User talk:NottNott/Archive 1

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Example message

Hello there, this is an example message. -NottNott 09:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I've not used the talk feature before, just looks like a normal page with a special category -Denise Skidmore
getting the hang of proper talk signature etiquette Dlskidmore (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


Wouldn't 'Reddit' be cleaner then 'reddit'. Sam.Watson (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ended up trying to import bazillions of non-functioning Wikipedia templates like {{done}} while I was at it. Probably going to have a lot of cleaning up to do later on, I'm making such a mess. -NottNott (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Sam.Watson (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh yeah, whatever can invoke statements like #if in templates also doesn't work. Sigh. -NottNott (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Needs an extension for that. -NottNott (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


Can you add getting the navbox working to your list. Articles become more co-ordinated and sensible when there is a method of overview and navigation. Sam.Watson (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Needs Scribunto extension - can do this when I have access to the backend. 100% a priority when I can get around to this. -NottNott (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


Can you add mw:Extension:Cite? It would allow us to cite sources. Heddy (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you have access to the thread on the forum where I discuss the backend and configuration a little more. I'm currently waiting to get backend access to configure the MediaWiki install - the wiki is hosted on Jake's file server and I don't have FTP access at the moment. As you can imagine, there are plenty of extensions and configurations I'd like to do, and Cite will definitely be added.
By the way Template:VisionStats is awesome. What experience do you have on other wikis? :) -NottNott (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I saw the thread but didn't read it thoroughly, so I thought you had full access!
I have been editing Wikipedia and various video game wikis for about 5 years. I can make that template even better if you add ParserFunctions! Heddy (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
No worries, it's a doozy in that thread. Thanks for the extension suggestions, you're welcome to compile a list of extensions you want installed on the ToDo list and I'll get through it. Also, you've passed the extensive RFA process we have here, have the mop :) -NottNott (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I know I'll be a great janitor! Heddy (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


Not sure if any of this is fixable, but ProveIt has a few foibles.

  • It sometimes reverses the first and last name of the author. That one I doubt is fixable, because not everyone will use the same text formatting everywhere, so it would have to know as much as a human about names. (Although it might be able to learn more about common first and last names in other cultures than I know myself if it could do it at all.)
  • The Journal template doesn't like partial dates like 2010 Dec. It wants the day, but the day isn't always known, many of the articles cite only a year or month and year. That might be fixable in the template? Dlskidmore (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Dlskidmore: If it's last name and then first name, to my knowledge that order of words is sometimes a convention when citing clinical studies. Some use first and last, some last and first. Whatever convention being used is identical to the one Wikipedia uses, so if it's good for them hopefully it's good for us. Face-smile.svg
If you enter in, for example, December 2010 into the source date box, it worked out good for me. Check out User:NottNott/sandbox for an example of how I have done this below, at the bottom of the page. -NottNott (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


@NottNott: Hello? -NottNott (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC) @NottSock: Howdy -NottNott (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@NottSock: test -NottNott (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC) @NottNott: test NottSock (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Copy wrong

I won't use disney, they have a history of being agressive about protecting there content. Jake doesn't require the hassle and neither do you, Sam.Watson (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sam.Watson: Take it down and delete the file then, I would. -NottNott (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Nott Nott Barnstar

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For amazing work both behind the scenes and on the Wiki. Relax, take a break and do your exam work. 😉 Sam.Watson (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sam.Watson: People obsess about exam work far too much! There's myopia to fix!! Thanks for the barnstar Face-grin.svg -NottNott (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


'Not medical advice', you mean 'No medical advice'? Sam.Watson (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sam.Watson: MediaWiki:Sidebar -NottNott (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done I'm a ninja -NottNott (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


I see you're having fun! Sam.Watson (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sam.Watson: If you can tell me how 500 Internal Server Errors on specific pages (like this talk page) are fun, then I'll be shocked. Fixed now!! Face-grin.svg
Caching is enabled across the wiki, PARTICULARLY for anonymous users. Open up incognito and start clicking on things. This uses Varnish cache, which gives anonymous users a jet aeroplane to get around. Doesn't work for logged in wiki users, but there is another cache that I've enabled for us. I can't see it getting faster than that. -NottNott (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and thumbnail generation bug was seemingly fictional. It was due to my browser cache, and me thinking I could clear it with Ctrl+R instaed of Ctrl+F5. Whoops. We can overwrite old files!!!! -NottNott (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Nice. Insights 90 to 99% with
In another test image can be slow.
Sam.Watson (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sam.Watson: This will be a lot faster when more users roam around the wiki and generate more cached files through Varnish :) -NottNott (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Compressed adorable kitten

What's up here? Sam.Watson (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sam.Watson: The fun will never end! -NottNott (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sam.Watson: Should be fixed. -NottNott (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, fixed now. Was that something you did, or took a while? I noticed it updated the front page image almost immediately, so that was good. Sam.Watson (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sam.Watson: That one's to do with ImageMagick. Which is a false prophet to fixing image related problems by the looks of things. I disabled it, and the problem vanished. And the image thumbnailing bug was a lie, just like the cake from Portal. -NottNott (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


there were two small typos in your welcome message - receive, and not recieve. If this is a standard welcoming text I suggest you correct this. Hannie. I have to figure out how to get the tilde sign onto my keyboard.

@Hannie:  Done
There should be a button in the bar with a signature looking icon if you're using the blue interface to sign off, or if you're using wikEd (grey), there will be a little button of a tilde. Either of these will give you the four tildes you need :) -NottNott (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, found it.Hannie (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Hannie: Two colons to reply to a single colon. Face-grin.svg -NottNott (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@NottNott: I will get the hang of this sooner or later.Hannie (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Hannie: You will Face-grin.svg -NottNott (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe> Sam.Watson (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sam.Watson (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you add for Sam.Watson (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sam.Watson:  Done. Deprecate mw:Extension:YouTube, with no broken <youtube> tags. -NottNott (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there some problem with having both? mw:Extension:YouTube is better for YouTube while mw:Extension:EmbedVideo does other video types. Sam.Watson (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sam.Watson: The tags are at conflict and I don't believe they are compatible. Why would mw:Extension:YouTube necessarily be better than EmbedVideo? I can test it now. -NottNott (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
EmbedVideo page says "Alternativly, you can also use the service id as the tag (assuming another extension isn't already using this tag)." implying that it's compatible with another extension using the tag. The EmbedVideo acts to have each video on a separate line rather then allow a second video on the same line. Sam.Watson (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sam.Watson: Okay, looks like the wiki didn't implode. Both are enabled. -NottNott (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sam.Watson: Deprecate anyway, as per mw:Extension:EmbedVideo. Having two different syntaxes for the same tags is gonna cause problems, and the YouTube extension is less maintained then embed video. -NottNott (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Two different syntax's? Both support same syntax. Sam.Watson (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sam.Watson: I'm fine with two extensions if they actually do different things. YouTube seems inferior to EmbedVideo, especially in the resizing videos syntax department. Having two extensions enabled to do the same thing is similar to spaghetti code, best avoided early on wherever possible.

Here's your inline video! Check the syntax. The extension is finnicky about parameters, per mw:Extension:EmbedVideo -NottNott (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Glad you've found a way for it to work. Two extension is not similar to spaghetti code, that's a false equivalence. Sam.Watson (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sam.Watson: Both extensions will parse the <youtube> tags. YouTube formats videos (with a worse UX from the editors perspective) through the tag itself, EmbedVideo uses the {{#ev}} template. Before you know it, half the site uses one method and half the site uses the other method, maybe mixing the two on the same article and making unneccesary calls to both extensions. People don't know what's up, gotta keep it simple stupid -NottNott (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


Do we require categories? Such as Category:Articles, seems that by not having it would save on maintenance work. Sam.Watson (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sam.Watson: See User talk:Heddy. What do you think? -NottNott (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

hyperopic defocus

@NottNott:I was just about to ask (somewhere - not sure where yet...) whether hyperopic defocus should just be made an alias of hyperopic blur, but you seem to have removed my assertion that they are the same. A dictionary definition of defocus is "The blurring of a visual image" so I had assumed the defocus was simply the more technical term Divenal (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Divenal: Not quite sure what to do here either. Jake always uses the term hyperopic defocus, and if I'm not mistaken the studies refer to that term as well. I understand that a blurry image is created as a result. I think Hyperopic defocus (hyperopic blur) would probably okay - most people who think of blur would be thinking of myopic blur, so using just blur wouldn't be accurate here. -NottNott (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@NottNott: I had added 'blur' not only to give the alias to the term defocus, but also to provide the hyperlink to the blur page, which also discusses the topic. (But of course that could also be done as a 'see also'). And then I noticed that hyperopic blur redirected to that section of the blur page, when it could just as easily direct to the Hyperopic defocus page. Divenal (talk)
@Divenal: I think the concept of blur and the concept of the stimulus that elongates the eyeball are distinct and probably deserve their own pages. Not sure what else I can add other than that :P -NottNott (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A possible lightbulb moment... I'm starting to think that "hyperopic defocus" doesn't mean "hyperopic blur" (ie image is formed behind the retina), but actually means "introducing a hyperopic bias into the system" (pushing the focus of the relaxed eye in a hyperopic direction, ie backwards in the direction of the retina). i.e. it's just a fancy way of saying "wearing -ve lenses" Divenal (talk)

@Divenal: That sounds pretty good to me! Slightly off-topic, but remember that any small biases you put into the article will be tugged in other directions by editors in the long-term. So this sort of thing will probably even itself out in the long-term. -NottNott (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@NottNott: If it really does just mean "wearing lenses", then some of the articles on here become a bit redundant. "Lens-induced myopia is a result of hyperopic defocus" becomes "lens-induced myopia is a result of wearing lenses" which is a bit of a tautology. Also, it seems wrong to throw around a technical jargon term if not even the people familiar with this stuff actually know what it means. Divenal (talk)

No, still don't think I've got it. Started a thread over in the forum, but haven't got a satisfactory answer. How sure are you about hyperopic defocus being the main cause of lens-induced myopia ? Last thing on the thread is And remember defocus is only a theory. I've put an under-construction on it since I'm not at all sure that my latest edit is correct. Divenal (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Divenal: According to this blog article, hyperopic defocus is to blame. I can't say I'm really the perfect person to scrutinise over the science in the slightest, TBH. But, if an EM article says it's to blame, it's easier just to roll with that until there's a big consensus toward something else. At the end of the day, the goal of the wiki is more focused on practically improving people's eyesight and giving people an indication of the science behind things. Some EM blog posts are indicative that hyperopic defocus is the cause, and it may or may not be 100% true. I think in general though, it's better to just follow the blog for the time being for the purposes of practically getting things sorted out, although debate on the forum is always good. If there isn't a consensus on the forum for how this should work, it's better to roll with the status quo.
By the way, sorry for forgetting to respond to your message yesterday. Got tied up Face-smile.svg -NottNott (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@NottNott: Sounds a little like Guide:How to doubt EndMyopia ..? My inclination would be the opposite... if the wiki states something as categorically true, and it turns out otherwise, naysayers can use it to denounce the credibility of the site as a whole. Hmm... I don't like to go too far down this road, being new here, and not yet having given much to the community... but... if this is about promoting Jake's message, then yes, fair enough, if it's Jake's opinion that this is the cause, it should be pushed. But if this is a community's wiki, then the word of the guru should not be taken as gospel, but subject to as much scrutiny as anything else. I know we disagree about the duplication to some extent, but perhaps the science in particular shouldn't be scattered about the place, but collected into one area with references to it from elsewhere. (Have a look at the what links here for the hyperopic defocus page...) I think Hyperopic defocus should just define the term (which I think is probably blur due to the image focus being beyond the retina) without repeating the mantra. The chap on the thread seemed to think it was 'peripheral' hyperopic defocus that was the cause. (I should stop now - just seen a paper that hyperopic defocus 'in the morning' is when it's most likely to cause elongation. (And myopic defocus in the evening is best for shortening...) Divenal (talk)
@Divenal: No, I agree in priniciple with what you said. There is definitely a conflict between complete scientific accuracy and practical, hands-on fix your myopia stuff. I'd always want to prioritise the latter wherever possible, so I'm fine with the status quo even if it's kind of inaccurate unless everyone can come together and agree something else.
I'm totally okay, with removing all references to hyperopic defocus in the majority of articles. Because it's a bit too sciency anyway, and as you said there's reason to doubt Face-grin.svg -NottNott (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@NottNott: It's vaguely interesting that Myopic defocus, which is the very basis of the endmyopia improvement (via AF) doesn't even have its own page. Yet the hyperopic version is referenced with gay abandon ;-) I don't think that blog post you mentioned is claiming anything about hyperopic defocus being the primary cause of elongation. It just mentions an animal study in which it was found to induce elongation. A is found to cause B does not mean that A is the main cause of B. (But I'll look around for other references...) Divenal (talk)
@Divenal: I'm far from the perfect science guy, to be honest. Change it :D -NottNott (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


I seem to have a bit of an obsession about avoiding duplication - prefer to link to a definition than repeat it. OTOH it would be annoying to have to keep clicking links to jump about finding definitions, especially in explainers. I think a wiki I used to use a long time ago (twiki) had a mechanism for inlinling the text from one document into another. So that would allow the text of Overprescription to be inlined into Explainer:Why_early_improvements_are_so_fast rather than (more or less) duplicating the text. Or inline the text of Axial elongation rather than having to jump to it. Not sure if that feature is available here. Divenal (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Divenal: That would be possible, for instance we could have definitions to things such as Definition:Overprescription or something, then you could insert that definition into articles with {{Definition:Overprescription}}
However, strongly recommending against it in this case. I don't think we'll be duplicating information too many times, and I think the issue will sort itself as the wiki grows older and gets more contributors. It becomes harder to directly edit pages if we transclude definitions into the page instead of just having it on the page. Also, it leads to issues as to how much to transclude into any given page - it gets pretty complicated fast. I think clicking links is part and parcel of using a resource like this, the wiki is fairly quick (hopefully even quicker soon) and I think if someone can't be bothered to click a few more links they're not bothered enough to fix their eyesight Face-smile.svg -NottNott (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Citing journals

Is there a simple way to cite articles ? I was going to fix up the reference at Blur (and probably move it to the existing "Defocus as a stimulus for eye length changes" section), but I'm much too lazy to type in all the details by hand. From I found Visiting the article in question at I put the DOI code into the tool and got something looking very plausible. Given that we want to quote lots of science to back this stuff up, is there already a recipe for doing this, or should I write it up in How to contribute ? Divenal (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Divenal: Check out my tutorial and the tool ProveIt for how to cite scientific journals.
The update button doesn't seem to work right on the tool, but you'll notice where there's a 'Template field' with loads of code in the tool that gets updated anytime you change the fields. If you copy and paste that code inbetween the ref tags you should always be okay. -NottNott (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Got it... but... I usually disable javascript, so I wasn't seeing that button. Pressing it, I don't seem to get the same fields as you. But your way still seems to require pasting in title, journal, etc so it can produce the citation. The tool I found generated it all from just the DOI reference. Divenal (talk)
@Divenal: In that case, surround what your tool produces in <ref></ref> tags instead, and forget about ProveIt. Referencing is really as simple as putting the text of the reference in ref tags, that's it Face-smile.svg -NottNott (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


  • "As per community consensus, the capitalisation of the name should be 'EndMyopia' in all articles for consistency."

Look at name Sam.Watson (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sam.Watson: Check Discord. -NottNott (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WP:NUKE. Powerful. Sam.Watson (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sam.Watson: When thinking about who should get that tool, I'm thinking 'who won't cause me to go through 500 manual undeletions' Face-smile.svg -NottNott (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
ah, so not permanent deletions. Do you know if there is a backup of the Wiki? Sam.Watson (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sam.Watson: I can manually back up the wiki as it is now. Need to talk to Imperial-beard about setting up an automated backup, which shouldn't be too hard. Just involves a few buttons in root access of cpanel I believe -NottNott (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Blur Horizon

Either I'm very badly misunderstanding something, or your description/picture for Blur horizon is misleading. (I'm quite happy for it to be the former, since I'm here to learn...) As per Distance vision, it's less than 0.2D between a distance of 6m and infinity. Given that lenses come in 0.25D increments, it's surely impossible to get a correction accurate enough to set blur horizon at the mid-point of a distant mountain ! If the recommendation for normalised is one stop (0.25D) down from 20/20 (infinite), that would put the blur horizon at about 4m, wouldn't it ? I thought the idea was for normalised to have a little bit of blur challenge on street signs and things ? Divenal (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Divenal: Yeah, your idea about normalised is right. You're also right when you say Given that lenses come in 0.25D increments, it's surely impossible to get a correction accurate enough to set blur horizon at the mid-point of a distant mountain ! It was really just following off of this blog article which uses the same identical images, and it looks cool. You're right about the maths and all that. It's impractical and unnecessary to get increments lower than 0.25D, so it all works out. Face-smile.svg -NottNott (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


Hmm... I've done nothing but criticise so far, have I. Sorry about that. I ought to say at least once how grateful I am for all the work you (and the others) have put into this. Hopefully not at any cost to your studies. In my day job as a software engineer, we tear into each others code changes gleefully, but of course we've worked together so long that we all know we respect each other and that none of it is personal. But I'm new here and you don't know me at all... Divenal (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Divenal: Seriously don't worry about all of that! I'd much rather have someone tear everything to shreds and make the site a whole lot better, honestly. I'm very grateful for your contributions and don't take anything personally. My exams are done, it's relaxing until September when everything starts up again (and only then do I have exams in mid January) Face-grin.svg -NottNott (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Sexy page

The layout of Frequently Asked Questions is ready brilliant. Very creative and beyond the formal layout that Wikipedia uses. On a related note, is embedding videos possible? Sam.Watson (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sam.Watson: Page will be even better with some custom icons for each of the boxes.
rumages in magic bag Oh, what's this, mw:Extension:YouTube? Time to install that then. -NottNott (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sam.Watson: Works. Check the source! -NottNott (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Outstanding! Sam.Watson (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sam.Watson: One Help:Video tutorial later... -NottNott (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


Hi, me being complainy again. Not sure about your take on Legal:Copyright. Specifically, public domain is not the absense of any copyright claim. There's a convention that everything is copyright whether it says so or not. If you make something new and don't otherwise explicitly say so, then it *is* copyright. Copyright does expire, so Shakespeare stuff is public domain (Yay !). Some stuff is not copyright. (Equations and science theorems and things, probably.) Things like the human genome shouldn't be copyright, but I have a feeling they might be (which is really bad...)

The beautiful image on the top of the page is public domain only because you expressly said it was (via the creative commons license). So it emphatically does have a license.

And I don't think it's okay to say that it's fine to steal material material from little people since, unlike Disney, they won't come after us. (It's okay to do it. It's not okay to *say* that it's okay to do it !)

There are rules about it being okay to quote a little bit of copyright material - fair use - it is not necessary to paraphrase it. (And I don't think a naive paraphrasing is sufficient to get round copyright, since as translating to French and back shouldn't be enough, even if the exact wording changes.)

You give an example of the image of an eye. Is there a case for linking to that image, rather than uploading a copy here ? I know that means it becomes subject to the availability of the external site, which is very bad. But it does avoid issues. I did try at one point to include an image from endmyopia blog, but couldn't figure out how. I think it requires a feature to be enabled. Didn't want to copy it because, you know, I don't like duplication !

I am not a lawyer... Divenal (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Divenal:The CC0 license is like the ultimate 'I allow anyone to do anything at all with this whatsoever' license. So technically the license is do whatever you like.
Copyright policy for us is basically, we don't care if we steal memes, and copyrighted educational stuff is fair use to use. I think that's pretty reasonable. We're currently stealing Kermit the Frog from Disney on Help:How to contribute.
Without uploading copies to the wiki, we cannot format the images correctly. Check that Special:Upload is working correctly for you (should be available under tools to the left). You'll have to upload images from EM to the wiki, there's no way to format images correctly without reuploading them. It's good that you have concerns about this stuff, I'm glad somebody's doing checks over my logic because we need it. I think we successfully avoid most issues with that policy (1. memes 2. fair use educational stuff), and the net benefit from including memes on the website far surpasses any net loss from potential people suing us. The wiki is pretty non-profit looking as it is, the only financial benefits are external. Disney doesn't get a claim to loads of $$$ in damages just because we have a copyrighted meme image on the site, fairly sure it's just a cease and desist takedown notice. I think the risk is pretty low. -NottNott (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Check out, seems really handy about this stuff. When a site owner or web host obeys your DMCA notice, this does not mean that you are going to get reimbursement. Serious risk of actual problems, super duper low. -NottNott (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


Is this page needed Why not link to Sam.Watson (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sam.Watson: MediaWiki is very careful about not allowing automatic redirects to external links. The footer is controlled in LocalSettings.php, not System Messages (which is dumb). When I tried to get a normal link working in the footer, I wasn't very successful. I'll try again at some point, but for now the page can stay. -NottNott (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Is the link at the bottom of each pages required? Wikipedia doesn't have such a link. Sam.Watson (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sam.Watson: I like it quite a lot. It's not required, but it's not unrequired as well, also it's a button to click to take you back to the main site, which doesn't exist without that link. -NottNott (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Unused? Delete.

