This template is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
the box should not be removed from articles that are included on the template. also, if a user clicks on an article in the template, the template should be on that page for navigation purposes. --68.60.39.231 20:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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 ((PhysicsNavigation)) 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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∧Ŝc^{2}ħεИ_{τlk} 22:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I just tried the "extensions/generalizations" idea now, including a grouping of the formalisms under "multivariable calculus", is that what you mean? M∧Ŝc^{2}ħεИ_{τlk} 22:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Vector and multivariable calculus are typically taught simultaneously, given they're essentially the same thing. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]