This is anarchive of past discussions onWikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent main page.

I have experienced the Visual Editor always timing out whenever I tried to make even minor edits to some of the large, higher-traffic generating,most-watched articles such asBarack Obama,PlayStation 3 andWorld War II. Anybody else experiencing this issue, especially with pages with combined tons of content, templates, images and citations? If so, that is not very good...Zzyzx11 (talk)20:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This bug tracks similar. What is the text of the error message you're getting?PEarley (WMF) (talk)20:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The error message is: "Error saving data to server: timeout". This error message is generated by the Visual Editor itself, not the standard server-side MediaWiki error message mentioned in that bugzilla case.Zzyzx11 (talk)03:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Not all change is for the betterment of Wikipedia. Enough said.Bwmoll3 (talk)18:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Not enough said at all. What specific problems do you have with the VisualEditor? It's going to be deployed at some stage; it is in everyone's interests for people with issues to speak up so we can try to solve for them.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)18:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank youOkeyes (WMF). What I'm about to say is not directly for you but to them who are complaining here. I wish people could be more open with VE as it surely brings new editors who have avoided editing because they are not into codes and stuff. I wish people would not attack each other when they first see some changes. I've been a member of a game community for over 5 years and have done nothing but found and reported bugs. I used to enjoy the game until it turned out to be full time job and yet I didn't walk away. Over five years I've been struggling with the game, with its old version, beta version and now with a new version. Surely it's been exhausting but as I said I didn't walk away even though we had no chances of editingold-fashioned style andnew-fashioned style as people can do in wikipedia. We only have got one style for editing and it's a lot worse than what happening here. Old editors here can use old-fashioned style for editing and yet they are complaining when you guys are trying to make this more user friendly for people who have knowledge but have no time or interest of learning all codes, asPointillist mentioned below. Feedback is always welcome but being hostile for changes that really don't take anything off but give more tools for more people is not constructive. It's not polite to belittle newcomers. AlsoI have been screaming for many things and changes in my game community and in life generally but it doesn't mean I need to be mean when something happens. If people rather have this hostile attitude over VE towards other people even they have no reasons for that, you can be sure that newcomers don't join this community and leave you all in peace for doing what ever you were doing before VE, even though it would mean that they also take knowledge with them. If old editors here know all about everything, who needs new editors and their knowledge in this perfect community. Any of you have been novice once but obviously don't want to remember that. It's time to remind that we have to start somewhere as you once did. If you think that you can make wikipedia by yourself and don't need more people and knowledge here, so be it, but I have learnt long time ago that there's no such thing as perfect people. No offense but these comments here make me wonder if I wanted to do anything with wikipedia. But as I'm not doing anything much in English wikipedia, I don't need to read these negative comments, unless I'm looking for some help here. I really wish people could take things as they are, especially when there's no reason for crying out loud.The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on. And pardon my French. ;)AniaKallio (talk)09:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks,AnniaKallio :). I...don't have anything additional to add, because I think you've said it all!Okeyes (WMF) (talk)14:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

We've been screaming for a Visual Editor for literallyyears. If you say "whoah, let's halt this" now, no-one will listen, and quite rightly. The VE isalmost usable enough for a serious workout ... that magical point where software becomes usable enough to seriously beta for bugs -David Gerard (talk)19:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt about the strategic importance of having a full-featured, stable Visual Editor that inexperienced editors can use to make contributions without great risk of damaging existing articles. As I see it, the majority of concerns being expressed here are about deploying the current solution too widely too soon. It's a question of what&when, not whether. -Pointillist (talk)21:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sanguine about this being ready for a July release. It'sso near serious beta status, though ... I'll whinge about it here, with diffs, because I want it to get betterreal quick ... I've been tending to do a simple edit, create a diff that's been crapped all over, then revert and post the bad edit here, 'cos that's the best way I can think of to get attention to the problems -David Gerard (talk)21:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, I agree, except thatreal quick angle. IMO that's not really how software gets fixed. There's a small development team for VE and it looks as though the implications of editing complex pages completely safely weren't sufficiently explored by the business. It'll take time to get this right, and I doubt thatOkeyes (WMF)'s recent promises to "kick the developers" are going to help. -Pointillist (talk)21:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's the popular pages, which tend to have the insanely complicated wikitext, which the n00bs will hit first. I'm sure it'll be popcorn all round -David Gerard (talk)22:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That is the problem with WMF lately. Trying to kick things to impose their will instead of working through rough consensus. The WMF tries to run things through Meta which few people check for long due to the lack ofintegrated watchlists. Then the WMF tries to use "a small development team for VE" instead of what is needed, a massive development team. When the WMF finally realizes after years of work that the poorly-funded VE team may actually have something almost usable it tries to rush it through real testing on English Wikipedia.

Then the VE team gets inundated with genuine, non-ass-kissing feedback from busy editors who aren't part of the cliques at Meta and WMF. So this is the real world of English Wikipedia where no prisoners are taken. Get used to it, WMF. Or you may alienate more active editors by imposing a half-finished product.

This really is a good product if both source code editing of sections, and VE editing of sections, can both be used at anytime without having to go through preferences. That is being worked on (seebugzilla:48429). Lots of things need to be fixed, but the basic product looks good. Much better than Wikia's visual editor. But fixing all the problems will take time, and this beta should not be made the default for registered editors until the problems are fixed. Now that registered editors can opt in to VE the problems will continually be pointed out and fixed. And no one will be forced to use VE during this beta period. VE will not mess up thousands of pages if it is not prematurely made the default. --Timeshifter (talk)23:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

So, let me just correct some assumptions here. The WMF isn't using a small development team - by Foundation standards, it's a verylarge development team. We've currently got eight people assigned to the project, seven of them devs (which seems the right ratio to me, at least). The WMF isn't running things through Meta, it's running things in parallel on multiple wikis - I can't help but feel that it's somewhat silly to poke a WMF staffer to pay attention to your thread, on enwiki, on the enwiki VE feedback page, which the staffer monitors, as part of a suite of pages on enwiki set up by the VE team....to tell the staffer that things are being run through meta.

If you think we're not aware that the enwiki community is a "real world" community,I invite you to take a look at my userpage and tell me that the people running this launch don't know what they're doing. Thentake a look at my boss's. Following this, I invite you to come back and offer the feedback you have in a tone that doesn't imply you think we're all idiots. We're not expecting ass-kissing; we're expecting basic politeness.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)10:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It has obviously not been a large enough development team over time if it has taken this long to get this far. To say otherwise is delusional. A visual editor has been desired for many, many years. Much discussion about many major development projects in the past in my experience has been through Meta. Other venues have been used too. The major feedback discussion about the visual editor in practice on Wikipedia has only occurred relatively recently, and it is being rushed through incredibly fast lately. If you are asking whether I think some of the WMF staff are idiots, you are baiting and trolling.

You did not address the point from me and others in this thread about this being rushed through lately. Pointillist asks: "As I see it, the majority of concerns being expressed here are about deploying the current solution too widely too soon. It's a question of what&when, not whether." He also wrote: "There's a small development team for VE and it looks as though the implications of editing complex pages completely safely weren't sufficiently explored by the business." --Timeshifter (talk)10:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The technical complexities of any VisualEditor are vast. While it has beendiscussed for many years, that is very different from it beingdeveloped for many years. Development only beganaround two years ago (actually, taking into account theParsoid team - we've got 12 developers, not 7. Certainly the biggest team I've seen here). Much discussion has occured on Meta in your experience, I'm sure - but this is not the case for the VisualEditor, orPage Curation, orAFT5, orEcho, or the mobile team's work, to my knowledge, or... etc, etc, etc. I haven't seen meta used as a primary discussion venue for major software since I joined the Foundation, almost two years ago. And if you think Meta is somewhere that the Foundation gets ass-kissing, I'd ask if you've ever seen the sort of people who tend to edit on Meta ;p.

To address your core point: yes, we're developing quickly - that's not a timetable set by me (or anyone else on the team), but it's a timetable we're going to do our best to adhere to whilealso doing our best to avoid deploying a bad product. There are a lot of bugs with the VE at the moment, some major, some minor, and the community-facing staffers are working closely with the development team to get them resolved, and to make clear what bugs are (from our point of view) blockers to any deployment. I have hope that these bugs will be fixed before any deployment takes place. Should new ones crop up during, for example, the A/B test, on such a scale as to totally disrupt editing for VE users and non-VE users, we retain the ability to disable the VE very quickly.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)10:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I discuss the technical aspects in the next talk section.

I don't want to belabor a point, but if the visual editor has only been worked on for 2 years, then it is worse than I thought. Wikia worked on it longer, and people have been asking about it on Wikipedia almost since Wikipedia was first started. Also, I wonder how many of the people working on VE have been working on it full-time. And when did they move from working on it part-time to working on it more. People have often asked the WMF to hire more development staff instead of the other staff they hire. I know I have. There are so many major features that have been requested over the years.

As for Meta, I use Meta as my all-around generalization for WMF discussing things away from Wikipedia. Whether feedback occurs through MediaWiki.org or Bugzilla or Meta or Strategy or other wikis they are all places ignored for the most part by regular editors due to the lack ofintegrated watchlists. MediaWiki.org uses the much-hated LiquidThreads for its talk pages. So it has 2 strikes against it being used much by regular Wikipedia editors for feedback. Bugzilla is even more difficult for regular editors to use and keep up with. It took me a long time to figure out how to use it somewhat effectively. I even researched and wrote a lot of how-to tips atWP:Bugzilla. You and I both act as interfaces between regular editors and developers, and between regular editors and the WMF board/staff. But the real solution in my opinion is to move most WMF and developer feedback to locations with watchlists that more people use: English Wikipedia and/or the Commons. --Timeshifter (talk)11:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm certain much work has gone into this, however, I suggest that you have an "opt out" option. I've been on Wikipedia for over 7 years and have over 120,000 edits and have written several thousand new articles.

Honestly, I haven't heard a massive cry from the user community about the need for a visual editor. Nevertheless, I subscribe to the Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) philosophy when it comes to change and "making things better". I'm quite happy, thank you, with the current editor as it gives me maximum flexibility to edit and create articles without having to experience the problematic issues that seem to be well-documented by other Wikipedians (above) in this discussion.

If Visual Editor is designed for new editors, then that's all well and good. However, for the experienced editors here, I'd be quite happy with the old, antiquated, simple editor I've been using the past seven + years. I just don't see any advantage of going though a leaning curve to learn new software that, in the end, will force a learning curve and in the end, do exactly what we're doing now with the existing editor that is quite simple to use, is extremely flexible and quite adequate. Just a few thoughts.Bwmoll3 (talk)08:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

HiBrent,

At this point, there are absolutely no plans at all to turn off the classic wikitext editor for anyone. You don't need to opt out of VE to get what you're used to. You just need to click the [Edit source] button, which will always^[1] be on every editable page. Or, to put it another way, there's no way to opt out of the classic wikitext editor. Everyone will have access to both.

If what you want is a way to hide any reminder that VE even exists from yourself, rather than simply choosing not to use it, then let me know.Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)14:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to VE because it'll make it possible to introduce friends and family to the joys of editing (and wasting hours trying to find sources for articles). When Everything is Working Properly™ I'm going to encourage my brother, sister, father and father-in-law to get started here. They've each got domain-specific knowledge, good writing skills and I know the retired parents have time to spare. If all our experienced editors were to recruit and induct a couple of new editors each, the project would get an enormous boost. That's the central benefit of the Visual Editor IMO. -Pointillist (talk)10:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

An excellent point :). You know, I've been genuinely impressed by how willing so many community members are to open their minds around the VisualEditor. Sometimes I'll be working on software and it'll be a bit controversial, or not aimed at experienced editors, and a user will just suddenly turn up and blow me away with a well-reasoned argument for why this is A Good Thing, even if it's not something they'd use. With the VisualEditor, that seems to be happening daily. My barnstar button is looking rather worn.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)14:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that VE will be useful in attracting new editors, but I strongly believe that there should still be an opt-out option (excuse my repetition) for VE for pre-VE editors who do not prefer the new change, even after VE is out of development stages.smileguy91^talk23:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is improving a lot and in general I now prefer using it to editing the wikitext, so that's a huge step forward. I'm really looking forward to the instructions on how to use TemplateData so that we can get template parameters displaying in VE. A couple of issues I've noticed lately:

• In VE infoboxes tend to sit on top of the text rather than the text wrapping around the infobox. As such you can't edit the text underneath (or you can, but you can't see what you're doing!)
• When I first navigate to an article page and click any of the section edit links, VE opens. After making a change in VE, if I then click on one of the section edit links, I get the old wikitext edit box. Similarly javascript tools (notablyWP:POPUPS) don't seem to work after saving an edit in VE.

Sorry if these are already known issues.WaggersTALK07:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you give an example of the first one? (testing the second now).Okeyes (WMF) (talk)12:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Second now listed in Bugzilla :).Okeyes (WMF) (talk)14:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

HiWaggers, in addition to the name of an article where you found the first problem, it might be useful to know which browser you're using and which operating system. Thanks,Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)18:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): I'm using Chrome (version 27.0.1453.116) on Windows XP. It certainly seems to happen onBorough of Eastleigh and some VERY strange things are happening when I load theSouthampton article in VE. I think it's something to do with the image_map parameter of{{Infobox settlement}}.WaggersTALK07:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Having played a bit more, it's not image_map specifically but there definitely seems to be something odd when there's an image in the infobox.WaggersTALK07:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Just{{Infobox settlement}}? Is it happening on other pages with other info boxes that contain images?Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)09:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is, it seems to happen with any page with an infobox containing an image that is wider than the infobox would be if it didn't contain the image.WaggersTALK19:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The opposite happens at an article likeLeukemia, where it seems to think everything should be skinnier than default. I have just created a Bugzilla account and filed this as my first bug. (I hope I did it right!)Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)09:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The developers have closed that as a duplicate, and claim the duplicate bug is resolved. Certainly things look better atSouthampton but the problem is still occurring both there and atBorough of Eastleigh.WaggersTALK09:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It's supposed to be the same problem asT51925.Southampton is still screwed up for me. I'm not sure how to interpretthis comment, which seems to say that it both hasn't deployed and that it already deployed. It might be one of those things that's fixed in the code but hasn't quite reached us.Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)10:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

When I am trying to edit anything on the table/template that exists onthis page, even if that is a simple typo, it gives me the notification:
→Cite error: There areref tags on this page, but the references will not show without areflist template. (See help page)
First, why is this happening and second, it's obvious that the pagedoes have a reflist. Same happens to all the table/templates that are like this one.TeamGale (talk)23:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

We just patched referencing; can you try again and see what happens?Okeyes (WMF) (talk)23:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Just tried it again...same thing happens :( Is this not happening to you if try to change something?TeamGale (talk)23:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope, now happening for me too :(. I'll throw it in Bugzilla.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)12:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And now I can't edit references or templates at all.@TeamGale:, can you try editing the above article? Does it seem...screwy. To you?Okeyes (WMF) (talk)13:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. The same thing as I said at the very beginning still happens with the table. Nothing changed. When I edit it, the notification appears so for now the only way to do it is with the "edit source" road.

For the references, I am not sure what you mean by saying that you can't edit them. Can't edit the old ones or can't add a new one? I can do both. What I noticed though is that when I clicked in an "old" ref to edit it, the text on the ref box appeared as a template so I had to click on it and edit it as template. I have to say that's something I was thinking to ask to be added on VE but, I see that it's already there. It took me 20min to discoverhow to do it after watching it but, I finally found it! :D

I am not sure if that's what you were asking. If the Q was if I could edit the article, table or refs, the answer is yes, except from the table that was the original problemTeamGale (talk)14:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that this issue still exists. Can't edit with VE this type of templated because of the error that appears after the editTeamGale (talk)08:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Darn. Can you give me an example of a specific tweak I could make to replicate? I've foundan error, but...Okeyes (WMF) (talk)10:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...I don't think is something specific because if I try to editanything on a table like the one above, even if it's just one letter, I get the error notice in red letters...if you can explain me how to post a screencap, I might be able to show you what I mean better. If you try to edit the table, you are not getting that notice?TeamGale (talk)10:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I am. I'm not 100% sure it's a bug - it's a valid warning when there isn't a way to expand refs on the page, but there is at the bottom. That said, it certainly is confusing. In spite of the warning, I was still able to save the change (beyound -> beyond). TeamGale, are you trying to complete the edit after you change the template? The template editor subpage does not save the change - you have to click "Save Page" still at the top. Apologies if you knew that and it didn't work for you. :)

Meanwhile, while I managed to correct the typo, I am not at all happy with its decision to move episode 9 to the top of the list ([1]). Checking to see if this is a known issue. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)14:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Now tracking :). Not a known issue, but an important one!Okeyes (WMF) (talk)14:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...to be honest, after getting that notice I never tried to save the page because I didn't want to "damage" the table. I was clicking cancel and was going the old way to make my edits. But it seems that what VE does after saving, is way more interesting.TeamGale (talk)15:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Always save a bad VE edit, so you can post it here - you can always revert yourself straight after -David Gerard (talk)16:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll have that in mind from now on :)TeamGale (talk)20:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I disabled Visual Editor (VE) in preferences today due to constantly clicking the "edit" link instead of the "edit source" link. I am talking about section editing.

I almost always prefer editing with the source editor since I make frequent edits to tables, images, navboxes, and reference formatting. All at a deep level of formatting, placement, etc..

But since the source editing link only shows up after unintuitively mousing over the edit link I am constantly clicking the wrong link. So you have lost another beta tester. A good one too since I have written many comments and bug reports about VE here and in Bugzilla.

It would be better to use an icon for the "edit source" links for sections. For ideas:

• commons:User:Timeshifter/Sandbox 10

• commons:Category:Square brackets
• commons:Category:MediaWiki brackets

The images below are all SVG except these:

• (at native size of 23px).
• (at native size of 23px).
• (at native size of 22px).

15px:

20px:

25px:

30px:--Timeshifter (talk)19:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate it's not immediately intuitive - I think that's always going to be the case for a subset of users with, well, any design. Icons are, I suspect, something that the community (at least on enwiki) would object to, and something that is very different from every other element of the interface, making them appear rather odd. If you look at the button below "enable the VisualEditor" in your preferences you will see there is an option to restore the old 'edit source' links as 'edit', without any mousing over; this is better than losing a beta tester, obviously.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)19:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

See:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. Currently there are no more options listed after "Enable VisualEditor".

There are many icons used constantly on Wikipedia. Look at the editing toolbar in the edit window. Look at the top of the page at the star used to add and remove the page from one's watchlist.

Mousing over a similar, but incorrect, link to be able to click on another link is not intuitive. It is confusing. Many people might adapt to it kind of like adapting to cheap chairs. :) But that does not make something intuitive that is inherently non-intuitive and illogical.

"edit source" can show up after mousing over the icon. That is much more intuitive. Just like mousing over the watchlist star at the top of the page.

This could drive away many editors. Anonymous editors especially. They have no ability to fix the problem by turning off visual editor in preferences. Many anonymous editors just do not like to log in, and are very used to editing in source editor. Some will be very irritated by the confusing clicking. --Timeshifter (talk)19:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Of the examples you've given, one of them (and it's a fairly tiny icon) is present in the reader-facing interface, which is what we're talking about here. I have serious concerns, as do others, that there would be understandable and substantial pushback from the community on introducing the icon, which would undermine any utility it provides since said utility is based on people accepting it. If you're interested in convincing us that this is worth pursuing, I invite you to start up a wider discussion about whether an icon would work better than the existing link. Again, I would ask for a citation on your statements about the habits of anonymous users.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)19:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I read what others write since I started editing Wikipedia in 2005. That is the citation. You can choose to ignore me, brush off my concerns, or otherwise pooh-pooh my complaints. You do this a lot concerning many complaints on this page. Your lack of respect in many cases, and true engagement in many cases, is an example of why many people dislike some of the WMF board members and staff.

I have seen your type of response many times on Wikia when we brought up the numerous problems with their visual editor. And so that visual editor remains unused by many, if not most, regular editors. Even worse this visual editor is now similar to that visual editor in that regular editors will have to disable it in order to be able to edit effectively. Wikia refused to provide an option to put the source editor tab on top of the visual editor tab. So people had to do a multi-stage process for every single edit in order to get to the source editor. Click edit, then wait tediously for visual editor to load, then click the source tab. For every edit...

Similar to here now. I have to use a multi-stage process to get to the source editor. Aim at "edit" link or the line it is on, mouse over that "edit" link or line, aim better if necessary, wait for "edit source" link to show up, move mouse over to that link, click. Many times I accidentally, or by habit, click the edit link, and then have to click the back button, and start over.

Here is a possible icon method. "Edit source" tooltip can show up after mousing over the icon. And the small icon can have a transparent left and right border that makes the area wider for mousing over. So people will have no problem understanding that the icon is an "edit source" link. The visible part of the icon will be small, similar in size to the watchlist star at the top of pages. But the clickable part would extend to the left and right a bit to allow easier clicking. --Timeshifter (talk)23:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that my attitude is one of "brushing-off" complaints; I'd like to think that with the vast majority of issue reports I've been polite and reported them to the devs, who have ideally solved for the problems. But, here's the situation; my gut says that actually this is a prettygood implementation. The users here seem to agree - I see two contributors negative about it, three positive, which might not sound good but given the community's almost legendary capacity to speak up when it feels annoyed (and stay silent when it's comfortable with a decision) this would seem to suggest that people are generally okay with the change. My gut also says that the communityis likely to be annoyed by an icon popping up in the middle of article text. I'm not brushing you off, I'm making a legitimate offer, here - demonstrate that this sort of iconography is something that the community wants or alternately is comfortable with, via a village pump discussion or any mechanism you choose, and I'll raise it to the developers. If you're not willing or able to do that all I can go on is the data I have in front of me, which, given the lack of shouting, strongly suggests most people are totally fine with it.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)10:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

People shouldn't have to shout for you to listen. SHOUTING is frowned upon on Wikipedia. Several people inbugzilla:49666 also dislike multi-stage methods of getting to a link. It is clunky and wastes time. Anything that wastes editor time is a bad thing. The point of a visual editor is to get more editing done. It is hoped that it will make basic text editing and reference editing simpler for newbs. Making editing more difficult for more experienced editors is a bad idea. There are many experienced editors who do not log in. We can not afford to further erode the number of people who are editing. Nor can we afford anything that lessens the efficiency of editing.

Wikia's corporate execs and staff screwed up many things on Wikia, especially the visual editor. They had their gut feelings, and they have often been wrong. What is about execs and staff in organizations? I thing it has to do withgroupthink, and the fear of telling the boss they are full of it on certain issues. So problems get glossed over, up and down the chain of command. Your gut feeling about icons is just that, a gut feeling. I highly doubt that anyone will edit less often, or edit less efficiently, because of an icon, or even a direct text link to "edit source". I am happy with either one. --Timeshifter (talk)10:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying people have to shout at me, or that they should, just that they regularly do. If you think shouting is frowned upon you've clearly not seen many of the discussions around controversial software changes. I'm not a corporate exec - heck, I'm barely staff (short-term contractors ftw) - I'm a long-term editor and sysop who, my bosses will confirm, is perfectly willing to tell said bosses they're full of it. On this, however, I don't think they are. My gut feeling is, indeed, a gut feeling - the same is true of yours. Again, if you want to start a discussion and demonstrate that this is a wider problem than the evidence suggests, I will move forward. The alternative is that you're asking us to put our energies into a tweak with little evidence to show it is necessary.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)10:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I also dislike the new rollover system. The extra step is not justified by minor aesthetic concerns. If you want the buttons to look less in-the-way, I would suggest moving them back to the far right side of the page rather than hiding one of them. Speaking of which, if you set your account preferences to force the edit buttons back over to the right, you end up with an edit button floating about an inch to the left of where it should be and a big blank space waiting to display the edit source button.

Thatotherperson^talk
Thatotherpersoncontribs03:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeek, that's a pretty problematic bug. What's the preference switch in question? I can't seem to find it.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)10:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's actually a user gadget (Gadgets → Appearance → Move section [edit] links to the right side of the screen) so that's probably the issue, but I would still suggest moving the buttons over there as the default. I thought I remembered it being the default at one point, actually. Also, to be fair, it's not actually causing any problems in terms of functionality; it just looks really stupid.

Thatotherperson^talk
Thatotherpersoncontribs08:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Can I suggest a compromise? How about there be a setting in the Preferences that determines which edit link is shown first and which is hidden, make the [source edit] default for all existing users, and make the [visual edit] link default for all new accounts created after it's implemented. The next time a user opens an edit window, they would receive a "setup prompt" that would ask them "which editor do you want to set as your default?", which could be saved as a cookie for IPs and saved as a user preference for users.

Also, those icons are hideous from a design standpoint, and could probably be represented with unicode and CSS. Maybe

[[ ]]

—Love,Kelvinsongtalk13:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A good suggestion, but it sounds potentially finnicky and raises some philosophical questions (do we include a preferences switch for everything anyone could object to? If so, what do we do about the implication that we then support that outcome? How do we avoid doing this in a way that hinders future development?). In my experience if people are legitimately peeved by this they're liable to write a CSS hack that solves for the problem anyway.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)14:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's important for mobile users, where the hover state doesn't exist. In fact, I just tested on my iPhone, and it is impossible to use the source editor.—Love,Kelvinsongtalk14:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but we're building a distinct and proper mobile setup as we speak, so hopefully the need to jury-rig the desktop interface on a mobile phone will go away.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)14:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Okeyes. We should solve as many problems as possible for as many people as possible. That is my answer to your question: "do we include a preferences switch for everything anyone could object to?" Or we use better designs where possible so that preference switches are not necessary. See talk section below for the reasoning:

#Monthly number of edits will continue its downward slide since 2007 --Timeshifter (talk)22:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that Oliver's suggestion of a regular community discussion on this point, perhaps atWP:VPR, is a good one. Since this seems to be more "irritating" than "desperately busted", there's no immediate rush here, so it could be held whenever anyone wants to start it. (If it's soon, then perhaps a link here would be handy, in case the devs follow up on it.) It sounds like the Mobile version isn't going to be a problem, so I'll add accessibility as a possible concern that could be discussed. It seems likely to me that people who have physical trouble using a mouse would have trouble clicking a link that moves on hover. So if anyone decides to start this conversation, then perhaps he or she would inviteWT:ACCESS folks to join it.Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)15:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The more problems, the less people will edit. See talk section below:

#Monthly number of edits will continue its downward slide since 2007 --Timeshifter (talk)22:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

See also:

#Note the many unhappy people who do not see the HIDDEN "edit source" link --Timeshifter (talk)20:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I keep getting "error saving data to server: failed request: error" for major changes. But the minor changes go through.— Precedingunsigned comment added byDampayi (talk •contribs)03:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh-oh.@Dampayi:, can you give me an example on an article on which this is happening?Okeyes (WMF) (talk)10:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

@Okeyes (WMF): This is in all likelihoodbugzilla:50356, which I have marked "critical" to try to catch the attention of the VE developers. —This, that andthe other (talk)12:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh no :(. This could really impact the test :/.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)12:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem was with the VisualEditor; I couldn't reference to outside pages. I had to use Edit Source instead.— Precedingunsigned comment added byDampayi (talk •contribs)01:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not pleased that this has not been automated. Edit summaries are more than just etiquette. They are profoundly useful when scanning your watchlist and it's something new editors usually do not provide. Looking at the VisualEditor, there does not even appear to be a place to provide a summary, let alone encouraging or requiring new editors to do this. When a new editor makes many changes to an article, having the summary lets you know what they did and that it was productive. Unless this is changed and is somehow automated (they can't save until they provide the summary), all you're doing is making more work for the regular editors, checking on the new editors' work, reverting vandalism and warning new editors to use a summary.freshacconci talktalk15:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hellofreshacconci. There is an "edit summary" section. When you click "save", a box opens where someone can describe the changes they did or preview the changes before save it.TeamGale (talk)15:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Still trying to get a handle on this. I'm one of those editors who thinks that you shouldn't be able to save your edits until you've provided a summary, but I don't think that's ever going to happen. I'm relieved to see that there remains an edit summary section as I've come across new editors using VisualEditor who are not providing them.freshacconci talktalk15:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. Not be able to save your edit until you write a summary might be a good idea. I, personally, forget many times to write one after I preview my edits and I know it's not the best thing...TeamGale (talk)15:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There's actually a preference of "remind me to leave an edit summary"here (" Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary ").Okeyes (WMF) (talk)19:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That prefs setting hasn't been working consistently for me for a couple of months.

As for the general idea,Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Automatically_prompt_for_missing_edit_summary suggests that the overall community doesn't want edit summaries to be technically enforced, and it therefore will not be added to VE.Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)16:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, that discussion shows a proposal toremind editors about missing edit summaries, but the reason for rejection is a reason for rejectingforcing them to add an edit summary. I use the preferences setting to remind me when I'm about to save without an edit summary (seems to work fine for me both in Edit Source and in VE), but if I don't want to add an edit summary I can just click Save again. I wonder if it's time to revisit that discussion? I'd be delighted to see that preference set as a default for all editors, and it is far short of "forcing".PamD19:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe thatWP:VPP is the usual place for that discussion. Check the archives there to find the most recent discussions.Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)07:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

References get misnumbered[2], the two refs in the infobox are properly numbered 1 and 2, but the count restarts in the main text. Reproduced in Safari and Chrome. --j⚛e decker^talk15:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Joe. Your link is to the edit screen, and I can't reproduce it in Chrome. :) (I added a couple of quick citation requests for the quotes that lack inline sourcing.) It doesn't look like you saved in whatever edit resulted in that issue - if you can replicate that, can you save it and link it? It might help determine how it's happening. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)12:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I should have been more clear, sorry about that. If you compare the first reference within the infobox with the reference at the end of the "Early Years" section, you will notice that they have the same number while being edited, but have different numbers when the article is viewed outside the editor (e.g., the "Read" tab.) I continue to see this behavior on Mac/Chrome. --j⚛e decker^talk16:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmn; could you grab some comparative screenshots?Okeyes (WMF) (talk)17:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Should be appearing in your mailbox in a sec. --j⚛e decker^talk19:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Now reported! Thanks for the speedy work - it's much appreciated.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)19:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! --j⚛e decker^talk18:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Footnotes are showing --- BUT only the most recent footnote, which appears 23 times on the edit screen.— Precedingunsigned comment added bySLBohrman (talk •contribs)21:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a link?Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk)05:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for sure for this other editor, but there's something weird going on atAtoka, Tennessee, one of the few articles this editor has edited recently, even before I get into visual editor, and most of the references that show in that article at "read" (around 9, but numbered very oddly) don't show in Visual Editor (only two do). Mac/Chrome. --j⚛e decker^talk07:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh, there are several reference groups, that's why the numbering looks odd in the unedited article. Without having dissected the source code, there does appear to be a bug there, which should be visible by comparing the reference list in the article as viewed and the article as edited. --j⚛e decker^talk07:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't post the link. Yes it was onAtoka, Tennessee. Could just be me.SLBohrman (talk)14:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I need to know if I'm not supposed to be using the "group" attribute on references. I was trying it out just to see how it worked. Do I need to remove it from my references or is it ok to leave -Atoka, Tennessee?— Precedingunsigned comment added bySLBohrman (talk •contribs)16:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to remove reference groups--is the article working for you now? What I saw before at the time I looked was that you'd added a reflist only for the default reference group, so the others weren't showing. Is there another bug you're seeing now? I'm happy to try and help reproduce it if so. --j⚛e decker^talk04:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Prince Marko: audio appears huge in edit mode. --Redtigerxyz^Talk04:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, filed a new bug for this.PEarley (WMF) (talk)07:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This is likely a duplicate of 49689. --j⚛e decker^talk07:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

(Ahh, it is, I should have gone and looked in bugzilla first.) Looks like a fix is on the way--developed, but not deployed on ENWIKI yet. --j⚛e decker^talk07:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I like the visual editor, and I predict that more people will edit WP when it's introduced. However, there is one thing that bugs me: After I clicked the "Edit" Tab, the view of the article does change only slightly -so sometimes I do not know that I am already editing, especially when I scroll down the article. I'd suggest a visual hint: A modal popup, a slim outline of the editing area or a more distinctive design of the tool bar, for example.Mateng (talk)12:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Perhaps a (faint) background colour? There needs to be some visual clue.JohnCD (talk)12:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for filing this, John. Yes, a faint background color could work, too.— Precedingunsigned comment added byJesus Presley (talk •contribs)14:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(Actually, I filed it, but would not have been able to do so without John's and your noting the request. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)15:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC))

Any bouquets that arrive for me I will forward to you, Maggie. I would even give your username to the enthusiastic fan who put 16 barnstars on my talk page yesterday, if he hadn't been indeffed as a sock.JohnCD (talk)15:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL! I appreciate your thoughtfulness. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)15:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

To add support to this proposal, I've been dealing with a new editor who was frustrated that they couldn't edit - didn't realise that clicking edit called up VE and thought that nothing was happening.NtheP (talk)22:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What is my verdict on the Visual Editor? MOST EXCELLENT! I always use the Visual Editor on Wikia, and have little idea how to use wikimarkups. Now making a table will be easy! --BNSF1995 (talk)21:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. :) I hope we will continue to improve and refine it and that everyone will find it as useful as you do. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)13:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Bug 49969 the response to my21 June report seems unhelpful.

If I'm editing an article and want to add categories for birth and death dates, I need to be able to see those dates in the article while I'm adding the categories. The "Page settings" box totally obscures the article. I can probably remember one, but not both, of theose two dates. But I might want to add other categories too. Some categories involve unfamiliar placenames whose spelling is difficult to remember. The response seems to tell me that looking at the article while adding categories is undesirable multitasking. Can this bug please be bumped up the system: it's not a "low-importance enhancement" but a feature which makes doing a perfectly ordinary job very difficult.

When I'm stub-sorting I tend to add defaultsort and birth/death categories whenever I can, even if my main aim in opening the article was to remove{{stub}} and replace it by something more specific. I might add a maintenance category or two, as well as tidying up obvious typos, making a link or two, unlinking a date, etc etc. The response to this bug says"As far as adding a category or changing the default sort of a category directly from some other mode (such as reading, or editing paragraph text) we should look at those workflows rather than dissolve the intentional model-ness of the dialog." (I guess "modal-ness" is intended) - this makes my heart sink, as it seems to say that my sort of driveby wikignoming is not at all what editors are supposed to be doing, and we must categorise our activities into separate modalities and not expect it to be simple to make several quick improvements to an article in one short editing session. Deeply depressing.PamD21:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Have now commented on the thread at Bugzilla, probably more appropriate than here.PamD21:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I hope that your clarification there will make your issue more clear. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)13:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's the diff. All I tried to do was move a quotation mark, and it added a bunch of underline markup in the References section and removed all the categories.~Adjwilley(talk)21:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeesh :/. What browser/OS?Okeyes (WMF) (talk)22:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Windows 7, Firefox 21.0.~Adjwilley(talk)23:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried to reproduce this in the sandbox, but it looks like VE is only for article space. Do you know of a sandbox-type place where I can play with VE that's not going to cause problems in the main space?~Adjwilley(talk)23:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Okeyes I think that is a great suggestion if your still watching this thread. It should be fairly easy to extend the Article/Userpage functionality to subpages like /sandbox.Kumioko (talk)00:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

@Adjwilley: TryUser:Adjwilley/sandbox.Ignatzmice•talk01:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I did three test edits in my sandbox. Thefirst was an exact reproduction of what happened in the article. In thesecond I wanted to see if it was my edit summary and/or use of the "minor" checkbox that did it, so I didn't check "minor" and I left a blank summary. It did the underlines and removed the categories, plus a whole bunch of other changes that I hadn't seen before. In thethird edit, I wanted to see if it was my moving the quotation mark that did it. Instead of moving a quotation mark, I just added a "test" sentence to the Lead. I left an edit summary, but didn't tick the "minor" box. I got pretty much the same result as in the first edit.

Summary: Apparently no matter what edit I do to that particular article, it blanks the categories and adds the underline tags. If I don't leave an edit summary, it does even more.~Adjwilley(talk)02:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Anybody who wants to is invited to come play in my sandbox :-)User:Adjwilley/sandbox10~Adjwilley(talk)02:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to follow your footsteps and remove a quotation mark from the article (not the sandbox), and I notice that there is a bold note at the bottom of the save screen that says, "Warning: Your edit may have been corrupted – please review before saving." On review, I see the same issues you did. Do you see that note as well? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)13:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I get that (I hadn't noticed it before...the save screen text is pretty small for me.) It actually doesn't matter what edit you make, by the way, you still get the "corrupted" changes. I did it just now by adding a single space.~Adjwilley(talk)16:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, I just ran acrossthis. The user was just trying to add a new section, but Visual Editor made some other repairs to the page, both good as I can tell. (It got rid of a stray </blockquote> and merged two a duplicated named reference.) Like I said, the changes were good, but above in the FAQ it says VE's not supposed to be making changes like that. (I'm fairly certain the user didn't do that himself, since he's very new, and would have had to do a lot of searching to find those errors.)~Adjwilley(talk)03:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added this to my list to ask about - if it turns out that itis meant to make changes such as this, we'll have to correct the documentation. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)13:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The "This is a minor edit" label is truncated for me: I see∆ This is a ∆ Watch this page. Happens on Safari 6.0.5, Chrome 27.0.1453.116 on Mac OS 10.8.4. I assume it's because of something inmy CSS (most likely the fixed-navbar thingie), because it doesn't happen in my sock account.

