Talk:Tau (proposed mathematical constant)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RFC:Article Notability

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is tau notable enough for an article in mainspace under any name? If yes, a second RFC will determine the name to be used.

(added) The subject to this RFC is User:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant). John W. Nicholson (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Support

• As seen above, there is an abundance of reliable sources in dependent of the subject establishing notability. While the quality in that list does vary, there are high-quality sources in it. Tau is undoubtedly WP:Fringe, but it does meet notability and should therefore have an article in mainspace. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Although this may not officially be admissible as evidence, try googling the word TAU. Despite the word's various other uses, the Tau Manifesto is the 3rd link. Same on Bing. It actually outranks Tel Aviv University (TAU), Israel's largest university with 30,000 students. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The lack of tau in Wikipedia is the problem. People are looking for it (see http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Tau_(2%CF%80) ), but are redirected to pi which is disconcerting. As to the second question, 'what to call the page?', I think making it Tau (2π) is good. John W. Nicholson (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. We've had this discussion before. The subject is notable (plenty of independent sources) and wikipedia is not the place to express preferences for this constant or that. It only concerns itself with notability. Best name for it is some variety of Tau (2π) Kleuske (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Notability does not require that tau be embraced by mathematicians; it does not even require that serious mathematicians discuss tau. Notability simply requires that some WP:Reliable sources - independent of the tau proponents - discuss the matter. A side benefit of creating a tau article is that it will reduce the amount of tau-related material in the pi article & talk page. --Noleander (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is immense and has room for odds and ends. Obviously this would not be an article about τ itself, but rather about the idea that its use should replace that of π, and the pros and cons of the proposal. Actual mathematical facts about τ are actual mathematical facts about π and vice-versa. It would be inappropriate to cover the pros and cons within the π article because it's disproportionate. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Michael, the pros and cons of a tau proposal are barely more notable than the pros and cons of a proposal to replace pi by ${\frac {\pi }{2}}$, which in my mind makes more sense as it is actually a meaningful geometric angle, unlike 2π. The pros and cons only kick in once we have a notable subject, which is not the case here based on the current literature. Tkuvho (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• The article is well written, informative, unbiased, and sourced well enough to establish notability. I find objection to this to be as unproductive as arguing that vi is better than emacs, or that a square is just two triangles. Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia – "a compendium holding a summary of information from all branches of knowledge." Krushia (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. We are clearly doing a disservice to the thousands of readers looking for information on the proposed constant (as pointed out by Reddwarf2956 above) and finding nothing. We editors are not expected to discuss or evaluate the merits of the proposal itself; as an encyclopedia, we should merely report on a proposal that has garnered undeniably visible coverage in well-established media. --Waldir ^talk 13:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support, as per above. Bert Macklin (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Personally I think the mathematical aspect, though trivial, is not fringe, but that is hardly relevant to the question on which the RFC is based. The article, as opposed to the importance of tau, looks pretty OK to me and I have heard and read of the matter and might well have decided to look it up in WP, had I wished. To counter such considerations one would need a positive reason, not a personal preference for some stance concerning the controversy. No such reason seems plausible. Leave the article alone and lets go away and argue about something substantial instead. For example, do enough redirs refer to the article? Most of the Oppose votes either refer to the content of the controversy, such as which side of it to support, which is completely irrelevant to the question, or they are wikilawyering about forking, POV and the like. Feeding the trolls is bad enough, but feeding the wikilawyers would be heinous. JonRichfield (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support For the reasons given by Noleander, Michael Hardy and others above. It is important to realise that this is not a mathematical argument about the relative importance of pi and tau to mathematicians, that is not a matter for us to decide. There is absolutely no doubt that mathematicians, almost exclusively, use pi and not tau and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless there is a movement to use tau in place of pi and whatever we may think of the logic for doing this the movement exists. I think many of those who oppose this article are doing so in the mistaken belief that we should be discussing the pros and cons of pi vs tau; that is not our job and such a discussion is completely pointless. We have an article on Flat Earth why not tau? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. No, of course using tau in place of 2pi doesn't let you prove anything new. But it does make fundamental equations from many areas of mathematics shorter, clearer, and/or more beautiful, which is something working mathematicians care and think a lot about. A number of them have written about it. It's notable. — ChalkboardCowboy^[T] 23:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - The size of these talk pages and the debate are themselves evidence of notability. Whether you think tau belongs in math classes or not, an article about tau obviously belongs on Wikipedia. — Omegatron (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Notable as a pop-culture phenomenon only, not notable as a mathematical constant

• Weak support. This section is strangely untouched, and it is easy to miss. It would be nice if other editors could comment here so we get a diversity of opinion. Since I think at least that the point might be valid, I will add a "weak support" to this section, with the understanding that my "Support" vote above supercedes this in a straight-up vote count. This seems to be to be the logical and natural compromise. It seems to me that the support !voters are getting the best of it in pop-culture, while the oppose !voters are getting the best of it regarding mathematical usage. The article could be called "Tau versus Pi debate", Tau (popular movement), or a number of other things. In any case, an independant article, even if limited to the pop culture is preferable to the current situation, and this seems to be the consensus position. Idea and some phrasing blatantly stolen from Sławomir Biały. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, I think your point goes without saying. There is no significant discussion of this subject in the mathematical community. My support for having the article does not in any way imply support for the replacement of pi with tau and I am sure that most of the other supporters take the same view. I think calling the article "Tau versus Pi debate" actually gives the subject more credibility than it deserves. There is no debate to be had; it is a pointless argument about something that is a quirk of history, does not matter much either way, and is very unlikely to change. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think there is a problem with the question. I see that the article is fringe noteworthy in part because of the "pop-culture phenomenon" caused by it being a "notable as a mathematical constant" at the fringe level. That mathematical constant is noteworthy because of period of sine and cosine, the number of radians in a circle, and other things, like section 5.1 of the Tau Manifesto "Surface area and volume of a hypersphere". The "pop-culture phenomenon" that we are talking about is related to things like Pi-day and TwoPi-day which now called Tau-day and general 'geekdom' of taking something factual and making it into something like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3174T-3-59Q . So, I do not know which way to answer. John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that possibly the topic is notable under a different title, such as "Movement to replace the mathematical constant π by 2π". Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree, the title may not be best, and the movement is certainly further up on the notability scale than the constant. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "The Tau Movement"? 39 of the top 40 links on Google for that exact phrase are about this topic. It's short and has no special characters or parentheses. And the term is used even when people talk about the possibility of using a symbol other than tau. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Tau movement would be more in line with our article naming conventions. Otherwise, I think this is a reasonable compromise. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Except that there's no references to support an article like that any more than there is to support the current one. An article needs reliable sources; merely existing is insufficient. There's certainly no reliable sources supporting such a movement having its own article. - SudoGhost 02:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur with User:SudoGhost. We don't create a separate article on $0.999...<1$ just because there is talk about it both in wiki talkpages and occasionally in the media. The solution is an "arguments" page for tauists to present their views, as I proposed here. Tkuvho (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

