Talk:Tau (2π)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sum of angles

I added the sum of exterior angles again to "possible advantages" after it has been deleted. The reason is that the formula for internal angles appears in the list of "possible disadvantages". Either both should stay or both should be deleted. --Entropeter (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Both are irrelevant (numerology), and should be deleted.--ZealousGnome (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Numerology? Nobody is purporting any "divine, mystical or other special relationship" between the sum of n-gon angles and life. The sum of exterior angles of an n-gon or interior angles of a triangle are geometric identities, useful in geometric proofs, and should both be included. Not sure how this discussion ("both should stay or both should be deleted") led to just the exterior angles point being deleted. Timbojones (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

But it's irrelevant because the pro/con format is gone now. Timbojones (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (1)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Since the original move was done without any consultation of other editors involved in the article, I've reverted it, per WP:BRD. Any eventual move should be first discussed and agreed upon here. --Waldir ^talk 04:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Tau against pi debate → Tau (2π) – To revert the recent undiscussed move. The new title is ungrammatical (should be "versus" not "against", or recast entirely) and reframes the article. Significantly altering an article's topic requires consensus. Cybercobra (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Rather interesting timing, the day before Pi Day, to move the article. That combined with his addition of,

"... a debate has followed, in which none of the international scientific organizations has been involved and which has not been echoed in any major scientific publication."

makes me wonder about the motivations involved. Perhaps some people should read MIT's recent announcement that they're going to honor Pi and Tau equally by announcing new student admissions on Pi Day at "Tau Time" (6:28 pm). Even if you don't value MIT's opinion on whether tau is a legitimate constant, perhaps we could all learn something from the conciliatory tone of the article. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to have this discussion if Lazard wants, but his timing was a clear provocation. The page should go back to the title it has had ever since it was created. This was a cheap stunt! Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Question. Why spell out "tau", but not pi? "2π" is not a category or a subject, so this is not a properly formed disambiguator according to WP:DAB. I suggest Tau (number). Kauffner (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Not quite unambiguous enough. Apparently tau can also refer to the golden ratio. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support reverting move - The current name is ungrammatical, the move seems a bit POINTy, and it very much changes the consensus achieved at the deletion discussion (i.e. I think under the current name the deletion would have succeeded). Mark Hurd (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposition to move to "Tau versus pi debate"

I open here the discussion on the move that I did previously per WP:BRD. The title of the article suggests ambiguously that the object of the article is the mathematical description of mathematical constant. However the mathematical content of the article is almost empty and may be summarized to "here is a list or well known formulas involving π, some become simpler, some not, when π is replaced by τ/2". To be acceptable for the WP:WikiProject Mathematics, such a trivial article about a mathematical constant needs that the constant is well established and appears as such in reliable sources such as notable textbooks or peer reviewed articles. This is not the case here. This is why the article has been previously asked for deletion.

However, when reading the article, it appears clearly that the subject of the article is not the constant τ, but a polemic about the replacement of π by τ. It is clear from the lead where the words "proponents" and "opponents" appear, from the sections which are all devoted to compare π and τ and from the titles of the main sources which are clearly polemical: "Pi is wrong", "The Pi manifesto", ... This polemic is notable, as it has been relayed by several news. IMO this is the main reason for which the AfD has been rejected.

Thus the present title is misleading about the content of the article and this is the rationale of my proposition to move it to Tau versus pi debate

D.Lazard (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really even sure how notable the argument is. Most of the news items are about "tau day", and don't really document the supposed "debate" in any serious way. I think a better target for a proposed move would be tau day. Also, almost none of the sources currently referenced in the article are reliable, so the article will need to be rewritten. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiplying a famous constant by 2 and then treating the new number as equally important is ridiculous. Anyone presenting this constant as new and equally important is manufacturing a big-end/little-end squabble, which is a waste of time. Rschwieb (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. This is because WP:NPOV that I have done this edit [[1]], which has been reverted. D.Lazard (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (2)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was} not moved. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Tau (2π) → Tau (mathematics) – It's strongly recommended that we avoid article titles with advanced characters. Georgia guy (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a dreadful idea. There are other much more established uses of the symbol τ on mathematics. Moving this article there would be assigning undue weight to a thoroughly marginal use of the term. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

But what about Tau (mathematical constant)?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The bigger issue is that tau isn't actually used in mathematics instead of 2pi. This is just an invented controversy that happen to garner media attention on pi day. Sławomir Biały (talk),

As you can see from the link Tau (mathematics) there are other uses including one constant, the golden ratio, which is a far more common usage for Tau. So Tau (mathematics) and Tau (mathematical constant) both don't work.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The idea that 2pi is actually a bit better than pi has popped up several times under various guises carrying different symbols. I first heard of it from a maths teacher in highschool. It is useful to have a page to describe the idea. The current name is as good as any. I can't help thinking this debate is more about the pi-vs-tau thng than it is about the article or the encyclopedia. Kleuske (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. "2π" is another name for tau, so it is not a proper disambiguator according to WP:DAB. It is inconsistent to spell out one Greek letter, but not the other. The current title is like a formula, a crib note to help you calculate for an exam: Energy (mc²), Force (ma), or Compound interest (Pe^rt). Kauffner (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Apparently ambiguous with the golden ratio. Perhaps Tau (circle constant)? --Cybercobra (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. The golden ratio is phi, according to all times I checked. Georgia guy (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Tau (mathematics)#Mathematics --Cybercobra (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • And Mathworld: "It is denoted φ, or sometimes τ."--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for Tau (circle constant). Isheden (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even if 2π is not a good disambiguator, there are many uses of "tau" in mathematics, some much more common. "Mathematical constant" might be accurate, but if even an obscure mathematical usage commonly occured, it would be more common than this in mathematics, and we'd need to move it again. Perhaps "circle constant", although I'm not sure there aren't other uses of "tau" as a circle constant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• oppose - per my above inline reply (as we're now !voting).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• oppose. Comments above. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - If it is "strongly recommended that we avoid article titles with advanced characters", I'll consider supporting a move to a valid page title, but this isn't it. Mark Hurd (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - For having a valid page title, it suffices to move it to tau (2pi) which is already a redirect to this page. D.Lazard (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - This might as well be closed seeing as the page has now been moved to Twice pi. Even though the consensus for the move to Tau (mathematics) is clearly no, as I have been part of this "survey" I will not close it myself. Mark Hurd (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That move should be reverted shortly. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Wasn't the move a violation of Wikipedia rules, given that we're supposed to be working on reaching agreement on a new name? While at least this time it wasn't right before Pi Day, it seems really obnoxious to me to preempt everyone, change it unannounced, and then say, "Put it back if you don't like it." If Slawomir Bialy thought "Twice Pi" would make a good title, why couldn't he just post the suggestion here? Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
      • And that's why the admins reverted it! --Cybercobra (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Move to something else: maybe "Movement to use tau instead of two pi" of something like that. Tau in the sense of two pi is not a widely accepted in mathematics; so it should not be used as a title. And Tau (mathematics) is even worse. —teb728 t c 02:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Tau should definitely be in the title though. That's how it's known to everyone. I've suggested "The Tau Movement" below. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC) I do agree that Tau (mathematics) would not be appropriate at this time. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
    • It's not known as Tau to everyone: the only academic source in the article doesn't use Tau, for one. I've updated the article to reflect this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
      • That's because that one article you left us with is 11 years old. Its author does indeed now know it as tau. Here's a link to his website. Furthermore, there are plenty of articles online from legitimate sources attesting to the fact that Michael Hartl proposed and supports using tau. Quite frankly, I would think something like that would qualify as "common knowledge", at least in this field, and wouldn't even need a reference. I haven't started rebuilding the article using sources that you'll find more acceptable yet, because I want to wait til the dust settles on the page title issue. A simple "citation needed" would seem more appropriate for the fact that Michael Hartl proposes using tau. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - It does a disservice to Wikipedia's readers to not use tau in the title. They hear or read about tau and then come to Wikipedia for information. It doesn't matter whether tau is currently used in professional math journals. Professional math journals are not the whole universe. Outside of their pages, many people are CLEARLY using tau to refer to a proposed alternative way of writing 2π. And actually, many of them don't even use it like it's only proposed. Even most people who absolutely hate the idea of using tau, still use the word and symbol exactly like they use the word pi and the symbol π. To refer to a particular number. If you hate that fact, then you should really want them to easily find a page here on Wikipedia that, among other things, will make clear that, at present, tau is NOT used that way in math journals, etc. If they can't easily find tau described here, they'll just go to Google and find descriptions out on the internet that often don't make that clear. It's just like teaching your kids about sex. If they don't learn about it at home, they'll learn about it on the streets. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, but I would like to propose Tau (circle constant). Circle constant already redirects to this page. And a circle constant is what it is. Isheden (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

