Shearonink (talk | contribs) →On the idea: cmt |
→On the idea: pointer (and fix link in Shearonink's comment) |
||
Line 286: | Line 286: | ||
::::::In most cases, all that needs to be done is to copy the WMF-provided instructions from the [[WP:VisualEditor/User guide]] to the pages that the IP is concerned about, or to add a link to the VE documentation. |
::::::In most cases, all that needs to be done is to copy the WMF-provided instructions from the [[WP:VisualEditor/User guide]] to the pages that the IP is concerned about, or to add a link to the VE documentation. |
||
::::::My point is that the IP has picked a silly method of trying to get this work done. I cannot imagine why anyone would expect the Executive Director or a Board member to do these things. This is about as silly as phoning the CEO's office at an airline because your baggage got lost: the CEO's office does not find lost luggage, and the Board's job does not include editing help pages. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC) |
::::::My point is that the IP has picked a silly method of trying to get this work done. I cannot imagine why anyone would expect the Executive Director or a Board member to do these things. This is about as silly as phoning the CEO's office at an airline because your baggage got lost: the CEO's office does not find lost luggage, and the Board's job does not include editing help pages. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Or provide a direct link (or a template) with "If you have come to this Help page needing help with a Visual Editor issue, please consult [[WP: |
:::::::Or provide a direct link (or a template) with "If you have come to this Help page needing help with a Visual Editor issue, please consult [[WP:VisualEditor/User guide]]." That at least would convey the information without having to rewrite all Help/Doc pages & could be a stopgap measure while WP is in this VE transition-phase... [[User:Shearonink|Shearonink]] ([[User talk:Shearonink|talk]]) 16:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
:See [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Visual_Editor_clashes_with_instructions_on_help_pages_and_the_like]] for a few editors who are trying to get and keep the ball rolling forward on this. –[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 17:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== IP problems == |
== IP problems == |
Revision as of 17:44, 19 July 2013
Call for audit and rollback
I call for an audit of this project and a rollback to the previous state of Wikipedia. It is abundantly clear that enough editors have issues and problems with its handling and rollout that for the sake of Wikipeida, it should be rolled back. Please respond with Support, Oppose, or Neutral and provide your reasoning.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Paul, please read WP:CONSENSUS; votes and RfCs are not binding on technical matters. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've read it. There is nothing in WP:CONSENSUS that prevents anyone from calling for an audit. We can discuss anything, including failures by projects not subject to consensus such as this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Totally, but it does prevent it for being a worthwhile use of your time. What would an audit look like, exactly? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am not sure what Paul McDonald means by an audit, but I think that a Lessons Learned review would be a very good idea, so that we can publicize what went wrong, so that we don't make a massive technical mistake again in the near future, like the roll-out of this poorly tested user interface. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- For starters, we would review the decisions made and how we got here. We would look at mistakes made, we would look for ways to improve, and admit failures. We would recommend reversal of severe errors and provide training to those affected. In short, a sotftware development audit. If anyone doesn't know what a software development audit is, they probably shouldn't have been involved in the first place.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I mentioned this in another place, but in this case, it would have been wise and fully within the realm of ignoring all rules to drop the WP:CONSENSUS clause here as it directly affects the improvement of the encyclopedia. WMF keeps hiding behind the fact that WP:CONSENSUS states that technical matters are exempt from that, but obviously that isn't working. Jguy TalkDone 17:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- There are reasons why technical matters should not be subject to consensus. Most editors do not have and are not expected to have enough technical knowledge to be involved in technical decisions, such as when to roll out Visual Editor. The problem here is that people who did have technical knowledge used poor technical judgment, rolling out Visual Editor in mainspace before it was ready. On the one hand, a survey is not appropriate, because it would be seeking consensus from a non-technical community. On the other hand, I agree that technical mistakes were made that should be reviewed. I think that part of the problem is that the technical decisions were made heavily by developers with too little involvement by software testers; that is my opinion. In any case, I think that lessons learned should be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Okeyes (WMF): I searched WP:CONSENSUS for the word technical; it's not there. I believe that you're referring to WP:CONEXCEPT, which exempts "the community of MediaWiki software developers". I make lots of technical edits, and none of my edits are exempt. My bots were subject to a lengthy period of scrutiny and were not given bot flags until it was determined that they were of very high quality. I know of one editor with impressive technical abilities, but whom was found by consensus to have poor quality control for his bots and automated edits; he has been banned by consensus from all editing for a full year. I'm fairly certain you know who I'm talking about as he was given a high-profile write-up in the Wikipedia Signpost. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, yes. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Okeyes (WMF): I searched WP:CONSENSUS for the word technical; it's not there. I believe that you're referring to WP:CONEXCEPT, which exempts "the community of MediaWiki software developers". I make lots of technical edits, and none of my edits are exempt. My bots were subject to a lengthy period of scrutiny and were not given bot flags until it was determined that they were of very high quality. I know of one editor with impressive technical abilities, but whom was found by consensus to have poor quality control for his bots and automated edits; he has been banned by consensus from all editing for a full year. I'm fairly certain you know who I'm talking about as he was given a high-profile write-up in the Wikipedia Signpost. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- There are reasons why technical matters should not be subject to consensus. Most editors do not have and are not expected to have enough technical knowledge to be involved in technical decisions, such as when to roll out Visual Editor. The problem here is that people who did have technical knowledge used poor technical judgment, rolling out Visual Editor in mainspace before it was ready. On the one hand, a survey is not appropriate, because it would be seeking consensus from a non-technical community. On the other hand, I agree that technical mistakes were made that should be reviewed. I think that part of the problem is that the technical decisions were made heavily by developers with too little involvement by software testers; that is my opinion. In any case, I think that lessons learned should be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I mentioned this in another place, but in this case, it would have been wise and fully within the realm of ignoring all rules to drop the WP:CONSENSUS clause here as it directly affects the improvement of the encyclopedia. WMF keeps hiding behind the fact that WP:CONSENSUS states that technical matters are exempt from that, but obviously that isn't working. Jguy TalkDone 17:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- For starters, we would review the decisions made and how we got here. We would look at mistakes made, we would look for ways to improve, and admit failures. We would recommend reversal of severe errors and provide training to those affected. In short, a sotftware development audit. If anyone doesn't know what a software development audit is, they probably shouldn't have been involved in the first place.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am not sure what Paul McDonald means by an audit, but I think that a Lessons Learned review would be a very good idea, so that we can publicize what went wrong, so that we don't make a massive technical mistake again in the near future, like the roll-out of this poorly tested user interface. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Totally, but it does prevent it for being a worthwhile use of your time. What would an audit look like, exactly? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've read it. There is nothing in WP:CONSENSUS that prevents anyone from calling for an audit. We can discuss anything, including failures by projects not subject to consensus such as this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The VE has great features and I congratulate the WMF and the VE team on its deployment. I have waited for a long time for its deployment and I have no doubt that it will prove to be a boon to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia project, and Wikipedians as a community. I do not think some bugs could be a good reason for pressing the panic-button. It is usual for new software to have bugs and we should all show some patience and understanding here. Actually it is good that bugs are being found -- they are getting fixed now. I fully trust the WMF to be able to assess the VE deployment and do not see any use for auditing by the community. In fact, I think such an audit would only hinder progress. Some things are best left to experts. Thanks and regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I too like the basic concept of the visual editor and some of its features. However, I also find it is a great pain at times, as it is quite buggy, and some of the features need development before full deployment. Deployment for users was very helpful, as it is a good way to test for bugs and receive general feedback. However, I would suggest holding off on implementing VE for all editors, as I forsee major problems occurring, unless all features are deployed and the bugs fixed. Referencing needs to be simplified greatly (perhaps a drop-down list or similar feature that provides a list of reference templates without editors having to look up "transclusions" and the like), and the ability to edit tables should be implemented before I would recommend deployment. This thing needs to be really, really dumbed down before it is the default editor for anons.--¿3family6 contribs 15:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I support disabling it until some of these problems are fixed. After everything I have seen its obvious that the WMF is not going to admit the VE is the epic failure that it is so continuing to ask them to remove it is just a waste of time. At this point, they may as well just go ahead and turn it on for everyone. Let the problems keep flowing and they can continue to just write them up and get around to them whenever they feel like it. The only positive is that so many browsers are excluded that the impact is minimal. Additionally, with the majority of users either ignoring it or disabling it completely the only significant impact to the project is the load on the servers and the time being wasted on all these discussions rather than building an encyclopedia. Unfortunately the IP's can't just disable it like the editors with accounts can and will be forced to use it, which will create a lot of work for us and drive a lot of them away in frustration, blocked due to errors, etc. So at this point, I don't see any reason to continue to debate it, just flip the switch and open the flood gates. There is no longer a need to test it, to submit problems or clean up the mess. The WMF can do that IMO. Personally, I am just going to reduce my editing to the minimal possible levels until the WMF fixes this mess. Maybe after a month or so I'll go back to editing. Kumioko (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support audit and rollback. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think. This is not necessary. Yes, it is buggy, but the problems can be fixed - at least in theory. There are extremely sensible arguments for why we should have this. Enabling it for IPs as well would pose some rather unsolvable problems as Kumioko pointed out, but it should be ok to have it for registered users. We need to keep in mind that some registered users do actually find the visual editor easier to use, and it may be only 5% but we want to improve retention rates, do we not? In any case, if we do not roll things back, someone should still be keeping a close eye on things to make sure it really is not raising vandalism rates. I may do this from time to time but I may not be around enough to find any especially useful information on it. If it does raise vandalism, or if no one is willing to find out if it does (or if the bugs don't get fixed within a reasonable amount of time), I would support the audit and rollback. (P.S. 24.0.133.234 - do you have an account? Not that I think you should have to log in, but if you haven't got an account you wouldn't have tried Visual Editor. I'm just a bit puzzled.) Cathfolant (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose. How can bugs be found and fixed if nobody are using the software? I haven't had any issues with VE, apart from learning how to use it. I have made 20+ edits using it, and it's great. Editing articles is much faster and easier now. The "old" source editor contained too much irrelevant text and was chaotic. LiquidWater 10:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment tests for software bugs should be made in a test environment, not in production. Industry standard.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- For us, all others, Englsh Wikipedia is the best test environment. And the next 9 top Wikipedias have at least twice as much articles. Please, catch as many bugs as you can before it hits us. Sounds selfish, I know. --194.44.219.225 (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment tests for software bugs should be made in a test environment, not in production. Industry standard.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Can there be an option to make Edit Source permanently visible for sections?
