Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:34, 14 June 2013

Skip to table of contents

Share your feedback

Report bugs

Your feedback about the VisualEditor alpha release

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

Add a new comment – View known bugs – Report a new bug in Bugzilla – Join the IRC channel

Archives (generated by MiszaBot):

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

If you would like to try VisualEditor without editing an article, here is a page where you can freely do so. You don't need an account to use it.

Shortcut

WP:VE/FAQ

Main page
Feedback at MediaWiki
Sandbox (no account required)

About

Documentation:
Development:
- Roadmap up to 2017
- Updates (2013-2023)
- Weekly status reports (2015-2016)

Help out

Research

Main research page

Other

Why are the developers building this? (2013)
- User Test Data (2013)
Customization
Known problems
Requests for Comments (RfCs): Jul 2013 a, Jul 2013 b, Jul 2015, Sep 2015

What is VisualEditor?: VisualEditor is a way to edit pages that looks more like a word processor. It was first offered here in 2013.
How do I enable VisualEditor?: VisualEditor is available alongside the original wikitext editor if you opt-in, by changing your preferences. It is currently not available to unregistered users at the English Wikipedia, unless they switch modes while editing.
Why is this change being made?: Some people who could become productive, experienced members of the community are turned off upon attempting their first edit in wikitext "source" mode. Some edits, such as adding or rearranging columns to a table in wikitext, are difficult even for experienced editors.
Where do I go to learn more about how to use VisualEditor?: Please see the VisualEditor User guide.
Does VisualEditor make automatic fixes to pages?: In most cases, VisualEditor will not change or reformat lines that are not being directly edited. If markup already on the page is handled incorrectly (for example, with tables that are not closed), then it may attempt to correct these.
Will it still be possible to edit articles using wikitext after the visual editor becomes available?: Yes. While the visual editor will become available to all users as an editing environment, a method for editing the underlying wikitext "source" will continue to exist. There are no plans to remove the "Edit source" option.^[1]
Won't this slow down reading and editing for people who have slow connections or computers?: VisualEditor loads the bulk of its code only when you edit a page in the visual editing mode. So if you keep using "Edit source" or are a reader, the effect on your user experience should be negligible (~4KB of additional JavaScript payload before you click "Edit", or about 0.5% of one typical page). Your web browser will typically cache the JavaScript, speeding up future uses even if you are on a slow connection. However, using the visual editor for editing may cause problems for those on slow computers or connections, especially on very large pages. For these users, opting-out for now may be the best option.
I've found an issue with VisualEditor or a feature that is missing. How can I tell you to fix it?: Please report the issue in Phabricator, after first searching exiting tickets to make sure it hasn't been reported already. Additional bug reporting instructions can be found here. There are four main kinds of issues that the developers especially need to hear about:

Something breaks: The failure may only affect a particular type of browser or computer, on a particular page, or after doing something else. Please post your problem at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. In your description, it is helpful to include information about what you were trying to do, your web browser, computer operating system, and a link to the article or a diff of the edit if it was possible for you to save the change.
Performance problems: If all pages seem unexpectedly slow on loading or on performing a particular task, or if it used to be faster and has recently gotten worse, then please report this.
User experience issues: If it didn't make sense, or if it was awkward, or if you couldn't figure out what you needed to do (Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide covers the basics), please speak up, and feel free to offer your suggestions for improving the design.
Missing functionality: Is there something you need to do, but it currently can't be done in VisualEditor, like editing mathematics equations or seeing hidden comments that contain instructions to other editors? Make sure that it's on the developers' list of needed features. If you'd like to know which missing features have been reported before, you can search the talk page archives and feedback archives. If you can't find any reference to the new feature you'd like to suggest, please report it at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Can visual editor be customized ?: Yes, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Customization, and mw:VisualEditor gadgets for more advanced customization.
How do I disable VisualEditor?: To continue to edit the wikitext directly, simply click the "Edit source" button instead of "Edit". On section edit links, you can open the wikitext editor selected in your preferences for that section by clicking "edit source" instead of the regular "edit" link.

If you would like to remove VisualEditor from the user interface, then you can do so.
- If it is a beta feature: go to the Beta tab of your preferences page, untick the checkbox "Visual Editor", and click the Save button near the bottom of the page. (As of 2021, this is how you do it on Meta-Wiki and the Chinese Wikipedia.)
- If the visual editor is already out of beta:
  - go to the Editing tab of your Preferences page, untick the checkbox "⧼visualeditor-preference-betatempdisable⧽", and click the Save button near the bottom of the page. (This is how you do it on some sister Wikipedias, for instance, Russian Wikipedia, as of 2021.)
  - on English Wikipedia, go to the Editing tab of your Preferences page and change the "Editing mode" to "Always give me the source editor"

See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Opt-out for other options.
Can I install VisualEditor on my personal wiki outside Wikimedia?: Yes. The VisualEditor extension is available for download.
Can I use named references like the basic wikicode editor does, so I can choose my own reference names?: This has been requested via Community feedback, and is on the list of things to do. There are some links and more information about this on the Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Named references page.
The FAQ didn't answer my question. Where may I ask it?: You can ask on the central feedback page on mediawiki.org.

Notes

^ <<And no, we're not taking markup-level editing away. Some users may always prefer it over visual editing, even if the exact nature of the markup changes, and even if VisualEditor becomes the best tool it can possibly be.>> Erik Möller, deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation, The VisualEditor Beta and the path to change, op-ed for Wikipedia Signpost, July 31st, 2013.

First impression

I like the new Visual Editor, but I think it could be useful to allow some "hybrid" writing. For example, I'd like to be able to write ==Title== and let the editor to autotransform in a title. I know it is possible to click in the button, but I think productivity would be increased if it is possible to work only with the keyboard. --FAR (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR: Thank you for your idea. However, the intent for VisualEditor is to create an editor for people that doesn't require them to know wikitext. This covers them not needing to know it for either using wikitext deliberately, or for accidentally using it. We don't want users to create some text like "== foo ==" or "''hello''" and have them surprised at the results - it would be very confusing, and would ultimately mean that every new user would have to learn wikitext anyway, which goes against our objective. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what if each element of wikitext was enable-able separately.Sory if this is stupid.Panpog1 (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Panpog1: Do you mean that you could select an item and edit it as wikitext? This is something we've considered but would need a great deal of work on the back-end (similar to section editing). Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdforrester: I think @Panpog1: meant that in user preferences there would be options for the editor to interpret wikitext. So for in the above example "==Title==" Would appear like that by default but if you enabled 'titles wikitext' the editor would recognise it and display it as a heading. This would mean that by default users would need to know no wikitext but for more advanced users wanting to use it to be more productive that option is there too. Moohan (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdforrester: I think it would be more pleasing to experienced editors who want to use VisualEditor to have an option on the template for adding references. An "Add a Citation" button with all the fields to fill in shouldn't be hard for new users to understand. I think many will use it. Teammm ^talk
_email 23:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Predictive texting in edit summaries

In the existing editor when I start typing in the edit summary field it will prompt me with various edit summaries that I've used before. This often saves the majority of key depressions needed for one typo fix. Visual editor doesn't do this, is that intentional? If so it is a pain. Ϣere SpielChequers 05:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that we are now using a multiline textarea, rather than a single line textbox. The auto-completion you are currently seeing is provided by the browser and only for single line textboxes. In order to bring it back we'd need to implement our own auto-complete. ESanders (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or return to a single line textbox. VisualEditor is all about making the editing experience better, this aspect doesn't contribute to that goal.SchreiberBike (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, and it's not the first time this point has been mentioned. The auto complete history of edit summary fields is a much enjoyed aspect of the edit page for many editors. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers, SchreiberBike, and TheDJ: You're right, this has been discussed above - see there for discussion about the issues with this. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, I can appreciate that it would be possible to deploy without this fix, but with so many bugs to work on it would be nice to see this sneaked into this version - you could probably attribute it to popular demand. If we do have to wait for v2 can we at least have assurance that there is budget for this sort of thing? Ϣere SpielChequers 19:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, 'with so many bugs to work on'. I can't speak for the VE team, but I assume they're prioritising things that are actively broken over things that work but could be improved. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No change

Click on a wiki-linked phrase and changing the target seems not to change the article. Selecting the whole link works before clicking on the anchor symbol works. Edgepedia (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Edgepedia: I cannot reproduce this. I click on a linked phrase, then click on the anchor symbol, then choose a different target, then hit Enter (or click on the back arrow, or click outside of the selection box), and upon Review and Save the target has been changed correctly. If on the other hand I click on a linked phrase and directly start editing, the linked phrase is changed as expected while the target stays the same. Did you mean something else? AxelBoldt (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying, will come back if I work out how to replicate the problem consistently. However, on the subject of links I just found I couldn't link to an article section. On typing the #, the link went red, and removed the # and target before saving. Edgepedia (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Edgepedia: Links to article sections also work for me. The trick is: once you have entered the target with #, you need to press Enter twice for it to have an effect. If instead you click the back button or click outside of the selection dialog, your choice will be ignored. This is very unintuitive; I have complained about it here. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Switch between stand and VisualEditor

make it so you can switch back and forth between standerd editor and VisualEditor... ♠|RP|♠ 16:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlp17 (talk • contribs)