history duplication

Much of the history section belongs in pi rather than here and should be deleted, pending an AfD at any rate. Tkuvho (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Youtube videos

Does the article really need four of these? Per EL:YES external links should normally be to official sites, the content being discussed and neutral and accurate sites related to the topic. More generally YouTube is a poor source for external links, requiring special plugins and using especially objectionable advertising (the sort that pops up over content), and except for the official channels of some news media being under no editorial control. I.e. per WP:ELNO 2, 5, 11, these should be removed, or limited to one representative link.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I would delete them all. This kind of page is an invitation for popular entertainment of this sort. The best course would be to AfD this. Tkuvho (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It was Kept at AfD (see talkpage header template). --Cybercobra (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The "keep" summary of the AfD discussion was an error. As you can see for yourself, there were numerous "deletes" in the discussion, which did not lead to a consensus. At best this was an "undecided". The next AfD may be more definite in the direction of "delete". Tkuvho (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We got sidetracked a bit. So remove them (the YouTube links) all?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

They're all by notable commentators, except the Houston one. So, no. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've not actually watched the videos, but just based on a preliminary gestalt, I think the Khan and Hart videos should be ok, but the Houston and Dixon less so. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposition to move to "The Tau Movement"

I'm making this proposition as follow-up to my post here that, "I'm willing to have this discussion if Lazard wants, but his timing was a clear provocation." D. Lazard has since claimed justification for what he did as WP:BRD. I have two problems with that. First of all, the evening before Pi Day, when there would obviously be a big spike in Wikipedia readers (not contributors) visiting the page, seems like a very poor choice of time to do this. IF the timing wasn't malicious, then it was certainly poor judgment. Furthermore, I don't see how the situation he found here at the tau page fits any of the situations where WP:BRD is deemed appropriate. A lot of distrust could have been avoided if he had simply posted his proposition, along with the concerns that motivated it, on the Talk page first.

Anyhow, about my proposition. A google search for "The Tau Movement" shows that the phrase is used for this topic, with no other competing uses that I can find. One big advantage over the current title that I do indeed like is its elimination of parentheses, which often confound people's attempts to link to the article. Finally, it should address concerns that readers are being misled into thinking tau is already standard notation. The title helps make clear that the article is about the call by some to use the symbol tau to supplement or supplant using the symbol pi. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's at least wait until the Tau (mathematics) move request above gets closed. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (3)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. -- Waldir ^talk 13:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Tau (2π) → The Tau Movement – as per the discussion above and the closure of the previous move request.

• Comment. Umm... what movement? Where is this so-called "movement" documented? Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to work with you guys and address your concerns about the title. But you can use google as easily as I can. There are plenty of articles out there attesting to its existence. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the current title is appropriate. See my second comment here. --Waldir ^talk 14:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• oppose - what movement? There's nothing on it in the article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – not only is there no movement in evidence, but the proposed title violates all normal style about "the" and caps. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• strong oppose what the hell? did you read the article? the advocacy section is only half the article. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title

If the article is to be about the mathematical constant, then by far the vast majority of reliable sources use 2π. In fact, no reliable mathematical sources use the symbol τ. If, on the other hand, the article is to be about "tau day" (which is what the news items mostly talk about), then it should be moved to that title and completely stubbed. To write an article that is ostensibly about the mathematical constant but whose purpose is actually to push a marginal usage is the very definition of WP:COATRACK. It has to be one thing or the other. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly the point which motivated my reverted move to Tau against pi debate: The article was not really about a constant but about a polemic supported by a few individuals. It is yet the case, although the percentage of place devoted to the "tau day" is now much larger D.Lazard (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The most notable item about tau seems to be the fact that MIT announced its admissions on tau time. I would suggest redirecting this to a subsection of MIT entitled MIT tau time. Tkuvho (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If the page is otherwise to remain as its current muted, no supposedly OR version, I'm tempted to agree it should go, but as it was only a couple of days ago, it definitely described τ and its possible uses. Mark Hurd (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

But this version was based entirely on original research and self-published sources. So while indeed it did build a case for τ, that isn't exactly our goal as an encyclopedia any more than it is to build a case for orgone generators based on sources of similar pedigree. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? You're comparing the proposal to use tau with orgone generators? Don't look now, but your bias is showing. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, tau is probably less sourced than orgone generators. We're not supposed to consider whether the sources are correct, only whether they are reliable, and there are many more reliable sources about orgone generators than about this use of tau. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Mark, I'm waiting for the dust to settle on the page title issue before I start spending (wasting?) time trying to rebuild the page in an environment so hostile to it. But extending the comment I made above in the "Requested move 2012" section, maybe this is one unfortunate case where the kids will truly get better information out on the streets than at home. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Tkuvho, THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT! The most notable item about 21-month-old tau JUST HAPPENED! That's a sign of something that's on the rise. If the page didn't already exist, it would be fine to say, let's see where tau goes over the coming months before creating it. But isn't it silly and disruptive to delete the page when you'll just have to create a new one in the near future? Leave the tau page alone for now. If you're right that it's all downhill for tau after March 7, 2012, time will prove it soon enough. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe some points need to be made clear in this discussion because it seems to me that we're starting to go around in circles:

1. The concept of using 2π as the circle constant is not a modern fringe theory. It has been used throughout the years by many respected mathematicians.
2. There are plenty of reliable third-party sources for the proposals regarding 2π/tau: trustworthy news organizations have provided extensive coverage of the original proposals (the fact that they did so close to the relevant "tau day", in order to garner interest from the non-mathematical audience should not in itself imply that the proponents of tau are joined in a "movement". Hartl did propose the Tau day, and many people have joined him, but that is merely accessory to the mathematical arguments presented for tau, just like Pi day is accessory to Pi)
3. Several of the main sources used for the article were indeed self-published, but self-published sources are NOT banned from Wikipedia. From WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications (which is the case here: most sources were from established, reliable mathematicians — actual experts in the field) and if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so (again, this is the case with tau/2π). In any case, some of the recent documents were NOT self-published.
4. The concept of a Tau Day or Tau movement is merely accessory to the main topic: the use of 2π as the circle constant and its mathematical implications. The mere fact that a consensus has emerged among the proposers that Tau is a good shorthand notation for the 2π constant surely needs to be included in the article; however, it doesn't make it about the movement.

