Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor/FAQ

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

Request for list of automatic fixes[edit]

Thank you for updating the FAQ with "In cases where markup already on the page is handled incorrectly (for example, with tables that are not closed), it may attempt to correct these." Could you please post somewhere the list of automatic fixes that VisualEditor is supposed to make? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a really good idea; I'll ask James now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

How do you turn on Visual Editor?[edit]

I keep seeing all these complaints about Visual editor... what I don't get is, why haven't I seen it yet? I thought it was enabled for all logged-in users on July 1, I didn't turn off my preference for it, I'm using the most recent Firefox, I even tried enabling all three scripts in NoScript (even Mediawiki.org, which I've never actually noticed what it does except slow things down a bit). No extra edit tabs, no visual stuff, no complaints, apart from not being able to comment about how much I hate it that is. ;) Wnt (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm, nevermind (sort of) - after fiddling about I saw it come on when editing an article - the "edit source" tab jumps out on mouseover - maybe I missed it before. Still, for the FAQ you should say what circumstances it does take to get it to come on. Wnt (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you not get it in the toolbar above an article, too? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I do have an "edit source" there. I think the mistake I made the first time is that when enabling scripts, it first looks like wikipedia and wikimedia are all there are - mediawiki doesn't come up until after they're enabled, and I didn't do that the first time. Wnt (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I've heard that VE will be the only way to interact with Flow, and there won't be a wikitext editor. Is this true?[edit]

The answer given is:

That goes directly against what Jorm has said several times. Or is the term "Wikitext editor" being redefined? I mean, while it might at least be somewhat useful to be able to edit Flow in Wikitext mode, if it isn't true Wikitext as used on, say, article pages, and can't support, for example, templates or ref tags or the like, then this answer is misleading.

From what I gather in Wikipedia_talk:Flow#WMF_intends_for_Only_VisualEditor_to_be_usable_on_Talk_pages_under_Flow.3B_representative_states_he_would_.22dearly_love_to_kill_off_Wikitext.22.:

  1. Templates may not work outside of a small section at the top of talk pages (and the idea of a small section at the top of talk pages having working templates was not the answer Jorm gave when I asked him directly about those templates. He actually said "Flow will not prevent those from breaking. Flow will provide different, better ways of managing these workflows. That is what this project is about entirely." Of course, it's entirely possible he misunderstood. He also said "There will likely be many templates that Flow will not support. This is a VisualEditor thing, though." Again, perhaps he's easily misunderstood, but...
  2. Jorm has stated on WT:Flow- and I'll quote this in full "Look - one thing we know for sure is that Flow needs to be designed with the VisualEditor and HTML5 first and foremost in mind. We can't design it around all the legacy assumptions and affordances of wikitext. That doesn't mean that some kind of source or markup mode is necessarily impossible, but it may be different "under the hood" than wikitext as we know it. We definitely want to make sure that you can continue to post to Flow boards with older browsers, and since VisualEditor doesn't support them, we'll likely have to provide a fallback mode." - That implies that a merely partially functional wikimarkup or emulated wikimarkup might be all that's available on launch - worst case scenario, all that's ever available. Partially functional isn't good enough for a lot of uses: If users need to discuss a section of an article, with collaborative editing, it's no good if it can't be copied onto the talk page because it's a table being worked on, or contains a template that the partially-functional wikimarkup doesn't support. For that matter, how is collaborative editing meant to work in Flow - will it only be possible in special subpages? If so, it removes a hell of a lot of functionality from talk pages - but I'll ask about collaboration on WT:Flow, so never mind. The point being that, if Flow only supports a crippled, partially-featured wikimarkup, then it's misleading to say that Wikimarkup will remain an option. Although various people have said otherwise, Jorm - who's currently in charge of designing Flow, has stated that templates likely wouldn't be supported under Flow, for instance, when asked about Wikiproject Banners, his response was "Flow will not prevent those from breaking. Flow will provide different, better ways of managing these workflows. That is what this project is about entirely." and also "There will likely be many templates that Flow will not support. This is a VisualEditor thing, though." (same section as quoted above)

I know that Jorm keeps saying things that are contrary to what other members of the WMF say. I understand that the statement in the FAQ might well be 100% true. But we need to get this right. As an example of why not to reassure in haste: until 8 June, the FAQ specifically stated "When it becomes the default, you can go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and turn it off." - we're now in the middle of a huge fight to get that editing preference able to be used again, because false reassurances were made.