Support: probably necessary if you are going to want a lot of people to try it. The fear will be that you will need to abandon your work on an edit that hasn't worked; to be able to fix it manually later would mitigate those fears. Edgepedia (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

supportdido Panpog1 (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The production release will include, I believe (User:Jdforrester (WMF) can correct me) a source editor accessible from within the VisualEditor. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too slow to test in UK

I've stopped testing for now - it has simply slowed to the point where I can't take part, but I figure testers are not in short supply considering how many open issues I and others have on this page. I reverted to the old editor for this after it had hung for several minutes, the second edit in a row that happened to me. Normally when fixing minor typos I would be averaging one a minute so a 7 minute gap looks like a 6 minute overhead and feels like far more. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been variable for me, but it does seem to want a fast connection and appears to have had little developer testing outside well-connected US cities (an endemic problem with recent WMF dev work). Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge as long as they live in San Francisco - David Gerard (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue that has previously been discussed at the main page redesign proposal feedback. Should we really introduce features that require fast internet connections and brand new computers, when most of the world (me included) doesn't have access to one or both of those things? Manxruler (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried it and it was very slow for me. As there appear to be enough testers, I will unlikely be involved in testing at this stage, and will wait until speed (and functionality) is improved. My impression at the moment is that the functionality is so limited that only simple copy-editing is possible - adding content (which requires adding cites) doesn't seem feasible, and - for me at least - much of the page is not editable (can't access references or images for example). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image placement incorrect if large template is present

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T50845

Open Battle of Paris (1814) in the Visual editor: two images are placed side by side between the lead paragraph and the infobox, which is not where they belong. AxelBoldt (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sorry we didn't get to it before you did :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blank lines before section headings

I corrected the section heading levels (from level 2 to level 3, to create subsections), and it removed the blank lines after the section heading (fine, if you want) and before it, which is not okay. I corrected it manually. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: I'm just wondering btw, were you not able to spot these changes in the diff that is being presented before you save, or was the problem that you were unable to interpret what the changes in the diff meant for the visual outcome (because you had been fooled by the visual editor's alternative rendering perhaps ?). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was visible in the diff, but I couldn't find a way to fix it inside VE. When I've encountered this (twice?) before, the choice in VE seems to be "zero blank lines" or "two blank lines". (In the past, I've just cancelled the edit and done it in the old editor.)

Also, since all I did was click the section heading and use the menu to change the setting from "Level 2" to "Level 3", it shouldn't have been messing with any of the other paragraphs anyway, so this shouldn't have happened in the first place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

templates

I need easy access to merge, stub-class etc templates through the in-line editor Cpt ricard (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add them, to change them, or to remove them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpt ricard: the template editor is being worked on now and can actually be seen live at MediaWiki.org if you want to play around with it there :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

contents box

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T51224

If this is not very hard to show it should be. It is a useful feature.Panpog1 (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "contents box"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means a Table of Contents —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Bug submitted :) –Quiddity (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forced fixing of markup?

In this edit, VisEd added a space and removed some three-quotes from line 133—totally not what I was doing up in line 4. Is this some sort of forced markup fixing? It seems that the bolding in Miniapolis' sig remained the same (i.e. VisEd only removed redundant formatting). Thanks, Ignatzmice•talk 04:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know there were plans for standardisation of formatting and the removal of redundancy; ping, Jdforrester. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enter bug

When placing the cursor at the beginning of a subtitle (I mean the things like "Enter bug" above) and pressing the enter key, not only will a blank line appear (as should), but the cursor jumps one position to the right as well. This causes that subtitle to be fragmentated when entering a few times. Also deleting a blank line that's above such a subtitle will convert that subtitle to normal text.

I noticed this in my sandbox on the Dutch Wikipedia. I use Windows 7 and the latest version of chrome (no extensions). Amphicoelias (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mess created

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T51522

This was supposed to be just a couple of very simple changes to the words and character formatting in a single sentence. First it was incredibly slow, and then it claimed that it timed out without doing anything, and then I found the 850Kb mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another mess created

My edit here simply attempted to change "P.A. Schilpp" to "[[P. A. Schilpp]]": the Visual Editor did this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Downward_causation&diff=prev&oldid=558735268 This looks very similar to the above. -- The Anome (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now reported; thanks to both of you :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't label external links

I can add a bare external link to an "External links" section - e.g. http://wikipedia.org - but I can't see a way to add a label - e.g. [http://wikipedia.org Wikipedia]. Is this deliberate? It's annoying for any serious work - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Typing/pasting the URL first, then adding the label, is very complicated/problematic.

Note: The other way around works well: Type or Paste the label text; Highlight that text; click the "link" button; paste URL. –Quiddity (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I did not understand how to do this until reading your comment. Perhaps we can do it like this?

Click on hyperlink,
Have the hyperlink popup bring up two text spaces, one for a link and one for text

If user had text selected when they hit the hyperlink button then the space for text on the popup will already be filled with the selected text.
If you didn't have any text selected when you hit the hyperlink button then the space will be blank, and if no text is added then a bare url will be given.

AioftheStorm (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a similar suggestion on the IRC; the developers' report is that that is too heavyweight for what is supposed to be lightweight aspect of the interface, because the anchor can be more than just text. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; the problem is that the anchor can be a table, or part of a table, or a template, or a section, or.... it gets problematic very quickly, I'm afraid :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:sfn instances are being completely changed

When editing an article using {{sfn}} references, {{sfn|Smith|1990|p=20}} is now expanded into something like <ref name="FOOTNOTESmith199020">[[#CITEREFSmith1990|Smith 1990]], p. 20.<ref>

However, it appears I cannot yet edit these references with the visual editor. This stops any serious use (i.e. testing) of the editor, even on drafts in user space. Edgepedia (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Thread title changed from "Oh dear" to current. –Quiddity (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Edgepedia; the references functionality is being worked on; it's a very complex problem. It'll be done by the beta. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review and save

Too many clicks to save. The review step is unnecessary and cumbersome. Dump the comment dialog in favor of a dropdown/typeaway in the control bar. Lfstevens (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the review step to be incredibly important for identifying ways that this alpha version screws things up unexpectedly, so I can not save these mistakes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. What do you mean, User:Lfstevens, by "dropdown/typeaway in the control bar"? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same. I don't understand what the point of then showing the source is - or is that just the Alpha. I have faith the developers will get it right, at least for new users. Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I've found no defects as long as you stick to pure text. More importantly, I already review my changes before saving. How about this: when you click save, switch to the old preview page. That way I can clean up broken stuff and use my old tricks for handling summaries, etc. Lfstevens (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Backspace to blank line on number list adding blank lines

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49424

Type "a". Press number list button. [ENTER]. Type "a". [ENTER] Type "a". [ENTER]. [Cursor up]. [backspace]. "a" in "2." numbered line is removed but two blank lines appear under "2." and before "3." Firefox 21.0/Windows 7.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks something like bug 47424. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heading glitches

These are some minor graphical/usability glitches that someone else may have mentioned but I didn't see it mentioned anywhere else. These are all in Firefox 21.0.

The drop down tab that reads "Paragraph Heading 1 Heading 2, etc" is transparent at the top. When transparent such as in that image I am also unable to click on Header 1. Also, clicking on paragraph accidentally clicks on Leave Feedback.Is there a way to make that drop-down menu opaque at all times?

The drop down menu cuts off at Heading 6.

In order to read Heading 6 and preformatted I have to scroll down below External Links. The drop down menu should perhaps have a scroll bar that allows you to scroll down it without moving to the bottom of the screen?

AioftheStorm (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Additionally, deleting the header led to VE deleting the text of the header and replacing it with a nowiki tag, creating a floating, invisible, header.AioftheStorm (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:AioftheStorm thanks for these bugs! What browser/OS are you using? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to easily cite and generate titles

If the goal is to make it easier then it should be easy to add a reference as well. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are on the list and might start working in the next week or two.

What do you mean by "generate titles"? The WP:Article title isn't something that the VisualEditor should touch. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps titles of the cited articles is what was meant here. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome support?

For me, using Chrome, VE is slow and not that useful (sorry). OK, so anytime I want to edit something inside a transcluded template, image, table, columns, etc, I need to ignore VE and go to the source. The VE toolbar seems lacks most of the options that could be enabled via preferences in the old editing window. If you are scrolled half way through a template, and you move the cursor to the toolbar via the area of the template, the toolbar is grayed out along with the template. To use the toolbar, you have to move the cursor to it avoiding the area of the template. Is this just chrome? What browser would be best to use so the loading time is minimal and it runs smoothly?

I support the idea that users, especially new users, should not have to learn basic wikimarkup code, but I foresee a frustrating time ahead for me getting used to this thing. Lesion (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesion: Dunno about the slowness, but I believe all the "can't edit x, y, and z" aren't Chrome-specific. VE just isn't that developed yet, I believe. But I'm not anyone official. Ignatzmice•talk 11:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I use Chrome at home, so I hope it's not going to be buggy. Openskye (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
reading some of the comments above about slowness, it might be more related to your location apparently. Hope this will not feature when it goes live. Lesion (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Lesion; the bugs you're reporting aren't Chrome-specific, we're still working on templates, images et al. The slowness is also something I hope will be solved for :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to opt out?

