Talk:Suggestion/@comment-25490263-20150216091405/@comment-25490263-20150315170654

This is a week late, but as mentioned, there is little budging & we seem to be the only ones here. That was a factor in the lack of motivation to response promptly, as well as attempting to craft pertinent responses to a few points....

A few methods to assist in resolving this may be: a frontpage poll or link, a link in Recent Updates, a link in the Special:Forum, &/or a new Suggestion to link to this discussion.

Is anyone commenting about the template change? If not, it does not seem to be either of our favors, though it is probably towards your point of not knowing where to post it.

Jump to the end for an idea to resolve these divergent views that may or may not be worth discussing.

In any case, indeed, as walls of text are fine for us:

Discussion Comparison
Tailored versus thorough or compact

One template use versus another template use

User-focused versus user-focused

Correct links versus correct links

Listing once versus as ship classes or hull classes

Listing once versus as game mechanics or consistency with Ship, Glossary, & Ship Class

Base classes only versus game mechanics or compactness

Remove relatively empty rows versus virtual space & game mechanics

Limited index & utility-focused versus full index or full table of contents & a different utility-focus

Is this a suitable summary of our perspectives?

Mobile
Mobiles users are perfectly relevant as anyone with an internet connection can access this site, whether it be on a device with a 4-inch screen & 240x360px or a 40+-inch screen & 8k+ lines.

That 50% statistic is fine since playing the game & reading the wiki are completely separate aspects. This is indeed a flash game, but why would that restrict people browsing the wiki from a smartphone or tablet? Or affect the demographics this game targets? For the latest update, latest event, informational purposes, & commenting, there's no necessity to use a desktop.

Here are some numbers, in 2013, worldwide mobile phone penetration was 61.1% & is used more often for the internet than PCs. There is no reason not to play on a desktop or laptop while checking the wiki or anything else on another device simultaneously or when not playing at home or elsewhere. Granted, it's not difficult to have another tab or window open, but people multi-task as they will.

Navigational
Does removing 'empty space' for certain classes weigh more than game mechanics? For dealing with expeditions & branching, wouldn't it be a benefit to have those rows? For navigational purposes, more rows & empty space is a perhaps lesser issue than the overly dense text that the destroyers represent. It's a bit difficult to search for a particular destroyer without tracing the screen or using find. It's sometimes easier to type it in the address bar directly.

Virtual space is free. There are the arrow keys, scroll wheel, scroll bar, & shortcuts. The Template:Shiplist is at the bottom of the kanmusu pages, list pages, & others pages save the Ship page. It's not the main focus any more than the comments or See Also sections, among others.

In one context, for a short kanmusu page such as Yura, the Template:Shiplist is perhaps 33% of a page, discounting comments. For a long kanmusu page, such as Chiyoda, the Template:Shiplist is perhaps 9% of a page, discounting comments. Does removing four rows reduce that a significant percentage? Of course it's more on the short pages, but wouldn't the lack of page content be more of an issue at that point? The fact that it'll be a mass of around 180 links that will continue to increase won't change either way.

Can a dense listing be considered superior or attractive when, for example, option C is far cleaner, far smaller, utilizes categories to increase readability, & reduces the overweight destroyer section? Sure, it's top-down but providing a site index is quite arguably poor. Yeah, the current is worse in that regard, but the point is, we still seem to be discussing preferences. Of course that leads into which set of preferences is better to build off of & this discussion is at a stand still.

Navigational purposes are suspect with assumptions that have to be made, or memorization that has to be done, to understand the layout. Whether or not it's worse with additional categories is an issue we'll undoubtedly continue to contest.

Holistically, this issue over four or so extra lines feels overshadowed by the issue of this massive template with a prodigious amount of links at the bottom of every kanmusu page. However, this may be a non sequitur....

Options
Your version appears to only remove one category, seaplane tender, & add extra lists? How is that not revisiting the old versions? Or rather, is a progression from?

As you've mentioned, users doesn't know where to comment or care to comment, making either of our assertions of what the user desires suspect. You've interacted with users far more - has anyone said something about the Template:Shiplist? That would certainly provide additional perspectives. Arguably, what it is used for is to waste space rather than using the Back button or clicking on a link to Template:Shiplist, for example. As mentioned, it's a tl;dr of around 180 links that are on the bottom of every kanmusu page & a few others.

Future
Well, Maya does not appears to have changed classes. Another link on Maya's page is so-what. To nitpick, 'correct links' is arbitrary as there is no official criteria or such.

As for the future, to me, having a design extensible to how the developers may or may not expand the game is preferable to a design that will require tailoring for each such change. That is, when new stypes, as dragonjet notates it, are introduced. Whether or not their base form fits in an existing class shouldn't matter. New categories have to start somewhere. Kanmusu are only slowly added, so the process certainly requires months.

Well, since all the primary classes are present, it goes to your point about extraneous categories....

Realization
Since Other contains the classes that are just 'there', then it shouldn't be a stretch to build on option D & merge the other 'small' categories into it. Save the issue of what constitutes 'empty', there's the issue of doing it for the doubles, but again, an argument is that game mechanics are worth accounting for & the list page can explain it while directing to the appropriate lists.