VisualEditor/Feedback

Post your feedback about using the visual editor.

If you have never provided feedback before, you can learn how to do it effectively. 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 feedback tool within the visual editor will include your user agent details instead.

You can use this page to tell the Wikimedia developers your ideas and issues about using the visual editor: this is the only feedback page actively monitored by WMF staff. The Contributors 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: the team will try and go through reports here at least once a week. Need more attention? Report directly in Phabricator. Please note that the Wikimedia Foundation does not provide support for installing VisualEditor on third-party wikis. Please report bugs involving Parsoid at Talk:Parsoid instead.

You may also want to read a guide to optimize the visual editor's experience on your site, which details work necessary on the community side (such as translating or setting up citation systems).

View open developer tasks – Report a new bug in Phabricator – Join the IRC channel – Test the visual editor! (no account required)

Previous page history was archived for backup purposes at VisualEditor/Feedback/LQT Archive 1 on 2015-07-30.

Agent utilisateur : Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/81.0.4044.138 Safari/537.36

URL : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azay-le-Rideau

Le tableau de la liste des maires a fusionné sans raison avec le reste de la page. Comment faire pour rétablir les infos normalement ?

@3family6 posted feedback at . See there for details.

It it appears to be a bug. I'm about to step out for a while, if someone gets to it before me, can they check Phab to see if there's an existing ticket?

User Dhsert has left feedback at .

The webserver is blocking me from choosing an edit summary in Custody_of_Strangers

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/81.0.4044.138 Safari/537.36

URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_the_Custody_of_Strangers&section=new&veaction=editsource

The webserver is blocking me from choosing an edit summary Custody_of_Strangers.

Dhsert (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC

I have also made a note at Talk:Talk pages project/New discussion#Edit summaries.

I have posted a question for the en-wp community at .

(In case you're like me and the interwiki link doesn't render for you, that's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#VE_and_NWE_feedback_page )

The feedback option (from the ? button) of both VE and (2017) New Wikitext Editor leads to "Visual Editor feedback". Is this intended? I gather the same team looks after both. If so, should the description for this board be modified slightly to reflect that?

E.g. “Post your feedback about using the visual editor, including the 2017 wikitext editor.”

Agente de utilizador: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_4) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/81.0.4044.138 Safari/537.36

Aparece este erro ao inserir uma foto na página abaixo: Cross-wiki upload filter

URL: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leontina_Acorinti_Trentin?veaction=edit

Does VE munge white space under certain circumstances? I wouldn't mind if VE eats two spaces to make one space inside sentences for example, or chops useless trailing blanks and that sort of thing. But if VE is responsible for the white-space changes in these two edits (and I'm not at all sure that it is), then that's annoying. w:User:Haywalk is trying to make one small change to one line in an Infobox at w:Kingdom of France and tried twice to do so, but the result was 424 bytes changed in 48 lines. Related discussion can be found here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Mathglot,

Yes, you're right, that's not Haywalk's fault. The software doesn't "change" something inside a template. Instead, it "removes" the old template and "inserts" a complete new version of the template. When it inserts a template, it follows the directions given in the template's /doc page about how to format it.

It is a bit annoying (especially if the infobox formatting rules get changed), and unfortunately I don't have any reason to hope that it will stop doing this during the foreseeable future.

Oh hi, I didn't see your post until after I posted. Regarding: I don't have any reason to hope that it will stop doing this during the foreseeable future.

You are a liaison, right? Perhaps you you tell them that not-fixing this bug is a disruptive time-sink on the community, and that Foundation-staff time is just going to get wasted dealing with an endless stream of independent duplicate bug reports?

I believe this issue is Phabricator T179259. They did this deliberately. Somehow they think it's a good idea. They made changes to Visual Editor such that it edit wars the format of existing template parameters.

• Complaints have continue to come in in various places for the last two and a half years, and will continue to come in endlessly until this is fixed
• for every report that comes in there surely thousands more editors repeatedly disrupted by it
• editors are blaming and stressing each other over these edits
• it is disrupting our edit filters

This bug is clearly wasting an excessive amount of community time, orders of magnitude more time than it would take to fix, but staff don't want to bother fixing it.

I invite/suggest you post in Phabricator T179259. Perhaps eventually they will realize that explaining they don't want to fix it consumes more of their time than simply fixing it.

P.S. I count a crazy 74 lines changed in this diff, which should have been a 1 line change. More than one and a half times the 48 you reported.

Alsee, thanks for the updated count; that is indeed crazy.

Whatamidoing, we all run into software glitches from time to time. When we do, we report the problem, look for a workaround that will work in the meantime, and execute it, perhaps at the cost of some increased time and/or effort. That is normal and acceptable; nobody expects software to be perfect. But what is the workaround here, for a VE user who isn't familiar with wikitext? I don't see one.

It seems to me that one aspect of this bug (or is it by design?) is that it drafts wikitext editors into involuntary servitude as housekeepers to sweep up after the actions of good-faith VE editors trying to improve the article, who are thwarted by the actions of a tool through no fault of their own, and who are prevented from carrying out a workaround by the tool. To me, this is the greater problem.

I'd rather be working on improving the encyclopedia in some interest area of mine, and no doubt User:Haywalk would, as well; but instead, we're both trying to deal with this now. As Alsee pointed out, it's a drain on numerous editors. #VEwhitespaceMunge Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The example here shows a template that has been incorrectly configured in the TemplateData to use a fixed number of spaces. TemplateData allows users to keep values and parameters aligned in block templates, it just needs to be configured correctly, see Help:TemplateData#Custom formats.

The TemplateData in question that needs to be fixed: Template:Infobox_country/doc#TemplateData

@ESanders (WMF) your answer has been suggested previously. It is not effective in resolving the issue. There is no value we can place in TemplateData to fix the general problem.

Desired behavior:

• Put simply: If the VE-user didn't change something, VE shouldn't change it either. A typo fix or other trivial change should result in a 1 line diff, not a 78 line diff.
• Attempting to be formal and precise: VE should apply TemplateData when a template is originally inserted. It should apply TemplateData formatting to an individual field when the user introduces a new field. When the user blanks a field, VE should use TemplateData to decide whether to delete that field or retain it as present&blank. Modified and unmodified existing fields should not be reformatted - it is both unnecessary and a problem.

Why this matters:

1. Needlessly massive diffs are burdensome on the editing community. Individual occurrences may "merely" be a nuisance, but in the aggregate they outweigh the cost of fixing it by orders of magnitude.
2. Massive diffs with little or no apparent purpose are often reverted. We lose potentially useful content, and reverts are a known primary reason new users quit and never return.
3. Editors who are unaware that VE is responsible may blame the VE-user for the disruption. This may cause talk page arguments which is a cost in itself, with the potentially permanent result that the VE user may leave and never return.
4. Editors may attempt to reverse the unwanted changes. VE then engages in unrelenting edit warring any time someone comes along and innocently tries to use VE on that template.
5. It's a thorn that keeps jabbing us. The above issues often have an undesirable side effect of generating ill-will against VE and/or against the Foundation. You really do want to fix this, if only for this reason.

ESanders, I have to agree with what Alsee says. I try mightily to avoid the blaming in #3, and tried to go out of my way to point out to User:Haywalk that it wasn't their fault. Still, it's a natural, human reaction (#5) to resent the interruption, and the mopping-up effort required, not to mention the back-and-forth required just to deal with it, for example, at this Wikipedia talk page discussion recently irks. Mathglot (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I would also add another bullet to Alsee's "Why this matters", namely:

        6. Wikipedia editors are responsible for all their edits.

Even when using a bot, whether user-assisted or operating entirely autonomously, this is so:

• WP:BOTACC: The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator... . In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly.
• WP:BOTCONFIG: Bot operators... should bear in mind that they retain all responsibility for their bot account's edits.
• WP:AWB (top): Warning: You take full responsibility for any action you perform using AutoWikiBrowser.
• WP:AWBRULES: You are responsible for every edit made. (emphasis in original).

Is the standard for VE to be lower, than for using AWB or a bot? Is a VE user responsible for every edit, or not? Mathglot (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I hve created my 1st wikipedia page: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidades_patrimoniales_del_Union_Pacific. Its on spanish. How i can make it appear on the Wikipedia navigator?

@Ganímedes: ¿puedes tú ayudarme con esto?

Hi! I'm not sure what's the problem here. The article is in the main space, even when lack of categories and sources... I'm not sure what he meant with "make it appear on the Wikipedia navigator"...

