From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is not actively monitored by Wikimedia Foundation staff. You may consider leaving your feedback on or filing a task on the bug tracker.

Share your feedback
Report bugs
Your feedback about VisualEditor

Use this page to tell the Wikimedia developers your ideas and issues about using VisualEditor. All comments are read, but personal replies are not guaranteed.


Please include your web browser, computer operating system, and Wikipedia skin (usually Vector, sometimes Monobook).
Ideas about user interface choices and the priorities for adding new features are especially welcome.

Other ways to contact the team More

Help Local archives


"Review your changes" tricks me into submitting too early[edit]

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:61.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/61.0

Almost every time I use this feature, I try to go back to the edit form by pressing the highlighted "publish changes" button instead of the tiny "return to save form" button in the opposite corner of the form. This leads to me submitting my edit without any comments! It's very, very annoying.

I think this happens mostly because there is an almost identical "publish changes" button in the main edit UI which I'm used to clicking to open up the edit form. So of course I see the same button and click it again expecting the same result. I also intuitively consider the review page to be a layer on top of the submit form, and thus something that I need to back out of. I'm wrong about both of these things but it's proving hard to shake them.

A good solution would be to add the change preview below the save form fields instead of replacing them.

Tom Edwards (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Tom, your intuition is actually correct: the review page is a layer on top of the editing window. But I think that I have a quick fix that will solve the problem, at least most of the time. If you go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, there's an item in the middle section called "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". If the edit summary is empty when you click the blue button, that feature will give you a second chance. I hope that helps. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Tom Edwards: The suggestion by Whatamidoing is definitely a good one, and it's how I've rolled on Wikipedia for so long (since pre-Visual Editor entirely) that I tend to forget it's even optional. I hate blank edit summaries, from myself most of all. (So, I'm extremely sympathetic to your and others' desire to more reliably avoid doing that.)
And on that note, @Whatamidoing (WMF): Please forgive if I somewhat take advantage of your username declaration of WMF membership, and assume that you're perhaps a bit more "plugged in" to the technical and organizational behind-the-scenes of Wikipedia than the rest of us, but: Can I ask, is there any possibility of (re-?)opening discussion about the Visual Editor's scattershot placement of controls in the various layers it pops up during the Publish... workflow? Can you offer any advice regarding the "right place" and/or "right way" to initiate, and be having, that conversation, for there to be any hope of success?
  1. I completely understand that the Save Form, Review Changes, and Preview displays are just three different views of the same overlay, which is brought up (in Save Form mode) when "Publish Changes..." is clicked in the Edit interface.
    1. I may question whether that's really the best way of handling post-editing actions, and whether effectively placing the Save Form between the "edit" and "preview" steps is really helpful, but I acknowledge that it's one of the possible approaches. I don't really consider it to be one of the more pressing issues with the current interface.
  2. I have observed and understood that the placement of controls is the same regardless of that layer's currently-active "mode".
    1. On the face of it, this is a good thing. Moving-target interface elements are frustrating and user-unfriendly, so on general principle they're to be avoided.
    2. What the previous point fails to account for, though, is the fact that the size of that "same" layer can be drastically different between its three different "modes". Which means that despite being statically-placed on the layer — or, in fact, because of being statically-placed on the layer, at its far corners — the controls become moving targets when the layer's size is changed.
    3. The layer's size changes — again, drastically, at least in the desktop browser interface — anytime the user switches between "Save Form", "Review Changes", and "Preview". Placement that works for one (the controls' location on "Save Form" is actually quite good, if considered in a vacuum) does not necessarily work for others (both "Review Changes" and "Preview" push the controls far apart from each other, and require mousing clear across the screen to move between them).
  3. Despite the good intentions inherent in keeping the controls layout static, the result is not even remotely ergonomic or user-friendly. In fact, my personal feeling is that it is damagingly un-ergonomic and extremely frustrating to work with, and doesn't really become significantly more comfortable no matter how much time is spent "getting used to it". (This in no way represents anything more or less than my personal experience/opinion, and I don't wish to present it as anything other than that.)
I truly do believe the interface was designed with the best of intentions. My only concern is whether it really succeeds in those intentions. My personal view is that it still has some ways to go. Yet the impression I get — and I truly don't wish to be flinging accusations or making unfounded assumptions here; if my impression is incorrect, I would be thrilled to have it corrected or proved wrong — my impression is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of effort going into examining this question. I can't even really tell whether there's any interest in examining it, or in making any sort of improvements or changes to the current Visual Editor interface.
The fact that the current interface is (seemingly) viewed as "fine the way it is!" or "just something you have to get used to" can be somewhat frustrating at times. (A frustration I don't wish to take out on you or anyone else at Wikimedia, and I apologize if I've ever given any other impression.) Because even though there's seemingly (again: wrong?) little attention paid to these general "Publish... workflow" issues, they appear (at least anecdotally) to be a source of significant problems or confusion for at least some editors. How many editors, and to what degree, is something I would be curious to learn but have no way of determining.
I would truly like to see the Visual Editor improved. And I would be willing to participate in efforts to make that happen. But I think that starts with simply acknowledging that there's room for significant improvement, and that the Visual Editor as it currently exists — while an impressive achievement in many ways — is still far from perfect. Sometimes, even making that statement can feel very lonely, if not a bit subversive. It's enough to make you question whether it's even correct, or if you're the only real problem. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, FeRDNYC, and thanks for the note. You are always welcome to ping me.
The "Save dialog" was created for the non-wikitext visual mode, so it's optimized for a different workflow. (There's not much point in "previewing" an already-visual system.) That said, I keep hoping that the devs will introduce a second way of reaching the preview/changes options, like putting them in the "☰" menu. I personally find the memorizing the keyboard shortcuts has been worth my time. (The main toolbar is already so crowded that it creates WP:ACCESS problems for some editors.)
You are entirely correct that minimizing the "moving-target interface" problem is a specific design goal. This is another reason why they're loath to put these buttons on the main toolbar: They don't remove irrelevant buttons when you switch between modes, so we'd have a grayed-out space-sucker on the toolbar in the visual mode.
As for interest: I'm happy to report that the Editing team now has a designer, which hasn't been the case for altogether too long. I think that User:JKlein (WMF) will be interested in your analysis. The team is working on editing from the mobile site this fiscal year, but they will likely circle back to the desktop systems at some point, and many times the workflow problems are the same in both platforms. If you (any of you) have ideas on how to make editing from the mobile site hurt less, then please go to that page and share your ideas. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF): Thanks so much for responding, and for sharing the encouraging news regarding JKlein (WMF)'s involvement in the Editing team's efforts. I'm very glad to hear that the Visual Editor is not in the "frozen" / "finished" state I had feared (at least not completely), and that it is slated to be worked on further... eventually. (And if desktop editing has to wait its turn, then I can be patient. I require no convincing of the fact that mobile editing also needs work.)
Also, I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that this: The "Save dialog" was created for the non-wikitext visual mode, so it's optimized for a different workflow. (There's not much point in "previewing" an already-visual system.) is something I had not really ever considered, and definitely helps in trying to understand the thinking behind the current Publish... workflow. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Some things are so strange that you can't expect people to guess them. ;-)
I haven't done any actual mobile editing, so I've been surprised at just how painful it is. It makes sense that typing on a small screen would be difficult, but in some cases, it's not just the inevitable problems of trying to type on a soft keyboard on a screen smaller than a dollar bill. It's more like pain all over, with extra pain on top and a side order of pain (and then the editor crashed or something, and one of the users couldn't even save his work). I don't know how people do it. So although it's not a popular environment with the established editors here, my impression is that their work on the mobile editing systems is overdue.
Do you ever make it to any of the NYC meetups? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF): It's truly painful — painful way beyond even the pain you'd expect from, as you say, the small screen... plus the virtual keyboard... plus the fact that you're typing on the same surface that holds the content you're trying to edit... Even allowing for all of that expected pain, mobile editing today is somehow more painful still. I'm with you, I don't know how people do it.
Past year or so I've been working through the articles on a small MediaWiki installation, to get them updated so they're at least mobile-reader-friendly. The vast majority of what's there was written or at least started in 2011-2012, almost exclusively by relatively-inexperienced volunteer contributors, and it's all very much in the " browser, what's that?" vein: Wikitables used all over the place for layout; pixel- and percentage-based widths everywhere; images embedded right into the articles, raw and fixed-size — if someone were actively trying to build the least mobile-friendly site they could come up with, we'd still have been strong competition. Getting things to where most of the content is at least tolerably responsive and can be comfortably read on a phone screen has been a real challenge, but it's finally mostly-there.
All that being said, though — editing so much as one word of it, from my phone? Mmmmm, thanks, but it can wait until I get back to my desktop. Nothing's that important!
So although it's not a popular environment with the established editors here, — well, I think that's a chicken-and-egg problem, too. Until the state of the art for mobile editing is vastly improved, it's never going to be! So, any work that goes into making it somehow more bearable is definitely time well spent.
As for meetups, can't say that I have. My presence in NYC these days tends to be mostly-virtual, just in general... even though I'm only up in the Bronx, it's still kind of a "worlds apart" feel for whatever reason. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Argh, the table-formatted template! So many {{ambox}} templates and edit notices have that. Just try opening Today's Featured Article on a narrow screen to see what kind of problems that creates. There are some things MediaWiki does very well (its support for different languages is amazing), but figuring out what size an image ought to be is not one of them. Mile-wide tables can be a problem even on desktop systems, but I think those are usually a user-based issue (I just want to add one more little column... Who will even notice on a table that's already so wide?).
Have you seen the Wikipedia:TemplateStyles work? It's supposed to be a significant improvement for mobile readers (plus some performance and security benefits – an excellent project all around).
BTW, if you're interested in mobile editing, please take a look at the ideas at mw:Visual-based mobile editing/Ideas/October 2018, and click the big blue buttons if you have opinions to share. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
(To be continued at my talk page, since I'm starting to feel bad for hijacking Tom Edwards' post.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Visual editor and it's inability to add citations in infoboxes.[edit]

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.87 Safari/537.36 OPR/54.0.2952.71

You cannot automatically add citations on infoboxes. Why? It's so annoying.

Saltn'Pepper (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It's in the plans, but there's a lot of technical work to be done, to make it possible to do normal editing in that dialog first. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Formatting of Tables[edit]

When using the VisualEditor to edit a table, it causes problems to the end of the table. Specifically, I fixed this problem using the Source Editor when it appeared as a result of two different edits to the page: List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump during 2018 on September 9th. For ease of locating the specific formatting corrections, they are both described as "Formatting of future trips." I believe that the edits the caused these problems are the edits directly before my fix; in the latter case, I know this is true because I fixed the formatting, made an edit using the Visual Editor, and then had to fix it again. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This problem was caused by a logged-out editor who removed the wikitext marker for "end table", using a wikitext editor.[1][2] It's possible that the IP is an inexperienced editor who thought those characters were just stray text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

When saving changes from the preview, it doesn't offer the edit summary box again[edit]

Maybe there's an option for this, but I often preview before writing the edit summary. Having the button in preview button save immediately instead of just showing the edit summary box means I have accidentally left edits with no summaries a couple of times now (e.g. Special:MobileDiff/858952681).

I'm using Firefox 61.0 in GNU/Linux with the MinervaNeue skin.

Thanks! :)

—{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|they/their|😹|T/C|☮️|John 15:12|🍂 18:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Goldenshimmer: Two thoughts:
  1. There are separate controls in the Preview/Review display for Publish Changes (upper right) and Return to Save Form (bottom). Is it annoying that controls are scattered all over the screen? Yes, it's one of the worst things about the Visual Editor. (Another worst thing is that you can't easily establish a workflow like you, and a lot of us, would prefer: Go directly from the editor interface to the Preview, first, then advance to the save form iff the preview looks good.)

    But Publish in the Preview interface does the same thing as Publish on the save form: It publishes changes. (No to be confused with Publish… (note the ellipse) in the main Visual Editor interface, which brings up the save form. The fact that the button to bring up the save form is labeled Publish… — ellipse notwithstanding — when it does no such thing is, as you've probably guessed, another worst thing about the Visual Editor interface.)

