Talk:Calculator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Mathematics
Mathematics Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.
Mathematics rating: B Class Mid Priority  Field: General
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

online calculator online calculators are quite popular for marketing programs, unit converters, engineering calculation programs, horoscope matching and excel spread sheets.


Contents

[edit] Article Comment

Moved this comment from the article:

We need information on history of calculators, early mechanical calculators, etc...

Please make comments about articles on the talk pages. :^) —Frecklefoot 19:08, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)


[edit] Drawbacks

As it stands currently, I take exception to the Drawbacks section, as it gives the impression that .999 repeating is not, in fact, equal to one, when it is.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_0.999..._equals_1

I have edited that section so as not to leave people with that false impression, and linked to that article. 24.255.211.121

I think the real point to be made here is that some calculators can only represent fractions such as 1/3 approximately. Isn't this because of rounding up or down rather than arithmetic underflow, which is when a number is so small it is represented by zero? —Vadmium 23:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. However, it leaves people with a false impression, that .999 repeating isn't equal to one, which it is. If the point of wikipedia is to educate people about topics, then this article, when using .999 repeating as an example of the disadvantages of calculators with respect to a lack of precision, most people will make the assumption that that would imply that .999 repeating is less than one, which it isn't.

If you can think of a good reason why not to inform people of this subtle point I'd love to hear it.24.116.23.122

Alright - user DreamGuy seems to take exception to the inclusion of this fact in the article, and feels that it's inappropriate. I would truly enjoy hearing from DreamGuy himself as to his problem with this information and why it needs to be left out. It seems to me to be the logical continuation and conclusion of the paragraph

I have no desire to waste further time on arguing this point, as this is too insignificant to merit my time.

However, my last action on this matter is to put it to the wikipedia community whether or not this information should be included.


Votes for : - me keelerm Votes against: - DreamGuy

24.116.23.122 06:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's too insignificant to waste your time, how is it that you kept reverting it to your version and insisted that your version be the way it should bem against accepted history of this article and the explanations i gave in my edit comments, and also went to ak for page protection tolock it to get your way?

This is simply an obnoxious abuse of the way things are supposed to work here. Some anon editor comes in from out of nowhere and forces his opinion in an article in a way that makes no sense for a statement that is highly disputed and then gets the admins to lock it his way against the comments of multiple editors here (mine and Vadmium above). So some nobody who hasn;t even signed up for an account manages to overrule two real editors. Marvelous. The admin you got to lock it must have been particularly clueless.

So, anyway, while we have two votes against the way it is and only one (from an obnoxious pushy anon editor) in favor of the way it is, it should be unlocked so we can fix the damage. If it stays locked, fine I guess, just another article here permanently messed up thanks to a policy that treats people with no experience, credentials, ability or common sense as more important than real editors. DreamGuy 04:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


All I'm looking for here DreamGuy is for you to engage in a civilized debate on the subject, rather than merely using the edit summary on the page to converse after you revert the edit. I have worked on quite a few pages on wikipedia as an anonymous editor, and have resolved other issues on other articles in a well reasoned discussion on the article through the talk page. That's all I'm asking for, is for you to not simply revert edits due to your belief - I'd appreciate it if you would discuss it in a polite manner on the talk page, come to a consensus on the issue, and then, whatever the consensus on the edit is, that is the action that is taken. I am not new to wikipedia, or editing articles, and I would appreciate it if you would treat me no differently than other editors with accounts. I choose to remain anonymous due to my own perogatives, which I would appreciate if you would respect.

That being said, there is currently no consensus on the subject, with you against the edit, and me for. Vadmium has also commented, but no one else has weighed in on the issue.

I do appreciate you taking the opportunity to finally discuss this on the talk page, and had you availed yourself of this earlier, the page would not have needed to be protected so that you would discuss it. 24.116.23.122 04:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Over-reliance on a calculators precision is, I guess, a drawback. point-9 recurring does equal one. It does seem a little out of context in that paragraph. How about a See also: link to Proof_that_0.999..._equals_1 (which seems like a good article) ? Wizzy…☎ 09:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy is right the fact that 0.999... recurring equals 1 is not relevant to this article. The article is discussing a drawback due to the fixed precision representation of numbers by calculators. In my opinion, the statement should be deleted and a better explaination of the effects of fixed precision calculation should be presented as the explaination right now could use some improvement. Cedars 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that 0.999... recurring is precisely equal to 1 is true, but irrelevant. One needs an infinite number of 9's to make it true, and no calculator has that many decimal places. It's also true that 0.333... recurring is precisely equal to 1/3, but the problem that calcuators have is that they don't keep enough 3's, so the number they store is NOT precisely 1/3.

I stumbled across this page and jumped in late, but I'll suggest another wording for this section, and a slight variation on the exercise.

Built-in inaccuracy due to fixed-precision arithmetic is a drawback occurring in all ordinary digital calculators. To obtain an example of this potential problem, the following exercise may be performed: enter the number one, divide by three, to reach 0.333 (followed by as many 3s as the calculator's precision can handle), multiply by three to get back to a theoretical value of one, and then subtract one. The result theoretically should be zero, but on most calculators, it will not be. On some calculators the intermediate value of one divided by three times three will be displayed as .999 recurring to the limits of the calculator's display. Others will make use of internal registers that have higher precision than the calculator's display to show this intermediate result as 1., but on many of these calculators, subtracting one from the result will demonstrate that there is still a residual error. The problem in this example is that in order to represent 1/3 in decimal notation with perfect precision, one needs an infinite number of decimal places. But calculators only provide a finite number of decimal places, thus some precision is lost.

Rcochran 17:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


I have copyedited this article. I agree that calculators are not totally accurate, but equally I think it's dangerous to use the 0.999...=1 debate as a way of proving or disproving this. Most people find the 0.999...=1 very hard to believe (regardless of calculators), as I think this discussion has proven. Therefore, I have also rewritten this section so that it gets the point across without using this specific example. I hope this is agreeable to all. Davidbod 10:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graphing calculator

Graphing calculator has been a re-direct to calculator for nearly a year. Can we start a discussion about whether graphing calculators are ready yet to have their own article?? 66.245.2.190 17:15, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Go to Graphing calculator. Find yourself at Calculator. Click on the redirected from link. Edit that page, taking out the #REDIRECT line. Add long, informative article .. Wizzy 11:42, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History

The article doesn't mention that TI submitted a patent for the handheld calculator in 1967, which they (as well as the Wikipedia article on TI) define as "inventing the handheld calculator". However it seems that the patent application didn't stop other companies from introducing handheld calculators. It seems that the handheld calculator introduced by Canon in 1970 was in partnership with TI. Someday someone who knows the correct story on this stuff should probably add a note about this. Ken6en 11:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Information added MaltaGC 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

One more tidbit ... TI released the four function Datamath (around $40) at the same time the SR-50 was released. I have both of these calculators ... do you want photos? I remember the price of the SR-50 to be $150, although that may have been a discounted price for TI employees. I don't remember hearing about the SR-10 ... which puzzles me as I worked at TI from 1972-1974. eisenbeis, 8 Dec 07. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eisenbeis (talk • contribs) 14:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human Calculators

This article neglects to mention what people used for calculators before mechanical calculators. I know very little about this area, but it seems as if someone who did could add a section after abacus to talk about using human labour to produce calculations.

Especially of interest may be firing solutions in WWI/WWII-era submarine (I believe the person in charge of that was called a calculator, IANANO), and the scores of women that signed up to become calculators for the war effort.

Unfortunately, I know very little about this. Not even enough to make a heading with a stub. --Eienmaru 13:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Calculator

Is there any way to have a functining calculator on this page? For example. I'm pretty sure there is free Java scipts available on the internet for such things. Piyrwq 02:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section Q

I'm a tiny bit concerned the trivia section may soon/eventually get to the stage that it is no longer very encyclopaedic, due to the growing number of examples of 'upside-down 7-seg display writing'. I added/edited a couple myself in the section's early days, but (foolishly?) didn't expect the expansion into a veritable dictionary of phrases, most of them representing genres appealing to the major demographic of calculator users (college students). Should we do something about this, or just let it run free? --Wernher 22:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I moved it to a separate article: Calculator spelling

[edit] Pi on calculator picture

Did anyone else notice that pi is wrong in the picture? pi = 3.14159, not 3.14158. Is this an easter egg? 'Cause that would be cool.

Well spotted! I took the pic and put pi on the calculator. I knew pi was 3.1415926535 so I can't explain how I came to use 3.14158 - Adrian Pingstone 21:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
There is no way to for that kind of calculator to tell Pi,so someone the photographer must know the wrong valua of Pi.
The above anonymous comment makes no sense. As I clearly explained above, I entered the wrong value for pi into the calculator - Adrian Pingstone 13:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How calculators work

This article should include how calculators actually work. I haven't been able to find out how they do anywhere on the internet. --Anonymous

You're probably right; we should include a rough guide as to how calculators do their stuff. IMO this can easily be explained in a concise step-by-step text linking calc functionality to the relevant detailed articles on WKP about computers, since calcs is nothing more than specialized digital computers. That is; if you know the fundamentals of computers, you actually know calcs as well. --Wernher 13:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree, there should be information about how the calculator chips and circuitry work and stuff. Could someone look into it? There's no information elsewhere.-someone else —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.17.188.189 (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
That is outside the scope of the article in my opinion, especially since different calculators will calculate different ways. One way might be using an interpreter to convert an arithmetic expression into postfix notation (Reverse_Polish_notation) and then evaluating the expression using an algorithm. If you ever learn how to create a calculator by programming you could get a decent grasp of the different ways to do this, but as I said, it seems beyond the scope of the article. 67.11.141.177 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
While some calculators might be built around computers, the first calculators certainly were not: they were built using simple boolean logic, without any programmability. Notinasnaid 21:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia: Melcor 635

So, if you asked it arccos(0), what happened? Melchoir 01:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia, turning off calculator

Wikiwizzy deleted my trivia input of turning off a solar powered calculator. I think that the comment that 'just put it in the dark' was a no duh but my input of '- *A way to turn off a solar powered calculator is by hold down the numbers 5 and 6 and pressing the on button.' was put quite rightly in the Trivia section. It is another way to turn off a calculator and it is quite commonlyused. Should I put it back in?--Shaliron 08:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I find it difficult to believe this. Doesn't just pressing the on button work ? Which calculator - all of them ? I have never seen this. Do you have a reference ? Anyone else seen this ? Wizzy…☎ 08:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The 5-6 method doesn't work on my TI-34 calculator, and Shaliron implies that it works on any one. Perhaps you could put it in an article on a specific model, but it doesn't belong here. --Blainster 19:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This works on all non-scientific calculators. That means all simple math calculators, the ones used at primary school level. I've yet to see one that doesn't work like that. Just hold down 5 then 6 and then the on button, all at the same time.--Shaliron 06:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rotary calculators

Blainster, I'm not familiar with the Curta, but the rotary calculators were important and predominant. Where would you put them? -- Perspective 00:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert either but there is an article on the Curta, and it looks to be rotary driven by a hand crank. My point in reverting was that the Curta didn't come out until 1948, which made the sentence self-contradictory after your edit. Perhaps there is some confusion about the differences which you can sort out. It looks like the Curta was hand-held and the earlier ones were desktop models. By all means add what you wish to the main article, just be careful to fit it in where it makes sense. I would like to see alot more detail in the individual company articles. It was astounding to see that there were no articles yet on Friden or Marchant until I started them earlier this month. --Blainster 05:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order?

"Also, most everyday calculators do not follow the proper order of operations in mathematics; therefore, if someone were to type (on an average calculator) "2+4×2", they may get 12 (i.e., the answer to "(2+4)×2"), instead of 10, the correct answer (i.e., the answer to "2+(4×2)")."