Guessing he means how to get it translated to en-wiki, as his es-wiki article has no wikidata links (although you'd think that's covered in some en-wiki article somewhere, and if someone wants to research and link it, I'll bet that solves his problem). But I'll ask. Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

i am asking that

Hola Stefano, No comprendo lo que estás preguntando en inglés. Puedes repetirlo todo, a partir de zero, pero en castellano? Te lo traduzcaré, si necesario, en inglés. Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to know what "the Wikipedia navigator" is. Maybe post a link?

MediaWiki.org is a multi-lingual wiki. You may post in Spanish if that's faster for you.

Hi everyone. I think the portal page needs a screenshot, and I propose this one (of the VisualEditor being used to change the indentation level of a bulleted list) as the one to use, but I am hoping for better suggestions.

I know what VisualEditor does, and you know what VisualEditor does, but unless I am missing something, there does not currently exist a resource for everyone else which explains (in a picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words kind of way), "OK, but what does it do?"

Just a bit of background on that: I routinely try to pitch MediaWiki as a knowledge management platform for (non-computationally-focused) colleagues in research, and I would like to have something to point to to say "look, you don't have to write in wikitext!" However: VisualEditor has no screenshot, VisualEditor/Portal has no screenshot, and Extension:VisualEditor has no screenshot. There is an explanatory blog post on blog.mediawiki.org, which is referred to by one of the aforementioned, but that's from 2012, and I assume that much has changed since then.

Thank you.

c:Category:VisualEditor_GIFs are also old, but you might find some useful images there, too.

Table editing is a particular pain point in wikitext, so you might like this:

Oh, that's another good one, thanks!

Nice! Before I disappoint myself: this will still be possible for wikitext editors, by switching to VE mode to add the column, then switch back after it's added, right? Mathglot (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Show me both editor tabs

Suggest that new users have "Show me both editor tabs", by default. As they are new, would appear a floating bar with the message, for the first edits:

[ X ]

Change editing mode (your can easily come back, clicking in return).
You can close this bar (you can see it again in your go on editions) or turn off forever.

• How it works: if you are in your first edition and click in "Edit source" (Source / Code Editor), you can change to the visual editor, clicking in this floating bar in the word "Change"). Then, you can come back to the source editor clicking in the "return" button.
• And viceversa: if you are in your first edition and click in "Edit" (VisualEditor), you can change to the code editor, clicking in this floating bar in the word "Change"). Then, you can come back to the visual editor clicking in the "return" button.
• You can close this bar, clicking in the cross (X).
• Your can turn on this bar forever clicking in the "turn-off".
• From a certain number of edition times (i.e. 10 or whatever number elected by default) the bar is automatically turned-off forver.

Just an idea. -BoldLuis (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

New section

In VisualEditor would exist the option: Insert > New Section, if you go to the end of the section, bellow which you want to put the new one. --

Another way is using a floating element and put it in the place where the new section is going to be. Or simply, click in a button "New section" and click in the place of the text where the new section is going to be (then would appear a floating bar with the text. "Is it in the correct place?. [Yes] / [No]" (in any case, writting a text in the place would disappear this floating bar / message).

BoldLuis (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The Editing team did some user research when they were working on the VisualEditor/Single edit tab project, a few years ago. Brand-new editors are better off with a single "Edit" tab. (Otherwise, they look at the two options, and hesitate, and wonder which one is the correct tab.) Personally, I prefer two tabs, and I think many experienced editors do. Perhaps the best answer is to have one setting for new editors, and a different setting for experienced editors.

Strong Support. Experienced could mean a default number of editions. BoldLuis (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you are the first person to suggest the Insert > New Section idea. Why would you want that, instead of just typing the section heading and setting the formatting in the "Paragraph" menu?

Because I did not know before. I have discovered it with the use. I do not know if it appears in any Help: page. Perhaps the name in the "Format paragraph" could change to "Section" when it is the nowadays "Heading". More clear to me. And more easy for the newbie to find information in the "Wikipedia:" or "Help:" namespaces and in any place about what is "section" instead of the less intuitive name of "Heading". And more alarming: "Wow!! I must be careful, this can cut (=section) the page. Be aware!" ;-) BoldLuis (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)