Recent comments

In the old Forum I often posted picture up to my PhotoBucket size limit of 1024x768

When I displayed them in the GE forum I'd use the ('width="512")
so that is would fit the forum but be of higher quality if people 'saved it' to view.

Looks like a width limit of 512 or thereabouts will be all this forum will take - or will it 're-size' any image to a percentage of it's full size?

Cheers, daveac

Trying the Rich Editor - Playing with it - for fun :-)

Here's a recent picture from my weekend paper - as a 'test image'

EDIT - Not 'upload' an image but link to one already up.

Cheers, daveac

Yeah, in the end, the citation results in just italicizing.. It should just go away as it will only add to the confusion.

Cheers,
Louis

Yeah, I see the <b> was being filtered out in the Filtered HTML input setting. I don't know why the software was set like that as a default, I added the <b> for that input format now. So it should not be filtered out as it was before for the "Filtered HTML" input format.

Hence, these are the kind of bumps that need to be ironed out.

Cheers,
Louis

You should see it now. I thought it was set up to be available after one registers on the site. Sorry.

Cheers,
Louis

You've completely lost me, Louis. Not seeing this "rich/WYSIWYG editor" option anywhere. Also this sentence is in bold, using the b tag. So why isn't the b tag working? Also, I have NO idea how you're interjecting code, cause this is what happens when I use the code tag: This text enclosed in () tags. The entirety of that was enclosed in cite tags and there's a cite tag in the parentheses.

Oh, I forgot to menition, if you are not using the Rich Editor, you can use <b> for bold instead of <strong>. Both HTML tags will work.

Cheers,
Louis

Are we going to stick with the idea of adding the word 'Spoiler' in thread titles where the 'possible news' could be seen as a spoiler?

Cheers, daveac

Let me see if I understand this. We've traded a forum where italics and bolding were simple, one-letter commands to one where you've got to use a word one letter longer than the word "bold" itself — strong — just to get dark text? And there's no ability to have colored text, at all? I'm not seeing that as an allowed tag. Let me try, by giving this next sentence the standard HTML command to turn white: How will we hide spoilers? Nope, that didn't work at all.

But perhaps most objectionable is the complete lack of quoting facility. Seriously, how can you have a discussion when you can't easily quote people? I mean, I can imagine we might jury-rig some usage of the definition-list commands — dl and dt — but that's an awful lot of manual work to get to something that only approximates quoting. It won't be nearly so easy to read or follow as what we had before.

In short, this isn't really forum software but commenting software. Not really seeing the wisdom in this, Louis, especially given the fact we're losing the Outpost as well. That basically leaves DWO as the only major, genuine Doctor Who forum left. Was that really your intention?

The Sun first came out with it, we tweeted about it at the time. Digital Spy picked up on afterwards. The source is still The Sun, which means it could be all rubbish or there could be some grains of truth in there.

Cheers,
Louis

Just like a new Doctor takes time to used to, it's gonna take me some time to get used to this - but I will!

Have to agree with Capricorn1's comments. I have a nice 20" widescreen monitor which was nicely filled by the 'classic' site. Now the area which previously housed the left and right side bars (containing quick links, adverts, information etc.) are blank (well tiled seals of Rassilon). Consequently, the space which used to be reserved for the main content has been divided up into three (the now narrow main content plus both the sidebars). Sorry to whine, my Mum used to say 'if you haven't any thing nice to say then don't say anything' but I never listened to her!