  2. If you find that you're still forgetting about / missing the Preview's Return to Save Form control and accidentally leaving blank edit summaries, one option is to not do that. IOW, get in the habit of writing an edit summary before bringing up the preview, just in case. Even if it's incomplete (and you need to look at the Preview to refresh your memory of what you did to help flesh it out), at least there'll be something there even if you forget and end up publishing directly from Preview. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Mm, yeah, writing it first is probably a good idea. Thanks. :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|they/their|😹|T/C|☮️|John 15:12|🍂 07:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
You can also go to Special:Preferences and find "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in the Editing tab. That will give you a second opportunity to fill it in, if you forgot the first time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

References not same in article and in edit mode[edit]

Bug report VisualEditor
Description Reference numbers differ in article and in edit mode
Intention: Check references and I found ref 4 for example isn't the same in article and in edit mode view of article. Also clicking on ref 4 at different sites in article brings up different citations, only one of which is correct.
Steps to Reproduce: Look at references in first paragraph in article (the numbers) and compare with same in edit mode. Different! Also, click on ref 4 in text at different places in text and get different papers, only one of which is correct.
  1. First I looked at the references in the normal article on Jennifer Doudna which I had revised.
  2. Then I went into edit mode, and I immediately noticed the reference numbers were different and some of the references would not display when I clicked on the in text numbers
  3. Finally I closed the wp and reopened it, and tried again. Same problem.

Is it reproduceable: yes, several times the same problem

Results: stll different reference lists and some references not seen in edit mode.
Expectations: I expected the two lists to be identical in numbers cited in text at each place.
Page where the issue occurs Jennifer Doudna
Web browser Firefox Quantum
Operating system Mac OS High Sierra
Skin I don't know???
Workaround or suggested solution can't find one

LLMHoopes (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this is related to T52474 "In VisualEditor, references in templates cannot be reused and are numbered separately from references in the text."
When the references are in an infobox then VE is not smart enough to number them correctly. This looks like a long time hard to fix bug. --Salix alba (talk): 03:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that's the problem because the different references attached to the same number are in the text not the infobox. LLMHoopes (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Insert / Comment feature can be misleading[edit]

In this edit, a new user tried to leave me a reply to my review comment on a new draft. They left a note on my talk page expressing confusion as to why the comment they left for me wasn't visible.

The answer is, of course, that Insert/Comment generates an HTML comment. It's not at all surprising that a new user would find that confusing. I realize Visual Editor is a general-purpose tool, not a review-specific tool, but it's still a confusing user experience. It would be nice if there was some way to make this less confusing for new users. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

PS, I opened T205490 -- RoySmith (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I spent a day editing this page and it didn't save[edit]

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/69.0.3497.100 Safari/537.36

I spent most of today updating this page, and when I pressed publish changes it said there was an error. I was prompted to click manually correct changes, which I believed would bring me back to the editing page. Instead it reloaded the page and didn't save anything. I am quite frustrated with that. It would be great if the message could more clearly express that if an editor clicks that button no changes will be saved.

URL: (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong middle name[edit]

The Lynne Barasch ( author illustrator) is NOT Lynne Robyn Barasch. There are two people with the same name. The author has no middle name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Just noting in passing that, although this is completely unrelated to VisualEditor, I have addressed the issue. Risker (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/64.0.3282.140 Safari/537.36 Edge/17.17134

it can not save more than one article for offline reading

Poshifarmily (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/68.0.3440.106 Safari/537.36

For some reason it wont remove Draft from the page i am creating


Bbc2019 (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Bbc2019:, and welcome to Wikipedia. The forum here is only for editor-related feedback about the Visual Editor itself. But it looks like the draft has already been reviewed and you got some advice on your user talkpage. If you have any further questions, I'd encourage you to ask at WP:Teahouse where experienced editors will be glad to help with all Wikipedia-related questions. GermanJoe (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Can't create links within an article?[edit]

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/69.0.3497.100 Safari/537.36

The new editor does not seem to allow creating section hyperlinks. This can be done in the Wikitext editor.