I usually want to edit the source. I am a programmer and find it easy to work with the wiki source.
It slows things down when you have to keep waiting for the "edit source" link to come up.
If you click Edit by mistake, easy to do, then the "edit source" never appears and you have to go back and refresh to see it again.
I understand that most users probably don't want "edit source" to be always visible. But can it be an option in the preference tab? I.e. to set the time out before it appears to zero.
When always visible, is it possible to make it visible also after you click on Edit (I can understand if this second request is programaticaly hard to do, just mentioning in case it happens to be easy).
Thanks. Can't really comment on the visual editor as I use edit source so far, but glad you are making the tool available for users who want this feature, and I may find it useful too some day. Robert Walker (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Adding the following to your personal CSS page will disable the animation.
.mw-editsection-link-secondary { visibility: visible !important; }
.mw-editsection-divider { visibility: visible !important; }
.mw-editsection-bracket { visibility: hidden !important; }
- It has the side effect that the bounding brackets, i.e. [ ], no longer appear on pages editable with the Visual Editor, but personally, I regard that as an acceptable loss in order to remove the annoying animation. Dragons flight (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Dragons flight, that fixed it, great help!
- I realized after my post here that I misunderstood how it worked. I thought it was a time delay. Actually it appears instantly when you hover the mouse over the title of the section or the edit link.
- So was usable after acclimatization. Still meant that instead of clicking straight on the link you move the mouse to hover over the title first and then click with a kind of zig-zag motion. Is much simpler for source code aficionados to have it visible all the time :). The []s are fine by me :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertinventor (talk • contribs) 18:33, 10 July 2013
- Thanks also! Now how do I get rid of visual editor altogether? LOL. -- Jodon | Talk 18:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- The easiest way to bypass VisualEditor is simply to click on the [Edit source] link whenever you want to edit a page.
- There is also a way to hide VisualEditor's [Edit] button from yourself, in Special:Preferences under Gadgets. There is no way to truly "get rid of it", but since VE's initial set up is tiny (~2% of the page, maybe less now that Universal Language Selector is turned on), this is unlikely to be a significant problem for the typical editor. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks also! Now how do I get rid of visual editor altogether? LOL. -- Jodon | Talk 18:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Good to see this was already brought up. However, the seemingly clever thing where [edit] expands into [edit | edit source] is unnecessarily complicated and not a very good idea. Why not just get rid of it and have it always display as [edit | edit source], for everyone, regardless of whether they've set something in their preferences? The animation really should just be removed. I suspect it relies on javascript, so it may alienate users who have javascript disabled - and it's just confusing. It would be clearer what was going on if the timeout were set to zero by default. And then there are touchscreen users. The VFD of Template:Citation needed span had several keep votes that mentioned how using the regular template and indicating the unsourced text with mouseover text was a bad idea because touchscreen users would not be able to see the mouseover text. If touchscreen users cannot see the mouseover [edit | edit source] bit, it should be set to always display for this same reason that Template:Citation needed span was not deleted. Cathfolant (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Something I find a real pain is that on my iPad, I have to make two presses to edit the source, because I am using VE "on an unsupported browser". -- t numbermaniac c 08:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The text should really be two links [ Edit | Source ], both always visible. There's no need to have the now redundant "edit source" in the second link, that would be obvious after the first time the link is used, or reading the tooltip. Diego (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
A/B test results
What were they? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Presumably they will be posted at meta:Research:VisualEditor's effect on newly registered editors whenever they are available. I assume that if there had been anything really dramatic in there, that we would have heard about it already. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Can you post them here please.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- They will be posted to the meta page, and also to the enwiki subpage on quantitative data. I have asked Philippe for permission to do so, and am waiting for his response. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just to confirm, does this means that the results of the A/B tests have been finalised, just not made publicly available? - Bilby (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- The results are known but need to be written up, basically. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- No problems. It's just that I was told that they would be considered before rolling out VE to IP users. - Bilby (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- You say the results are known. Point-blank question: Are any of the results negative for VE? If so, which? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- No problems. It's just that I was told that they would be considered before rolling out VE to IP users. - Bilby (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- The results are known but need to be written up, basically. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just to confirm, does this means that the results of the A/B tests have been finalised, just not made publicly available? - Bilby (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- They will be posted to the meta page, and also to the enwiki subpage on quantitative data. I have asked Philippe for permission to do so, and am waiting for his response. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Can you post them here please.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Part of the results are now apparently available here: meta:Research:VisualEditor's effect on newly registered editors/Results. Summary of the results:
It appears that issues with VE that prevented newcomers from using it to complete edits had a significant effect on the experiment and the analysis. Newcomers with VE enabled performed less wiki-work and spent less time editing overall. They were also less likely than users with the wikitext editor to eventually save an edit.
