![]() |
||
|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools |
I don't really care about a [wiki] tag either way (I'd probably just copy-paste Wikipedia links anyway even if it did exist), but it's not really the same thing as [youtube] or [img] because the latter tags actually display external content inline with the rest of the page. With or without a [wiki] tag, you're still going to have to click on a link in order to see the actual Wikipedia article, whereas [youtube]* and [img] display something in the page itself so that you don't have to click to see it in another window/tab.
*: Technically, you DO have to click to see a YouTube movie with [youtube] because the player doesn't actually start loading the movie until you click the play button in the center, so there's nothing gained as far as click count is concerned, but you do get a big fat square showing a still frame from the movie, so the tag still does actually display external content. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
This reminds me of another not-strictly-necessary-but-kinda-nifty tag we used to have
, [google]. I won't pretend to know how to add new BBCode tags since I've never administered a forum before, but I expect a [wiki] would work the same as [google], since both make a link out of some user input.
I dunno if the scripting exploit that caused [google] to be yanked is still around now that the board has been upgraded to 3.6.4. Any chance of getting the old tag back, and maybe a new one in the process? (this question is directed mainly at Blah) There's nowhere I can't reach. |