Another thing: Also in the last dialog box before actually saving, there is what I assume is supposed to be an "X" in the top right corner. Clicking on it closes the dialog box. However, I do not see an X—it looks like an upside-down check mark (it isn't symmetrical). It seems all of the top half and half of the left half (of a regular [square] X) are somehow truncated.Ignatzmice•talk22:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a CSS hack, yep. Good catch on the truncation - throwing in bugzilla now (I see it too).Okeyes (WMF) (talk)17:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Despite the many changes made, hidden comments still cannot be seen or edited using VE. These comments are helpful in preventing unnecessary edits._{(talk/contributions)}00:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if a template can be made to give this a workaround? I'll try that in a bit.Charmlet (talk)00:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Au: yep, this issomething we're working on.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)17:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I know this is being worked on, but it's already causing problems. (See this edit)Jr8825 •Talk18:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A very slow minor copyedit correcting one letter on theCalifornia article, FWIW.Djembayz (talk)03:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added a note to an existing ticket about time-outs on even larger articles, as I suspect the two are related. Thanks! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)13:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

When I try the following steps using Firefox 22, I get an incorrect warning:

1. For any article page on your watchlist, click the "hist" link to go to the Revision history page.
2. Click any "cur" link to go to the Differenve between revisions page. Note that there is a "Previous edit" link, but no "Next edit" link.
3. Click any "Edit source" link or the "Edit" link at the top of the page, and you can make your changes just fine. However, if you click a section's "[edit]" link, you see a big red warning stating: "You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed.".

Thanks!GoingBatty (talk)03:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I encountered the same thing a few hours ago.Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)08:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, I can't replicate it. :/ Are you encountering this consistently or occasionally? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)12:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

@Mdennis (WMF): - I encounter this consistently. Seems thatWhatamidoing (WMF) knows whatI am doing, so maybe you two can get together on this. Thanks!GoingBatty (talk)01:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

My "you" was plural there. :) I'm interested in hearing from both of you, so we can make sure that this is properly reported. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)01:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw that, though I assumed it was accurate. I'm suspicious that it may have happened after I edited the page myself and tried to edit the same page a second time without a refresh in between. --Beland (talk)02:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this isbugzilla:50441.guillom14:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Will this break the ways that minority language Wikipedias (Cherokee, Navajo, etc) have rigged their special input methods? Is there a way to refuse the upgrade if so? Cheers,Nesnad (talk)05:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that it's been turned off on the Chinese Wikipedia because of language-specific problems. If there is actually a problem at any of these languages, then there shouldn't be any difficulty in doing the same for them.

On the other hand, if it works for minority languages, then I believe you'll want to keep it. It's already hard enough to find people who can write in a minority language, without eliminating anyone who doesn't have time to learn wikicode.Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)08:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd have expected this to be a known issue, but I failed to find such feedback: I see no way to add references to template parameters. See for exampleUser:Huon/Test: The references within the template parameters are displayed as wikicode within the Visual Editor, the named reference<ref name="mojo"> that's used within the infobox is not available for re-use outside the infobox, and while all references are correctly listed in the "references" section, Visual Editor numbers the first referenceafter the infobox^[1]; apparently it doesn't realize at all that the references within the infobox exist. If I add a<references /> instead of (or in addition to) the{{Reflist}}, that one won't display the footnotes within the infobox at all.

On a related note, I don't see how I could add templates within templates either - except by manually inserting the wikicode.Huon (talk)08:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The tracking number I've added refers to the reference count. When I look at your diff, though, the reference numbering seems correct to me - the two in the infobox are 1 & 2, the one in the body is 3. Does it look different to you? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)12:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've seen something similer in that while editing the main body, the reference numbering starts from 1 regardless of the fact that there are references in the infobox. When the edit is saved everything then appears as expected so it's a quirk of the edit process that's ignoring refs not within the main text. Haven't tried the named reference yet to see if I experience the same.NtheP (talk)14:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed the result is what I'd expect, it's just the VisualEditor itself that doesn't realize that references within templates exist (or indeed any formatting; links or italics would also have to be added manually to template parameters). VisualEditor doesn't allow me to add them, it doesn't allow me to refer to named refs that exist already outside the main body, and it doesn't count them correctly. The last effect is an entirely cosmetic bug (VisualEditor is not WYSIWYG here) that's just a symptom of the underlying problem.

In a similar vein I can't add a reference or a template to an image caption, though templates and imagescan be added to references.Huon (talk)15:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

On second thought this seems to be a generalization ofbug 50182 - I don't just want to nest templates within templates, I want to nest references in templates (though not in templates within references!), and references and templates within image captions. All that is unsupported at the moment.Huon (talk)16:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The devs are actually talking this one through in IRC now :).Okeyes (WMF) (talk)17:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Spaces and nowiki tags are being added to a table on my users page when I'm editing elsewhere on the page using VisualEditor.SLBohrman (talk)14:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems to have gone wonky inthis edit. It looks like the </ br> markup, etc. might have confused something in there. I'm wondering if the issue you encountered in the welcome message has to do with the known problem with colored text in signatures (unless that was fixed while I was out of town). I'll poke about. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)16:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

After looking more closely, I think not. I've opened a bug about the duplicated character stringhere. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)16:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!SLBohrman (talk)17:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Inthis edit I wanted to remove one of the two templates which were nested in{{multiple issues}}: the only way I could see was to delete{{mi}} and then re-add the one template I still wanted. Messy. What if there had been 5 templates within{{mi}} and I'd wanted to delete one or two: can it be done in VE?PamD15:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

When editing "MI", I see a "1" beneath it. Clicking on the "1" brings up the subtemplates, which I can remove individually. Unless that isn't working for you, it seems less a lack of feature than a lack of clarity. If you can let me know which, I'll see what we can do with it. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)15:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Being able to treat templateswithin templates in the same way that you can treat stand-alone templates is actuallyon the to-do list :). I am particularly proud of the bug name.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)15:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Awesomely titled, but duplicate. :) I've linked the main bug above. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)16:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, thanks Maggie, I can now remove one or more of the templates from within{{mi}}. But if I've removed all but one, so want to drop the{{mi}} but keep one of the inner templates, can I do that? It might be one with a long text parameter (perhaps {{cleanup|reason= some verbose description of everything that's wrong with the article ...}}, tedious to retype. Seethis example edit. (Only a low-priority issue, as copy-and-paste or retyping would work)PamD21:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Templates have evolved since this morning, I'm happy to see. You can now see the name of the subtemplate. But, alas, I don't see any way to remove the top template without removing the subs. This would be a nice feature to have, I agree - I'll put it in, but it probably will be low-priority, as you say. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)21:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

If I openQueen Anne Grammar School in VE, I can see two superscripts linking to references - and 29 references in the reflist. Some of them perhaps most, are the refs which were deleted in aseries of edits 9 hours ago while the article was being moved from AFC to mainspace. If I open it in Edit Source, it's a respectable little stub with two refs and no sign of the other stuff.

Extremely confusing. I've got a word doc with a couple of screenshots pasted into it, could attach to an email if told where to send it.

Meanwhile will edit the article in VE and see what happens.

... Have italicised motto, stub-sorted, saved page, all in VE. When I open it again in VE it still shows 29 references.

... Closed it, edited it in Edit Source, saved it, no sign of refs 3-29. Re-opened it in VE, they are still showing up.PamD20:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reporting this, I'll let you know something ASAP. --Elitre (WMF) (talk)20:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I was able to reproduce it as well, so I have thrown your very words intoBugzilla. Again, thanks for stopping by! --Elitre (WMF) (talk)21:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes, the "Submit" and "Cancel" buttons don't show up, leaving the editor no choice but to backtrack and edit the page's source code. Is there any fix for that?Epicgenius^{(talk to me •see my contributions)}21:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Epicgenius, can you tell us more about your browser, WP skin and OS? Which article were you working on? Have you experienced other issues that you feel might be related? Thanks, --Elitre (WMF) (talk)21:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am using Google Chrome, on Windows 7, and I am using the Vector skin. I was working onDeKalb Avenue (BMT Fourth Avenue Line), but it wasn't a major problem since I was making spelling corrections. I haven't ran into any other problems with VE that are related to this.Epicgenius^{(talk to me •see my contributions)}21:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I Bugzillaed it (new issue, new words!), thank you, --Elitre (WMF) (talk)21:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Epicgenius, any chance to provide a screenshot of the problem? That would be quite helpful for the developers. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk)09:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried to edit the wikilinked word "Google" to the non-wikilinked word "Niantic" and got a strange result with an unexpected nowiki close tag:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ingress_(game)&diff=prev&oldid=562432188

Any idea why? Thanks!Woz2 (talk)21:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Woz2, yes, I think there were multiple reports about VE adding those tags. Will still look into that ASAP, thank you. --Elitre (WMF) (talk)21:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This is expected behavior if only a part of a word was linked. Without the <nowiki/> the unlinked part of the word would be turned into a link trail. --Gabriel Wicke (talk)23:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't understand what a link trail is. Also the whole of the word "Google" was linked, not a part of it.Woz2 (talk)00:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

See "linktrail rules" inHelp:Links. I suspect that Google was indeed the link target, but only the 'N' of Niantic was linked. --Gabriel Wicke (talk)06:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Look at the results ofhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akon_discography?veaction=edit . Notice how the visual editor treats html style tags as table entries.—Kww(talk)22:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, look at the album for "Oh Africa", which certainly wasn't "Rowspan=3;style=background ...", or the album for "Lock Down", which wasn'tc-Kww-2013-07-01T22:28:00.000Z-Kww-2013-07-01T22:14:00.000Z">Kww(talk)22:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it looking something likethis for you (I can't reproduce it ...)PEarley (WMF) (talk)22:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is what it looks like. I can see the HTML as well in edit mode. PEarly, I filed a new bug, feel free to merge it (or have it merged) if this is already in Bugzilla.Keegan (WMF) (talk)22:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's50366, but we'll let the pros figure it out.PEarley (WMF) (talk)22:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey y'all...I have to say, in the past few weeks the VisualEditor has improvedquite a bit, and I'm proud to say that, what the heck, Oliver, for the first time ever you didn't botch up a release. I'm just kidding of course -- kudos to the entire team. Keep it up!Theopolisme(talk)22:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

First off, I want to say that the new visual editor is remarkable improvement over the version I tested out several months ago. This is an editor which I could actually use to manage articles! That said, one feature it currently lacks is viewing or editing inline comments to a page. These are useful in many different fashions. Could it be possible for Visual editor to display and/or allow editing of inline comments?Sailsbystars (talk)22:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, tis a widely-requested feature. See above at#Still cannot view hidden comments for the most recent thread, and a link to the bugzilla entry. –Quiddity (talk)22:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been trying VisualEditor recently, and so far, I've been pretty pleased with it. I do have two nitpicks, however:

1) The text size for edit summaries and reviewing changes is a bit too small for me. I sometimes find that I have a bit of difficulty reading what I write in the text box and seeing the changes I made without zooming in. I think the text size could be made a bit bigger.
2) When I edit a particular section of an article, it would be nice if the text summary noted which section I edit like editing the source would. Currently, VisualEditor doesn't do that.

Overall, it's good so far, even if I have some minor issues with it.Lugia2453 (talk)22:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Lugia2453. Good point about the edit summary sizes and section edits being noted. We should certainly look into that.Keegan (WMF) (talk)22:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please do. The licensing information is in that window, which is pretty important information, and I can't read what's in there without putting on glasses that I don't normally need for computer use. I'd suggest a 20-25% increase in size; it can be smaller, but not 1/3 the size of normal print.Risker (talk)07:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you using vector or monobook? If monobook - that's a known bug, and one we're working on.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)07:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Monobook, of course, because Vector is still too slow for some of my computers. It might be helpful to maintain a table on this project of the bugs that have been reported so that people will have a chance to (a) follow and (b) not duplicate work for each other.Risker (talk)12:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that is that there are a lot of bugs being reported (go figure - big software project) and also that they're gettingfixed admirably fast. I've usually got about 30 bugs in bugzilla at a time, and they're never the same 30 a week. Keeping it up-to-date would be substantial.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)12:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The former edting interface of Wikipedia is way better than the current one.Windows55 (2) (talk)22:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. You can still access the "old" editing interface by clicking "edit source" instead of "edit."Keegan (WMF) (talk)22:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Not for section 0. The new editor needs to be disabled until this is fixed.Hawkeye7 (talk)13:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please seeWikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Section_0_edit_link_different. Thanks. --Elitre (WMF) (talk)13:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Editing tab on my Preferences page doesn't have an "Enable VisualEditor" option under "Usability".Jordan Brown (talk)23:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

If you do not wish to use VisualEditor, you can simply click "edit source" to load the wiki-markup editing interface. There is not an option to turn VisualEditor off or opt-out in your preferences- we do hope that you'll give it a try- but if you want to hide it from your interface you can addimportScript('User:Matma Rex/VE killer.js'); to your common.js file.Keegan (WMF) (talk)23:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like an option to disable it, I think. Having the "Edit source" tab appear several seconds after the "Edit this page" tab appears is confusing. (Might be OK if they appeared at the same time.) Regardless, if there's not going to be a Preferences entry for it, the documentation about the preferences entry (like at the top of this page) should go away. As for why I think I want to disable it: maybe it's just that I'm an old dog (and hence resistant to learning new tricks), or maybe it's that I'm used to being very picky about exactly what wikitext I write, but my immediate gut reaction is that I don't want to learn a new tool and I'm not comfortable not knowing what wikitext gets generated.Jordan Brown (talk)23:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no plan to disable this in Preferences, but I can certainly put in a feature request for simultaneous "edit source" appearance, unless there's one already (I'll check). (Thanks much for the note about the Preferences on the top of the page. Overlooked in the beta release. :) I've removed it. ) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)00:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That hover thing is incredibly annoying: it probably wouldn't be so bad if the interface hadn't changed the definition of "edit". If it said something like "struggle to accomplish what used to come simply and naturally" or something like that, I probably wouldn't go through this cycle of clicking it, wondering why my screen goes dim and everything locks up for 30 seconds, and then realizing that I have accidentally engaged the visual editor, backing out, hovering, and then moving right to accomplish what I originally intended.—Kww(talk)00:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully they'll be able to accommodate the enhancement request, which I've linked above. I understand your annoyance with that - I've gotten used to it, but when they first changed section editing to VE only (before the "edit source" link was added), it kind of drove me crazy. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)00:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Now that you've made the visual editor the default, I would like to have an option to switch it off again. However, I can't find the box to tick any more in my preferences. Could you please bring this back? I do not want to use visual editor, and the dual tabs for "edit" and for "edit source" are confusing. – Thanks.--Aschmidt (talk)23:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.smileguy91^talk23:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just tried the JS snippet from the section before, and it works.--Aschmidt (talk)23:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Awful, unnecessary, unwelcome and unwanted. --Necrothesp (talk)23:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

@Smileguy91:, create the page /common.js in your userspace and copy the code above. The result is a page that looks likethis and VisualEditor should be blocked off for you.Keegan (WMF) (talk)23:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Having a switch in your preferences for switching this off would be the canonical way, though. Otherwise, you'll drive away the most important contributors to the project. Creating a JS file is only a work around. Make it a gadget, please.--Aschmidt (talk)00:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The entire process of this 'visual editing' is extremely slow, from the lag when altering some text to the long wait for an edit to be finished. I added a single space, and had to wait for about six seconds to finish my edit. This change adds nothing of benefit that I can see, and it looks to be useless for real article editing; how would one see or use wiki-markup in this interface? I have no idea.

By the way, this feedback form constantly moves down my screen every time I hit a key, making me have to scroll down. It causes full screen flickering seemingly randomly too. I do not recall signing up for this, I hope that this feature wasn't suddenly enabled by default for everyone.Shirudotalk23:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

One doesn't see or use wiki-markup in this interface. :) It's a VisualEditor.Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide offers information on some of the ways you achieve the same results in the interface.

While VE is activated by default for everyone, it is not forced on anyone - you have the alternative to "edit source" and need never use VE if you don't want to. But I hope you'll give it a try. It's grown on me since my first halting edits with it some months back. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)00:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but the instinct is to hit "edit" so it's an imposition. I've used the code to kill it for me. When all the bugs are ironed out, I'll adopt it probably, unless it's too much time to learn given all the templates and so forth I use. After all, I've made it this far without it. That being said, you learn in Horror Movie 101 never to activate something that lacks an off switch.--Wehwalt (talk)01:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it has an off switch - the developers certainly can turn it off if problems develop. It won't be staggering about killing us all. :D In terms of the gadget, WMF actively supported the development of that because nobody is meant to be required to use VE. To make it easier to use, it's now been added to "gadgets" under your preferences. VE is there and available for everybody, but the old way has not been taken off the table. On the contrary, they've been working hard to accommodate both. That said, it hasn't taken me long to learn the difference between the two buttons. We humans are remarkably adaptable. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)01:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You are, I believe, younger than me and such things come more natural. My brother and his wife are amazed at the technological advancement of their two children, yet we are much further advanced than our father, who never learned the use of a computer. In any event, energy spent on such things is energy not spent on content, and pushes people further along the inevitable enthusiasm curves which takes us from our dawn to dusk here on Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk)11:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

For your interest the scrolling issue seems to be handled inbugzilla:50533. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk)09:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that there are now 2 ways to edit an article, the "edit source" way uses the familiar theme; the new theme now called "edit" is different. I have a problem with it. If you use the "edit source" option, there's an HTML comment at the top of Christine Jorgensen saying to use she/her to refer to Christine Jorgensen throughout her life. But with the new "edit" way of editing the article, no one will notice this HTML comment. People who prefer to edit with the new "edit" way of editing the article will change pronouns in this article the way they want to. Any thoughts??Georgia guy (talk)23:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

A very good observation.@Okeyes (WMF):, thoughts on this?Keegan (WMF) (talk)23:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Already tracked atbugzilla:49603Theopolisme(talk)23:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Alrea-dammit!@Theopolisme:, too fast :).Okeyes (WMF) (talk)00:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the A/B test results must have been fantastic in order to justify doing this to us. Can I ask what they were, and where they are summarized and analyzed?—Kww(talk)23:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Kww, we have the data from the A/B testing and it has been gone through. Oliver and James are meeting with the research team tomorrow to finalize the results so that it can be presented to the community sooner rather than later.Keegan (WMF) (talk)00:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Cool! --j⚛e decker^talk00:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Keegan (WMF), forgive me for being so blunt, but is there a reason the community can't have the raw data, instead of the version that is "finalized" (to me that sounds like "how do we make this look like it's great", but assuming good faith I hope it's not)? Of course all identifying data (IP etc) would be stripped first (not sure if that was even collected), everything else would be almost public information, so why not just release the raw data? ~Charmlet^-talk-00:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No, finalised means "we've been running tests for 7 days and want to analyse 7 days worth of data, not 4". I'm sure we'll release the raw data if we can find a way of properly anonymising it.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)00:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You turned it on by defaultbefore analyzing the results of the entire test? Why would you have done that?—Kww(talk)01:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any anonymising that needs to happen. No IP data should've been collected, nor other data (other than perhaps browser). It shouldn't be that hard. I share Kww's concerns about this being very rushed and not forthcoming. We don't need the analysis of the people who are pushing this against many wishes, we need the raw data so we can analyze it ourselves. ~Charmlet^-talk-01:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A strange, and quite minor bug, when editingPickup v. Brown and Welsh v. Brown. When I edit this, and decrease my window width in such a way that the external linka at the bottom of the page requires more than one line, the bullet migrates to the second line improperly. Reproduced in Chrome and Safari/MacOSX/latest. --j⚛e decker^talk00:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe that's because the link is actually a template? When I try to edit in Chrome on my laptop, the bullet starts on the second line. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)00:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Could be. As for being on the second line, for me it depends on whether there is a second line, it sounds like we're seeing, likely, the same behavior. --j⚛e decker^talk02:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

very annoying thing jumps out when I'm trying to read pages.Ellin Beltz (talk)00:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ellin. If it's the banner that tells you about VisualEditor that you object to, you can turn that off by hitting "hide". :) If that's not it, can you give more detail? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)00:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

