Talk:Tau (2π)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Old discussion

For future reference, here are a few links to discussions about this topic prior to the creation of this article:

• Pi is wrong at the Mathematics Reference Desk (August 2007)
• Talk:Tau (several threads, the oldest from October 2010)
• At least 3 threads at Talk:Pi:
  • 2pi? (November 2005)
  • π vs 2π and the unit circle (August 2006)
  • 2 pi (April 2007)

--Waldir ^talk 12:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues

This article's got some problems. A lot of this stuff is paraphrased off of the Tau Manifesto, which is self-published, and PCWorld's article is also a blog. We might want to get verifiable sources in here for this. Also, some of the info on this is recentist given Tau Day happened a few days ago, mostly focusing on Hartl's Tau idea and only mentioning Palais's idea in one line. This also reads more like a personal opinion essay than an article. The last two sentences fall under POV but I tagged the article with the individual issues for clarity. If someone could find some good sources and fix the POV problems that'd be great. --RAN1 (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ive got some issues with some of the issues above.

• selfpublished. Many of the same points appear in "π Is Wrong!" by R. Palais (and Hartl credits him for them). PCWorld, AFAIK, is a respectable monthly publication, not a blog and does not serve as a source for the article. Palais might be mentioned more, since the idea is basically his, but the symbol in question was proposed by Hartl.
• Recentism Although Tau-day was celebrated a short while ago, the concept has been around since R. Palais' publication in The mathematical intelligencer in 2001. Tau-day, although it was largely ignored first time around, was celebrated for the first time in 2010.
• Verifyable The one publication mentioned above is not the main sourc for this article. In fact, the main source for this article and the tau manifesto was "π Is Wrong!", published in The Mathematical Intelligencer, which is a reliable source if ever i saw one.
• POV I removed the offending remarks.

Kleuske (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Addendum. The essay look-and-feel was introduced by an anon (apparantly knowledgable about WP templates), just prior to the remarks above being made. I cannot help suspecting some pointy activity concerning these actions. First wreck the article by rewriting it as an essay, then starting to complain about it. WP:AGF being what it is, i'll try not to accuse anyone, but the suspicion is there. Kleuske (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems a bit hasty to start throwing around hinting at accusations; this is a high-interest topic to many tech- and math-savvy people, the kind who would say to themselves "You know what, I'm going to improve this Wikipedia article" even if they've never contributed before.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 18:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, and thanks for saying so. The above was unwarrented. Kleuske (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's nice to see some of the POV issues corrected. I tried correcting the citations issue myself, but it seems like there are still issues with the article. I'm looking for info we can use for citations in one of the recent articles that was copied over to Yahoo, but until then I think we should keep the multiple issues there. Recentism is still a problem, or at least if we can differentiate between Palais's and Martl's idea that would be good. As for the anon issue, I don't know what he did, but the article still seems somewhat essayish; it still looks like something made to promote tau rather than an article with NPOV, but I have no idea how to make it seem less POVish. Any ideas? --RAN1 (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

As wa pointed out on the deletion page several times, the tau manifesto was published over a year ago and the turn was proposed in 2001. On pi-day a spoof was run under the name half tau-day and in 2010 there was a tau-day, too. So the recentism is ludicrous. The article being essayish is strictly in the eye of the beholder, i merely see a (short) summation of the arguments given in the manifesto. Hence i beg to differ. Regards, Kleuske (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let me rephrase that. It's difficult to distinguish what is Hartl's work and what is Palais's work. Making it all look like Hartl's work is wrong and recentist. The Manifesto is also self-published work and the opinion of Michael Hartl, which violates POV and makes it seem essayish. On another note, I cleared the citation issue a bit by finding that source for Tau. --RAN1 (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I see where you stand, but i do not think that the work of one, who is came up with the concept and explaining why it's a good idea, is somehow invalidated by someone else who writes a manifesto and creates a big fuss over the idea. It is not as if the first isn't abundantly credited by the second.

But do explain what you mean by recentism. I hate it when -ism's float around and my understanding of the actual content is hazy at best. English is my third language, and my knowledge of the local patois is limited. 15:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to explain my points more clearly. A lot of this article is based on text from proponents of tau, which doesn't make the article NPOV and to me made it seem more like an essay. I cited reliable sources because of that. Also, I thought this out a bit more, and I think recentism doesn't apply here. I tried looking for news focusing on Bob Palais' work, thinking that this might have been covered before in more depth, but it seems like there's been no news regarding that, so that's out of the way. My main problem is that it's slanted to pro-tau people, but seeing as there's been no anti-tau articles I'm not sure if that holds. In any case, I still think that the article needs more reliable sources (neutral, not self-published, third-party, etc.) cited. I'm not editing on Wikipedia often, so sorry if what I said before didn't make sense. --RAN1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC).

Reference "Lindenberg"

(Number 8 in the present article.)

It was added by the author of the reference. We need to find others who use that term, or it should be excised except, potentially, as an example of usage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What term do you mean? (Number 8 is referenced four different places.) Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry; by "term" I meant "statement", although at least one term also doesn't seem to have an association with π/τ other than in [8]. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If you mean other tau-related sources that reference [8], then [3] does. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

scriptstyle

There is a general agreement that, in mathematical articles, < math > \scriptstyle should not be used. Also, many of the inline equations should be either moved to display equations, or set in standard HTML. I noticed a few which wouldn't even need HTML characters, other than that for 1/2 (which can be done as indicated: {{frac2|1|2}}). Even if this article should be kept, the simple equations need to be cleaned up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Arthur. My skills in that area are kind of weak. I'll try to improve them. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if {{frac2}} has been discussed on WT:MATH, but {{frac}} and scriptstyle have been. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good place for me to start. I'll look through it this weekend. Thanks for the suggestion. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, Arthur. I have eliminated all occurrences of \scriptstyle usage in the article. If you see it again, it won't be from me. (I was just following how other formulas in the article were written.) Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Alternative image

τ

I've made an alternate version of a radian image, as seen to the right, which includes tau. Would this be a good replacement for the current image? — MK (^t/_c) 13:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That looks great! And since it's svg, it could be printed out on a full sheet of paper and still look sharp. My initial reaction is that we should add it to the article as a printable tau protractor. I do think that we should have just a very simple drawing at the top of the article, because most people reading it will just be starting to learn about tau. Better not to overwhelm them with something as intricate as your drawing before they get introduced to the basics. But this should definitely be added to the article. I need to think a little more about the where/how details. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a small suggestion. The clarity and simplicity of this awesome image could be improved by editing the sin/cos/tan/sec/csc/cot/+/- charts to move the non-standard trig ratios (sec, csc, cot) up beside the standard trig ratios, on the other side of the + or - sign. This would show more clearly that the sign of sin and csc are the same; the sign of cos and sec are the same; and the sign of tan and cot are the same. It wold also remove a dozen redundant +/- signs from the image.  :-) I tried to do it myself, but I've recently moved to a Mac and wasn't able to get an image editor up and running quickly enough -- and now I'm out of time.

THAT'S NOT THE UNIT CIRCLE!

Here's my idea of the image that, properly modified, would be perfect for the top of the tau page. Mainly because it's gotten so much praise. But every time I see it, I want to yell, "THAT'S NOT THE UNIT CIRCLE! If it were the unit circle, it would roll out to tau!" I picture two wheels, this one and the true unit circle, rolling in unison. This one only rolls out to pi, while the true unit circle keeps on rolling out to tau. Even have something like "THE REAL UNIT CIRCLE" written on the rim. Unfortunately, though, I think I recall reading somewhere that they don't like the top picture on Wikipedia pages to be animated. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that is a fairly deceptive image. At least the π article properly specifics that it is the diameter as 1, and not the radius. Anyway, feel free to use my image in the article, and if you have any suggestions I can edit it. I pondered adding a 12-sided star polygon in the center to make the 12ths look more clear but my friends suggested against it, and I guess understanding fractions is outside the scope of the image's intent.

