Forum:Can we disable visual editor please?

Index → Panopticon → Can we disable visual editor please?

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
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:

http://tardis.wikia.com/index.php?title=DWM_441&action=historysubmit&diff=837704&oldid=814683

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.
• One of the particularly invisible disasters is the frequent replacement of ordinary wikilinks with an HTML URL link to a page. The RTE likes to do this:

  [http://tardis.wikia.com/index.php?title=TARDIS TARDIS]

  when it should be

  [[TARDIS]]

  Now it doesn't do this every time, but it does do it. Worse, the user can choose to make it do it. This is disastrous for a wiki. The whole point of a wiki is the manipulation of relational links. It's also against our house rules, namely T:NO HTML.

I've left one of the RTE-written DWM pages in place so you can understand the problem. John Ainsworth appears to be linked on the page DWM 439. But if you check out the "what links here" for John Ainsworth, DWM 439 does not appear. This means that all sorts of reports, not to mention normal bot maintenance, are compromised in ways that we can't see by just looking at a published page. If someone comes to me and asks me to change the links to an article, I can't get to every single instance unless I know every instance is properly wikified.

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.
• Layton4 / User talk:Layton4 Layton4 ^{talk to me} 21:29, December 20, 2011 (UTC) I agree with the reasons stated above, however users can choose what way they edit pages, whether it is visual or source mode. I am quite neutral, but we should keep it for the people who prefer to edit like this.
• Random? No. Admin on the Simpsons Wiki. Say something. One reason is that when you try to change links, it changes what the link says, not the actual link. Really annoying.

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)

How? I mean, why not just edit a section to focus your attention on a smaller part of the page?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">00:54: Tue 20 Dec 2011 

• 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)

If that's true Bob, why am I always finding tons if extraneous space in your work?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">03:58: Sun 18 Dec 2011 

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 

By the way, Bob, remember that mess made earlier this year on your user talk page? That was entirely the fault of the visual editor.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">20:41: Mon 19 Dec 2011 

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.

Sorry. I neglected to sign the above ramble.Boblipton ^{talk to me} 01:25, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

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)

If you think this is about simple preference, I've not communicated well, and I apologise for the confusion. This is about the balance between ease of use and damage to the raw code that actually creates pages.

Bob, the visual editor doesn't just affect your user page. If its problems only affected a single namespace, I wouldn't have started this debate. And it's not just affecting a few pages; it's affecting hundreds. Often, though, the damage it does goes unseen.

You're right to say it doesn't typically destroy the way pages are displayed. Your user talk page was indeed somewhat unusual, though certainly not rare. The RTE more commonly dumps raw HTML that works onto a page. This may allow the pages to display properly (sort of), but it makes a nonsense of the underpinning text.

Please look again at the very first history link at the top of the page. This shows a DWM page which basically looks the same as published, but couldn't look any more different under the hood. So for the original editor, the page is pretty easy in the RTE. But for any that come after, it's a mess of HTML madness. So when I asked you how was it easier to use the RTE, I wasn't arguing chocolate over vanilla, I was trying to get you to see beyond your one trip to a page and think about how other editors might be extraordinarily inconvenienced by the RTE's code dumps -- dumps that you don't even notice are happening.

One of the particularly invisible disasters is the frequent replacement of ordinary wikilinks with an HTML URL link to a page. The RTE likes to do this:

[http://tardis.wikia.com/index.php?title=TARDIS TARDIS]

when it should be

[[TARDIS]]

Now it doesn't do this every time, but it does do it. Worse, the user can choose to make it do it. This is disastrous for a wiki. The whole point of a wiki is the manipulation of relational links. It's also against our house rules, namely T:NO HTML.

I've left one of the RTE-written DWM pages in place so you can understand the problem. John Ainsworth appears to be linked on the page DWM 439. But if you check out the "what links here" for John Ainsworth, DWM 439 does not appear. This means that all sorts of reports, not to mention normal bot maintenance, are compromised in ways that we can't see by just looking at a published page. If someone comes to me and asks me to change the links to an article, I can't get to every single instance unless I know every instance is properly wikified.

So the question here isn't about which editor you prefer to write with. I get that the RTE is easier from the standpoint of a single editor making a single edit. The question is whether the simplicity is worth the fact that the next editor coming to the article may have to spend 30 minutes cleaning up after an unexpected code dump. Or that the ability to perform a tedious repeated correction with a bot is thrown off by the unexpected presence of URLs. Or that putting off learning how to use source mode means that you're less able to function when even the RTE gives up on visual mode and forces source on you.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">23:25: Tue 20 Dec 2011