Talk:JQuery/Archive 1

Criticism

This article is outdated (e.g. refers to "Unobtrusive Javascript" as if it was a useful trend.) It is badly in need of a criticism section as well. As it is, it appears to be an excerpt from a beginners book on Javascript (i.e. naive, misleading and one-sided.)

24.33.125.85 (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance

This page is just as relevant as other [Javascript libraries] described on Wikipedia, such as: Prototype Javascript Framework, Dojo Toolkit, or Mochikit. In fact, an article was even requested on it. --Jeresig 21:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest deleting and restarting the article. It contains copyvio from jquery.com since the first revision. -- ReyBrujo 21:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of each article must be evaluated on its own merits, not on inclusion of others. At present, none of the WP:WEB criteria are met. --Nehwyn 21:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will then argue its merits based upon the Wikipedia:Notability_(software) guidelines (as it is an Open Source software project). The following companies/web sites use jQuery: MSNBC, Drupal, Technorati, Feedburner, Def Jam Records and Intuit (Quicken). Additionally, the following publications discuss jQuery in some depth: eWeek [1], Infoworld [2], [3], Beginning JavaScript with DOM Scripting and Ajax [http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-JavaScript-Scripting-Ajax-Professional/dp/1590596803], Hacking del.icio.us [http://www.amazon.com/Hacking-del-icio-us-ExtremeTech-Leslie-Orchard/dp/0470037857], and the upcoming Pro JavaScript Techniques [http://www.amazon.com/Pro-JavaScript-Techniques-John-Resig/dp/1590597273]. Let me know if more credibility is required and I'll be happy to provide it. --Jeresig 21:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is enough material to go to AfD. If you put these claims in the article, I believe an admin will soon remove the db tag, and then we'll be able to discuss this further in a proper deletion debate. --Nehwyn 21:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've integrated most of my points back into the article itself. --Jeresig 22:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approved material

The use of this material was authorized by John Resig before posting.--Mazza007 21:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have proof of that? --W.marsh 23:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm John Resig - I gave permission to him to enter the content. However, since the article has already been deleted, I guess it's a non-point. I guess I'll, personally, create it again from scratch. --Jeresig 02:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I now see that you were the one who deleted the page. I've given full permission to post anything/everything that is on the jQuery site to Mazza007 or any other user. If you could please restore the page, I would appreciate it, I'd rather not have to help re-write it again from scratch. As you can see from the evidence below, there is more than enough reason for the jQuery page to exist. Please let me know what the next step should be. --Jeresig 02:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's been recreated. I suggest trying to assert importance now, per WP:SOFTWARE. This will probably be listed at articles for deletion eventually if its importance isn't explained. --W.marsh 03:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've integrated all points of importance per WP:SOFTWARE, however the current 'deletion notice' is regarding the length of the article. Is it safe to remove the notice, or should I wait for an admin to come along? I'm worried because the points of importance were there before, but the article was deleted, regardless. Was this due to the "copyrighted" material? --Jeresig 04:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd actually removed the notice earlier (I'm an admin) but you put it back inadvertantly. Anyway it's gone now. --W.marsh 05:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two software packages called "JQuery"

I suggest to make this page less ambiguous and rename it. I suggest the title of the page might be "JQuery JavaScript Library". This would also make room for a page about "JQuery Java Code Browser" http://jquery.cs.ubc.ca/ -- Kris De Volder Kdvolder 20:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a little section about JQuery, the Eclipse plugin. Since there won't probably be a full page about JQuery, the Eclipse plugin, perhaps a little blurb like this is the best way to handle this? (I guess this subsumes the previous comment I made on the discussion page). Kdvolder 19:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing this for now because notability hasn't been established. We include disambiguation in articles because people might be coming to them looking for other topics: if the JQuery plugin is notable enough that people are going to look for it in Wikipedia, it should have its own article. If an article is created then we can add a proper disambiguation header to the top of the article. Chris Cunningham 09:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can clarify why the page on "Notability" referenced above is marked as inactive. And what that means for the actual and active rules on software inclusion. (I.e. what precisely are the rules). At present, JQuery is at the 99.44 activity percentile on sourceforge. It has been downloaded 3980 times. Also I have published a paper at an academic conference which has been cited more than 100 times [4].

So, there are a fair number of academic publications, not written by myself, that refer to JQuery

Kdvolder 16:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]