[Wiki] tags

http://www.gamingforce.com/forums/jo...&entryid=20731

So basically a tag which links to a term in Wikipedia. Given the heaps of sweet stuff that's been introduced recently (dropdowns et al), would this be feasible? Other people (in the entry's comments) have suggested [gfwiki] tags, too. Yeah, it's all possible with [url], but this'd be a timesaver and another unique feature for GFF to chalk up.

Thoughts?

edit: oh fuck wrong forum, kill me, someone move this.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

What?

Why don't you just search for the entry yourself, and link it like you did in your journal entry? Is it really that hard? Is your life really going at such a frantic pace that you can't take the time to do it yourself?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

As far as I can see it's the same principle as the Youtube tags. Are people really that lazy that they can't just click a link to the video? Is it really that hard? What about images in signatures? Can't people just click links pointing to those, too?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Yeah well sure wiki tags are not necessary but would still be kind of nifty to have, if they aren't too much of a technical challenge.

I was speaking idiomatically.

This reminds me of another not-strictly-necessary-but-kinda-nifty tag we used to have

before I broke it

, [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)

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I know how to call external bbcode handlers now, so this time I can actually do some input cleaning. I'll add those google and wiki tags when I'm done planning some epic database schemas.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Krelian

As far as I can see it's the same principle as the Youtube tags. Are people really that lazy that they can't just click a link to the video? Is it really that hard? What about images in signatures? Can't people just click links pointing to those, too?

Nice try.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

/internet weightlifting

How ya doing, buddy?