Talk:VisualEditor/2016

Previous discussion was archived at Talk:VisualEditor/Archive 1 on 1 September 2015.

Enabling VE in Category Page? And enable VE always.

I'm wondering

1. when i go to a category page, how can i enable visualeditor in that page?
2. when i search for a page that doesn't exist, Create the page "Test" on this wiki! See also the search results found. By clicking the Test word, it always automatically select Create Source. Is there anyway I can have it select Visual Editor first? AmazingTrans (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I have tried the following, and the category doesn't seem to have VE Edit available, only sourceedit. I notice the NS_USER is not necessary, somehow VE is always shown there.

$wgVisualEditorNamespaces[] = array_merge($wgContentNamespaces,array( NS_USER, NS_CATEGORY));

I also tried this, and it didn't work.<pre>$wgVisualEditorNamespaces[] = NS_CATEGORY;

</pre> AmazingTrans (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

For 1., you have to enable VE in the entire namespace first. On WMF wikis, it already works there.

Re: 2, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T55441 and related tasks. Elitre (WMF) (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

VE is already working in Main namespace. Just not working in Talk, and Category namespace.

This is on my private wiki. AmazingTrans (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the single edit tab feature will solve #2. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Since I've updated to MediaWiki 1.26.2 and the latest VisualEditor I also cannot enable VisualEditor for category pages. Before the Update (1.25.3) I could edit category pages. 84.74.153.35 (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I have the same issue. I would like to enable VisualEditor for Category pages. Also running 1.26.2.

Has anyone managed to enable this yet? 92.110.165.206 (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Add this to your LocalSettings.php

// Enable VisualEditor in Category Page
$wgVisualEditorAvailableNamespaces = array(
NS_CATEGORY =>true
);

92.110.165.206 (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It can easily be done if you are using custom fields like pods etc. Just extend the current category and add visual editor as field 103.255.6.106 (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding template to VE?

Hi there,

Is there any possible way where i can add a menu into the link with this template?

In the VE, now i have Search pages & External Link, maybe would like UNC Links as 3rd option?

UNC links AmazingTrans (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I've suggested this at Phab:T123154. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding poem tags?

If there is already text between poem tags on a page, it is possible to edit it in VisualEditor (albeit in markup), as is demonstrated in the sandboxed demo. But is it possible to put new poem tags on a page in VisualEditor to create a new poem? The only way I have found to enter poem tags is to switch completely to the traditional editor, which is unsatisfactory. Halfbeing (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Currently, you can edit existing poems, but you cannot add new ones. (You can usually copy and paste one, and then edit the copy, but this is also unsatisfying.)

I do not know when full support for poems will be available. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

VE Version for 1.26.2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How to I install a VE version that will work with MediaWiki 1.26.2?

I followed the installation instructions and ended up with a version of VE that crashes 1.26.2 and gives a warning that it only works with versions 1.27 or above...which are not readily available for me to install!

Is ther a git command I can use to get an older version Trig12 (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Installation instructions are at Extension:VisualEditor.

To download a tarball, go to Special:ExtensionDistributor/VisualEditor and pick the appropriate version.

To download from git, do git checkout REL1_26 && git submodule update. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why isn't the VE running on talk pages anywhere?

There won't be any real answer at any time.

Instead of the normal editing possibilities, on talk pages we are restricted to either only use the wikitext editor, or to this Flow environment, with its massive restrictions on next to everything. Why is the VE not enabled anywhere on talk pages? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 19:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. This question comes up a bunch, and has been answered at length a few times before, but I can't find any of those right now, sorry.

The short answer is that VE is a content editor, and is designed to make writing (long-form) content. In dozens of ways, we've optimised it around writing articles for Wikipedia, Wikivoyage and other wikis. The use cases of a semi-free-form-but-with-odd-rules discussion box are fundamentally incompatible. Providing VE for talk pages would mean making massive compromises both on being a good content editor and on being a good discussion editor. It's an anti-pattern, and it's not going to happen.

