Use this page to tell the Wikimedia developers your ideas and issues about using VisualEditor. All comments are read, but personal replies are not guaranteed.
Feedback
. |
Please include your web browser, computer operating system, and Wikipedia skin (usually Vector, sometimes Monobook). |
. |
Ideas about user interface choices and the priorities for adding new features are especially welcome. |
Other ways to contact the team
|
More
|
Help
|
Local archives
|
Contents
- 1 Dates
- 2 Ref names
- 3 Title damaged
- 4 Image uploads via VE - increased failure rate?
- 5 Tables
- 6 {{subst:#tag:ref}} instead of <ref></ref>
- 7 Bare urls
- 8 Inline ref numbers counted badly
- 9 Stop adding various magicwords FORCETOC, NOEDITSECTION, INDEX and NEWSECTIONLINK
- 10 Multiple damages on fr:Commander in Chief
- 11 Expanded formula tool in VisualEditor
- 12 Gallery in one column
Dates
Following on from discussion above about VE auto filling in of references there is a problem with this always completing dates in ISO format rather than honouring the date format of the article. Thus you end up with much more inconsistency in articles and have to keep following round edits to put the dates in the right format for the article such as day first format. The added reference should have its dates in the major format of the article, ISO being used if there is a mixture that you cannot determine which format to put it in. The presence of {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} templates can show which to use. Keith D (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for this note, Keith. In the past, the devs have usually refused to making VisualEditor do something to comply with a template that only exists on 5% of Wikipedias (which is how un-widespread {{Use dmy dates}} is). It might be more efficient to have the CS1 modules comply with those templates. That would have the happy effect of transforming the many mismatched dates that are added in the wikitext editor, too (within citation templates, at least). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- This would not be that useful for dates which are entered that look like ISO format but are not actually such as yyyy-dd-mm, dd-mm-yyyy etc. Really need to clean the wiki text to make them understandable to editors using either editor so that the text and the display is the same. Keith D (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- I suspect that Lua can figure out the difference between four-two-two and two-two-four and process both of them correctly. That leaves you only with the rare instance of an editor manually typing mm-dd-yyyy as a date (is 01-02-2010 January 2nd or February 1st?), but you will have that problem no matter what you do. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- This would not be that useful for dates which are entered that look like ISO format but are not actually such as yyyy-dd-mm, dd-mm-yyyy etc. Really need to clean the wiki text to make them understandable to editors using either editor so that the text and the display is the same. Keith D (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Ref names
Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I can't figure out how to assign names to references using VE. If I choose to reuse an existing reference, VE will name the reference with names like :0 and :1. I can't figure out how to change this short of manually editing the reference name (which is fine for me, but VE isn't for people like me - it's for new users). Am I correct - is it actually impossible to edit reference names within VE? Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- You are correct. It is no longer possible to add or change reference names manually in VisualEditor. VisualEditor's automatic names are unfriendly to humans. Both of these things are on the list for improvements.
- In practice, having human-friendly ref names is not usually important to people who are only using VisualEditor. They have no need to know what the ref tag's name is, because re-using the ref doesn't require knowing the name (unlike re-using the ref in the wikitext editor). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- True, but they interact with the rest of the editing community. And new editors make enough mistakes that annoy established editors[1] - I'm trying to figure out how to help student editors avoid these kinds of problems. (That said, I'm really happy with the current incarnation of VE. Recent improvements have finally shifted me from skeptic to supporter.) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are several tasks in Phabricator to address this. I want VisualEditor to provide sensible names by default (using text extracted from the
|author=
and|date=
fields in the citation templates) and to allow editors to re-name them manually. However, I'm not realistically expecting progress on either of these points during the next few months. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are several tasks in Phabricator to address this. I want VisualEditor to provide sensible names by default (using text extracted from the
- True, but they interact with the rest of the editing community. And new editors make enough mistakes that annoy established editors[1] - I'm trying to figure out how to help student editors avoid these kinds of problems. (That said, I'm really happy with the current incarnation of VE. Recent improvements have finally shifted me from skeptic to supporter.) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Title damaged
Hi, in this edit, VE damaged a well formed titled by putting it at the end of the previous line (keeping the ==). --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 20:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is T105745 which will get resolved as part of T86271 for which there is a patch awaiting final review in gerrit. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Image uploads via VE - increased failure rate?
