Talk:JavaScript - Revision history

Mr Pollo: /* maybe better to move this to 'Forced JavaScript on websites' and narrow the scope or something? */ Reply

2026-04-28T01:01:37Z

maybe better to move this to 'Forced JavaScript on websites' and narrow the scope or something?: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:01, 28 April 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:::Wait, isn't JS too specific to be a theme? I think a proper theme would be "Forced software" (similarly to [[Forced app download\|FADL]]). It makes sense, because many of the bad things about JS are shared/in-common with anything that executes code ("dynamic/active content") [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain\|talk]]) 11:35, 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 [[Forced app download\|FADL]]). It makes sense, because many of the bad things about JS are shared/in-common with anything that executes code ("dynamic/active content") [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 12:14, 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. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk: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 @[[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] in the sources, which concerns me of potential biases that may exist. [[User:Mr Pollo\|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo\|talk]]) 01:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

	==Resources for devs and users==		==Resources for devs and users==

Vandetta: /* Resources for devs and users */ Reply

2026-04-17T20:27:56Z

Resources for devs and users: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:27, 17 April 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:
	::::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. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 12:14, 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. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 12:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

	== Resources for devs and users ==		==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.		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.
Line 16:		Line 16:
	I'm saying this because of [https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=JavaScript&diff=50129&oldid=47947 these edits] by @[[User:Vandetta\|Vandetta]], which removed these URLs:		I'm saying this because of [https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=JavaScript&diff=50129&oldid=47947 these edits] by @[[User:Vandetta\|Vandetta]], which removed these URLs:

	* [https://www.htmhell.dev/adventcalendar/2023/2/ "You don't need JavaScript for that"]		*[https://www.htmhell.dev/adventcalendar/2023/2/ "You don't need JavaScript for that"]
	* [https://jakearchibald.com/2025/give-footnotes-the-boot/#footnotes-on-the-web "Give footnotes the boot § Footnotes on the web"]		*[https://jakearchibald.com/2025/give-footnotes-the-boot/#footnotes-on-the-web "Give footnotes the boot § Footnotes on the web"]

	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?) [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain\|talk]]) 03:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)		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?) [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Vandetta\|Vandetta]] ([[User talk:Vandetta\|talk]]) 20:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Rudxain: /* Resources for devs and users */ new section

2026-04-13T03:23:53Z

Resources for devs and users: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:23, 13 April 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:::Wait, isn't JS too specific to be a theme? I think a proper theme would be "Forced software" (similarly to [[Forced app download\|FADL]]). It makes sense, because many of the bad things about JS are shared/in-common with anything that executes code ("dynamic/active content") [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain\|talk]]) 11:35, 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 [[Forced app download\|FADL]]). It makes sense, because many of the bad things about JS are shared/in-common with anything that executes code ("dynamic/active content") [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 12:14, 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. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 12:14, 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 [https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=JavaScript&diff=50129&oldid=47947 these edits] by @[[User:Vandetta\|Vandetta]], which removed these URLs:

			* [https://www.htmhell.dev/adventcalendar/2023/2/ "You don't need JavaScript for that"]
			* [https://jakearchibald.com/2025/give-footnotes-the-boot/#footnotes-on-the-web "Give footnotes the boot § Footnotes on the web"]

			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?) [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain\|talk]]) 03:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Keith: /* maybe better to move this to 'Forced JavaScript on websites' and narrow the scope or something? */ Reply

2026-03-18T12:14:48Z

maybe better to move this to 'Forced JavaScript on websites' and narrow the scope or something?: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:14, 18 March 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:
	:::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 [https://github.com/Rudxain/blog/blob/a326c9db28c9f7eb6e30e6a737ca4aeae0d2ee39/post/js-abuse.md#to-do contains a source] for that, so please give me some time to complete the article :( [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain\|talk]]) 09:16, 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 [https://github.com/Rudxain/blog/blob/a326c9db28c9f7eb6e30e6a737ca4aeae0d2ee39/post/js-abuse.md#to-do contains a source] for that, so please give me some time to complete the article :( [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk: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 [[Forced app download\|FADL]]). It makes sense, because many of the bad things about JS are shared/in-common with anything that executes code ("dynamic/active content") [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain\|talk]]) 11:35, 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 [[Forced app download\|FADL]]). It makes sense, because many of the bad things about JS are shared/in-common with anything that executes code ("dynamic/active content") [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 12:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Rudxain: /* maybe better to move this to 'Forced JavaScript on websites' and narrow the scope or something? */ Reply

2026-03-18T11:35:36Z

maybe better to move this to 'Forced JavaScript on websites' and narrow the scope or something?: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:35, 18 March 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	:::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 [[User:JamesTDG\|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG\|talk]]) 08:52, 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 [[User:JamesTDG\|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk: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 [https://github.com/Rudxain/blog/blob/a326c9db28c9f7eb6e30e6a737ca4aeae0d2ee39/post/js-abuse.md#to-do contains a source] for that, so please give me some time to complete the article :( [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain\|talk]]) 09:16, 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 [https://github.com/Rudxain/blog/blob/a326c9db28c9f7eb6e30e6a737ca4aeae0d2ee39/post/js-abuse.md#to-do contains a source] for that, so please give me some time to complete the article :( [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk: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 [[Forced app download\|FADL]]). It makes sense, because many of the bad things about JS are shared/in-common with anything that executes code ("dynamic/active content") [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain\|talk]]) 11:35, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Rudxain: /* maybe better to move this to 'Forced JavaScript on websites' and narrow the scope or something? */ Reply