If we reassure falsely, the only thing we do is make sure that the necessary feedback doesn't reach the ears of people who need to hear it until too late. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I can't comment on the choices that will or will not be made in a tool that is in no way fully designed or close to being fully built. I am not the right person for that and this is not the right place for the conversation. I know that the text posted in the FAQ was shown to Brandon before we did it so that he wasn't surprised and he agreed (whether that is a change in his thoughts or not I don't know). I will say that I'm not aware of a single template that won't work in VE either with some templatedata changes or features that are already on the table. I certainly think that we SHOULD have everything that Brandon says in #2 for flow to allow the most people possible to get the full benefit of the workflow management pieces. However I also know that the ability to edit the page in wikitext will remain. Jalexander--WMF 06:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, okay. But you might want to get Jorm to start going back and removing or editing a lot of posts he made, because he really, really isn't helping matters by saying some of the things he's been saying. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
And now that you've heard the updated answer, I assume you will also play a part in informing people? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me for being obtuse, but there's a point that is still unclear in the FAQ and that can be clarified with a simple yes/no question: The wikitext editor available at article pages as a fallback to the VisualEditor: will it be the same one available now?

I think this point should be answered explicitly with respect to the VE (separately from the equivalent answer for Flow), given that Jorm has answered "no" to the same question with respect to the fallback editor for Flow, which will not be the current wikitext editor but a new, limited one.

Or to put it even simpler: Is the source editor that won't be disabled (according to this FAQ) the same one that Jorm is talking about at Flow, or a different one? Diego (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, The standard/powerful wikimarkup source editing, currently available in all articles as "Edit source", will not be changed. There would be terrible consequences if anyone tried to remove that. A vast majority of all edits are being done with it, and many of the power-users prefer it, and will likely continue to do so.
The hypothetical fallback editor for Flow, is a complete unknown. From what I've read so far, Jorm is planning for the worst-case, but hoping (like all of us) for the best case. Ie. he's working with unknowns and unknowables, too. - I don't know, but I suspect the abilities of this hypothetical fallback editor, will be based on how developed Parsoid is in 6 months time (and its ability to translate back-and-forth). Possibly. –Quiddity (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes much more clear the future possibilities of editing at both Article pages and Talk pages. Diego (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

FAQ- copyedit needed[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback: Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is this change being made? The wikimarkup text in the old editing window is so complex that people who could become productive, experienced members of the community if the editing system were simpler are turned off upon attempting their first edit; read our longer explanation for more details.

Do we mean

  • The wikimarkup text in the old editing window is so complex that people, who could become productive experienced members of the community if the editing system was simpler , are being turned off while attempting their first edit; read our longer explanation for more details.
  • The wikimarkup text in the old editing window is so complex that people, who could become productive, experienced members of the community were the editing system simpler, are turned off attempting their first edit; read our longer explanation for more details.
Using the KISS principle, are we trying to say.
  • We think that the existing wikimarkup system is too complex for new users. These users don't come back after their first attempt at editting so never become part of the community. Read our longer explanation for more details.
What ever you want to say keep the sentence structure simple- and avoid long words.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is it?[edit]

According to the schedule...

"15 July: Deployment of the VisualEditor to the English Wikipedia, available for anonymous and logged-in users."

So why do I not see it? Do I have to do something to enable it? 86.160.208.172 (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:VE#Limitations, "VisualEditor currently works in only in the most modern versions of Firefox, Chrome and Safari." What browser and version are you using? GoingBatty (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
IE 10. That would explain it, I suppose. 86.160.208.172 (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

How soon is now?[edit]

Perhaps it's time to change this happy announcement into a more realistic one? Fram (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Now I have a song in my head. At least it's a good one. :) I've altered it to "will be offered in the future", which is far less subjective. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks :-)

why i don't have the VE[edit]

i have the latest chrome version and i had it before, why i don't have it now? --TheDasherLegendXD 01:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)