Mixed styles

This recent edit (to «emphasize title in serif fonts (like page titles) rather than the default sans-serif (for page contents) for easier distinction») looks to me like a terrible idea. @Verdy p: should undo it and discuss it elsewhere first: This is the kind of overall change that, if approved, should be applied all across the many other such hat notes, not just in this one, but if rejected (as I hope it will be), it would be so on grounds of general project-wide UI principles, not on something particular to this one template. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

That's especially important to better distinguish characters that are often confusable in sans-serif-fonts. As well they are displayed without italic (espacially useful for non-basic Latin characters). This also emphasize the links from the rest of the message, making them easily separatable. Other top banners do not need that, this is specific to the "Distinguish" messages where such confusion should be avoided, showing confusable differences in a more accessible way (this is the same rationale used for displaying page titles which are also in serif style by default: we are effectively displaying page titles in these links). Note that we can still add an optional trailing text in the banner, but this is the same at end of the list of links. verdy_p (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that I further modified it to pass the language of the message to the Hatnote, and added proper isolation of each link (when they contain multiple scripts with different directions: look at the template page itself, e.g. with "?uselang=ar"); without it the message was a mess and misordered depending on what is displayed by each link). verdy_p (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that’s what you need to argue for in a general discussion about the typography of hatnotes, not in this one specific case — you say it affects only here but at least {{See also}} would arguably qualify. As said, please propose it at a higher level talk page, so that others can appreciate your arguing, not just me and however few who have this template in their watchlists. (That said, I must add that your argumentation on this topic seems reasonable and is clearly presented. As someone who’ve been reading your stuff here and there since the late 1990s, I think this is a huge improvement.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)