It's not as colorful as the [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabebuia_chrysantha | ipê-amarelo ]] flower. It doesn't taste like [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginjinha | Ginjinha ]].
Then, why do Portuguese-speaking editors like the visual editor so much?
[[ https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Editing_department_%E2%80%93_Quarterly_Review_slide_deck,_2016%E2%80%9316_Q1.pdf&page=17 | Its uptake at pt.wiki ]] doesn't seem to have evident reasons, and it's so different from the average value that deserves a little investigation as to why it's so successful there.
We may be particularly interested in why IPs prefer it to wikitext editing, but let's not forget that earlier this year [[ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T90641#1070461 | we also found out ]] that 27 registered editors there were among the top 500 VE users at the time.
Here are a few facts/data points/remarks.
*VE has the same config there as on most other big wikis (primary tab, opt-out);
*There are not so many templates with TemplateData (around 130, although this includes common Cite templates, Infobox person);
*Citoid is enabled, and only provides basic info with //pt// news sites;
*There is no local documentation about the product (only a redirect to mediawiki.org's one);
*The guides on mw.org are not entirely translated (currently, the user manual basically is - although it's at 76% for //pt-br//; when you look at all the VE-related documentation,// pt// is at 58% and //pt-br// at 75%);
*The interface itself is translated almost entirely;
*VE is not mentioned or promoted in local help pages (except for a few tutorial pages with less than a dozen views in 90 days each);
*VE is not mentioned or promoted in interface messages (i.e., after looking for an article which doesn't exist);
*the local feedback page isn't very active and never really hosted conversations around the product (although, let's thank again @He7d3r for all his efforts there);
*CLs haven't engaged in a particular way with this community and haven't held specific initiatives;
*A couple of instructors involved in Education programs at pt.wp seem to be using it (cc @FloorKoudijs: maybe they're recommending it in class?). Details on these initiatives (and others which may be initiated by community/chapters/user groups etc. like edit-a-thons) are much welcome;
*Finally, VE is also much used at pt.books, where it's in opt-out mode (95 out of 500 edits made with it to mainspace pages as of a random check minutes ago);
*pt.wiki is "[[ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing,_October_2015#VisualEditor | mostly edited from Global South ]], in contrast to earlier concerns the VE would be only usable for GN people with state of the art computers".