I have yet to have seen a calculator in the last 10 years that gets simple BODMAS rules wrong, no matter how cheap. I think saying "most" in the above part is a bit much. Mouse Nightshirt 00:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have several calculators of this type, most of them of the <$5 (US) variety. They are "compute as you go" with the display as the only accumulator. I don't know about the "most", either, but they do still exist. Ted 01:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is one of the latest calculators I got that has this "feature": Texas Instruments 307. Another is: Sharp EL-233G. Ted 06:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree with this. If using a scientific calculator that allows for equations to be written (rather then single operations) then it will give the correct answer. If input into a normal (simple) calculator it will do the arithmetic as it goes because that is simply all it can do, it does not wait until the user stops inputting operations to calculate the answer. I am removing this comment from the article as it is personal opinion with no reference. It is simply incorrect. 58.6.42.80 01:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, technically 12 in the example would be correct if input into a simple calculator as it would be seen by the calculator as (((2)+4)*2). This order confusion is a human error not understanding the calculator rather than a calculation error. This is true as the calculator must be able to define the difference between 2+4*2 and (2+4)*2 which is done so by the way in which the user inputs the data (for an example, this is similar reasoning to switching numbers in 2-3 to 3-2 and calling the result a calculation error when it is the user that has changed the arithmetic of the calculation). As the article previously stated, it would recommend that there is no way to calculate 2+4*2, which is simply false. 58.6.42.80 01:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Calculator Picture

I think that the new calculator picture is not a basic calculator photo, it is a scientific calculator. Should we revert to the old one?--Shaliron 02:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I prefer the old one, though I'm not that fussed. Vadmium 05:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No need to revert, let's have both at the top of the article, they're both valuable pics - Adrian Pingstone 08:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hell, the '1337' calculator made me smile, plus it's a really popular model of scientific calculator. Both are up there, so it's no real problem GoldenTie 08:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of decimal in calculators

Shouldn't this article mention the use of the decimal system in modern calculators? Heck, the Floor function page mentions this. See also Binary-coded decimal.

[edit] The calculator guy

Does anyone remember that guy that was doing 1+1+1+1+1+1+1... for seemingly forever?

[edit] Potential picture modification

Would anybody have any objections if I created modified versions of the basic and graphing calculator pictures to use a plain white background for this article, so that they would be consistent with the scientific calculator's picture? Jumbo Snails 20:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bringing this article up to good article status

This is a nice, detailed but not overly long article, and I think achieving WP:GA and perhaps eventually WP:FA would be a great project. One of the first orders of business might be fixing up citations, what are some other changes that the community sees as necessary? Jumbo Snails 20:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think the article is starting to become overly long and we should trim it down. I added a few sources too.Shindo9Hikaru 22:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientic notation comment

Most calculators of this type can print numbers up to ten digits or decimal places in full on the screen. Scientific notation is used to notate numbers up to 9.999999999*1099. If a larger number or a mathematical expression yielding a larger number than this is entered (a common example comes from typing "100!", read as "100 factorial") then the calculator will simply display "error". It is very difficult to store the memory necessary to calculate larger numbers in so small an instrument.

On a HP 48G/GX the maximum number is 9.99999999999E499. It has twelve displayed digits (above the suggested up to value of ten), and fifteen are used in calculation. Because HP is mentioned two paragraphs down this paragraph should refect the best specification of the listed companies.

It is very difficult to store the memory necessary to calculate larger numbers in so small an instrument.

In the age of fantastically huge memories this just doesn't seem right. Primary reason for such technical limitations: cost.

I believe that the section needs split into a section on scientic calculators and another on graphical calculators. The wording in the section as it stands is confusing and subsequently inaccurate.

  • Quite right: that is just nonsense. The limit comes from an arbitrary choice made by the designers, or designers of components or software used, not related to cost. I have removed it. Notinasnaid 22:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few too many images?

Anybody but me think we should get rid of a few images like the one of a kid using a calculator?Shindo9Hikaru 23:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and also one of the basic calculators--Sergei Frolov 05:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, any other opinions before I go do that?Shindo9Hikaru 01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What's with the "1337" leet image in that calculator?? WinterSpw 05:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The 1337 one needs to stay :P --82.10.90.89 (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How does a modern calculator actually work?