--WS (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
We have an issue
The tool that shuts off the VE is not working. We need a more reliable method to keep VE off for those who do not want it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- When one does a copy and paste one now gets two exact copies rather than one? Not sure if this is related to VE. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- In the markup editor or the VE? I'm seeing the shutoff bug too; what browser are you on? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- So, it looks like parsoid is DoSing the API cluster, which has implications for gadgets functioning. Mark Bergsma is looking into it now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- In the markup editor. When I copy and paste content, one paste gives me two copies of what I copied. It sucks. The WMF needs to concentrate on getting the basic editor to work more consistently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Can you point to what else we're focusing on? What browser and OS are you using? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- In the markup editor. When I copy and paste content, one paste gives me two copies of what I copied. It sucks. The WMF needs to concentrate on getting the basic editor to work more consistently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- So, it looks like parsoid is DoSing the API cluster, which has implications for gadgets functioning. Mark Bergsma is looking into it now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- In the markup editor or the VE? I'm seeing the shutoff bug too; what browser are you on? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- When one does a copy and paste one now gets two exact copies rather than one? Not sure if this is related to VE. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I was just coming by to report that myself. I've got the box ticked on my Preferences, yet the Visual Editor links are still there. It's kinda pissing me off, because I click 'edit' out of habit and I can't really make any use of the VE. So please, let's make it go away for those of us who want it away, yes? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 12:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes; as said, it's not directly a problem with the VE, it's a problem with gadgets generally. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm experiencing this too. I am a heavy user of HotCat, Twinkle, and Provelt, and I can't use them all.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 12:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like it's not a Parsoid problem, actually - some [expletive deleted] decided to DoS the API cluster externally. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I can't even see the Gadgets tab full stop at the moment... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. I've experienced this problem (disable not working) the day the VE was launched, but not since then. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
There is actually a proper off switch for VE. It was chosen to disable the off switch for en:wp, and instead have a half-hidden option that the VE breaks every now and then. Enabling the off switch is apparently an "enhancement". The patch is awaiting deployment. Anyone from WMF have an idea if/when this change will go through? - David Gerard (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Copy and paste
Copy and pasting content within an article using the markup editor has sucked for a long time (it often deletes spaces that should not be deleted). Lately it has begun to suck more than usual with two copies being created for a single paste. Not sure if this is related to VE. What about improving editing for those who edit most? I also wish that the auto fill button for PMIDs and ISBN worked faster and more consistently in the ref toolbar. These few changes would make me more productive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- "Not sure if this is related to VE" - you mean that this happens in the markup editor? And the ref toolbar is an enwiki-specific tool, not something the WMF built or supports. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Doc James does not use VisualEditor. My guess is the most likely problem is in the keyboard or its settings: a slightly sticky key will produce a duplicate paste, and a rapid key-repeat rate will do the same. (Both copies are back to back where you wanted them, right?)
- This doesn't have anything to do with VisualEditor. It's ironic that we're getting complaints about this, given how many people keep telling us that VisualEditor should be turned off on the grounds that the old editing environment is bug-free. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- No it is not a sticky key (I us a bunch of computers and I get no other duplication of key strokes or issues with other programs). And yes I am using the old editor. The old editor is far from bug free but faster and less buggy than the new one.
- Yes I realize that the WMF does not maintain the ref toolbar. This is something that IMO paid programmer time should be put into. The WMF puts great efforts into attracting new editors (think education program) and great efforts making it easier for new people to edit but does not spend enough time making it easier for those who contribute extensively to edit more easily. Yes I realize that this is a little off topic :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay just does it with Chrome and not Firefox. I will test further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please let me know what you discover. It's not VE, obviously, but Bugzilla has a couple hundred open bugs on the old editor, and there's no reason why we can't add one more when you have the details together. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay just does it with Chrome and not Firefox. I will test further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Fixed?
The problem should be fixed. Can everyone test? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, seems to be fixed. All the other gadgets (Twinkle, clock, etc.) also appear to be back. Reatlas (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Phew :). Much credit to the devs, for fixing this so quickly (and on a Sunday to boot). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Cookies all around. Reatlas (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Phew :). Much credit to the devs, for fixing this so quickly (and on a Sunday to boot). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Visual Editor clashes with instructions on help pages and the like.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Two percent
I have received further information about the 2%: that's two percent of the Javascript, not of the whole page, and it only happens on the first article you read. After that, it's in the cache (typically for a week). In other words, this is not actually going to have an effect that can be seen even if you're using a stopwatch to time your page loads. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's good, but I still see no reason why not to let people turn VE off fully, when it was already coded. Could you explain why that was removed? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Adam - that question was answered in the FAQ, I believe... "Why does no standard user preference to disable VisualEditor exist?". That's accessible from WP:VisualEditor/FAQ. I recognize that answer won't thrill you to pieces - and trust me, I wish I could give everyone the answers to questions that they want to hear - but the answer does exist on that FAQ. Thanks. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- With all respect, that is a terrible, terrible answer. "We would rather make VisualEditor's availability through the UI interfere less with the experience of power users rather than introduce a new preference." - the preference had already existed for at least a few months. It was removed at time of launch. And "We hope to hear from users who could never imagine using VisualEditor as their default editing environment. [...] we highly appreciate your feedback on what improvements could make it so." - A gadget was made to get around the lack of preference. Your [WMF, not you] plan was well-meaning, but was clearly the wrong choice. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Adam - that question was answered in the FAQ, I believe... "Why does no standard user preference to disable VisualEditor exist?". That's accessible from WP:VisualEditor/FAQ. I recognize that answer won't thrill you to pieces - and trust me, I wish I could give everyone the answers to questions that they want to hear - but the answer does exist on that FAQ. Thanks. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry this leaves my head shaking "However, to encourage continued testing of VisualEditor as it develops, completely hiding it from the user experience will remain a non-trivial task." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Visual Editor introducing links to disambiguation pages
See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Disambiguation in crisis. benzband (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Timeline for beta
Hi! How long is the beta expected to run for IP users? VE seems to be introducing a lot of errors with IPs, so I'm assuming that the plan is to run the beta for a while to collect feedback, then do bug fixes, so I'm curious as to how long we need to be checking VE changes. - Bilby (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just to clarify the "lot of errors" statement above, I ran through 100 IP edits made with VE through recent changes. 12% of the edits contained errors that were attributable to VE - 7 were the nowiki tag problem. I can understand running this for a bit to get data, but if the number of problems by IPs is to be increased by about 10% through using VE, then the workload for recent changes volunteers is going to be a problem in the medium term. - Bilby (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- The WMF intends this to be permanent. Dragons flight (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- To be a little more precise about it - we are fixing bugs as quickly as possible (we've fixed more than 150 so far) - so while it's permanent, it's not permanent in THIS state, exactly. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- In that case, why is it called a beta? This is a rollout, not a beta. But I'm more concerned, then, about the 10% error rate. That isn't sustainable. - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any rule that there software must be taken away from users in between the beta and version 1.0 stages. Are you? It seems common enough for people to directly upgrade from the beta to 1.0. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Can't we just shut it down, fix the massive errors, and relaunch it in a month after some more testing? 10% is ridiculous. This software is clearly not ready for prime time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- 100 edits is not a sample size that allows for statistical significance. What were the errors? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Probably true. I'm working through a sample of 500 edits at the moment, representing approximately 4 hours of IP edits. I'll get back to you on error type and numbers. - Bilby (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Probably true. I'm working through a sample of 500 edits at the moment, representing approximately 4 hours of IP edits. I'll get back to you on error type and numbers. - Bilby (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- 100 edits is not a sample size that allows for statistical significance. What were the errors? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- In that case, why is it called a beta? This is a rollout, not a beta. But I'm more concerned, then, about the 10% error rate. That isn't sustainable. - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- To be a little more precise about it - we are fixing bugs as quickly as possible (we've fixed more than 150 so far) - so while it's permanent, it's not permanent in THIS state, exactly. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- The WMF intends this to be permanent. Dragons flight (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. I checked 500 edits by IPs using VE. I checked each edit individually for formatting errors, then classified the error type, whether it was subsequently fixed, reverted, or missed, (if missed, I fixed it), who fixed it if such occurred, and the degree to which VE was responsible. In regard to that last point, errors can be the result of bugs in VE, completely unrelated to VE (in which case they weren't counted), or because of formatting problems which are caused by user error, connected to the design of VE when it is working as intended.
- Of the 500 edits, 47 had formatting errors which I connected to VE. 29 errors (just under 6%) were tagged as clearly due to bugs in VE. Another 6 errors were possibly due to VE bugs, but it was unclear. The remaining 12 were due to user error, but occur under VE because it makes certain errors easier to make (such as accidentally deleting an infobox).
- The majority of the errors were the addition of nowiki tags. These were connected to:
- Leading space bug (1)
- Adding a wikilink with or without additional text (12)
- Adding an image within an external link. (1)
- Removing content of section and deleting the section title (leaves a nowiki tag between heading code) (3)
- Adding an AfD notice (1)
- Adding a new reference (2)
- Just inserting text (8) - might be due to copy-and-paste additions.
- There was also one case where the close tag of a table was placed in nowiki tags. No idea why.
- Other problems:
- Deleting templates. Not really VE's fault, but there's now a single key press deletion of infoboxes and other templates, which makes it easy to accidently remove.
- In one case, a wikilink was created with open but not close brackets. Could be a copy-and-paste.
- Paragraphs were in a couple of cases turned into headings. That's presumably an accident caused by pressing backspace on the first paragraph after a heading.
- For some reason the first part of a table was added to an existing table. See [1]
- Text was added as templates, such as a url. Presumably user error.
- A date format notice was deleted. Not sure how that occurred, but based on the other edits it looked accidental.
- On the positive side, I was really happy to see people adding references. I didn't notice any that were properly formatted, (some may have been, but I wasn't specifically looking), but bare URLs are ok. Although there was some confusion in one case, where the editor set the group name for the ref, seemingly thinking it was the same as the ref name="" tag.
- In regard to detection, 35 errors were fixed or reverted, and 12 were missed. 9 were fixed by the IP.
