Template talk:DescriptionLinks

taginfo broken for tags with :

For example taginfo from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:teryt:simc links to https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/teryt%253Asimc rather than https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/teryt:simc Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC) It seems that https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Parser_function#URLENCODE may and should be skipped - is there any reason for it? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

There's NO such "%253A" in the generated URL and the link is working correctly (and correct for the URL standnard). There was a problem previously becaues of the URL path encoding with some tags using non-ASCII characters and this was fixed. However I can also unencode the "%25" back to ":" if this ever causes problems (it does not on TagInfo: this is stil lstandard URL path encoding, which is really used by web browsers internally when it canonicanlizes an URL path to perform actual web requests).

Yes the URLENCODE is needed, but it is not the URL encoding but a correct "PATH" encoding.

Because of your request, I may still replace "%25" by ":" here but this is not an issue for TagInfo: Can you provide an examlple where it does not work as intended, given this is web standard?

So there's no issue at all with tags that contain a ":". — Verdy_p ^(talk) 10:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Now it works correctly. Maybe because https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:DescriptionLinks&diff=1518846&oldid=1356662 triggered refreshing caches Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

It's broken again, on the newly created page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref:US:EPA -- JesseFW (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Resolved: Working! (2024) --Chris2map (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

With or without icons

Previous layout:

2024-12-04
Currently changed layout:

Alternative layout (no bullets):

The layout of the tools list has just been changed; icons have been added.

Whether it's better this way, I still have doubts about. Therefore, I have created a preview of the variants.

At the moment I don't think we need the icons. I don't like it that much, especially in combination with the bullets. The plain text version was also neatly aligned. And clicking on an icon leads to the icon, not the target (you can still change that, but it just makes it more complex). I'd like to know your's and other's opinions. @MalgiK: --Chris2map (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to discussion. I'm also not finally happy with the layout. Actually your called "Alternative layout" (without bullets) was my first idea, but i could not manage the syntax with line breaks and without the bullet points. Additionally i tried now (based on your alternative) to bring the text behind the icons the the same starting position, see my 3 new options, what do you/others think about it? --MalgiK (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Alternative layout with text left aligned (by table) but with too large line spaces:

Alternative layout with text left aligned (by icons 18px width) but icons have different heights:

Alternative layout with text left aligned (by fix spaces) but not sure if this is sensible typography:

I prefer the version without icons. Not only because I and others got used to what it was, but I think the icons don't bring new information. I'm also afraid that in the future someone will get the idea to remove the names of the tools and leave the icons alone. Icons also have the disadvantage that there may be a tool that doesn't have an icon and will look different from the rest. maro21 18:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

With the previews I missed the fact that there are additional taginfo links (· GB · IN · US). Added them now. Because of the length of the row they produce a line-break and with it the issue, that second row isn't indented and alligned with the text of the first row (in most of the versions) if there is no list formatting (like with * bullets) and because of the icons infront of the text.

All in all I'm with Maro and think the previous layout with text only and bullet list works fine. --Chris2map (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)