I think there might be set some context on that before everything else.
As per original documentation the "script" thing is clearly defined as a computer program that goes together with html or is embedded into it. Source in question is the very W3C Working Group (part of the WWW Consortium, the standardization body that creates recommendations to be implemented by browser vendors and developers as well in order to display what people see in each webpage). In other words, those are the people telling to Google or Mozilla, from time to time, how to behave their Chrome or Firefox software versions when those work to render the code we write as developers. As it seems, they are the only authority in this area so probably we might listen them as well about this topic.
Strangely enough, not many answers / comments / advices / above did ever mention such thing, despite of it being accessible through just Googling "W3C script". My answer here is not implying that people writing comments or answers were entirely outside of coders group which is pity but it quite seems so. One cannot walk in a museum and not even looking at the paintings around him. Not a funny thing but mostly a sad one.
I think "script" is as useful as "jobs" nowadays. But... why compare apples with oranges though ?
"Can be someone expert today in 'jobs'" ? I don't think so. However, is it that one still a strong keyword, at least in search engine terms, right? People searching on Google for "jobs" might find something useful in SoF as well using that term, isn't it ? Therefore "jobs" isn't just an internal searching term, but it's actually a gate, a tool used to bridge the searchers from Google with readers of SoF, isn't that true ? Because StackOverFlow shouldn't be just a closed elitist platform where people think they know everything and therefore not inviting / not needing anyone / here from the outside world.
In such a scenario this platform would slowly die and that quite soon. By contrary, each keyword might be useful for people really looking for stuff about that topic instead of topics named as per opinions of people mostly living in meta level of this platform.
Despite of most people NOT being experts in "jobs", everyone is still in need and searching for these - therefore the question about being expert is wrong in my opinion. The implied general point is that SoF might try to gather and promote (through upvotes) the most knowledgeable people in "jobs" -- but surprise, they aren't so!! Long story short, if the expertise criteria isn't always working, they shouldn't be considered / enforced too heavily in some not too appropriated places or topics. Definitely not in the topic related to the scripts. But, dear fellows, please understand that (surprise), THERE really ARE experts out there indeed in "script" topic, the people that govern the W3C body plus the people that follow their indications (some true front-end coders).
It is wrong to compare a script or some scripts with the scripting languages, as is wrong to compare a poem or a novel with the writing art. It's NOT the same! A script it's just a program, nothing else, meant to "accompany an HTML document or be embedded directly in it". It has nothing to do for example with Python (which is for back-end - which means server-side - language) or any other examples I have read above. It CANNOT apply to all languages or frameworks as someone said earlier. In computer science a language isn't the same with a library or a framework or a script or even a snippet of code. We cannot consider script so unimportant and indistinct as to wipe it out from the terms used in searching in SoF -- especially because it's the root of many terms above. The root isn't the same with branches or leaves of a tree, however we cannot speak of a tree if it has not a root from where it has grown.
The authoritative page that introduced the scripts in our lives is there since the already old html-4 (the ancestor of the actual html-5 named as just html nowadays) - link here : https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/interact/scripts.html#h-18.1.
Its old age (but not only that) enforces more its value and good standing. It looks like the internet history is the "museum" I spoke about above, and the paintings are the specifications issued by that governing body.
Going forward, I think the core issue raised by @Tomerikoo would be that "script" term isn't too narrow. Let me answer that "history" isn't narrow enough either, however it's probably still in use, despite it's used in conjunction with WW1 or WW2 where needed, or with Roman history, at times (because those belong to historical realm, of course). However saying that "script" can cover everything, from cooking recipes to packages or else is just gross (it has NOTHING to do with such things, as it contains pure mathematics, variables, functions and everything in between).
The name of "script" implies 'writing' (fact that does not belong to server side programming - where we can only speak about saving onto some file -- opposite to writing on a visible surface as is the case with the scripts).
Most proper surface is obviously a device screen (either in a browser window - where it creates or changes html web pages, or in a console - with much less capabilities instead, or finally in a gaming application created using Unity or similar as the rendering engine for the scripts). With this one, I think I absolutely covered the unambiguous content concern as well.
For your "different people having different definitions" concern, that's not very true, even if some think of it as about VBScript (for desktop applications), others about JavaScript (for web apps or sometimes server generated pages) and others probably about TypeScript (last flavor of JavaScript created by Microsoft as a superset of it). No need for concerns though (as everyone asking things in SoF probably has slightly different definitions for absolutely each other topic where there are questions / answers so far). Not just that, but the good people at W3C already solidified this topic (had anyone bothered to read their beautiful and very clearly wrote specifications).
Despite of obvious free speech, I hope people not at all familiar with coding shouldn't be allowed to post in some areas or be left to decide in bulk over certain topics out of their knowledge - because that would defy the very purpose and principle of StackOverFlow - which is after all... the expertise, right ??
Speaking about dangers too, the main one is when allowing people (who seemingly never heard of W3C and their beautiful works in building the pillars of modern internet) to try to break such things.
Fortunately though the truth is inevitable.
The "script" should stay -- or being reinstated if gone. It's not some tag in html, it's the content inside it. It's what makes a difference between the Netscape-sque old "Hello World" pages and modern web apps of today.
The tags are just the glue code to bind the "script" program inside the html page.
codeorprogram..." I think this is the only argument we need to make to warrant the burnination ofscript... It's so incredibly broad, I'm surprised there's no "Yo momma" joke in this question.script(1)that creates typescripts for terminal sessions. Given the current usage of the tag, however, I would say it's irrelevant and we should proceed with burninating.<script>tags but as you said, according to the usage it's irrelevant and also I don't think it warrants its own tag. Actually, [div] is a synonym ofhtmlbut I think that doing the same withscriptwill have devastating effects...scripttag really doesn't add any meaning there.batch-scriptandjavascriptare languages.scriptis just a concept. If there's a scripting language out there that doesn't have a tag yet, then a tag should be created when it's necessary on a question.functional-programmingis a methodology that has distinct rules. All of the counter-examples you've provided are well defined, especially compared toscript. There is no situation wherescriptis the tag to apply.script... But again, put your thoughts into an answer.:)script. I was arguing that if we keep it, it will become a shiny tag that uselessly attracts the eyes of Rep: 1 Unity programmers.