Talk:Comparison of JavaScript charting libraries

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 March 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 March 2023. The result of the discussion was Keep.

JavaScript Mid‑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.JavaScriptWikipedia:WikiProject JavaScriptTemplate:WikiProject JavaScriptJavaScript articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

rgraph wrong licensing

The reference actually says rgraph is "RGraph is open and free to use for non-commercial under the Creative Commons BY-NC license", and not MIT as stated in this article.

Someone edit that table. I would break it if I try. --damiens.rf 03:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Astronouth7303 appears to have fixed this in edit 623193373 on Aug 28.-- era (Talk | History) 12:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Description of D3.js is wrong

D3.js is not a charting framework, but a rather complex document-manipulation library. As such, it can be used to make ANY kind of graph, it has no limitations or supported/unsupported graphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.88.68.134 (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance and rating of JavaScript articles

Concerning editing and maintaining JavaScript-related articles...

Collaboration...

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

We've found over 300 JavaScript-related articles so far. If you come across any others, please add them to that list.

User scripts

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

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

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 01:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. tarnasky (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comparison of JavaScript charting frameworks → Comparison of JavaScript charting libraries – The items in this list do not fall in the generally accepted definition of frameworks. It would be more proper to call them libraries. I propose that the name of this article be changed to reflect that. Tarnasky (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WebGL and Mind Mapping

Are these columns really needed?

Mind Mapping is empty and basically does not seem to be a good fit here.

WebGL rendering is likely to have been added by someone for LightningChart JS only. I understand we can add Plotly and maybe some others. But does this kind of detail belong here?

Irvaaf (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion proposals

This page was suggested for deletion in October 2022, but a deletion discussion was never created. As the proposed deletion was uncontested, the deletion was carried out. The article was undeleted in March 2023 and a formalized deletion discussion created. I have an interest in this article because a colleague of mine is using it at a university course as part of his course materials (which of course is not a strong argument for keeping the article). @Tarnasky, The Transhumanist, Mafkees94, Kristof0910, Vpodk, Qwerfjkl, Irvaaf, Junedchhipa91, MarnetteD, Meatsgains, Tim@, Nervesmiffs, and Jacobnelson79: Tomastvivlaren (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He has now checked the list, and I updated it based on his input.Tomastvivlaren (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, you should post deletion-relevant statements on the AfD page. No need now, as I have referred to this message there. — The Transhumanist 05:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... and don't canvass random people here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They were the main contributors to the article, or had deleted poor content.Tomastvivlaren (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find the enwiki deletion proposal procedures hard to understand. I though "canvassing" was okay, but okay, it should have been kept to a minimum. I added a template in the top of this page indicating that the result of the deletion proposal was keep, but I am not sure if that is the appropriate way or if I was entitled to do that as invovled and as a non-administrator. I also removed the "more citations needed" hat note from the article.Tomastvivlaren (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]