We actually do have an article on 0.999..., a featured article in fact. However, that's actually widely discussed in reliable sources that are relevant to the subject, as seen in the sources used in that article. This article isn't comparable to that, however, since this article doesn't even begin to approach that level of adequate sources showing notability. - SudoGhost 10:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

@User:SudoGhost: Of course we have 0.999..., but we don't have [[0.999...<1]]! We do have an "arguments" page at Talk:0.999... where dissenting opinions unrelated to improving the article can be voiced. By the same token, we could create an "arguments" page at Talk:Pi, where dissenting tauists can voice their views. Tkuvho (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a big difference. We all know that 0.999... = 1 and always will. So maybe it makes sense over there to have a separate Arguments page if there's an endless stream of people convinced they have proven otherwise. You're humoring them and giving them a place to present their arguments, even though you know they will always turn out to be wrong. The situation with tau is very different. It's clearly in a state of flux, so this is not a permanent problem. The Support/Oppose vote count is evenly split. And nobody here can say with any certainty whatsoever that tau won't continue to rise in notability. This is a very different situation from 0.999... = 1. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the sources aforementioned ARE sufficient to demonstrate notability. You clearly don't. Can we at least agree that the tau movement is better than just tau from a notability perspective?

Tazerdadog (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No, why would it suddenly be any different? The quality and type of sources are exactly why Tau isn't notable. They are the same exact sources, and none of them mention any "movement" more than in very brief passing, so if anything it's less notable than the actual subject, because the sources aren't even about the subject of any "movement". - SudoGhost 14:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

• An abundance of sources does not make a subject notable. An article needs only one, if it's of sufficient depth and is reliable, and no more than two or three to establish notability. Too many references is counterproductive, and whoever compiled the above list made it very hard to navigate, with no indication of e.g. the academic publisher or news organisation in almost all cases. But all the ones I've looked at are no better than in the article before it was merged: no good academic sources, just a combination of personal views/essays and some brief/trivial news pieces.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: The proposed article is clearly a POV fork. This would be sufficient to not create the article. Moreover its content gives an equal balance between proponents of tau and π. This RFC discusses the notability of tau, but it is clear that it is dramatically insufficient for such a balance. D.Lazard (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The point is that Tau cannot be treated more extensively in pi without violating WP:UNDUE. I have tried hard to make this WP:NPOV, but if you feel that it is not, I encourage you to help make it NPOV. How should it be, if not a balance between tau and pi? Tazerdadog (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a minor topic, really-- tau is just 2pi, not a unique constant in any sense, and as a result it's hard to see how this could be argued to be a separate topic from pi. As a result, the topic is best served by creating a separate section in pi and creating a redirect at Tau to pi#tau. This solves the problem of not having a "clear" search target, though this issue itself is a bit cloudy as the letter 𝜏 actually has a number of common uses in mathematics, with the 2π definition arguably not even the most well-known. As an engineer, I'm more used to seeing 𝜏 as a variable name for torque or time delay (e.g., in the cross-correlation or autocorrelation functions), whereas mathematical constants (like π, i/j, or e) have essentially monopolized their symbols. Lastly, in order to justify tau having its own article, it would have to be clear what this article would be able to provide that is not already described at pi. siafu (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose in the absence of any reason to suppose that this topic is distinguishable from pi. Deltahedron (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose essentially for the reasons that I already articulated during the first RfC. I don't see any evidence that the quality of sources has improved since the last filing. There are more YouTube videos and self-published sources, but no sources that would be considered reliable scholarship. It's true that tau is fringe, and sometimes fringe theories get a pass. But that guideline is very explicit: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." None of the sources seem to rise to the level of "serious and reliable" demanded by this guideline. One of the above sources (Telegraph India) actually says it: “This has not been part of any serious mathematical discourse,” Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose (insert link to volumnous body of reasons against this idea, brought up the last time we had this conversation.) Rschwieb (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose' Can we now go back to actually important stuff? -- Taku (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose No obviously significant mathematical sources. Murray Langton (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. No significant mathematical sources, and no significant sources added since the last discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article lacks any relevant sources; a bunch of "slow news day" pieces don't make a subject notable; while news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Yes, a mathematical article should have mathematical sources, the fact that these sources don't seem to exist just highlights that this is a WP:FRINGE viewpoint that sources do not consider relevant, and that's exactly the kind of fringe topic that has no place on Wikipedia. This article is seriously lacking in quality sources, and no relevant sources have been added since the previous RfC. Saying the article is notable because of Google results and bombarding the article with crap sources do not make the subject notable, and that's all this article has. - SudoGhost 00:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• To the extent that we discuss τ, it should be in the "in popular culture" section of the article on π. Basically we have one reasonable source, from the Intelligencer, several self-published pieces, and a lot of slow-news-day newspaper stories. This is the sort of topic that the media likes to use as a short diversion, and so I would give almost no weight to them for mathematical topics. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Readers looking for "tau" on wiki are appropriately redirected to the "popular culture" section of the pi page, which presents an accurate summary of the topic: little scientific content, media hullabaloo. The size of that section indicates clearly that a separate page is not justified. Tkuvho (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This has the unfortunate effect that this silly argument keeps being raised on a page about a serious mathematical subject. Better give it its own space. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not cause to create a separate article. A subject must be notable, "silly arguments" don't warrant the creation of non-notable articles just to make it "go away". There is also no "movement" that is any different than the 10,000 other random internet "movements", that would still need sources that are sorely lacking. Saying that "...many of those who oppose this article are doing so in the mistaken belief that we should be discussing the pros and cons of pi vs tau..." is a red herring because nobody has given that rationale; it does not matter if the subject is valid, it must be notable. Anything short of that falls short of warranting an article on Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 11:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

How long should this RFC:Article Notability be open before an answer is drawn? John W. Nicholson (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

