Template talk:Calculus

message: : See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics about this template. Oleg Alexandrov 23:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. But please, don't add more articles to this template. The :Category:Calculus should take care of grouping together similar articles. Oleg Alexandrov 01:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot to check discussion and added Simpson's rule, Trapezoidal rule. Will not add any more. Please revert if offended. Alan Canon 23:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fat template

message: ... relating to this navigational box is currently taking place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Navigational_templates Tompw 21:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A discussion... 

message: For practice with templates, I rewrote a calculus template that was collapsible and that you can have open to the correct category.  I did add some things as well to help from a physics perspective.  (Being collapsible the space issue is diminished quite a bit.) This is similar to the  although I tried to keep the calculus style. 
If there is no objections, I am likely to replace this current calculus template with the one I rewrote soon.  I don't know enough about the math projects style to push the button without some warning, though.  TStein (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New collapsible auto collapsible template

message: I added sections on tensor calculus, fractional calculus, and stochastic calculus, and added several links to the differential/integral calculus sections. Does anyone object? Is the template too big? M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 14:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no issue with this. You might consider seeing if there is some way to merge some of the lower-content headings. --IznoRepeat (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Those other topics were cut out when this template was made. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 5#Template:Calculus -- is that needed?. Besides hoarding links, there's too much to look at, and if you're going to go that deep into it you'll find out about these things where the theory motivates them more closely. We could go further and list differential geometry, differentials, homological integration, and the Zariski tangent space. I think sticking to the fundamentals is a good policy, because it's the only way I see to scope this. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for feedback. I have no intension to go into too much depth, but to keep everything from elementary calculus to multivariable, while extending onto generalizations which a reader may find interesting. One idea is to essentially put all the non-elementary stuff, i.e. specialized forms of calculus, into a single section, linking only to the actual main articles (the reader can take it from there). I'll try it now. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 22:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe we could have an Extensions or Generalizations section? Another way to scope is whether or not doing calculus in that way requires a whole new motivation. Using vectors for multiple variables doesn't essentially change the foundations. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

text:  I just tried the "extensions/generalizations" idea now, including a grouping of the formalisms under "multivariable calculus", is that what you mean? M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 22:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that seems good. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extension to other forms of calculus 

message: I disagree that this is clearer, and if anything it has added an unnecessary level of complexity to the template code. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  subsections 

message: I removed the image :File:GeometricSquares.svg from the template.  While it is perfectly fine as an image, and even accepting that it is a good image for illustrating the subject of calculus (which is somewhat debatable), it is not really all that relevant to most of the articles on which the template appears.  I noticed this image while perusing Curl (mathematics), for example.  An image illustrating the geometric series was totally out of place there, and indeed would be in almost any other article under the scope of this navigation template.  There is no shortage of relevant images that can go into the leads of articles on calculus.  We shouldn't waste the real estate with irrelevant just-because-it-looks-cool images.  Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I think that the ordering of subareas should reflect the order they are typically learned in. Specifically, it's more common to learn multivariable calculus before vector calculus, and so it should be above vector calc. on the list. Gouwsxander (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering of subjects? 

message: The equation in the box on the top-right is incorrect. It's off by a constant term f(0). Inverting the equation, so that the derivative of the integral is being taken, would probably be a better alternative.
Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. I think it's misleading enough to warrant that. Perhaps the author might amend it.  — Ruyter (talk • edits) 08:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason it's back. I added comment on the discussion page of the image. 141.163.122.47 (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Equation 

message: I think the article on mathematical analysis should be mentioned, maybe even in the header next to calculus. What do you think?
- TheFibonacciEffect (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be too much. I support dropping a link in the miscellaneous section, however. Students new to calculus are probably not going to be taught analysis just yet. Nerd271 (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis