Template talk:G

ESO

I noticed that this template causes ESO to be italicised. The current consensus we've been following is to avoid italicising ESO as an acronym (although The Elder Scrolls Online is fine). I note that another discussion has been started to solidify the consensus, but depending on the outcome this template may need to be changed. —⁠Legoless (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I can do that, no problem. This will make the DLC refs look like ESO: Blackwood. If that's fine, then no worries.

Alternatively, we could change the standart to something like Online: Blackwood, so the full thing is always italicised.

Anyways, I've changed the template to de-italicise the ESO abbreviation for now, as per the discussion from five years ago.--ErfXploded (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Definitely shouldn't just be "Online". Perhaps the full The Elder Scrolls Online: Blackwood? Anyway, we can await the outcome of the other discussion before deciding. —⁠Legoless (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! Couple thoughts:

• Shouldn't the colons be italicized as well? For example, Online: Blackwood, instead of Online: Blackwood? Pretty sure it's grammatically correct to do so even if the title is shortened.
• Relatedly, I think I'd support italicizing ESO, if for no other reason than italicizing abbreviations of titles is what's recommended by Wikipedia and—I'm pretty sure—the Chicago Manual of Style (though it's behind a paywall so I can't confirm). But would be fine either way.

—⁠Will ⁠• ⁠B ^[talk] 23:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

↑ Moving this to the style guide discussion. —⁠Will ⁠• ⁠B ^[talk] 16:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I've made the colons italicised where appropriate (everywhere but after "ESO"). --ErfXploded (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Loading efficiency

I just want to point it out now before we have the same issue we did with Template:Lore Link, but how beneficial is this template to bearing on load times? I think too much Lore Link on a page causes more strain on the servers, right? And using hardlinks of just Lore: was better for loading pages up? Is this template different because it links to always-existing pages rather than checking if a page exists, or does it have the same issue? The Rim of the Sky (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I doubt it has the same issues, as the main issue with Lore Link had to do with the time it took to figure out if the page existed or not. This template doesn't use #ifex or any other form of lookup like that which causes the loading issue. Jeancey (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In Lore Link, it's the page-existence checks that are adding up (as Jeancey beat me to saying). This one doesn't suffer from that particular problem, but the large switch is definitely going to add up. Whenever possible, we should either be substituting the template (which it would probably need a bit of massaging to do), using manual links, or I could have the bot do automatic replacements from time to time. That being said, a few on a page shouldn't be a problem at all...hundreds may make for more noticeable delays. Another option would be to redesign the switch to be a bunch of sub-templates. Yes, the page load for a subtemplate can actually outperform a large switch! We've done that before in a few rare cases, but it gets cumbersome to maintain, so I'd lean towards setting the template up for substitution or a bot job. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 19:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

This template makes it a lot easier to do DLCs, so maybe an honorable compromise would be using it for that while doing base game citations with normal italicized links? Mindtrait0r (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)