My main issue right now is that Wikipedia's SVG→PNG image renderer is not converting my image correctly. Compare the SVG to any PNG version and you can see that the τ in the rightmost sentence, the 2π line, is aligned to the far right. I will bring it up on the commons; I think it is either a library error (it appears that way in an image preview software I have as well) or some error in my image I overlooked. — MK (^t/_c) 06:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Cyrillic Te

Russian Cyrillic letter Pe: П п

Russian Cyrillic letter Te: Т т

2π indeed

Print, Standard Italic, and Serbian italic; be, pe, ge, de, te, sha

Just so this doesn't get lost in the article history, I found it interesting how 99.146.122.70 detected a similarity between Palais' 3-legged pi and the handwritten Cyrillic letter Te, which coincidently, was derived from the Greek letter Tau. Of course, since Palais himself never mentioned this, it is OR and we can't mention it in the article; Still, it's a curious coincidence. --Waldir ^talk 06:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Really, both uppercase and lowercase in Russian Cyrillic handwriting show it. It's just... 2п. I figure I'd add it incase for some reason the symbol tau becomes an obstacle due to prior use, but I guess it does fall under WP:SYNTH :( 99.146.122.70 (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

...And funnily enough, the Serbian variant lowercase te vaguely resembles the variant Greek pi ϖ. 99.146.122.70 (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem of Russian Cyrillic handwritten T is the same as the problem with the three legged pi that Robert Palais introduced in his 2001 article: It is not part of any of the standard font sets and it does not even have a code in the Unicode system. This should obviously not prevent people from using it on the black board as some already do. Entropeter (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

I don't have enough mathematical background to perform anything more than basic copyediting on this article but I believe the following changes would be benefitial:

1. The expression "power rule for integrals" should link to Calculus with polynomials#Power rule, but before, that section needs to be adapted to be more relatable to ${\tfrac {1}{2}}\tau r^{2}$, for example as presented here. It would also be useful to mention why the power sule should apply — i.e, why calculating the area of a circle is akin to calculating $\int \!\tau r\,dr$. According to this video, it seems like that could be merged with the paragraph about skinny triangles.
2. The formulas should be compared using a table; that would make the article more extensible without reducing its readability, and would make visual assessment of the benefits much easier, as well as making it easier to write many examples without having to come up with non-repetitive ways to present them in text form. For example:

Formula	Tau	Pi	Notes
circumference of a circle	$\tau r$	$2\pi r$
Arc length of a circle sector	$\theta r$	$\theta r$	A whole circle is just a circle sector with $\theta =\tau$, so students could memorize just one formula for circular arc length instead of two.
circle area	${\tfrac {1}{2}}\tau r^{2}$	$\pi r^{2}$	Note that the formula for the area of a circle falls in line with the power rule for integrals (e.g. kinetic energy $K={\tfrac {1}{2}}mv^{2}$).
Area of a circle sector	${\tfrac {1}{2}}\theta r^{2}$	${\tfrac {1}{2}}\theta r^{2}$	A whole circle is just a circle sector with $\theta =\tau$, so students could memorize just one formula for circular sector area instead of two.
nth roots of unity	$\left\{e^{i\tau k/n}\right\}$	$\left\{e^{i2\pi k/n}\right\}$
Euler's Identity	$\textstyle e^{i\tau }=1$	$\textstyle e^{i\pi }=-1$
Normal distribution	${\frac {1}{\sqrt {\tau \sigma ^{2}}}}e^{-{\frac {(x-\mu )^{2}}{2\sigma ^{2}}}}$	${\frac {1}{\sqrt {2\pi \sigma ^{2}}}}e^{-{\frac {(x-\mu )^{2}}{2\sigma ^{2}}}}$
Fourier transform	$\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }f(x)\ e^{-\tau ix\xi }\,dx$	$\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }f(x)\ e^{-2\pi ix\xi }\,dx$
Angular frequency	$\textstyle \omega =\tau f$	$\textstyle \omega =2\pi f$
Reduced Planck constant	$\hbar =h/\tau$	$\hbar =h/2\pi$
Wavenumber	$\textstyle k=\tau /\lambda$	$\textstyle k=2\pi /\lambda$
reactance of an inductor	$\tau fL$	$2\pi fL$
susceptance of a capacitor	$\tau fC$	$2\pi fC$

...and so on (many more examples can be added from [1] and [2].

So what do you guys think? --Waldir ^talk 01:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll address the quick issue (#1) now. The whole power rule for integrals part is really just an explanatory side note. The key point is there are a lot of well-known formulas of the form ${\tfrac {1}{2}}\tau r^{2}$ like ${\tfrac {1}{2}}mv^{2},{\tfrac {1}{2}}I{\omega }^{2},{\tfrac {1}{2}}kx^{2},{\tfrac {1}{2}}at^{2},{\tfrac {1}{2}}\varepsilon E^{2},{\tfrac {1}{2}}CV^{2},{\tfrac {1}{2}}LI^{2}$. We're just saying, oh by the way, the reason you see this form so much is that it's the integral of $\tau r,\ mv,\ I\omega ,\ kx,\ at,\ \varepsilon E,\ CV,\ LI$. But that's not what demonstrates that ${\tfrac {1}{2}}\tau r^{2}$ is a more standard, appropriate form than ^{$\ \pi r^{2}$}. I think the better way to improve this is to list/name/wikilink as many of those formulas as we can to show that that's the common form. I see no need to use the term "power rule for integrals" at all. If there are no counterarguments, I can take care of this rewrite. Are there any other well-known examples of this form that I'm forgetting? Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
If when you opened up a physics textbook, the formulas you saw were $\ mv^{2},I{\omega }^{2},kx^{2},at^{2},\varepsilon E^{2},CV^{2},LI^{2}$ then this argument would instead be in pi's favor. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 07:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
...and we would be talking about how it falls in line with the "power rule for derivatives". (The power rule for integrals says the integral of $x^{n}$ is ${\tfrac {1}{n+1}}x^{n+1}$. The power rule for derivatives says the derivative of $x^{n}$ is $nx^{n-1}$. Notice how the first set looks more like $\tau r$ and ${\tfrac {1}{2}}\tau r^{2}$ while the second set looks more like $\pi r^{2}$ and $2\pi r$? Yet both are valid power rules. That shows why the argument for tau here isn't about the power rule.) Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Then we should probably present both arguments. I think it's worth mentioning because some of the sources use that as a justification for tau, and not every layman will have the knowledge to evaluate the validity of that claim. And in any case, I still think that pointing out that ${\tfrac {1}{2}}\tau r^{2}$ comes from an integral provides a good intuition about the calculation of the area of a circle, as shown in the video I linked above. (side note: I added line breaks to your three messages above, to make them easier to read with the signatures in the middle. But maybe you could combine them into a single coherent message; that would make it easier to read both for the current discussion and for future reference). --Waldir ^talk 10:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

While we're discussing how to do what you're asking, I'm going to go ahead and put the other examples into the article just to have them in place. Maybe I'm missing some deeper point about that power rule thing. Something I may not correctly understand is why Michael Hartl spent so much time/space in the Tau Manifesto showing step-by-step how you integrate gt to get ${\tfrac {1}{2}}gt^{2}$, then showing how you integrate kx to get ${\tfrac {1}{2}}kx^{2}$, then showing how you integrate mv to get ${\tfrac {1}{2}}mv^{2}$, then finally showing how you integrate τr to get ${\tfrac {1}{2}}\tau r^{2}$. The approach I took in my own paper was basically like what I wrote above - to point out that that form shows up in a lot of formulas and name a few examples to jog the reader's memory, who I probably assumed had taken physics and would say, Oh yeah, there were a lot of formulas like that. I have assumed Michael Hartl was just being more hand-holding, but I'll ask him if there was another point to the way he did it. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked at Pi is Wrong and The Tau Manifesto again. I don't see where either of them ever used the term "power rule". I'm thinking that if you really want to address the integral issue more, the way to do it is with a graph of the line y = mx. Only show the first quadrant (both x and y positive). If you want the area under that line, it's the area of a triangle. ${\tfrac {1}{2}}$base*height where the base is the x coordinate and the height is the y coordinate. Since y = mx, ${\tfrac {1}{2}}$base*height = ${\tfrac {1}{2}}$x * mx = ${\tfrac {1}{2}}mx^{2}$.

Circumference and radius are related to each other just like x and y are. Only instead of multiplying by m, you multiply by tau. I guess the point is that when you have a simple linear relationship like y = mx or C = τr or momentum = mass * velocity or spring force = kx or velocity = acceleration * time. (two variables related by a constant multiplier) you'll integrate and end up with the form ${\tfrac {1}{2}}mx^{2}$. I'm gonna have to chew on this topic some more. Anybody reading this, please chime in if you've got another way of looking at this. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I'm still working on this. I've got something that's almost ready for other people to take a look at, though it will probably still need more refinement. But I've got other things I have to do right now, so I thought I should post just to make clear I haven't abandoned this issue. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, Waldir. I think I finally understand this. Are you still monitoring this thread? Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't get around to emailing Michael Hartl about this before I realized a very good reason why he might have laboriously gone through first integrating gt to get ${\tfrac {1}{2}}gt^{2}$, then integrating kx to get ${\tfrac {1}{2}}kx^{2}$, then integrating mv to get ${\tfrac {1}{2}}mv^{2}$, then finally integrating τr to get ${\tfrac {1}{2}}\tau r^{2}$. Whether what I write here was his reason or not, I think it makes a good argument for τ, so I decided I'd go ahead and lay it out here. I'll still ask him about it in case he has a second good reason for doing what he did.

It's all about making sure we can extend the analogy. I said my approach to this issue was just to say, "Remember, this form showed up in a lot of physics formulas. And oh, by the way, if you're curious where all those 1/2's came from, it was from integration." But plenty of people have questioned whether it's valid to draw a comparison between all those physics formulas and the formula for the area of a circle. I didn't really care, because I was convinced about tau by all the other reasons. But I have been wondering how soon some clever $\pi r^{2}$ advocate would point out there's at least one famous physics formula like theirs. The most famous. $E=mc^{2}$ doesn't have a one-half in it and has the same form as $\pi r^{2}$. Doesn't that counter our argument?

No, because you can quickly see the similarity is very shallow. $\pi r^{2}$ is a constant times a variable squared. $mc^{2}$ is a variable times a constant squared. That alone shows it's not a valid analogy. But let's look further. If we differentiate $\pi r^{2}$, we get 2πr, a second very important circle formula. If we differentiate $mc^{2}$ we get just $c^{2}$. That's not an important relativity formula. Even if we did get 2mc, that's not an important relativity formula either.

The bottom line is, the more additional similarities you can show between ${\tfrac {1}{2}}\tau r^{2}$ and ${\tfrac {1}{2}}mv^{2}$, ${\tfrac {1}{2}}kx^{2}$, etc., the more convincing the analogy and the better the argument is for τ. But it doesn't actually "prove" the tau/pi debate should be decided based on these physics formulas. (That's not true of the sector and skinny triangle formulas. They can be directly linked to the circle formulas.) I now presume that Michael Hartl was just trying to show how similar/identical their derivations through integration were. It wasn't anything about integration or the power rule itself.

Take a look at my website (sites.google.com/site/taubeforeitwascool). As a result of our discussion, I've added the 9 physics formulas there in a way that highlights their similarities to the circle/sector/triangle formulas. But I'm keeping them in a separate group, because I consider them more like cousins to the three primary siblings who actually live in the same house (that house being geometry?).

So are we done with issue #1, or as I called it, the "quick issue"? If so, I'd like to call issue #2 the "postponed issue". The orderliness does look appealing, but I think just one big table might be too restricting. Maybe a table for each section. I'd have to play around in the sandbox and look around for ideas on other wikipedia pages before I'd be comfortable with a complete redesign. And I can't commit very much time now. I've been trying to get a few last things squared away here so I can mostly ignore it for a few months. It won't get much traffic until March 14 (Pi Day) anyhow. That's 5 months away. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Waldir was right that the article could benefit from the use of tables. It made the physics formulas a lot neater. I'll see if I can find some other sections in the article where they would help. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott!

Somebody Please Animate Me!

Scott Robertson recently brought the animated gif posted on the right here to my attention. Just as it is, you'll notice how perfectly the triangle in the final frame has an area of ${\tfrac {1}{2}}base*height={\tfrac {1}{2}}\tau r*r={\tfrac {1}{2}}\tau r^{2}$

(Justifying that extra 1/2 in the circle area formula is always the number one issue in arguing for tau because, despite all the formulas made simpler by tau, it's just bad luck that one of the few made less simple is the most famous, ^{$\,\pi r^{2}$}. And the best way to justify it is to point out that the 1/2 comes from another formula that everybody also remembers, 1/2 base * height. So with a minor labeling change, this animation would make the case for tau quite nicely.)

But if we're willing to swap base and height by rotating the whole image 90 degrees counterclockwise, the final frame provides what Waldir asked for earlier, a clear demonstration of how the circle area formula comes from integration. That final frame is the graph of circumference versus radius. That's what we integrate to get the area formula. We know that taking an integral is the same as calculating the area under the curve. Here, that's just a triangle! The formula is 1/2 base*height. And we actually saw the "area" physically move from making up the circle to making up the triangle under the circumference plot. Does that fit what you had in mind, Waldir?

I created this color image of the first and last frames to show what I have in mind. But I have no animation experience, and will have very little spare time in the coming months. I will work on it eventually when I find time if nobody else does. But I thought I should lay the idea out here for anyone who's looking for something to do and is good with graphics. (Everyone else, feel free to post comments and suggestions.) Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

We might make this easier for people to understand if the animation only peeled one color strip off the circle at a time. Rather than them moving all together at the same time. But that would make the animation longer. Let's keep both possibilities on the table for now. Also, I think the shiny 3-D effect helps because it makes the strips look like colorful modeling clay, which people can visualize being flexible enough to do this with in real life. But I realize those kind of effects are harder to implement, and require more colors than just flat uniform-color strips do, which can be a problem in gif files. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Animation of Circle Area Derivation

The original wmv file looks much sharper and takes fewer bytes. It's at the top of my website (sites.google.com/site/taubeforeitwascool) if anyone wants to try converting it some other way. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess this animation really shouldn't be done on Wikipedia as a video clip. *Sigh* Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about reverted merge with Pi article

In order to keep the discussion in a single location, let's have this discussion on Pi's Talk page. The main current editor of the Pi article has requested it be discussed over there. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has closed, the result was merge. Whether it is a zero content merge or not is what is up for discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggest the article be restored

I respect the RfC process used above which resulted in a merge into the pi article, but I think that is having some unintended negative consequences: namely, tau will end up getting too much material in the pi article, in violation of the WP:UNDUE policy. I suggest that this tau article be restored to its prior (full) condition. By the way: I am not a fan of tau, and I believe it is very fringe, and I understand that mainstream mathematicians have not adopted it. But tau is mentioned in several secondary sources. The Merge action above was effectively a delete. Deletions should go through the WP:AFD process and apply the WP:Notability criteria. Based on the secondary sources I've seen on tau, it does meet the WP notability criteria and should not have been deleted as a result of the RfC. What I propose is the following:

• Restore the tau article to its prior, best condition
• Put a brief mention of tau in the pi article; but keep it small
• If any editors still want to delete the tau article, an AFD be initiated (not an RfC)

Does that sound like a good plan? --Noleander (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not ust remove the excess material from the π article? One or two sentences seems reasonable to me, anything more (here or there) does seem like undue weight. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is not, at present, any excess material. However, there is lots of other tau-related material that could be added to pi, and I'm trying to be proactive and prevent scores of wasteful discussions in the future. Note that the test for existence of the tau article is WP:Notability; the WP:UNDUE test is for material within an article. The 2ndary sources I've seen show that tau meets WP notability criteria. My point is: the AFD process (not an RfC or a mere Talk page discussion) is best for discussing the notability in detail. --Noleander (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That was my fear in the first place, and the reason why I voted for keeping the tau article. There is merit in having potential future fights about the extent of tau coverage be on a different place than the pi article. Nageh (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. Another good thing about an AfD process (vs RfC) is that many uninvolved editors often participate, so there is a broader and more balanced discussion about Notability. Not that I'm saying that an AfD should be initiated, but it is more appropriate than an RfC/Merge action. --Noleander (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly in favor of restoring the tau article. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that just a few sentences is really all we can say about tau. As such, pi seems to be an appropriate target, rather than having a separate article. That someone could be inclined to violate WP:WEIGHT seems a poor reason to advocate creating a separate article. In fact, we have policies urging against this very practice. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. But would you object to going through the WP:AFD process and having some uninvolved editors assess the WP:Notability of tau? --Noleander (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There already was an AfD. While consensus there was to merge the article somewhere, there was no consensus as to the specific course of action. That was the purpose of the RfC. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

My reading of the AfD is that the consensus was Keep or Merge. Here is the closing admin statement:

The result was keep. ... First, the keeps have the better of it from a notability standpoint. The original nomination specifically addressed sourcing, and invoked the GNG; this was adequately rebutted, and a number of the comments acknowledged explicitly or tacitly the nontrivial coverage. Thus, the administrative action here is to close the discussion as keep. However, I see a strong consensus that the article should be renamed or merged somewhere, and given the degree of participation here I am prepared to call this a local consensus to the effect that, while notable, the topic is best addressed within another article. ... and there is absolutely no prejudice to further move or merge discussions.

