Talk:JavaScript
Contents2
maybe better to move this to 'Forced JavaScript on websites' and narrow the scope or something?
This article currently reads as an opinionated article about how bad a programming language is. Whether it's valid or not is beyond me, but I'm not sure it really fits the wiki, especially as it's a bit of a stretch to call it a 'product'. An incident/theme page on javascript being forced for tracking etc. could make ore sense instead? Keith (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- I agree, it's not a product, it's a web-tech, like cookies. I think that if there's an article about cookies, there should be one about JS Rudxain (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- yeah, it's more of a general theme article regarding how it's used that we'd want i guess, rather than an article discussing the language itself (though obviously things about the language would be brought up). Keith (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed, if we need an explainer article for JS, we should just link to Wikipedia. Any incidents/themes explicitly involving JS should have their own dedicated articles JamesTDG (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention that there are some cases in which the mere existence of JS (as a standard) can negatively impact users, even when it's optional. One of the External-Links contains a source for that, so please give me some time to complete the article :( Rudxain (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Wait, isn't JS too specific to be a theme? I think a proper theme would be "Forced software" (similarly to FADL). It makes sense, because many of the bad things about JS are shared/in-common with anything that executes code ("dynamic/active content") Rudxain (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- it's not essential that themes be broad - the main reason to use them is when 'this is a thing that is a general issue, but is not linked to a single product or company', I'd say? and the effects of JS on the web ecosystem are definitely not classifiable as an incident that can be pinned on a single company, and can't even really be blamed on the language itself, it's the whole ecosystem that exists around it. Keith (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- I believe in the article's current state, it is not relevant for the wiki to cover, as it utilizes some self research by @Rudxain in the sources, which concerns me of potential biases that may exist. Mr Pollo (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- it's not essential that themes be broad - the main reason to use them is when 'this is a thing that is a general issue, but is not linked to a single product or company', I'd say? and the effects of JS on the web ecosystem are definitely not classifiable as an incident that can be pinned on a single company, and can't even really be blamed on the language itself, it's the whole ecosystem that exists around it. Keith (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- yeah, it's more of a general theme article regarding how it's used that we'd want i guess, rather than an article discussing the language itself (though obviously things about the language would be brought up). Keith (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Resources for devs and users
Somme people on the discord (maybe also Zulip?) mentioned that the article should help users minimize the downsides of JS on pages they don't control. I agree, we should add info about that. However, we should also help web-developers implement sites without relying much on JS.
I'm saying this because of these edits by @Vandetta, which removed these URLs:
IMO, both are good demos/examples of what can be done with modern HTML+CSS! If they are removed, please replace them by something better (such as MDN links, I guess?) Rudxain (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I had removed them because the way they had been added to the page did not flow with the theme article and what it was trying to convey
- If you believe these resources are important re inplment them in a way that actually befits the articles standing Vandetta (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)