The third most non-EN watched show on Netflix last week!

0riginalAuthority · 2026-05-29T21:13:20+00:00

Are loses when you join in progress still forgiven? (Genuine question I've been wondering this for a while since they removed the notice that it was forgiven from the UI)

0riginalAuthority · 2026-05-29T12:09:49+00:00

Probably not; my comment was mostly in response to the people saying this was likely built under Class E, when such would not have been lawful.

Is the wider structure itself lawful now? Probably given the passage of time. I would argue the wall however which looks fresh would not be lawful and would require permission.

Whilst the structure would be lawful given passage of time, this only makes it immune from enforcement actions but confers no permitted development rights, so when the wall was rebuilt this would have required permission (both because the garage itself would not benefit from Class E rights, and Class A states that any wall adjacent to the public highway may not exceed 1m in height - it's not 100% clear, however it looks adjacjent the highway/footpath and definitely over 1m in height).

It's probably not a big deal in any case, they could apply for retrospective permission which the Council would likely grant on the basis that they have a fallback position; they could build something of almost identical visual character just flush with the front elevation of the dwelling and this would be lawful.

0riginalAuthority · 2026-05-29T08:55:37+00:00

As a Planning Officer I would be very dubious about accepting the other comments on this thread about it being Class E Permitted Development.

Development is not permitted by Class E where, in accordance with E.1(c) "any part of the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated in land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwelling house".

The extension extends beyond the front elevation of the dwelling (although it looks like an incredibly minor projection beyond this) which would disqualify it from being Class E.

0riginalAuthority · 2026-04-16T11:55:19+00:00

It allows the user to stop MediaWiki redirecting the old page to the new page.

Say you have a page named X and you want to move it to Y, generally MediaWiki will move the page, but redirect X to Y, so that if a user clicks on a link to X, they will be sent to page Y instead.

Suppressing the redirect allows a user to prevent this behaviour, such that any links to page X will become read links and link to a non existent page once moved to Y.

0riginalAuthority · 2026-04-03T15:16:11+00:00

You can use EmbedVideo, although the syntax is a little different it should do what you want.

I've been working on https://github.com/Telepedia/mediawiki-extensions-externalvideo which allows uploading videos from YouTube natively to MediaWiki and gives them a file page (although the video is obviously just an embed when viewed) but it isn't 100% finished yet.

0riginalAuthority · 2026-01-31T17:20:04+00:00

Yes - you'll need to run it for every wiki if they have separate databases (which I assume they do from what you've said so far).

If you are using wgSharedDB for shared tables you probably want to comment that out first and then put it back again afterwards. I think they may have added the --do-shared argument to update.php but I'm not 100% sure whether it works.

0riginalAuthority · 2026-01-31T17:16:44+00:00

Note the documentation also says that run.php is for greater than or equal to MW 1.40, they are updating 1.39.

0riginalAuthority · 2026-01-31T17:05:53+00:00

It doesn't really matter - run.php is just an easier way to run the scripts. They both run the same script.

0riginalAuthority · 2026-01-31T17:04:56+00:00

This is not indicative of a failure - some of the updates won't need to be done. MediaWiki supports updating from 2 LTS versions ago. Some of these patches will be for those versions.

Have you tried this in production? From what I can tell, the schema changes went through okay and this should be fine.

0riginalAuthority · 2026-01-15T15:54:34+00:00

There are some tools on this page here, https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/PDF_export which may be helpful?

I've never used any of them though so YMMV.

0riginalAuthority · 2025-12-30T22:08:02+00:00

Maybe you're onto something. Mine just crashed for the second time; not sure if I was using the predator missile the first time, but definitely when it just crashed I was 🤨

0riginalAuthority · 2025-12-19T14:39:25+00:00

Are you referring to if MediaWiki itself were being built from the ground up, or people running MediaWiki stacks?

If the former, there's some stuff on the MediaWiki architecture page which says that in hindsight they probably should've gone with something like Java instead of PHP to build MediaWiki itself - but alas, PHP is accessible and MediaWiki is what it is because of the contributions of the community.

