Template talk:Ship-2

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


 * 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: 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 (with war brig types split between lines) or the second suggestion (some shorter lines, but war brig not split)? 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)
 * 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)