Page MenuHomePhabricator

[SPIKE] Decide on approach to inconsistencies between titles of talk pages and associated action pages
Closed, InvalidPublic

Description

This task involves the work with deciding what – if any – action we will take to address the inconsistencies between the way talk page titles would be styled and the way talk page action page titles are styled were we to move forward with the design we converged on in T299814.

Open question(s)

  • 1. What – if anything – will we do about the inconsistencies between the way talk page titles are styled and the way talk page action page titles are styled?

Background

As @Esanders noted in T299814#7871115, bolding the namespace portion of a talk page's title results in the title that appears atop talk pages looking differently from the title of the action pages that are associated with said talk pages (e.g. action=history, action=delete, action=move).

These screenshots visualize what is being described above:

Page titleScreenshotNotes
Talk page
image.png (109×480 px, 10 KB)
action=history
image.png (134×701 px, 16 KB)
action=delete
image.png (118×590 px, 14 KB)
Page only visible to admins
action=move
image.png (135×557 px, 14 KB)
Page only visible to autoconfirmed users
action=protect
image.png (169×890 px, 33 KB)
Page only visible to admins

Done

  • All pages that we ought to consider are added to the ===Background section
  • Answers to all ===Open question(s) are documented in this ticket

Event Timeline

Outcomes from the discussion the Editing Team had on 15 June:

  • 1. What – if anything – will we do about the inconsistencies between the way talk page titles are styled and the way talk page action page titles are styled?

To start, nothing: the Editing Team is comfortable with inconsistencies between the way talk page titles are styled and the way talk page action page titles are styled.

Thinking:

  1. We think talk page titles appearing differently from the way other page titles appear could help people to recognize talk pages as distinct and subsequently see them as places for discussions.
  2. We do not think the inconsistencies between page title styling will cause people to be confused. Of course, if this proves NOT to be the case, we'll adapt the implementation to cope with this would-be new information.

Outcomes from the discussion the Editing Team had on 15 June:

  • 1. What – if anything – will we do about the inconsistencies between the way talk page titles are styled and the way talk page action page titles are styled?

To start, nothing: the Editing Team is comfortable with inconsistencies between the way talk page titles are styled and the way talk page action page titles are styled.

Thinking:

  1. We think talk page titles appearing differently from the way other page titles appear could help people to recognize talk pages as distinct and subsequently see them as places for discussions.
  2. We do not think the inconsistencies between page title styling will cause people to be confused. Of course, if this proves NOT to be the case, we'll adapt the implementation to cope with this would-be new information.

We are reversing course and will NOT be implementing changes to the way talk page titles are styled save for introducing a space between the namespace and page title (T313636). Rationale can be found in T307727#8098640.

As a result of the above, the issue this ticket is describing is moot (I think).