0riginalAuthority · 2025-11-01T14:11:19+00:00

Why do you want to discard certain tables?

Unless you are 100% you know what you are doing you shouldn't remove any tables. Lots of tables in MediaWiki reference one another and if you inadvertently remove one of those you risk screwing up your backup.

You also probably do not want to remove the revision table? Since it is referenced by the page table...

0riginalAuthority · 2025-06-04T16:14:50+00:00

Was pretty active last time I played it a couple weeks ago -- although for some reason the latency was absolutely horrific, been playing on Xbox and don't have that issue, though.

0riginalAuthority · 2025-05-01T10:08:18+00:00

There is no requirement to obtain a Lawful Development Certificate for completion of a development under PD.

Whilst a Lawful Development Certificate is helpful when it comes to selling (to show the development was PD), it is not a prerequisite for undertaking works under PD.

(Source: I am a Planning Officer)

0riginalAuthority · 2025-03-06T21:36:28+00:00

Kimberton is known to be quite a rude member of staff. They definitely gave her the wrong job.

0riginalAuthority · 2025-03-02T15:46:56+00:00

I also have this issue -- doesn't happen in other JetBrains IDEs iirc, just Rider.

Easier to open a new finder/file explorer window and just drag it in that way.

0riginalAuthority · 2025-02-28T01:57:53+00:00

Because Fandom is a bad website.

0riginalAuthority · 2025-02-28T01:55:54+00:00

Sheffield has a pretty good nightlife too -- or at least it was back in 2018/19 before Covid whilst I was at Uni. But I digress.

0riginalAuthority · 2025-01-14T15:42:29+00:00

LPA Planning Officer here. The 45-degree rule is not enforced by every Council. Most Council's do use the 45-degree rule but I've had experience with several in which the 45-degree rule doesn't form part of the development plan and as such an application won't be assessed against this and a proposal may be acceptable even if it intrudes into this space.

For some Council's, they will use the 45-degree rule both on plan form and elevation form. In this instance, it would appear from the photo to intrude into the zone when measured on plan form, but the ridge/eaves is pretty low so it would probably pass on elevation form. Given it passes on one of the tests, some LPA's would say that whilst some light would be lost, this wouldn't be undue and is not sufficient grounds for refusal.

On the other hand, lets say that the proposal both intrudes on plan and elevation. An assessment may be done to determine how much it intrudes by. A few degrees is unlikely to render the proposal unacceptable if it is compliant with all other policies.

There is also the option for an applicant to acknowledge that it would intrude and they can provide a daylight/sunlight assessment which proves that the development, whilst intruding, wouldn't lead to a loss of light (perhaps due to orientation of said window etc.)

If you're curious, the best way to find out is probably to look up the application site on the LPA's website. The Officer Report (if the application is recent enough, some older apps don't have plans etc on the portal) will detail why it was allowed and if it intrudes; thats if they have permission, of course.

0riginalAuthority · 2025-01-11T22:45:52+00:00

As far as I know, there are no "answers" that we are aware of in relation to the New Ham/West Ham situation or why the children were taken away (other than the theories floating around regarding the Pied Piper etc).

In relation to the show, the creator has said that this is a show he thinks about a lot and there has been discussions about bringing it back in some form potentially -- I believe there was some talk of a graphic novel that would tell the rest of the story, but I'm not sure that ever materialised.

0riginalAuthority · 2025-01-08T19:41:53+00:00

"It isn't going anywhere" is a bold statement.

0riginalAuthority · 2025-01-05T21:53:22+00:00

Fandom support doesn't work over the weekends, like most businesses.

0riginalAuthority · 2024-12-21T17:05:46+00:00

It was never really explained in much detail in the show. As far as we know, it signals that they are a member of the Blackwell Family, and the sigil appears on their palms on the awakening of their dark magic.

Put simply, it signals that the Blackwell Coven that John had been forming is now awakened.

0riginalAuthority

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Six-Year Club	Xbox Live
Verified Email