Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:VisualEditor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've heard that new accounts on English Wikipedia have defaulted to V/E since Oct 2015. Is that true and if so when was the change on other languages? ϢereSpielChequers 13:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. That's more like July 2015. In November new and existing registered users got it at es.wiki instead. These are exceptions though, in most other cases all the users got it at the same time, while for a bunch of other Wikipedias it was given to registered users first and IPs a bit later. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see where the confusion is coming from. At the beginning of October we just confirmed that the VE preference had switched from the Beta to the Editing tab. The gradual rollout to "newbies" was over several weeks before that happened. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Elitre. ϢereSpielChequers 19:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I've collected some stats on editors doing their tenth edit by month. Apart from one blip and a recent further slide it seems to show a big drop at the same time as V/E became the default for newbies. Do we have the dates when V/E became the default for newbies on other wikis? It would be good to see if they had the same pattern or not. ϢereSpielChequers 08:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I just created a User:ThparkthNewUserSock1 new user account to try to understand what a new editor actually sees. I have two immediate observations.

• Instead of seeing a single "edit" tab which took me to the visual editor, which is what I expected, I saw two edit tabs on each page - "Edit source" and "Edit" with "Edit source" being leftmost (and hence "first"). Both had the same hint text "Edit this page". I found this momentarily confusing (and I am an experienced editor).

• When I followed a "Start the .... page now" link, I was taken to the source editor with no obvious option to switch to the visual editor. I expected to be taken to the visual editor since it is supposedly the default. Only after the page existed could I see an option to edit it visually. This could lead to an inconsistent experience for a new editor who creates a page then wants to edit it afterwards - they might end up in a completely different interface for the subsequent edit, and that is obviously bad design.

I tried to see the VE itself through a newbie's eyes, and I honestly can't see anything in it that would slow them down or confuse them. The things it can't do aren't likely to be relevant to those early edits. I would say that the "help" panes that appear in place of drop-down menus the first time you use them (with the "Okay, got it" button) are actually unhelpful and break discoverability slightly. On the whole though I don't believe it is the VE itself that has led to the slump WSC has identified.

HOWEVER - I do think that the rather confusing "double edit button" situation may be a factor. The VE has not really been "made the default" - it has been enabled as an option by default. But facing new users with a choice they don't understand ("edit source" or just "edit?"), further undermined by odd cueing (at the very least "edit source" should be offered to the right of "edit" to cue people about which is the "normal" thing to click on), leads overall to an experience which is more confusing than before.

Thparkth (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that, good to hear they get the choice of both editors I was worried they were only being given V/E. I opted back in to V/E a while ago. I find it useful when editing tables and adding images to infoboxes. I have the two edit boxes on my screen as you describe and "edit source" on talkpages like this. It would be good to see stats as to which editor newbies actually use, and yes it might be that it is confusing them. For anyone who has previously edited under a previous account or as an IP V/E could be confusing compared to the classic editor. ϢereSpielChequers 18:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

We can drill down a bit more into the data. I've got the data for the number of new registered users who register on every day last years. Roughly 10000 new user register every day, 80% of these never make an edit. There are some interesting spikes in the data

New users registered per day

This graph was using the legacy Graph extension, which is no longer supported. It needs to be converted to the new Chart extension.

There are some big spikes in new user registration about the beginning of April with a peek on 21 April 2015. There is a drop in early July and a slow rise since then, but not recovering to the figures at the start of the year.

These changes don't really seem to affect number of editors making 10 or more edits

Number of new editors registered per day who make more than 10 edits

This graph was using the legacy Graph extension, which is no longer supported. It needs to be converted to the new Chart extension.

There are no obvious jumps which might correlate to software changes. There are some odd spikes which seem to occur on some days with a strong day of the week effect. There is a tail off towards the end of the year. There might be sleepers, users who register but wait a while to get round to edit. --Salix alba (talk): 17:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

One of the effects of Single User Login is that your account registers at every wikimedia wiki you visit even if you don't edit. So a visitor from the Japanese or Gujarati Wikipedias who is checking to see what images an article uses, or even translating a whole article would register their account here just by visiting whilst logged in. I don't know what proportion of new accounts are new to this wiki or new to all wikimedia wikis. ϢereSpielChequers 18:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Good point. The new users count comes from the enwiki database. I did a search on Global User Contribs for ten random 2015 users with 0 edits on wikipedia, of those 2 had a single edit on a different language, and the other 8 had no edits on any wiki and only one registered project. So users from other project may account for some of the 80% no edit ratio but not all.--Salix alba (talk): 19:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Are you looking at live edits or live and deleted? I'm pretty sure that hundreds of newbies a day start by creating articles that are deleted, and many of them will have had all their edits deleted. It would also be useful if we could get some sort of log of when edit conflicts take place, I'd be surprised if we lost a lot of editors whose one attempt at editing was lost to an edit conflict, but it will be some. ϢereSpielChequers 21:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I just checked and a little surprised to find the user table include deleted contributions in the user_editcount. I seem to recall someone else looking at new user delete contributions. I may try and look at the other points later. --Salix alba (talk): 02:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

There are seasonal patterns as well as very strong weekday patterns. You might want to use the numbers from previous years to adjust for the seasonal patterns.

