This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I have experienced the Visual Editor always timing out whenever I tried to make even minor edits to some of the large, higher-traffic generating, most-watched articles such as Barack Obama, PlayStation 3 and World War II. Anybody else experiencing this issue, especially with pages with combined tons of content, templates, images and citations? If so, that is not very good... Zzyzx11 ( talk) 20:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Not all change is for the betterment of Wikipedia. Enough said. Bwmoll3 ( talk) 18:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm certain much work has gone into this, however, I suggest that you have an "opt out" option. I've been on Wikipedia for over 7 years and have over 120,000 edits and have written several thousand new articles.
Honestly, I haven't heard a massive cry from the user community about the need for a visual editor. Nevertheless, I subscribe to the Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) philosophy when it comes to change and "making things better". I'm quite happy, thank you, with the current editor as it gives me maximum flexibility to edit and create articles without having to experience the problematic issues that seem to be well-documented by other Wikipedians (above) in this discussion.
If Visual Editor is designed for new editors, then that's all well and good. However, for the experienced editors here, I'd be quite happy with the old, antiquated, simple editor I've been using the past seven + years. I just don't see any advantage of going though a leaning curve to learn new software that, in the end, will force a learning curve and in the end, do exactly what we're doing now with the existing editor that is quite simple to use, is extremely flexible and quite adequate. Just a few thoughts. Bwmoll3 ( talk) 08:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to VE because it'll make it possible to introduce friends and family to the joys of editing (and wasting hours trying to find sources for articles). When Everything is Working Properly™ I'm going to encourage my brother, sister, father and father-in-law to get started here. They've each got domain-specific knowledge, good writing skills and I know the retired parents have time to spare. If all our experienced editors were to recruit and induct a couple of new editors each, the project would get an enormous boost. That's the central benefit of the Visual Editor IMO. - Pointillist ( talk) 10:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
VisualEditor is improving a lot and in general I now prefer using it to editing the wikitext, so that's a huge step forward. I'm really looking forward to the instructions on how to use TemplateData so that we can get template parameters displaying in VE. A couple of issues I've noticed lately:
Sorry if these are already known issues. Waggers TALK 07:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
When I am trying to edit anything on the table/template that exists on
this page, even if that is a simple typo, it gives me the notification:
→Cite error: There are ref tags on this page, but the references will not show without a reflist template. (See help page)
First, why is this happening and second, it's obvious that the page does have a reflist. Same happens to all the table/templates that are like this one.
TeamGale (
talk) 23:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that this issue still exists. Can't edit with VE this type of templated because of the error that appears after the edit TeamGale ( talk) 08:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I disabled Visual Editor (VE) in preferences today due to constantly clicking the "edit" link instead of the "edit source" link. I am talking about section editing.
I almost always prefer editing with the source editor since I make frequent edits to tables, images, navboxes, and reference formatting. All at a deep level of formatting, placement, etc..
But since the source editing link only shows up after unintuitively mousing over the edit link I am constantly clicking the wrong link. So you have lost another beta tester. A good one too since I have written many comments and bug reports about VE here and in Bugzilla.
It would be better to use an icon for the "edit source" links for sections. For ideas:
The images below are all SVG except these:
30px: -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Thatotherperson
talk
Thatotherperson
contribs 03:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Thatotherperson
talk
Thatotherperson
contribs 08:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I keep getting "error saving data to server: failed request: error" for major changes. But the minor changes go through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dampayi ( talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem was with the VisualEditor; I couldn't reference to outside pages. I had to use Edit Source instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dampayi ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not pleased that this has not been automated. Edit summaries are more than just etiquette. They are profoundly useful when scanning your watchlist and it's something new editors usually do not provide. Looking at the VisualEditor, there does not even appear to be a place to provide a summary, let alone encouraging or requiring new editors to do this. When a new editor makes many changes to an article, having the summary lets you know what they did and that it was productive. Unless this is changed and is somehow automated (they can't save until they provide the summary), all you're doing is making more work for the regular editors, checking on the new editors' work, reverting vandalism and warning new editors to use a summary. freshacconci talktalk 15:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
References get misnumbered [2], the two refs in the infobox are properly numbered 1 and 2, but the count restarts in the main text. Reproduced in Safari and Chrome. -- j⚛e decker talk 15:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Footnotes are showing --- BUT only the most recent footnote, which appears 23 times on the edit screen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLBohrman ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't post the link. Yes it was on Atoka, Tennessee. Could just be me. SLBohrman ( talk) 14:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Prince Marko: audio appears huge in edit mode. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I like the visual editor, and I predict that more people will edit WP when it's introduced. However, there is one thing that bugs me: After I clicked the "Edit" Tab, the view of the article does change only slightly - so sometimes I do not know that I am already editing, especially when I scroll down the article. I'd suggest a visual hint: A modal popup, a slim outline of the editing area or a more distinctive design of the tool bar, for example. Mateng ( talk) 12:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
What is my verdict on the Visual Editor? MOST EXCELLENT! I always use the Visual Editor on Wikia, and have little idea how to use wikimarkups. Now making a table will be easy! -- BNSF1995 ( talk) 21:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Bug 49969 the response to my 21 June report seems unhelpful.
If I'm editing an article and want to add categories for birth and death dates, I need to be able to see those dates in the article while I'm adding the categories. The "Page settings" box totally obscures the article. I can probably remember one, but not both, of theose two dates. But I might want to add other categories too. Some categories involve unfamiliar placenames whose spelling is difficult to remember. The response seems to tell me that looking at the article while adding categories is undesirable multitasking. Can this bug please be bumped up the system: it's not a "low-importance enhancement" but a feature which makes doing a perfectly ordinary job very difficult.
When I'm stub-sorting I tend to add defaultsort and birth/death categories whenever I can, even if my main aim in opening the article was to remove {{ stub}} and replace it by something more specific. I might add a maintenance category or two, as well as tidying up obvious typos, making a link or two, unlinking a date, etc etc. The response to this bug says "As far as adding a category or changing the default sort of a category directly from some other mode (such as reading, or editing paragraph text) we should look at those workflows rather than dissolve the intentional model-ness of the dialog." (I guess "modal-ness" is intended) - this makes my heart sink, as it seems to say that my sort of driveby wikignoming is not at all what editors are supposed to be doing, and we must categorise our activities into separate modalities and not expect it to be simple to make several quick improvements to an article in one short editing session. Deeply depressing. Pam D 21:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Here's the diff. All I tried to do was move a quotation mark, and it added a bunch of underline markup in the References section and removed all the categories. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 21:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Summary: Apparently no matter what edit I do to that particular article, it blanks the categories and adds the underline tags. If I don't leave an edit summary, it does even more. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 02:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
On a related note, I just ran across this. The user was just trying to add a new section, but Visual Editor made some other repairs to the page, both good as I can tell. (It got rid of a stray </blockquote> and merged two a duplicated named reference.) Like I said, the changes were good, but above in the FAQ it says VE's not supposed to be making changes like that. (I'm fairly certain the user didn't do that himself, since he's very new, and would have had to do a lot of searching to find those errors.) ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 03:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The "This is a minor edit" label is truncated for me: I see ∆ This is a ∆ Watch this page. Happens on Safari 6.0.5, Chrome 27.0.1453.116 on Mac OS 10.8.4. I assume it's because of something in my CSS (most likely the fixed-navbar thingie), because it doesn't happen in my sock account.
Another thing: Also in the last dialog box before actually saving, there is what I assume is supposed to be an "X" in the top right corner. Clicking on it closes the dialog box. However, I do not see an X—it looks like an upside-down check mark (it isn't symmetrical). It seems all of the top half and half of the left half (of a regular [square] X) are somehow truncated. Ignatz mice• talk 22:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Despite the many changes made, hidden comments still cannot be seen or edited using VE. These comments are helpful in preventing unnecessary edits. Johnny Au ( talk/ contributions) 00:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
A very slow minor copyedit correcting one letter on the California article, FWIW. Djembayz ( talk) 03:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
When I try the following steps using Firefox 22, I get an incorrect warning:
Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 03:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Will this break the ways that minority language Wikipedias (Cherokee, Navajo, etc) have rigged their special input methods? Is there a way to refuse the upgrade if so? Cheers, Nesnad ( talk) 05:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd have expected this to be a known issue, but I failed to find such feedback: I see no way to add references to template parameters. See for example
User:Huon/Test: The references within the template parameters are displayed as wikicode within the Visual Editor, the named reference <ref name="mojo">
that's used within the infobox is not available for re-use outside the infobox, and while all references are correctly listed in the "references" section, Visual Editor numbers the first reference after the infobox [1]; apparently it doesn't realize at all that the references within the infobox exist. If I add a <references />
instead of (or in addition to) the {{Reflist}}
, that one won't display the footnotes within the infobox at all.
On a related note, I don't see how I could add templates within templates either - except by manually inserting the wikicode. Huon ( talk) 08:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Spaces and nowiki tags are being added to a table on my users page when I'm editing elsewhere on the page using VisualEditor. SLBohrman ( talk) 14:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
In this edit I wanted to remove one of the two templates which were nested in {{ multiple issues}}: the only way I could see was to delete {{ mi}} and then re-add the one template I still wanted. Messy. What if there had been 5 templates within {{ mi}} and I'd wanted to delete one or two: can it be done in VE? Pam D 15:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Templates have evolved since this morning, I'm happy to see. You can now see the name of the subtemplate. But, alas, I don't see any way to remove the top template without removing the subs. This would be a nice feature to have, I agree - I'll put it in, but it probably will be low-priority, as you say. :) -- Maggie Dennis (WMF) ( talk) 21:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
If I open Queen Anne Grammar School in VE, I can see two superscripts linking to references - and 29 references in the reflist. Some of them perhaps most, are the refs which were deleted in a series of edits 9 hours ago while the article was being moved from AFC to mainspace. If I open it in Edit Source, it's a respectable little stub with two refs and no sign of the other stuff.
Extremely confusing. I've got a word doc with a couple of screenshots pasted into it, could attach to an email if told where to send it.
Meanwhile will edit the article in VE and see what happens.
... Have italicised motto, stub-sorted, saved page, all in VE. When I open it again in VE it still shows 29 references.
... Closed it, edited it in Edit Source, saved it, no sign of refs 3-29. Re-opened it in VE, they are still showing up. Pam D 20:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes, the "Submit" and "Cancel" buttons don't show up, leaving the editor no choice but to backtrack and edit the page's source code. Is there any fix for that? Epicgenius( talk to me • see my contributions) 21:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried to edit the wikilinked word "Google" to the non-wikilinked word "Niantic" and got a strange result with an unexpected nowiki close tag:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ingress_(game)&diff=prev&oldid=562432188
Any idea why? Thanks! Woz2 ( talk) 21:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Look at the results of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akon_discography?veaction=edit . Notice how the visual editor treats html style tags as table entries.— Kww( talk) 22:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey y'all...I have to say, in the past few weeks the VisualEditor has improved quite a bit, and I'm proud to say that, what the heck, Oliver, for the first time ever you didn't botch up a release. I'm just kidding of course -- kudos to the entire team. Keep it up! Theopolisme ( talk) 22:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
First off, I want to say that the new visual editor is remarkable improvement over the version I tested out several months ago. This is an editor which I could actually use to manage articles! That said, one feature it currently lacks is viewing or editing inline comments to a page. These are useful in many different fashions. Could it be possible for Visual editor to display and/or allow editing of inline comments? Sailsbystars ( talk) 22:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I've been trying VisualEditor recently, and so far, I've been pretty pleased with it. I do have two nitpicks, however:
1) The text size for edit summaries and reviewing changes is a bit too small for me. I sometimes find that I have a bit of difficulty reading what I write in the text box and seeing the changes I made without zooming in. I think the text size could be made a bit bigger.
2) When I edit a particular section of an article, it would be nice if the text summary noted which section I edit like editing the source would. Currently, VisualEditor doesn't do that.
Overall, it's good so far, even if I have some minor issues with it. Lugia2453 ( talk) 22:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The former edting interface of Wikipedia is way better than the current one. Windows55 (2) ( talk) 22:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The Editing tab on my Preferences page doesn't have an "Enable VisualEditor" option under "Usability". Jordan Brown ( talk) 23:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
importScript('
User:Matma Rex/VE killer.js');
to your common.js file.
Keegan (WMF) (
talk) 23:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Now that you've made the visual editor the default, I would like to have an option to switch it off again. However, I can't find the box to tick any more in my preferences. Could you please bring this back? I do not want to use visual editor, and the dual tabs for "edit" and for "edit source" are confusing. – Thanks.-- Aschmidt ( talk) 23:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. smileguy91 talk 23:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. Awful, unnecessary, unwelcome and unwanted. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 23:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The entire process of this 'visual editing' is extremely slow, from the lag when altering some text to the long wait for an edit to be finished. I added a single space, and had to wait for about six seconds to finish my edit. This change adds nothing of benefit that I can see, and it looks to be useless for real article editing; how would one see or use wiki-markup in this interface? I have no idea.
By the way, this feedback form constantly moves down my screen every time I hit a key, making me have to scroll down. It causes full screen flickering seemingly randomly too. I do not recall signing up for this, I hope that this feature wasn't suddenly enabled by default for everyone. Shirudo talk 23:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that there are now 2 ways to edit an article, the "edit source" way uses the familiar theme; the new theme now called "edit" is different. I have a problem with it. If you use the "edit source" option, there's an HTML comment at the top of Christine Jorgensen saying to use she/her to refer to Christine Jorgensen throughout her life. But with the new "edit" way of editing the article, no one will notice this HTML comment. People who prefer to edit with the new "edit" way of editing the article will change pronouns in this article the way they want to. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy ( talk) 23:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the A/B test results must have been fantastic in order to justify doing this to us. Can I ask what they were, and where they are summarized and analyzed?— Kww( talk) 23:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
A strange, and quite minor bug, when editing Pickup v. Brown and Welsh v. Brown. When I edit this, and decrease my window width in such a way that the external linka at the bottom of the page requires more than one line, the bullet migrates to the second line improperly. Reproduced in Chrome and Safari/MacOSX/latest. -- j⚛e decker talk 00:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
very annoying thing jumps out when I'm trying to read pages. Ellin Beltz ( talk) 00:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Currently, there is no way to truly choose what you want to link to. For instance, if I want to link to Canada from "Canadian" (yes, I realize it is overlink, and wouldn't really do it) I can not, because Canada is not among the choice options, and there is no way to pipelink or input your own option. 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Before I begin to truly use this, the referencing function must improve. To me, the "What do you want to reference" doesn't make sense. I want to place a reference where the cursor is. Clicking on "use new source" does not work. It would really be cool if a selection of cite templates were included in a dropdown menu, and then fields were provided. Speaking for myself, cite book, journal, news, and album-notes are absolutely essential. Thanks! 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I will just say this: Thank goodness Wikipedia is not planning (apparently) to eliminate the "edit source" option. Apparently, "edit source" is the only way to be able to preview your work before saving your changes. I tried the new VisualEditor for the first time today (on CJQM-FM), but it was so disorienting that I cancelled editing numberous times before throwing up my hands and discovering the "edit source". One noteworthy source of my frustration was an attempt to add in image in the CJQM-FM Infobox; somehow, the markup codes for internal link (double brackets) appeared in the article, causing the internal link to be broken or at least appeared to be broken. (Luckily, I added the picture in "edit source" with no harm.) My preference is to always preview my work before saving, since it's important to make sure the edits are accurate before the world sees it.
So, for the benefit of the "new" editors, please at the very least add a "preview" button. If not, make them use the good old fashioned "edit source"; they'll learn. Darrel M ( talk) 01:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
VE can't properly display any chart table using {{ singlechart}}. Take a look at 5 O'Clock (T-Pain song)#Charts and certifications as a random selection, and try to figure out how to change the positions (or, worse yet, add a line). This is probably related to the fact that singlechart creates reference and table markup internally. It is, however, an extremely common template, used in most articles about singles.— Kww( talk) 01:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The old editor had a list of commonly used citations. This was extremely handy. It would be nice if that feature could be brought back. ¿3fam ily6 contribs 01:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It also had a built-in find and replace function. That of course tends to be more useful in the source edit, but it's ridiculous that that and many other functions of the edit toolbar were removed. Reywas92 Talk 07:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not very used to it. I was planning to added one more ref into a sentence, but I have no idea what to do. Rochelimit ( talk) 02:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This new BETA editing tool is the most confusing and useless "upgrade" ever introduced by Wikipedia. Yes, it does look a lot fancier but Wikipedia is all about simplicity, which this new tool is effectively going to eliminate. We don't need this "chic" interface, make it go away! Permaveli ( talk) 02:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
importScript('User:Matma_Rex/VE_killer.js');
I strongly believe this rollout was premature at best. I have no idea why anyone thought displaying edit summaries in the tiniest text imaginable was a good idea. I don't see why anyone thought a function which does not display the standard BLP policy notice when editing BLPs, especially in a feature intended to appeal to new editors, was a good idea. I wonder whether not displaying the standard language about copyrights, licenses, etc was a good idea, and might even foul up the licensing legalities. With all the klutziness and obtrusive features, this may do for Wikipedia editing what Windows 8 has done for PC sales. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I note there is a strong statement on the info page to the effect that WMF and the Devs do not care one whit what the community wants, we are required to accept this. However, as others have said, imposing it as default before it works adequately is a sign of contempt and a completely separate point from whether a WYSIWYG editor is desirable in itself. The default being something that doesn't work is not desirable, and that policy statement is to say the least peculiar in a volunteer project. Yngvadottir ( talk) 04:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I spend a lot of my time in code, so prefer modifying the wikitext, rather than an interface's attempt at rendering the text in real time gringer ( talk) 02:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Clicking "Page settings", or the reference, image, and category buttons in the top right brings up a dialogue box for input. To close this box there is an X in the top right. However, when I am not at the top of the page, this dialogue box pops up beneath the standard editing options. This makes it impossible to close the box without adjusting the screen magnification.
In addition, the opening of these boxes freezes scrolling of the underlying page, which not only furthers the problem above, but is also simply annoying and unnecessary, as I can no longer move to another part of the article I wish to see without closing and reopening the box. Reywas92 Talk 03:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Today, while editing Portals to Canaan (adding a link and removing a word) I tried out the VE, for these simple tasks I have found it to be pretty good for this. It was simple enough (once I knew what it was actually doing) and I liked the list of links that gave suggestions, to avoid linking to a DAB page. The one issue I had was when I saved it, I went to remove a duplicate stub templates, and it said I was editing an old version of the page (in VE), so I had to reload the page to remove it. Overall I think it is good, and I like that it is easy to switch back to old school and VE without having to change any settings. I will probably use a combination of the two in the future, depending on what I am doing. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 03:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The [edit] button should not shift to [ edit | edit source ] when you simply mouse over anywhere in the header line. It's very distracting and should only do that when you mouse over the button itself.
It's also distracting how it has to widen itself. Why add the spaces inside the brackets? Why widen or change text at mouseover at all? [edit|source] should be the link all the time. Reywas92 Talk 03:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
At first glance, my immediate reaction was to figure out how to turn this off. I much prefer editing using code, and am glad that option remains. This concept is not terrible, but the product it self really adds little (although it is beta). My suggestion here is twofold:
I wish this project the best of luck, but I have no interest in using it at this point. Aside from that, this project misses a key point - editor retention. Making a new, buggy, unfinished, and not technically rich editing system the 'default' does not show that WMF values its current editors. Finding new members is important, but keeping the current ones is too. Toa Nidhiki05 03:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I do not like the new Visual editor. I don't edit very much, I usually change grammar or remove vandalism. I like the old way of editing better. Can I have the old way of editing back? BeckiGreen ( talk) 03:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
[3] -- NeilN talk to me 04:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Not telling us that such a change was coming was highly disruptive to editing Wikipedia. Whoever turned this thing on should be blocked. Seriously.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 04:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Unless something has changed, if you opt-out of fundraising ads, it suppresses all WMF banners. Remember the editor's survey was subject to the same problem? A lot of people aren't going to know about this. From my brief experience with it, my first impression was to try to get rid of it, quickly. It's not even half-finished. It's a good idea, just finish coding it before rolling it out. Gigs ( talk) 16:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Problems with gibberish code being added: other people have reported this problem. If I personally have this occur, I will report it.
The "review changes" box covers the whole screen. As does any dialogue box such as those that open when editing an info box or adding a citation. This is probably caused by my using 125% zoom on a small laptop. Note that without this magnification, I am unable to edit the encyclopedia. When I take the zoom down to 90%, I am able to see some of the underlying article (but I am no longer able to read it or edit it; it's too small). File:Overlapping dialogue boxes with visual editor.JPG shows a dialogue box covering the entire screen when my zoom is set to 125%. Notice how it's tucked under the bar at the top of the screen, a problem that has been reported elsewhere. If I could pick up the dialogue boxes and move them around, that might help. But presently they're locked in place.
For the kind of editing I am doing right now, the old-school edit box works better. Full citations are not added inline; the books are added to the bibliography down below and are called using {{
sfn}} templates.
Sample diff of Oskar Schindler. The new prose is added, and once the book is listed in the bibliography, all I have to do to add my cite is copy-paste a wee bit of mark-up, such as {{sfn|Roberts|1996|p=39}}
, and change the page number. Same deal if people are using named citations; it's likely easier to copy-paste their existing named citation rather than open up a dialogue box to add their cite. Adding cites needs to be the easiest thing in the world, as at this stage in the wiki history, we are no longer accepting unsourced content.
I notice you did not address the issue that section editing seems to be impossible. Clicking on a section edit does not open up that section but rather the whole article. For a big article, section editing is really important, because it's so easy to get lost. And it took 23 seconds for the visual editor to allow access to the article Adolf Hitler when I tried to edit a section. This does not compare favourably with the one second it takes to open a section edit in the old editing interface. I suppose I could go make a cup of tea while I am waiting, but that doesn't really make very good use of my editing time, does it?
For the type of editing I am doing right now, the visual editor does not help me. In fact it gets in the way and slows things down. So I am unlikely to use it. Unfortunately that is probably true for most of us who have been around a while. What this means is that the majority of the feedback you will be getting on the new system won't be from long-term editors like me, but from people who are new. If you were expecting long-term editors to use the new editor and report back on bugs and problems, I expect that is not going to happen once the initial flurry of excitement dies down, because in its present state it's more cumbersome to use, especially to add the citations, and gets in the way of productivity. Thank you for promptly replying to my list of concerns. -- Diannaa ( talk) 14:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I have just started using the new visual editor feature. I notice a lag in the saving of the page which is much more than when editing the source. A m i t ❤ 04:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
when previewing a change in a rail icon template, it does not render the new page correctly aligned but breaks up the icons and also misplaces them BT14 ( talk) 04:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Twice when I was editing Lois Brown, the large template at the bottom of the page with the show/hide toggle defaulting to "hide" has opened after saving the edit, and the show/hide toggle disappeared. This reverted to normal after a few page refreshes. Risker ( talk) 04:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
InMemoriamLuangPu ( talk) 05:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Very difficult to add references. What happened to web templates? NovaSkola ( talk) 05:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
(1) I was editing when suddenly I had Visual Editor thrust upon me. How do I revert to the old style of editing? (First you want to spy on veteran editors, then you use them as unwilling guinea pigs. Are you trying to drive us away?)
(2) Have Wikipedia's Dear Leaders ever heard the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? How is this an improvement?
(3) Is it really a good idea to make editing easier? Do you want to make it easier for 14-year-old boys to insert the words "fuck" or "penis" or "my girlfriend is a whore" in the middle of an article on atomic physics -- which will require someone else to clean up their mess? (If you want to do something useful, how about installing a filter just to eliminate words like "fuck", "asshole", etc. -- or repeating characters? Then other people wouldn't have to waste time cleaning up articles after they've been vandalized.)
(4) Where the heck are the special symbols / alphabets? How can I use Greek or Cyrillic or other special letters?
(5) The new editing system is slooooooow.
(6) Want to do something useful for a change? How about displaying footnotes when they're added or altered? At present, when I add a footnote, I don't see it until I save the page; then I notice a typo and I must edit the page again. Save people some trouble by displaying, during "preview", footnotes to a section.
Cwkmail ( talk) 05:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Can the powers-that-be NOT make this default. How about Opt-in and not forcing people opt-out?
WYSIWYG editing is gonna lead to dragging down contributors to the low·est common denominator [Is wiki-syntax really that hard to grasp? Really? ( facepalm)] J. D. Redding 06:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It is not really that hard for someone to use wikisyntax ... Me'the data is skewed [think, twain and statistics]. Please do NOT make this default. Regardless, allow opt-in ... and the problem is solved. -- J. D. Redding 06:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC) (ps., "reduce the initial cognitive overhead " = "lowest common denominator editing". 'Nuff said. As to contributions ... if someone wants to contribute text, contribute it, let someone else mark it up. Real simple. Been that way since the beginning of the project ... goodness the early years were so much better.)
Arguing that the button presented as the only option for section editing unless you learn to hover (or edit your preferences) isn't the "default" is a little disingenuous.— Kww( talk) 06:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
But Steven Walling only mentioned how it is difficult for women... SL93 ( talk) 10:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't use this new VisualEditor. It sucks. Brosensu ( talk) 06:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
When I click to edit, the Table of Contents understandably disappears. However, this results in everything on the page to shift upward, causing my desired section to either be obscured at the top of the page by the edit toolbar or shift off the page altogether. This should not happen; all contents should stay at the same level on the screen when in edit mode. Reywas92 Talk 06:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
If default, can the 'programmers' make the new option _appearance_ to the right [with the new "default" option off to the side]?
Current implementation (poor)
[Edit Viz | Edit source)
Alternative implementation (better)
[Edit source | Edit Viz]
Better yet, just make it opt in. But, I digress ... -- J. D. Redding 07:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Should be opt-in ... "new" features should be _added_ to the side ... J. D. Redding 07:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Please keep it opt-in. Been going good with opt-in form since December 2012, seem like. The "functionality', your opinion, is thrust on everyone. Sounds like Democratic centralism. ... the new "default" option [notice the quotes] is really a _new_ feature. It should be added to the right. Not taking the place of the edit source. This is, upon consideration, also why the license should have been kept under GPL (and not made artistic). -- J. D. Redding 07:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
... and that misunderstanding ("not sure") may, nay does, lay at the root of the problem. -- J. D. Redding 08:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia never used the gnu copyleft license? Riiight. Now that is funny. -- J. D. Redding 08:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC) (ps., next one will hear, "It's not a bug; it's an undocumented feature!")
Brilliant: I needed to change the DEFAULTSORT from "The New Elizabethans" to "New Elizabethans, The", and this time I didn't need to retype the whole lot but could just delete and retype the "The ". I reported this as a bug a while back and it's been fixed. Thanks. Pam D 07:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, I welcome the introduction of this editing tool. I hope the developers are not too discouraged by the negative reception here – this is very much to be expected. Now retired (thankfully?) from a career doing this sort of work I know the impossibility of introducing any new development in a way and at a time that suits most people. Or at any rate "most people who comment".
Having said that I have found a problem with nested references although I expect the article is using references in a way that developers wish would be deprecated. Here in the "Notes" section, the references are just being displayed by the Visual Editor in "raw" form (perhaps this is inevitable?) and in the body of the article there is an extraneous "</ref>" in the second paragraph of the lead and in the first paragraph of "Enduring influence". I haven't tried editing or saving so I don't know what the effect would be. Best wishes and good luck! Thincat ( talk) 07:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I mean, sloooow. After klicking the edit button, I have experienced loading times of up to 30 seconds. Completely unacceptable, basically you're wasting contributors' precious lifetime. How can you go live with this thingy as the "standard experience"? Stefan64 ( talk) 07:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Twice just now I've edited an article and wanted to edit it again immediately: first time, I did one group of changes, wanted to save them before starting a second batch, different edit summary, for clarity; second time I tweaked something, saved the page, then realised I wanted to change something else (I'd edited a line in a dab page, then realised I needed to move that line to preserved alphabetisation).
When I go back to re-edit in VE I get an error message: "You are editing an old version of the page...".
Even after the time I've taken to type all the above, I've just tried to re-open Robert Edwards and I still can't do so. ... OK, couldn't a moment ago for the nth time, but just immediately now can do so. What's that, about 5 minutes? I hope it's only a temporary glitch. Pam D 07:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This edit, which is tagged VisualEditor in my watchlist but not on that diff, added a <references />
which was unnecessary, since {{
reflist}}
was already present. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 07:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
So far, good work on the visual editor. I would definitely suggest some polish before it is implemented for all editors , but it is a step in the right direction. One thing struck me as a bit odd while using the Visual Editor though: There is an entire interface for adding templates, yet the editor still expects me to enter each template parameter manually, which still requires me to remember what fields are used in a taxobox, or that "1=" happens to be a deletion reason, while "2=" is intended to be the signature in another template.
What I would like to suggest would be the ability to save a template definition for later use - one could actually go as far as creating default definitions for every commonly used template (and load these definitions by default when a template is selected in the editor). Since idea's are nice but examples are better, I added a quick mockup of this idea. The Pseudo-XML code below is an example of a saved template definition. The thumbnail would be an example of the result right after this definition would be loaded.
<Template>
<Parameters>
<ParaMeterGroup1 displayname="General Information">
<Parameter1>
<ParameterName>Taxo_Name</ParameterName>
<ParameterFriendlyName>Name</ParameterFriendlyName>
<HelpDescription>The common, non scientific name of this animal</HelpDescription>
<DefaultValue>Paraplatypoides longipes</DefaultValue>
<Type>Text</Type>
</Parameter1>
<Parameter2>
<ParameterName>Template_Image</ParameterName>
<ParameterFriendlyName>Image</ParameterFriendlyName>
<HelpDescription>The image that should be displayed in the taxobox</HelpDescription>
<Type>Text</Type>
</Parameter2>
<Parameter3>
<ParameterName>Regnum</ParameterName>
<ParameterFriendlyName>Regnum</ParameterFriendlyName>
<HelpDescription>The regnum under which this species falls</HelpDescription>
<Type>Selection</Type>
<Selection>
<PossibleValue>Animalia</PossibleValue>
<PossibleValue>Plantae</PossibleValue>
<PossibleValue>Fungi</PossibleValue>
<PossibleValue>Protista</PossibleValue>
<PossibleValue>Archaea</PossibleValue>
<PossibleValue>Bacteria</PossibleValue>
</Selection>
</Parameter3>
</ParaMeterGroup1>
<ParaMeterGroup2 displayname="Diversity">
<Parameter1>
<ParameterName>diversity_link</ParameterName>
<ParameterFriendlyName>Diversity Link/ParameterFriendlyName>
<HelpDescription>The article that the text specified under the "Diversity" parameter links to.</HelpDescription>
<Type>Text</Type>
</Parameter1>
<Parameter2>
<ParameterName>diversity</ParameterName>
<ParameterFriendlyName>Diversity</ParameterFriendlyName>
<HelpDescription>The amount of species in a specific taxa</HelpDescription>
<Type>Text</Type>
</Parameter2>
</ParaMeterGroup2>
</Parameters>
Most of the data should explain itself - "ParameterName" is the name of the parameter that is to be used in the template. The other data fields are only intended for display, help and automation sake. I suppose the same set up could also be used to edit an existing template. As long as the editor could parse the existing template parameters it should be possible to map parameter data back to their respective parameter fields in the visual editor. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 08:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Editing User:John of Reading with VisualEditor, the "Page Settings / Languages" popup claims that my user page is related to the Swedish article sk:Ján z Readingu. But actually that's linked to the article John of Reading. John of Reading ( talk) 08:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
"ultimately, a lot of people leave because editing is just too complex" [4]. Visual Editor is a good idea, but this implementation is way too heavy and clumsy. On Firefox 22 / Lubuntu 13.04 / Core i3 / 4GB RAM typing is so slow I can type a sentence and wait to see it appearing while sipping tea. In comparison, Wordpress is fluid and responsive. Complexity is an enemy, no doubts. However, the complexity is in the formality of the content (and ultimately in how Wikipedia is organized), not in the markup or in the editor. I am confident that the editor was not a significant factor of why people left. I was considering returning and this visual editor would be a motivator not to. Thank you for edit source. Good luck with visual editor, at some point you will get it right. Yuv ( talk) 09:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
So when you first create a reference you can chose to name it for re-use later on, great! But if you didn't name it when it was first created then it doesn't appear you can edit the reference to add a name later. Click on the reference and the only option that comes up is group; name is not an option. NtheP ( talk) 09:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
For some reason I have been forced to use this and don't have the option anymore to not use it and use the standard method of editing. It is horrible, it is slow, it is confusing. You say this is going to help wikipedia expand as everyone will be able to easily submit information but they won't. This is so much more confusing. How do I disable this? I do not like being forced to use an editor that is still incredibly slow and buggy. -- Lolcakes25 ( talk) 10:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I do not want to be forced to use a new tool now. So how do I turn it off so I can learn how to use it (assuming that it works since there is a disclaimer that says some parts of it are not working yet) when I am ready to do so? Shouldn't that be the first thing that you add prior to rolling something out? Stevenmitchell ( talk) 10:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I am severely disappointed with this. It is more complicated than learning the HTML code and I think the only fair thing is to allow registered users to choose whether they want to use the visual editor or do traditional HTML editing. Sonoflamont Sonoflamont ( talk) 11:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Why is there not a banner at the top of all pages (or at least on top of watchlists) mentioning this change and providing a link to more information? I was caught entirely by surprise by this and had to take some time (granted, only like 2 minutes) finding how to disable it. We get banners asking for money all the time; this is an even more major change, and judging by the number of people coming here asking how to disable it then it seems like having a banner would obviously help the transition. Where's the appropriate place to bring this up? rʨanaɢ ( talk) 11:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that right now VisualEditor is only happening in article space and presumably user space, and per the list at the bottom of Wikipedia:VisualEditor#About the VisualEditor it doesn't look like anyone's planning on taking it to other namespaces anytime soon. The reasoning behind this is obvious--presumably users who are straying outside of mainspace are more experienced and can handle MediaWiki markup--but I wonder if this reasoning is true everywhere. For example, I think AfD, and article talkpages [in the case of disputes or semi-protection, when anon editors might be told by other editors to go to the talk page] are people that inexperienced editors might come to and even be making their first edit at. I wonder if seeing a totally different edit window when going from mainspace to somewhere else might confuse these few newbie editors more than VisualEditor helped them? rʨanaɢ ( talk) 11:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
non sense Murrallli ( talk) 12:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Dunmallet has its coordinates displayed in the title line, as do so many WP articles. I opened it in VE to make another edit, and noticed that the coords were displayed at the bottom. I assumed that this meant that the coords template parameter was wrong (ie assumed that VE was displaying the coords in the position they were displaying in the article - WYSIWYG, isn't it?!) I fiddled around, worked out how to check the "display=" parameter, it was set to "title" so I concluded that this had to be wrong and perhaps the correct parameter was "in title", tried that, checked documentation, verified that "display=title" is right, cancelled VE edit and of course the coords popped back to their correct display.
In short, VE is being non-WYSIWYG with regard to title-line coords display. Please fix it, apologies if it's a known bug. (Surely must be, if it affects every occurrence of coords displaying in title line?) Pam D 12:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a must needed one! This'll make more help to get new contributors who've starter knowledge in scripting too. However, sinhala unicode isn't working on this. That means si.wikip won't get this for ever. Please look in to this and try to have something good to Sinhalese people too! -- තඹරු විජේසේකර සාකච්ඡාව (Thambaru Wijesekara) 12:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Please, somebody explain to me how it is that major changes in the daily use and editing of Wikipedia happen with only a few people even knowing that it is coming, and with so many people literally hating the results. How many people were involved in this, who were they, and how could the channels they went through possibly have been considered the "right" channels. I'd like to call for an independent third party to audit this new "feature" nightmare. This is clearly not working through consensus.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 12:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
CRAP CRAP CRAP AND MORE CRAP! Crazyseiko ( talk) 13:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
If you use both the script provided above to disable VE and the gadget, ditto, you lose the ability to edit as the edit tab no longer appears, the section edits go away and you can't edit by double-clicking on the page if you have that activated.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
If you use both of them together. I use Safari, OS X (I have a MacBook Pro) and Monobook skin.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I haven't played around much with Visual Editor yet, but I can see the potential. When I tried to add a simple stub tag to an article, I liked that it would give me a list of templates, and let me choose the proper one. However, the editor did not place the stub tag where it was intended, or follow the basic MOS of WP:FOOTERS. If the goal is to make Wikipedia more user friendly, by eliminating the need to know wikitext and formatting, those things should be built into the software, so that editors don't have to worry about it. Fortdj33 ( talk) 13:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I raised this 11 days ago and was told, pretty much, that VE couldn't be bothered with "project-specific" things like WP:MOS which is specific to English wikipedia. Seriously bad news: editors editing an article expect to find certain elements in defined places - stub tags right at the end, categories before them, etc. AWB is intelligent enough to sort this out as part of its general fixes: VE ought to be capable (and "willing") of allowing editors to make edits which comply with WP:FOOTERS, which is part of MOS. I've had to go back and tidy up in "Edit Source" after many of my VE edits, though have continued struggling on with VE out of good will and to help its development by reporting bugs etc. Please put templates such as stub tags into the right places. It should also be possible to identify those "maintenance templates" such as {{ unref}} which must always go at the top, before everything except disambiguation hatnotes (which are a finite set of templates and therefore clearly identifiable), and to put those templates at the top - not wherever the cursor happened to be left after the previous edit, as has happened to me. Pam D 14:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The MOS-specified way of working is what is expected on a given wiki. Saying "sorry, out of our scope" just isn't a good enough answer, and people will justifiably think of it as you making their editing experience harder, not easier, and making a mess - David Gerard ( talk) 18:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure someone asked this already, but I couldn't find this question myself - How do you add rows or columns to Wikitables? List articles often have most of their content embedded in tables.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 13:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Can I switch back to the old method Crelache ( talk) 13:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Probably not the most pressing issue :), but during editing the display of the maintenance tag "unreferenced section|date=August 2012" is corrupted (the text is extending outside of the screen to the right side), see article Otto I at "Consolidation of Power". I have actual FF installed, my current screen resolution is 1280 x 1024. GermanJoe ( talk) 14:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
So I still love the little animations for the [ edit | edit source ] buttons. But could you switch the stupid buttons around? Every time I go in for an edit, I wind up missing the link and accidentally clicking on the Visual Editor link. Then I have to wait a while for the Visual Editor to load, hit the back button on my browser, and then scroll down to whereever I was before. Maybe muscle memory would adapt if I only edited in the Article space, but you seem to be forgetting that Wikipedia editors do occasionally make talk page edits (like I am right now), where the [edit] button does something totally different. The end result is me constantly missing the links.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 14:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Following on from #Attempting to add a reference above:
I'm an experienced editor, have been experimenting with VE for 11 days, decided to have a go at adding a reference. Even with the User Guide open as I work, I cannot see how to get at any parameter list for {{ cite web}} (ie something like the functionality of the old RefToolbar).
I literally cannot discover how to be prompted by parameter names (from {{ cite web}} or {{ cite book}} etc) when adding a reference: and surely this is one of the most helpful features we can offer to new editors, to encourage them to provide decent references. If it's a book, we want them to include author, title, publisher, date, page number, isbn. If I can't even find this, with my background, it sure as hell isn't going to be obvious to and easily used by our new editors. Or am I missing something blindingly obvious? Pam D 14:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I was startled when VisualEditor lurched onto the scene yesterday, but then I actually found it kind of cute, and enjoyed playing with it. I thought the folks who complained about it were being harsh and unreasonable. But I have come around to their side after realizing that Wikipedia is going to sustain a lot of damage when it comes to en dashes, degree signs, prime signs, minus signs, etc. I know how to fetch these characters and use them (with considerable difficulty), but those who will not go to that trouble will be using superscripted 'o' for a degree sign and a hyphen or two instead of en dash, em dash and minus signs. This shortcoming needs to be addressed with a high priority, but it is being handled as a bug (50296) with a very low priority. If I had a button that would drag this oinker back onto the drawing board until it is really ready, I would press that button right now. Chris the speller yack 14:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this article. The old version looked like this. It was then edited by a brand new editor using the visual editor and looked like this (a bit of a mess). I reverted primarily because the edits introduced blatant copyvio. They returned to re-add it plus more and produced an even bigger mess (reverted by X-Link bot). Can anyone tell if the awful formatting problems were due to the VE or simply a new editor who couldn't figure out how to use it? Voceditenore ( talk) 15:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Tried to link some unlinked entries in a simple-looking 2-column list in The New Elizabethans. Managed it, but it wasn't one of VE's finest hours.
Clicking on any link turned the whole list blue - what will a new editor make of that?
Realised that they were within a template - so ended up having to use old "Edit Source" editing skills to edit the list of links which appeared in the "template content" window. Not a very elegant solution. Is it going to be possible to edit links within templates? There must be thousands of multicolumn lists out there which people will need to edit occasionally!
Thinking further: presumably this means that at present absolutely all edits to multi-column list items will have to be done manually (if someone is persistent enough to find the wikicode displayed!) ... not just links, but adding text, formats, etc? Ouch. Pam D 15:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
it is much more user friendly than the previous version .in all it is quite good Bsamiwalaa ( talk) 15:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This is horrible. Turn it off and fire whoever developed it. Nathan Johnson ( talk) 15:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
going back and forth between 'edit' and 'edit source' should keep interim changes -- rather like switching between edit source and preview. That way, you won't have to save interim edits when switching modes. Darkonc ( talk) 15:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
My first few experiences of the visual editor have been very mixed. I edit on a fast connection but a relatively slow computer, and find the way that the VE loads the entire page for a section edit means I have to wait 1-2 minutes before I can make my changes. If I ask to edit a section then there is no need to load anything other than the relevant section and doing so is very inefficient and potentially confusing.
When I edited Bermuda to disambiguate one link, the VE randomly inserted a blank line in a section way down the page [6]. I don't know why those items are commented out from the bulleted list, but the VE should not be making changes like that without being explicitly told to (per the FAQ on this page) and I had to make a second source edit to fix the problem it introduced.
The VE also disguises piped links so it is not possible to see at a glance whether there are other links that need fixing. Together these mean that the tool is not currently suitable for wikignome editors.
Copying and pasting text within the visual editor should retain the formatting (bold, italic, etc) of the source text, rather than just being plain text requring manual reformatting. If word processors can do this then it must be technically possible.
Finally, strongly object to the way that this tool has changed the meaning of the "edit" link. Instead of changing the meaning of that well-established term and introducing "edit source" (which is not what you are doing anyway, as the wikitext is not the html source) it should have left the "edit" tab doing what it has always done and added an "edit page visually" or "wysiwyg edit" option or something.
Overall, it's not bad for a work in progress, but it feels like an early beta that should still be opt in. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Came across this edit on Sean Bean. I know the editor who performed it was using Visual Editor and was probably trying just to add information to the lede but "nowiki" code got added around their edit... Shearonink ( talk) 16:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
On the
Mogwai page, there is a non-existant category I'd like to amend, but VE appears to only shows up categories that exist. It would be nice if I could edit/remove non-existant categories via VE.
Insulam Simia (
talk/
contribs) 16:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
From {{about|the concept in Hinduism|the 2009 film|Avatar (2009 film)|the animated series|Avatar: The Last Airbender|other uses|Avatar (disambiguation)}}, I removed 2 arguments in the middle. It resulted in {{about|the concept in Hinduism|the 2009 film|Avatar (2009 film)|6=other uses|7=Avatar (disambiguation)}}, but I wanted {{about|the concept in Hinduism|the 2009 film|Avatar (2009 film)|other uses|Avatar (disambiguation)}} -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I just don't understand how this new system works. Just now I tried to edit, and when I clicked on "Edit", the section I wanted to work on completely disappeared! I had to use "Edit source" instead. AlbertSM ( talk) 16:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm getting a problem where if I want to use a reference already listed, the editor only lets me choose the first three. Is there a way to scroll down to see the rest? I can't seem to do so on my browser. Thanks, this new editor does look promising, once it's developed further. ¿3fam ily6 contribs 16:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
After puzzling over edits like
this,
this and
this, I've worked out that the image position is based on where the cursor was at the time that the user went for the "Media" button. But where does the 200x200px
size come from? Is there any reason that it can't simply be omitted, in accordance with
WP:IMGSIZE "do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so". --
Redrose64 (
talk) 17:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Chrome on Windows 7. Click edit on a section, edit the section using VE. Save. Click edit on another section edit, you get the "You are editing an version... [other changes] will be removed" message. And, in fact, saving edits to another section will revert the first changes just made by you.
This seems like a pretty serious limitation. Dovid ( talk) 17:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This may have been suggested before, but why can't there simply be two panes visible simultaneously, one with the visual editor and another beneath it with the source editor? I've used several CASE tools that work like that: change the diagram and the currently displayed code generated changes; change the code and the diagram changes. Eric Corbett 17:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Unless there is some button I've not correctly interpreted the unlabelled diagram on, there is no possible way to create a redirect in the visual editor. I tried just entering the markup, but it silently shoved it in "nowiki" tags [7]. If the visual editor is to be at all useful it must never insert nowiki tags without being told to. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
When trying to use the VE toolbar to add a wikilink on Palms (album), the blue cover that appears when hovering over a template (the track list in this instance) obscured the VE toolbar and made it impossible to use. Please fix. Insulam Simia ( talk/ contribs) 18:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Since the poor implementation of the [edit | edit source], and 'VisualEditor' (hereafter, VizWiz) is being forced upon everyone (not opt-in) ...
-- J. D. Redding 18:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC) (does notice the VizWiz implementation is not on this page)
In playing around with adding a new reference, I somehow got the URL to be appended to the end of the previous reference.
The bad thing: I can't figure out how to fix it now, even if I delete my changes. Here's the diff: [9] Where the URL I was trying to use for ref. 12 got appended to ref. 11 (and I can't figure out how to get rid of it). Woodshed ( talk) 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This is probably a known limitation, but a really important one: currently it's not possible to copy a transclusion of a template from one article to another. There are many situations in which the easiest way to add a template to an article is to copy a use from another article and then adjust the values of the fields slightly. It would be nice if all the standard copy/paste hotkeys and menu items just worked, but it's also acceptable if a separate copy/paste button is necessary. Dcoetzee 19:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't like that the "edit source" button appears and disappears as the mouse pointer goes past. It's very distracting when just reading the article. There should be one static "edit" button, and individual user preferences can determine what you want that button to do when you click it. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there a way to opt out of the visual editor, I am not use to this new editing system which does not appear to leave an ability to leave an edit summary, and appears to be more difficult then it's worth. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Where is the URI for this script coming from? Could this possibly be a VE bug? I just looked through some of this user's other contributions, and none seem to have weird script tags in them. Is it possible that a client-side feature/bug is corrupting this? Or is it just a coincidence that this was added with VisualEditor? πr2 ( t • c) 20:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I hate this -- put it back!! DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 20:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
When I attempted to insert a transclusion of Template:Location map in East St. Louis Riot using the visual editor (see diff), the generated wikitext is correct and it looks correct when the page is saved, but it does not render correctly in the preview - I see this: [10]. Dcoetzee 20:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I can report that I could wait for ages until its loaded, half-fade-out and loading-bar repeating all the time. Don't know where's the reason for - whether it's my praehistoric machine nor NoScript blocking, but it doesn't report any new scripts. That sucks. This way I will stay with the old textarea-field. That's the fastest way. -- Kai Burghardt ( talk) 20:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Finally, I don't understand why "we" want to simplify editing-procedures. Typing plain wiki-code is a kind of filter against lusers. Though they still have the chance doing vandalism. -- Kai Burghardt ( talk) 20:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Leading out of discussion above, I have made a proposal for a formal User Council to represent the needs of Wikipedia users to the Foundation on issues such the roll out of software changes. -- RA ( talk) 20:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
If I'm viewing a page diff for the most recent edit to a page ( example), there are section edit links. If I click one of these, I immediately get a popup with a pink background and bold text "You are editing an old version of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed", which is somewhat misleading. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there any chance of Visual Editor supporting Firfox 17, or is that still too old? Thanks. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 20:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Editing bug! If you go to add a reference, hit "create reference", find yourself hopelessly confused by the template parameter interface, X out of it, then save the edit ... turns out you didn't cancel out like the interface left you thinking. Cancelling out needs to actually cancel out. - David Gerard ( talk) 21:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Pretty darn cool SirBob42 ( talk) 21:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting one that i just wandered across while looking at an old Articles for creation backlog drive, that causes a very interesting error popup to appear (Tested in Firefox 22)
This seems to be caused by the "oldid=prev" part. Normally this loads the revision prior to the Diff part of the URL, but it seems the VE cannot handle that correctly. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 21:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The classic editor is fine for me, thanks. KAMiKAZOW ( talk) 21:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I want to add a citation. I click on the "add reference" button. It asks if I want to add a existing reference or a new reference. I click "new reference". Nothing happens. I wait. I click it again. Nothing happens. I realize I'm supposed to click "new reference" and then the "next" button; this was wildly nonobvious. I clicked "next" and was presented with a second screen saying, I'm trying to see if I can remember the exact wording, "Add to group". There is a text box to type into. There is no hint what this means or what I'm supposed to write in there.
"Add to group"?! Really? What does that even MEAN?
Going back to the source editor, I have no idea how but somehow that was less confusing than your GUI. Awk ( talk) 21:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
(Text auto-submitted in preparation of bug video
[12])
[This Leave dialogue is] Impossible to use; even trying to use this leave dialogue re-scrolls the whole window on each and every single keypress, this makes it somewhat hard to use and it is unclear how one is supposed to press the OKAY button afterwards…
Sladen (
talk) 22:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Clarified —
Sladen (
talk) 22:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Alonsodono ( talk) 22:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not at all an improvement over the old cite tool, there should be an option to use the old way of adding references on the Visual Editor. eh bien mon prince ( talk) 23:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The template editor sorts parameters alphabetically. That sounds logical until you cite a book with mutliple authors and find that "first1=", "first2=" and so on are grouped together well apart from "last1=" and so on (for example, "isbn=" comes in between). Would it be possible to have the parameters sorted in the order in which they appear in the template itself, at least for those templates which use TemplateData?
On an unrelated note, yesterday we had an editor in the IRC help channel who wanted to thank you for how much easier VisualEditor makes editing, but couldn't figure out how to do so because this page can't be edited via VE. Huon ( talk) 00:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I think its great that the existing editing functionality is being retained - however the way this is being done for section edits seems obtrusive to me. Today I was reading an article, as I scrolled each time that my mouse cursor was in line with a section header it would flicker from.
to
which drew my eyes from the text I was actually reading.
Would it be possible to either:
Thanks, davidprior t/ c 00:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
What the heading says. When I review my change, my only option is to "Return to save form". I'd prefer that the save form just sit at the bottom of the review panel. One less click. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
After saving my first VE edit, above, I decided to make another change to the article but when I clicked the "edit" tab I got the message, "You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed." In fact, no one had edited the page since my edit, and I was editing the current version of the page. Clicking the "Article" tab and then the "Edit" link got rid of the false warning. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Visual Editor and reference addition - only plain text supported?. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't really like it. ApprenticeFan work 01:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Took about 45 seconds to save an edit. Needs extra efficiency. Don't know if that's the server's fault or VisualEditor's. XndrK ( talk · contribs · count) 01:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Book, so I put book in the bottom and then book showed up in the superscripted text. HelpFindaCure2013 ( talk) 02:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed something odd when using VisualEditor. I decided to use it when snooping around for various "it's" typos, for removing apostrophes seemed/is faster with VE than the old fashioned way. However, some of my edits seem to have done more than take out apostrophes. Seven times today ( [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]), VE added an extra space in a random place in the article (if it's hard to tell, on the last one it added the space right after "its"). And then it altered references on another, including changing access-dates. I don't think that's supposed to happen... Green green greenred 02:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the attraction of graphical interfaces. Everything comes up faster if you take out the gee-gaws and graphics. I could take a run around the block in the time it takes for this thing to save an edit. Then again, I still miss DOS and Unix. So I am a curmudgeonly minority. Does no one else know how to touch type? Kauffner ( talk) 02:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I spotted several edits by separate users who managed to add ./ to the beginning of wikilinks. [20], [21], [22]. Look like a bug to me.-- Salix ( talk): 02:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I have today encountered the warning message 'Saving to an old version, subsequent edits may be discarded' (paraphrase) several times when making serial edits to the same article, despite the fact that I know this is incorrect. The only way I've found to work-around is to reload the page, then re-do edits and then save. o_O. Meclee ( talk) 02:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
This article needs to be separated now that VisualEditor is in place. I wanted to give some positive feedback on the simplicity of the interface — it works for me, an old-timer with over 3,700 edits. I'll be sticking with < Edit Source > and leave it to younger or more experience editors to test and improve VisualEditor. Meanwhile, Can a different article be used for usage questions and feedback? I had to search on the homepage (which clearly identifies 1. how to learn, and 2. where to go to give some feedback) and when I get here, it is all about bug reports and complaints about VisualEditor, which I am not yet using.
So many of the comments are complaints about VisualEditor and replies about fixes or why the complainers are not understanding. This is why I would suggest having a new article or archive much of what was discussed in June. Instead, end up with two areas (two articles):
I want to give some feedback on the user interface and the new editor training, but such feedback is totally 'lost in the weeds.' — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 04:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, before this new editor went live, I went into my profile and ensured it was off. Sure enough, you screwed me....
Now, I am trying to edit an article with the broken editor. I can't even wikify a freakin link (add the double braces).
Great idea, and if this keeps up, I'm out of editing for wikipedia. Jeffrey Walton 05:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Several people above have noted the need for something similar to the ref toolbar, allowing people to fill in cite templates using a form interface. Taking this one step farther, I think it would be valuable to permit template authors to provide a form description (for example on a template subpage like Template:Foo/form) which is translated into a form for their template. Then whenever that template is inserted using Visual Editor, that form interface would be used by default. The form description would include things like what fields are included in what order, labels/descriptions for each field, data types of fields, an "advanced" section that is hidden by default containing additional fields, possibly Javascript gadgets like looking up book info by ISBN or a map for finding longitude/latitude, and so on. I realise this is pretty complex but I think it would make templates much more usable than having to refer to their documentation page to find the exact field names to fill in. Dcoetzee 06:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, How do you opt out from this Visual Editor? I like the current editing system a lot. -- Bogu Slav 07:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Why does clicking “Leave” not opt out of this abomination? -- KAMiKAZOW ( talk) 02:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
It would be helpful to have key mapping for correcting certain common typos, e.g.,
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 18:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
It is awkward to enter special characters with the current editor. I would like to see a facility in VE to allow selecting characters from displayed Unicode pages as well as by typing their Unicode names. In additional, I would like a facility to automatically change certain characters to character attributes, e.g., []. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 18:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Has it yet been discussed that when using VisualEditor, it doesn't seem that invisible comments <!--like this--> are visible to editors? We often rely on these to tell editors things like "please don't change this to 'color'; this article is in UK English" or possibly "this wording was decided by a binding RFC; please don't change it", and it would seem to be a loss if we no longer have a way to make new editors aware of such things. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
colo<!-- UK spelling for a UK-based article -->ur
When I hover over a section header link, it changes to "[ edit | edit source ]", except for the [edit] in the lead (i.e. Edit section 0). GoingBatty ( talk) 22:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
So, the old citation button produced a box. Not ideal, but workable. Now, however, it produces a "what do you want to cite" one line field, and a "use existing"/"create new" button selection, which then takes you to the box to input the citation. I'm not sure what happened to just producing the box, but if anything, this is glitchy and half the time doesn't let me create a new reference (by clicking the button for create new), and if it doesn't, it closes and doesn't let me click any other VE buttons except close and save.
Also, if anything, shouldn't it be moving toward a "reftoolbar" type thing, instead of a "go learn how to make references look right and consistent on your own then come do it"? Instead of the textbox for "what do you want to cite", have a dropdown with common options (book, web, news, journal, etc.) and then an "other" or "not here" which would default to {{ cite}}. The rest would default to the other templates, preferably with two options (standard and advanced/all parameters) as the current Reftoolbar.
This isn't super urgent I guess, as long as references are in the VE someway, I can ping the person who made the RefToolbar video about a new one :) Charmlet ( talk) 18:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
On projects where the templates already exist, code in something (hell, hardcode the word "citation" or "cite" in each language if you must) to find {{ cite web}} {{ cite news}} {{ cite}} {{ cite journal}} {{ cite book}}, ( es:Plantilla:cita web es:Plantilla:cita libro etc.) and any ones more common in another language. That's a big part of the old edit window, is the easy ability to add citations, and I don't support rolling this out to anyone more than it needs be before a referencing tool is added in that doesn't make people still learn the templates.
This is supposed to be for new editors, who don't know WikiCode. They aren't going to have any idea that they're supposed to click template, then type in "cite web", then type in some random paramater names that, frankly, aren't super intuitive, and then save it. They're going to be overwhelmed with another text box, and not know how to cite. So they'll give up. Isn't the VisualEditor supposed to eliminate that kinda situation? Charmlet ( talk) 13:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
<ref>http://url</ref>
at the least (and I confess to doing reference links like that when I can't be arsed to do the entire tedious {{
cite web}}) -
David Gerard (
talk) 16:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The many problems with this visual editor may cause many anonymous IP editors to edit less. So the monthly number of article edits by anonymous editors may continue its downward slide since 2007. See:
WMF board and staff are hoping that the VE editor will be easier to use by IP editors. But if those editors are being constantly reverted there may be a net loss in the monthly number of edits as many edit less. Post-and-run editors may edit more. IP editors who prefer wikitext source editing may edit less if they are as frustrated by the lack of a direct link to "edit source" as I am. See section higher up: #Edit and edit source links so confusing I had to disable Visual Editor in preferences. Registered editors can turn off VE. IP editors can not.
It is about net losses and gains. Some have asked whether the VE developers should try to please everybody. Well, they should try to please as many people as possible in order to slow down the decline in monthly edits, or to reverse it. If the loss is inevitable, then we need to make editing more efficient, so that there are less reversions, and less mistakes. So people get more done with less edits. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
(unindent). See this related talk section:
If this many registered editors are having this much difficulty now that the visual editor has been made the default for them, then imagine how many problems anonymous IP editors will experience when the visual editor is made the default for them too. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 20:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried saving an edit to U.S. Route 377 in Texas ( diff), it took a while and then finally I got an error. Sorry I didn't copy it but it was something close to "Error: Invalid error type." However, when I check the history it did accept the edit in spite of the error. FWIW, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Coming from a business background where support for IE (current and previous versions) was a far higher priority than other browsers, I wonder why this is not the case here. That said, I will be a tester of VE on IE10 when it is available. Can we please have a Bugzilla query that shows only outstanding IE10 issues. Downsize43 ( talk) 01:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The following does not display correctly in VE under Safari on iPad.
Lua error in Module:Location_map at line 391: The hemisphere "N" provided for longitude is not valid.'Bold text'Bold text
Downsize43 ( talk) 01:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I really hate the [edit | edit source] that shows up. It took me a few to actually figure out what the difference between them was. For as long as I can remember, on Wikipedia [edit] meant "Go to a new page so you can make some changes and submit them." It didn't mean, "Stay on this page and make some changes in a reduced capacity. You want to make bigger changes? Click the OTHER button that is so obliquely-labeled good luck figuring out what it actually means. This new button, despite its confusing name, actually is the one that now does what the OTHER button used to do!" Great, so now I have to unlearn what has become so second-nature to me here on Wikipedia.
Can we PLEASE change this? It's annoying as crap to have to work with it like this. LazyBastard Guy 05:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I find it annoying that it has to change when you're just mousing over the entire header line. Make it static! We also NEED a link from the VE interface to the source interface. We still can't edit galleries, infoboxes, and such in VE, so there ought to be a quick link to the source edit. Reywas92 Talk 06:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I did read the feedback page, and it looks like the people behind thins don't give a damn about the complaints, so i'll just put it simply; this new "idea" sucks. The old way was better and simpler. 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 07:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Trying adding a reference now. Confusion in the interface:
Is this useful? Please make the references interface less annoying than just remembering the parameters to {{ cite web}} - David Gerard ( talk) 12:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
As long as you are producing a new editing tool, could it please include a spell checker?
I try to be careful, but when I make a long edit to an article, often a typo slips through and then I must make an edit to my original edit. A spell checker would reduce the frequency of that problem. Cwkmail ( talk) 17:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Tried to use it as much as I can, but right now only can manage only simple text editing. Things like templates, links are way easier and I just learned how to do it. But there is a bug regarding the window which pops up for writing the edit summary. When you click on "save page", the field given for typing the summary is bugged (whatever keys are pressed affect the background page not the newly popped up window field) Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 17:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Please make the [edit|edit source] button pop out only when the mouse hovers over it, not whenever it passes over the header, far away from the button itself. It's distracting to the reader and it gets annoying fast. CesarFelipe ( talk) 17:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It's bad UI design to hide functions from people. Definitely put both side by side. Also remember, you can't "hover" on a phone or a pad. Don't make people hover. Gigs ( talk) 01:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I've been editing Wikipedia for years and I'm used to the way it worked before. How do I turn off this visual editor and go back to the old way? I hate it! - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I just added templatedata to this important template, but it doesn't seem to be used when I try to edit a {{ main}} template on a normal page using visual editor. Did I do something wrong? @ User:Okeyes (WMF)-- 99of9 ( talk) 18:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried to add a link to the Koszta Affair in both modes but it still shows it as text, not a link. Perplexed, Shir-El too 19:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm glad that this change has finally come - although I may prefer the 'traditional' way of editing, (which I find quicker) I expect this will be much more friendly towards new users. However, there are a few important issues that I would like to see addressed soon (I know some of these have already been mentioned):
I haven't used the new editor much, but from the number of bugs around it's clear that it still needs a lot of work. Regardless, I think this is the right way to go, and I like the overall format and presentation of the new features. Jr8825 • Talk 19:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
1. IE is a pretty normal load. Maybe the most common. Or at least most common for non-techsavvy people, office workers, etc.
2. Ignore the screams and roll stuff out. It's the one thing that you can really impact on site, without endless arguments with the stuck community (e.g. look at the miserably laid out main page, with a huge discussion a year ago...but no changes).
3. I personally would have been happy to see you ignore the reference citation templates and just make the references not be inline (whatever it looks like after that). this is a normal feature in word processing software for at least 2 decades. (and I hate the freaking cite templates....really prefer to type them out manually...also the load time issue of the cite templates).
4. I don't get people screaming about having learned sfn and all that and wanting to keep it. I would like the average English professor, journalist, engineer, or business worker able to edit this place just like he does when he uses MS Word (for the last 2 decades). Just like when I work at a real job and write a document! Let's bring more (good) content people in and less techy gearheads (especially the Linux, Mac types).
TCO ( talk) 19:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't bother supporting old versions of IE. IE9 and 10 are actually more standards compliant than Chrome or Firefox in many ways, in that they won't accept broken code. Supporting IE10 would actually ferret out several errors that Chrome and FF are tolerating, I'm sure of it. Gigs ( talk) 01:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I completely understand the logic for why typing [[Foobar]] generates [[Foobar]] and not Foobar in the visual editor. However, this also means that people who might otherwise like VE have to stop and click a link to add a wikilink. I would like to suggest that a hybrid editing mode could be very useful for editors who like the VE interface but find the workflow sometimes annoying. Specifically, I would suggest a mode where when a user types [[Foobar]] it would automatically be detected and translated into Foobar. Same for other basic wiki syntax such as bold / italic and templates. The editor could monitor what you are typing and automatically do the translation at breaks between words, etc. That would allow advanced users to continue using the simple syntax elements that makes wikis so easy to use, while also allowing such users access other aspects of the visual editor interface. Such a hybrid mode might be controlled as a configuration option to continue to allow the present behavior if that is seen as optimal for other users. Dragons flight ( talk) 19:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I have edited standalone wikis via VE for three years now, and I'm glad to see that Wikipedia has finally adopted it. While I, as copy-editor, will likely not encounter many problems because I will likely not need its more in-depth features, VE's quick, slick, and intuitive interface has greatly eased my editing. :)
If to age is to callous over one's sympathy, then I shall remain a I child forever. ( talk) 19:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
As I save an edit, when I'm typing in the comment field, the screen jumps around with each keystroke. This may be the same issue as Bug 50538. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there a plan to totally replace wikitext diffs with HTML diffs? Is the basic text (with light wikimarkup) planning to be removed? Almost depressed about that thought. -- J. D. Redding 19:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC) [from #A few question of the poor VizWiz ...
The basic text with wiki-markup, is it going away? Seems like, to me, that is the push here ...
Haven't been this depressed about Wikipedia for some time. -- J. D. Redding 20:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Not that I expected them to be, but just making sure it's noted- list-defined references, aka where the actual filled-out ref tags are down in the reflist template as "|refs=", have no VE way of being edited- you can't edit the references as linked in the article proper as the references are located within a template, and if you edit the reflist template itself, it just lets you edit the wikimarkup of the |refs field. For an example of an article that uses LDR, see Journey (2012 video game). I know it's a minority method of doing references, just thought y'all should know. -- Pres N 20:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
As I predicted would happen when the visual editor was made the default editor (see talk sections linked below):
Also, the ability to disable the visual editor was removed from its logical location in the edit tab of preferences and buried in the gadgets tab. I am sure many people stopped editing Wikipedia today, or greatly lessened their editing.
In bugzilla:49666 several people pointed out their dislike of a multi-stage process to get to "edit source". Please provide a direct link to "edit source" on each section. So that people will continue editing on Wikipedia. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 20:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey all. I definitely appreciate the attempt to make editing easier for the "common person" but I'm having so many issues with this new editor that it's very frustrating. Among my biggest beefs/suggestions:
Anyway, thanks for listening. Looking forward to updates... Girona7 ( talk) 23:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how widespread this problem is but in the Andrew Waterworth article I wanted to remove a piece of vandalism from the "full name" line in his infobox. However when I clicked on the infobox icon in VisualEditor this line was not available meaning I was not able to remove the vandalism until later after turning VisualEditor off. As I say I don't know how widespread this issue was as I've only used the new system once (and have no intention of using it again to be honest) but somebody might want to look at fixing it. Cheers. Keresaspa ( talk) 23:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
How can I check to see the content of a reference while editing on an iPad? I.e., see the same content as clicking on it in reading mode would show? Is there any way to name and copy a ref by that name in the VE on iPad?
As slow as it is, and as much as it seems to depend on right-clicking which long-press doesn't seem to duplicate, I'm not sure this is really ready for prime time on the iPad yet. EllenCT ( talk) 03:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Are there any plans to create a process such that communities or users can add customization to the VE interface? For example, we might add tools to help with enwiki specific citation templates. I suspect we might be able to make small changes now with CSS, but if there was some sort of extension framework then I imagine community members might help to add things that they perceive as missing. It is probably too early for such things right now, but I'm wondering if future plans are likely to provide opportunities for community customization. Dragons flight ( talk) 03:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I suspect this has already been reported, but some message boxes are messed up in edit mode. The box at the "Prevention" section mentioning lack of sources on firefighter is an example of this. Dragons flight ( talk) 03:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
How to produce bug: 1. Edit the page in VE. 2. Click Save Page. 3. Click edit again.
Result: It will edit the old version of page again, which you loaded before editing. I think, after the page is saved it should be reloaded, so if I want to edit it again, it will edit the latest version. ★Saurabh P. | ☎ talk 05:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Tested on Firefox 22. It seems that moving sections around causes the editor to glitch out on any further editing of the same section.
Steps to reproduce:
Note that the above examples don't always occur. After playinf around a bit i could still type textual character, yet the enter, space and delete keys failed to produce any result. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 06:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Somewhat related to the issue I reported above. (Firefox 22, as always)
Steps to reproduce:
I'm wondering though, is Drag and Drop for sections really intended to be used, or is Firefox simply allowing me to move things around which shouldn't be moved? Also note that drag and dropping doesn't seem to be registered as a change as far as the undo / forward buttons are concerned. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 06:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday I congratulated the team on fixing a bug: today it's unfixed. Editing Norman Maclean (biologist) I couldn't edit the DEFAULTSORT but had to retype it. One small backward step! Pam D 07:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
This feedback page appears in the vertical middle of the page, which is confusing because I pressed the "Leave feedback" button at the top, and on long pages, I'm not going to see this Feedback window. Dandv( talk| contribs) 07:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Two for the price of one!
Steps to Reproduce
Also, if you press "Review Your Changes" the page will report that there is no change to review (Resizing once or twice doesn't matter - a resize doesn't seem to be triggering a page change). Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 08:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
When cleaning up incoming links to a page I sometimes find that the pagename isn't visible in the linking page, it's a piped link: I can only find it (either by eye or by ctrl-F) once I've opened the file in the old edit mode.
So, if I look at User:PamD/sandbox for VE and want to find the link to Dunmallet: how do I do so, short of hovering over every link to check it?
And, as an aside, is there a sandbox where we can test VE, and which VE will recognise as article space? I suspect that my personal playground won't reflect everything, as it's in userspace. Pam D 08:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Namely, the logo, search box, "edit this page" link, and stuff in top bar (notifications, etc) shows on top of boxes such as "image", "reference", etc in Monobook, Firefox 21, Windows 7:Jay8g [ V• T• E 17:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I've come across a minor bug which happens just after you save, clicking edit again results in the notification that the page is out of date and needs to refreshed plus this "invalid token" bug.
When is VisualEditor going to be activated for all namespaces? You guys trust VE enough to make it the default editor for everyone, but you don't you trust it to edit this page? We've got new users being faced with different editors for articles and talk pages, including their own user talk pages where they'll be trying to find help with the editing interface. Thatotherperson talk contribs 10:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I use IE, so VE isn't currently available to me anyway, but I thought I'd check the "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface" box so that I wouldn't be surprised at some future date when IE might be supported. Unfortunately, when I do so, the edit tab at the top of articles disappears. There are still section edit links, but there's no way to edit a lead. Deor ( talk) 11:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I've tried it once or twice, and have noticed that it's much slower than the normal editing option ever was. A different problem is that it makes it very hard to see that you have switched it on by accident, and you can't simply press the "back" button and go back to the page. You have to remember there's a bar at the top of your Wikipedia browser window and switch it off, after making sure you haven't made any accidental edits. Maybe creating it as a separate editing window like some of the dedicated Wikis have done might be the answer. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 11:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I saw this kind of edits several times, where a correct internal link is changed into 2 internal links to the same page, one of them with only whitespace characters. -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 11:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if this syntax is really correct ? The title is in the form '''==References==''' (note the ' around the title). -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 11:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Strange result where instead of being completely removed, just an empty title remains. I think VE shouldn't allow users to create headings with no title text at all (nor contents). -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 11:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
This edit doesn't look good. There should be no <nowiki />
between the internal link and the s. --
NicoV (
Talk on frwiki) 12:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
By habit I keep hitting "Edit" when what I actually want is "Edit source"; therefore, please make "Edit" into "Edit visual" so that the old tab hasn't morphed into something else that one is accustomed to using to mean what it always had. Vincent J. Lipsio ( talk) 12:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Too many things are wrong: empty parameters added (1, 2, 3), some parameters grouped on the same line, <nowiki>...</nowiki>
added in an external link, ... --
NicoV (
Talk on frwiki) 12:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
<nowiki>...</nowiki>
is again added intertwined with the previously added one when
I save the page. --
NicoV (
Talk on frwiki) 12:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm very excited to see the visual editor coming along - we desperately need this, and it is making great progress. However, I tried to run through some basic steps as if I was a new user, and I hit a lot of problems, many of which have probably been highlighted before. Nevertheless, as feedback:
Some of these, such as the problems adding a reference, seemingly missing alt tags, and the "old version" bug, are pretty serious and should have been picked up before the rollout. Is it possible for this to be pulled while major bug fixes are handled, rather than running with the current version and releasing fixes on the fly? - Bilby ( talk) 14:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there any plan to manage Editnotice when editing pages in VE ? For some pages, they are really useful to guide editors on what can be done in the page. For example, for disambiguation pages (example: BBHS), the edit notice explains the differences between a disambiguation page and a regular article. -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 15:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
It would be nice to be able to disable VisualEditor for specific articles. Two edits to List of Sam & Cat episodes corrupted the article format. here and here where I did NOT add the category before the table start. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 15:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I almost always edit as source, and suddenly it's forcing me into this crap, I don't even quickly see a way out of it. Default to offering it, instead of making us hunt down a way to opt out. Kaz ( talk) 15:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, I looked at the most recent 5000 edits in article space excluding anons and bots. Of these, 530 were tagged as using VisualEditor. So, among people who can use it (presently only registered users), the adoption rate so far appears to be around 11%. Dragons flight ( talk) 17:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Visual editor, after I've made an edit, brings up an error message telling me that I'm editing an old version of the page, which requires a re-load. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 17:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, it seems that finding unreported issues is becoming progressively more challenging. Either way, i think this one hasn't been reported yet:
Steps to reproduce:
Instead of undoing the edit, it suddenly enlarges the image object. The image is placed in the center of the screen, and the object itself even overlaps the main navigation in the Mono interface. Of course as always: Firefox 22 used to test this. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 18:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, this one is probably quite tricky: When editing the source code, if an edit conflict arises, you can simply hit the back button, copy the code, and paste it into the updated version. However, with the Visual Editor, this is no longer possible. The content goes away, so you have to re-add it all, which is a huge pain if it involves references and other templates.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 18:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Please. Telling the awful truth ( talk) 18:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Can we get a preference to switch the [edit | edit source] ... after doing some editing with VizWiz option present, cannot tell you how frustrating it is to have to navigate to the source edit option (especially when doing some power editing). It really sucks. Must have hit the edit selection a few dozen time, when I wanted edit source.
For logged in user, can there be a formatting preference to display [edit
Shot me now and open the gates to the tide of crud and confusion. Craig Pemberton ( talk) 18:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I've been trying it out for some light copyediting and it seems to work pretty well for that purpose, at least. It's nice for when you just have to move a few commas around and don't want everything to be obscured by messes of reference code. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
OpenOffice took 13 sec just now to open in VE; I entered one space, hit save and then review, and review timed out after 100 sec; hitting "save" on that timed out after 100 sec with "Error: Invalid error code" - David Gerard ( talk) 19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering why my edits are still being tagged this way in edit summaries, now that VE is "live". Taroaldo ✉ 19:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Time for another "Why did you even try this"? kind of bug. (Tested on Firefox 22, Mono)
Steps to Reproduct
For some reason the hyperlink dialog box will now show up on the image, no matter what word you select. After trying a few times it seems to tire of that and starts jumping over the screen at random when a word is selected. The added screenshot is an example of this - it tried to hide behind the search box. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 19:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't like this. What was the problem with the old editor? How can I leave a reason for this edit????? I don't see any place to do so. Please don't force us to use this. Pattonre ( talk) 19:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm thrilled that the VisualEditor is finally in fully beta, and for the most part it's a satisfying experience (I particularly like the ability to get a perfectly wikilink just by hitting CMD-K, typing the start of an article name, and hitting enter).
But I do want to throw in a few bugs and suggestions regarding the references workflow (I'm using Firefox 22). I can provide screenshots if it would be helpful.
— N at Appcelerator ( my conflict of interest) 20:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I love the editor however it seams to take all cpu power on some articles. 2011 Egyptian Revolution— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbgsimulationjon ( talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
One of my first comments] on VE led to Bug 49969 of 21 June, and a link there shows virtually the same complaint in Bug 49549 of 13 June, but nothing's been done.
If I'm adding a category, I want to be able to see the article. It might be that I'm adding birth and death dates, or a geog category based on places with unfamiliar spellings, or I just want to read the article again and see the various attributes of the topic which need a category. I don't expect to have to memorise every aspect of the article which will generate a category before I hit "Page settings". But in VE I cannot see the article because the Page Settings dialog box (mostly blank space) fills the screen and can't be shrunk or dragged to get it out of the way. It's been labelled "normal enhancement" (49549) and "low enhancement" (49969) - the latter with depressing comments which seem to suggest that wanting to read the article and categorise it at the same time is unreasonable/undesirable "multitasking" which VE is not going to support. All very depressing: can this problem please be given some attention? Pam D 20:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Being familiar with Wikicode, I personally find functions such as adding links quicker with the old editing method. However, I can see this being beneficial to new users and should help build our editor base. Oddbodz ( talk) 21:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Another really fun one! (Firefox 22, Mono skin)
Steps to reproduce
Suddenly, your entire input screen will be white. What seems to happen is that the image is blanked (Replaced by a white square) and plastered full size all over the page. You can try to drag it away, but each time you try it will replace itself over the pages content. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 22:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The bug report 50646 linked in #Can.27t_search_on_hidden_text_-_eg_link_targets above doesn't really address the problem: I want to be able to use "Find" or similar to find words/strings which are within the article's wikicode but not necessarily its displayed text. My particular example is when looking for the target of a link which might be piped (eg when chasing up incoming links to a dab page), but someone else might be looking for the point where a particular template is used, or something like that. The bug report suggests showing the destination of a link, but if looking for a piped link in a long article I really don't want to have to check every single link. In "Edit Source" I can use "Find" and know it'll find the word in the edit window if it didn't find it in the displayed text: I want a similar facility in VE, please. Obviously not a high-priority issue at this time, but I'd like to see it recorded as something which ought to be fixed eventually. Pam D 22:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's some things I noticed on my first try on using VE. I purposely didn't read the User Guide yet, to see how far I get just with intuition. I didn't have time to go through the existing feedback, so apologies for any redundancy.
That's it for now, hope it helps. Have to leave now, but I'm happy to explain points I described all too short here if needed. — HHHIPPO 22:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
When can we expect to see some fixes for this ever-growing list of bugs? Many of them, and in particular the erroneous "you are editing an old version of this page" message make the thing unusable in its current state for anything other than the simplest of edits. Eric Corbett 22:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I could not add the category Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2.1 to an article using the "page settings"; it was apparently changed automatically into Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2 and after "Save page" there was no visible change to the article. Lambert Meertens ( talk) 23:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
As the title says, I had it disabled in preferences, and it still checked as disabled there, but it just keeps popping up. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 23:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The transclusion window has several issues.
Ozob ( talk) 01:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't make heads or tails of what is what in the new editor. Very poor. Maybe it will entice new editors who are confused by URL, <REF> etc. but the option to work in Wikitext is better. To be honest, if Wikimedia want more editors, then the condescending behaviour on here towards new editors is of greater concern which turns new editors away. Stevo1000 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Windows 8. The New World Trade Center. New Coke.
Not improving what doesn't need fixing is the true genius and the true virtue.
If you give someone the power to improve things you can be sure he will eventually get around to doing something. And if you pay him, and give him a mandate, there's no chance of stopping him.
Not improving what doesn't need fixing is the true genius and the true virtue.
We've got a committee whose mandate it is to do something! So of course they have done something! rather than reach the scary conclusion their doing anything was not necessary. (How many bureaucracies vote themselves out of existence?) And that something they've done is to put power tools into the hands of infants, so that unexperienced hands won't find it so difficult to draw a blade across the grain.
Not improving what doesn't need fixing is the true genius and the true virtue.
Learning curves are good things. It's why newborns don't come with hanging teats or hairy testicles.
μηδείς ( talk) 01:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
What is the point of fixing something that doesn't need fixing? If it isn't broken, why are you fixing it? Was the purpose of creating this new tool simply to occupy bored minds? It adds nothing other than the design of the same (albeit limited) set of tools using a newer technology format. 1) There should be an Opt-Out 2) Why was this even proposed, let alone rolled out? ... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 02:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
On Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, it may be helpful to change "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface" to "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface" to provide one more way for people to find out more about the VisualEditor. GoingBatty ( talk) 02:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I wonder what the correlation is between (person finds using wiki markup language to be an obstacle) and (person uses Internet Explorer) is? It could very well be that this whole thing is being implemented for a class of user that will never be able to take advantage of it.— Kww( talk) 02:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I love it. Always liked visual editors and editing. Kuzey457 ( talk) 05:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The Add parameter has several usability problems.
First and foremost, the parameter description doesn't fit the given space - it overflows to the right, with no scroll bar available to read the whole text.
Second, either clicking or double-click on the chosen parameter does nothing. Clicking on the "Add parameter" link at the top does nothing. Is it broken? Wait - there is an "Add parameter" button hidden after a looong list of dozens of parameters??? (see Cite web template for example). How is one supposed to know the button is there? Certainly not from the user guide, which helpfully all it says is "You can add parameters or edit those already listed", but not how.
The "Add parameter" button should be "above the fold", besides (or instead of) the "Add parameter" title. It doesn't make sense to have it at the bottom - this is not a form that must be completed, it's a list of items where only one is selected - the natural flow doesn't call for scrolling to the bottom of it. You should hire a competent UI designer and make user tests (I'm pretty sure this part of the interface hasn't been tested at all). Posting the interface to the wild and waiting for feedback doesn't count as a test. Diego ( talk) 06:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Currently, when editing a template, the template parameters list is taken from TemplateData (if exists), or from the actual page being edited.
Whenever TemplateData exists, everything is hunky dory. However, when there is no TemplateData, the user does not know which parameters are recognized by the template, if they are not already present on the page.
There are two possible solutions:
function extractParameterNames( tempalte )
var
result = [],
$.ajax({
url: mw.util.wikiScript(),
data: {title: template, action: 'raw'},
dataType: 'text',
async: false,
success: function buildParamsRaw(data) {
var
paramExtractor = /{{3,}(.*?)[<|}]/mg,
m;
while (m = paramExtractor.exec( data ))
result.push( $.trim( m1 ) );
}
});
return result;
}
we use this exact logic in hewki, with the "TempalteParamWizard": the wizard does not use metadata embedded in the tempalte page itself - we did not have the TemplateData extension available - but rather we have an optional subpage that contains the data in a form which is more human-friendly and less script-friendly, but is basically very similar to TempalteData.
When this optional subpage does not exist, we use code very similar to the above to extract the parameters recognized by the template from the template page itself.
I just tried to test VisualEditor by removing some text from my userpage, and got the message 'Error: Invalid token'. What does this mean? Robofish ( talk) 22:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Why is the Visual Editor not displaying images at the correct default sizes? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 13:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
When I click edit on a section, it opens up the entire page for editing. Why? I'd rather save bandwidth and save information overload, and just see the section I asked to edit. -- 99of9 ( talk) 16:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
vsection=N
, but the editor then still tries to edit the whole page (if indeed, it ever finishes loading rather than just freezing). —
Sladen (
talk) 16:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure this is far down the list of problems, but I think the transclusion editor (and other bits with similar display) have way too much white space. For each parameter one gets two blank lines for every one line with parameter name. That is annoying and when templates have dozens of parameters, as many infoboxes and citation templates do, it creates a lot of extra scrolling to find what one is looking for. I'd suggest reducing the whitespace between parameter names by half. Dragons flight ( talk) 18:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that when editing (e.g.) TRS-80 that anchor templates, such as the ones I'd included within the section titles (e.g. [25])- for links that don't break when section titles change- don't show up in the visual editor... but they're still easily (inadvertantly) deletable, simply by backspacing over the hidden markup.
You couldn't blame a newbie- or even nontechnical editor- for deleting something that wasn't even shown to them(!), but this is the sort of thing that could be a major pain in the neck.
While I'm in favour of the visual editor in principle (the ability to contribute content shouldn't be reliant upon geekish markup skills), this *was* an issue that concerned me when I heard about the idea- namely that the large amounts of complicated templates and markup (which IMHO will never be entirely representable in the visual editor) would be inadvertantly messed up, either by users or by oversights within the design of a "helpful" visual editor itself.
Ubcule ( talk) 22:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried to remove the whitespace (actually newlines) between references 7, 8 and 9 of this revision of KHD Humboldt Wedag (the ones after "Klöckner Humboldt Deutz AG." at the end of the "History" section's second paragraph). I can remove the "↵" symbols, but when I try to review my changes I get an error message: "Could not start the review because your revision matches the latest version of this page." When I tried to remove them along with some other changes, the other changes were saved correctly, but the newlines persist: [26] Huon ( talk) 06:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The edit bar follows you as you scroll; good. But the line between the body and the edit bar needs to be slightly more bold than "practically white". (This pale, spaced out look the entire web seems to be striving for makes quick navigation and focus difficult.) The edit bar is not a part of the body, the line should be as dark as the one separating it from the navbar. Back to the whole pernicious spaced out bit, the enormous space between icons in similar functional groups is disruptive for me. If some disability/accessibility issue requires this, there should be an option to compact the layout. At first, I didn't even realize like functions were grouped because the chasm between individual functions makes the spacing between groups less obvious in proportion. The icon bar has room for ten more icons, at least. - BalthCat ( talk) 14:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
</br>
tags displayed as text in VEWhenever I hit the edit button for
Kamar Siah, several </br>
tags appear as text in the table at the bottom of the article (Selseleh County), instead of being used as line breaks. --
NicoV (
Talk on frwiki) 15:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
</br>
tags (even if their syntax is broken, because they are not valid HTML, they should be <br>
or <br />
). --
NicoV (
Talk on frwiki) 15:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
? Perhaps something isn't cleaning up the code as it should. Try it the other way.
Ignatz
mice•
talk 15:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
</br>
tags appearing. A cache problem ? (not due to my computer because I reported the problem on an other computer than the one I just used to test). --
NicoV (
Talk on frwiki) 19:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
<br/>
. We'll probably add support for broken </br>
though, and collect information about the pages they are in so that they can be fixed. --
Gabriel Wicke (
talk) 18:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Ctrl+Click on a link in Edit mode took me to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/Virtual_8086_mode, which is a wrong target. Codename Lisa ( talk) 15:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried to lowercase the link [[Architect]] on the Vogrie House page, but then VE would not let me save it, saying that no change was made. I had to use the old, non-buggy, intuitive, straightforward, dependable, efficient, tried-and-true "edit source" editor—you know, the one that was hijacked and replaced by VE—to accomplish the job; where's the fun in using that old editor? Chris the speller yack 16:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
An oddball one, took me a while to figure out what on earth caused this. Tested in Firefox 22 + Monobook skin.
Steps to reproduce
For some reason delete and backspace won't work anymore. Another fun fact in Monobook: It will block any input on the screen. For example, the search box will refuse to accept a backspace or delete while the save page screen is opened a second time. And even MORE fun: Do the above trick again, but after the last step add the following steps:
Steps to reproduce (for even more fun)
What happens for me: Entering data in the search box works fine, but pressing backspace somehow causes text to be removed from the article, instead of the search box i was just typing in. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 19:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
When I edit fr:Brendan Schaub in VE, the first column of the table displays the formatting instructions as text instead of applying them : I see text like style="background: #...." and if I click on it, VE thinks it's a template to be edited. -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 19:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
And same problem with the English version Brendan Schaub in the same table (for the display of formatting instructions as text). -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 19:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if it would be possible to have the references show up in a tooltip when you hover over the link in edit mode, just as it does in view mode. This way it will be easier to tell at a glance what is what when you're editing, instead of having to go into the reference edit box itself, which then blocks the screen etc. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 19:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
When I click "Save page" after making an edit, and then start typing the edit summary, the article scrolls upwards with every keystroke till it reaches the top of the page. This is a bit annoying because it would be better to have it stay still, so that I can see the edit I made, as I type in the summary. Especially useful when I've made several minor edits. On the whole, I like VE. I really hope you guys add a feature to pull the template parameters automatically. Right now, its a lot easier to copy paste them in the source. Also, I wanted to help out with the template data (especially certain infoboxes), but I'm not sure if it needs to be added in the template's main page or the doc page or both. BigJolly9 ( talk) 22:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the visual editor can glitch a bit when it initially renders a template. Yet when the template is altered without changes this is corrected. (Firefox 22, Mono skin)
Steps to reproduce:
Once that is done, the template is rendered correctly. Note that the same template was initially added trough the visual editor itself and displayed just fine. Only when you open an already saved page it seems to glitch a bit (Until the settings are applied without change - somehow that corrects it). The page reports no changes after applying, so it seems this is just a rendering issue. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 22:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I just learned how to add sources change fonts and change sizes and stuff and now I have switched to the old editing because I can't figure out how to add sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtrot620 ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried putting in an ambox.
Step 1: Click transclusions button. Step 2: In "New template" textbox, add "ambox" and click "add template." Step 3: Put something (I have no idea what) into "add parameter" textbox and click button. Step 4: Put text in big box.
Once I get past Step 2, it stops working. ??? Step 4: Add stuff to bigger textbox XndrK ( talk · contribs · count) 22:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
First of all, the word "transclusion" is confusing. It is compsci jargon, and not even used correctly. The VE is a step forward because it makes editing accessible to people who aren't geeks, so the use of such a geeky word (not in my Random House Unabridged, not even in Wikipedia's spell dictionary) can only confuse.
The puzzle piece icon seems to serve only slightly related purposes depending on where you encounter it: 1) it allows you to import templates, and 2) it allows you to edit data contained in a template. It's not clear to this user how to use a template once I've added it. So, yes I've added a cite web template, closed the box and now I have an empty reference. When/where do I put in the data? This should be obvious, but it isn't. Intuitively obvious human interface, when we get it, is a triumph. We're definitely not in the triumph stage yet in the use of templates. Camdenmaine ( talk) 01:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. When editing a template using VE in Monobook, there are several elements that overlap onto the VE component. I reopened a bug about this, neatly linked in the boxy thing on the right. Posting here for awareness (The more you know™). Killiondude ( talk) 23:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Since trying VE a few days ago, I have had my Preferences -> Gadgets -> Remove Visual Editor setting selected so that the "Edit - Edit source" links would not appear. About six hours ago when I did some editing, everything was fine. I had only an Edit link, and it took me to the traditional editing screen. Now, at 23:30 UTC on July 3, the "Edit - Edit source" links are back. My preference is being ignored. I tried unchecking the preference, saving, checking the box, and saving again, to no avail. I looked in Bugzilla for a similar bug and did not find one. Jonesey95 ( talk) 23:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
This is probably in the wrong place (but I haven't got time to hunt down the correct place), but the tooltip for the "edit source" tab doesn't seem to be working properly. The other tabs include a keyboard shortcut, e.g. [alt-shift-h] for history, [alt-shift-m] for move, but the "edit source" tab tooltip says "[<accesskey-ca-editsource>]". Firefox 22.0, monobook skin, Xubuntu. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to add alt text to images using the VE? I can't see how that is done in VE, and I'm worried that it can't be, but it seems very possible that I'm missing something. - Bilby ( talk) 00:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
If you are editing a page that you did not start while using this editor, you couldn't know right away which ones have the red links because all links are in blue. Is there a easy way to turn off this visual editor. I turned it off in the Preferences>Gadgets>under Editing, but still, every time I try to edit, it brings me back to the VisualEditor. I am not so thrilled about this abrupt change. Thanks. Briarfallen ( talk) 00:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Inserting references is completely unintuitive - none of the icons really make any sense. Also, why is a template represented by a jigsaw piece? That doesn't make any sense... I'd suggest a cog or something, but I guess that's too close to the normal "Settings" indicator. Something to indicate that it's basically a 'function'.
Another issue with the new ref-insertion interface is that I can envision it resulting in a lot of bare urls. This is A Bad Thing. — foxj 00:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Hovering over a displayed math formula in <math>
tags is supposed to get a tooltip that explains that the formula can't be edited in the VisualEditor. It sort of works; but it has trouble with tall formulas. The tooltip doesn't show up unless the cursor is moved to the middle of the formula. For some formulas this is OK, as users can be reasonably expected to put their cursor in the middle. For other formulas it's not. Here's the opening of
Companion matrix, which has both a formula that works and one that doesn't:
It would be more helpful if the tooltip appeared whenever the cursor was over any pixel of the formula, not just a middle pixel. Ozob ( talk) 01:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm a relative novice at Wikipedia editing. The visual editor came along just as I was learning markup and struggling with it. I think the VE, though still not nearly done is a huge step in the right direction. Its purpose is to make editing accessible to subject matter experts who would be put off by markup. This is such an admirable (and necessary) goal that I think it's essential to carry on. If there is something to complain about, it's that this has been released in beta way too early. Keep up the good work. Camdenmaine ( talk) 01:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Some sites are blocked from WikiPedia and editors can't add links as a reference. It's sure that editors don't know which these sites are. In the old version, when a link from those sites was added on the article, there was a warning saying about the blocked site when you were clicking on "save page". So, you were just removing it and clicked "save page" again.
I was trying to add references in one article with VE, I tried then to save the page and I got the notice: "Invalid code error" or something like that. I thought it was just a clinch. I cancelled and did the edits again and tried to save. Same message again. I then realized that it was probably a site that was blocked that was causing the problem so I started deleting one-one the refs to see which one was responsible. Took me some time to figure out what was going on and then find the "problematic" link but I found it.
Can we please get a notice of why there is error and we can't save the page? In this case the blocked site? Thanks
TeamGale (
talk) 02:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
That's pretty annoying, reported — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I see that many comments on this feedback page have been asked and answered before, but with a page this long, it's hard to determine if your question has been asked already. Maybe adding an Editnotice would help, directing people to WP:VE/FAQ and/or including some of the FAQs in the Editnotice. GoingBatty ( talk) 02:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
When I try to use VisualEditor on my Kindle Fire, the article goes into edit mode, but clicking in the article doesn't bring up the keyboard like it does on an iPad. I'm presuming that aading support for the Kindle Fire's Amazon Silk browser isn't on your to do list now. Could you please add this browser to the blacklist? I would like to keep VE on in my preferences so it works when I'm on my PC but not have VE get in the way while on the Kindle. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 02:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Not only is the legal information too small to read at the save button - but I tried to add an edit summary. But nothing appeared. The edit saved. I later found the text - on another (non-Wikipedia) browser window. Rmhermen ( talk) 03:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Will visual editor support LaTeX? Dashed ( talk) 06:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I hope LaTeX support will go to the front of the queue for new features to implement. Now that VisualEditor has brought a little sanity to citing references, by far the biggest PITA in editing articles is working with math. If it were less onerous to do the LaTeX, I'd be making a lot of edits in math articles, completely reworking some of them. The editors who have the knowledge and motivation to do the LaTeX often are also the sort that write jargon-encrusted "English" incomprehensible to nearly all readers, making many math articles worse than useless. Making it easier for more people to edit LaTeX could lead to real improvements in some of the most fundamental articles in Wikipedia. Enon ( talk) 17:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
When I've added one template using the transclusion icon, please offer me a button which says "Add another template", rather than insisting I click on various totally non-intuitive bits of the window to achieve this! I've just managed to add two separate stub templates, but it was still an uphill struggle. Pam D 07:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
Why not using a HTML5 WYSIWYG editro like Raptor or Mercury? https://www.raptor-editor.com/demo http://jejacks0n.github.io/mercury/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.11.115.148 ( talk) 07:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
....I do not know if this is due to the VisualEditor, but yesterday I deactivated it in my preferences, and this morning, although all my admin-buttons were available, the possibility to edit in mainspace was gone. When I changed my preferences again to allow VisualEditor, I could edit again..Thanks for your consideration. Lectonar ( talk) 08:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Would it kill you 8-P to put labels on the frikkin' buttons (Edit link, edit template...), at least in the pop-ups if not in the main toolbar?
There's this article about mystery meat navigation and it says it's a bad thing. You're forcing users to go though an intermediate step to edit a link or reference, you could as well inform the user of what that step means with something more than a cryptic icon. Cheers! Diego ( talk) 08:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
When editing inflammation, when I put the cursor just before the first word ("|Inflammation") and press backspace, the whole first paragraph is moved into the lead image caption.
Furthermore, when I put the cursor on the first, seemingly empty line, and press delete, the image unexpectedly disappears and the caption is converted to text. -- WS ( talk) 08:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
In the same article, when I put the cursor just below the "Leukocyte extravasation" header, again on a seemingly empty line, pressing backspace unexpectedly does nothing, while delete deletes the template below instead of removing the empty line. -- WS ( talk) 08:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Tested on Firefox 22, Mono skin:
Steps to reproduce
The output will be akin to the screenshot added. Some the template parameters end up next to eachother, and are thus offscreen. Even if that is not the case the description will often be to long to be displayed. Would be nice if those ended up on a new line if that occurred. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 09:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
When adding categories via page settings the cat does not show after pressing save edits - you have to click on article to see the new version. Cheers Berek Berek ( talk) 09:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
When editing a page visually you can ctrl+click a link to follow it (I just guessed you could do this, as it doesn't appear in the documentation I've seen), but the mouse pointed does not change from the editing I-beam to the link hand when doing so. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism is bound to increase as the users will be able to edit any article or topic within seconds. Also, the whole essence of learning Wikipedia markups will diminish. I am strongly against this! Please cancel this new idea!! By User:Utkarshsingh.1992
Somehow I was put into visual editor this morning. I really do not like it at all, and am cutting short editing this article (which really needs it) because of the bugs. Not only do I have to cut and paste to retain links, a space keeps reappeaaring at the beginning of a line in the middle of a paragraph, right after a citation which I also had to cut and paste to keep. I really resent having been dumped into this system. Jweaver28 ( talk) 11:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. The space at the beginning of the line after footnote 1 of the 1383-1385 Crisis page seems to be gone at last too. Jweaver28 ( talk) 13:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if this is a bug or an enhancement request but either way: It seems that fields marked as "Required" in the template data are not enforced as "Have to fill those in" in the template editor.