I know you have a personal animus with Flow, and that's unfortunate, but it's the option available if you think talk pages don't work well (with which I would agree). Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

It's just about an editor, the difference between a plain text editor and a wysiwyg editor. There shouldn't be any big difference between editing a text on either the front or the back side of any page. A talk page is as well nothing much different to any other content page, only the content is a bit different.

It's like the difference between old fashioned WordPerfect and the wysiwyg version of the same program. Some prefer the classic mode, some the ve, but the resulting page is just the same. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 16:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Why was this definitely not solved question closed?

Your answer was just a straw man, not a real one. It's everything but closed. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 17:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see a question in your response, just implicit accusations of bad faith and incompetence. :-) If you could re-write one that'd be great, otherwise there's nothing more to say. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Why isn't the VE running on talk pages?

VE is a text editor, and thus should be fully capable of editing on any page, at least simple talk pages. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 18:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

VE is a text editor,

As I explained, this is not true. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

To just quote the first sentence from the other side:

The VisualEditor project aims to create a reliable rich-text editor for MediaWiki.

So why do I have the impression, that either the other side is plain wrong or your "argument" is just a straw man? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 18:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The visual editor cannot (abuse HTML definition list formatting to) fake the indentation of paragraphs. Therefore, you are likely to find using it in a talk-page discussion to be frustrating at this time. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

...yet.

An editor that's capable of editing tables, using templates, setting references etc.pp. is incapable of abusing colons for indentation? Should I really believe this?

Why do I think of a nice idea to push the software pet project that's not as much liked by the community as by the WMFers? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 16:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you may have to wait until phab:T6521 is resolved.

BTW, there are a few wikis that have the visual editor enabled in the Project: namespace, and which also have some discussions in that namespace (e.g., https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat ), and we hear complaints about problems on those pages. I don't think that it would be a good idea to expand the use of the visual editor on such pages at this time. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You insist without any real merit, that a wikipage is not the same as a wikipage. In principle all wikipages behave in absolutely the same manner, they were edited with exactly the same editor up to some time ago, when you a) tried to get so-called structured discussions, first with Liquid Threads, something that failed, now with a bit different layout system Flow, something that as well is stuck in limbo. But if you discount these, the article page uses the same syntax as the talk page, the user page uses exactly the same syntax as the talk page, with one of two available editors the can be edited in exactly the same way as everything else in the wikiverse. With the other one, the VE, you claim that these exactly same pages are magically somehow different, and one of them can't be edited in a wysiwyg-way.

BTW: Using colons to indent, instead of some software hack created by those many devs paid by content creators and talk page users, is frustrating as well, but you choose to ignore this for quite some time and preferred to create shiny new bling instead of boring maintenance. That's at the core of this, not the proclaimed, but not existing, differences between those pages. And the phab is just a strawman as well, if you mange to get templates programmed somehow, the indentation problem should be non-existing. Unles you deliberately choose not to do something about it, to keep this strawman alive. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 15:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. Does "support VisualEditor on talk pages" have an associated Phabricator Maniphest task?

I tend to agree with Sänger, though I'd perhaps phrase it this way: VisualEditor should work with all regular (non-Special) wiki pages. This includes user pages, talk pages, portal pages, pages in the MediaWiki namespace, etc. It's an extensible editor that we've already installed and committed to supporting. We've seen time and again that the arbitrary distinction put up between VisualEditor support by namespace is confusing and annoying to users.

I think there are talks about unifying the wikitext and VisualEditor editors. Eliminating or masking the difference between the two or more editors that we have may somewhat neatly resolve this issue. MZMcBride (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

To see the result of these "talks", go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and enable the "new wikitext mode" beta feature.

NB that it's not really about "unifying the [old] wikitext and VisualEditor editors". This will not merge the code for EditPage.php or Extension:WikiEditor with Extension:VisualEditor. The only thing that's being unified is the user experience, i.e., the user gets VisualEditor's black-and-white toolbar and VisualEditor's built-in tools (such as pasting a URL to a Wikipedia page and getting an internal wikilink instead of an external link) everywhere. There will still not be any visual mode on the talk pages. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

And there is still no believable reason given, why a wikipage is not a wikipage. It's just futile justification lyricism for not wanting to do anything against Flow. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 18:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Short update:

In the current Community Tech survey the VE is used in discussions, so the whole "argument" with the non-suitability was proven as a straw-man by the WMF on one of its own pages, yet they still insist that a wikipage is not a wikipage.

