Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor/Archive 3

Are there two feedback pages? That would be nice (1) new reader usage (2) experienced VisualEditor testers and bug report w/fixes.
I put the following section into the 'Feedback' article by following the top of the main page of Wikipedia— but I see this is another page of feedback.


 * It would be convenient to have everything organized, but people seem to put their views wherever they feel like. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Template
How do you remove or add templates with visual editor? Pass a Method  talk  10:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've learned the answer is "You can't". It's so cumbersome and complex that it's best if you use "edit source", and continue the old ways of doing things. VE is not "template friendly" at all. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is going to get a lot better; I've made clear the importance of it. But for the moment, I'd probably rely on source editing, yes. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Prepare yourself, User:Okeyes (WMF), prepare yourself.... doktorb wordsdeeds 10:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've actually found templates not to be that difficult. Mind you, functionality still needs improvement and some of it is non-intuitive, like susbtitution. But see VisualEditor/User guide for some screencaps. Apologies for the low value of some of those - I have very basic tech for image work. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem I have found (look in my contribs. at the Ynys Mon by-election), is the intuitive thing to do is click on the template and start editing. VE doesn't allow that. It calls on users to effectively memorise each and every line of template text, and that's hard enough with Windows 7 never mind without it. If you follow the second link in my note above, you'll see an even more complex template which VE simply can't handle. I'm not here raising pitchforks, User:Mdennis (WMF), just noting that at the moment you finding templates not that difficult is very much the exception! doktorb wordsdeeds 15:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's possibly because I haven't used them for anything really complex yet - not more than a couple of parameters. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah ha! Then I fear you may make like Enya and sail away, sail away, sail away when you see what we Brits have coming up in a few months time.... doktorb wordsdeeds 16:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yikes! I suspect I'd sail right away to the "edit source" tab. :D (I'd enjoy the soundtrack, though.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates are edited with that puzzle-shaped icon. If/when someone has put the TemplateData in for your template, then you won't need to remember everything.  Instead, it will give you a list of all the options.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Invisible comments
Another bug or limitation: I have found that invisible comments are not visible when using the new editor. I suppose that was inevitable, since it is WYSIWYG, but are we simply abandoning that functionality? --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) According to this, no, but it's something they plan to work on after this wider beta release. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the plan is to switch all IP editors to VE before this functionality is added to VE? Because if that's the sequence, then a huge amount of the value of hidden comments (telling editors what they should or should not do, in specific circumstances) is gone. I really, really hope that this - and other problematical functionality - gets fixed before IP editors start using VE; IP editors are not needed to help identify problems (the stated reason for making VE the default for logged-in editors. (In other words, I hope "wider beta release" isn't another way of saying "full production implementation".) -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 03:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, it's not. We've delayed the IP release by a week, and one of the bugs I surfaced in the conversation of "are there any blockers" was "releasing to IPs without being able to note that one shouldn't change the lines in the article on Kashmir relating to ownership is asking for trouble". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

RTL and BiDi
The deployment table at VisualEditor says 15 July is a maybe for RTL Wikipedias such as Arabic & Hebrew, and definitely deployed by 29 July. 33126 currently indicates this core RTL functionality isnt fully developed yet, and a quick test on ar.wp indicates it's not quite polished yet. There are only a few VE edits per day on arwp. There does seem to be a bit more community testing happening on hewp, and the developer is active there with 46 edits: Special:CentralAuth/Mooeypoo. FWIW, we can test BiDi here on English Wikipedia, by adding RTL text in English pages where appropriate, and testing the VE on pages where RTL text already exists. See VisualEditor/Bidirectional text requirements for some testing scenarios. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion.
 * (For those who are wondering, RTL means "right to left" and BiDi is "bidirectional".) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is slow
It is slower than usual. I think it could be the new applications in visual editor that slow it down. Pass a Method  talk  05:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to try and discredit you, but the new Universal Language Selector was enabled a couple of days ago as well, and that's what's causing most of the lag for me. Unlike the new VE, the ULS cannot be disabled or hidden at all. But I do understand your pain. Jguy TalkDone 05:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We've done our best to speed up the VE; it now loads, instead of ~110KiB, 4KiB. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To put those numbers in context, VisualEditor's existence is responsible for about 2% (two percent) of the time that it takes to load a page (so that you can read it). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Keyboard shortcut changed and no longer works
Several times today I have been attempting to use the keyboard shortcut (Alt+Shift+E) to begin editting a page only to discover that since VisualEditor was introduced it was changed to Alt+Shift+V. However, this does not seem to be working at all in Firefox, and it is instead opening up Firefox's View menu.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 07:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As a note, every keyboard shortcut but the one for edit this page works, and I've turned off VisualEditor.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 07:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * what version of the browser are you using? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 22.0. However the shortcut seems to be working today, when it was not yesterday.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 05:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Other laptop in use. Now the tooltip for editing says accesskey-ca-editsource.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 10:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've got the same problem in both Firefox 22.0 and Safari 6.0.5. It shouldn't be saying .  It should be saying [ctrl-option-e] (with square brackets).  It should also actually work when you press the right keys.  It looks like the fix has been written.  The devs don't like to put up new code just before the weekend, so perhaps it will appear for us on Monday.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

HTML editor?

 * From the project page, "We currently struggle with making the HTML we produce look like what you are used to seeing, "

So what are we editing here? A wiki, or a HTML web page? The point about wikis is that they separate content and presentation (far more than even HTML 4.01 ever did). Presentation is not an issue for wiki editing (in general), for MediaWiki, or for editing at WP. Just leave the default formatting alone, and let MediaWiki deal with it. We do not (in over 99% of cases) need to mess with the default rendering, presentation and skinning. In those rare and complex cases when it is needed, then it's (by its nature) both complex to achieve and rare to need. Is this HTML focus in the new Visual Editor an indication that WMF are also trying to move away from default MediaWiki behaviour, towards some sort of Frontpage clone where any editor can trot along and start playing with the presentation, just for the hell of it? How can that possibly be a good direction to go in? A "Visual Editor" needs to make competent wikitext, same as any other editor, and it should not go beyond this. If someone really does need formatting control beyond this, then that's expert territory (and WP editors, including template editors, have historically been bad at this) and needs expert CSS knowledge. Anything less than expert, and MediaWiki probably does it just as well all on its own. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirly sure but I think this refers to the HTML that is produced vor the live preview. I just edited a Infobox via the Visual Editor and the live preview didn't render the image inside the infobox after that. I highly doubt that it would be possible for the editor to mess with the underlying HTML/CSS. Hobofan (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What you see on your screen is actually HTML. In the old system, you write in wikicode, and Mediawiki turns it into HTML for readers (including for previews when you're editing).  In the new system, you make changes in a rich text environment, and it still eventually ends up in wikicode and then HTML.
 * What I'm overhearing is that getting some of the less common details of this "translation" to work perfectly is gong to require re-writing the Monobook and Vector skins. In the meantime, what you see in VisualEditor mode is almost, but not quite, what you'll see when you save the page.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Two Related Problems with Roll-Out
I have stated my concerns about the roll-out of the Visual Editor at Village pump (technical). I have two related but separate concerns. First, the decision to deploy Visual Editor first in article space rather than in user space was well-meaning, but it was a blunder. In article space, "test edits" are forbidden, and there is even a template to warn users who make test edits. Since test editing in user space is not permitted, every edit is an unwitting test. It is true that the need for a user-friendly editor was greatest in article space, but for the same reason, the need for a reliable editor is greatest in article space. Rather than initially deploying it to article space, where it and its bugs are highly visible, it should have been deployed to the sandbox of user space. Second, unless I am mistaken, there was no managed test organization as a branch of the development unit. Should this discussion be conducted here, or moved to Village pump (technical), or continued in both? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There's generally not good reason to duplicate a discussion, but certainly it would seem appropriate in either. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In the development organization who put together this tool, is there a separate unit for testing the software, before it is turned over to regular editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The decision to turn the tool over for use in article space without extensive testing in user space was an unsound decision. There wasn't a deadline.  The turnover has alienated some experienced users whom we should want to retain.  At this point, I can't see that the tool has reached the intended quality where it will enable us to keep new editors who were put off by the Wiki interface.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It might not be good enough—yet—but I think we'll get there. New editors are also able to use the old editing system if they want.  From the look of the RecentChanges page, many of them are doing so.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is the FAQ or manual?
Is there an FAQ or manual for Visual Editor? I am trying to test it using Firefox (since it doesn't support IE9 for now). If I click on Edit This Page, it changes the appearance of the page, but then if I try to position the cursor to insert a comma, I don't see a focus cursor, and inserting a comma doesn't do anything. Maybe the explanation is crystal clear in the manual, but it isn't intuitive to an experienced IT engineer if the screen doesn't look editable. I am skeptical that a user interface that is unobvious to engineers should be intuitive to the non-tech-savvy users who appear to be the target audience for this "feature". Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) There are both - the FAQ is reproduced at the top of the Feedback page and linked from the top of this one. The user guide is linked from both. I don't think, however, that you're going to find an answer to that question in either - that doesn't sound to me like something that should be happening. Can you tell me what operating system you are using and what article you're editing? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What doesn't sound like something that should be happening? I was trying to insert a comma.  Is that something that isn't supported?  I am using Firefox and Windows 7.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what the problem is, now that I look at the User Guide. First, it isn't intuitive anyway.  Second, it is too slow.  It takes too long to enable a non-trivial page for visual editing.  Its performance is unsatisfactory, at least for engineers who are accustomed to the current Wiki interface.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, although there is a lot of help on specialized edits, such as to links and references, I don't see help on general edits to add, replace, or delete text. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

More on slowness
I was using Firefox and Windows 7. When I click the Edit This Page tab for any substantial article, it takes a very long time to enable editing, long enough so that, if one isn't paying attention, one thinks that nothing is happening. Only in the upper right corner does the rolling progress bar indicate that something is happening that accomplishes nothing anyway. In particular, for several articles, it took more than 30 seconds, which is unsatisfactory. For the article on Atlanta, I clocked that it did not enable editing after four minutes. I have a few questions. First, is it really taking an excessive length of time to enable editing, or does editing never enable with Firefox and Windows 7? (I realize that the answer to this question may be formally undecidable as the Halting Problem.) Second, is there a mechanism for reporting this issue, which clearly is a problem? Is it already in Bugzilla? Do I report it to you to enter in Bugzilla? Can I enter it in Bugzilla? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I then tried to edit Republic of Texas, and gave up after one minute. I then tried to edit Interplanetary contamination, a small article.  I gave up after two minutes.  Has it been verified that editing is actually possible with Firefox and Windows 7, or is that only thought to be a supported feature?    Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Long articles can definitely be somewhat slow to edit, but a four minute wait sounds like a different kind of performance issue. By way of comparison, the same article takes about 14 seconds to switch into edit mode for me on Google Chrome / Ubuntu (6-year-old 2Ghz desktop) and about 20 seconds in Firefox 20 on the same machine.


 * Can you give some more background on browser version and the hardware you're using? Also, does the performance issue persist if you try editing the same page repeatedly?--Eloquence* 20:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am using Windows 7 on a four-core Dell, and am using Firefox 12. I don't have the exact speed, but it is between 3 Ghz and 4 Ghz.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly clicking Edit This Page has no effect. That is, the progress bar continues to cycle.  I have a question.  Has anyone successfully used the Visual Editor with Firefox 12?  Maybe a version list of versions of Firefox is needed.    Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Firefox 22 works. It takes up to 15 seconds to enable editing of a large article, which is not unreasonable.  It takes a few seconds to enable editing of a small article, from which I was able to delete a stray comma.  A bug should be entered concerning Firefox 12.  If it takes more than two minutes on a small article, then the most likely explanation is that it is failing to timeout.  (The Halting Problem cannot be solved analytically, but closed loops or failure to detect timeouts can be observed.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please also inform Firefox users that they need to update to the most recent version of Firefox, which is currently 22. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the report! I've confirmed that Firefox 11-12 should be added to the blacklist for the time being. Once that is done, those versions of the browser will only offer markup-based editing.--Eloquence* 01:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that users with back-level versions of other supported browsers, such as Chrome and Safari, be asked to see whether their back-level browsers are unsupported, and should be blacklisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Doing a null edit to the Infobox of Republic of Texas resulted in this #dataloss bug. Reopened bug 50102. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Answered on Feedback page
Hello. :) I'm busy adding answered to the feedback page. The point here is to help identify material that is still being discussed or that has not been fully responded to. If you happen to notice a section that has been properly processed, your help doing this would be most welcome. This is easily done - you put  in front of the section and   behind it.  One caveat: this template hates [edit | edit source], so I just have to drop   tags around it.

Some of the open sections may still archive for staleness, but my goal here is not to inadvertently close something prematurely. If I do, please feel free to just remove the code. You can add new notes below the colored box as the template advises, but I would in that case probably add unresolved to the top. We may overlook those notes in scanning for unresolved sections. :)

Thanks! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Any pipe or equals sign irritates pretty much every template. You can use ! to replace pipes and = to replace equals signs if you want, or the nowiki approach will also work.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Tables
First off, I am a highly experienced Wikipedia editor and I love the new editor. It is far from perfect, but honestly, the fewer barriers of entry for editors to add their knowledge the better.

That being said, I personally find tables difficult to work with even as an experienced editor. That should definitely be in version 2.0. Thanks. Oldag07 (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the tables are in the schedule. Don't know for when but, they are working on them. TeamGale (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the lovely note, Oldag07 :). I definitely agree tables need to be worked on, and they are; I'm really looking forward to it. I've been here since 2005 and I don't think I've ever understood tables fully (the help page is terrible, to boot). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

No wiki bug?
Dunno if it has been reported and am not look through all the posts above, see here for example. Am now off to fix that. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Darkness Shines :). Looks like someone attempting to insert markup; we have a bug around for warning users when they do that. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Nondescriptive error codes
The VisualEditor extension currently gives very cryptic error messages. In fact, they are so cryptic that I can't even tell what they are referring to. See the two examples below:

Error: The modification you tried to make was aborted by an extension hook

Error: Invalid error code

The first is caused by triggering the edit filter, while the second is caused by hitting the spam blacklist. A new editor will not have a clue what is going on&mdash;he will assume the editing software is buggy. The visual editor needs to display the warnings associated with the edit filters and the spam blacklist. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The new editor will assume that the edit software is buggy because the edit software is buggy. (Even with your explanations, I still don't really understand, and I'm an IT engineer.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the helpful note, Reaper. (If VisualEditor is giving such a useless error message on the spam blacklist, then it is buggy, so the editor's assumption would be valid.)  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Although VE seems to have been turned off for me, before most of my edits were getting the second error, even though I didn't add any external links. Why?-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 19:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks to me (a non-technical person) like this is a generic "Oops, something went wrong, but I don't know what" error message. There could be any number of problems that trigger it.  If you can remember any specific edits that produced this, I'd love to hear about them (a diff, maybe?).  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Most recently, this and this. -- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Most recently, this and this. -- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Double tags?
Hey, just a quick question, what is the significance of the two VisualEditor tags (the normal one and a separate "Check" one) in this edit? Did I miss something? Or is this just for debugging and the like?  Theopolisme ( talk )  17:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks like....some kind of bug I've never seen before. How weird :/. I'll look into it; thanks for bringing it up! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Very late to the answer: it's feature, not bug.  That's a system generated tag that says that VE believes there's something unbalanced in the wikimarkup.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"Switch off" option
Can someone check the Gadgets menu? I am trying to switch it off, and I've discovered that in the latest Firefox, the option to switch off Visual Editor doesn't even appear, as with Internet Explorer, but it appears in Chrome and Maxthon3. Weird. Orderinchaos 06:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ookay, that's strange :/. When you say latest - 22.0, or are you using nightly? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not having that problem. Are you sure it's missing? Preferences-->Gadgets-->Editing Section and it should be the first selection there.--Mjs1991 (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Strangely, it is now! I even crossreferenced when I found it in Maxthon 3 to make sure I was looking at the right section and the menu was the same other than that option being missing. Wish I'd screenshotted it. Orderinchaos 15:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have firefox and it did turn off (thank universal consciousness). I hope new editors are finding it useful but it drove me insane the first few times tried to use it. Of course, if I want to do another new editor workshop I'll have to break down and learn it. (Getting a headache already.) ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  14:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Not learning
After the notifications issue, we now get another piece of software that hasn't been tested. I've only got a middling amount of pages on my watchlist, but I can count a pretty good amount whose last edit was "fix Visual Editor fault" or similar. If my company had released stuff this bug-ridden, the people responsible would have been fired. Please sort it out, preferably by turning of VE until it actually works. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Black Kite. VisualEdit has been being tested for over six months now, including fairly intensely on English Wikipedia for weeks before rollout. WMF is relying on the community to help with VE as an integral part of this process - Linus's Law. This is particularly important given the complexity of our project, our user base, and the relatively small number of staff. Google has over 7,000 engineers who have profiles on LinkedIn alone. I think we have just a bit over 170 employees in all departments. Pretty massive difference. :) Beyond the invaluable help of the community in locating and fixing bugs, it's also been extremely helpful having them suggest enhancements and changes to the way VE works. But the WMF recognizes, of course, that not everyone wants to take part of this, and use of VE is optional. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So now that the foundation has lots of bugs / issues to work on we can now allow people to turn it off completely if they so wish? And we will stop rolling it out any further until these are address, yes? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The options there are the same - people are free to ignore it completely or to use the gadget to hide it. I think the developers are continuing the break-neck bug-repairing spree. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * James, you've said that you've already turned it off, so why are you asking whether doing so is "allowed" now? Of course it's allowed:  you already did it.  What's not allowed is for you to take the option to use VisualEditor away from other people.  Each user gets to make his (or her) own choice, even if their choice is different from yours.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think he's suggesting it should be opt-in rather than opt-out. In general, that is a very good philosophy as it takes the sense of compulsion and "you will respect my authoritah!" out of it. Orderinchaos 08:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Change is rough
I am a little puzzled by the tone of some of the comments here and elsewhere on the project regarding VE. By its nature, change is disruptive, but this one isn't that hard to manage for experienced users. This change was declared and had a pilot, but the heterogeneity of the community (and the tools they use) made roll-out likely to be problematic. We're all working on the same project, let's work like a team with no deadline. -- Scray (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I got a bit of a shock just now when I hit the edit button and something completely unexpected happened. I hadn't heard about it at all :) Let's see how it goes anyway. Could make life easier, you never know... Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * My solution was to disable Visual Editor as soon as I could figure out how to do it. I also don't believe in making it easier for neophytes to edit Wikipedia without the need to learn Wiki Markup Language; all it is likely to do is allow articles to be messed up more efficiently than ever before by people who don't know what they're doing. — QuicksilverT @ 17:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Good observation, Scray. Well put.  Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is the WMF isn't working as a team with us. They want us to say what a great tool VE is and pat them on the back. We have been telling them for weeks/months the software wasn't ready but they refuse to listen and rushed out this half assed broken code anyway. I like the idea of VE and I think its coming along and has a lot of potential. But it is a long way from being ready for release. Kumioko (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I promise, that's not at all what they're looking for. They wouldn't have employed 24 hour coverage for that. You can receive kudos at any time. :) They are relying on the community to help as an integral part of this process - Linus's Law. This is particularly important given the complexity of our project, our user base, and the relatively small number of staff. Google has over 7,000 engineers who have profiles on LinkedIn in the US alone. I think we have just a bit over 170 employees in all departments. Pretty massive difference. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And I don't think most people are saying there can never be a VE, at least I'm not. But we need one that doesn't mysteriously delete content or perform changes that were't expected, Only works in 2 namespaces, encourages users to not add citations, etc. We have waited this long for it, a couple more months to make sure more of the bugs were fixed would not have been a bad thing. The WMF made it optional from December 2012 - June, most people didn't know about it until May and some didn't find out till today. Plus the WMF just rushed out and hired a bunch of people to support the rollout at the last minute because they knew they were going to get a hailstorm. I cannot even begin to go over all of the areas were the WMF failed in this development cycle. Kumioko (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This could have been handled better. Way better. Yes, you want testers, beta periods are nice. But never in my 10+ years of software/hardware/product development and support have I ever forced a beta version to everyone and told people to just "deal with it". You release the beta to a handful of people, especially with something that is breaking content left and right. This does not improve Wikipedia. This does not help Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for a new editor! Bring it on! It sounds great! I'd love a new way to edit pages. But to force a clearly broken editor onto people is wrong. If it was working better and didn't include over 300 bugs then people might have been a little more excited about it, and a bit more accepting of the change. But as it is, you have crippled what we're here to do. It may recover, but the trust is honestly lost here. Kumioko is right here, this is great, but it's a long way away from a site-wide release. Jguy TalkDone 20:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Crippled", really? Click "Edit source" or just disable as has been outlined above. No one is being forced to use VE. It'll get better. I know it could've been implemented better, but I don't see much value in hyperbole. -- Scray (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder how many editors who don't deal with wiki-politics know that there is a way to use the old editor. SL93 (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I just looked at Special:RecentChanges for logged-in users, and less than 5% of edits were made with VisualEditor. So I'd say that at least 95% of registered editors have figured it out, which is a lot more people than follow wiki-politics. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would call it crippled. I see many many many talented editors that have been here far longer than I have just up and leave. While it might not be forced on us right now, for a short time it was. Only until people complained and started quitting did the WMF finally add an option to hide the editor from the interface (if I recall, it was at least 2-3 hours after the switch was pulled). I don't really think people have a problem with the VisualEditor itself (besides the bugs), I think the problem is the way it was presented and then implemented (at least that's what I have a problem with). A lot of editors stated that they did not see any notices about it, including me, and it was later confirmed that a cookie issue might have been to blame. I understand that technical issues/changes from the WMF don't have to have consensus, but in this case, that rule should have been ignored as it directly disrupts the improvement of the encyclopedia (the editor having 300+ bugs is pretty related to the improvement of the encyclopedia). While the disruption might not be long term, there is (still) no clear indication anywhere of how to hide the VE for those that can't or don't want to use it. People still have issues hiding it or finding where to hide it. Also keep in mind that it only hides the button. All the code, javascript and backend stuff is still loaded, so the interface slows down even more. I understand that it will get better. With the amount of feedback that WMF is getting it's a given. I, as well as seemingly countless other editors, feel that it would have been best to wait for a massive rollout such as this, given the amount of criticism that the WMF has been taking. Jguy TalkDone 23:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to those editors who are upping and leaving, please? I'm happy to talk to them. As it happens, I agree with you; I would have been more comfortable waiting before we rolled out on such a large scale. But ultimately, as Maggie says above, Linus's Law is the goal; yes, we have 300 bugs, but a lot of those simply wouldn't exist if we didn't have a ton of practical feedback from Wikimedians such as yourself, and a lot of that feedback wouldn't exist without a wider rollout. Now, would I choose to use it as the default editor? Well, no, but then I'm still on monobook. Can it be used as the default editor? Yes, already; we have editors who have written entire articles just with the VE. Now our job is to make it better. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, those bugs would exist. They just wouldn't have been identified. :) The thing about Linus' Law is that it applies to a combination of two factors - many beta testers + many people with access to source code. The beta testers spot the bugs, it is true, but the many people with access to the source code is what makes them disappear. What we have here is a small team of developers desperately trying to fix in real time on a live product a large number of bugs. Many eyes, in this case, does not make bugs shallow - it just makes a lot of anger and a very long list of problems. - Bilby (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding confusion about the "edit" and "edit source" tabs
I wanted to edit an article the "OLD" way.

At first I thought (based on something I had read, quickly) that, in order to (ever!) allow myself to do so, (in order to edit the "OLD" way -- even ONE TIME), I had to edit my "Editing" preferences under "Gadgets" on some "Preferences" page.

I later found out that that was wrong, but meanwhile I had already done so, and it took me a lot of reading, to figure out that, instead, I could have clicked on "edit source" instead of "edit" -- for a ONE-TIME (temporary) decision to edit the "OLD" way. One of the reasons it took me so long, was because I did find some mention of "edit source", but -- Aha! -- when I looked at the top of the page, there WAS NO "edit source" link!

Even after I put my Preferences/Gadgets/Editing BACK to normal, there was still no "edit source" link at the top of the page. (on certain pages). This (it turns out) was due to some good reason, but it took me a while to figure out what was going on. Eventually, I figured out that now I still would not ALWAYS see BOTH the "edit source" AND the "edit" links at the top of the page -- due to some reasons which (IMHO!) are confusing.

For example, apparently things work differently on "Talk:" pages, and I think also on pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor which are part of some different name space or something.

It took me a while (and a lot of reading) to figure that out (and maybe I still don't understand it right.)

Meanwhile, I kept RE-trying to change my Preferences/Gadgets/Editing BACK to normal, because it seemed like it was not working, because there was still no "edit source" link at the top of the page. (on certain pages).

I still do not understand it well enough to be the one to edit the "intro" page to explain things so as to help others avoid this strange type of episode.

IMHO the links at the top of the page are confusing. Maybe (?) things would be less confusing, if the "edit source" link, (or is it the "edit" link?) when it's disabled, were to still appear, but to appear "grayed out" -- indicating that it's disabled. Maybe (?) it would also help, (to be less confusing), if the "edit source" link were to be displayed as "edit source", when appropriate, (that is, when it means "edit the OLD way"), -- EVEN when on one of those pages (mentioned above) where the new type of editing (visual editing) does not exist [yet] -- "at all".

Now, I think it [the "edit" link] is still displayed as "edit" (which some users / editors, might assume means something different from "edit source") on those pages. (But, I could be wrong. I might still be sorta confused...)

Any advice would be welcome. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense. We were also thinking of changing it to read "edit source" instead of "edit" in all namespaces, to avoid problems with muscle memory. Thoughts? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that would be an improvement, yeah. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- for that very prompt response. Also, I recommend for someone (not me) to "consider" modifying the page that talks about changing your "Preferences/Gadgets/Editing" to disable visual editing.  I think that page should make it clear (umm, even "more" clear?) that it's NOT the only way to enjoy the possibility of EVER editing the "OLD" way ("maybe just this once").  (Or, was I the only one who read it too quickly and got the wrong idea?)  --Mike Schwartz (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, you're probably not the only one who got the wrong impression. Would you take a look at it now, and tell me if that makes more sense?  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally think it should say "Edit" and "Edit with VisualEditor". Also, I object to this being called a beta - betas are supposed to be mostly feature-complete, and this isn't; thus, this is an alpha. But that's another story. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply from Mike Schwartz (in general, "and" to Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)):


 * If you mean (edits such as) WAID_edit_1 and WAID_edit_2 then I agree that those are a step in the right direction.
 * However, IMHO it would be appropriate to go even further. The millisecond we mention the word "all", (as in [the second-to-last word of] "Both VisualEditor and the older wikitext editor are automatically available for all registered users on all articles."), the specter of the possibility of misunderstanding begins to flourish.


 * IMHO the wording should be (something more like) "'Both VisualEditor and the older wikitext editor are automatically available for all registered users on certain pages -- currently not including 'Talk:' pages, but including any article -- (that is, any web page that is in so-called 'article' space).' See below (under) '* Articles and User pages only' for more details about that."
 * Also, IMHO we need more explaining, some place (maybe right near the above?) about the fact that, on some pages (certain pages, such as [currently] "Talk:" pages), the "edit" tab does [means] what is now associated with [that is, what is done by/"meant" by) the "edit source" tab on other pages.  Since when is that so obvious that the reader should already know it?  (Sorry!  no insult intended -- to anyone.  I just hope to spare some future "wannabee editors" from, umm, some of the confusion and misunderstanding which I know [by my own first hand knowledge] is possible.)  (Plus, maybe it does say that somewhere -- either some place that I missed, or some place that has been added "recently").


 * I realize that, with future improvements, we may live to see the day when someone can look at a tab near the top of the page, and have some easy way to [be able to] tell whether it means "edit by editing the wikitext (also known as, the 'OLD' way)", or whether it means "edit by using the visual editor (a 'NEW' way -- which might be a bit of a 'rude awakening', for 'some' veteran editors)". However, until then,  I think we need to do more to make it clear that, -- for now -- one has to sorta determine which "KIND" of page one is on, and then [know to] translate from the name of the tab to the meaning, in a context-dependent way.
 * Whoa, I just realized, that this -- (determining which "KIND" of page one is on, for puposes of this discussion) -- can be done [now!] pretty easily -- just by just checking whether [A] the page has only an "edit" tab, or [B] the page has both an "edit" tab, and an "edit source" tab) (!) (We probably should SAY that... :-) ).
 * But IMHO, the reader still needs to be told that [T1] something like this (determining which "KIND" of page one is on) needs to be done, and that [T2] if there *is* no "edit source" tab, on a given page, then -- for now at least -- on that page, "edit" means "edit source".


 * Sorry this was so long. It probably could be made shorter, but I was putting more priority on careful use of language, and I don't have more time right now, to improve it.


