From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject JavaScript (Rated C-class, Top-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Removing alpha releases[edit]

I propose removing "alfa" releases from the list of releases. Any objections? Rationale: alpha releases are, almost by definition, unstable, short-lived, poorly documented, and are narrowly used by developers mostly for testing purposes. And we don't want anyone, especially a non-English person or someone unfamiliar with staged alpha and beta releases, thinking the latest release is 1.4a2, for example. StevenBlack (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no objections ... StevenBlack (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How much does jQuery build upon other framework?[edit]

The reason I'm asking is that in the source code that handles selections (sizzle) in the copyright notice it says Dojo foundation ( and Dojo is another js library. The question is how much else of the jquery library builds upon others? And shouldn't this be mentioned in wiki? (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC) klesus

This info is not too important. Why bore the readers with technical details.Pagen HD (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

JQuery License on Page is logically wrong: "and" should read "or"[edit]

I checked the main JQuery website today, and they give you the choice of MIT license or GPL license. The page should be updated to reflect this supposed "dual-license". The page says and and it should be or. Please review @ -- (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Too Technical[edit]

Is this article too technical? I came to this page as a moderately technical software-tester who is likely to be testing JQuery functionality in the near future. I was looking for an overview, not a technical analysis. I'm non the wiser as to what the characteristics, capabilities and unique qualities of the language are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

jQuery Mobile[edit]

Is jQuery Mobile notable enough to merit it's own article, or should it be included as a section in either this or jQuery UI? It's still in development, so there may not be sufficient info for a full article yet.

IAmAboutUs (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Name[edit]

I had added verifiable information regarding the origin of the name jQuery. In the footnote, I indicated "see Comments section of page". Somebody who evidently didn't read this decided to flag the footnote with a "not in citation given". This is not correct. If you click on the "Show Comments" link at the bottom of the cited page, the comments become visible, including the following:

John Resig (January 19, 2006 at 2:14 pm)
Hi Kris – I was, originally, going to use JSelect, but all the domain names were taken already. I then did a search before I decided to call the project jQuery, saw your:project, and also saw that it hadn’t been updated since “October 26, 2004: JQuery 3.1.3″. So, I assumed it was defunct. Ironically, it appears as if you’ve started development :on it, again – once again causing a clash in names.

I am going to tweak the footnote to make it clearer. Citing certain web pages is problematic. I'll leave it up to whoever flagged it to take another look, feel guilty, and unflag it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenStrauss (talkcontribs) 15:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the citation needed template.[1] The reason why is that this source meets the WP:SPS clause: Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves. In this particular case, we're citing John Resig as a source of information about a piece of software he wrote. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
You're right, of course; It does technically meet SPS. Comments posted to a blog don't exactly make quality sources, though... Do we even need to quote that he "sort of thought about naming it this other thing, but didn't", particularly when the mention is only made in such a shoddy 'source'?   — Jess· Δ 23:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

None of this really expresses the reason why "query" or "select" should be used; as a language that lends itself to animating actions on the client, neither of these is particularly intuitive. It would be nice to have this explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It primarily makes it easier to "select," or "query," DOM elements than the class .getElementById() and friends.

Should QUnit be a link?[edit]

In the section named QUnit, QUnit is linked to a QUnit article, which however, ends up in the same page, same section. Shouldn't it be normal text? Why would someone want to click a hyperlink and see the same link he/she just clicked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harig074 (talkcontribs) 06:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

jQeury and MS IE 6-8 "web browser" behaviour; revert 11 August 2012[edit]

While the plans of jQuery around MS browsers is an interesting and controversial topic, which is currently not covered in the article, it is inappropriate to list some details for a personal investigation in the introductory "features list". The challenge at hand is far from being one dimensional, and jQuery is as "cross-browser" as one can reasonably imagine. Therefore, while I acknowledge that the topic of jQuery and MS browsers versions IE 6-8 is interesting and relevant, author's approach in this edit is not. I will revert this edit a second time therefore. If we chose to cover the topic, it should become its own section, touch on the various contentious topics, and link to the existing pages in Wikipedia that represent the points of views. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed this; the IE6-8 thing heading threw me previously. My clarification is not specifically related to IE6-8. There is simply a fundamental difference between cross-browser and multi-browser scripts and there has been a lot of confusion about what these terms mean (particularly as jQuery and similar projects claim to be cross-browser when they are demonstrably multi-browser). All it takes is one bad assumption and it doesn't have to be a browser sniff (that's simply the most egregious example). Please see the linked explanation on the Cross-Browser page.

