Cites
I don't understand what you're trying to demonstrate. I know Java and JavaScript are different things.
Then what is going on with your reverting and then protecting. I realize this is not the English Wikipedia, but that wouldn't go well over there. Can you explain why such a as an rfv is going on and this is being reverted in when so easily explained?
An RFV is when someone questions the existence of a word or a certain definition of a word. In this case, someone questioned whether people use "Java" when they mean "JavaScript". I provided some citations to demonstrate it, but the RFV debate was never closed, so it would be inappropriate to remove the definition prematurely. Right now I am waiting for an experienced user to judge the citations and close the RFV as cited.
I don't understand, why is common sense not involved in this process? We all know the user who added it is a bit naive and must be new to software development. Anyone who has spent 6 months writing web software knows the difference. Is there is IAR here?
People who have never programmed before are still English speakers. And so we have to document the way they use words, even if it makes us cringe. Common sense isn't really the issue... this is very much objective: enough people have used "Java" to mean "JavaScript" to meet CFI, therefore we can and should document it. What is IAR?
Have you heard of NOTPAPER? But that's beside the point. As CodeCat just explained, we are descriptive, not proscriptive.
There is no Wiktionary policy stating that users should "Ignore all rules". What other dictionaries do is irrelevant to what is done on Wiktionary.
You're not being descriptive. JavaScript does not describe Java. The passive approach taken is propagating a blatant falsehood that is well known by the experts in the field. So you've taken the amateur word of some editor and held it up on a pedestal against...
...you know what. That's fine. Folks will read the Wikipedia article long before coming here. This is a joke. I'm reaping what I sow on the Wikipedia side. Good one guys. Who needs common established expert undisputed facts when we can have a dictionary that covers misconceptions instead?
You are making an effort to avoid understanding us. I can't believe that Wikimedia editors would come here just to troll volunteers on a sister project.
We're describing the language how it's really used. Just because somebody is uneducated about programming doesn't mean they can't speak English. As long as we mark it as proscribed etc, it is acceptable as a definition.
TParis, it is not a misconception that some misinformed people have mistaken Java for Javascript before. It is fact, as shown by the quotations. Regardless of what words people should use, we document mistakes used in languages all the time. See for example Category:Misspellings by language.