My comment was left on a "leave feedback about" widget that popped out at me while I was trying to read a page. This remark "... annoying thing" relates to the pop out window that asked for feedback. I had no idea it would end up on some wikipage! However after having read several pages on this new editing system, I'd point out that many times when "new" software vastly changes user experience, it's the older users who flee leaving the techs to wonder "where did everyone go" because your old editors are the recruiters for new editors and from the looks of these comments, not very many people are happy with this project. Also the techs are getting very defensive in their comments. The whole thing is not good for the Wiki experience and I seriously don't see how a crippled Visual Editor is going to do anything other than keep the markup editors very busy fixing errors introduced accidentally or on purpose by newcomers, especially after 8 July when anonymous accounts can use it.Ellin Beltz (talk)16:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Currently, there is no way to truly choose what you want to link to. For instance, if I want to link toCanada from "Canadian" (yes, I realize it is overlink, and wouldn't really do it) I can not, because Canada is not among the choice options, and there is no way to pipelink or input your own option.78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!)00:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You can still link to whatever page you would like even though something may not appear in a dropdown box. All you have to do is type the word you want in the link box. Using your example of Canada, I createdUser:Keegan (WMF)/Canada with the text Canadian/Canadien, highlighted, clicked link, wrote Canada, and saved, all with VisualEditor.Keegan (WMF) (talk)00:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Before I begin to truly use this, the referencing function must improve. To me, the "What do you want to reference" doesn't make sense. I want to place a reference where the cursor is. Clicking on "use new source" does not work. It would really be cool if a selection of cite templates were included in a dropdown menu, and then fields were provided. Speaking for myself, cite book, journal, news, and album-notes are absolutely essential. Thanks!78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!)00:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; seebugzilla:50458 :).Okeyes (WMF) (talk)01:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I will just say this: Thank goodness Wikipedia is not planning (apparently) to eliminate the "edit source" option. Apparently, "edit source" is the only way to be able to preview your work before saving your changes. I tried the new VisualEditor for the first time today (onCJQM-FM), but it was so disorienting that I cancelled editing numberous times before throwing up my hands and discovering the "edit source". One noteworthy source of my frustration was an attempt to add in image in the CJQM-FM Infobox; somehow, the markup codes for internal link (double brackets) appeared in the article, causing the internal link to be broken or at least appeared to be broken. (Luckily, I added the picture in "edit source" with no harm.) My preference is to always preview my work before saving, since it's important to make sure the edits are accurate before the world sees it.

So, for the benefit of the "new" editors, please at the very least add a "preview" button. If not, make them use the good old fashioned "edit source"; they'll learn.Darrel M (talk)01:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The option to preview is included in VE. You can see the screencap with the "Review your changes" button in theWikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide. I'm sorry that you found your initial experience with VE so frustrating. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)01:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by this,User:Mdennis (WMF). When I click on "Review your changes" the resulting box covers the entire screen, and I cannot see the underlying article at all :/ --Diannaa (talk)03:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What Maggie means is that when you're editing with VisualEditor, what you're seeing is basically what you'll see after saving. There is no "preview" button, because you're essentially "previewing" all the time you're editing.guillom07:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not the case though. The display with the Visual Editor does not match what you'll be saving.Hawkeye7 (talk)13:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It does: but if VEadds extra things while saving, you should not be able to see that with the "Review your changes" button: unexpected outcome is likely a bug and should be reported as such. --Elitre (WMF) (talk)13:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

VE can't properly display any chart table using{{singlechart}}. Take a look at5 O'Clock (T-Pain song)#Charts and certifications as a random selection, and try to figure out how to change the positions (or, worse yet, add a line). This is probably related to the fact that singlechart creates reference and table markup internally. It is, however, anextremely common template, used in most articles about singles.—Kww(talk)01:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The old editor had a list of commonly used citations. This was extremely handy. It would be nice if that feature could be brought back.¿3family6_contribs01:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, is it something much different from what is explained atWikipedia:VisualEditor/User_guide#Editing_references? Thanks, --Elitre (WMF) (talk)09:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It also had a built-in find and replace function. That of course tends to be more useful in the source edit, but it's ridiculous that that and many other functions of the edit toolbar were removed.Reywas92^Talk07:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll check Bugzilla for similar requests, although I would not say that features were removed, they arenot ready yet (remember, this is still the beta version!). --Elitre (WMF) (talk)07:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There was one, as a matter of fact :) --Elitre (WMF) (talk)09:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I figured that they weren't ready yet. I also couldn't find a link to the User Guide. Thanks!--¿3family6_contribs13:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a link to that page straight in the VE interface: try and click the question mark. --Elitre (WMF) (talk)13:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not very used to it. I was planning to added one more ref into a sentence, but I have no idea what to do.Rochelimit (talk)02:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Rochelimit:,How to edit references. I hope this helps!Keegan (WMF) (talk)02:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Keegan (WMF): Now I'm very used it. I like it a lot, it's very easy, and because there is an option to edit classically as well (Edit Source). One problem is that if you want to continue another edit after saving the file, almost always that it will say that I am editing on an older version, forcing me to refresh the page.--Rochelimit (talk)17:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Rochelimit:, I'm glad you're used to it and it's becoming enjoyable to use. As for the old revision problem, I'vefiled a bug. It happens after saving section edits as well. Happy editing to you!Keegan (WMF) (talk)18:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This new BETA editing tool is the most confusing and useless "upgrade" ever introduced by Wikipedia. Yes, it does look a lot fancier but Wikipedia is all about simplicity, which this new tool is effectively going to eliminate. We don't need this "chic" interface, make it go away!Permaveli (talk)02:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to hide the VisualEditor interface, for now you can add the gadget under "Editing" in your preferences.Keegan (WMF) (talk)02:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop making it the default until it actually functions properly on most articles? That would be simpler than subjecting everyone to this thing unless we take steps to avoid it.—Kww(talk)02:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, here's the basic thing. The WMF team has been working on this super hard, I get that. But when they're faced with this much dadgum opposition, you'd think they'd take a step back and wait a bit before forcing this on peoplewho didn't even know it was coming - i.e. new editors, editors who didn't see the watchlist/other notices, etc. And now, it's forced as default forall logged in editors? This is too much too fast, and this response is more proof of that.

@Permaveli - if you want to disable it temporarily, there's a nice script that you can use to do such. Just add:

importScript('User:Matma_Rex/VE_killer.js');

to yourSpecial:MyPage/common.js page and it should work right iirc for the time being. ~Charmlet^-talk-02:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I strongly believe this rollout was premature at best. I have no idea why anyone thought displaying edit summaries in the tiniest text imaginable was a good idea. I don't see why anyone thought a function which does not display the standard BLP policy notice when editing BLPs, especially in a feature intended to appeal to new editors, was a good idea. I wonder whether not displaying the standard language about copyrights, licenses, etc was a good idea, and might even foul up the licensing legalities. With all the klutziness and obtrusive features, this may do for Wikipedia editing what Windows 8 has done for PC sales.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)03:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I note there is a strong statement on the info page to the effect that WMF and the Devs do not care one whit what the community wants, we are required to accept this. However, as others have said, imposing it as default before it works adequately is a sign of contempt and a completely separate point from whether a WYSIWYG editor is desirable in itself. The default being something that doesn't work isnot desirable, and that policy statement is to say the least peculiar in a volunteer project.Yngvadottir (talk)04:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Many, many people, including LOTS AND LOTS outside Wikipedia, have been yelling for a visual editor literally for years. At this point, surprise is not actually credible -David Gerard (talk)07:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's my own fault for not knowing this was coming? I'm not credible? That's insulting. You should apoligize for such a comment.--Paul McDonald (talk)15:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I find myself incredulous that with the amount of publicity it had on and off Wikipedia, including banners for weeks and weeks, you could have missed it.

I do not suppress banners on Wikipedia, unless they trip my adblock filters. I saw the banner the other day about the discount in the shop, and I see the ones about the fund-raising, but I don't recall seeing a single banner about the visual editor.Thryduulf (talk)18:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That's easy: 1) Get a list of everyone on Wikipedia, and 2) Tell them. Now I have a question for you: what the hell if "off Wikipeda" publicity, where would I find it, and why would I be required to view it? Sounds like you told everyone BUT the ones who need to know and now you can't figure out what you did wrong.--Paul McDonald (talk)18:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me: what would you have considered adequate notice? Please go into detail -David Gerard (talk)18:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Not many here are saying it was a surprise (or even that it isn't a good option to have - if it works). What they are saying is that making it available is not the same thing as making it the default, that the latter decision was premature since it doesn't yet work. (Plus all teh people putting in large amounts of work reporting exactly how it fails to work - and there were many of those before this was imposed as the default.) And I for one am also saying that the information about how to switch the default back to "view source" needs to be clearly displayed on the info page. Or even more obviously displayed. (For one thing, why on earth is it hidden away under "gadgets"?) Several people are also saying there was no clear notice that the default was about to change, and I would tend to agree. "will soon be enabled" is only read as "will soon be the default" by those who have learnt to mistrust MediaWiki and the devs. Like me.Yngvadottir (talk)15:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, as an opt-in late alpha test it would be fine as the goal is desirable. It is not yet complete enough for the uses it's being put to though - such basic things as templates, tables, redirects and non-ASCII character input are presently not working. Without such essentials it's not ready for beta testing yet.Thryduulf (talk)18:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I spend a lot of my time in code, so prefer modifying the wikitext, rather than an interface's attempt at rendering the text in real timegringer (talk)02:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. In the end, it's all about choosing the right editor for the right task, and if you feel you prefer to continue to use wikitext for all your editing needs, that's perfectly understandable :)guillom06:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Clicking "Page settings", or the reference, image, and category buttons in the top right brings up a dialogue box for input. To close this box there is an X in the top right. However, when I am not at the top of the page, this dialogue box pops up beneath the standard editing options. This makes it impossible to close the box without adjusting the screen magnification.

In addition, the opening of these boxes freezes scrolling of the underlying page, which not only furthers the problem above, but is also simply annoying and unnecessary, as I can no longer move to another part of the article I wish to see without closing and reopening the box.Reywas92^Talk03:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Added a report for this.PEarley (WMF) (talk)04:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Today, while editingPortals to Canaan (adding a link and removing a word) I tried out the VE, for these simple tasks I have found it to be pretty good for this. It was simple enough (once I knew what it was actually doing) and I liked the list of links that gave suggestions, to avoid linking to a DAB page. The one issue I had was when I saved it, I went to remove a duplicate stub templates, and it said I was editing an old version of the page (in VE), so I had to reload the page to remove it. Overall I think it is good, and I like that it is easy to switch back to old school and VE without having to change any settings. I will probably use a combination of the two in the future, depending on what I am doing. --kelapstick^(bainuu)03:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback; this is great to hear :) Regarding the "editing an old version" issue, is it possible that someone edited the page in the meantime?guillom05:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No, there were no edits between mine. My edits were eight minutes apart, which I would say was the learning curve for me to figure out the puzzle piece thing (which I think is alright). There were no intermediate edits. I haven't done much in the way of mainspace edits since, if I come across the same problem or any others I will post here again. I think the key is to make the source easily accessible, which you have done. Sometimes it is easier/faster to write in Wikimarkup, so it is always nice to have that option. I also did a multi-picture template edit with it since, again, after figuring out how it worked, not bad (but I will probably use edit source for that sort of thing in the future).--kelapstick^(bainuu)05:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Do let us know if you encounter the same issue again :)guillom05:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yesguillom there seems to be an issue with editing the same page twice in a row, I did it again on2008 riot in Mongolia, first I added a word in a lower section and saved it. I then decided I would try again to see if I received the same message as I did in the first example. Sure enough I did, so I added a piped hyperlink to economy, and sure enough it edited on the old version. Seethis edit, and the one before it. Looks like the page does not refresh itself after saving I suppose. --kelapstick^(bainuu)06:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for investigating; I confirm this issue. I'vereported it, but it was actually already in bugzilla under another name. This is a high-priority bug for developers. Thanks again :)guillom06:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The [edit] button should not shift to [ edit | edit source ] when you simply mouse over anywhere in the header line. It's very distracting and should only do that when you mouse over the button itself.

It's also distracting how it has to widen itself. Why add the spaces inside the brackets? Why widen or change text at mouseover at all? [edit|source] should be the link all the time.Reywas92^Talk03:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe the expansion of the edit button behaves this way to improve discoverability, while the widening thing's goal is to avoid cluttering the interface. In the end those are design decisions, so only the designers could really explain them (I can only guess).guillom05:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer it not to shift at all, but to have an [edit|edit source] button instead of [edit]. As pointed out, this is incredibly annoying when reading. /Julle (talk)11:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a request in for that. :) Updating it. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)12:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, my immediate reaction was to figure out how to turn this off. I much prefer editing using code, and am glad that option remains. This concept is not terrible, but the product it self really adds little (although it is beta). My suggestion here is twofold:

• Allow users to set their own default in preferences. VisualEditor shouldnot be the default at this point, because it is not even a finished product. Both systems should be treated equally.
• Enable new users to choose which editing system to use upon the creation of their account. It is critical to not assume all new editors are opposed to a technically-rich editing experience.

I wish this project the best of luck, but I have no interest in using it at this point. Aside from that, this project misses a key point - editor retention. Making a new, buggy, unfinished, and not technically rich editing system the 'default' does not show that WMF values its current editors. Finding new members is important, but keeping the current ones is too.ToaNidhiki0503:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That last paragraph hits the bulls-eye perfectly.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)03:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"The WMF" definitely values its current editors, and the weeks spent following up on their comments, bug reports and feature requests should be an indication of that. I'd argue that VisualEditor wasn't made "the default", since both edit tabs appear on an equal footing (and "edit source" is more understandable than jargon like "edit using VisualEditor"). While it is true that newer users may be more interested in VisualEditor than experienced users, I think VisualEditor will also be useful to experienced editors forsome editing tasks. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005, and I still can't get a full{{cite journal}} reference right from the first time; VisualEditor provides a really nice interface for this. VisualEditor also drives me crazy at times, and I think it's a question of choosing the right editor for the right task. This will be even more the case in a few weeks/months when it's possible to switch between the two editing modeswhile editing.guillom05:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not like the new Visual editor. I don't edit very much, I usually change grammar or remove vandalism. I like the old way of editing better. Can I have the old way of editing back?BeckiGreen (talk)03:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Click on "Edit Source". --j⚛e decker^talk03:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Copying from my post above: to revert the imposition of VisualEditor as default: Preferences > Gadgets > under Editing, check/tick "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface".This needs to be posted prominently on the information page. People who don't like it - or prefer to wait until it actually works - should not have to perform an extra step before each edit.Yngvadottir (talk)04:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Er no.... Currently Opera is not supported in VE, great news. But if I go and check that remove visual editor option I find the edit page tab disappears and I am unable to edit anything...Dsergeant (talk)05:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Dsergeant: Trying to track your problem down a bit: Which Opera version do you use? On which exact page does the "edit page tab disappear"? Do you by any chance know which MediaWiki skin you are using? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk)09:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Opera 12.14 (almost the latest, 12.15 has issues, I have not tried the new Opera 15 Chrome lookalike). I quickly checked a couple of my watched pages (egMorse code) and as soon as I ticked the 'remove visual editor...' box in Gadgets it reloaded without any edit tab at all. Monobook skin. Cleared it and it worked normal again(in non-VE mode of course as I know Opera does not work with VE).Dsergeant (talk)14:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

[3] --04:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, that's not very pretty indeed. Could you describe with some more details what you attempted to do? This will help pinpoint the source of the problem.guillom05:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't me. I'm just looking over my watchlist for any VE edits. Maybe the editor was trying to use markup? VE should warn users who try to insert common markup syntax. --06:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

D'oh, sorry, I didn't even look at who made the edit. Yes, I completely agree that VisualEditor should at leastprovide a warning.guillom06:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's pretty clear what happened here. The user made a grammatical correction, changing "will" to "would", but VE added a whole pile of nowiki's.Risker (talk)06:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary says "unlinked articles and...", so I assume it wasn't only a grammatical correction.guillom07:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Not telling us that such a change was coming was highly disruptive to editing Wikipedia. Whoever turned this thing on should be blocked. Seriously.--Paul McDonald (talk)04:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed publicly for more than a year and scheduled for June/July since at least March. Announcements appeared in theWP:Signpost,WP:VPT, the mailing lists, on the Watchlist, and other places. Whether or not it is a disruptive change, there was definitely a lot of notice that it was coming.Dragons flight (talk)05:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention the banners at the top of every page. :-)Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk)05:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Not knowing this was coming would actually have required effort -David Gerard (talk)07:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know it was coming. I took no effort to not know it was coming. I am, however, offended by your high-and-mighty comments as though you are a better class of Wikipedian than me.--Paul McDonald (talk)15:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

David Gerard andPhilippe: actually, it seems that the banners were not displaying on some skins (seeWikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Banner). I, for one, was completely caught by surprise. (Not complaining, just pointing out.)ranaɢ (talk)13:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect a problem with cookies. I will be having Words with the people who are tweaking CentralNotice, and hopefully we can get some movement.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)13:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A lot of users didn't know this was coming. Further evidence that the VisualEditor application is not ready for release.Kumioko (talk)13:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not too worked up, it's an understandable error. I just hope that once the crew at WMF gets this resolved, someone poststhis.(Arrested Development, if you don't get the reference.)ranaɢ (talk)15:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless something has changed, if you opt-out of fundraising ads, it suppresses all WMF banners. Remember the editor's survey was subject to the same problem? A lot of people aren't going to know about this. From my brief experience with it, my first impression was to try to get rid of it, quickly. It's not even half-finished. It's a good idea, just finish coding it before rolling it out.Gigs (talk)16:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I also did not know it was coming because I never see banner ads on Wiki. The product is not finished, the documentation is incomplete. I agree with Gigs that probably best to finish it in a walled garden before rolling it out to the world.Ellin Beltz (talk)16:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Gigs: In my case, I haven't opted out of fundraising ads, but I still didn't get the banners. (You're probably right that that opt-out is what caused a lot of people to miss this announcement; it just might not be the whole story.)ranaɢ (talk)17:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Scripts are unavailable (regularising date formats, checking page size, general formatting, etc).
• Citation Bot is unavailable.
• References are far more difficult to add and correctly format.
• BLP notices are not being displayed.
• Editors are not being informed when they are editing a semi-protected or fully-protected page.
• Hidden comments are inaccessible.
• Section edits do not seem to be possible. These are crucial on large pages, to help speed load and save time.
• The "Review Changes" box covers the whole screen, making examination of the underlying page impossible.
• All added hyperlinks are displaying as blue, even if there's no underlying article.
• If you can see mark-up errors while looking at the "Review Changes" box, there's no way to get at the underlying code and change them. People will potentially have to open the old-style edit box anyway, for a second edit to make repairs.
• You definitely do Not want to be editing info boxes with this editor, as it's really easy to inadvertently remove the line breaks between parameters.
• Unexpected formatting changes and gibberish code are being added on many edits that aren't merely simple amendments to the prose. --Diannaa (talk)04:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks for reporting these :). In order: I suspect scripts and citation bot will catch up as the software matures. I agree, references need some love - it's an area in development, and if you have any ideas for improvement we have a bughere you can post them at (or just put them here and ping me, and I'll post it - bugzilla is one of the most fundamentally user-unfriendly pieces of software I've ever seen).

