Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:37, 8 July 2013

Attention Internet Explorer (IE) users: VisualEditor is temporarily disabled for IE9 and IE10 users, due to various issues that are being fixed. VisualEditor will not be made available for users of IE8 and earlier; such editors should switch to some other browser in order to use VisualEditor.

This page is a place for you to tell the Wikimedia developers what issues you encounter when using the VisualEditor here on Misplaced Pages. It is still a test version and has a number of known issues and missing features. We do welcome your feedback and ideas, especially on some of the user interface decisions we're making and the priorities for adding new functions. All comments are read, but personal replies are not guaranteed.

A VisualEditor User Guide is at Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/User_guide.

Add a new comment – View known bugs – Report a new bug in Bugzilla – Join the IRC channel: #mediawiki-visualeditor

• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2012 1
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2012 12
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 01
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 02
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 04
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 05
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 06
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 07
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 1
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 10
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 11
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 12
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 13
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 2
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 3
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 4
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 5
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 6
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 7
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 8
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 9
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2014 1
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2014 13
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2014 2
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2014 3
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2014 4
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2014 5
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2015 1
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2015 2
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2015 3
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2016 1
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2016 2
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2017 1
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2017 2
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2018 1
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2018 2
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2019 1
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2019 2
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2020 1
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2021 1
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2022 1
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2023 1
• VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2024 1

view · edit Frequently asked questions Main FAQ User Guide Named refs Updates Newsletter  MediaWiki If you would like to try VisualEditor without editing an article, here is a page where you can freely do so. You don't need an account to use it. Shortcut WP:VE/FAQ Main page Feedback at MediaWiki Sandbox (no account required) About Documentation: Introductory tutorial User guide Keyboard shortcuts Frequently Asked Questions (or at MediaWiki) Development: Roadmap up to 2017 Updates (2013-2023) Weekly status reports (2015-2016) Help out Update the help pages Add template data (Tutorial) Translate and localize documentation Research Main research page Other Why are the developers building this? (2013) User Test Data (2013) Customization Known problems Requests for Comments (RfCs): Jul 2013 a, Jul 2013 b, Jul 2015, Sep 2015 What is VisualEditor? VisualEditor is a way to edit pages that looks more like a word processor. It was first offered here in 2013. How do I enable VisualEditor? VisualEditor is available alongside the original wikitext editor if you opt-in, by changing your preferences. It is currently not available to unregistered users at the English Misplaced Pages, unless they switch modes while editing. Why is this change being made? Some people who could become productive, experienced members of the community are turned off upon attempting their first edit in wikitext "source" mode. Some edits, such as adding or rearranging columns to a table in wikitext, are difficult even for experienced editors. Where do I go to learn more about how to use VisualEditor? Please see the VisualEditor User guide. Does VisualEditor make automatic fixes to pages? In most cases, VisualEditor will not change or reformat lines that are not being directly edited. If markup already on the page is handled incorrectly (for example, with tables that are not closed), then it may attempt to correct these. Will it still be possible to edit articles using wikitext after the visual editor becomes available? Yes. While the visual editor will become available to all users as an editing environment, a method for editing the underlying wikitext "source" will continue to exist. There are no plans to remove the "Edit source" option. Won't this slow down reading and editing for people who have slow connections or computers? VisualEditor loads the bulk of its code only when you edit a page in the visual editing mode. So if you keep using "Edit source" or are a reader, the effect on your user experience should be negligible (~4KB of additional JavaScript payload before you click "Edit", or about 0.5% of one typical page). Your web browser will typically cache the JavaScript, speeding up future uses even if you are on a slow connection. However, using the visual editor for editing may cause problems for those on slow computers or connections, especially on very large pages. For these users, opting-out for now may be the best option. I've found an issue with VisualEditor or a feature that is missing. How can I tell you to fix it? Please report the issue in Phabricator, after first searching exiting tickets to make sure it hasn't been reported already. Additional bug reporting instructions can be found here. There are four main kinds of issues that the developers especially need to hear about: Something breaks: The failure may only affect a particular type of browser or computer, on a particular page, or after doing something else. Please post your problem at Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Feedback. In your description, it is helpful to include information about what you were trying to do, your web browser, computer operating system, and a link to the article or a diff of the edit if it was possible for you to save the change. Performance problems: If all pages seem unexpectedly slow on loading or on performing a particular task, or if it used to be faster and has recently gotten worse, then please report this. User experience issues: If it didn't make sense, or if it was awkward, or if you couldn't figure out what you needed to do (Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/User guide covers the basics), please speak up, and feel free to offer your suggestions for improving the design. Missing functionality: Is there something you need to do, but it currently can't be done in VisualEditor, like editing mathematics equations or seeing hidden comments that contain instructions to other editors? Make sure that it's on the developers' list of needed features. If you'd like to know which missing features have been reported before, you can search the talk page archives and feedback archives. If you can't find any reference to the new feature you'd like to suggest, please report it at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback. Can visual editor be customized ? Yes, see Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Customization, and mw:VisualEditor gadgets for more advanced customization. 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 wikitext editor selected in your preferences 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 do so. If it is a beta feature: go to the Beta tab of your preferences page, untick the checkbox "Visual Editor", and click the Save button near the bottom of the page. (As of 2021, this is how you do it on Meta-Wiki and the Chinese Misplaced Pages.) If the visual editor is already out of beta: go to the Editing tab of your Preferences page, untick the checkbox "⧼visualeditor-preference-betatempdisable⧽", and click the Save button near the bottom of the page. (This is how you do it on some sister Wikipedias, for instance, Russian Misplaced Pages, as of 2021.) on English Misplaced Pages, go to the Editing tab of your Preferences page and change the "Editing mode" to "Always give me the source editor" See Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Opt-out for other options. Can I install VisualEditor on my personal wiki outside Wikimedia? Yes. The VisualEditor extension is available for download. Can I use named references like the basic wikicode editor does, so I can choose my own reference names? This has been requested via Community feedback, and is on the list of things to do. There are some links and more information about this on the Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Named references page. The FAQ didn't answer my question. Where may I ask it? You can ask on the central feedback page on mediawiki.org. Notes <<And no, we're not taking markup-level editing away. Some users may always prefer it over visual editing, even if the exact nature of the markup changes, and even if VisualEditor becomes the best tool it can possibly be.>> Erik Möller, deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation, The VisualEditor Beta and the path to change, op-ed for Misplaced Pages Signpost, July 31st, 2013.

References - first attempts - ouch

Just had a go at adding a reference to James Gordon MacGregor (to replace an existing somewhat malformed "links" section). Ouch.

1. Clicked on the icon for "Edit reference"
2. It seemed to offer me "Create new source" or "Use existing source" but neither link was responsive
3. Then there was a blank window asking what I wanted to cite - no clues about format
4. Eventually stuck the URL into it, as I didn't see what else it wanted. Superscript "1" appeared.
5. Clicked on the icon for "Reference list": nothing useful offered (can't remember exact detail)
6. Used the "Transclusions" icon to add "Reflist"
7. No visible response to that.
8. Repeated previous step
9. still no response.
10. Went to "Save page", looked at "See your changes", observed that Reflist was added twice.
11. Despaired of being able to do anything useful in VE except offer this feedback, and will now save the page and reopen in Edit Source!

