User talk:Xenocidic/UX/link
May we give this a more specific/descriptive name? It might be a little ambiguous at this point, and we should also probably make room in the ns for other Link... templates.
You probably know the "Why is that command called dd? Because cc was already taken" story.
By the way, this is quite useful, thanks! List of minor characters had been needing this to get to the TV show tab. --FeralKitty (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- My main concern when naming it was something easy to type and remember. This template can always be expanded with other parameters rather than creating new templates. But feel free to suggest a better name. –xenocidic (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I understand that it can be expanded, but it probably shouldn't be overloaded (i.e., linking to tabs, vs. linking to things other than tabs). Names should also be easy to recognize. What does it link? Can I understand and/or distinguish its function when searching through the list of all templates?
- Suppose I called a template Infobox, then you come along next month and want to copy over Wikipedia's Infobox? Merely trying to minimize future headaches/rearranging, that's all. Personally, though, I'd call it ln and be done with it ;) --FeralKitty (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose I'm just not seeing other templates that might need to be named link for our purposes. It could be called linktab or ltab I suppose. link is just so easy to type and rememeber =), and most other things can be [[linked in the usual way]]. we could call it linktab leaving behind a redirect from link to make it easier. –xenocidic (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Leaving a redirect would just give us two files instead of one, producing more names in the list of templates. Let's forget about renaming this, and just move on, ok? :)
- I know that stuff like vp2 is easy to type and remember, but perhaps that shouldn't be the criteria when we're trying to establish and/or stick to naming standards. If we just use short names for templates or images or class names, then at some point, it's going to get confusing, mixed up, and/or names are going to collide. It doesn't sound like a big deal, but 5 years down the road, when some other poor soul is trying to fit VP3 into the wiki, or worse, trying to debug a template, and they have to deal with a lot of [a-z][a-z][a-z0-9] "identifiers" that they didn't create, it's going to be a headache for them. Let's please not make their job harder simply to make our life easier.
- Perhaps it's a good time to work on the naming standards, especially since we'll have over a thousand images being uploaded just for species alone. --FeralKitty (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose I'm just not seeing other templates that might need to be named link for our purposes. It could be called linktab or ltab I suppose. link is just so easy to type and rememeber =), and most other things can be [[linked in the usual way]]. we could call it linktab leaving behind a redirect from link to make it easier. –xenocidic (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Performance
The species articles are rendering 4-6x faster without this overhead. It still looks heavy parser use -- 60-80 calls/tab x 3-4 tabs -- is seriously affecting performance. Feel free to try it out and see if you see the same difference. If you want to undo my changes and try to optimize the code to see if it can be improved, go for it. Maybe try it without the #switch, and see if that makes a big difference.
Anyway, this was pretty much what was happening with Navbox, which is also fairly complex. Good luck! --FeralKitty (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- If you like we can use one template per type of link. {{linkvpc}} {{linktip}} {{linkjff}} {{linkvpp}} {{linktv}}. It would be really ideal if we could standardize the names for the tabs. to =Classic= =Trouble in Paradise= =Just for Fun= =Pocket Paradise= =TV show= for both species and articles, and eliminate the =TiP - Standard= bit. Nevertheless, once we have that sorted out, the link template should be subst:ed onto the navboxes –xenocidic (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- While it may be ideal for the templates, relabeling the tabs would not be ideal for the Reorg. Suppose VP3 also has Just for Fun mode. That would leave us in a lurch with two Just for Fun tabs under your naming scheme. --FeralKitty (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