Okay. Just a quick and hopefully easy question: How do I opt out of all this? I do not want to spend my time learning this new system when I've done perfectly well with the old one for the last almost eight years. Manxruler (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/FAQ. –Quiddity (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Those are almost exactly my concerns. I'll turn it off once it becomes default. I'd rather not have days, or weeks, of disruption of my editing, to fix something that isn't actually broken. Manxruler (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The FAQ does not say anything about: what if an anonymous (not logged in) editor wants to turn it off. For instance (as discussed earlier here) this editor is unusable for mathematics articles. Is it going to be possible to attract new anonymous editors to help edit those articles, or are they going to be shut out (permanently preventing us from attracting new editors in this area)? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change is bad. Lesion (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I believe that when it goes live for "all" of us, that it's not going live for the IPs. That is scheduled for a later date. But even when it does, I believe that anyone will be able to get to the "edit source" tab easily, at least for months to come, because there are things that cannot be done in VE yet, like editing math equations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the original poster for bringing this up. I'll probably access the 'old' version for as long as it is available...took me forever to "get" the old editing system, don't look forward to having to learn a new one. And forgive me if this has been asked before on this page, but is a "Plain & Simple 'Visual Editor' Tutorial" available? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Shearonink; there will be, it's on my to-do list. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it ain't broke....

Reading the description of this feature was enough for me. It sounds like a complete mess. I don't even want to try it. Why was it even developed? Is somebody bored?WQUlrich (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimarkup code is a barrier to attracting new editors. They will be more familiar with a word processing style interface. It is a good idea, in principle, and hopefully most of these bugs will be gone when it goes live. Lesion (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it even developed? Because we have been asking the devs for this kind of major upgrade for literally years now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did we? Funny, I can't recall doing that... Manxruler (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have checked the box to enable the new editor in my preferences, saved them, but everything seems to be just the same as it always has. Is it actually enabled for all logged in users or only some? Doing this edit in the old editor. What am I supposed to see when I enavble visual editor? (by the way, using Opera 12.14, has it been checked with Opera?). Dsergeant (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the FAQ: "Wikipedia editors have asked for this type of improvement since at least 2004. Previous discussions include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and more." If you'd happened to keep up with the project space all these years, then you'd already know this, but since you work on articles rather than hanging out at the discussion pages, it's not really surprising that you hadn't noticed the steady stream of requests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, it is broke, or is rapidly becoming so. As software and operating systems outside Wikipedia advance there is a growing disconnect between the way eveyone else works and Wikimedia. At the same time our templates system (which was never intended to be a vehicle for coding) has become ever more complex and sophisticated. In my view it is now impossible for a passing newbie to have a hope of understanding at a glance the code jargon that now confronts one in the average article edit window. A WYSIWYG editor is an obvious improvement that should be welcomed by all. Of course it is a mess right now, this is only alpha development release, but I welcome the opportunity to be able to comment on it before it all gets set in stone.

@DSergeant, it is currently only available for a limited range of browsers, and apparently Opera is not one of them. Spinning Spark 18:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.... looking at that list of limitations it looks as it is years away from prime time release. Won't waste time on it, I can handle the existing editor like I have been doing for years. Dsergeant (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First comments from Spinningspark

I have only just this minute turned VisEd on, but here are my first impressions. The basics are very good; selection, bold, italic etc are all intuitive and do what I expect.

Small text

There does not seem to be any way to generate small text. I was expecting Ctrl-S to do something - either small text or strikethrough.

Links

The suggested links are too small to read

Too many clicks

It takes too many clicks to get in and out of editing mode. The confirmation stage is going to be useful at first, but once experienced editors are used to the tool and are confident what the editor is going to do the extra click is just going to be annoying. In fact, I can foresee that I would want to stay permanently in edit mode on many sessions and not have to click "edit page" at all as I go from page to page. This would be the case for instance, when working through my watchlist or dealing with a disruptive editor. Spinning Spark 21:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Before there was one click to enter the editing window and one click to save, unless you clicked preview first or had enabled auto preview via preferences. For me VE is slow, and these extra steps just make things worse imo. Lesion (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's this "extra click" you're talking about? I click [Edit] (and wait for it to load), and I'm in the editor, without any second click. (I have to click where I want to start typing, but that's true in the old edit window, too.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think they mean the edit-summary dialog, which is on a second "confirmation" screen. –Quiddity (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think in time this'll prove less useful, but it does have two advantages (one ephemeral, one permanent). The ephemeral advantage; we're currently in an alpha. It's buggy, it's slow, and it's going to cause weird stuff to happen; being able to identify that before you break an article and someone snarks is A Good Thing, I think. The permanent advantage - this will persist for newbies. At the moment people do what they think is right and, if it isn't, invariably get told off for 'breaking' an article. Having a stay on that is nice. I appreciate it's non-ideal for experienced users, and will become less of a big deal when the software is more stable; we can look at what to do with it then, I think :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't select edit summary text with mouse

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T51184

Another small thing I noticed is that you can't select somewhere in the text of the summary text you enter with the mouse cursor. You can use arrows to add something into what you have already entered, but it just seems odd that the mouse doesn't work too. Lesion (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found that extremely annoying as well. –Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 08:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link pop-up

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T51147

In the pop-up that appears when editing a link, it doesn't make sense that the "close" button to dismiss the pop-up is at the top left and labelled with the "<" symbol.

First, it's difficult to discover, as there are no visual cues as to what effect it will have (once the tooltip appears it's already too late - someone looking how to close the dialog will not think of this button as the "save" action).
Second, it's unclear whether the changes to the panel will be saved or not when pressing the button. I *think* the only way to actually save the edit is by pressing Enter and the "<" button will destroy my edit (which is utterly dangerous), but I'm not even sure about that.
Third, it doesn't make sense that you need to click twice on a link to edit it. We're already in edit mode, there's no need to show the "link" icon as an intermediate step. When I click on a link in edit mode, I want to edit the link.

The standard way to dismiss a dialog is with the "x" symbol at the top right. The standard way to accept a change is with a "Save" button at the bottom. Heck, this very "submit feedback" form where I'm typing this gets it right. Please fix this very basic interaction element and don't reinvent the wheel. Diego (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added Bugzilla:49147 a few days ago, so it is being looked at.

I suggested a number of tooltips for those icons, but I'll link to this thread, from there, so that we can discuss it further here.

An [X] might be a good replacement, for at least some of those icons. –Quiddity (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing tools don't stay in front of everything

I tried it on my sandbox and found it difficult to do the one thing that should be easiest: clicking on the editing tools. There was a template at the top of the editing area while I was working, and every time I moved my mouse up to the toolbar, I ended up with a grayed-out box saying "Sorry, this element can't be edited using VisualEditor" covering up all the editing tools. I had to constantly circle around the perimiter of the page with my mouse to avoid this. The grayed-out box is fine, but it needs to stay underneath the toolbar rather than automatically becoming the top layer when it appears. Feel free to edit my sandbox if you want to see what I'm talking about. –Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 07:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment at the thread below, #Opaqueness of all popups, which covers the same issue. –Quiddity (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speed of loading

Long articles like Duryodhana, Sati (practice) take considerable more time to load using Edit than Edit source--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a known issue, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor#Current limitations for a few more details. –Quiddity (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change format dropdown

It should be opaque. When image is right top. The dropdown options go behind the image while editing Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a screenshot? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opaqueness of all popups

Save changes popup should be opaque. I mistakenly clicked on a para while saving and a greenish box overlaps the popup. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed, but I think this is only a problem for items that the editor is currently not see setup for (ie. references and templates), not for plain paragraphs. See a screenshot of my mousing-over an ambox, just before clicking the "Review and save" button.

This shouldn't be a problem once in-article templates can be edited, though it might need to be considered for particular non-content templates like amboxes? –Quiddity (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperlink

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T50789

After selecting 1 hyperlink, please close the hyperlink popup. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Alternately there should be a clear button in the dialogue box for 'I'm done, kill this now'. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks, nonbreakingspaces, and the greenshades

Redlinks are not shown; instead are colored blue causing troubles. This was reported earlier by User:Evad37 at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive_2013_01#Red_links, but no one replied.
Non breaking spaces are not allowed: putting   would result in &nbsp; and hence we cannot put non breakingspaces :( This is a problem for articles that should follow WP:units (such as 15 km)
The green striped shade that is displayed over unvisualeditable parts when hovered over them will remain there if you are placing mouse pointer over the toolbox (and other non-article part like the diffs) directly.