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. PamD 20:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm echoing what User:Charmlet said a couple of items above: it's a terrible step backwards to move from the RefToolbar approach into a blank "what do you want to cite" box. This is not going to help new editors to create full, well-formatted, references. If I'm editing an article and know I'm going to be adding references (much of my editing is wikignomish stuff which doesn't involve that), I'm going to have to remember to use Edit Source until VE can come up with something more helpful - and that's as an experienced editor. PamD 20:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll say that es:Misplaced Pages:Portada and other Wikipedias also use cite templates, so this would help out a lot more than enwp.. And if I remember right, those don't have the A/B test going on, so they may not even know that they're going to lose the RefToolbar. Charmlet (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a feature request already tracked at Bugzilla 50458 (linked above) that might be a good place to discuss this - I note that already under request there is a list of parameters to be filled in, which I agree would be enormously helpful. I'm not finding this feature very intuitive myself. :/ I link here in case either of you would like to add your support or your own thoughts. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree with PamD. VE is a huge step back for ease of use for references, which is THE core feature of wikipedia. Not only is it not intuitive, but it takes more clicks and time to use than wikitext. The Cite dropdown menu on the toolbar worked very, very well. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:10, 3 July 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)

Totally agreed, on that: I've actually already thrown it into bugzilla:50354. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:23, 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)

You use both of the features together: Go to the references tool to create a new reference. Once in the space where you could add unstructured text, click the puzzle piece. It will ask you for the name of the template that you want to use, e.g., cite web. Then you can fill it out by adding the parameters one at a time (if TemplateData has been processed for the one you're using, then it will give you a list of all the options). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Which raises another issue. Not that the technology doesn't work, it does. But and this is probably more important, the way it's laid out and the instructions on how to use the functionality need improving (dramatically). NtheP (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Whataidoing, you recommend "You use both of the features together: Go to the references tool to create a new reference. Once in the space where you could add unstructured text, click the puzzle piece." but when I am in that space there is no puzzle piece to click. Is this a bug? Or am I doing something wrong?

Unless someone knows a quicker method, the full process is:

1. Click on the "Insert reference" icon. A new window appears.
2. Select "Create new source"
3. Click the "Insert reference" button. This opens another new window.
4. Click on the puzzle icon in the new window. This opens a third new window.
5. In the text box, type "Cite", but don't press return
6. Select the citation template, ignoring anything with /doc on the end
7. Click "Add template"
8. Fill in the details.
   1. Select the desired parameter (or type some of it in, then select it)
   2. Click on "Add parameter"
   3. Enter the data
   4. Select the template again from the left side to add a second or further parameter and repeat until finished.
9. Select "Apply changes"

That's probably much more detail than you were after, but it seemed worth putting in the steps. - Bilby (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Just gave this a whirl with a real world example. Needs a couple more steps, even for a reasonably experienced editor.

1. After sub-step 1 of step 8, add the following: Scroll down to the hidden "Add parameter" button.

2. On the end of sub-step 4 of step 8, add the following: then select "Apply changes" on the Parameters form to return to the Template form.

Comment re the User Guide: The "Adding a new reference" section should include the Parameters form.

Comment re the Parameters form: The "Add parameter" button should be near the top of the form. Downsize43 (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"Happy to announce"?

"Misplaced Pages is happy to announce the live Beta of VisualEditor"? What announcement? Might I suggest an unambiguous notification in the new "edit this page" process that points out the new "edit source" tab for the old system? The first notice I got about VisualEditor (which I'd never heard of) was actually editing a page like always, only to find a visual editor (didn't see the name or a link to info) which wouldn't let me add and preview a citation, my most common WP work besides copyediting. I only found Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor by clicking on the mysterious "BETA" that appeared at the top of the page. ("BETA" what?) Yes, I eventually found "edit source", but given WP's recent proclivity for adding and moving around top-page tabs, I didn't notice it initially. Even without using VE yet, from my quick look, I suspect VisualEditor will be a tremendous help for all editors. But dropping it on everyone by default without warning is bad practice. (If there was a warning, I didn't notice it, which suggests it wasn't a very effective "notice".) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

There's been an opt-in beta since December 2012, and we sent out a centralnotice, but it looks like a cookie problem meant it didn't go to some users :(. The opt-out is pretty prominently displayed on the VE portal, which is both where the banner drops you and a single click away from where the current popup in the VE drops you; hopefully this will help. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I said the same thing, Jeff. --Paul McDonald (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the info, Okeyes, but an opt-out buried in a topic unknown to the entire affected audience is a catch-22 and isn't adequate. (Indeed, that's the kind of practice that gets companies excoriated, like putting a license agreement inside a box whose opening binds you to the license.) But I see that we've got a main-page banner now, so that addresses my concern. Shame it didn't show up a few days earlier. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This issue is not answered. It has been ignored.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

To quote Douglas Adams:

"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display ..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

Hairy Dude (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Any plans to make infoboxes appear?

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)

Er. It was; the infobox appears fine for me. What browser/OS are you using? Can you send a screenshot? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Firefox on XP. And will do shortly. Orderinchaos 15:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@Orderinchaos: Thanks :). (What version of firefox?) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

23.0 beta. And will shortly (sorry, have been horrendously busy offline.) Orderinchaos 08:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

John McCabe

Section editing will never be implemented

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)

I am not extremely techy (or really even remotely) but I do not see where that bug says that, David. Can you clarify? :) (Mind you - I'll be disappointed if that turned out to be the case, since I think it's a pretty important feature myself, even if of necessity low priority at this point.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment #35 - David Gerard (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The one that starts:

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 don't see how that leads to a conclusion that these links are purely decorative and will never be otherwise. :/ I wish it did conclude differently than "Solving what you're actually asking for (a form of VisualEditor/Parsoid that loaded and edited only one section at a time) would be a mammoth piece of work, albeit with some usefuless as you describe" and "I cannot justify spending donor funds to that extent when there are more pressing demands on the resources of the VisualEditor team" (I would be much happier if it concluded with "This is an easy fix, and it'll be done by the time I hit save"), but I'd like to be hopeful that if it isn't picked up by other developers, it'll be attended after the more pressing demands are met. (Of course, if people think this is more pressing, making a case for that is a good idea! I'm sure it's not always easy to prioritize fixes.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

At present, the links do not in fact edit the section - they load the whole hundreds of kilobytes of page. The interface lies to people.

"I cannot justify spending donor funds", when talking about this feature, looks pretty conclusively like "no" to me.

(I don't think "maybe some outside volunteer developer will implement it at some unspecified point in the future" counts as "it will happen" - what's the ratio of outside volunteer VE developers to WMF VE developers been so far?)

