Talk:Chartjunk

message: "Although Tufte's book is widely regarded as a classic" ... published 1983, continuously in print, as of 2004 Amazon sales rank is 1621, Boston Globe called it "a visual Strunk and White," Whole Earth Catalog called it "THE visual style book," and the American Statistical Association said it was "The most important contribution so far to the study of the graph"--according to  but I see no reason to doubt either the accuracy of the quotes nor to suppose they are distorted by being taken out of context.
:It's a classic. I first learned of it from the Whole Earth Catalog... before they were calling it THE visual style book, I believe. The American Statistical Association is a big enough gun to cite. And, no, I don't think it's necessary to verify the quotation. Wait for someone to seriously dispute it! Dpbsmith (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on a sentence I added

message: If chartjunk is indeed still associated with Tufte, ought we merge this article with the (surprisingly short) main Tufte article? Remes 20:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's enough more detail that could be provided about definitions and kinds of chartjunk, and arguments for and against it, that it deserves a separate article -- and some of the text here would seem out-of-place in Tufte's article.  I agree that the Tufte article could use expansion, though; and moving some more detail on chartjunk there would be reasonable. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it matters a great deal. I thought, and IMHO Viveka has confirmed, that it is still not terribly common and still is associated with Tufte. A short summary of the some of the basic principles he articulated in The Visual Display of Quantitative Information would not be out of place there (data ink, etc.) and "Chartjunk" could be a subsection or something. But no need to be precipitous. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Tufte article 

message: The picture is really an awful example -- it's just an awful chart. Surely someone has a better PD example, maybe from the US Government. Many of the examples in Tufte's book are also PD, so we could just use one of those.
: The legend is also misleading--what does it matter what the file size is? It's only indirectly related to the amount of chartjunk in the picture. The real chartjunk is the visual artifact (the unnecessary fill patterns)
:: Done. Schutz 08:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done what?  The current example is still terrible. --jacobolus (t) 20:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Schutz changed the legend in response to the comment directly above his.  I agree there are plenty of better chartjunk examples out there, go for it.  --CliffC (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll make a better example as soon as I can. Schutz (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better example 

message: 76.117.247.55 (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about 

message: 76.117.247.55 (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Or alternately 

message: Either the initial three paragraphs of this article were lifted from http://www.synergy.com/chartjunk.htm or vice versa.  (However, the quotes and references are ours, at least.)  It depends on whether or not Synergy's KaleidaGraph page predates March 17, 2007, which is when the paragraphs in question more or less received their present wording.
The Wayback Machine did not index the page, so I can't tell.  I guess I'll leave the paragraphs in for now.
--Ardonik.talk()* 06:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who lifted from whom? 

message: We need a Wikipedia project for this topic. Chartjunk everywhere.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluous (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Chartjunk 

message: Great article, but including it here is improper. Chartjunk is not mentioned anywhere in the article.
Fluous (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chartjunk and Memory 

message: This looks like a content fork that could easily be covered by Chartjunk in a subsection.  Also, I am not convinced that "misleading graph" is a real search term, whereas chartjunk definitely is.  We don't need to have two articles covering the same basic topic. KDS4444 (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Misleading graph]] 

message: "Another kind of chartjunk skews the depiction and makes it difficult to understand the real data being displayed. Examples of this type include items depicted out of scale to one another, noisy backgrounds making comparison between elements difficult in a chart or graph, and 3-D simulations in line and bar charts."
1. items depicted out of scale (example needed +- deletion: this should probably go to misleading graphs and be deleted here.
2. frequency charts as 3-D, popular in Excel and quite meaningless
MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph 3 needs some examples