I wonder if there was a spike during the m:2015 Strategy (around March 1st). Many people seemed to create accounts for the purpose of responding to those banners.

WSC, about 70% of new accounts never make an edit (deleted or otherwise). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks WhatamI, 70% is not much more than two thirds not far from what I remembered. But Salix Alba finds it to be 80%. Do you know when the 70% figure was calculated and whether it was cross wiki? I can reconcile the 80% and 70% figure if the difference is people active on other wikis, i.e your 70% were people who create an account and don't save a single edit on the English Wikipedia or any of the thousand wikimedia wikis, Salix Alba's 80% figure we now know is people who created an account on the English Wikipedia but didn't save any edits there. 10% of new accounts on the English language wikipedia being visitors from other wikis who don't edit here would be the difference, and that seems a reasonable number. ϢereSpielChequers 23:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

My numbers are probably older that Salix alba's. You also need to consider the mobile vs desktop issue and possibly seasonal effects (students probably have a different rate than people trying to settle a bar bet, and students tend to sign up at the start of school sessions).

In May 2015, about 34% of newly registered editors on desktop at the English Wikipedia (only) saved at least one edit during the first week after account creation, excluding people whose accounts were created at another wiki (e.g., create your account at the French Wikipedia and get an automatic account creation by visiting here) and including (I believe) deleted edits. Very few editors create an account but make their first logged-in edit months later (although I did  :-) so this is probably reasonably accurate (for that one week, etc.).

The general rule of thumb is that 70% don't save an edit, and (of the 30% who actually do), 70% don't come back after their first editing session. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I suspect the Research team have access to more detailed information that I do. I can't for instance distinguish between editors who use mobile or not. The research project did exclude editors on mobile who tend not to use VE. Its highly likely that many mobile editors never get to make an edit.--Salix alba (talk): 22:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I can well believe that desktop users are more likely to save an edit, and we know that the ratio of desktop to Mobile users is shifting sharply to mobile. So if Salix alba's figure of 80% is more recent then it could simply reflect that. BTW The steepening of the decline in December January is.... troubling, it tallies with figures I have been checking elsewhere. ϢereSpielChequers 22:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Why are we not A/B testing this? Assigning new users at random to the different use cases would surely let us tease these different influences apart. If the VE is improving things, that's great, and we should forge ahead with deployment. If not, we will need to think very carefully about why this might not be the case. -- The Anome (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

There was one in May 2015 meta:Research:VisualEditor's effect on newly registered editors/May 2015 study. For the most part it does not show a significant difference between VE and wikitext. --Salix alba (talk): 11:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

As Salix alba says, they did A/B test this. It made very little difference (slight improvements overall).

The next thing for a major A/B test is probably going to be mw:VisualEditor/Single edit tab. This gives you one edit button (rather than Edit/Edit source), which you can set to take you to whichever editor you usually want to start in. (Registered editors can also choose to have two buttons.) I'd really appreciate it if some of you would look over it and let me know if it makes any sense. SET may arrive here in approximately a-few-to-many weeks, depending upon what we learn from its current use at the Hungarian Wikipedia and a couple of other sites. The obvious thing to A/B test is whether the first editor should be wikitext or the visual editor. (Different wikis might benefit more from one or the other.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just posted information about an upcoming change for editors who have the visual editor enabled. The information is at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 52#Single edit tab. If you currently have two edit tabs (Edit/Edit source), then this will give you the options of having only one Edit button, if you prefer that. Please read that information, and share it with other editors. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Using VisualEditor, I attempted to create a link to Pakistan–United_States_relations#Relations_During_the_Cold_War_Era in one of Wikipedia's articles, but the section anchor #Relations_During_the_Cold_War_Era was omitted from the link after I saved the page. How is it possible to link to sections of articles with VisualEditor? Jarble (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It will be after https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T112898 is fixed (don't mind the current title). Thanks, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Since yesterday I have had a problem of the save page request not going away after the explanation is entered and save is clicked on. The original edit is saved, even though the request is still there. Thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It is a known problem which devs are fixing as we are speaking. Thanks for flagging it though! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, there has been some discussion at the help desk as to whether it is possible to move a page using the vis. ed. As a result there was some experimentation with an editor's user sub page and it was found that vis. ed. → more → move opens an identical menu to move a page as does the source editor. The page moved successfully but in the history is not tagged "visual editor" as would normally be the case. Does clicking 'move' automatically switch one to source editing. (Just need to satisfy my curiosity really...no problem to report as such). Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A move is a log action and not an edit action so neither the source editor nor visual editor is involved at all. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The "More" tab is next to the watchlist star and "View History" for all users, regardless of what tools they're using for editing. It has nothing to do with VisualEditor. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As a WP gnome, one of the categories I take care of is Category:CS1 errors: PMC, where errors typically show up at a rate of two or three a week. All of a sudden, I have seen about fifteen errors in the last couple of days, and seven just in the last five hours. I noticed that all seven of those edits – [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7] – were made with Visual Editor, and by six different editors. This leads me to guess that a citation generation tool within Visual Editor was modified or deployed recently, and that the citation tool in question generates invalid values for |PMC= within citation templates. |PMC= should contain only the PMC identifying number, not the letters "PMC".

