Wikia's forums are a place for the community to discuss subjects with other members. Remember sign your post with four tildes: ~~~~
Click here to edit page

• To vote, simply post *{{Support}} and sign with ~~~~ under the answer you are supporting. You can always change it at anytime, until the end date by using the {{Unvote}} template.
• To vote against an answer, simply post *{{Oppose}} and sign with ~~~~ under the it to symbolize your opposition. When voting against an answer it is recommended you post a short description of why. You can always change it at anytime, until the end date by using the {{Unvote}} template.
• If you would like to give a new option or even just make a little comment that is neither for nor against what you are commenting on, use the *{{Neutral}} tag before it.
• An example of unvoting in use would be *{{Unvote|{{Support}}}}. This shows up as Support —.
• Votes made by users not logged in (including regular anons) will not be counted.
• Voting ends once four days pass and there have been no new votes (except during ties).
  • Unless five days pass and the vote is unanimous, then the vote ends.
• If the available options to vote for are not what you want, go ahead and add another option and vote for it.

Should we remove visual based editing?Edit

Visual based editing seems to cause more problems than it fixes, and articles with slightly complicated text automatically force one to edit in source mode, so people will experience it anyway. There have been far too many edits made where visual based editing causes the article to get ruined and the user who made the edit finds their self unable to figure out what happened to fix it.

Remove visual based editing?Edit

• Strong Support — Too terrible to not remove. While I don't think anyone actually uses visual on purpose, there may be one or three people who do and for those that do though I think we should make it accessible in the way that source mode is accessible like by clicking an option in your preferences if possible. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 13:22, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
• Support —, for the reasons stated in Forum:Ban_visual_based_editing. --Cornprone 21:32, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support — Visual editing is inferior to source mode in almost every way. Source mode is easier and doesn't cause the occasional unintentional problems that visual does. SaberSworn 00:36, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
• Support — Yeah, the only thing I really like to edit in Visual Mode is templates. Other than that, source mode works just fine.

Watch us get no votes besides from admins or mods... Just sayin'. --Legendary Dark Knight 00:41, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

Visual mode even has problems with templates, especially things like character boxes. It always changes "<ref>" to "ref" if there's a reference in the box. Things like that are very annoying... SaberSworn 00:46, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, hate it when those ref issues happen. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 13:08, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose — I don't think there is enough good reason to remove visual mode. I can reasonably assume there are quite a few users who don't understand how to use source mode at all and would probably just give up instead of figuring it out. I say reasonably assume because out of the five people I just asked about it in chat, zero of them know how to use it. Opening a page that is chocked full of plain text looks pretty daunting to most people. Admittedly many of the users who don't understand source mode are also users that don't make top quality edits, but unless we're okay with driving off a significant number of editors I think this is a bad idea. Flame Prince Finn 07:29, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Did you read anything on this page and this page? SaberSworn 07:41, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

The first link I read entirely. The second I am just now reading and it is not swaying my opinion much because it doesn't really address my concerns. Flame Prince Finn 07:46, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose — Why on Earth would you want to get rid of it? It's just an easy way to do things, there is literally no reason why you should get rid of it. Marceline the Radical Dame 07:34, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

See the description way up top to answer that question. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 12:35, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose — Visual is like a way of sorting the the things you need to see and the things you dont.... when I tried to vote in source mode I could barely understand anything.... 07:57, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

It really doesn't take long to learn how to use it though. You'd be able to pick it up fairly quickly. Also, there's always the "preview" button, which does a better job than visual. SaberSworn 07:59, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral — I'm surprised people like that thing. I'm on Monobook more than Oasis; I only use that to check out page layouts. Then there is the "answers" site which is Oasis 24/7 so can't do much with that. -- Bunai82 ^(talk) 17:56, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

As am I. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 19:19, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

As you what?Lord of the wikis (Afliador8) 17:09, May 20, 2012 (UTC)

Am surprised that anyone actually likes it? I guess I will just write up a lecture to post on everyone's talk page who messes up an article due to using it because I am tired of fixing so many visual based editing mess ups. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 12:32, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose — I've never seem a wikia without it. I didn't even know that was possible to do. Visual mode is a way to see how everyone else is going to see it. Besides, source mode is too complicated for some new users. I think you guys just don't want new users to edit stuff. But, a good reason to remove it would be that I would never edit anything ever again. Afliador8 17:10, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

The reasons were explained at the intro as to why it should be disabled, none of which have to do with not wanting new editors to edit the page. The reason why you never seen a wiki without one, is because your arrival was when Oasis and visual editor was implemented, and the ones you frequent are likely use to it. -- Bunai82 ^(talk) 15:20, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

• Support — It does cause a lot of problems for me. I would support the removal, though I do like some features that is has. Would it be possible to make it so that source mode appears first over visual and just leave it as an option? True Sephiroth 20:17, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

