[support] how to add links as content types or nodes?

[will hall]

yes we have 2 threads with similar names, not sure how that happened but 
if i contributed to confusion my apologies.

we are using tinymce so adding links not a problem -- inside other nodes
 >>> 2. use a WYSIWYG editor with a link button.

what i am asking is for a node itself to be a link. for example, if you 
look at this page:
http://www.theicarusproject.net/resources/web-links

you will see a page with a long weblink directory of organizations and 
urls. however, we coded this in html! users can't add to it, it can't be 
sorted, it's hella hard to maintain, etc.

now imagine that each link was its own special node with a small teaser 
and url, and the page was instead a view showing all "content type = 
links". sorted alphabetically, by taxonomy keywords, etc. and that users 
could search a taxonomy term and all the pages, blog posts, events, 
images AND weblinks tagged with that term would show up with their 
teasers. differently than page teaser views which are bigger.

i.e. weblinks as nodes.

does this make sense now? see the limitation we are facing? we want to 
provide a ton of weblinks as resources with teaser blurbs for pages like 
the Web Links page.

thanks for help!

-- will

Campbell wrote:
> Why is everyone hijacking - this isn't insert links into content read the _subject _
> 
> Victor Kane wrote:
>> Drupal may not be what you are looking for, but if you want your users
>> to easily enter links on a page both inside and outside the site
>> without knowing HTML, you can get that easily with any of the
>> following:
>>
>> 1. freelinking module, with [[label|http://path]] for external sites,
>> and [[label|name of node]] for same site pages.
>> 2. use a WYSIWYG editor with a link button.
>> 3. use one of the wiki style input modules which allow wiki style references.
>>
>> Victor Kane
>> http://awebfactory.com.ar
>>
>> On 1/28/07, Earl Miles <merlin at logrus.com> wrote:
>>   
>>> cl at isbd.net wrote:
>>>     
>>>> OK, thanks, but by saying "... but Drupal content isn't *really*
>>>> suited for that" you're telling what I'm beginning (well, more than
>>>> beginning!) to realise that CMS/Drupal probably isn't what I'm looking
>>>> for.
>>>>       
>>> That may well be true. You may also have trouble finding what you're looking
>>> for at all. But it may be true that you want Wordpress, which has put all of
>>> its effort into doing just one thing but doing it very, very well.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> [ Drupal support list | http://lists.drupal.org/ ]
>>>
>>>     
>