BLP notices not being displayed is a weird one; the VisualEditorshould be surfacing page-notices. I've added that toBug 50415, which also covers the semi- and full-protection issue. Hidden comments are at49603; section edits, also working on. Can you send me a screenshot of the "review changes" problem? Hyperlinks is being worked on, and I totally agree about the markup errors; I think the plan is to move towards more of a wordpress-like environment where you can toggle between the two, edits intact. How are you removing the line breaks in infoboxes? And, if you can point me at gibberish code, I am happy to take a look at it.

Sorry for theTLDR; thanks for all your bug reports thus far. They're most appreciated :).Okeyes (WMF) (talk)07:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi@Okeyes (WMF): The info box problem: Suppose I want to change the contents of a parameter of a line in the info box. I open up the info box and click on the parameter I want to change. The existing contents of the the dialogue box consists of the current contents of the field,plus a following line break. If I remove all the contents and replace it with something new, I inadvertently remove the line break.Sample diff of Kidz Bop 20.

Problems with gibberish code being added: other people have reported this problem. If I personally have this occur, I will report it.

The "review changes" box covers the whole screen. As does any dialogue box such as those that open when editing an info box or adding a citation. This is probably caused by my using 125% zoom on a small laptop. Note that without this magnification, I am unable to edit the encyclopedia. When I take the zoom down to 90%, I am able to see some of the underlying article (but I am no longer able to read it or edit it; it's too small).File:Overlapping dialogue boxes with visual editor.JPG shows a dialogue box covering the entire screen when my zoom is set to 125%. Notice how it's tucked under the bar at the top of the screen, a problem that has been reported elsewhere. If I could pick up the dialogue boxes and move them around, that might help. But presently they're locked in place.

For the kind of editing I am doing right now, the old-school edit box works better. Full citations are not added inline; the books are added to the bibliography down below and are called using{{sfn}} templates.Sample diff of Oskar Schindler. The new prose is added, and once the book is listed in the bibliography, all I have to do to add my cite is copy-paste a wee bit of mark-up, such as{{sfn|Roberts|1996|p=39}}, and change the page number. Same deal if people are using named citations; it's likely easier to copy-paste their existing named citation rather than open up a dialogue box to add their cite. Adding cites needs to be theeasiest thing in the world, as at this stage in the wiki history, we are no longer accepting unsourced content.

I notice you did not address the issue that section editing seems to be impossible. Clicking on a section edit does not open up that section but rather the whole article. For a big article, section editing is really important, because it's so easy to get lost. And it took 23 seconds for the visual editor to allow access to the articleAdolf Hitler when I tried to edit a section. This does not compare favourably with the one second it takes to open a section edit in the old editing interface. I suppose I could go make a cup of tea while I am waiting, but that doesn't really make very good use of my editing time, does it?

For the type of editing I am doing right now, the visual editor does not help me. In fact it gets in the way and slows things down. So I am unlikely to use it. Unfortunately that is probably true for most of us who have been around a while. What this means is that the majority of the feedback you will be getting on the new system won't be from long-term editors like me, but from people who are new. If you were expecting long-term editors to use the new editor and report back on bugs and problems, I expect that is not going to happen once the initial flurry of excitement dies down, because in its present state it's more cumbersome to use, especially to add the citations, and gets in the way of productivity. Thank you for promptly replying to my list of concerns. --Diannaa (talk)14:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Sorry about the section editing thing :/. It's a known issue - seebugzilla:48429. So, I see just what you mean with the infobox - I've filed it as a bughere. The zoom problem ishere. On referencing, I totally agree; it needs to be a lot easier. Our current work on that front is threefold; first, making the UI a lot less unfriendly. Second, building support for wiki-specific templates, like the cite setup. Third, making templates like sfn and efn easier to use. These aren't trivial, but the developers understand they're a fairly high priority (as do we - some of mybiggest articles use sfn).

I agree there's a risk that a lot of power users will stop contributing bugs, which is disappointing, but actually we've been handling bugs from power users since last December; we're in, I think, a pretty good position on that front with some really awesome people helping us out - off the top of my head PamD and This, That and the Other have been indispensable. Still, I agree the VE has quite a few problems that may drive experienced users (including, heck, myself) to avoid it; that's one of the reasons we're trying such a labour-intensive and immediate deployment cycle: to try and get as many bugs identified and fixed quickly as is possible.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)14:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Okeyes (WMF): I thought of one more thing on my way to work, something which already may be obvious to you: When I have the visual editor turned on in Preferences, I can't access Section editing at all, no matter what button I push. This makes maintenance of large articles like Hitler orNazi Germany a lot more difficult. To access section editing, I have to go into preferences and shut off the visual editor. Once I shut it off, it's unlikely I will turn it back on, as it makes my editing life harder, not easier, for the kind of editing I do and the kind of articles I have on my watch list. We may end up with a class of established editors who don't use the visual editors at all, and a class of newer editors who use it and love it and don't understand what the problem is. But more likely all users, as they gain experience, will be forced to discontinue use of the visual editor altogether as they discover the need to use more sophisticated editing techniques and mark-up, unless these become more accessible as improvements to the software are implemented. --Ninja Dianna (Talk)15:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, that's weird :/. Section editing with the VE, or with the markup editor, or both? (What browser/skin/operating system?)Okeyes (WMF) (talk)15:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out. --Ninja Dianna (Talk)17:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just started using the new visual editor feature. I notice a lag in the saving of the page which is much more than when editing the source. A m i t  ❤ 04:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Concur with this. A page that I edited with VE took 28 seconds to save compared to less than 3 seconds using source code. Aside from the learning curve that comes with having to relearn how to do things I already knew how to do (I'll get over that part), this is the biggest frustration with VE. And I haven't even tried it on my 'slow' computer yet.Risker (talk)05:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The speed of opening and saving the page in VisualEditor is related to Parsoid, the program that converts wikicode to annotated HTML, and vice-versa. Parsoid has a "caching" feature, which means that it will work faster if it already has a recent version in memory. The cache sometimes needs to be cleared, and therefore re-built little by little as editors edit with VisualEditor, so this might explain some of the slowness you've encountered. The lead developer on Parsoid says: "Basically, as long as the progress animation is animating, Parsoid is working; on cache hits and large pages the animation is only active for a split second". So speed should get better as cache increases.guillom05:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That would explain the slowness of the first save. It would not explain why the second save, some time later, was equally as slow.Risker (talk)06:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, you're correct. Unfortunately, I'm out of Parsoid developers to ask at the moment, but I'll try again when they wake up.guillom06:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I just tested with the relatively largeSan Francisco article, and both loading and previewing (same as save) were relatively quick. Loading was basically instant, although client-side VE processing took ~8 seconds (some optimization potential there). The preview took about 5 seconds to prepare client-side and ~4 seconds in Parsoid and the PHP differ while the progress animation was spinning.

Which page was slow for you?--Gabriel Wicke (talk)01:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

when previewing a change in a rail icon template, it does not render the new page correctly aligned but breaks up the icons and also misplaces themBT14 (talk)04:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you give an example? I don't have the template to hand, I'm afraid :/.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)14:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Twice when I was editingLois Brown, the large template at the bottom of the page with the show/hide toggle defaulting to "hide" has opened after saving the edit, and the show/hide toggle disappeared. This reverted to normal after a few page refreshes.Risker (talk)04:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

InMemoriamLuangPu (talk)05:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Very difficult to add references. What happened to web templates?NovaSkola (talk)05:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. Does theuser guide help at all? You can add templates in references by clicking the "Transclusion" icon (puzzle piece) in the reference editing window; it should even provide you with fields for the possible parameters. Do let me know if the user guide doesn't help.guillom05:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I meant, visual editor don't have button named "cite", which includes cite web or other refs, so where I can find that function? FurthermoreBlablablaarticle doesn't work. Brackets stays but article isn't linked --NovaSkola (talk)08:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, in the guide I readIf you're adding a new reference and you want to include a template in it... and see the Cite template in the images. Doesn't this work for you? In order to create wikilinks, use the chain button. --Elitre (WMF) (talk)08:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(1) I was editing when suddenly I had Visual Editor thrust upon me. How do I revert to the old style of editing? (First you want to spy on veteran editors, then you use them as unwilling guinea pigs. Are you trying to drive us away?)

(2) Have Wikipedia's Dear Leaders ever heard the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? How is this an improvement?

(3) Is it really a good idea to make editing easier? Do you want to make it easier for 14-year-old boys to insert the words "fuck" or "penis" or "my girlfriend is a whore" in the middle of an article on atomic physics -- which will require someone else to clean up their mess? (If you want to do something useful, how about installing a filter just to eliminate words like "fuck", "asshole", etc. -- or repeating characters? Then other people wouldn't have to waste time cleaning up articles after they've been vandalized.)

(4) Where the heck are the special symbols / alphabets? How can I use Greek or Cyrillic or other special letters?

(5) The new editing system is slooooooow.

(6) Want to do something useful for a change? How about displaying footnotes when they're added or altered? At present, when I add a footnote, I don't see it until I save the page; then I notice a typo and I must edit the page again. Save people some trouble by displaying, during "preview", footnotes to a section.

Cwkmail (talk)05:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The "old style" of editing is still right there; just click "edit source". Manywilling guinea pigs have enabled VisualEditor early and provided a lot of feedback, which has allowed developers to fix bugs. VisualEditor is now in better shape, and stable enough to be made available to all users. It's not completely bug-free (no software is), but developers have been fixing bugs at an impressive rate.

Regarding vandalism, there's an item in theFAQ about it, but basically, it's just as easy to add "fuck" with the wikitext editor; it's not like vandals particularly care about breaking wikitext. And I'm pretty sure there are alreadyAbuseFilters in place to catch those words.

I do miss the special characters as well; there's abugzilla request about it. Regarding speed, although a lot of improvement has been done, a balance needs to be struck between ease of editing and speed. If you're more comfortable with editing the wikitext source code, that editing mode remains available both for whole pages and for sections.guillom06:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Cwkmail:, that filter you mention has been in existence since 2007; it's called theAbuseFilter. And actually, the VE does allow for footnote display. When/where have we tried to "spy on veteran editors"?Okeyes (WMF) (talk)06:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you guys respond pronto! I only wish that the real world worked like that.(1) "Edit source" is what's called "non-intuitive". May I suggest "Revert to traditional editing" or some such?(2) Glad to hear about the vandalism filters, although apparently vandals still find ways to delete entire sections of articles, add comments that come from a public men's room, etc.(3) If I edit a section of an article and add a footnote to it, the footnote isn't displayed during "preview". If there's a way around this shortcoming, I'd be glad to receive instructions.(4) A few days ago, editors were asked if they wanted to make their edit data (time, date, frequency, etc.) public. Hence the accusation of "spying".(5) Most important, if Wikipedia is trying to attract new editors, perhaps making editing easier will help somewhat. (It took me months -- imitating others' examples -- to learn the old system.) However, Isuspect that a more fundamental problem is: all the easy stuff has been done. To write a beginning "stub" article about, say, Sir Issac Newton, is easy -- providing dates of birth, death, etc. But to add information to a more fully developed article -- e.g., to explain how his hypothesis of an inverse-square law explains the dynamics of the solar system -- is something that only a few people know. On the other hand, there's a continual stream of current events and popular culture to provide fodder for new editors and new articles. However, I think that most people don't enjoy doing the boring homework of finding and citing references (although I enjoy it as a kind of treasure hunt). Finally, the novelty of Wikipedia has worn off. There are new on-line activities to absorb people's time and efforts. Good luck with your new Visual Editor. Maybe you should steal some of Apple's staffers. They seem to be especially good at these things.Cwkmail (talk)07:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So, in order: (1) "revert to traditional editing" makes it sound like a preference, and makes the button gigantic. (2) yeah, they're only as good as the volunteers maintaining them. (3) In the markup editor? No, nothing is - it's not rendered until save. In the VisualEditor, which renders as it goes, the references should be viewable (if they're not, and you can give me a screenshot, I would be most grateful). (4) that was a conversation amongst volunteer editors, about a tool built by volunteer editors. It has nothing to do with the foundation - moreover, it's data that is already totally public and can be pulled out of Special:Contributions. (5) I agree totally; there is a hypothesis about editor decline called "africa is not a redlink" that basically says precisely what you are - a lot of the easy stuff is already done, and this is a problem. I'm also a fan of the novelty hypothesis (which I refer to as the "ooh, neat!" hypothesis...mostly because I'm a sucker for vocalisations). These are worth investigating, and some research has been done on (for example) the "africa is not a redlink" theory.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)14:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Can the powers-that-be NOT make this default. How about Opt-in and not forcing people opt-out?

WYSIWYG editing is gonna lead to dragging down contributors to the low·est common denominator [Is wiki-syntax really that hard to grasp? Really? (facepalm)]J. D. Redding06:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes,it is really that hard. VisualEditor isn't the "default"; it's just another editing mode offered as an alternative to wikitext editing. You're free to choose the one you want to use; in my experience, each editor is suited to specific tasks, and I personally use them both, depending on whether I'm fixing a link (which is more straightforward for me in wikitext) or editing a complex reference template (which is now easier in VisualEditor).guillom06:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"Is wiki-syntax really that hard to grasp?" Yes, actually. Don't get me wrong - for contributors with the level of dedication that you or I have, I think wiki-syntax isn't that big a challenge; we have an identity vested, at least in part, in our contributions to Wikipedia. We're long-term editors, we've got great experience contributing, and we joined in a time when actually having to learn a markup challenge to contribute to a work wasn't that big a deal (heck, even MySpace, back in the day - and that's as social as it's possible to get - had HTML and CSS editing). But nobody starts off with this level of dedication, they have to build up to it, and most people don't start off wanting to write great big articles; they want to start off...adding a reference. Or correcting a typo. And to do either, they need to be able to parse syntax; not just because many types of small contribution require it, but because being able to read the editable text of an article requires it. Hitting "random article" brought me toDetrended correspondence analysis, for example. If I spot a typo in the page and go to fix it (hey, it has a cleanup template, it might need it) I'm confronted with template syntax, dash-style bolding, square brackets for linking, pipes for linking, list syntax, header syntax and a massive table. If I want to fix something, I need to be able to read it to identify the element in the editing view that I saw needed fixing in the reading view. And that means learning a big chunk of wiki-markup...when all I want to do is fix a typo.

@At the same time, the internet in 2013 isn't a place where people expect to need to learn markup to contribute; pretty much all the nuanced interfaces I can think of (Wordpress comes to mind) features a rich-text editor. Users don't expect to have to learn wikimarkup, and when you combine "I didn't expect to have to learn this" with "I have to learn a big chunk of it to fix a typo", you get people going "this isn't worth the effort" and leaving, regardless of their intelligence. Nobody is saying "we want people too stupid to learn markup!" Far from it (heck, bits of the VE still require markup, just far less of it). We're a community of pretty brilliant people and we'd like to keep it that way - we're not doing this because we want the lowest common denominator editing. We're doing this because we want to reduce the initial cognitive overhead to contributing. And that means reducing the complexity that users are initially faced with - which is not the same as reducing the complexity of what they eventually might have to learn.

Having said that, I appreciate the VE isn't for everyone. If you look at the gadgets menu in the preferences, you'll find functionality to hide it - taking that option means you'll get the same editing interface you got last week.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)06:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not really that hard for someone to use wikisyntax ... Me'the data is skewed [think, twain and statistics]. Please do NOT make this default. Regardless, allowopt-in ... and the problem is solved. --J. D. Redding06:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC) (ps., "reduce the initial cognitive overhead " = "lowest common denominator editing". 'Nuff said. As to contributions ... if someone wants to contribute text, contribute it, let someone else mark it up. Real simple. Been that way since the beginning of the project ... goodness the early years were so much better.)

I appreciate the utopianism in your above message, but you have to understand that in practise that isn't how Wikipedia has worked for...quite some time. New contributors submitting text without, for example, references, do not get someone showing up to add markup. They get it deleted. I'm not sure what you mean by "twain and statistics".Okeyes (WMF) (talk)06:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Lies, damned lies, and statistics is a quote from Mark Twain.—Kww(talk)06:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha (the lack of proper nouning confused me).Okeyes (WMF) (talk)07:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Bell's First Law of USENET. --J. D. Redding08:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Arguing that the button presented as the only option for section editing unless you learn to hover (or edit your preferences) isn't the "default" is a little disingenuous.—Kww(talk)06:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, non-default would imply you have to make an active preference choice to enable it, imo. Different terminology, maybe.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)06:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

But Steven Walling only mentioned how it is difficult for women...SL93 (talk)10:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't use this new VisualEditor. It sucks.Brosensu (talk)06:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't use it if you don't like it, I can't agree more. But perhaps everyone should make their own opinion on the matter? :)guillom06:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like everyone has. The jury is in--it's terrible, turn it off.--Paul McDonald (talk)12:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Brosensu:, are there any particular things not working for you? We can't improve it if we don't know what's wrong with it.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)07:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

When I click to edit, the Table of Contents understandably disappears. However, this results in everything on the page to shift upward, causing my desired section to either be obscured at the top of the page by the edit toolbar or shift off the page altogether. This should not happen; all contents should stay at the same level on the screen when in edit mode.Reywas92^Talk06:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

May I perhaps trouble you for a screenshot? I'm not sure I understand properly the problem you're explaining.guillom06:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's the process taken when I go to enter VE from a section edit, it can't be captured in a screenshot. I wasn't clear that this is for section editing, not from the top edit tab. Click the section edit button of the section directly below the TOC, and the TOC disappears (as it obviously isn't editable), causing everything below it to shift up to fill the space. This means that I have to scroll back up to reach the point I wanted to edit, especially if the TOC was large.Reywas92^Talk07:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

To maybe be a little clearer, even if the section header is at the bottom of the page when I click edit, it automatically moves to the top of the page when VE is loaded. However the toolbar floating at the top covers the header and the first few lines.Reywas92^Talk07:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This is fairly annoying. I tend to click edit in the expectation that I will see the section I want to edit, and not have the page jump upwards and the section header disappear. Ideally the text should not move at all. Next best, the section header should be clearly visible at the top of the edit window. • • •Peter (Southwood)^(talk):09:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Just making sure it's not related to the browser you might be using: is it among those listedhere? Thanks. --Elitre (WMF) (talk)09:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm hitting this too, using Firefox Nightly on Mac. The section header is always covered by the floating toolbox, and if I'm zoomed in (I usually am because I have a high-res screen), the first few lines of the section are also covered.Jruderman (talk)10:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I need to be sure about Nightly, so I'll ask. --Elitre (WMF) (talk)11:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jruderman, can you a) try a different browser in an "official" version which we are sure it's supported or b) manage to take a screenshot for us? Thanks! --Elitre (WMF) (talk)11:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If default, can the 'programmers' make the new option _appearance_ to the right [with the new "default" option off to the side]?

