Talk:JavaScript - Revision history

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)