[16:35:08] what is the cause "page doesn't exist" issue again? [16:39:12] [1/2] https://discord.com/channels/407504499280707585/1293815946464722964 [16:39:12] [2/2] [16:50:23] When the page doesn't exist [16:51:34] (In all seriousness, likely MediaWiki can't find an entry in the revision table for the revision you're asking for iirc) [16:51:48] Something along those lines [18:45:04] @pixldev NSFW field is ready to go [18:45:05] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1006789349498699827/1294370207107645450/image.png?ex=670ac3b1&is=67097231&hm=399f10ffc40c4adaa82b3661b5f8f621246afe7abb3b4161930d34f9437d7974& [18:45:33] Discussion and images don’t make sense [18:45:40] It's copy/pasted from the CP [18:45:44] so heh, take it up via RfC! [18:45:47] Ah [18:45:56] Groan [18:46:01] but why wouldn't it make sense? [18:46:07] I mean it makes sense [18:46:10] the idea is that it's not just about images, it's also graphic descriptions [18:46:11] It’s just weird [18:46:21] if you mean phrasing we can rephrase that's fine [18:46:32] (in RW not the actual CP of course) [18:46:56] Prob I’ll think [18:47:33] There was also a discussion about the difference between NSFW content on wiki and about a NSFW topic [18:47:37] I'm trying to figure out how to also add a text field that asks what kind of NSFW content there will be if someone selects yes but afterwards it'll be good to go [18:48:02] that's tricky but we can't have a whole paragraph about that on RW either, we just want to know if there's anything remotely NSFW related on the wiki [18:48:17] Related [18:48:32] So broadly interpreted [18:48:58] Take a gander at some of the older iterations of content policy to see how details are sometimes to detriment [18:50:38] Pardon? [18:51:12] Some of the older versions of NSFW policy were kinda NSFW [18:52:22] so creators see those ticks when looking at requests? [18:52:34] but why it's not visible to other users? [18:52:45] genuine question [18:55:53] No, it's a new checkbox that will be introduced for users [18:56:34] @pixldev I think your fullscreen warning idea would indeed only work if we have a further separation and if once someone clicks on NSFW there's a second box that asks if the entire wiki is primarily NSFW [18:57:38] How so [18:58:18] Because I don't think it would be appropriate to show it on wikis that only have a few NSFW pages [18:59:06] Wikipedia has a lot of NSFW content too, so we really only want warnings for wikis whose main topic is that and most pages are NSFW [19:00:33] no I mean on already submitted request [19:01:58] Oh you mean if creators see extra info? [19:02:12] If so yes, they see whether the request is for a private or public wiki and the purpose [19:02:30] I don't like that though and would like it if it could just show on the main request tab not only edit [19:33:37] Why not have just one box for primarily NSFW [19:35:25] because we don't only want primarily NSFW, we also want to know if there's going to be other NSFW content that might infringe the CP [19:35:37] i.e. "Content that depicts or portrays minors, real or fictional, in a sexual or fetishized manner, is strictly prohibited." [19:36:44] Fair [19:40:12] In that case I’m fine this [21:30:29] Welcome back @bluemoon0332 [21:47:57] https://tenor.com/view/barry-63-barry-barry-england-barry-cheers-champ-cheers-to-that-champ-meme-gif-13077342348222651397 [22:41:41] yay [22:41:43] he’s back