Current implementation (poor)

[Edit Viz | Edit source)

Alternative implementation (better)

[Edit source | Edit Viz]

Better yet, just make it opt in. But, I digress ... --J. D. Redding07:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

As explained above, with a similar request, this would totally undermine the entire point of it being the default. People read left-to-right; the options that are the default or the expected mechanism should be the ones closest to the left, as it were.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)07:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Should be opt-in ... "new" features should be _added_ to the side ...J. D. Redding07:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's been in an opt-in form since December 2012; a wider release is actually allowing us to tackle and identify a heck of a lot more bugs and bring this up from being an alpha, to a beta, to a release version. Adding new features to the side was, as said, conflict with how people identify functionality.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)07:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please keep it opt-in. Been going good with opt-in form since December 2012, seem like. The "functionality', your opinion, is thrust on everyone. Sounds like Democratic centralism. ... the new "default" option [notice the quotes] is really a _new_ feature. It should be added to the right. Not taking the place of theedit source. This is, upon consideration, also why the license should have been kept under GPL (and not made artistic). --J. D. Redding07:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be going in circles, here. Actually, opt-in form was going fantastically - we got a host of bugs - but there's no substitute for the "many eyes make shallow bugs" philosophy. A lot of the issues we've encountered and solved for over the last 24 hours would've been hidden for months or potentially years more without it. I'm not sure how the GPL relates to this.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)08:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

... and that misunderstanding ("not sure") may, nay does, lay at the root of the problem. --J. D. Redding08:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Evidently, particularly since we've never used the GPL.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)08:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia never used the gnu copyleft license? Riiight. Now that is funny. --J. D. Redding08:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC) (ps., next one will hear, "It's not a bug; it's an undocumented feature!")

The GNU copyleft license for text would be the GFDL, which we did use, but at this point I think we're down to the micro rather than the macro in our disagreement, so it probably isn't worthwhile to continue. If you have anything you're more willing to elucidate on, in bug terms, that we've not explicitly said we won't solve in the way you want, let me know.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)08:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Why cannot you just give them the eff'ingsource text as the default and not the buggy editor ... god speed the bug squashing, until then 'Edit Hell'. --J. D. Redding08:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC) (ps., will say one thing positive. Like the flashy edit transition, butedit source should be first;Source to the people.)

Brilliant: I needed to change the DEFAULTSORT from "The New Elizabethans" to "New Elizabethans, The", and this time I didn't need to retype the whole lot but could just delete and retype the "The ". I reported this as a bug a while back and it's been fixed. Thanks.PamD07:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! Do let us know if you run into any other bugs - or if some you've already reported haven't been moved on. I'll try to kick the devs a bit.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)07:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I welcome the introduction of this editing tool. I hope the developers are not too discouraged by the negative reception here – this is very much to be expected. Now retired (thankfully?) from a career doing this sort of work I know the impossibility of introducing any new development in a way and at a time that suits most people. Or at any rate "most people who comment".

Having said that I have found a problem with nested references although I expect the article is using references in a way that developers wish would be deprecated.Here in the "Notes" section, the references are just being displayed by the Visual Editor in "raw" form (perhaps this is inevitable?) and in the body of the article there is an extraneous "</ref>" in the second paragraph of the lead and in the first paragraph of "Enduring influence". I haven't tried editing or saving so I don't know what the effect would be. Best wishes and good luck!Thincat (talk)07:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll look into that ASAP, thanks. Generally speaking, yes, VE does not really like workarounds in pages and recommends we do not use them ;) --Elitre (WMF) (talk)07:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It has to do with the bug above and/or linked bugs. Regards, --Elitre (WMF) (talk)09:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. It does indeed look to be this bug. Some people were deploring this method of referencing long before Visual Editor was on the scene. It is, however a powerful technique although one that many editors will be unfamiliar with.Thincat (talk)17:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I mean, sloooow. After klicking the edit button, I have experienced loading times of up to 30 seconds. Completely unacceptable, basically you're wasting contributors' precious lifetime. How can you go live with this thingy as the "standard experience"?Stefan64 (talk)07:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

VE being slow is a known thing, especially on long pages, I think. But it might also be there's a hiccup of some sort, since the next report seems related? The "standard experience" is only at beta stage, and asking for some faith :) --Elitre (WMF) (talk)07:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Would be great to know which browser and browser version you are using, plus an example page that loads that slowly. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk)10:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Twice just now I've edited an article and wanted to edit it again immediately: first time, I did one group of changes, wanted to save them before starting a second batch, different edit summary, for clarity; second time I tweaked something, saved the page, then realised I wanted to change something else (I'd edited a line in a dab page, then realised I needed to move that line to preserved alphabetisation).

When I go back to re-edit in VE I get an error message: "You are editing an old version of the page...".

Even after the time I've taken to type all the above, I've just tried to re-openRobert Edwards and I still can't do so. ... OK, couldn't a moment ago for the nth time, but just immediately now can do so. What's that, about 5 minutes? I hope it's only a temporary glitch.PamD07:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

See above, maybe a temporary thing? Also, would clearing the cache help? Anyway, I already heard of (and filed about) similar conflicts, it might be another case. --Elitre (WMF) (talk)07:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's actually a bug:bugzilla:50441 and it's a high-priority task for developers.guillom09:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This edit, which is tagged VisualEditor in my watchlist but not on that diff, added a<references /> which was unnecessary, since{{reflist}} was already present. --Redrose64 (talk)07:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the label does not show up in diffs, in my experience. I'm 99% positive that this was already reported, but will check and report if it isn't, in the meanwhile, thank you. --Elitre (WMF) (talk)08:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

My point was not so much about the absence of the tag in the diff, but the addition of an unnecessary<references /> --Redrose64 (talk)14:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So far, good work on the visual editor. I would definitely suggest some polish before it is implemented for all editors , but it is a step in the right direction. One thing struck me as a bit odd while using the Visual Editor though: There is an entire interface for adding templates, yet the editor still expects me to enter each template parameter manually, which still requires me to remember what fields are used in a taxobox, or that "1=" happens to be a deletion reason, while "2=" is intended to be the signature in another template.

What I would like to suggest would be the ability to save a template definition for later use - one could actually go as far as creating default definitions for every commonly used template (and load these definitions by default when a template is selected in the editor). Since idea's are nice but examples are better, I added a quick mockup of this idea. The Pseudo-XML code below is an example of a saved template definition. The thumbnail would be an example of the result right after this definition would be loaded.

 <Template> <Parameters>  <ParaMeterGroup1 displayname="General Information">    <Parameter1>      <ParameterName>Taxo_Name</ParameterName>      <ParameterFriendlyName>Name</ParameterFriendlyName>      <HelpDescription>The common, non scientific name of this animal</HelpDescription>      <DefaultValue>Paraplatypoides longipes</DefaultValue>      <Type>Text</Type>    </Parameter1>    <Parameter2>      <ParameterName>Template_Image</ParameterName>      <ParameterFriendlyName>Image</ParameterFriendlyName>      <HelpDescription>The image that should be displayed in the taxobox</HelpDescription>      <Type>Text</Type>    </Parameter2>    <Parameter3>      <ParameterName>Regnum</ParameterName>      <ParameterFriendlyName>Regnum</ParameterFriendlyName>      <HelpDescription>The regnum under which this species falls</HelpDescription>      <Type>Selection</Type>        <Selection>          <PossibleValue>Animalia</PossibleValue>          <PossibleValue>Plantae</PossibleValue>          <PossibleValue>Fungi</PossibleValue>          <PossibleValue>Protista</PossibleValue>          <PossibleValue>Archaea</PossibleValue>          <PossibleValue>Bacteria</PossibleValue>       </Selection>    </Parameter3>  </ParaMeterGroup1>   <ParaMeterGroup2 displayname="Diversity">      <Parameter1>      <ParameterName>diversity_link</ParameterName>      <ParameterFriendlyName>Diversity Link/ParameterFriendlyName>      <HelpDescription>The article that the text specified under the "Diversity" parameter links to.</HelpDescription>      <Type>Text</Type>    </Parameter1>    <Parameter2>      <ParameterName>diversity</ParameterName>      <ParameterFriendlyName>Diversity</ParameterFriendlyName>      <HelpDescription>The amount of species in a specific taxa</HelpDescription>      <Type>Text</Type>    </Parameter2>  </ParaMeterGroup2>  </Parameters>

Most of the data should explain itself - "ParameterName" is the name of the parameter that is to be used in the template. The other data fields are only intended for display, help and automation sake. I suppose the same set up could also be used to edit an existing template. As long as the editor could parse the existing template parameters it should be possible to map parameter data back to their respective parameter fields in the visual editor.Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)}08:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Excirial, it is my understanding that Bugzilla can also be used for similar suggestions, since it's what devs actually read. Do you think you can submit this, or prefer us doing it instead? Thank you, --Elitre (WMF) (talk)08:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Excirial: this actually already exists! Take a look atthe TemplateData extension andthe tutorial on using it. Things are still being rolled out at the moment, simply because it's we've got a lot of templates and have to write TD for them all; if you'd be interested in helping we have a long list of the most commonly-used templateshere.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)09:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Okeyes (WMF): I should have known to ask you this on IRC first, but it is great to read that this actually already exists! I've experimented a but and added templatedata to a simple template,Template:Red/doc. Mind taking a quick glance to see if this was done correctly?Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)}12:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

EditingUser:John of Reading with VisualEditor, the "Page Settings / Languages" popup claims that my user page is related to the Swedish articlesk:Ján z Readingu. But actually that's linked to the articleJohn of Reading.John of Reading (talk)08:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Great catch! I'll throw it in bugzilla now.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)09:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Section 0 edit link should work the same as all the other sections, but does not. It only shows as [edit] and only functions asedit source.
• It took me all of about 10 seconds to work out how to get back to the old editor once I realised that VE had been rolled out, and I have not trialled it. However there might be a better (more immediately obvious) term thanedit source for the old editor. • • •Peter (Southwood)^(talk):08:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peter, browser/WP skin/OS? :) Thanks, --Elitre (WMF) (talk)09:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Chrome at the moment, Vector, XP. I also use Firefox, IE8 and IE10, but not yet with VE.• • •Peter (Southwood)^(talk):09:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry it seems the browser is not the problem here, as explained by Oliver. Still, remember IE is not supported yet for VE. Regards, --Elitre (WMF) (talk)09:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood:, the section 0 edit links aren't a MediaWiki feature, they're a gadget a volunteer wrote for enwiki - so they aren't going to get updates that MediaWiki does, I'm afraid (one of the disadvantages of user-generated code).Okeyes (WMF) (talk)09:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• That is a pity, because it is useful and this bug is annoying and confusing. No doubt the confusion will soon go away, but the annoyance is likely to remain. Not getting VE is less of a problem than expecting it and getting the old editor instead. I can live with it. There are far more annoying things on WP that I manage to ignore. • • •Peter (Southwood)^(talk):09:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"ultimately, a lot of people leave because editing is just too complex"[4]. Visual Editor is a good idea, but this implementation is way too heavy and clumsy. On Firefox 22 / Lubuntu 13.04 / Core i3 / 4GB RAM typing is so slow I can type a sentence and wait to see it appearing while sipping tea. In comparison, Wordpress is fluid and responsive. Complexity is an enemy, no doubts. However, the complexity is in the formality of the content (and ultimately in how Wikipedia is organized), not in the markup or in the editor. I am confident that the editor was not a significant factor of why people left. I was considering returning and this visual editor would be a motivator not to. Thank you foredit source. Good luck with visual editor, at some point you will get it right.Yuv (talk)09:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it was Stu I heard in Milan back in April talking about how it took 10 years for Wordpress to get a decent VisualEditor. We are still in beta stage, so I am quite optimistic there's still plenty of time to improve it. Thanks for your feedback, Yuv. --Elitre (WMF) (talk)10:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If it's still in the "beta" stage, why was it forced down our throat? It should have just been limited to people who were willing to test this lousy dreck until the bugs are worked out and then rolled out when it was ready. No, this is not the "beta" stage--this is release 1.0.--Paul McDonald (talk)12:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ: it's beta (devs should know, right? This was their answers to me hours ago.), and you're obviously free toignore VE undefinitely while other people help us so that it reaches a better stage. More people will find more bugs in less time. --Elitre (WMF) (talk)12:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly too heavy. the creator of VE said that in 2001, wiki markup was acceptable, but in 2013 it's driving away contributors. You sure may get a few new contributors, but you're driving the old ones away.smileguy91^talk13:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So when you first create a reference you can chose to name it for re-use later on, great! But if you didn't name it when it was first created then it doesn't appear you can edit the reference to add a name later. Click on the reference and the only option that comes up is group; name is not an option.NtheP (talk)09:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Nthep: good catch! I'll throw it into bugzilla now.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)10:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Now tracking.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)10:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction to my earlier comment, I now seem to have lost the ability to add name in the first place.NtheP (talk)10:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

For some reason I have been forced to use this and don't have the option anymore to not use it and use the standard method of editing. It is horrible, it is slow, it is confusing. You say this is going to help wikipedia expand as everyone will be able to easily submit information but they won't. This is so much more confusing. How do I disable this? I do not like being forced to use an editor that is still incredibly slow and buggy. --Lolcakes25 (talk)10:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lolcakes, you can just use the "edit source", and everything will work just as usual, or take a closer look at the Gadget section among your Preferences. I fully understand today's discouragement, still hope to hear from you soon when you get to test VE again. Thanks, --Elitre (WMF) (talk)10:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to be forced to use a new tool now. So how do I turn it off so I can learn how to use it (assuming that it works since there is a disclaimer that says some parts of it are not working yet) when I am ready to do so? Shouldn't that be the first thing that you add prior to rolling something out?Stevenmitchell (talk)10:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stevenmitchell, see my comment above. IMHO, readingWikipedia:VisualEditor/User_guide (which features images as well) is more helpful inlearning than shutting the whole thing down ;) and in the meantime, keep using the "Edit source" tab whenever you find it appropriate. --Elitre (WMF) (talk)10:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC) - PS: actually, it's testing that takes it from a beta stage to areally ready now stage, so I hope you'll be part of that process, at some point.

I found it in my list of gadgets (in preferences) and switched it off there. Might also want to tick the box to exclude yourself from future experiments too. I've edited mainly at work this year and if i am forced to use this new layout my CPU usage with firefox is between 80-95%. That's unrealistic and leaves me with no way to comfortably edit articles.

Please don't force this crap on us Wikimedia. It's pointless making editing "easier" to attract more people if you make it more difficult for the people who already edit. I really do resent having these decisions made for me without any discussion or option to participate or not. ThanksツJenova20^(email)11:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jenova20, this is interesting - is your CPU usage between 80-95% when you click onEdit source? Thanks. --Elitre (WMF) (talk)11:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

52-70% when i attempted on the same article (Peugeot 3008). Still bad, but then this is an old computer. A lot of the annoyance with VisEd was waiting for the page to show up after it had already loaded (i assume that's down to Javascript?). ThanksツJenova20^(email)12:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So it's notthat disruptive after all even on an old computer, I'd say. I kinda feel for VE, having to edit a page featuring that biiig template - also, we don't know whether it likes French cars or not. But of course, it's a known thing, and they're working on it. Thank you. --Elitre (WMF) (talk)13:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure a lot of good hard work was put into it but i'm not appreciative of spending time figuring out ways to disable a feature i dislike and didn't have a choice to opt out of this morning when i could have been editing instead. ThanksツJenova20^(email)18:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I am severely disappointed with this. It is more complicated than learning the HTML code and I think the only fair thing is to allow registered users to choose whether they want to use the visual editor or do traditional HTML editing.SonoflamontSonoflamont (talk)11:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to remove VisualEditor from the user interface you can go tothe Gadgets tab of your Preferences page, check the option "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface" in the "Editing" section, and click the Save button near the bottom of the page.--Rockfang (talk)11:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You also have the option to simply use the other interface, every time you edit. :) Both are active. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)11:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is there not a banner at the top of all pages (or at least on top of watchlists) mentioning this change and providing a link to more information? I was caught entirely by surprise by this and had to take some time (granted, only like 2 minutes) finding how to disable it. We get banners asking for money all the time; this is an even more major change, and judging by the number of people coming here asking how to disable it then it seems like having a banner would obviously help the transition. Where's the appropriate place to bring this up?ranaɢ (talk)11:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag: this is the right place and still, I promise you, thereis a banner (also amessage in the Watchlist page!, and it' also going on for a while now. Trying to understand why some of you can't see it - apart from using specific software which blocks similar messages and/or dismissing it days ago without realizing/reading it, of course. --Elitre (WMF) (talk)11:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm using the Monobook skin (with Firefox 3.0, on Windows 7), I wonder if the skin is the problem? In your link I can actually see the message in the wikitext but it's not showing up when I preview the page (or of course in my watchlist), I have no idea why. Best,ranaɢ (talk)11:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

From what I read around it should have something to do with cookies, mostly. Thanks for your reply, --Elitre (WMF) (talk)11:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that right now VisualEditor is only happening in article space and presumably user space, and per the list at the bottom ofWikipedia:VisualEditor#About the VisualEditor it doesn't look like anyone's planning on taking it to other namespaces anytime soon. The reasoning behind this is obvious--presumably users who are straying outside of mainspace are more experienced and can handle MediaWiki markup--but I wonder if this reasoning is true everywhere. For example, I think AfD, and article talkpages [in the case of disputes or semi-protection, when anon editors might be told by other editors to go to the talk page] are people that inexperienced editors might come to and even be making their first edit at. I wonder if seeing a totally different edit window when going from mainspace to somewhere else might confuse these few newbie editors more than VisualEditor helped them?ranaɢ (talk)11:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we are planning on taking the VE to the discussion spaces - sorta. A different engineering team is working onFlow, which will apply to a currently-unknown chunk of the discussion space (certainly user and article talkpages, potentially things like AfDs, too) and that will include a stripped-down VisualEditor. We decided it was probably more trouble than it was worth to implement the VE for those namespaces now, and then have to totally redo it in 6 months.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)11:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for the explanation.ranaɢ (talk)11:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem :).Okeyes (WMF) (talk)12:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

non senseMurrallli (talk)12:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're saying pretty much all :p Anything in particular you might use a hand from us with? Thanks, --Elitre (WMF) (talk)12:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Dunmallet has its coordinates displayed in the title line, as do so many WP articles. I opened it in VE to make another edit, and noticed that the coords were displayed at the bottom. I assumed that this meant that the coords template parameter was wrong (ie assumed that VE was displaying the coords in the position they were displaying in the article - WYSIWYG, isn't it?!) I fiddled around, worked out how to check the "display=" parameter, it was set to "title" so I concluded that this had to be wrong and perhaps the correct parameter was "in title", tried that, checked documentation, verified that "display=title" is right, cancelled VE edit and of course the coords popped back to their correct display.