I'd like to stop seeing these points being challenged in recent discussions. Unless, of course, I am mistaken about them, in which case I'd appreciate a point-by-point rebuttal. We need to establish some common ground of understanding about the subject before we decide what to do with the article. --Waldir ^talk 15:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken on some of them. There are certainly some respected mathematicians involved in this discussion. However, which respected mathematicians have actually used this abbreviation in their work in a notable way, in addition to talking about it on youtube? Tkuvho (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If, as you say, the concept of 2π is not a "modern fringe theory" and "as been used throughout the years by many respected mathematicians" (I would agree with this), then why don't we reference them? Let's make a pile of references to those respected mathematicians. We'll count number of them out of the total that use the symbol "tau", and let that decide what the article should look like. If none, or very few of them, use "tau" to denote this constant, then probably the article title should be something other than it is now. Is that acceptable to you?

It seems to me that #3 is a misinterpretation of the SPS policy, and that the kind of sources being used here are one of the kinds of things that our policy was specifically meant to exclude. First of all, self-published sources are only considered reliable as factual sources on matters of fact that their authors are established experts on. But these sources aren't being used to establish matters of fact. Indeed, they were written and self-published precisely because the ideas that they espouse are contrary to the mathematical orthodoxy. Self-published sources are never acceptable in such a situation (consider orgone, for example).

Also, I don't see how "tau day" is an accessory to the main topic. The media articles seem to focus primarily on tau day (or in the MIT case, tau time). These suggest that the whole tau business is more of a nerdy college prank than a serious encyclopedia-worthy article. The lack of actual scientific sources lends further credence to this viewpoint. How are we to comply with NPOV? Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

In any year, most media articles about pi focus on, and are written for, Pi Day, so that's really not an argument. Tkuvho says the most notable item about tau has been the MIT announcement, and that's not on Tau Day. So even if tau is destined to become some perpetual nerdy joke, the Esperanto of mathematics, it doesn't make sense to move the main article to "Tau Day". And don't get any ideas about moving it to Tau (Perpetual_mathematics_joke) just yet. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I definitely agree that viral "human interest" news stories should not be used as sources about mathematical constants. I tried to make this very point at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tau (mathematics). Certainly, for most mathematical concepts, we demand a much higher standard of scholarly sources. However, for whatever reason the consensus at that debate seemed to be there that this "tau" business was notable because of these news articles. Since these news articles are all about "tau day", the encyclopedia article should also be about tau day. Either that, or we have an article about 2π, named accordingly to what scholarly sources use (i.e., 2π), and include a paragraph about renaming the constant. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The references to 2π from past mathematicians were in the article: Al-Kashi and Laurent being the most prominent (but not necessarily only) examples. From the contemporary ones, we have the main proponents Palais, Hartl and Harremoes all presenting their ideas independently at first, one of them publishing them in a respected mathematical journal (Palais). Lindenberg might not be as well known but to his credit he also presented the idea independently in an academic paper and also chose Tau (independently!) as a shorthand notation. All of these agreed in the use of Tau for the constant, after Hartl's proposal. So did dozens of supporters, including well known web personalities and/or respected academics/mathematicians such as Salman Khan, Vi Hart, Spiked Math, Kevin Houston, Stanley Max, the MIT, among many others. I don't think there's any supporter of 6.28... that has rejected Tau, so from all supporters that are alive to have an opinion, 100% agree on Tau. I see no reason to separate this from the concept of 6.28... as I se no reason to separate Pi from 3.14... The Tau notation is as established as it can be.

We might have differing interpretations of WP:SPS, but still Palais' article isn't self-published, so the article wouldn't be entirely based in self-published sources. Moreover, I believe it is important to have the reputation of the main authors of the SPS the article was based on (whom I listed in the above paragraph), as that is specifically addressed by the policy, as I quoted above. Contrariwise, I can't see where the policy states, as you say, that "self-published sources are only considered reliable as factual sources on matters of fact". Would you mind copying the relevant passage from the policy page here?

Regarding Tau day, I maintain my stance. The news articles can certainly prove that the concept is notable, but I insist that their focus on Tau day is merely a product of the nature of their business: they have to appeal to people and make news that are actually... news, rather than just having an article about a mathematical proposal out of the blue because they felt like... Physics articles are also mostly reported when there's some sort of announcement or discovery, etc. --Waldir ^talk 05:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Self-published sources are not generally considered reliable, especially if there is some reason to think that those sources may be inaccurate or biased. Note the wording in WP:SPS that self-published sources may be considered reliable if they are written by an established expert. There is no guarantee that they are reliable. In this case, the sources are expressly outside the mathematical orthodoxy, in much the same way that (say) self-published sources about cold fusion are often outside the physics orthodoxy. Such sources are no more acceptable here than they are there. They are primary sources. On to the sources in particular: Palais suggested using 2π as the fundamental constant, but did not use τ. Moreover, this was an oped in the Intelligencer. Maybe this counts as a primary source for Palais' opinion, but it is not a secondary source as demanded by WP:NOR policy. As for Harremoes, Hartl, Houston, Max, Lindenberg: I see no evidence that these people are experts in any relevant capacity. But in any event, these are also primary sources, and entirely self-published. Neither Hart nor Khan is an academic or mathematician (Khan holds an MBA and an MS in engineering, Hart has a Bachelor's degree in music!) They are web personalities, it is true, but still just primary sources for the opinions of their proponents. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I just want to insert a point here: as far as Sławomir Biały arguments are concerned this tau idea is clearly stuff and nonsense and should be deleted. I believe we need to ignore the possibly discreditable sources and find more. That is the only way this argument is going away, irrespective of how much we feel the sources are reliable, as long as some feel they are unreliable, they will at some stage succeed in a RfD. Mark Hurd (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(1) Exactly: they may be considered reliable (it's up to the editors to exercise their good judgment on this), and in this case I offer that they should. I offered the links above, to point out that they do have credentials to provide evidence that they are experts in the subject. (2) The fact that Palais didn't include Tau in his article was merely because he hadn't heard about it: after both Hartl and Harremöes contacted him with that proposal, he promptly adopted the notation, as can be seen in his site. (Note that I did mention this in my previous message.) (3) The sources may be biased when they say that Tau is preferable to Pi, but certainly are neutral when they describe the mathematical properties of Tau. It can barely be called original research, in fact, since so many people reached the same conclusion independently; they were just observing the basic properties of a mathematical constant, not concocting a new theory out of the blue. (4) When I mean that those people are well-known mathematicians, I didn't mean to imply that they have an academic degree in mathematics. However, I wouldn't expect anyone to put in cause their obvious knowledge of mathematics, which is evidenced by the wealth of math-related content they produced (either in web content or in academic publications) and the extensive following they have achieved, many among a mathematical audience. What I'm saying is that we need to be reasonable here, rather than simply attempting to stick blindly to the rules. --Waldir ^talk 13:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think we can say that they are not reliable sources, for reasons I have stated. They are primary sources advancing a position well outside the mainstream written by people who largely lack any relevant credentials, This, to me, seems to be exactly the sort of thing that our SPS policy is written to discourage. It's astonishing that anyone would argue otherwise. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't need a PhD in mathematics to knowledgeably discuss basic trigonometry. However, Palais and Houston are indeed university math professors with PhD's in mathematics. Hartl has a PhD in physics, which tends to require a little bit of math. Not sure what Harremoës' degree is in, but a look at http://www.harremoes.dk/Peter/ shows he's clearly up to handling trig. Stanley Max teaches mathematics at Towson University. Khan has an MS in engineering and isn't qualified to discuss basic trig? The origin of Khan Academy was his math instruction. Slawomir, since you've apparently got a PhD in mathematics, are you available for tutoring work? I had planned on teaching my niece her multiplication tables, but I now realize that I'm not qualified. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The criterion in SPS under discussion is whether that have relevant publications in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Obviously not everyone who understands basic trigonometry is qualified to be an authority on the subject. In short: find peer reviewed sources. Otherwise no article. Geddit? Sławomir Biały (talk)

