Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 7

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

:[https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49166 This bug] tracks similar. What is the text of the error message you're getting? PEarley (WMF) (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::::The technical complexities of any VisualEditor are vast. While it has been discussed for many years, that is very different from it being developed for many years. Development only began around two years ago (actually, taking into account the Parsoid team - we've got 12 developers, not 7. Certainly the biggest team I've seen here). Much discussion has occured on Meta in your experience, I'm sure - but this is not the case for the VisualEditor, or Page Curation, or AFT5, or Echo, or the mobile team's work, to my knowledge, or... etc, etc, etc. I haven't seen meta used as a primary discussion venue for major software since I joined the Foundation, almost two years ago. And if you think Meta is somewhere that the Foundation gets ass-kissing, I'd ask if you've ever seen the sort of people who tend to edit on Meta ;p.

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

:::::::::I discuss the technical aspects in the next talk section.

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

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

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

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

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

:Hi Brent,

:At this point, there are absolutely no plans at all to turn off the classic wikitext editor for anyone. You don't need to opt out of VE to get what you're used to. You just need to click the [Edit source] button, which will alwaysFor values of always that may be somewhat shorter than the WP:DEADLINE, but are longer than the next couple of years. be on every editable page. Or, to put it another way, there's no way to opt out of the classic wikitext editor. Everyone will have access to both.

{{reflist|closed=yes}}

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

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

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

::I do agree that VE will be useful in attracting new editors, but I strongly believe that there should still be an opt-out option (excuse my repetition) for VE for pre-VE editors who do not prefer the new change, even after VE is out of development stages. smileguy91^talk 23:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

{{tracked|50181}}

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

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

Sorry if these are already known issues. WaggersTALK 07:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

::{{replyto|Whatamidoing (WMF)}} I'm using Chrome (version 27.0.1453.116) on Windows XP. It certainly seems to happen on Borough of Eastleigh and some VERY strange things are happening when I load the Southampton article in VE. I think it's something to do with the image_map parameter of {{t1|Infobox settlement}}. WaggersTALK 07:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

:::Having played a bit more, it's not image_map specifically but there definitely seems to be something odd when there's an image in the infobox. WaggersTALK 07:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

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

:::::Yes it is, it seems to happen with any page with an infobox containing an image that is wider than the infobox would be if it didn't contain the image. WaggersTALK 19:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

{{tracked|50416}}

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

:::::::Thanks. The developers have closed that as a duplicate, and claim the duplicate bug is resolved. Certainly things look better at Southampton but the problem is still occurring both there and at Borough of Eastleigh. WaggersTALK 09:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

::::::::It's supposed to be the same problem as {{phab|51925}}. Southampton is still screwed up for me. I'm not sure how to interpret [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49925#c19 this comment], which seems to say that it both hasn't deployed and that it already deployed. It might be one of those things that's fixed in the code but hasn't quite reached us. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

{{tracked|50361}}

{{tracked|50423}}

When I am trying to edit anything on the table/template that exists on this page, even if that is a simple typo, it gives me the notification:

→Cite error: There are ref tags on this page, but the references will not show without a reflist template. (See help page)

First, why is this happening and second, it's obvious that the page does have a reflist. Same happens to all the table/templates that are like this one. TeamGale (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::Meanwhile, while I managed to correct the typo, I am not at all happy with its decision to move episode 9 to the top of the list ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defiance_%28TV_series%29&diff=562113681&oldid=561976650]). Checking to see if this is a known issue. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

{{Tracked|50540}}

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

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

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

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

• commons:User:Timeshifter/Sandbox 10

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

The images below are all SVG except these:

• File:Button ext link.png (at native size of 23px).
• File:Button int link.png (at native size of 23px).
• File:Toolbar Corchetes Vector.png (at native size of 22px).

15px: 15px 15px 15px 15px 15px 15px 15px 15px

20px: 20px 20px 20px 20px 20px 20px 20px 20px

25px: 25px 25px 25px 25px 25px 25px 25px 25px

30px: 30px 30px 30px 30px 30px 30px 30px 30px

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thatotherperson ^talk
Thatotherperson contribs 03:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Thatotherperson ^talk
Thatotherperson contribs 08:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

::

::—Love, Kelvinsong talk 13:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

:::: Well, it's important for mobile users, where the hover state doesn't exist. In fact, I just tested on my iPhone, and it is impossible to use the source editor.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 14:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::See also:

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

{{tracked|50356}}

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

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

::{{ping|Okeyes (WMF)}} This is in all likelihood bugzilla:50356, which I have marked "critical" to try to catch the attention of the VE developers. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

I'm not pleased that this has not been automated. Edit summaries are more than just etiquette. They are profoundly useful when scanning your watchlist and it's something new editors usually do not provide. Looking at the VisualEditor, there does not even appear to be a place to provide a summary, let alone encouraging or requiring new editors to do this. When a new editor makes many changes to an article, having the summary lets you know what they did and that it was productive. Unless this is changed and is somehow automated (they can't save until they provide the summary), all you're doing is making more work for the regular editors, checking on the new editors' work, reverting vandalism and warning new editors to use a summary. freshacconci talktalk 15:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

::OK, thanks. Still trying to get a handle on this. I'm one of those editors who thinks that you shouldn't be able to save your edits until you've provided a summary, but I don't think that's ever going to happen. I'm relieved to see that there remains an edit summary section as I've come across new editors using VisualEditor who are not providing them. freshacconci talktalk 15:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

::::::Interestingly, that discussion shows a proposal to remind editors about missing edit summaries, but the reason for rejection is a reason for rejecting forcing them to add an edit summary. I use the preferences setting to remind me when I'm about to save without an edit summary (seems to work fine for me both in Edit Source and in VE), but if I don't want to add an edit summary I can just click Save again. I wonder if it's time to revisit that discussion? I'd be delighted to see that preference set as a default for all editors, and it is far short of "forcing". PamD 19:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

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

{{tracked|50474}}

References get misnumbered [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Griffin?veaction=edit], the two refs in the infobox are properly numbered 1 and 2, but the count restarts in the main text. Reproduced in Safari and Chrome. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

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

:: I should have been more clear, sorry about that. If you compare the first reference within the infobox with the reference at the end of the "Early Years" section, you will notice that they have the same number while being edited, but have different numbers when the article is viewed outside the editor (e.g., the "Read" tab.) I continue to see this behavior on Mac/Chrome. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

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

:::: Should be appearing in your mailbox in a sec. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

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

:::::: My pleasure! --j⚛e decker^talk 18:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

:: I can't speak for sure for this other editor, but there's something weird going on at Atoka, Tennessee, one of the few articles this editor has edited recently, even before I get into visual editor, and most of the references that show in that article at "read" (around 9, but numbered very oddly) don't show in Visual Editor (only two do). Mac/Chrome. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

::: Ahhh, there are several reference groups, that's why the numbering looks odd in the unedited article. Without having dissected the source code, there does appear to be a bug there, which should be visible by comparing the reference list in the article as viewed and the article as edited. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

:: You don't need to remove reference groups--is the article working for you now? What I saw before at the time I looked was that you'd added a reflist only for the default reference group, so the others weren't showing. Is there another bug you're seeing now? I'm happy to try and help reproduce it if so. --j⚛e decker^talk 04:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

{{tracked|50448}}

Prince Marko: audio appears huge in edit mode. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

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

:: This is likely a duplicate of 49689. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

:::: (Ahh, it is, I should have gone and looked in bugzilla first.) Looks like a fix is on the way--developed, but not deployed on ENWIKI yet. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

{{tracked|50456}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49969 Bug 49969] the response to my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback&diff=next&oldid=560934530 21 June report] seems unhelpful.