The point I'm making is: we now have new information: the impact to the π article was not considered much in those prior discussions. Do we really want the pi Talk page to have a huge discussion every month for the next 10 years, every time someone wants to add some new tau material into WP? --Noleander (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much unavoidable with the way Wikipedia is set up. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The people at the Pi article made it clear to me last November they wanted us to keep the tau stuff over here, and that's what I did. With the exception of adding that one single sentence on March 13, just to round out the description, I've been more than happy to stay inside our little "tau ghetto" over here. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget. Tau day is coming up in exactly two months. Where would you rather have people making their contributions then? --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to finish up what we were doing over at the Pi article. Noleander, if you brought this up now so as not to have to open an RfC at the Pi article on whether or not to include primary sources like the Tau Manifesto, then I'll agree to postponing opening that RfC until we can finish this discussion here. In the meantime though, how about we finish up what we were doing? I'm tired of not getting anything done at Wikipedia. If we've got 4 people in agreement to the final wording I posted, we can put it in with whatever sources you want for the time being. Since I filled out all the details for the four sources I included, if we have consensus on the wording, I'd suggest just modifying that text. Delete whichever sources you don't approve of for now. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That's okay by me. These are two parallel efforts. This discussion here is a pro-active attempt to avoid unending discussions on the pi Talk page in the future. --Noleander (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is much that we can do to avoid those. We can certainly put an FAQ on Talk:Pi explaining why there is not much coverage of tau, and then leave a brief response pointing to that when someone opens a new thread. There are similar issue with many other articles, such as 0.999... and the article on the incompleteness theorems, where there will always be a stream of comments that have to be handled professionally, and with patience, but which can't be eliminated with a wiki system. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Carl's sentiment I would like to add that tauism is most appropriately compared, not to 0.999, but to Non-Newtonian calculus. Tkuvho (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. People are much more likely to accept requests to keep it off the Pi page if you can just politely point them over to the Tau page. After all, you're just asking that they put their contributions in the correct place, which is what most people would prefer to do anyway. That system worked very well for you guys up until 6 days ago. It was so quiet over on the Pi page that poor Noleander had no idea about the big argument occurring on the Tau page. Otherwise, I'm sure he would've come over and voted. :D --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It is sometimes helpful to shunt off these things to other pages, but in the case of τ the decision very recently was to merge it. The goal of avoiding discussion on the π talk page is not really a reason to undo that. The "correct" place for most things about τ is going to be "somewhere other than Wikipedia". — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Time will tell, but I actually think tau is going to have increasing claim to legitimacy on Wikipedia. Witness that Math Horizons article that just came out. And we just got notified that a guy used tau instead of pi in his master's dissertation in mathematics, and it was accepted. I still need to look into that. Don't worry that I'll be bringing the question up anytime real soon, but I think the real question is when it'll be justified to move it out of the "In popular culture" section and remove that line about "not been reflected in the scientific literature". But like I said, time will tell. For now, if you want to register your preference for pi, go here and pledge 3.14 cents for every digit he recites correctly. It'll go to a good cause, his town library. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects notability now, not any future potential notability. 18:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That's why I said I think tau is going to have increasing claim to legitimacy on Wikipedia. It's just a prediction. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I support restoring the Tau page, mainly because merging with the Pi page has proved so problematic but also because there reasons that it is notable enough for its own article that, oddly enough, do not make it worth including in any detail in the Pi article, the bizarre enthusiasm of its supporters and their attempts to promote the concept for example. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The recent consensus in the above RfC was a merge, so that should stand absent some some flaw in the process. It's only seven days since it was closed, it should not be reversed effectively ignoring that decision and process. It is not notable enough for its own article, per the above discussion. This can be revisited in the future if it becomes more independently notable but it really is too soon.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not so sure about consensus. I make it roughly 6 keep, 5 delete, and 5 merge. Many editors of the Pi article may not have been aware of this debate and have now had Tau thrust upon them together together with the attendant endless debate. Pi is trying to become a FA but this process has been seriously hindered by the Tau debate which has now landed there.

Tau has infinitesimal mathematical notability but it does have some media notability. This makes it reasonable for it to have its own article but very unreasonable for more that a sentence (at most) in the essentially mathematical article on Pi. Tau having its own article does no harm; trying to merge it with Pi does. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes but we don't necessarily have to put up with the media hullabaloo about tau. Having a separate article on this tends to give it mathematical respectability it does not merit. A sentence or two in the "popular culture" section of pi seems perfectly appropriate. Tkuvho (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, Wikipedia should really have some way that you guys could officially denote articles as being "limited to peer-reviewed (mathematics or science) sources". Have some symbol displayed prominently at the top of the page. I kept hearing this argument that the tau article had to meet higher standards (e.g. sources in professional math journals) than it would if it were on some other topic. That doesn't seem right to me. While I do indeed value such strong filters in the right places, the idea that some minor pop singer, who has also never been mentioned in any official journals, can have a Wikipedia article, but tau can't, just seems plain absurd. I don't know if there are enough other cases like this one on Wikipedia, where this idea would prove useful or not. But keep it in mind. An official "UltraSeriousSources Only" designation that would be placed on all the articles that you now say must meet higher standards than other Wikipedia articles. Readers would know when they saw the symbol that the information in that article had that higher level of vetting. Tau and orgone generators, while notable, wouldn't qualify. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please consult WP:OTHERSTUFF. Tkuvho (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That says you can't use that argument in defending individual cases. I'm not. I'm saying that the general Wikipedia policy should make the notability bar height the same for any topic. Every newspaper article that discussed "Tau Day" also discussed tau just as much. So why does "Tau Day" meet the notability requirement but not tau? Some of you said that it wouldn't matter how many newspaper articles I found about tau; it wouldn't be considered notable without being in professional journals. Is that appropriate? The notability bar height shouldn't be higher just because something is math-related. My proposal is a way of doing this while still maintaining the higher standard for most math & science articles. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Tau Day is more notable than tau (2π); it's not true that every article discussing Tau Day does more than mention "tau", while we have found no reliable sources which discuss tau but not Tau Day. (Yes, I am saying that your web page is not a reliable source.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No offense taken. I disagree that there wasn't just as much discussion in all those news articles of tau as there was of Tau Day. But that's not even the point. You guys said that because "Tau Day" could be considered a cultural phenomenon, it had a lower bar to clear than tau. That's what I object to. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Read the closing rationale: some of the delete !votes were counted as merge, while some of the keep !votes were discounted as lacking a proper reason. Further (though not mentioned in the closing rationale) three of the keep !votes were by SPAs with few or no contributions elsewhere. Whichever way you count it the clear consensus among established editors was that it does not need its own article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That rationale took no account of the harm that merging could do to the, much more important, Pi article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how adding a paragraph there would do much damage. The due weight for τ in the π article is the same whether this page is separate or not. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Creating a separate tau article will not relieve the pressure off the pi article, on the contrary. Tauists will now have an additional claim of mathematical legitimacy ("see, the community even decided to create a separate tau article") to boost its claim to greater airtime at pi. Therefore the current configuration (tau as redirect to pi) is optimal. Tkuvho (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt this will happen, but it is all speculation nonetheless. Nageh (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

We already have evidence it works. There was not a single edit to the Pi article's paragraph about tau for four months from November to March. I kept an eye on it. (I added one last sentence on March 13 to complete the summary and intended nothing further, as I indicated in the revision log.) So far as I know, tau never appeared on Pi's Talk page during that entire time either. Tkuvho, you're just plain wrong that having a separate tau article doesn't relieve the pressure off the pi article. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There is more or less consensus on the pi page as far as tauist material is concerned, which is about as much notability as it possesses. Thus there is no need for a separate tau page. Tkuvho (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ummmm

So far as I can tell, there's no RFC on this, the AFD did not return a finding of MERGE, it resulted only in a rename. Subsequent to that, the WP:MERGE policy has not followed at all, and it's pretty clear that this was contentious.

Given that, unless anyone can point to a factual inaccuracy in the above paragraph I'm going to revert the redirect on this page, and not touch the Pi page at all.

If you still want a merge after the unmerge, you need to do a proper merge discussion, which involves tagging both articles and discussing it properly. That's the way it's done in Wikipedia!Teapeat (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No, please don't do that. The discussion, a RfC, was only a few weeks ago and is archived here: Talk:Tau (2π)/Archive 3#Request for comment. The result was to merge to Pi. So there's the formal discussion which resolved this. Undoing the merge unilaterally, going against that consensus, would not be correct.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:JohnBlackburne. In general at WPMath we have little use for wikilawyering and prefer to cut to the chase. In this case the chase means that the hullabaloo over tau is a tabloid media event with little scientific content. Therefore a brief mention in the pop culture section of pi seems sufficient. Tkuvho (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly not seeing any lack of wikilawyering.Teapeat (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you were interested in the ongoing discussion at Talk:Mathematics#Verification_failed, which may be a more productive direction than tauism. Tkuvho (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Tauism? Step away from the soapbox user Tkuvho!Teapeat (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"Tauism" is the precise term used by Abbott in his piece on tau last month, which is the most serious source to date for tau. Tkuvho (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not fair that the false Circle-Constant is on the main page while the true Circle-Constant does not even get an article.

The definition of a circle is all points on a Euclidean Plane equidistant from a point; so therefore, the circle-constant should be c/r.

c/r=τ

If one defines the circle-constant as c/d, suddenly the circle-constant is not constant and circles need not be round; because, one just defined curves of constant width as circles. I could cite gazillions of examples, but for brevity, I shall site only 1:

1 of the most famous equations is

e^iπ=-1.