But they do have relevant publications in the peer reviewed scientific literature! I again point out that I linked above to the webpages for most of these people, where they list their publications. (A side note: Joseph, I kindly ask you to please stop making sarcastic and ad hominem remarks, that definitely isn't productive for this discussion). --Waldir ^talk 19:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, who has publications in the peer-reviewed literature establishing them as an authority on trigonometry? Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Argument against "2π" or "Two pi" or "Twice pi" as an article title. Using a "multiplied noun" as the actual title of a Wikipedia page is not normal. I can't find any similar cases. It's not even normal for redirects. Consider where the following "multiplied nouns" take you if you treat them as article titles:

• 100 Years -> Song with that name
• 10 Years -> Music group with that name
• 365 Days -> Episode of the TV show The West Wing
• 9 Months -> Hugh Grant movie, not an article on pregnancy
• 14 Days -> Music album
• 7 Days -> Disambiguation page. No page titles listed there beginning with "7 Days" or "Seven Days" are about the time unit.
• 24 Hours -> Disambiguation page. No page titles listed there beginning with "24 Hours" are about the time unit.
• 60 Minutes -> The TV news program
• 60 Seconds -> A BBC news program
• 2 Pints or Two Pints -> BBC sitcom
• 4 Quarts or Four Quarts -> Nothing
• 3 Feet or Three Feet -> Nothing
• 12 Months -> Nothing
• 5280 Feet -> Nothing
• 16 Ounces -> Nothing
• 1000 Grams -> Nothing
• 2 Weeks -> Nothing, not even redirected to Fortnight, a term which is never used in scientific journals yet has a Wikipedia page.

Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

NB Some of the above should really use lower case words, but the point was still true for those I checked. Mark Hurd (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You are making silly arguments. In a scientific setting, reliable sources are considered to be textbooks supported by references to the scientific literature. If you can find no such sources that use the term "tau", then this is a WP:NEOLOGISM. It's really that simple. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

NOT OFFICIALLY RELEVANT, but this is funny so I'll share it: Students picketing for tau and against pi on Pi Day in a college math building. (And no, Slawomir, I don't know these kids, nor did I have anything to do with this. I simply found the video on YouTube.) Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Colin Beveridge (a.k.a. The Mathematical Ninja of Flying Colours Maths)

Beveridge has a math PhD from University of St Andrews and is author of at least 3 books on math topics in the "For Dummies" series. (Spare me the obvious joke.) Look what he put at #1 on his recent list of "the 10 coolest numbers".--Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

“ “It’s the angle in the middle of a circle,” said the Mathematical Ninja. “You may know it as 2π, but τ is better yet.”

“I thought it was 360!” said the student.

“Get out of my shop,” said the Mathematical Ninja.

”

Thanks for posting that... We shall overcome... Kleuske (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Time to restore the article

Now the RfC has expired I see no reason that we should not have an article on Tau. It should concentrate principally on the social phenomenon of Tau, and a statement of the status quo regarding it.

There are two groups of people who should not be involved in decisions about this article.

Tau supporters

No WP article has the purpose of promoting an idea or concept. This article must not become, therefore, a vehicle for the promotion or justification of Tau.

There is no reason that we should not have a brief section giving the principle arguments that its proponents give in favour of Tau but we must have no more than that.

Tau haters

No WP article has the purpose of suppressing an idea or concept. This article must not become, therefore, a vehicle for arguing against the use of Tau or trying to deny its existence.

There is no reason that we should not have a brief section giving the principle arguments that its opponents give against using Tau but we must have no more than that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC on tau

I have started a RFC on the notability of tau on the talk page of the article in my userspace. The RFC can be found here. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone following this Talk page but not the Pi Talk page. The RFC closing was just posted, with a recommendation that the tau article be recreated, possibly under a new name. Follow the link above to read it, and the follow-on discussion. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

why this is not useful

• Both π/2 and 2π are frequently used in math formulas. Thus, replacing π/2 by a single letter would simplify formulas like $\cos({\frac {\pi }{2}}-x)=\sin x$ and the like. The same is true of 2π, as we have been frequently reminded recently. However, this is very little as far as establishing notability (beyond sensationalist press reports) is concerned.
• WPM participants of a variety of interests have opposed the creation of a separate tau page. This is in striking contrast to the uniformity of the tauists' single-minded devotion to a single cause, and the paucity of their contributions to wiki outside tauism.
• Valuable editor time is wasted on deflecting the ill-conceived "tauist revolution". This is only going to create further resentment among editors actually active on WMP and make any future tau article even more unlikely. Tkuvho (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Tkuvho, your explanation why tau is a bad idea doesn't change whether it's notable. Communism was a really bad idea, but it sure was noteable. So "deflecting the ill-conceived tauist revolution" doesn't really sound like the appropriate role of a Wikipedia editor. Also, even if you think switching to using π/2 and switching to using 2π are equally bad ideas, one of them has clearly gotten vastly more attention than the other. That's what matters, not how stupid the idea is. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

@User:Joseph Lindenberg: You write that "even if you think switching to using π/2 and switching to using 2π are equally bad ideas, one of them has clearly gotten vastly more attention than the other." Thanks for pointing this out because you bring up an important point. Had Hartle written a manifesto arguing for replacing π by $\tau ={\frac {\pi }{2}}$, it would have attracted a similar amount of media hype. The vast majority of the journalists scribbling about this have absolutely no idea what higher dimensional spheres are, and couldn't care less how to compute their volume. The "human interest" story that attracts them here is the idea that something that seems as immutable as the stars, namely π, all of a sudden turns out to be amenable to challenge, similarly to the eurocentric claim concerning the origin of the calculus. The media hype around τ is not about science, it is about challenging authority. Now anybody having difficulty passing a trig test no longer has to take responsibility for his insufficient dilligence. Instead, he can blame the pi-ous for confusing him by teaching him about τ/2 instead of the true τ. Tkuvho (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You actually described the reason for interest in tau beautifully, "that something that seems as immutable as the stars, namely π, all of a sudden turns out to be amenable to challenge". Full stop. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That was actually my reason for interest in $\tau ={\frac {\pi }{2}}$ which happens to be notable; see Albert Eagle. As for the other value, it seems to be as notable as stardust. Several people at WPM hope that's what you would do about your τ activities here: Full Stop. Tkuvho (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice carefully that I didn't initiate this round, and barely made any edits to the proposed article. I've been happy to provide help and support to those who have, but getting rid of me won't solve your problem. As I told Waldir last year, he, I, and Michael Hartl could all disappear off the face of the Earth tomorrow, and interest in tau would still continue to grow. Stephen Abbott's public declaration has been joined by Phil Moriarty, Steve Mould, James Grime, Bruce Torrence, Colin Beveridge, Ben Hummon, and Robin Whitty. Consider how many views just the 3 YouTube videos by Vi Hart and Numberphile continue to get EVERY SINGLE DAY. (And the new comments in support that keep appearing there.) Every undergraduate MIT applicant now finds out about tau. Nah, I'm gonna be the least of your problems. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

@User:Joseph Lindenberg: Instead of seeking to confront the WPM group, I would urge you to work together. I have had the opportunity several times to mention the fact that youtubes are not an indication of notability. In fact, it is an informal "guideline" of WPM since it appears at the top of the talk page as a response to a FAQ. I don't think I ever suggested that anybody should disappear off the face, etc. Arm yourself with patience EVERY SINGLE DAY and wait until Abbott, Moriarty, Mould, Grime, Torrence, Beveridge, Hummon, Whitty, and Khan publish a notable book at a respected publisher. Then there will be something to talk about. Tkuvho (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I wasn't arguing about whether the YouTube videos indicate notability, and I certainly wasn't accusing you of suggesting I should disappear off the face of the Earth. My point was that new tau supporters are clearly being created EVERY SINGLE DAY. That will inevitably lead to more and better sources, as well as more people showing up here pushing for a tau article, whether I'm silent or not. But I think we all agree that at the moment, on Wikipedia, the issue deserves a rest. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected this page for 24 hours because of edit warring. Let's calm down folks.--agr (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

People watching this from the outside must think we all own stock in the numbers π and 𝜏. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

At least they have constant value, though how much interest each generates is debatable.--agr (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This confirms my feeling that τ, Inc. amounts to reckless speculation in the futures market. Tkuvho (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• AfD was closed here: User_talk:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant)#Closing_RFC:_suggest_creation_of_the_article. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I've re-protected this page for because of edit warring and no respect for the closing RFC: suggest creation of the article. Any edits need to be cleared by first stating them here as a 'new section'. John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Where do we go from here? Many believe that this article ws improperly deleted and should be restored. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is against you. You lost, go work on something else. If you keep labouring the point it's disruptive (and this is from someone who didn't even vote). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is to work on creating a new article on tau in user space; make it good quality and rely on excellent sources. Focus on the phenomenon of tau as a quixotic/humorous effort (not as an actual math value used by mathematicians). Work on it for a few months; then move the article into article space. If anyone objects to the article, the AfD process should be used, not RfC. --Noleander (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You would need to overturn the previous consensus before moving it into userspace. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There never was a consensus to delete and the merge was a sham. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Noleander,I would be happy to work on the article if that really is the best way forward but I do question the need and the wisdom of collaborative editing in a userspace.

There was never a consensus to delete this article and the 'merge' RfC has revealed itself as a ploy circumvent an AfD; there are now only two sentences on the subject in the Pi article. I do not think that there is any WP policy which allows editors to continually delete an article.

The other problem that I see with userspace is that it will probably not attract a sufficiently wide range of editors and who will edit will depend on whose userspace it is.

I am not sure what the applicable dispute resolution procedure is now. Maybe we should just create a quick article somewhere and then put it up here and immediately open an AfD? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The consensus on this has been tested twice in little over a year and each time has found there's not enough reliably sourced content for an independent article. The problem wasn't quality but notability, and this won't be changed by better quality prose. Please accept this and find something else in the encyclopaedia to work on. Don't create an article that there's a clear consensus against creating, triggering yet another time wasting discussion. That really would be disruptive.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the AfD result was 'keep'. The merge was a sham, we have two sentences in the Pi article now; that is not a merge it is a virtual delete.

I have great difficulty understanding your strong feelings on this subject. We may have an article on a subject of marginal notability but that is hardly unique in WP. I am also rather puzzled by your use of the word 'disruptive'. There is currently nothing to disrupt. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

it's evident that you are on a crusade to have this article for advocating Tau. Continuing the crusade, and this discussion wastes everyone's time considering the consensus is against you. That is why it is disruptive. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The AfD recognised that there was "a strong consensus that the article should be renamed or merged", and merge is what the subsequent RfC determined. So they are in agreement, and the latest RfC has confirmed them. It's disruptive to deliberately go against or ignore consensus, especially after its been confirmed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What exactly am I disrupting?

Regarding crusades, I have no strong feelings for or against the use of Tau, however there are, without doubt, people who do promote the concept. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It is disruptive to refuse or fail to get the point. We've had three discussions on this now with a clear and straightforward outcome. Now is the time to move on.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

In defense of Martin Hogbin against IRWolfie's baseless accusation that he is "on a crusade to have this article for advocating tau", I'd like to point out this post Martin made last year:

"Tau is the least interesting mathematical concept that I have ever heard of. The less said about it the better as far as I am concerned."

So either Martin has undergone a Road to Damascus conversion, or he has simply come to recognize that despite his personal feelings about tau, it's appropriate for Wiki to have an article. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be clear from the recent RfC that WPM members do not oppose the creation of a tau article (whatever its name), but merely think that this is does not meet notability criteria at this stage. Whenever such an article is proposed again, a consensus should be sought at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics first. Tkuvho (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not think WikiProject_Mathematics is the appropriate place to seek consensus, for the same reason that WikiProject_Astronomy is not the right pace to discuss whether there should be an article on the Flat Earth Society.

Joseph Lindenberg expresses my position well. The concept of Tau has been around for years and the response of serious mathematicians has always been the same as mine, which is 'Yawn. Whatever. Can we get back to something more interesting'. The fact remains, though, there are is a movement, which has been around for years, to promote Tau and which has received significant publicity in the media and some less serious mathematical publications. It is not 'popular culture' it is a movement by a small group of enthusiasts.

The purpose of WP is to report facts as they are. The facts may be summed up as: there is a notable movement to promote the use of Tau; there is no significant discussion of the subject by serious mathematicians. Martin Hogbin (talk)

The consensus is that there is not a movement worth having an article on here. Time to move on ... IRWolfie- (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not so clear cut since there were editors that felt there is room for an article on the movement, see this edit. Tkuvho (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

How do you feel about the proposal that we write a new article, possibly in userspace to be moved here, then immediately start an AfD, with only two options, 'keep' or 'delete'?

