Talk:JavaScript
Add topicmaybe better to move this to 'Forced JavaScript on websites' and narrow the scope or something?
[edit source]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
[edit source]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)