Why is it -1? Because we only went half of the way around the circle! π rotated us only half of the way around the circle! π is only half of the circle-constant! Let us try τ:

e^iτ=+1

τ rotated us all of the way around the circle! τ is equal to the circle-constant! The circle-constant is τ!:

c/r=τ

I could continue; but happily however, I made my point. I could inundate you with links, but 1 will suffice:

• The Tau Manifesto

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.108.158 (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I do agree, but wikipedia is not the place for discussions on mathematical constants. Kleuske (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean we should refrain from using Wikipedia to have any discussion of Pi, Phi, e, or i? Wikipedia is just asking for a shitstorm by removing this article. --BBrucker2 (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. And you are half a year late for this discussion (which has been continued and concluded at Talk:Pi). Nageh (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, pardon me for commenting on a comment; how uncouth of me to not realize that this was such a dire edit war that even commenting on it would lead to offense. Maybe next time I come across an article with "concluded" discussion, I'll forgo commenting and just edit the article.

BTW, non-sarcastic thanks for pointing me to WP:NOTFORUM, as I already knew this vaguely but could always use more specific information on such things. I suggest you read it yourself, though: "You...should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles." I don't believe I violated WP:NOTFORUM with my previous comment. (With this one? Probably.) --BBrucker2 (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You were asking for a general discussion of mathematical constants, which this talk page is not the intended place for. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss whether and to which extent tau should be covered on Wikipedia. And that discussion is long over, without the shit storm happening that you wished for, and as a matter of consensus the constant is now being mentioned in the pi article. And since you like to read up on Wikipedia policies I shall refer you to another policy: WP:CIVIL. Nageh (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for a discussion of anything, I was simply responding to Kleuske's comment that mathematical constants are not things that belong in Wikipedia discussions. I implied that if this were so, then we would need to lock the talk pages of at least the 71 articles included in Category:Mathematical constants. (Or maybe you think I should be discussing this on the category talk page?)

I also had not "wished for" a shitstorm, but was rather pointing out that allowing this page to exist would avoid angry "Tauists" (as I hear they may be called) engaging in future edit wars, and in the meantime hurts nobody as far as I can see. I understand that "that discussion is long over", and respect the value of consensus on Wikipedia, which is why I didn't mess with the article itself. My common-sense assumption is that while current consensus calls for the article to remain a redirect, that does not imply that consensus will never change, and discussion on any and every topic remains open ad infinitum. Is it so unthinkable that Wikipedians might reach consensus and then 15 months later, pool for consensus again? I really wasn't even intending to reopen the discussion, but rather giving an opinion on the last comment posted. If you really want to discuss this further, and feel it entirely inappropriate to discuss here, I'd be happy to take it to my talk page, your talk page, or whatever talk page you prefer.

Lastly, as for civility, other than my previous tongue-in-cheek edit summary (which was not intended to offend) I don't see what I may have done to appear uncivil, if that is what you are implying. If you feel I have been uncivil towards you or Kleuske, I apologize for my social ineptitude, and ask kindly that you would point me to what you considered uncivil so that I might do better in future interactions of this nature. --BBrucker2 (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The sole point of my initial post in this section was an attempt at clarifying what Kleuske had meant by his statement. The reference to the previously achieved consensus, which happened after lots of lengthy discussions both here, at an AfD discussion and at the pi talk page, is merely meant as a hint that consensus isn't likely to change anytime soon (without some sort of breakthrough in acceptance of tau). Hope that clarified my few words on that topic. Nageh (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

One good τ deserves another?

Maybe a lot of this information on Tau could work much better as part of the Turn (geometry) page, since nobody seems to be moving to delete that, and it's virtually the same concept. (Yet Tau is just barely mentioned in passing there!) --BBrucker2 (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Talking about virtually the same concepts, I would apply your comment to π and τ and refer the interested reader to pi. Tkuvho (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Tkuvho, I find it interesting that anyone who knows math would call half of a complete circle virtually the same concepts as a complete circle. π is derived from d := 2*r, therefore π is not fundamental. In the mean time, the unit τ is base on r and the full length of the circumference. It is more fundamentally correct to say π := c / (2r) than it is to say π := c / d. So, please explain why you think half a unit is more fundamental than the whole unit. 68.19.143.116 (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Mathematically, this is an utter triviality, which is why I think the best option is to restore the Tau article, so that Pi can me left as a mathematical article, with only the briefest mention of Tau. There never was a consensus to delete the article anyway.

There is some media and cultural interest in Tau which is why an article is justified but it should not be allowed to affect a more serious article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

In response to your comment that "π is derived from d := 2*r, therefore π is not fundamental" I would respond that, practically speaking, the diameter d is more fundamental than the radius r. Any bicycle owner will tell you that wheel size is reported in diameters, not radii. Therefore Pi is more fundamental than Tau. Tkuvho (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

There was a consensus to merge on this very page only a few months ago, which is what happened. As for which is more fundamental history has spoken on this; being able to use either in calculations people settled on π a long time ago.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It does not look like much of a consensus to me and I think it should be reviewed. I hope you understand my point, the 'mathematical' argument about which is the most fundamental is trivial and pointless. The fact is that Pi is universally used by mathematicians and Tau is almost never used. The problem with merging the two articles, therefore, is that this silly argument is going to continue to dog a serious mathematical article.

There are some people who have a passion for Tau and that makes it notable in its own right, not from a mathematical point of view but from a media and cultural point of view. We should have a Tau article just as we have a Flat Earth Society article. No one would suggest merging this with the Earth article. There are people who delight in their little bit of craziness, there should be an article to reflect this fact.

There is no logical or WP policy reason to want to delete or merge the Tau article, let us reinstate it and keep the subject out of mathematicians' hair.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try to address the concerns raised in that discussion (most of the original article discussing the value 2π instead of the symbol τ, a lack of reliable, independent sources on the "tau movement") first? —Ruud 18:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That discussion seems to have concerned scientific and mathematical notability. Of course Tau is not notable in mathematics or science, everyone knows that, but neither is the flat earth theory notable in any scientific context. There is much coverage of the supporters of Tau in the media; that is why we should have an article on it. What is the problem with keeping it? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the discussion concerned several aspects of the "Tau" article, in particular lack of reliable, independent sources on the "tau movement" as a cultural phenomenon and the (im)possibility of writing a balanced and non-trivial article beyond the paragraph already present at Pi#In popular culture. —Ruud 19:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

My reading of it is that the numbers voting delete, keep and merge were similar and merge was an acceptable compromise, a good solution as it means anyone searching for Tau (2π) finds the content. I don't see any consensus to keep it as a standalone article, especially ignoring the SPAs that joined WP just to push the article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to fight their case for them but it seems better to me to have an article on an obscure bunch who have nothing better to do than promote a pointless constant than to have endless argument on an important article page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

But that's why we have Rfc (and Afd, and RM, and ...). So the discussion can be brought to a close after enough time to arrive at consensus. It's precisely because reasonable people disagree that we have a process to make sure the discussion doesn't go on forever. After which the best thing is to refer back to that discussion, seeing as how it was so recent and clear, to save everyone rehashing the same arguments. The last thing to do is recreate the article, against consensus, as that will just invite a pointless re-run of the Rfc.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Since everyone's back together discussing this today, I'll post this link to a one-day seminar at Oxford on tau. Just to help show that interest in tau is not receding. But I'm going to resist getting reinvolved in the discussion here for now. I'm rather busy with real life these days (literally, family medical emergencies). --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Correction: the seminar is not organized by Oxford University but rather by the Center for Continuing Education. 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) 09:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ratio of a Circle's Circumference to its Radius

The ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius does not have a Wikipedia page yet because it has no formal single character glyph. We see it used in many places, for example, number of radians in a circle, period of trigonometric functions like sine and cosine, and reduced Planck constant, programming,.... (I have many many examples.) The value of the circumference to its radius is as seen in A019692 of the OEIS and the continued fraction is found in A058291 = 6 + 1/(3 + 1/(1 + 1/(1 + 1/(7 + ...)))).

Why not create a page devoted to just the ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius like the one 2_(number) is for "2"? Or,is it that do you find 2 is not trivial, but a numerical value of 2π is just way to trivial?

(Note these questions did not mention τ for a reason. Namely, to remove the irrational religious devotion to π. Please remember what happen to Galileo because of peoples religious Earth-centered devotion. If you don't believe it is "irrational religious devotion to π" please note the amount of information that is being "burned" (as in burning books) in 2π, π, and this article's history as to not have a non-formal single character glyph page for the ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius.) John W. Nicholson (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Who do you think is behind the cabal to keep Tau out of wiki? Tkuvho (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Pi Mu Epsilon, of course! --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That explains it! I would be afraid to start up with guys like that. Now that the truth is out, the tauists might as well forget it. Tkuvho (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Your admonition is actually funnier than you realize. When I wrote my essay advocating replacing pi with tau, I was an undergrad living on-campus at a university where fraternities were a really big deal. Drunken frat boys take a LOT of pride in the name of their fraternity. So one of the non-math factors I used to consider was whether, if tau caught on, I'd have to worry about retribution from members of the frats with pi in their name. (As it turned out, I had NOTHING to worry about. Sigh.) -Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 11:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If you can't beat them, join them (but don't drink and drive). And consider renaming Pi Mu Epsilon Pi Mi Infinitesimal. Stronger stuff than Tau. Tkuvho (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I really do not think it matters that much whether we use pi or tau, arguments about which is most fundamental are pointless. It is a fact that mathematicians and scientists universally use pi and WP should reflect that fact. I am, though, puzzled why some people have such a strong objection to having a tau article. No one has given a good reason for this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I should add that, if we have an article on tau, it must not be a place for supporters of its use to promote the concept. We must reflect the world as it is, not how some might like it to be. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I think you hit the nail on the head. The world as it is amounts to a situation where essentially nobody except the sensationalistic press is interested in Tau. Furthermore, it is a situation where the letter Tau is used for numerous scientific purposes far more solid than twice a known constant. For example, the conformal parameter associated with the standard fundamental domain is one such use. Tkuvho (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please, stick to the question at hand, talking about a "sensationalistic press" over a single character glyph for a constant is just a diversion from the real issue, no page devoted on the constant value 6.283185.... There are enough examples of this constant being used, even examples of it being used in the π page (just search for "2π"). Here is an example from NASA with Fortran programming: http://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/naif/toolkit_docs/FORTRAN/spicelib/twopi.html

Is there any good reason why there is not a WP page devoted on the constant value 6.283185... other than someone named it informally "τ"? John W. Nicholson (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Take heart, John. It's coming. John Blackburne is indeed right in his comment above that the arguments have been hashed out at length just earlier this year. But tau continues to spread, and it's only a matter of time before it shows up in enough "acceptable" sources to satisfy the editors here. I posted the link to the Oxford seminar to make that point. (OK Tkuvho, Oxford Continuing Education seminar. I'm not looking to reopen the argument now.) For now, you can buy a tau watch and count the days. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Just now noticed they've added a second version of the tau watch. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The debate has even spread to Christmas stockings. (Happy Holidays, everyone.) --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I posted some of my links to make a point too. The constant, no matter what its character glyph, exist, and mathematician needs to show how it is useful for math and science for the encyclopedia reader. I am not saying that it should or should not be called "τ", but I will totally agree that it should not be called "π". But, Wikipedia's goal is to be an encyclopedia. Good encyclopedias have numbers like [Taxicab number] [Basel problem], [pi], [e], 2, and even the number which has the value of 2pi. Bad ones don't. Don't expect the encyclopedia to have numbers like 0.265563275... and 0.446684307..., but I do expect it to have numbers which are used by most dealing with science and math and have been known for about a 1000 years. Gelfond's constant, for example, has its on page, yet has less "value" to the constant "2pi" for its use or age. And please, don't tell me the examples I gave are poor, I know better.

(Note if you are wondering what those two real numbers are, you will have to wait or look else where. Here is another number to look for but is more related (535.4916555247647365030493295890471814778057976032949155072052550373...)^i=1.)

Note my argument is not based on τ, it is based on the lack of proper action by editors which have only their self interest in mind and not the core mathematics. They argue that 1/2 is one unit and confuse young adults as to the true value of the mathematics. It only leads to mis-communication. Right now, go look at the pi page show me how a 14 year old would find the relationship of pi and radius without reading into the history part of pi or knowing that the diameter is twice the radius. It is just silly. Silly of people who would like to be called adults, but have no care to act like an adult. They censor 2pi and redirect it to pi not because the can resolve an issue civilly, but because they have no means to out think the issue an make it better. They keep talking about tau as if it is something evil or vile, yet all it is, is a means to express a constant value in one glyph.

Think of this issue like this, when in 1748, Euler wrote: "for the sake of brevity we will write this number as π; thus π is equal to half the circumference of a circle of radius 1" (from the [pi] page) do you think he was begging the question out of the reader 'what to call the the circumference of a circle of radius 1?' because we are going to see a lot of pointless factors of two otherwise. If not, why?

John W. Nicholson (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83ofi_L6eAo Happy Winter Solstice Joseph.

No, we had a civil discussion and it was resolved to the satisfaction of most editors concerned, by consensus. That is how Wikipedia works. Please review that discussion for the reasons; it was nothing to do with censorship, not 'silly', or any of the other ways you care to characterise it. Readers can still find out about τ, at π where this redirect leads. Nothing is being hidden, all there is worth saying about the constant is in that article. This may one day change, as Joseph suggests, but it is much too early mere months on from the last discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? Do you really think that there is a section on the history of "2pi" in "pi"? Do you see any comments on programming languages which have the have the constant "2pi" twopi" or by any other name built-in? Do you really think that these subjects should be in pi or in a separate page? I said it before and I will say it again "And please, don't tell me the examples I gave are poor, I know better." So, when you say "we had a civil discussion" I point to the action you (as a group) did to this page. And ask the question again "'what to call the the circumference of a circle of radius 1?' because we are going to see a lot of pointless factors of two otherwise. If not, why?" If you can not answer these question, I have to assume you are not a qualified to be even editing a page with any mathematics and should not have a vote on any page. John W. Nicholson

Again I refer you to the previous discussions where this was covered at length. As for qualification I could point to my maths degree but on Wikipedia credentials are irrelevant, and you have no authority to tell other editors where they can edit. Lastly you should not edit other editors' good faith comments.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"Again I refer you to the previous discussions where this was covered at length." What part is it that you want me to see? Most of what I have read deals with the term "tau" and not the constant itself which is totally pointless and does nothing to solve the real issue. And, you are not helping yourself (and making my point) by making a broad pointless searches for nothing relevant to the topic at hand. Namely:

"The ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius does not have a Wikipedia page." What has to be done to have one which has clear approval of the editors for the constant 6.283185307179... and leaves τ = 6.283185307179... alone except as to make comments (similar to the ones in pi) in the "In popular culture" section for the constant? What is the consensus for the bar that has to be crossed, and what is keeping you from raising/lowering this bar with(/out) good faith?

"you should not edit other editors' good faith comments." Help me out, which comments did I edit which is causing you issues? Here is the one you did that is still a thorn for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pi&diff=508470871&oldid=508387278 . You should know that it is directly related to this comment "Right now, go look at the pi page show me how a 14 year old would find the relationship of pi and radius without reading into the history part of pi or knowing that the diameter is twice the radius." Please make valid edits instead of censoring by using reversion on "good faith comments". Also, please note that I have a learning disability with English and lexical skills. You might not understand how much of that removal got under my skin for the lack of just correcting it as to help the readers and using [TW] instead of [WP:CONS], but it did. John W. Nicholson (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This previous discussion: Talk:Tau (2π)/Archive 3#Request for comment, where it was decided to merge to Pi based on consensus. Consensus is how such decisions are made. Even if you had participated in that discussion your !vote would not have changed the outcome. And in this edit you 'corrected' my spelling though it was spelt correctly already. And if you disagree with a reversion of an edit (and we all get reverted from time to time) take it to a talk page, per WP:BRD. Though I see there was already a discussion at the time: Talk:Pi/Archive 11#Inconsistency..--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yea, it there was talked about before hand and I tried to use WP:BB, but you put a stop to that. It is to bad that I can not get you to correctly edit it. As for the misspelling correction that I did, I would have to agree that I did not know that was correct myself, but my computer said it was and I did not know that was not editing my own work but rereading stuff, sorry. I am guessing that it was caused by a American/British English language difference in the spellchecker. John W. Nicholson (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

(@John W. Nicholson) I won't discourage you from continuing to push for a separate article now. I've just got other things/people that need my attention right now. And I'm convinced that this fight will be much easier in the future. Call it strategic laziness. Why shovel snow when you can wait for it to melt? (It's hard enough getting my inbox shoveled out these days, which is why I must apologize for not having replied to your email. I'm very sorry about that. The last six months have really been horrendous.) --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, for your comments. However, I worry that it is not going to melt, and we have another "year without summer" because of the pi-ous "sensationalistic" mathematicians. Just look at the comments I got trying to *not* have any talk about tau and just the constant. I bet they have not asked themselves 'Why does Gelfond's constant have a page, but '2pi' does not?' John W. Nicholson

As far as youtubes and media coverage, we have the following guideline at wiki project mathematics:

Why don't math pages rely more on helpful YouTube videos and media coverage of mathematical issues?

Answer: Mathematical content of YouTube videos is often unreliable (though some may be useful for pedagogical purposes rather than as references). Media reports are typically sensationalistic. This is why they are generally avoided.