See this archived proposal as an example (and as another attempt to stifle any discussion about VE on talkpages for pure political reasons). Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 12:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This seems like something that really should be reopened now that previous proposals for a complete talk page overhall have been left behind. Talk pages are wikitext, it seems silly to arbitrarily disable the visualeditor, when so many users use it successfully to edit pages. It's actually more difficult to edit talk pages than the articles themeselves now, because on in articlespace you have a pretty functional and usable WYSIWYG editor for any and all purposes, whereas on the talk pages you either have to use the "reply tool", which is a kind of crippled visualeditor that works well-enough-ish most of the time to post new comments (but you're screwed if you want to edit or fix a mistake/formatting once you've posted your reply), or edit the wikitext directly. The pages are literally wiki pages! It seems bizarre not to let users interact with them the same way as any other page on the wiki... 90.255.97.94 (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

the link mr Sänger posted above is dead now, a bit of rooting around and I found it, here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2017/Archive#Release_VE_on_Talk_pages 90.255.97.94 (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

All this drama about talk pages is all a bit before my time being a regular contributor to wikipedia so has somewhat gone past me, but looking at it in retrospect, copying and pasting from the structured discussion FAQ here, I think I have figured out the reason this was never done:

Instead or in parallel of Structured Discussions, will VisualEditor be enabled on talk pages?

No. This question comes up quite often.

• VisualEditor (VE) is designed to edit content, plain pages of text.
  • Talk pages aren't encyclopedic content. Many of the tools and design patterns that make VE nice to use to edit content make it poor to use for discussions.
  • To make it usable for discussions, we would have to remove or break many of those patterns in VE.
• Traditional talk page discussions often appear fairly well-structured through the use of section headers, indentation and the like. However, this kind of structure cannot be parsed by software to determine with certainty who has replied to whom.
  • In Structured Discussions, each post is independent with a unique ID, linked to other posts and to a Topic (also with a unique ID), with a specific history, and all posts can be targeted precisely. It would be possible in the future to have conversations at multiple places, to move topics or replies, and to create sub-discussions with Structured Discussions. Classical talk pages, using VE or not, do not currently have that feature, and adding it might prove cumbersome.

That is to say, it was deemed counter to the goal of implementing the real reform they wanted to implement, to move away from wikitext pages altogether (because wikitext pages cannot be "parsed" properly as discussion threads)

and, of course, that may all be true, but... this project was essentially abandoned in the end right? And they decided to stick with wikitext talk pages? So, not weighing in on whether that was a good or bad decision (I personally couldn't care less lol), with the decision to stick with essentially "normal wiki pages" as the format talk pages are written in having been decided, surely there's no longer any reason not to just enable the (already perfectly adequate) WYSIWYG editor on talk pages? It seems all of the animus behind not doing so has long since evaporated now, no? After all, there is no plan to replace the wikitext talk pages with a format that meets the requirements cited as the reason for not enabling visualeditor anymore... 90.255.97.94 (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Why are the namings of the tabs slightly misleading?

The edit tabs are named Edit and Edit Source, that's a bit misleading.

a) Source would be HTML, not wikitext and wikisyntax, so people with some experience would expect the normal editor with edit, ansd something like a real HTML editor with the tagging source b) It's biased towards a certain editor, that is declared normal instead of the other one, while in reality the other one is the normal one (not The Normal One), at least for the wikiverse, and the new kid on the block is not normal yet. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 20:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