RFCs default to 30 days, though they can be closed earlier if consensus is arrived at, or if the discussion is ended for some other reason such as another discussion superseding it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have an issue on these please edit or state it without the generalizations which does nobody any good. For example, if you do not like a reference being used in the article, tell us which one and why you do not like it. By saying with a broad brush that they all are bad is not good and does not help. If there is no edits, while there are complaints, we have to assume consensus. With consensus things get published. John W. Nicholson (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want edits of a project of article you have first to propose a project of article and to link at the top of the RFC! D.Lazard (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The subject to this RFC is User:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant). John W. Nicholson (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the references in general for the reasons stated in the previous AfD, RfC, and (in brief) above. Are there any specific reliable sources that are (credibly) independent of proponents of the subject that have a high reputation for scholarship in mathematics? If so, those are the references I would be interested in evaluating individually. Various editors have, during the course of discussions at Talk:Pi, Talk:Tau (2π), and the previous RfC asked for such references, only to be met with frustrating silence—or worse—links to things like cartoon blogs and YouTube videos en masse, as though these satisfied requests for better scholarship. If there are no sources rising to a higher standard than the ones offered so far, it's quite probably too early for an encyclopedia article about this topic. Writing an encyclopedia article is not something that can or should be done by this kind of googliomancy. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments like above, by Sławomir Biały, is an example of what I am talking about. Give something solid to work with other wise we have to assume there is nothing really wrong with the current article. John W. Nicholson (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Something solid: Write a book. Get it published by Springer. Then we will write an encyclopedia article based on your book. Good enough? If there aren't sources that meet even a basic standard of scholarship, then clearly we should not have an encyclopedia article about a topic! We're an encyclopedia not a soapbox. I claim that none of the sources offered so far meet basic standards of academic scholarship. I would happily discuss with you a single counterexample, but I am not going to discuss item-by-item a list of bad sources. I want one good source. So do you have one, or should we all just agree now that there is no scholarly source on the proposed constant τ, and therefore there should not be an encyclopedia article on the topic? Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sławomir isn't prescribing "something solid to work with" because he is saying there's absolutely nothing we can do but wait for more-scholarly sources to be created. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Joseph, let me get this strait. First, he does not read the references to the article and see which does have scholarly sources and then starts to scream that there are none which meets his standard. Now with this in mind, what he really is saying is the only sources he allows is ones which can not be called fringe on a fringe article? OK. I will have to think about this one. (Not wasting my time doing that.) John W. Nicholson (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, which sources there are scholarly secondary sources? I'm simply not seeing sources that meet this description. Regarding WP:FRINGE, we can have articles on fringe topics, but obviously need independent secondary sources that address the subject. Do we have these sources? I have been asking this since even before the start of this RfC. Your reply has always been to change the subject. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I am being serious too. One, yes, we have references see the page. Which source that is in the article is not a "independent secondary source" on this subject? You might not like the references but they are good fringe references. Two, show me where above this RFC or in the history of this page you have any comment -- no you have not a single one, you have not worked on this page. Three, I have not changed the subject, but you have. Getting back to the subject: Show us what it wrong with the page and please feel free to make good faith edits. John W. Nicholson (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

@Sławomir Biały What exactly qualifies as "one good source". I think our definitions are quite different, but I'd like to here yours. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A peer reviewed source that is independent of the proponents of τ discussing the matter in a detailed and serious manner. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You want a "peer reviewed source" for a fringe article? Please stop it. You are being waaaaay to funny. LOL And, you still have not read the refs. LOL John W. Nicholson (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm being serious. What kinds of sources do you think are acceptable for encyclopedia articles on scientific topics? Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

break

It would seem to me that this is not really a question of notability at all, but rather uniqueness. 𝜏 is inherently defined as 2π, so any property tau has is inherently shared with π, and any article about 𝜏 will be broadly a copy of pi, with the exception of a short mention of the origins of this alternative formulation-- something that is best, and least confusingly, included as a section of pi. Alternatively, if 𝜏 were the preferred constant, it would make sense to merge pi into an article about 𝜏. Obviously, this is not the case, so the current situation is best. siafu (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, to satisfy Wikipedia's proportionality requirements, the treatment of tau within the pi article is severely limited (to 2 sentences). --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Joseph, what an eloquent way of stating the lack of WP:NPOV.

Siafu, when you say "any property tau has is inherently shared with π" this is not true. Try this. Take any point on a circle, add pi radians. You will not return to the same point. Take any point again and add tau radians you will return to the same point. In fact, no positive value less than tau, and only multiples of tau can do this. John W. Nicholson (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, the entire article is about 𝜏, just as much as it is about π. The fringe use of a different formulation of π (i.e., using another symbol to represent 2π) is restricted to two sentences. siafu (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you feel this is an issue? Please feel free write something eloquent to fix the issue. The main goal of the article was to make a NPOV between tau and pi. I know that I lean for tau because of the unique property stated above. John W. Nicholson (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

He's talking about the pi article. And trying to be clever. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "trying to be clever", I'm pointing out a mathematical fact. There are no properties of 𝜏 that cannot be expressed just as easily with π. If we lived in some alternate reality where 𝜏 was considered the base constant, then the same could be said about π, but either way there's no reason to have two separate articles about the same constant. siafu (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, since you are "not "trying to be clever"" can I suggest that you do this (repeat of above since it does not appear that you read it): "Take any point on a circle, add pi radians. You will not return to the same point. Take any point again and add tau radians you will return to the same point. In fact, no positive value less than tau, and only multiples of tau can do this." John W. Nicholson (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if I accept your clever point (We can change the article title to Pi/Tau, right?), there are other pi "subarticles" like Approximations of π, Chronology of computation of π, List of formulae involving π, Piphilology, Proof that π is irrational. So why not a subarticle on the argument over whether Pi/Tau is better in its Pi or its Tau form? --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That question is a slightly different one from whether an article on 𝜏 should exist alongside an article on π, and definitely is a matter of notability. The various subarticles you've named are basically split-offs from the main article, usually done for purposes of brevity, and as such do not escape the requirements of WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia is not a forum for promoting new ideas or new interpretations, and as such, can only reflect the current state of scholarship, which does not embrace 𝜏 as a constant, by a long shot. siafu (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I have not heard of a fringe article having to have a "state of scholarship" before it could exist in Wikipedia. Please explain. Also, please explain why you want a fringe article included in pi. If you ask me, pi already is needing a WP:LIMIT RFC as to split it up more. As for WP:WEIGHT, I point to the talk above this RFC and how it has gone. No one from pi has come over to do any edits to support pi (and please do) yet we have self-censored ourselves from adding more weight for tau because we knew this issue would be brought up. And, yes we have asked for them there to do so. If they want to edit this page, then the weight here should reflect the true weight of the subject and how it reflect on reality. Not like it currently is with pi. Also, take a look at the link I gave with my "support" above it shows how many people are looking for tau. So, no, tau does not belong there. John W. Nicholson (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason this fringe article needs to have a state of scholarship before it could exist on wikipedia is because the topic is already included in an existing article; this is not a novel concept, just a minor tweak to an existing (and extremely well-documented) one. If there really is such a huge amount of interesting new and unique information about 𝜏, then you should have no problem convincing the folks at pi to include it there. The fact that you haven't speaks volumes to me. siafu (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