More of a general comment than a bug report, but it seems like cross-wiki uploads via VE have a significantly higher rate of copyvios compared to the "old" upload methods. Especially logos and similar content seem to be problematic. In the last 2 days I noticed 4 of such cases (obviously that's nowhere near a sufficient sample size), and skimming briefly through Commons recent "cross-wiki" uploads the failure rate could be as high as 20-30 percent. A few questions: 1) is anyone still monitoring those uploads to analyze the feature's rate of wrong uploads? 2) Is anything planned to improve this feature? Frankly, two sentences of vague information and a trivial checkbox isn't exactly "high-tech security". Especially new editors are left alone with almost no meaningful advice. Of course a simple browser-based application cannot explain everything about copyright in 5 minutes - but a bit more specific advice could be useful. Also, the information text should be displayed more clearly as "warning", not merely as skippable "information" (red is a great color for instance, or a warning sign might help a bit). GermanJoe (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is being discussed at phab:T120867. We are currently missing information about whether the main variable is the inexperience of the uploaders (this is the first-ever upload for nearly all of them) or the tool being used. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Tables
Being able to control sortability would be extremely useful by adding class="sortable"
to the style to bring it in line with the Wiki Markup toolbar. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am surprised to report that I couldn't find an open task for this, so I've created a new one. It's at phab:T121267. There is a very good chance that this will be addressed by April at the latest. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
{{subst:#tag:ref}} instead of <ref></ref>
Currently, something like {{subst:foobar}} seems not to be substituted in a reference. Is it possible to insert {{subst:#tag:ref}} instead of <ref></ref> as a reference? I cannot think of drawbacks in this change but I want to hear from experts about the problem. ktns (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Subst doesn't work inside of ref tags because of a bug filed back in 2005. See phab:T4700.
- You can add (through the complex transclusion editor at Insert > Template) something like
{{subst:#tag:ref|{{subst:NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}}}
, which results in the wikitext<ref>126,428</ref>
being added at the moment. But why would you want to do this? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)- I want this feature to set current date like
{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}
for parameters such asdate
parameter of {{dead link}}. With this feature, I think it is convinient to be able to set current date as default value for such parameters. ktns (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)- Ah, you want this, except for it to work. ;-) At the moment, I think the only option is to use the complex tranclusion editor. It's definitely a kuldge, but it will let you insert wikitext directly. You can see the steps at mw:VisualEditor/Complex transclusion. I think you'll be able to sort it out from there. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- I want this feature to set current date like
Bare urls
Many articles expose bare urls in their refs. I'd love for ve to offer a way to fix this. If a ref is formatted as <ref>http://.... I'd love for VE to put the url in one field and offer a second field where I could put the title. This is particularly important for pdfs and for the NYT that don't respond well to VE's cite builder. Thanks! Lfstevens (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Lfstevens: I just added a bare URL to my sandbox article, to test this, using the wikitext editor. In VE, when I click on that reference, a dialog opens that includes a "Convert" button; when I click that, VE (Citoid, to be exact) tries to create a full citation.
- If the citation that's built isn't very good - actually, if it's not perfect - then I still click "Insert", because the dialog then offers an "Edit" button. When I click on that, I can fix the citation - add a title, fix the source date (it's always in YYYY-MM-DD format, which I detest), etc.
- In short, it looks to me like (1) VE does offer a quick way to try to fix bare URLs, and (2) to the extent that the citation that is built isn't very good, there is an easy way to improve it. So I'm probably missing the point of your posting - could you explain further? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I tried these variants:
<ref>http://www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk/</ref>
- Showed a convert button. Clicked it and got an error about the title.
<ref>[http://www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk/]</ref>
- Showed an edit button. Clicked it and got [1]. Clicked that and got a link dialog. Clicked Edit and got an editable link with an Add Label button. Clicked that and got an edit box that included the url. Added some text. Clicked Done. Back to the Link dialog. No Done button there.
- What I'd prefer is a Convert button.
<ref>[http://www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk/ aaa]</ref>
- Got a Convert button. Clicked Convert. Got the title error.
<ref>[http://www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk/</ref>
- Got an editable url. Added a bracket. Got this:
- <ref>[http://www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk/ asdf]</ref>
<ref>http://www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk/]</ref>
- Got an editable url, selected, with the Link dialog covering up the url. Edited the url without clicking the edit button. Got this:
- <ref>[http://www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk/ [http://www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk/]]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk/ aaa</ref>
- Got an editable url. Added a bracket. Got this:
- <ref>[http://www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk/ aaa]</ref>
<ref>http://www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk/ aaa]</ref>
- Got an editable url, selected, with the Link dialog covering up the url. Edited the url without clicking the edit button. Got this:
- <ref>[http://www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk/ [http://www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk/] aaa]</ref>
Finally, I'd change the Convert process so that after conversion it takes you to the fields dialog without the intermediate Insert and Edit steps.
Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- I tried your first example. Here's what's in the "Add a citation" dialog box (website template), after clicking "Convert"
-
- "Graphene | The University of Manchester". www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk. Retrieved 2015-12-07. C0 control character in |title= at position 10
-
- Note: this doesn't prevent the next step - Inserting the citation into the body of the text - from happening.
- I click "Insert", then "Edit", and then things such as the title can be fixed. That's a bit lengthy, but seems straightforward.
- You're suggesting that "Convert" essentially replace three clicks - Convert, Insert, and Edit. When an editor intends, at least most of the time, to improve Citoid-created references, then yes, one click is quicker than three. On the other hand, how many editors are going to just click Insert and be done with it?
- You can still have an Insert (or Apply) button on the cite editing dialog. That way you don't add clicks who are happy with what Convert produces. Better to use Done/Cancel for consistency.
