Template talk:UL

Style

Since we are using this template a lot to make mission headers stand out more, and since the standard underline has always annoyed me a bit in slashing through letters with descenders, would it be any issue to alter this template to create a line under instead?

Examples:

• This is an example of a regular underlined section of text with descenders, gjpqy!
• This is an example of a section of text with a line under with descenders, gjpqy!

Or, if that is not agreeable, mayhap adding parameters to this template so that it's underline style can be modified? —  Talk · Cont 08:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should start using two different styles of underlining. The styling we use on the wiki should be consistent from page to page. So I would strongly oppose adding an option to let it go two different ways.

Also, we style things with underline outside of this template as well, and we use this template outside of mission headers, so a change here wouldn't just impact mission headers and could well result in mixed underline stylings in general. I'm opposed to that as well.

So I lean towards just using standard underline. Yes, standard underlines cross through descenders. However that's always been the case, since the era of typewriters. Heck, even in handwritten copy the underline usually crosses through descenders. I don't see this as an issue.

The closest thing I could see myself supporting would be a special styling (in a new template, likely) just for mission headers. If we can isolate the styling to just mission headers and if we ensure that all mission headers get that styling, then I could be okay with a change like this. But it seems like a lot of work for an extremely minor change that most people won't even consciously notice. -- Sekoia 13:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't changing this template to always use the line under nullify all of the above issues? Or are you refering to the places where this template isn't used (and <u> is used instead)?

Re: "However that's always been the case, since the era of typewriters..." Isn't the issue I raised the reason that Italics is now preferred for titles (etc.) in typed work? Sticking to a system simply because it has been used a long time doesn't seem very useful. (Obviously that isn't the only issue you raised, however, were the other issues minimized, it pretty much would be.) —  Talk · Cont 06:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to places where this template isn't used. That includes manual use of <u>, however it also includes any CSS underlining via the text-decoration property. And that includes links/hyperlinks. Unless we intend to change the core CSS for the entire site, we'll end up with a mish-mash of styling.

If I were arguing for keeping the system because it's been used a long time, then basically the underlying argument would boil down to "I prefer it that way". The only reason you've given for making this change is because the universally standard way of underlining "has always annoyed [you] a bit", which basically boils down to "you prefer it that way". So that would have put our justifications on equal footing. However, that isn't what was trying to say. You're not asking us to change systems. You're asking us to tweak an existing system so that it doesn't match the way everybody else uses it. My argument is for conformity of user experience with the rest of the world, which is good for usability. And more than that, my argument is for conformity with our own wiki, also important for usability.

However, your original stated goal wasn't to change every instance of underlining. Your original stated goal was to just change underlining for the mission headers. If you want (and if nobody objects), I can add a sitewide CSS change that will make <u> automatically render as you suggest when used within headers. That would require no changes here, and would ensure that we consistently style underlines that way in headers. -- Sekoia 17:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hell, that would be infinitely better in my opinion, but as is always the case, more opinions than mine need to be weighed. Had I thought that was a possible alternative, I would have suggested it from the get-go. So, essentially, you were opposed to my idea on the grounds that I had no idea that the change could or even should be suggested to be far more reaching than my original statement. I guess since you have a broader understanding of what is possible, you had a better perspective on the issue. Mayhaps simply stating that might have been more effective. It really seemed to me that you were merely being adversarial. (Also, my original suggestion wasn't only to change the Mission headers, that was merely an example of a common usage of this Template.) —  Talk · Cont 18:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)