Thanks···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 16:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks related bug is tracked at 37901···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 16:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like none of the insert-symbols stuff has been done yet. I would prefer to add nonbreaking spaces directly from the keyboard (option-spacebar), but I just checked, and that doesn't work in either editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

couldn't add citation

my guess is that adding citations is a function that doesn't exist yet in the visual editor? if it *is* possible, then my feedback is that I could see how to do that. MicheleJackson (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The inability to add inline references is a grave concern at AfC - see WT:WikiProject Articles for creation#Be aware of Visual Editor changes coming. This shortcomming is a fatal flaw, fixing it needs the highest priority attention. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to be fixed in a future release. Categories, images, and citations seem to be the top priorities at the moment (for the VE half; I believe that improved speed is the goal for the Parsoid engine half). The devs have promised that it will not be made the default (for beta testing, with a goal of July 1st) unless and until it's possible to add citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Dodger67; it is high priority; highest priority is getting the software to work consistently for the things it officially can do :). I'll be perfectly blunt; I can't see any widespread beta or other release happening unless references work at least theoretically. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's good to know, thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing capabilities

Right away I miss the formerly available search and replace capabilities that have been so useful in the past. :) John Cline (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section edits

I would like to see it capable of editing a selected section. :) John Cline (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the section #Long articles below for discussion about this. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template parameters

Not being able to edit template parameters such as those used in infoboxes and reference citations is a real pain; being able to edit those kind of elements is essential. The same is true for image captions. WaggersTALK 09:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Waggers; this is a known and something that is being actively worked on. A very early form of the template inspector is live at the moment on MediaWiki.org, if you want to test it :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Okeyes (WMF): Thanks for the update, good to know this is being worked on. WaggersTALK 13:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious gallery tags

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T51525

I don't use VisualEditor myself; but I have noticed a problem with edits made by somebody else. Specifically, this edit which added a <gallery> immediately before the existing <Gallery>, and which also added a </gallery> at the very end of the article. The first error was spotted by that user and fixed, but I fixed the second. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created a ticket for this one. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beta release seems rushed

Why is the beta release scheduled for July? The alpha version seems more than a month away from being useful. All it can do is edit basic text, which is not a problem with the current editor. Everyone says VisualEditor is going to help new users overcome the Wikimarkup barrier; how will it do that without being able to edit elements that use complex markup? Inexperienced editors are not having trouble adding links, section headings, or basic text. They have trouble formatting references, editing transcluded content, adding lines to tables...all the stuff VisualEditor can't do. The current version is an interesting prototype, not a useful product.
Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 11:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As it stands VE is cosmetically more friendly to new-comers accustomed to word processors, but it does not aid them with editing things like templates and references. More so, I don't see any way to edit at all to include references, which seems worrying to me. When I first joined Wikipedia, I just looked around at the formatting others used, and copied it, and all was fine. But if I were to join with the VE as default, I think I would be really confused as to how to make things like references.AioftheStorm (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are supposed to be working soon, but I just edited this huge table without having to look at any markup, and I believe that this is a major improvement that will improve editing for experienced people as well as for new users. (This particular table is on my watchlist specifically because people keep having problems with the formatting.) I don't see any way to add rows or change column widths yet, but just being able to change the text is a significant improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your diff, you (I'm sure accidentally) wrecked the URLs inside the {{cite}} templates by adding <nowiki> tags around them. Should a bug be filed? Ypnypn (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think what it did to the rest of the page is evidence of a bug. I didn't touch anything outside the one cell (partly because I wasn't sure that it would work, so I didn't want to try anything at all complicated). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to have templates, transcluded content, tables and references; all of those things minus references should be live on MediaWiki.org in various forms, and will be deployed here later. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like the visual editor

for some unknown reason i don't like it. when it becomes public please give us an option to disable it. --jordan5000000000, the vandal fighter. learn about me!, or talk to me 14:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There will be an ability to disable it. -- Ypnypn (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it could be good for some edits but not for others. I would like to reinforce the need to give editors the option to disable it (or choose to use it on an as-needed basis). Thanks! - tucoxn\^talk 05:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the current plan is that you won't be able to turn the old one off. Everyone will be given both options for all pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Jordan5000000000; can you explain what your specific problems are with it? We can work on addressing them (knock wood!) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional backup?...

is that some devs or editors who are really REALLY familiar with the Visual Editor should hang out in at least #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-en-help on IRC for a while. There could possibly be a lot of questions that the regulars won't be able to answer. Shearonink (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm (I guess) the second category; once the beta goes live I'll be hanging around in both channels - probably not watching actively, because I imagine talkpages will be rather a-flutter, but available to be pinged. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

The main thing that I find frustrating in the current editor is formatting tables. I hope that the new Visual Editor will have WYSIWYG table editing. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the contents of tables is currently possible. Editing the structure and formatting of tables is not, but it will be one the main areas of work after July. (References, templates, categories, and images come first.) Ypnypn (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just did it! I'm totally happy about this particular improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat less than totally happy - I guess you only looked at the "Line 11:" part of your diff. Look further down; you actually broke a lot more than you improved. I'm thinking particularly of all those <nowiki>...</nowiki> around the URLs in references. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A known bug; I'm kicking people about it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long articles

I had hoped the VE would be good for reviewing long articles and making minor copy edits, which is very difficult to do in Wikitext. I found two problems: 1) the inability to edit section by section (only able to edit an article in its entirety); and 2) when editing an entire long article, as one move down in the page, the remaining text of the article accumulates garbage text, such that the remainder of the article becomes gibberish. Since there is no way to save only what has been edited at a certain point, I had to cancel all edits and begin again in Wikitext. Meclee (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have had the same problem.It is really annoying.Panpog1 (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I can't imagine trying to edit, for instance, any of the longer articles I work on (like George Washington or Abraham Lincoln for instance), in their entirety instead of by-section. Shearonink (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section editing is not yet (and may never be) possible. Ypnypn (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right then; that's the killer. If VE becomes mandatory, I'm off. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone is suggesting getting rid of source-level editing entirely. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm not understanding something, but if I want to use VE and also edit any of the longer articles, I'm thinking I'll have to toggle back & forth between VE & the previous/older editing tools... Some of our articles are just so huge, seems like it'll take forever for them to load while editing. Shearonink (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite understanding what you mean by toggle back and forth between the edit tools. With VE on you are given two tabs at the top of the page, an edit tab for VE, and an edit source tab for how we've been doing it. You can just click on either depending on what you want to use.AioftheStorm (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The VE will (or, was going to, last time I asked, more accurately) include an internal source editor - so hopefully that transition will be more intuitive. @User:Redrose; while it is becoming the default there will be an opt-out. Nobody's suggesting the VE become mandatory. Where did you get that impression? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's required for Flow, and they're saying that Flow will be mandatory. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nowiki

An edit I made using VE resulted in "<nowiki>" and "</nowiki>" (without the quotation marks) appear throughout the source version of the article. I removed them in the edit. They don't appear in the public version of the article, but there's no good reason for them to be added. I was using Firefox 21. Clicking "edit" next to a section or subsection header should lead to VE. Currently, so clicking leads to the standard edit window. Otherwise, VE worked well. SMP0328. (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SMP0328.: I agree that if you place [[ ]] into the edit it shouldn't give you "<nowiki>" and "</nowiki>" but there is a link button on VE that allows you to highlight words or phrases and convert them into wikilinks. I also agree that clicking "edit" next to a subsection should open VisualEditor and not the Source. I ran into that as well. I actually do like VE. Teammm ^talk
_email 03:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate, "<nowiki>" and "</nowiki>" appeared throughout the article, not only in the part I edited. Also, I did not add or remove any wikilinks in my VE edit. SMP0328. (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just passing through.... My guess is that while it, of course, should only do it in the intended area, it purposefully added "nowiki" so that you could type the brackets instead of making a link. Again, the link button mentioned is what editors are intended to use for links. ––Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 05:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that when WhatamIdoing munged many links in a table, thinking he was editing something else there, that wasn't a bug, it was a feature? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't know what you're referencing and am too lazy to search this page, I'll just restate: The link button is the (current) intended way to make an internal wikilink. What I was trying to say is that since SMP0328 typed brackets, it tried to make sure that those brackets were visible. Basically, I'm guessing the VE is (rightly) programmed to make visible any typed wikimarkup/HTML so an editor doesn't have to click a "nowiki" button because one is (currently) expected to use buttons, etc. for wikimarkup/HTML. ––Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 06:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referencing sections #Beta release seems rushed and #Tables immediately above, where WhatamIdoing posted about using VE to edit some tables. If you look at WhatamIdoing's diffs (as Ypnypn pointed out in one of those sections), unbeknownst to WhatamIdoing, a whole bunch of links elsewhere in the tables got nowikied. If you think this is correct programming, and that SMP0328's report is just a user misunderstanding of a useful feature, you are very badly mistaken. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this section, Teammm said that typing brackets caused the nowikis, which is what I responded to in my initial statement. I'm now noticing that SMP says (s)he didn't try to change any links, which I must've glanced past. (I didn't notice exactly what was different because of the added newline causing the diff to not clearly show what (s)he edited.) I just took Teammm's comment as reputed truth. I now realize what's going on and partially stand by what I said. I think the VE is not programmed clearly enough to reliably distinguish URLs and a plain sentence with a year from typed wikimarkup/HTML and is therefore trying to make all the supposed coding on the page visible whether or not any are changed. Sorry for my fubar. ––Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 08:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Rereading all this, I noticed another point of non-clarity. When I said that it's rightly programmed to nowiki typed coding, I meant it was a good idea, not that it was implementing that idea correctly. ––Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 08:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happened to me too, in this edit - I changed wording in the last sentence of the intro, and the VE gratuitously put nowiki tags around several URLs inside cite templates. (You can see it also altered some spacing inside template parameters.) - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Subbu (one of our devs) was planning to work on this, so I've poked him. If he's busy or doesn't have a firm ETA I'll throw it in Bugzilla as a distinct and frankly high-priority ticket. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skins

I use the Modern skin. (Click here for this page displayed using Modern.) As of 06:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC), I cannot access the VE. I disabled a gadget I use that modifies that area, with no difference. When I switched from Vector a couple months ago, I didn't care that there wasn't a way to easily access it because it was still in alpha... then forgot VE existed. Am I right in thinking that it will be available soon? Also, what about the other skins? ––Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 06:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Monobook and Vector both work. Modern and Cologne Blue do not appear to support it. Even with a manual hack of the URL.

Ahh, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 05#Modern skin? for the detailed answer. –Quiddity (talk) 07:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that sucks for me. I didn't know my preferred skin was (is?) on the brink of deletion. Thank you for your archive-scrounging.

––Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 08:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misinterpreted that slightly. The modern and cologneblue skins are not going to be deleted, because they still have volunteer community support. However, that also means that it is probably up to volunteers to support V/E on those skins, and likely that it will never look as good as on the two skins that are officially supported by WMF (Vector and monobook) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capabilities concern

I hope that the developers are also working on adding more features. It's very basic now, what I miss the most is the ability to add citations to the text and adding photos from Commons. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 07:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I also experienced a strange thing. I only removed some unnecessary text from a table and the VE removed some HTML coding throughout the table, too. Please see the diff [1]. I don't really like that edits I did not intend to make will be stored under my name in the page history. The editor should edit only what was requested and not change the codes otherwise. This is confusing and might result in personal attacks from other editors who check a change and then will accuse the editor of removing codes or altering a table formatting. :) Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 08:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an official spokesperson, but I've seen answers to others' questions saying that they're slowly adding features.

You'll be slightly relieved to know that all VE edits come with a "Tag:VisualEditor" in the history. Unfortunately, tags aren't shown on diffs. :<

After actually reading the diff, it seems it just removed a bunch of dead code and did other maintenance (assuming you removed the sentences and it removed the <small></small>'s and added the ""s on the ref names). ––Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 08:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use VisualEditor myself, but if I encounter <small></small> with nothing between, I do remove it - manually. I believe that AWB removes it too, and there are certainly bots that do so. So in this case, I don't count it as a bug. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bug, but a editor dhould not do this without the user knowing it might happen! Then the developers need to give clear descriptions that the VE will also do small automatic maintenance along with your on edits. I think it is important, I was surely surprised to see edits I didn't make under my own name! Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 17:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a misfeature. It makes diffs harder to read and the extra edits from bots fixing these problems will clutter up people's watchlists. Dricherby (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely bots won't have to fix those problems if extraneous markup is being handled by the VE? Teemeah; I'll bear this in mind as something the help documentation should cover. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

This is confusing to me; I can't even figure out how I can test this new and likely unnecessary development.

The most important thing I can say is that, as a woefully un-technical middle-aged woman who barely knew how to use a word processor, I learned to edit Wikipedia. Yes, I had to learn, and yes, I made mistakes. Along the way I added to my personal skill set and enjoyed positive interactions with more knowledgeable editors. The interface has been improved several times since I created an account seven years ago. What's wrong with it? Yopienso (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said it for me. I'm an older man who's proud of having been able to learn some HTML and I don't see why anyone who's seriousy interested in editing can't do the same. I know it's going to make me sound like an old grump, but it seems like everyone wants to DO without having to KNOW. Anyway, should Wikipedia be edited by people who aren't smart enough to learn the coding system? If this isn't made optional, I think some of the experienced editors may take their interests elsewhere.WQUlrich (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:WQUlrich, it's nothing to do with intelligence. It's to do with the initial barrier. I look at it like this; when I first started, I didn't know what Wikipedia was, particularly, or how the internal dynamics worked. I didn't have big interesting articles to write built out in my head, I wasn't aware of subject areas that needed specific work. I wanted to do one thing; categorise articles. That's it. After that I moved on to patrolling new pages - adding tags (manually, back in those days!), passing things, so on and so forth. I'd imagine that this is the same for a lot of people here, and for a lot of newbies; we didn't start wanting to write big articles. We didn't start with the drive to achieve big things. We started wanting to do a small number of little changes.

If a newbie wants to make those changes, they have to learn markup. They have to be comfortable with a screen of markup, something nowhere else on the web really offers you these days - frankly to a neophyte, hitting edit makes it looks like you managed to break the website. If I want to make a category change, not only do I need to learn linking and namespaces, I also need to learn the relative position of categories, and scroll through all of the text and all of the templates to make my tweak. It's a pretty high barrier when all you want to do is change a link - or add a reference, or fix a typo. It's nothing to do with intelligence, and it's all to do with the fact that when all you want to do is make a small tweak, you only want a small amount of cognitive load. Wikimarkup doesn't offer that - people are just going to go away, fix themselves a coffee and engage in some other hobby. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone is suggesting getting rid of source-level editing entirely, no need for panic. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Church, Thomas (8 June 2013). "Wikipedia's New Text-Editor Will Change World History". Huffington Post. Retrieved 11 June 2013. -- Ypnypn (talk)

Concerned about citations

Making things easier for new editors is a great goal. However, if Visual Editor is released in its current state and succeeds in getting lots of people to edit who wouldn't edit otherwise, then we have lots of editors using an interface that's incapable of producing citations. That means that these editors are incapable of making anything but the simplest edits (essentially, things that could legitimately be tagged as minor) in a way that is compliant with Wikipedia's core policies on verifiability. That really seems like it's inviting trouble. It's not even clear that it's a net benefit to the encyclopaedia: we get a lot of new editors but, whenever they try to do something substantial, more experienced editors will have to come and fix the mess. We're setting up the new editors for failure: they'll be criticized for not sourcing their additions and have a lot of their edits reverted. The only constructive advice we'll be able to give these editors is, "Don't use Visual Editor." Please do not introduce this software until it can deal with citations: policy requires this. Dricherby (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor will not be released until references are enabled. Ypnypn (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great news. Thanks for making that clear. If VE makes adding citations easy for new users, I think we could be on to a great thing, here. Dricherby (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor not enabled for section editing

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T50429

Why isn't VisualEditor enabled for section editing? I was playing around with VisualEditor on my user page. I can not foresee much use for VisualEditor if it can not be used for section editing.

If it is enabled for section editing, then it will also be necessary to enable "edit source" somehow for sections too. So people can choose between the two. Just like at the top of page.

This is not about long articles either. I use section editing for almost all my editing, whether in short or long articles. If the developers are worried about cluttering up each section with both "edit" and "edit source" links, then there needs to be some icon next to "edit" that will be the link for "edit source". The clickable icon will have a popup tooltip saying "edit source".

Anonymous editors do much of the editing on Wikipedia, and many will prefer to edit the source wikitext. Many will prefer the VisualEditor. There has to be a choice at every stage, or this venture could drastically lower the total number of edits in the months following full implementation. It may take a long time to build back from that loss of monthly edits. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of section editing is so that you don't have to page through screenfuls of code to find the typo (or whatever) you want to fix.

Since there are no screenfuls of code to page through—you see the typo, and you fix it right where you read it—what practical purpose does section editing serve? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the OP, but large articles take a lot of time to load on VisualEditor. I agree that it would be useful to edit pages faster.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the other reason for section editing is to avoid edit conflicts - David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts are (mostly) solved for these days, but the load time argument is a good one. There's actually a bug (now linked) about the problem. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing and all. Load time will still be an important factor with VisualEditor. That reason alone justifies continuing with section editing. Also, many people will still use wikitext source editing. There will long be a need until every single bug is fixed in VisualEditor. I can tell you this from years of experience with the Wikia visual editor. Many, if not most, regular editors on Wikia avoid it due to its continuing bugginess. Bugs are seemingly never-ending and ever-growing with visual editors. Also, many anonymous Wikipedia editors are experienced Wikipedia editors, and will not tolerate having to only use VisualEditor. So never get rid of the option for source editing.

Do you have section editing enabled? If not, you might try it. It speeds up editing immensely for me, and many others. See: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and "Enable section editing via [edit] links". It would be better if it were enabled by default for all editors, whether logged in, or not. I don't know why anybody would want to wade through paragraphs of irrelevant stuff to get to the paragraph and section one is interested in editing. Especially if you make multiple edits, and use multiple previews. Why wait long periods of time for full-page previews? A section preview is much faster. I have been editing since 2005, and at one point I had forgotten that section editing is not a given for all editors. We are wasting a lot of editors time by not enabling it by default. Since there are fewer and fewer editors we need to make their editing more and more efficient. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section editing is enabled by default, for anon/IP users, or new user-settings. –Quiddity (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now. I must have been confused by the preference. I see now that section editing is enabled by default for both anonymous and logged-in users. It is a preference to turn something off.

I would hate to lose section editing of source wikitext if VisualEditor is enabled for section editing. That would be a serious step backwards. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent). Comment. I sometimes like to open up a section in a new tab for editing. So I can switch between tabs to alternate between how the section currently looks, and how my preview looks. This also helps me in finding stuff in the wikitext. I can use browser find in both tabs to help me find where I need to edit.