So maybe we should merge the pi article into number and only give pi/tau two sentences? --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You are being intentionally absurd now. Creating an article about 𝜏 would be somewhat analogous to creating a separate article about the Reduced Planck constant (note how that redirects to Planck constant). Certainly, the reduced Planck constant is commonly used in physics, much more commonly used in general than 𝜏, and yet the fact remains that it is simply the Planck constant divided by 2π. It has no properties unique from the Plank constant, and therefore does not merit a separate article. siafu (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It would also be somewhat analogous to creating separate articles for circle and semicircle, which we do. Or separate articles for radius and diameter, which we do. Look, I don't care whether we put all of Wikipedia into one extremely long single article. Two sentences isn't enough to adequately describe the tau/pi issue. If WP:WEIGHT won't allow it to be adequately described within the pi article, then it should have a separate article. You could even title it The Tau/Pi Issue I suppose, because I agree that any such article shouldn't be just a carbon copy of the pi article with all the formulas adjusted. It should focus on whether tau might or might not be a preferable math constant to use. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

What exactly would there be in an article about 𝜏 that is not already covered in those two sentences? 𝜏 = 2π. Someone has suggested using it because it simplifies some equations, but it hasn't caught on. That pretty much covers it.siafu (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is more like the article on 42 which talks about "Life, the Universe, and Everything". John W. Nicholson (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

break

It occurs to me that the article 4 (number) is superfluous, since it's simply 2 times 2. I say we merge the two. If you oppose, the argument "tau is simply two times pi" fails on the same grounds. Kleuske (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you read this article? Do you know how to merge it credibly into 2 (number)? 4 (number) lists tenths of properties of 4 that are not shared by 2, the first one being "Four is the smallest composite number". Can you cite one property that is not shared by π and 2π? D.Lazard (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have read it, I even edited part of it. Do you understand what this means: "The difference of a pair of unequal coterminal angles is integer multiple of τ."? It might not be clearly stated, but it is clearly a different property that 𝜏 has that π = 𝜏/2 does not have. John W. Nicholson (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've read them and pi is not defined as the ratio between radius and circumference. Tau, o.t.o.h., is. Apart from that, i fail to see the reason for all the commotion. How does an article on Tau spark such vehement opposition? I've been watching the debate for a number of months now, and my amazement has been steadily growing. Kleuske (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Not to be too nitpicky here, but all the integer multiples of 𝜏 are also integer multiples of π. I think the resistance to a 𝜏 article stems from the fact that the 𝜏 proponents, having lost an AfD and a previous RfC, are again trying to create an article on 𝜏 despite apparent consensus against it. Additionally, this advocacy, partially by apparent single purpose accounts, as well as the occasional comments about having to defeat the entrenched forces of conventional thinking (the "pi-ous"), sound an awful lot like something wikipedia is not about. siafu (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The AfD in question, which was launched, appropriately, on pi-day? The WP:Pointyness was dripping off, sorry to say. Shortly before it had renamed from Tau against pi debate (excellent title, btw) back to the strictly math title and subsequently gutted for not being proper math. Paint me paranoid, but there's some method in this madness...

Wikipedia is not a venue for mathematical discourse. Not pro-this, not contra that. Wikipedia is here as a repository of human knowledge, wether we like it or not. Debate had been stirred, sufficient attention had been drawn, the subject, therefore, was notable in it's own right, not on mathematical grounds, but on social ones. Perhaps the infamous Indiana Pi Bill should be this years target for Pi-Day celebrations. Subjects do not have to be mathematically correct or accepted to be notable. Kleuske (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

To Kleuske: Why such a vehement opposition? Simply because it is a POV fork, which is forbidden by WP policies. D.Lazard (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

What POV fork? Kleuske (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

In hindsight, i'm sad to note the author of the paper got into the debate (and the article) as much as he did. That muddied the waters no end. Kleuske (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

O, and... on the question "Can you cite one property that is not shared by π and 2π?"... two have been named. Kleuske (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the named properties are also unique to 𝜏. siafu (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Tau is the period of the sine and cosine. Pi isn't. Any angle plus tau radians is a coterminal angle of the original. This is not the case with pi. Tau does have properties that pi does not. However, the question is whether it is notable, not whether it has uses.Tazerdadog (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

break

@Sławomir Biały can you find "A peer reviewed source that is independent of the proponents of Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell discussing the matter in a detailed and serious manner." Note that this is not an example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, as this article is specifically allowed in WP:FRINGE. I think your definition is alittle tight. We have a peer reviewed paper independent of the subject which uses tau in the sense laid out in this article (which wasn't in the first discussion BTW), and we have plenty of news sources independent of the subject which discuss tau seriously and at length. If this doesn't confer notability, then tau is not notable. I believe it does. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that precisely is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and so irrelevant. Stick to this article. And that's not a peer reviewed paper in the sense of one published in a journal. It's a PhD thesis. It also isn't on τ, τ isn't explained it's just used. For notability an academic source needs to not only be peer reviewed but also it needs to cover the topic in some depth. That fails on both counts.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You miss my point. That article is specifically allowed and declared notable in WP:FRINGE. It would be WP:OCE if it was just a random article that was found somewhere. That source was supposed to show the highest level of academic scholarship tau has been found in. If you want a source that covers it in more depth, I would recommend looking at our news articles, which are numerous and extensive. Your standard for a source is too high and rigid, and I would suggest that the sources we have clearly indicate notability under a mainstream definition of notability. Per WP:GNG, "Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". All of our news articles qualify here. There is no requirement for peer-reviewed journals. Even so, I tried to give you an academic source. Either I am completely missing your point (a distinct possibility), or your bar for notability is ridiculously high and outside of the mainstream.Tazerdadog (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That, the 'ThibautPaper', was the reference in your comment that I was replying to. As a student paper for a PhD it's not a good academic source. The news items are not significant, in-depth coverage. None discuss the arguments for it in depth, or go into any mathematical detail. At best they supply information for the popular culture section, but the bulk of the article has no proper sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Information Divergence is more chi squared distributed than the chi squared statistics. 2012. International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Would the article be notable as a pop culture phenomenon rather than a mathematics article in your opinion? Tazerdadog (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

