When user clicks on the "Edit section" link (or whatever it was called), no matter is he making edits with VE in that or completely different section, in the edit summary is name of that section, for which user clicked the "Edit section" link. From what I have seen (can't give you statistics, of course) only few of edits were made in that particular section. So suggestion/question is: Maybe remove the section from edit summary (for cases, when page is edited with VE)?
About this discussion
If some user creats such link: [[some text]] and then wants to bold/italize it, the link becomes [[some text|''some text'']] (notice that link target and the text, that is shown, is the same), not ''[[some text]]''. Is there some good reason why it's done?
VisualEditor doesn't "think" in wikitext at all. This is done by Parsoid, whose sole purpose is to turn wikitext into HTML and back again.
The reason that Parsoid chooses to turn the HTML into that style of wikitext is because editors sometimes want to italicize part of the link label, rather than the whole thing. This: ''[[Link]]'' is the minimum number of characters for typing, but you still have to pipe the label if you want [[Link|''Long'' label]].
The options, then are:
- Always use the short form, and disallow mixed formatting on link labels (obviously unacceptable).
- Use the short form when you can, and use the long form when you can't (more complicated).
- Always use the long form (more characters in wikitext).
They chose the last option because it is more straightforward and efficient for Parsoid.
Problems with links
Hello! In the last days I have problems setting links with VE. After marking the word and activating the link tool, the dialogue for setting the link will not close and its not possible to continue editing with other tools (normal text editing is still possible, although the dialogue window is still open). Seems like the tool crashed. Only way to get out is to save and start editing again. But the changes are saved, as far as I have seen.
This is Great!
Convert specialized Cite to basic Cite ... and the other way around
Let's say that you have put in a Cite Web via VE. If you subsequently want to add (as you forgot to) a W:Template:self published-inline there does not appear to be a way to wrap the Cite Web in a 'basic' Cite (which I take to be akin to a simple <ref></ref> tag pair) so that the template can be included in the "ref" tags as recomended. Another example ... you see that a Cite Journal is to an open access manuscript, there is not a way to insert the W:Template:Open access after the cite journal template and before the </ref> tag.
In the opposite direction, someone has put in a basic cite which could/should be a Cite Web; there is apparently no way to convert the basic to the Cite Web type, or to take the content from the basic and insert it into a Cite Web template inside the basic implementation.
All in all this boils down to there being two representations of the <ref></ref> tag pair: one as a simple tag pair (basic) and one as inseparable from the citation template being used (any of the 5 template types currently supported). My thinking is that the simplest first thing to do might be to support conversion from a supported template type to a basic wrapping the template type (cite web implemented in the basic shell, for example); this would satisfy a substantial number of use cases and would essentially be a call to "make the ref tags visible" type of action - the ref tags represented by the basic shell. Conversion from basic to a supported type could be done using the algorithm used to interpret the template type to be assigned when using the generate-from-url-or-doi method ... but there are LOTS of potential problems there.
I freely grant that the workflow isn't exactly obvious (and consequently may change when Design Research finishes some more urgent work) and also that it's not currently documented. I've been sick for the last week, and one major effect is that I've been unable to get the user guide updated (in fact, the only reason I'm on mw.org at all tonight is to fix a formatting problem in it for someone else). So here are the steps:
Select the ref, but don't click the "Edit" button in the context menu. Instead, click the "Cite" button in the menu, choose the "Manual" tab, and then the "Basic" item in it. The selected ref will pop open in the Basic ref editor for you.
(And then, if you want, please take high-resolution screenshots of each step, showing off your favorite high-quality ref and additional template to add, upload them to Commons under both cat:Citoid and cat:VisualEditor, and drop the list of links at Help:VisualEditor/User guide/Citations-Full. Getting good screenshots made and uploaded is the first step in getting this documented.)
Thanks for reminding me about this.
@Whatamidoing (WMF): Hope you are feeling better. I've uploaded six screenshots, entitled "ConvertManualCiteToBasicCite_00#.png" (where # is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 8) to Commons and put them in the two categories you indicated. Hope these help with the documentation.