Does someone here know how to try to track this down and, if it is a bug, fix it? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you're right. I've pinged the main citoid dev in the Phab task; she's awesome. (Also, can we please keep the editor whose first edit was to replaced a fact tag with a citation?  :-) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I saw that too! Fantastic. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

See also: Archived Discussion about this problem

The (still unsolved) problem is that in the VE the cursor jumps to the beginning of a paragraph when the Shift key is pressed. That makes it nearly impossible to type any upper case letters or special characters (e.g. "%"). However, once I am at the beginning of a paragraph I can type, e.g. GDP, so that the cursor doesn't jump back after the first character. I have the problem on MacOS (10.9.5) both in Safari and Chrome, so it's not browser-dependent. It's highly reproducible but apparently not always. Restarting my Mac or browser doesn't help. As far as I can remember, this is a fairly new problem (a couple of months ?). Any solution to this?Thanks! Peteruetz (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It is hard to put | style="text-align: center;" | in every cell of the table, and impossible to centralise the text when editing via VisualEditor. Can something please be done about this? Or is there a way to centralise them via VE?--Kailash29792 (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is still no user-friendly interface for talk pages on Wikipedia. Since the WP:FLOW project was cancelled, are there any plans to enable VisualEditor on Wikipedia's talk pages? Jarble (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the portal for the VisualEditor, a way of editing Wikipedia being developed by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) that does not require editors to learn wikimarkup. Until VisualEditor, editors had to learn wikimarkup to make most edits. In 2001, this difficulty was acceptable; now, it drives away some contributors. VisualEditor will allow people to edit all pages without having to learn wikitext markup and will hopefully encourage more readers to become editors.

If this were a normal page, I would have slapped a WP:POV on it and ask the author to expand on their contention- and explain that the wlink used does not support the text.I would explain that the correlation illuded to was not causal and the tone was not neutral. There is an aspiration that can now be tested- as time has passed should this be removed- or rewritten giving the results onf the research.

Perhaps this needs to be discussed, and possibly the first sentence kept, and the rest moved to a history section. --ClemRutter (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

ClemRutter, amusingly I edited that part just before I saw your comment here. We (the community) have made a some incremental improvements to this page over time. I'm very skeptical of the page's current claim that some people have VE loading faster than the wikitext editor on large pages, though I didn't touch that part. VE is clearly slower in every stats I've seen cited, and on large pages I've hard it crap out with time-out errors after a few minutes of loading.

I just checked how many page views it's getting, I was surprised to see it's over three hundred per day. It might be worth adding more useful information, perhaps including the results of the WMF's research showing that VE provided zero benefit for new users.[8] Unfortunately I'm backlogged on other things at the moment. Alsee (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Please purge the attempted page. Sorry for misunderstanding. I will not try to make it acceptable to Wikipedia. Thank you. Robert Louis Covington (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Robert Louis Covington:, thank you for your consideration - (possible) autobiographies are generally difficult to write and discouraged on Wikipedia, even when created in good faith. Technically this is the wrong forum for such requests - but to avoid needless bureaucracy I have nominated both of your sandboxes for author-requested deletion nonetheless. If admins agree with this request, your personal information will get removed and be hidden for all non-admins. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

素素的小站 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 杨素芳 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am Quek157
I had for the past 2 hours extensively cleanup the page of any COPYVIOs/ reorganized the page extensively, changed all the formats and it can be a much better work. But all gone to waste due to the visual editor switched to source editing due to edit conflict. No one is editing it with me and then I previewed a version to reconciliate the conflict but then the version is the previous version. Unknowingly, I accidentally pressed back to editing, which then is the previous version. Result: all of my 2 hours of hard work is gone, all the paraphrasing are gone and I am quite upset about it but will try to redo this. Just as in academics, I had whole copies of notes (after reading through journals as well as annals, then saved wrongly and then lost) and I had to redo the entire note once again. I apparently did not learn from this mistake but I will still try to bring the article to the better revise version which now only reside in my minds.
I fully appreciate the editor as wikitext maybe hard to understand. The page is Canberra Plaza. I just will like to feedback this just that new editors doesn't get discouraged about it. When it is gone, I am so upset for a moment and then decided to take a "wikibreak" again as I did so some years ago. This kind of things for newer editors may totally let their morale down and stop for good. Really the lesson learn is that for massive revamp of page there must be done at sandbox first then copied or else things will go off completely.
Good lessons learned anyway but hopefully this can be glitch free soon --Quek157 (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The article has a list of the disadvantages/limitations of the visual editor, but shouldn't there also be a list of the visual editor's advantages? For example, it's much quicker to remove entire columns from a table and make other column-based edits to tables, as I just did here, with the visual editor than with the source editor. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 19:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Can I enable signatures for the page User:Reagle/QICs? Students like VisualEditor, but my understanding is no VE on talk pages, and signatures are grayed out in VE on that user page...? I thought maybe there had been a change in policy, and surprisingly, there *is* an insert signature option in VE on that user page, but it is grayed out. -Reagle (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Reagle: While you may not have been aware of this, talk pages are typically only supposed to be used to discuss the article itself, not its subject. If you have questions about the actual visual editor, please go to Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you! Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 19:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Nth User: thanks, I posted my question over there -Reagle (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:VisualEditor has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

157.51.111.141 (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Cool bar

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 14:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm actually seeing it everywhere now. Something changed last night. Can't seem to turn this off.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

This was resolved at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Visual Editor (beta "New wikitext mode") forced on? It was the 2017 wikitext editor and not VisualEditor. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

To learn more about encyclopedia. Uzomah Esonwune (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I just added a substantial bit information about auditory processing disorders, a section called "Questionnaires for identifying or documenting listening problems." That information was completely missing and is important to this topic.

I added relevant references, hopefully it's all good. I'll watch for any feedback. I hope my additions are acceptable, I believe they are accurate and well documented. UIowagrad (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it's fine, though the comment above would probably be better suited at the talk page of the article:

• Talk:Auditory processing disorder

— Pizzahut2 (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to create a button that adds automated access dates in VE, like in ProveIt? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I've created a userbox for those who use and like the VisualEditor. Template:User VisualEditor. Add this to your user page to spread the word regarding its usefulness! SD0001 (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe your siteweb Herisaac (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Is VE still officially in Beta in enwp? Although not in the beta tab, it is referred to as Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta in the preferences tab. If it is still officially beta, is there any target criterion by which it would ever be considered no longer in beta? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC notice: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: Block edits that contain a VisualEditor bug -- GreenC 00:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought the visual editor no longer adds "link=", but it does. See my recent minor edits. ·Carn !? 07:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks sir Iam ISMAILDEEQ British somaliland ISMAILDEEQ (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

ISMAILDEEQ apple iOS device iPhone ISMAILDEEQ (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@ISMAILDEEQ: Welcome to the English Wikipedia. The Somali Wikipedia can be found at https://so.wikipedia.org . Ian.thomson (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

As we all know, visual editor is not available for talk pages, making them harder to edit. Why are they not present on talk pages, and if there is a reason then can this article explain why? Currently the article only states that they don't support talk pages with no explanation. Looking through the archives I also couldn't find an explanation. TheMickyRosen-Left (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: Found one explanation: "I appreciate your comments. A serious problem, however, is that article talk pages are intended to discuss problems with articles, and hence should be able to reproduce sections of articles, with the markup remaining the same. (In fact, user talk pages also sometimes discuss problems with that user's edits of articles, and so also needs to reproduce sections of articles.) As an example now, if VE is still munging articles (changing the display, as well as the Wikitext) "

An explanation like this would be useful in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMickyRosen-Left (talk • contribs) 19:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes FHAISALL (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I've recently realized a problem in which Visual Editor keeps adding additional speces to every single field when I edit one. This is an example:

| streetaddress           = 154 Warren C Coleman Blvd N
| city                    = Concord
| state                   = North Carolina
| province                = 
| country                 = United States
| coordinates             = 
| type                    = Private co-educational elementary & secondary
| established             = 1976

Is this supposed to happen, or is something wrong with my visual editor? I don't see a major problem with the fields automatically aligning like this, but I have recieved a complaint, and just want to make sure this isn't some weird glitch or something. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe that this spacing is controlled by the hidden "format" code within Visual Editor's TemplateData programming code for a given template. There is a minimal amount of information at Wikipedia:TemplateData/Tutorial, and more detailed information at mw:Help:TemplateData#Custom formats. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to fix this? Nothing in these articles, nor any other sources I've looked up, mention this, and nothing in my settings seem to disable this. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You can remove that code from the TemplateData code in that infobox, or use a regular editor instead of the Visual Editor. There may be other options, like a way to override the "format" setting when you are editing. You could ask at mw:Help talk:TemplateData. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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:

• 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)

Your feedback is welcome at this mediawiki thread: mw:VisualEditor/Feedback#Does VE munge white space?. This is related to Phab:T179259. #VEwhitespaceMunge Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

We know that the answer is yes. I read through the phab thread, but it is unclear to me whether we have a local workaround available to us. If we removed all of the statements like "format": "{{_\n| ______________ = _\n}}", from infobox templates' TemplateData programming code, would this white space problem go away? If so, we could have a local RFC to see if eliminating them is supported by the community. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

ESanders (WMF) implied that that is the case in the linked flow post * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

@BoldLuis: Thanks for reaching out. The correct place for VisualEditor feedback is here on MediaWiki.org. ESanders (WMF) (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Going to put it there. Thanks!!. BoldLuis (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Given how many userboxes there are, I can't believe this one didn't already exist:

This user primarily edits using the VisualEditor. Please excuse the bugs it occasionally introduces.

However, now it does {{User:Psiĥedelisto/Userboxes/VisualEditor}} Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 09:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: A search found User:Soni/Userboxes/Pro-VE, Template:User VisualEditor, User:Zhaofeng Li/Userboxes/Neutral-VE. I don't think it's quite fair that the only VisualEditor option at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Research and editing tools#Editing tools talks about bugs. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Sorry, I am not sure why I wasn't able to find those. Feel free to remove mine, add those to the page, or replace mine with one or all of those. I'll leave it up to you. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Since you hadn't answered for a while, I decided to try to make changes for you to make the userbox more neutral.

This user primarily edits using the VisualEditor.

The bug apology is now a non-default option. No one else was using it yet, so I was still at liberty to do that before I'd need to edit other's userpages. There are more options too, but I only documented |buggy= at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Research and editing tools § Editing tools. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 12:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor/User guide#Ref names and discuss the issue there. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:VisualEditor produces citation (or cite) tags without proper word separation. For example:

{{Cite web|last=Mulvihill|first=Barbara|date=25 June 2019|title=Tunstall, Martha Goodwin|url=https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ftuns|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=|website=Handbook of Texas Online|publisher=Texas State Historical Association}}

In the Wikipedia:WikitextEditor, these tags are rendered as a group of long words, which messes up the linewrapping and impedes manual editing of the article source. In palaeography, they call this scriptio continua, and fortunately it has been overcome. Has this topic been brought up before, and is there a need to fix it? --83.137.6.241 (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe that this is a choice applied by the TemplateData code in each template's documentation. See Help:TemplateData on the MediaWiki site for details. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so, these tags must come from VisualEditor (the client), while TemplateData is a server extension. The VisualEditor requests and interprets (formats) TemplateData information. I have been unable to locate a specific place in the VisualEditor Javascript code, where this template rendering might occur. It could be as simple as changing some Array.join("|") to Array.join(" | "), but you need to find the right place, aside from testing the changes. VisualEditor is an interesting Ajax word processor, but I have no use for it. To me, VisualEditor is like an e-scooter to a pedestrian, I'm glad if it stays out of my way. There is also no WP:MOS entry regarding template parameter use. --83.137.6.238 (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't understand properly about vfx.I want to understand that properly and I want to work here because it's very expensive,hard-working and impossible thing.it has many interesting sites.if you show kindness at me about understanding both vfx and cgi.please help me Mozammel hoq. sagor (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

How to use sandbox? Juidzi (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

And also, visual editor. Juidzi (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes Aligaza (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Link_corrections_by_User:0blcsp, where a question that may be relevant to VisualEditor was raised. Debresser (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

What does this arrow icon mean in the visual editor? I usually replace these with spaces when I see them... is this good practice? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, this might only mean there are no plans for removing the "edit source" option, which you need need to specially select each time.

The real question is: what is the plans for allowing you to permanently and once for all disable the Visual Editor? CapnZapp (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Go to Preferences > Editing > Editing Mode, then select Always give me the source editor. Then click Save. Hope that helps! MEisSCAMMER^(talk)_Hello! 13:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

"Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" will also remove the option to switch to VisualEditor during an edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

There is only a selection to "edit source", and clicking "new section" also results in the source editor opening. How can I use Visual Editor for editing talk pages and the like? Félix An (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You can't. See the first item under "Limitations". – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been trying to find out for 15 min how to switch the edit mode to visualEditor. Why doesn't this article explain it? preferably with a photo? There is a huge link on this page "Enable VisualEditor" but the link is not explained and after following the link I could not find how to enable visualEditor!! There is no point spending millions on the software if a) it is not intuitively accessed and b)failing that, lacking all direction on how to access it. Why do I have to go to youtube for a one minute video that explains it in 30 sec? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW1ytmxWffE Aniish72 (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The instructions are below the link: "Log in, uncheck Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta, optionally change Editing mode to Show me both editor tabs, and save your preferences." – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

how do you add Userboxes on VisualEditor? I don't know how.Dunutubble (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Visual editor can't do everything yet. That said, userboxes are templates, and usually if you type {{, visual editor will bring up a window where you can type in the name of a template and it will insert it. I don't know if this works for templates in user space, like most userboxes are. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if there's any way to modify the editor to prevent things like this from happening in the future: "untill" appears to have been a perfectly valid spelling in early modern English, and since early modern English is mostly mutually intelligible with standard English Wikipedia English I see no reason to "amend" original quoted text to match current orthographic rules, but the tags that seem to be used for the purpose of preventing semi-automated "corrections" don't seem to be preventing manual corrections made with certain editing tools. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I tried editing that version with VE, and found that (1) VE's built-in Find command, which hijacks the browser's Find command, does not locate the string "till" in the word "untill", even though it is clearly present in the text, and (2) when you manually locate and click on the word "untill" in the (malformatted) quotation, a template editing box pops up, and you have to work pretty hard to ignore it. You have to manually select the word, along with the spaces on either side of the word, and then type over it. I suppose that VE could say something like "are you sure that you want to delete this template?", but I don't know if that fits with the overall design and editing philosophy behind VE. It would probably confuse and bother more editors than it helps. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hijiri88, why do you think that was a "semi-automated" edit? There is no evidence that any script was used. It was just a plain old edit, made by a new editor. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Did I use a phrase that has a specific meaning and creates problems when misused? I don't remember exactly what I was thinking a month ago, but I might have been referring to the fact that the edit summaries were likely automatically recalled rather than independently typed each time. That being said, I have no idea how "visual edits" or most of the things that appear in these tags work. Maybe I misread the timeline of the edits and thought the person had used some kind of tool to drag up a large number of articles with the same "typo" and change them all at around the same time, but that seems less likely. My apologies for any miscommunication, anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, With the non-VE cite option one feature was that it could fill in everything from that page URL automatically - Is there such a feature with VE?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Davey2010 Yes, if you click the Cite button in the toolbar, you just insert a URL in the Automatic tab and click Generate to create a full citation. It uses the same backend system as the source editor RefToolbar feature, so it doesn't work all the time but does a pretty good job for lots of URLs. the wub "?!" 16:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Ohhh I had to click the Automatic option - I didn't even realise those were clickable, Many thanks for your help and swift response the wub it's greatly appreciated :), Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Davey2010: A late response, but still. If you are using a browser, you can press Ctrl+K to bring up the Automatic option, 1st of 3 tabs. The shortcuts are listed in the ? mark drop-down menu, when using VE. See also Keyboard shortcuts for Wiki editing. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that the VE cite works a bit... differently from the non-VE thing. Specifically, it fills in too much against the policy -- see phab:T95376. (Should I add it to "Limitations"? I'm a bit afraid about how many we would need to add.) --Artoria2e5 🌉 02:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Which policy prohibits filling in citation template parameters? – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see this as a reason to avoid Visual Editor at all. If I was entering a source manually I would also enter a URL, which according to that bug report (which isn't a policy page) goes against policy. The issue isn't VisualEditor, but a policy that is not intuitive and that you shouldn't expect anybody to just know about. I agree with the developers for declining to resolve it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

If "Show me both editor tabs" is enabled, Alt+Shift+V is reserved both for the "edit this page" tab and the source editor's "Show changes" button, of which the former takes priority. While doesn't bother me much, as I can just manually click "Show changes", I still thought I should let you know. Anerisys (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi all! There are several wishlist items that relate to VE improvements this year. I'd particularly encourage you to go support these three:

• Allow wikilinks and formatting in TemplateData
• VisualEditor should use human-like names for references
• Advanced table tools on Visual Editor

Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Changes to VisualEditor instructional pop-ups. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

When adding a new table and finishing it. I cannot click spacebar or skip beyond the table. I have to manually add text in source editor then switch to visual in order to be able to type or do anything under the table.WillsEdtior777 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I do not know where to address this so I figured I'd voice my concern here. For some reason, I can only 'edit source'; the VisualEditor button for me has disappeared. How can I get the button back? Thanks.

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Then edit source?? Surprising. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 00:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@SpicyMemes123, go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and choose the "Editing mode" that you like best. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

My newbie butt managed to resolve the issue a bit after making the original post. Thanks for responding, however! SpicyMemes123 (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

In this edit, made by Nice Stories, it looks like a couple of inapplicable blanks fields (prev_year, next_year) were added to end of that instance of Template:Infobox college sports team season. Nice Stories may wish to correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect this was not intentional by the editor, but rather something the VisualEditor did itself. The same happened on this edit too. Does anyone know what's going on here? Can we make a fix to avoid this sort of thing? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This is working as designed. See the TemplateData section of the documentation, which is actually programming code that determines how the Visual Editor inserts the template. Those two parameters are marked in the Template Data as required, so they are inserted by VE, even though there is nothing in the template's actual code or documentation that requires either of these parameters to be present or to have a value. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Jonesey95, thanks for the response. I changed the template data to set those parameters as optional. I think that should fix it. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

For those of you who have been bedeviled by those annoying numeric ref names generated by the Visual Editor such as ":0", ":1" and so forth, it's my honor to announce a new script created by User:Nardog.

Script RefRenamer converts all VE numeric names on a page to useful named references (default: Lastname-YYYY). There are many addditional options to customize how you want it done. This has worked flawlessly on pages containing more than a hundred numeric references; here's an example where it made about 136 changes at Generation Z (diff).

The script doesn't stop the VE problem from occurring, but it is a complete solution for converting one page that you're working on to reasonable ref names. Powerful and effective; kudos! Mathglot (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

In trying out the manual visual editor citation generator, I was unable to find basic |author and |editor1= fields. There is an |authorlist= field, but this isn't exactly the same. Otherwise, everything seems to be last name first name. Does the citation generator have a way to handle names that don't fit within a first name last name (or vice versa) convention, or does it have to be edited manually? CMD (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there any way to make this a ref that can be added normally via VE, like {{cite web}}? Adding the template each time manually is daunting. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I know this isn't a great solution, but if you put the blank template in between two ref tags in your sandbox or somewhere, if you copy the wikicode in it'll automatically create a blank citation for you to fill out. Obviously, that's still not ideal but might be easier than going through "Cite," "Basic," "Insert template," "Cite magazine" at least. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

"Cite", "Basic", "Insert template", "Cite magazine" would be fine if it could at least fill out all the fields for me automatically. Or if I could easily switch from cite web to cite magazine without going into source mode. DFlhb (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

ThadeusOfNazereth, this troll aside, I do exactly as you suggested. Still it is daunting to re-edit each ref, but who manages improving VE? Jonesey95, do you know? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I know almost nothing about using the beta Visual Editor. Cite magazine has a TemplateData section, so you should be able to insert it by going to the "insert template" function of VE and typing "cite magazine". What happens when you try that? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Nothing new. Just what Thadeus said, but with different words. Going to "Add a citation" > "Manual > "Basic" > "Insert template". Kailash29792 (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you are seeing, so I tried editing this section with VE myself. If I go to "Insert template" and type "cite web", I get a nice-looking set of boxes to fill in: "Last name", "First name", etc. If I go "Insert template" and type "cite magazine", I see exactly the same thing. I'm not sure how it could be much easier. It's certainly easier than the way I do it with the source editor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible for the VE to convert something like [[Cosmopolitan distribution|cosmopolitan distributions]] to [[cosmopolitan distribution]]s on the fly? This would make for cleaner prose that’s more readable for whenever we're not writing in VE. (If this isn’t the place for feature requests then please shoo me on.) — HTGS (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I know that there are limitations with Visual Editor and templates but I've started to notice it acting weird on a few specifically. If you edit certain templates with Visual Editor, it will most of time, mess up the parameter spacing and hidden comments that may also be in the template. Below are the templates I've seen the most effected by VE; I would surmise there are a lot of other templates which can get messed up regarding the hidden comments and parameter spacing in them.

Template:Infobox settlement: Removes parameter spacing; messes up hidden comments (Example).

Template:Infobox U.S. county: Doesn't create a new line for each new parameter added (Example).

Template:US Census population: May mess up the parameter spacing (Example).

Template:Jct: How the template is viewed in VE mode means the parameter order get reversed (Example).

Other: If imputing bullet points manually, users can create multiple different bullet "charts" which don't merge into a single "chart" (Example).

To my best knowledge, these issues don't hurt the contents of the template if in "Read" mode (expect for the bullet point issue), but it does mess up the template layout which could be a problem for other users. I'm concerned that, due to the nature of the issue and amount of bytes it add/removes, Wikipedia might incorrectly ping newer users edits as vandalism and led to edit reverts or bans (which is unfair since many don't know). I've tried to minimize using VE with templates now but I've seen many others who use VE and unintentionally mess up the template(s). All in all, not an immediate concern, but it might be good to investigate the issue in the future. Thank you for your time; have a good day. DiscoA340 (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, these edits are following the instructions in the TemplateData code for each of the templates, specifically the "format" parameter. Template:Infobox U.S. county and Template:Jct do not have TemplateData code, so the new parameters are just concatenated onto the end, apparently. See this MediaWiki page for details on the "format" parameter.

The problem with the comments being moved off of their own line in Template:Infobox settlement is a bug; it was mentioned on 31 Jan 2019 in the very long bug report at T179259. As indicated in your Preferences, the Visual Editor is still in beta, so you should expect it to work suboptimally in some cases. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 Ok, thanks for the info. Have a good day! DiscoA340 (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Can this issue be escalated? I am constantly frustrated that visual edits remove this spacing, and sometimes it's very tedious to fix, even with automated tools, especially in train station articles which have embedded templates. And I don't want to revert newer editors simply over spacing and thus make them upset, but it's a lot to fix. ɱ (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

What issue? If you mean the bug involving comments being moved off of their own line, I recommend opening a new bug, citing the relevant diff above, and mentioning that the issue was brought up in T179259 in 2019 but that it is really a separate bug. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