This can be very necessary when editing references, tables, navigation boxes, image captions, and other such wikitext. Images that are right-floating, for example, can be difficult to find in the wikitext otherwise. So section editing of source wikitext is essential. Let us not remove section editing of source wikitext when VisualEditor is fully implemented, and when VisualEditor is enabled for section editing! It would be extremely difficult and time consuming to do these things with two side-by-side full pages in tabs. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totally, but I'd note that the things you're listing are all things the VE will be able to handle. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing captions

Changing image captions should not be any harder than changing other kinds of text. Why is it not possible? Also, while it's probably going to be impossible to edit templates visually, it should be possible to remove them, as well as images.eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VE doesn't seem to work on anything inside a template: {{template text}}. You need to edit source. Lesion (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's got a template editor on MediaWiki.org; looks like it hasn't been deployed here yet - ditto for image modification. I'd advocate going over there and playing around with it just in case there are any bugs that haven't been noticed :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page mw:VisualEditor:TestingRefs is a good start. Unfortunately there are very few templates deployed on MediaWiki.org so the experience is not very realistic. - Pointillist (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, and why I'll be very pleased to see the change roll out to enwiki, too. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and the rollout schedule

I know the citation/reference feature has "highest" importance in bugzilla, and "is set to be deployed to the VisualEditor in a matter of days, not months." I see from the Q3 quarterly review that you're hoping (per slide 19) to deploy Visual Editor "on all language Wikipedias" by July 1 and (per slide 24) you won't proceed if references like {{cite web}} aren't available. I've tried it out a little on MediaWiki and it looks like you're going in the right direction, though IMO it is far too easy for a novice to delete an entire citation without realising what it is. But the devil is in the detail and I just want to ask please allow plenty of opportunity for testing, review and polishing. There's no desperate urgency to make VE the default editor on enwiki. It's better to keep it as an "opt-in" preference for registered users until the citations functionality is ready for prime time. A few extra weeks won't do any harm. - Pointillist (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to have a pretty big beta with a lot of opportunities for testing and review; hopefully those should catch most of the major bugs (which reminds me, I have some bugzilla tickets to write...) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be a pretty short beta if VE becomes the default editor for all users on July 1st! The generally accepted name once that happens is release. - Pointillist (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is launching soon, but yep, not very long. The beta does include an A/B test however that'll hit a large number of incoming new users - the idea is that we should be able to grab most of the issues with the VisualEditor from reports here, and from the beta. If it turns out that deploying it as a default is simply not workable I'm sure we'll reconsider. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had read that July 1 was to enable it for registered users only at the English Wikipedia (assuming all goes as planned), and that both IPs and most of the other Wikipedias would be later. Is that the current plan, or have I gotten something confused? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right; I should've been more clear, sorry! 1 July, logged-in only. After that, IPs. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver, all the draft schedules I've seen are still pushing for July 1 or very soon afterwards:

Per slide 27 of the March 27th quarterly review the final go/no-go decision was due in w/c 24 June for deploying VE as the default editor for enwiki in w/c 1 July.
The Wikimedia engineering report released last Monday says Our objective is for VisualEditor to be the default editor for all Wikipedia users, capable of letting them edit the majority of content without needing to use the wikitext editor, in July 2013.
Philippe's draft change management plan has deployment to new enwiki users starting on July 7th.

It might be possible to deploy the software by those dates, but since the citation/template feature hasn't been deployed for opt-in testers on enwiki yet, it looks unnecessarily risky to shoot for full release so soon. - Pointillist (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plausibly, but I'd note that the pre-1 July work is going to consist of a rollout of references, at least, and then the release of a very widespread beta which should hopefully catch a pile of issues. We will invariably have bugs un-identified or identified and un-fixed when we deploy: that's an inevitability of software development. What's important is that we have as many bugs identified as possible, so that we can make an informed decision on "is this broken in a fundamental way that would prohibit a more full release". Off the top of my head, references being fundamentally broken for a big chunk of users would be a blocker for me, at least. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HTML notes

Visual Editor needs a way to display HTML notes since many times they are used within a page to describe information that is important to anyone who might be editing. That may include notes on how specific elements should be treated or that discussion is necessary before changes are made because such an element is disputed (see the genre sections of the article Green Day for example). Cat-five t c ---- 11:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Another example is the comment requesting that editors do not change the description of Taiwan at ISO 3166-2, where the official ISO description ("Taiwan, Province of China") must be used but is just a wee bit controversial. Quite often, lists have instructions about where new entries should be added, what sourcing is required, and so on. Dricherby (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "HTML notes", I guess you mean HTML comment tags . --Redrose64 (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about HTML comments, yes, and I think Cat-five was too. Dricherby (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could use an WP:Edit notice. Those display whenever the page is edited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If HTML could be at least displayed, it would aid AfC. As you all probably know, new editors who attempt to create an article are usually guided through the Articles for Creation process, which, after some informational screens, plops them into a new article with a small preloaded template. You can see what that looks like here, HTML comment included. Try the same page in the Visual editor, and you'll see the problem, this is something I'm also trying to bring up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Be_aware_of_Visual_Editor_changes_coming.. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to edit notices, that's not a general solution for HTML comments, as for articles and article talk pages, only admins and account creators can create them. It'd totally work for that particular example, though. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, also they are not flexible enough for use to highlight specific sections of an article. Not to mention that they require editing a separate page to add. Cat-five t c ---- 11:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dare say that this should be a showstopper to rolling this out for everyone by default, this WILL break articles and unlike the vandalism concern raised above, this will be good faith editors who inadvertently are doing this. Cat-five t c ---- 11:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It won't break articles; being able to parse and handle HTML comments is something already being worked on. Articles aren't getting broken. Being able to modify the HTML comments is another matter entirely, but I'm with Joe - things like page notices might be a better way of handling these (or the VE's little 'notices' box). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have phrased it better. It is going to break article editing for many articles. Well intentioned editors are going to make edits that are out of line with consensus and/or specific foibles in an article, or even a specific section of an article, because they can't see HTML comments alerting them to these things. In essence you will have accidental vandalism because people can't see the necessary comments. In terms of being able to modify HTML comments, that's secondary to just being able to see them. For the time being I don't think anyone will object to the idea that if you want to modify an html comment you should be doing edit code, as long as you can see them in every editing interface. Cat-five t c ---- 16:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At which point we have a problem of having lines of text in the editor that can't be modified. A better solution to this, as said, is for us to start using things like pagenotices for that kind of information rather than storing metadata in html comments. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If VE can be made to display HTML comments, surely it can be made to modify them? And, as has been said, page notices can only be placed by admins. Dricherby (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that they require editing a page that is separate from the article. You shouldn't have to edit a separate page to give people vital information about editing an article. Cat-five t c ---- 20:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already have text that can't be modified. Content that is transcluded (in articles that's mainly tables) can't be edited in the article and without going into edit code it is non-intuitive that you have to go somewhere else to edit it when it is greyed out on the main article while trying to edit it. Now, that's a different issue of course but it's an example of also how HTML comments could be dealt with. HTML comments could show up as a different color and be treated as a different element (click on it to edit just the comment) for the purposes of editing. Cat-five t c ---- 20:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page notices

VE does not display all page notices. For example, if you edit the source of Barack Obama, you see three notices: compliance with BLP, article probation and semi-protection. If you edit with VE, not only does the page take a very long to load but it only displays the article probation notice. The BLP policy notice seems too important to leave out, here. Dricherby (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmn, interesting; thanks :). Re slow - what machine are you using? OS, browser.... Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP notice is not a page notice. It's a 'fake' notice that is dynamically added by JS, based on the presence of a category. It's an en.wp only feature, so it is our responsibility to 'fix' it and not that of the VE team. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK – who are the people at en.wikipedia who need to be aware of this so it can be fixed? As for the loading times, VE takes 20-25s to start on Barack Obama for me. That's with Firefox 20.0.1 under Windows XP SP3, on a 1.33GHz Intel Core2 Duo with 2GB RAM. (So, basically, a four-year-old laptop but, if this is going to be rolled out world-wide, it ought to be useable in countries where some rich westerner's four-year-old laptop is a high-spec machine.) I just tried with Chrome 27.0.1453.110 m and the load time there was about 15s. Dricherby (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The technical minded part of our community has a tendency of residing at WP:VP/T. Also, this is just a notice, we can fix it, but it doesn't seem like it would be the end of the world if some users for some days would be missing out on it. (Last time it took 6 days for anyone to notice that the blp notice had broken). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. Takes about 25 seconds for me on 2Ghz Core i5, Safari 6. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving highlighted text with the mouse

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T51486

Another suggestion: would be good to be able to click and drag highlighted text to a new position with the mouse cursor, just like in word processing software. Lesion (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it to bugzilla as an enhancement, but warning in advance: I can't promise when it'll be worked on or even if it will be at all. Priority right now is getting the VE to work full stop. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because User:Jdforrester (WMF) likes making me look silly - this has been worked on and will be in the beta release :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks, Lesion (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried that one of the biggest websites in the world is planning to introduce a major software update in only 18 days while saying "Priority right now is getting [the new software] to work full stop." If it's not ready for release, the 1 July target should be abandoned. Dricherby (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree; if we lack things that are required for mainstream editing, we shouldn't release it for mainstream editing. But as far as I know things are proceeding at a great pace to have things like referencing functional; if something as important as that simply doesn't work, I'm sure the team will reconsider. I'd note that this major software update has been worked on for years and in an alpha (released here) for 6 months - and that the 18 day window will include a beta release which will, I'm sure, identify most of the bugs given the scale. I'd recommend heading over to MediaWiki.org and trying out the version there, which is slightly newer than the one here and includes things like a template editor. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, its bad for your health... Lesion (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the temptation to release it prematurely isn't being driven by anything silly like June 30th being their year-end.... - Pointillist (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pointillist; if it was, we'd release it on June 30th, surely? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This deserves a green background. –Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 07:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T51495

I tried to fix the capitalization of a link like this and received the message "Your edit has been ignored because you have made no changes to the text." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now tracked; weird! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nested refs bug, other bugs

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T51536

In Fomitiporia_ellipsoidea#Description, the "note 1" is displayed incorrectly in VE. This is probably either due to the #tag use or the nested ref inside.
In List_of_awareness_ribbons, images are sized all sorts of ways by the VE, and the table is also shown oddly.
Also in Fomitiporia_ellipsoidea, the "protected" and "featured article" icons are displayed in the wrong locations.

(In my opinion, the VE seems way buggy to deploy atm. I hope some serious bug-fixing gets done before the deployment...) --Yair rand (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yair rand. Thanks for helping float issues with these. :) The tech team have been busily working on improving the VisualEditor and addressing bugs and will certainly continue right on up to deployment (and even after :D). You can see the list of bugs that have been filed (and resolved) here. It's good to see so many issues being floated now so they can be repaired.

I'll look through bugzilla and see if I can figure out if these have been reported. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the table image issue, I am told that a fix on that is actually in the final stages and should be deployed today.

I'm looking at the Featured article template in case 3 and am confused. I was thinking that perhaps the hack that makes Template:Top icon work was not functional, but it works at Barack Obama. Poking about a bit. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suspend Archiving on this page?

Looking at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 05 there are an awful lot of bug reports that had still not been responded to when they were archived, five from me alone. Would it be an idea to suspend archiving on this page, or would it be reasonable to assume that this project is unlikely to be implemented without a major rewrite and a fresh testing phase? Ϣere SpielChequers 22:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Okeyes (WMF): as resident community contact, can you double check that all archived material has an appropriate bug ticket if required ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working through it now; I was only assigned to this project formally yesterday, so it may take some time. WSC, you might get a better reaction if you simply go "hey, so you haven't addressed some bug reports, would it be a good idea to suspend archiving so they don't get buried?" rather than unnecessary snippiness. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was sufficiently patient to wait until those reports simply got archived. Glad that the WMF has put some extra resource in, I will assume that this means they appreciate there is a problem. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It means we appreciate there's a lot of feedback. Resourcing will continue to ramp up given the upcoming beta and then production launch. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding wikilinks with visual editor

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T51540

Just added my first wikilink with visual editor, from Governor Stevens to Isaac Stevens. A little confusing. Wanted link to Isaac Stevens page to be blue to indicate the page exists. Also would have wanted to see "Appears on page: ..." and "Page linked to: ..." to confirm I did it correctly (not necessarily with these exact labels.) Djembayz (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not blue in the VisualEditor? Could you take a screenshot? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I'm seeing when I linkify a phrase that does have a matching title. When I linkify a phrase that doesn't have a matching title, it looks exactly the same except without the "Matching page" line. The text is blue after you exit the link creator box, but it's confusing that the search results use red text when a match is found. –Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 11:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :). And, agreed. I've added it to Bugzilla. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing text leaves skeleton of a header

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T51424

I wanted to clear my sandbox (apart from the standard template at the top). It contained two paragraphs of text, each with a L2 header. Starting below the template, I dragged the cursor over the whole content to select it all and pressed "delete", but there remained the empty "== ==" of one header, like this. JohnCD (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any visible line for a header within the VE? So, what I'm thinking is that it could've assumed you were trying to change the header text and so left the presence of the header. We had a couple of similar problems with some usertesting videos we did, actually. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After pressing "delete", the thin horizontal line of the header was still visible in VE. I tried again, selecting only the second paragraph including its header and pressing "delete"; the == == from the second para's header remained and the thin horizontal line was visible. But when I selected both paragraphs including their headers, only one empty header remained. JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, so it is the same bug; I'll see what I can do. Thanks for reporting it! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd behaviour of the heading pulldown

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T51524

Take a look at this screen capture on a Win7 & IE9 pc. The menu is not on top when it overlaps the User sandbox template. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There may be an issue with this specifically but I'll note that at least for me, recently WikEd has been showing the same behavior with the Twinkle menus so there may be a bigger issue afoot with how menu systems are interacting with editing windows of any type. Just something to note FYI. Cat-five t c ---- 11:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cat-five! Dodger; I've stuck it in bugzilla and hopefully it will get some eyeballs from the developers :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A similar issue I've had (on MediaWiki) is that when clicking "Page Settings", the drop-down menu (with move etc) usually gets triggered, so I have to move the mouse away, wait a few seconds, and try again. Should this be considered a separate bug? Ypnypn (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heading menu

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T45334

I think the "Heading 1" option should be removed from the menu; this should be used so little that the cost of editors messing up the page seems more than any possible benefit. Ypnypn (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already suggested before, and under discussion in the bugticket. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference weirdness at William Spry (governor of Barbados)

This is cool, when i edit this, it shows me my references. What's interesting is that it adds 9 nicely formatted references beforehand, and I have no idea where they're coming from. :) I cut/pasted below, the last 2 refs are correct as near as I've observed.

↑ Bourne, G. E.: Columbus, Ramon Pane, and the Beginnings of American Anthropology (1906), Kessinger Publishing, 2003, p. 5.
↑ McKenna, T.: Food of the Gods – The Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge – A Radical History of Plants, Drugs, and Human Evolution, Bantam Books, 1993, p. 199.
↑ 3.0 3.1 Porter, R., Teich, M.: Drugs and Narcotics in History, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 39.
↑ Techmedexperts.com
↑ "Smoking ban puts snuff back in fashion". Retrieved 1 November 2010.
↑ Snuffbox.org.uk
↑ Boffetta P, Hecht S, Gray N, Gupta P, Straif K. Smokeless tobacco and cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(7):667–75. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70173-6. PMID 18598931.
↑ Phillips CV, Heavner KK. Smokeless tobacco: the epidemiology and politics of harm. Biomarkers. 2009;14(Suppl 1):79–84. doi:10.1080/13547500902965476. PMID 19604065.
↑ Russell, M A H Russell; Jarvis, M; Devitt, G; Feyerabend, C (1981). "Nicotine intake by snuff users". British Medical Journal (BMJ Group) 283 (6295): 814–816. doi:10.1136/bmj.283.6295.814. PMC 1507093. PMID 6794710.
↑ Schomburgk, Sir Robert Hermann (1848). The History of Barbados: Comprising a Geographical and Statistical Description of the Island; a Sketch of the Historical Events Since the Settlement; and an Account of Its Geology and Natural Productions. Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans. pp. 332–. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
↑   Wilson, James Grant; Fiske, John, eds. (1900). "Stein, Conrad". Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography. New York: D. Appleton.

Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:Hmmm, can't reproduce now. Not sure if it's because I added a couple more refs myself or not, but I did try editing an old version, and still can't reproduce this as of the last few minutes. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad, because that would be an awesome unexpected feature of VE. :) I mean, assuming William Spry has some connection to snuff. :) They come from that article, fwiw, but without being able to replicate the issue it's hard to figure out how. (I imagine. It would be hard for me to figure out how even if you could replicate it, but I bet our developers could work it out.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible first impression

I did my first edit using visual editor. I tried to change about 6 words in one sentence. After waiting a long time for it to save, the following 2,262 byte difference was the result (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sholay&diff=559794409&oldid=559758646), along with red citation errors in the text. I used undo and disabled visual editor on my preferences; not gonna be happy to be forced into this. BollyJeff | talk 23:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not going to be forced into it. You always have the option of clicking [Edit source] instead of the plain [Edit] tab.

VisualEditor is struggling with {{sfn}}. You're definitely not the first person to report this problem, although I don't know what the Bugzilla number is for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, there should be an "edit source" link for each section. Second, new editors will likely click "edit" (leading to VE) rather than "edit source", because they will not know what "source" means and so will think it's some special type of editing. Finally, the adequacy of "edit source" is irrelevant. VE should not be mainstreamed until it can be used reliably. SMP0328. (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SFN tags are not actually that common. I agree that work needs to be done, and it is being done, and it won't be done any faster if you make proclamations to WhatamIdoing ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready

VE is clearly not ready for mainstream release and would be disruptive to editors, especially new editors. Therefore, the release of VE should be postponed until the bugs are worked out. There's no need to rush the release of VE and the best interest of Wikipedia should be our goal. Right now, VE would be harmful to WP. VE should be released when it would be beneficial to WP. SMP0328. (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not massively helpful without, I guess, a request for prioritisation. That is; what bugs are to you complete blockers on any deployment? If we have a list of what people here find most important we can look at prioritising specific problems. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting highlighted text

I've come across an issue where highlighting and deleting text doesn't remove the text and causes the cursor to jump and delete part of a non-highlighted word. It works after three or four tries. Also, I can't highlight and delete text in the edit summary. Teammm ^talk
_email 01:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's very weird; browser/operating system? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't add ^{[citation needed]} !!

Or any other template, for that matter. These are important. —wing gundam 03:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#VisualEditor weekly update - 2013-06-13 (MW 1.22wmf7) for the latest news (templates will be coming next week or soon thereafter). –Quiddity (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now unable edit sections by old method

I've been avoiding VE since {{sfn}} was broken (above) making it unusable, but left it enabled. This morning it started when I clicked on a section edit tag, and this was the mess it made of the sandbox I was editing. I will now need to turn it off under Preferences.

