Forum:Can we disable visual editor please?: Difference between revisions
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
::::::Makes little difference from my viewpoint. I do a lot of editing in visual and source mode and I find it easier to do in visual.[[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 20:50, December 19, 2011 (UTC) | ::::::Makes little difference from my viewpoint. I do a lot of editing in visual and source mode and I find it easier to do in visual.[[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 20:50, December 19, 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::Let me see if I understand this. Visual mode screwed up '''your own''' user page to the point that '''you could not fix it''' -- and yet you think it's "easier". How does that work? Is it only easier cause someone else was willing to clean it up and file the bug reports with Wikia? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">00:28: Tue 20 Dec 2011 </span> | :::Let me see if I understand this. Visual mode screwed up '''your own''' user page to the point that '''you could not fix it''' -- and yet you think it's "easier". How does that work? Is it only easier cause someone else was willing to clean it up and file the bug reports with Wikia? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">00:28: Tue 20 Dec 2011 </span> | ||
Several reasons. First, I don't care about my talk page. It is a cumbersome way of holding a conversation and that's the best thing I can say about it. Second, in terms of frequency of occurrence, I have seen perhaps three pages wrecked by the problem you complain of in my time here. In contrast, I have seen dozens of purposeful acts of vandalism and thousands of instances of people performing edits which I must go through, think about and re-edit. My log shows that I have performed more than twenty thousand edits. If the ease of reading reduces my edit time on the average article by five seconds, that works out to almost twenty-eight hours -- call it five days of effort on my part here. Five seconds strikes me as a laughably conservative estimate, by the way. When it comes down to it, my strength is words and how they fit together in English. The visual method, looking more like ordinary English composition to me. Those obnoxious coding problems that crop up very occasionally are things I can deal with in a small percentage of the time saved by the visual editing. Could I learn to use the source editor? I expect so, but it would take time to learn the ins and out. | |||
Those are my reasons, rationally expressed. Irrationally expressed, they boil down to I like the Visual editor. Liking isn't a matter of rational discourse and careful weighing of advantages and disadvantages. It's a taste. You seem genuinely puzzled at my preference. I am puzzled by your insistence that my taste is wrong. Shall we debate vanilla versus chocolate?01:23, December 20, 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:23, 20 December 2011
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
We need to formally request Wikia disable visual editor mode, also called the Rich Text Editor or RTE. Most of us have it turned off anyway (see Special:Preferences, editing tab). But we need to actually make it impossible to turn on. IP editors and new editors, who tend to be the ones who use it, are occasionally, and quite unintentionally, creating a mess in the codes of pages.
Basically, the visual editor will occasionally leak raw HTML into the code. This violates T:NO HTML and makes bot maintenance of the database a complete nightmare. This is why Memory Alpha have long had the visual editor turned off.
Here's a comparison of the same content as rendered by visual editor, and as it should be in normal wiki markup:
Note the especial funkiness of the sectional headers.
Yes, the visual editor doesn't always result in this kind of code explosion. But it does it enough for it to be a worry. And I've shown another example to Wikia staff and have basically just got a "thanks for reporting the bug" response, rather than a solid workaround or solution.
I know visual editor might be a little easier for novices, but it's not so very much easier that we should tolerate these code explosions. Also, removing visual editor entirely means we only have to support source (normal) mode.
Here are some other reasons not to like it:
- It displays things as they are styled on the wiki. This means that section heads, currently styled as all uppercase, display as uppercase while being typed. Hence people are more likely to mis-capitalise when using visual mode.
- As soon as an infobox is placed on a page, visual mode is disabled anyway because such pages are "too complex". Thus, people have to use source mode anyway. Might as well have one, consistent editing style.
- The code leaks don't happen all the time, or even most of the time, but they really are intolerable. Look at this total train wreck from earlier today: user talk:41.132.228.79#Editing issues. The visual editor destroys pages when it goes haywire.
So, are there any objections to turning off the visual editor?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">22:01: Sat 17 Dec 2011
Get rid of visual editor
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">22:01: Sat 17 Dec 2011 , for reasons above- Tardis1963 talk 22:07, December 17, 2011 (UTC) I hate it over on the DWCW, so I'm all for getting rid of it.
- MM/Want to talk? 12:02, December 18, 2011 (UTC) I agree completely with the reasons above.
- Tangerineduel / talk 15:01, December 19, 2011 (UTC) I also agree with the reasons stated above.
Keep it
- I'd like to keep it. Some pages only need minor editing and it can be difficult to wade through all the wiki code in source mode. Shambala108 talk to me 02:13, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
- A lot of my edits involve correcting capitalization and punctuation mistakes, especially misuse of commas and semi-colons. It's much easier to fix these mistakes on a long page if using visual mode. Shambala108 talk to me 00:32, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Although there are times when I turn it off -- usually when using non-standard formats -- I prefer the visual code most of the time. It gives me a better idea of the layout as I work. It's particularly useful in deciding paragraph breaks. Boblipton talk to me 02:31, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
- Because I'm not perfect. I go through something, edit it, then later I go back and edit it some more. Boblipton talk to me 04:32, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
- And I'm sloppy, too. When I'm busy concentrating on things like changing punctuation, I'm not concentrating on spacing. Boblipton talk to me 04:45, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
- No, Bob, you misunderstand me. One of the problems with the visual editor is that it has a tendency to insert additional spaces, as discussed a year ago, when I was quite willing to leave it be. Though this has been somewhat fixed over the last year, it still sometimes adds vertical spaces. It's actually not good at deciding paragraph breaks because of this. I wasn't having a go at your editing foibles.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">20:26: Mon 19 Dec 2011
- No, Bob, you misunderstand me. One of the problems with the visual editor is that it has a tendency to insert additional spaces, as discussed a year ago, when I was quite willing to leave it be. Though this has been somewhat fixed over the last year, it still sometimes adds vertical spaces. It's actually not good at deciding paragraph breaks because of this. I wasn't having a go at your editing foibles.
- And I'm sloppy, too. When I'm busy concentrating on things like changing punctuation, I'm not concentrating on spacing. Boblipton talk to me 04:45, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
- Makes little difference from my viewpoint. I do a lot of editing in visual and source mode and I find it easier to do in visual.Boblipton talk to me 20:50, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Let me see if I understand this. Visual mode screwed up your own user page to the point that you could not fix it -- and yet you think it's "easier". How does that work? Is it only easier cause someone else was willing to clean it up and file the bug reports with Wikia?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">00:28: Tue 20 Dec 2011
Several reasons. First, I don't care about my talk page. It is a cumbersome way of holding a conversation and that's the best thing I can say about it. Second, in terms of frequency of occurrence, I have seen perhaps three pages wrecked by the problem you complain of in my time here. In contrast, I have seen dozens of purposeful acts of vandalism and thousands of instances of people performing edits which I must go through, think about and re-edit. My log shows that I have performed more than twenty thousand edits. If the ease of reading reduces my edit time on the average article by five seconds, that works out to almost twenty-eight hours -- call it five days of effort on my part here. Five seconds strikes me as a laughably conservative estimate, by the way. When it comes down to it, my strength is words and how they fit together in English. The visual method, looking more like ordinary English composition to me. Those obnoxious coding problems that crop up very occasionally are things I can deal with in a small percentage of the time saved by the visual editing. Could I learn to use the source editor? I expect so, but it would take time to learn the ins and out.
Those are my reasons, rationally expressed. Irrationally expressed, they boil down to I like the Visual editor. Liking isn't a matter of rational discourse and careful weighing of advantages and disadvantages. It's a taste. You seem genuinely puzzled at my preference. I am puzzled by your insistence that my taste is wrong. Shall we debate vanilla versus chocolate?01:23, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