In this edit, VisualEditor appears to have added spaces to Template:Infobox college coach so that all the equal signs for each field line up. Can someone explain why this is happening? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

In the Template Data section of that infobox's documentation, which, confusingly, is programming code that controls how the template works with the Visual Editor, this code enforces that formatting: "format": "{{_\n| __________________ = _\n}}\n". See mw:Help:TemplateData#Custom formats for an explanation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Jonesey95, thanks for the response. I just removed that code with this edit. Let me know if that broke anything. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm having the same issue with edits made to Polish town and village articles that use Template:Infobox settlement, for example this edit. @Jonesey95, I can't find that "format" anywhere in the infobox's documentation. Is there something else that might be causing this behaviour? Also, @Jweiss11, does the edit you made actually work? That appears to be an edit to the infobox documentation only, not to the actual template itself. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Kiwipete, yes, the edit I made to the template doc fixed the problem. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, @Jweiss11, I don't use VisualEditor myself, but if I were to use it to edit an article that uses the college coach template, the "=" signs would no longer be automatically aligned vertically? Kiwipete (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't use VisualEditor either, but yes, it seems the edit I made to template doc has made it such that edits with VE to articles that employ Template:Infobox college coach no longer introduce those extra spaces to align to the equal signs. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

{{Infobox settlement/doc}} has a format statement in the Template Data section that is causing those spaces to be introduced. As I said above, In the Template Data section of that infobox's documentation, which, confusingly, is programming code that controls how the template works with the Visual Editor, this code enforces that formatting: "format": "{{_\n| __________________ = _\n}}\n". – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

VE's automatic citation template insertion appears to mangle citation author data. Here's how to reproduce it:

• Open a sandbox page and edit it in VE.
• Add some text.
• Click the "Cite button.
• Click Automatic.
• Put https://www.brookings.edu/research/in-central-new-york-a-test-of-the-chips-and-science-acts-promise-for-economic-revitalization/ into the URL box.
• Save the citation.
• Notice that instead of parsing the page's author metadata ("Joseph Parilla, Xavier de Souza Briggs, and Mark Muro") reasonably into individual authors (the best outcome), or inserting all of the author metadata into |author= (not great, but easy to detect and fix), VE does this: |last=Muro |first=Joseph Parilla, Xavier de Souza Briggs, and Mark which is much worse, and more difficult to fix, especially if the original source disappears from the web.

Is this a known bug? If not, how should I tag it in Phabricator? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like the fault of the Zotero translator that Citoid is calling to parse pages from that domain. Folly Mox (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

How/Where do I report this problem so that it can be fixed? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Jonesey95 I wish I had an answer to that question. I had some initial luck at mw:Talk:Citoid, but none of my follow up comments have been responded to. Someone mentioned either at the recent AN thread or ReferenceExpander MfD that there's a general issue with Citoid ownership, and I'm beginning to feel that same energy.

I'm not getting the impression that there's any will to do anything apart from rely on Zotero to improve their own translators. You might try asking at mw:Talk:VisualEditor. I'm not sure how the teams are allocated, but the Editing and Growth teams have been pretty responsive if you hit them up on their home wiki.

I wrote WikiProject Citation cleanup/Repairing algorithmically generated citations recently as a information resource for people trying to clean up after these inaccurate or garbled automated references, because we're actually discovering it's a really big problem and there doesn't seem to be much urgency to address it. Folly Mox (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I poked around Phabricator and found a few similar bug reports, so I added T339824. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to the VisualEditor and/or other editors, hundreds or thousands of infoboxes have been messed up in recent years. I'm not sure why it's happening, but this problem needs to be fixed, because I am very tired of seeing this mess in numerous city articles. Minutes ago, I had to revert the following 2 edits before the infoboxes were reformatted by VisualEditor.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alderson%2C_West_Virginia&diff=1172255474&oldid=1171182962

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McCaysville%2C_Georgia&diff=1170193679&oldid=1165892739

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The instructions at Enable VisualEditor are no longer correct as all new accounts have VE enabled by default. This must be very confusing for new users. Could someone fix this, please? Nick Moyes (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Confusing how? What should it say? If a new editor goes to their preferences and sees a check in that box, they should understand that unchecking the box will disable the Visual Editor. If the box said "Disable the Visual Editor" and you had to put a check in the box to disable it, that is a sort of double negative that seems more confusing to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, currently, the text reads uncheck Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta, optionally change Editing mode to Show me both editor tabs. VisualEditor is out of beta and that option is no longer present. Maybe we could sub in The visual editor is enabled by default for new users. To make VisualEditor your default, turn on Enable the visual editor. Or something. Something that reflects the current options available. Folly Mox (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I thought when you Nick Moyes linked to the Preferences page that you they wanted the wording changed there. I have updated the wording near the top of this page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that is an extremely legitimate interpretation of the OP. Thanks for updating the directions 🙏🏽 Folly Mox (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)