Tkuvho (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(@Tkuvho)Yes, pedagogical purposes and a small gift for Joseph are the reasons for the video. I am not expecting you or WP to go hog wild about them.

If Tau does not meet the guidelines of wiki project mathematics then it can simply be removed from that project. In my opinion it does meet the criteria for an article because of the media and other interest, just like the Flat Earth society would not meet the wiki science criteria but we still have an article on them. Martin Hogbin (talk)

For precisely the reason you stated, Tau is mentioned in the "popular culture" section of pi, which is perfectly appropriate. Any additional coverage is not. Tkuvho (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

For precisely the comments you two stated, I stated comments about "pi-ous "sensationalistic" mathematicians" which is about people making diversions away from the real issue. Which is why I am still focusing on the constant and not tau. John W. Nicholson (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Tau_(2%CF%80) I added this page as for others to see how many people are looking for this page and compare to some others. While it is not as much a pi ( http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Pi ); it is still better than http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Gelfond's_constant for nearly all days. Another redirected page to pi, 2pi, http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/2%CF%80 has about one person/(3days) average. It seems to me these are the people who did not give up looking for tau by trying 2pi (but, I do not read minds). Maybe they were looking for the period of a sine wave, but then maybe the number of radians in a circle. Also, it be that one of the external authors which commented about tau and left a link to Tau (2π) did not change his link to reflect that it does not really exist anymore. Who knows? Still the point is there, there is not a page devoted to the constant, and I am sure this is not good for the Wikipedia "consumer".

One thing is for sure. If they were looking for a page about 6.2831853..., they would not see anything about the OEIS sequences A019692 or A058291 because there is not a page. They might not learn about programming shortcuts of using a built-in constant for some languages (do you or did you know of any?). They can not say "Wow! Did you know that ...." with any bit of the history of 2 pi because there is not a page. And, there is more that they would miss out on. Why? Because it was sensationalism by both sides for their on "good" and not focusing on what makes a good WP page. John W. Nicholson (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You are right. I think Pi is sensational. Tkuvho (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And that is your problem. The more sensational you make it, the more you undermine your argument for it. So, go ahead knock yourself out. John W. Nicholson (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There were also spikes of people trying to access the tau page on the days around Pi Day (799+1310+7916+2832+634), Tau Day (1613+680), and Pi Approximation Day (1314+336).

http://stats.grok.se/en/201203/Tau_%282%CF%80%29

http://stats.grok.se/en/201206/Tau_%282%CF%80%29

http://stats.grok.se/en/201207/Tau_%282%CF%80%29

So that we may compare spike sizes, does anybody know when Gelfond's constant Day is? --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Joseph, I think you are missing my point too. I was trying to point out that even on non-peak days one person every three days on average is looking for information about 2pi. If tau is averaging 67 per day, then that is about 1 for every 200 are looking for more than what is found in pi. We really do not know why they are looking for it, but they are. They willing try tau, 2pi, twice pi, and others. John W. Nicholson (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, you're right that I wasn't reading what you wrote closely enough. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

abusive language by User:John W. Nicholson

The said user, User:John W. Nicholson, wrote as follows in response to my comment:

so, go ahead knock yourself out.

I hereby request an immeditiate apology. Failure to abide by WP:CIVIL guidelines is likely to lead to temporary or permanent block of your IP. Tkuvho (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not abusive language, "knock yourself out" is an expression, see wikt:knock oneself out. It means do whatever you want, he is not telling you to punch yourself in the face. Also his username is Reddwarf2956 (talk · contribs)--kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks kelapstick. Sorry, you did not get it Tkuvho. John W. Nicholson (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Reddwarf2956/Ratio_of_circumference_to_radius

If feel something needs to be done. I know that without a good page for presenting it will be just knocked down like this one. So, here is my suggestion. I find someone who feels they can help me write/edit a page for "Ratio of Circumference to Radius" at User:Reddwarf2956/Ratio_of_circumference_to_radius without it leaning towards either pi or tau in the sensationalism. Once the 1.0 version of the page is made, then check-in to see if other editors are happy with it, open a RfC as to move the 'redirects that currently go to pi' to the new page and make any small changes to other pages that are needed to reference the new page. If every thing go right, we should have a good cited page for the constant. John W. Nicholson (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My guess would be that the ratio of circumference to radius would be just about twice the ratio of circumference to diameter, but I am not sure why a special page is needed for that, or that it would pass notability criteria. Tkuvho (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because it is more special than the square root of 535.4916555247... which WP does have a page. (Note if you want to argue that issue, please go to my user talk page and argue away; I just want to keep to the subject here.) John W. Nicholson (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK. The proposed article is a fork of the main π article whose express purpose is to push the point of view that the constant C/r is more fundamental than π. This is not allowed. It is a clear violation of the policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. Allegations that 2π is more fundamental than π should be dealt with in the main π article with coverage proportional to their coverage in reliable sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you feel that way, come on over and help me edit it. I know my position (which is pi is in violation of WP:NPOV), you know yours, let us work on making it sound like a good Wikipedia page should. John W. Nicholson (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As for the comment with WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK, note that no sections of my "proposed article" are targeted, so there is no WP:POVFORK because the information is different than π alone, also note the existence of pages like Gelfond's constant which can also be called a fork of e and π. In this case it is for 2π. Because there is no povfork, there is no coatrack. So, no violation. If you would like to argue any more points please go to the page and add the argument to the talk page. John W. Nicholson (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there should be such a Wikipedia page. Suitable information about the mathematical constant π belongs at the article pi. We have absolutely no business creating an article because we think 2π is more natural. That's a very clear WP:POVFORK, and not allowed under Wikipedia policy. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

So, what you are telling me is that the continued fraction found in A058291 of the OEIS should be in pi? It is not a question if "2π is more natural" but question of "Is 2π used in mathematics and science?" Just radians, period of trig functions, and Reduced Planck constant is enough for a page for "2π". The level of π's violation of WP:NPOV is ridiculous. So, no. A page is needed to balance the level of piety for pi (which would not a allow A058291 of the OEIS to be put there). I still do not see or hear you saying that Gelfond's constant is a WP:POVFORK, and if you do, then realize pi is WP:POVFORK of half. John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that the continued fraction should be in pi. It does not seem to be a widely-known or used continued fraction expression: the only source at the OEIS page is the opinion piece by Bob Palais, and OEIS is not considered to be a suitable source for establishing notability on Wikipedia. There is no question that 2π is used in mathematics and the sciences, but pertinent information that is suitable for an encyclopedia should be covered in the article π, not a separate article, as I have already said. NPOV does not mean that all points of view get an equal treatment on Wikipedia: they should be treated proportionally to their weight in reliable sources. As there are many many reliable sources that address π as such, and very few that address (directly, independently, and substantially) the constant 2π, I think the demands of NPOV are met. If reliable scientific sources (such as textbooks on mathematics) are brought to light that address 2π as a notable constant, independently of π, then those can be used to assess whether there should be a separate article, and what such an article might look like. But until then, it is a gross violation of Wikipedia's principles to attempt to forge a new article based on our own original research concluding that 2π is a notable constant independently of its relation to π. I don't care about Gelfond's constant: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I do wish you would quit arguing and go to my page at User:Reddwarf2956/Ratio_of_circumference_to_radius and read it and comment the needed changes there. I think you will see the goal that I have for the article and realize that it a good one. You might even help and start to edit it. You are saying that "it is a gross violation of Wikipedia's principles to attempt to forge a new article based on our own" but none of it is not out of a textbook, OEIS, or other reliable scientific sources, except the part with "In popular culture" and I think you will see why just from your own comments. As they say "If you can't beat them, join them." John W. Nicholson (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Another irrelevant YouTube video on tau. That amassed 35,000 views in the last 24 hours.

Second numberphile video about tau in as many months: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPv1UV0rD8U

The first one, as John W. Nicholson pointed out earlier, is here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=83ofi_L6eAo

By the way, I'm selling a gently used snow shovel that I don't really need, if anyone's interested. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Redir to article where topic is actually discussed

In the history of current edit with the article, the editor ArnoldReinhold states "redir to article where topic is actually discussed" but turn is not an article about a mathematical constant equal to 6.2831853071795... or twice pi. 6.2831853071795... is the ratio of the circumference to radius (C/r) and the period of sine and cosine. And more. So, it is not discussed enough in turn, nor is turn the place to be talking more about it. But, at the same time, pi is not the same mathematical constant as C/r too, nor is pi the place to be talking more about it. So, for C/r also does not make sense to undo nor to keep. This implies that a new page is needed and while I have been writing one at User:Reddwarf2956/Ratio_of_circumference_to_radius I do not think it is ready for 'prime time' display. So, is there anyone willing to do more than just talk about the problems and help edit the future page? Please help. Otherwise I am forced to put out the what is currently done. John W. Nicholson (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent discussion of this issue has all taken place on the pi article Talk page. Let's not scatter the discussion to multiple places. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Others have complained tau is off topic at Talk:pi and it is not discussed in that article. It is discussed in turn, so that would seem the appropriate palace for a redirect until such time as the community decides a separate article is needed. --agr (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC).