In short, VE is being non-WYSIWYG with regard to title-line coords display. Please fix it, apologies if it's a known bug. (Surely must be, if it affects every occurrence of coords displaying in title line?)PamD12:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I can only find a bug in Bugzilla related to coordinates, so I am throwing this in. Thanks, --Elitre (WMF) (talk)12:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a must needed one! This'll make more help to get new contributors who've starter knowledge in scripting too.However, sinhala unicode isn't working on this. That means si.wikip won't get this for ever. Please look in to this and try to have something good to Sinhalese people too! --තඹරු විජේසේකර ^{සාකච්ඡාව} _{(Thambaru Wijesekara)}12:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Thambaru, AFAIK the only languages who are not getting VE soon arethose listed here. There's a reason if the deployment has not involved not-en wikipedias right now, but if my colleagues see something that calls for a bugzilla request, they'll certainly file it. Regards, --Elitre (WMF) (talk)12:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Waiting for a quick fix. Please be kind to make our stuffs better too :) --තඹරු විජේසේකර ^{සාකච්ඡාව} _{(Thambaru Wijesekara)}06:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, somebody explain to me how it is that major changes in the daily use and editing of Wikipedia happen with only a few people even knowing that it is coming, and with so many people literally hating the results. How many people were involved in this, who were they, and how could the channels they went through possibly have been considered the "right" channels. I'd like to call for an independent third party to audit this new"feature" nightmare. This is clearlynot working through consensus.--Paul McDonald (talk)12:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd point you toprevious threads (there are others) where answers were already provided. Thanks, --Elitre (WMF) (talk)12:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing in that link that even remotely supports moving ahead with this initiative at this time. I do, however, see a huge amount of opposition. If this wereWP:AFD discussion, it would be closeddelete.--Paul McDonald (talk)14:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't said what would have constituted sufficient notice to you -David Gerard (talk)18:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I have. You should have notified me. And everyone else that this affects. Why is that so hard to comprehend?--Paul McDonald (talk)18:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

And why should I have notified you? (And there were banners on every logged-in article space page, so your condition is satisfied.) -David Gerard (talk)19:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw no banners. I recieved no message. I don't know ifyou should have notified me, but someone should have notified every user this would affect. No matter how much you cry "I put up a banner" that clearly has fallen way short of community expectations of notification.--Paul McDonald (talk)21:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

CRAP CRAP CRAP AND MORE CRAP!Crazyseiko (talk)13:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Crazyseiko: Can you point to any specific elements that can be improved?Okeyes (WMF) (talk)13:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • (RATED R) Imagine this scene: a customer at a restaurant is given a shit sandwich and calls the waiter over, and says, "You gave me a shit sandwich, take this out of here!" The manager then comes over and says, "Can you point to any specific elements that can be improved?" -- What do you want, "Well the bread was actually quite pleasant" or "Maybe if you used spicy mustard instead of mayo" ??? -- get real. The only thing that can improve this edtior is its removal from the system.--Paul McDonald (talk)14:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • No. There is a new sandwich on the menu, liked by the new customers, and the good ol' steak-sandwich-in-a-kit the regulars are used to. You are welcome to order your usual, but you are complaining that the restaurantdares offer a sandwich you do not like. Perhaps your imagination should track reality a little more if you intend to use it as analogies to the real world? — Coren ^(talk)15:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Except the "new sandwich" is actually made of dog shit. So you can continue serving the dog shit, but you're going to lose the customers that want actual food. -Nathan Johnson (talk)16:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I sat down to edit last night (ordered a steak sandwich) and got something else. It wasn't just "on the menu" it was what was delivered to my table and I was not given a choice that I could find. The analogy fits exactly.--Paul McDonald (talk)17:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's assume for the moment that ranting about shit sandwiches will have approximately zero effect except on your reputation -David Gerard (talk)20:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's an example. And one that seems to work well for this situation. Kinda gross though, isn't it...--Paul McDonald (talk)21:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If you use both the script provided above to disable VE and the gadget, ditto, you lose the ability to edit as the edit tab no longer appears, the section edits go away and you can't edit by double-clicking on the page if you have that activated.--Wehwalt (talk)13:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If you use both together, or if you use each of them individually? What skin, browser and OS are you using?Okeyes (WMF) (talk)13:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If you use both of them together. I use Safari, OS X (I have a MacBook Pro) and Monobook skin.--Wehwalt (talk)23:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't played around much with Visual Editor yet, but I can see the potential. When I tried to add a simple stub tag to an article, I liked that it would give me a list of templates, and let me choose the proper one. However, the editor did not place the stub tag where it was intended, or follow the basic MOS ofWP:FOOTERS. If the goal is to make Wikipedia more user friendly, by eliminating the need to know wikitext and formatting, those things should be built into the software, so that editors don't have to worry about it.Fortdj33 (talk)13:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we'll do that as much as possible, but fwiw the MOS is different on each of our 200 wikis, and we have to build something that works forall of them :/. Can you give me examples of "what it does" versus "what it should do"?Okeyes (WMF) (talk)13:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that you're working to a layering model that doesn't reflect editors' perceptions or (and this is the point here) what is expected of the editors. There isn't an easy answer, but "not our problem" is probably not long-term viable -David Gerard (talk)13:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think this is what Oliver meant, quite the contrary. If we find out more about this, it isdefinitely making its way onto Bugzilla! I guess the problem is that some templates are being misplaced when added?--Elitre (WMF) (talk)13:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Iraised this 11 days ago and was told, pretty much, that VE couldn't be bothered with "project-specific" things like WP:MOS which is specific to English wikipedia. Seriously bad news: editors editing an article expect to find certain elements in defined places - stub tags right at the end, categories before them, etc. AWB is intelligent enough to sort this out as part of its general fixes: VE ought to be capable (and "willing") of allowing editors to make edits which comply withWP:FOOTERS, which is part of MOS. I've had to go back and tidy up in "Edit Source" after many of my VE edits, though have continued struggling on with VE out of good will and to help its development by reporting bugs etc. Please put templates such as stub tags into the right places. It should also be possible to identify those "maintenance templates" such as{{unref}} which must always go at the top, before everything except disambiguation hatnotes (which are a finite set of templates and therefore clearly identifiable), and to put those templates at the top - not wherever the cursor happened to be left after the previous edit, as has happened to me.PamD14:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're looking for a specific example, I used the Visual Editor to add a stub tag toAnachronism (comics). I placed the cursor at the end of the article, but as PamD points out, the editor did not take into account the categories already on the article:[5]. The stub tag should goafter the categories perWP:FOOTERS, and it would be beneficial for Visual Editor to automatically place templates in the proper location, similar to the basic rules when usingAWB.Fortdj33 (talk)14:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The MOS-specified way of working is what is expected on a given wiki. Saying "sorry, out of our scope" just isn't a good enough answer, and people will justifiably think of it as you making their editing experience harder, not easier, and making a mess -David Gerard (talk)18:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure someone asked this already, but I couldn't find this question myself - How do you add rows or columns to Wikitables? List articles often have most of their content embedded in tables.--¿3family6_contribs13:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not yet possible to edit the structure of tables (like adding rows or columns), only to edit their content.guillom15:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I thought so.--¿3family6_contribs17:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Can I switch back to the old methodCrelache (talk)13:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Clicking "Edit source" will allow you to do so. Or, you can look for a gadget hiding VE among your Preferences page. Still, give it a try before quitting for good, will you? --Elitre (WMF) (talk)13:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty frustrating...smileguy91^talk13:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to remove VisualEditor from the user interface you can go tothe Gadgets tab of your Preferences page, check the option "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface" in the "Editing" section, and click the Save button near the bottom of the page.--Rockfang (talk)18:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably not the most pressing issue :), but during editing the display of the maintenance tag "unreferenced section|date=August 2012" is corrupted (the text is extending outside of the screen to the right side), see articleOtto I at "Consolidation of Power". I have actual FF installed, my current screen resolution is 1280 x 1024.GermanJoe (talk)14:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: Great find! Now reported :). Let us know if you see any more problems.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)06:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So I still love the little animations for the [ edit | edit source ] buttons. But could youswitch the stupid buttons around? Every time I go in for an edit, I wind up missing the link and accidentally clicking on the Visual Editor link. Then I have to wait a while for the Visual Editor to load, hit the back button on my browser, and then scroll down to whereever I was before. Maybe muscle memory would adapt if Ionly edited in the Article space, but you seem to be forgetting that Wikipedia editors do occasionally make talk page edits (like I am right now), where the [edit] button does something totally different. The end result is me constantly missing the links.—Love,Kelvinsongtalk14:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree this can be confusing, especially since, like you say, the behavior is inconsistent across namespaces.bugzilla:50540 might help, even though it's not exactly what you want.guillom15:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• I concur with Kelvinsong on this. I've also one the same several times on the editor, especially at the edit link at the top of the page. Switching them could be ideal.TheOriginalSoni (talk)22:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Following on from#Attempting to add a reference above:

I'm an experienced editor, have been experimenting with VE for 11 days, decided to have a go at adding a reference. Even with the User Guide open as I work, I cannot see how to get at any parameter list for{{cite web}} (ie something like the functionality of the old RefToolbar).

1. I openedDunmallet to experiment with adding a reference.
2. Moved cursor to right place, clicked on the "Insert reference" icon
3. I see a box saying "Insert reference". It has a fill-in box labelled "What do you want to cite?". It does not look like the one in the User Guide which has the words "Reference content".
4. "Create new source" looks clickable... but just turns blue.
5. Ahah! I wonder whether I'm now supposed to click on the jigsaw-piece "transclusion" icon which I can't see because the "Insert Reference" box is large and unmovable and obscures everthing else?
6. If I abandon trying to add anything new, I can manage OK to add another citing of an existing source ... except that the display in the reflist is "1.0 1.1" rather than the "ab" we're used to.
7. Though when I save it, it reverts to "abc": yet another non-WYSISYG feature.

I literally cannot discover how to be prompted by parameter names (from{{cite web}} or{{cite book}} etc) when adding a reference: and surely this is one of the most helpful features we can offer to new editors, to encourage them to provide decent references. If it's a book, we want them to include author, title, publisher, date, page number, isbn. If I can't even find this, with my background, it sure as hell isn't going to be obvious to and easily used by our new editors. Or am I missing something blindingly obvious?PamD14:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree--the existing system for references, which has only been available to us for testing at any opt-in level for a few days, is horribly puzzling. The very first thing a new user who manages to decode the heiroglyphics of "add reference" sees is a place to add a reference group--an incredibly rarely used option. Is it any wonder I'm already seeing editors create articles with references in reference groups that never get displayed, because, although they added a reflist, they didn't know at all what a reference group even was, and that they'd need a different reference list to display it?

The VE reference screens are very logical, from an abstract development point of view, but their usability is more or less zero. I look forward to seeing how many completely new users have been able to navigate that system in such a way that they've been able to create an article that survives deletion attempts down the road, I'm sure those statistics will take some time to gather, however. --j⚛e decker^talk16:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I was startled when VisualEditor lurched onto the scene yesterday, but then I actually found it kind of cute, and enjoyed playing with it. I thought the folks who complained about it were being harsh and unreasonable. But I have come around to their side after realizing that Wikipedia is going to sustain a lot of damage when it comes to en dashes, degree signs, prime signs, minus signs, etc. I know how to fetch these characters and use them (with considerable difficulty), but those who will not go to that trouble will be using superscripted 'o' for a degree sign and a hyphen or two instead of en dash, em dash and minus signs. This shortcoming needs to be addressed with a high priority, but it is being handled as a bug (50296) with a very low priority. If I had a button that would drag this oinker back onto the drawing board until it is really ready, I would press that button right now.Chris the speller ^yack14:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agree IfUser:Chris the speller isn't on board, just how far off the reservation have we strayed?--Paul McDonald (talk)15:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this article. The old version looked likethis. It was then edited by a brand new editor using the visual editor and looked likethis (a bit of a mess). I reverted primarily because the edits introduced blatant copyvio. They returned to re-add it plus more and producedan even bigger mess (reverted by X-Link bot). Can anyone tell if the awful formatting problems were due to the VE or simply a new editor who couldn't figure out how to use it?Voceditenore (talk)15:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

They appear to be new-editor based, I think. Normally VE problems are more amusing or weird (we had an ASCII turd introduced once. And an infinite loop of chess pieces.)Okeyes (WMF) (talk)15:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Tried to link some unlinked entries in a simple-looking 2-column list inThe New Elizabethans.Managed it, but it wasn't one of VE's finest hours.

Clicking on any link turned the whole list blue - what will a new editor make of that?

Realised that they were within a template - so ended up having to use old "Edit Source" editing skills to edit the list of links which appeared in the "template content" window. Not a very elegant solution. Is it going to be possible to edit links within templates? There must be thousands of multicolumn lists out there which people will need to edit occasionally!

Thinking further: presumably this means that at present absolutely all edits to multi-column list items will have to be done manually (if someone is persistent enough to find the wikicode displayed!) ... not just links, but adding text, formats, etc? Ouch.PamD15:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

And a further problem: I can't click on any of those links, while in VE, to check that they go where I want them to. I just get the blue box. Even right-click doesn't work (I think I raised a similar issue way back and was told that right-clicking links in templates would work... not this time). I've just fixed a link but wanted to check it before I saved the page (an unfamiliar spelling, would have been fastest way to check that I'd got it right).PamD15:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an annoying problem :/. Having a template/link/everything else editor within the template editor is on the to-do list.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)15:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Just discovered inUnicorn#See also that it's a problem with{{div col}} too.PamD15:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

it is much more user friendly than the previous version .in all it is quite goodBsamiwalaa (talk)15:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to let us know. We're glad you like it :)guillom15:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I notice that when someone posts "I like it" the response is "thank you" but when someone posts "I don't like it" the response is "Why not, can you be more specific?" -- maybe the project should ask the people who say "I like it" what specifically they like about it instead of discriminating against those who do not and attempt to treat people fairly in an attempt to make Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk)15:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you've read the purpose of this page, but it could help explain that. :) This page is expicitly here so that Wikimedia's developers can learn about issues that people encounter when using VE. It's not really as necessary for them to know specificallywhy people like it (although they are certainly grateful that people do!) as it is to knowwhat problems people have in using it--so that issues can be repaired and new features can be considered. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)15:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I would find it useful if someone would list the things that it does right.--Paul McDonald (talk)17:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's OK for straightforward text edits, and quite useful for that, and I'm sure it'll get better at the other stuff fairly quickly.EricCorbett18:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding it better than trawling through 100kB of computer guacamole when I just want to fix something in one sentence. (I'm doing more complicated stuff with it to shake out bugs, which is what all this is for.) -David Gerard (talk)19:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This is horrible. Turn it off and fire whoever developed it.Nathan Johnson (talk)15:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You can turn it off via the gadgets in your preferences menu. Can you give some explicit things we can improve on with it?Okeyes (WMF) (talk)16:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already turned it off. That should be easier. That's the only constructive thing I can suggest besides turning it off totally. I can definitely think of explicit things to say about it. Unfortunately, they would likely earn me a timeout. -Nathan Johnson (talk)16:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I just came to this page to congratulate the authors. This seems to be a good place :-) So, wfa,

Congratulations! This is a very nice and welcome surprise. Thanks!Saintrain (talk)17:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

going back and forth between 'edit' and 'edit source' should keep interim changes -- rather like switching between edit source and preview. That way, you won't have to save interim edits when switching modes.Darkonc (talk)15:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; I expect that feature will be incoming at some point at which time I am probably going to switch to VE bydefault even. — Coren ^(talk)15:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

VE only works in article space, andyou haven't made a single mainspace edit since February, long before even the earliest beta went live. How are you in a position to comment?78.149.172.10 (talk)16:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

And userspace, and has been live on prototype wikis and mediawiki.org and, well, every other wiki for quite some time now, and the beta went live in December; Coren having experience using it is not something dependent on his enwiki contributions. I would note that given that the VE is only accessible to logged-in users, this is probably not quite the time for us to start a debate over who is able to speak with experience about its use.Okeyes (WMF) (talk)16:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

My first few experiences of the visual editor have been very mixed. I edit on a fast connection but a relatively slow computer, and find the way that the VE loads the entire page for a section edit means I have to wait 1-2 minutes before I can make my changes. If I ask to edit a section then there is no need to load anything other than the relevant section and doing so is very inefficient and potentially confusing.

When I editedBermuda to disambiguate one link, the VE randomly inserted a blank line in a section way down the page[6]. I don't know why those items are commented out from the bulleted list, but the VE should not be making changes like that without being explicitly told to (per the FAQ on this page) and I had to make a second source edit to fix the problem it introduced.

The VE also disguises piped links so it is not possible to see at a glance whether there are other links that need fixing. Together these mean that the tool is not currently suitable for wikignome editors.

Copying and pasting text within the visual editor should retain the formatting (bold, italic, etc) of the source text, rather than just being plain text requring manual reformatting. If word processors can do this then it must be technically possible.

Finally, strongly object to the way that this tool has changed the meaning of the "edit" link. Instead of changing the meaning of that well-established term and introducing "edit source" (which is not what you are doing anyway, as the wikitext is not the html source) it should have left the "edit" tab doing what it has always done and added an "edit page visually" or "wysiwyg edit" option or something.