Steps to Reproduce
The template data marks "Title" and "URL" as required which is correct - without these the template will display an error and refuse to work. I would have assumed that required would mean "You have to fill these in before you can accept the template".
Besides this a suggestion for the template editor: Adding fields is somewhat painful for long lists. First you have to find the field, click it, scroll down to "add parameter". Since it will jump to the parameter tab adding 10 fields requires jumping around 10 times. It would be easier if you could add all fields in one go, sans scrolling down for each field. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 12:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
For doing cosmetic fixes and copy edits to small articles VE is really nice to use. -- NeilN talk to me 12:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The default image sizing is still wrong (Chrome on XP and Windows 7). I mention this as it's listed in the Fixes any time soon? section above as something that has been fixed. Edgepedia ( talk) 12:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
When I hover over the "edit" links in certain articles' sections with my cursor, the "[Edit|Edit source]" links do not appear; instead, clicking the "Edit" link results in the source being edited. Additionally, the "Edit" and "Edit source" links are present at the beginning of the article. (In essence, if one were to use VE on the article, they would have to edit the entire article.) Epicgenius( talk to me • see my contributions) 12:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
A similar bug was reported as # T51536, but closed as fixed a while ago. Article Otto I has a reference ("ref") to "Thompson" (numbered #11 in old edit mode) inside an explanatory footnote "efn". The notes are generated below the article using "notelist". Ref 11 Thompson is not included in the reflist of VE, but shown in regular read mode. Just compare the reference lists in read and in VE edit mode to see the difference. GermanJoe ( talk) 13:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
When editing a template, it would be great to see all the parameter values on one page, instead of having to click on the lateral tabs again and again.
I think it would allow faster, less tedious editing, and it would suit both beginners and more advanced contributors. Od1n ( talk) 13:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
There seems no way to edit the contents, or get to the original source, of a transclution table. I was trying to edit the Notes in the article on Paul Morphy. Shabd sound ( talk) 13:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
We seem to have lost the plus and minus options of Hotcat that were one of the closest to WYSIWYG features of this site. Please can they be incorporated into visual editor. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Many of the templates I add most often either have no parameters (eg stub templates), or take "date" as a parameter (maintenance templates like {{ unref}}), or take one or more positional parameters (eg {{ in title}} or {{ about}} or {{ coord}}).
The handling of templates seems to assume that each template has one or more named parameters.
Inputting a 3-parameter template like {{about|this|that|the other}} is very tedious, even after you've discovered how to do it (very non-intuitive). You can't see the content of previous parameters as you go along, so have to remember where you've got to. Messy and stressful and takes a whole lot of clicking.
It's probably too late to suggest this, but imagine the following scenario:
A further refinement would be for VE to be aware of (a) templates which take no parameters (eg stub templates), and (b) templates which only take the date (many maintenance templates), and in these two cases not to prompt for parameters (but to quietly add the date for (b), saving this having to be done by a passing bot later).
A yet further refinement would be for VE to recognise stub templates (they all end in "-stub", apart from {{ stub}} itself, so it shouldn't be hard), offer them as a separate drop-down menu (much easier when stub-sorting), and put them in the "right" (per WP:MOS) place at the end of the article.
Probably too much to hope for: but going back to the basics, please work out a way for parameters to be input without all the clicks involved in making "names" like "1", "2", etc. I haven't yet tried to add a coords parameter - something on the lines of {{coord|54|36|51|N|2|49|34|W|display=title}}. That's going to be really tedious.
... Getting a bit stream-of-consciousness here: can't we just have two columns of boxes: "parameter name if any" and "parameter contents" - perhaps 10 rows and a "More parameters" button. Then to input that coord template I'd just leave the first column blank and put the values I've got, in order, and hit "Apply changes". Simple, allows you to see previous params as you go to keep track of where you've got to, etc. Ah well, perhaps it's all in hand. Good luck. Pam D 14:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
It wouldn't edit GNU Lilypond code generated with the score expression.
It apparently doesn't edit LaTeX code or mathematics.
The Visual Editor is dead to me. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Great improvement Domiter ( talk) 14:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the default value defined in the templatedata (currently) isn't used while adding a template to a page.
Steps to reproduce
The textbox doesn't contain a default value and accepting it without change doesn't enter it in either. Not adding the parameter altogether also doesn't create a parameter containing the value Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 14:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I recently added a comma to an article in the edit before this one, and I was reverted for adding "nowiki" tags all over the place. I tried to repeat adding the comma, thinking I messed up the edit, and this happened. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 14:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Browser & OS information for both added to the bug. And, yes, Clem, it's similar to your signature appearing as Clem Rutter when your account is User:ClemRutter. :) I find Mdennis (WMF) a little impersonal, myself, so I edited my signature to include my first name. -- Maggie Dennis (WMF) ( talk) 19:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
<nowiki>...</nowiki>
or <nowiki />
. The user concerned
made a fair go of sorting the mess, but didn't finish the job. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 20:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)I know the visual editor is in its Beta edition, however I am going to be using Wikipedia as a teaching tools in one of my classes this fall and also will be doing a faculty workshop in using Wikipedia in the classroom. Probably it is too soon to incorporate the VE in the various tutorials, but any idea of the timeline for updating the tutorials? Domiter ( talk) 15:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
In its current state there are many operations that can only be applied in the source editor.
If you switch from the GUI editor to the source version, make an edit, and then switch back, the edit is lost.
This is bad. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 16:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm restoring this from archives. No bug has been filed, and the problem is easily reproducible. -- j⚛e decker talk 16:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Attempting to remove the space that is erroneously between the period and the following ref at the end of the penultimate sentence of the second paragraph at Michael Lowry (actor) fails--the editor visually appears to allow the change, but when the change is saved, no error is produced, nor is any change left in the article history. Reproduced in Chrome and Safari. -- j⚛e decker talk 15:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
After saving a minor edit at Long Island, I noticed that the VisualEditor added over 2kB of additional content. Cause was a table in the Sports section, which misses </tr> closing tags. Presumably due to this invalid markup, an incomplete "<tr" tag was added in front of the table, and half the table was copied to the end of the article in a malformed shape. The diff can be found here.
During the conversion from Wiki markup to HTML the </tr> tags are added, but apparently the VisualEditor doesn't handle the source in the same way. thayts t 16:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Forgot to note: I'm using Firefox 22.0 on Ubuntu. thayts t 16:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I absolutely hate it. Wren Valmont ( talk) 16:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
This may be easier to use for newer editors, but for those already familiar with editing Wikimedia text, it's not very easy to use and would be very cumbersome. I wouldn't use this and hope the direct source editing option continues to be available. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The revision of an article here has an interesting thing, a completely empty bulleted list item, which does not normally display when the article is read. It is just below the reflist, you can both confirm this in the old-style editor, and see it visually in VisualEditor. However, I have found myself unable to delete that from within Visual Editor without also deleting the preceding reference list, which is a little wacky from a UI point of view. E.g., I attempt to backspace over the bullet and I lose a reference list. Reproduced on Chrome and Safari. -- j⚛e decker talk 18:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
When I try to edit a formula with VE, I just get a popup with: "Sorry, this element can only be edited in source mode for now." This applies even to the most simple formulas like . I mean, really? Science articles may be only a fraction of the wikipedia articles. But they are an essential ingrediant for any universal encyclopedia. The inability to deal with formulas makes the VE hardly usable for these core articles.
Suggestion: If the VE cannot deal with an element, it should automatically divert to the source editor for this item. See how LyX deals with this kind of situation. Unfortunately, there is currently no way to gracefully edit the source while in VE.-- ---<)kmk(>--- ( talk) 19:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Templates inside other templates (e.g., flags inside an infobox) still require the use of the double curly braces syntax. I'm guessing it may be feasible and desirable to have recursive template structure editing. EJM86 ( talk) 21:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Clicking on "Cancel" brings up a confirmation dialog which asks, "Are you sure you want to go back into view mode without saving first?" with two button options: "OK" and "Cancel". That's not as unambiguous as you probably want. Those two buttons should be labeled "Yes, don't save" and "No, continue editing". EJM86 ( talk) 21:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I think various editors have said this before, but I'm feeling tired right now and have found it more of a problem than usually: a page open in VE needs to look much more distinctive. Otherwise it would be too easy to forget to Save Page and then absentmindedly close the tab on a page of edits. (Especially when juggling several tabs because checking different pages - even more so because Navigation Popups don't work in VE!). Even the header bar is almost monochrome. Could we have something like a red line all the way down the left-hand margin? Perhaps it would need to be an option, as some people would hate it. But I'd certainly find it helpful and I know I'm not alone. Pam D 22:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
What is the point of putting <nowiki>...</nowiki> in every edit made with the new editor even when there is wiki formatting between the tags that was inserted with the very software that stopped the formatting from being rendered on the edited page once saved! PantherLeapord ( talk) 23:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I was editing this revision of Chubby bunny to try to remove a thumbnail of a deleted image, the following wikitext:
When I click "Edit" on an article page, there is a wide shallow box near the top with a "Page notice" link. After clicking the jigsaw icon to add a template, this "Page notice" box remains in front of, and partly obscuring, the "Add template" box. It can be moved up out of the way by scrolling, but it's a nuisance. (Win7, FF21.0, standard 1366 x 768 screen).
JohnCD ( talk) 14:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Shp0ng1e ( talk) 17:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Zabadinho ( talk) 17:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
A number of serious bugs and missing important features have been identified from this initial rollout, which was the stated goal. So now that this set of major bugs has been identified, the sensible thing to do would be to turn it off until they are fixed. I'm not saying it needs to be bug-free, just take a couple weeks (or less) to address what's been brought up, after that, turn it back on for registered users for a week, and then complete the deployment schedule barring any more serious problems. To me this does not feel like beta software yet. Beta software is feature-complete, even if it may contain bugs. Don't press forward with what amounts to an alpha to a larger audience, it will be a disaster. I see no downside to going back to opt-in for a week or two. Gigs ( talk) 01:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there an easy way to change the order of categories? I think one has to remove and re-add them to change the order in which they're listed, which can't be efficient for articles with dozens of categories if I want to add a new one in the middle. Huon ( talk) 04:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I assume there are developers looking at the bug reports and working on this stuff. How quick is the deploy cycle (for large or small releases) for this period? i.e., how quickly should we expect things to get better? - David Gerard ( talk) 10:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
An extra space has been added in the bold text. Wouldn't it be better if bold and italic markings were sticking to the text they are applied to (excluding surrounding whitespace characters) ? -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 12:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
When you add a page to or remove it from your watchlist and start editing it directly after, the updated status is not preserved in the save changes dialog. -- WS ( talk) 13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there any plan to manage hidden categories in VE ? I couldn't find a way to view them or edit them with VE. -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 15:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
A late answer to the question of whether there are hidden categories that are actually embedded in articles: YES. For instance Category:Year of birth missing (living people) is directly embedded into some tens of thousands of them. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems rather odd to display notes implemented using the {{ efn}} template as "[lower-alpha 1]</ref>", for instance, but more seriously there seems to be no way to close the edit box after clicking on that other than to apply changes. Eric Corbett 22:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
dont like it Ngs61 ( talk) 15:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm a medical student who has been using wikipedia for years. I have no time to learn how to edit, and since medical school started (I'm a 4th year now), I have read hundreds and hundreds of articles that I wish I could have edited but didn't because I either didn't know how to, or I didn't know how to include references. Also, the community here doesn't exactly consist of nice people. Not that I'm here to make friends - but I'm not going to spend my time fixing something, only to have it reversed by some 10 year old who has no clue what he or she is talking about, yet exudes so much confidence because they've been editing articles for so long and they are "part of the community". I wouldn't even bother replying because I have no time (even if I did, I probably still wouldn't bother honestly).
I would just fix spelling mistakes every once in a while. I can't tell you how many medical articles on wikipedia are written by idiots. The medical profession hasn't been touching them because of the complexity involved when it comes to editing them. I know this for a fact because I have many many many classmates (and professors!) who have said the same thing. With this new visual editor thing, I edited my first article today! And by editing the article I don't mean I fixed the spelling mistakes. Thanks for finally realizing that quantity is very different from quality. There are people other than your heavy editors and your "community" that can contribute, and some actually know what they are talking about. Just because someone knows how to edit does not mean they have something meaningful to write. Thanks again! Boonshofter 23:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
KWW, what made it easier was that for the first time ever, I actually added a reference to an article. TCO, you are absolutely right. Boonshofter 02:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that also for the first time, I added words that you could click on (i.e. to see that word's wikipedia page). Also, I had no clue how to add references at the very bottom of the article, and put a number at the end of a sentence that you could click on that would take you to that reference at the bottom of the article. Notice how in my edit today I added some examples of medications. You can click on each of them and it will take you to each medication's respective page. You can also click on the number 3, and it will take you to the reference I added. I would spend hours trying to do that, and I could never make it work. I realize that to you guys this seems pretty ridiculous, especially since I've been using wikipedia for so long - you'd think I would get it by now. But I really don't have the time to learn how to, and even when I did have some time, I just couldn't wrap my head around it. Thanks again!Boonshofter 02:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
ADDITIONAL COMMENT TO ABOVE: I just do simple housekeeping edits so far but now I plan to take the time to learn the new visual editor. I think it will be very good for novice members as long as it doesn't lead to every man & his dog making changes they really should not. Princebuster5 ( talk) 04:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I completely understand. The thing though is that princebuster and I are both very inexperienced editors (at least I definitely am), so the functions that are troubling you and other users are so out of our league that we don't even know they exist. For example, I skimmed through this page reading complaints, and I couldn't understand a single thing. I feel that most users here on wikipedia are either computer programmers or have computer skills that are extremely advanced. I kid you not - 99% of the info on this page is way above my head. I'm a pretty smart guy, so you can imagine my frustration. Therefore, don't expect my sympathy - not because I don't want to give it, but because I simply can't, since I have no clue what you guys are going through. I trust your community's judgment, i.e. if you guys feel that this visual editor needs to be eliminated, then it needs to be eliminated. People like me will get over it, and we will still be here once the fixed version of it is reinstated. I didn't mean to offend with my comments above - I just got a little excited because it felt like I finally knew what I was doing after being on here for so long. All the best. Boonshofter ( talk) 08:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This is freaking hilarious. You all are hassling a newbie who likes the new interface. And you want it turned off even though, you still have manual editing on another tab. There's a huge disconnect here of people thinking in terms of what THEY like to use (or what self-selected current editors do) versus potential users do. This place is way, way, way overbalanced to IT types. You need more artists, writers, and business people. There are a lot of them out there in the "real world".
Plus turning it on and just trying to make it work is a great way to just move a project forward. This thing has dawdled YEARS past when WMF started talking about it. And then some of the "ZOMFG change" whiners...sheesh. Like crying about the damned edit button sliding to the left. Or the orange bar complaints. Just step back and think about how silly that looks with some distance from Wiki Pculture. ;-)
TCO ( talk) 17:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
P.s. Erik: keep it on. Always easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. ;-)
Looking through the recent changes I was surprised at how few edits are now taged with visual editor. Looking at those tagged VisualEditor [33] we seem to be getting one or two edits per minute out of a total of about 30 changes per min at the moment. Restricting recent changes to articles [34] I'm typically seeing two or three edits in the last 50. Either way its looking like a smaller than 10% uptake. Also IP edits are not getting tagged VE, I though it was on for all IPs.-- Salix ( talk): 06:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
All the edit section links are now pointing to the wikitext editor. The flyover [edit | edit source] has vanished. Anyone know why? — This, that and the other (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you guys should hire an East End thug to come round and "have a quiet word". Works a charm! -- Hillbillyholiday talk 09:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't figure out how to use a template on the page. If I type {{template-name}}, a <nowiki> tag is automatically added. — Preceding comment added by Sky Lined ( talk • contribs) ; original signature removed while fixing wiki markup errors NtheP ( talk) 13:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Check out this version of a page that I saw a little while back. Open in another tab, please. Do you see that line of white space at the top? I don't believe it's possible to remove it using Visual Editor. (See this diff using VE--can you do better than I did?) — Preceding comment added by Red Slash ( talk • contribs) ; original signature removed while fixing wiki markup errors NtheP ( talk) 13:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
If you can't get it to load on normal browsers (Firefox), then it shouldn't be made the default at all. I've disabled it, just like every other 'visual editor' I've come across. Buggy, refuses to load. No thanks. The disable option needs to be taken out of the "Gadget" section where it is stacked with dozens of other things along with a "YOU USE THESE AT YOUR OWN RISK" warning implying this isn't the right way to use wikipedia, and be moved onto the "Editing" tab in preferences. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 11:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
First of all thanks to all the staff and volunteers who have put effort into this crucially important project. I'm surprised and impressed at how it's not just a visual editor but a WYSIWYG editor.
My minor problem is that I'm editing a userspace draft which has links to [[Avon (county)|Avon]]. Each time I edit, those links get rewritten as [[../Avon_(county)|Avon]] which breaks the link, even though I haven't edited that bit of the page. Didn't see this on a quick scan of the feedback page. Apologies if this is a bug reported a hundred times already. MartinPoulter ( talk) 11:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to change the alignment of a table (centered to the page to aligned to the left vertical). And I'm looking at a whole bunch of nothing. It's weird. I don't like it. It seems to be the big kids-bouncy-castle version of Wikipedia, where you can't hurt anything but at the same time, you're extremely limited. If only, if only, at the very least there is an option, a toggle, a quick button to easily get to code if I need to. Sometimes its just easier that way. [edited to add: I figured out how to edit code, but I had to exit the thingy, then go back in to edit source. You can't go straight from one to the other.] - Gohst ( talk) 12:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:VisualEditor, it says that in the week of 8 July, there is the "Launch to all logged-in and anonymous users as the default editor" on enwiki. And that one week later, the same "on other first-stage projects" ("TBD – definitely dewiki, frwiki, itwiki. Probably also arwiki, nlwiki, hewiki, hiwiki, jawiki, kowiki, ruwiki, plwiki, eswiki and svwiki").
All members of the VE team seem to simply ignore all the posts where users ask to make a break for fixing bugs, rethinking some of the graphical interfaces so they can be really used for editing WP (templates, references, images, conflicts, section editing, ...), including a few suggestions to have a really useful editor.
So, I'm asking. What's the plan ? Is it still the schedule displayed in Wikipedia:VisualEditor ? -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 12:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
<math>...</math>
, same for other extension tags...). --
NicoV (
Talk on frwiki) 14:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
What does this "Launch to all logged-in users as the default editor" mean exactly? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This editor is clearly not ready for use, now. Having said that, I think the beta is really promising. A good start.-- Wickey-nl ( talk) 14:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Okeyes: How can you be following this page and say "Off the top of my head I can only think of table editing and mathematical formulae." How about?
This editor shows promise, but it isn't ready for use at this time. It needs to be pulled back, fixed, and redeployed after it is fixed. The development team certainly can stay busy for several months correcting the known bugs, and they don't need to be dealing with a live deployment while they do.— Kww( talk) 15:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I take it that we're already rolling out to some new editors: Special:Contributions/Portal707 -- j⚛e decker talk 15:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I don't know if it's due to VE, but since it's something that might, I'm reporting it. On enwiki, Ctrl+click on Edit in this discussion (at the top of the page, or near each section) doesn't open the edit in a new tab, but in the same tab. This is usually useful to check things outside the section while answering in it. On frwiki, it's working. I'm using Chrome Version 27.0.1453.110 m (currently updating to next version). -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 13:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
With all the problems with VE Its really starting to get annoying all the talk about it being a "beta". This is not a beta. Its barely better than an alpha test. Major bugs, limited functionality, hundreds of people disabling it, etc. A lot of people including me have been saying it in various ways but I am going to be extremely direct, blunt and probably a little rude because I want to be clear. Visual editor has a lot of promise but right now its garbage and basically unusable. It needs to be turned off until the bugs can be whittled down. No one expects a perfect product but this application isn't even close to ready. The WMF keeps saying they are serious about supporting this app and how they hired more people. No one cares. We want to be able to edit and to build the project and many of us would love a working Visual editor. But this application is an absolute mess and is only making things harder to edit, not easier. If you turn this on for all the IP's you are asking for widespread problems. I know that no one really cares but I am not going to be editing much for a while largely because of VE. We have told the WMF it has problems and they do not cre what we say. So I don't feel like I should have to clean up their mess when they can prevent it by putting off the release for a month. When the WMF takes this project seriously and stops treating it like a sewer to test broken applications I'll think about returning to regular editing. Kumioko ( talk) 14:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I played with it on my user's page. All right. Weird but one can find ways. I don't think I'll have more time to play with it. I would not use even an excellent VE because I am so powerful with markup. When rolled out to my chapter I won't even see it, because my Firefox 3.5.6 is blacklisted. But the main thing is that I do not belong to the target category of users. Probably I'd use it for minor grammar corrections. Seems it is OK in that department. Angry comments here come from users who are as powerful with markup as I am. No VE can match that power. I'd recommend to suspend blocks with templates at the moment. Remember that the target category do not know, do not want to know and do not have to know what a template is. Those who want templates will learn markup. People who want find means. The same with math. I will always prefer LaTeX and that should be prepared in text editor and compiled. -- Holigor ( talk) 15:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Quite a bit of the random stylistic cleanup I do when working on drafts at WP:AFC would be easier if could apply the Visual Editor. Due to a quirk of history, however, those drafts are stored in the Wikipedia Talk namespace. I wish that didn't completely exclude the possibility of using the VE, but I can't say that this wish is anything like a priority, either. -- j⚛e decker talk 15:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to have a statistic available for the number of recent edits which have been done using Visual Editor vs. not on a daily basis. Further, it might be useful to query those people who are using Visual Editor specifically about their experiences ... I think that a lot of the feedback is biased by those people who are prone to feedback rather than representing the actual user base. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 16:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Using Firefox 19.0.2 on Windows Vista, editing Relativity Media. Find "subsidairies", right-click, select "subsidiaries". The word appears changed, but the "Save" button is not activated. Chris the speller yack 17:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
For items that require a popup window (e.g. references, templates), it would be much more user friendly to allow one to open that popup window using a "double-click". Clicking on the item to reveal the puzzle piece (or other icon) and then having to move my cursor and click again on the icon is unnecessary effort. Dragons flight ( talk) 19:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Apparently VE allows one to type markup directly into transclusion parameters and it continues to treat it as markup. Personally, I kind of like this behavior, but I think it violates the paradigm that the developers were going for.
To replicate:
Dragons flight ( talk) 20:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
When one is typing in the visual editor, if you include text that would be wikimarkup, e.g. [[a]], then VE wraps the entire section in <nowiki> tags. Unfortunately "section" ends up translating as everything from the previous bit of markup (or newline) until the following bit of markup (or newline). Given the way text is written this can mean an entire paragraphs is nowiki-ed, rather than just the portion containing the offending text. To add to the problem, anything in nowiki tags is presently uneditable by VE, so one can write a long block in VE, save it, and then find you can't edit if via VE any more.
If nowiki tags are going to be used, they should be more narrowly targeted to the offending element rather than also wrapping large swaths of plain text on either side. For simple elements like []{}, I would suggest you might even do better to default to HTML entities rather than using nowiki. Dragons flight ( talk) 20:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Using CTRL K is a big mistake when it comes to key bindings, when adding a link the editor will likely be using the mouse with one hand and the keyboard with the other and CTRL K is a bit of a stretch for many including myself, I suggest adding a link should be bond to something closer to the left CTRL button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Has there been any discussion of certain templates being totally invisible on VE when there are advantages in having editors be able to see them? Some templates, such as "Use British English" and "Use dmy dates", besides adding hidden categories, serve notice to editors that a specific style is appropriate for that page. This helps keep a professional look, and perhaps prevents some international incidents between editors on opposite sides of the pond. Chris the speller yack 21:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see it noted anywhere in the archives, but VE does not handle parser functions correctly.
Parser function syntax is generally {{#function_name : expr1 | expr2 | expr3 | ... }}
Currently VE sees this as a template with name "#function_name : expr1" and arguments "1 = expr2", "2 = expr3", etc. This makes it impossible to edit expr1 in VE. Dragons flight ( talk) 21:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Essentially the same issue occurs with all the magic words. Not so important for things like {{PAGENAME}}, but the ones that take parameters like {{urlencode: XYZ & 123 }} and {{formatnum:987654321.654321}} won't be handled correctly. Dragons flight ( talk) 22:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Attempts to edit/add a hyperlink (internal Wikipedia link) results in an undefined target resulting in a 404 error. See the related page, "...Wit (white) beer..." that should link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witbier#Witbier -- but there is no way to correct/specify the target URL, either as internal or external.
Webistrator ( talk) 23:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
For your information, we are amending the deployment schedule of the VisualEditor and pushing the rollout to IP editors by a week. This will give us more time to squash bugs especially in the areas of dirty diffs, as well as the notorious T52441.
Following the deployment to the English Wikipedia last Monday, many more users have taken the time to test VisualEditor and provide feedback. You and others have reported many bugs and issues previously unnoticed, and we're very grateful for our community to have provided so much detailed feedback. We also appreciate that the launch of this beta has been disruptive. Extensive testing notwithstanding, the process of cleanly generating wikitext from a rich-text interface is very complex and somewhat fragile, which is what causes VisualEditor to sometimes insert "dirty diffs". Caching and infrastructure issues can make issues arise in a production context that weren't previously seen. We're thankful for your patience, understanding and support.
We appreciate continued reports in Bugzilla as well as on this feedback page. As we work to squash bugs, we are prioritizing bugs that impact content and stability. We are also looking for ways to educate users that they're in the VisualEditor, and don't need to use wikitext - and in fact, will create problems if they do. (See T52601.)
We are planning to deploy the VisualEditor beta to anonymous users on English Wikipedia on 15 July. We will follow, with a multi-language test rollout to a selected language set on 22 July, with a target date for full deployment to all Wikipedias on 29 July. Of course, the farther we get down that schedule, the more likely it is that things may change, so it is possible that the full deployment will need to be pushed into August. Because of Wikimania and staff availability, that would mean we'd be looking at full deployment somewhere around 19 August.
We hope that you'll continue to test VisualEditor as we improve it, and provide us with more feedback. Our goal is for VisualEditor to not only become as bug-free as possible but to eventually become the best collaborative authoring tool on the planet. The only way we can get there is through continued iteration and continued feedback along the way.
Jdforrester (WMF) ( talk) 00:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
When you go to hit a section edit link, it rolls out edit source to the right leaving (with VisualEditor) in the location you just clicked, thereby loading VisualEditor. This is irksome when what you want to do is edit the source in the way we've always done. Moreover it is visually distractive to have links rolling out as you move your mouse cursor around the page. Please change this to static links with and edit source fixed next to each other. Thank you.
More broadly, I think this VisualEditor should be an opt-in Gadget under Preferences, rather than replacing the default way of editing. There are browser functionality and performance issues with it as well. Irānshahr ( talk) 00:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I had trouble with the graphs in visual editor. FoUTASportscaster ( talk) 00:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
This new editor is awful & unusable. Ultra slow(using java presumably?) Please at least allow people the option to choose the old editing method. Yaguchi ( talk) 02:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Ah, I didn't notice the edit source link. Ok ignore my comment. Yaguchi ( talk) 02:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I have really enjoyed this new editor so far. I like being able to make the changes in the article without having to scroll up and down to look at the original text while editing. I also like that it also works with my browser's spellcheck function that lets me know that I've at least spelled my words correctly. I used to be a heavier editor, and I will be able to at least do some grammatical editing when I see fit because the new VisualEditor makes editing seem like less of a chore than before. The only thing that will take some getting used to is that you do not state what changes you have made until after you hit "save", which can be a little unnerving if you aren't used to it. If there are any problems, I'll make it known. SailorAlphaCentauri ( talk) 03:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I ran into an interesting problem when editing a page with the VisualEditor. I made a change that ended up creating a weird format to my edit (it put my edited text into a separate box that I did not design or place there), but when I went to edit it again, I was told that I was editing an old version of the page and that any changes made would erase the previous edits. The only workaround I could come up with was to refresh the page before editing again. It's also a little weird that when I click "edit" to work on a particular section, VisualEditor will allow me to edit the entire page. I'm not sure if I dislike this yet or not, but I was surprised to see that happen. Sometimes the end is only the beginning... ( talk) 04:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I just wrote a section of an article using VisualEditor, and I was troubled by the lack of the ability to assign a name to a reference (which is what I typically do) or to have interactive help when using the rp template. I found it much easier to use the old referencing dialogs (I believe I have ProveIt). RJaguar3 | u | t 05:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I deliberately edited Roller coaster, an article under Pending Changes that had an unreviewed change, using my administrator account, using VisualEditor. When editing source, there would be an edit notice advising of the pending change, which is not present with VisualEditor. Nonetheless, edits by an administrator account are supposed to be automatically accepted. Instead, my edit was made subject to review. See screenshot. I'll do a bugzilla for this, and will note that Flagged Revisions also needs to be checked for this issue. Risker ( talk) 06:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Just had a go at adding a reference to James Gordon MacGregor (to replace an existing somewhat malformed "links" section). Ouch.
Nothing intuitive, no indication how to get anything like the helpful prompts from the dear old RefToolbar. Oh dear.
Ah, when I save it, the two copies of Reflist take effect and I have a duplicated single-entry list of refs. But, as with several previous comments, we need to be able to see in VE the effects of our VE edits, because lack of visual feedback causes confusion!
Will now go into Edit Source to fix the article. Pam D 20:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad to know this has been marked ANSWERED, otherwise I might have thought there were no answers in it. The entire subject of "transclusion," including its arcane name is illusive at best. When I needed to modify a reference it showed up blue and wouldn't let me select any part of it. So, good doobie that I am, I clicked on the puzzle piece icon (a good choice because its use is puzzling) which gave me the option of adding a parameter or removing the template. I chose to remove the template. To my surprise, this also removed the content, though of course I couldn't see that until I had saved the page. Camdenmaine ( talk) 00:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I now see what I did wrong, that I should have selected one of the parts of the template on the left and then I would have been allowed to edit that. But I've left my comment as was because I'm guessing other people will stumble just as I did. The visual clues of the blue box are all wrong. You click on a part of it (of course you would, because it's what you want to change), it frustrates you by not responding. Similarly the visual clues of the template parts in the left hand column are also imperfect. What makes matters a bit worse is that people insert additional information in any one of the template parts (say a comment after publisher name), and whoever wants to edit that has to guess what slot the comment resides in. Finally, the dialog box gives me an option to edit the template, but I have no idea what this means. Am I editing it for everyone, or just my copy? I can imagine someone who wants to edit information contained in a template parameter deciding that he has to edit the template to get at it. I wish I had a constructive comment to offer, how to improve the VE in this respect, but I don't. (Human interface problems are really hard.) One thing I would do in an instant is get rid of the word transclusion (which doesn't even pass spellcheck). Camdenmaine ( talk) 00:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Sadly, the use of templates is much more accessible in markup (edit source) than in the VE. I am finally baffled as to how I'm supposed to enter a citation in VE using a template. When I click on the references icon, it lets me enter a citation in unstructured text, but won't let me use any of the four essential templates that are accessible to me in markup. When I click on the puzzle icon (I refuse to use the stupid name that the creators have given it), I'm presented with a dialog box which is, to me at least, completely incomprehensible. This is not a minor flaw. The entire reason for the VE is to appeal to non-geek content experts, historians, philosophers, etc. If all they're entering is text, the VE is fine, but so is markup. Where editing gets dicey is in adding citations. This is hard in markup if you use the Wiki markup icons at the bottom of the edit box, less hard if you use the Templates dropdown in the toolbar, and impossible if you're using the VE. pagnol ( talk) 13:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Whew. Well, I hope this is apparent to everyone, not just me, but this whole process is so deeply anti-intuitive that it simply wrecks the expectation that a new user should have when working with a "Visual Editor." In particular:
What makes this all particularly sad is that in Edit Source mode you get a toolbar Templates rollbar that is truly visual, and that has none of the problems cited above.
This is not a documentation problem; the design concept for dealing with templates in the VE is just wrong. pagnol ( talk) 13:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The new visual editor looks great BUT it is that easy for a novice user to accidentally delete an infobox because they simply don't know one is there. Can someone please attend to this as a matter of urgency? Given most project maintained pages have an infobox, I can't believe this wasn't thought of before it was deployed. See West Swan, Western Australia for an example. Orderinchaos 06:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The "edit" links on sections are purely decorative and will never be otherwise. Official word:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48429
Imagine a world in which everyone can share in the sum of all human knowledge, if they live in San Francisco - David Gerard ( talk) 16:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Enhancement" means "the software doesn't do this, and isn't as-written meant to do this"; it's not a judgement on whether it should. "Lowest priority" means "the core developers of this are not intending to work on this issue any time soon"; bugs are always open to other developers coming and working on them, which frequently happens.
I appreciate it's a hard problem, but the problem is now that the interface lies. You're providing section links that the person project-managing the VE says will not be funded to work. - David Gerard ( talk) 07:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not a specialist, but I think the section should open in a separate frame on top of the article page (while maintaining the possibility to scroll through the whole article).-- Wickey-nl ( talk) 09:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
For those who want to comment in Bugzilla threads here is a help page: WP:Bugzilla. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 03:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It would be better if it put you back into the normal editor when you tried to do something it can't yet support like adding pictures. I was able to fix things by changing my preferences to opt out of the visual editor, but a newbie would just be stuck and bitten. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday Visual Editor was working when I clicked on "Edit" next to a heading on my user page but now it doesn't load even though I didn't disable it when I go to edit my user page
Just wanted to give some thoughts after the last update:
@ Mdennis (WMF): OK...I think I uploaded it here. Hope I used the right copyrights. Notice how when I put the mouse on the text of the reference/template, the blue line appears on the title "reference content". I can't click it so I can edit the template. TeamGale ( talk) 18:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to know if the last bug with the misplaced edit on the references template was reported? I think it not but I might be wrong... TeamGale ( talk) 00:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC) @ Mdennis (WMF): I know you are not here these two days, just a reminder to look at the last bug when you get back :) TeamGale ( talk) 09:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to add a reference to "Steve Smith (pool player)" and clean up the page. I am unable to add a citation. This instruction from the user guide does not work: "Then, click the "Insert reference" button to open the reference editor." The reference editor does not open up after inserting a reference. Vcczar ( talk) 18:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I was personally one of those who managed not to notice the impending change to the interface, so I'm apparently blind. I'm also exactly the kind of person who was going to be annoyed by it----I've been editing a while, I'm set in my ways, I'm accustomed to how things are, and I'm a Linux user. (Might as well have turned off the custom interface for Linux users by default. "I use Linux" means "I'm comfortable with scary text windows full of code", "I'm accustomed to all changes to my computer interface requiring my permission", "I'm obsessively focused on increasing speed through low consumption of system resources", and surprisingly often, "I have an enormous beard". The Visual Editor might as well have a routine that detected my operating system and waved a little white flag...)
I think the main lesson for the WMF in this was making the "turn it off!" button too hard to find. The business of trying to decrease its prominence so more users would try the Visual Editor was poor form----it was an example of the Foundation trying to manage how I spend my volunteering time. That's not appropriate, you don't manage that. In future, I'll be the judge of how my volunteering time is spent. The next time you make a change of this kind, please put the opt-out button front and centre without any fuss or argument at all.— S Marshall T/ C 18:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
It would be very nice to show changed text in a different font and/or color (or bg color), while editing. It helps seeing what you are editing. -- Wickey-nl ( talk) 09:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I edit on a laptop and therefore use keyboard shortcuts whenever possible. The standard keyboard shortcut for Edit (alt-shift-E in Windoze) has stopped working and the tooltip offers "Edit the source code of this page [<accesskey-ca-editsource>]". A couple of questions and a couple of comments.
Q1) which particular key combination is <accesskey-ca-editsource>?
Q2) having used the gadget to get this extension off my screen, shouldn't everything have reverted to the previous "normal"?
C1) for those of us with smaller screens this extension takes up too much screen real-estate. The edit bar at the top needs to be much smaller (I'm using Monobook with maxium screen resolution and it's still huge).
C2) the standard keyboard short cuts for going back a page in the browser don't work (alt-←) and the logical alternative of using the escape key to cancel also doesn't work. — Preceding comment added by Beeswaxcandle ( talk • contribs) ; original signature removed while fixing wiki markup errors NtheP ( talk) 13:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I prefer editing as much as possible by hand, not using pop-up windows. I couldn't do the necessary edits to an articles because I didn't understand how to do the most simplest of edits (using the previous system). Kaiser Torikka ( talk) 12:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
If a person sees "23–30 metres (75–98 ft)" and needs to change '30' to '35', editing the "Convert" template shows parameters 1 through 4, and the user has to guess which one needs to be changed. If the template editor displayed "{{convert|23|-|30|m}}" at the top of the box, the user should be able to see at a glance what do. Same goes for "{{frac|6|1|2}}" if "6+1⁄2" needs to be changed to "6+1⁄4". Obviously, this would be undesirable for lengthy templates, like infoboxes. Chris the speller yack 15:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, it would be nice if template parameters weren't placed in alphabetical order, but instead in the order of where they are in the template. This makes it much easier to locate and edit them (especially when it comes to infoboxes, as I always expect the name parameter to be first). Insulam Simia ( talk/ contribs) 15:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Please add the ability to edit tables (add/remove rows/columns) to the Visual Editor. Thank you. Mattsephton ( talk) 16:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I hate it. All the [[links]] are now static and given the "./". It's annoying and can ruin articles if not done right. Hitmonchan ( talk) 00:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there any VE specific CSS classes applied to the whole page that would allow editors to create elements that are visible during VE edit mode but not visible in the main read mode? This could serve a role similar to hidden comments and instructional templates (e.g. {{ use British English}}) which are intended to be shown to editors but not readers. At present the VE edit mode, doesn't allow such elements to be visible. Dragons flight ( talk) 00:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
In this edit [35] VE has change ''F''<sup>''i''0</sup> (Fi0) to ''F<sup>i</sup>''<sup>0</sup> (Fi0). While they render the same the semantics are different ''F'' indicates a variable so ''F''<sup>''i''0</sup> indicates a variable raised to the variable i0. In then second version we have a variable Fi raised to the power zero, (mathematically this always evaluates to 1, see Exponentiation#Arbitrary integer exponents). Even without the 0 I would say ''F''<sup>''i''</sup> is more correct than ''F<sup>i</sup>''. Quite a number of similar subtle mathematical formatting changes are seen in the Tag:visualeditor-needcheck.-- Salix ( talk): 06:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Would be nice to have option to show changes (in the source) when submitting, as you can already do when editing source. Maybe not by default (as the whole point of the visual editor is to avoid exposing the source to the user) but for users who are very familiar with the wiki syntax but just want to make a quick edit with the VE, it would be nice. laug ( talk) 07:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I found that I was unable to edit a 'See also' section in the article Dumpster diving that had the {{div col|3}} and {{div col end}} tags around it. I simply got a shaded blue area when clicking on it that couldn't be modified. My browser is Google Chrome 27.0.1453.110 and my operating system is Ubuntu 12.10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilKeyboardCat ( talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I've seen a couple of edits where odd markup is inserted at top and bottom of page, [38] added <div id="myEventWatcherDiv" style="display:none;"></div> and [39] added <embed type="application/iodbc" width="0" height="0" />.-- Salix ( talk): 07:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
[40] beginning with Sebastián Covarrubias' Tesoro de la lengua castellana o española.
In Visual Editor the text turns bold after Covarrrubias' while in normal page view it doesn't. -- Darklingou ( talk) 09:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
can not add references Hans100 ( talk) 09:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that it takes a really long time to load, to the point that, the last few times I tried it, I thought it wasn't working. I do wonder if it's because I opened the link in a new tab. — trlkly 10:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems that I cannot edit my adoptee's adoption page. Maybe it is down to the fact that I have User:Jcc/Adoption/Nav over it? Anyways, I was expecting a lot more from VE than this. jcc ( tea and biscuits) 10:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Is the following possible?
Always start in edit-source mode, but make the code invisible by default (=WYSIWYG).
With, e.g. ALT+F10, show the code and vice versa.
So, one edit mode, but two screen-versions.--
Wickey-nl (
talk) 10:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
At Eltham Well Hall rail crash#See also I attempted to change the first link from Morpeth rail crash to Morpeth rail crashes (both redirects to Morpeth rail crashes). The VE did change the link but piped the original text - [[Morpeth rail crashes|Morpeth rail crash]] [41]
Further testing in my userspace shows that this happens regardless of the status of the link: [42]
Because piped links are not shown, the VE gives no impression of having done anything. Indeed after trying to change the first link twice I was expecting to come here with a report that the link wasn't changed. It wasn't until I looked at the source that I saw what happened. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
There really needs to be a way for me to able to sign with VisualEditor, as I always end up making two edits when VE adds nowikis around the tildes. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 11:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The VE is still unusable for me due to a huge increase in load and save time. Please don't take the edit source option away while this issue continues. Lesion ( talk) 13:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I've added template data to Template:RCDB put nothing comes up when I try to add it to an article using VE. What did I do wrong?-- Dom497 ( talk) 13:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
When a template call has been edited, VE often displays some of the piped links as wiki code. For example, edit Luton, click the infobox and then the puzzle piece to edit the template. Make any parameter change or no change at all and click "Apply changes". A lot of the blue links in the infobox are now rendered as black pipe code, for example [[List of towns in the United Kingdom|Town]] instead of Town. Note: No nowikis have been added by VE here. This is about VE's own rendering and not code pollution with nowiki tags. On the plus side, this error means you can actually see where piped template links go. This normally appears impossible in VE. Other errors in VE's display after the template edit are a false Cite error about missing {{reflist}} ( bugzilla:50423), and the coordinates displaying at the bottom of the page instead of the top. I think VE could really use the "Show preview" button of the source editor which actually displays the page as it will look when saved, including categories, clickable wikilinks in templates and captions, and other details missed in VE. It could also use the one-click "Show changes" with return to editing instead of the cumbersome and illogical three-click "Save page", "Review your changes", "^". If Review your changes also displayed the rendered page below (correctly as in the source editor) then it would be helpful. Ironically, VE often makes it harder than the source editor to find out what your edit will do. PrimeHunter ( talk) 13:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I've tried the editor again on List of Metal Gear characters, and it's awful at the moment. I try to edit, and the thing takes forever to load. Then it doesn't go to the section I want it to go to, then when I try to review the change I made, that takes forever. Then when I try to save the change, it takes forever to save. In fact, it took so long that I reverted to editing the source code. I agree with one of the other users who commented here now: it seems far more like an alpha than a beta. I know these issues are probably common, but I really needed to put my thoughts here. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 14:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Using VE, editing a section delimited with <pre> </pre> markup will result in all blank lines in the section being unexpectedly removed. Bevo ( talk) 15:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
This is amazing <3 Works so cleanly, looks incredible.
Glad to see my donation being put to good use!!
Cheers guys. Samcooke343 ( talk) 16:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Speed: It is very slow to the point where I'm using it less.
Edit Summary: I wish this appeared at the same time as you edit (as in "Edit Source"). I can't remember everything I changed! I usually include the grammar rules.
Limitations: How does one edit links in Visual Edit? Can we? I think a much better visual format without Wiki markup would be what the Harry Potter Wikia (and maybe more, but that's the one I'm all over) does. It is seen more like an email where you can add links, change text formatting, and add references with the push of a button and filling out of a form without having to search through all the references and watch out for links with different names as sometimes occurs with Wikipedia source editing.
Thanks for trying something new, though, Wikipedia! It's exciting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustAMuggle ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
i have like 10,000 edits, i think i can manage without this bloated slow awful thing Decora ( talk) 17:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
How do I disable VisualEditor?
|
---|
To continue to edit the wikitext directly, simply click the "Edit source" button instead of "Edit". On section edit links, you can open the classic wikitext editor for that section by clicking "edit source" instead of the regular "edit" link. If you would like to remove VisualEditor from the user interface, then you can go to the Gadgets tab of your Preferences page, check the option "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface" in the "Editing" section, and click the Save button near the bottom of the page. (Note that gadgets are community-developed and not supported by the Wikimedia Foundation.) |
gde preview button??????????????? Decora ( talk) 17:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I know there has been much discussion about the problem of edit conflicts but I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before (I thought I saw something but couldn't find it). The slow speed of the editor can make problems for even simple edits on highly edited pages which are already difficult enough at times. I believe there are plans for much more sophisticated edit conflict management including allowing some form of real time collaboration but just thought I'd mention it so the team get an idea of where things stand now. I also believe I did get some edit conflicts where the section had not been changed but I'm not sure of this as I wasn't aware it was a point of contention. I did encounter what appears to be a bug. Sometimes even though I just used the edit link on the page rather then specifically viewing an older revision, I ended up editing an older version (i.e. I was warning I'm editing an older version). I presume this warning was accurate although I never confirmed that I killed older edits, of course I probably would have been edit conflicted anyway. (I think I may have had this once or twice before with the source editor, over the years but if it still happens it's rare. I must have gotten this 6 times or so the other day when dealing with the Egyptian coup article.) One thing is this must be difficult to test in the real world, you need to wait for a major event to happen. So a better bet may be a sandbox with a bot editing every minute or so. Nil Einne ( talk) 18:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
This was reported last week here and tracked as Bugzilla:37860 which has been marked as "resolved - duplicate of Bugzilla:33105"; but 33105 has been reassigned to cover only copy/paste from external sources. Its comment 9 dated 29 June says "With this change: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/13423/ rich copying and pasting from other ve instances (same wiki, same browser) is supported." But it doesn't work - see this result of copy-pasting a formatted section from the beginning of User:JohnCD/VEtest. Maybe that change is still in the release pipeline; if not, can we reopen this? JohnCD ( talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Most of the time the VE link function seems to be aware of redirects, but I stumbled on the following example that it doesn't seem to understand:
[[Hands-on universe|Hands-On Universe]]
When edited with VE, if you open the link it complains that the page Hands-on universe doesn't exist even though it does (and has for many years). Maybe it is something to do with the fact that the link and display text differ only by casing? Not sure. Dragons flight ( talk) 19:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I raised this on Weds 3rd, and it was marked as "tracked" by T52646, but that doesn't seem to hit the spot. I'll repeat my point here:
If I'm looking at incoming links to an article, perhaps because the base name is about to become a dab page, I sometimes find that they're piped links, and not visible in the article text. With Edit Source, once I've opened the editor I know I can find a piped link using ctrl-F "Find". In VE there seems no equivalent. Look at my example above. The linked bug doesn't seem to address this issue: I don't want to have to hover over each link in turn to see its target URL, I want to be able to search a massive long article to find the one or more piped links I need to tweak. Pam D 21:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
One thing I don't particularly care for about the VisualEditor is that you either have to edit entirely visually or entirely in source. If you want to switch (say you started in Visual, but you want to switch to source to get something fancy working), you have to either discard your changes or save a partial edit in visual and create a second edit in source. What I want to see is a means of switching between the two at will within the same edit. Wordpress does something similar where you can type up a blog post to switch between visual rendering and HTML source using tabs surrounding the edit window. You can switch between visual and HTML at will and each will be updated. I want to see the same thing with the Wikipedia VisualEditor. - Thunderforge ( talk) 21:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
If you open a page in the VisualEditor, make a few changes, and then decide to hit the "Cancel" button, you get a message that says "Are you sure you want to go back to view mode without saving first?". The options are "OK" and "Cancel", which aren't really proper answers to this yes/no question. As such, I'd like to request that instead the buttons be replaced with "Yes" and "No", which are clear responses to the question. - Thunderforge ( talk) 21:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems that when I use the Beta Editor, as long as I am editing the normal page gets scrunched. MeanMotherJr ( talk) 22:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
This new way of editing sucks. You can't properly review your edits to make sure your edit actually works before saving. This is especially true when it comes to things like adding links. Stephen Day ( talk) 22:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
When editing Viareggio train derailment#See also, the suggestions list didn't include Lac-Mégantic derailment (the link I was trying to add). Obviously we can't expect instant updates, but the Lac-Mégantic article was ~5 hours old when I made my edit [44] [45]. It really needs to be quicker than this as major news events often quickly gather inbound links from all sorts of related articles. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Even though section editing in VE is a long way off, it would be really helpful if the title of the section you click edit on was automatically included in the edit summary in the same way that the source editor does. For example, when making this edit I launched the VE by clicking on the edit link for the "See also" section, so I was expecting the edit summary to begin with the usual "-> See also". This provides context for the edit summary and so helps give context at recent changes and on watchlists.
I'll put this in bugzilla myself, but I thought it useful feedback to have here too. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm from pt.wiki, we display edit notices when editing so some users can't figure out where to click to get ride off the pop up, I suppose not all people know the modal concept at all.