Quoting John Blackburne on the Pi Talk page from less than an hour ago, "The consensus was that the article should be merged to Pi. That's how Wikipedia works, by consensus." --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

New article proposal

I have made a new article on tau in my userspace, and linked to it in talk:pi. Anyone who wants to should feel free to look there and give feedback.Tazerdadog (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Life of Pi

www.luckycatcomics.com/?p=227 --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This should be redirected again.

The existence of this article has already been discussed in detail at: Talk:Tau_(2π)/Archive_3#Request_for_comment.IRWolfie- (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Restored the redirect, per the consensus as arrived at formally in that discussion. Editors should not go against that without a similar discussion that arrives at a different consensus.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have seen some of the discussions, without finding any signs of a consensus. Apparently people are looking for the article (just as I did). I find that on a search for "tau" on international Google, the subject of this article is the third hit. It seems quite obvious that things can be done for the quality and neutrality of the written article (that keeps getting blanked). Regardless, with proponents such as Salman Khan, the existence of the page is motivated. –St.nerol (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There is already an RfC in progress on that very issue: User_talk:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant)#RFC:Article_Notability. If that RfC fails to reach consensus, a WP:AFD process could be initiated to get a more solid decision on the matter. --Noleander (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That does not mean people are looking a new article: the fact that a redirect is accessed shows it is being used, on e.g. Tau. And it takes readers to the content we have on the constant that's equal to 2π. As a redirect it is working as intended. As for the RfC 'no consensus' usually means no change, not 'start yet another discussion'. It is tedious and disruptive if editors keep asking the same questions over and over hoping for a result they like. Twice in one year I think is more than enough times to discuss this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is important to emphasize: we do have information on τ, and the redirect takes readers to that information, so everything is working as it should in that respect. Wikipedia links are given increased priority in google searches, so it is not unusual for links to us to have high rankings. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No, actually the 3rd-place link (for a Google or Bing search on the word tau) is to tauday.com. I mentioned this fact somewhere else recently in one of our discussions somewhere on Wikipedia. It's also been true for at least the last year, that if you type "pi is" into Google, the top autocomplete result is "pi is wrong". Put "pi is" in quotes and hit enter, and half the links on the first page are about the tau/pi controversy. Type "tau =" and the second autocomplete result is "tau = 2 pi". Type "tau is ", and the top three autocomplete results are "tau is wrong" (sigh, critics), "tau is better than pi", and "tau is the new pi". --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Now tauday.com has moved up to Google's #2 link, and halftauday.com is the #3 link. Only Wikipedia's own general tau page ranks higher when you do a Google search on the word tau. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You'll find that where something appears in google results isn't mentioned in WP:GNG for a reason. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong deletion process

There should have been an RfD for Tau as this would have attracted wider participation, especially from those with more experience on the deletion of articles.

To make clear again, I am not supporting the Tau article in its current form and I think there is a very clear consensus, which I support, that the article should not become a promotional vehicle for Tau. It should also not become an article deprecating the use of tau or any form of tau vs pi debate, although I see no reason why we should not briefly and succinctly state the reasons that its promoters prefer tau. If anyone feels the need (which I do not) I would not object to brief reasons why some mathematicians may prefer pi to tau.

What is absolutely clear to me is that by normal WP standards we should have an article on this subject and there is no reason to depart from our normal policies. There is undoubtedly a bunch of mathematically-minded people who passionately believe that tau is better than pi. These people are actively promoting their views and having occasional 'successes'. I hate to use the term, but not allowing this phenomenon to have its own article looks like some bizarre form of censorship to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree that WP:RFD (or better WP:AFD) is the better process to use. The problem is that an RfC was started a couple of weeks ago, and those nominally last 30 days. I think the best path forward is:

• Let the RfC expire after 30 days (appears as if it will be "no consensus")
• Craft a small, neutral tau article and place it in the article space
• Initiate an AfD on that article to get input from uninvolved editors.

That should resolve this with some finality. --Noleander (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That does seem like a good idea although I cannot see why an active RfC in a userspace linked only to the Pi article should stop anyone from starting a new article on a different subject. The real problem was the improper deletion of a perfectly good (in principle) article. My opinion is that we should correct this error immediately and then initiate the procedure that should have been used in the first place.

There can be a very strong tendency towards the status quo on WP and when people, by improper actions, change things it can be very hard to get them changed back, even though they should never have been changed in the first place. (I can give you an extreme example of this). This sort of improper (but maybe accidental) strategic manoeuvring really annoys me and causes me to stick my neck out from time to time.

As it is, I will defer to your suggestion and wait for the RfC to expire. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, it is not clear to me that by normal WP standards we should have an article on τ. The proposed article contains two things:

1. A laundry list of formulas in which π has been replaced by τ/2
2. Cherry picked quotes from the "debate" over τ, and general descriptions of the argument that cannot be sourced to peer reviewed sources.

The only strong source that has been presented in the draft article is an editorial in Math Horizons, in the opinion "...aftermath" section [3]. The rest of the sources in the draft article are web page posts, slow news day stories, etc. - not the kind of sources we look for to write about mathematics.

So, basically, what we would have in an article on τ is a bunch of poorly sourced "he said/she said" material over the benefits and downsides of τ, and maybe also a bunch of formulas for which we probably have no peer-reviewed source. I just don't see the makings of a sound article there.

Really I think it is just too soon for a separate article. We can present a brief synopsis of the "he said / she said" story in the article on π, and anyone who wants a formula with τ can just replace π with τ/2. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not a debate about whether mathematicians should or do use tau and I completely agree with you that we must not continue that debate in the article but the fact remains that there is a bunch of people who are advocating the use of tau, just as there are people who maintain the Earth is flat or that the moon landings never happened. We know that there are no reliable sources supporting either of these claims but we still have the Flat Earth Society and Moon landing conspiracy theories articles. We have plenty of reliable sources to show that supporters of tau exist.

Let me say again. I agree that we must not allow the Tau article to be a promotional vehicle for the tau supporters or give the impression that there is any significant debate on the subject by the mathematics community but, just like the examples I have given, we can say: 'There are people who think 'this' for 'these' reasons and who are trying to promote the concept'. We maybe should add that they have not got very far. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

For me, the main distinction between τ and the flat earth theory is the relative impression they have made. For flat earth, we have historical sources that date far back; for τ we have much less. I think that some on this talk page take what sources they see too seriously; if someone writes anything somewhat positive about τ and they are labeled as a "τ proponent"...

For comparison, if Wikipedia had been around when JFK was assassinated, for the first few years the "conspiracy theories" would also have been only worth a paragraph in the article on the assassination. Only when it was clear that the theories had remained of interest over a long period of time would it be worth writing an article about them - by which time there would be enough sources to do it well. I think it is better to say little, when little can be said, than to try to say more by moving to worse sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

So, it's a short article. Whys is that a problem? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Carl. The main sources for tau are newspaper articles from over a year ago when the story first appeared, and youtube. This is just not substantial enough for a separate page. Tkuvho (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not follow, is the subject too old or too new? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the lack of notability, as demonstrated by reliable sources, whether academic on the maths or social on the controversy. But there's already an RfC on this, so no need to re-debate this yet again here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So, its a problem if we label Salman Khan a "tau proponent"? Well, perhaps it's never good to lablel people, but now, does he not endorse τ? The relevant facts:

Khan made the video "Pi versus Tau" placed in the section "Long live Tau" (together with a video titled "Pi is (still) Wrong") Citing from the video: "These ideas are not my own... many people are on this movement now; the tau movement... it seems like a pretty good argument, that actually things seem a little more elegant when you pay attention to this number, instead of half of this number".

–St.nerol (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Noelander, there already was an RfC last year about the merge which was closed by an admin. RfC is exactly the correct process for a merge. i.e the consensus is already here to keep it merged. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:Consensus can change. My point is that the RfC that is underway right now may end up being about a 50/50 split, with valid arguments on both sides. That means that the RfC may end "no consensus" and the status quo (merge) is retained. But the AfD community has much more expertise in assessing notability of fringe/marginal articles - in AfD we'd get a set of editors with more experience in these kinds of decisions. The sourcing for tau is far above what is found for most articles that are kept in the AfD process. It is clear from the RfC that many "delete/merge" editors are concerned that creating a WP article on tau will lend tau some undeserved credibility. That concern is distorting our assessment of its notability. (BTW, I think tau is a dumb idea, and a tau article should document only the quixotic movement, not the number). --Noleander (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)