RyanCu (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@RyanCu: It seems to work just fine. Take a look at this VE edit on my User Page. You can check the edit history of the article to see I used the Visual Editor (no cheating!) To do it, I select the word History (as usual), click on the Link icon on the tool bar, and select my article in the usual ways, and then instead of clicking Done, just type in #History into the text box after the article name and click Done. The Visual Editor doesn't do anything extra above and beyond the Wikitext editor in this regard (which is maybe what you were expecting?) Of course it would be nice if the VE had "add section" button beside the "Done" which would take you to a new dialog where you could choose your section header within the chosen article rather than have to remember what it is. Kerry (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

disapearing content[edit]

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/69.0.3497.100 Safari/537.36

i have tried to create page for the aertist Soren Lee, half way through the process most content simpty disapears and i am back to zero. im using a default template, every time i add content something else disapears. anyway i will try again... There is only 1 soren lee even though i might have made more faulty pages... :-/

Anabell Monroe (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Name Change , That is Real Name Saipriya Deva[edit]

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.77 Safari/537.36


Jubairismail 5 (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jubairismail 5: Hello! I'm afraid you're in the wrong place. This page is for feedback regarding the Visual Editor tool only.
To discuss renaming the article Saara Deva, you'd need to leave a message at the talk page for that article (which is Talk:Saara Deva), to discuss it with the other editors of that article. This was also mentioned to you by Amakuru in a message on your personal user talk page.
If you wish to start that discussion, go to Talk:Saara Deva and use the "+" link at the top of the page to add a new section. (You can also use that previous link to do the same thing from right here.)
Nobody here at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback will be able to help you with changing the name of that article. Discussing it on the article's talk page is the best approach. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Visual editor[edit]

In this edit

This text was added in five separate places:

<div target="_blank" id="honLogo_50" class="hon certificateLink honcode-logo-wide valid" title="HONcode certified" alt="HONcode certified" href=""></div> <div target="_blank" id="honLogo_56" class="hon certificateLink honcode-logo-wide valid" title="HONcode certified" alt="HONcode certified" href=""></div> <div target="_blank" id="honLogo_162" class="hon certificateLink honcode-logo-wide valid" title="HONcode certified" alt="HONcode certified" href=""></div> <div target="_blank" id="honLogo_298" class="hon certificateLink honcode-logo-wide"></div> <div target="_blank" id="honLogo_352" class="hon certificateLink honcode-logo-wide valid" title="HONcode certified" alt="HONcode certified" href=""></div>

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James: What fun, another totally broken browser plugin. :-( I've created phab:T209619 to track and delete the crap from your browser's plug-in. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.102 Safari/537.36

URL: can i highlight some sentences and save in my account?so that next i can read it easier.

Yihong2018 (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Fix bare urls in references[edit]

Bug report VisualEditor
Description Many refs are bare urls. VE provides no obvious way to fix them. When you edit, you get the url editor with no place to add a title. If you add a title to the edit box, add the appropriate brackets, rather than appending the title to the url with %20s.
Intention: fix a bare url in a ref
Steps to Reproduce:
Page where the issue occurs
Web browser Chrome 70.0.3538.102
Operating system Windows 10
Skin Monobook
Workaround or suggested solution

Lfstevens (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Fix inline bare urls[edit]

Bug report VisualEditor
Description Many articles have bare urls, e.g., in their External links section. Make it easy to convert such links to cites. E.g., when you hover over such a link, give a popup with a convert action that replaces it with a cite (not a ref).
Steps to Reproduce:
Page where the issue occurs
Web browser Chrome 70.0.3538.102
Operating system
Workaround or suggested solution

Lfstevens (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Problems clicking Edit Page with crowded internet connection[edit]

Bug report VisualEditor
Description When clicking Edit page on a bad connection, often the request will give up midstream. Then you get a page with the edit bar at the top and greyed out article text. It gives you a chance to retry, but that has never succeeded for me. Instead, I have to reopen the article and click Edit page again.
Steps to Reproduce:
Page where the issue occurs
Web browser
Operating system
Workaround or suggested solution

Lfstevens (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Problem clicking Publish changes with crowded Internet connection[edit]

Bug report VisualEditor
Description Repeatedly I get an error when publishing over a bad connection. Escape dismisses the error dialog. Trying again has never worked for me. Instead, I open the page in another tab, copy all from the edited page/tab to the new tab and save there. Not everyone will figure that out. Of course, bad Internet connections are a feature in many parts of the world...
Steps to Reproduce:
Page where the issue occurs
Web browser Chrome 70.0.3538.102
Operating system
Workaround or suggested solution