Thanks for your help! (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

jquery basics with example[edit]

It will be good enough if anyone mention "jquery" basics with implementation example ,from beginning to deeper knowledge rather than providing historical and it's scope . I am the complete beginner don't know how to embed jQuery concept into already available java code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Is MediaWiki detail relevant in lead?[edit]

"jQuery has also been used in MediaWiki since version 1.16."

I am wondering if this information is relevant to any non-wikipedian reader? In the lead? --Andersthorborg (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No one reading this can be a non-wikipedian reader. It's logically impossible.Pagen HD (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
MediaWiki is the most popular wiki software in the world and MediaWikiWikipediaWikimedia. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I think having this information in the lead section was superfluous. We also don't mention the hundreds of other systems, which use or once used jQuery in some of its versions. Only because we use MediaWiki does not mean every user of an article inside it would necessarily be interested in this software. -- (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Learn jQuery in a single move[edit]

Seriously, jQuery is Awesome JavaScript API. For beginners, I have created a presentation so that they can easily become comfortable. If you all have any concern/ queries comment me. Here is my presentation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop Sharma 1507 (talkcontribs) 06:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC) I don't think that this link still exists. Tried to access it and it wouldn't come up.


Is there a reason to include the googleapis CDN instead of jQuery's own (MediaTemple) url: <script src=""></script> as per (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A reason may be found in the "Quick Access" column at the bottom of the page or --Tomchen1989 (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Balanced Reporting[edit]

Thoroughly ridiculous to tick off a list of alleged "advantages" without a single disadvantage (of which there are many) listed. This much-needed adjustment requires thoughtful discussion, not a knee-jerk reaction from some random "democratic rock guitarist". Thanks.

-David Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but these need to be NPOV and cited - and not by yourself :). Language such as "patently absurd", "ridiculous", "incompetent" etc. has no place here. Greenman (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, this article is not very balanced. I came here looking for the classic wikipedia page on a topic (an article that strives to be neutral, listing benefits as well as drawbacks) but was disappointed. To start off the thoughtful discussion, one potential disadvantage of jQuery is that, at 32kB minified and gzipped, it is larger than other libraries (say, underscore.js, which is 6kB minified and gzipped, according to chrome's developer tools) , and the impact on page load time could be too high for some use cases. Flimflam97 (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Gzipped size?[edit]

For the end user the minified size is less important than the gzipped minified one as this is what's transfered over the wire (we, the jQuery team always try to minify the gzipped minified size, not just minified one). Perhaps it would be more useful to change the size column to reflect that? m_gol (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


Shouldn't the "j" be capitalized at the beginning of sentences and as the first word of a section title? —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Links that establish notability for jQuery[edit]

jQuery is one of the most notable Javascript libraries out there, used by countless professional organizations; there are a large number of books devoted to jQuery published by many reliable publishers. I will only list five:

The reason why four of the books I list are published by O'Reilly Media is because they are the gold standard for computer programming books; I am also including a book published by John Wiley & Sons which is currently Amazon’s number one selling book in the JavaScript category.

For the record, I have no relationship to jQuery except as a user. Samboy (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Is a polyfill?[edit]

I thought jQuery was a polyfill (the first one.. maybe from before the word was made up, why neglegted?)? Maybe it's not (or more). It's mentioned there, but not listed as such. Say so here and there if it is.. comp.arch (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


If think that the licence was wrongly defined as Apache version 2, because of this link: JS Foundation Intellectual Property Policy. The source was wronly named "License - jQuery Project", whereas it was a general property policy for the JS foundation. The jQuery licence is MIT, as stated in their blog or on the project github Hervegirod (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC) says the same. -- (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance and rating of JavaScript articles[edit]

Concerning editing and maintaining JavaScript-related articles...


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 01:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on JQuery. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)