1. The wikitext markup language is every bit as much "source code" as the Hyper Text Markup Language. In some languages, translators have chosen the equivalent of "Edit wikicode", which is clearer to experienced editors, more confusing to inexperienced editors, and neatly avoids the question of whether any markup language is properly "source code". If you prefer that approach, then you can easily change the label at all wikis in your global.css file.
2. User testing indicates that "the editing environment that works like my word processor, e-mail app, and almost everything else that I do on the internet" is indeed considered "the normal one" by new and inexperienced editors. From the in-universe perspective of experienced editors, the wikitext editor is certainly "normal" (in the statistical sense of being what they use most frequently), but labeling buttons from an in-universe perspective is not good practice. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I have never found out, how to enter a Fragment identifier in VE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How do I add a Fragment En:Fragment identifier Identifier in VisualEditor? I have never found out, how to do it. ° (Gradzeichen) 05:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you are not talking about adding a Fragment Identifier to a URL (because that only requires to type or paste the related bit after the existing link, in the link tool), making a link to a specific internal page's section is currently broken per https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T112898 (which luckily is marked as High priority now). HTH and answers your question. Elitre (WMF) (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disabling cache causing VE to not work

I have disabled Memcache and set CACHE_NONE, VE is not able connect to Parsoid anymore. Re-enabling cache is solving the problem.

Ho to solve that please ? Any advice will help, thank you Divinorum ari (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Can't run VisualEditor y my wiki

Hello Can any body take care about the ticket I've already open at :

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37783317/trouble-with-visualeditor-in-mediawiki

the question is that I can see VisualEditor running in my wiki with the configuration I've describe, I do not

Know what is the problem.

Thanks in advanced. 217.12.16.56 (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I still have the trouble , you can see in the link, any help?, thansk. 217.12.16.56 (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you running "matching" versions of MediaWiki, VisualEditor, and Parsoid? Your note on Stack Overflow said that you're running MediaWiki 1.26.2 but did not (AFAICS) mention the version numbers for the extensions. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm running mediawiki version 1.27.0;

the visual editor I've downloaded from the visualeditor page form mediawiki with:

cd extensions git clone https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/p/mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor.git cd VisualEditor git submodule update --init 217.12.16.56 (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking I am not using the correct version of parsoid, nodejs and VisualEditor with work right all together with de mediawiki 1.27.0 version.

Any help?, thank you very much 217.12.16.56 (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I would apreciate if any body can give me the links and the correct protocol to dwonload and install the correct version of parsoid, nodejs and VisualEditor for mediawiki 1.27.0, thanks in advanced. 217.12.16.56 (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to install the software myself. If we're lucky, someone else will be able to help us. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at the documentation, and this might be what you want:

Special:ExtensionDistributor/Parsoid

Special:ExtensionDistributor/VisualEditor

http://nodejs.org Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid this wiki documentation or wiki does not show the correct protocol to install the visual editor, I've spent a lot of time trying without result, I'm thinking about change the product for a wiki, does not give me the correspondent support or help.

the documentation of this wiki is so rolled that is imposible to configure this extension, is not clear at all, apart of that I think there woul be a wiki page describing the complete protocol to install the 3 products , nodejs with the correct version of each SO, the correct version of parsoid for each SO and nodejs and mediawiki, and finally the correct version os visual Editor Extension. 217.12.16.56 (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it's so frustrating. As I said, I don't know how to do it myself. The WMF can't provide support to other people's wikis. Perhaps it'd be possible to find a consultant, or advice from a user group? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

What we need is a step by step install Wiki+VisualEditor/Parsoid for CentOS7 and Ubuntu. I am too spending a LOT of time trying to get it to work.

Nowhere does it say how and where to download the appropriate versions of MediaWiki/Parsoid (how is the pairing working, any list of versions that work?) 201.230.117.133 (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If you figure it out, then please feel free to start a doc page here.

I've heard that the versions of MediaWiki, VisualEditor, and Parsoid must all match (so if you do 1.27 for one, then you have to do 1.27 for all three of them). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I realize this is an ancient thread, but FWIW, having just installed mediawiki (about an hour including server setup, config, security, etc.) and parsoid (about a week and still slews of errors), for the record it's still non-trivial and I think anyone who can offer consulting services to people trying to set this up would make a mint.

Could be wrong, but it seems that in it's current state, Parsoid/VisualEditor setup really changes the equation as to which wiki people will use drastically and unexpectedly. Richbodo2 (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Insert citations

Related Phab task at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T139152 .

