Talk:JavaScript: Difference between revisions
| 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) | |||