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)
The introduction reads like an advertisement, a bit of a problem. Fun?
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 220.127.116.11 (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)
- 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)
- 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?
Isn't 1.2 still beta? 18.104.22.168 (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. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC) lkjkkhgghdfdjhfsdsss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)