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

When I'm stub-sorting I tend to add defaultsort and birth/death categories whenever I can, even if my main aim in opening the article was to remove {{tl|stub}} and replace it by something more specific. I might add a maintenance category or two, as well as tidying up obvious typos, making a link or two, unlinking a date, etc etc. The response to this bug says "As far as adding a category or changing the default sort of a category directly from some other mode (such as reading, or editing paragraph text) we should look at those workflows rather than dissolve the intentional model-ness of the dialog." (I guess "modal-ness" is intended) - this makes my heart sink, as it seems to say that my sort of driveby wikignoming is not at all what editors are supposed to be doing, and we must categorise our activities into separate modalities and not expect it to be simple to make several quick improvements to an article in one short editing session. Deeply depressing. PamD 21:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

:Have now commented on the thread at Bugzilla, probably more appropriate than here. PamD 21:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

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

{{tracked|50481}}

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bah%C3%A1%27u%27ll%C3%A1h&diff=562302216&oldid=561967071 Here's] the diff. All I tried to do was move a quotation mark, and it added a bunch of underline markup in the References section and removed all the categories. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:::{{ping|Adjwilley}} Try User:Adjwilley/sandbox. Ignatzmice•talk 01:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

::::OK, I did three test edits in my sandbox. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Adjwilley/sandbox10&diff=562329264&oldid=562328798 first] was an exact reproduction of what happened in the article. In the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Adjwilley/sandbox10&diff=562329499&oldid=562329367 second] I wanted to see if it was my edit summary and/or use of the "minor" checkbox that did it, so I didn't check "minor" and I left a blank summary. It did the underlines and removed the categories, plus a whole bunch of other changes that I hadn't seen before. In the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Adjwilley/sandbox10&diff=562329776&oldid=562329670 third] edit, I wanted to see if it was my moving the quotation mark that did it. Instead of moving a quotation mark, I just added a "test" sentence to the Lead. I left an edit summary, but didn't tick the "minor" box. I got pretty much the same result as in the first edit.

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

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

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

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

On a related note, I just ran across [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Rudd&diff=562332538&oldid=562196327 this]. The user was just trying to add a new section, but Visual Editor made some other repairs to the page, both good as I can tell. (It got rid of a stray and merged two a duplicated named reference.) Like I said, the changes were good, but above in the FAQ it says VE's not supposed to be making changes like that. (I'm fairly certain the user didn't do that himself, since he's very new, and would have had to do a lot of searching to find those errors.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

{{tracked|50508}}

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

Another thing: Also in the last dialog box before actually saving, there is what I assume is supposed to be an "X" in the top right corner. Clicking on it closes the dialog box. However, I do not see an X—it looks like an upside-down check mark (it isn't symmetrical). It seems all of the top half and half of the left half (of a regular [square] X) are somehow truncated. Ignatzmice•talk 22:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

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

{{tracked|49603}}

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

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

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

:::I know this is being worked on, but it's already causing problems. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Color&diff=prev&oldid=562564573 See this edit]) Jr8825 • Talk 18:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

{{tracked|50475}}

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

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

{{tracked|50441}}

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

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

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

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

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

:::{{ping|Mdennis (WMF)}} - I encounter this consistently. Seems that Whatamidoing (WMF) knows what I am doing, so maybe you two can get together on this. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

::::::I think this is bugzilla:50441. guillom 14:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

{{tracked|50474}}

I'd have expected this to be a known issue, but I failed to find such feedback: I see no way to add references to template parameters. See for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Huon/Test&oldid=558383771 User:Huon/Test]: The references within the template parameters are displayed as wikicode within the Visual Editor, the named reference that's used within the infobox is not available for re-use outside the infobox, and while all references are correctly listed in the "references" section, Visual Editor numbers the first reference after the infobox ^[1]; apparently it doesn't realize at all that the references within the infobox exist. If I add a instead of (or in addition to) the {{Reflist}}, that one won't display the footnotes within the infobox at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{tracked|50502}}

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

:It seems to have gone wonky in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SLBohrman&diff=next&oldid=562259398 this edit]. It looks like the markup, etc. might have confused something in there. I'm wondering if the issue you encountered in the welcome message has to do with the known problem with colored text in signatures (unless that was fixed while I was out of town). I'll poke about. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

::After looking more closely, I think not. I've opened a bug about the duplicated character string [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50502 here]. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

