https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50527
--- Comment #11 from James Forrester <jforres...@wikimedia.org> --- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #7) > > Adding a <nowiki> to an article (as opposed to a template or something) is > > generally unnecessary and probably in need of a second look, regardless of > > whether VE added it or the editor added it manually. Wikimarkup simply > > *doesn't look like* real punctuation, so it's uncommon to need to escape it > > in > > running text. > > > > As such, I tentatively agree with James here: A VE-only filter would be > > unnecessary since the broader case is really what we need to go after > > anyway. > > You miss the point: in an edit-filter, I would advocate simply blocking the > edit if it was VE and not allow it to be saved. If a human being consciously > did it, there's at least a remote chance that it was a good edit worthy of > examination. I think that would be an exceptionally-bad thing to do to fellow editors and thus to the wiki at large, but that's a decision for local wikis' communities to make, and not appropriate for the developers to rule on. > There *are* legitimate uses of nowiki, usually things involving bolded and > italicized possessives, pipe characters inside of text. It's just that none > of the ones created by VE have any merit. None? None ever? Not even when a user of VisualEditor creates a bolded or italicised possessive? :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