Dianakc (
talk) 23:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Remove weird padding inside the flyout popup. I 'm not sure others but the editnotices seems strange inside the flyout because there's a weird padding inside the popup, without the padding the templates would look nicer (there´s already padding in most edinotices templates by default). Dianakc ( talk) 23:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes when editing the source, editors will leave comments to other editors that are not visible to readers, e.g. "Please do not add X to this list" or "Discussion has established the following consensus". These need to be visible to editors using the visual editor too. I just came across this by finding some excess whitespace caused by a badly placed comment that couldn't be removed in the visual editor. Hairy Dude ( talk) 00:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
What is the series of keystrokes necessary for quickly submitting an edit by using the keyboard? It used to be that I could edit source, then use TAB to add my edit summary and then just press ENTER to press the "Save page" button. (I could also use TAB+SPACE to quickly mark the edit as minor, just before saving it.) Now when I go to save the page I cannot find any obvious sequence of keys which will save the page without having to use the mouse and press the button manually. It is very frustrating and makes using VE clunkier than just editing the source. Elizium23 ( talk) 01:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Where's the code view? I work better in that — Supuhstar * — 05:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't ask for it to be turned on, and why isn't there a visible "turn this off" button next to it? – Smiddle T C @ 07:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Please get rid of it ASAP. Niemti ( talk) 10:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It's FUBAR, completelty. -- Niemti ( talk) 12:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
it was much easier the old way please change it back or give us the option to change it back to the old way Stevendsi ( talk) 11:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
One thing I don't like about the new visual editor compared to the old process is the way you comment changes. With the original editor I would always enter my comments before I went to review/confirm the edit. That way I wouldn't forget and if I was OK with the review I could just hit confirm. I prefer that way of working to the new visual editor where there is a drop down box only when you go to review/confirm the change. Perhaps it would be possible to utilize both techniques? To have somewhere you can fill in the comment first and then review/confirm but also be prompted for a comment when you do review/confirm if the comment hasn't already been filled out? Also, as I read some other comments I just want to say good job on the Visual Editor and don't be discouraged that some people hate it, its inevitable, people hate change. Mdebellis ( talk) 11:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The infobox on BAC One-Eleven decided for some reason to disappear when editing with VisualItsNotReadyButWe'llPushItOnTheWikipediaCommunityAnywayEditor. Insulam Simia ( talk/ contribs) 14:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
this is waaaay too slow for my laptop (Intel Core 2 Duo T5670, 4GB RAM). Don't even make me think of using this on my RasPi! Enormator ( talk) 15:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
On the whole, I really like it. It's basically intuitive and seems to have massively improved since I first tested it out. The main problem I'm having involves the amount of effort now required to open external links in references (especially those using {{ cite web}} etc). As far as I can tell, I have to click on the footnote, then the icon, then the text of the reference, then another icon, then the url parameter, and once I'm done copy and pasting I have to close two pop-ups. Is there any way around this that I've missed? It's not an error or a bug, but it's the main barrier to efficient editing that I've encountered so far. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 16:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
When I pull this revision into VE, reference 1 appears blank. Looking at the revision, it is not blank. -- j⚛e decker talk 16:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Second bug. At the same revision, if, in VE, I place the cursor to the left of the line that begins "The Peach Springs Trad....", just after the malformed comment, then press backspace, in the hopes of starting to delete said malformed content, the entire infobox disappears. This is quite startling. -- j⚛e decker talk 16:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I want to use regular wikimarkup editing, but VisualEditor keeps appearing even when I disable it in Preferences. Needless to say, this is a very annoying bug, currently making it impossible for me to edit, because my tablet refuses to work with VisualEditor. – Michaelmas1957 ( talk) 16:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't like the additional way of editing. I prefer the older way. I feel the newer way (less technical looking) will only allow more people to mess with Wikipeia. The older way prevented it due to it's "programming" look. Mcadwell ( talk) 17:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I personally find the VisualEditor appealing when all I want to do is make minor prose alterations, but as I often want to make sweeping edits to infoboxes, references, templates, categories and so on I find it isn't really particularly helpful for me in most cases. I refrained from comment for a while, thinking the VisualEditor might grow on me, but so far it just hasn't. I think the vast majority of serious Wikipedia editors will prefer the old system for the moment, but I realise the VisualEditor is in a very early stage of development so I will keep an open mind for the future. This is a good project and a definite step forward if we can get it right, so we should push on with it. I recommend that the developers focus on getting notes and references sorted out as a main priority. — Cliftonian (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
My comment of 26 June got tracked as T52239, but I don't think that hits the spot.
I want to be able to see the categories when I've got an article open in VE: just as I can see them when reading the article, or when editing it in Edit Source. I don't want to have to click on "Page Data" to find out whether or not it's already got categories.
That bug is more concerned with another of my problems with categories: not being able to see the article while adding the categories. Not the same problem. Pam D 17:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Ghislain Montvernay ( talk) 18:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The link goes to a general Wikionary page defining the term heirloom, rather than specifically to Heirloom press. So kill the link! Kill it, kill it, kill it! Pittsburgh Poet ( talk) 18:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Doubtless there is some way to opt out and by the time you read this I'll hopefully have already found it. All the same, my first experience with using thi... your product was slow, unpleasant, and buggy and my first instinct (since I'm already comfortable with Wikimarkup) was to turn the d... your product off.
It's not an obvious option on the page ("edit" goes straight to WYSIWYG); it's not an option in my user preferences (even under 'editing'); and it's not available as a huge button within the WYSIWYG editor itself. Frankly, given that user experience is the only thing we're working on here and there's no advertizing money being made by a establishing such a user-unhelpful experience, that's nuts.
I understand why you're doing this and good luck to you (albeit I imagine retention is more an issue of bureaucratic capture by obscure committees, code bloat (especially unhelpful template formats like {{ zh}}), and general noob-biting rather than any problem with barebones markup itself). But the difficulty in turning this thing off needs to die a fiery death. All the other regulars must've been telling you the same thing already, so it's a little baffling it hasn't already been implemented. — LlywelynII 18:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, since the management of the VE project doesn't seem to take into account any of the concerns of many experienced users saying that VE is just not yet ready for production (the one week delay clearly isn't an answer to that concerns), I'd like to suggest an idea : would it be possible to have all features that are not really finished only accessible to users that would opt-in for them ? That way, unexperienced user would get a basic version of VE but without the parts that are clearly not finished, and other features could still be tested by volunteers.
In the features that are not really finished, I would put without hesitation template editing, media editing, reference editing (because none of them is currently easy to use and doesn't promote good practices, rather the contrary). Then, we could really start a discussion on each major feature about what possibility it should bring to users.
For example, for template editing, I think the most pressing issues are : parameters are sorted alphabetically, you can't see all the parameter values in a glance, adding parameters is difficult, TemplateData is not used enough. For image editing, I think the most pressing problems are : size specified by default (against all MOS), caption is not requested when adding an image (separate action), alternate caption is not possible. I haven't played with reference editing, but from the feedbacks I read, it seems worse than the current Cite extension. -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 18:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
At mw:Help:Contents, there are more than 20 help pages on how to do editing, pages that do not reflect how to edit using VE. Is the VE team responsible for updating this documentation, and if so, does it have a target date? If not, why should the English Wikipedia community (volunteers) be expected to do this?
(It's true that there is now a user guide for VE, but it is far less comprehensive than the above help pages, taken as a whole.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest that we simply add a paragraph to the beginning of every help page recommending that the editor disable Visual Editor and giving instructions on how to do so. Until Visual Editor actually works, there's not a lot of value in having instructions on how to use it. Any help pages devoted to using Visual Editor should be bundled together in a "how to participate in the beta trial" area.— Kww( talk) 17:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
It's kind of a pain to have to scroll up to get to the toolbar when editing the end of a long article. The wikitext source editor solves that by using a subwindow scrolling region so the toolbar can always be on screen. Is that a good idea for the visual editor too? It would also make it more obvious that you're editing instead of reading. Pointer wrangler ( talk) 23:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It is confusing, and I don't really like it very much. But I like the idea for the references I had problem copying source text. Gonna feedback along the way. VuXman talk 23:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Although each section has an edit and source edit link, the lead now only has an edit link. Previously, this link allowed editing the lead source. Now, it invokes Visual Editor. Now I have to actually copy, paste and alter an edit source link to achieve lead editing. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 23:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Red links are blue in the Visual Editor until I save. This is unexpected (at least for me) and has caused me to miss an incorrectly spelled link target. Tobias K. ( talk) 00:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you guys might want to see what happened when I attempted to change "captian" to "captain" in a couple of articles: [46] [47] Green green greenred 00:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This visual editor is a baffling, time wasting, piece of work. Where is an easy "disable" button to get rid of this thing? Why in the world do you want people to use this thing? I see no advantage to it and the user's guide is not helpful in the least.
My vote is to dump the visual editor project, kill it before it gets out of beta. Ande B. ( talk) 02:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Click a link like http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=New%20Zealand%20English&diff=0&oldid=123 and then [edit] on one section - the old version is presented for editing instead of the newer version.
Clicking [edit source] instead of [edit] does edit the newer version of the page. K7L ( talk) 04:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I hate the Visual Editor, which is terrible in its editing process. Wikidude10000 ( talk) 04:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
When editing Taza, I note that the {{ Infobox Weather/concise C}} template overlaps the {{ Infobox settlement}} template, obscuring it sufficiently that one would not be able to see errors that would need to be edited. I also note that the "location dot" on the infobox map shifts very significantly when in edit mode, with the location name overlapping the legend, and the co-ordinates duplicated. Risker ( talk) 05:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Template editing is a slow and confusing mess. I have to scroll down and click for every parameter - this makes quick editing very difficult. I do not know which parameter is which, making it a slow and laborious task Super Nintendo Chalmers ( talk) 06:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
What have you done??? You've made it nearly impossible to edit the page and to add new information! Where is the window that reveals codings and citations that can be used as examples for creating new references with citations? The way to edit a page wasn't broken before ... why did you find a reason to break it? Pyxis Solitary ( talk) 09:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
When a file is directly included, e.g.
Clicking on it doesn't cause the media handler to appear (no media icon to click and no size selector).
I do see that using the "thumb" style, e.g.
Consider:
In VE, select the entire phrase "A B C" and attempt to add a link to the page "Dog".
The Visual Editor result is to expand the link but ignore the new requested target, resulting in [[B|A B C]]. Dragons flight ( talk) 10:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
For me (Chrome 27), when a reference contains a template, e.g.
<ref>{{cite web|url=http:www.go.com|title=This}}</ref>
I am completely unable to edit this. I select it, the reference icon appear, and I can open the popup window. That's where things fall apart. I am unable to select the template or get a transclusion icon to appear. If I hover over it, a blue box appears but it is displaced far above and to the left of the actual reference text. If I try to move my cursor over to the blue box, it disappears as soon as I move off the reference text. Since I can't open the template, I also can't edit it.
Thus, it appears that I am unable to edit any reference that includes citation templates (which is a large percentage of all references). Dragons flight ( talk) 11:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Typing certain tag based code into VE such as:
Will result in these items being treated as true wikicode after saving. Other tags such as <nowiki> and <span> are properly escaped and only regarded as plain text by the visual editor. Dragons flight ( talk) 11:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't edit hidden templates, that have no visual output (like use_dmy_dates at the top of Otto I as example). Apparently there is no clickable area assigned to such templates. Suggestion: assign a small area with the transclusion puzzle icon to highlight a "hidden" template in that area of the article. (Ignore at will, if this is already noted - i couldn't find that bug in bugzilla). GermanJoe ( talk) 11:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I set up a simple filter to monitor for "nowiki" being inserted into an article. It's a pretty good indicator of an article being mangled because of the interaction between Visual Editor and the user. You can see the real-time list at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:AbuseLog&offset=&limit=500&wpSearchFilter=550 . It's pretty illuminating. At the very least, it's a good list of articles that need some love and attention.— Kww( talk) 14:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I do like what you did with this new editing system on Wikipedia. But you need an option that reverts the editing text back to the original format older Wikipedians were using. Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 16:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Old style was fast and reliable, I can't do anything on this. Ail Subway ( talk) 19:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The link autocomplete function fails to find many short page names and regards them as redlinks, e.g. A, B, To, Hi. Dragons flight ( talk) 10:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
In visual editor, if you select a section header and attempt to delete or cut it, the result is code like:
==<nowiki />==
Which essentially leaves an empty header in place of the existing header that one tried to remove. Dragons flight ( talk) 11:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand that the old revision alert given when making a second edit is a bug, but it's also in the way of the page itself (so this would apply when you really are editing an old version of a page). When editing the source, the warning that you're in an older version is just a wide but short banner, but in VE this is a narrow but long bubble that covers the edit space, which is very distracting. You shouldn't have to click on the bug notice before being able to edit. Reywas92 Talk 13:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
When preexisting images are specified with "thumb", the VE interface allows one to stretch the image. However, it appears that resizing such images has no effect as the changes in size are not saved. Dragons flight ( talk) 13:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Are we suppose to be able to drag, cut, or copy templates? I've tried, but so far it appears that templates are immovable. Obviously we ought to have the ability to reposition templates as needed. Dragons flight ( talk) 13:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
On 2012 Olympics the editor craps out somewhat after the "Sports" subheading. From that point on much text is abnormally small and the links and images remain clickable in the editor (i.e. clicking on them causes you to leave the page rather than edit the element). Dragons flight ( talk) 14:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The link tool allows the user to enter nonsense that will appear as if it is a good link until after they save.
For example:
The link target on the left hand side of the pipe contains multiple examples of code that is not allowed to be included within a wikilink, and yet the link processor will happily allow you to add any of that as a link target and not reveal the problem until after the page is saved. Dragons flight ( talk) 14:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes VE inserts a newline symbol, ↵.
It doesn't do this with every newline, which I would say makes them confusing. If they aren't always present, then when are they present and what meaning are they intended to convey? In addition, they are "editable" but not functional. In other words, I have the ability to delete them when editing but according to the diff nothing changes. Since removing them apparently doesn't do anything, I'm not sure what is the point? Decoration? I have no objection if the developers want to consistently use ↵ and tie them directly to the newlines. As is though, I think the user would be better off if the haphazard and non-functional symbols were simply removed. Dragons flight ( talk) 15:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
So VE finally has a useful feature, which allows editors to improve Wikipedia from an accessibility viewpoint, and now they want to rip it out? Why not spend some effort to fix some of the actual bugs instead? Chris the speller yack 16:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I put "#REDIRECT Joseph L. Rauh, Jr." in the box and there was no option to preview until after I had clicked "Save Page". Then it became clear that the editor had nowiki'ed my redirection. So how to I get what I want? None of the (unhelpfully obscure) icons seems to be for creating a redirection. Dominus ( talk) 15:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
In this edit, VE added an extra space between "1965" and "[[novel]]" in the first sentence of the article. (This edit also removed the infobox but that was "my fault" insofar that it is my fault that infoboxes seem so easy to accidentally remove.) Regards, Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 16:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I decided to give VisualEditor another try, but it keeps failing to complete edits – it just brings up a "Server error" message. My internet connection is fine, and the same problem does not occur when editing the same text with the usual wikimarkup. Why make VE the default system for the whole of Wikipedia, if you don't have the server capacity to handle it? More to the point, why can't we choose to opt in to VE, instead of having it forced upon us (also, as I've said before, the Gadgets option to disable it doesn't work). – Michaelmas1957 ( talk) 16:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
A common way to highlight/select a word or phrase is to double-click a word, or double-click and hold and drag through following words in the phrase. This also highlights/selects the following space. Clicking on the "Bold" or "Italics" symbol adds the closing markup after the trailing space. Seems to me that there is no point in having the markup after the space, and it makes the source ugly and confusing. {Firefox 19 on Window Vista) Chris the speller yack 17:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Linus' Law - "Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix will be obvious to someone." - only works in an open source project run as a functioning bazaar model - where there are not only lots of bug reports, but where random passers-by can effectively contribute. MediaWiki is free software, but has long run on a cathedral model where effective development is a WMF house project; and the serious problem with barriers to outside contribution has been a long-running issue. You don't have the co-developer base, and one wasn't developed for the project. So you see bugtrackers that look like the one at OpenOffice.org used to - with hundreds of thousands of bugs and only twenty devs to work on them. So please just stop saying that, and take it out of the intro of this page - David Gerard ( talk) 18:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I was editing
House of the Virgin Mary using Visual Editor, and I noticed the following characters at the end of the page (following External Links): ↵↵↵↵↵↵↵↵ ↵↵. My first inclination was to delete these as I assumed they were stray text. Then I thought better and decided to review the change. Deleting these characters would have deleted
Category:Christian sites of the Roman Empire, which happens to follow an HTML comment associated with the preceding category:
[[Category:Islamic pilgrimages]]<!--not bogus. revered by Muslims as well. There is a kiosk catering to Muslims there --->
[[Category:Christian sites of the Roman Empire]]
-- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Enjoy! -- j⚛e decker talk 22:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This might have already been brought up, but the editor times out after a while. I sometimes work on edits over a period of several hours, but with VE I have to re-type the content (fortunately, I foresaw that that might happen, so I replicated the content in Word). It would be handy if the developers (those poor slaves - I'd hate to be them right now!) could implement a way to refresh the editor without eliminating the new content.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 23:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I've looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:RecentChanges&tagfilter=visualeditor-needcheck and compared it to Filter 550 and it's pretty obvious that monitoring the tag alone doesn't give a feel for how many edits are being corrupted due to people misusing Visual Editor. People that want to mitigate the damage being done should be paying active attention to Filter 550. Filter 550 simply monitors the insertion of "nowiki" tags so it has some false positives, but my estimate is that about 80% of these are cases of VisualEditor not recognizing that the editor has inserted markup.— Kww( talk) 23:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The font in the preview is very small, making it impossible to read the text. Curious Eric 23:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I am working with the article Methyl iodide. I find that the number of references is different in the article vs. in the article-in-edit-mode. I am currently attributing this to one primary reference residing in the infobox on the page. Wondering if this is something observed by others. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
When one has TemplateData available and you try to add a new template, the UI attempts to provide a list of possible attributes along with various textual descriptions. That said, the present result appears to be a giant mess. As shown in the provided image, some of the field description run out of the window (with no horizontal scroll bar provided). In other cases, multiple items get stacked on the same horizontal line. It seems very dysfunctional at present. In fact, it is so bad that I wanted to stop and ask if it is just me? Is this a problem with Chrome in particular or is everyone seeing this kind of a mess when they attempt to add a template like {{ cite book}}. Dragons flight ( talk) 04:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
When I open Japan Airlines Flight 350 to edit, with VE, the image in the infobox now takes up half (or more) of the entire editing box, and the rest of the infobox information isn't visible on the screen. Very problematical. -- John Broughton (♫♫)
When I opt to visually edit Fruit of the Holy Spirit, I find the first paragraph becomes bifurcated (after "likened to trees,") and the second part of the paragraph is treated as a transclusion for some reason. This is Firefox 22.0 on Windows 7 Professional SP1 64-bit.
Also, are we going to add blockquote support? Thanks. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 06:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
How should one edit a reference in the caption for an image using the VisualEditor? Thanks. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 06:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Great to see the new editor live on wikipedia! Toby ( talk) 07:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I was about to congratulate VE for making it easy to clean up some wierd formatting added by some broken browser extension [49]. This can be tricky and tedious to do with the source editor, but VE made it easy, so +1 there. However it didn't work so well for cleaning up the same formatting bugs in the template. VE could not parse the template parameter correctly and split some parmeters into two. [50] A case of junk in, different junk out. Overall a score of 0 for VE.-- Salix ( talk): 08:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Keyboard shortcuts appear to be missing for most of the buttons in the VE ribbon. Particularly there seems to be no way of activating the "Save page" button without switching to the mouse. In the hope that I might be able to get to it by pressing TAB multiple times, I tried such, but all I achieved was to cycle through every link on the page except those on the ribbon. Being able to select the page options faux-menu for category additions by a key-press would also be useful. (I've already suggested ESC elsewhere for cancelling the whole edit.) Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 08:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
a) When a link is selected the icon for "clear formatting" lights up, but clicking it does nothing.
b) I highlighted some text to create a link, pressed CTRL-K then realised I had selected the wrong text, so I pressed ESC in the hope that that would stop the process. All that I succeeded in doing was creating a link to a non-existent article called by the highlighted text. If I can create a link with a keyboard shortcut, then I should be able to uncreate or stop the creation process with the keyboard too.
After some experimentation, I've found a mouse work-around (click the dangling link icon and find a tiny rubbish bin in the top right-corner). Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 08:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
When editing lung, the first three images are displayed as a single item on the left instead of the right, and can't be edited. -- WS ( talk) 11:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Here is another example where this happens: gallstone, the first three images after the infobox. -- WS ( talk) 13:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
When clicking edit, a progress/busy indicator appears at the top of the article. However when you click one of the section edit links, the only noticeable change is that that the text goes gray and moves around, giving no further clue that anything is happening at all, unless you scroll all the way to the top of the page. This is especially problematic with the still quite long load times of the editor. -- WS ( talk) 11:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
What is 'add content' in the template dialog supposed to do? The only thing it seems to be doing is add the text I enter after the end of the template syntax. Either it is broken or it is useless. -- WS ( talk) 11:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
VE takes no notice of the rules laid out by WP:ORDER for the order in which elements of an article should appear. As an example, I added a third category to Permyak Salty Ears (it's a sculpture I was stub-sorting!). VE put it at the end, after the stub category and inter-wiki link, separated from the other two categories.
I raised this issue a long way back and was told that order of elements is a project-specific issue.
So has English Wikipedia agreed to abandon WP:ORDER (aka WP:FOOTER or Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Order_of_sections? If not, then the developers of VE need to take it on board. WP:AWB can sort this out as part of its general fixes: if nothing else, can't the developers of VE copy the logic it uses, and use that logic in deciding where to put new elements added by editors?
I haven't checked what happens at the top of the article - eg the rule that navigational hatnotes go above everything else (for accessibility issues) - but it would surprise me if VE is getting that right either. ... pause for quick experiment at User:PamD/sandbox for VE ... no, of course it doesn't. Nor does it add new maintenance tags within an existing {{ multiple issues}}, as Twinkle would. In short, VE is dumber than two existing facilities - AWB and Twinkle - where it ought to have learned from them to create a wonderful user experience. We aren't there yet.
OK, I've for once managed to search Bugzilla successfully and I find that this is T52882, albeit labelled as "unprioritized minor" which sounds about as low as it can go. Sad. Meanwhile I and many other editors will be following most VE edits with a cleanup edit in Edit Source - or just using Edit Source for speed, if I haven't the stamina to use VE. (I'm trying to use it to test and debug it, but it's just too much like hard work sometimes). Pam D 12:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't seem to have any table support. Resuna ( talk) 13:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Is the references list icon supposed to be doing something for me? As far as I can tell it always just opens a blank dialog box. I'm not sure what it is for. Dragons flight ( talk) 15:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
ALI KHAWAR ALI KHAWAR KHAN BIRMANI ( talk) 16:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This edit. May have been me, not the VE, but I didn't realise until I went back to check, so is way too easy - David Gerard ( talk) 16:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
In visual editor, type something like:
abc def
With many consecutive spaces between words. In the editor it will display as many spaces. If you save it, the multiple spaces are placed into the wiki source. However, when one goes to view the page, the consecutive spaces are rendered as a single space (e.g. "abc def"). Collapsing multiple spaces is a convention that Mediawiki borrows from the HTML standard.
Personally, I think users probably should be able to add multiple spaces, if that is what they want to do, but in that case the editor needs to translate these to " " or some other format that prevents them from be collapsed during the page view. Dragons flight ( talk) 17:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Providing the ability to resize images using the handles at the corners is a terrible idea. Thumbnails should not have a size attribute unless absolutely necessary, as doing so overrides users' preferences, makes the formatting of articles inconsistent, and potentially creates problems for readers with phones or accessibility issues. Removing unnecessary size specifications is going to be a very tedious and entirely avoidable job. Celuici ( talk) 17:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I am assistant to Mr. Carlos Wizard Martins.
We asked to change the name "Carlos Roberto Martins" to "Carlos Wizard Martins."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Roberto_Martins
We count on your help. Murilovisck ( talk) 17:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Initially I wasn't having any luck getting my finishing changes to the TemplateData in the Template:LSJ/doc to show up in the VE transclusion dialog. Then I tried just making a null edit to the template page itself, and it worked! I also made a change to Template:Citation needed/doc TemplateData, but that change hasn't showed up either in VE.
Is it the case that changes to TemplateData on the /doc page won't show up until the main template page is edited? -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 18:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
When using the link editor tool, it appears that the link is only updated if one either presses enter or clicks on a suggestion from the autocomplete list. This was very counterintuitive to me. If I am editing a link, I expect to be able to type the target (e.g. "Japan") and then move on by clicking elsewhere on the page. It is not at all obvious that I actually need to type "Japan+<ENTER>" before clicking outside the box. Obviously, now that I know what is required, I can do that, but it seems much more natural to have the link autoupdate to match new text as it is typed in rather than requiring the additional push of the Enter key. Dragons flight ( talk) 19:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
so I thought (hoped) that "Leave" would lead to the old editor... Pifvyubjwm ( talk) 19:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There should be a much easier way to add a table row using the visual editor. WikiTryHardDieHard ( talk) 20:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
How do I delete this account? Eban Hyams ( talk) 20:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
A minor point, but if I mistakenly click the edit button by a header to edit a section, but had intended to click edit source, there's no easy way to switch from the VE view to the source editing view. Ideally, once I've started to edit a section with the visual editor, there should be a really easy way for me to switch to editing the source view of that section alone (as if I'd pressed edit source for that section in the first place). ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 21:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's a damaged wikilink: [[./Francis_W._Parker_School_(Chicago)|Francis W. Parker School]]. (It's damaged so badly that it doesn't even need nowiki tags to prevent redlinking.) It was damaged by this edit. (It's been more than 24 hours ago since it was flagged as a possible VE-induced error, yet it's still not fixed ... but I digress.)
I'm posting here because when I go into VE to edit the problem (it's in the "Legacy" section of the article McCormick family), VE displays the link as being perfectly okay. And when I click on what is displayed ("Francis W. Parker School"), and look what it links to, VE shows the correct link.) That obviously makes it difficult to actually fix the problem.
I'm leaving the wikilink as is, in the article, until someone adds this as a bug, or notes that it is already listed elsewhere as a bug. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Reference list does not update with new references. Very confusing, especially with no refresh capability. Naugahyde ( talk) 02:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I just did this edit, it actually worked and let me fix a typo. But before I saved it when I tried to preview the change it came up in an uncomfortably small font, barely readable. I'm testing this on a decent sized screen, and my glasses are a fairly recent prescription. With the greying of the pedia we should be getting more conscious of access issues like this. The normal editor doesn't have this problem - so it would be perverse to implement an editor that is in at least this respect less user friendly than we were before. Ϣere SpielChequers 06:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I have the same problem. Not only the preview, but also in order to read the edit summary, I have to enlarge the font three times, and then of course reset the font size when I'm done. I don't have to do this for any other purpose, and certainly not when using the standard editor. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 05:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#No_way_to_edit_templates_in_Visual_Editor. That bug, Bug 50797, was incorrectly called a duplicate of but 47790. 47790 deals with blank lines that aren't really there but that show in the VE. But the bug is that blank lines that are in fact actually there are impossible to remove in Visual Editor. See this diff. Please do look at that again and update the bug status or add a new one. I am not at all familiar with bugzilla's inner workings and feel quite incapable of doing it myself. I appreciate your time and effort. Red Slash 06:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried adding a reference to an article, and it seemed I stuffed it up a bit, although with care it could be fixed. However, I think this is probably worth looking at because of the process. I don't use cite templates, so I tried manually formatting a reference in VE. The first part went ok, and then we're taken to the window for formatting the reference. I typed in the reference details, (author, title, etc), then highlighted the title to provide an external link to the source. When I did so, a pop-up list of options appeared as possible wikilinks. There were a lot, and due to the window size this almost fully covered the text box. It also was a bit too long, so under Safari at least the text box for the group name appears as part of the list in some odd way. To add the URL I had to blindly paste it into the box, as I couldn't make the list of wikilink suggestions disappear in order to edit text. (If I click anywhere to make the suggestion list disappear, I can't enter text, and if I click on the text box again the list reappears and prevents me from entering the URL). When I do paste the URL, it shows up in the list again as options for both an internal link and a newpage. Here I gather I should click on the external link option, but the new page option overlies the text box. Thus I tended to accidentally click on the new page option when trying to get back into the text box. Unfortunately, that made the options list disappear, so I missed that it had changed to an internal link. And although it is technically a redlink, it now appeared as a blue link in the box, so there is no indication that it is a wikilink instead of an external link.
I hope that makes some sense. :) Short version - the pop-list of suggested wikilinks was malformed if it was long enough to cover the group name box, and prevents the user from seeing the text box when pasting a URL. When a URL is blindly pasted, it is easy to accidentally click on the wikilink option, but there is no indicator that this has occurred once the pop-up list disappears. - Bilby ( talk) 12:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
You've pretty much got it. Thanks! To clarify a couple of points (your screenshot is great):
When wikilinks to non-existing pages are red there will be a better indicator of the problem, so that will help with the last issue. - Bilby ( talk) 16:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
P.S.: You're archiving unanswered questions. — HHHIPPO 17:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Insulam Simia, Oliver and I were both off for the weekend (although I see neither of us completely resisted pitching in :P), but the archival time was adjusted to help compensate for that. We've got extra staffing assigned to this page at key points, but it's worth noting that many of the things that need doing here can be done by anyone. :) I'm very grateful for people like @ TheDJ: for helping to file all these bugs and requests for developer attention. With several hundred Wikipedias receiving VisualEditor over the next several weeks, we wouldn't stand a chance without this kind of collaboration. So, thanks, TheDJ. :D @ Hhhippo:, I wanted especially to ask you about the unanswered questions - we're hoping to avoid this, obviously. Is there a question that you asked that was archived prematurely? Or can you point me to something that needs handling? It's rather difficult to keep up here, but beyond the excellent volunteer assistance, we've got multiple staff members assigned to try. :) -- Maggie Dennis (WMF) ( talk) 15:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
(I hope you don't mind, but I'm refactoring you to make this easier to read. No offense intended, but I tried the "interrupted" template, and it just made things even more confusing to sort through. -- Maggie Dennis (WMF) ( talk) 18:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC))
Here's some things I noticed on my first try on using VE. I purposely didn't read the User Guide yet, to see how far I get just with intuition. I didn't have time to go through the existing feedback, so apologies for any redundancy.
That's it for now, hope it helps. Have to leave now, but I'm happy to explain points I described all too short here if needed. — HHHIPPO 22:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The [edit] link for the lead section has been altered to edit using VE ( I've informed VPT). It also loads the whole page (why? I only want to edit one section) and after taking ages to load, takes me to the first section after the lead, which is not the section that I want to edit. Finding that every section is editable, I scroll up, only to find that the one bit that I want to alter - a hatnote - is inaccessible because it's in a template. Please can I have it back the old way - or at least give me the choice. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Change it back I can't do shit Kuriboh500 ( talk) 22:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
VisualEditor encourages frivolous textual changes (Barack Osama), but discourages adding links, citations and templates: key elements of an online encyclopedia. It is always a struggle to maintain quality. We can now expect rapid deterioration. "Wikipedia: You type it, we display it." Like blog comments, but you change what the blogger wrote. This seems irreversible. There will be earnest efforts to fix bugs, but VisualEditor will not be scrapped. Millions of hours of effort down the drain. "Wikipedia: Crap." Sad. Aymatth2 ( talk) 02:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't vouch for how the editor was reorganizing the content but the editor appears to be cutting content with references from one location and pasting it into another location. The references are being pasted as [8] rather than the encoded reference. I'll inform the editor of the problem and ask the editor to supply steps to reproduce. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Happy to explain. in VE I copied and pasted several paragraphs from one section of the article to another. The bracketed numbers came over, but the refs did not. Thanks for your attention. Lfstevens ( talk) 05:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I want to preface this statement by saying that I'm not a huge fan of using the Visual Editor myself but am grateful for how easy it's going to make my upcoming workshops. That being said, I think you could make some improvements to the way references are edited. I think labeling the button "edit reference" as opposed to "transclusion" or even removing the screen in-between clicking on a reference and editing it would make it much easier to tweak references. Thanks much for considering. :) Keilana| Parlez ici 01:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Ooh, one more thing, I can't figure out how to add special characters and it goes all wonky when I try to copy/paste them. This is particularly frustrating as my current project is Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome. Is there a special character menu like in the source editor that I'm just not finding? Thanks. Keilana| Parlez ici 01:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This may be a known issue, but when I edited "Greenhouse gases" subsection of Global warming (or maybe it was the "Initial causes of temperature changes (external forcings)" section, I don't quite remember), then edited the template Template:Multiple image on the left-hand side to change the parameter "image1" from "Annual world greenhouse gas emissions, in 2005, by sector.png" to "Annual world greenhouse gas emissions, in 2005, by sector.svg", I got the following Cite error message popping up as soon as I saved my changes to the template: [51]. When I saved the page of course the error did not appear and the edit it made was correct, although it did also needlessly remove whitespace from the "image2" parameter. The editing was also very slow on a large page like this, with high latency and taking a couple minutes to save, but I think that's a known issue (I was also running another CPU intensive task on my system). Dcoetzee 09:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Would it be good to have a known issues section? I'm thinking a summary table for the major points which reoccur here. Something like
Features not yet implemented:
Editing problems:
I'm not thinking of something with the depth of bugzilla, more a summary. This could help to wiki users get a feel for quite how fit for purpose the system is, and maybe save some repeated questions.-- Salix ( talk): 17:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy to help build out these pages. For the first, I suggest at least four columns in the table: general area ("Tables", for example), missing feature ("Cannot add or delete row or column, or change table formatting"), bug # (whatever), and comments (for example, target date to implement, and/or link to a discussion of the issue). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I've just added a summary General issues, Specific parts of markup and fixed bugs to Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Known problems. Still working on find all the main issues. If anyone else was to add more feel free.-- Salix ( talk): 12:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me how to make these "edit source" buttons fuck off? I'm sick of mis-clicking them. I ALWAYS want to edit the source. Parrot of Doom 21:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I cannot see where to leave an edit summary... Pstanton ( talk) 01:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
In German Wikipedia quite often pages are transcludet into other pages like here is it possible to make clear that this part is transcluded and has to be changed on the other site. Also it messes up the parts which are actually on that page.-- Livermorium ( talk) 02:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
When editing a template, when I click remove template, and then without closing the dialog, click add -> content and enter some text, the template is not removed and the editor hangs on saving and reviewing changes. -- WS ( talk) 11:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
"Remove template" is displayed in red, which gives the impression that it is a wikilink to a non-existing article. Presumably the developers want to warn the user that it is a potentially dangerous action, but that its probably better achieved in different ways. Furthermore why is it listed under options? -- WS ( talk) 11:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Why is the template dialog titled 'transclusion'? That makes no sense to most people who are not familiar with the technical details of the template system. Just name it 'edit template' or something similar, or even better the name of the template being edited. -- WS ( talk) 12:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The template dialog should not allow you to add parameters that are already present and should not display them in the list under add parameter. -- WS ( talk) 12:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
In the template dialog, in the add parameter view, I would expect double-clicking on a parameter would add it, instead of having to find the add parameter button at the end of the list (which should, by the way, not be at the end of a scrolling list, but always visible in a fixed place). -- WS ( talk) 12:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
When you click on a large template, often the edit button displayed in the top right corner of it is not visible because it is outside of your view, making it in-obvious how to edit it. The edit icon should always be displayed within the current view. -- WS ( talk) 12:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I've not yet done a lot with refs and reflists (a lot of my work is stub-sorting where it rarely crops up) but....
Editing Howard Wilson Elementary School I changed the number of columns of {{ reflist}} from 2 to 1 (there's only one ref and it looks daft over 2 cols). The whole reflist disappeared, while I stayed in VE - see edit summary. On saving the page, it was there all present and correct.
This is one of several instances where VE alarms the editor: if it's supposed to be a Visual Editor, it needs to reflect changes made and not give the impression that the template has been deleted. Worrying enough for an experienced editor - totally offputting for someone new.
Apologies if this exact problem, or a more generalised case, is already tracked. Pam D 16:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to make this edit. Opened article in VE, saw the "as as" was in footnote 134 ... couldn't edit there ... went up to reference 134, clicked on it to edit, and it was the wrong reference link. It actually gave me the reference that's numbered 220 (in that version) to edit! - David Gerard ( talk) 16:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I clicked the edit link of a paragraph but found the whole article on display and couldn't find the paragraph to edit so I chose the option to get to the old method, and left feedback on the way. Pifvyubjwm ( talk) 19:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There are times when one wants to link to a section of an article, such as Strategy game#Wargame. To continue this example, in wikitext the link might look like this: [[Strategy game#Wargame|game of ''Strategy'']]. Can VE do this?
If so, it's not obvious how. When I added the "#Wargame" part of the link, in VE, it objected (target link text turned red). And when I saved the edit, VE just ignored the "#Wargame" text altogether. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This has happened before on other articles.
I opened Fay Alexander, added some content, removed stub template, added specific stub template, but then couldn't click on "Page settings" to add a category. Had to save the edits so far, and then reopen to continue editing. It's happened before: do something, then try to open "Page settings" and it won't respond. Can't be more precise as to what series of edits is needed to produce the effect, sorry: I think I've replaced stub template and then successfully added categories and/or defaultsort in other articles. Pam D 21:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The new editing mode is crap crap and shit. Enlil Ninlil ( talk) 22:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I did not see it but how do I insert subscript, superscipt and greek letters or even °? And I want to use this in Templates also.-- Livermorium ( talk) 02:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I've added a bug tracker for the subscript part of this. Is there a bug for the handling of special characters? I wasn't able to find one while searching obvious descriptions. Dragons flight ( talk) 04:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Check out this diff in my sandbox: [53]. The external link looks normal when in read mode, but shows the .jpg image as soon as I click "edit." Is this a bug or a feature? VQuakr ( talk) 03:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
For reasons I can't guess, several of the images in Leg before wicket appear to shrink when opened in the Visual Editor. Dragons flight ( talk) 04:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I find this set up rather difficult. I prefer the old way of editing a page.
SamSennett ( talk) 05:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Possibly related to
#External links to images show up as images in edit mode? above, when a raw URL with no markup (e.g.
http://www.sucs.org/~cmckenna/photos/quizes/tq2012/July/Jun03key.png ) ends in .png
, .jpg
, .svg
or .gif
but does not work (e.g. it gives a 404 error) then only the filename portion of the URL, Jun03key.png in this case, is displayed in the visual editor. Visual editor cannot then edit this URL to correct it.
Links to other image formats (e.g. tif), html pages, .txt files and pdf files, and all urls enclosed in single bracket markup work as expected and are editable in the Visual editor. See my sandbox testing. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Been using the old style for many years and not only is this not an improvement in functionality, but its slow and difficult to use. I would highly recommend against keeping this format. AStudent ( talk) 10:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I am afraid editting a table is not possible. Or, is it? Saha.rj ( talk) 11:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
This comment is just to say thank you to the hard working folks developing VE. As much as I have problems with this new editor, I appreciate the effort that is going into improving it.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 13:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I looked in bugzilla but didn't find anything related. I think VE should include a basic editor for all extension tags that it doesn't recognize (<source>...</source>
, <score>...</score>
, <timeline>...</timeline>
, <blockquote>...</blockquote>
, ...). This basic editor would simply let editors edit the contents of the tag in a text edit box. It would also help for tags that are planned to be managed by VE but the feature is not yet available (<math>...</math>
for example). --
NicoV (
Talk on frwiki) 14:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Boa tarde, como é que eu posso alterar o nome (user) da conta. Pretendia fazer a alteração de Iportaldoc para IPBRICK mas não estou a conseguir fazê-lo.
Obrigada. Melhores Cumprimentos, Joana Cruz IPBrick ( talk) 16:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Replace the term .22transclusion.22 in the Visual_Editor. Dragons flight ( talk) 16:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I wish to turn off VE (it's not working in my Win XP netbook, and I have no need of it). I have no applicable gadget in my preferences, even though I'm signed in. I'm using Chrome, and the Monobook skin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't seem to be able to edit transclusions. kees ( talk) 17:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm one of those editors who likes to include links to policies in my edit summaries. I do this mostly to help new editors, as I learned a lot about various policies via edit summaries when I first started editing. However, VE doesn't provide a way to preview the edit summary so I have to be extra-careful to get links right the first time in the edit summary. Could the preview function also render the edit summary if one has been provided at that point? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 17:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The current "Save page" dialog permits entry of an edit summary with newlines, however, no newlines are preserved in the edit summary when it is saved to the Wiki. This is confusing, because I just used a WYSIWYG editor, but what I see in the edit summary is not what I get. Elizium23 ( talk) 18:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Spotting a VE edit on my watchlist today, I looked at it - and had to tidy it up. VE had created "[[Indonesia]]<nowiki/>n", so it appeared as Indonesian, with a black "n", rather than "[[Indonesia]]n", Indonesian, as it was intended. Messy. Probably already reported, but difficult to find in Bugzilla. (This problem was in an edit 13 hours ago - delighted apologies if it's been fixed already!) Pam D 20:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Just now I wanted to modify BuAer to the Bureau of Aeronautics, but couldn't figure out a way to do this, or revert to the old editor to do it there. Joconnor ( talk) 20:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
How can I copy References as whole from one article to the other what about Templates?-- Livermorium ( talk) 21:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that Persondata is now editable, so I had a go. There are two problems, as you can see from this diff:
I corrected the article in the subsequent edit. -- Mirokado ( talk) 21:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Editing Jabhala I found that when I tried to add punctuation (full stop or comma) immediately after a link, I got an icon of a chess pawn instead. I managed to fiddle it by adding the punctuation after the pawn, moving left, and deleting the pawn. Having done my edits I then tried the same in my sandbox and in a random article and couldn't reproduce the problem. But then reopened the first article and reproduced the problem. All I did was to type a comma after the Assandh link. Very weird. Pam D 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I noted a typo at Campus of the University of Washington in the subheading "Military Memorials" and clicked the edit link to correct it. I noted that there was what appeared to be a regular blue wikilink for the words Interrupted Journey. There was a carriage return in the screen immediately before the words "A Medal of Honor.." so I elected to abort the edit. I then switched to edit source, corrected the typo, saw that there was no carriage return in the source, and was surprised to find that the link in the phrase Interrupted Journey was an external link to a youtube video. This appears to be reproducible within the history of the page, and I believe on other pages as well. Risker ( talk) 03:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Following from my report above I've done some more testing in my userspace [54]
That link contains details, but some "highlights" include:
and some links simply not being changed. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Clicking on top-right corner of a template (not selecting it beforehand) unexpectedly opens the template dialog despite the edit icon not being displayed there yet. -- WS ( talk) 12:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
So, when using the visual editor, if you click on "Beta" there is a link to "Leave Feedback" If you click that link there is a Feedback dialog with settings for "subject" and "message". If one fills out this form, it posts a new message to this page. Posting a "Feedback" form while it is blank will result in a post being added here that consists solely of the posting user's signature. I've noticed such signature posts on this page several times now, but it only just dawned on me where they are coming from. It might be good to tag or otherwise identify posts generated via the Feedback form. Also, I suspect that people who use that form to post here will not necessarily be watching this page and so they won't necessarily see any replies. Dragons flight ( talk) 16:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed quite a few edits to this page which don't really seem to be VE feedback. If you follow through the new editor experience its quite obvious why they are being directed here.
This senario probably explains why we are getting a few simple signature with no comments. As the ? is much more prominent than the Help in the left sidebar its grabbing the users attention so diverting users away from our main help system. This will likely be a continuing problem and a way needs to be found to direct users to the right place.-- Salix ( talk): 20:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure this is already in the system, but it's not easy to search Bugzilla for it!
I added two extra categories to Karl Parker (cursing, as usual, the fact that I can't see the article while adding a category), added an edit summary, saved the page. No sign of the two new categories. Once I reloaded the page, they were of course there. But VE needs to show the result of an edit correctly and immediately - or produce a flag saying "If the changes you've made are not visible, please reload the page." My heart sank, I thought "Have I managed to forget to click one of the buttons?", before I tried reloading: and I'm an experienced editor. What would a new editor do? Pam D 21:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Put an "edit source" link on the help box, or lose copy editing of short sections of long articles from occasional users. These users expect to fix a comma or awkward wording in a short section by clicking on "edit" and finding an edit box right there after a page load. They don't expect to have to wait for "edit source" to appear after hover. They don't expect to find very sluggish scrolling and failure to reach the bottom of page in one try and failure of the "End" keyboard key and absence of an edit box at the bottom of page. They might keep trying long enough to find the help box. At least, the help box should mention the fact that "edit source" will appear after hover, and at least, that "edit source" should be linked to edit the section in an edit box. — Pifvyubjwm ( talk) 21:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I've just noticed a couple of edits in visualeditor-needcheck which make external links like [null http://example.org/] [58], [59]. I've been monitoring the needcheck and its the first time I've seen them so it might be a bug introduced in a new rollout.-- Salix ( talk): 21:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that the visual editor is great for people who have never edited Wikipedia before, but if you have been on here for a while then it takes some time to get used to. Therefore I think that, once any bugs have been fixed, the defaults should be: VisualEditor on for IP users, and off for logged-in users. (If you approve this suggestion then IP editors would be able to override the default by clicking “edit source,” and registered users by going to their preferences and checking “Enable VisualEditor.”) Bwrs ( talk) 21:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I think this is included in T52182 but have added a comment there to clarify: we need to be able to add {{ Multiple issues}} around existing tags, or one existing and one newly-added tag. There doesn't seem a way to do so in VE at present - it's yet another reason causing me to do a cleanup edit after almost every VE edit. Not an efficient way of working! Pam D 07:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
When trying to blank a page in my user sandbox to do a different test, I've found a very odd bug:
1121 12
The third and any subsequent characters appear as expected but with the cursor between the two "1"s on the first line.
When the page is saved, the wikitext is just the first line.
The text is not always possible to delete, other than by selection, and trying to do that results in various things:
I have not been able to figure out how to reliably reproduce any one of the above though. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Mohammad Azharuddin shows a different person in the infobox during Vedit that during view. This is apparently a consequence of {{ Css Image Crop}} failing under VE. Not sure what exactly the underlying error is, but the gender bending result is definitely noticeable. Dragons flight ( talk) 19:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Before I explain the variety of bug reports and feature enhancements involved, I'll be presenting a typical example of what many editors do here on ENWIKI, day after day. Understanding the bug reports and feature requests will require following along with the steps of the example. So, before I proceed with the number of bug reports and feature requests that will follow below, please reproduce all the following steps in order.
I know some of these are covered by existing bugs, but I really do think that the scope of my concerns can only be fully understood in the context of a complete example
Now, for reference, here's the previous workflow:
I consider several of these bugs to be serious, blocking issues. I hope this demonstration, which is work I actually went and did, much like work that I've done thousands of times at Wikipedia in the past, conveys the magnitude of the issues with the current implementation of references.
We need to make references, which are a core object of Wikipedia articles, five times easier, not seven times more difficult.
Thanks for your attention. -- j⚛e decker talk 19:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
There are none or I cannot find reference templates. Swimmermroe ( talk) 00:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The old edit interface carries the notice Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions. (with some wikilinks) We should probably have something similar in the VE too? OrangesRyellow ( talk) 08:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I added about 4 or 5 more references than is shown. They just disappeared after saving the page. Now I need to go through them all over again to re-add. Not good. Cowicide ( talk) 09:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I edited an infobox earlier, but after editing, the line breaks were gone (meaning it was no longer one line per parameter). I'm not sure if I did it wrong, or if it's a bug. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
It's apparent to me that there is a need for prototyping of the UI elements of the editor. Without at least a sketch of a specification, the developers are in many areas hacking around, and the final product is likely to be an unmaintainable mass of kludges. As an example of the sort of thing that is needed, I have written a draft specification for a reference-insertion-tool at user:Looie496/VE Reference editor. I won't assert that the design there is exactly what is needed, but what is needed is explicit planning at this level. Looie496 ( talk) 16:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to edit a template in a table after the bug of the references inside template was fixed, but the edit broke the whole table. This was also happening before with the references bug. I don't know if the two bugs were reported together...maybe not.
Here is what happened.