2026-03-18T09:16:30Z

maybe better to move this to 'Forced JavaScript on websites' and narrow the scope or something?: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:16, 18 March 2026
Line 6:		Line 6:
	::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). [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 08:47, 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). [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:JamesTDG\|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG\|talk]]) 08:52, 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 [[User:JamesTDG\|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk: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 [https://github.com/Rudxain/blog/blob/a326c9db28c9f7eb6e30e6a737ca4aeae0d2ee39/post/js-abuse.md#to-do contains a source] for that, so please give me some time to complete the article :( [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain\|talk]]) 09:16, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

JamesTDG: /* maybe better to move this to 'Forced JavaScript on websites' and narrow the scope or something? */ Reply

2026-03-18T08:52:35Z

maybe better to move this to 'Forced JavaScript on websites' and narrow the scope or something?: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:52, 18 March 2026
Line 5:		Line 5:
	:I agree, it's not a product, it's a web-tech, like [[Web cookie\|cookies]]. I think that if there's an article about cookies, there should be one about JS [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain\|talk]]) 08:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)		:I agree, it's not a product, it's a web-tech, like [[Web cookie\|cookies]]. I think that if there's an article about cookies, there should be one about JS [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 08:47, 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). [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:JamesTDG\|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG\|talk]]) 08:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Keith: /* maybe better to move this to 'Forced JavaScript on websites' and narrow the scope or something? */ Reply

2026-03-18T08:47:18Z

maybe better to move this to 'Forced JavaScript on websites' and narrow the scope or something?: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:47, 18 March 2026
Line 4:		Line 4:

	:I agree, it's not a product, it's a web-tech, like [[Web cookie\|cookies]]. I think that if there's an article about cookies, there should be one about JS [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain\|talk]]) 08:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)		:I agree, it's not a product, it's a web-tech, like [[Web cookie\|cookies]]. I think that if there's an article about cookies, there should be one about JS [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 08:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Rudxain: /* maybe better to move this to 'Forced JavaScript on websites' and narrow the scope or something? */ Reply

2026-03-18T08:28:06Z

maybe better to move this to 'Forced JavaScript on websites' and narrow the scope or something?: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:28, 18 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== maybe better to move this to 'Forced JavaScript on websites' and narrow the scope or something? ==		==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? [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 08:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)		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? [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 08:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

			:I agree, it's not a product, it's a web-tech, like [[Web cookie\|cookies]]. I think that if there's an article about cookies, there should be one about JS [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain\|talk]]) 08:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Keith: /* maybe better to move this to 'Forced JavaScript on websites' and narrow the scope or something? */ new section

2026-03-18T08:12:14Z

maybe better to move this to 'Forced JavaScript on websites' and narrow the scope or something?: new section

New page

== 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? [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 08:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:14, 18 March 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:
	:::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 [https://github.com/Rudxain/blog/blob/a326c9db28c9f7eb6e30e6a737ca4aeae0d2ee39/post/js-abuse.md#to-do contains a source] for that, so please give me some time to complete the article :( [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain\|talk]]) 09:16, 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 [https://github.com/Rudxain/blog/blob/a326c9db28c9f7eb6e30e6a737ca4aeae0d2ee39/post/js-abuse.md#to-do contains a source] for that, so please give me some time to complete the article :( [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk: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 [[Forced app download\|FADL]]). It makes sense, because many of the bad things about JS are shared/in-common with anything that executes code ("dynamic/active content") [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain\|talk]]) 11:35, 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 [[Forced app download\|FADL]]). It makes sense, because many of the bad things about JS are shared/in-common with anything that executes code ("dynamic/active content") [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 12:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:35, 18 March 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	:::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 [[User:JamesTDG\|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG\|talk]]) 08:52, 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 [[User:JamesTDG\|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk: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 [https://github.com/Rudxain/blog/blob/a326c9db28c9f7eb6e30e6a737ca4aeae0d2ee39/post/js-abuse.md#to-do contains a source] for that, so please give me some time to complete the article :( [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain\|talk]]) 09:16, 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 [https://github.com/Rudxain/blog/blob/a326c9db28c9f7eb6e30e6a737ca4aeae0d2ee39/post/js-abuse.md#to-do contains a source] for that, so please give me some time to complete the article :( [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk: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 [[Forced app download\|FADL]]). It makes sense, because many of the bad things about JS are shared/in-common with anything that executes code ("dynamic/active content") [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain\|talk]]) 11:35, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:16, 18 March 2026
Line 6:		Line 6:
	::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). [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 08:47, 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). [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:JamesTDG\|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG\|talk]]) 08:52, 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 [[User:JamesTDG\|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk: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 [https://github.com/Rudxain/blog/blob/a326c9db28c9f7eb6e30e6a737ca4aeae0d2ee39/post/js-abuse.md#to-do contains a source] for that, so please give me some time to complete the article :( [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain\|talk]]) 09:16, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:52, 18 March 2026
Line 5:		Line 5:
	:I agree, it's not a product, it's a web-tech, like [[Web cookie\|cookies]]. I think that if there's an article about cookies, there should be one about JS [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain\|talk]]) 08:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)		:I agree, it's not a product, it's a web-tech, like [[Web cookie\|cookies]]. I think that if there's an article about cookies, there should be one about JS [[User:Rudxain\|Rudxain]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 08:47, 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). [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:JamesTDG\|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG\|talk]]) 08:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)