Template talk:G

ESOEdit

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 efficiencyEdit

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)

Proposing DeletionEdit

I think we may want to remove this template for usage. There are some loading efficiency concerns with its existence, as mentioned above. It also creates some non-ideal results for certain things, like implying that the official name of the Fighter's Stronghold DLC was Oblivion: Fighter's Stronghold. Perhaps this is resolvable (although very difficult with the other use cases for this template, as the wording would be very different and editors would have to learn to anticipate that), but honestly I think it'd be best in most cases to type out the link we need, over using a template that can possibly do the same thing after considerable trial and error. I think it makes pages slightly harder to read for new editors, who have to realize the meaning of this additional template to comprehend reference templates that use it for example. And the effort saved for editors if it is working ideally isn't all to great, maybe a few key strokes at most. For example, here is one live use on Lore:Mundus

{{ref|name=ESOFrii|[[ON:Frii|Frii]]'s dialogue in {{g|on|firesong}}}}

To get the result:

Frii's dialogue in ESO: [[ON:|Firesong|]]

This is one of the more efficient for editors examples, with an editor who has learned how to use this template extremely well saving thirteen keystrokes. And if you want to avoid the redirect from ON:ESO via the pipe trick even more. But with the potential for less loading efficiency, and the time it takes to learn this template in mind, I think effort-wise it breaks even. And this is for one of the most beneficial examples, here's another one on Lore:East Empire Company

{{ref|Events of [[Skyrim:Brothers in Irons|Brothers in Irons]] in {{g|Skyrim}}}}

This gets the result:

Events of Brothers in Irons in Skyrim

This saves six keystrokes by my counting. With the performance-related downsides, the difficulty with making sure each example of the template is accurate to actual titles, the effort to learn how to use the template, and the possibility of making it harder to understand our editing practices, I think we should move away from this one. There was definitely no bad intentions behind its creation or anything like that, but I think it may just not be worth keeping in rotation for these reasons. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Opposed to the removal, using {{subst:g|On|firesong}} is incredibly useful for writing lorepages. The use of template, though should just be discouraged in the form as presented above.Tyrvarion (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I support this deletion for the same reasons mentioned above. This template attempts to standardise, but {{g|Shivering Isles}} produces an output of Oblivion: Shivering Isles, which is not the name of that expansion. Its official title is The Elder Scrolls IV: Shivering Isles, and it should be cited as such (or the simplified Shivering Isles, which the wiki has historically used instead).

There is absolutely no reason to use a template when a simple italicised link suffices in all cases. We can standardise references without relying on a template which causes loading inefficiencies. The continued use/existence of this template is leading to the propagation of incorrect names for older DLCs/expansion packs across the site, as demonstrated by this recent bot job ran by CyrusBot.

If we aren't going to use it, let's delete it. At the very least, we need to disable its usage for non-ESO entries and update the documentation to reflect Tyrvarion's suggested use case. —⁠Legoless (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

If this was an issue a simple fix to template, that was just implemented can be applied to every case like the Shivering Isles. Currently {{g|Shivering Isles}} should produce Shivering Isles Tyrvarion (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Very opposed to the removal. I find this template very useful, since editors have to *constantly* cite product pages for wiki references. From what I understand of this, using the {{subst:g|On|firesong}} version of the template alleviates the slowdown issue. The uses of the original {{g|firesong}} can be replaced fairly easily using a bot.

If it's a matter of the standardization of products being inconsistent across references, that can be trivially fixed by just modifying the template to use the expected standard. I would also argue though, that the references on the wiki serve more as navigational tools than say "essay style citations" that must contain proper titles. {{g}}'s standardization succinctly and effectively communicates to the user the product and the subproduct being referred to. Having every reference be: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim: Arms of Chaos Creation is objectively overboard for navigational purposes. --TheRockWithAMedicineCupOnHisHead (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of citations is not navigational. Accuracy should be the priority. —⁠Legoless (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

(←) There is a value of conciseness in references, but only to a point. Being longer and more descriptive is much better. Same reason we want to remove all of the generic "Events of [game]" references. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

If that is what is preferred, fine. Like I said, this template can be modified to accommodate longer/proper citations, in fact, it will help keep the formatting of citations consistent long term.

In regard to references being non-navigational in purpose, I politely disagree, but that's beside the point of this discussion. --TheRockWithAMedicineCupOnHisHead (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)