I know it has been done before but there was a rather unusual migration through AfD, Merge/Rename. I think the subject either stands in it own right or we ignore it (maybe keep the two sentences in Pi). Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There were two editors at WPM that feel there may be room for an article on the "movement". I personally don't think so (until I see more evidence beyond media reports) but you might want to take this up with them. Tkuvho (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This was raised and considered during the RfC, but gained very little support, e.g. here. It was added to the RfC after the RfC started but many editors !voted after that and others were participating, so felt their existing !vote already covered the notability issue.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The notability argument seems to me to be an excuse by people who just do not seem to like the idea of Tau. It quite clearly meets the requirements of wp:notable here for example is a course on the subject at one of the world's most prestigious universities. Many of the RfC respondents seemed to think that Tau needed to a notable subject within mathematics, which is not the case. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The idea that an article should be created and then sent to AfD isn't something that would happen. The repeated consensus is to merge and redirect an article on Tau, so if another article were recreated it would simply be redirected. No AfD required since there's already a consensus for the subject, this one being only days old. - SudoGhost 23:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

@User:Martin Hogbin: Ironically, your best piece of evidence in favor of this has already been dealt with here, a discussion you participated in.

Furthermore, the organizers write that "This course will certainly leave you with an informed opinion on a topical if fringe mathematical issue." Therefore even the organizers agree with the majority of wiki editors who feel that the topic is indeed fringe. Tkuvho (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Dealt with rather badly. You said, 'Correction: the seminar is not organized by Oxford University but rather by the Center for Continuing Education'. That is a department of Oxford University, look at the logo at the top right and the 'ox.ac' domain, see here for confirmation. We know the subject is fringe, there is no dispute about that, that is why we it should be a separate article from the mainstream Pi. WP:notable specifically says, 'Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept'. Oxford is also not the only academic institution to mention Tau. You may not like it but it is out there, and it should therefore be in here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Despite claiming to not care, you are still here arguing away. Seriously, you lost the discussion and the issue is now closed, move on and stop trying to rehash this. Consensus is against you, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not care about Tau; I do care about WP coverage and policy. What exactly is your objection to the existence of a Tau article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see the last question (and answer) at the FAQ. Tkuvho (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I asked about your reason. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Objection to IRWolfie's deletion of someone else's Talk page post

Even if he is correct that the post violated WP:NOTAFORUM (which may be marginally true in this case), this is a very bad way to deal with it. First, it's unfair to all other editors, who end up not knowing the post was ever there unless they scrutinize the history of the Talk page. The only reason I found out about it is that the same IP editor redirected Tau_(2π) earlier today, against consensus, so I looked at their recent activity on Wikipedia. And that's the second reason harshly silencing people on Talk pages is a bad idea. I'm not condoning what they did today, but it's a predictable reaction to their treatment 2 days ago. Wikipedia has enough trouble with that sort of misbehavior as it is. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty standard to delete posts that treat talkpages like a forum for discussing a topic but aren't related to improving the article. What is the point in bringing this up on this redirect page? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to harshly silence repeated behavior that goes against wiki policy, and I agree with User:IRWolfie-'s edit. Tkuvho (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that for "repeated behavior that goes against wiki policy", it could be appropriate. That was not the case with this editor. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am the editor who pointed out that τ is more fundamental than π. I did nothing wrong. Whether τ makes mathematical salient to whether we should have an article about it. I merely pointed out that the origin and radius define a circle. If we define a circle merely as having a constant diameter, then curves of constant width are circles. c/d is not a constant and does not necessarily have anything to do with circles; while, if r is constant c/r is not just a constant but the circle constant.

As for restoring the article, I am guilty as charged. but, ¿am I guilty of anything? The consensus was keep —— ¡not delete! ¡The deleters violate consensus!

76.103.108.158 (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As you well know, the consensus at the AfD was clearly not to delete, but was also clearly to merge. None of the subsequent AfDs have even questioned that consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

And as you well know the merge was a sham. An attempt to delete the article by stealth. Martin Hogbin (talk)

It's possible more could be added in Talk:Pi, but there doesn't seem to be a source for anything more about the phenomenon. There's source for why τ is better or worse than π but that's not appropriate for any Wikipedia article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The clear understanding of a merge is that all or most of the material on both articles is retained but nothing is duplicated. Nothing like that happened with the Tau/Pi merge, I wonder how may of those who supported the merge would have done so had they known what the result would be at the time.

Perhaps you could tell me, what exactly is your personal objection to the existence of a Tau article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree that nothing about the Tau/Pi argument has any place in WP. The argument exists and we should report it, just as the Flat earth society reports the bizarre arguments used by the Flat-Earthers. I completely agree that WP is not the place for the argument to be played out. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No, a merge does not have to include all or most of the content. See WP:SMERGE for the guideline, but if the reason the merge is happening is lack of notability then it's possible that much of the article won't be used as it's not supported by reliable sources. This is especially likely when merging into a good or featured article where the GA/FA criteria mandate good sourcing. It would be wrong, or at least detrimental to the quality of this article, to include content from the merged article that wasn't supported by reliable sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Were the RfC respondents informed that a selective merge was proposed? The merge was a backdoor delete. There is no shortage of sources on Tau and the subject quite clearly meets the notability requirements for an article. There is a short course on the subject being given at Oxford University.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 May 2013‎

That is simply your view. The consensus, as arrived at by now three formal discussions, was that it is not notable as an independent topic. And Wikipedia works by consensus. Please accept that and move on.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Creating an /Arguments page

This page seems to attract almost as many editors as 0.999.... I suggest creating an /Arguments page so that "discussion"-type comments can be redirected there. Tkuvho (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Views are actually quite low, the big influx was due to advocacy on reddit or similar. See the spike here: [2]. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that spike was due to Pi Day (March 14). The same thing happened last year. There was also a spike last Pi Approximation Day (July 22). --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move (4)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Tau (2π) → ? – Placing this article up for discussion per RFC here Tazerdadog (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Their are related article names which redirect to Pi#In popular culture like Twice pi and others. These need to be changed to what name is agreed upon also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddwarf2956 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, while Tau (2π) should redirect to this article under its new name, a name like Twice pi which does not contain the word tau should probably continue to point where it does now. A main article link can be placed there, so readers can either read the pi article, or click on the link and go to the tau article. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The name Tau is what this article about. Renaming it Twice pi is absurd. The point is that some people, for whatever reason, want to promote the use of Tau for 2*pi. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Reddwarf2956 was suggesting renaming this article Twice pi. He was just saying we also may need to change where names like Twice pi and 2pi redirect to. (I disagree, as I explained above.) --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy oppose; no rationale for change presented. Powers ^T 17:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Non-speedy oppose. If you're going to write an article about tau, there's no shot at WP:PRIMARY in 2013, so we need some disambiguation - the given parenthetical seems fine. Absolutely no reason to write one up elsewhere. Red Slash 23:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – the current name seems about right, and no good alternative has been proposed. Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment the archives show multiple RFCs and multiple requested moves. -- 04:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• comment this is misplaced in two ways. A RM requires a destination, i.e. where it will be moved to, with a reason. Without these it can't be supported, only opposed. And this is a redirect, not an article. It may be the proposer was hoping the draft at User:Tazerdadog/Tau (Proposed mathematical constant) would be promoted to an article but this has now been closed as not yet ready for mainspace.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

  It was not a redirect when the move was initially requested; it was an article. Powers ^T 16:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  Only as the proposer created it as such before the RfC was properly closed. But now that is resolved there's no article to move, to whatever name, and this discussion should be speedily closed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  That still has not been properly close, just reopened. So there's still a question here of whether to leave the article at this title, if the close says it's OK to have this article. The fact that the article got locked in the redirect state merely confuses matters. Dicklyon (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  Here's a link to the RfC User_talk:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant)#RFC:Article_Notability, with the statement by the closing editor at right. Read the full comment for the reasoning but the outcome was "this article is not yet ready for mainspace".--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I see my statement was not clear. The redirects like Twice pi, 2pi, and others which reflect the constant value of tau need to be redirected to the new article name which ever is agreed upon. -- Reddwarf2956 or John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

As there is no article here, per consensus, this RM is moot I believe. This should be speedily closed as no action taken. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

It is almost τDay; so therefore, We should restore the article now.