break

I'd like to try to reply to the substance of the original question. A peer-reviewed source that treats this topic in detail would, I think, clinch this article for me. But I would like to elaborate on my reasons for suggesting this, and to give an indication of the kinds of other sources that might satisfy me even though it is difficult to pin these down in advance of seeing them. My chief concern is that there is really nothing to say about a topic that hasn't been seriously addressed by anyone but the proponents of a fringe idea. As I stated in my oppose vote, my interpretation of WP:FRINGE is that we need a source that, independently of the proponents of τ, treats the subject in a serious and detailed manner. That could then be a basis for an article, giving our pillars (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V) a foundation from which to build. But without such a source, I don't see how an article on tau can give a realistic and informative perspective of its prominence in mathematics. On the one hand, for instance, we obviously can't base an article on a fringe theory exclusively on the writings of the proponents of the theory. But on the other hand, how can we say that no textbooks use tau if no secondary source makes this observation for us? This kind of synthetic claim is expressly forbidden under the NOR policy. Quite simply, the scientific establishment has remained silent on the topic of tau. This, to me, is an insurmountable impasse. And so I think this should be a basic litmus test of a fringe theory: have members of "the majority view" felt the fringe theory significantly notable to comment on it. I would say that this is not the case here, and so it is not possible to write an encyclopedia article from the sources currently at hand. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you consider Mathhorizons a "peer-reviewed source"? I ask because it is used in ref. 6. of the article. And, I don't think you have read the Mathhorizons article because it, Mathhorizons, is part of the "scientific establishment." To claim that it is not or that it's just an opinion is ignoring the place and person cited as to gaming the system as to forbid a fringe article from existing. This is not a NPOV. I don't think BBC News is in the business of supporting tau or pi and it is used in 15. (and there are many more). As for "have members of "the majority view" felt the fringe theory significantly notable to comment on it", see ref. 1. The fact that I am asking you to please see 1. indicates that you have not looked at these cites and are just giving out the view of a knee-jerk reaction. John W. Nicholson (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is clearly an opinion billet (section "...aftermath" of the journal) that engage only its author. If it has been reviewed, it is certainly only on an editorial basis, not on a scientific basis. In any case, it is clearly written by a tau proponent and is absolutely not "a source that, independently of the proponents of τ, treats the subject in a serious and detailed manner". D.Lazard (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

@D.Lazard and Sławomir Biały: So, you would have to agree that it is a WP:FRINGE article qualified source, as to the intent of the article and used in the article in the proper place. Correct? John W. Nicholson (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. D.Lazard (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

So, are you then ignoring the place and person cited as to gaming the system? If, not please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddwarf2956 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You are reminded to assume good faith. No one has given you any cause to assume that they are acting and bad faith. Such accusations are certainly not productive to this discussion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Reference 1 is a news piece in the star. It is not a reliable scientific source. Such things are discussed in WP:FRINGE as sources to avoid ("slow news day" sources). The Mathhorizons source is an opinion piece, that is only a reliable source for the opinions of its author, a tau proponent. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, you are trying to not look at what is wrote in the article and looking at unused extra cites in the talk section above. If you look at the article, as you should do in the first place, and see that Cavers, Michael wrote "The Pi Manifesto" which is another WP:FRINGE article qualified source as to the intent of the article and used in the article in the proper place. Correct?. John W. Nicholson (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what "WP:FRINGE article qualified source" is supposed to mean. Certainly, we can source the opinions of tau proponents six ways to Sunday. But we don't have any reliable secondary sources placing these into a perspective that accurately reflects the historical, cultural, and scientific significance of the tau movement. That's the whole problem. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Genuine request for clarification here -- I've been wondering what precisely is meant by the "independently of the proponents of τ" requirement. Does this actually mean that if Stephen Abbott had written pretty much the exact same piece in Math Horizons, but indicated he wasn't really convinced, it would count? I'm not aware of any proselytizing he has done for tau. Being co-editor of Math Horizons, he occasionally writes columns for it, so he chose to write this one about tau and said he thought it was a good idea. If everyone in the world thinks something is a good idea, is the idea banned from Wikipedia because there's nobody "independent" left to write about it? --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

An issue for me is the lack of any balancing perspective. Somehow a neutral article would need to make clear that, despite advocacy, the tau idea has not made it into the mainstream. That is, it is still a fairly fringe notion (although one that is gaining some traction). We don't really have good sources for this because no one besides people arguing for it seem to have bothered to take it seriously. Obviously, if the whole world thought it would be a good idea, then we'd have lots of secondary sources on the subject, much like the current article pi, so that's wouldn't be an issue. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I would point you to Cavers' "The Pi Manifesto, and the article by Telegraph India, both of which are heavily cited in the article. Also, if you think the article as written is anything but WP:NPOV, I encourage you to edit it, so we can come to a consensus position.Tazerdadog (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That very article states quite plainly that no one takes the tau proposal seriously. Doesn't this bolster the case against having an article? Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well let's be honest here, it is more feasible than the colonization of Europa which has a page. But, this source and other ones would be a good one for stating the high level of doubt on being used currently expressed by mathematician. Feel free to make an edit to bring on the consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I must admit that it's a bit alarming we have that article. I'm not sure what that proves though. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Not only do we have an article on colonization of Europa, we have one on terraforming it. I think the point is to show that your interpretation of notability is significantly tighter than the one that seems to be in general use on wikipedia, and that feasibility is not required for inclusion on Wikipedia. However, this argument is clearly WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That's quite a synecdoche! You are extrapolating a principle of "general use on wikipedia" from a pair of very questionable examples: a cherry-picked sample of less than 0.0001% of the articles on Wikipedia. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

less than 0.4176 articles. I see . The only point, and I freely admit this was not the best way to do it, was to show that feasibility is not necessary to be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. These two were only extreme and handy examples, but the point is those articles are representative of a large number of others.Tazerdadog (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