When I edited the template with the 12th episode, the cite error didn't appear. But when I clicked to save it, the 12th episode moved at the top of the table when it should be at the bottom. I reverted the edit and re-made it using "edit source". Can this be reported? Thank you
TeamGale (
talk) 16:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
This new editor sucks. I just want to edit the old way. Please make an option to do this. Sometimes newer is not better. Torturella ( talk) 17:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to let me save. It says: Error: Unrecognized value for parameter 'paction': save Light Peak ( talk) 23:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I have experienced the Visual Editor always timing out whenever I tried to make even minor edits to some of the large, higher-traffic generating, most-watched articles such as Barack Obama, PlayStation 3 and World War II. Anybody else experiencing this issue, especially with pages with combined tons of content, templates, images and citations? If so, that is not very good... Zzyzx11 ( talk) 20:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Not all change is for the betterment of Wikipedia. Enough said. Bwmoll3 ( talk) 18:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm certain much work has gone into this, however, I suggest that you have an "opt out" option. I've been on Wikipedia for over 7 years and have over 120,000 edits and have written several thousand new articles.
Honestly, I haven't heard a massive cry from the user community about the need for a visual editor. Nevertheless, I subscribe to the Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) philosophy when it comes to change and "making things better". I'm quite happy, thank you, with the current editor as it gives me maximum flexibility to edit and create articles without having to experience the problematic issues that seem to be well-documented by other Wikipedians (above) in this discussion.
If Visual Editor is designed for new editors, then that's all well and good. However, for the experienced editors here, I'd be quite happy with the old, antiquated, simple editor I've been using the past seven + years. I just don't see any advantage of going though a leaning curve to learn new software that, in the end, will force a learning curve and in the end, do exactly what we're doing now with the existing editor that is quite simple to use, is extremely flexible and quite adequate. Just a few thoughts. Bwmoll3 ( talk) 08:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to VE because it'll make it possible to introduce friends and family to the joys of editing (and wasting hours trying to find sources for articles). When Everything is Working Properly™ I'm going to encourage my brother, sister, father and father-in-law to get started here. They've each got domain-specific knowledge, good writing skills and I know the retired parents have time to spare. If all our experienced editors were to recruit and induct a couple of new editors each, the project would get an enormous boost. That's the central benefit of the Visual Editor IMO. - Pointillist ( talk) 10:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
VisualEditor is improving a lot and in general I now prefer using it to editing the wikitext, so that's a huge step forward. I'm really looking forward to the instructions on how to use TemplateData so that we can get template parameters displaying in VE. A couple of issues I've noticed lately:
Sorry if these are already known issues. Waggers TALK 07:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
When I am trying to edit anything on the table/template that exists on
this page, even if that is a simple typo, it gives me the notification:
→Cite error: There are ref tags on this page, but the references will not show without a reflist template. (See help page)
First, why is this happening and second, it's obvious that the page does have a reflist. Same happens to all the table/templates that are like this one.
TeamGale (
talk) 23:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that this issue still exists. Can't edit with VE this type of templated because of the error that appears after the edit TeamGale ( talk) 08:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I disabled Visual Editor (VE) in preferences today due to constantly clicking the "edit" link instead of the "edit source" link. I am talking about section editing.
I almost always prefer editing with the source editor since I make frequent edits to tables, images, navboxes, and reference formatting. All at a deep level of formatting, placement, etc..
But since the source editing link only shows up after unintuitively mousing over the edit link I am constantly clicking the wrong link. So you have lost another beta tester. A good one too since I have written many comments and bug reports about VE here and in Bugzilla.
It would be better to use an icon for the "edit source" links for sections. For ideas:
The images below are all SVG except these:
30px: -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Thatotherperson
talk
Thatotherperson
contribs 03:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Thatotherperson
talk
Thatotherperson
contribs 08:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I keep getting "error saving data to server: failed request: error" for major changes. But the minor changes go through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dampayi ( talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem was with the VisualEditor; I couldn't reference to outside pages. I had to use Edit Source instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dampayi ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not pleased that this has not been automated. Edit summaries are more than just etiquette. They are profoundly useful when scanning your watchlist and it's something new editors usually do not provide. Looking at the VisualEditor, there does not even appear to be a place to provide a summary, let alone encouraging or requiring new editors to do this. When a new editor makes many changes to an article, having the summary lets you know what they did and that it was productive. Unless this is changed and is somehow automated (they can't save until they provide the summary), all you're doing is making more work for the regular editors, checking on the new editors' work, reverting vandalism and warning new editors to use a summary. freshacconci talktalk 15:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
References get misnumbered [2], the two refs in the infobox are properly numbered 1 and 2, but the count restarts in the main text. Reproduced in Safari and Chrome. -- j⚛e decker talk 15:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Footnotes are showing --- BUT only the most recent footnote, which appears 23 times on the edit screen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLBohrman ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't post the link. Yes it was on Atoka, Tennessee. Could just be me. SLBohrman ( talk) 14:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Prince Marko: audio appears huge in edit mode. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I like the visual editor, and I predict that more people will edit WP when it's introduced. However, there is one thing that bugs me: After I clicked the "Edit" Tab, the view of the article does change only slightly - so sometimes I do not know that I am already editing, especially when I scroll down the article. I'd suggest a visual hint: A modal popup, a slim outline of the editing area or a more distinctive design of the tool bar, for example. Mateng ( talk) 12:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
What is my verdict on the Visual Editor? MOST EXCELLENT! I always use the Visual Editor on Wikia, and have little idea how to use wikimarkups. Now making a table will be easy! -- BNSF1995 ( talk) 21:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Bug 49969 the response to my 21 June report seems unhelpful.
If I'm editing an article and want to add categories for birth and death dates, I need to be able to see those dates in the article while I'm adding the categories. The "Page settings" box totally obscures the article. I can probably remember one, but not both, of theose two dates. But I might want to add other categories too. Some categories involve unfamiliar placenames whose spelling is difficult to remember. The response seems to tell me that looking at the article while adding categories is undesirable multitasking. Can this bug please be bumped up the system: it's not a "low-importance enhancement" but a feature which makes doing a perfectly ordinary job very difficult.
When I'm stub-sorting I tend to add defaultsort and birth/death categories whenever I can, even if my main aim in opening the article was to remove {{ stub}} and replace it by something more specific. I might add a maintenance category or two, as well as tidying up obvious typos, making a link or two, unlinking a date, etc etc. The response to this bug says "As far as adding a category or changing the default sort of a category directly from some other mode (such as reading, or editing paragraph text) we should look at those workflows rather than dissolve the intentional model-ness of the dialog." (I guess "modal-ness" is intended) - this makes my heart sink, as it seems to say that my sort of driveby wikignoming is not at all what editors are supposed to be doing, and we must categorise our activities into separate modalities and not expect it to be simple to make several quick improvements to an article in one short editing session. Deeply depressing. Pam D 21:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Here's the diff. All I tried to do was move a quotation mark, and it added a bunch of underline markup in the References section and removed all the categories. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 21:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Summary: Apparently no matter what edit I do to that particular article, it blanks the categories and adds the underline tags. If I don't leave an edit summary, it does even more. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 02:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
On a related note, I just ran across this. The user was just trying to add a new section, but Visual Editor made some other repairs to the page, both good as I can tell. (It got rid of a stray </blockquote> and merged two a duplicated named reference.) Like I said, the changes were good, but above in the FAQ it says VE's not supposed to be making changes like that. (I'm fairly certain the user didn't do that himself, since he's very new, and would have had to do a lot of searching to find those errors.) ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 03:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The "This is a minor edit" label is truncated for me: I see ∆ This is a ∆ Watch this page. Happens on Safari 6.0.5, Chrome 27.0.1453.116 on Mac OS 10.8.4. I assume it's because of something in my CSS (most likely the fixed-navbar thingie), because it doesn't happen in my sock account.
Another thing: Also in the last dialog box before actually saving, there is what I assume is supposed to be an "X" in the top right corner. Clicking on it closes the dialog box. However, I do not see an X—it looks like an upside-down check mark (it isn't symmetrical). It seems all of the top half and half of the left half (of a regular [square] X) are somehow truncated. Ignatz mice• talk 22:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Despite the many changes made, hidden comments still cannot be seen or edited using VE. These comments are helpful in preventing unnecessary edits. Johnny Au ( talk/ contributions) 00:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
A very slow minor copyedit correcting one letter on the California article, FWIW. Djembayz ( talk) 03:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
When I try the following steps using Firefox 22, I get an incorrect warning:
Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 03:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Will this break the ways that minority language Wikipedias (Cherokee, Navajo, etc) have rigged their special input methods? Is there a way to refuse the upgrade if so? Cheers, Nesnad ( talk) 05:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd have expected this to be a known issue, but I failed to find such feedback: I see no way to add references to template parameters. See for example
User:Huon/Test: The references within the template parameters are displayed as wikicode within the Visual Editor, the named reference <ref name="mojo">
that's used within the infobox is not available for re-use outside the infobox, and while all references are correctly listed in the "references" section, Visual Editor numbers the first reference after the infobox [1]; apparently it doesn't realize at all that the references within the infobox exist. If I add a <references />
instead of (or in addition to) the {{Reflist}}
, that one won't display the footnotes within the infobox at all.
On a related note, I don't see how I could add templates within templates either - except by manually inserting the wikicode. Huon ( talk) 08:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Spaces and nowiki tags are being added to a table on my users page when I'm editing elsewhere on the page using VisualEditor. SLBohrman ( talk) 14:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
In this edit I wanted to remove one of the two templates which were nested in {{ multiple issues}}: the only way I could see was to delete {{ mi}} and then re-add the one template I still wanted. Messy. What if there had been 5 templates within {{ mi}} and I'd wanted to delete one or two: can it be done in VE? Pam D 15:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Templates have evolved since this morning, I'm happy to see. You can now see the name of the subtemplate. But, alas, I don't see any way to remove the top template without removing the subs. This would be a nice feature to have, I agree - I'll put it in, but it probably will be low-priority, as you say. :) -- Maggie Dennis (WMF) ( talk) 21:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
If I open Queen Anne Grammar School in VE, I can see two superscripts linking to references - and 29 references in the reflist. Some of them perhaps most, are the refs which were deleted in a series of edits 9 hours ago while the article was being moved from AFC to mainspace. If I open it in Edit Source, it's a respectable little stub with two refs and no sign of the other stuff.
Extremely confusing. I've got a word doc with a couple of screenshots pasted into it, could attach to an email if told where to send it.
Meanwhile will edit the article in VE and see what happens.
... Have italicised motto, stub-sorted, saved page, all in VE. When I open it again in VE it still shows 29 references.
... Closed it, edited it in Edit Source, saved it, no sign of refs 3-29. Re-opened it in VE, they are still showing up. Pam D 20:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes, the "Submit" and "Cancel" buttons don't show up, leaving the editor no choice but to backtrack and edit the page's source code. Is there any fix for that? Epicgenius( talk to me • see my contributions) 21:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried to edit the wikilinked word "Google" to the non-wikilinked word "Niantic" and got a strange result with an unexpected nowiki close tag:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ingress_(game)&diff=prev&oldid=562432188
Any idea why? Thanks! Woz2 ( talk) 21:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Look at the results of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akon_discography?veaction=edit . Notice how the visual editor treats html style tags as table entries.— Kww( talk) 22:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey y'all...I have to say, in the past few weeks the VisualEditor has improved quite a bit, and I'm proud to say that, what the heck, Oliver, for the first time ever you didn't botch up a release. I'm just kidding of course -- kudos to the entire team. Keep it up! Theopolisme ( talk) 22:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
First off, I want to say that the new visual editor is remarkable improvement over the version I tested out several months ago. This is an editor which I could actually use to manage articles! That said, one feature it currently lacks is viewing or editing inline comments to a page. These are useful in many different fashions. Could it be possible for Visual editor to display and/or allow editing of inline comments? Sailsbystars ( talk) 22:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I've been trying VisualEditor recently, and so far, I've been pretty pleased with it. I do have two nitpicks, however:
1) The text size for edit summaries and reviewing changes is a bit too small for me. I sometimes find that I have a bit of difficulty reading what I write in the text box and seeing the changes I made without zooming in. I think the text size could be made a bit bigger.
2) When I edit a particular section of an article, it would be nice if the text summary noted which section I edit like editing the source would. Currently, VisualEditor doesn't do that.
Overall, it's good so far, even if I have some minor issues with it. Lugia2453 ( talk) 22:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The former edting interface of Wikipedia is way better than the current one. Windows55 (2) ( talk) 22:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The Editing tab on my Preferences page doesn't have an "Enable VisualEditor" option under "Usability". Jordan Brown ( talk) 23:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
importScript('
User:Matma Rex/VE killer.js');
to your common.js file.
Keegan (WMF) (
talk) 23:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Now that you've made the visual editor the default, I would like to have an option to switch it off again. However, I can't find the box to tick any more in my preferences. Could you please bring this back? I do not want to use visual editor, and the dual tabs for "edit" and for "edit source" are confusing. – Thanks.-- Aschmidt ( talk) 23:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. smileguy91 talk 23:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. Awful, unnecessary, unwelcome and unwanted. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 23:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The entire process of this 'visual editing' is extremely slow, from the lag when altering some text to the long wait for an edit to be finished. I added a single space, and had to wait for about six seconds to finish my edit. This change adds nothing of benefit that I can see, and it looks to be useless for real article editing; how would one see or use wiki-markup in this interface? I have no idea.
By the way, this feedback form constantly moves down my screen every time I hit a key, making me have to scroll down. It causes full screen flickering seemingly randomly too. I do not recall signing up for this, I hope that this feature wasn't suddenly enabled by default for everyone. Shirudo talk 23:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that there are now 2 ways to edit an article, the "edit source" way uses the familiar theme; the new theme now called "edit" is different. I have a problem with it. If you use the "edit source" option, there's an HTML comment at the top of Christine Jorgensen saying to use she/her to refer to Christine Jorgensen throughout her life. But with the new "edit" way of editing the article, no one will notice this HTML comment. People who prefer to edit with the new "edit" way of editing the article will change pronouns in this article the way they want to. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy ( talk) 23:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the A/B test results must have been fantastic in order to justify doing this to us. Can I ask what they were, and where they are summarized and analyzed?— Kww( talk) 23:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
A strange, and quite minor bug, when editing Pickup v. Brown and Welsh v. Brown. When I edit this, and decrease my window width in such a way that the external linka at the bottom of the page requires more than one line, the bullet migrates to the second line improperly. Reproduced in Chrome and Safari/MacOSX/latest. -- j⚛e decker talk 00:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
very annoying thing jumps out when I'm trying to read pages. Ellin Beltz ( talk) 00:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Currently, there is no way to truly choose what you want to link to. For instance, if I want to link to Canada from "Canadian" (yes, I realize it is overlink, and wouldn't really do it) I can not, because Canada is not among the choice options, and there is no way to pipelink or input your own option. 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Before I begin to truly use this, the referencing function must improve. To me, the "What do you want to reference" doesn't make sense. I want to place a reference where the cursor is. Clicking on "use new source" does not work. It would really be cool if a selection of cite templates were included in a dropdown menu, and then fields were provided. Speaking for myself, cite book, journal, news, and album-notes are absolutely essential. Thanks! 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I will just say this: Thank goodness Wikipedia is not planning (apparently) to eliminate the "edit source" option. Apparently, "edit source" is the only way to be able to preview your work before saving your changes. I tried the new VisualEditor for the first time today (on CJQM-FM), but it was so disorienting that I cancelled editing numberous times before throwing up my hands and discovering the "edit source". One noteworthy source of my frustration was an attempt to add in image in the CJQM-FM Infobox; somehow, the markup codes for internal link (double brackets) appeared in the article, causing the internal link to be broken or at least appeared to be broken. (Luckily, I added the picture in "edit source" with no harm.) My preference is to always preview my work before saving, since it's important to make sure the edits are accurate before the world sees it.
So, for the benefit of the "new" editors, please at the very least add a "preview" button. If not, make them use the good old fashioned "edit source"; they'll learn. Darrel M ( talk) 01:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
VE can't properly display any chart table using {{ singlechart}}. Take a look at 5 O'Clock (T-Pain song)#Charts and certifications as a random selection, and try to figure out how to change the positions (or, worse yet, add a line). This is probably related to the fact that singlechart creates reference and table markup internally. It is, however, an extremely common template, used in most articles about singles.— Kww( talk) 01:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The old editor had a list of commonly used citations. This was extremely handy. It would be nice if that feature could be brought back. ¿3fam ily6 contribs 01:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It also had a built-in find and replace function. That of course tends to be more useful in the source edit, but it's ridiculous that that and many other functions of the edit toolbar were removed. Reywas92 Talk 07:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not very used to it. I was planning to added one more ref into a sentence, but I have no idea what to do. Rochelimit ( talk) 02:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This new BETA editing tool is the most confusing and useless "upgrade" ever introduced by Wikipedia. Yes, it does look a lot fancier but Wikipedia is all about simplicity, which this new tool is effectively going to eliminate. We don't need this "chic" interface, make it go away! Permaveli ( talk) 02:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
importScript('User:Matma_Rex/VE_killer.js');
I strongly believe this rollout was premature at best. I have no idea why anyone thought displaying edit summaries in the tiniest text imaginable was a good idea. I don't see why anyone thought a function which does not display the standard BLP policy notice when editing BLPs, especially in a feature intended to appeal to new editors, was a good idea. I wonder whether not displaying the standard language about copyrights, licenses, etc was a good idea, and might even foul up the licensing legalities. With all the klutziness and obtrusive features, this may do for Wikipedia editing what Windows 8 has done for PC sales. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I note there is a strong statement on the info page to the effect that WMF and the Devs do not care one whit what the community wants, we are required to accept this. However, as others have said, imposing it as default before it works adequately is a sign of contempt and a completely separate point from whether a WYSIWYG editor is desirable in itself. The default being something that doesn't work is not desirable, and that policy statement is to say the least peculiar in a volunteer project. Yngvadottir ( talk) 04:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I spend a lot of my time in code, so prefer modifying the wikitext, rather than an interface's attempt at rendering the text in real time gringer ( talk) 02:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Clicking "Page settings", or the reference, image, and category buttons in the top right brings up a dialogue box for input. To close this box there is an X in the top right. However, when I am not at the top of the page, this dialogue box pops up beneath the standard editing options. This makes it impossible to close the box without adjusting the screen magnification.
In addition, the opening of these boxes freezes scrolling of the underlying page, which not only furthers the problem above, but is also simply annoying and unnecessary, as I can no longer move to another part of the article I wish to see without closing and reopening the box. Reywas92 Talk 03:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Today, while editing Portals to Canaan (adding a link and removing a word) I tried out the VE, for these simple tasks I have found it to be pretty good for this. It was simple enough (once I knew what it was actually doing) and I liked the list of links that gave suggestions, to avoid linking to a DAB page. The one issue I had was when I saved it, I went to remove a duplicate stub templates, and it said I was editing an old version of the page (in VE), so I had to reload the page to remove it. Overall I think it is good, and I like that it is easy to switch back to old school and VE without having to change any settings. I will probably use a combination of the two in the future, depending on what I am doing. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 03:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The [edit] button should not shift to [ edit | edit source ] when you simply mouse over anywhere in the header line. It's very distracting and should only do that when you mouse over the button itself.
It's also distracting how it has to widen itself. Why add the spaces inside the brackets? Why widen or change text at mouseover at all? [edit|source] should be the link all the time. Reywas92 Talk 03:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
At first glance, my immediate reaction was to figure out how to turn this off. I much prefer editing using code, and am glad that option remains. This concept is not terrible, but the product it self really adds little (although it is beta). My suggestion here is twofold:
I wish this project the best of luck, but I have no interest in using it at this point. Aside from that, this project misses a key point - editor retention. Making a new, buggy, unfinished, and not technically rich editing system the 'default' does not show that WMF values its current editors. Finding new members is important, but keeping the current ones is too. Toa Nidhiki05 03:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I do not like the new Visual editor. I don't edit very much, I usually change grammar or remove vandalism. I like the old way of editing better. Can I have the old way of editing back? BeckiGreen ( talk) 03:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
[3] -- NeilN talk to me 04:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Not telling us that such a change was coming was highly disruptive to editing Wikipedia. Whoever turned this thing on should be blocked. Seriously.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 04:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Unless something has changed, if you opt-out of fundraising ads, it suppresses all WMF banners. Remember the editor's survey was subject to the same problem? A lot of people aren't going to know about this. From my brief experience with it, my first impression was to try to get rid of it, quickly. It's not even half-finished. It's a good idea, just finish coding it before rolling it out. Gigs ( talk) 16:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Problems with gibberish code being added: other people have reported this problem. If I personally have this occur, I will report it.
The "review changes" box covers the whole screen. As does any dialogue box such as those that open when editing an info box or adding a citation. This is probably caused by my using 125% zoom on a small laptop. Note that without this magnification, I am unable to edit the encyclopedia. When I take the zoom down to 90%, I am able to see some of the underlying article (but I am no longer able to read it or edit it; it's too small). File:Overlapping dialogue boxes with visual editor.JPG shows a dialogue box covering the entire screen when my zoom is set to 125%. Notice how it's tucked under the bar at the top of the screen, a problem that has been reported elsewhere. If I could pick up the dialogue boxes and move them around, that might help. But presently they're locked in place.
For the kind of editing I am doing right now, the old-school edit box works better. Full citations are not added inline; the books are added to the bibliography down below and are called using {{
sfn}} templates.
Sample diff of Oskar Schindler. The new prose is added, and once the book is listed in the bibliography, all I have to do to add my cite is copy-paste a wee bit of mark-up, such as {{sfn|Roberts|1996|p=39}}
, and change the page number. Same deal if people are using named citations; it's likely easier to copy-paste their existing named citation rather than open up a dialogue box to add their cite. Adding cites needs to be the easiest thing in the world, as at this stage in the wiki history, we are no longer accepting unsourced content.
I notice you did not address the issue that section editing seems to be impossible. Clicking on a section edit does not open up that section but rather the whole article. For a big article, section editing is really important, because it's so easy to get lost. And it took 23 seconds for the visual editor to allow access to the article Adolf Hitler when I tried to edit a section. This does not compare favourably with the one second it takes to open a section edit in the old editing interface. I suppose I could go make a cup of tea while I am waiting, but that doesn't really make very good use of my editing time, does it?
For the type of editing I am doing right now, the visual editor does not help me. In fact it gets in the way and slows things down. So I am unlikely to use it. Unfortunately that is probably true for most of us who have been around a while. What this means is that the majority of the feedback you will be getting on the new system won't be from long-term editors like me, but from people who are new. If you were expecting long-term editors to use the new editor and report back on bugs and problems, I expect that is not going to happen once the initial flurry of excitement dies down, because in its present state it's more cumbersome to use, especially to add the citations, and gets in the way of productivity. Thank you for promptly replying to my list of concerns. -- Diannaa ( talk) 14:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I have just started using the new visual editor feature. I notice a lag in the saving of the page which is much more than when editing the source. A m i t ❤ 04:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
when previewing a change in a rail icon template, it does not render the new page correctly aligned but breaks up the icons and also misplaces them BT14 ( talk) 04:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Twice when I was editing Lois Brown, the large template at the bottom of the page with the show/hide toggle defaulting to "hide" has opened after saving the edit, and the show/hide toggle disappeared. This reverted to normal after a few page refreshes. Risker ( talk) 04:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
InMemoriamLuangPu ( talk) 05:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Very difficult to add references. What happened to web templates? NovaSkola ( talk) 05:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
(1) I was editing when suddenly I had Visual Editor thrust upon me. How do I revert to the old style of editing? (First you want to spy on veteran editors, then you use them as unwilling guinea pigs. Are you trying to drive us away?)
(2) Have Wikipedia's Dear Leaders ever heard the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? How is this an improvement?
(3) Is it really a good idea to make editing easier? Do you want to make it easier for 14-year-old boys to insert the words "fuck" or "penis" or "my girlfriend is a whore" in the middle of an article on atomic physics -- which will require someone else to clean up their mess? (If you want to do something useful, how about installing a filter just to eliminate words like "fuck", "asshole", etc. -- or repeating characters? Then other people wouldn't have to waste time cleaning up articles after they've been vandalized.)
(4) Where the heck are the special symbols / alphabets? How can I use Greek or Cyrillic or other special letters?
(5) The new editing system is slooooooow.
(6) Want to do something useful for a change? How about displaying footnotes when they're added or altered? At present, when I add a footnote, I don't see it until I save the page; then I notice a typo and I must edit the page again. Save people some trouble by displaying, during "preview", footnotes to a section.
Cwkmail ( talk) 05:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Can the powers-that-be NOT make this default. How about Opt-in and not forcing people opt-out?
WYSIWYG editing is gonna lead to dragging down contributors to the low·est common denominator [Is wiki-syntax really that hard to grasp? Really? ( facepalm)] J. D. Redding 06:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It is not really that hard for someone to use wikisyntax ... Me'the data is skewed [think, twain and statistics]. Please do NOT make this default. Regardless, allow opt-in ... and the problem is solved. -- J. D. Redding 06:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC) (ps., "reduce the initial cognitive overhead " = "lowest common denominator editing". 'Nuff said. As to contributions ... if someone wants to contribute text, contribute it, let someone else mark it up. Real simple. Been that way since the beginning of the project ... goodness the early years were so much better.)
Arguing that the button presented as the only option for section editing unless you learn to hover (or edit your preferences) isn't the "default" is a little disingenuous.— Kww( talk) 06:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
But Steven Walling only mentioned how it is difficult for women... SL93 ( talk) 10:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't use this new VisualEditor. It sucks. Brosensu ( talk) 06:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
When I click to edit, the Table of Contents understandably disappears. However, this results in everything on the page to shift upward, causing my desired section to either be obscured at the top of the page by the edit toolbar or shift off the page altogether. This should not happen; all contents should stay at the same level on the screen when in edit mode. Reywas92 Talk 06:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
If default, can the 'programmers' make the new option _appearance_ to the right [with the new "default" option off to the side]?
Current implementation (poor)
[Edit Viz | Edit source)
Alternative implementation (better)
[Edit source | Edit Viz]
Better yet, just make it opt in. But, I digress ... -- J. D. Redding 07:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Should be opt-in ... "new" features should be _added_ to the side ... J. D. Redding 07:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Please keep it opt-in. Been going good with opt-in form since December 2012, seem like. The "functionality', your opinion, is thrust on everyone. Sounds like Democratic centralism. ... the new "default" option [notice the quotes] is really a _new_ feature. It should be added to the right. Not taking the place of the edit source. This is, upon consideration, also why the license should have been kept under GPL (and not made artistic). -- J. D. Redding 07:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
... and that misunderstanding ("not sure") may, nay does, lay at the root of the problem. -- J. D. Redding 08:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia never used the gnu copyleft license? Riiight. Now that is funny. -- J. D. Redding 08:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC) (ps., next one will hear, "It's not a bug; it's an undocumented feature!")
Brilliant: I needed to change the DEFAULTSORT from "The New Elizabethans" to "New Elizabethans, The", and this time I didn't need to retype the whole lot but could just delete and retype the "The ". I reported this as a bug a while back and it's been fixed. Thanks. Pam D 07:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, I welcome the introduction of this editing tool. I hope the developers are not too discouraged by the negative reception here – this is very much to be expected. Now retired (thankfully?) from a career doing this sort of work I know the impossibility of introducing any new development in a way and at a time that suits most people. Or at any rate "most people who comment".
Having said that I have found a problem with nested references although I expect the article is using references in a way that developers wish would be deprecated. Here in the "Notes" section, the references are just being displayed by the Visual Editor in "raw" form (perhaps this is inevitable?) and in the body of the article there is an extraneous "</ref>" in the second paragraph of the lead and in the first paragraph of "Enduring influence". I haven't tried editing or saving so I don't know what the effect would be. Best wishes and good luck! Thincat ( talk) 07:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I mean, sloooow. After klicking the edit button, I have experienced loading times of up to 30 seconds. Completely unacceptable, basically you're wasting contributors' precious lifetime. How can you go live with this thingy as the "standard experience"? Stefan64 ( talk) 07:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Twice just now I've edited an article and wanted to edit it again immediately: first time, I did one group of changes, wanted to save them before starting a second batch, different edit summary, for clarity; second time I tweaked something, saved the page, then realised I wanted to change something else (I'd edited a line in a dab page, then realised I needed to move that line to preserved alphabetisation).
When I go back to re-edit in VE I get an error message: "You are editing an old version of the page...".
Even after the time I've taken to type all the above, I've just tried to re-open Robert Edwards and I still can't do so. ... OK, couldn't a moment ago for the nth time, but just immediately now can do so. What's that, about 5 minutes? I hope it's only a temporary glitch. Pam D 07:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This edit, which is tagged VisualEditor in my watchlist but not on that diff, added a <references />
which was unnecessary, since {{
reflist}}
was already present. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 07:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
So far, good work on the visual editor. I would definitely suggest some polish before it is implemented for all editors , but it is a step in the right direction. One thing struck me as a bit odd while using the Visual Editor though: There is an entire interface for adding templates, yet the editor still expects me to enter each template parameter manually, which still requires me to remember what fields are used in a taxobox, or that "1=" happens to be a deletion reason, while "2=" is intended to be the signature in another template.
What I would like to suggest would be the ability to save a template definition for later use - one could actually go as far as creating default definitions for every commonly used template (and load these definitions by default when a template is selected in the editor). Since idea's are nice but examples are better, I added a quick mockup of this idea. The Pseudo-XML code below is an example of a saved template definition. The thumbnail would be an example of the result right after this definition would be loaded.
<Template>
<Parameters>
<ParaMeterGroup1 displayname="General Information">
<Parameter1>
<ParameterName>Taxo_Name</ParameterName>
<ParameterFriendlyName>Name</ParameterFriendlyName>
<HelpDescription>The common, non scientific name of this animal</HelpDescription>
<DefaultValue>Paraplatypoides longipes</DefaultValue>
<Type>Text</Type>
</Parameter1>
<Parameter2>
<ParameterName>Template_Image</ParameterName>
<ParameterFriendlyName>Image</ParameterFriendlyName>
<HelpDescription>The image that should be displayed in the taxobox</HelpDescription>
<Type>Text</Type>
</Parameter2>
<Parameter3>
<ParameterName>Regnum</ParameterName>
<ParameterFriendlyName>Regnum</ParameterFriendlyName>
<HelpDescription>The regnum under which this species falls</HelpDescription>
<Type>Selection</Type>
<Selection>
<PossibleValue>Animalia</PossibleValue>
<PossibleValue>Plantae</PossibleValue>
<PossibleValue>Fungi</PossibleValue>
<PossibleValue>Protista</PossibleValue>
<PossibleValue>Archaea</PossibleValue>
<PossibleValue>Bacteria</PossibleValue>
</Selection>
</Parameter3>
</ParaMeterGroup1>
<ParaMeterGroup2 displayname="Diversity">
<Parameter1>
<ParameterName>diversity_link</ParameterName>
<ParameterFriendlyName>Diversity Link/ParameterFriendlyName>
<HelpDescription>The article that the text specified under the "Diversity" parameter links to.</HelpDescription>
<Type>Text</Type>
</Parameter1>
<Parameter2>
<ParameterName>diversity</ParameterName>
<ParameterFriendlyName>Diversity</ParameterFriendlyName>
<HelpDescription>The amount of species in a specific taxa</HelpDescription>
<Type>Text</Type>
</Parameter2>
</ParaMeterGroup2>
</Parameters>
Most of the data should explain itself - "ParameterName" is the name of the parameter that is to be used in the template. The other data fields are only intended for display, help and automation sake. I suppose the same set up could also be used to edit an existing template. As long as the editor could parse the existing template parameters it should be possible to map parameter data back to their respective parameter fields in the visual editor. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 08:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Editing User:John of Reading with VisualEditor, the "Page Settings / Languages" popup claims that my user page is related to the Swedish article sk:Ján z Readingu. But actually that's linked to the article John of Reading. John of Reading ( talk) 08:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
"ultimately, a lot of people leave because editing is just too complex" [4]. Visual Editor is a good idea, but this implementation is way too heavy and clumsy. On Firefox 22 / Lubuntu 13.04 / Core i3 / 4GB RAM typing is so slow I can type a sentence and wait to see it appearing while sipping tea. In comparison, Wordpress is fluid and responsive. Complexity is an enemy, no doubts. However, the complexity is in the formality of the content (and ultimately in how Wikipedia is organized), not in the markup or in the editor. I am confident that the editor was not a significant factor of why people left. I was considering returning and this visual editor would be a motivator not to. Thank you for edit source. Good luck with visual editor, at some point you will get it right. Yuv ( talk) 09:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
So when you first create a reference you can chose to name it for re-use later on, great! But if you didn't name it when it was first created then it doesn't appear you can edit the reference to add a name later. Click on the reference and the only option that comes up is group; name is not an option. NtheP ( talk) 09:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
For some reason I have been forced to use this and don't have the option anymore to not use it and use the standard method of editing. It is horrible, it is slow, it is confusing. You say this is going to help wikipedia expand as everyone will be able to easily submit information but they won't. This is so much more confusing. How do I disable this? I do not like being forced to use an editor that is still incredibly slow and buggy. -- Lolcakes25 ( talk) 10:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I do not want to be forced to use a new tool now. So how do I turn it off so I can learn how to use it (assuming that it works since there is a disclaimer that says some parts of it are not working yet) when I am ready to do so? Shouldn't that be the first thing that you add prior to rolling something out? Stevenmitchell ( talk) 10:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I am severely disappointed with this. It is more complicated than learning the HTML code and I think the only fair thing is to allow registered users to choose whether they want to use the visual editor or do traditional HTML editing. Sonoflamont Sonoflamont ( talk) 11:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Why is there not a banner at the top of all pages (or at least on top of watchlists) mentioning this change and providing a link to more information? I was caught entirely by surprise by this and had to take some time (granted, only like 2 minutes) finding how to disable it. We get banners asking for money all the time; this is an even more major change, and judging by the number of people coming here asking how to disable it then it seems like having a banner would obviously help the transition. Where's the appropriate place to bring this up? rʨanaɢ ( talk) 11:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that right now VisualEditor is only happening in article space and presumably user space, and per the list at the bottom of Wikipedia:VisualEditor#About the VisualEditor it doesn't look like anyone's planning on taking it to other namespaces anytime soon. The reasoning behind this is obvious--presumably users who are straying outside of mainspace are more experienced and can handle MediaWiki markup--but I wonder if this reasoning is true everywhere. For example, I think AfD, and article talkpages [in the case of disputes or semi-protection, when anon editors might be told by other editors to go to the talk page] are people that inexperienced editors might come to and even be making their first edit at. I wonder if seeing a totally different edit window when going from mainspace to somewhere else might confuse these few newbie editors more than VisualEditor helped them? rʨanaɢ ( talk) 11:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
non sense Murrallli ( talk) 12:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Dunmallet has its coordinates displayed in the title line, as do so many WP articles. I opened it in VE to make another edit, and noticed that the coords were displayed at the bottom. I assumed that this meant that the coords template parameter was wrong (ie assumed that VE was displaying the coords in the position they were displaying in the article - WYSIWYG, isn't it?!) I fiddled around, worked out how to check the "display=" parameter, it was set to "title" so I concluded that this had to be wrong and perhaps the correct parameter was "in title", tried that, checked documentation, verified that "display=title" is right, cancelled VE edit and of course the coords popped back to their correct display.
In short, VE is being non-WYSIWYG with regard to title-line coords display. Please fix it, apologies if it's a known bug. (Surely must be, if it affects every occurrence of coords displaying in title line?) Pam D 12:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a must needed one! This'll make more help to get new contributors who've starter knowledge in scripting too. However, sinhala unicode isn't working on this. That means si.wikip won't get this for ever. Please look in to this and try to have something good to Sinhalese people too! -- තඹරු විජේසේකර සාකච්ඡාව (Thambaru Wijesekara) 12:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Please, somebody explain to me how it is that major changes in the daily use and editing of Wikipedia happen with only a few people even knowing that it is coming, and with so many people literally hating the results. How many people were involved in this, who were they, and how could the channels they went through possibly have been considered the "right" channels. I'd like to call for an independent third party to audit this new "feature" nightmare. This is clearly not working through consensus.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 12:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
CRAP CRAP CRAP AND MORE CRAP! Crazyseiko ( talk) 13:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
If you use both the script provided above to disable VE and the gadget, ditto, you lose the ability to edit as the edit tab no longer appears, the section edits go away and you can't edit by double-clicking on the page if you have that activated.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
If you use both of them together. I use Safari, OS X (I have a MacBook Pro) and Monobook skin.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I haven't played around much with Visual Editor yet, but I can see the potential. When I tried to add a simple stub tag to an article, I liked that it would give me a list of templates, and let me choose the proper one. However, the editor did not place the stub tag where it was intended, or follow the basic MOS of WP:FOOTERS. If the goal is to make Wikipedia more user friendly, by eliminating the need to know wikitext and formatting, those things should be built into the software, so that editors don't have to worry about it. Fortdj33 ( talk) 13:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I raised this 11 days ago and was told, pretty much, that VE couldn't be bothered with "project-specific" things like WP:MOS which is specific to English wikipedia. Seriously bad news: editors editing an article expect to find certain elements in defined places - stub tags right at the end, categories before them, etc. AWB is intelligent enough to sort this out as part of its general fixes: VE ought to be capable (and "willing") of allowing editors to make edits which comply with WP:FOOTERS, which is part of MOS. I've had to go back and tidy up in "Edit Source" after many of my VE edits, though have continued struggling on with VE out of good will and to help its development by reporting bugs etc. Please put templates such as stub tags into the right places. It should also be possible to identify those "maintenance templates" such as {{ unref}} which must always go at the top, before everything except disambiguation hatnotes (which are a finite set of templates and therefore clearly identifiable), and to put those templates at the top - not wherever the cursor happened to be left after the previous edit, as has happened to me. Pam D 14:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The MOS-specified way of working is what is expected on a given wiki. Saying "sorry, out of our scope" just isn't a good enough answer, and people will justifiably think of it as you making their editing experience harder, not easier, and making a mess - David Gerard ( talk) 18:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure someone asked this already, but I couldn't find this question myself - How do you add rows or columns to Wikitables? List articles often have most of their content embedded in tables.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 13:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Can I switch back to the old method Crelache ( talk) 13:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Probably not the most pressing issue :), but during editing the display of the maintenance tag "unreferenced section|date=August 2012" is corrupted (the text is extending outside of the screen to the right side), see article Otto I at "Consolidation of Power". I have actual FF installed, my current screen resolution is 1280 x 1024. GermanJoe ( talk) 14:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
So I still love the little animations for the [ edit | edit source ] buttons. But could you switch the stupid buttons around? Every time I go in for an edit, I wind up missing the link and accidentally clicking on the Visual Editor link. Then I have to wait a while for the Visual Editor to load, hit the back button on my browser, and then scroll down to whereever I was before. Maybe muscle memory would adapt if I only edited in the Article space, but you seem to be forgetting that Wikipedia editors do occasionally make talk page edits (like I am right now), where the [edit] button does something totally different. The end result is me constantly missing the links.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 14:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Following on from #Attempting to add a reference above:
I'm an experienced editor, have been experimenting with VE for 11 days, decided to have a go at adding a reference. Even with the User Guide open as I work, I cannot see how to get at any parameter list for {{ cite web}} (ie something like the functionality of the old RefToolbar).
I literally cannot discover how to be prompted by parameter names (from {{ cite web}} or {{ cite book}} etc) when adding a reference: and surely this is one of the most helpful features we can offer to new editors, to encourage them to provide decent references. If it's a book, we want them to include author, title, publisher, date, page number, isbn. If I can't even find this, with my background, it sure as hell isn't going to be obvious to and easily used by our new editors. Or am I missing something blindingly obvious? Pam D 14:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I was startled when VisualEditor lurched onto the scene yesterday, but then I actually found it kind of cute, and enjoyed playing with it. I thought the folks who complained about it were being harsh and unreasonable. But I have come around to their side after realizing that Wikipedia is going to sustain a lot of damage when it comes to en dashes, degree signs, prime signs, minus signs, etc. I know how to fetch these characters and use them (with considerable difficulty), but those who will not go to that trouble will be using superscripted 'o' for a degree sign and a hyphen or two instead of en dash, em dash and minus signs. This shortcoming needs to be addressed with a high priority, but it is being handled as a bug (50296) with a very low priority. If I had a button that would drag this oinker back onto the drawing board until it is really ready, I would press that button right now. Chris the speller yack 14:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this article. The old version looked like this. It was then edited by a brand new editor using the visual editor and looked like this (a bit of a mess). I reverted primarily because the edits introduced blatant copyvio. They returned to re-add it plus more and produced an even bigger mess (reverted by X-Link bot). Can anyone tell if the awful formatting problems were due to the VE or simply a new editor who couldn't figure out how to use it? Voceditenore ( talk) 15:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Tried to link some unlinked entries in a simple-looking 2-column list in The New Elizabethans. Managed it, but it wasn't one of VE's finest hours.
Clicking on any link turned the whole list blue - what will a new editor make of that?
Realised that they were within a template - so ended up having to use old "Edit Source" editing skills to edit the list of links which appeared in the "template content" window. Not a very elegant solution. Is it going to be possible to edit links within templates? There must be thousands of multicolumn lists out there which people will need to edit occasionally!
Thinking further: presumably this means that at present absolutely all edits to multi-column list items will have to be done manually (if someone is persistent enough to find the wikicode displayed!) ... not just links, but adding text, formats, etc? Ouch. Pam D 15:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
it is much more user friendly than the previous version .in all it is quite good Bsamiwalaa ( talk) 15:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This is horrible. Turn it off and fire whoever developed it. Nathan Johnson ( talk) 15:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
going back and forth between 'edit' and 'edit source' should keep interim changes -- rather like switching between edit source and preview. That way, you won't have to save interim edits when switching modes. Darkonc ( talk) 15:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
My first few experiences of the visual editor have been very mixed. I edit on a fast connection but a relatively slow computer, and find the way that the VE loads the entire page for a section edit means I have to wait 1-2 minutes before I can make my changes. If I ask to edit a section then there is no need to load anything other than the relevant section and doing so is very inefficient and potentially confusing.
When I edited Bermuda to disambiguate one link, the VE randomly inserted a blank line in a section way down the page [6]. I don't know why those items are commented out from the bulleted list, but the VE should not be making changes like that without being explicitly told to (per the FAQ on this page) and I had to make a second source edit to fix the problem it introduced.
The VE also disguises piped links so it is not possible to see at a glance whether there are other links that need fixing. Together these mean that the tool is not currently suitable for wikignome editors.
Copying and pasting text within the visual editor should retain the formatting (bold, italic, etc) of the source text, rather than just being plain text requring manual reformatting. If word processors can do this then it must be technically possible.
Finally, strongly object to the way that this tool has changed the meaning of the "edit" link. Instead of changing the meaning of that well-established term and introducing "edit source" (which is not what you are doing anyway, as the wikitext is not the html source) it should have left the "edit" tab doing what it has always done and added an "edit page visually" or "wysiwyg edit" option or something.
Overall, it's not bad for a work in progress, but it feels like an early beta that should still be opt in. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Came across this edit on Sean Bean. I know the editor who performed it was using Visual Editor and was probably trying just to add information to the lede but "nowiki" code got added around their edit... Shearonink ( talk) 16:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
On the
Mogwai page, there is a non-existant category I'd like to amend, but VE appears to only shows up categories that exist. It would be nice if I could edit/remove non-existant categories via VE.
Insulam Simia (
talk/
contribs) 16:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
From {{about|the concept in Hinduism|the 2009 film|Avatar (2009 film)|the animated series|Avatar: The Last Airbender|other uses|Avatar (disambiguation)}}, I removed 2 arguments in the middle. It resulted in {{about|the concept in Hinduism|the 2009 film|Avatar (2009 film)|6=other uses|7=Avatar (disambiguation)}}, but I wanted {{about|the concept in Hinduism|the 2009 film|Avatar (2009 film)|other uses|Avatar (disambiguation)}} -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I just don't understand how this new system works. Just now I tried to edit, and when I clicked on "Edit", the section I wanted to work on completely disappeared! I had to use "Edit source" instead. AlbertSM ( talk) 16:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm getting a problem where if I want to use a reference already listed, the editor only lets me choose the first three. Is there a way to scroll down to see the rest? I can't seem to do so on my browser. Thanks, this new editor does look promising, once it's developed further. ¿3fam ily6 contribs 16:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
After puzzling over edits like
this,
this and
this, I've worked out that the image position is based on where the cursor was at the time that the user went for the "Media" button. But where does the 200x200px
size come from? Is there any reason that it can't simply be omitted, in accordance with
WP:IMGSIZE "do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so". --
Redrose64 (
talk) 17:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Chrome on Windows 7. Click edit on a section, edit the section using VE. Save. Click edit on another section edit, you get the "You are editing an version... [other changes] will be removed" message. And, in fact, saving edits to another section will revert the first changes just made by you.
This seems like a pretty serious limitation. Dovid ( talk) 17:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This may have been suggested before, but why can't there simply be two panes visible simultaneously, one with the visual editor and another beneath it with the source editor? I've used several CASE tools that work like that: change the diagram and the currently displayed code generated changes; change the code and the diagram changes. Eric Corbett 17:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Unless there is some button I've not correctly interpreted the unlabelled diagram on, there is no possible way to create a redirect in the visual editor. I tried just entering the markup, but it silently shoved it in "nowiki" tags [7]. If the visual editor is to be at all useful it must never insert nowiki tags without being told to. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
When trying to use the VE toolbar to add a wikilink on Palms (album), the blue cover that appears when hovering over a template (the track list in this instance) obscured the VE toolbar and made it impossible to use. Please fix. Insulam Simia ( talk/ contribs) 18:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Since the poor implementation of the [edit | edit source], and 'VisualEditor' (hereafter, VizWiz) is being forced upon everyone (not opt-in) ...
-- J. D. Redding 18:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC) (does notice the VizWiz implementation is not on this page)
In playing around with adding a new reference, I somehow got the URL to be appended to the end of the previous reference.
The bad thing: I can't figure out how to fix it now, even if I delete my changes. Here's the diff: [9] Where the URL I was trying to use for ref. 12 got appended to ref. 11 (and I can't figure out how to get rid of it). Woodshed ( talk) 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This is probably a known limitation, but a really important one: currently it's not possible to copy a transclusion of a template from one article to another. There are many situations in which the easiest way to add a template to an article is to copy a use from another article and then adjust the values of the fields slightly. It would be nice if all the standard copy/paste hotkeys and menu items just worked, but it's also acceptable if a separate copy/paste button is necessary. Dcoetzee 19:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't like that the "edit source" button appears and disappears as the mouse pointer goes past. It's very distracting when just reading the article. There should be one static "edit" button, and individual user preferences can determine what you want that button to do when you click it. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there a way to opt out of the visual editor, I am not use to this new editing system which does not appear to leave an ability to leave an edit summary, and appears to be more difficult then it's worth. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Where is the URI for this script coming from? Could this possibly be a VE bug? I just looked through some of this user's other contributions, and none seem to have weird script tags in them. Is it possible that a client-side feature/bug is corrupting this? Or is it just a coincidence that this was added with VisualEditor? πr2 ( t • c) 20:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I hate this -- put it back!! DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 20:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
When I attempted to insert a transclusion of Template:Location map in East St. Louis Riot using the visual editor (see diff), the generated wikitext is correct and it looks correct when the page is saved, but it does not render correctly in the preview - I see this: [10]. Dcoetzee 20:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I can report that I could wait for ages until its loaded, half-fade-out and loading-bar repeating all the time. Don't know where's the reason for - whether it's my praehistoric machine nor NoScript blocking, but it doesn't report any new scripts. That sucks. This way I will stay with the old textarea-field. That's the fastest way. -- Kai Burghardt ( talk) 20:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Finally, I don't understand why "we" want to simplify editing-procedures. Typing plain wiki-code is a kind of filter against lusers. Though they still have the chance doing vandalism. -- Kai Burghardt ( talk) 20:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Leading out of discussion above, I have made a proposal for a formal User Council to represent the needs of Wikipedia users to the Foundation on issues such the roll out of software changes. -- RA ( talk) 20:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
If I'm viewing a page diff for the most recent edit to a page ( example), there are section edit links. If I click one of these, I immediately get a popup with a pink background and bold text "You are editing an old version of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed", which is somewhat misleading. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there any chance of Visual Editor supporting Firfox 17, or is that still too old? Thanks. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 20:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Editing bug! If you go to add a reference, hit "create reference", find yourself hopelessly confused by the template parameter interface, X out of it, then save the edit ... turns out you didn't cancel out like the interface left you thinking. Cancelling out needs to actually cancel out. - David Gerard ( talk) 21:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Pretty darn cool SirBob42 ( talk) 21:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting one that i just wandered across while looking at an old Articles for creation backlog drive, that causes a very interesting error popup to appear (Tested in Firefox 22)
This seems to be caused by the "oldid=prev" part. Normally this loads the revision prior to the Diff part of the URL, but it seems the VE cannot handle that correctly. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 21:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The classic editor is fine for me, thanks. KAMiKAZOW ( talk) 21:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I want to add a citation. I click on the "add reference" button. It asks if I want to add a existing reference or a new reference. I click "new reference". Nothing happens. I wait. I click it again. Nothing happens. I realize I'm supposed to click "new reference" and then the "next" button; this was wildly nonobvious. I clicked "next" and was presented with a second screen saying, I'm trying to see if I can remember the exact wording, "Add to group". There is a text box to type into. There is no hint what this means or what I'm supposed to write in there.
