Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia/2.0/WP:AWNB

What's the Visual Editor please?

I said I'd have silly questions. There's one. It's not something I remember, just wondering why it's so prominently advertised here and why everyone keeps talking about it like I should know. -- Longhair\^talk 14:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

answer by email JarrahTree 14:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) WP:VisualEditor is a new editor that allows to edit in a WYSIWYG way, rather than using wikitext. You can turn it on in your preferences. It's implementation by the WMF has been quite controversial, and is currently only available or shown as an option in certain namespaces. Lots of experienced editors don't like it, or only like it for certain things like table editing, but it is more friendly for a lot of new editors who are put off by wikimarkup. Kerry has been using it when training new editors, I believe, and she suggested adding the button to AWNB a little while ago [1] - Evad37 [talk] 14:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, the short answer (I'll look what it is tomorrow} is we're giving it undue weight here to begin with, and for anyone to gain value from that button being there they need to upgrade their newbie skillset to advance to opening the Mediawiki preferences and... tomorrow. I'll give it a fair assessment but I still feel it's not needing the in ya face banner ad style placement... leave it there until I check please. I like coffee. Coles Online tab please :D -- Longhair\^talk 14:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the preference is only for what the edit tab(s)/links do (for all pages). The button will still work no matter what your preference is set to, since its just a {{clickable button 2}} template which loads the necessary url for visual editing, which anyone can access. And newbies get the VisualEditor by default, unless they actively choose to only use wikitext. - Evad37 [talk] 14:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't clicked it yet, so its an edit button, not unlike the add new discussion button, and if you have the app installed, it'll activate it? -- Longhair\^talk 14:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its an edit button. it just load the url https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/2.0/WP:AWNB&veaction=edit#Discussions. You don't have to install anything, VE is always available, but only exposed in the interface if the appropriate preference is set. Evad37 [talk] 14:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Newbies get the VisualEditor by default, unless they actively choose to only use wikitext" how? Accounts created post a certain date are flagged with this tool active? -- Longhair\^talk 14:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it something like that. I think when a newbie first clicks edit, the site asks if you want to always use VisualEditor (when avialable), or see both 'Edit' and 'Edit source' tabs, or always use source (wikitext) editing. - Evad37 [talk] 14:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I'll say for now and I'm off to sleep... folks, we have the VHS vs Betacam my setup is gonna win scenario happening at Wikipedia in 2017... please be wrong Longhair. Goodnight :D -- Longhair\^talk 14:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had to ask, and I've worked in IT 25+ years in software design and other areas. I can see without looking how it might be helpful to new folk, and I'm not saying be done with it before seeing it for myself. I just read back on that archived topic... it's late and made no sense until I see it for myself. Good job mate. Progress made leaps and bounds today. -- Longhair\^talk 14:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although people say that Visual Editor is enabled by default for new people, this does not mean that the edit tab is set to the Visual Editor (or so I have found in training sessions). For that you need Preferences > Editing > Editing mode. I advise "show me both tabs"; This gives you the best of both tools. I was a fully proficient source editor but I decided to just use Visual Editor for a while so I would be fluent to use it for training purposes, but found I liked it so much I use it as my regular editor for most content edits. Its support for tables and citations is wonderful. With Visual Editor, I can copy a table (or subset thereof) in Excel and then paste it into a Wikipedia article. If you use it for nothing else, use it for working with tables. If a citation is reused within an article, you can copy them and delete them and the Visual Editor is smart enough to make it work. Unlike the source editor, where if you delete a citation, any others that reused it are then broken. What the Visual Editor doesn't do well is working with a lot of templates. So for heavy-duty template work, I use source editor but for a lot of citation templates I find it works just fine with its pop-up box to let you fill in the fields. Kerry (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to check it out yet, but I did learn just now that by clicking the menu button, it's enabled here. So it's active here for me when I never enabled it ever to my knowledge. Anyway, when you say in your edit summary "I use it, I like it, I don't understand the prejudice against it", you've taken the time to embrace it and learn it, whereas many here have spent a decade dealing with the old. When Microsoft changed Windows from using the Start button to the current app setup, people saw it as the interface being dumbed down and the same conversation occurred. I guess since it's a WMF endorsed tool of sorts people may have felt it was forced upon them without consultation. That's my uneducated view without seeing it in action., yet. -- Longhair\^talk 01:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've seen it, not a big fan, but each to their own. I have an idea that suits folks from both sides. We clone the noticeboard and transclude the chatter into a VE version so it doesn't intrude on those wanting no part of it. Is that too geeky or you're following? -- Longhair\^talk 04:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound like another silly question, but perhaps Kerry might have an answer since she's helping others in person. Do new editors even know they're using Visual Editor, or in their view are they just editing Wikipedia? Reason I ask is that if we're going to add features for it, we need to make sure people are even aware they're using it. -- Longhair\^talk 04:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the ones I train do. I show them examples of how an article looks in the two editors so they understand the difference. I have no idea what new editors on their own know or experience. The only way to find out what the new edit experience is to create an account and see but that makes you look like a sockpuppet. Of course, it is OK to have second accounts (as I do) for training purposes so I can demonstrate things as a "vanilla" account without all my normal preferences. But, that account is now some years old, it does not show me the new-today experience. But I can't keep creating more and more of them without looking like a sockmaster with sleepers. It goes without saying that changes are constantly made to the new user interface and hence the new user experience without telling anyone who does new use training about them (why would we need to know?). I find out when someone in the training class saying "your slide shows Such and Such but I am seeing So and So" :-( Kerry (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you're up front and clearly explain your intentions for multiple accounts, nobody will have a problem and if they do block the account a point to this discussion will quickly reverse the decision. My question is not uhlike the days of tv being black and white, my kids look at me like I'm telling lies. New editors may not know any different to what they're dealt with from day 1. So if we are going to provide functionality and label it as "Visual Editor users click here", they need to know we're talking to them for their own benefit. -- Longhair\^talk 05:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can cater to both. I've begun a Visual Editor Mode project clone of the project so anyone using it can click a button and use features applicable for VE. It'll make more sense once it's up and working. But we can't really ignore it if it'll help bring new editors in I think. -- Longhair\^talk 11:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making it more about people