I strongly suggest we add a "How (pocket) calculators work" to the article. I found an interesting explanation here: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-03/984867136.Cs.r.html Basically, it suggests that calculators convert operations (at least addition) into binary notation, do the calculation then convert it back to base 10. But what about trigonometric functions and square roots? How does a calculator know the answer there? It's clear logic gates are involved, but it would be interesting to see an explanation that makes sense. Would anyone know how to explain this in the article? I might if I find some more background info, but if someone understands it already then that might save time. Brisvegas 12:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What constitutes an appropriate external link?

As the primary developer of a new online calculator, I would like to add a link to it under the 'Virtual' heading of this article. I see that many others are already listed, some of which are only marginally relevant or useful. I understand that it's against Wikipedia policy to add a promotional link to your site, yet clearly this section is designed to be a listing of online calculators. Is there any reason I shouldn't add the link? Thanks in advance for any feedback. (The site in question is http://www.visualcalculator.com/) Ebengeer 12:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been a little over a week with no response so I'm assuming there are no obvious objections, especially given the nature of the existing links. I'm putting the link in. If anyone does have an objection, please discuss it with me here first before removing it. Thanks, Ebengeer 15:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The word "calculator" denoted a person who did such work for a living ...

I've deleted that text. The article Computer states "Originally, the term "computer" referred to a person who performed numerical calculations". Both articles are unlikely to be correct and, since I've seen books from 1930s whose acknowledgments included thanks to the computers, it's this article that is likely wrong. If you restore the text, please include a source. Thanks. tooold 22:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anekin 101

If you think major sections of the article should be deleted please set out your arguments here first. Your idea of what is 'very unnecessary' may be different from those of other contributors.

Mrslippery (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I will, even though I already adequately explained it in the edit summary. Per WP:EL, Wikipedia articles must only contain a minimum of external links which are of particular relevance to the article. A random online calculator written in JavaScript fails these rules. Per WP:NOT#LINK, Wikipedia articles are not web directories or lists of links. Even though one or two of the online calculators were quite good, they added nothing to the article about calculators, and were nothing that people can't find with a quick web search (very unnecessary). So besides being untidy, they clearly failed the policies I've stated, so removed. • Anakin (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It's worth adding that the other bunch of external links in the article are also candidates for removal, but it's harder to decide what's useful or not. If we make a case for one web site to stay, a hundred others also have a case for being there. I believe it would be better not have an external links section in this article at all, add relevant information into the article body, and ignore the rest. • Anakin (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Having made your argument, now wait and see what others thing. Your opinion is not sufficient to justify such a large scale deletion. I, for one, do not agree with your case and think the links should be retained. They provide useful content not found in the article.

Mrslippery (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's my argument. I think the policies are very clear - there is absolutely no way they justify these JavaScript calculators - you must see that surely??! But if you want to see what "others think", then you should go and find a another opinion. I suggest Wikipedia:Third opinion. • Anakin (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not think the argument is clear. Nor do I see your name amongst the past contributors to this article. I think it would be courteous to put your case forward and then see what others think. What is your hurry? Mrslippery (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in a hurry. I am just trying to clean up the article – and whether I have contributed to it before or not is not relevant. Can you not see that Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#LINK make the case very clear? These links spam up the article and make it excessively untidy, and add absolutely nothing worthwhile to it. They're just so unnecessary – everybody has a pocket calculator or the one that comes on the computer. Then there are more easily found all over the web. Even Google is a calculator. E.g., google:(1+2)*(3+4). Letting everybody under the sun fill a Wikipedia article about calculators with random links to online ones is a recipe for disaster. And as I said above, I believe the article would be better if efforts were made to remove most of the other external links as well. • Anakin (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Anakin. We do not link to various cookbooks in the Cookbook article and as stated above, the links are not about calculators. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 16:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
...but cookbook does link to articles about various cookbooks, some of which contain links to on-line versions of the book or a similar web site. Anyway, I'm with Mrslippery - such a large scale deletion should be discussed here first to determine consensus. The external links illustrate a variety of different calculator types - astronomical calculators, graphing calculators, complex number calculators etc. They are not all just "pocket calculators", and some of them add value to the article. Although the list may need culling, let's do this with some thought, and not just take the easy scattergun approach. I am restoring the links for the moment. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
But the point is, per the guidelines, we're not supposed to be linking to any of them. How are you going to decide what's useful and what's not? How is that fair to people who want to add more? They see that there are some calculators already, and decide, "Oh, I'll add mine". How is it fair to remove some online calculators and endorse others? They all have to go. People can find them with Google if they want them. • Anakin (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