One or the other of us clearly misplaced a decimal point. At any rate, yes it's true that we have lots of rubbish lying around, and there is no question that you can dig up many articles that do not even meet basic standards of inclusion. In fact, it used to be so bad that Special:Random could be relied upon to deliver problematic articles on command. Thankfully, that is becoming less and less true. But it isn't our policy here to base our standards of inclusion on the lowest common denominator. Just because an article appears on Wikipedia does not mean that it is community approved. Articles, old and new, are deleted on a daily basis. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of Special:Random, you might be interested in seeing some of my analysis below. I agree, that whether an article on some Europa thing exists has exactly zero bearing on whether an article on Tau should exist. The one, sole, and only point was to try to show that feasibility is not a prerequisite for suitability for inclusion. I would also be willing to place a small wager that neither of the above articles will be deleted in the near future. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't rewrite RfC summaries during discussion

Editors should not rewrite the question mid discussion because they feel the discussion is going against them. The question is clear enough. Bring better arguments, such as better sources, and persuade editors. Maybe enough will be persuaded to change their !vote. The question as it is is perfectly clear and the comments and !votes should be respected, not pushed to one side.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, let the question stand or fail, if you want to add a third position besides support or oppose feel free. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, in this edit an attempt was made to introduce new rules and a new !vote to the RfC. Don't do this. Let the RfC run its course. Editors have !voted in the straw poll already, and can't be expected to revisit the page to add their !vote to new polls. Also the edit included other editors comments with no explanation or attribution. Absent a few narrow exceptions editors should never edit other editors comments without clear reasons which should be given. Even just copying them is disruptive: if the editor does not know or notice they are copied they might miss replies to their comments.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree here, this isn't changing the original question, it's asking what to do if/when this goes down as "No consensus". I fail to see how what I did could be considered disruptive, but I will refrain from re-adding until we have a couple more opinions. This does not change the RfC, it merely asks what the next step is. I fail to see how merely copying relevant comments in context and intact, without a single letter altered is disruptive. However, I will wait for more opinions instead of re-adding. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This is basically a rerun of the merge discussion for Tau (2π), referenced above. The previous consensus was to merge Tau (2π) to Pi. If there is a clear !vote against creating a new Tau (2π) article, or no consensus to overturn that then things stay as they are, Tau (2π) merged to Pi. And given the two discussions on this in the last twelve months that's how they should stay for the immediate future. Holding !vote after !vote until you get a result you like is disruptive. Threatening to take it to the mediation committee if you don't get the result you want is also disruptive.

The guideline most relevant to this is perhaps WP:STICK. After a discussion, especially after multiple discussions, if it doesn't go the way you want than accept it, walk away from the dispute and find something else on the encyclopaedia to work on. Too much effort has been expended on this already, we don't need yet another !vote to prolong it further.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No, WP:STICK is not related because new sources have emerged since last year and new editors are voting. However, WP:WL does apply for those who are only giving their opinions without any positive constructive action and being disruptive. John W. Nicholson (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Also disruptive is deleting peoples comments which are intended to make an issue clear or to help decide an issue which lacks a clear question or answer. John W. Nicholson (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

WP precendent in another article

This situation seems to bear many similarities to the article Campaign for "santorum" neologism. In that case there was a publicity campaign to promote a new word. The new meaning was not truly in use in English, but there was a well-documented publicity campaign. After very extensive discussions, the WP community decided to keep the article, but change it's name so readers were clearly informed that the new word was not officially in use, yet the underlying campaign was notable enough for a WP article. Applying this to tau: since there are no serious math sources that treat tau as a valid math concept, perhaps the article could be named Proposal for tau (math constant), and the article could focus on the Quixotic campaign? --Noleander (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Noleander, in mathematics some of us are pretty snotty about terminology when dealing with terms with precise meanings and concepts that deal with precise relationships. Surely when you say that "...since there are no serious math sources that treat tau as a valid math concept..." you could have tried harder? Anyone would think that you thought that tau is an invalid concept, or that you think all <ahem> serious math sources think the concept of 2pi is invalid? In what way might it be invalid? Did you think multiplication of a transcendental real number by two is invalid, or even arbitrary? You shock me. Is every concept not already treated by serious math sources necessarily invalid or even uninteresting? Perhaps you would like to reword your proposal? Remember that the situation with santorum (you should excuse the four-letter word!) was precisely the reverse of this one: Santorum was at that time a word no one really wanted, looking for a referent that in the event no one really needed. Here we had referent that some people wanted and a lot of people had known and worked with under the expression 2pi or the like, and someone wanted a symbol for that referent. That is not in the slightest the same thing and not at all a valid isomorphism. Hm? JonRichfield (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

So Noleander says tau is like santorum. Gee, thanks for your support, Noleander. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