Lfstevens (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Problem pasting template over poor Internet connection[edit]

Bug report VisualEditor
Description Pasting a template ref such as often fails and instead of converting to the correct display, inserts the text wrapped in <nowiki> syntax.
Steps to Reproduce:
Page where the issue occurs
Web browser Chrome 70.0.3538.102
Operating system Windows 10
Workaround or suggested solution

Lfstevens (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

VisualEditor on namespace #4: Wikipedia[edit]


On fr:wp we start a survey to enable VE within pages of namespace #4, Wikipedia. In 2015, we did it for namespaces Portal and Wikiproject and we are very happy about it. Now, in 2018, VE is a very powerful tool, which is used by a majority of contributors and not only the newcomers, so I'm wondering if there is a limitation to enable it in that namespace.

In a nutshell, on fr.wp, all our GLAM pages are in that namespace, and I receive a lot of requests from Canadian institutions staffs that their GLAM pages are not easy to edit.

Thank you in advance for your answers. Best regard, Benoit Rochon (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Greyed out publish button[edit]

I'm not exactly sure what is causing this, but I and at least one of my students have reported seeing the publish changes button turn grey and not allow us to publish our changes. I've seen this predominantly in live articles myself. At the time this happens my internet is otherwise acting fine and if I switch to source mode when this happens, I can save my changes. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Also, I'm using Chrome when this happens. I know that this has also impacted people on Firefox. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Shalor (Wiki Ed): I've reported the same bug on phrabicator and it is being looked at. The workaround seems to be (as you have already discovered) to switch to source mode and save the changes there. It is suspected that the problem arises when you do two successive VE edits without doing anything in between that forces the page to reload. Hopefully there will be a fix soon. Kerry (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The Publish Changes button in the sandbox feature does not always work. It sometimes freezes and does not let me make changes.[edit]

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.110 Safari/537.36


User 1070 (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@User 1070: See above. Try switching to the source editor (the pencil icon) and save there.Kerry (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

can't publish changes[edit]

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.102 Safari/537.36


Chammo02 (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Chammo02: See previous threads above, I am assuming it's all the same issue. Try switching to the source editor (the pencil icon) and save there. GermanJoe (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

que paso[edit]

Браузер: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.110 Safari/537.36


Paco92272 (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

on iPhone Auto citation tool produced access-date with TZ code and time that produced an error[edit]

Bug report VisualEditor
Description Auto citation tool produced access-date with TZ code and time that produced an error
Intention: add auto citation
Steps to Reproduce: In Safari on iPhone

Adding reference in visual editor, choose automatic I've reproduced the error on User:Newystats

Results: in this edit which has a "Check date values in:
Expectations: correctly formatted date
Page where the issue occurs
Web browser safari
Operating system iOS 11.4.1 on iPhone
Workaround or suggested solution

Newystats (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

See also this recent bug report: Wikipedia_talk:ProveIt#Time_in_access_date. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Also this recent bug report. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
An urgent bug has been filed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
This problem is reportedly Fixed as of about three hours ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Date in automatic references[edit]

As of today, visual edits converting or automatically adding citations include access date adds a time to the access date, generating an error. So I would get, for instance, 2018-12-05T03:56:53Z instead of just 2018-12-05; only as of today.

WP visual editor date bug Dec 4, 2018.png

--Daviddwd (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This problem is reportedly Fixed as of about three hours ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Can't submit for review?[edit]

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.102 Safari/537.36


I've tried to submit this article I created numerous times but it always tells me the draft has not been submitted.

Arthurfrigginmorgan (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

[Praise] I love this visual editor[edit]

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.102 Safari/537.36

Congrats to the Wikipedia and MediaWiki team on creating this amazing tool that lowers the bar for entry to editing Wikipedia and also making it easier and more elegant to edit. Thank you. 💝

Devourer09 (t·c) 02:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

impossible to use drop down menus[edit]

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:63.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/63.0

Drop down menu is unclickable when overlaying text input field. The text selection cursor stays active instead.

livingfract@lk 11:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Messing up the placement of "citation needed" template[edit]