Autofill template date field with current month and year
I have been using the VisualEditor to add templates while editing and am very happy with how easy it is. One thing I noticed is that a lot of templates have a 'date' field which should be filled with the current month and year. For example, if I add the "refimprove" template to an article, I enter the current month and year into the 'date' field so that it can be prioritised correctly on the "refimprove" backlog. Is it possible to modify the functionality of the template insertion tool so that the 'date' field can be automatically filled with the current month and year? For example, opening the template insertion tool for the "refimprove" template could have the 'date' field already added with the current month and year. Thank you so much for the great tools you have been building. It has made my hobby of editing Wikipedia much more fun.
@Matt_Heard: This is a good idea. It is already implemented in the process of generating citations from URLs, where the accessdate parameter is auto-filled. I think there are a class of templates, among them refimprove, that would benefit from automated population of the date field. One question to the developers, though: would the autofill date be based on your personal time-zone setting or on the GMT standard used in time stamping edits? My thinking is that the GMT standard would be better, more consistent across editors -- so there you have a data-tangible benefit: increased consistency of date parameters.
This already exists. It is what I used to make this edit. You need to update the TemplateData to include "autovalues". I updated w:en:Template:Refimprove at en.wp since it was the one Matt mentioned. I'm not an admin, so I can’t make a null edit on the template; consequently, it will take a while to get that change through the job queue.
Thanks for the tip. Very helpful.
Has the changelog/Status reports page been abandoned? https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/changelog seems completely inactive since late May, yet VisualEditor still keeps adding changes to weekly updates.
Since the change summaries are cryptic on that log, will we be seeing a return of the simplified change summary?
Sorry, now being updated again.
NEW FEATURE: using Wikipedia for research
I suggest a link in the upper right hand corner that links to a page explaining how to get reliable information from WIKIPEDIA. On Wikipedia, moderators and editors try to maintain pages with footnotes citing sources to information (it's not always there, but we do our best). Students using Wikipedia do not really understand the value of the Wikipedia resource and how to use it. Wikipedia is like a clearing house for a wide range of ideas and concepts on a subject. Students can come to Wikipedia to get a broad conceptual range of what thoughts are on the subject, but they can not site Wikipedia, because it is not a first source. They need to follow the citations to find the first source on each idea they want to include in their research. We need to have a page that teaches people how to use Wikipedia for research.
In my mind, the best way to use Wikipedia for research is to come to Wikipedia to gather all the thinking on the subject. As you gather the pertinent points for your research, you need to note the sources associated with the items you read. For items you think might be true but that have no citation, you need to seek out sources. From that point, you have to go to the original sources for the actual data and research. Students do not understand how to use Wikipedia properly and it would be very helpful if we trained them. I suggest a link in the upper right hand corner titled HOW TO USE WIKIPEDIA FOR RESEARCH. This link would go to a page that trained them on best practices. While we would all strive for Wikipedia to be so reliable that it could be cited, Wikipedia is really and open source knowledge base. In a way, being an open source knowledge base makes it more amazing than other knowledge bases. No one controlles what can be included and we all participate. By training students on best practices for research we help them learn how to use Wikipedia and we preserve it as an open source knowledge base and strengthen its significance.
Thank you for your suggestion, even though it is not related to VisualEditor.
There is a link called "About Wikipedia" both at the very bottom of the page and also in the left-hand sidebar of most pages on most Wikipedias. That link takes you to a page that addresses the issues you are interested in.
bagaimana cara memberi warna pada table?
Visual Editor Save Page dialog Box
Hi there, When I click save changes in visual editor mode, the save page dialog box pops up with the summary textbox. When i click on the summary entry box or type anything, it selects my wikipage instead or type in my wikipage. Is there some function i have to turn on? or should i reinstall the visual editor?
Several of us seem to be having this issue, see the issue titled "Cannot enter change summary, field loses focus."
What OS/Browser are you using? Most of us with this issue seem to be running Windows/Google Chrome. I'd like to try replicating this issue again, but I've already downgraded my wiki back to 1.24.
I'm using Windows 7, Chrome 43.0.2357.130 m. MediaWiki 1.25.1 Looks like IE 11 seems to be working.
To my correction, Actually IE11 stops working after i refresh. That's weird. I guess it depends on luck?
Have you tried putting ""document.querySelector('input').focus()" into the console of the browser you're using? That seems like a very temporary fix for the problem, but it's still a giant hassle to have to do it every time to get it to focus.