MediaWiki talk:RefToolbarNoDialogs.js

Use of "$j" is deprecated. Use $ or jQuery instead

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could someone please replace the depracated "$j" by "$" and simplify those "new Array()" to just "[]"? Helder.wiki 16:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 06:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 3 April 2014

It is requested that an edit be made to the interface page at MediaWiki:RefToolbarNoDialogs.js. (edit · history · last · links)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any interface administrator. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EIp}} template in the response. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

On line 294, change:

  insertTags(cite, '', '');

to:

  $("#wpTextbox1").focus();
  insertTags(cite, '', '');

On line 362, change:

  insertTags(ref, '', '');

to:

  $("#wpTextbox1").focus();
  insertTags(ref, '', '');

This fixes an annoying bug with RefToolbar where the citation text gets inserted in the wrong edit field. This fix simply forces the input focus to the main wikitext edit field right before the insertion, which is the expected behaviour of the "Insert citation" tool. See RefToolbar talk. hydrox (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, similar edits need to be done for MediaWiki:RefToolbarLegacy.js. --hydrox (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. I object. I've used the RefToolbar to intentionally insert stuff into the edit summary and this would prevent that (well, it would add an extra step of me having to add it to the edit box and then cut and paste). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? This is just a non-controversial edit that fixes an error within the software. But I can understand if you think someone who can understand the code change should do a code review, but I don't think there is a consensus required. I am resetting the request to unanswered pending someone to just review the code change. It only fixes a bug, after all. --hydrox (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]