(Not sure if there is sarcasm intended?) I was just saying that WP had another article that was about a publicity campaign, where the underlying item being promoted was not genuinely accepted. The WP community ended up approving it only if the article was limited to the campaign, not the underlying item. Whether or not the tau campaign has sufficient reliable sources to be notable as a campaign is still an open question. --Noleander (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a valid and helpful point. Just not a flattering analogy if taken literally. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I heard a similar analogy used a few days ago with a guy saying if he was fly he would land on the woman he was talking with (he was trying to say she was sweet after a fly did land on her.) -- not good. By the way, I am wondering if seeing that santorum is still being used as a word would make it officially a word if the 3rd party officials, see the use on this page? It makes it funnier if you think about it. I can see the announcement now. John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting comparison. Even if tau is not notable as a constant (I think it is, but it's thin), the movement itself is likely notable.Tazerdadog (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree to this point on one level. And, I also think it is a notable as a constant (the periods of sine and cosine alone makes this constant notable in my book). But, how to state it on the page? I mean there is a lot of "we say, they say" with these two constants and so it seems some that and the math behind it will come up. And, I also feel that it should come up. That is why I think using WP:fringe would work. John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• That article has plenty of reliable sources specifically noting the campaign with sources specifically dedicated to the campaign; pieces mentioning in passing that Tau is pushed by the person who came up with it is not similar, not by a long shot. Saying that the Santorum article creates a precedent for this article just feels like an attempt to skirt around notability; this article doesn't somehow become excempt from WP:N just because some other article is actually notable, because that "similarity" falls on its face when its actually examined. - SudoGhost 02:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not an attempt to skirt WP:N, it is asking if the movement might be notable even if the constant is not. I have added another option at the top to this effect.Tazerdadog (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Without reliable sources showing such, the answer is absolutely not. No sources have been shown that would even begin to suggest that it would be notable for such a thing. Notability cannot be crafted from nothing; sources must demonstrate it. - SudoGhost 03:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Try #45 above for notability of tau as a pop-culture movement.Tazerdadog (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would that suddenly make it notable when it didn't previously? The very first sentence of that reference sums up how notable that is; anything can be "a day" on the internet, that isn't notable, when even the reference starts the article off by saying this, that doesn't speak well for the subject. - SudoGhost 03:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying CNN is not a notable 3rd party to this? Are you saying that they are not a news organization? Are you saying that there are not other news organizations which covered tau? Is even referencing 6. Stephen Abbott opinion in Math Horizons is not good enough as to show "as a pop-culture movement" tau exist? I have this feeling that everything, and anything which is brought forward will be considered no good, period. Clearly, that is totally wrong headed. John W. Nicholson (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have to start a sentence with "are you saying..." then the answer is probably no, especially when nothing like that was suggested, and saying that "other news organizations covered tau" seems to suggest that you haven't actually read any of the reasons why the previous consensus determined the subject to be non-notable: those kinds of sources are sufficient for verification, but are not sufficient for notability. Just because it appears in a news article doesn't mean it's suitable for a Wikipedia article. That's not my opinion, that's Wikipedia policy. "Anything which is brought forward will be considered no good" is pretty accurate when the only things that are being brought forward are more of the same crap, when you pile up crap I don't know how that would suddenly become anything other than a large pile of crap. A CNN article saying "There's all kinds of weird stuff on the internet, there's a day for everything, like this thing that's been rejected!" doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article. My advice would be to look for actual references for the article, ones that would establish notability for the subject, because that is something that is sorely lacking. Trying to spin it so that "the movement" somehow carries the notability for the article isn't going to work because the "movement" isn't notable either, and notability cannot be side-skirted around, and if you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel for notability then that should be a hint that the subject isn't notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia as a standalone article. - SudoGhost 05:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that there are enough publications out there to stimulate surprised readers to wonder how seriously to take the matter, means that it is more than notable enough for an article. Not only peer-reviewed polywater, N-ray, cold-fusion, vibration-impressed water molecules and similar bandwagons deserve exposure to demolition or even evaluation just to suit your personal coolly balanced authority and taste. And no amount of wikilawyering can change the fact that citations only have to serve the needs of readers for verification, not for stone tablets of peer-reviewed infallibility from mount Sinararat. JonRichfield (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

But that is not an argument for having a separate article, rather than using the pop culture section of the article for pi. Surely the latter place is still able to explain how seriously to take the matter. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Carl, if you will forgive, I find that a rather curious line of thought. I grant that it should be possible to fuse the two subjects in one article, and if the author were willing to enter the same material in a suitable form, then why not? Not counting of course the luminous-salivating pack baying for his blasphemous blood, and using the charge of blasphemy to justify all their bullying POV and WL excesses and deletions. But then we think a bit further. First of all, if anyone wanted to look up the subject, he might not know that it really is in the pi article. Ah... but wait a bit; why not add a redir? Then everyone is happy, right? Anyone wanting to find pi info could find it by entering pi and anyone wanting Tau info could get it by entering either pi or Tau? And all the problems are solved? In exactly the way that they would be solved if we had the same material in two articles instead of one, as currently proposed? But with two separate articles, anyone uninterested in Tau (most readers, I think you would agree) would be able to read a more compact article without being encumbered or confused by the Tau addition, surely? Those who were interested could easily link across via "see also" etc. To summarise, Carl, most readers about pi shouldn't have any interest in Tau, but most tau readers should have an interest in pi. Of course, if you want to rub everyone's nose in both topics, no doubt you have a point, but otherwise you lose me. Remember that pi is a pretty large subject with a large and growing article. Would you really wish to inflate it to no better point than that a lot of people don't like tau any better than the proposer of the new article, but that he had something useful to say about it, which he was happy to place out of the way of those uninterested? JonRichfield (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a redirect, and a link from the page Tau, so if someone just types "tau" they will be led to the article. My belief is that this is sufficient. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes Carl, there is a redirect, and a link from the page Tau. Can you tell me where it is redirected towards and where you end up? John W. Nicholson (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The link is at Tau#Mathematics, the last entry, after the more common and well known uses of the letter in mathematics. It of course redirects to Pi.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Almost correct. Try redirects to Pi#In popular culture and left clueless as that you are looking at an article about pi. With the biases of pi, because there is no room for any talk about tau (pi is in my opinion is too big to be adding a fringe article to it), and tau should not have be merged there in the first place (it is a notable fringe article), there is not as much information as the current article at question. John W. Nicholson (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

break

The policy that you cited (wikipedia is not a newspaper) says that we should ensure that tau is not journalism, a news report, a Who's who, or a diary. I fail to see how this article could be considered any of these.Tazerdadog (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You didn't read the relevant part then. It also says that just because something is "in the news" that doesn't mean that it belongs on Wikipedia. Sources like that can be used as sources, certainly, but notability is more than just "can we verify something." It has to matter, and this subject does not, outside of these types of news sources. - SudoGhost 07:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

is this:

However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

what you were meaning. While I don't think there is any doubt that tau is verifiable, I would go the step further to say that the sources above demonstrate notability. Again, I quote the general notability guideline: Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I think the above references satisfy all of those criteria, don't you?Tazerdadog (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What I was specifically talking about was the part that says "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Just because there are a few "look at this quirky day!" articles doesn't mean it is appropriate for an encyclopedia, that's the point. You can "go the step further" and claim that these sources demonstrate notability, but Wikipedia policy and previous consensus saying otherwise, so you making that claim doesn't hold much weight. WP:GNG is not a guarantee, it is a presumption (read the "presumed" part, it's just as important as the others), and that presumption does not pan out when you look at what Wikipedia policy says concerning the types of sources that this article has. This topic is not notable enough to warrant a separate article on Wikipedia based on the types of sources present in the article, because these are exactly the types of sources that WP:NOTNEWSPAPER points out. That was the consensus the previous RfC reached, and nothing has been presented that would change that, it's just more of the same type of sources. - SudoGhost 09:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

