Talk:MooTools

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 26 April 2021, see discussion.
no consensus, 6 March 2020, see discussion.

JavaScript Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject JavaScript, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to JavaScript, and to the development of user scripts for use on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JavaScriptWikipedia:WikiProject JavaScriptTemplate:WikiProject JavaScriptJavaScript articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Computing: Software / Websites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Websites (assessed as Low-importance).

I have a real problem with this article. The wording reads like it was written by a programmer, i.e. it doesn't make any sense to the rest of us. Please don't use acronyms, it makes it impossible to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerseymint (talk • contribs) 22:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction reads like an advertisement, a bit of a problem. Fun?

You're right, anonymous person. I tried to fix it up a bit. I hope it's better now. Still needs more work. Dynamic1 (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The benefits section looks a bit pov-ish. Towel401 (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I fixed up the text before the list of benefits to not refrence other libraries at all. Should be neutral now, I nominated it as such. Ericvicenti (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs work - there are no sources (other than from the developers) to establish notability. There are a number of claims made in the text which look like advertisement, especially the lede (things like "modular", "compact", "extensible" all require some substance) Tedickey (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of sources would you like to know? Or even better question, what in this article you see as a lie? --CONFIQ (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all advertisements are lies (beside the point - I can recall claims of "modularity" by people who were unfamiliar with the concept behind the term). To give the statement some substance, an example of how modular the software is, how extensible (to say nothing of the "compact", "robust", etc., sprinkled on the topic ;-) Tedickey (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does read a lot like an advertisement, giving opinions and extra words that don't read like a proper article. Consider "Every major JavaScript framework has its philosophy, and MooTools is interested in the language known as JavaScript in all of its expressive power. And this power is accomplished in a way that is intuitive to a developer coming from a classical inheritance-based language like Java with the MooTools Class object." Even the tone of statements like "Think of it like having a set of..." don't read well at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frug (talk • contribs)

I've gone through and cleaned up what you describe, moving the latter aside to a footnote. I also tried to better organize the article and standardize formatting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.141.192.91 (talk • contribs)

Short of using MooTools at work, I have no ties to the framework, but I can assure you that I see nothing here that is inaccurate, and I do think the article is getting much cleaner in terms of taking a more informative and less subjective tone. Mrrena (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than move the promotional content regarding Newton's book to a footnote, it probably should simply be deleted. The topic still reads (and is sourced) as if it is written by the MooTools developers Tedickey (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint is only the tone of the article. As for sources, what else are you going to use? MooTools isn't a huge framework--JQuery unquestionably has a bigger base--and there's only one or two books on the subject. These books happen to be written by devs at MooTools: who else would write them? So how're you gonna get around the sourcing? You don't want the entry to sound like a plug, and I can appreciate that. But there's no better firsthand source, in my opinion, than the people who actually developed the project. I would think they would know more about and care more about the project than anyone else. And in any case, there really aren't any other firsthand sources. The big thing is that a person needs to go back through and try to make the article purely informative, removing any promotional elements. But referencing Aaron Newton's book? That's the number one source on the framework. What other options would you like to see? What other options do you even know about?

The topic as written appears to be the work of the developers of MooTools. If there's no better source than that, it should be trimmed down drastically to reflect the absence of independent comments about the topic Tedickey (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latest release

Isn't 1.2 still beta? 77.12.141.79 (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 1.2 is out of beta. Something else: when was this first released? I want to know the time frame of the history of MooTools. 24.143.70.245 (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more. 1.2 is out. …And should have been named MooTools 2.0 as there is a lot of incompatibility between 1.11 and 1.2 , the Ajax part very used in web 2.0 has been rewrited (for good) making updating a heavy step. Lacrymocéphale 17:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of October 29th, 2010 version 1.3 of the Core package and v1.3 of the More package are available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.134.197 (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC) lkjkkhgghdfdjhfsdsss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.41.189 (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance and rating of JavaScript articles

Concerning editing and maintaining JavaScript-related articles...

Collaboration...

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

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

User scripts

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

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

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 01:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on MooTools. 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) 06:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement