This template is within the scope of WikiProject Java, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Java on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I work on the IBM J9 VM, so obviously I'm biased, but would J9 not make a good candidate for inclusion in this template? It seems more notable (due to its widespread usage) than some of the others included here. In fact, it is one of only three JVMs mentioned on the Java Virtual Machine page itself. --Doradus (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
the template itself in one line is too messy and I think there is a need for change, it doesn't even serve the meaning of a template of easy navigation. --Ramu50 (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
"Too messy" how? There is no need to categorise these links: there are too few to argue that a linear scan is inefficient compared to a two-dimensional one. You're the only one to have brought this up thus far. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
How does one line will improve the purpose of an encyclopedia I don't really see that. It also doesn't serve the purpose of easy navigation. Organizing them can straight away let developers navigate very easily, maybe the sub-section of OS right now is not the best idea. Since come to think of it most of them are cross-platform, however, not all of them will support other products such as the various IDL. Also even if you wanted to make a list, its not even order in any way such as chronological, alphabeticallly...etc.
It doesn't need to be ordered. There are not enough items in the template to warrant organising it: a linear scan is sufficient. If a library contained ten books, you would not expect them all to be kept on separate shelves by topic. The same applies here. We're wasting horizontal space (doubling or triping the area of the template, while creating lots of empty space on the right-hand-side) for marginal improvement in navigation. This isn't worthwhile. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)