Overall, it's not bad for a work in progress, but it feels like an early beta that should still be opt in.Thryduulf (talk)15:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Came acrossthis edit onSean Bean. I know the editor who performed it was using Visual Editor and was probably trying just to add information to the lede but "nowiki" code got added around their edit...Shearonink (talk)16:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There was a wikilink within [[ ]] in that edit. VE is not able to handle wiki markup (and is not intended to), so when some is inserted it puts "nowiki" tags around to disable it. I don't think this is the right response: I have seen it cause chaos when someone attempted to insert a wikilink, and subsequent increasingly desperate attempts to make the wikilink work all failed because they were all within the "nowiki" tags VE had introduced with the first edit, which of course were not visible to the frustrated editor. The right response would be to pop up a warning. I think there may be a bug for this.JohnCD (talk)17:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

On theMogwai page, there is a non-existant category I'd like to amend, but VE appears to only shows up categories that exist. It would be nice if I could edit/remove non-existant categories via VE.Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs)16:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That category I'm talking about isn't even on the page, even though for some reason when I viewed the page it showed up. VE does appear to show non-existant categories as well. Please excuse me.Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs)16:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

From {{about|the concept in Hinduism|the 2009 film|Avatar (2009 film)|the animated series|Avatar: The Last Airbender|other uses|Avatar (disambiguation)}}, I removed 2 arguments in the middle. It resulted in {{about|the concept in Hinduism|the 2009 film|Avatar (2009 film)|6=other uses|7=Avatar (disambiguation)}}, but I wanted {{about|the concept in Hinduism|the 2009 film|Avatar (2009 film)|other uses|Avatar (disambiguation)}} --Redtigerxyz^Talk16:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I just don't understand how this new system works. Just now I tried to edit, and when I clicked on "Edit", the section I wanted to work on completely disappeared! I had to use "Edit source" instead.AlbertSM (talk)16:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That's alarming. :/ What section did you try to edit on which article? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)17:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting a problem where if I want to use a reference already listed, the editor only lets me choose the first three. Is there a way to scroll down to see the rest? I can't seem to do so on my browser. Thanks, this new editor does look promising, once it's developed further.¿3family6_contribs16:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

After puzzling over edits likethis,this andthis, I've worked out that the image position is based on where the cursor was at the time that the user went for the "Media" button. But where does the200x200px size come from? Is there any reason that it can't simply be omitted, in accordance withWP:IMGSIZE "do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so". --Redrose64 (talk)17:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

After reading#Adding stub tags above, I suppose that on some other wiki the manual of style may say "define the size of an image as 200x200px unless there is a good reason not to do so". Not that this would be good advice but, sadly, our own MOS has even poorer advice on occasion.Thincat (talk)18:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing fixed sizes for images like this is covered by a bug,50379.Keegan (WMF) (talk)18:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Chrome on Windows 7. Click edit on a section, edit the section using VE. Save. Click edit on another section edit, you get the "You are editing an version... [other changes] will be removed" message. And, in fact, saving edits to another section will revert the first changes just made by you.

This seems like a pretty serious limitation.Dovid (talk)17:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank youvery much for finding this. I've filed a bug,50596.Keegan (WMF) (talk)18:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This may have been suggested before, but why can't there simply be two panes visible simultaneously, one with the visual editor and another beneath it with the source editor? I've used several CASE tools that work like that: change the diagram and the currently displayed code generated changes; change the code and the diagram changes.EricCorbett17:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent idea.WordPerfect managed to do this for decades without problems.78.149.172.10 (talk)17:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a great idea.Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs)18:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

See alsoAdobe Dreamweaver, which managed it for HTML c. 2000. --j⚛e decker^talk18:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope to see this sort of feature in the future as well, it would be quite useful. Currently there is no real easy way to do this as Parsoid is not translating wikimarkup into HTML (and vice versa) in real time. I think this would take a large amount of machine resource to make this practical. Here's to the future development of VisualEditor, though!Keegan (WMF) (talk)19:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspected that might be the case; the long-term solution might be to offer a downloadable visual editor that has all the bells and whistles people expect these days and to cut back on the expectations for something written in Javascript.EricCorbett19:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Parsoid can translate back and forth between wikitext and HTML on demand, but the difficulty is maintaining a clean diff in the process. On the way from wikitext to HTML and back, we get to associate round-trip information with the HTML that makes it possible to still produce clean diffs. If we switch back and forth between HTML and wikitext a few times before finally saving back to wikitext, that information is very hard to preserve. We have some research ideas on how thismight be possible eventually, but at this point that is really just a research idea. You might also likethis technical blog post for some background on the challenges we are dealing with in Parsoid. --Gabriel Wicke (talk)01:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless there is some button I've not correctly interpreted the unlabelled diagram on, there is no possible way to create a redirect in the visual editor. I tried just entering the markup, but it silently shoved it in "nowiki" tags[7]. If the visual editor is to be at all useful it must never insert nowiki tags without being told to.Thryduulf (talk)18:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Probably a related bug, but it again inserted "nowiki" tags when that was the exact opposite of what I wanted.[8] It's increasingly clear that the VE is not yet fit for purpose.Thryduulf (talk)18:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• HeyUser:Thryduulf, you are correct. It is currently not possible to create or edit redirects with VisualEditor, it still needs to be done in source. It is being worked on though, you can find the bug reporthere.Keegan (WMF) (talk)18:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

When trying to use the VE toolbar to add a wikilink onPalms (album), the blue cover that appears when hovering over a template (the track list in this instance) obscured the VE toolbar and made it impossible to use. Please fix.Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs)18:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you tell us something about your browser and operating system? I am not seeing that issue when I try to edit the article, and more information would be helpful. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)18:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm using Google Chrome 28.0.1500.63 on Ubuntu 13.04.Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs)18:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Does it look likethis? If so, we can add the details of your experience toBug 50285. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)19:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That's the problem I'm getting.Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs)19:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I've added your experience in. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)19:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Since thepoor implementation of the [edit | edit source], and 'VisualEditor' (hereafter,VizWiz) is being forced upon everyone (not opt-in) ...

... any userscript to switch this position of [edit | edit source] to [edit source| edit]?

... can there be a preference in VizWiz to switch this default behavior for the User: editor?

... is there a way to goto the source after entering into the VizWiz?

--J. D. Redding18:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC) (does notice the VizWiz implementation is not on this page)

Off the bat I can answer the third question: we can't currently switch from VisualEditor into source. Quoting from above:

"We'd love to provide simple switching, but sadly doing so would make it very hard to still provide clean wikitext diffs. This might have to wait until wikitext diffs are replaced with HTML diffs." --GWicke (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It's something we'd like to be able to do in the future and it does make sense to have this functionality.Keegan (WMF) (talk)18:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I see the#Switch to edit source above, thanks.

So the source is going to be replaced? Totally removing the source text?

Now that thought is scary.Is there atechnology roadmap that Users can go view about the VizWiz? FoundRoadmap#VisualEditor (andGoals), I'll have to look closer there ... got the bugzilla up and looking around there too ...

Starting to see that this is another incremental step to the style and flashy presentation, instead of the early value WP and focus on content and text. --J. D. Redding19:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean "the source is going to be replaced? Totally removing the source text?" --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)19:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

To quote "wikitext diffs are replaced with HTML diffs".

That is the plan, remove the basic txt with the light wiki markup with heavy syntax html? Or is that something behind the scene with the coding cabal? --J. D. Redding19:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC) [ps. that doesn't bother me, I can read markup that way, but that is more overhead for many (and something the VizWiz is suppose to "help")]

Behind the scenes, we (theParsoid team) are planning to storeboth wikitext and HTML of a page to speed up visual editing and page loads for logged-in users. We also intend to provide a visual diff that lets users without wikitext knowledge check content changes. Do not worry though, wikitext editing and -diffing will not go anywhere. --Gabriel Wicke (talk)00:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I've answered you below, since you opened a new section for this. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)19:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In playing around with adding a new reference, I somehow got the URL to be appended to the end of the previous reference.

The bad thing: I can't figure out how to fix it now, even if I delete my changes. Here's the diff:[9] Where the URL I was trying to use for ref. 12 got appended to ref. 11 (and I can't figure out how to get rid of it).Woodshed (talk)19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Good news: your reference addition worked just fine! The appended URL wasalready there. Looks like the previous reference tag is the one that needs fixing. I hope you continue to try out visual editor and let us know of more feedback in the future.Keegan (WMF) (talk)19:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Woodshed: I havefixed the problem, which was already extant when you did your edit. --Diannaa (talk)19:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I am completely thick. I thought I saw the editor add my URL down there, but it was adifferent one from the same site. Sorry to waste your time. Thanks!Woodshed (talk)22:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This is probably a known limitation, but a really important one: currently it's not possible to copy a transclusion of a template from one article to another. There are many situations in which the easiest way to add a template to an article is to copy a use from another article and then adjust the values of the fields slightly. It would be nice if all the standard copy/paste hotkeys and menu items just worked, but it's also acceptable if a separate copy/paste button is necessary.Dcoetzee19:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I know what you mean, Dcoetzee. I think for some editors (myself very much included) for work like that I'll just continue to use the source and copy/paste that way. Old habits die hard. As for copying and pasting with VisualEditor, most of those bugs are worked out but there are a few left that should be gone very soon.Keegan (WMF) (talk)19:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added the number of a related feature request; Derrick, do you want to add your request there? It seems to me that enabling one should enable the other. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)19:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't like that the "edit source" button appears and disappears as the mouse pointer goes past. It's very distracting when just reading the article. There should be one static "edit" button, and individual user preferences can determine what you want that button to do when you click it.Kafziel^{Complaint Department: Please take a number}20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. For simple text editing it's very helpful to do away with all the computer-technie bum fluff.EricCorbett20:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that both VisualEditor and source editors are imperfect, and they complement each other. Depending on the editing task you want to perform, one is more suited than the other. Having to go to your preferences to change the behavior every time would be impractical.guillom20:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Both of you are telling me how much nicer it is for editors. I'm talking aboutreaders, which is what we are supposed to be focused on.Kafziel^{Complaint Department: Please take a number}20:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Concur on the magickal floaty interface thing being annoying - just the two links would be preferable -David Gerard (talk)20:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. It doesn't bother me either way, because I immediately went into my own settings and turned this crap off, but for the casual reader it makes no sense to have one static button and one that flashes on and off. At the very least, they should both be static and unobtrusive.Kafziel^{Complaint Department: Please take a number}20:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• We've got a request in on this one. :) Feel free to add comments or subscribe to the bug to get updates. Thanks! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)20:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to opt out of the visual editor, I am not use to this new editing system which does not appear to leave an ability to leave an edit summary, and appears to be more difficult then it's worth.RightCowLeftCoast (talk)20:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

PerWikipedia:VisualEditor: "VisualEditor is still in beta phase, and we hope that you will give it a try. While many users are more comfortable with wikitext, some features will be really useful to experienced editors as well, like dialogs to edit complex templates and references. Also, your help in identifying bugs and training new users will be invaluable. That said, if you really can't stand the extra tab, you can completely hide VisualEditor from your interface by enabling an experimental gadget: go toyour preferences, scroll down to "Editing", tick the box labeled "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface", then scroll to the bottom and click "Save". You can reactivate it at any time by unticking the box."

Regarding the edit summary, you should see it when you try to save the page (seeWikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide#Saving changes). If you're not seeing this, it's probably a bug and it should be reported.guillom20:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is the URI for this script coming from? Could this possibly be a VE bug? I just looked through some of this user's other contributions, and none seem to have weird script tags in them. Is it possible that a client-side feature/bug is corrupting this? Or is it just a coincidence that this was added with VisualEditor?πr² (t •c)20:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This is caused byFoxLingo.πr² (t •c)20:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I hate this -- put it back!!DRosenbach^{(Talk |Contribs)}20:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

SeeWikipedia:VisualEditor/FAQ - "How do I disable VisualEditor?". More info inWikipedia_talk:VisualEditor#FAQ:_But_What_If_I_Hate_Visual_Editors.3F.πr² (t •c)20:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In a bit more detail: If you would like to remove VisualEditor from the user interface you can go tothe Gadgets tab of your Preferences page, check the option "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface" in the "Editing" section, and click the Save button near the bottom of the page.--Rockfang (talk)23:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

When I attempted to insert a transclusion ofTemplate:Location map inEast St. Louis Riot using the visual editor (seediff), the generated wikitext is correct and it looks correct when the page is saved, but it does not render correctly in the preview - I see this:[10].Dcoetzee20:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Reported. If that image is temp or something, please let me know, as I've linked it. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)21:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I can report that I could wait for ages until its loaded, half-fade-out and loading-bar repeating all the time. Don't know where's the reason for - whether it's my praehistoric machine nor NoScript blocking, but it doesn't report any new scripts. That sucks. This way I will stay with the old textarea-field. That's the fastest way. --Kai Burghardt (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Finally, I don't understand why "we"want to simplify editing-procedures. Typing plain wiki-code is a kind of filter against lusers. Though they still have the chance doing vandalism. --Kai Burghardt (talk)20:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The second part you mentioned is addressed on MW.orgπr² (t •c)20:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Also in the FAQ above, "Are you worried by the potential for a large increase in vandalism?"πr² (t •c)20:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Am I reading FAQ? Actually it is not a Q. The recent banner forall WP-Pages says "give feedback", not "read already given feedback". So that's my fb. However, hardly surprising my issues aren't new. Move on. --Kai Burghardt (talk)21:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Leading out of discussion above, I have madea proposal for a formal User Council to represent the needs of Wikipedia users to the Foundation on issues such the roll out of software changes. --RA (talk)20:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If I'm viewing a page diff for the most recent edit to a page (example), there are section edit links. If I click one of these, I immediately get a popup with a pink background and bold text "You are editing an old version of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed", which is somewhat misleading. --Redrose64 (talk)20:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I filed a bug about this earlier. It's not misleading, it really is using the cache of the page since you first clicked edit and wants to keep modifying that.Keegan (WMF) (talk)21:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

But it also happens for pages where I was not the last editor - pages where my last edit was several weeks ago. --Redrose64 (talk)22:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Trying to edit a section with that link in place got me a Parsoid server error. Hm. I'll look further into it, this is not normal :)Keegan (WMF) (talk)03:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there any chance of Visual Editor supporting Firfox 17, or is that still too old? Thanks.Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk)20:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably too old, and getting older. I've just been prompted to upgrade to FF 22. --Redrose64 (talk)21:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Firefox 17 is the more recent version that has extended support (seehere), which means probably the latest version a lot of companies will use. That's really bad if even this kind of versions are not supported... --NicoV^{(Talk on frwiki)}22:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear from that that FF17 is actually it - that chart is the original proposal to have an extended-support version at all. I can't find anything clearly saying there is an extended support version beyond FF10, and I just went looking -David Gerard (talk)23:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The chart is indeed the proposal, but just above the chart you have anupdate line saying that the proposal is approved, announced and published. Otherwise, if you go thedownload page for Firefox Extended Support, you clearly see that FF17 is indeed the current version for extended support. So, that version should also be supported by VE, because many big companies will stick to Extended Support versions (like the company I work in with 70.000 employees). --NicoV^{(Talk on frwiki)}23:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

aha, thank you! Yes, it should be, ideally. Presumably later, though, I fear - currently it's0.27% of readership -David Gerard (talk)23:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Editing bug! If you go to add a reference, hit "create reference", find yourself hopelessly confused by the template parameter interface, X out of it, then save the edit ...turns out you didn't cancel out like the interface left you thinking. Cancelling out needs to actually cancel out. -David Gerard (talk)21:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, good sir. Reported to Bugzilla.Keegan (WMF) (talk)21:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Pretty darn coolSirBob42 (talk)21:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So glad it worked for you. :) Please do let us know if you find any issues so we can help make sure they get straightened out. Thanks! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)21:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting one that i just wandered across while looking at an oldArticles for creation backlog drive, that causes a very interesting error popup to appear (Tested in Firefox 22)

• Navigate tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baylor_University_Institute_for_Oral_History&diff=555106174&oldid=prev
• Try to edit the "Mission" section in the VE.
• Result: An error popup statingError loading data from server: parsoidserver: Error contacting the Parsoid server. Would you like to retry?

This seems to be caused by the "oldid=prev" part. Normally this loads the revision prior to the Diff part of the URL, but it seems the VE cannot handle that correctly.Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)}21:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I've tracked this. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk)21:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The classic editor is fine for me, thanks.KAMiKAZOW (talk)21:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Me, too. I'll stick with Edit Source.Openskye (talk)00:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I want to add a citation. I click on the "add reference" button. It asks if I want to add a existing reference or a new reference. I click "new reference". Nothing happens. I wait. I click it again. Nothing happens. I realize I'm supposed to click "new reference" and then the "next" button; this was wildly nonobvious. I clicked "next" and was presented with a second screen saying, I'm trying to see if I can remember the exact wording, "Add to group". There is a text box to type into. There is no hint what this means or what I'm supposed to write in there.

"Add to group"?! Really? What does that even MEAN?

Going back to the source editor, I have no idea how but somehow that was less confusing than your GUI.Awk (talk)21:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

+1 -David Gerard (talk)21:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding references is quite confusing compared to the normal editor. That is the only real complaint I have with the interface itself, though it is a pretty important complaint.--The Devil's Advocate_tlk.cntrb.22:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This is high priority. Emulating the RefToolbar would be the best approach, imo. In regards to the group thing, it's aboutgrouped footnotes. As these aren't used very regularly (in my experience), that option may be more trouble than its worth. TDA, describe your dream reference interface, and we can add it to the report:[11]PEarley (WMF) (talk)02:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

(Text auto-submitted in preparation of bug video[12])
[This Leave dialogue is] Impossible to use; even trying to use this leave dialogue re-scrolls the whole window on each and every single keypress, this makes it somewhat hard to use and it is unclear how one is supposed to press the OKAY button afterwards…Sladen (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Clarified —Sladen (talk)22:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Alonsodono (talk)22:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not at all an improvement over the old cite tool, there should be an option to use the old way of adding references on the Visual Editor.eh bien mon prince (talk)23:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The template editor sorts parameters alphabetically. That sounds logical until youcite a book with mutliple authors and find that "first1=", "first2=" and so on are grouped together well apart from "last1=" and so on (for example, "isbn=" comes in between). Would it be possible to have the parameters sorted in the order in which they appear in the template itself, at least for those templates which use TemplateData?

On an unrelated note, yesterday we had an editor in the IRC help channel who wanted to thank you for how much easier VisualEditor makes editing, but couldn't figure out how to do so because this page can't be edited via VE.Huon (talk)00:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I think its great that the existing editing functionality is being retained - however the way this is being done for section edits seems obtrusive to me. Today I was reading an article, as I scrolled each time that my mouse cursor was in line with a section header it would flicker from.

Section Heading [edit]

to

Section Heading [edit | edit source]

which drew my eyes from the text I was actually reading.

Would it be possible to either:

• give everyone the choice of Edit / Edit Source when editing the full-page, but only display one option or the other for section editing? Ideally which of these two was displayed would be set via a user preference (probably defaulting to edit source for existing accounts, and edit for new ones)
• always display both Edit and Edit Source

Thanks,davidprior^t/_c00:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What the heading says. When I review my change, my only option is to "Return to save form". I'd prefer that the save form just sit at the bottom of the review panel. One less click. --Anthonyhcole (talk ·contribs ·email)00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

After saving my first VE edit, above, I decided to make another change to the article but when I clicked the "edit" tab I got the message, "You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed." In fact, no one had edited the page since my edit, and I was editing thecurrent version of the page. Clicking the "Article" tab and then the "Edit" link got rid of the false warning. --Anthonyhcole (talk ·contribs ·email)00:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting the same thing.--¿3family6_contribs01:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty fundamental error that shows no real testing was done before this premature deployment of an unfinished piece of software. My guess is that those on contracts felt the pressure to do something, and this is something.EricCorbett01:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)