- David Gerard (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, we got the opt out gadget from a volunteer developer. But, mind you, my technological abilities are slightly to the left of "none", so I have no idea how possible it is. You and I are reading that differently, perhaps because I'm focusing on the word "when" in the rest of that sentence: "I cannot justify spending donor funds to that extent when there are more pressing demands on the resources of the VisualEditor team." It might be worth asking for clarification there, though, and I'd be happy to if you don't want to. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think the complaint is overly pessimistic. Section editing is quite challenging to implement because the appearance of a section can depend in crucial ways on material that lies outside that section. Given that the developers are in fire-fighting mode right now, it makes sense for them to defer that problem until more basic problems have been resolved. It is, however, a very important problem in the long run. Currently it is very unpleasant to use the Visual Editor on an article such as Parkinson's disease, because it takes so long to load even on a fast computer. My plan for the present is to use the Visual Editor for short articles, but to stick with the old functionality for long and complex articles. Looie496 (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Parkinson's disease takes 5 seconds for me, that's not too bad. I'm not sure if fast computer helps or not. I tried List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters (288 K!), and it did not work at all - always hits a timeout after 60 seconds. GregorB (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That D&D list is amazing. Timed out after 90 seconds here - perhaps the limit's been raised - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'll predict that this is going to end up with portions of articles getting terminated. Had to deal with that before in long articles in a full wikitext source edit. VizWiz not being able to section edit will end up with more articles getting a bad/partial save ... --J. D. Redding 18:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'm going to agree with David Gerard and the filer of the bugzilla that this is actually quite a serious problem, and one that should have big red flags next to it. This will have major effects on the ability of editors in non-Western regions with slower computers and little or no high speed internet to participate. Risker (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Hear hear. Please add your comment to bugzilla. I am having trouble convincing the devs that this means the importance!=lowest. (Even though I see that Joe Decker has upgraded it, I think it's important that the devs share our view of the importance). --99of9 (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• What bothers me the most about this issue is that it doesn't seem that the development team was given the mandate to match existing functionality.—Kww(talk) 23:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Please add your thoughts there. :) I can tell people that this is an important issue, but it really conveys best if people speak for themselves. Anyone with a Bugzilla account can register a comment on that thread. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• • • I have added my thought that this bug is of higher priority than previously believed by changing the priority. See WP:BRD --j⚛e decker 15:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

Ah, I see the "edit|edit source" links on sections have turned back into just "edit" links, which edit the wikitext. Thank you :-) You need to correct the text at the top of this page - David Gerard (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This is due to bugzilla:50731 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:34, 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)

• Just to let you all know; we're discussing this now, and hopefully will have something for people in a couple of days. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I just don't see me ever really using VE much unless section editing is implemented, contemplating the page-loading/time-lag for some of the huge articles I edit just boggles my little non-tech mind. Shearonink (talk) 13:09, 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)

tried to add a picture. Very confusing, didn't work

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. ϢereSpielChequers 19:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, WereSpielChequers. It's supposed to be able to add pictures. :/ Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/User guide talks about how. If you encountered specific difficulties, sharing those could be helpful, in case there's anything we can do to help developers improve the experience...or in case you found a bug. Thanks. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

OK tried again, this time reading and rereading the instructions. It was rather slow, it didn't go where I tried to put it and and I didn't spot where I had the opportunity to put in captions, so I've gone back the previous system as it takes much less time to edit that way. ϢereSpielChequers 20:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a little difficult getting used to. :) I appreciate your trying and am glad that even if it was not as efficient for you it basically worked! I'd hate to find out image additions were broken. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So you think "so confusing that the editor gave up" fits your definition of "basically worked"? No wonder there is so much antipathy here to WMF. Please include this in your reports of design failures. You do have such reports, right? Not just reports of not behaving as designed? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're feeling antipathy to me, I'm really sorry. It wasn't my intention to anger you. My initial thought here was that image additions were no longer working, which would mean something new had broken. I'm relieved that this is not the case. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

@David. Software testing is not helped by an aggressive environment, there will be bugs, we need to try and explain them in ways that let the programmers find them. I pulled out of this before because my bug reports were being archived without any response - not even "another example of bug ****", if Maggie is actually looking into bugs then I might try this again. But if the opportunity to add a caption and even alt text was not obvious to me then it won't be to those who might not be looking for it. ϢereSpielChequers 13:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to hear that, WereSpielChequers. :/ The only two reports I find from you in archives (here, here) do seem to have received response, but if I've missed any that did not, I'll be happy to try to make sure they are properly tracked. Image functionality is being improved - there are a number of existing requests related to it, and I hope that it will better meet your expectations as those are implemented. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maggie. The first of your links is a redlink. The second links to Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive_2013_05#Spellchecking where I did get an initial response, but the problem wasn't fixed and the final post in that thread is still from me. If you continue in that same archive you find one thread I raised where another editor linked it to another thread raising the same bug, which is fine obviously I wasn't the first to report that problem. But there are four others - it looks like I was the only person testing this on the morning of the 19th May. Now that was a Sunday so of course I wasn't expecting a staff response that day, but Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive_2013_05#Copying_a_barnstar and the subsequent threads just seem to have been ignored. It is just one of those things when you test something only to find that others have already spotted that bug. But less enthralling when when your bug reports get archived without comment. So that's why I stopped testing the visual editor, if it didn't work for really simple stuff like typo fixing then there didn't seem much point testing it for things like image adding let alone referencing. I have to admit I was rather surprised when it went live this week, the sooner it goes back into testing with people who've agreed to test it the better. ϢereSpielChequers 23:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I dropped the W. It's fixed now. In terms of the ones from May, I am sorry you didn't get a response to those. It doesn't mean they weren't noted, though. As it says at the top of the page, "All comments are read, but personal replies are not guaranteed." Due to the activity here now, obviously, comments would not be read if we didn't have both volunteers and staff keeping an active eye on things. It's just too busy. :) But problems are not always going to be fixed as soon as you report them. Nor will solutions be proposed or explained here. Part of what we are doing here is annotating them for the developers, who then triage and assign them (which is a good thing, because I don't understand this stuff at all :)). But that doesn't mean your feedback doesn't matter -- even if you get no more than a bug number or a question clarifying your issue, your observations could still be relate to a crucially important issue. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maggie, I've done enough testing to be OK with being told that something is a known bug, but in my experience of software testing it is best that once you've found a few bugs you tell the programmers and then wait for them to say they have a new version to test. But its difficult to motivate myself to test when my bug reports don't even get a cursory "nuther example of problem x", and there is a nagging feeling that I'm simply wasting my time if I test something without knowing the bugs that have already been found but not yet resolved. ϢereSpielChequers 20:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully the improved communication we're striving for now will assist with that. :) There's a list of existing bugs linked from the top of the page that might help if you want to see if something has already been found but not yet resolved. I say "might" because I can't always tell what those bugs mean, so I have filed a few redundant bugs myself. The developers have never yelled at me for it, though - they just mark them "redundant" and merge them. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Visual Editor not loading

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

If you're still having the issue, please let us know! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

One click disable

It's realy slow and annoying. Just like every new introduced feature, there should be an easy way to disable it, for example on click on the information box above the page that shows enabling this tool. Qtguy00 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that one click disabling is in the plan at this point, although you can hide the feature. To quote a few points from the FAQ

and

I hope that these will help you. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am not talking about myself only. I am talking about giving editors easy way to choose the way they want to edit wikipedia. What prevents Wikimedia from adding a simple shortcut on the info panel to disable visual editor at least temporarily? I should mention that creating better content is the main goal of wikipedia, and creating useful visual editor is not the main goal, so let's not compromise the main goal of having better articles for having a visualy compelling editor that is bloated, slow and counter productive. And yes, Linus' law works, but he is talking about volunteers, nobody is forced to edit, compile and debug Linux kernel by default when using an Android phone. --Qtguy00 (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is forced to assist with testing. The easy way to choose the way they want to edit is simply to pick which button to click (although labeling might be more clear on those - there's a feature request for that. :)) The goal is to have a VisualEditor that is not bloated, slow or counter productive, and having yesterday had the opportunity to talk to developers, I am very aware that they are reading bug reports and feature requests in order to refine VE into the tool that the community wants. This is the way our collaborative process works. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Qtguy00 wrote: "I am talking about giving editors easy way to choose the way they want to edit wikipedia." This is a common request. This is one solution: bugzilla:50540: VisualEditor: Display both "edit" and "edit source" links for sections without hover. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Just wanted to give some thoughts after the last update:

• First, I am glad seeing that there is a list of the parameters now when I am trying to add a "cite web" reference. The thing is that the list, personally, confused me a little and I finally ended up just typing the parameteres I need the way I was always doing. I think it would be easier for the parameteres to already being added, at least the basic ones, to the template. For example, to the "cite web" template, the parameters that most people use (title, url, author, publisher and date). So, when the editor adds the "cite web" template, would only have to add the content of each parameter and not the parameters themselves. If the editor wants to add an extra parameter, they could choose it from the list and add it. I am sure that this is difficult to be done knowing that there are lots of templates to go through but maybe keep it as a thought if it can be done?
• Why the "edit/edit source" was removed from the section parts? I know the flashing was annoying for many people, but I was hoping that both would stay without the flashing. Now if I am at the end of an article and want to make an edit with VE, I have to scroll all the way up, click edit and then find where I was since the "edit" on the section takes me to the old way of editing. Not to mention that now "edit" on the section and "edit" at the top of the article mean a different thing. :(
• And a bug I found...when I add the reference/template, if I want to edit it again it's not easy to choose it since the "blue line" that has to be on the text appears completely elsewhere and I can't click it. I took a screenshot and I could send it if it helps. TeamGale (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) I think the edit/edit source issue is a bug: Template:Bugzilla. Looking at the other issues.... --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

First issue - added to Template:Bugzilla. Third issue, I'm sure it would. :) How do you feel about uploading it here? You would license it by using {{Misplaced Pages-screenshot}} and naming the page, if text shows. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers Maggie and for reporting the issues to bugzilla. I'll give it a try with the upload! :) Never done it before...another new experience! ;) I'll be back as soon as possible! TeamGale (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@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)

Good job with the upload. :) I changed the template - in the old way of doing things, you just have to use the curly brackets. I am really too tired to do anything sensible with it right now, but unless somebody else wants to file the bug, I'll work on it in the morning! Thanks for learning new tricks for us. :D You're so incredibly helpful. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@Mdennis (WMF):Oh thanks! I just saw it and thank you so much for fixing the licence! I got the notice, tried to fix it but I didn't know exactly how! It's ok...the bug can wait till tomorrow, no problem for me. I survived with it today, I can survive with it few more days! ;) You all need some rest! Thanks for everything. TeamGale (talk) 00:08, 5 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)

No, I forgot! Thank you, Gale, for so patiently bringing it back to my attention. :) I'll work on it now. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Tracked. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you so much Maggie Dennis (WMF). No worries, I know you have many things in your mind. And I have to say that I was editing just right now and the bug seems like it has already been resolved! :) TeamGale (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding reference error

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)

Hey Vcczar. I'm a bit confused by your desciption, could you clarify? You mean the reference editor doesn't open for you at all, or after you've already inserted one? (btw, improvements are coming to the reference interface. rubs palms) PEarley (WMF) (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

hi PEarley (WMF). Yes, reference editor is not opening up at all. I can add a reference number, but I cannot get the reference editor to open so that I can add a book to the references. Vcczar (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

@Vcczar:, if you're still having this problem, can you give more information about your browser and operating system? I hope it's resolved. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Optout-related feedback

• I recognise that these changes have come about because the dropoff in active editor numbers, together with feedback from their prospective replacements rightly has the WMF running scared. I do see the need for them.

  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)

  • I would have to agree, although my issue early on was that it was switched on without an option to switch it off. Obviously, this has been fixed, but I would love an option to make it so "Edit" leads to the old window, instead of the Visual Editor. I too am set in my ways, and I would prefer having the option to edit the old way immediately instead of waiting a second for the option to pop up. I know it's a tiny issue, but it would be a nice option to have. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Use the gadget. Connor Behan (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Kevin wrote: "I would prefer having the option to edit the old way immediately instead of waiting a second for the option to pop up." You are not alone. See bugzilla:50540: VisualEditor: Display both "edit" and "edit source" links for sections without hover. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

font too small

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. ϢereSpielChequers 06:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Monobook? - David Gerard (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect so. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes of course I use Monobook, do you think I would have stayed on this site so long if I used Vector? I'm tempted to suggest that we simply disable V/E for Monobook but of course that would make it more difficult to upgrade new editors from Vector to Monobook when they start becoming serious editors as it would be a double transition. ϢereSpielChequers 19:52, 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)

Change font/color while editing

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)

Hi, @Wickey-nl:. I've added your thoughts to a related request for a visual "tell" to let people know when they are editing. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Keyboard shortcut has vanished

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 ". 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)

Regarding <accesskey-ca-editsource> this is a known bug, see bugzilla:50725. I don't recall seeing the other issues mentioned previously so they might be new, but I'm not certain. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Proly it's a cog. Good people decided they had a right to intercept keystrokes. --Holigor (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not the faintest idea of what "proly it's a cog" means. This is the English wikipedia. Please use English when responding. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If you problem has not been solved yet you may try to disable Universal Language Selector. It is a cog icon in the left panel. --93.75.134.116 (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Confusing

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)

@Kaiser Torikka: sorry to hear that :(. Is there anything specific you think we can improve? (You can still get to the old interface just by clicking "edit source", of course). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You should definitely work on how to go about editing templates. I didn't make any sense of that part what so ever. Kaiser Torikka (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of requests for modifying template editing - you can review some of them in the reported bugs. I hope that as it is refined and improved, it will work better for people. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

For short templates, display the actual source when it is selected for editing

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  15:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Surely TemplateData will solve the underlying problem here? It's going to take a bit of work to roll out, but it seems to be coming along nicely. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

No, Chris is absolutely right, we are needing a context specific editor. There are certain templates that need to be treated in a special way because they are so common. I have a little list

• convert
• frac

Those are simple- all we need is to display the parameters so they can be changed, when focus is lost they just display. For useability you could enter the the inline-template-editor by double clicking or ctrl-shift -click.

• fact
• cn

These two are more complex as editors are there to change the *cn to a reference- of which the *sfn template is ideal. So here on a double-click, you need to change a *cn to a *sfn and enter the inline-template-editor to add the fields which are Name|Year|pp=page-lastpage. For a sfn, on leaving, you need an alert that offers to take you to the reflist to confirm or edit if that reference is missing.

• sfn

Explained above.

• efn

Simplicity- there is only one parameter. Though an alert may be needed if the Notes {*{notelist|notes=}*} structure is not in place.

• reflist-

fiendishly complex from a programming pov but functionally simple- as the functionality we need is

• add a line in wiki code- I C&P common ones from a master list of commonly used texts in field that I keep in a subpage, or as a textfile on the desktop. An easy technique to teach when you are training at a museum or library as you can give your students the file on usbstick
• change some data- for instance an isbn number

this can be achieved in a popup wikicode editor- or even gedit, vi, geaney, wordpad as no parsing is required.

• infobox

it is totally essential to just be able to change the content of a field visually. It is desirable to add new fields but this is of lower priority nigh essential, and this wont be achieved until the issue of recursive templates is resolved. (That rates as essential on my list.)

