Jump to content

Talk:JavaScript templating

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Improvements

[edit]

I'am considering to make it like Online Javascript IDE: basically a listing with comparison. Yug (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would find it very useful if it was a listing with comparison of examples (different then Comparison of web template engines). I added another example to the existing Mustache.js. In my programmer's eyes it is very valuable to see simple real-world approaches each library takes on simple HTML listing use case scenario. Good example has value of thousands words. ;-) --Elixon (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vue.js

[edit]

I disagree with the merger of Vue.js as part of this page. There should be no redirection. Vue.js is one of the most popular open source projects on github with over 37K stars (more than 3x Mustache.js which has its own article 10K Stars, Handlebars.js- 11K stars, 2x Ember.js- 17K or even Angular 2- 19K, and Backbone.js- 26K). In short of all the other libraries mentioned it has more community relevance than any of them yet is the only one without it's own article. It is also very misleading to call it a templating library--that is a minor aspect of what it does...--Nonymous-raz (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having figured out how to access the page despite it's redirection (use the query param redirect=false), I was able to find the discussion which resulted in the deletion/re-direction to this article it found itself attached to. (As even mentioned in the archived discussion: Vue.js Deletion it is debatable whether this redirect makes any sense.) Vue.js continues to grow and is in fact now at 41K github stars...just a month later. On what basis is the library not `notable`? It was the github repository with the most amount of stars gained in 2016... It also has climbed in GitHub stars by 10% as of 1 month ago... Not to mention it is used by many Fortune 500 companies (including Alibaba - $260 Billion Market Cap for their Single's Day event an event where the company had billions of dollars in sales). That's why it is mentioned in so many instructional websites: Udemy Paid Course. It is also #1 in Scotch.io (one of the most popular Programming Instructional Websites) or Vue.js Tutorial, and there is buzz about it. It has several tags on stackoverflow.com with 3,457 questions tagged just for vue.js (which nearly reaches handlebars.js at 4k despite that project starting: Nov 25, 2010 = about 5 years head start).--Nonymous-raz (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments on redirecting of Vue.js page into JavaScript Templating page

[edit]

I agree with Nonymous-raz. Vue.js is its own framework and should not be redirected to the JavaScript Templating page. I came here looking for specific information, including Vue.js' release dates, versions, license, etc. These are very specific to the Vue.js framework. To redirect Vue.js to a page on JavaScript templating is either lazy, disingenuous, destructive, or downright manipulative. Based on Nonymous-raz's first sentence above, it sounds like there once was a dedicated Vue.js page, which means it isn't lazy but rather an intentional misrepresentation. Vue.js should have its own page. Aftblu (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are guidelines for creating Wikipedia articles. If you believe that you can gather enough reliable and notable information about the subject, you can create the article. --Topperfalkon (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there has been a "vote" about whether the article should be deleted and it was deleted and redirected. So it would involve removing the redirect, and really a new vote seems like it might have to occur but I think if within a few weeks no response is given, and assuming that it continues to grow in popularity so rapidly, I will remove the redirect (unless this violates some rules, but I think that it qualifies as becoming much more notable since the decision to remove it took place: it was the GitHub Repo with the most stars gained in 2016 mostly after wiki deletion). Nonymous-raz (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aftblu. I'll try to help clarify things here, and how we could potentially proceed with a Vue.js article. To start with, I request that we set aside any suggestions of "lazy, disingenuous, destructive, or downright manipulative" or "intentional misrepresentation". We have a guideline called assume good faith: "Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning... editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." It's a lot easier to work together if we avoid assumptions that other people have strange and secret evil motivations here. No one hates Vue.js. We have over 5 million articles, and most editors know exactly zero about any given topic. We have general policies about articles, and we do our best to apply them fairly.
Ok, the main issue here is something we call notability. (Or view WP:42 for a simplified summary.) We have a very special meaning for the term 'notability'. It is a primary criteria for what topics get articles. In a general sense, it means that "the world" already considers a topic to be noteworthy. More specifically, we want to see that people already consider it significant enough to write about it... and then we summarize what they write. But even more specifically, we need to see and summarize reliable sources writing about it. Basically, reliable source means books, magazines, news, and other independent sources that are subject to editorial review and have a reputation for reliability. (Not blogs, not forums, not usergroups, not the project site itself.) You simply need to cite a few reliable sources. Show some books, magazines, or etc writing about Vue.js. Vue.js doesn't need to be the main subject of the piece, but it does need to be more than a passing mention.
If you can collect a few good sources then an experienced editor could simply type over the redirect at the Vue.js page and just start writing an article. Just be aware that if the article doesn't have multiple reliable sources, the new article can be deleted again. If a new editor wants to start an article, I strongly suggest going to our article creation process. It has more information about creating articles, and the draft version can be reviewed by experienced editors. If you simply want to offer a list of good sources, you could post them on the talk page for Vue.js. That way anyone wanting to create an article can find them there.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
There isn't really an "RFC issue" to resolve here. I'm considering removing the {{rfc|sci|rfcid=865D6A7}} template, but we try to do things agreeably. I suggest/request Aftblu remove your RFC request yourself, if your question has been adequately answered. Or another editor might remove it soon if there is no opposition, and they agree there's nothing really to resolve here. Alsee (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the RfC exactly? There's a new JS framework every other day, and a new programming language every day. That's why we have the notability guidelines. Not every piece of software gets its own page. Your suggestions that the Wikipedia community is intentionally trying to sabotage or obscure Vue.js is against our policy of good faith assumption. If you can find reliable source, and the article satisfies the criteria for article creation, then go ahead and do it yourself. The deletion discussion outlines the reasons clearly; namely that it lacked reliable sources, was promotional in tone, and lacks notability. —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 08:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with the guidelines and people should not presume mal-intentions, but a) as I wrote above Vue was much less popular when it was deleted than it is today. b) some of the justifications for removing it were based on "alternative facts".
I wonder did you at all read what Aftblu was agreeing with?
A list of articles and demonstrated metrics which prove (IMO) that vue.js is not just notable enough but the most notable piece of technology for the year 2016 (based on being the open source project which gained most stars in that year) It is a library which is one of the most extensively covered (it's 3rd after only react and angular but it is also the one with the most viewed tutorials of the year meaning it is skyrocketing in popularity) with both paid and free tutorials (which means people paid money to have people write up code and tutorials in companies including:

(which is an endorsement belying this highly disputably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Vue.js by which the decision to take down Vue.js was made) basically I already talked about

  • how not only is it used (sponsored, and endorsed) by Laravel themselves (which isn't even that notable) but also
  • used by Alibaba and baidu which are definitely in the top 50 of International companies in revenue and valuation.
In conclusion, It is a library that all major front end tutorial companies have covered with several articles
  • Used by numerous fortune 500 companies and major Tech companies
  • including (GitLab https://about.gitlab.com/2016/10/20/why-we-chose-vue/ who also sponsor and endorsed them)
  • and gained the most github stars of any open source project in 2016 (not to mention it now towers above several other frameworks who's articles purportedly meet notability standards by several fold at over 48K Stars (again compared to other wikipedia articles that talk about much less popular/notable frameworks such as backbone, hammer, mustache mentioned in this article as having their own articles) ... So also I basically said in my post months ago that if nobody wants to dispute its notability I will re-instate it. Can we stick to the topic of whether it is notable? Rather than citing or disputing arguments I presented about how notable VueJS is you guys merely wrote that people shouldn't write that wikipedia editors were mal-intentioned.
I'll consider that to be nobody disputing its notability with actual content-- simply saying there's a "new JS framework every other day" is no argument. If "it rains everyday somewhere" (A) does that mean that the "biggest thunderstorm of all time" (instance of A) noted in thousands of articles because it flooded and displaced billions of people: is not notable? Nonymous-raz (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance and rating of JavaScript articles

[edit]

Concerning editing and maintaining JavaScript-related articles...

Collaboration...

[edit]

If you are interested in collaborating on JavaScript articles or would like to see where you could help, stop by Wikipedia:WikiProject JavaScript and feel free to add your name to the participants list. Both editors and programmers are welcome.

Where to list JavaScript articles

[edit]

We've found over 300 JavaScript-related articles so far. If you come across any others, please add them to that list.

User scripts

[edit]

The WikiProject is also taking on the organization of the Wikipedia community's user script support pages. If you are interested in helping to organize information on the user scripts (or are curious about what we are up to), let us know!

If you have need for a user script that does not yet exist, or you have a cool idea for a user script or gadget, you can post it at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. And if you are a JavaScript programmer, that's a great place to find tasks if you are bored.

How to report JavaScript articles in need of attention

[edit]

If you come across a JavaScript article desperately in need of editor attention, and it's beyond your ability to handle, you can add it to our list of JavaScript-related articles that need attention.

Rating JavaScript articles

[edit]

At the top of the talk page of most every JavaScript-related article is a WikiProject JavaScript template where you can record the quality class and importance of the article. Doing so will help the community track the stage of completion and watch the highest priority articles more closely.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on JavaScript templating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:JavaScript_templating&oldid=1203078114"