That is what I was hoping for. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 20:26, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

Here's another error likely caused by the use of visual editor. The horrid text on the right is what was there for 6 days. It's almost impossible to edit that because it's too confusing with all that unnecessary text. This isn't the first time I've seen this happen... SaberSworn 15:28, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

It happens to user talk pages a lot too. I've seen it happen more than a handful of times. SaberSworn 15:58, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose — You've gotta be kidding me, right?! People can't possibly think this is a good idea! There are just too many people out there who don't know how Source Mode works to do this. Wow-Wow-Wow-wow 22:11, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

They don't know because they haven't tried and haven't realized that it's so much easier to use source mode. Visual mode does noting but cause problems. There's a reason why experienced users use it: it's just better. If only we could get people to try it... SaberSworn|

Why are you assuming ALL USERS that aren't you haven't tried? The reason I don't use it is I'm still trying to figure it out. Removing visual based editing will deter new users and make it harded to contribute properly for the majority of the people who already edit here. I think, maybe you should just put up a detailed guide somewhere that explains how Source Mode works. If there is one, sorry. That just shows how little I know about Source Mode.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie Cordelia (talk • contribs)

Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). SaberSworn 15:49, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere did I imply that other people don't use it. I'm sure there are several people that use it. SaberSworn 15:46, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose — I hate source mode. I only use it for copying and pasting--Chubzhac 14:21, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

Can you at least give a reason? It doesn't help when you say you "hate source mode" and you do not explain why.

• SaberSworn
  • Talk
  • Contributions

02:44, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I hate it because I find find that it is much more difficult to use than visual editing.--King Chubzhac, Boss of YOU (talk) 14:43, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose —: JUST NO! It may be compicated but some rookie users use it as to edit some stuff. We need that. ★FAITH.HOPE.TRUST★ 11:22, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support —: I'm still a rookie and I always use source mode. Get rid of that visual crud. --RootSword (talk) 11:19, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
• Support — - I originally was going to oppose, because I wanted users to edit according to their preference, but it's gotten to the point where I can't even post one single comment on a blog because of visual mode. I envisioned for both editors to exist peacefully without one ruining the other, but apparently that cannot be.

I will not deny that visual mode is incredibly useful to many users on this wiki. Despite visual mode's (numerous) flaws, it can make certain tasks easier for some. Still, source mode is the better option most of the time, as it is incredibly useful once one becomes familiar with it. Removing visual will be a painful transition for many, but if the users stick to it, they will learn to embrace source mode instead of fear it.

I know how painful the transition will be because I too once used the visual mode, and as an inexperienced user, I used to panic whenever I saw the dreaded "Rich text editing has been disabled because the page contains complex code." After a month of using source, I emerged as a more effective contributor to the wiki than I once was, being familiar with basic templates and more "complex" pages. Even now, years later, I can't create a decent table without referring to another page that already has it, because I am still learning.

The path of source mode is a never-ending path of learning that will equip users with many more tools to evolve as better editors than visual mode ever could. In contrast, visual mode requires little learning, rather just becoming familiar with which button does what.

If users do not challenge themselves, how are they going to evolve and grow as editors and contributors to this wiki?

-- Waddle D33 ^Talk _Contribs ಠ_ಠ 01:47, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose — I edit in visual a lot. It helps because, not even I have memorized wikitext. Visual helps a lot of newcomers. It's also very hard to edit when the only ways to look at your work is by clicking preveiw of publishing it. I just think we should keep visual mode. Oh, hey, I typed this whole thing without switching to source mode! Oh, and, if your editing a talk page, it's kind hard to know what's going on in source because of the long wikitext custom signatures use. Oh, and I stronly oppose this, I just don't know how to make it say strong before it. I could say more but let's just say I also said what BLUAHUM said. Flame Kirby 02:28, July 23, 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral — As a complete and utter newb to the world of wikis, I have no idea what the difference is. Could someone please post an explanation? Hastur1066 (talk) 19:52, September 9, 2012 (UTC) *{{{1}}}
  • I find that basically visual mode is easier to add photos, videos and templates. Source mode is easier to copy and paste.--King Chubzhac, Boss of YOU (talk) 21:28, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

Support — Some people won't like it at first, but I think (hope) people are smart enough to adapt. I agree that it causes a lot of problems, such as unnecessary formatting codes that go unnoticed by the visual editors (e.g. the extra <span>s). I think it will also help people learn how to link properly if they're forced to look at the source mode. Lailoken (Talk) 22:56, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose — I do not think that visual editing should be removed as an editing option. The fact the most people refer to use the source option (myself included) is not enough of a reason to remove it. It is just a preference of ours and we should not remove the option from others just because most do not use it - Alchemical (talk) 16:29, September 14, 2012 (UTC).