. I hope that's okay). Template 4 is the same idea as Template 3, except that each ship has its own line. Here's a summary of what I've been thinking:

Template	Description	Lines	Pros	Cons
Template 1	No show/hide, Splitting ship types	9	Similar to current style, no show/hide	Will require constant tweaking each time a new ship is released, war frigate on two lines, wider than 3 and 4
Template 2	No show/hide, No splitting ship types (minus sloop)	9	Similar to current style, no show/hide, war frigate on one line	Will require constant tweaking each time a new ship is released, wider than 3 and 4
Template 3	Show/hide, "Small" types combined onto same line	8	Far less maintenance if new sloops, war brigs, or war frigs are added, narrower than 1 and 2	Show/hide, still requires maintenance for new ships of the less common types
Template 4	Show/hide, Each ship type has own line	13	No major maintenance for any ship class being added, narrower than 1 and 2	Show/hide, much longer than other proposals

My personal favorite is Template 4, assuming that show/hide works properly. If not, I go with Template 1. Thoughts? Can we safely assume show/hide works now? Am I missing a far more obvious solution?

P.S. Therobotdude suggested, in the discussion above, that we could have just a basic ship-2 template that ONLY links to the major ship types (no classes), then each type could have its own template (e.g. ship-2-sloop, ship-2-cutter) that would link to the other classes of the same type of ship, and to each other type. As I mentioned above, I, as a user, prefer to have them ALL accessible through one template, but I can see the wisdom in his suggestion, and it does help reduce clutter. Do we want to head in that direction (which is totally different from all of my proposals)? Jlh0605 ^(t/c) 15:19, 5 October 2015 (PDT)

Show/hide was only fixed for the skins that it originally worked for. It's still useless with the default skin, unfortunately, so we shouldn't use show/hide for anything too important.

I think I lean towards template 2, just because the sloop list is so long, the cutters feel lost a bit. Both 1 and 2 are fine with me, though. --Budclare2 17:01, 5 October 2015 (PDT)

Now two months later, with two new ships, Template 1 was forced to move cutter to its own line, making it very similar to Template 2. The only real difference between them now is whether war frigate is on two lines (narrowing the entire box) or one (widening the box). As per Budclare's input above, I will change this to Template 2 if I don't get any feedback to the contrary. Jlh0605 ^(t/c) 06:00, 4 December 2015 (PST)

This is now done. Jlh0605 ^(t/c) 22:47, 10 January 2016 (PST)

Re-Design: May 2018 Version

Been a while since this was revisited, and now there are not only more ship classes, but now an entirely new ship type.

For the sake of this discussion, I will assume that show/hide boxes are not feasible inside this template. I still maintain, as I did several years ago when attempting to re-design this template, that the best option would be to have each ship type on its own line, with a show/hide box, like so. (Note: This is an old template, I'm aware it doesn't have all ship classes or types.) However, as always, the problem is that show/hide boxes don't work in some skins (including, notably, the default), and it also doesn't preview, making editing a pain.

I am also assuming, for this discussion, that it is still worthwhile to have a single template that includes all ship types and classes. Therobotdude's suggested in April 2014 that one possibility would be to have the Ship-2 template include only ship types, and have each ship type page (e.g. Sloop) contain a separate template with all subclasses of that type. This suggestion is aging well, I think, and could merit discussion on its own.

Those two assumptions being given, I see the only real questions being: 1) How wide should the template be? 2) Should each ship type be on its own line? To that end, I have mocked up some examples:

#	Template	Description	Lines*	Width*
0	Link	Existing	9	563px
1**	Link	Wide width, shared lines	9	530px
2	Link	Medium width, shared lines	11	445px
3	Link	Medium width, individual lines	18	445px
4	Link	Narrow width, shared lines	17	323px
5	Link	Narrow width, individual lines	23	283px

*Note: The 'lines' and 'width' both refer only to the inner table (i.e. below the blue title bar and above the solid line).

**Wide width and individual lines looked so horrible I didn't bother rendering it.

Design 1 is just more of the same with how we've been doing it, just slightly re-arranged. My order of preference would be 4, then 1, then 2, then 3, then 5. In my opinion, the individual line designs don't make a lot of sense without the show/hide, but I thought it'd be interesting to compare them. Between the others, I think it basically comes down to what screen size do people actually use YPPedia at? For people using desktop monitors (like me), fewer lines seems to make sense. As far as height, when it comes to the ship pages, they're already fairly long, especially for pages with a lot of scenes. Even template 5, the tallest one, is only about as tall as 2-3 scenes in the ship table.

Thoughts? As mentioned, I'd prefer moving to a narrower table (which allows for more future additions without major changes), but I suspect it will end up being more of the same (wider with fewer lines). Jlh0605 ^(t/c) 18:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I still like it the way it is. The ship pages are long enough without the template getting taller, too. Sorry. <3 --Budclare2 21:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)