 * Thanks to everyone for their patience and kindness. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I think the next thing to do is to find out the status of a related proposal, which is to change all of the 'edit the old way' tabs to say "Edit source", even if there is no VisualEditor on that page.  It would be so much simpler to just say "if it says just plain "Edit", then it's the new thing, and if it says "Edit source", then it's the old thing."  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Beautiful!
I've not been a very active Wikipedia editor for the last few years, but used to be. I just noticed the stumbled upon this by noticing the new "edit source" links, and just had to stop by and congratulate the project! I've only tested it briefly, and I'm sure there are lots of things left to fix, but the basic functionality seems just right to me and I'm very happy to see that a lot of consideration seems to have been put in making references editing simple. Regards, /skagedaltalk 06:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for the lovely note! We've still got a lot of things to improve with it, as you note; I'm glad to hear it's already been of benefit to you, though :). If anything breaks or goes all Apocalypse Now on you, please do feel free to drop a note here or on my talkpage - we love finding new bugs to bother the developers with ;). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor deployment patterns
asked this question initially, but I thought I'd post the answer here, since a wider pool might be interested in the answer. The question was "what sort of schedule does the VisualEditor team deploy on? How often, and when?" or words to that effect. The answer, via James F:
 * Quick answer is "as often as possible"; in general, this means we're hoping to keep up daily deployments if/when we get fixes made and can push them. In practice, WMF isn't set up for really proper rapid deployments (yet), so instead we're limited to four days a week (no weekends, no Fridays), normally towards the end of the day SF-time, unless there's a critical emergency. Note that "critical emergency" status is not something I get to decide. :-)

Hopefully this answers David's question (and is of interest to others, too :)). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Visual Editor turned off links to references in an article I edited
In the most recent edits I made to another article (today, July 8, 2013), it didn't keep the html links to the references at the bottom of the article. Will someone with more Visual Editor knowledge than me please fix this? Thanks. Damon Killian (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Damon,
 * Are you talking about this change to Nik Richie? Did you happen to use cut-and-paste to move this text?  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes and yes. Damon Killian (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick reply. That happened to me yesterday when I tried to rearrange a page.
 * I believe that it's . The bug report says that it only causes a problem if the ref is at the end of what you're copying.  Of course, since most refs are at the end of a sentence, that's a real problem, and that's why it's a high-priority bug.  Here's hoping that it will get fixed soon! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor error. Adding brackets around something to turn it into a wikilink blocked
When I used it to simply add double brackets around something to create a link to that article, it automatically added nowiki tags around a chunk of text, so the link didn't appear [ [[User:Dream Focus |  D r e a m Focus ]] 03:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, this is "working as intended" (for now, at least). VisualEditor does not support the addition of wikimarkup.  You cannot add double brackets to make a link.  If you want to add a link (internal wikilink or external URL), you have to use the built-in link tool (ctrl-k in most PCs and command-k on Macs).  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A Very Big Issue
No! Don't remove the old editor! The new one can't edit equations, or templates!.Dimension10 (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not aware of any plans to do that. Click "edit source". Apteva (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * template editing is present, and has been for quite some time; maths editing (as has been said on this page) is coming. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I prefer the old editor then this new one. Matt294069 (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You can still use the old editor, then; see Apteva's advice. What do you dislike about the new interface? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * My first go-round with Visual Editor featured difficulty with creating a reflist (one of the articles I was editing had none at all) and embedding references. I fiddled with the task for an hour or so, hoping I'd just committed a stunningly simple oversight, then went to a less needy article to try out the functions I KNEW how to use in VE.  I'm using the old editor for now till VE's more mature. louYambarampgarous (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * that's fair enough :). I'm hoping that improvements to template editing will be on their way soon. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor seems to have really messed up this one
I couldn't begin to figure out how to repair this version of Stuart Fielden – so all I could do is revert. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for surfacing this problem :). I've reached out to the user, and hopefully they'll know whether it was a VE bug or a user bug. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Citation templates
For me, the main problem with VE in the medium term is the manner in which references are handled. The current approach with the selection of the citation templates through the transclusion button is not ideal, and means that new editors will find it very difficult to add formatted references. On the plus side, they can add bare URLs ok, but I think we'd prefer to see editors format the references accurately as they add them in.

As I understand the problem, the issue is that the different projects use different approaches to citation templates, making it impossible to write the sort of simple form that we currently have with the old editor (which I assume to be en.WP specific). Thinking about it, it seems that the developers have three choices:


 * 1) Continue with the current model
 * 2) Develop VE forks for different projects
 * 3) Modify how cite templates are specified within the projects

I'd like to ask if it is possible to consider the third option. There aren't that many citation templates, so it should be possible to make the citation template format better for machine reading. In particular, I'd suggest:


 * Using a unique tag on citation templates (perhaps a hidden comment or category). Templates with the tag could be dropped into a specific menu in the create new reference dialog, rather than relying on the user to type "cite" in the transclusion dialoge and choose between citation templates, citation documentation and the occasional non-citation template.
 * Recognise or tag the data type of common cite fields, so as to identify date and numeric formats.
 * Identify the display order of fields, so as to have author first, etc, for data entry.
 * Identify the core vs optional fields, allowing VE to simplify the form.

Where citation templates don't have the required metadata, the transclusion button would be the only option. But if the project has suitably tagged citations, both options could be available. If the metadata can't be kept in the citation template, (which is tricky with the CS1 structure here) it could potentially be kept in a related area, such as Template:Cite/metadata, or even at the other end, such as WP:Visual Editor/Citation metadata

The whole idea may not be viable, and I know this would make it a bit harder to create and maintain citation templates, but I'd really like to see VE have a more intuitive method of adding citations in an accurate format. - Bilby (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We're currently working on VE improvements around referencing - specifically called out is "local wiki-specific workflows" - for example, calling out the "cite" suite of templates :). That sounds like a good plan, but around the tag I worry that frankly we'd end up presenting users with 50 different options :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Legitimate use of ...and VE screws it up
I've said before that  tags should be extremely rarely used in mainspace. Searching articles for these tags, I found an article where there is a legitimate need for them:

Death 'n' roll (portmanteau of death metal and rock  'n' roll)  (portmanteau of death metal and rock  'n' roll) 

The single  tag is required to keep 'n' from being boldfaced rather than italicized.

I tested VE's handling of this legitimate use of nowiki by doing a null edit (to do a null edit in VE, hit the spacebar once, followed by a single backspace—this will "trick it" into activating the save button). Now, VE did recognize that there seemed to be a problem, and tagged my edit with:


 * Tag: VisualEditor: Check [visualeditor-needcheck] : Edit made using the VisualEditor where the system detected the wikitext possibly having unintended changes.

But, I had to revert its change to (portmanteau of death metal and rock  'n' roll ). Note the separate links to rock and  'n' roll . – Wbm1058 (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there's two ways to get the desired result, as VE demonstrated when I used it to create the link to rock 'n' roll – which it managed to do without resorting to nowiki tags by italicizing the space before the 'n' :  rock 'n' roll . Wbm1058 (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I can create the link death metal successfully with VE – but only if I create the link first, then italicize death. If I try to italicize death first, then link, it messes it up. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmn. What did it do that screwed it up, exactly? I just tested it in my sandbox and it appears to have worked (italicising first, then linking). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Look again at your test edit. Rather than a single link to death metal, there are two links: on both death and metal. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, guh. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Now tracked. Excellent catch! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Great!
I think this is a great new feature! I've been wondering for a while why Wikipedia didn't have anything like this. I think this will encourage more people to contribute to Wikipedia. Benimation (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

features
Where's the best place to request new features for the VE? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you can leave your feedback about VE and also suggest new features TeamGale (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't turn this on for IPs for at least a month
While I think there was still more work that needed to be done before this went live across the project to all logged-in editors, I think as a group we can cope with it. However, it's blaringly obvious that there are a lot of very significant bugs that need to be fixed, particularly referencing, to the point that I'd say rework the whole "references" section. Even for an experienced user is very difficult to handle, unless they've memorized the names of all the templates and their parameters.

This is so not ready for inexperienced users that I'm still gobsmacked that you're doing A/B testing on newbies. Please don't compound the error by adding IP editors too. The software just isn't good enough yet. You've still got "blocking" bugs that aren't fixed yet. Risker (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone has suggested to me that I be more clear on my reasoning here. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the current community is just now starting to figure this out, and we're reporting a lot of significant bugs. While it's lovely that there are a few "community liaisons" around, and that there are a few Wikipedians who are helping out new editors, it's going to be the community that has to explain this process to IP and new editors, and most of us don't understand it well enough yet to do so. On the other hand, even those of us who are learning the new process can explain the old process and know where to find links and information to help someone who is trying to edit source. Risker (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Until the ability to simply add references has been added this software should definitely not be rolled out further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Doc James, can you clarify whether "simply add references" means "autofill a citation template" in your mind? There is an option to simply add references right now, but only if you're typing out the citation manually.  Right now, anyone can click the ref button, click "Create new source", type the citation into the next screen under "Reference content", and then click "Apply changes" to have it added to the article.  That's pretty simple, but it does require you to type out the author, date, title, etc., yourself.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I wasn't aware that references were still being worked on, but I'd kinda think that at least the ability to easily and reliably place references (that is, with something that even the Illuminati-fighting grandpas and third-world nationalists will be able to figure out with little to no instruction), and the ability to read invisible comments at all would be considered necessary before testing on anons. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support It needs more time to fix the bugs, of which there are many, which have been stated many times earlier. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 16:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with any measure that prevents the roll-out of this utility until it is ready.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Dafuq?
Why is this crap of beta software set as default editor for everyone? Really? If you need, ask for betatesters, but don't chase me to use this crap...took me 5 minutes to disable this damn tool and fix what it had done...next time, NOT as deault for everyone! thanks. --Shadak (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * you can just use 'edit source'; you don't need to disable it to edit without it. We've been testing it here with a wide pool of beta-testers since December 2012, and asking for them, too. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me get this clear: I do NOT want VisualEditor. I had the "honor" to test it (Nobody asked me nor I choosed to test it. Someone just forced me...) just 5 minutes ago. Really, I need 1 Minute to choose to disable it. Is no improvement about the old editor, it even slows down: cklick "edit"..oh not what i want --> click "source edit" ah, thats what I want. really? --Shadak (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then disable it, but again, nobody forced you to test it. Markup editing still exists, even with the VE enabled. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "nobody forced you to test it" - this is disingenuous. You are trying extremely hard to steer people to it, and obscuring methods not to use it. Of course people are being forced into it, and arguing that philosophically they can get out of it doesn't change what you're doing here - David Gerard (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. We would certainly like people to use it, both as an editor and as a test editor, but I'm confused as to how we're obscuring methods; the project page directs people to how to disable it, as does the page notice on the VE feedback page. If you think there's more we could be doing that wouldn't bring us down too far on the other side, let me know. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * aehm...You set it as default editor for logged-in editors. Why not ask em if they want to use it instead of force em to use it? Even a information that you rolled out that editor would help to raise the acceptance. Of in information what it is, what i can, what are the benefits? If i get something new without ordering it, at least I should be informed... --Shadak (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * oh...sry, I just see, this is an alpha(!) version. really? everyone gets a alpha(!!!) version? everyone have to use alpha version (!^n)? what about the Opera users (like me, your luck i "accidentally" used FF). really...I don't want to offend anyone, but this is just bad marketing. you cannot set it as default, when it not run on everyones browser. Fix at frist the bugs and problems, THEN think about relaesing it to everyone and THEN decide that at least old user should have the decision...oh and by the way. alpha versions are not made for public. alpha means testing, like beta. This maybe volunteer project, but i'm not your test rabbit...also no one else. --Shadak (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, this is a beta version. If you had used opera, you would have found it went straight into markup mode; when it doesn't work on a browser, we blacklist that browser, we don't throw a broken version at the user. We did send out rollout information; there have been announcements since December last year, including CentralNotices covering most of the last 2-3 weeks and a watchlist notice since early June. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Beta version? Still not release, so no rollout to all users. beta is still unfinished software. take a look here. So, why I'm a betatester?
 * Information: I missed all these. i'm not so often en.wp. Maybe they got overlapped by election messages. also, I got not messages about this at the July 5, when I was the last time here. Why not display them NOW? Everyone has this editor now, so now would be a good point to inform people (who missed the information of the last weeks for some $reason) what they have now. --Shadak (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They came out after the election messages, and I can confirm they were around on 5 July. There will always be people who miss the notices due to absence, and we can't extend the banner every time, but I'll talk to people about throwing it out for an extra week. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I just happened to read your conversation guys. Okeyes, you've explained everything properly and your patience here was extraordinary. Shadak, you need to understand something: whether you like the new Visual Editor or not, there's a way to criticize it. In the English Wikipedia there's no place for words like "defuq", "crap", "damn" and such. I don't know if you're doing it as a way to show off or act cool. Look at things in perspective, what are you so mad about? You call yourself a "test rabbit"? The 5 minutes it took you to remove it were "horor" for you? Wow, calm down please. This kind of talking may be acceptable in your Dutch Wikipedia, so keep it there. And next time kindly improve your English before writing something here again. Thanks and goodbye. Yambaram (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Shadak, please consider this message to be your personal notice that VisualEditor is also scheduled to be turned on for the German Wikipedia in less than two weeks. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I already noticed it yesterday. the dates on the project page are good placed. But I'm not happy with the fact releasing betasoftware to the users...but nobody cares here.
 * @Yambaram: If my bad english insults you, I'm sorry for that, but thats the way it is. I try as good as I can, but I'm not a native english speaker. If you say I have to be silence because of it...not sure how should I call it to be polite. My choose of words was maybe drastically and borderline, I'm sorry. But iIf my company would release such software, my ceo would "kill" some people (mening they would need a new employer) and we would have a big image problem. Its maybe outdated thinking, but realease software should be free of major bugs and the software should be relaese and not beta. if you "relaese" beta software, then it is just crap, sry for calling it this way. And if you complain that angry customers complaining about this "crap software" because they had trouble with crap software they didin't wanted (sry again for my choice of words), then you should ask you why they are complaining. Maybe because you did something wrong or because they are to..."stupid" (sry, if I insult someone). Oh...just to get it right: I used ""defuq"[sic!], "crap", "damn"" because they described the situation, not to be cool or something else... --Shadak (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yambaram's comment was pretty much entirely inappropriate - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. And he's right.  If anyone in my software development teams released software like this in this manner, I'd fire them too.  This rollout has been handled very poorly.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of your responses. First, to user:david gerard, I entirely disagree that my comment was inappropriate. I wrote it from a very neutral perspective and with good will - in fact I don't even see how your comments here were helpful in any way. To user:shadak, I didn't mean to be too harsh and apologize for criticizing your English proficiency (I'm not a native english speaker either) it's just that some of your slangs and minor errors could have been easily fixed or avoided here in wikipedia. I do agree with you and with user:paul mcdonald that the new Visual Editor has all kinds of different issues, and therefore I also removed it, but there's a better way to say this. Thankfully no one has been hurt my this "poorly handled" project and I hope justice will come upon those employers who you think need to be fired, that's all. Yambaram (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's talk templates!
Those of us in the UK politics corner of Wikipedia (though not exclusively) have one or two difficult things coming up soon, if you see what I mean. I *know* that we could press "Edit Source" and copy everything, which is what I intend to do, and what I intend to suggest to editors who ask in the future.

But this is just a workaround, and one I fear might be ditched if VE is rolled out in full at a point in the the short- to medium-term. I have tried, and tried, and tried, to teach myself how to use VE with a template as complex as those on the link above, and it simply does not (or will not, or cannot) work. It's too complicated for someone like me, who doesn't know computer programming, to understand. (And yes, I consider the template builder on VE to be computer programming, for that's what it is.)