- It is possible to provide editors with a choice of either fully accepting Citoid's reference, or fixing the reference, in one integrated process, which would eliminate two clicks: when the "Add a citation" dialog (with its "Insert" button) appears, also display, on the right, the Cite web dialog. (Essentially, the "Add a citation" dialog calls the Cite XXX template, and accepts any changes.)
- This suggested approach means that editors have a one-click choice - accept the parameters supplied by Citoid, and be done, or, alternatively, update them, and use the revised parameters. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Inline ref numbers counted badly
Bug report | VisualEditor |
---|---|
Description | Inline ref numbers counted badly |
Intention: | |
Steps to Reproduce: | Upon entering VE.
Then finished my edit and reproduced by entering again. |
Results: | Refs were counted in the editor otherwise than on article display.
Ref #1 (in the infobox) remained #1.
Ref #2 (in the main text) turned into another ref #1. The following refs continued this count. as a result, the inline numbers did not mactch the ref-section numbers when viewing the editor. |
Expectations: | One continuous count of refs as in article viewing |
Page where the issue occurs | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Find_My_Baby?veaction=edit |
Web browser | Firefox 41 |
Operating system | Win7 Home premium SP1 |
Skin | Monobook |
Notes: | |
Workaround or suggested solution |
trespassers william (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's been known for some time that VE doesn't properly handle footnotes within a template (in this case, an infobox). Since infoboxes are widespread, particularly for the more important articles, and editors are encouraged to add citations to all content, infoboxes included, the problem is only going to get worse.
- Currently #5 at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Known problems. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- I've posted a complaint at Phabricator that this issue should be given considerably higher priority. Currently it's unassigned, which means it's not being worked at all. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Stop adding various magicwords FORCETOC, NOEDITSECTION, INDEX and NEWSECTIONLINK
You've already said on Redrose64's talk page you will not fix this. I posted T118796 and it was closed for unknown reasons that nobody will explain. Messes like this are ridiculous. Why in tarnation does it add the magicwords on the same line as section header. It's getting worse as I'm seeing these more and more. Why in the world are NOEDITSECTION or INDEX even an option? I keep seeing FORCETOC on articles with no section headers or more than four. I've yet to see one used properly with VE. Bgwhite (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Found another one. Adding a FORCETOC to an article with 15+ section headers already and a {{toc}} template. The edit before that is also full of VE's barf. Bgwhite (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Hungry Rabbit was speedied, so I can't see the diffs.
- Why not add the magic word on the same line as the section header? It's not what I would do while hand-formatting wikicode, but it does appear to work there (to my surprise; wikitext is usually quite picky about having section headings begin on the first character of the line).
- Does it truly matter if there's a pointless FORCETOC on a page? Sure, it's pointless, but is it a bad enough mistake to be worth searching for and reverting? As a practical matter, I really don't think that it's possible for any software to figure out whether someone added FORCETOC for a valid reason. You can't even say that it should be suppressed if there are more than four sections, because my next edit might be to split the article. (This problem might be reduced when visual editor starts displaying and updating TOCs.)
- The Apprentice (UK TV series) includes hrefs and colors, neither of which can be added in VisualEditor's table tool; I assume that this means that the table was copied from another website.
- As previously explained, NOEDITSECTION and INDEX are options because (a) some wikis, including some Wikipedias, actually use them, even though this one doesn't; and (b) because if the boxes to change those settings are taken away, then it will be impossible to remove those codes from inside VisualEditor (e.g., when someone types those codes in the wikitext editor, or when someone imports a page from another Wikipedia where those are used). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
-
Multiple damages on fr:Commander in Chief
See history:
- Successive small tags, here also
- Span tags, including one with internal VE attributes
- Multiple blockquotes: any reason ?
Please fix. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 15:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Expanded formula tool in VisualEditor
The VisualEditor recently expanded the mathematics tool, and I'm looking for more feedback on the overall design, whether it seems to be working for you (browser/OS if it's not), and whether anything significant is missing. Click here to play in my sandbox if you want to start on a page that contains a math formula. Double-click on existing formulae to open them, or go to Insert > More > Formula to add new ones, and let me know what you think. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Vector theme, Firefox 42.0, Mac OS X 10.8.5. If I edit a formula, press Cancel, and then edit the same formula again, the second edit starts from where my first edit left off, even though I did not save that work. I expected to see a fresh, unedited copy of the saved markup on my second edit. To put it another way: If I wanted to discard incomplete work on an edit and start anew, how could I do that? Thanks. Mgnbar (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Gallery in one column
Bug report | VisualEditor |
---|---|
Description | Gallery in one column |
Intention: | edit gallery |
Steps to Reproduce: | I turned on VE editing |
Results: | gallery showed only in one column (look here) |
Expectations: | normal look, in rows and columns |
Page where the issue occurs | https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedista:Dominikmatus/Pískoviště |
Web browser | Chrome, Firefox, Opera |
Operating system | WIN 7 |
Skin | Vector |
Notes: | |
Workaround or suggested solution |
Dominikmatus (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)