Talk:Pie chart

message: I believe that Florence Nightingale invented this type of chart for her work in epidemiology, can someone confirm this and add the appropriate info? Thanks.
--Jimaginator 13:15, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Stephen Fry said so on a recent broadcast of QI - I was just coming to add it and you had done so already! -- ALoan (Talk) 10:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Florence Nightingale 

message: I removed the following from the article because it isn't explained well enough to understand.  If someone knows why different pie charts should be scaled to each other feel free to fix and add it back.  It was tacked onto the end of the example section.
Two (or more) pie charts comparing similar data can be created by ensuring that the are drawn to the same scale, using the following formula:
:(radius of b)² /  number of data in b = (radius of a)² / number of data in a
-Crunchy Numbers 23:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  scaling of different pie charts? 

message: for an example see some of the links in the story or http://flickr.com/photos/ffranchi/286785424/in/pool-16135094@N00/ 74.12.186.60 15:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  these pictures are not polar area diagrams 

message: Is it possible to move this image to commons? I would like to use it in the german version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.165.250.239 (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a public domain image so you can move it to commons. However, it would be better to redraw it first, preferably in SVG and with less blank space (e.g. by aligning both graphs horizontally or vertically). It is on my todo list; if you can wait a little bit, I'll try redo it and will upload it to commons afterwards. Schutz 09:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The data are pretty easy to replicate--just create a bar chart with 22, 21, 20, 19 and 18.  Make a replica in a Pie Chart.  I did this in PowerPoint and saved it to PNG format for compact display.  --Chrispounds 13:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Schutz's version is a nice improvement.  --Chrispounds 14:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image to Commons? 

message: Someone added a commercial link to some pie charts.  They are pristine examples of what not to do that I wonder if others want to keep the link just to see what we are avoiding.  --Chrispounds 16:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: The "example of a three dimensional pie chart" looks rather 2D to me. A mistake?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmm1965 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  3D Pie Chart Graphic 

message: the cited page does not provide evidence for the claim that coxcomb diagrams were a misnomer, and it was the books in which the diagrams were published that were called coxcombs. from the page:
"These diagrams became known as Florence’s ‘coxcombes’ and were the first pie charts." I did find a source on the web which corroborated the claim: http://www.florence-nightingale-avenging-angel.co.uk/GraphicsPaper/Graphics.htm
174.101.50.37 (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference [11] provides no evidence that coxcombs / 'coxcombes' was the name of the book(let) 

message: The comment about Steven's power law seems like original research: There's no citation.
I also dispute its theoretical grounding: if all area is perceived with a factor of 0.7, this would mean we perceive the total area as 0.7, and each of the sections are perceived as 0.7 of their original. Wouldn't all this mean that the proportions remain the same, meaning the influence of Steven's power law was irrelevant?--86.152.109.99 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Stevens' power law states that visual area is perceived with a power of 0.7, compared to a power of 1.0 for length. This suggests that length is a better scale to use, since perceived differences would be linearly related to actual differences.
--86.152.109.99 (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? Steven's power law 

message: The introduction speaks of amazing geekery, such as: "When angles are measured with 1 turn as unit then a number of percent is identified with the same number of centiturns." Huh? Quite apart from the fact that the word "centiturns" shouldn't be cropping up in an introductory paragraph on anything, saying also that "sectors create a full disk" and that the shape resembles a pie that's been sliced would seem to exclude the inclusion of ring charts and other pie chart variations. I'd like to make the intro more descriptive of the actual content of the article, as per WP guidelines, removing some of fog in the process. --gilgongo (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK done that now. --gilgongo (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction is overly narrow & geeky 

message: 117.194.204.159 posted this comment on November 8, 2013 (view all feedback).
Upload some useful example how we use it in statistical analysis
Any thoughts?
: Isn't the article chock full of such examples? Seems a totally redundant comment to me. --gilgongo (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reader feedback: Upload some useful example h... 

message: The article suggests that the terms for a 3D pie chart, which shows a (superfluous/confusing) 3rd dimension, are "3d pie cake" and "perspective pie cake", but I literally cannot find a single relevant example of these terms anywhere else on the internet, except on pages that are directly quoting this wikipedia page. Even the references at the end of the "3d pie cake / Perspective pie cake" section don't contain those terms anywhere (I used google books search for "cake" in the Good and Hardin book). Did the author of this section just make up terms him/herself??? Does anyone know a standard term for this kind of chart? Just "3D pie chart"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.100.178 (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any evidence for use of the terms "3d pie cake / Perspective pie cake" come from"? 

message: The Variants seem to be more important than the examples, and this seems backwards to me. What do we think about moving Examples and Usage before Variants?  Chrispounds  — Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Examples and Usage up above Variants

message: It will be nice to know the sort order default/standard and variations. And put references and 
Plotly: counterclockwise order starting at 12 o'clock (end of the largest block)
Highchart: clockwise order
D3.js: clockwise order
It will
ChatGPT answer:
I see difference in order from high to low using clockwise or counterclockwise order, starting at 12 o'clock (end of the largest block).
In a standard pie chart, the slices or wedges are typically arranged in a counterclockwise order, starting from the 12 o'clock position and moving in a clockwise direction. The ordering begins with the largest category or data point at the top (12 o'clock position) and proceeds in descending order of magnitude.
Here's a breakdown of the standard order for the slices in a pie chart:
1. The largest category or data point is positioned at the 12 o'clock position (top of the chart).
2. Subsequent categories or data points are arranged in a counterclockwise direction, with the second-largest category following the largest, then the third-largest following the second, and so on.
3. This continues until all categories or data points have been represented in the pie chart, with each slice representing a portion of the whole based on its value or magnitude.
This standard order makes it easy to visually compare the relative sizes of different categories or data points in the pie chart and provides a clear representation of the data. velizar.vesselinov (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard order of the pie chart