2017 wikitext editor/Feedback

Jump to: navigation, search

About this board

Post your feedback about using the first iteration of the 2017 wikitext editor as a Beta Feature.

If you are reporting a problem directly on this page, please include your web browser, computer operating system, and wiki skin (usually Vector, sometimes Monobook).

The Editing team welcomes your feedback and ideas, especially on user interface decisions and the priorities for adding new features. All comments are read, in any language, but personal replies are not guaranteed.

We are trying to keep the page tidy by providing links to relevant tasks while closing threads. You can help by adding {{tracked|T######}}. By all means, feel free to re-open a thread if you need to!

See also:

View open developer tasks Complete workboard Report a new bug in PhabricatorJoin the IRC channel

By clicking "Add topic", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL

Dialogue box thinks I haven't saved

Mark Schierbecker (talkcontribs)

Maybe 1/4 of the time when I successfully save, the text next to the favicon still says "Editing [foo]." This sometimes triggers the familiar "Changes you made may not be saved" prompt, which is hella confusing.

Using Google Chrome/Windows 10.

Jdforrester (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Thank you. The title update issue is T126077; the "Changes you have made" prompt should be fixed as of a week ago, but if you can reproduce please shout so we can fix it!

2017 wikitext overwrites change by HotCat on JAWP

ねをなふみそね (talkcontribs)

It seems that 2017 wikitext overwrites the change made by HotCat, on JAWP. As matters now stand, we cannot use HotCat when using 2017 wikitext at the same time.

Check this and [[w:ja:Special:Redirect/revision/62983760]].

If this problem is already known, sorry about that.

Mark Schierbecker (talkcontribs)

I can't use HotCat at all.

Reply to "2017 wikitext overwrites change by HotCat on JAWP"
Summary by Elitre (WMF)

One of the mentioned tasks has been resolved, feel free to reopen thread if necessary!

StevenJ81 (talkcontribs)

The BiDi editing tool does not work with this. That's going to be a problem with a lot of RTL language wikis, where jumping back and forth to check template syntax is common.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Steven, I think I'm going to need a lot more information about this. Please have a look at phab:T153378 and phab:T153356 and tell me if those are the errors that you're encountering, or if it's something else.

IKhitron (talkcontribs)

It could be also just an unability of gadgets to work with new editor.

StevenJ81 (talkcontribs)

Will respond in the am US EST.

Doc James (talkcontribs)

Would need color coding in this editor before it would be useful. ~~~~

Doc James (talkcontribs)

By the way I am unable to figure out if someone has asked this question before with FLOW. Is there anyway to search this discussion? The history tab does not allow blocks of edits to be compared. Gah

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Syntax highlighting is planned; in fact, an early version was written back in August, but it's not performant enough to deploy. "Works fine on the fastest computers" isn't good enough for deployment on the wikis, which get edited by people with a wide variety of resources. (If WikEd is working for you, then this would be fine for you. But most editors turn off WikEd because it's so slow on their computers.)

Flow isn't integrated into Special:Search yet, which is one of its major limitations at the moment. I hear that the Collaboration team is thinking about addressing that problem in the coming year. OTOH, I'm happy overall with having Flow on this page, because it means that I can see all the updates via Special:Notifications, no matter which wiki I'm on.

Doc James (talkcontribs)

WikEd is so useful that even with slow connections I use it. One can begin editing before WikEd fully loads aswell. Would be good to see it make faster as agree it does slow things down a bit.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

It's not really about the Internet connection. It's about how fast your computer is. So if you take your laptop to a bad internet connection, you're still (mostly) fine. But if you take a ten-year-old laptop to a good internet connection, it's still impossible.

Doc James (talkcontribs)

Ah good to know. Thanks

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

The leading theory of the moment is that adding paramOrder to the TemplateData should bypass the infobox-scrambling bug. I've added it to Template:Infobox medical condition#TemplateData ; can you do a null edit on the template (the main template page, not the /doc subpage) to get the updated TemplateData active on it?

Doc James (talkcontribs)

Okay done.


Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Thanks! (I put this reply in a weird place, and I can't even figure out where we first talked about this problem now.)

Sj (talkcontribs)

Amplifying one point Doc James made: WikEd is extremely useful in almost all situations b/c i degrades nicely. You can load wikitext and start editing whether or not it's completed; it gracefully lets you know when it has to bail because the page is too long; it adds a highlight layer to the page (or removes it as it bails) in a way that doesn't delay normal workflow.

It can be annoying to see the switch between highlighted and non-highlighted, and requires getting used to, to use it in low-bandwidth situations; but once you're used to it, you are not slowed down.

I agree that highlighting makes the practice of editing much faster, and hope the WikEd devs are engaged in the neat things you are doing here.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

The WikEd dev does not very active these days (he did post an update today). As to whether it's useful or degrades nicely or "WFM" – for every person who tells me that they like WikEd, I hear from another who tried it and rejected it.