I leave the list there for a Linus test, so if you could pass this on to your dev team and ask them to add these to the functional specification. Here is an example of a sample edit for them to try Swanley it keeps coming up on my watchlist:

• first three references contain raw urls- probably could do with a *cite template her- not mentioned above
• fix a *cn
• change item in infobox
• convert acres to hectares needed

All of that could be easily achievable.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

No, Convert is actually a good example of where TemplateData falls over and hits the ground. The meaning of the numbered parameters changes depending on how many of them there are and whether the entry is text or a number. For example, each of the following are valid:

• {{convert|3.21|kg|lb}}

3.21 kilograms (7.1 lb)

• {{convert|3.21|mi|3}}

3.21 miles (5.166 km)

• {{convert|60|to|170|kg|lb}}

60 to 170 kilograms (130 to 370 lb)

• {{convert|60|+/-|10|kg|lb}}

60 ± 10 kilograms (132 ± 22 lb)

• {{convert|6|ft|5|in|m}}

6 feet 5 inches (1.96 m)

In those examples, parameter 3 is variously 1) The output unit, 2) The number of significant figures, 3) The upper limit of a range, 4) The measurement uncertainty, 5) The number of inches in foot-inches measurement. Now write a TemplateData description for parameter 3 (or 2 or 4 or 5)? Convert is used on 500,000+ pages, so it is not like it can simply be redesigned at this point. That said, if someone can see the values of each parameter in the transclusion window then it would still be pretty easy to figure out which one they need to edit. I would suggest that the transclusion editor needs a way to preview the parameter contents (even if just a snippet) without having to click on each parameter. Dragons flight (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a pretty serious challenge to me. :/ These read different, so I've opened two separate bugs, both tracked. Please feel free to expand on them there, if you can provide clarification. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Template parameters in order of where they are placed in the template

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 (/_contribs) 15:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This is particularly problematic for citation templates which use first= and last= for names. Alphabetical ordering will make the first and last name be quite separate making it hard for editors using the standard system to see the author names.--Salix (talk): 06:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added a note about this to Template:Bugzilla --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Table editing

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)

@Mattsephton:The WMF is working on the tables. I don't know though when this will be ready. TeamGale (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ugh

I hate it. All the ] 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)

This is a known and hopefully rare issue.--Salix (talk): 08:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

CSS styles for making things visible only during VE edit mode?

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)

Not currently, but that wouldn't be too hard. But let's not jump to that solution too quickly. I think we should let things settle a bit before we start using methods like that. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually .ve-ce-surface could probably be used for that purpose, if we wanted to. I put it in my personal CSS to tint the VE edit window slightly green. The other thing that I would personally like to style is VE's popup windows for transclusions, etc. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any naturally way to apply user styles to that because it loads through an iframe. Dragons flight (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No, this was NOT answered and the bug was not correctly assigned.

See Misplaced Pages: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)

You are right, reopened. Thanks for paying attention. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, TheDJ. But the link placed on the bugzilla is not the permanent link to the messed-up version. If someone deletes that white space using the source editor, the link will no longer illustrate the problem. Please, I ask you or whoever else is watching this, please put exactly the following into the bugzilla comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Burr%E2%80%93Hamilton_duel&oldid=561095260 Thank you very much. Red Slash 19:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added the permanent link to the bug report for you. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing the semantics when using <sup> and ''_and_''-2013-07-06T06:57:00.000Z">

In this edit VE has change ''F''^''i''0 (F) to ''Fⁱ''⁰ (F). While they render the same the semantics are different ''F'' indicates a variable so ''F''^''i''0 indicates a variable raised to the variable i0. In then second version we have a variable F raised to the power zero, (mathematically this always evaluates to 1, see Exponentiation#Arbitrary integer exponents). Even without the 0 I would say ''F''^''i'' is more correct than ''Fⁱ''. Quite a number of similar subtle mathematical formatting changes are seen in the Tag:visualeditor-needcheck.--Salix (talk): 06:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)_and_''"> _and_''">

The correct notation for the former meaning would be F, surely? And the correct semantics for the former notation is "F raised to the power i0" (i.e. 0). Regardless, I'd suggest that mathematical notation is beyond the scope of VisualEditor. It's hardly reasonable to expect it to implement recursive subscript/superscript like that. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"show changes" button like with source editor

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)

It's already available but just not 100% intuitive: you have to click on Save page to get access to the Review your changes button, edit comment, ... --NicoV 08:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Unusable interface in some sections

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)

If you click a 'blue' section, there is a puzzle piece at the top right of it. This puzzle piece is a button that will open an editor for that section for you. You are not the first to have missed it, so I have opened up a report to ask to improve this element of the user interface. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

myEventWatcherDiv

I've seen a couple of edits where odd markup is inserted at top and bottom of page, added <div id="myEventWatcherDiv" style="display:none;"></div> and added <embed type="application/iodbc" width="0" height="0" />.--Salix (talk): 07:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The first one is due to a broken DivX web extension. The second one I suspect to be this extension. There is another pattern ( _clearly_component__css ) which is caused by Evernote Web Clipper. Little we can do about it, though if it gets too annoying we can install an abusefilter to explain to people that they have broken web extensions installed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Italics followed by apostrophe (becomes bold)

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)

what is wrong with the editing system?

can not add references Hans100 (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

SLOW

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)

What article were you trying to edit? Your contribs don't give any clue -- in the time since the VE was enabled, your only listed edits are to a template. Looie496 (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Impossible to edit my adoption page in VE

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)

That entire page is structured as a single huge table, because of the transclusion. Editing of tables is one of the things that are not supported yet -- you can change entries, but you can't change the structure of the table. Looie496 (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well, tables is quite important in Misplaced Pages, so my fingers (and legs, for that matter) are crossed that the devs will fix this. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Toggle between VE and edit-source mode

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)

Attempting to change a link results in unwanted and potentially misleading pipes

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 - ]

Further testing in my userspace shows that this happens regardless of the status of the link:

1. ] → ] - both redirects to the same article
2. ] → ] - bypass a redirect
3. ] → ] - disambiguating a link (a very likely use case)
4. ] → ] - two separate articles.

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)

Let me sign!

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. -- Numbermaniac _(C) 11:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

VE is only enabled in article and user space, so why would you want to sign any contributions in those two areas? NtheP (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

CVUA courses. -- Numbermaniac _(C) 11:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Fairy snuff. 4 tildes is markup so not surprising it isn't accepted. Wonder if this is on the devs to-do list? NtheP (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hope it is. -- Numbermaniac _(C) 11:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

From my understanding, you shouldn't expect this to happen any time soon. The support for "user" pages is intended to allow people to develop articles in their user space. There is no support for talk pages and won't be any time soon (see WP:FLOW). What you have set up is basically a group of talk pages that are not in a talk page domain (sort of like the Reference desks, Help desk, ANI, etc.). The developers would be going way far afield if they tried to support that. The solution is simply not to use the VE on those pages. Looie496 (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing link text often results in bad code, wrong links and unmatched </nowki>s-2013-07-06T11:59:00.000Z">

Following from my report above I've done some more testing in my userspace

That link contains details, but some "highlights" include:

• Changing a link from Egypt to Ecuador: ]]]
• Changing a link from Zachary Taylor to Zoe Ball: ]] Ball

and some links simply not being changed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)"> ">

Adding references with links

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)

Very slow speed of VE #1 issue

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)

There are no plans to take the source editor away, the two will run in parallel for the foreseeable future. NtheP (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Template Data

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)

It takes a while for new TemplateData to propagate into the system. Looie496 (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed it by doing a nulledit on the template itself. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Template edit causes piped links to display as code

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 ] 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 reported that bug with the transclusion editor for you. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Another try editing: Ouch

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)

That's a very long article with lots of sections and 178 refs. I think we'll have to accept that the VE needs some optimization before it is effectively usable for articles of that size. It ought to be possible to solve the problem of section-edits going to the wrong place, though. Looie496 (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Preformatted section editing loses all blank lines

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)

Here's a diff showing the issue. Looie496 (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted, I have reported the problem. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor

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, Edit Summary, and Limitations

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 Misplaced Pages source editing.