"Add to group"?! Really? What does that even MEAN?
Going back to the source editor, I have no idea how but somehow that was less confusing than your GUI. Awk ( talk) 21:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
(Text auto-submitted in preparation of bug video
[12])
[This Leave dialogue is] Impossible to use; even trying to use this leave dialogue re-scrolls the whole window on each and every single keypress, this makes it somewhat hard to use and it is unclear how one is supposed to press the OKAY button afterwards…
Sladen (
talk) 22:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Clarified —
Sladen (
talk) 22:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Alonsodono ( talk) 22:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not at all an improvement over the old cite tool, there should be an option to use the old way of adding references on the Visual Editor. eh bien mon prince ( talk) 23:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The template editor sorts parameters alphabetically. That sounds logical until you cite a book with mutliple authors and find that "first1=", "first2=" and so on are grouped together well apart from "last1=" and so on (for example, "isbn=" comes in between). Would it be possible to have the parameters sorted in the order in which they appear in the template itself, at least for those templates which use TemplateData?
On an unrelated note, yesterday we had an editor in the IRC help channel who wanted to thank you for how much easier VisualEditor makes editing, but couldn't figure out how to do so because this page can't be edited via VE. Huon ( talk) 00:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I think its great that the existing editing functionality is being retained - however the way this is being done for section edits seems obtrusive to me. Today I was reading an article, as I scrolled each time that my mouse cursor was in line with a section header it would flicker from.
to
which drew my eyes from the text I was actually reading.
Would it be possible to either:
Thanks, davidprior t/ c 00:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
What the heading says. When I review my change, my only option is to "Return to save form". I'd prefer that the save form just sit at the bottom of the review panel. One less click. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
After saving my first VE edit, above, I decided to make another change to the article but when I clicked the "edit" tab I got the message, "You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed." In fact, no one had edited the page since my edit, and I was editing the current version of the page. Clicking the "Article" tab and then the "Edit" link got rid of the false warning. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Visual Editor and reference addition - only plain text supported?. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't really like it. ApprenticeFan work 01:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Took about 45 seconds to save an edit. Needs extra efficiency. Don't know if that's the server's fault or VisualEditor's. XndrK ( talk · contribs · count) 01:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Book, so I put book in the bottom and then book showed up in the superscripted text. HelpFindaCure2013 ( talk) 02:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed something odd when using VisualEditor. I decided to use it when snooping around for various "it's" typos, for removing apostrophes seemed/is faster with VE than the old fashioned way. However, some of my edits seem to have done more than take out apostrophes. Seven times today ( [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]), VE added an extra space in a random place in the article (if it's hard to tell, on the last one it added the space right after "its"). And then it altered references on another, including changing access-dates. I don't think that's supposed to happen... Green green greenred 02:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the attraction of graphical interfaces. Everything comes up faster if you take out the gee-gaws and graphics. I could take a run around the block in the time it takes for this thing to save an edit. Then again, I still miss DOS and Unix. So I am a curmudgeonly minority. Does no one else know how to touch type? Kauffner ( talk) 02:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I spotted several edits by separate users who managed to add ./ to the beginning of wikilinks. [20], [21], [22]. Look like a bug to me.-- Salix ( talk): 02:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I have today encountered the warning message 'Saving to an old version, subsequent edits may be discarded' (paraphrase) several times when making serial edits to the same article, despite the fact that I know this is incorrect. The only way I've found to work-around is to reload the page, then re-do edits and then save. o_O. Meclee ( talk) 02:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
This article needs to be separated now that VisualEditor is in place. I wanted to give some positive feedback on the simplicity of the interface — it works for me, an old-timer with over 3,700 edits. I'll be sticking with < Edit Source > and leave it to younger or more experience editors to test and improve VisualEditor. Meanwhile, Can a different article be used for usage questions and feedback? I had to search on the homepage (which clearly identifies 1. how to learn, and 2. where to go to give some feedback) and when I get here, it is all about bug reports and complaints about VisualEditor, which I am not yet using.
So many of the comments are complaints about VisualEditor and replies about fixes or why the complainers are not understanding. This is why I would suggest having a new article or archive much of what was discussed in June. Instead, end up with two areas (two articles):
I want to give some feedback on the user interface and the new editor training, but such feedback is totally 'lost in the weeds.' — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 04:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, before this new editor went live, I went into my profile and ensured it was off. Sure enough, you screwed me....
Now, I am trying to edit an article with the broken editor. I can't even wikify a freakin link (add the double braces).
Great idea, and if this keeps up, I'm out of editing for wikipedia. Jeffrey Walton 05:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Several people above have noted the need for something similar to the ref toolbar, allowing people to fill in cite templates using a form interface. Taking this one step farther, I think it would be valuable to permit template authors to provide a form description (for example on a template subpage like Template:Foo/form) which is translated into a form for their template. Then whenever that template is inserted using Visual Editor, that form interface would be used by default. The form description would include things like what fields are included in what order, labels/descriptions for each field, data types of fields, an "advanced" section that is hidden by default containing additional fields, possibly Javascript gadgets like looking up book info by ISBN or a map for finding longitude/latitude, and so on. I realise this is pretty complex but I think it would make templates much more usable than having to refer to their documentation page to find the exact field names to fill in. Dcoetzee 06:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, How do you opt out from this Visual Editor? I like the current editing system a lot. -- Bogu Slav 07:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Why does clicking “Leave” not opt out of this abomination? -- KAMiKAZOW ( talk) 02:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
It would be helpful to have key mapping for correcting certain common typos, e.g.,
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 18:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
It is awkward to enter special characters with the current editor. I would like to see a facility in VE to allow selecting characters from displayed Unicode pages as well as by typing their Unicode names. In additional, I would like a facility to automatically change certain characters to character attributes, e.g., []. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 18:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Has it yet been discussed that when using VisualEditor, it doesn't seem that invisible comments <!--like this--> are visible to editors? We often rely on these to tell editors things like "please don't change this to 'color'; this article is in UK English" or possibly "this wording was decided by a binding RFC; please don't change it", and it would seem to be a loss if we no longer have a way to make new editors aware of such things. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
colo<!-- UK spelling for a UK-based article -->ur
When I hover over a section header link, it changes to "[ edit | edit source ]", except for the [edit] in the lead (i.e. Edit section 0). GoingBatty ( talk) 22:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
So, the old citation button produced a box. Not ideal, but workable. Now, however, it produces a "what do you want to cite" one line field, and a "use existing"/"create new" button selection, which then takes you to the box to input the citation. I'm not sure what happened to just producing the box, but if anything, this is glitchy and half the time doesn't let me create a new reference (by clicking the button for create new), and if it doesn't, it closes and doesn't let me click any other VE buttons except close and save.
Also, if anything, shouldn't it be moving toward a "reftoolbar" type thing, instead of a "go learn how to make references look right and consistent on your own then come do it"? Instead of the textbox for "what do you want to cite", have a dropdown with common options (book, web, news, journal, etc.) and then an "other" or "not here" which would default to {{ cite}}. The rest would default to the other templates, preferably with two options (standard and advanced/all parameters) as the current Reftoolbar.
This isn't super urgent I guess, as long as references are in the VE someway, I can ping the person who made the RefToolbar video about a new one :) Charmlet ( talk) 18:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
On projects where the templates already exist, code in something (hell, hardcode the word "citation" or "cite" in each language if you must) to find {{ cite web}} {{ cite news}} {{ cite}} {{ cite journal}} {{ cite book}}, ( es:Plantilla:cita web es:Plantilla:cita libro etc.) and any ones more common in another language. That's a big part of the old edit window, is the easy ability to add citations, and I don't support rolling this out to anyone more than it needs be before a referencing tool is added in that doesn't make people still learn the templates.
This is supposed to be for new editors, who don't know WikiCode. They aren't going to have any idea that they're supposed to click template, then type in "cite web", then type in some random paramater names that, frankly, aren't super intuitive, and then save it. They're going to be overwhelmed with another text box, and not know how to cite. So they'll give up. Isn't the VisualEditor supposed to eliminate that kinda situation? Charmlet ( talk) 13:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
<ref>http://url</ref>
at the least (and I confess to doing reference links like that when I can't be arsed to do the entire tedious {{
cite web}}) -
David Gerard (
talk) 16:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The many problems with this visual editor may cause many anonymous IP editors to edit less. So the monthly number of article edits by anonymous editors may continue its downward slide since 2007. See:
WMF board and staff are hoping that the VE editor will be easier to use by IP editors. But if those editors are being constantly reverted there may be a net loss in the monthly number of edits as many edit less. Post-and-run editors may edit more. IP editors who prefer wikitext source editing may edit less if they are as frustrated by the lack of a direct link to "edit source" as I am. See section higher up: #Edit and edit source links so confusing I had to disable Visual Editor in preferences. Registered editors can turn off VE. IP editors can not.
It is about net losses and gains. Some have asked whether the VE developers should try to please everybody. Well, they should try to please as many people as possible in order to slow down the decline in monthly edits, or to reverse it. If the loss is inevitable, then we need to make editing more efficient, so that there are less reversions, and less mistakes. So people get more done with less edits. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
(unindent). See this related talk section:
If this many registered editors are having this much difficulty now that the visual editor has been made the default for them, then imagine how many problems anonymous IP editors will experience when the visual editor is made the default for them too. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 20:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried saving an edit to U.S. Route 377 in Texas ( diff), it took a while and then finally I got an error. Sorry I didn't copy it but it was something close to "Error: Invalid error type." However, when I check the history it did accept the edit in spite of the error. FWIW, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Coming from a business background where support for IE (current and previous versions) was a far higher priority than other browsers, I wonder why this is not the case here. That said, I will be a tester of VE on IE10 when it is available. Can we please have a Bugzilla query that shows only outstanding IE10 issues. Downsize43 ( talk) 01:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The following does not display correctly in VE under Safari on iPad.
Lua error in Module:Location_map at line 391: The hemisphere "N" provided for longitude is not valid.'Bold text'Bold text
Downsize43 ( talk) 01:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I really hate the [edit | edit source] that shows up. It took me a few to actually figure out what the difference between them was. For as long as I can remember, on Wikipedia [edit] meant "Go to a new page so you can make some changes and submit them." It didn't mean, "Stay on this page and make some changes in a reduced capacity. You want to make bigger changes? Click the OTHER button that is so obliquely-labeled good luck figuring out what it actually means. This new button, despite its confusing name, actually is the one that now does what the OTHER button used to do!" Great, so now I have to unlearn what has become so second-nature to me here on Wikipedia.
Can we PLEASE change this? It's annoying as crap to have to work with it like this. LazyBastard Guy 05:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I find it annoying that it has to change when you're just mousing over the entire header line. Make it static! We also NEED a link from the VE interface to the source interface. We still can't edit galleries, infoboxes, and such in VE, so there ought to be a quick link to the source edit. Reywas92 Talk 06:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I did read the feedback page, and it looks like the people behind thins don't give a damn about the complaints, so i'll just put it simply; this new "idea" sucks. The old way was better and simpler. 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 07:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Trying adding a reference now. Confusion in the interface:
Is this useful? Please make the references interface less annoying than just remembering the parameters to {{ cite web}} - David Gerard ( talk) 12:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
As long as you are producing a new editing tool, could it please include a spell checker?
I try to be careful, but when I make a long edit to an article, often a typo slips through and then I must make an edit to my original edit. A spell checker would reduce the frequency of that problem. Cwkmail ( talk) 17:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Tried to use it as much as I can, but right now only can manage only simple text editing. Things like templates, links are way easier and I just learned how to do it. But there is a bug regarding the window which pops up for writing the edit summary. When you click on "save page", the field given for typing the summary is bugged (whatever keys are pressed affect the background page not the newly popped up window field) Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 17:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Please make the [edit|edit source] button pop out only when the mouse hovers over it, not whenever it passes over the header, far away from the button itself. It's distracting to the reader and it gets annoying fast. CesarFelipe ( talk) 17:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It's bad UI design to hide functions from people. Definitely put both side by side. Also remember, you can't "hover" on a phone or a pad. Don't make people hover. Gigs ( talk) 01:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I've been editing Wikipedia for years and I'm used to the way it worked before. How do I turn off this visual editor and go back to the old way? I hate it! - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I just added templatedata to this important template, but it doesn't seem to be used when I try to edit a {{ main}} template on a normal page using visual editor. Did I do something wrong? @ User:Okeyes (WMF)-- 99of9 ( talk) 18:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried to add a link to the Koszta Affair in both modes but it still shows it as text, not a link. Perplexed, Shir-El too 19:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm glad that this change has finally come - although I may prefer the 'traditional' way of editing, (which I find quicker) I expect this will be much more friendly towards new users. However, there are a few important issues that I would like to see addressed soon (I know some of these have already been mentioned):
I haven't used the new editor much, but from the number of bugs around it's clear that it still needs a lot of work. Regardless, I think this is the right way to go, and I like the overall format and presentation of the new features. Jr8825 • Talk 19:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
1. IE is a pretty normal load. Maybe the most common. Or at least most common for non-techsavvy people, office workers, etc.
2. Ignore the screams and roll stuff out. It's the one thing that you can really impact on site, without endless arguments with the stuck community (e.g. look at the miserably laid out main page, with a huge discussion a year ago...but no changes).
3. I personally would have been happy to see you ignore the reference citation templates and just make the references not be inline (whatever it looks like after that). this is a normal feature in word processing software for at least 2 decades. (and I hate the freaking cite templates....really prefer to type them out manually...also the load time issue of the cite templates).
4. I don't get people screaming about having learned sfn and all that and wanting to keep it. I would like the average English professor, journalist, engineer, or business worker able to edit this place just like he does when he uses MS Word (for the last 2 decades). Just like when I work at a real job and write a document! Let's bring more (good) content people in and less techy gearheads (especially the Linux, Mac types).
TCO ( talk) 19:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't bother supporting old versions of IE. IE9 and 10 are actually more standards compliant than Chrome or Firefox in many ways, in that they won't accept broken code. Supporting IE10 would actually ferret out several errors that Chrome and FF are tolerating, I'm sure of it. Gigs ( talk) 01:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I completely understand the logic for why typing [[Foobar]] generates [[Foobar]] and not Foobar in the visual editor. However, this also means that people who might otherwise like VE have to stop and click a link to add a wikilink. I would like to suggest that a hybrid editing mode could be very useful for editors who like the VE interface but find the workflow sometimes annoying. Specifically, I would suggest a mode where when a user types [[Foobar]] it would automatically be detected and translated into Foobar. Same for other basic wiki syntax such as bold / italic and templates. The editor could monitor what you are typing and automatically do the translation at breaks between words, etc. That would allow advanced users to continue using the simple syntax elements that makes wikis so easy to use, while also allowing such users access other aspects of the visual editor interface. Such a hybrid mode might be controlled as a configuration option to continue to allow the present behavior if that is seen as optimal for other users. Dragons flight ( talk) 19:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I have edited standalone wikis via VE for three years now, and I'm glad to see that Wikipedia has finally adopted it. While I, as copy-editor, will likely not encounter many problems because I will likely not need its more in-depth features, VE's quick, slick, and intuitive interface has greatly eased my editing. :)
If to age is to callous over one's sympathy, then I shall remain a I child forever. ( talk) 19:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
As I save an edit, when I'm typing in the comment field, the screen jumps around with each keystroke. This may be the same issue as Bug 50538. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there a plan to totally replace wikitext diffs with HTML diffs? Is the basic text (with light wikimarkup) planning to be removed? Almost depressed about that thought. -- J. D. Redding 19:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC) [from #A few question of the poor VizWiz ...
The basic text with wiki-markup, is it going away? Seems like, to me, that is the push here ...
Haven't been this depressed about Wikipedia for some time. -- J. D. Redding 20:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Not that I expected them to be, but just making sure it's noted- list-defined references, aka where the actual filled-out ref tags are down in the reflist template as "|refs=", have no VE way of being edited- you can't edit the references as linked in the article proper as the references are located within a template, and if you edit the reflist template itself, it just lets you edit the wikimarkup of the |refs field. For an example of an article that uses LDR, see Journey (2012 video game). I know it's a minority method of doing references, just thought y'all should know. -- Pres N 20:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
As I predicted would happen when the visual editor was made the default editor (see talk sections linked below):
Also, the ability to disable the visual editor was removed from its logical location in the edit tab of preferences and buried in the gadgets tab. I am sure many people stopped editing Wikipedia today, or greatly lessened their editing.
In bugzilla:49666 several people pointed out their dislike of a multi-stage process to get to "edit source". Please provide a direct link to "edit source" on each section. So that people will continue editing on Wikipedia. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 20:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey all. I definitely appreciate the attempt to make editing easier for the "common person" but I'm having so many issues with this new editor that it's very frustrating. Among my biggest beefs/suggestions:
Anyway, thanks for listening. Looking forward to updates... Girona7 ( talk) 23:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how widespread this problem is but in the Andrew Waterworth article I wanted to remove a piece of vandalism from the "full name" line in his infobox. However when I clicked on the infobox icon in VisualEditor this line was not available meaning I was not able to remove the vandalism until later after turning VisualEditor off. As I say I don't know how widespread this issue was as I've only used the new system once (and have no intention of using it again to be honest) but somebody might want to look at fixing it. Cheers. Keresaspa ( talk) 23:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
How can I check to see the content of a reference while editing on an iPad? I.e., see the same content as clicking on it in reading mode would show? Is there any way to name and copy a ref by that name in the VE on iPad?
As slow as it is, and as much as it seems to depend on right-clicking which long-press doesn't seem to duplicate, I'm not sure this is really ready for prime time on the iPad yet. EllenCT ( talk) 03:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Are there any plans to create a process such that communities or users can add customization to the VE interface? For example, we might add tools to help with enwiki specific citation templates. I suspect we might be able to make small changes now with CSS, but if there was some sort of extension framework then I imagine community members might help to add things that they perceive as missing. It is probably too early for such things right now, but I'm wondering if future plans are likely to provide opportunities for community customization. Dragons flight ( talk) 03:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I suspect this has already been reported, but some message boxes are messed up in edit mode. The box at the "Prevention" section mentioning lack of sources on firefighter is an example of this. Dragons flight ( talk) 03:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
How to produce bug: 1. Edit the page in VE. 2. Click Save Page. 3. Click edit again.
Result: It will edit the old version of page again, which you loaded before editing. I think, after the page is saved it should be reloaded, so if I want to edit it again, it will edit the latest version. ★Saurabh P. | ☎ talk 05:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Tested on Firefox 22. It seems that moving sections around causes the editor to glitch out on any further editing of the same section.
Steps to reproduce:
Note that the above examples don't always occur. After playinf around a bit i could still type textual character, yet the enter, space and delete keys failed to produce any result. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 06:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Somewhat related to the issue I reported above. (Firefox 22, as always)
Steps to reproduce:
I'm wondering though, is Drag and Drop for sections really intended to be used, or is Firefox simply allowing me to move things around which shouldn't be moved? Also note that drag and dropping doesn't seem to be registered as a change as far as the undo / forward buttons are concerned. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 06:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday I congratulated the team on fixing a bug: today it's unfixed. Editing Norman Maclean (biologist) I couldn't edit the DEFAULTSORT but had to retype it. One small backward step! Pam D 07:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
This feedback page appears in the vertical middle of the page, which is confusing because I pressed the "Leave feedback" button at the top, and on long pages, I'm not going to see this Feedback window. Dandv( talk| contribs) 07:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Two for the price of one!
Steps to Reproduce
Also, if you press "Review Your Changes" the page will report that there is no change to review (Resizing once or twice doesn't matter - a resize doesn't seem to be triggering a page change). Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 08:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
When cleaning up incoming links to a page I sometimes find that the pagename isn't visible in the linking page, it's a piped link: I can only find it (either by eye or by ctrl-F) once I've opened the file in the old edit mode.
So, if I look at User:PamD/sandbox for VE and want to find the link to Dunmallet: how do I do so, short of hovering over every link to check it?
And, as an aside, is there a sandbox where we can test VE, and which VE will recognise as article space? I suspect that my personal playground won't reflect everything, as it's in userspace. Pam D 08:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Namely, the logo, search box, "edit this page" link, and stuff in top bar (notifications, etc) shows on top of boxes such as "image", "reference", etc in Monobook, Firefox 21, Windows 7:Jay8g [ V• T• E 17:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I've come across a minor bug which happens just after you save, clicking edit again results in the notification that the page is out of date and needs to refreshed plus this "invalid token" bug.
When is VisualEditor going to be activated for all namespaces? You guys trust VE enough to make it the default editor for everyone, but you don't you trust it to edit this page? We've got new users being faced with different editors for articles and talk pages, including their own user talk pages where they'll be trying to find help with the editing interface. Thatotherperson talk contribs 10:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I use IE, so VE isn't currently available to me anyway, but I thought I'd check the "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface" box so that I wouldn't be surprised at some future date when IE might be supported. Unfortunately, when I do so, the edit tab at the top of articles disappears. There are still section edit links, but there's no way to edit a lead. Deor ( talk) 11:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I've tried it once or twice, and have noticed that it's much slower than the normal editing option ever was. A different problem is that it makes it very hard to see that you have switched it on by accident, and you can't simply press the "back" button and go back to the page. You have to remember there's a bar at the top of your Wikipedia browser window and switch it off, after making sure you haven't made any accidental edits. Maybe creating it as a separate editing window like some of the dedicated Wikis have done might be the answer. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 11:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I saw this kind of edits several times, where a correct internal link is changed into 2 internal links to the same page, one of them with only whitespace characters. -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 11:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if this syntax is really correct ? The title is in the form '''==References==''' (note the ' around the title). -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 11:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Strange result where instead of being completely removed, just an empty title remains. I think VE shouldn't allow users to create headings with no title text at all (nor contents). -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 11:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
This edit doesn't look good. There should be no <nowiki />
between the internal link and the s. --
NicoV (
Talk on frwiki) 12:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
By habit I keep hitting "Edit" when what I actually want is "Edit source"; therefore, please make "Edit" into "Edit visual" so that the old tab hasn't morphed into something else that one is accustomed to using to mean what it always had. Vincent J. Lipsio ( talk) 12:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Too many things are wrong: empty parameters added (1, 2, 3), some parameters grouped on the same line, <nowiki>...</nowiki>
added in an external link, ... --
NicoV (
Talk on frwiki) 12:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
<nowiki>...</nowiki>
is again added intertwined with the previously added one when
I save the page. --
NicoV (
Talk on frwiki) 12:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm very excited to see the visual editor coming along - we desperately need this, and it is making great progress. However, I tried to run through some basic steps as if I was a new user, and I hit a lot of problems, many of which have probably been highlighted before. Nevertheless, as feedback:
Some of these, such as the problems adding a reference, seemingly missing alt tags, and the "old version" bug, are pretty serious and should have been picked up before the rollout. Is it possible for this to be pulled while major bug fixes are handled, rather than running with the current version and releasing fixes on the fly? - Bilby ( talk) 14:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there any plan to manage Editnotice when editing pages in VE ? For some pages, they are really useful to guide editors on what can be done in the page. For example, for disambiguation pages (example: BBHS), the edit notice explains the differences between a disambiguation page and a regular article. -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 15:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
It would be nice to be able to disable VisualEditor for specific articles. Two edits to List of Sam & Cat episodes corrupted the article format. here and here where I did NOT add the category before the table start. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 15:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I almost always edit as source, and suddenly it's forcing me into this crap, I don't even quickly see a way out of it. Default to offering it, instead of making us hunt down a way to opt out. Kaz ( talk) 15:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, I looked at the most recent 5000 edits in article space excluding anons and bots. Of these, 530 were tagged as using VisualEditor. So, among people who can use it (presently only registered users), the adoption rate so far appears to be around 11%. Dragons flight ( talk) 17:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Visual editor, after I've made an edit, brings up an error message telling me that I'm editing an old version of the page, which requires a re-load. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 17:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, it seems that finding unreported issues is becoming progressively more challenging. Either way, i think this one hasn't been reported yet:
Steps to reproduce:
Instead of undoing the edit, it suddenly enlarges the image object. The image is placed in the center of the screen, and the object itself even overlaps the main navigation in the Mono interface. Of course as always: Firefox 22 used to test this. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 18:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, this one is probably quite tricky: When editing the source code, if an edit conflict arises, you can simply hit the back button, copy the code, and paste it into the updated version. However, with the Visual Editor, this is no longer possible. The content goes away, so you have to re-add it all, which is a huge pain if it involves references and other templates.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 18:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Please. Telling the awful truth ( talk) 18:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Can we get a preference to switch the [edit | edit source] ... after doing some editing with VizWiz option present, cannot tell you how frustrating it is to have to navigate to the source edit option (especially when doing some power editing). It really sucks. Must have hit the edit selection a few dozen time, when I wanted edit source.
For logged in user, can there be a formatting preference to display [edit
Shot me now and open the gates to the tide of crud and confusion. Craig Pemberton ( talk) 18:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I've been trying it out for some light copyediting and it seems to work pretty well for that purpose, at least. It's nice for when you just have to move a few commas around and don't want everything to be obscured by messes of reference code. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
OpenOffice took 13 sec just now to open in VE; I entered one space, hit save and then review, and review timed out after 100 sec; hitting "save" on that timed out after 100 sec with "Error: Invalid error code" - David Gerard ( talk) 19:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering why my edits are still being tagged this way in edit summaries, now that VE is "live". Taroaldo ✉ 19:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Time for another "Why did you even try this"? kind of bug. (Tested on Firefox 22, Mono)
Steps to Reproduct
For some reason the hyperlink dialog box will now show up on the image, no matter what word you select. After trying a few times it seems to tire of that and starts jumping over the screen at random when a word is selected. The added screenshot is an example of this - it tried to hide behind the search box. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 19:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't like this. What was the problem with the old editor? How can I leave a reason for this edit????? I don't see any place to do so. Please don't force us to use this. Pattonre ( talk) 19:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm thrilled that the VisualEditor is finally in fully beta, and for the most part it's a satisfying experience (I particularly like the ability to get a perfectly wikilink just by hitting CMD-K, typing the start of an article name, and hitting enter).
But I do want to throw in a few bugs and suggestions regarding the references workflow (I'm using Firefox 22). I can provide screenshots if it would be helpful.
— N at Appcelerator ( my conflict of interest) 20:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I love the editor however it seams to take all cpu power on some articles. 2011 Egyptian Revolution— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbgsimulationjon ( talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
One of my first comments] on VE led to Bug 49969 of 21 June, and a link there shows virtually the same complaint in Bug 49549 of 13 June, but nothing's been done.
If I'm adding a category, I want to be able to see the article. It might be that I'm adding birth and death dates, or a geog category based on places with unfamiliar spellings, or I just want to read the article again and see the various attributes of the topic which need a category. I don't expect to have to memorise every aspect of the article which will generate a category before I hit "Page settings". But in VE I cannot see the article because the Page Settings dialog box (mostly blank space) fills the screen and can't be shrunk or dragged to get it out of the way. It's been labelled "normal enhancement" (49549) and "low enhancement" (49969) - the latter with depressing comments which seem to suggest that wanting to read the article and categorise it at the same time is unreasonable/undesirable "multitasking" which VE is not going to support. All very depressing: can this problem please be given some attention? Pam D 20:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Being familiar with Wikicode, I personally find functions such as adding links quicker with the old editing method. However, I can see this being beneficial to new users and should help build our editor base. Oddbodz ( talk) 21:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Another really fun one! (Firefox 22, Mono skin)
Steps to reproduce
Suddenly, your entire input screen will be white. What seems to happen is that the image is blanked (Replaced by a white square) and plastered full size all over the page. You can try to drag it away, but each time you try it will replace itself over the pages content. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 22:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The bug report 50646 linked in #Can.27t_search_on_hidden_text_-_eg_link_targets above doesn't really address the problem: I want to be able to use "Find" or similar to find words/strings which are within the article's wikicode but not necessarily its displayed text. My particular example is when looking for the target of a link which might be piped (eg when chasing up incoming links to a dab page), but someone else might be looking for the point where a particular template is used, or something like that. The bug report suggests showing the destination of a link, but if looking for a piped link in a long article I really don't want to have to check every single link. In "Edit Source" I can use "Find" and know it'll find the word in the edit window if it didn't find it in the displayed text: I want a similar facility in VE, please. Obviously not a high-priority issue at this time, but I'd like to see it recorded as something which ought to be fixed eventually. Pam D 22:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's some things I noticed on my first try on using VE. I purposely didn't read the User Guide yet, to see how far I get just with intuition. I didn't have time to go through the existing feedback, so apologies for any redundancy.
That's it for now, hope it helps. Have to leave now, but I'm happy to explain points I described all too short here if needed. — HHHIPPO 22:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
When can we expect to see some fixes for this ever-growing list of bugs? Many of them, and in particular the erroneous "you are editing an old version of this page" message make the thing unusable in its current state for anything other than the simplest of edits. Eric Corbett 22:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I could not add the category Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2.1 to an article using the "page settings"; it was apparently changed automatically into Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2 and after "Save page" there was no visible change to the article. Lambert Meertens ( talk) 23:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
As the title says, I had it disabled in preferences, and it still checked as disabled there, but it just keeps popping up. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 23:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The transclusion window has several issues.
Ozob ( talk) 01:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't make heads or tails of what is what in the new editor. Very poor. Maybe it will entice new editors who are confused by URL, <REF> etc. but the option to work in Wikitext is better. To be honest, if Wikimedia want more editors, then the condescending behaviour on here towards new editors is of greater concern which turns new editors away. Stevo1000 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Windows 8. The New World Trade Center. New Coke.
Not improving what doesn't need fixing is the true genius and the true virtue.
If you give someone the power to improve things you can be sure he will eventually get around to doing something. And if you pay him, and give him a mandate, there's no chance of stopping him.
Not improving what doesn't need fixing is the true genius and the true virtue.
We've got a committee whose mandate it is to do something! So of course they have done something! rather than reach the scary conclusion their doing anything was not necessary. (How many bureaucracies vote themselves out of existence?) And that something they've done is to put power tools into the hands of infants, so that unexperienced hands won't find it so difficult to draw a blade across the grain.
Not improving what doesn't need fixing is the true genius and the true virtue.
Learning curves are good things. It's why newborns don't come with hanging teats or hairy testicles.
μηδείς ( talk) 01:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
What is the point of fixing something that doesn't need fixing? If it isn't broken, why are you fixing it? Was the purpose of creating this new tool simply to occupy bored minds? It adds nothing other than the design of the same (albeit limited) set of tools using a newer technology format. 1) There should be an Opt-Out 2) Why was this even proposed, let alone rolled out? ... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 02:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
On Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, it may be helpful to change "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface" to "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface" to provide one more way for people to find out more about the VisualEditor. GoingBatty ( talk) 02:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I wonder what the correlation is between (person finds using wiki markup language to be an obstacle) and (person uses Internet Explorer) is? It could very well be that this whole thing is being implemented for a class of user that will never be able to take advantage of it.— Kww( talk) 02:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I love it. Always liked visual editors and editing. Kuzey457 ( talk) 05:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The Add parameter has several usability problems.
First and foremost, the parameter description doesn't fit the given space - it overflows to the right, with no scroll bar available to read the whole text.
Second, either clicking or double-click on the chosen parameter does nothing. Clicking on the "Add parameter" link at the top does nothing. Is it broken? Wait - there is an "Add parameter" button hidden after a looong list of dozens of parameters??? (see Cite web template for example). How is one supposed to know the button is there? Certainly not from the user guide, which helpfully all it says is "You can add parameters or edit those already listed", but not how.
The "Add parameter" button should be "above the fold", besides (or instead of) the "Add parameter" title. It doesn't make sense to have it at the bottom - this is not a form that must be completed, it's a list of items where only one is selected - the natural flow doesn't call for scrolling to the bottom of it. You should hire a competent UI designer and make user tests (I'm pretty sure this part of the interface hasn't been tested at all). Posting the interface to the wild and waiting for feedback doesn't count as a test. Diego ( talk) 06:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Currently, when editing a template, the template parameters list is taken from TemplateData (if exists), or from the actual page being edited.
Whenever TemplateData exists, everything is hunky dory. However, when there is no TemplateData, the user does not know which parameters are recognized by the template, if they are not already present on the page.
There are two possible solutions:
function extractParameterNames( tempalte )
var
result = [],
$.ajax({
url: mw.util.wikiScript(),
data: {title: template, action: 'raw'},
dataType: 'text',
async: false,
success: function buildParamsRaw(data) {
var
paramExtractor = /{{3,}(.*?)[<|}]/mg,
m;
while (m = paramExtractor.exec( data ))
result.push( $.trim( m1 ) );
}
});
return result;
}
we use this exact logic in hewki, with the "TempalteParamWizard": the wizard does not use metadata embedded in the tempalte page itself - we did not have the TemplateData extension available - but rather we have an optional subpage that contains the data in a form which is more human-friendly and less script-friendly, but is basically very similar to TempalteData.
When this optional subpage does not exist, we use code very similar to the above to extract the parameters recognized by the template from the template page itself.
I just tried to test VisualEditor by removing some text from my userpage, and got the message 'Error: Invalid token'. What does this mean? Robofish ( talk) 22:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Why is the Visual Editor not displaying images at the correct default sizes? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 13:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
When I click edit on a section, it opens up the entire page for editing. Why? I'd rather save bandwidth and save information overload, and just see the section I asked to edit. -- 99of9 ( talk) 16:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
vsection=N
, but the editor then still tries to edit the whole page (if indeed, it ever finishes loading rather than just freezing). —
Sladen (
talk) 16:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure this is far down the list of problems, but I think the transclusion editor (and other bits with similar display) have way too much white space. For each parameter one gets two blank lines for every one line with parameter name. That is annoying and when templates have dozens of parameters, as many infoboxes and citation templates do, it creates a lot of extra scrolling to find what one is looking for. I'd suggest reducing the whitespace between parameter names by half. Dragons flight ( talk) 18:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that when editing (e.g.) TRS-80 that anchor templates, such as the ones I'd included within the section titles (e.g. [25])- for links that don't break when section titles change- don't show up in the visual editor... but they're still easily (inadvertantly) deletable, simply by backspacing over the hidden markup.
You couldn't blame a newbie- or even nontechnical editor- for deleting something that wasn't even shown to them(!), but this is the sort of thing that could be a major pain in the neck.
While I'm in favour of the visual editor in principle (the ability to contribute content shouldn't be reliant upon geekish markup skills), this *was* an issue that concerned me when I heard about the idea- namely that the large amounts of complicated templates and markup (which IMHO will never be entirely representable in the visual editor) would be inadvertantly messed up, either by users or by oversights within the design of a "helpful" visual editor itself.
Ubcule ( talk) 22:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried to remove the whitespace (actually newlines) between references 7, 8 and 9 of this revision of KHD Humboldt Wedag (the ones after "Klöckner Humboldt Deutz AG." at the end of the "History" section's second paragraph). I can remove the "↵" symbols, but when I try to review my changes I get an error message: "Could not start the review because your revision matches the latest version of this page." When I tried to remove them along with some other changes, the other changes were saved correctly, but the newlines persist: [26] Huon ( talk) 06:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The edit bar follows you as you scroll; good. But the line between the body and the edit bar needs to be slightly more bold than "practically white". (This pale, spaced out look the entire web seems to be striving for makes quick navigation and focus difficult.) The edit bar is not a part of the body, the line should be as dark as the one separating it from the navbar. Back to the whole pernicious spaced out bit, the enormous space between icons in similar functional groups is disruptive for me. If some disability/accessibility issue requires this, there should be an option to compact the layout. At first, I didn't even realize like functions were grouped because the chasm between individual functions makes the spacing between groups less obvious in proportion. The icon bar has room for ten more icons, at least. - BalthCat ( talk) 14:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
</br>
tags displayed as text in VEWhenever I hit the edit button for
Kamar Siah, several </br>
tags appear as text in the table at the bottom of the article (Selseleh County), instead of being used as line breaks. --
NicoV (
Talk on frwiki) 15:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
</br>
tags (even if their syntax is broken, because they are not valid HTML, they should be <br>
or <br />
). --
NicoV (
Talk on frwiki) 15:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
? Perhaps something isn't cleaning up the code as it should. Try it the other way.
Ignatz
mice•
talk 15:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
</br>
tags appearing. A cache problem ? (not due to my computer because I reported the problem on an other computer than the one I just used to test). --
NicoV (
Talk on frwiki) 19:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
<br/>
. We'll probably add support for broken </br>
though, and collect information about the pages they are in so that they can be fixed. --
Gabriel Wicke (
talk) 18:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Ctrl+Click on a link in Edit mode took me to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/Virtual_8086_mode, which is a wrong target. Codename Lisa ( talk) 15:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried to lowercase the link [[Architect]] on the Vogrie House page, but then VE would not let me save it, saying that no change was made. I had to use the old, non-buggy, intuitive, straightforward, dependable, efficient, tried-and-true "edit source" editor—you know, the one that was hijacked and replaced by VE—to accomplish the job; where's the fun in using that old editor? Chris the speller yack 16:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
An oddball one, took me a while to figure out what on earth caused this. Tested in Firefox 22 + Monobook skin.
Steps to reproduce
For some reason delete and backspace won't work anymore. Another fun fact in Monobook: It will block any input on the screen. For example, the search box will refuse to accept a backspace or delete while the save page screen is opened a second time. And even MORE fun: Do the above trick again, but after the last step add the following steps:
Steps to reproduce (for even more fun)
What happens for me: Entering data in the search box works fine, but pressing backspace somehow causes text to be removed from the article, instead of the search box i was just typing in. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 19:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
When I edit fr:Brendan Schaub in VE, the first column of the table displays the formatting instructions as text instead of applying them : I see text like style="background: #...." and if I click on it, VE thinks it's a template to be edited. -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 19:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
And same problem with the English version Brendan Schaub in the same table (for the display of formatting instructions as text). -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 19:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if it would be possible to have the references show up in a tooltip when you hover over the link in edit mode, just as it does in view mode. This way it will be easier to tell at a glance what is what when you're editing, instead of having to go into the reference edit box itself, which then blocks the screen etc. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 19:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
When I click "Save page" after making an edit, and then start typing the edit summary, the article scrolls upwards with every keystroke till it reaches the top of the page. This is a bit annoying because it would be better to have it stay still, so that I can see the edit I made, as I type in the summary. Especially useful when I've made several minor edits. On the whole, I like VE. I really hope you guys add a feature to pull the template parameters automatically. Right now, its a lot easier to copy paste them in the source. Also, I wanted to help out with the template data (especially certain infoboxes), but I'm not sure if it needs to be added in the template's main page or the doc page or both. BigJolly9 ( talk) 22:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the visual editor can glitch a bit when it initially renders a template. Yet when the template is altered without changes this is corrected. (Firefox 22, Mono skin)
Steps to reproduce:
Once that is done, the template is rendered correctly. Note that the same template was initially added trough the visual editor itself and displayed just fine. Only when you open an already saved page it seems to glitch a bit (Until the settings are applied without change - somehow that corrects it). The page reports no changes after applying, so it seems this is just a rendering issue. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 22:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I just learned how to add sources change fonts and change sizes and stuff and now I have switched to the old editing because I can't figure out how to add sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtrot620 ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried putting in an ambox.
Step 1: Click transclusions button. Step 2: In "New template" textbox, add "ambox" and click "add template." Step 3: Put something (I have no idea what) into "add parameter" textbox and click button. Step 4: Put text in big box.
Once I get past Step 2, it stops working. ??? Step 4: Add stuff to bigger textbox XndrK ( talk · contribs · count) 22:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
First of all, the word "transclusion" is confusing. It is compsci jargon, and not even used correctly. The VE is a step forward because it makes editing accessible to people who aren't geeks, so the use of such a geeky word (not in my Random House Unabridged, not even in Wikipedia's spell dictionary) can only confuse.
The puzzle piece icon seems to serve only slightly related purposes depending on where you encounter it: 1) it allows you to import templates, and 2) it allows you to edit data contained in a template. It's not clear to this user how to use a template once I've added it. So, yes I've added a cite web template, closed the box and now I have an empty reference. When/where do I put in the data? This should be obvious, but it isn't. Intuitively obvious human interface, when we get it, is a triumph. We're definitely not in the triumph stage yet in the use of templates. Camdenmaine ( talk) 01:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. When editing a template using VE in Monobook, there are several elements that overlap onto the VE component. I reopened a bug about this, neatly linked in the boxy thing on the right. Posting here for awareness (The more you know™). Killiondude ( talk) 23:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Since trying VE a few days ago, I have had my Preferences -> Gadgets -> Remove Visual Editor setting selected so that the "Edit - Edit source" links would not appear. About six hours ago when I did some editing, everything was fine. I had only an Edit link, and it took me to the traditional editing screen. Now, at 23:30 UTC on July 3, the "Edit - Edit source" links are back. My preference is being ignored. I tried unchecking the preference, saving, checking the box, and saving again, to no avail. I looked in Bugzilla for a similar bug and did not find one. Jonesey95 ( talk) 23:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
This is probably in the wrong place (but I haven't got time to hunt down the correct place), but the tooltip for the "edit source" tab doesn't seem to be working properly. The other tabs include a keyboard shortcut, e.g. [alt-shift-h] for history, [alt-shift-m] for move, but the "edit source" tab tooltip says "[<accesskey-ca-editsource>]". Firefox 22.0, monobook skin, Xubuntu. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to add alt text to images using the VE? I can't see how that is done in VE, and I'm worried that it can't be, but it seems very possible that I'm missing something. - Bilby ( talk) 00:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
If you are editing a page that you did not start while using this editor, you couldn't know right away which ones have the red links because all links are in blue. Is there a easy way to turn off this visual editor. I turned it off in the Preferences>Gadgets>under Editing, but still, every time I try to edit, it brings me back to the VisualEditor. I am not so thrilled about this abrupt change. Thanks. Briarfallen ( talk) 00:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Inserting references is completely unintuitive - none of the icons really make any sense. Also, why is a template represented by a jigsaw piece? That doesn't make any sense... I'd suggest a cog or something, but I guess that's too close to the normal "Settings" indicator. Something to indicate that it's basically a 'function'.
Another issue with the new ref-insertion interface is that I can envision it resulting in a lot of bare urls. This is A Bad Thing. — foxj 00:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Hovering over a displayed math formula in <math>
tags is supposed to get a tooltip that explains that the formula can't be edited in the VisualEditor. It sort of works; but it has trouble with tall formulas. The tooltip doesn't show up unless the cursor is moved to the middle of the formula. For some formulas this is OK, as users can be reasonably expected to put their cursor in the middle. For other formulas it's not. Here's the opening of
Companion matrix, which has both a formula that works and one that doesn't:
It would be more helpful if the tooltip appeared whenever the cursor was over any pixel of the formula, not just a middle pixel. Ozob ( talk) 01:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm a relative novice at Wikipedia editing. The visual editor came along just as I was learning markup and struggling with it. I think the VE, though still not nearly done is a huge step in the right direction. Its purpose is to make editing accessible to subject matter experts who would be put off by markup. This is such an admirable (and necessary) goal that I think it's essential to carry on. If there is something to complain about, it's that this has been released in beta way too early. Keep up the good work. Camdenmaine ( talk) 01:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Some sites are blocked from WikiPedia and editors can't add links as a reference. It's sure that editors don't know which these sites are. In the old version, when a link from those sites was added on the article, there was a warning saying about the blocked site when you were clicking on "save page". So, you were just removing it and clicked "save page" again.
I was trying to add references in one article with VE, I tried then to save the page and I got the notice: "Invalid code error" or something like that. I thought it was just a clinch. I cancelled and did the edits again and tried to save. Same message again. I then realized that it was probably a site that was blocked that was causing the problem so I started deleting one-one the refs to see which one was responsible. Took me some time to figure out what was going on and then find the "problematic" link but I found it.
Can we please get a notice of why there is error and we can't save the page? In this case the blocked site? Thanks
TeamGale (
talk) 02:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
That's pretty annoying, reported — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I see that many comments on this feedback page have been asked and answered before, but with a page this long, it's hard to determine if your question has been asked already. Maybe adding an Editnotice would help, directing people to WP:VE/FAQ and/or including some of the FAQs in the Editnotice. GoingBatty ( talk) 02:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
When I try to use VisualEditor on my Kindle Fire, the article goes into edit mode, but clicking in the article doesn't bring up the keyboard like it does on an iPad. I'm presuming that aading support for the Kindle Fire's Amazon Silk browser isn't on your to do list now. Could you please add this browser to the blacklist? I would like to keep VE on in my preferences so it works when I'm on my PC but not have VE get in the way while on the Kindle. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 02:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Not only is the legal information too small to read at the save button - but I tried to add an edit summary. But nothing appeared. The edit saved. I later found the text - on another (non-Wikipedia) browser window. Rmhermen ( talk) 03:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Will visual editor support LaTeX? Dashed ( talk) 06:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I hope LaTeX support will go to the front of the queue for new features to implement. Now that VisualEditor has brought a little sanity to citing references, by far the biggest PITA in editing articles is working with math. If it were less onerous to do the LaTeX, I'd be making a lot of edits in math articles, completely reworking some of them. The editors who have the knowledge and motivation to do the LaTeX often are also the sort that write jargon-encrusted "English" incomprehensible to nearly all readers, making many math articles worse than useless. Making it easier for more people to edit LaTeX could lead to real improvements in some of the most fundamental articles in Wikipedia. Enon ( talk) 17:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
When I've added one template using the transclusion icon, please offer me a button which says "Add another template", rather than insisting I click on various totally non-intuitive bits of the window to achieve this! I've just managed to add two separate stub templates, but it was still an uphill struggle. Pam D 07:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
Why not using a HTML5 WYSIWYG editro like Raptor or Mercury? https://www.raptor-editor.com/demo http://jejacks0n.github.io/mercury/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.11.115.148 ( talk) 07:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
....I do not know if this is due to the VisualEditor, but yesterday I deactivated it in my preferences, and this morning, although all my admin-buttons were available, the possibility to edit in mainspace was gone. When I changed my preferences again to allow VisualEditor, I could edit again..Thanks for your consideration. Lectonar ( talk) 08:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Would it kill you 8-P to put labels on the frikkin' buttons (Edit link, edit template...), at least in the pop-ups if not in the main toolbar?
There's this article about mystery meat navigation and it says it's a bad thing. You're forcing users to go though an intermediate step to edit a link or reference, you could as well inform the user of what that step means with something more than a cryptic icon. Cheers! Diego ( talk) 08:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
When editing inflammation, when I put the cursor just before the first word ("|Inflammation") and press backspace, the whole first paragraph is moved into the lead image caption.
Furthermore, when I put the cursor on the first, seemingly empty line, and press delete, the image unexpectedly disappears and the caption is converted to text. -- WS ( talk) 08:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
In the same article, when I put the cursor just below the "Leukocyte extravasation" header, again on a seemingly empty line, pressing backspace unexpectedly does nothing, while delete deletes the template below instead of removing the empty line. -- WS ( talk) 08:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Tested on Firefox 22, Mono skin:
Steps to reproduce
The output will be akin to the screenshot added. Some the template parameters end up next to eachother, and are thus offscreen. Even if that is not the case the description will often be to long to be displayed. Would be nice if those ended up on a new line if that occurred. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 09:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
When adding categories via page settings the cat does not show after pressing save edits - you have to click on article to see the new version. Cheers Berek Berek ( talk) 09:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
When editing a page visually you can ctrl+click a link to follow it (I just guessed you could do this, as it doesn't appear in the documentation I've seen), but the mouse pointed does not change from the editing I-beam to the link hand when doing so. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism is bound to increase as the users will be able to edit any article or topic within seconds. Also, the whole essence of learning Wikipedia markups will diminish. I am strongly against this! Please cancel this new idea!! By User:Utkarshsingh.1992
Somehow I was put into visual editor this morning. I really do not like it at all, and am cutting short editing this article (which really needs it) because of the bugs. Not only do I have to cut and paste to retain links, a space keeps reappeaaring at the beginning of a line in the middle of a paragraph, right after a citation which I also had to cut and paste to keep. I really resent having been dumped into this system. Jweaver28 ( talk) 11:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. The space at the beginning of the line after footnote 1 of the 1383-1385 Crisis page seems to be gone at last too. Jweaver28 ( talk) 13:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if this is a bug or an enhancement request but either way: It seems that fields marked as "Required" in the template data are not enforced as "Have to fill those in" in the template editor.
Steps to Reproduce
The template data marks "Title" and "URL" as required which is correct - without these the template will display an error and refuse to work. I would have assumed that required would mean "You have to fill these in before you can accept the template".
Besides this a suggestion for the template editor: Adding fields is somewhat painful for long lists. First you have to find the field, click it, scroll down to "add parameter". Since it will jump to the parameter tab adding 10 fields requires jumping around 10 times. It would be easier if you could add all fields in one go, sans scrolling down for each field. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 12:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
For doing cosmetic fixes and copy edits to small articles VE is really nice to use. -- NeilN talk to me 12:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The default image sizing is still wrong (Chrome on XP and Windows 7). I mention this as it's listed in the Fixes any time soon? section above as something that has been fixed. Edgepedia ( talk) 12:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
When I hover over the "edit" links in certain articles' sections with my cursor, the "[Edit|Edit source]" links do not appear; instead, clicking the "Edit" link results in the source being edited. Additionally, the "Edit" and "Edit source" links are present at the beginning of the article. (In essence, if one were to use VE on the article, they would have to edit the entire article.) Epicgenius( talk to me • see my contributions) 12:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
A similar bug was reported as # T51536, but closed as fixed a while ago. Article Otto I has a reference ("ref") to "Thompson" (numbered #11 in old edit mode) inside an explanatory footnote "efn". The notes are generated below the article using "notelist". Ref 11 Thompson is not included in the reflist of VE, but shown in regular read mode. Just compare the reference lists in read and in VE edit mode to see the difference. GermanJoe ( talk) 13:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
When editing a template, it would be great to see all the parameter values on one page, instead of having to click on the lateral tabs again and again.
I think it would allow faster, less tedious editing, and it would suit both beginners and more advanced contributors. Od1n ( talk) 13:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
There seems no way to edit the contents, or get to the original source, of a transclution table. I was trying to edit the Notes in the article on Paul Morphy. Shabd sound ( talk) 13:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
We seem to have lost the plus and minus options of Hotcat that were one of the closest to WYSIWYG features of this site. Please can they be incorporated into visual editor. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Many of the templates I add most often either have no parameters (eg stub templates), or take "date" as a parameter (maintenance templates like {{ unref}}), or take one or more positional parameters (eg {{ in title}} or {{ about}} or {{ coord}}).
The handling of templates seems to assume that each template has one or more named parameters.
Inputting a 3-parameter template like {{about|this|that|the other}} is very tedious, even after you've discovered how to do it (very non-intuitive). You can't see the content of previous parameters as you go along, so have to remember where you've got to. Messy and stressful and takes a whole lot of clicking.
It's probably too late to suggest this, but imagine the following scenario:
A further refinement would be for VE to be aware of (a) templates which take no parameters (eg stub templates), and (b) templates which only take the date (many maintenance templates), and in these two cases not to prompt for parameters (but to quietly add the date for (b), saving this having to be done by a passing bot later).
A yet further refinement would be for VE to recognise stub templates (they all end in "-stub", apart from {{ stub}} itself, so it shouldn't be hard), offer them as a separate drop-down menu (much easier when stub-sorting), and put them in the "right" (per WP:MOS) place at the end of the article.
Probably too much to hope for: but going back to the basics, please work out a way for parameters to be input without all the clicks involved in making "names" like "1", "2", etc. I haven't yet tried to add a coords parameter - something on the lines of {{coord|54|36|51|N|2|49|34|W|display=title}}. That's going to be really tedious.
... Getting a bit stream-of-consciousness here: can't we just have two columns of boxes: "parameter name if any" and "parameter contents" - perhaps 10 rows and a "More parameters" button. Then to input that coord template I'd just leave the first column blank and put the values I've got, in order, and hit "Apply changes". Simple, allows you to see previous params as you go to keep track of where you've got to, etc. Ah well, perhaps it's all in hand. Good luck. Pam D 14:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
It wouldn't edit GNU Lilypond code generated with the score expression.
It apparently doesn't edit LaTeX code or mathematics.
The Visual Editor is dead to me. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Great improvement Domiter ( talk) 14:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the default value defined in the templatedata (currently) isn't used while adding a template to a page.
Steps to reproduce
The textbox doesn't contain a default value and accepting it without change doesn't enter it in either. Not adding the parameter altogether also doesn't create a parameter containing the value Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs) 14:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I recently added a comma to an article in the edit before this one, and I was reverted for adding "nowiki" tags all over the place. I tried to repeat adding the comma, thinking I messed up the edit, and this happened. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 14:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Browser & OS information for both added to the bug. And, yes, Clem, it's similar to your signature appearing as Clem Rutter when your account is User:ClemRutter. :) I find Mdennis (WMF) a little impersonal, myself, so I edited my signature to include my first name. -- Maggie Dennis (WMF) ( talk) 19:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
<nowiki>...</nowiki>
or <nowiki />
. The user concerned
made a fair go of sorting the mess, but didn't finish the job. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 20:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)I know the visual editor is in its Beta edition, however I am going to be using Wikipedia as a teaching tools in one of my classes this fall and also will be doing a faculty workshop in using Wikipedia in the classroom. Probably it is too soon to incorporate the VE in the various tutorials, but any idea of the timeline for updating the tutorials? Domiter ( talk) 15:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
In its current state there are many operations that can only be applied in the source editor.
If you switch from the GUI editor to the source version, make an edit, and then switch back, the edit is lost.
This is bad. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 16:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm restoring this from archives. No bug has been filed, and the problem is easily reproducible. -- j⚛e decker talk 16:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Attempting to remove the space that is erroneously between the period and the following ref at the end of the penultimate sentence of the second paragraph at Michael Lowry (actor) fails--the editor visually appears to allow the change, but when the change is saved, no error is produced, nor is any change left in the article history. Reproduced in Chrome and Safari. -- j⚛e decker talk 15:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
After saving a minor edit at Long Island, I noticed that the VisualEditor added over 2kB of additional content. Cause was a table in the Sports section, which misses </tr> closing tags. Presumably due to this invalid markup, an incomplete "<tr" tag was added in front of the table, and half the table was copied to the end of the article in a malformed shape. The diff can be found here.
During the conversion from Wiki markup to HTML the </tr> tags are added, but apparently the VisualEditor doesn't handle the source in the same way. thayts t 16:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Forgot to note: I'm using Firefox 22.0 on Ubuntu. thayts t 16:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I absolutely hate it. Wren Valmont ( talk) 16:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
This may be easier to use for newer editors, but for those already familiar with editing Wikimedia text, it's not very easy to use and would be very cumbersome. I wouldn't use this and hope the direct source editing option continues to be available. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The revision of an article here has an interesting thing, a completely empty bulleted list item, which does not normally display when the article is read. It is just below the reflist, you can both confirm this in the old-style editor, and see it visually in VisualEditor. However, I have found myself unable to delete that from within Visual Editor without also deleting the preceding reference list, which is a little wacky from a UI point of view. E.g., I attempt to backspace over the bullet and I lose a reference list. Reproduced on Chrome and Safari. -- j⚛e decker talk 18:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
When I try to edit a formula with VE, I just get a popup with: "Sorry, this element can only be edited in source mode for now." This applies even to the most simple formulas like . I mean, really? Science articles may be only a fraction of the wikipedia articles. But they are an essential ingrediant for any universal encyclopedia. The inability to deal with formulas makes the VE hardly usable for these core articles.
Suggestion: If the VE cannot deal with an element, it should automatically divert to the source editor for this item. See how LyX deals with this kind of situation. Unfortunately, there is currently no way to gracefully edit the source while in VE.-- ---<)kmk(>--- ( talk) 19:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Templates inside other templates (e.g., flags inside an infobox) still require the use of the double curly braces syntax. I'm guessing it may be feasible and desirable to have recursive template structure editing. EJM86 ( talk) 21:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Clicking on "Cancel" brings up a confirmation dialog which asks, "Are you sure you want to go back into view mode without saving first?" with two button options: "OK" and "Cancel". That's not as unambiguous as you probably want. Those two buttons should be labeled "Yes, don't save" and "No, continue editing". EJM86 ( talk) 21:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I think various editors have said this before, but I'm feeling tired right now and have found it more of a problem than usually: a page open in VE needs to look much more distinctive. Otherwise it would be too easy to forget to Save Page and then absentmindedly close the tab on a page of edits. (Especially when juggling several tabs because checking different pages - even more so because Navigation Popups don't work in VE!). Even the header bar is almost monochrome. Could we have something like a red line all the way down the left-hand margin? Perhaps it would need to be an option, as some people would hate it. But I'd certainly find it helpful and I know I'm not alone. Pam D 22:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
What is the point of putting <nowiki>...</nowiki> in every edit made with the new editor even when there is wiki formatting between the tags that was inserted with the very software that stopped the formatting from being rendered on the edited page once saved! PantherLeapord ( talk) 23:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I was editing this revision of Chubby bunny to try to remove a thumbnail of a deleted image, the following wikitext:
When I click "Edit" on an article page, there is a wide shallow box near the top with a "Page notice" link. After clicking the jigsaw icon to add a template, this "Page notice" box remains in front of, and partly obscuring, the "Add template" box. It can be moved up out of the way by scrolling, but it's a nuisance. (Win7, FF21.0, standard 1366 x 768 screen).
JohnCD ( talk) 14:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Shp0ng1e ( talk) 17:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Zabadinho ( talk) 17:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
A number of serious bugs and missing important features have been identified from this initial rollout, which was the stated goal. So now that this set of major bugs has been identified, the sensible thing to do would be to turn it off until they are fixed. I'm not saying it needs to be bug-free, just take a couple weeks (or less) to address what's been brought up, after that, turn it back on for registered users for a week, and then complete the deployment schedule barring any more serious problems. To me this does not feel like beta software yet. Beta software is feature-complete, even if it may contain bugs. Don't press forward with what amounts to an alpha to a larger audience, it will be a disaster. I see no downside to going back to opt-in for a week or two. Gigs ( talk) 01:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there an easy way to change the order of categories? I think one has to remove and re-add them to change the order in which they're listed, which can't be efficient for articles with dozens of categories if I want to add a new one in the middle. Huon ( talk) 04:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I assume there are developers looking at the bug reports and working on this stuff. How quick is the deploy cycle (for large or small releases) for this period? i.e., how quickly should we expect things to get better? - David Gerard ( talk) 10:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
An extra space has been added in the bold text. Wouldn't it be better if bold and italic markings were sticking to the text they are applied to (excluding surrounding whitespace characters) ? -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 12:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
When you add a page to or remove it from your watchlist and start editing it directly after, the updated status is not preserved in the save changes dialog. -- WS ( talk) 13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there any plan to manage hidden categories in VE ? I couldn't find a way to view them or edit them with VE. -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 15:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
A late answer to the question of whether there are hidden categories that are actually embedded in articles: YES. For instance Category:Year of birth missing (living people) is directly embedded into some tens of thousands of them. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems rather odd to display notes implemented using the {{ efn}} template as "[lower-alpha 1]</ref>", for instance, but more seriously there seems to be no way to close the edit box after clicking on that other than to apply changes. Eric Corbett 22:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
dont like it Ngs61 ( talk) 15:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm a medical student who has been using wikipedia for years. I have no time to learn how to edit, and since medical school started (I'm a 4th year now), I have read hundreds and hundreds of articles that I wish I could have edited but didn't because I either didn't know how to, or I didn't know how to include references. Also, the community here doesn't exactly consist of nice people. Not that I'm here to make friends - but I'm not going to spend my time fixing something, only to have it reversed by some 10 year old who has no clue what he or she is talking about, yet exudes so much confidence because they've been editing articles for so long and they are "part of the community". I wouldn't even bother replying because I have no time (even if I did, I probably still wouldn't bother honestly).
I would just fix spelling mistakes every once in a while. I can't tell you how many medical articles on wikipedia are written by idiots. The medical profession hasn't been touching them because of the complexity involved when it comes to editing them. I know this for a fact because I have many many many classmates (and professors!) who have said the same thing. With this new visual editor thing, I edited my first article today! And by editing the article I don't mean I fixed the spelling mistakes. Thanks for finally realizing that quantity is very different from quality. There are people other than your heavy editors and your "community" that can contribute, and some actually know what they are talking about. Just because someone knows how to edit does not mean they have something meaningful to write. Thanks again! Boonshofter 23:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
KWW, what made it easier was that for the first time ever, I actually added a reference to an article. TCO, you are absolutely right. Boonshofter 02:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that also for the first time, I added words that you could click on (i.e. to see that word's wikipedia page). Also, I had no clue how to add references at the very bottom of the article, and put a number at the end of a sentence that you could click on that would take you to that reference at the bottom of the article. Notice how in my edit today I added some examples of medications. You can click on each of them and it will take you to each medication's respective page. You can also click on the number 3, and it will take you to the reference I added. I would spend hours trying to do that, and I could never make it work. I realize that to you guys this seems pretty ridiculous, especially since I've been using wikipedia for so long - you'd think I would get it by now. But I really don't have the time to learn how to, and even when I did have some time, I just couldn't wrap my head around it. Thanks again!Boonshofter 02:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
ADDITIONAL COMMENT TO ABOVE: I just do simple housekeeping edits so far but now I plan to take the time to learn the new visual editor. I think it will be very good for novice members as long as it doesn't lead to every man & his dog making changes they really should not. Princebuster5 ( talk) 04:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I completely understand. The thing though is that princebuster and I are both very inexperienced editors (at least I definitely am), so the functions that are troubling you and other users are so out of our league that we don't even know they exist. For example, I skimmed through this page reading complaints, and I couldn't understand a single thing. I feel that most users here on wikipedia are either computer programmers or have computer skills that are extremely advanced. I kid you not - 99% of the info on this page is way above my head. I'm a pretty smart guy, so you can imagine my frustration. Therefore, don't expect my sympathy - not because I don't want to give it, but because I simply can't, since I have no clue what you guys are going through. I trust your community's judgment, i.e. if you guys feel that this visual editor needs to be eliminated, then it needs to be eliminated. People like me will get over it, and we will still be here once the fixed version of it is reinstated. I didn't mean to offend with my comments above - I just got a little excited because it felt like I finally knew what I was doing after being on here for so long. All the best. Boonshofter ( talk) 08:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This is freaking hilarious. You all are hassling a newbie who likes the new interface. And you want it turned off even though, you still have manual editing on another tab. There's a huge disconnect here of people thinking in terms of what THEY like to use (or what self-selected current editors do) versus potential users do. This place is way, way, way overbalanced to IT types. You need more artists, writers, and business people. There are a lot of them out there in the "real world".
Plus turning it on and just trying to make it work is a great way to just move a project forward. This thing has dawdled YEARS past when WMF started talking about it. And then some of the "ZOMFG change" whiners...sheesh. Like crying about the damned edit button sliding to the left. Or the orange bar complaints. Just step back and think about how silly that looks with some distance from Wiki Pculture. ;-)
TCO ( talk) 17:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
P.s. Erik: keep it on. Always easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. ;-)
Looking through the recent changes I was surprised at how few edits are now taged with visual editor. Looking at those tagged VisualEditor [33] we seem to be getting one or two edits per minute out of a total of about 30 changes per min at the moment. Restricting recent changes to articles [34] I'm typically seeing two or three edits in the last 50. Either way its looking like a smaller than 10% uptake. Also IP edits are not getting tagged VE, I though it was on for all IPs.-- Salix ( talk): 06:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
All the edit section links are now pointing to the wikitext editor. The flyover [edit | edit source] has vanished. Anyone know why? — This, that and the other (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you guys should hire an East End thug to come round and "have a quiet word". Works a charm! -- Hillbillyholiday talk 09:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't figure out how to use a template on the page. If I type {{template-name}}, a <nowiki> tag is automatically added. — Preceding comment added by Sky Lined ( talk • contribs) ; original signature removed while fixing wiki markup errors NtheP ( talk) 13:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Check out this version of a page that I saw a little while back. Open in another tab, please. Do you see that line of white space at the top? I don't believe it's possible to remove it using Visual Editor. (See this diff using VE--can you do better than I did?) — Preceding comment added by Red Slash ( talk • contribs) ; original signature removed while fixing wiki markup errors NtheP ( talk) 13:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
If you can't get it to load on normal browsers (Firefox), then it shouldn't be made the default at all. I've disabled it, just like every other 'visual editor' I've come across. Buggy, refuses to load. No thanks. The disable option needs to be taken out of the "Gadget" section where it is stacked with dozens of other things along with a "YOU USE THESE AT YOUR OWN RISK" warning implying this isn't the right way to use wikipedia, and be moved onto the "Editing" tab in preferences. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 11:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
First of all thanks to all the staff and volunteers who have put effort into this crucially important project. I'm surprised and impressed at how it's not just a visual editor but a WYSIWYG editor.
My minor problem is that I'm editing a userspace draft which has links to [[Avon (county)|Avon]]. Each time I edit, those links get rewritten as [[../Avon_(county)|Avon]] which breaks the link, even though I haven't edited that bit of the page. Didn't see this on a quick scan of the feedback page. Apologies if this is a bug reported a hundred times already. MartinPoulter ( talk) 11:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to change the alignment of a table (centered to the page to aligned to the left vertical). And I'm looking at a whole bunch of nothing. It's weird. I don't like it. It seems to be the big kids-bouncy-castle version of Wikipedia, where you can't hurt anything but at the same time, you're extremely limited. If only, if only, at the very least there is an option, a toggle, a quick button to easily get to code if I need to. Sometimes its just easier that way. [edited to add: I figured out how to edit code, but I had to exit the thingy, then go back in to edit source. You can't go straight from one to the other.] - Gohst ( talk) 12:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:VisualEditor, it says that in the week of 8 July, there is the "Launch to all logged-in and anonymous users as the default editor" on enwiki. And that one week later, the same "on other first-stage projects" ("TBD – definitely dewiki, frwiki, itwiki. Probably also arwiki, nlwiki, hewiki, hiwiki, jawiki, kowiki, ruwiki, plwiki, eswiki and svwiki").
All members of the VE team seem to simply ignore all the posts where users ask to make a break for fixing bugs, rethinking some of the graphical interfaces so they can be really used for editing WP (templates, references, images, conflicts, section editing, ...), including a few suggestions to have a really useful editor.
So, I'm asking. What's the plan ? Is it still the schedule displayed in Wikipedia:VisualEditor ? -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 12:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
<math>...</math>
, same for other extension tags...). --
NicoV (
Talk on frwiki) 14:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
What does this "Launch to all logged-in users as the default editor" mean exactly? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This editor is clearly not ready for use, now. Having said that, I think the beta is really promising. A good start.-- Wickey-nl ( talk) 14:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Okeyes: How can you be following this page and say "Off the top of my head I can only think of table editing and mathematical formulae." How about?
This editor shows promise, but it isn't ready for use at this time. It needs to be pulled back, fixed, and redeployed after it is fixed. The development team certainly can stay busy for several months correcting the known bugs, and they don't need to be dealing with a live deployment while they do.— Kww( talk) 15:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I take it that we're already rolling out to some new editors: Special:Contributions/Portal707 -- j⚛e decker talk 15:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I don't know if it's due to VE, but since it's something that might, I'm reporting it. On enwiki, Ctrl+click on Edit in this discussion (at the top of the page, or near each section) doesn't open the edit in a new tab, but in the same tab. This is usually useful to check things outside the section while answering in it. On frwiki, it's working. I'm using Chrome Version 27.0.1453.110 m (currently updating to next version). -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 13:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
With all the problems with VE Its really starting to get annoying all the talk about it being a "beta". This is not a beta. Its barely better than an alpha test. Major bugs, limited functionality, hundreds of people disabling it, etc. A lot of people including me have been saying it in various ways but I am going to be extremely direct, blunt and probably a little rude because I want to be clear. Visual editor has a lot of promise but right now its garbage and basically unusable. It needs to be turned off until the bugs can be whittled down. No one expects a perfect product but this application isn't even close to ready. The WMF keeps saying they are serious about supporting this app and how they hired more people. No one cares. We want to be able to edit and to build the project and many of us would love a working Visual editor. But this application is an absolute mess and is only making things harder to edit, not easier. If you turn this on for all the IP's you are asking for widespread problems. I know that no one really cares but I am not going to be editing much for a while largely because of VE. We have told the WMF it has problems and they do not cre what we say. So I don't feel like I should have to clean up their mess when they can prevent it by putting off the release for a month. When the WMF takes this project seriously and stops treating it like a sewer to test broken applications I'll think about returning to regular editing. Kumioko ( talk) 14:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I played with it on my user's page. All right. Weird but one can find ways. I don't think I'll have more time to play with it. I would not use even an excellent VE because I am so powerful with markup. When rolled out to my chapter I won't even see it, because my Firefox 3.5.6 is blacklisted. But the main thing is that I do not belong to the target category of users. Probably I'd use it for minor grammar corrections. Seems it is OK in that department. Angry comments here come from users who are as powerful with markup as I am. No VE can match that power. I'd recommend to suspend blocks with templates at the moment. Remember that the target category do not know, do not want to know and do not have to know what a template is. Those who want templates will learn markup. People who want find means. The same with math. I will always prefer LaTeX and that should be prepared in text editor and compiled. -- Holigor ( talk) 15:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Quite a bit of the random stylistic cleanup I do when working on drafts at WP:AFC would be easier if could apply the Visual Editor. Due to a quirk of history, however, those drafts are stored in the Wikipedia Talk namespace. I wish that didn't completely exclude the possibility of using the VE, but I can't say that this wish is anything like a priority, either. -- j⚛e decker talk 15:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to have a statistic available for the number of recent edits which have been done using Visual Editor vs. not on a daily basis. Further, it might be useful to query those people who are using Visual Editor specifically about their experiences ... I think that a lot of the feedback is biased by those people who are prone to feedback rather than representing the actual user base. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 16:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Using Firefox 19.0.2 on Windows Vista, editing Relativity Media. Find "subsidairies", right-click, select "subsidiaries". The word appears changed, but the "Save" button is not activated. Chris the speller yack 17:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
For items that require a popup window (e.g. references, templates), it would be much more user friendly to allow one to open that popup window using a "double-click". Clicking on the item to reveal the puzzle piece (or other icon) and then having to move my cursor and click again on the icon is unnecessary effort. Dragons flight ( talk) 19:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Apparently VE allows one to type markup directly into transclusion parameters and it continues to treat it as markup. Personally, I kind of like this behavior, but I think it violates the paradigm that the developers were going for.
To replicate:
Dragons flight ( talk) 20:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
When one is typing in the visual editor, if you include text that would be wikimarkup, e.g. [[a]], then VE wraps the entire section in <nowiki> tags. Unfortunately "section" ends up translating as everything from the previous bit of markup (or newline) until the following bit of markup (or newline). Given the way text is written this can mean an entire paragraphs is nowiki-ed, rather than just the portion containing the offending text. To add to the problem, anything in nowiki tags is presently uneditable by VE, so one can write a long block in VE, save it, and then find you can't edit if via VE any more.
If nowiki tags are going to be used, they should be more narrowly targeted to the offending element rather than also wrapping large swaths of plain text on either side. For simple elements like []{}, I would suggest you might even do better to default to HTML entities rather than using nowiki. Dragons flight ( talk) 20:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Using CTRL K is a big mistake when it comes to key bindings, when adding a link the editor will likely be using the mouse with one hand and the keyboard with the other and CTRL K is a bit of a stretch for many including myself, I suggest adding a link should be bond to something closer to the left CTRL button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Has there been any discussion of certain templates being totally invisible on VE when there are advantages in having editors be able to see them? Some templates, such as "Use British English" and "Use dmy dates", besides adding hidden categories, serve notice to editors that a specific style is appropriate for that page. This helps keep a professional look, and perhaps prevents some international incidents between editors on opposite sides of the pond. Chris the speller yack 21:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see it noted anywhere in the archives, but VE does not handle parser functions correctly.
Parser function syntax is generally {{#function_name : expr1 | expr2 | expr3 | ... }}
Currently VE sees this as a template with name "#function_name : expr1" and arguments "1 = expr2", "2 = expr3", etc. This makes it impossible to edit expr1 in VE. Dragons flight ( talk) 21:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Essentially the same issue occurs with all the magic words. Not so important for things like {{PAGENAME}}, but the ones that take parameters like {{urlencode: XYZ & 123 }} and {{formatnum:987654321.654321}} won't be handled correctly. Dragons flight ( talk) 22:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Attempts to edit/add a hyperlink (internal Wikipedia link) results in an undefined target resulting in a 404 error. See the related page, "...Wit (white) beer..." that should link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witbier#Witbier -- but there is no way to correct/specify the target URL, either as internal or external.
Webistrator ( talk) 23:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
For your information, we are amending the deployment schedule of the VisualEditor and pushing the rollout to IP editors by a week. This will give us more time to squash bugs especially in the areas of dirty diffs, as well as the notorious T52441.
Following the deployment to the English Wikipedia last Monday, many more users have taken the time to test VisualEditor and provide feedback. You and others have reported many bugs and issues previously unnoticed, and we're very grateful for our community to have provided so much detailed feedback. We also appreciate that the launch of this beta has been disruptive. Extensive testing notwithstanding, the process of cleanly generating wikitext from a rich-text interface is very complex and somewhat fragile, which is what causes VisualEditor to sometimes insert "dirty diffs". Caching and infrastructure issues can make issues arise in a production context that weren't previously seen. We're thankful for your patience, understanding and support.
We appreciate continued reports in Bugzilla as well as on this feedback page. As we work to squash bugs, we are prioritizing bugs that impact content and stability. We are also looking for ways to educate users that they're in the VisualEditor, and don't need to use wikitext - and in fact, will create problems if they do. (See T52601.)
We are planning to deploy the VisualEditor beta to anonymous users on English Wikipedia on 15 July. We will follow, with a multi-language test rollout to a selected language set on 22 July, with a target date for full deployment to all Wikipedias on 29 July. Of course, the farther we get down that schedule, the more likely it is that things may change, so it is possible that the full deployment will need to be pushed into August. Because of Wikimania and staff availability, that would mean we'd be looking at full deployment somewhere around 19 August.
We hope that you'll continue to test VisualEditor as we improve it, and provide us with more feedback. Our goal is for VisualEditor to not only become as bug-free as possible but to eventually become the best collaborative authoring tool on the planet. The only way we can get there is through continued iteration and continued feedback along the way.
Jdforrester (WMF) ( talk) 00:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
When you go to hit a section edit link, it rolls out edit source to the right leaving (with VisualEditor) in the location you just clicked, thereby loading VisualEditor. This is irksome when what you want to do is edit the source in the way we've always done. Moreover it is visually distractive to have links rolling out as you move your mouse cursor around the page. Please change this to static links with and edit source fixed next to each other. Thank you.
More broadly, I think this VisualEditor should be an opt-in Gadget under Preferences, rather than replacing the default way of editing. There are browser functionality and performance issues with it as well. Irānshahr ( talk) 00:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I had trouble with the graphs in visual editor. FoUTASportscaster ( talk) 00:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
This new editor is awful & unusable. Ultra slow(using java presumably?) Please at least allow people the option to choose the old editing method. Yaguchi ( talk) 02:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Ah, I didn't notice the edit source link. Ok ignore my comment. Yaguchi ( talk) 02:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I have really enjoyed this new editor so far. I like being able to make the changes in the article without having to scroll up and down to look at the original text while editing. I also like that it also works with my browser's spellcheck function that lets me know that I've at least spelled my words correctly. I used to be a heavier editor, and I will be able to at least do some grammatical editing when I see fit because the new VisualEditor makes editing seem like less of a chore than before. The only thing that will take some getting used to is that you do not state what changes you have made until after you hit "save", which can be a little unnerving if you aren't used to it. If there are any problems, I'll make it known. SailorAlphaCentauri ( talk) 03:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I ran into an interesting problem when editing a page with the VisualEditor. I made a change that ended up creating a weird format to my edit (it put my edited text into a separate box that I did not design or place there), but when I went to edit it again, I was told that I was editing an old version of the page and that any changes made would erase the previous edits. The only workaround I could come up with was to refresh the page before editing again. It's also a little weird that when I click "edit" to work on a particular section, VisualEditor will allow me to edit the entire page. I'm not sure if I dislike this yet or not, but I was surprised to see that happen. Sometimes the end is only the beginning... ( talk) 04:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I just wrote a section of an article using VisualEditor, and I was troubled by the lack of the ability to assign a name to a reference (which is what I typically do) or to have interactive help when using the rp template. I found it much easier to use the old referencing dialogs (I believe I have ProveIt). RJaguar3 | u | t 05:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I deliberately edited Roller coaster, an article under Pending Changes that had an unreviewed change, using my administrator account, using VisualEditor. When editing source, there would be an edit notice advising of the pending change, which is not present with VisualEditor. Nonetheless, edits by an administrator account are supposed to be automatically accepted. Instead, my edit was made subject to review. See screenshot. I'll do a bugzilla for this, and will note that Flagged Revisions also needs to be checked for this issue. Risker ( talk) 06:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Just had a go at adding a reference to James Gordon MacGregor (to replace an existing somewhat malformed "links" section). Ouch.
Nothing intuitive, no indication how to get anything like the helpful prompts from the dear old RefToolbar. Oh dear.
Ah, when I save it, the two copies of Reflist take effect and I have a duplicated single-entry list of refs. But, as with several previous comments, we need to be able to see in VE the effects of our VE edits, because lack of visual feedback causes confusion!
Will now go into Edit Source to fix the article. Pam D 20:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad to know this has been marked ANSWERED, otherwise I might have thought there were no answers in it. The entire subject of "transclusion," including its arcane name is illusive at best. When I needed to modify a reference it showed up blue and wouldn't let me select any part of it. So, good doobie that I am, I clicked on the puzzle piece icon (a good choice because its use is puzzling) which gave me the option of adding a parameter or removing the template. I chose to remove the template. To my surprise, this also removed the content, though of course I couldn't see that until I had saved the page. Camdenmaine ( talk) 00:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I now see what I did wrong, that I should have selected one of the parts of the template on the left and then I would have been allowed to edit that. But I've left my comment as was because I'm guessing other people will stumble just as I did. The visual clues of the blue box are all wrong. You click on a part of it (of course you would, because it's what you want to change), it frustrates you by not responding. Similarly the visual clues of the template parts in the left hand column are also imperfect. What makes matters a bit worse is that people insert additional information in any one of the template parts (say a comment after publisher name), and whoever wants to edit that has to guess what slot the comment resides in. Finally, the dialog box gives me an option to edit the template, but I have no idea what this means. Am I editing it for everyone, or just my copy? I can imagine someone who wants to edit information contained in a template parameter deciding that he has to edit the template to get at it. I wish I had a constructive comment to offer, how to improve the VE in this respect, but I don't. (Human interface problems are really hard.) One thing I would do in an instant is get rid of the word transclusion (which doesn't even pass spellcheck). Camdenmaine ( talk) 00:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Sadly, the use of templates is much more accessible in markup (edit source) than in the VE. I am finally baffled as to how I'm supposed to enter a citation in VE using a template. When I click on the references icon, it lets me enter a citation in unstructured text, but won't let me use any of the four essential templates that are accessible to me in markup. When I click on the puzzle icon (I refuse to use the stupid name that the creators have given it), I'm presented with a dialog box which is, to me at least, completely incomprehensible. This is not a minor flaw. The entire reason for the VE is to appeal to non-geek content experts, historians, philosophers, etc. If all they're entering is text, the VE is fine, but so is markup. Where editing gets dicey is in adding citations. This is hard in markup if you use the Wiki markup icons at the bottom of the edit box, less hard if you use the Templates dropdown in the toolbar, and impossible if you're using the VE. pagnol ( talk) 13:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Whew. Well, I hope this is apparent to everyone, not just me, but this whole process is so deeply anti-intuitive that it simply wrecks the expectation that a new user should have when working with a "Visual Editor." In particular:
What makes this all particularly sad is that in Edit Source mode you get a toolbar Templates rollbar that is truly visual, and that has none of the problems cited above.
This is not a documentation problem; the design concept for dealing with templates in the VE is just wrong. pagnol ( talk) 13:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The new visual editor looks great BUT it is that easy for a novice user to accidentally delete an infobox because they simply don't know one is there. Can someone please attend to this as a matter of urgency? Given most project maintained pages have an infobox, I can't believe this wasn't thought of before it was deployed. See West Swan, Western Australia for an example. Orderinchaos 06:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The "edit" links on sections are purely decorative and will never be otherwise. Official word:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48429
Imagine a world in which everyone can share in the sum of all human knowledge, if they live in San Francisco - David Gerard ( talk) 16:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Enhancement" means "the software doesn't do this, and isn't as-written meant to do this"; it's not a judgement on whether it should. "Lowest priority" means "the core developers of this are not intending to work on this issue any time soon"; bugs are always open to other developers coming and working on them, which frequently happens.
I appreciate it's a hard problem, but the problem is now that the interface lies. You're providing section links that the person project-managing the VE says will not be funded to work. - David Gerard ( talk) 07:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not a specialist, but I think the section should open in a separate frame on top of the article page (while maintaining the possibility to scroll through the whole article).-- Wickey-nl ( talk) 09:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
For those who want to comment in Bugzilla threads here is a help page: WP:Bugzilla. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 03:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It would be better if it put you back into the normal editor when you tried to do something it can't yet support like adding pictures. I was able to fix things by changing my preferences to opt out of the visual editor, but a newbie would just be stuck and bitten. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday Visual Editor was working when I clicked on "Edit" next to a heading on my user page but now it doesn't load even though I didn't disable it when I go to edit my user page
Just wanted to give some thoughts after the last update:
@ Mdennis (WMF): OK...I think I uploaded it here. Hope I used the right copyrights. Notice how when I put the mouse on the text of the reference/template, the blue line appears on the title "reference content". I can't click it so I can edit the template. TeamGale ( talk) 18:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to know if the last bug with the misplaced edit on the references template was reported? I think it not but I might be wrong... TeamGale ( talk) 00:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC) @ Mdennis (WMF): I know you are not here these two days, just a reminder to look at the last bug when you get back :) TeamGale ( talk) 09:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to add a reference to "Steve Smith (pool player)" and clean up the page. I am unable to add a citation. This instruction from the user guide does not work: "Then, click the "Insert reference" button to open the reference editor." The reference editor does not open up after inserting a reference. Vcczar ( talk) 18:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I was personally one of those who managed not to notice the impending change to the interface, so I'm apparently blind. I'm also exactly the kind of person who was going to be annoyed by it----I've been editing a while, I'm set in my ways, I'm accustomed to how things are, and I'm a Linux user. (Might as well have turned off the custom interface for Linux users by default. "I use Linux" means "I'm comfortable with scary text windows full of code", "I'm accustomed to all changes to my computer interface requiring my permission", "I'm obsessively focused on increasing speed through low consumption of system resources", and surprisingly often, "I have an enormous beard". The Visual Editor might as well have a routine that detected my operating system and waved a little white flag...)
I think the main lesson for the WMF in this was making the "turn it off!" button too hard to find. The business of trying to decrease its prominence so more users would try the Visual Editor was poor form----it was an example of the Foundation trying to manage how I spend my volunteering time. That's not appropriate, you don't manage that. In future, I'll be the judge of how my volunteering time is spent. The next time you make a change of this kind, please put the opt-out button front and centre without any fuss or argument at all.— S Marshall T/ C 18:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
It would be very nice to show changed text in a different font and/or color (or bg color), while editing. It helps seeing what you are editing. -- Wickey-nl ( talk) 09:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I edit on a laptop and therefore use keyboard shortcuts whenever possible. The standard keyboard shortcut for Edit (alt-shift-E in Windoze) has stopped working and the tooltip offers "Edit the source code of this page [<accesskey-ca-editsource>]". A couple of questions and a couple of comments.
Q1) which particular key combination is <accesskey-ca-editsource>?
Q2) having used the gadget to get this extension off my screen, shouldn't everything have reverted to the previous "normal"?
C1) for those of us with smaller screens this extension takes up too much screen real-estate. The edit bar at the top needs to be much smaller (I'm using Monobook with maxium screen resolution and it's still huge).
C2) the standard keyboard short cuts for going back a page in the browser don't work (alt-←) and the logical alternative of using the escape key to cancel also doesn't work. — Preceding comment added by Beeswaxcandle ( talk • contribs) ; original signature removed while fixing wiki markup errors NtheP ( talk) 13:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I prefer editing as much as possible by hand, not using pop-up windows. I couldn't do the necessary edits to an articles because I didn't understand how to do the most simplest of edits (using the previous system). Kaiser Torikka ( talk) 12:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
If a person sees "23–30 metres (75–98 ft)" and needs to change '30' to '35', editing the "Convert" template shows parameters 1 through 4, and the user has to guess which one needs to be changed. If the template editor displayed "{{convert|23|-|30|m}}" at the top of the box, the user should be able to see at a glance what do. Same goes for "{{frac|6|1|2}}" if "6+1⁄2" needs to be changed to "6+1⁄4". Obviously, this would be undesirable for lengthy templates, like infoboxes. Chris the speller yack 15:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, it would be nice if template parameters weren't placed in alphabetical order, but instead in the order of where they are in the template. This makes it much easier to locate and edit them (especially when it comes to infoboxes, as I always expect the name parameter to be first). Insulam Simia ( talk/ contribs) 15:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Please add the ability to edit tables (add/remove rows/columns) to the Visual Editor. Thank you. Mattsephton ( talk) 16:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I hate it. All the [[links]] are now static and given the "./". It's annoying and can ruin articles if not done right. Hitmonchan ( talk) 00:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there any VE specific CSS classes applied to the whole page that would allow editors to create elements that are visible during VE edit mode but not visible in the main read mode? This could serve a role similar to hidden comments and instructional templates (e.g. {{ use British English}}) which are intended to be shown to editors but not readers. At present the VE edit mode, doesn't allow such elements to be visible. Dragons flight ( talk) 00:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
In this edit [35] VE has change ''F''<sup>''i''0</sup> (Fi0) to ''F<sup>i</sup>''<sup>0</sup> (Fi0). While they render the same the semantics are different ''F'' indicates a variable so ''F''<sup>''i''0</sup> indicates a variable raised to the variable i0. In then second version we have a variable Fi raised to the power zero, (mathematically this always evaluates to 1, see Exponentiation#Arbitrary integer exponents). Even without the 0 I would say ''F''<sup>''i''</sup> is more correct than ''F<sup>i</sup>''. Quite a number of similar subtle mathematical formatting changes are seen in the Tag:visualeditor-needcheck.-- Salix ( talk): 06:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Would be nice to have option to show changes (in the source) when submitting, as you can already do when editing source. Maybe not by default (as the whole point of the visual editor is to avoid exposing the source to the user) but for users who are very familiar with the wiki syntax but just want to make a quick edit with the VE, it would be nice. laug ( talk) 07:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I found that I was unable to edit a 'See also' section in the article Dumpster diving that had the {{div col|3}} and {{div col end}} tags around it. I simply got a shaded blue area when clicking on it that couldn't be modified. My browser is Google Chrome 27.0.1453.110 and my operating system is Ubuntu 12.10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilKeyboardCat ( talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I've seen a couple of edits where odd markup is inserted at top and bottom of page, [38] added <div id="myEventWatcherDiv" style="display:none;"></div> and [39] added <embed type="application/iodbc" width="0" height="0" />.-- Salix ( talk): 07:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
[40] beginning with Sebastián Covarrubias' Tesoro de la lengua castellana o española.
In Visual Editor the text turns bold after Covarrrubias' while in normal page view it doesn't. -- Darklingou ( talk) 09:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
can not add references Hans100 ( talk) 09:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that it takes a really long time to load, to the point that, the last few times I tried it, I thought it wasn't working. I do wonder if it's because I opened the link in a new tab. — trlkly 10:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems that I cannot edit my adoptee's adoption page. Maybe it is down to the fact that I have User:Jcc/Adoption/Nav over it? Anyways, I was expecting a lot more from VE than this. jcc ( tea and biscuits) 10:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Is the following possible?
Always start in edit-source mode, but make the code invisible by default (=WYSIWYG).
With, e.g. ALT+F10, show the code and vice versa.
So, one edit mode, but two screen-versions.--
Wickey-nl (
talk) 10:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
At Eltham Well Hall rail crash#See also I attempted to change the first link from Morpeth rail crash to Morpeth rail crashes (both redirects to Morpeth rail crashes). The VE did change the link but piped the original text - [[Morpeth rail crashes|Morpeth rail crash]] [41]
Further testing in my userspace shows that this happens regardless of the status of the link: [42]
Because piped links are not shown, the VE gives no impression of having done anything. Indeed after trying to change the first link twice I was expecting to come here with a report that the link wasn't changed. It wasn't until I looked at the source that I saw what happened. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
There really needs to be a way for me to able to sign with VisualEditor, as I always end up making two edits when VE adds nowikis around the tildes. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 11:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The VE is still unusable for me due to a huge increase in load and save time. Please don't take the edit source option away while this issue continues. Lesion ( talk) 13:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I've added template data to Template:RCDB put nothing comes up when I try to add it to an article using VE. What did I do wrong?-- Dom497 ( talk) 13:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
When a template call has been edited, VE often displays some of the piped links as wiki code. For example, edit Luton, click the infobox and then the puzzle piece to edit the template. Make any parameter change or no change at all and click "Apply changes". A lot of the blue links in the infobox are now rendered as black pipe code, for example [[List of towns in the United Kingdom|Town]] instead of Town. Note: No nowikis have been added by VE here. This is about VE's own rendering and not code pollution with nowiki tags. On the plus side, this error means you can actually see where piped template links go. This normally appears impossible in VE. Other errors in VE's display after the template edit are a false Cite error about missing {{reflist}} ( bugzilla:50423), and the coordinates displaying at the bottom of the page instead of the top. I think VE could really use the "Show preview" button of the source editor which actually displays the page as it will look when saved, including categories, clickable wikilinks in templates and captions, and other details missed in VE. It could also use the one-click "Show changes" with return to editing instead of the cumbersome and illogical three-click "Save page", "Review your changes", "^". If Review your changes also displayed the rendered page below (correctly as in the source editor) then it would be helpful. Ironically, VE often makes it harder than the source editor to find out what your edit will do. PrimeHunter ( talk) 13:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I've tried the editor again on List of Metal Gear characters, and it's awful at the moment. I try to edit, and the thing takes forever to load. Then it doesn't go to the section I want it to go to, then when I try to review the change I made, that takes forever. Then when I try to save the change, it takes forever to save. In fact, it took so long that I reverted to editing the source code. I agree with one of the other users who commented here now: it seems far more like an alpha than a beta. I know these issues are probably common, but I really needed to put my thoughts here. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 14:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Using VE, editing a section delimited with <pre> </pre> markup will result in all blank lines in the section being unexpectedly removed. Bevo ( talk) 15:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
This is amazing <3 Works so cleanly, looks incredible.
Glad to see my donation being put to good use!!
Cheers guys. Samcooke343 ( talk) 16:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Speed: It is very slow to the point where I'm using it less.
Edit Summary: I wish this appeared at the same time as you edit (as in "Edit Source"). I can't remember everything I changed! I usually include the grammar rules.
Limitations: How does one edit links in Visual Edit? Can we? I think a much better visual format without Wiki markup would be what the Harry Potter Wikia (and maybe more, but that's the one I'm all over) does. It is seen more like an email where you can add links, change text formatting, and add references with the push of a button and filling out of a form without having to search through all the references and watch out for links with different names as sometimes occurs with Wikipedia source editing.
Thanks for trying something new, though, Wikipedia! It's exciting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustAMuggle ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
i have like 10,000 edits, i think i can manage without this bloated slow awful thing Decora ( talk) 17:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
How do I disable VisualEditor?
|
---|
To continue to edit the wikitext directly, simply click the "Edit source" button instead of "Edit". On section edit links, you can open the classic wikitext editor for that section by clicking "edit source" instead of the regular "edit" link. If you would like to remove VisualEditor from the user interface, then you can go to the Gadgets tab of your Preferences page, check the option "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface" in the "Editing" section, and click the Save button near the bottom of the page. (Note that gadgets are community-developed and not supported by the Wikimedia Foundation.) |
gde preview button??????????????? Decora ( talk) 17:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I know there has been much discussion about the problem of edit conflicts but I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before (I thought I saw something but couldn't find it). The slow speed of the editor can make problems for even simple edits on highly edited pages which are already difficult enough at times. I believe there are plans for much more sophisticated edit conflict management including allowing some form of real time collaboration but just thought I'd mention it so the team get an idea of where things stand now. I also believe I did get some edit conflicts where the section had not been changed but I'm not sure of this as I wasn't aware it was a point of contention. I did encounter what appears to be a bug. Sometimes even though I just used the edit link on the page rather then specifically viewing an older revision, I ended up editing an older version (i.e. I was warning I'm editing an older version). I presume this warning was accurate although I never confirmed that I killed older edits, of course I probably would have been edit conflicted anyway. (I think I may have had this once or twice before with the source editor, over the years but if it still happens it's rare. I must have gotten this 6 times or so the other day when dealing with the Egyptian coup article.) One thing is this must be difficult to test in the real world, you need to wait for a major event to happen. So a better bet may be a sandbox with a bot editing every minute or so. Nil Einne ( talk) 18:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
This was reported last week here and tracked as Bugzilla:37860 which has been marked as "resolved - duplicate of Bugzilla:33105"; but 33105 has been reassigned to cover only copy/paste from external sources. Its comment 9 dated 29 June says "With this change: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/13423/ rich copying and pasting from other ve instances (same wiki, same browser) is supported." But it doesn't work - see this result of copy-pasting a formatted section from the beginning of User:JohnCD/VEtest. Maybe that change is still in the release pipeline; if not, can we reopen this? JohnCD ( talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Most of the time the VE link function seems to be aware of redirects, but I stumbled on the following example that it doesn't seem to understand:
[[Hands-on universe|Hands-On Universe]]
When edited with VE, if you open the link it complains that the page Hands-on universe doesn't exist even though it does (and has for many years). Maybe it is something to do with the fact that the link and display text differ only by casing? Not sure. Dragons flight ( talk) 19:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I raised this on Weds 3rd, and it was marked as "tracked" by T52646, but that doesn't seem to hit the spot. I'll repeat my point here:
If I'm looking at incoming links to an article, perhaps because the base name is about to become a dab page, I sometimes find that they're piped links, and not visible in the article text. With Edit Source, once I've opened the editor I know I can find a piped link using ctrl-F "Find". In VE there seems no equivalent. Look at my example above. The linked bug doesn't seem to address this issue: I don't want to have to hover over each link in turn to see its target URL, I want to be able to search a massive long article to find the one or more piped links I need to tweak. Pam D 21:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
One thing I don't particularly care for about the VisualEditor is that you either have to edit entirely visually or entirely in source. If you want to switch (say you started in Visual, but you want to switch to source to get something fancy working), you have to either discard your changes or save a partial edit in visual and create a second edit in source. What I want to see is a means of switching between the two at will within the same edit. Wordpress does something similar where you can type up a blog post to switch between visual rendering and HTML source using tabs surrounding the edit window. You can switch between visual and HTML at will and each will be updated. I want to see the same thing with the Wikipedia VisualEditor. - Thunderforge ( talk) 21:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
If you open a page in the VisualEditor, make a few changes, and then decide to hit the "Cancel" button, you get a message that says "Are you sure you want to go back to view mode without saving first?". The options are "OK" and "Cancel", which aren't really proper answers to this yes/no question. As such, I'd like to request that instead the buttons be replaced with "Yes" and "No", which are clear responses to the question. - Thunderforge ( talk) 21:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems that when I use the Beta Editor, as long as I am editing the normal page gets scrunched. MeanMotherJr ( talk) 22:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
This new way of editing sucks. You can't properly review your edits to make sure your edit actually works before saving. This is especially true when it comes to things like adding links. Stephen Day ( talk) 22:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
When editing Viareggio train derailment#See also, the suggestions list didn't include Lac-Mégantic derailment (the link I was trying to add). Obviously we can't expect instant updates, but the Lac-Mégantic article was ~5 hours old when I made my edit [44] [45]. It really needs to be quicker than this as major news events often quickly gather inbound links from all sorts of related articles. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Even though section editing in VE is a long way off, it would be really helpful if the title of the section you click edit on was automatically included in the edit summary in the same way that the source editor does. For example, when making this edit I launched the VE by clicking on the edit link for the "See also" section, so I was expecting the edit summary to begin with the usual "-> See also". This provides context for the edit summary and so helps give context at recent changes and on watchlists.
I'll put this in bugzilla myself, but I thought it useful feedback to have here too. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm from pt.wiki, we display edit notices when editing so some users can't figure out where to click to get ride off the pop up, I suppose not all people know the modal concept at all.