- Hopefully that's of some use to you. Mostly it seems the nowiki bug is an issue, so if that is fixed soon this will improve enormously, but I think we'll find some needed changes to the workflow in VE. - Bilby (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed; I'm hoping for progress on that one :). The open-but-not close is interesting - got an example? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't keep the diff, but that one looked so much like a copy-and-paste that I wouldn't see it as an unusual bug. I've kept diffs for the next two days of data. It is a bit odd, but I really enjoy data collection when doing research, and it seems that this might be of some help. I've also moved to Google Docs, so if there is a wish for this I can share the raw data. - Bilby (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed; I'm hoping for progress on that one :). The open-but-not close is interesting - got an example? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Survey on VE
Let's see how many users who use VE and find it useful. A survey like this is a great help for the project. LiquidWater 10:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- By function, a survey here is not going to reach most editors, since few of them are actually visiting this page, so you will have a selection bias towards those who are actively interested in the deployment of the software, who are not likely to be neutral. :) Of course, there can be value in seeing how those people feel, but it won't offer much insight into "random IP editor Sally" or "dedicated wikignome George". (Just noting.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- +1 to that.--¿3family6 contribs 17:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you, Maggie; however, I'd suggest that it's probably time to get some more scientifically collected results from the general community. The people on this page may be better informed about VE and its challenges than the average editor, but I'd be hesitant to say they're any less neutral than the rest of the community - at least without stats. Risker (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not directly related, but I'm actually plotting out some research on precisely that point: how well metapedians' outlook represents wikipedians as a whole. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Of course, stats make all the difference. :) But in my subjective experience, people who watch (and participate) in talk pages related to policies or initiatives tend to have stronger feelings about said policy or initiative (whether positive or negative). --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not directly related, but I'm actually plotting out some research on precisely that point: how well metapedians' outlook represents wikipedians as a whole. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I use VE for most of my article edits.
Yes
- The only reason I don't use it as much now is because of wikitable and some template edits. But now that I'm getting the hang of inserting references, I use it the majority of the time.--¿3family6 contribs 17:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's definitely my editor of choice now. WaggersTALK 11:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
No
- It does not work very well for me, giving both a lot of lag, and being particularly unsuitable for image work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I edit math articles. So, VE is completely useless to me (and will remain to be so in a near future.) -- Taku (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'll try again in a few months. Looks like there are enough bugs reported to keep people busy for at least that long. EllenCT (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- The only time it has opened was when I accidentally clicked on it. It looked confusing and I had no interest in trying it out. Apteva (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not at all. I help out from time to time on the IRC-help channel, can't post helps/links on user talk pages with it. I also work on some fairly long historical biography articles and not having section-editing ennabled makes VE basically unusable for working on long articles. For me the processing time and hangtime is already at the breaking-point even when I work on a section, to then add VE's issues on top of the present wikitext system?...I just don't even want to try it out at this point. I rarely see VE pop up on any of the articles I have on my Watchlist & when I do it's placing unwanted <nowiki> tags within edits. Shearonink (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's quicker to use "Edit Source" for adding links and spelling changes, or for building election results. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Most of my edits are to sections, and loading the section content only is way faster than reloading the whole article + waiting the VE to parse it. Diego (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Comments
I find using VE easier than using the source editor,
Yes
- LiquidWater 20:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- And it's improving all the time. WaggersTALK 11:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
No
- I can't even scroll in VE without severe lag. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have quite a slow connection, but VE is not lagging at all for me. LiquidWater 12:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- My computer is not very high-end anymore; I suspect it's a processing issue. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have quite a slow connection, but VE is not lagging at all for me. LiquidWater 12:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Templates are impossible. I tried to change "Election box candidate with party link" to just "Election box candidate" the other day and was soon drowning in computer programmer language hell. VE is not easy to use if you're not a computer programmer. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- There are a few citation templates (those with a high number of required parameters, and a small number of non-required parameters) that are improved by having the parameter list pre-filled. But for any other edit that would require wikicode, typing it directly is much less work and way faster. Diego (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Comments
- I believe it is like any visual tool. Nice for beginners. You may start from there. But when it gets to real work, you open a text editor. --194.44.219.225 (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Depends on what I am trying to do. For simple content edits, yes. For wikitable stuff or complex templates, no.--¿3family6 contribs 17:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
How high have you found the number of bugs in VE to be?
Very high, not compatible with being available to the general public
- VE keeps damaging articles. That isn't compatible with a general launch, although I'd accept it in a test run. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Only supported on some browsers. Relatively impossible to fill out cite ref tag fields. EllenCT (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
High, but still usable
Relatively low, but not optimal
- LiquidWater 20:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- It does the basics very well and what bugs there are tend to be fixed quickly. WaggersTALK 11:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Very low, close to perfect
Comments and other opinions
I believe that I will prefer VE over the source editor once it contains fewer bugs.
