https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50527
--- Comment #13 from [email protected] --- (In reply to comment #11) > (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 As was making VE the default editor in the first place, so it's obvious we don't agree some fundamental points. > > > 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? :-) True enough. Which is why you should fix the root bug in the first place instead of pushing it downstream for everyone else to deal with: warning newbies about inserting explicit wikimarkup is obviously still inadequate, as this edit filter still fires. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