Dianakc (
talk) 23:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Remove weird padding inside the flyout popup. I 'm not sure others but the editnotices seems strange inside the flyout because there's a weird padding inside the popup, without the padding the templates would look nicer (there´s already padding in most edinotices templates by default). Dianakc ( talk) 23:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes when editing the source, editors will leave comments to other editors that are not visible to readers, e.g. "Please do not add X to this list" or "Discussion has established the following consensus". These need to be visible to editors using the visual editor too. I just came across this by finding some excess whitespace caused by a badly placed comment that couldn't be removed in the visual editor. Hairy Dude ( talk) 00:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
What is the series of keystrokes necessary for quickly submitting an edit by using the keyboard? It used to be that I could edit source, then use TAB to add my edit summary and then just press ENTER to press the "Save page" button. (I could also use TAB+SPACE to quickly mark the edit as minor, just before saving it.) Now when I go to save the page I cannot find any obvious sequence of keys which will save the page without having to use the mouse and press the button manually. It is very frustrating and makes using VE clunkier than just editing the source. Elizium23 ( talk) 01:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Where's the code view? I work better in that — Supuhstar * — 05:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't ask for it to be turned on, and why isn't there a visible "turn this off" button next to it? – Smiddle T C @ 07:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Please get rid of it ASAP. Niemti ( talk) 10:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It's FUBAR, completelty. -- Niemti ( talk) 12:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
it was much easier the old way please change it back or give us the option to change it back to the old way Stevendsi ( talk) 11:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
One thing I don't like about the new visual editor compared to the old process is the way you comment changes. With the original editor I would always enter my comments before I went to review/confirm the edit. That way I wouldn't forget and if I was OK with the review I could just hit confirm. I prefer that way of working to the new visual editor where there is a drop down box only when you go to review/confirm the change. Perhaps it would be possible to utilize both techniques? To have somewhere you can fill in the comment first and then review/confirm but also be prompted for a comment when you do review/confirm if the comment hasn't already been filled out? Also, as I read some other comments I just want to say good job on the Visual Editor and don't be discouraged that some people hate it, its inevitable, people hate change. Mdebellis ( talk) 11:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The infobox on BAC One-Eleven decided for some reason to disappear when editing with VisualItsNotReadyButWe'llPushItOnTheWikipediaCommunityAnywayEditor. Insulam Simia ( talk/ contribs) 14:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
this is waaaay too slow for my laptop (Intel Core 2 Duo T5670, 4GB RAM). Don't even make me think of using this on my RasPi! Enormator ( talk) 15:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
On the whole, I really like it. It's basically intuitive and seems to have massively improved since I first tested it out. The main problem I'm having involves the amount of effort now required to open external links in references (especially those using {{ cite web}} etc). As far as I can tell, I have to click on the footnote, then the icon, then the text of the reference, then another icon, then the url parameter, and once I'm done copy and pasting I have to close two pop-ups. Is there any way around this that I've missed? It's not an error or a bug, but it's the main barrier to efficient editing that I've encountered so far. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 16:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
When I pull this revision into VE, reference 1 appears blank. Looking at the revision, it is not blank. -- j⚛e decker talk 16:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Second bug. At the same revision, if, in VE, I place the cursor to the left of the line that begins "The Peach Springs Trad....", just after the malformed comment, then press backspace, in the hopes of starting to delete said malformed content, the entire infobox disappears. This is quite startling. -- j⚛e decker talk 16:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I want to use regular wikimarkup editing, but VisualEditor keeps appearing even when I disable it in Preferences. Needless to say, this is a very annoying bug, currently making it impossible for me to edit, because my tablet refuses to work with VisualEditor. – Michaelmas1957 ( talk) 16:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't like the additional way of editing. I prefer the older way. I feel the newer way (less technical looking) will only allow more people to mess with Wikipeia. The older way prevented it due to it's "programming" look. Mcadwell ( talk) 17:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I personally find the VisualEditor appealing when all I want to do is make minor prose alterations, but as I often want to make sweeping edits to infoboxes, references, templates, categories and so on I find it isn't really particularly helpful for me in most cases. I refrained from comment for a while, thinking the VisualEditor might grow on me, but so far it just hasn't. I think the vast majority of serious Wikipedia editors will prefer the old system for the moment, but I realise the VisualEditor is in a very early stage of development so I will keep an open mind for the future. This is a good project and a definite step forward if we can get it right, so we should push on with it. I recommend that the developers focus on getting notes and references sorted out as a main priority. — Cliftonian (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
My comment of 26 June got tracked as T52239, but I don't think that hits the spot.
I want to be able to see the categories when I've got an article open in VE: just as I can see them when reading the article, or when editing it in Edit Source. I don't want to have to click on "Page Data" to find out whether or not it's already got categories.
That bug is more concerned with another of my problems with categories: not being able to see the article while adding the categories. Not the same problem. Pam D 17:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Ghislain Montvernay ( talk) 18:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The link goes to a general Wikionary page defining the term heirloom, rather than specifically to Heirloom press. So kill the link! Kill it, kill it, kill it! Pittsburgh Poet ( talk) 18:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Doubtless there is some way to opt out and by the time you read this I'll hopefully have already found it. All the same, my first experience with using thi... your product was slow, unpleasant, and buggy and my first instinct (since I'm already comfortable with Wikimarkup) was to turn the d... your product off.
It's not an obvious option on the page ("edit" goes straight to WYSIWYG); it's not an option in my user preferences (even under 'editing'); and it's not available as a huge button within the WYSIWYG editor itself. Frankly, given that user experience is the only thing we're working on here and there's no advertizing money being made by a establishing such a user-unhelpful experience, that's nuts.
I understand why you're doing this and good luck to you (albeit I imagine retention is more an issue of bureaucratic capture by obscure committees, code bloat (especially unhelpful template formats like {{ zh}}), and general noob-biting rather than any problem with barebones markup itself). But the difficulty in turning this thing off needs to die a fiery death. All the other regulars must've been telling you the same thing already, so it's a little baffling it hasn't already been implemented. — LlywelynII 18:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, since the management of the VE project doesn't seem to take into account any of the concerns of many experienced users saying that VE is just not yet ready for production (the one week delay clearly isn't an answer to that concerns), I'd like to suggest an idea : would it be possible to have all features that are not really finished only accessible to users that would opt-in for them ? That way, unexperienced user would get a basic version of VE but without the parts that are clearly not finished, and other features could still be tested by volunteers.
In the features that are not really finished, I would put without hesitation template editing, media editing, reference editing (because none of them is currently easy to use and doesn't promote good practices, rather the contrary). Then, we could really start a discussion on each major feature about what possibility it should bring to users.
For example, for template editing, I think the most pressing issues are : parameters are sorted alphabetically, you can't see all the parameter values in a glance, adding parameters is difficult, TemplateData is not used enough. For image editing, I think the most pressing problems are : size specified by default (against all MOS), caption is not requested when adding an image (separate action), alternate caption is not possible. I haven't played with reference editing, but from the feedbacks I read, it seems worse than the current Cite extension. -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 18:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
At mw:Help:Contents, there are more than 20 help pages on how to do editing, pages that do not reflect how to edit using VE. Is the VE team responsible for updating this documentation, and if so, does it have a target date? If not, why should the English Wikipedia community (volunteers) be expected to do this?
(It's true that there is now a user guide for VE, but it is far less comprehensive than the above help pages, taken as a whole.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest that we simply add a paragraph to the beginning of every help page recommending that the editor disable Visual Editor and giving instructions on how to do so. Until Visual Editor actually works, there's not a lot of value in having instructions on how to use it. Any help pages devoted to using Visual Editor should be bundled together in a "how to participate in the beta trial" area.— Kww( talk) 17:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
It's kind of a pain to have to scroll up to get to the toolbar when editing the end of a long article. The wikitext source editor solves that by using a subwindow scrolling region so the toolbar can always be on screen. Is that a good idea for the visual editor too? It would also make it more obvious that you're editing instead of reading. Pointer wrangler ( talk) 23:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It is confusing, and I don't really like it very much. But I like the idea for the references I had problem copying source text. Gonna feedback along the way. VuXman talk 23:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Although each section has an edit and source edit link, the lead now only has an edit link. Previously, this link allowed editing the lead source. Now, it invokes Visual Editor. Now I have to actually copy, paste and alter an edit source link to achieve lead editing. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 23:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Red links are blue in the Visual Editor until I save. This is unexpected (at least for me) and has caused me to miss an incorrectly spelled link target. Tobias K. ( talk) 00:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you guys might want to see what happened when I attempted to change "captian" to "captain" in a couple of articles: [46] [47] Green green greenred 00:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This visual editor is a baffling, time wasting, piece of work. Where is an easy "disable" button to get rid of this thing? Why in the world do you want people to use this thing? I see no advantage to it and the user's guide is not helpful in the least.
My vote is to dump the visual editor project, kill it before it gets out of beta. Ande B. ( talk) 02:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Click a link like http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=New%20Zealand%20English&diff=0&oldid=123 and then [edit] on one section - the old version is presented for editing instead of the newer version.
Clicking [edit source] instead of [edit] does edit the newer version of the page. K7L ( talk) 04:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I hate the Visual Editor, which is terrible in its editing process. Wikidude10000 ( talk) 04:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
When editing Taza, I note that the {{ Infobox Weather/concise C}} template overlaps the {{ Infobox settlement}} template, obscuring it sufficiently that one would not be able to see errors that would need to be edited. I also note that the "location dot" on the infobox map shifts very significantly when in edit mode, with the location name overlapping the legend, and the co-ordinates duplicated. Risker ( talk) 05:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Template editing is a slow and confusing mess. I have to scroll down and click for every parameter - this makes quick editing very difficult. I do not know which parameter is which, making it a slow and laborious task Super Nintendo Chalmers ( talk) 06:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
What have you done??? You've made it nearly impossible to edit the page and to add new information! Where is the window that reveals codings and citations that can be used as examples for creating new references with citations? The way to edit a page wasn't broken before ... why did you find a reason to break it? Pyxis Solitary ( talk) 09:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
When a file is directly included, e.g.
Clicking on it doesn't cause the media handler to appear (no media icon to click and no size selector).
I do see that using the "thumb" style, e.g.
Consider:
In VE, select the entire phrase "A B C" and attempt to add a link to the page "Dog".
The Visual Editor result is to expand the link but ignore the new requested target, resulting in [[B|A B C]]. Dragons flight ( talk) 10:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
For me (Chrome 27), when a reference contains a template, e.g.
<ref>{{cite web|url=http:www.go.com|title=This}}</ref>
I am completely unable to edit this. I select it, the reference icon appear, and I can open the popup window. That's where things fall apart. I am unable to select the template or get a transclusion icon to appear. If I hover over it, a blue box appears but it is displaced far above and to the left of the actual reference text. If I try to move my cursor over to the blue box, it disappears as soon as I move off the reference text. Since I can't open the template, I also can't edit it.
Thus, it appears that I am unable to edit any reference that includes citation templates (which is a large percentage of all references). Dragons flight ( talk) 11:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Typing certain tag based code into VE such as:
Will result in these items being treated as true wikicode after saving. Other tags such as <nowiki> and <span> are properly escaped and only regarded as plain text by the visual editor. Dragons flight ( talk) 11:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't edit hidden templates, that have no visual output (like use_dmy_dates at the top of Otto I as example). Apparently there is no clickable area assigned to such templates. Suggestion: assign a small area with the transclusion puzzle icon to highlight a "hidden" template in that area of the article. (Ignore at will, if this is already noted - i couldn't find that bug in bugzilla). GermanJoe ( talk) 11:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I set up a simple filter to monitor for "nowiki" being inserted into an article. It's a pretty good indicator of an article being mangled because of the interaction between Visual Editor and the user. You can see the real-time list at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:AbuseLog&offset=&limit=500&wpSearchFilter=550 . It's pretty illuminating. At the very least, it's a good list of articles that need some love and attention.— Kww( talk) 14:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I do like what you did with this new editing system on Wikipedia. But you need an option that reverts the editing text back to the original format older Wikipedians were using. Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 16:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Old style was fast and reliable, I can't do anything on this. Ail Subway ( talk) 19:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The link autocomplete function fails to find many short page names and regards them as redlinks, e.g. A, B, To, Hi. Dragons flight ( talk) 10:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
In visual editor, if you select a section header and attempt to delete or cut it, the result is code like:
==<nowiki />==
Which essentially leaves an empty header in place of the existing header that one tried to remove. Dragons flight ( talk) 11:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand that the old revision alert given when making a second edit is a bug, but it's also in the way of the page itself (so this would apply when you really are editing an old version of a page). When editing the source, the warning that you're in an older version is just a wide but short banner, but in VE this is a narrow but long bubble that covers the edit space, which is very distracting. You shouldn't have to click on the bug notice before being able to edit. Reywas92 Talk 13:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
When preexisting images are specified with "thumb", the VE interface allows one to stretch the image. However, it appears that resizing such images has no effect as the changes in size are not saved. Dragons flight ( talk) 13:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Are we suppose to be able to drag, cut, or copy templates? I've tried, but so far it appears that templates are immovable. Obviously we ought to have the ability to reposition templates as needed. Dragons flight ( talk) 13:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
On 2012 Olympics the editor craps out somewhat after the "Sports" subheading. From that point on much text is abnormally small and the links and images remain clickable in the editor (i.e. clicking on them causes you to leave the page rather than edit the element). Dragons flight ( talk) 14:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The link tool allows the user to enter nonsense that will appear as if it is a good link until after they save.
For example:
The link target on the left hand side of the pipe contains multiple examples of code that is not allowed to be included within a wikilink, and yet the link processor will happily allow you to add any of that as a link target and not reveal the problem until after the page is saved. Dragons flight ( talk) 14:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes VE inserts a newline symbol, ↵.
It doesn't do this with every newline, which I would say makes them confusing. If they aren't always present, then when are they present and what meaning are they intended to convey? In addition, they are "editable" but not functional. In other words, I have the ability to delete them when editing but according to the diff nothing changes. Since removing them apparently doesn't do anything, I'm not sure what is the point? Decoration? I have no objection if the developers want to consistently use ↵ and tie them directly to the newlines. As is though, I think the user would be better off if the haphazard and non-functional symbols were simply removed. Dragons flight ( talk) 15:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
So VE finally has a useful feature, which allows editors to improve Wikipedia from an accessibility viewpoint, and now they want to rip it out? Why not spend some effort to fix some of the actual bugs instead? Chris the speller yack 16:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I put "#REDIRECT Joseph L. Rauh, Jr." in the box and there was no option to preview until after I had clicked "Save Page". Then it became clear that the editor had nowiki'ed my redirection. So how to I get what I want? None of the (unhelpfully obscure) icons seems to be for creating a redirection. Dominus ( talk) 15:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
In this edit, VE added an extra space between "1965" and "[[novel]]" in the first sentence of the article. (This edit also removed the infobox but that was "my fault" insofar that it is my fault that infoboxes seem so easy to accidentally remove.) Regards, Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 16:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I decided to give VisualEditor another try, but it keeps failing to complete edits – it just brings up a "Server error" message. My internet connection is fine, and the same problem does not occur when editing the same text with the usual wikimarkup. Why make VE the default system for the whole of Wikipedia, if you don't have the server capacity to handle it? More to the point, why can't we choose to opt in to VE, instead of having it forced upon us (also, as I've said before, the Gadgets option to disable it doesn't work). – Michaelmas1957 ( talk) 16:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
A common way to highlight/select a word or phrase is to double-click a word, or double-click and hold and drag through following words in the phrase. This also highlights/selects the following space. Clicking on the "Bold" or "Italics" symbol adds the closing markup after the trailing space. Seems to me that there is no point in having the markup after the space, and it makes the source ugly and confusing. {Firefox 19 on Window Vista) Chris the speller yack 17:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Linus' Law - "Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix will be obvious to someone." - only works in an open source project run as a functioning bazaar model - where there are not only lots of bug reports, but where random passers-by can effectively contribute. MediaWiki is free software, but has long run on a cathedral model where effective development is a WMF house project; and the serious problem with barriers to outside contribution has been a long-running issue. You don't have the co-developer base, and one wasn't developed for the project. So you see bugtrackers that look like the one at OpenOffice.org used to - with hundreds of thousands of bugs and only twenty devs to work on them. So please just stop saying that, and take it out of the intro of this page - David Gerard ( talk) 18:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I was editing
House of the Virgin Mary using Visual Editor, and I noticed the following characters at the end of the page (following External Links): ↵↵↵↵↵↵↵↵ ↵↵. My first inclination was to delete these as I assumed they were stray text. Then I thought better and decided to review the change. Deleting these characters would have deleted
Category:Christian sites of the Roman Empire, which happens to follow an HTML comment associated with the preceding category:
[[Category:Islamic pilgrimages]]<!--not bogus. revered by Muslims as well. There is a kiosk catering to Muslims there --->
[[Category:Christian sites of the Roman Empire]]
-- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Enjoy! -- j⚛e decker talk 22:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This might have already been brought up, but the editor times out after a while. I sometimes work on edits over a period of several hours, but with VE I have to re-type the content (fortunately, I foresaw that that might happen, so I replicated the content in Word). It would be handy if the developers (those poor slaves - I'd hate to be them right now!) could implement a way to refresh the editor without eliminating the new content.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 23:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I've looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:RecentChanges&tagfilter=visualeditor-needcheck and compared it to Filter 550 and it's pretty obvious that monitoring the tag alone doesn't give a feel for how many edits are being corrupted due to people misusing Visual Editor. People that want to mitigate the damage being done should be paying active attention to Filter 550. Filter 550 simply monitors the insertion of "nowiki" tags so it has some false positives, but my estimate is that about 80% of these are cases of VisualEditor not recognizing that the editor has inserted markup.— Kww( talk) 23:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The font in the preview is very small, making it impossible to read the text. Curious Eric 23:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I am working with the article Methyl iodide. I find that the number of references is different in the article vs. in the article-in-edit-mode. I am currently attributing this to one primary reference residing in the infobox on the page. Wondering if this is something observed by others. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
When one has TemplateData available and you try to add a new template, the UI attempts to provide a list of possible attributes along with various textual descriptions. That said, the present result appears to be a giant mess. As shown in the provided image, some of the field description run out of the window (with no horizontal scroll bar provided). In other cases, multiple items get stacked on the same horizontal line. It seems very dysfunctional at present. In fact, it is so bad that I wanted to stop and ask if it is just me? Is this a problem with Chrome in particular or is everyone seeing this kind of a mess when they attempt to add a template like {{ cite book}}. Dragons flight ( talk) 04:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
When I open Japan Airlines Flight 350 to edit, with VE, the image in the infobox now takes up half (or more) of the entire editing box, and the rest of the infobox information isn't visible on the screen. Very problematical. -- John Broughton (♫♫)
When I opt to visually edit Fruit of the Holy Spirit, I find the first paragraph becomes bifurcated (after "likened to trees,") and the second part of the paragraph is treated as a transclusion for some reason. This is Firefox 22.0 on Windows 7 Professional SP1 64-bit.
Also, are we going to add blockquote support? Thanks. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 06:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
How should one edit a reference in the caption for an image using the VisualEditor? Thanks. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 06:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Great to see the new editor live on wikipedia! Toby ( talk) 07:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I was about to congratulate VE for making it easy to clean up some wierd formatting added by some broken browser extension [49]. This can be tricky and tedious to do with the source editor, but VE made it easy, so +1 there. However it didn't work so well for cleaning up the same formatting bugs in the template. VE could not parse the template parameter correctly and split some parmeters into two. [50] A case of junk in, different junk out. Overall a score of 0 for VE.-- Salix ( talk): 08:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Keyboard shortcuts appear to be missing for most of the buttons in the VE ribbon. Particularly there seems to be no way of activating the "Save page" button without switching to the mouse. In the hope that I might be able to get to it by pressing TAB multiple times, I tried such, but all I achieved was to cycle through every link on the page except those on the ribbon. Being able to select the page options faux-menu for category additions by a key-press would also be useful. (I've already suggested ESC elsewhere for cancelling the whole edit.) Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 08:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
a) When a link is selected the icon for "clear formatting" lights up, but clicking it does nothing.
b) I highlighted some text to create a link, pressed CTRL-K then realised I had selected the wrong text, so I pressed ESC in the hope that that would stop the process. All that I succeeded in doing was creating a link to a non-existent article called by the highlighted text. If I can create a link with a keyboard shortcut, then I should be able to uncreate or stop the creation process with the keyboard too.
After some experimentation, I've found a mouse work-around (click the dangling link icon and find a tiny rubbish bin in the top right-corner). Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 08:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
When editing lung, the first three images are displayed as a single item on the left instead of the right, and can't be edited. -- WS ( talk) 11:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Here is another example where this happens: gallstone, the first three images after the infobox. -- WS ( talk) 13:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
When clicking edit, a progress/busy indicator appears at the top of the article. However when you click one of the section edit links, the only noticeable change is that that the text goes gray and moves around, giving no further clue that anything is happening at all, unless you scroll all the way to the top of the page. This is especially problematic with the still quite long load times of the editor. -- WS ( talk) 11:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
What is 'add content' in the template dialog supposed to do? The only thing it seems to be doing is add the text I enter after the end of the template syntax. Either it is broken or it is useless. -- WS ( talk) 11:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
VE takes no notice of the rules laid out by WP:ORDER for the order in which elements of an article should appear. As an example, I added a third category to Permyak Salty Ears (it's a sculpture I was stub-sorting!). VE put it at the end, after the stub category and inter-wiki link, separated from the other two categories.
I raised this issue a long way back and was told that order of elements is a project-specific issue.
So has English Wikipedia agreed to abandon WP:ORDER (aka WP:FOOTER or Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Order_of_sections? If not, then the developers of VE need to take it on board. WP:AWB can sort this out as part of its general fixes: if nothing else, can't the developers of VE copy the logic it uses, and use that logic in deciding where to put new elements added by editors?
I haven't checked what happens at the top of the article - eg the rule that navigational hatnotes go above everything else (for accessibility issues) - but it would surprise me if VE is getting that right either. ... pause for quick experiment at User:PamD/sandbox for VE ... no, of course it doesn't. Nor does it add new maintenance tags within an existing {{ multiple issues}}, as Twinkle would. In short, VE is dumber than two existing facilities - AWB and Twinkle - where it ought to have learned from them to create a wonderful user experience. We aren't there yet.
OK, I've for once managed to search Bugzilla successfully and I find that this is T52882, albeit labelled as "unprioritized minor" which sounds about as low as it can go. Sad. Meanwhile I and many other editors will be following most VE edits with a cleanup edit in Edit Source - or just using Edit Source for speed, if I haven't the stamina to use VE. (I'm trying to use it to test and debug it, but it's just too much like hard work sometimes). Pam D 12:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't seem to have any table support. Resuna ( talk) 13:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Is the references list icon supposed to be doing something for me? As far as I can tell it always just opens a blank dialog box. I'm not sure what it is for. Dragons flight ( talk) 15:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
ALI KHAWAR ALI KHAWAR KHAN BIRMANI ( talk) 16:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This edit. May have been me, not the VE, but I didn't realise until I went back to check, so is way too easy - David Gerard ( talk) 16:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
In visual editor, type something like:
abc def
With many consecutive spaces between words. In the editor it will display as many spaces. If you save it, the multiple spaces are placed into the wiki source. However, when one goes to view the page, the consecutive spaces are rendered as a single space (e.g. "abc def"). Collapsing multiple spaces is a convention that Mediawiki borrows from the HTML standard.
Personally, I think users probably should be able to add multiple spaces, if that is what they want to do, but in that case the editor needs to translate these to " " or some other format that prevents them from be collapsed during the page view. Dragons flight ( talk) 17:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Providing the ability to resize images using the handles at the corners is a terrible idea. Thumbnails should not have a size attribute unless absolutely necessary, as doing so overrides users' preferences, makes the formatting of articles inconsistent, and potentially creates problems for readers with phones or accessibility issues. Removing unnecessary size specifications is going to be a very tedious and entirely avoidable job. Celuici ( talk) 17:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I am assistant to Mr. Carlos Wizard Martins.
We asked to change the name "Carlos Roberto Martins" to "Carlos Wizard Martins."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Roberto_Martins
We count on your help. Murilovisck ( talk) 17:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Initially I wasn't having any luck getting my finishing changes to the TemplateData in the Template:LSJ/doc to show up in the VE transclusion dialog. Then I tried just making a null edit to the template page itself, and it worked! I also made a change to Template:Citation needed/doc TemplateData, but that change hasn't showed up either in VE.
Is it the case that changes to TemplateData on the /doc page won't show up until the main template page is edited? -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 18:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
When using the link editor tool, it appears that the link is only updated if one either presses enter or clicks on a suggestion from the autocomplete list. This was very counterintuitive to me. If I am editing a link, I expect to be able to type the target (e.g. "Japan") and then move on by clicking elsewhere on the page. It is not at all obvious that I actually need to type "Japan+<ENTER>" before clicking outside the box. Obviously, now that I know what is required, I can do that, but it seems much more natural to have the link autoupdate to match new text as it is typed in rather than requiring the additional push of the Enter key. Dragons flight ( talk) 19:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
so I thought (hoped) that "Leave" would lead to the old editor... Pifvyubjwm ( talk) 19:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There should be a much easier way to add a table row using the visual editor. WikiTryHardDieHard ( talk) 20:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
How do I delete this account? Eban Hyams ( talk) 20:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
A minor point, but if I mistakenly click the edit button by a header to edit a section, but had intended to click edit source, there's no easy way to switch from the VE view to the source editing view. Ideally, once I've started to edit a section with the visual editor, there should be a really easy way for me to switch to editing the source view of that section alone (as if I'd pressed edit source for that section in the first place). ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 21:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's a damaged wikilink: [[./Francis_W._Parker_School_(Chicago)|Francis W. Parker School]]. (It's damaged so badly that it doesn't even need nowiki tags to prevent redlinking.) It was damaged by this edit. (It's been more than 24 hours ago since it was flagged as a possible VE-induced error, yet it's still not fixed ... but I digress.)
I'm posting here because when I go into VE to edit the problem (it's in the "Legacy" section of the article McCormick family), VE displays the link as being perfectly okay. And when I click on what is displayed ("Francis W. Parker School"), and look what it links to, VE shows the correct link.) That obviously makes it difficult to actually fix the problem.
I'm leaving the wikilink as is, in the article, until someone adds this as a bug, or notes that it is already listed elsewhere as a bug. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Reference list does not update with new references. Very confusing, especially with no refresh capability. Naugahyde ( talk) 02:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I just did this edit, it actually worked and let me fix a typo. But before I saved it when I tried to preview the change it came up in an uncomfortably small font, barely readable. I'm testing this on a decent sized screen, and my glasses are a fairly recent prescription. With the greying of the pedia we should be getting more conscious of access issues like this. The normal editor doesn't have this problem - so it would be perverse to implement an editor that is in at least this respect less user friendly than we were before. Ϣere SpielChequers 06:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I have the same problem. Not only the preview, but also in order to read the edit summary, I have to enlarge the font three times, and then of course reset the font size when I'm done. I don't have to do this for any other purpose, and certainly not when using the standard editor. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 05:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#No_way_to_edit_templates_in_Visual_Editor. That bug, Bug 50797, was incorrectly called a duplicate of but 47790. 47790 deals with blank lines that aren't really there but that show in the VE. But the bug is that blank lines that are in fact actually there are impossible to remove in Visual Editor. See this diff. Please do look at that again and update the bug status or add a new one. I am not at all familiar with bugzilla's inner workings and feel quite incapable of doing it myself. I appreciate your time and effort. Red Slash 06:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried adding a reference to an article, and it seemed I stuffed it up a bit, although with care it could be fixed. However, I think this is probably worth looking at because of the process. I don't use cite templates, so I tried manually formatting a reference in VE. The first part went ok, and then we're taken to the window for formatting the reference. I typed in the reference details, (author, title, etc), then highlighted the title to provide an external link to the source. When I did so, a pop-up list of options appeared as possible wikilinks. There were a lot, and due to the window size this almost fully covered the text box. It also was a bit too long, so under Safari at least the text box for the group name appears as part of the list in some odd way. To add the URL I had to blindly paste it into the box, as I couldn't make the list of wikilink suggestions disappear in order to edit text. (If I click anywhere to make the suggestion list disappear, I can't enter text, and if I click on the text box again the list reappears and prevents me from entering the URL). When I do paste the URL, it shows up in the list again as options for both an internal link and a newpage. Here I gather I should click on the external link option, but the new page option overlies the text box. Thus I tended to accidentally click on the new page option when trying to get back into the text box. Unfortunately, that made the options list disappear, so I missed that it had changed to an internal link. And although it is technically a redlink, it now appeared as a blue link in the box, so there is no indication that it is a wikilink instead of an external link.
I hope that makes some sense. :) Short version - the pop-list of suggested wikilinks was malformed if it was long enough to cover the group name box, and prevents the user from seeing the text box when pasting a URL. When a URL is blindly pasted, it is easy to accidentally click on the wikilink option, but there is no indicator that this has occurred once the pop-up list disappears. - Bilby ( talk) 12:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
You've pretty much got it. Thanks! To clarify a couple of points (your screenshot is great):
When wikilinks to non-existing pages are red there will be a better indicator of the problem, so that will help with the last issue. - Bilby ( talk) 16:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
P.S.: You're archiving unanswered questions. — HHHIPPO 17:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Insulam Simia, Oliver and I were both off for the weekend (although I see neither of us completely resisted pitching in :P), but the archival time was adjusted to help compensate for that. We've got extra staffing assigned to this page at key points, but it's worth noting that many of the things that need doing here can be done by anyone. :) I'm very grateful for people like @ TheDJ: for helping to file all these bugs and requests for developer attention. With several hundred Wikipedias receiving VisualEditor over the next several weeks, we wouldn't stand a chance without this kind of collaboration. So, thanks, TheDJ. :D @ Hhhippo:, I wanted especially to ask you about the unanswered questions - we're hoping to avoid this, obviously. Is there a question that you asked that was archived prematurely? Or can you point me to something that needs handling? It's rather difficult to keep up here, but beyond the excellent volunteer assistance, we've got multiple staff members assigned to try. :) -- Maggie Dennis (WMF) ( talk) 15:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
(I hope you don't mind, but I'm refactoring you to make this easier to read. No offense intended, but I tried the "interrupted" template, and it just made things even more confusing to sort through. -- Maggie Dennis (WMF) ( talk) 18:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC))
Here's some things I noticed on my first try on using VE. I purposely didn't read the User Guide yet, to see how far I get just with intuition. I didn't have time to go through the existing feedback, so apologies for any redundancy.
That's it for now, hope it helps. Have to leave now, but I'm happy to explain points I described all too short here if needed. — HHHIPPO 22:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The [edit] link for the lead section has been altered to edit using VE ( I've informed VPT). It also loads the whole page (why? I only want to edit one section) and after taking ages to load, takes me to the first section after the lead, which is not the section that I want to edit. Finding that every section is editable, I scroll up, only to find that the one bit that I want to alter - a hatnote - is inaccessible because it's in a template. Please can I have it back the old way - or at least give me the choice. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Change it back I can't do shit Kuriboh500 ( talk) 22:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
VisualEditor encourages frivolous textual changes (Barack Osama), but discourages adding links, citations and templates: key elements of an online encyclopedia. It is always a struggle to maintain quality. We can now expect rapid deterioration. "Wikipedia: You type it, we display it." Like blog comments, but you change what the blogger wrote. This seems irreversible. There will be earnest efforts to fix bugs, but VisualEditor will not be scrapped. Millions of hours of effort down the drain. "Wikipedia: Crap." Sad. Aymatth2 ( talk) 02:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't vouch for how the editor was reorganizing the content but the editor appears to be cutting content with references from one location and pasting it into another location. The references are being pasted as [8] rather than the encoded reference. I'll inform the editor of the problem and ask the editor to supply steps to reproduce. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Happy to explain. in VE I copied and pasted several paragraphs from one section of the article to another. The bracketed numbers came over, but the refs did not. Thanks for your attention. Lfstevens ( talk) 05:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I want to preface this statement by saying that I'm not a huge fan of using the Visual Editor myself but am grateful for how easy it's going to make my upcoming workshops. That being said, I think you could make some improvements to the way references are edited. I think labeling the button "edit reference" as opposed to "transclusion" or even removing the screen in-between clicking on a reference and editing it would make it much easier to tweak references. Thanks much for considering. :) Keilana| Parlez ici 01:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Ooh, one more thing, I can't figure out how to add special characters and it goes all wonky when I try to copy/paste them. This is particularly frustrating as my current project is Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome. Is there a special character menu like in the source editor that I'm just not finding? Thanks. Keilana| Parlez ici 01:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This may be a known issue, but when I edited "Greenhouse gases" subsection of Global warming (or maybe it was the "Initial causes of temperature changes (external forcings)" section, I don't quite remember), then edited the template Template:Multiple image on the left-hand side to change the parameter "image1" from "Annual world greenhouse gas emissions, in 2005, by sector.png" to "Annual world greenhouse gas emissions, in 2005, by sector.svg", I got the following Cite error message popping up as soon as I saved my changes to the template: [51]. When I saved the page of course the error did not appear and the edit it made was correct, although it did also needlessly remove whitespace from the "image2" parameter. The editing was also very slow on a large page like this, with high latency and taking a couple minutes to save, but I think that's a known issue (I was also running another CPU intensive task on my system). Dcoetzee 09:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Would it be good to have a known issues section? I'm thinking a summary table for the major points which reoccur here. Something like
Features not yet implemented:
Editing problems:
I'm not thinking of something with the depth of bugzilla, more a summary. This could help to wiki users get a feel for quite how fit for purpose the system is, and maybe save some repeated questions.-- Salix ( talk): 17:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy to help build out these pages. For the first, I suggest at least four columns in the table: general area ("Tables", for example), missing feature ("Cannot add or delete row or column, or change table formatting"), bug # (whatever), and comments (for example, target date to implement, and/or link to a discussion of the issue). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I've just added a summary General issues, Specific parts of markup and fixed bugs to Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Known problems. Still working on find all the main issues. If anyone else was to add more feel free.-- Salix ( talk): 12:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me how to make these "edit source" buttons fuck off? I'm sick of mis-clicking them. I ALWAYS want to edit the source. Parrot of Doom 21:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I cannot see where to leave an edit summary... Pstanton ( talk) 01:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
In German Wikipedia quite often pages are transcludet into other pages like here is it possible to make clear that this part is transcluded and has to be changed on the other site. Also it messes up the parts which are actually on that page.-- Livermorium ( talk) 02:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
When editing a template, when I click remove template, and then without closing the dialog, click add -> content and enter some text, the template is not removed and the editor hangs on saving and reviewing changes. -- WS ( talk) 11:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
"Remove template" is displayed in red, which gives the impression that it is a wikilink to a non-existing article. Presumably the developers want to warn the user that it is a potentially dangerous action, but that its probably better achieved in different ways. Furthermore why is it listed under options? -- WS ( talk) 11:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Why is the template dialog titled 'transclusion'? That makes no sense to most people who are not familiar with the technical details of the template system. Just name it 'edit template' or something similar, or even better the name of the template being edited. -- WS ( talk) 12:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The template dialog should not allow you to add parameters that are already present and should not display them in the list under add parameter. -- WS ( talk) 12:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
In the template dialog, in the add parameter view, I would expect double-clicking on a parameter would add it, instead of having to find the add parameter button at the end of the list (which should, by the way, not be at the end of a scrolling list, but always visible in a fixed place). -- WS ( talk) 12:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
When you click on a large template, often the edit button displayed in the top right corner of it is not visible because it is outside of your view, making it in-obvious how to edit it. The edit icon should always be displayed within the current view. -- WS ( talk) 12:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I've not yet done a lot with refs and reflists (a lot of my work is stub-sorting where it rarely crops up) but....
Editing Howard Wilson Elementary School I changed the number of columns of {{ reflist}} from 2 to 1 (there's only one ref and it looks daft over 2 cols). The whole reflist disappeared, while I stayed in VE - see edit summary. On saving the page, it was there all present and correct.
This is one of several instances where VE alarms the editor: if it's supposed to be a Visual Editor, it needs to reflect changes made and not give the impression that the template has been deleted. Worrying enough for an experienced editor - totally offputting for someone new.
Apologies if this exact problem, or a more generalised case, is already tracked. Pam D 16:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to make this edit. Opened article in VE, saw the "as as" was in footnote 134 ... couldn't edit there ... went up to reference 134, clicked on it to edit, and it was the wrong reference link. It actually gave me the reference that's numbered 220 (in that version) to edit! - David Gerard ( talk) 16:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I clicked the edit link of a paragraph but found the whole article on display and couldn't find the paragraph to edit so I chose the option to get to the old method, and left feedback on the way. Pifvyubjwm ( talk) 19:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There are times when one wants to link to a section of an article, such as Strategy game#Wargame. To continue this example, in wikitext the link might look like this: [[Strategy game#Wargame|game of ''Strategy'']]. Can VE do this?
If so, it's not obvious how. When I added the "#Wargame" part of the link, in VE, it objected (target link text turned red). And when I saved the edit, VE just ignored the "#Wargame" text altogether. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This has happened before on other articles.
I opened Fay Alexander, added some content, removed stub template, added specific stub template, but then couldn't click on "Page settings" to add a category. Had to save the edits so far, and then reopen to continue editing. It's happened before: do something, then try to open "Page settings" and it won't respond. Can't be more precise as to what series of edits is needed to produce the effect, sorry: I think I've replaced stub template and then successfully added categories and/or defaultsort in other articles. Pam D 21:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The new editing mode is crap crap and shit. Enlil Ninlil ( talk) 22:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I did not see it but how do I insert subscript, superscipt and greek letters or even °? And I want to use this in Templates also.-- Livermorium ( talk) 02:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I've added a bug tracker for the subscript part of this. Is there a bug for the handling of special characters? I wasn't able to find one while searching obvious descriptions. Dragons flight ( talk) 04:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Check out this diff in my sandbox: [53]. The external link looks normal when in read mode, but shows the .jpg image as soon as I click "edit." Is this a bug or a feature? VQuakr ( talk) 03:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
For reasons I can't guess, several of the images in Leg before wicket appear to shrink when opened in the Visual Editor. Dragons flight ( talk) 04:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I find this set up rather difficult. I prefer the old way of editing a page.
SamSennett ( talk) 05:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Possibly related to
#External links to images show up as images in edit mode? above, when a raw URL with no markup (e.g.
http://www.sucs.org/~cmckenna/photos/quizes/tq2012/July/Jun03key.png ) ends in .png
, .jpg
, .svg
or .gif
but does not work (e.g. it gives a 404 error) then only the filename portion of the URL, Jun03key.png in this case, is displayed in the visual editor. Visual editor cannot then edit this URL to correct it.
Links to other image formats (e.g. tif), html pages, .txt files and pdf files, and all urls enclosed in single bracket markup work as expected and are editable in the Visual editor. See my sandbox testing. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Been using the old style for many years and not only is this not an improvement in functionality, but its slow and difficult to use. I would highly recommend against keeping this format. AStudent ( talk) 10:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I am afraid editting a table is not possible. Or, is it? Saha.rj ( talk) 11:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
This comment is just to say thank you to the hard working folks developing VE. As much as I have problems with this new editor, I appreciate the effort that is going into improving it.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 13:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I looked in bugzilla but didn't find anything related. I think VE should include a basic editor for all extension tags that it doesn't recognize (<source>...</source>
, <score>...</score>
, <timeline>...</timeline>
, <blockquote>...</blockquote>
, ...). This basic editor would simply let editors edit the contents of the tag in a text edit box. It would also help for tags that are planned to be managed by VE but the feature is not yet available (<math>...</math>
for example). --
NicoV (
Talk on frwiki) 14:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Boa tarde, como é que eu posso alterar o nome (user) da conta. Pretendia fazer a alteração de Iportaldoc para IPBRICK mas não estou a conseguir fazê-lo.
Obrigada. Melhores Cumprimentos, Joana Cruz IPBrick ( talk) 16:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Replace the term .22transclusion.22 in the Visual_Editor. Dragons flight ( talk) 16:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I wish to turn off VE (it's not working in my Win XP netbook, and I have no need of it). I have no applicable gadget in my preferences, even though I'm signed in. I'm using Chrome, and the Monobook skin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't seem to be able to edit transclusions. kees ( talk) 17:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm one of those editors who likes to include links to policies in my edit summaries. I do this mostly to help new editors, as I learned a lot about various policies via edit summaries when I first started editing. However, VE doesn't provide a way to preview the edit summary so I have to be extra-careful to get links right the first time in the edit summary. Could the preview function also render the edit summary if one has been provided at that point? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 17:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The current "Save page" dialog permits entry of an edit summary with newlines, however, no newlines are preserved in the edit summary when it is saved to the Wiki. This is confusing, because I just used a WYSIWYG editor, but what I see in the edit summary is not what I get. Elizium23 ( talk) 18:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Spotting a VE edit on my watchlist today, I looked at it - and had to tidy it up. VE had created "[[Indonesia]]<nowiki/>n", so it appeared as Indonesian, with a black "n", rather than "[[Indonesia]]n", Indonesian, as it was intended. Messy. Probably already reported, but difficult to find in Bugzilla. (This problem was in an edit 13 hours ago - delighted apologies if it's been fixed already!) Pam D 20:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Just now I wanted to modify BuAer to the Bureau of Aeronautics, but couldn't figure out a way to do this, or revert to the old editor to do it there. Joconnor ( talk) 20:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
How can I copy References as whole from one article to the other what about Templates?-- Livermorium ( talk) 21:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that Persondata is now editable, so I had a go. There are two problems, as you can see from this diff:
I corrected the article in the subsequent edit. -- Mirokado ( talk) 21:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Editing Jabhala I found that when I tried to add punctuation (full stop or comma) immediately after a link, I got an icon of a chess pawn instead. I managed to fiddle it by adding the punctuation after the pawn, moving left, and deleting the pawn. Having done my edits I then tried the same in my sandbox and in a random article and couldn't reproduce the problem. But then reopened the first article and reproduced the problem. All I did was to type a comma after the Assandh link. Very weird. Pam D 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I noted a typo at Campus of the University of Washington in the subheading "Military Memorials" and clicked the edit link to correct it. I noted that there was what appeared to be a regular blue wikilink for the words Interrupted Journey. There was a carriage return in the screen immediately before the words "A Medal of Honor.." so I elected to abort the edit. I then switched to edit source, corrected the typo, saw that there was no carriage return in the source, and was surprised to find that the link in the phrase Interrupted Journey was an external link to a youtube video. This appears to be reproducible within the history of the page, and I believe on other pages as well. Risker ( talk) 03:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Following from my report above I've done some more testing in my userspace [54]
That link contains details, but some "highlights" include:
and some links simply not being changed. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Clicking on top-right corner of a template (not selecting it beforehand) unexpectedly opens the template dialog despite the edit icon not being displayed there yet. -- WS ( talk) 12:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
So, when using the visual editor, if you click on "Beta" there is a link to "Leave Feedback" If you click that link there is a Feedback dialog with settings for "subject" and "message". If one fills out this form, it posts a new message to this page. Posting a "Feedback" form while it is blank will result in a post being added here that consists solely of the posting user's signature. I've noticed such signature posts on this page several times now, but it only just dawned on me where they are coming from. It might be good to tag or otherwise identify posts generated via the Feedback form. Also, I suspect that people who use that form to post here will not necessarily be watching this page and so they won't necessarily see any replies. Dragons flight ( talk) 16:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed quite a few edits to this page which don't really seem to be VE feedback. If you follow through the new editor experience its quite obvious why they are being directed here.
This senario probably explains why we are getting a few simple signature with no comments. As the ? is much more prominent than the Help in the left sidebar its grabbing the users attention so diverting users away from our main help system. This will likely be a continuing problem and a way needs to be found to direct users to the right place.-- Salix ( talk): 20:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure this is already in the system, but it's not easy to search Bugzilla for it!
I added two extra categories to Karl Parker (cursing, as usual, the fact that I can't see the article while adding a category), added an edit summary, saved the page. No sign of the two new categories. Once I reloaded the page, they were of course there. But VE needs to show the result of an edit correctly and immediately - or produce a flag saying "If the changes you've made are not visible, please reload the page." My heart sank, I thought "Have I managed to forget to click one of the buttons?", before I tried reloading: and I'm an experienced editor. What would a new editor do? Pam D 21:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Put an "edit source" link on the help box, or lose copy editing of short sections of long articles from occasional users. These users expect to fix a comma or awkward wording in a short section by clicking on "edit" and finding an edit box right there after a page load. They don't expect to have to wait for "edit source" to appear after hover. They don't expect to find very sluggish scrolling and failure to reach the bottom of page in one try and failure of the "End" keyboard key and absence of an edit box at the bottom of page. They might keep trying long enough to find the help box. At least, the help box should mention the fact that "edit source" will appear after hover, and at least, that "edit source" should be linked to edit the section in an edit box. — Pifvyubjwm ( talk) 21:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I've just noticed a couple of edits in visualeditor-needcheck which make external links like [null http://example.org/] [58], [59]. I've been monitoring the needcheck and its the first time I've seen them so it might be a bug introduced in a new rollout.-- Salix ( talk): 21:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that the visual editor is great for people who have never edited Wikipedia before, but if you have been on here for a while then it takes some time to get used to. Therefore I think that, once any bugs have been fixed, the defaults should be: VisualEditor on for IP users, and off for logged-in users. (If you approve this suggestion then IP editors would be able to override the default by clicking “edit source,” and registered users by going to their preferences and checking “Enable VisualEditor.”) Bwrs ( talk) 21:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I think this is included in T52182 but have added a comment there to clarify: we need to be able to add {{ Multiple issues}} around existing tags, or one existing and one newly-added tag. There doesn't seem a way to do so in VE at present - it's yet another reason causing me to do a cleanup edit after almost every VE edit. Not an efficient way of working! Pam D 07:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
When trying to blank a page in my user sandbox to do a different test, I've found a very odd bug:
1121 12
The third and any subsequent characters appear as expected but with the cursor between the two "1"s on the first line.
When the page is saved, the wikitext is just the first line.
The text is not always possible to delete, other than by selection, and trying to do that results in various things:
I have not been able to figure out how to reliably reproduce any one of the above though. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Mohammad Azharuddin shows a different person in the infobox during Vedit that during view. This is apparently a consequence of {{ Css Image Crop}} failing under VE. Not sure what exactly the underlying error is, but the gender bending result is definitely noticeable. Dragons flight ( talk) 19:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Before I explain the variety of bug reports and feature enhancements involved, I'll be presenting a typical example of what many editors do here on ENWIKI, day after day. Understanding the bug reports and feature requests will require following along with the steps of the example. So, before I proceed with the number of bug reports and feature requests that will follow below, please reproduce all the following steps in order.
I know some of these are covered by existing bugs, but I really do think that the scope of my concerns can only be fully understood in the context of a complete example
Now, for reference, here's the previous workflow:
I consider several of these bugs to be serious, blocking issues. I hope this demonstration, which is work I actually went and did, much like work that I've done thousands of times at Wikipedia in the past, conveys the magnitude of the issues with the current implementation of references.
We need to make references, which are a core object of Wikipedia articles, five times easier, not seven times more difficult.
Thanks for your attention. -- j⚛e decker talk 19:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
There are none or I cannot find reference templates. Swimmermroe ( talk) 00:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The old edit interface carries the notice Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions. (with some wikilinks) We should probably have something similar in the VE too? OrangesRyellow ( talk) 08:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I added about 4 or 5 more references than is shown. They just disappeared after saving the page. Now I need to go through them all over again to re-add. Not good. Cowicide ( talk) 09:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I edited an infobox earlier, but after editing, the line breaks were gone (meaning it was no longer one line per parameter). I'm not sure if I did it wrong, or if it's a bug. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
It's apparent to me that there is a need for prototyping of the UI elements of the editor. Without at least a sketch of a specification, the developers are in many areas hacking around, and the final product is likely to be an unmaintainable mass of kludges. As an example of the sort of thing that is needed, I have written a draft specification for a reference-insertion-tool at user:Looie496/VE Reference editor. I won't assert that the design there is exactly what is needed, but what is needed is explicit planning at this level. Looie496 ( talk) 16:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to edit a template in a table after the bug of the references inside template was fixed, but the edit broke the whole table. This was also happening before with the references bug. I don't know if the two bugs were reported together...maybe not.
Here is what happened.
When I edited the template with the 12th episode, the cite error didn't appear. But when I clicked to save it, the 12th episode moved at the top of the table when it should be at the bottom. I reverted the edit and re-made it using "edit source". Can this be reported? Thank you
TeamGale (
talk) 16:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
This new editor sucks. I just want to edit the old way. Please make an option to do this. Sometimes newer is not better. Torturella ( talk) 17:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to let me save. It says: Error: Unrecognized value for parameter 'paction': save Light Peak ( talk) 23:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)