Forum:Please get rid of the new advanced edit features

I think it's horrific, makes the site ugly, and not helpful at all. Is it possible to get rid of it? And make "edit source" be just regular "edit"? ~ Kakun · talk 17:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. IMHO that new "edit" tool is a mess, and the casual click of it should became a problem (the clicked pages tend to be blocked for a while). So, I agree with Kakun, also about the option to make "edit source" be just regular "edit". --Spam Removal Unit 17:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

If you don't like it, you can just disable it in your preferences. It's under editing, and is the checkbox with the ridiculously long label.

Mind you, I agree about the tab label swap also being a bit confusing/misleading. Had some real 'fun' trying to put that back on ?pedia earlier, and their whole thing with the tabs is to have them be as confusing/misleading as possible. Not sure if there's a good way to actually do that, but the messages I found were these:

• MediaWiki:Vector-view-create‎
• MediaWiki:Vector-view-edit‎
• MediaWiki:Edit
• MediaWiki:Visualeditor-ca-createsource
• MediaWiki:Visualeditor-ca-editsource

Bear in mind I'm also not sure how changing them around affects users who then turn off the extension in their preferences. Um. -— Lyrithya ༆ 18:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's bad. -— Lyrithya ༆ 18:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Lyr. Visual editor sucks ass as much as visual puns. Is it possible to uncheck that checkbox by default for all users? ~ Kakun · talk 18:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe if you just renamed the VE tab from "edit" to "Visual edit" then it is less likely people would misclick. Arthur (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I somehow got it when I edited a disambig page, and it was a mess to navigate. I'm lucky I got something nice and clean before I hit "Save." PF4Eva, the President of Imagination Vote for me My tax returns 05:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

en.wp uses Visual Editor, and I've always liked to imagine that we are a parody of them. VE is designed to be easy for new users to learn, and I believe that it may help us draw in some new editors. I don't personally plan to ever use VE, and luckily its very easy to opt out of. -- The Zombiebaron 09:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

This discussion looks identical to the one Wikipedians had back in 2013 about VisualEditor, so fantastic job keeping up with the parody, albeit a few years late. Legoktm (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Vote

Enabled by default

Score: +3

1.  For. I'd prefer if the tabs stayed the same name. I think what Wikipedia does is have one edit tab that defaults to VE, and then "power users" (lol) can click the button on the right to switch to source editing, and then that becomes their default or something I don't know. – roza^☭ 17:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
2. For I'm sure one of our code wizards can whip up code to rename the tabs, which we can all put in our personal code files. Ultimately the vanilla experience of our site should be as noob friendly as possible. -- The Zombiebaron 19:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
3. For I agree with Zombiebaron. The people that don't like this can change it easily, whereas the people that would benefit from Visual Editor are the ones who wouldn't know how. - I'm Not Funny 05:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Enabled by default, but...

...with the old edit marked "Edit", and the VE tab marked as "VisualEditor" or "VEdit" or "WYSIWYG".

Score: +4

1. I would prefer just an Edit tab that defaults to the old style, with a dropdown menu that offers both as an option. I will not be implementing this myself, so don't ask me to.  ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, Jun 1 '79 0:00 (UTC)
2. This idea is good. "VisualEditor" would be better, because WYSIWYG as an acronym is deranged, and VEdit still looks pretty similar to Edit. Arthur (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
3.  For. Though I have no idea how to, uh, actually do this, so I won't be the one to implement it either. If we are using the extension, we want discoverability of the feature, which means clear labels that indicate its presence as an option while also not confusing people, especially existing users. Hiding it behind a default off preference, on the other hand, means that those who would benefit most would be the least likely to ever find it, as others have already pointed out. -— Lyrithya ༆ 23:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
4. JESUS CHRIST! I'M TRYING TO WRITE POOOOOOOP IN THE SPAMBOX, AND WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT? COULDN'T FIGURE OUT A DAMN THING. WYSIWYGS CAN SUCK MY DICK! I HATE IT! HATE HATE HAT! But, I mean, if things were clearer with the change in what the tab is, and it's better for others, yeah, sure why not? The Woodburninator Minimal Effort ™ 00:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Disabled by default, because fuck new features I hate technology rawr

If you choose this option, keep in mind that you're a dinosaur, and that users who are new to wiki editing (the demographic who the WMF says benefits most from using it) will never turn it on in their preferences because they won't know it's there. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, Jun 1 '79 0:00 (UTC)

Score: +5

1.  For. It makes the articles look ugly. Here's a good example: The Larry Sanders Show. ~ Kakun · talk 10:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

   I'm confused - that article doesn't appear to have been edited since VE was enabled. What exactly is VE doing that you're referring to? -— Lyrithya ༆ 23:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

   I didn't explain myself, sorry... Each paragraph has both "Edit" & "Edit source" options next to the title, and if there are too many paragraphs, it looks like someone puked all over the article. ~ Kakun · talk 12:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

   You can add a __NOEDITSECTION__ to pages like that. That way none of the editsection links will appear and it'll all look better, VE or otherwise. -— Lyrithya ༆ 18:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

   You're right of course, but I think VE makes ALL the site very clumsy, which is the exact opposite of what it's meant to do. ~ Kakun · talk 18:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

2. Comment. I'd also like to point out that people who are upset enough at VE to prefer source editing most likely know how to disable it in their preferences. – roza^☭ 17:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
3.  Rawr. In my admittedly brief experience both using VisualEditor and administrating wikis that use it, I've found it's more of a hassle than a benefit. Simple edits usually end up fine, but more complicated edits (such as the addition of templates and categories) will more often than not appear sloppy and require a clean-up. While I agree that we should remain a Wikipedia parody as thoroughly as possible, there's a good reason why VisualEditor remains in beta. Wikipedia has the luxury of having hundreds of people laboriously scanning through each and every edit at any given moment to ensure the formatting remains up to snuff, but I'm not sure I can say the same about Uncyclopedia. Frankly, I don't see the point in enabling VE by default if the point is to help newcomers with simple edits as the classic editor handles those without any issues, nor do I see the point in enabling it for more complex edits if someone else is just gonna have to come along and clean it up. If we're aiming for long-term editors, then they absolutely should learn the basics of wiki code. The classic editor's toolbar covers this. Most importantly, there's absolutely nothing that indicates VE helps new editors or increases contributions. For a wiki of our size, using VE as the default seems more detrimental than it's worth. I understand it can be disabled in your preferences, but by the same token, it can be enabled too. I would be in favor of adding a button to the classic editor's toolbar that takes users directly to the section of their preferences that enables it, or even a button that directly enables it if possible, but I'm against using VisualEditor as the default until it's well out of beta and the formatting is proven to remain consistent. — SG1|Hereish ^{[citation needed]} 00:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

   Do you have recent examples of it messing up formatting/requiring cleanup after? I was under the impression most of this had been fixed, though it's certainly possible there are still issues especially with some of the weirder/extension markup other wikis might use. Also, do note that if it's disabled for a user, it's disabled - it does not show up as an option on the page anywhere, the interface changes will not appear for them, and the js for the editor itself will likewise not load for them. The only way to make it an option when actually editing is for them to enable it in their preferences, and even then it's not really the default editor - it just shows up as one edit option, alongside the other edit option. -— Lyrithya ༆ 23:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

4.  For. Wiki markups, in general, aren't very difficult to learn. All you need is to view source of our featured articles :)--The Pioneer 15:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
5.  For. →L A B O R A T O R I E S ^{21:43 24 January 2019}
6.  For. Rawr! --Spam Removal Unit 21:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)