MediaWiki talk:RefToolbarNoDialogs.js
Appearance
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)
- done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 06:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Bugfix for caret focus
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
- Also, similar edits need to be done for MediaWiki:RefToolbarLegacy.js. --hydrox (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
- 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. Please see my last comment here for a thorough explanation of what is the problem. --hydrox (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Taken on trust and
Done --Redrose64 (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks --hydrox (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Taken on trust and
- 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. Please see my last comment here for a thorough explanation of what is the problem. --hydrox (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)