Doc James (talkcontribs)

The key is the options. WikEd can be turned on and off in the editing Window.


Reply to "WikEd"
Lingzhi (talkcontribs)

As fast as a racehorse. if the horse were running through molasses. And dead.

Seriously, I know that paid workers need to justify their pay, and volunteers wanna feel they have made a valuable input, but why oh why has anyone given you the authority to foist this crap on us?

Kill the project. It is a waste of time and money. It is SLOW. Look yourselves in the mirror and face up to the truth.~~~~

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Can you tell me more about your experience? What kind of computer and web browser are you using? Can you give me a link to the page were you trying to edit?

Lingzhi (talkcontribs)

If you look at my contribs, some of them are marked "(Tag: 2017 source edit)". Using the editor involves waiting for it to load (with progress bar), pressing save, pressing... a couple other buttons/hoops I don't recall/ waiting for it to save (progress bar again). Seriously multiplies wait time... At home I use Google Chrome Version 56.0.2924.87; I'm pretty sure I was at home. Lenovo IdeaPad.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Would you mind opening your sandbox and timing it? I can open https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lingzhi/sandbox2 in the VisualEditor's wikitext mode in less than three seconds on my Mac. How long does it take you? (At the moment, my leading theory is that it's just slower on Windows. I think that almost everyone who complains about speed is running Windows.)

Lingzhi (talkcontribs)

I made one edit to a section in my sandbox. Loading your editor took three seconds, as you mentioned. Saving took twelve. Then I undid my edits, exited wikitext editor, and duplicated the edit my usual way. Getting the source took two seconds; saving took four or five. So 15 or so for the editor, roughly half that for editing source. But I sometimes make lots and lots of edits. Those seconds are not at all annoying when you make only one edit, but they become so when... mmm this morning I made about 25 edits while ce "William T. Stearn" and that's not a particularly heavy editing session load. Last night roughly the same. It all adds up. Working late at night, after 20 edits, the 21st etc. that takes so long becomes more and more grrrrrr.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Huh. Saving's usually been pretty quick, because of some magic the devs did a while ago. (I just checked in my own sandbox; it was faster than opening the page was.) But then I copied the old contents of your sandbox, made an identical edit, and it took about 12 seconds to save (including time to type a very quick edit summary). Removing half the content resulted in it taking about half as long, which makes me think that the speed depends upon the size of the page. Would you mind doing me a favor and comparing that experience against my sandbox? Just edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Whatamidoing_(WMF)/sandbox (however you want) and let me know if it saves noticeably faster. My sandbox has a wide variety of formatting (almost "one of everything"), but the overall length is only medium.

Lingzhi (talkcontribs)

Loading 3, saving 4. But bear in mind I need to click "Save" TWICE, so you can add 1 or 2 seconds plus more annoyance for that. ...that's four seconds after the SECOND time I clicked save (and so was the 12 I mentioned earlier).

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Thanks. It actually starts transmitting your changes when you first open the "Save" dialog, so I think that 5 or 6 seconds is the more accurate number here (obviously, that will depend on how long you spend typing the edit summary, but one or two seconds seems very reasonable there).

Lingzhi (talkcontribs)
Alsee (talkcontribs)

Lingzhi, there have been ongoing objections to the New Editor speed, as well as inaccurate previews, for months. (It takes 30 seconds for me to load en:United States in the new editor, and people are reporting over two minutes load time, and browser time-out errors, on the largest of pages.) The community is about to submit consensus that these issues are blockers against deployment.

There's a Phabriator task for the load time issue, and here's the Phabriator task for the previews issue.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Lingzhi is talking about how long it takes to save a page, not the three seconds that it takes to open it. It takes twice as long (or more) for Lingzhi to save a page than to open it (and is getting similar ratios in the old wikitext editor: two seconds to open, four or five seconds to save). I'd be curious to know whether saving a page takes you twice as long as opening it.

Lingzhi (talkcontribs)

Correction: Emphatically *Not* the same ratios in the old wikitext editor. The old wikitext editor *tops out* at four or five to save; the new one has no upper limit.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I think that the upper bound depends on page size. I edited https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/DynamicGraph3/us-10m-json (which is huge) in both; the 2006 wikitext editor took 16 seconds to save, and VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode took 19 seconds to save.

Given the volume involved on a page like that, the upstream speed of your internet connection probably matters. Asking Google "how fast is my internet" gave me a test; at the moment, I'm averaging about 6.0 Mbps download and 0.90 Mbps upload (slower than usual for me).