This doesn't feel like it's ready to enable as default. If it's still messing up articles, inexperianced editors are going to see their edits reverted through no fault of their own. In my opionion it needs to be working for at least 2 weeks before enabling by default. Edgepedia (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked James and his team to prioritise multi-layered referencing (which is the thing going wrong there). In the meantime there is a preference switch to have section edit tabs take you to the source, rather than visual, editor - "Use the wikitext editor for editing sections while VisualEditor is in beta " under "Editing". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Okeyes (WMF): Would it be possible to have

Sandbox [edit]

replaced with

Sandbox [edit] [edit source]

for section links? I think many of us enjoy being able to help with the beta, but enjoy the option of using edit-source when templates or problems are encountered. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, changing that preference doesn't prohibit you editing with the VE :). So, I would honestly just recommend changing that tickbox if you're encountering problems; all section-edit mode does with the VE is render the entire page and then scroll you down to the appropriate section, so from a bug-identification or testing point of view you're not actually losing anything. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings in edit summaries

When all of the edits are within one section, it would be nice to have the section headings listed in the edit summary by default. This ought to begin with the usual link to the section and "External links". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Click and drag-n-drop?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T43150

Am I supposed to be able to click and drag text? When I highlight text and try to drag it to drop it somewhere else, I see the insert cursor but when I release it, nothing happens. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh; I was informed that this was possible, but I've just tried it both here and on MW.org and can't make it work. I'll kick the devs. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's this bug; I've asked for an update. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of comments in Infobox

When I attempted to correct something minor in Bleak House using VE (my first ever use!) I decided to preview the changes just in case, only to be surprised that it would have removed the hidden comment "" from the Infobox. This confused me (as an experienced editor) - particularly since the Infobox is 'off-limits' to VE, so I don't know what a new editor would feel! That change, if I'd left it, could also have been seen as minor vandalism. Count me as unimpressed so far. Stephenb (Talk) 11:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a HTML comment, which the VE will support in the next release (but doesn't now). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Return to Save Form" hidden by green gauze

Second try at using VE, second bug. I tried editing another article, EastEnders, and again tried to (p)review my changes. Using the mouse wheel to scroll down, the mouse moved over an Infobox on the page. This obscured the "Return to Save Form" button even when I moved the mouse back up the 'dialog', so I couldn't click it. Took me a while, but eventually I figured out that I had to move the mouse back over some other part of the article behind and the green gauze disappeared... In usability terms, 3/10 I'm afraid! Stephenb (Talk) 11:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC) (Using Firefox, btw) Stephenb (Talk) 11:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's going to be fixed in the beta release, which features a template editor (and thus lacks the gauze). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Severe bug

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T51577

In this edit I attempted to delete the entire Oxygen subsection, including the table. I was able to do this using the VisualEditor interface without any problem. However, when I saved the page, the content was replaced by HTML markup. This is clearly a severe bug. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly is. :/ I ran into that one this morning myself - evidently, something happened in the last update. It's a priority. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophe

I like VisualEditor, however some problems do pop out. When I bold or unbold articles, in the preview it looks great, but after saving, random apostrophes pop out. Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example diff? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serious error

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T51577

Please look at this diff. I tried to change the header type from 3rd level to 2nd level only. VE placed a huge string of codes in the article :S Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 12:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another case

Similar to above, with this edit to They All Play Ragtime, VisualEditor added a bunch of code that wasn't intended nor needed. PK T(alk) 12:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, real problem

I made what was supposed to be a minor removal of info at Operation Gladio, instead 650,000 characters of code showed up. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes looks like its just fallen over in a big way today. Massive curruption of whole page not just the edit! See Here. Tmol42 (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; this looks like a lot of repeats of one instance of a bug. Marking it in bugzilla as a Big Deal. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just spoken to James; he's marking this as of highest priority (as in: the fix needs to be out immediately, whatever the deployment schedule says). I'm terribly sorry about this - I think I speak for James and the rest of the team when I say that. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor disabled

Hey all

As you can see with the threads above this one, there's a pretty serious issue with the VisualEditor at the moment; it's been tentatively traced to a deployment earlier this morning. We've made fixing it of the highest priority, and in the meantime are about to turn off the VE to prevent people accidentally munging articles. It goes without saying that we're very sorry about this issue, and the disruption it has caused; hopefully it won't be repeated! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The VE should now be live again :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 bugs

Trying to change simple text from "almost 11.900" to "22.300" resulted in this [2]
trying to change two wikilinks (Danube Bridge 2 and Vidin-Calafat Bridge to Vidin–Calafat Bridge) resulted in this mess: [3]... the first 1st link came out as [[Vidin-Calafat Bridge|[]][Vidin–Calafat Bridge]] and the 2nd link would have worked, if not out of nowhere "nowiki" would have been added to the link... Hope you can fix these issues. noclador (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Bug 1 is discussed above your section; bug 2 - how did you try to change the links? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the correct name of the article and then pasted that over the two existing links in the Vidin article. Before saving both links looked correct (i.e. like: [[Vidin–Calafat Bridge]]) and after saving I checked both links again and found them to be messed up. --noclador (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so you just copied the raw text over? or the raw text including wikimarkup, or...? Changing links in the VE is a two-step process; you need to change both the text in the article and create a link from the link dropdown. Sorry if I'm sounding silly; trying to scope out the bug :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to add wikilinks to the article Royal Jordanian Air Force the way I added like 10,000 wikilinks until now: first open brackets , then add the text as it should be displayed, then close the brackets . i.e. like this this example. Again I got the "nowiki" things show up [4]... Does this mean that we now can not edit the raw text anymore? I know the whole wikimarkup by memory... and to create a link "from the link dropdown" (which I didn't even see) seems like a rather complicated detour... --noclador (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unrecognized value for parameter 'action'

I tried to make this edit to Dark Shadows: The House of Despair with VE, but when I clicked to save the page I got "Error saving data to server: Unsuccessful request: Unrecognized value for parameter 'action': visualeditor." JohnCD (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having posted this, I now see the notes above. Probably you turned VE off while I was doing the edit, in which case no need to reply! JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! That seems likely, yep :). Hopefully this bug'll be fixed soon. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions?

Is there going to be any sort of instruction manual - well manual is too heavy, instruction page or help page? I know it's meant to be instinctive, and it's pretty good that way, but I did flail about a bit when first trying to make a wikilink, and would have been grateful for something that said "1. type the display text, 2. select it, 3. click the "link" icon, 4. type the target". Similarly when first using the header drop-down menu. Maybe I am too soaked in wiki markup, but then so will many of your users be. JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; I've got it on my to-do list. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to edit sections with wikitext

Whenever you click on a section edit link, it takes you to the visual editor for the whole page. Kelvinsong (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change this setting at the new Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing–"Use the wikitext editor for editing sections while VisualEditor is in beta"

And see the section above, #Now unable edit sections by old method, for discussion. –Quiddity (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do the words "while VisualEditor is in beta" in that setting imply that when VE is fully released source-editing of sections will be possible without a special opt-out? JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the opposite; once the VE is working, source links will prioritise the VE without, necessarily, an opt-out. Frankly, though, that's not something we have to worry about right now; the software is not stable enough for anyone to consider it 'done', and won't be considered that way for a very long time (read: ask me again in a year). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] <<And no, we're not taking markup-level editing away. Some users may always prefer it over visual editing, even if the exact nature of the markup changes, and even if VisualEditor becomes the best tool it can possibly be.>> Erik Möller, deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation, The VisualEditor Beta and the path to change, op-ed for Wikipedia Signpost, July 31st, 2013.

[1]

@@ Line 714: / Line 714: @@
 :And see the section above, [[#Now unable edit sections by old method]], for discussion. –[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 20:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 ::Do the words "''while VisualEditor is in beta''" in that setting imply that when VE is fully released source-editing of sections will be possible without a special opt-out? [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 20:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
+:::No, the opposite; once the VE is working, source links will prioritise the VE without, necessarily, an opt-out. Frankly, though, that's not something we have to worry about right now; the software is not stable enough for anyone to consider it 'done', and won't be considered that way for a very long time (read: ask me again in a year). [[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Okeyes (WMF)|talk]]) 21:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:34, 14 June 2013

Notes

First impression

Predictive texting in edit summaries

No change

Switch between stand and VisualEditor

Too slow to test in UK

Image placement incorrect if large template is present

Blank lines before section headings

templates

contents box

Forced fixing of markup?

Enter bug

Mess created

Another mess created

Can't label external links

Template:sfn instances are being completely changed

Review and save

Backspace to blank line on number list adding blank lines

Heading glitches

The ability to easily cite and generate titles

Chrome support?

How to opt out?

If it ain't broke....

First comments from Spinningspark

Small text

Links

Too many clicks

Can't select edit summary text with mouse

Link pop-up

Editing tools don't stay in front of everything

Speed of loading

Change format dropdown

Opaqueness of all popups

Hyperlink

Redlinks, nonbreakingspaces, and the greenshades

couldn't add citation

Missing capabilities

Section edits

Template parameters

Spurious gallery tags

Beta release seems rushed

I really don't like the visual editor

Additional backup?...

Tables

Long articles

nowiki

Skins

Capabilities concern

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

Concerned about citations

VisualEditor not enabled for section editing

Editing captions

Citations and the rollout schedule

HTML notes

Page notices

Moving highlighted text with the mouse

Capitalization

Nested refs bug, other bugs

Suspend Archiving on this page?

Adding wikilinks with visual editor

Clearing text leaves skeleton of a header

Odd behaviour of the heading pulldown

Heading menu

Reference weirdness at William Spry (governor of Barbados)

Horrible first impression

Not ready

Deleting highlighted text

Can't add [citation needed] !!

Now unable edit sections by old method

Section headings in edit summaries

Click and drag-n-drop?

Removal of comments in Infobox

"Return to Save Form" hidden by green gauze

Severe bug

Apostrophe

Serious error

Another case

Wow, real problem

VisualEditor disabled

Can't add ^{[citation needed]} !!