The above seem unused. can they be deleted? Sam.Watson (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sam.Watson:  Done -NottNott (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Guide:Finding Active Focus fault

Some issue that I don't comprehend. Guide:How to find Active Focus is a redlink and also listed on Special:UncategorizedPages as blue. Is this a namespace issue? If not, can you make sense of it. Sam.Watson (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sam.Watson: What are you talking about? That link looks pretty blue to me... Face-wink.svg
The article used to be at Guide:Finding active focus, I just moved it to Guide:Finding Active Focus. Caps! -NottNott (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@NottNott: Still on Special:UncategorizedPages. Sam.Watson (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sam.Watson: Give it a load of time and see if it clears out of the cache. -NottNott (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@NottNott: No cache on Special:UncategorizedPages, no purge at top. Still there. Sam.Watson (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


You don't like the embedding? Confused. Sam.Watson (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sam.Watson: I love the embedding. The problems are:
  1. The page is slow to load, not good for a 'quick loadable list'
  2. I'm conscious about SEO. Google will crawl that page as it's directly off of the main page, it can make a difference
  3. I'm unsure whether this will eat up server resources, or whether it's all just a pointer to the client's browser to fetch the video.

I'd say the best compromise is two pages. Once more YouTubers join the fold the embedded list will become insane. -NottNott (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


A quick heads up as I know you been going through namespace options. The Module:Namespace_detect page had an error of missing Module:Transclusion count/data/N. I've imported that and the error is now gone. Sam.Watson (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


Finally emptied Category:Pages with script errors. :dance: Sam.Watson (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser no longer detects site.

Before I was using and AWB could find the site, now it gives an error hinting to provide path where index.php and api.php reside. Any ideas? I've tried Sam.Watson (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sam.Watson: Is Special:Version of any use to you? Top table. I've never used AWB before. -NottNott (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Correct path is That gives an error "The given key was not present in the dictionary.", searching google learnt "contains aliases for namespaces that don't exist". Do we have a namespace alias for a non existing namespace? Sam.Watson (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sam.Watson: We did have aliases pointing to nonexistent namespaces. That should be fixed now. -NottNott (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Great. Have now been able to detect site and login. Face-smile.svg Sam.Watson (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

{{subst:uw-vandalism1}} -NottNott (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Mobile view

Here is my mobile view.


Sam.Watson (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sam.Watson: Looks good to me! -NottNott (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Kitten in a helmet.jpg

I moved the original contents of AF to the other page to make sure that it didn't get lost. I thought it might come in handy there after some adjustments...

Laurens (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Laurens: MEOW
Try your sandbox page in future - don't want to be breaking other articles along the way Face-grin.svg -NottNott (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@NottNott: Unclear as to what I should've sandboxed. The migrated AF Guide, or the original AF stuff that was there, or even the message I send you a couple of minutes ago. Puzzled
Laurens (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Laurens: I'm saying this change where the AF contents were migrated could have been put in the sandbox. It's in a link in the top right (just in case you haven't seen it, I'm sure you have). You don't want to put talk page messages in sandboxes, nobody will see them then Face-grin.svg -NottNott (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Help with formatting Guide:Reducing_lens_complexity

Hey NottNott can you help my numbered lists? Either I'm missing something or this editor is misbehaving :P Guide:Reducing_lens_complexity | Deadpan (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deadpan:  Done Gotta have y'all numbered lists without any breaks in the middle :D -NottNott (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@NottNott: Is there more than one kind of break? The way it shows in my editor is EXACTLY the same as it appeared before (only, it works now) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ | Deadpan (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Deadpan: Here's the change I made. Press edit on either revision to see what changed. -NottNott (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Namespace piping

For your info as I keep noticing this around the site. If you want to remove the namespace of a Wikilink put a | on the end. No need to repeat the text. So [[EndMyopia:Drafts are for chumps|]] not [[EndMyopia:Drafts are for chumps|Drafts are for chumps]], the output is Drafts are for chumps for both. Sam.Watson (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sam.Watson: I'm aware of the WP:PIPETRICK. Try the pipe trick in your sandbox, and then look at the wikitext generated afterwards (try to edit again). It's MediaWiki who will then add the text. -NottNott (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
That's strange. Thanks for the WP:PIPETRICK link as wasn't aware the page existed. Sam.Watson (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a test of the message delivery system

Hello, this is a test of the message delivery system Face-smile.svg MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)