This article was nominated for deletion on 13 December 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is missing a section on hyperbolas. Also, it would probably be good if the section on ellipses didn't just redirect you to the article on ellipses that doesn't include a derivation of them.DroEsperanto 14:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a more appropriate proof for a proof article called "Derivations of conic sections" would be one where we mathematically show the shapes that are formed by the intersection of a double-cone and a plane at different angles (e.g., prove that when a plane intersects a double-cone parallel to the angle of the cone, a parabola is formed), rather than what we have now, which is the derivation of the equations that represent these shapes (which just happen to be conic sections) from geometric definitions. I'm planning on breaking up what there is here into four articles, one on each shape, and linking to them from their corresponding articles. DroEsperanto 15:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this article's title, it treats ONLY those aspects of conic sections that are a conventional part of the high-school curriculum. And it thoroughly disregards Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics). Michael Hardy (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proofs here should probably be summarized and merged into the main article. The proofs definitely don't need to be a the level of detail of a high school geometry textbook. I will add it to my do to list but I won't guarantee I'll get to it any time soon.--RDBury (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]