Hi,

Sorry if it is not the right place for this suggestion. During Wikimania 2016 we discussed about links between Wiktionary and Wikisource, and we reach a solution to tide them up. Well, in VisualEditor it is already possible to include media from Commons. So, may it be possible to include similarly Sentences from Wikiquote or Wikisource? I mean: you click on Insert citations put a word and tick languages and it request x project to give sentences that include the requested word.

It may be of some use for Wikipedia, but very useful for Wiktionary as definition came with attestation. If this tool can also format the references, it may permit to insert a sentence that contain a specific word in less than a second! Such an improvement!

I have no idea on how difficult it can be to develop that, but there is a need for it, and we can organize a vote to prove that if needed. I'll be happy to explain more precisely if my English is too cryptic, so feel free to react in any way. Noé (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Noé, thanks for this note. I think I understand your goal. There may be more than one way to get example sentences.

I'm going to pass this idea along to User:Trizek (WMF). He knows more about Wiktionary than I do. I think he will also be interested in your idea. So, please feel free to post in French. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I know about Wiktionary thanks to Noé. :)

Insert Images is easy: you have one image and identified meta-data attached to (good job, dear Commonists).

If you want to pick a precise citation, that's not the case for Wiktionary or Wikisource. I think it will be much more complicated.

This said, please post your idea in details in French. Automated translation is pretty accurate. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

L'idée en français alors. Actuellement, en cliquant sur "Insérer" dans l’Éditeur Visuel, il apparaît une liste d'options dont "Média" qui va rechercher sur Commons. La façon dont je vois les choses serait d'ajouter une option "Citations" qui ouvre une fenêtre de requête permettant d'interroger Wikisource et Wikinews, dans les versions linguistiques choisies. La requête sortirait des phrases contenant le mot cible, délimitées par des points (détectés automatiquement), et mettant en gras le mot clé. Il suffirait ensuite de cocher les citations adéquates puis de valider pour qu'elles s'insèrent avec la source bien formatée (modèle source sur le Wiktionnaire francophone). De cette manière, il serait plus simple de citer des projets libres que d'aller piocher sur Google Books...ce qui est la pratique actuelle. Je ne sais pas comment des développeurs pourraient faire ça, mais ça serait génial :) Noé (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I never thought about this, and yet it makes so much sense. I put it at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T139152, which can be improved if I misunderstood something. I think we should also ask the Search guys. Looks like a clever idea though. Elitre (WMF) (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Comme je disais en anglais, cela est facile à faire pour les images, car celles-ci sont uniques : une page = une image. Les méta-données qui y sont attachées sont facilement trouvables.

Pour des contenus textuels, c'est bien moins évident : ce sont des blocs de texte, dans lesquels il faut trouver telle ou telle phrase en fonction d'un contexte ou d'un auteur... C'est très difficile à mettre en place.

Je vais faire remonter l'idée. Aurais-tu quelques exemples concrets ? Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Je réalise bien la différence, et entends que ça puisse être très difficile, mais parfois, il suffit de bien exprimer les problèmes les plus complexes pour que des solutions émergent. Et puis, il se trouvera peut-être quelqu'un qui piochera ce sujet lors d'un prochain hackathon, ça n'a pas forcément vocation a être développé par des employés de la Fondation. Il y a une fonction un peu comme ça dans Linguee, un outil en ligne que j'aime bien. Ça marche plus ou moins bien, mais ça fait le taf en général. Par exemple : http://www.linguee.fr/francais-anglais/traduction/%C3%AAtre+moteur+dans.html

Sorry to write in French. Trizek wrote he considers this operation very complex and I assure I got it. I imagine describing properly a problem may help to solve it at some point. And maybe there will be someone that may like this challenge at the next Hackathon. As an example of this kind of feature, I can mention Linguee: http://www.linguee.fr/francais-anglais/traduction/%C3%AAtre+moteur+dans.html Noé (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You do not need to apologize for writing in French here. Mediawiki.org is not an English-only project. You are welcome to post in French. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

(Mes collègues ont accès aux outils de traduction automatique qui transcrivent très bien le français :))

Linguee est un sacré projet, que j'utilise tous les jours (je l'avoue). J'ai du mal à voir le lien entre Linguee et l'idée proposée : Linguee cherche des relations entre phrases ayant le même sens. Tu souhaites avoir un outil de citations qui va chercher des éléments suivant un conteste général. Or, il y a une différence entre chercher la traduction de « Napoléon est mort à Sainte-Hélène » et chercher les citations qui se rapportent à son décès.