τDay will soon arrive. We should return the article for it.

τHaters, I understand your pain. Centuries ago, someone measured across and around a circle and dividing circumference by diameter. Unless one thinks about this, it is not obvious that this is not the circleconstant. Unfortunately, the radius defines a circle. We all, at times make mistakes. It happens to the best of us. I certainly made some big 1s myself.

τHaters, please ask yourself this:

“¿How long do you believe you can keep τ off of WikiPedia?”

Even with all of the τhaters fighting τ tooth and nail, τ will eventually prevail. It is a Mathematical certainty because the radius defines circles. You might as well throw in the towel now and restore the article before τday.

76.103.108.158 (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Some good questions and should not be hidden. John W. Nicholson (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a single "good question", and it probably should be hidden. I'm not going to get in an edit war by hiding it, but I would have no objection to forcibly archiving it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there's nothing there except a pejorative ("haters") POV and misguided (τ is not "off of Wikipedia", just follow this redirect to find it) statement. The question is from an IP very familiar with the history of the article so is purely rhetorical and best ignored.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing good about this question, it has been debated to death and there is consensus not to restore it. You are a Tau WP:SPA dedicated to the article, but the article is a redirect. Now is the time to find other interests, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

SPA, you must not be talking about me or don't know what you are talking about. http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Reddwarf2956&page=*&server=enwiki&max=100&wildcards=true John W. Nicholson (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

95% of your edits on wikipedia (adding all namespaces) are in relation to Tau. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

So, if you, IRWolfie, and your freinds would agree to do as mister JohnBlackburne suggest "best ignored" totally on the subject of tau so that the real editors of tau can have an article there would not need for so much talk about tau and a real article would simply exist. And, I could go back to doing other things like creating articles on prime number conjectures like Firoozbakht’s and Oppermann's. If you have not noticed all you are doing is bringing out the 'pejorative POV' like "You are a Tau WP:SPA" and is misguided. The first writer for this section is correct in asking:

“How long do you believe you can keep τ off of WikiPedia?”

Truth is, for me, the dedication to this article is caused by making Wikipedia better. Because you are dedicated to doing the opposite and we have issues. It it getting to the point that every Pi-day and Tau-day is a reminder that Wikipedia does not have a full article on tau. Which is why every one of these two days has a peak of activity on Tau_(2π) as to check to see if the silly people have changed there minds. You are not saving the world, you are not making Wikipedia better, so what are you doing? John W. Nicholson (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the question "How long do you believe you can keep τ off of WikiPedia?", the answer is "Until reliable sources are found to establish notability". See also this FAQ, particularly the last question (and answer). Tkuvho (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for not being like IRWolfie and try to hide others writings. Second, I see some issues with the statement by the link given. One is that this requirment of sources is like requiring the group of physicist or astronomers to determine when a article on Titan_colonization is valid to exist. We all know that an article on Titan_colonization should be considered fringe and with little or no serious talk. Tau is simular in that there are a lot of people who see no need in spliting tau in half to make 2 pi. Second, when a source like http://horizonsaftermath.blogspot.com/2012/04/my-conversion-to-tauism.html with the pdf http://www.maa.org/Mathhorizons/apr12_aftermath.pdf . Yes, it is only an editorial, but even the fact that MAA published it makes it at some level higher than 'on the internet' of a credible source. You can not write an editorial on just anything mathematical (like 1 is prime or 2 is not prime) an expect it to be publish as an editorial. And, clearly, on reading, there is a level of exceptance by the MAA to allow this with tau. It is not 'in the news' on a day like Pi day or Tau day also. There is a need for the article as seen in the number of views on even none Pi or Tau days. If you say the source above is not notable as a fringe article then what is? Maybe call the article 'Tau (fringe)' as to be clear that this is not intended to be a mathematics community source, but a pop and pedagogical community source. You might not like it being that, but it is. John W. Nicholson (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! Mathematically, it is hard to think of a less interesting topic but there clearly are people who do find it important. Your example concerning Titan_colonization parallels mine of asking astronomers whether we should have an article on the Flat Earth Society. I do not see the need to change the title to 'Tau (fringe)' but we must make clear in the article that the subject has practically no interest for serious mathematicians. The objectors to a Tau article are, IMO, as crazy as the promoters of Tau.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, there is not a need for a separate article. We've had now three formal discussions which established it. All we have now is the same three or four editors who won't let this rest, despite the clear consensus reached. Just drop it. If you want to write about Tau no-one is stopping you. Get it published in a journal, or covered by news media, and maybe it will help make Tau more notable. But right now it's not notable enough for its own article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie, just don't feed the trolls on this Talk page. (I do use the term trolls affectionately in this case.) John Nicholson and I keep getting drawn back in only because you keep trying to silence other people on this Talk page. What's the point? Ignore them. This isn't the Pi Talk page, where it might obscure discussion on other issues. If 76.103.108.158 had made the same post on the Pi Talk page, I'd have been fine with you collapsing his post. But what other issues on this Talk page are there to be obscured by it? Listen, we all have better things to do than reopen this fight again now. Don't provoke another dustup. Just ignore the occasional post like the one that started this whole section, and John and I probably will too. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