I think that some of the links should be removed per the following guidelines WP:NOT#LINK and WP:EL. Specifically, here are the issues:

WP:EL

  • Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links. Simply, the list of external links is too long.
  • Links normally to be avoided:
    • Links mainly intended to promote a website. CasioKingdom violates this.
    • Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. Links such as Whiteboard Calculator and Sinclair's Cambridge calculator violate this.
    • Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content All the links in the Virtual calculators section and TIs history link violate this.

WP:NOT

  • excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia Once again, the list is simply too long.

I think its pretty clear that the External Links section needs serious cleanup. Billscottbob (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the list needs cleanup, and maybe the majority of the links should be removed. What I object to is the wholesale "all external links are bad" deletion approach that Anakin appears to be taking. WP:EL says "Each link should be considered on its merits". We do intelligent link pruning and control on articles all the time. It takes a bit more effort than simply deleting links wholesale, but it is worth it. If someone proposed a more moderate and considered cleanup of the list then I would probably agree. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I reviewed them one by one before I removed them initially. It just worked out that my criteria for judging them (WP:EL, as best as I could follow it) resulted in them all failing. What are your criteria for determining what should stay? What is your answer to the question I asked above? • Anakin (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gandalf61. It is important to follow the right process in such matters and be respectful of past contributors. It is easy to rush around clocking up edits by deleting content, but so much harder to add content that sticks. We want more people to contribute to Wikipedia, but arbitrary deletions discourage contributors. Lets take our time and do it right. I have no strong opinion on whether the links should remain but it could be argued either way. In any case we should allow others time to give their opinions. BTW Anekin 101 it does matter that you have not previously contributed to this article since it suggests that you may not have any knowledge of or interest in the topic. You may not be the best person to judge whether the links are appropriate or not.

One final point to consider when Anekin invokes procedure. Soon after this dispute Anekin 1012 went to an article on Wheel charts that I had just created and deleted it. I thought that a curious coincidence. That deletion has now been reversed by another editor. Mrslippery (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to say anything about the above point about me here, since this page is for discussing content of the calculator article. If anybody is concerned, they may investigate my contributions thoroughly. • Anakin (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Instead arguing over past actions, can we all try to reach consensus? So, what do you think of my proposal? Should we remove all the virtual calculators, Whiteboard Calculator, Sinclair's Cambridge and CasioKingdom? Billscottbob (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I propose we keep Martindale's collection of calculators, Math.com Calculators, Calcenstein and Online calculators listed at Open Directory. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Martindale's is quite useful I suppose; my preference is towards removing it but I'll compromise for the sake of peace. Math.com and Dmoz I won't quibble over. Calcenstein I'll grudgingly accept too. (*Sigh*. I never expected any of this to happen when I swept in like a hero to clean up. I was so pleased with that edit — it feels good to kick the crap out of an article.) • Anakin (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Calcenstein does not meet WP:EL because the menu requires flash. Billscottbob (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
So, removal of all virtual calculators (excluding Matindale's, Math.com and Open Directory) and Whiteboard Calculator, Sinclair's Cambridge and CasioKingdom. Is that what we agree on?Billscottbob (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No. Keep Calcenstein as well but add a note that it requires Flash. WP:EL does not absolutely prohibit such links - instead it says "If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required" and "In an instance where a link to rich media is deemed appropriate, an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the content must be given". Gandalf61 (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Such a long discussion to have over these links! Somebody else can delete them if they want – I've lost interest in this and I'm not exactly making any friends with my viewpoint that they're all junk. *steps out of discussion* • Anakin (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Gandal. So, removal of all virtual calculators (excluding Matindale's, Math.com, Open Directory and Calcenstein) and Whiteboard Calculator, Sinclair's Cambridge and CasioKingdom. Okay? Billscottbob (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine with me. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with it too. • Anakin (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)