Talk:Next.js

Notability

As a professional web developer, I think Next.js has become notable over the last couple of years.

For example, this live chart of its download rate from npm compares it to its peers -- React (web framework), Angular (web framework), Vue.js, and Gatsby (no Wikipedia page). It is between Angular and Gatsby in popularity and rising.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I just wanted to comment that I find it curious how Nuxt.js is considered “notable” while Next.js **isn’t**. If you check their GitHubs, Next.js has twice as many stars, slightly more commits, and about three times as many contributors. --65.246.71.80 (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I believe that both frameworks' articles fail to meet WP:NOTE. There are few reliable sources in both. I'm going to strip off all github links here. Number of starts on GitHub is hardly a reasonable indicator of notability. It may be easily faked by big corps. I think it both should be deleted. I don't mind to adding related information on these to the articles like Comparison of web frameworks though. That's where they belong the most. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Alexander Davronov: You are welcome to help look for new sources or, if you wish, to send the article back to WP:AfD, but please note that one closed recently (can be seen at the top of this page) and if you do not have any new arguments for its deletion, it will not succeed and would likely be almost immediately closed. Notability does not require a minimum number of sources and WP:NSOFT gets a decent amount of weight in software deletion discussions. As far as I can tell, Next.js passes both and the community seems to agree. Also, I believe Comparison of web frameworks should probably be deleted, as it is both irreparably obsolete and generally not notable; it's like a giant comparison between apples, oranges, and crude oil and I don't think that is more helpful than having articles for the notable titles. What do you mean by stripping off the github links? I believe all the links that point to GitHub are currently appropriate, but that doesn't mean I didn't overlook something. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions, happy editing! Footlessmouse (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Footlessmouse: Hi. I see you are a major contributor here. Thanks for your efforts. I ain't gonna nominate for deletion for now as I think it would warrant more broad opinions here.

@Footlessmouse: .. but please note that one closed recently .. It took less than a 3 weeks and few parties involved to close it so I think it may be challenged.

@Footlessmouse: .. WP:NSOFT .. ... is NOT mandatory to follow. We have to stick to general notability rules.

@Footlessmouse: .. I believe all the links that point to GitHub are currently appropriate, .. They are appropriate for what they stand currently. At best, we SHOULD have secondary and tertiary sources for everything else. Currently article appears to be an WP:ORIGINAL research. If it also turns out that some sources were directly WP:SPONSORED, then they should be removed. I feel increasingly that this article is largely sponsored, not a genuine one.

@Footlessmouse: .. Also, I believe Comparison of web frameworks should probably be deleted .. I mean that for the sake of encyclopedia we may have the subject mentioned somewhere else. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, it was just a friendly tip in case you did not see the previous delete debate. I am aware that NSOFT is an essay, I said it is given weight in deletion discussions, that is all. Most of the major points of the article are sourced with the Springer textbook and smashing magazine articles, all of which count as RS and were not sponsored. I totally rewrote the whole page (it was in pretty bad shape when originally nominated for deletion) and I can assure you there is no original research or synthesis here, I added in statements that were directly supported by the sources I used, which is how I work in general. The reason the AfD was closed is I argued that it passes GNG due to its significant coverage in, at least, multiple books, including a textbook by Springer, and in the smashing magazine articles. The others seemed to agree, but it can always be examined further (though I really don't foresee a different outcome). I honestly never would have touched the article if I weren't convened it was notable, but we all look at it from different angles. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this draft duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2019/02/rendering-on-the-web. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. SITH (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Any ideas as to why it was called "Next"?

I'm just wondering what the origin of the name is. 76.10.70.110 (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)