opentype

The use of the Pages database relationship field creates a comma-separated list for outgoing and incoming links. This is usually fine when there are just a couple of entries. But there can also be hundreds of entries and then the field becomes way too limited. Suggestion: Ordering becomes an issue. With 100+ entries, there needs to be admin-defined ordering based on fields (e.g. title or custom fields) or something like record ID, publishing date et cetera. Just like it exists for the database itself. In fact, taking over the ordering from the specific database being linked would probably solve it for most cases. Pagination becomes necessary when there are lots of entries. Template. Make the field output part of the Pages template system, so it can be customized on a database level. (So far, we had to hack the theme templates, but that won’t be easily possible anymore in 5.x).

It has often been pointed out that adding links to external Pages databases is problematic, when the external record doesn’t exist yet. That would need a way to add these external records while creating the record from the current database. This feature request is related but about the other direction. I run into this problem all the time with linked databases. Let’s say I have a book database and a separate “book list” database, where users can create lists of books using the database relationship field pointing to the book database. It would be expected, but it’s currently not possible to add a book to a book list while you are browsing the books. Instead I have to open the book list database in a separate window, find the right list, and then find the book again, which I had already opened. Not very convenient. It would be nice to be able to set the incoming links right from the record view. In the template section, where the loop for reciprocal links appears, add buttons “add this [local db word like ‘book’] to [external db word like ‘a booklist’]”, which opens a pop-up to search for existing records in the external Pages db or offer an option to create a new one. This would be useful for almost all use-cases of linked Pages databases.

You can’t. You could however create “landing pages“ for each topic, where you add feed blocks from the separate areas. So you could have “lastest marriage articles”, “latest marriage forum topics” and things like that together. And from there people could click through to get to Pages or the Forums.

Nope.

Well, it is native in the sense that it uses the Pages template system just as you would if you created it all from scratch. Plugins are just the delivery method for these templates. Other than using existing templates, all we can say is that you would need to create your own templates for your articles database under ACP → Pages → Templates.

This would get you close ☞ https://invisioncommunity.com/files/file/8387-pages-supergrid/ Everything else would be a custom job.

Feedback: I missed the start and then moved in the YouTube video to the start. But when the live topic ended, I got kicked out of playing the beginning. Maybe it would be possible to not force one out of the video.

1. It’s a membergroup setting. ACP → Members → Group → [Group name] → Content. I wouldn’t set to zero for free accounts anyone could create. That would be used for spam all the time. For a paid membership it probably is no problem. 2. You can’t easily change the way messages appear. But you can easily change the content of every language string by going to Customization → Languages.

You shouldn’t do that. If you need to delete images at all, you should do it from the Invision Community software. I put my money on “someone deleted it”. I don’t even allow my standard members to delete anything. It only calls for trouble.

It was already explained several times. Reports inform moderators about potentially problematic records they might need to act on. If they can’t act on them, getting the report would be pointless. And just for clarity: you do understand that toggling this checkbox off is NEVER ever meant to be useful by itself, right? It’s always a first step and the next step would be to actually choose something from the options that are revealed after you toggle the checkbox off. It should be obvious, but I hope it doesn’t come down to misunderstanding the user interface.

This is intentional. The fallback image fills the potentially empty space of an article preview without image among articles with images in the grid view. It wouldn’t make much sense to waste space in the record view with the fallback image.

I haven’t used this feature, but it doesn’t seem to be supported. It would a new option to map the entry image (if available) to the record image. If that were available, it would work without or without SuperGrid. The template would be irrelevant. If you start a feature request topic for it, I would certainly support it. 😉 Interestingly, it already works the other way around. I push content from Pages databases to forum topics on other communities and the record image is made part of the feed and appears in the topics.

Yes, you can do that. You would just add a forwarding rule (301/permanently moved) to your htaccess file in the root directory.

What happens if you choose the option to run the background tasks manually?

So are these progress bars moving at all? The 28.9% at the top suggest that something is happening.

Yes, it needs custom html embedded into a Pages page, preferably making use of the IPS CSS framework to make it fast, robust and future-proof. The dynamic content would usually be set up as custom Pages blocks, which are set up and cached independently and then just called from the homepage. If you need (paid) help, I have created dozens of pages just like that.

Which is usually an advantage because one can tweak the class declarations to fit the specific theme.

Every option would need to be its own field. But that only works well with two or three options, because you will get a matrix of every option combined with every other option and you would have to set up each price.

I don’t think that is possible. You can customize the output of the field, but not how the form fields work. You need to put some text in the “Value” field. That’s what’s been shown when the form is shown. Best you could do is add emoji.

By the default it’s a flat table like an Excel file. For more complex setups, there is special field (“database relationship”) to link different databases. For example, a book database might not use a text field for “book publisher” but instead just link an entry in a separate publisher database. There are also categories, filters, ratings, reviews, comments …

What are your Posting settings here? Larger original attachments are actually discarded and not saved.

Yeah, definitely. It easier to do with Pages than with MediaWiki as the users just fill in individual form fields – and they are of the right type, like “text”, “integer value”, “date picker” … You just need to have a template set up once which outputs those fields in the right way.

I tried on my demo site but can’t replicate it. It seems like calling the fallback image somehow causes issues on your installation. That’s the only thing that switch does. The obvious quick solution would be to not turn it off. 😉 Without ACP access, I wouldn’t know how to investigate it.

Tell them to force a browser refresh. It’s pretty common. The URLs to the theme CSS can change with the update and so if their browsers still try to load the old URLs, it fails like this.

I would rather see the existing Wiki functionality improved. I used MediaWiki(-like) software for years, but it remans niche software with a very weird approach (stuffing content and structure into one big article field) that editors first need to learn. The way that IPS does it, is actually superior for most communities. You aren’t collection any sort of content. You collect specific content around your community topic. So you just set up databases for each type of content. Then you set up custom fields and then users just fill them in. If it’s a date, you use a date picker. It’s an URL, you use an URL field. And so on. And you create templates to style the custom fields however you like it. Ever since I switched from MediaWiki-like software to IPS’ implementation, people actually started to create and improve records. And I stay in full control of how it works and looks. It’s extremely powerful in that regard. Just the options to track and approve edits are lacking in comparison to MediaWiki. I once had a vBulletin site with a third-party solution to implement a MediaWiki functionality and it was so annoying to maintain. Two independent pieces of software with their own code, their own updates, their own CSS, all crammed into one. Yes, it can be done, but can it be done well? And would IPS or anyone want to maintain that for many years to come?