Yes
- Assuming bringing citation support up to regular levels is considered fixing bugs. EllenCT (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. I already prefer it for article body content.--¿3family6 contribs 17:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- I already do. WaggersTALK 11:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
No
- Not for me, since I do so much image work, which, ironically, is far easier to do with filenames than any sort of GUI could handle. I think it will be good for others, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- VE contains a lot of transclusions for templates that a baby could use, and with time, I believe that it will make image work easier too. LiquidWater 12:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that doesn't make it suitable for someone who often has to use the Find command to look for a filename, because I've just restored a larger version. I can't keep multiple image sizes in copy paste, but I can leave the "300px" or "50px" or whatever in place. Further, I want the captions to remain exactly the same, I don't want to have to copy them over. Cntrl-F, enter, Highlight, Cntrl-V is probably always going to be faster than anything VE can make, unless someone makes a tool specifically for my use. I'm not rejecting VE because I think it's a bad idea; I'm rejecting it because I have very specific editing requirements that no VisualEditor could reasonably be expected to handle.Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- So don't use it. Simple. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I did say that I thought it would be good for others. Had the WMF not thrown a fit about not wanting anyone to hide the user preference, I'd have shut it off and got on with things. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- So don't use it. Simple. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that doesn't make it suitable for someone who often has to use the Find command to look for a filename, because I've just restored a larger version. I can't keep multiple image sizes in copy paste, but I can leave the "300px" or "50px" or whatever in place. Further, I want the captions to remain exactly the same, I don't want to have to copy them over. Cntrl-F, enter, Highlight, Cntrl-V is probably always going to be faster than anything VE can make, unless someone makes a tool specifically for my use. I'm not rejecting VE because I think it's a bad idea; I'm rejecting it because I have very specific editing requirements that no VisualEditor could reasonably be expected to handle.Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- VE contains a lot of transclusions for templates that a baby could use, and with time, I believe that it will make image work easier too. LiquidWater 12:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not bugs, but I need to be able to edit math formulas.... --- Taku (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Text editor and text editor only for that. --194.44.219.225 (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Admittedly I'm a special case here: I know Wikimarkup cold yet I don't expect to do a large amount of editting in the foreseeable future. At least not an amount to justify learning a new interface. If I am unable to edit the Wikimarkup directly for whatever reason, I will most likely stop contributing. (That's not a threat, just a simple statement. And some people might prefer I stop contributing.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Comments
I am not using VE because it is too slow for my computer/connection.
Agree
- Well, that's the main reason I haven't made a single edit in it. I probably wouldn't use it much, but I'd have tried it out a lot more if it was at all practical. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. It's slow. Kavas (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. I'd enjoy using it for minor or text-only edits, but it's too slow for that. Diego (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Disagree
- My Internet connection is fast, so the speed isn't an issue. -- Taku (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is not slow for me. I might use it for minor corrections on small articles, where scrolling does not take too much time. It is just one of possible instruments. Otherwise, it is a kindergarten. --194.44.219.225 (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- It sometimes is slower than the wikitext editor, but for the most part about the same. I just have an inconsistent internet connection.--¿3family6 contribs 17:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hasn't been an issue for me. WaggersTALK 11:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Comments
On the idea
I believe the main drawback which reflects the fact that probably the developers did not edit Wikipedia themselves is the assumption that everything should be done from scratch. It is not so. In real world editing starts from copying an example and changing it to your needs. Copying and pasting should be the number 2 concern after math. From what I tried it does not work properly, for example references become just [1] instead of a reference. --194.44.219.225 (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- The team Product Manager has been editing since 2001. But, I agree, copy and pasting is something that needs work, and something that is actively being worked on. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- 194, your statement is true, but only for non-Aspies. This has been pointed out to WMF numerous times, including suggestions to include that (rather obvious) technique in the various How to edit materials, but Every Single Time the silence has been deafening - and that includes direct appeals to Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner. Wikipedia has become of, for, and by Aspies. I think they see it as a major opportunity to make everyone else conform to their ways of thinking and doing, or get out so they can run it unimpeded. iow...deal with it and don't waste your time and effort complaining to them. All you'll get is their usual non-answer (see directly above). 184.78.81.245 (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- "We're fixing it" isn't a non-answer, imo. Can you give an example of an answer you'd find more acceptable? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Since when does "the WMF" write the community's own documentation? Any WP:AUTOCONFIRMed editor can change Help:Editing, and if you don't want to get an account, then you can use {{Edit semi-protected}} to request the changes you would like on its talk page. If you think that the editing documentation has a problem, then you should {{sofixit}} yourself instead of asking some manager or fundraiser to do it for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, I understand you already have your hands full here. Perhaps, taking a step back, you might see that the IP has a bit of a point about documentation. Your first sentence "Since when does "the WMF" write the community's own documentation?" is true, but then again, I can't recall a situation where "the WMF" has made a change that requires the rewriting of just about every help page created and curated over the last 10 years. I'm not griping about this; it's simply one more point to add to the "things we learned from this deployment that we might want to do differently" file. Help pages are hard enough to write using the language level and clarity that is needed for uninitiated editors, even when the author is very familiar with the subject matter; it's a lot harder when (a) people are just getting familiar with the new interface and (b) lots of things keep changing/improving, thus rendering yesterday's help page out of date today. I do hope that WMF folk are indeed tracking these sorts of issues. It took the community 10 years to build those pages; we can't afford to take 10 years to build the VE versions of them. Risker (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- In most cases, all that needs to be done is to copy the WMF-provided instructions from the WP:VisualEditor/User guide to the pages that the IP is concerned about, or to add a link to the VE documentation.