Thanks for trying something new, though, Misplaced Pages! It's exciting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustAMuggle (talk • contribs) 17:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

how do i turn it off

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)

Copied from the FaQ at the top of this page: Excirial 18:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

where is the preview button?????????

gde preview button??????????????? Decora (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You can see the preview button when you click on "save". A dialogue opens where you can also write your summary. TeamGale (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Save dialog

• The save button should make clear that it leads to a dialog rather than saving directly. E.g. change the label from 'Save page' to 'Save...'. bugzilla:42138
• The edit summary should carry that name, so people know what others are talking about. E.g. write 'Edit summary' just above the text box. bugzilla:50900
• The font size in the dialog and in the diff is too tiny, nearly unreadable. Icons for closing those boxes are not shown completely, which makes it even harder to guess what they do (how about tooltips?). Observed using Firefox 22.0 on Ubuntu 12.04, MonoBook skin. bugzilla:50058
• The number showing how many characters are left could also use a tooltip explaining what it is. bugzilla:50902
• Cursor keys, backspace and delete sometimes don't work in the summary (can't reproduce it now).
• The button label "Review your changes" is weird. Usually buttons are labeled as a command from the user to the computer ('Show changes'), not the other way around. Similarly, using commands to the user as headings of pop-ups ('Review your changes', 'Save your changes') seems weird.
• The save dialog should be modal. Right now it's possible to select text in the main window while the save dialog is open. bugzilla:50903
• Why is the text about licensing grayed out? That looks like the license is disabled. bugzilla:50904

P.S.: You're archiving unanswered questions. — HHHIPPO 17:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Where has User:Okeyes (WMF) and the other crew gone when we need them most? Insulam Simia (/_contribs) 19:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone works weekends. Whether any of them are working this particular weekend, I don't know. Dragons flight (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I've filed and/or linked most of the issues you reported and placed links to them inside your report. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Highly edit pages

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)

Missed the bug since the description didn't mention edit conflicts and I must have forgotten to search for older but see it's already been filed Nil Einne (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

And speak of the devil Asiana Airlines Flight 214. Nil Einne (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Copy-pasting to another page still loses formatting

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)

I unduplicated it - David Gerard (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Mishandling of a redirect

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:

]

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)

It's because it matches on the redirect Hands-On Universe which indeed is of a different casing and matches a case insensitive compare most likely. It seems that the first match is always the final match, and thus the editor assumes there is no match for Hands-on universe. Well spotted, I have filed a report. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Cannot edit section 0

The 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)

VE always loads the whole article, even if you click an "edit section" link. That's been discussed and might change eventually but won't change very soon. As a consequence, it is utterly useless to have the "edit lead" link go to VE -- it wouldn't be any different from using the edit link at the top of the page. The "edit lead" function is provided by a gadget -- it isn't part of basic editing functionality -- and that gadget really ought to continue providing an "edit source" function. Apparently it is behaving erratically right now. Looie496 (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear. This problem is very inconvenient. (Using Ff 22). Nurg (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't search on hidden text - eg link targets - not bug 50646

I raised this on Weds 3rd, and it was marked as "tracked" by Template:Bug, but that doesn't seem to hit the spot. I'll repeat my point here:

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?

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. PamD 21:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Is bugzilla:49928 more like it? — This, that and the other (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, which has the same question but where the responses don't really seem to get the point as yet. I've added to the discussion there to clarify this requirement. PamD 09:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Allow for Switching Back and Forth At Will Between Visual and Source Without Losing Progress

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 Misplaced Pages VisualEditor. -Thunderforge (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, one of the early prototypes had Source and Visual visible side-by-side. Chris857 (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

They don't necessarily have to both be visible at the same time (in fact, that might be somewhat confusing and perhaps wouldn't work well on mobile devices and tablets if the VisualEditor is going to be used there). But I would like some way to switch between the two without having to discard an edit. Again, the tabs on the edit window that Wordpress uses are one excellent way to do this: they allow the edit space to be swapped out, providing a compact way to easily switch. A picture of it can be found here. -Thunderforge (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Yes/No Buttons when Leaving Page w/o Saving

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)

This is shit

Change it back I can't do shit Kuriboh500 (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Changes rendering on page

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)

VE link suggestions don't include relatively recent articles

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 . 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)

Section titles should be included in edit summaries when VE is called from a section edit link

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)

Add close buton in popups (when displaying edit notices)

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)

I just found the suggestion above, thanks a lot that is on the way, so I'd like to suggest:

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)

Visibility of comments

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)

Reference error

I'm continuing to have problems with rendering references. I attempted to include five citations to an article I'm developing on my user page, involving four references and one split citation. For some reason, only the first reference rendered, the second, which I attempted to split, ended up with some rendering error, and the third and fourth never appeared at all. I have no idea what happened, but here is a link to that version of the page, and these are the references I attempted to cite: http://reachrecords.com/about, http://reachrecords.com/artists/show/Lecrae, http://www.allmusic.com/artist/sho-baraka-mn0001000605, http://allhiphop.com/2012/04/08/five-christian-hip-hop-acts-you-should-know/.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

@3family6:Hello, do you still need help? I've seen that you added many references since your comment TeamGale (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

@TeamGale:I added them by editing the source code directly. I think the trouble I had with the references was splitting the second one (the Reach Lecrae biography link).--¿3family6 _contribs 16:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

@3family6:Oh! I see! The splitting is not difficult to do it if that was the problem. After you add the reference the first time, it's added on the list. So when you click to add a reference the next time, if you want to re-use a previous one you are just choosing it from the list and click "insert reference". You are not clicking on the "create new source" button. If the list is long and you can't find it easy, you are typing on the "use an existing source" box key words from the previous reference and it filters them for you. :) TeamGale (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

@TeamGale:That's what I tried. For some reason, it added <ref name="0" /> to both the first and second instances of the source, instead of just the second. I wanted to open a bug report for this, but I don't know how to do that.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

@3family6:Hmm...that's weird. The last time I tried it it was working fine for me! :/ I'll try to test it on my sandbox. I don't know how to open bug report neither. When one of the WMF's members is back probably can do it. I know there are reports about the "nowikis" thing but I don't know if that is the same. I'll try that on my sandbox to see if it happens to me too now. TeamGale (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

@3family6:Just did it here. It's working fine. I don't know what happened when you were doing it :/ Did you save the difference? TeamGale (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

@TeamGale:Yes, I saved the difference. That's what I have linked above.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Saving an edit using the keyboard

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)

I have filed a bug report to make Escape key cancel the edit. I think we do need to take a hard look at keyboard use of VE if we ever want experienced editors to be able to make regular use of it. I would file a new bug for keyboard stuff for submitting an edit. Since we've already gone the route of heavy JS, we could really make it a single key combo, as opposed to needing to tab around. Gigs (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Links and cites discouraged, vandalism encouraged