Reply to "S-L-O-O-O-O-O-O-W"
Diego Moya (talkcontribs)

The following is a recent example of the user experience with the 2017 source editor that just happened to me when following normal Wikipedia administration procedures:

  1. Open Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves to list a new request.
  2. Following the process instructions, copy the template code listed in that section.
  3. Move to the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and enter the Edit source mode.
  4. Paste the template code and fill in the fields
  5. Press the Save button. Then press the Preview button.
  6. Find out that the final page shows the template code, not the evaluated template.
  7. Remember that you are supposed to press Ctrl+Shift+V every time you're working with anything other than plain text, or it will do random things.
  8. Close the Preview view.
  9. Delete the <nowiki> tags.
  10. Preview again. Find out that the template now evaluates, but produces an error.
  11. Scratch my head wondering what the hell may have happened this time.
  12. Copy the template code again below the previous one, this time without any formatting magic, to compare the expected result with what the previous paste created.
  13. Realize that the previous paste also had inserted italics code ('') around the identifiers for page names in the template. (Surely editors will expect format to be kept from the original page, right?)
  14. Remove the italics code, and the second copy of the template.
  15. Preview the page and find out that it finally does what it should have done three minutes earlier.
  16. Save the page.
  17. Uninstall the source editor in disgust.

I posted it at the previous bug report, but I'm not sure that those are being taken seriously. The comments there by prominent developers give the appearance that they're disregarding real users feedback on lieu of some mythical Visual Editor user who may or may not want to paste text with format in the source editor.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I replied in greater detail at the bug report, but it's important to remember that we're primarily hearing from just one kind of "real user" (i.e., my kind of editor :-) right now.

Reply to "User experience"

lost data when switching?

Summary by Elitre (WMF)
LuisVilla (talkcontribs)

Like the editor generally (a handful of things remain really much better in wikitext) but when switching from new wikitext -> VE/WYSIWYG I lost data. Not sure if this is expected/known, and I hadn't noticed it earlier. If it is expected, a warning would be nice; if not, well, just FYI that you've still got some bugs :(

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I need more information. Which wiki? Did you start editing in a section? Did you save the page? I see a few bot edits during your last editing session at enwiki: Did the bot edit the page just before you lost your work?

LuisVilla (talkcontribs)

I figured this might not be that helpful, but had to point it out, given the severity of the problem (nothing turns off users faster than data loss :/ Some answers:

  • enwiki (
  • I think I started editing in a section, but can't be sure.
  • It is entirely possible that the bot edited between switches! That would make some sense, timing-wise.
Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

When you lost your work, what did you see? Specifically, did it give you the whole page with none of your changes, or did it blank most of the page (i.e., everything except the section that you were editing)?

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

(Also, if you started editing in a section, it should have given you a choice between cancelling the switch, or losing all of your changes.)

LuisVilla (talkcontribs)

Definitely no "cancel or lose" notice that I saw. (I was somewhat expecting it.)

Gave me the whole page with none of my changes.

Note that the flow was a VE (make changes) -> new wikitext (make more changes) -> VE (all changes gone)

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

If you started in visual mode, then you weren't editing a single section. (You might have clicked the [edit] button for a section, but visual mode always opens the whole page.)

Do you have the Beta Feature for the 2017 wikitext editor enabled? In looking at your contributions, I'm assuming that you don't, but please let me know if I'm wrong. (It's at w:en:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures if you want to try it out.)

LuisVilla (talkcontribs)

Yes, I started in VE. It's been my default for years ;) You can still click a section header to edit, so perhaps I misunderstood the question.

I enabled the 2017 wikitext editor on ... Friday, probably? But it isn't my default.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Hey, I don't know if you saw the latest, but the bug's been found, the patch has been merged, and it will probably (usual disclaimers apply) be fixed in production a week from now. Thanks, again, for reporting this. I hate lost-work bugs, and you helped us kill it.

LuisVilla (talkcontribs)

I did see it, thanks for ccing me. (Also saw the less good news afterwards, but such is software life ;)

Crown-job (talkcontribs)

I really like this new feature but can you please implement a function to switch elite between this wikitext modus and the old one? Or is it already possible and I am just not seeing it? Thx

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

The team just changed the way that you switch between modes. Look on the toolbar near the Save button for a pencil icon.

Elitre (WMF) (talkcontribs)

User is asking about switching between wikitext editors, there isn't a shortcut for that.

Reply to "Switch between both wikitext editors"
Mina Utotuki (talkcontribs)

If I copy/paste some text into 2017 wikitext editor using Edge, lines that start with CR+LF (i.e. empty lines) are deleted.

This does not happen with Chrome.

Environment: Windows 10 64bit, Microsoft Edge 38.14393.0.0, Vector skin

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Thank you, Mina Utotuki, and welcome to mediawiki.org. I have copied your report to phab:T160202 and tagged it for attention by the devs. I appreciate your complete report. Thank you.

Reply to "Copy/Paste problem with Edge"
Summary by Elitre (WMF)
Bspf (talkcontribs)

It would be nice to not automatically disable the signature insertion, as most of common pages are not made on the "discussion" tab.

Elitre (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I think there may be a bug there, and will look more into this later today, thanks.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talkcontribs)

This is supposed to be fixed next week (Thursday for the Wikipedias, sooner for the other wikis).