{{tracked|50182}}

In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portals_to_Canaan&diff=562404305&oldid=562404006 this edit] I wanted to remove one of the two templates which were nested in {{tl|multiple issues}}: the only way I could see was to delete {{tl|mi}} and then re-add the one template I still wanted. Messy. What if there had been 5 templates within {{tl|mi}} and I'd wanted to delete one or two: can it be done in VE? PamD 15:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

::::Right, thanks Maggie, I can now remove one or more of the templates from within {{tl|mi}}. But if I've removed all but one, so want to drop the {{tl|mi}} but keep one of the inner templates, can I do that? It might be one with a long text parameter (perhaps {{cleanup|reason= some verbose description of everything that's wrong with the article ...}}, tedious to retype. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APamD%2Fsandbox_for_VE&diff=562451290&oldid=562451194 this example edit]. (Only a low-priority issue, as copy-and-paste or retyping would work) PamD 21:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

{{tracked|50521}}

If I open Queen Anne Grammar School in VE, I can see two superscripts linking to references - and 29 references in the reflist. Some of them perhaps most, are the refs which were deleted in a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_Anne_Grammar_School&diff=562382386&oldid=562381869 series of edits] 9 hours ago while the article was being moved from AFC to mainspace. If I open it in Edit Source, it's a respectable little stub with two refs and no sign of the other stuff.

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

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

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

... Closed it, edited it in Edit Source, saved it, no sign of refs 3-29. Re-opened it in VE, they are still showing up. PamD 20:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

::I was able to reproduce it as well, so I have thrown your very words into [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50521 Bugzilla]. Again, thanks for stopping by! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

{{tracked|50524}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{tracked|50532}}

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

:Specifically, look at the album for "Oh Africa", which certainly wasn't "Rowspan=3;style=background ...", or the album for "Lock Down", which wasn't style="background: #ececec....—Kww(talk) 22:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

::Is it looking something like [http://bug-attachment.wikimedia.org/attachment.cgi?id=12679 this] for you (I can't reproduce it ...) PEarley (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

::::I'm thinking it's [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50366 50366], but we'll let the pros figure it out. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

1) The text size for edit summaries and reviewing changes is a bit too small for me. I sometimes find that I have a bit of difficulty reading what I write in the text box and seeing the changes I made without zooming in. I think the text size could be made a bit bigger.

2) When I edit a particular section of an article, it would be nice if the text summary noted which section I edit like editing the source would. Currently, VisualEditor doesn't do that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{tracked|50540}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed. smileguy91^talk 23:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

:{{ping|Smileguy91}}, create the page /common.js in your userspace and copy the code above. The result is a page that looks like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Keegan_(WMF)/common.js&oldid=562465265 this] and VisualEditor should be blocked off for you. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

{{tracked|50533}}

By the way, this feedback form constantly moves down my screen every time I hit a key, making me have to scroll down. It causes full screen flickering seemingly randomly too. I do not recall signing up for this, I hope that this feature wasn't suddenly enabled by default for everyone. Shirudo talk 23:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{tracked|49603}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

:: Cool! --j⚛e decker^talk 00:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

A strange, and quite minor bug, when editing Pickup v. Brown and Welsh v. Brown. When I edit this, and decrease my window width in such a way that the external linka at the bottom of the page requires more than one line, the bullet migrates to the second line improperly. Reproduced in Chrome and Safari/MacOSX/latest. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

:: Could be. As for being on the second line, for me it depends on whether there is a second line, it sounds like we're seeing, likely, the same behavior. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

{{tracked|50458}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::What Maggie means is that when you're editing with VisualEditor, what you're seeing is basically what you'll see after saving. There is no "preview" button, because you're essentially "previewing" all the time you're editing. guillom 07:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

{{tracked|50589}}

VE can't properly display any chart table using {{tl|singlechart}}. Take a look at 5 O'Clock (T-Pain song)#Charts and certifications as a random selection, and try to figure out how to change the positions (or, worse yet, add a line). This is probably related to the fact that singlechart creates reference and table markup internally. It is, however, an extremely common template, used in most articles about singles.—Kww(talk) 01:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

left

right

{{clear}}

The old editor had a list of commonly used citations. This was extremely handy. It would be nice if that feature could be brought back. ¿3family6 _contribs 01:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