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. "Misplaced Pages: 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. "Misplaced Pages: Crap." Sad. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly. Once again, there is a reason learning curves are good, and we don't give handguns to toddlers. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not happy with the current state of VisualEditor but comments like these remind me of the debate over getting rid of the morse code requirements for ham radio licenses. Just because something once was hard and arcane doesn't mean it needs to stay that way forever. This is a wiki, which is built on the idea that there's more constructive than destructive people in the world, and that on the balance, it works out. Don't lose sight of that. Gigs (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I am uncertain if that analogy applies. More interestingly is the phrase before the comma, a new encyclopedia (2003) was about collecting all human experience and a ve could help. Editing WP (2013) is more about providing links and cites, which clearly was never included in this ve's specification:- so an analogy about deck chairs and Olympic class ocean liners may be more appropriate -- Clem Rutter (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Most people are well-meaning but unclear about what belongs in an encyclopedia, and often add unsourced content. A new editing tool should encourage anyone adding content to provide citations. This one discourages citation. Adding links, infoboxes and other templates should also be easy. VisualEditor makes that harder. It is yet another WYSIWYG editor. We need a Misplaced Pages editor. VisualEditor has made what was already easy a little bit easier for novices, a little bit harder for experienced editors (more mouse movement). It has made what is already difficult for most editors even more difficult. The inevitable effect will be a growing percentage of unsourced stream-of-consciousness text. As overall quality declines, editors interested in quality will turn away in disgust, in a vicious spiral. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

References lost in copy and paste

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Spotify&diff=563199041&oldid=563198805
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Spotify&diff=563198162&oldid=563187977

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 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)

@Lfstevens: could you please also also report which browser and version of the browser you are using ? That might help solving the problem, since I was unable to reproduce this problem with my Safari 6 browser. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You may need to request on the editor's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Code View

Where's the code view? I work better in that — Supuhstar * — 05:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If you have the "edit" view open there should be another tab at the top that says "edit source". I believe you can look through your preferences and disabled the VisualEditor so that the normal edit tab does not lead you to the "WYSIWYG" editor. Killiondude (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What is this?

I didn't ask for it to be turned on, and why isn't there a visible "turn this off" button next to it? – SmiddleTC@ 07:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This is how it'll be from now on, there should be an option in the preferences to turn it off, or you can just click edit source to edit the source. -- Numbermaniac _(C) 07:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have to say that whenever you force a new feature on the user, it's very important that it's easy to turn off. I found it on 'Gadgets' but I think it would make sense to have it on 'Editing' too. – SmiddleTC@ 08:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This beta editing thingy crap

Please get rid of it ASAP. Niemti (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You can disable the visual editor by going to your preferences and selecting the first option in the "Editing" section of the "Gadgets" tab.

It would be helpful though if you could say what you don't like about it so that the devs can work on fixing those issues. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's FUBAR, completelty. --Niemti (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The WMF coders say "Don't worry, it just has a few bugs!" but The Truth™ is that VE is a bug! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

please change it back

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)

The old eiditor has not been taken away - just choose the "edit source" tab (top of page) or link (section edits) rather than the "edit" tab/link. You can also choose to disable the visual editor completely by going to the gadgets tab of your preferences and choosing the first option in the "Editing" section. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

adding edit comments

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)

VAP+VYK (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox magically disappears on BAC One-Eleven

The infobox on BAC One-Eleven decided for some reason to disappear when editing with VisualItsNotReadyButWe'llPushItOnTheWikipediaCommunityAnywayEditor. Insulam Simia (/_contribs) 14:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This has the same root cause as a similar issue with styling templates for table cells. As a template writer myself btw, these infoboxes are pretty 'dumb'. The project should really look into moving away from such 'partial' templates. They are even less understandable to 'normal' people than plain infobox templates and I expect that in the long term, with TemplateData coming and everything, we wouldn't want to support them anymore as a community. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

too slow

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)

Opening external links

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)

Disappearing reference

When I pull this revision into VE, reference 1 appears blank. Looking at the revision, it is not blank. --j⚛e decker 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 16:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The second problem is because the infobox is between the malformed comment and the "The peach springs" line. I agree though that it is somewhat confusing, since the floating nature of this infobox disconnects it from the cursor position you are currently at. A similar problem exists for templates that don't even produce visible contents, and I have attached your experience to that report. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor refuses to deactivate

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)

Don't you have an "edit source" tab displayed, even with the Visual Editor enabled?—Kww(talk) 17:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, good point – it's working now. Thanks. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Still impossible to edit sections, as opposed to the whole article – edit source tabs just don't work. But my main issue is, is there any way I can just deactivate the whole goddamn VisualEditor? Why doesn't it go away when I disable it in preferences? – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I had this for a little while, and somehow managed to fix it. Try making sure you hit the save button (easily missed as its down the bottom of the page), restarting your browser and clear your cache. For me the I was using the secure https version of the site when I had the problem, and things worked better when I switched to standard http. If all else fails you could try switching javascript off.--Salix (talk): 17:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Editing

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)

• See the FAQ at the top of the page. Generally it is not believed that this will be the case, but the vandalism level is being monitored to see whether it does have any impact. Apparently the initial figures are suggesting that it is not making a significant difference. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

My opinion

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Categories: please display them in VE - not the right bug

My comment of 26 June got tracked as Template:Bug, 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. PamD 17:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ghislain Montvernay (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

@Ghislain Montvernay: Your idea is mentioned (visible categories in VE editmode), is mentioned in the comment of that bug. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"List of Publishers of Children's Books" "Heirloom"

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)

I have removed it. If the company is notable, and somebody writes an article about it, a direct link can be added back. JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Clear opt out

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)

Ah. New "edit source" button (obviously I'd prefer a "VE edit" but that's a matter of taste) and it's under "gadgets" in the middle of a long list of other random dreck. This is a huge thing: you really should make it more prominent within the page. People will not naturally look under "gadget" for it (why would they?), let alone halfway down the page. Move it to "edit" or the front page of the preferences. A prominent switch-to-code button within the VE itself would also be welcome.  — LlywelynII 18:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, the option to turn it off in Gadgets simply doesn't work half the time. I have to turn off Javascript to make it go away, which means that all of my web browsing (not to mention many Misplaced Pages functions) is affected. I can see the value of a visual editing interface, but at the moment it's still too damn buggy. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

@Michaelmas1957: If it doesn't work half of the time, than that is likely an indication that you have another JS installed that is broken, which depending on how quick each of the parts loads, will cause a failure and stop other scripts from executing as well. You might want to look at your collection of javascripts and verify if they are all in working order. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how to do that on iPad. Apple doesn't offer a whole lot of settings beyond "Disable Javascript". Anyway, it's not a disaster, just inconvenient. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

2 versions of VE ?

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 18:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree, but the principal reason for introducing VE is to enable contributions from a wider variety of people. References are the most important part of contributing to Misplaced Pages. The only new contributors we wish to attract are those who will source their edits. It therefore doesn't make sense to release VE without the ability to create and edit citations properly. If the citation features aren't ready, then VE isn't ready. - Pointillist (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I too must disagree. I am deeply critical of the design of the reference implementation, I feel that it is superficially technically excellent and logical, but that it entirely misses the point of how references are used, creating an unusable mess. However, making it impossible to edit references, as your plan would do, only makes the problem worse. Moreover, forking VE into multiple versions would only annoy and divert resources from the enormous efforts devs are putting into making things better. In short, your proposal would be worse, in my view, for everyone concerned. --j⚛e decker 21:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Having two versions of VE would be a programming nightmare. The solution to concerns over making VE the default ("Edit") for IP editors is simple: Don't until there is a stable, production version in place. Adding IP editors to the mix accomplishes only one thing: it allows the VE team to say "We hit this milestone." It doesn't help with testing (there is more than enough feedback, to date, from experienced editors, to keep the developers busy for quite a while, and more than enough criticism - of, for example, the quality of the UI for editing templates and citations - to keep the team busy revising the UI for quite a while); it's going to take resources away from the VE team (if they continue to review most or all edits tagged with VE). But turning on VE for IP editors is a milestone, and the VE development team doesn't work for this community, they work for WMF management, which has expectations about such deadlines.

It's possible that the only way to stop the further rollout of VE on the English Misplaced Pages is to ask the WMF Board to intervene. That's hardly desirable; perhaps someone higher up on the management side will agree that where we are is far enough, implementation-wise, to start consolidating gains - to clean up the bugs, and to look at UI improvements that will convince a larger percentage of experienced editors to start using VE. But given that the developer team has not shared with this community a list of their "blockers" to the IP rollout, let alone asked for community input regarding such a list, it's possible that trying to get the WMF Board to intervene is the only viable recourse this community has. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's actually rather troubling that the question "are there any blockers?" needed to be asked - a quick glance at this page and the red-coloured bugs on the "known bugs" list linked above would show everyone there are many. The questions should have been "How many blockers are there?", "Which ones are they?" and "How long will it take before all of them are fixed?". Rolling the product out to everyone is not any sort of beta testing, it's a full release. Rolling a product out as default, even to a limited set of people, before it is feature complete and free of critical bugs discovered in prior testing is not beta testing - it's alpha testing. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, on that front, just to clarify; I wasn't asking because I don't think there are any blockers (heck, I threw a whole google-doc of them at the team on Thursday) - I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing any. The kind of process we have for making a go/no-go decision is an excellent opportunity to surface really high-priority bugs, so I wanted to ensure I wasn't missing any big ones through sleep deprivation, overwork or simply, well, probably spending less time here than you guys collectively do ;). You'll be pleased to know that the reference and template inspectors'....unique formatting was on the list. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

To address John's point; I don't have a concrete list of blockers to hand, I'm afraid, merely a list of things I consider blockers that I forwarded. In the future if you're interested in looking at the list, you can just ask for it and I'll see if I can rustle it up :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Documentation

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it has always been the case that most of the editing help pages were written by volunteers. It is an issue though since this transition creates a situation where most of the editing help pages are either out of date or missing. Dragons flight (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree, on both points - while they are volunteer-maintained, we have sort of...dated them, through this release :). updating the help pages is listed as one of the tasks we'd really love volunteers to engage with; I'm doing some work tomorrow with User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid on the matter. If you're interested in helping, pick a prominent help page and, well, help out! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it will be hard to get experienced editors to write documentation pages for the new editor while it is largely perceived as buggy and incomplete. Many of the experienced editors who might help in other circumstances presently seem more interested in simply learning how to turn the visual editor off. Dragons flight (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Enough of us are bloody-minded enough to keep testing the VE anyway (it may be buggy and occasionally horrible, but it's testable and it's really important), perhaps some will feel in the mood for the docs even if you and I aren't - David Gerard (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I opened a thread at the Village Pump. The task is complicated by some issues. One of these is the decision to roll out only in the Article and User namespaces, which means all other namespaces use the "old" way. Another issue is that for some things a user will have to use the "old" way.

There is also a broader question about the take-up of the Visual Editor. This question means we need to ask ourselves whether it is productive to do a big overhaul of help and documentation pages. If <10% of people use the Visual Editor then really should our documentation not focus on the 90% who use the Edit Source UI, with just passings notes on the VE (and possibly a separate single page of help/documentation cover it's functionality and coverage). --RA (✍) 09:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Subwindow scrolling region for toolbar access?

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)

The visual editing toolbar does seem to stay locked to the top of the screen for me (Chrome 27). What browser are you using? Dragons flight (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Serbianboy-Mozzila firefox 22.0

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 23:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Change of behavior for lead edit link

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)

• The edit link for the lead section is provided by a gadget rather than being part of the core functionality of MediaWiki, and it appears that the gadget has not been updated to deal with changes brought by the visual editor. There is a little bit more on this in the #Cannot edit section 0 section above. Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Red links are blue

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)

Yes this a desirable feature and there is a bug report for it. There are also related bugs about link colouring annotation for external links (Template:Bug), interproject links (Template:Bug) and stubs (Template:Bug). --Salix (talk): 05:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What happened when I tried to change captian to captain...

I think you guys might want to see what happened when I attempted to change "captian" to "captain" in a couple of articles: Greengreengreenred 00:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The wikitext has a bug there where it is missing an open table tag. See this section on that page. Parsoid stumbles on this piece of wikitext which has a missing open table tag. We will try to improve our handling of such wikitext, but at this time, a simple fix would be to edit the source to add the "{|" tag there, save it, and try editing in VE again (to verify that everything works as expected). Ssastry (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Filling out cite templates

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| 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| 01:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, availability of special characters is a sine qua non of editor usability. One shouldn't have to paste them from somewhere else. They should be available right there, as they are in the standard editor.—Anomalocaris (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Disable Visual Editor

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)

@Ande B.: To disable: Preferences > Gadgets > Editing (section) > checkmark for "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface" > Save

Re voting: Misplaced Pages, unfortunately or otherwise, is not a democracy. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You can make a comment at Misplaced Pages talk:VisualEditor#Call for audit and rollback.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the info re disabling and rollback. I had just checked back here to apologize for being so cranky. (I just got out of the hospital and feel dreadful.) But I was really flummoxed and disheartened by the Visual Editor. I can usually navigate new interfaces pretty quickly but, sheesh. Not this time!

I didn't even realize that the "feedback" feature, which popped up without prompting, was going to put my remarks on yet another WP page or what the "feedback" would be used for or by whom. Which indicates to me that even the feedback feature for this project is needlessly opaque. What would have been helpful, instead of the feedback prompt, would have been a link that said, "Want to use the old interface? Click here."

BTW, I can see why you would take me literally, but my comment re voting was just a figurative way of expressing, yet again, my utter dissatisfaction with the project.

Anyhow, thanks for the tips. Ande B. (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

clicking section edit links while viewing a 'diff' edits the wrong version

Click a link like http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=New%20Zealand%20English&diff=0&oldid=123 and then on one section - the old version is presented for editing instead of the newer version.

Clicking instead of 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)

@Wikidude10000:, nice, I hadn't noticed this, since I have previews disabled when I open a diff —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

@K7L:, whoops, pinged the wrong person there I think. Thank you for the report K7L ! —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Overlapping of templates in edit view

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

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)

Ah, just realised that 'edit source' takes me to the old-fashioned way of editing. I like the move generally but template editing needs fixing. Also I need to be able to move the dropbox around so that I can see the template itself on the page as well! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Change in how to Edit > Confusing_Confusing-2013-07-08T09:17:00.000Z">

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)_Confusing"> _Confusing">

You're going to have to disable it. The code may load by default, causing some browsers hang. Read the notice above: Go to Preferences, and add a check to "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface". NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 09:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• VisualEditor