I support VE for text editing, it clearly works well and will get better. But templates such as the one above test the service to its very limits.

What say the forum? Template-specific instruction manuals? Easier instructions at the point of editing? AN Other?

doktorb wordsdeeds 09:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that this is a case of needing both/and, rather than either/or: both template-specific instructions and simply an easier process overall.  The devs are working on the latter bit; improved instructions could be written by anyone.
 * Getting the WP:TemplateData into those (many) Election box-related templates would probably simplify some of it. Even with that, though, it looks to me like it would be easier to change information already on the page than to add new information.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to rename the template editing features in VE
See: Village pump (proposals). Dragons flight (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What are the success metrics for this deployment?
It's pretty clear from various plans (including the 2013-14 WMF Annual plan) that a key success metric for VisualEditor is a July deployment. However, I'd like to see what other success metrics the VE team is measuring for. Ones that I would expect to see, at minimum:
 * Uptake by existing users (probably measured by % of edits by users with +100 edits as of the time of deployment, higher number indicating greater success)
 * New users started on VE who convert to source editing (probably measured as a % of edits done using source editing by these new users, low number indicating greater success). These editors were identified during your A/B testing, which as best I can figure is still happening.
 * Percentage of non-bot/non-script article space edits completed using VE
 * De-activation by existing highly active users using gadgets or scripts (measuring at 1 month)

What I personally would consider success in the four points above would be somewhere around
 * 25% uptake by existing editors within 3 months of deployment
 * <5% conversion of new editors who started on VE moving primarily to source editing within 1 month
 * 25-30% of non-bot/non-script article space edits completed using VE within 3 months
 * <25% of existing highly active users disabling VE at 1 month post deployment

The one metric I'm certain is being measured, but which is entirely meaningless is new editors who (a) register an account and (b) create one edit. Nobody should care about these one-edit wonders; we have a million of them already, and they're not building the encyclopedia. Yes, I know nobody gets more than one edit until they get one edit. But they're unlikely to be doing anything useful until they hit autoconfirmation, so that's when you should count them as "new editors". Risker (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Er. Where are we measuring that? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. I'm asking what success metrics are, suggesting a few, and suggesting that the one standard success metric attached to just about every Wikimedia activity is not actually all that useful.  So what *is* being measured, and how will the VE team know when it has had a success? This is standard for any project in any industry.  Risker (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant the "register an account and create one edit". I'm one of the people working on the analytics setup, and I've never heard of us using that metric. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That metric is not being used by the VE team, Risker is confusing it with other experiments. If anyone is interested in why we use 1+ article edits in 24 hours as a metric (among others) in other contexts, feel free to ping me. It's not relevant here. Also if you're interested in when WMF generally counts someone as a "new" or "active" editor, I can explain that as well. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   22:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's used elsewhere as well, or in a slightly varied form. (So is characters added, and I'm sure hoping that's not being used here either.) It is odd, though, that the deployment of a product that is ostensibly supposed to encourage new editors isn't measuring new editors. Risker (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Getting back to the subject header, what success metrics are attached to this project, and how are they being measured? Risker (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This answer is, I'm disconcerted to say, evasive. What, without evasion, are the metrics for the Visual Editor? If any - David Gerard (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * David, it wasn't intended to be evasive, I was just making sure I understood the scope of the problem. I don't think Steven has any interest in being evasive given that he's not actually working on the VE.
 * The metrics we're studying are (broadly speaking) that we want a statistically significant increase in the probability of a user editing, and ideally the probability of a user staying around, without a statistically significant (or a substantial) increase in things like revert likelihood. Looking at your metrics above, I'm not sure that they entirely make sense. That is: if, for example, 25 percent of power users disabled the VE, that would call into question the type of deployment (opt-out, for existing users, rather than opt-in) but not the viability of the actual software - people like familiarity. Heck, I'm posting this from monobook.
 * I'm also not sure about the conversion rate, just because I'm not sure what the conversion rate currently is. Maybe 5 percent of people who come in to edit just plain prefer markup; maybe they're technically minded. We don't have data on user preference, all we have is data on what users are willing to tolerate. I'm going to ask James to poke his head in and comment. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This might sound a bit snarky (and isn't meant as criticism of the devs who worked on this), but careful testing is only necessary when one actually expects to have a decision to make. As best I can tell, all the major decisions have already been made (VE is the way of the future!).  I don't think there is any scenario that would lead to disabling this, hence deciding whether it is a success isn't actually very important.  That said, I'm sure the WMF would like to be able to tell donors that they have accomplished X, Y, and Z during 2013.  Those accomplishments could be phrased in terms of performance benchmarks (especially if they do get good numbers), but they could just as well be explained in terms of products created.  Personally, I do hope that the WMF follows-up and studies the impact of this change, but I doubt there are any specific goals that they feel must be met.  Dragons flight (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed?
The problem should be fixed. Can everyone test? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, seems to be fixed. All the other gadgets (Twinkle, clock, etc.) also appear to be back.  Reatlas   (talk)  15:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Phew :). Much credit to the devs, for fixing this so quickly (and on a Sunday to boot). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cookies all around.  Reatlas   (talk)  15:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal related to VE
Please see Village pump (proposals).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

We have an issue
The tool that shuts off the VE is not working. We need a more reliable method to keep VE off for those who do not want it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * When one does a copy and paste one now gets two exact copies rather than one? Not sure if this is related to VE. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In the markup editor or the VE? I'm seeing the shutoff bug too; what browser are you on? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So, it looks like parsoid is DoSing the API cluster, which has implications for gadgets functioning. Mark Bergsma is looking into it now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In the markup editor. When I copy and paste content, one paste gives me two copies of what I copied. It sucks. The WMF needs to concentrate on getting the basic editor to work more consistently. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you point to what else we're focusing on? What browser and OS are you using? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Using google chrome and a windows machine. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I was just coming by to report that myself. I've got the box ticked on my Preferences, yet the Visual Editor links are still there. It's kinda pissing me off, because I click 'edit' out of habit and I can't really make any use of the VE. So please, let's make it go away for those of us who want it away, yes? Green-eyed girl ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 12:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes; as said, it's not directly a problem with the VE, it's a problem with gadgets generally. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm experiencing this too. I am a heavy user of HotCat, Twinkle, and Provelt, and I can't use them all.-- A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 12:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like it's not a Parsoid problem, actually - some [expletive deleted] decided to DoS the API cluster externally. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't even see the Gadgets tab full stop at the moment... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I've experienced this problem (disable not working) the day the VE was launched, but not since then. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There is actually a proper off switch for VE. It was chosen to disable the off switch for en:wp, and instead have a half-hidden option that the VE breaks every now and then. Enabling the off switch is apparently an "enhancement". The patch is awaiting deployment. Anyone from WMF have an idea if/when this change will go through? - David Gerard (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Copy and paste
Copy and pasting content within an article using the markup editor has sucked for a long time (it often deletes spaces that should not be deleted). Lately it has begun to suck more than usual with two copies being created for a single paste. Not sure if this is related to VE. What about improving editing for those who edit most? I also wish that the auto fill button for PMIDs and ISBN worked faster and more consistently in the ref toolbar. These few changes would make me more productive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Not sure if this is related to VE" - you mean that this happens in the markup editor? And the ref toolbar is an enwiki-specific tool, not something the WMF built or supports. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Doc James does not use VisualEditor. My guess is the most likely problem is in the keyboard or its settings:  a slightly sticky key will produce a duplicate paste, and a rapid key-repeat rate will do the same.  (Both copies are back to back where you wanted them, right?)
 * This doesn't have anything to do with VisualEditor. It's ironic that we're getting complaints about this, given how many people keep telling us that VisualEditor should be turned off on the grounds that the old editing environment is bug-free.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No it is not a sticky key (I us a bunch of computers and I get no other duplication of key strokes or issues with other programs). And yes I am using the old editor. The old editor is far from bug free but faster and less buggy than the new one.
 * Yes I realize that the WMF does not maintain the ref toolbar. This is something that IMO paid programmer time should be put into. The WMF puts great efforts into attracting new editors (think education program) and great efforts making it easier for new people to edit but does not spend enough time making it easier for those who contribute extensively to edit more easily. Yes I realize that this is a little off topic :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay just does it with Chrome and not Firefox. I will test further. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please let me know what you discover. It's not VE, obviously, but Bugzilla has a couple hundred open bugs on the old editor, and there's no reason why we can't add one more when you have the details together.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks WAID. Seems to be working now on chrome. Will look at things further if it happens again. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Visual Editor introducing links to disambiguation pages
See Village pump (miscellaneous). benzband ( talk ) 23:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