{{Tracked|48368}}

It also had a built-in find and replace function. That of course tends to be more useful in the source edit, but it's ridiculous that that and many other functions of the edit toolbar were removed. Reywas92^Talk 07:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

:I figured that they weren't ready yet. I also couldn't find a link to the User Guide. Thanks!--¿3family6 _contribs 13:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:::{{ping|Rochelimit}}, I'm glad you're used to it and it's becoming enjoyable to use. As for the old revision problem, I've [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50596 filed a bug]. It happens after saving section edits as well. Happy editing to you! Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

:::{{code|importScript('User:Matma_Rex/VE_killer.js');}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Fair enough. In the end, it's all about choosing the right editor for the right task, and if you feel you prefer to continue to use wikitext for all your editing needs, that's perfectly understandable :) guillom 06:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

{{tracked|50553}}

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

In addition, the opening of these boxes freezes scrolling of the underlying page, which not only furthers the problem above, but is also simply annoying and unnecessary, as I can no longer move to another part of the article I wish to see without closing and reopening the box. Reywas92^Talk 03:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

{{tracked|50441}}

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

:Thank you for your feedback; this is great to hear :) Regarding the "editing an old version" issue, is it possible that someone edited the page in the meantime? guillom 05:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

:::Thanks for your response. Do let us know if you encounter the same issue again :) guillom 05:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

::::Yes guillom there seems to be an issue with editing the same page twice in a row, I did it again on 2008 riot in Mongolia, first I added a word in a lower section and saved it. I then decided I would try again to see if I received the same message as I did in the first example. Sure enough I did, so I added a piped hyperlink to economy, and sure enough it edited on the old version. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_riot_in_Mongolia&diff=next&oldid=562504115 this edit], and the one before it. Looks like the page does not refresh itself after saving I suppose. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

:::::Thank you for investigating; I confirm this issue. I've reported it, but it was actually already in bugzilla under another name. This is a high-priority bug for developers. Thanks again :) guillom 06:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

{{tracked|50540}}

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

It's also distracting how it has to widen itself. Why add the spaces inside the brackets? Why widen or change text at mouseover at all? [edit|source] should be the link all the time. Reywas92^Talk 03:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

:I believe the expansion of the edit button behaves this way to improve discoverability, while the widening thing's goal is to avoid cluttering the interface. In the end those are design decisions, so only the designers could really explain them (I can only guess). guillom 05:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I wish this project the best of luck, but I have no interest in using it at this point. Aside from that, this project misses a key point - editor retention. Making a new, buggy, unfinished, and not technically rich editing system the 'default' does not show that WMF values its current editors. Finding new members is important, but keeping the current ones is too. Toa Nidhiki05 03:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

::"The WMF" definitely values its current editors, and the weeks spent following up on their comments, bug reports and feature requests should be an indication of that. I'd argue that VisualEditor wasn't made "the default", since both edit tabs appear on an equal footing (and "edit source" is more understandable than jargon like "edit using VisualEditor"). While it is true that newer users may be more interested in VisualEditor than experienced users, I think VisualEditor will also be useful to experienced editors for some editing tasks. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005, and I still can't get a full {{tl|cite journal}} reference right from the first time; VisualEditor provides a really nice interface for this. VisualEditor also drives me crazy at times, and I think it's a question of choosing the right editor for the right task. This will be even more the case in a few weeks/months when it's possible to switch between the two editing modes while editing. guillom 05:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

: Click on "Edit Source". --j⚛e decker^talk 03:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel&diff=562493342&oldid=562147883] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

:Ugh, that's not very pretty indeed. Could you describe with some more details what you attempted to do? This will help pinpoint the source of the problem. guillom 05:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

:::D'oh, sorry, I didn't even look at who made the edit. Yes, I completely agree that VisualEditor should at least provide a warning. guillom 06:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