I like the new look so far, and don't get me wrong, but I think we're still bringing old problems back into the new. One thing I've noticed is that the noticeboard is most active, where visitors meet each other, and communicate. The rest of the project is just logistical stuff, mostly necessary, but secondary to the overall project which is about people collaborating in a social sense. While I realise Wikipedia is not a social network, we need social-like features to make the place easier to use, especially for newcomers seeing the project for their first time.

How about this idea? We make the noticeboard the main page of the project, almost like a Facebook style timeline of sorts, and we simplify and reduce the clutter by way of recognisable but much smaller top right header icons or menus, so they can explore at their own leisure. if newcomers see humans communicating rather than link after link of "what's that crap", they might feel more inclined to become a part of it and feel like one of the crew? -- Longhair\^talk 02:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea, making the most-used page the main project page - Evad37 [talk]

And those big icons could possibly be reduced down to 30px x 30px or so and thrown up into the header, where, with less page clutter, they'll be clearly visible if required. Make it about the people and people will want to participate. -- Longhair\^talk 03:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, now ya talking! -- Longhair\^talk 04:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archives and search could probably live up there as well, removing that great big banner that is rarely used. About could be reworked into the subtitle as a link. -- Longhair\^talk 04:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm going fast but that's how I work... no deadlines remember. Eventually the entire project header in progress here will need to become a template. I'm guessing you already know that. That way we can easily brand anything required and embrace it into the new look. We're making awesome progress. -- Longhair\^talk 04:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a copy of the header at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/2.0/Header so we can work on the overall functionality of the place without being dragged down by what lies below. This section will become the template I speak of above when its done. -- Longhair\^talk 05:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the space left free at the very top left, how about a header link labeled 'Request assistance'. I'll help work on anything we'll need behind this link. That way new editors feeling overwhelmed can ask a question without feeling like they're standing before the entire project audience. -- Longhair\^talk 07:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2.0 cleanup

I've done a bit of a cleanup of project paths etc behind the scenes so the job of moving this work in progress to a live project is much easier down the track.

User:Evad37 (mostly, since he's the one doing the current work bringing it alive visually, but you're all welcome to help and guide the creation), can we make any further changes to the header interface section only at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/2.0/Header from this point onwards.

As discussed earlier, the entire concept of AWNB is kinda redundant and will now become the main project page. If we get the pages in the correct places now it'll save us a lot of work later.

I've also brought alive

so that anyone can help create the content for those pages without worrying about messing up the work going on above it. Hope that helps. -- Longhair\^talk 10:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]