So I'm not sure whether it's worth my time to mention problems here since at the top of the page it says that the WMF doesn't monitor this, and points us to FLOW- or PHABRICATOR-based platforms. But it's most convenient for me to work in Wikitext, as that's the platform the encyclopedia still sits on. But I see the page is still active despite the lack of WMF participation. Anyhow, this edit has Tags: nowiki added, Visual edit so I'm reporting it here. How difficult can it be to just enter "December 2018" rather than that convoluted syntax? After all these years, still not getting it right. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Spurious nowiki tag replacing space[edit]

Bug report VisualEditor
Description when adding a wikilink, VisualEditor might spuriously replace a space with a nowiki tag
Intention: I am not using VisualEditor. I am manually editing to fix typos, and when I found several cases of spaces being deleted between words, I looked at the history to find out how the space got deleted and replaced by a nowiki tag. In the example I checked, it appeared to occur when another user used VisualEditor to add a wikilink.
Steps to Reproduce: See URL below for an example. There are multiple changes that the user did, but among them is a set of wikilink brackets being added around "cohort study". The space character between "study" and "of" seems to have been replaced by a nowiki tag, I'm guessing by VisualEditor without the user's knowledge (who apparently did not notice the lost space in the resulting text).
Page where the issue occurs
Web browser Safara 12.0.2
Operating system macOS 10.14.2
Skin Vector
Notes: Browser, OS, skin are presumably irrelevant, they're mine and I'm manually editing. I don't know the browser, OS, skin of the user using VE to make the change in question.
Workaround or suggested solution

STarry (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to be able to rename references[edit]

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.102 Safari/537.36 OPR/57.0.3098.106

URL: I have to switch to source mode to rename references' names

Daviddwd (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Source Editor : Syntax Highlighting changes editor font[edit]

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/71.0.3578.98 Safari/537.36

In the Source Editor, initially I see a proportionally spaced font (sans-serif, condensed). When I turn on Syntax Highlighting on the Page menu, the source code editor font changes to a monospaced font (horizontally stretched, vertically compressed line spacing, horrible for editing BTW).

The BIG issue is that for some reason my browser changes the display font however the editor's thread seems to be working with a shadow copy using the proportionally font spacing for the cursor, selection highlighting, and spelling errors. So basically what I see and where I click the mouse are unrelated to where I'm actually editing the code with the worker thread.

At this point, if I turn on syntax highlighting it makes Source Editor impossible to use. If I leave it off it is hard to find things because there are no visual cues.

I would imagine this might have to do with some combination of my global Wiki options settings and the display theme/styles I use for Wikipedia, so feel free to ask for details if you can't dupe the error.

THANK YOU for reading! I'm and old nube, no time, just a desire to fix things where I can as I find them. The new Visual Editor is looking great, BTW! (c:


FuzzyBS 08:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuzzyBS (talkcontribs)


User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_8_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/49.0.2623.112 Safari/537.36


I graduated from Oxford and have spent an hour on the Wikipedia editor page and it's utterly crap. Can't even apply a biography template. Whoever designed this is a fuck wit

Jas cheng (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

On huge pages, the Chrome "aw snap" face appears within the visual editor, and I can't see anything below the gray screen it creates.[edit]

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/71.0.3578.98 Safari/537.36


Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


Hello from the Ggarimasingh1 ! ©2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggarimasingh1 (talkcontribs) 13:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Uploading family historical photo[edit]

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/63.0.3239.132 Safari/537.36


Difficult to support Wikipedia when it won't allow a personal, historical photo, that is of interest to anyone searching information in regards to the Boer War.

Niagara-on-the-lake (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Niagara-on-the-lake:, what is your point? What are you trying to do? Your edit link above does nor identify your problem.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Biggest Ashoka Chakra of India[edit]

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/71.0.3578.98 Safari/537.36


Dharmachakra19 (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox collapsing (remove all newlines, white-space) after edit[edit]

Hi, I've recently started to come across edits make with the VisualEditor where after all the newlines and white-space are removed making it both very difficult for source editor users to read/edit and more importantly to compare what has changed. If someone vandalises content it's very difficult to tell on large infoboxes, or sometimes even small ones. For both the purposes of anti-vandalism work and just for general editing with the source editor this is really bad.

  • Test 'vandalism' examples: this and this. (Note I got the same testing with FF and Chrome)
  • Example I just noticed made by another editor: here

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)