- My point is that the IP has picked a silly method of trying to get this work done. I cannot imagine why anyone would expect the Executive Director or a Board member to do these things. This is about as silly as phoning the CEO's office at an airline because your baggage got lost: the CEO's office does not find lost luggage, and the Board's job does not include editing help pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Or provide a direct link (or a template) with "If you have come to this Help page needing help with a Visual Editor issue, please consult WP:VisualEditor/User guide." That at least would convey the information without having to rewrite all Help/Doc pages & could be a stopgap measure while WP is in this VE transition-phase... Shearonink (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, I understand you already have your hands full here. Perhaps, taking a step back, you might see that the IP has a bit of a point about documentation. Your first sentence "Since when does "the WMF" write the community's own documentation?" is true, but then again, I can't recall a situation where "the WMF" has made a change that requires the rewriting of just about every help page created and curated over the last 10 years. I'm not griping about this; it's simply one more point to add to the "things we learned from this deployment that we might want to do differently" file. Help pages are hard enough to write using the language level and clarity that is needed for uninitiated editors, even when the author is very familiar with the subject matter; it's a lot harder when (a) people are just getting familiar with the new interface and (b) lots of things keep changing/improving, thus rendering yesterday's help page out of date today. I do hope that WMF folk are indeed tracking these sorts of issues. It took the community 10 years to build those pages; we can't afford to take 10 years to build the VE versions of them. Risker (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Since when does "the WMF" write the community's own documentation? Any WP:AUTOCONFIRMed editor can change Help:Editing, and if you don't want to get an account, then you can use {{Edit semi-protected}} to request the changes you would like on its talk page. If you think that the editing documentation has a problem, then you should {{sofixit}} yourself instead of asking some manager or fundraiser to do it for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- "We're fixing it" isn't a non-answer, imo. Can you give an example of an answer you'd find more acceptable? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- 194, your statement is true, but only for non-Aspies. This has been pointed out to WMF numerous times, including suggestions to include that (rather obvious) technique in the various How to edit materials, but Every Single Time the silence has been deafening - and that includes direct appeals to Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner. Wikipedia has become of, for, and by Aspies. I think they see it as a major opportunity to make everyone else conform to their ways of thinking and doing, or get out so they can run it unimpeded. iow...deal with it and don't waste your time and effort complaining to them. All you'll get is their usual non-answer (see directly above). 184.78.81.245 (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Visual_Editor_clashes_with_instructions_on_help_pages_and_the_like for a few editors who are trying to get and keep the ball rolling forward on this. –Quiddity (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
IP problems
I can edit an entire article with Edit or Edit source. I can only edit a section using Edit. Both Edit and Edit source are displayed, but clucking on Edit source makes both disappear and nothing can be done. Please ask the NSA if this is a bug or an "undocumented feature". Thank you. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- How odd. What browser/OS? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Safari, on an iPad. You have any idea how many people use them these days? A lot. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- 12,173 million requests from tablets, versus 170,807 million for desktop. I agree it's a problem - I don't think I disputed that - and this issue is a known, and being fixed. But right now we're prioritising the areas where we can get the biggest bang for our bugfix. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't appear to be the tablet that's the problem, as it works when I use Chrome for iPad. Did you alpha test with Safari? 184.78.81.245 (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but not really the tablet version, which is distinct. As said, this is a known problem, and we're resolving it by hopefully moving away from having the links pop up - see bugzilla:50540. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't appear to be the tablet that's the problem, as it works when I use Chrome for iPad. Did you alpha test with Safari? 184.78.81.245 (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- 12,173 million requests from tablets, versus 170,807 million for desktop. I agree it's a problem - I don't think I disputed that - and this issue is a known, and being fixed. But right now we're prioritising the areas where we can get the biggest bang for our bugfix. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Safari, on an iPad. You have any idea how many people use them these days? A lot. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This just shouldn't happen
Onto my watchlist today pops this edit:[2].
I notice it says "nowiki added" in the summary, and I've seen that VE does this from time to time, so I think - ok, I'll check it out, maybe it needs a quick fix.
Turns out it's utterly mangled a section with formatting and code - so, great, I think, what to do now? Seems I have 3 options:
- Ignore it. - not acceptable to me, I can't do that having seen it.
- Revert it. - well, no good either, because then I'm reverting whatever the last guy was trying to do. To further complicate it I left a talk page note for this particular user yesterday about some of his other edits, so if I revert it looks like I'm picking on him or policing him.
- Figure it all out and fix it - so this is what I try to do, by checking the entire huge article for the changes the other guy made, then restoring the mangled section from an old revision. Took about 10 minutes - no big deal in some ways, but still 10 minutes I could have spent doing something else.
So here's the thing, as I see it, when the editor is making changes to code that wasn't even being edited, that's even worse than vandalism, because the edit is made with good intent, and the software is the "sneaky vandal". At least it flagged the summary, which is something, I guess.
Over the top to describe it this way? You may feel that, but I'm describing how this affected my workflow and my editing experience - and I think that's what it's all supposed to be about, isn't it? Begoon talk 01:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
With this you will conquer the world.
Really. I've been waiting for this forever. Not for me, but for other humans. 77.49.33.110 (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Don't you mean ==
With this|}
- you will conquer the world♙ --108.38.191.162 (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Enable visual editor for me
When I go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing , I do not find the "Enable VisualEditor" option. Whenever I edit an article, I am still taken to the old editor. विश्वासो वासुकेयः (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have an older computer? Does Javascript work for you? VisualEditor requires Javascript and does not work on some, usually older, web browsers. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)