Talk:Django (web framework)

Computing: Software / Websites / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Websites (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Used for adverts?

This article seems to be more used for advertising stuff surrounding the Django project rather than the project itself, such as books, bibliography and applications built on Django. 194.54.31.24 (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

but 103.152.157.186 (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we find a good source saying Django is the most popular?

As a professional Python developer, I have the distinct impression that Django is the most popular Python web framework. It seems to be the most popular by a rather wide margin, in fact. Lots of blogs say this, and I can't find any blogs that say otherwise, but those aren't Wikipedia-quality sources.

I think we should find a good source and then mention in the introduction that Django is the most popular Python web framework.65.96.213.231 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's HotFrameworks, but it lists Flask before Django -- and even before Ruby on Rails. The score is misleading though, because Flask gets its score only from the number of Github watchers, but Django and RoR lose their score from the traffic and inbound links. It's also debatable whether HotFrameworks really is a reliable source. -- intgr [talk] 10:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needed Edits

Django has deprecated FastCGI support since 1.7 and completely removed support for it in 1.9 and above. I could find no mechanism for its use with the Hiawatha web server. See: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.7/howto/deployment/fastcgi/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.233.26.78 (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Django (web framework). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of Django

I find it odd that the creation of Django is attributed to the Lawrence Journal-World in the infobox, but is described as an independent effort by two web developers working for the publication in the article. Is there a reason it has been kept this way? 58.234.230.198 (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]