:::::The edit summary says "unlinked articles and...", so I assume it wasn't only a grammatical correction. guillom 07:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::Eh, I'm not too worked up, it's an understandable error. I just hope that once the crew at WMF gets this resolved, someone posts [http://i.imgur.com/gKkH9.gif this]. (Arrested Development, if you don't get the reference.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

:BLP notices not being displayed is a weird one; the VisualEditor should be surfacing page-notices. I've added that to Bug 50415, which also covers the semi- and full-protection issue. Hidden comments are at 49603; section edits, also working on. Can you send me a screenshot of the "review changes" problem? Hyperlinks is being worked on, and I totally agree about the markup errors; I think the plan is to move towards more of a wordpress-like environment where you can toggle between the two, edits intact. How are you removing the line breaks in infoboxes? And, if you can point me at gibberish code, I am happy to take a look at it.

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

:: Hi {{Ping|Okeyes (WMF)}} The info box problem: Suppose I want to change the contents of a parameter of a line in the info box. I open up the info box and click on the parameter I want to change. The existing contents of the the dialogue box consists of the current contents of the field, plus a following line break. If I remove all the contents and replace it with something new, I inadvertently remove the line break. {{diff|Kidz Bop 20|prev|562494239|Sample diff of Kidz Bop 20}}.

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

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

For the kind of editing I am doing right now, the old-school edit box works better. Full citations are not added inline; the books are added to the bibliography down below and are called using {{tl|sfn}} templates. {{diff|Oskar Schindler|562276410|561914971|Sample diff of Oskar Schindler}}. The new prose is added, and once the book is listed in the bibliography, all I have to do to add my cite is copy-paste a wee bit of mark-up, such as {{sfn|Roberts|1996|p=39}}, and change the page number. Same deal if people are using named citations; it's likely easier to copy-paste their existing named citation rather than open up a dialogue box to add their cite. Adding cites needs to be the easiest thing in the world, as at this stage in the wiki history, we are no longer accepting unsourced content.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:The speed of opening and saving the page in VisualEditor is related to Parsoid, the program that converts wikicode to annotated HTML, and vice-versa. Parsoid has a "caching" feature, which means that it will work faster if it already has a recent version in memory. The cache sometimes needs to be cleared, and therefore re-built little by little as editors edit with VisualEditor, so this might explain some of the slowness you've encountered. The lead developer on Parsoid says: "Basically, as long as the progress animation is animating, Parsoid is working; on cache hits and large pages the animation is only active for a split second". So speed should get better as cache increases. guillom 05:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

:::Hmm, you're correct. Unfortunately, I'm out of Parsoid developers to ask at the moment, but I'll try again when they wake up. guillom 06:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

when previewing a change in a rail icon template, it does not render the new page correctly aligned but breaks up the icons and also misplaces them BT14 (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:I'm sorry to hear that. Does the user guide help at all? You can add templates in references by clicking the "Transclusion" icon (puzzle piece) in the reference editing window; it should even provide you with fields for the possible parameters. Do let me know if the user guide doesn't help. guillom 05:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(5) The new editing system is slooooooow.

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

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

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

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

: I do miss the special characters as well; there's a bugzilla request about it. Regarding speed, although a lot of improvement has been done, a balance needs to be struck between ease of editing and speed. If you're more comfortable with editing the wikitext source code, that editing mode remains available both for whole pages and for sections. guillom 06:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

WYSIWYG editing is gonna lead to dragging down contributors to the low·est common denominator [Is wiki-syntax really that hard to grasp? Really? (facepalm)] J. D. Redding 06:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

:Yes, it is really that hard. VisualEditor isn't the "default"; it's just another editing mode offered as an alternative to wikitext editing. You're free to choose the one you want to use; in my experience, each editor is suited to specific tasks, and I personally use them both, depending on whether I'm fixing a link (which is more straightforward for me in wikitext) or editing a complex reference template (which is now easier in VisualEditor). guillom 06:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

It is not really that hard for someone to use wikisyntax ... Me'the data is skewed [think, twain and statistics]. Please do NOT make this default. Regardless, allow opt-in ... and the problem is solved. --J. D. Redding 06:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC) (ps., "reduce the initial cognitive overhead " = "lowest common denominator editing". 'Nuff said. As to contributions ... if someone wants to contribute text, contribute it, let someone else mark it up. Real simple. Been that way since the beginning of the project ... goodness the early years were so much better.)

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

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

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

:::: Bell's First Law of USENET. --J. D. Redding 08:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:Don't use it if you don't like it, I can't agree more. But perhaps everyone should make their own opinion on the matter? :) guillom 06:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

When I click to edit, the Table of Contents understandably disappears. However, this results in everything on the page to shift upward, causing my desired section to either be obscured at the top of the page by the edit toolbar or shift off the page altogether. This should not happen; all contents should stay at the same level on the screen when in edit mode. Reywas92^Talk 06:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

:May I perhaps trouble you for a screenshot? I'm not sure I understand properly the problem you're explaining. guillom 06:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

::It's the process taken when I go to enter VE from a section edit, it can't be captured in a screenshot. I wasn't clear that this is for section editing, not from the top edit tab. Click the section edit button of the section directly below the TOC, and the TOC disappears (as it obviously isn't editable), causing everything below it to shift up to fill the space. This means that I have to scroll back up to reach the point I wanted to edit, especially if the TOC was large. Reywas92^Talk 07:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

::To maybe be a little clearer, even if the section header is at the bottom of the page when I click edit, it automatically moves to the top of the page when VE is loaded. However the toolbar floating at the top covers the header and the first few lines. Reywas92^Talk 07:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current implementation (poor)

[Edit Viz | Edit source)

Alternative implementation (better)

[Edit source | Edit Viz]

Better yet, just make it opt in. But, I digress ... --J. D. Redding 07:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Should be opt-in ... "new" features should be _added_ to the side ... J. D. Redding 07:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Please keep it opt-in. Been going good with opt-in form since December 2012, seem like. The "functionality', your opinion, is thrust on everyone. Sounds like Democratic centralism. ... the new "default" option [notice the quotes] is really a _new_ feature. It should be added to the right. Not taking the place of the edit source. This is, upon consideration, also why the license should have been kept under GPL (and not made artistic). --J. D. Redding 07:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

... and that misunderstanding ("not sure") may, nay does, lay at the root of the problem. --J. D. Redding 08:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia never used the gnu copyleft license? Riiight. Now that is funny. --J. D. Redding 08:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC) (ps., next one will hear, "It's not a bug; it's an undocumented feature!")

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

:: Why cannot you just give them the eff'ing source text as the default and not the buggy editor ... god speed the bug squashing, until then 'Edit Hell'. --J. D. Redding 08:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC) (ps., will say one thing positive. Like the flashy edit transition, but edit source should be first; Source to the people.)

Brilliant: I needed to change the DEFAULTSORT from "The New Elizabethans" to "New Elizabethans, The", and this time I didn't need to retype the whole lot but could just delete and retype the "The ". I reported this as a bug a while back and it's been fixed. Thanks. PamD 07:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

{{Tracked|49555}}

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

Having said that I have found a problem with nested references although I expect the article is using references in a way that developers wish would be deprecated. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Rocque%27s_Map_of_London,_1746&oldid=562508427 Here] in the "Notes" section, the references are just being displayed by the Visual Editor in "raw" form (perhaps this is inevitable?) and in the body of the article there is an extraneous "" in the second paragraph of the lead and in the first paragraph of "Enduring influence". I haven't tried editing or saving so I don't know what the effect would be. Best wishes and good luck! Thincat (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even after the time I've taken to type all the above, I've just tried to re-open Robert Edwards and I still can't do so. ... OK, couldn't a moment ago for the nth time, but just immediately now can do so. What's that, about 5 minutes? I hope it's only a temporary glitch. PamD 07:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

::It's actually a bug: bugzilla:50441 and it's a high-priority task for developers. guillom 09:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

{{diff|Doleham railway station|prev|562466376|This edit}}, which is tagged VisualEditor in my watchlist but not on that diff, added a {{tag|references|s}} which was unnecessary, since {{tlx|reflist}} was already present. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

File:Visual Editor - Template loading mockup.png

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

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