Peux-tu préciser ton exemple ? Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I think he's just trying to show how he imagines the feature to be like, a search bar + snippets of results that you can choose from. I believe this is eventually about interwiki search, which is directly related to Goal 2, Objective 2 for Discovery this year: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2016-2017/Final#Program_2:_Maintain_and_improve_content_discovery . Elitre (WMF) (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

En fait, ce qui intéresse le Wiktionnaire, c'est d'avoir des attestations avec une orthographe identique. Chaque variation orthographique a droit à son entrée, et la requête serait donc uniquement sur une chaîne de caractère, sans prise en compte de la sémantique. C'est à dire que l'on ne recherche pas la définition de "pomme" mais seulement des phrases dans lesquelles il y aurait le mot "pomme" (et nous n'aurions pas "pommier" car nous n'en voulons pas). Est-ce que tu voyais autre chose ? Noé (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Je ne voyais pas grand chose :)

Elitre has raised an interesting possibility to work on that, with the Discovery team. @CKoerner (WMF) may be interested by that idea of having a way to quote citations from somewhere (search occurencies of "apple" to illustrate the Wiktionary with examples of sentences where "apple" is used). Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Bonjour,

Intéressé et concerné, je me permet de laisser un message.

Du point de vue technique, il me semble que cela se découpe ainsi :

• recherche du mot dans Wikisource
• découpage de la phrase (ou la partie de la phrase)
• insertion dans le Wiktionnaire
• insertion des données bibliographiques

Le premier point me semble trivial.

Le second est déjà un peu plus compliqué (comment savoir où couper ? quelle section de la phrase est pertinente et fait sens ?) mais cela ne me semble pas insurmontable (Linguee le fait bien : pas de problèmes pour les phrases courtes qui sont les plus courantes).

Le troisième point dépend de ce que l'on attend ; une solution simple serait de faire un copier-coller, non ? Une véritable transclusion serait bien trop compliqué (nécessiterait de faire comme des Labeled Section Transclusion) et ne correspond pas au besoin.

J'avoue mon ignorance sur la complexité technique précise du quatrième point ; lesdites informations bibliographiques sont en cours de migration vers Wikidata mais un chantier délicat et un peu complexe (difficile à complètement automatiser, on a passé 2 jours à réfléchir à la question pendant Wikimania ; en gros, on a conclu qu'il valait mieux le faire doucement mais surement). VIGNERON (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Bonjour,

Merci Vigneron, et d'accord avec toi dans l'ensemble. Copier-coller une phrase est suffisant, pas besoin de transclusion. Idéalement, le Wiktionnaire francophone met en italique toute la phrase et en gras le mot vedette, mais chaque langue a un choix de mise en forme différent et il faudrait envisager des aménagements locaux. Pour les sources, l'ordre est éventuellement différent selon les langues, et ce ne sera peut-être pas si trivial. Dans fr.wikt nous les mettons dans un modèle source. Noé (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Donc avoir un moyen de mettre en avant le mot (surbrillance) dans un ensemble de phrases serait l'idée ? Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Oui. Je n'avais pas vu la question avant, désolé. En réfléchissant à cette idée à nouveau, j'ai réalisé qu'il s'agissait simplement d'interroger une base textuelle de la même manière qu'avec le moteur de recherche standard, avec les différences pointées par Vigneron. Je mentionnais Linguee pour l'aspect visuel, la mise en avant de ce que l'on recherche. Pour les sources, j'imagine que ça ne sera pas forcément évident de récupérer le numéro de page. Noé (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Ce que l'on voudrait, c'est de pouvoir chercher dans Wikidata et Wikisource les occurrences des mots qu'on veut trouver, et puis de selectionner les phrases pertinentes (qui contiennent le mot cible) pour les incorporer dans l'entrée sur Wiktionnaire/Wiktionary. Dans l'entrée, on aimerait que le mot vedette soit en gras et que les données bibliographiques soient incluses dans la bonne ordre. Si c'est possible, il serait encore mieux d'insérer toutes ces données ainsi que le texte exemplaire dans une modèle, mais il suffirait peut-être de les copier-coller à peu près comme l'exemple suivant :

date de publication=date

auteur=nom de famille, prénom

titre=titre

lien vers la source=lien

ISBN=ISBN (s'il y en a un)

