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 title|Screenshot|Notes
|---|---|---
|Talk page| {F35061506}|
|`action=history`|{F35061508}|
|`action=delete`|{F35061510}|Page only visible to admins
|`action=move`|{F35061512}|Page only visible to admins
|`action=protect`|{F35061514}|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