IP problems
I can edit an entire article with Edit or Edit source. I can only edit a section using Edit. Both Edit and Edit source are displayed, but clucking on Edit source makes both disappear and nothing can be done. Please ask the NSA if this is a bug or an "undocumented feature". Thank you. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How odd. What browser/OS? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Safari, on an iPad. You have any idea how many people use them these days? A lot. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 12,173 million requests from tablets, versus 170,807 million for desktop. I agree it's a problem - I don't think I disputed that - and this issue is a known, and being fixed. But right now we're prioritising the areas where we can get the biggest bang for our bugfix. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't appear to be the tablet that's the problem, as it works when I use Chrome for iPad. Did you alpha test with Safari? 184.78.81.245 (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not really the tablet version, which is distinct. As said, this is a known problem, and we're resolving it by hopefully moving away from having the links pop up - see 50540. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This just shouldn't happen
Onto my watchlist today pops this edit:.

I notice it says "nowiki added" in the summary, and I've seen that VE does this from time to time, so I think - ok, I'll check it out, maybe it needs a quick fix.

Turns out it's utterly mangled a section with formatting and code - so, great, I think, what to do now? Seems I have 3 options:
 * Ignore it. - not acceptable to me, I can't do that having seen it.
 * Revert it. - well, no good either, because then I'm reverting whatever the last guy was trying to do. To further complicate it I left a talk page note for this particular user yesterday about some of his other edits, so if I revert it looks like I'm picking on him or policing him.
 * Figure it all out and fix it - so this is what I try to do, by checking the entire huge article for the changes the other guy made, then restoring the mangled section from an old revision. Took about 10 minutes - no big deal in some ways, but still 10 minutes I could have spent doing something else.

So here's the thing, as I see it, when the editor is making changes to code that wasn't even being edited, that's even worse than vandalism, because the edit is made with good intent, and the software is the "sneaky vandal". At least it flagged the summary, which is something, I guess.

Over the top to describe it this way? You may feel that, but I'm describing how this affected my workflow and my editing experience - and I think that's what it's all supposed to be about, isn't it? Begoon &thinsp; talk 01:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Timeline for beta
Hi! How long is the beta expected to run for IP users? VE seems to be introducing a lot of errors with IPs, so I'm assuming that the plan is to run the beta for a while to collect feedback, then do bug fixes, so I'm curious as to how long we need to be checking VE changes. - Bilby (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify the "lot of errors" statement above, I ran through 100 IP edits made with VE through recent changes. 12% of the edits contained errors that were attributable to VE - 7 were the nowiki tag problem. I can understand running this for a bit to get data, but if the number of problems by IPs is to be increased by about 10% through using VE, then the workload for recent changes volunteers is going to be a problem in the medium term. - Bilby (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The WMF intends this to be permanent. Dragons flight (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To be a little more precise about it - we are fixing bugs as quickly as possible (we've fixed more than 150 so far) - so while it's permanent, it's not permanent in THIS state, exactly. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, why is it called a beta? This is a rollout, not a beta. But I'm more concerned, then, about the 10% error rate. That isn't sustainable. - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any rule that there software must be taken away from users in between the beta and version 1.0 stages. Are you?  It seems common enough for people to directly upgrade from the beta to 1.0. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, if you provide a new software package, to all users, as the default, on a permanent basis, then isn't that a release? It isn't a big deal, but betas are for testing in preparation for a release (or at least a release candidate). :) - Bilby (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't we just shut it down, fix the massive errors, and relaunch it in a month after some more testing? 10% is ridiculous. This software is clearly not ready for prime time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 100 edits is not a sample size that allows for statistical significance. What were the errors? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably true. I'm working through a sample of 500 edits at the moment, representing approximately 4 hours of IP edits. I'll get back to you on error type and numbers. - Bilby (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. I checked 500 edits by IPs using VE. I checked each edit individually for formatting errors, then classified the error type, whether it was subsequently fixed, reverted, or missed, (if missed, I fixed it), who fixed it if such occurred, and the degree to which VE was responsible. In regard to that last point, errors can be the result of bugs in VE, completely unrelated to VE (in which case they weren't counted), or because of formatting problems which are caused by user error, connected to the design of VE when it is working as intended.
 * Of the 500 edits, 47 had formatting errors which I connected to VE. 29 errors (just under 6%) were tagged as clearly due to bugs in VE. Another 6 errors were possibly due to VE bugs, but it was unclear. The remaining 12 were due to user error, but occur under VE because it makes certain errors easier to make (such as accidentally deleting an infobox).
 * The majority of the errors were the addition of nowiki tags. These were connected to:
 * Leading space bug (1)
 * Adding a wikilink with or without additional text (12)
 * Adding an image within an external link. (1)
 * Removing content of section and deleting the section title (leaves a nowiki tag between heading code) (3)
 * Adding an AfD notice (1)
 * Adding a new reference (2)
 * Just inserting text (8) - might be due to copy-and-paste additions.
 * There was also one case where the close tag of a table was placed in nowiki tags. No idea why.
 * Other problems:
 * Deleting templates. Not really VE's fault, but there's now a single key press deletion of infoboxes and other templates, which makes it easy to accidently remove.
 * In one case, a wikilink was created with open but not close brackets. Could be a copy-and-paste.
 * Paragraphs were in a couple of cases turned into headings. That's presumably an accident caused by pressing backspace on the first paragraph after a heading.
 * For some reason the first part of a table was added to an existing table. See
 * Text was added as templates, such as a url. Presumably user error.
 * A date format notice was deleted. Not sure how that occurred, but based on the other edits it looked accidental.
 * On the positive side, I was really happy to see people adding references. I didn't notice any that were properly formatted, (some may have been, but I wasn't specifically looking), but bare URLs are ok. Although there was some confusion in one case, where the editor set the group name for the ref, seemingly thinking it was the same as the ref name="" tag.
 * In regard to detection, 35 errors were fixed or reverted, and 12 were missed. 9 were fixed by the IP.
 * Hopefully that's of some use to you. Mostly it seems the nowiki bug is an issue, so if that is fixed soon this will improve enormously, but I think we'll find some needed changes to the workflow in VE. - Bilby (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I'm hoping for progress on that one :). The open-but-not close is interesting - got an example? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't keep the diff, but that one looked so much like a copy-and-paste that I wouldn't see it as an unusual bug. I've kept diffs for the next two days of data. It is a bit odd, but I really enjoy data collection when doing research, and it seems that this might be of some help. I've also moved to Google Docs, so if there is a wish for this I can share the raw data. - Bilby (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)