(d'autres renseignements pertinents)

texte=texte avec le mot vedette en gras

Désolé d'avoir écrit en français même si ma langue maternelle est l'anglais, mais je n'ai que rarement l'opportunité de l'écrire et j'aime pratiquer quand je peux. :) J'espère que tout est compréhensible. Sinon, je peux m'expliquer en anglais....

Et Noé, c'est une idée fantastique, en passant. :) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

m:User:CKoerner (WMF)/Interwiki Searches is relevant IMHO. Elitre (WMF) (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

To follow on from @ VIGNERON

The Wikisources currently utilise Extension:Labeled Section Transclusion to mark a printed page into sections, which then enables the sections to be transcluded internally within our wikis. I could see that the ability to mark a section of text is of interest to a wiktionary, and may have some conceptual interest for citations. Consider if we had the ability to easily markup text with a section, and apply a distinctive label that identifies that it is a citation, the word, the language, then probably to the wikidata equivalent or hardlink to the wiki/word

Then whether the section component could be either transcluded or bot-generated extraction. It is at least in a state to be useful.

Notes:

• the ability to xwiki transclude has been long mentioned (there may be ye olde phabricator tickets), and never gained priority, so I see that the proof of concept can be of importance and useful, if that is the avenue that may be worth exploring
• adding multiple sections to Wikisource works would not be problematic as long as we design a schema for unique or non-clashing nomenclature
• one advantage of our section markup is that it also allows for overlapping sections (uniquely label both start and end tags)
• transcluded pages in the Wikisources have page numbering as anchors, and that with these works being (well getting there) in Wikidata, that there is good scope for good citation, with that improving over time as edition data improves.
• I know that I have found numbers of words in our older texts that have not been within the English Wiktionary, and have added them, though often without citation as the learning curve is steep for an occasional user, so any tool that could make that easier would definitely be beneficial
• there would be hundreds or thousands of existing uses of the wikt: interwiki within works that could be queried — billinghurst sDrewth 09:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete search images insert media

How exactly does search for images work for dialog at Insert > Media?

I found out it only searches for whole words. But beyond that, sometimes images are not found while they exist in the wiki. For example, a document called "File:Test ONE two three.pdf", will be found if searching for "test", "one" or "two", but not if searching for "three". Where it will be found if searching for "three.pdf". Waanders (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It uses the search engine for that wiki; it should be identical to the results of typing into the search box on Special:Search. For Wikimedia wikis, this means CirrusSearch. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about the "Single Edit Tab" feature

Hello. When will the "Single Edit Tab" feature come to Wikibookses ? Guycn2 (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything planned ATM. Are you aware of a specific Wikibooks which really wants it? Elitre (WMF) (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

What a shame... I would personally want it on the Hebrew Wikibooks, but I'm not sure the community supports it...

Is there any plan to enable this feature on Wikipedias? (I mean on all Wikipedias, not just ones that ask for it particularly like the Hungarian Wikipedia) Guycn2 (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The team is re-thinking the system for this feature. I don't know when they'll update it next, but they're not currently planning to deploy it to any place that already has the visual editor for all users until they've decided whether it needs to be refined. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

EmbedVideo

Hello, did anybody succefully integrate VisualEditor with any video player plugin? I tried EmbedVideo, but it nor show thumbnail in editor, nor allow to enter resolution for video, though allows to insert mediafile into page. Fidoman (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Not yet, sorry. The one used in Wikimedia production is Extension:TimedMediaHandler, which we will work on ahead of others' working I imagine, but it doesn't integrate neatly yet. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Parsoid crashes when processing articles with codeblocks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, folks! When I create an article in our private wiki with more then four codeblocks, save it and try to edit later, those codeblocks aren't appear in editor. And when I close the editor, page freezes for about a minute then pass. But if I try to launch editor on this page again it crashes with error "HTTP 0" on parsoid logs I see this:

[warning][testwiki/Тестовая_страница] non-200 response: 504 <html>
<head><title>504 Gateway Time-out</title></head>
<body bgcolor="white">
<center><h1>504 Gateway Time-out</h1></center>
<hr><center>nginx/1.6.2</center>
</body>
</html>
[error][testwiki/Тестовая_страница] Batch request failure for "f1c423e85011b3500256b9b5e736d7a0": 504
Error: Batch request failure for "f1c423e85011b3500256b9b5e736d7a0": 504
at BatchRequest.ApiRequest._requestCB (/usr/lib/parsoid/src/lib/mw/ApiRequest.js:421:11)
at Request.self.callback (/usr/lib/parsoid/node_modules/request/request.js:198:22)
at Request.emit (events.js:98:17)
at Request.<anonymous> (/usr/lib/parsoid/node_modules/request/request.js:1063:14)
at Request.emit (events.js:117:20)
at IncomingMessage.<anonymous> (/usr/lib/parsoid/node_modules/request/request.js:1009:12)
at IncomingMessage.emit (events.js:117:20)
at _stream_readable.js:929:16
at process._tickCallback (node.js:419:13)
[warning][testwiki/Тестовая_страница] non-200 response: 504 <html>
<head><title>504 Gateway Time-out</title></head>
<body bgcolor="white">
<center><h1>504 Gateway Time-out</h1></center>
<hr><center>nginx/1.6.2</center>
</body>
</html>

Somebody encountered the same problem? Please help, this error completely defeats the purpose of our wiki. Satttarov (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@SSastry (WMF), have you seen anything like this before? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen this before ... but, can you paste the contents of that page for us to inspect? Looks like mediawiki is not able to provide information back to Parsoid ... either it is taking too long and timing out, or there is some other error that is causing this on the mediawiki end. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of testing I'm using these blocks. It doesn't matter what those blocks contain, if there is more than four blocks, Parsoid hangs as I described before.

<syntaxhighlight lang="bash">

test </syntaxhighlight>

Thanks in advance. Satttarov (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

At first glance, that looks like a deadlock.

Do things get worse when you remove batching?

parsoidConfig.useBatchAPI = false;

Is this specific to the syntaxhighlight extension? What if you tried with <source>? Arlolra (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, <source> wasn't a good test case. I wanted an extension tag not provided by the same extension. Try <gallery>. Arlolra (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This is being fixed in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T151130 Arlolra (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Enter key

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I use both the WikiMarkup editor and the VisualEditor all the time, I was edit a project page for a while, and when I went to a article to make a small grammar fix, I noticed something, whenever you are finished editing, after you type in the edit summary, the enter key doesn't save the edit. What I'm saying is that I wish the enter key would work for at least the major Wikipedias in the VisualEditor some time soon. I don't know how hard this will take, but I hope it isn't too long to integrate. JJBers Public (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong area, whoops! JJBers Public (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Excluding Sections / Text From VE

Hi,

We have now got VE up and running (on Mediawiki 1.27) but have some complex InfoBoxes that just don't look too good in VE. There is no requirement for my users to change these in VE as we use SMW properties and forms to control all Infooxes. Is there any way I can exclude portions of text or even sections from VisualEditor on a given page when VE is launched via the Edit button.

Any help appreciated. 46.208.54.22 (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension%20talk%3AVisualEditor/2014#h-Behavior_switch_NOVISUALEDITOR-2014-02-14T12%3A30%3A00.000Z Felipe (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Looks like we are out of luck. The __NOVISUALEDITOR__ seemed like a really good idea for full page VE disablement. To be honest I was hoping for one better and was hoping there was going to be <novisualeditor> </novisualeditor> set of tags, similar to the tag in concept. I will mention to the SMW team to see if they have any ideas. Once again thanks.

Regards,

Mark 46.208.54.22 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)