After reading the section title and original post the only question I see is, paraphrased in a way that doesn't go TDLI, "how long will Tau not have its own article?" The answer is: "until an RfC is set up where consensus shows otherwise after a decent amount of time has passed since the last attempt at consensus." --RAN1 (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It would also help if the proponents of making it an article would argue on the base of notability rather than on the basis of WP:SOAPBOX. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The proposal to use Tau in place of Pi easily exceeds the WP notability criteria. It is recorded in many quality reliable sources and there is even a short course at Oxford University on the subject. Mathematically it is insignificant of course but that is irrelevant. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Again no it doesn't. We've had three formal discussions now on this which confirmed it is not notable enough. Please accept that and move on.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the objection? There are plenty of far less notable subjects with articles on WP. There seems to be some irrational (transcendental even) fear that a Tau article would in some way 'harm' Pi. That is the only reason that I can think of for such a ridiculously strong objection to a harmless article on a mathematically insignificant but clearly notable subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The objection is you're ignoring consensus. As for the reasons for which there is opposition to giving tau its own article, please see this section's oppose section. Also, you're not funny. --RAN1 (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What consensus? It was a no consensus although there was a slight majority that the subject was notable. The merge decision was a farce, the idea of a merge is to combine the two articles removing duplication. All we have in the Pi article is three lines of text. There was an RfC on deleting this article and the result was 'Keep'. Underhand tactics were used to reverse that decision. Now perhaps someone would care to answer my question. What exactly is the objection to having an article on Tau? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The consensus of the last RFC is against it being reinstated User_talk:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant)#RFC:Article_Notability. If you think there was something underhanded, go to WP:ANI or WP:AN, otherwise drop the issue. You are utterly mistaken if you think discussions on wikipedia are decided by numbers, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Just found this. In the conclusion on page 18, David H. Bailey and Jonathan Borwein call tauists "mathematical terrorists". Wow. Tau really does upset some people. Martin, better quiet down, or you'll find yourself in Guantanamo. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Guantaunamo, IRWolfie (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yea IRWolfie- has already stated this threat. I don't know if we want to push him over the edge. John W. Nicholson (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Cuba is nice this time of year, and I hear the resort is all-you-can-eat. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, that place has a different name than Guantaunamo, but that does remind me of a movie with Jack Nicholson. [[3]] It is the part with the truth being questioned that I am thinking about. "You can't handle the TRUTH!" John W. Nicholson (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Emphasis in the above post was added by me, in case anyone else is as slow as I was in seeing the connection. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how WP:N being called a "mathematical terrorists" is? John W. Nicholson (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not very. --RAN1 (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That's actually a legitimate point. I'm not looking to reopen the argument now. But when two mathematicians famous enough to have their own Wikipedia articles are aggravated enough by the tau movement to call them "mathematical terrorists masquerading as nice people, in their evil attempt to replace π by 𝜏 = 2π" — in what looks like a to-be-published paper — I think it says something about notability. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't. Perhaps it would do to close this discussion, there hasn't been anything productive from this section in the week that it's been going. In providing further evidence for the argument, "lack of consensus-building does not build consensus", this section has not helped build consensus. Until another RfC is made, this should be put to rest. --RAN1 (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree the issue needs a rest here on Wikipedia. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:LAWYER.John W. Nicholson (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:LAWYER#Misuse_of_the_term. Your comment is merely an ad hominem in lieu of an actual argument. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I think IRWolfie just misunderstood what I was trying to say. I wasn't saying that because Bailey & Borwein are famous, anything they write about also is. (That would indeed run afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED.) I was just using it as a quick way of establishing that they are respected, credible members of the mathematician community. And they apparently see the tau movement as being notable enough to write, "We must also warn the innocent reader to beware of mathematical terrorists masquerading as nice people, in their evil attempt to replace π by 𝜏 = 2π". But again, this is an argument best left for next time. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

To me, the hyperbolic language of that passage is a clear sign that they are writing with tongue in cheek, and is not so much their honest opinion of the tauists but is rather making fun of the way the tauists think of themselves as revolutionaries. I think the intended meaning is more like "There are some silly people who think that this change is important. Don't bother paying attention to them." —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly. But that kind of derision is explicitly allowed in meeting the requirements for WP:FRINGE. The fact that there are enough tauists out there for these guys to take the time, in a formally published paper, to ridicule them, supports fringe notability. (In combination with all the other sources, of course.) --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yea, they may have seen [[4]] and realize they needed to say something even if it is "tongue in cheek" because of the subject matter of pi. John W. Nicholson (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And WP:PROFRINGE. And the Notability section following that. And WP:CRYSTAL. And WP:NOTFORUM. If this has nothing to do with building consensus for whether or not the redirect's namesake should be split off into its own article, this should really stop. This has been dragging on for way too long, and it's gone to the point where it's disruptive and time-wasting. Please stop. --RAN1 (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks RAN1. For pointing to this "To be notable, at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it." Wikipedia:PROFRINGE#Notability I think the disparaging remark about tau supporters says something about this as fringe article. And, "Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals"Wikipedia:PROFRINGE#Reliable_sources like [5] and which ever journal this Bailey & Borwein paper is publish. How I count this is 1 published and 1 pre-published "Reliable sources". And so, the only argument you have is me connecting the dots as to why they "may" have wrote the paper with the WP:CRYSTAL. The sole reason for my statement was to point out the sources, not to read some crystal ball argument for you. That is why I used the words "they may have seen" not "they saw".

As for stopping, sorry for being civil and talking about this, the clearing up of tau's WP:N, if you feel the need to leave sorry for that too. I am not holding you here or forcing you to leave. I am sure you feel the same with me. John W. Nicholson (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

John, even if we're sure we're right, consensus is required here. It's clear people are too tired of arguing about this issue to be swayed right now. Allow some time. New sources continue to appear, and that'll make it easier to convince them in the next RfC. (Speaking of which, check out what the guy teaching tau at UCSD has been up to. Pretty slick. Almost looks like he's developing a textbook.) There was considerably more support this time around than last, and that trend will continue. Sometimes people just need time to change their view. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to go with that, not wishing to be sent to jail for discussing a subject. Let me know when the time comes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As it stands, I am just reacting to what others are saying or doing. So, I will agree some time later. But then, the question becomes 'How much time later?' and 'How many people need to be misinformed about tau, by not having any or nearly nothing as for information?' John W. Nicholson (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Start John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not collapse conversations here. This page is for discussions on improving the Tau article. If yo do not wish to participate that is fine, leave the page for those that do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am collapsing them per WP:NOTFORUM, WP:TPNO, and WP:RTP, please move your discussion to your user talk pages. As it stands, your discussion here is off-topic. Until another attempt to find consensus is made, there is no reason for you to have your tau-related discussions here. --RAN1 (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Repeat: "Please do not collapse conversations here. This page is for discussions on improving the Tau article. If yo do not wish to participate that is fine, leave the page for those that do." Also, you do not know what is being talked about leave it along. And, hiding my questions is not helping your position. John W. Nicholson (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, since Martin and John had both already agreed to my call to put this discussion on hold for a while, I'd like to ask RAN1 to please not re-collapse anything here again and thus provoke a restart. Let's leave the discussion as it stands right now. Truce. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am still collapsing that one section since it is irrelevant to this discussion as well as disruptive. Aside from that, I'm willing to leave the other stuff uncollapsed. --RAN1 (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Above here, where I put the "Start", is the start of a true "irrelevant to this discussion" statements cause by your action of blocking and hiding. It is still going on with my comments, and may continue if you reply to mine. I ask you RAN1 which area has more "irrelevant to this discussion" statements and why? And, I also ask if you get my point? So, I suggest that you quit trying to hide what others state no matter what it is. By the way, you are wondering why I took away the hide again. I did it because 'Tau is the TRUE circle constant.', and if you can not handle that, then I am sorry that "[y]ou can't handle the truth". John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I request that you look at WP:TPNO before responding further. I also request that you read WP:RTP. This discussion has gone on for way too long, and unfortunately you seem not to be able to get the point. Discussions (or taunts, such as the section I collapsed previously) are irrelevant to making the article better. I collapsed that discussion because it has absolutely nothing to do with the article but rather your and Lindenberg's dispute with IRWolfie. If you are going to waste time being disruptive with comments like that, in the future they will be collapsed. I also remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum, and that this talk page is not your general discussion page for tau; those will be collapsed too as they are also irrelevant to the improvement of this article, or lack thereof as it might be. I ask that you please stop disrupting Wikipedia by continuing your discussions here. --RAN1 (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Guys, enough. RAN1, what you wanted to collapse is just a little humor that helps lighten the mood. IRWolfie, bravo on Guantaunamo. I promise to give you full credit every time I repeat that joke. Let's let this page rest for now and attend to other things. I, for example, have to go find out whether that link I posted means that the NSA has been wiretapping my calculator. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks like editors still wish to discuss this subject so I will continue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I just now came across the thing about the Tau Building, and I thought it was worth sharing. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)