opentype

Been doing that for quite a while across all my communities.

Yeah, that should be a stock option. Not just Gallery, but pretty much any content type could be available as custom field in a Pages database.

I think the topic itself doesn’t “know” anything about the Pages connection. That connection is stored in the table of the cms database. So you have to use a manual query to check if the current topic ID is present across any of your cms databases. Might not be a good idea.

It can be tricky. Many areas expect standard values or you will get cut-off letters (e.g. in the bread-crumb navigation). There is also more than one value because there is the the space between lines and the space between paragraph and dozens of CSS classes that apply in different areas. A start would be to override this default value and pick a higher number: .ipsType_normal.ipsType_richText { line-height: 1.6; } This should have an instant effect on forum posts, articles and so on.

This template only processes the title, the link and the date.

You click “Create New” on the themes page.

No. You just open the /register/ page, open the front end block manager and drag the WYSIWYG block from the Pages section on the page.

You could put a WYSIWYG block with instruction on the registration page.

As already said, it’s supposed to work like that now. Here is the release note page that mentions the new feature. It was a feature request for years. People didn’t want generic images for forum posts, but images specific to the content.

It’s a feature, not a bug. The forums app now finally has a native feature to set pictures from the thread as OG:Image for social media sharing. (By the way: default sharer image is under “Icons & Logos”. Your screenshot shows web app settings. That’s something else.)

You show a listing page. You can’t rate there. You need to open a record first.

Just to point out the obvious: have you turned the star rating on? It’s a database setting and/or a category level setting if there are categories.

Yeah, the plugin replaces the topic view header in any case. I need to update that part.

Could be. Unfortunately, I don’t have any cloud packages to test this.

You need to set the member group permissions on database level. You only turned on comments. You haven’t set who can comment.

This is code that one would put in the field settings of a custom Pages database field. I would first identify which field that is and check the settings and the code. Maybe there is an error there in the code. Another option would be the theme template cms -> topic, that is used to create the posts. That should be unaltered. As mentioned in a private message, I don’t see how the database templates are related to this. They are just used for viewing the records. They don’t initiate or create the forum posts. That comes from a core file using the options mentioned above.

You should also review all software on this server and make sure it’s all updated (including 3rd-party modules). Otherwise the door they used to get might still be open.

You are probably being hacked. Just open the index file and you see at the top that someone is injecting a hidden file from the uploads folder into every call. You could open that file and see what is actually being done there.

You are clearly not willing or able to have an honest discussion about this. You keep replying but you do not acknowledge any points I made and you are not answer any of my questions which are designed to clarify your position and to find out, who has better facts or arguments. But you deliberately keep it vague with this “it just needs to be simple(r)”, so potential problems in your claims cannot be exposed. And by the way: good arguments for your side also cannot be brought to light this way and potentially convince the IPS team. I specifically asked about the context of these links. You just claimed people need to “remember” links. Which links? You can’t even give an example of the type of link you are talking about, which would make this discussion so much easier. Maybe you have a use-case which I would actually agree with, but didn’t think about yet. But since you don’t properly address what I say and ask, there is no progress whatsoever.

Why? That’s an opinion at best. You aren’t even trying to give any reasons for this opinion. So it’s nothing more than “because I say so”. Since when are links meant to “look pleasing” and who defines that? https://invisioncommunity.com/profile/374850-björnmüller/ https://invisioncommunity.com/profile/374850-bjornmuller/ What’s the difference? Is the first one somehow “ugly” just because of an ö and ü in it? And is it sooo awful to look at that we need to build a feature to get rid of it in the URL, while the same users see exactly the same characters in the title of the page? I already gave good reasons against it. You are interfering with the language rules (spelling and pronunciation) and make machine processing unnecessarily hard. That has more substance than “looks”. Why would I? Are you saying someone would want to type out a community link like https://invisioncommunity.com/forums/topic/474558-suggestion-url-replacements-v5/#comment-2946540 in full? Diacritics or not. That’s the context we are talking about, are we not? If we are talking about custom pages (for example a landing page to be put on a poster), then IPS already allows to customize the URL.

Of course, but so what? Forcing everything into a basic English character set is a thing of the last century and not something we want to add as feature for modern software. Links work perfectly fine with diacritics, either directly or (when in doubt) URL-encoded. The examples shown in the Woltlab screenshot above are rather terrible. They not even convert the characters in a meaningful way, they actually erase the distinct meaning of these characters. A rather bad idea, both for human readers and the processing of search engines and so on. An Ł is not an L just because there are visual similarities. What’s wrong with a link like https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/České_knížectví ? If it works for a site like Wikipedia, it works for our forums too.

The fact that those are all admin/api files is a little suspicious. First thing I would check is what the difference actually is. So instead of overwriting the files, download the existing files and compare them to the IPS version with a file comparison app or online service. Is there an actual difference in the code?

Have you put the database widget on the page and selected the database?

Either a custom app or a Pages database with a custom template. The latter would probably be a little cheaper as most of the functionality is already there.

There is a plugin, but it’s not updated anymore. Without it, it would need manual template edits in the theme. A cleaner solution would be to put a WYSIWYG block above the entire page, but that doesn’t give access to the form itself.