We have significant number of non-newspaper sources. This, combined with the amount and persistence of the news articles seems to me to demonstrate notability clearly. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This is your opinion. To repeat it ad nauseam is not the good way to convince the editors that have the opposite opinion, and, for the moment, are the majority. D.Lazard (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What is he to do to avoid repeating it ad nauseam in the face of an avalanche of irrelevant and hostilely repetitive claims in denial of what he has said? The point of the article is to present to anyone who might wonder about the status, basis and support for topics related to tau, a reasonable perspective on the matter. He even has been modest, reasonable, and remarkably patient about it. Now you jump in and shout at him for going on being patient in the face of persistent and irrelevant abuse? Look for example at the statements about his (horrors!) academically deficient citations. The fact that they are not academically respectable is totally irrelevant; they are there for the benefit of readers who wish to inspect and verify sources, not to establish the unassailability of their content. Would you demand the removal of articles on say, ghosts just because the citable sources include no peer-reviewed sightings? What then makes ghosts notable enough for an article? The fact that every time you hear a floorboard creak at night you hide under the blankets? JonRichfield (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not a very good example, given that the ghost article has no problem meeting notability requirements; one look at the sources shows that. That article has much more than slow news day newspaper sources supporting it. The floorboard thing is a rather unnecessary red herring, and if that's all you have to support this article that speaks volumes, and likely not in the way you intended. It's not a notable subject, not yet at any rate. - SudoGhost 04:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Time for an AfD?

The RfC process doesn't seem quite right for this particular issue. Based on initial results, it looks like it would get closed as "no consensus" which doesn't resolve the situation one way or another. The AfD process has a few benefits compared to RfC process: (1) AfD will bring in uninvolved editors that have fresh views; (2) it will focus solely on the notability issue; and (3) it will have a definite outcome of either Keep vs Delete&Merge. --Noleander (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• There's already a consensus based on a previous RfC that this does not warrant a separate article. Short of consensus changing, this does not belong in the mainspace and I'm not seeing any "no consensus" here, but rather a few support comments based on problematic reasoning or a brief "it's notable" comment without any explanation and without addressing the issues brought up. AfD is not the place to circumvent an RfC, and the purpose of AfD isn't to vindicate an article's existence when your preferred outcome isn't reached, because that seems to border on forum shopping. - SudoGhost 21:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I apologize: I did not intend to suggest that forum shopping was appropriate. I was just speculating that if this RfC were closed as "no consensus", then that is a fuzzy resolution. If that were to happen, an AfD might be a good process to utilize aftewards because it is more black-and-white. Using an RfC to get permission to create an article is rather unusual. AfD is attended by lots of editors that are experts in Notability, and many of whom are willing to look for sources. --Noleander (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think your suggestion of making the article and title more definitely about the "tau campaign" might be the way to go. Suppose Tazerdadog made the necessary tweaks and then published it under a title like "Tauism" or "Campaign for new math constant tau". Then have an immediate AfD. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• The AfD would be immediately closed and the move to article space reverted; there is an ongoing RfC and that would be forum shopping, and the "tau campaign" has no reliable sources showing any notability for such a movement any more than tau does; notability cannot be skirted around, and that's the only reason to try to change the subject. Making it about a "tau campaign" wouldn't change the fact that the sources are still problematic and do not support such a subject. - SudoGhost 21:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There's also the fact that the answer you're looking for isn't really within the scope of an AfD; the previous RfC concluded that the sources currently int he article weren't sufficient enough for a separate article, and that it should be mentioned at Pi instead. AfDs have been closed as "keep" before and then still almost immediately afterwards merged into and/or redirected to a more appropriate article, so if AfD is an attempt to "validate" a separate article, it wouldn't work. - SudoGhost 22:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD is for Articles. This is not, in WP's narrow definition, an article. It's a userspace draft. These can be deleted via MfD but that seems unlikely to happen. Drafts in userspace are usually only deleted if there is no chance they will become an article: attack pages, patent nonsense, stale pages that haven't been edited for a long time. I would say that no such reason applies here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not certain what an AfD would achieve. I would propose a different remedy. Allow someone completely uninvolved to assess the arguments and evidence—someone with extensive experience with things like WP:FRINGE in addition to our pillars—and then rule on the matter. This is, in principle, how RfC's are supposed to close. But in practice, usually votes are counted, and arguments are assessed by the relative strengths of the word salads contained therein. What I am proposing is that instead the closing admin could be in effect allowed to cast a supervote on the matter, and so to take on a greater role in establishing the consensus. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• From what I see, we are divided based basically on !vote lines whether an AfD is better. As I don't see overwhelming consensus either way, lets let this play out. An AFD can just be appealed to deletion review or an RFC, so I'd like to get this over with once and for all. AFC is another option, but I'm opposed to it on the same grounds.Tazerdadog (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• The "once and for all" part won't happen. Tau clearly isn't going away. Witness the recent Numberphile videos (one, two, three), the upcoming Oxford seminar, the recent addition of tau to the Processing programming language, the use of tau in a recently published SAMS programming book. It's just a question of how many more Groundhog-Day-like RfCs we'll all have to suffer through before the next book about pi is written. (There's no way it won't discuss tau.) --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Bad Phrasing. I wanted a result with some degree of finality, so that this discussion isn't repeated in two months. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• @Sławomir Biały I agree. However, I would like to tweak this a little. What I propose is that if the final tally is at all close (say neither side has a 2:1 majority), then we ask 3 or 5 random uninvolved admins to vote their opinion. I would also further say that I would rather see a clean not notable than a messy no consensus. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Counting votes is discouraged per WP:NOTVOTE and similar guidelines. The decision should be made based on the strength of the arguments, and how consistent they are with WP policies. The process for closing an RfC is described in WP:RFC and it points to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure (which is heavily backlogged). It is very rare to get 2 or 3 admins to participate in a closure, but it is done occasionally. --Noleander (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

... and I agree with you that "... I would rather see a clean not notable [or notable] than a messy no consensus. " --Noleander (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

An unweighted vote tally is inappropriate in this case. Users who voted "oppose" are typically experienced editors who have made significant contributions to mathematics articles. Users who voted "support" are typically single-issue editors who have made little if any contribution to mathematics articles. Among editors who participate meaningfully in the project, there is a "clean" consensus opposing a separate tau page. Tkuvho (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I cannot but applaud your insistence on a weighted tally in any disagreement in which any view of yours is under threat; please demonstrate your mathematical and editing dominance, not to mention your mastery of tournament theory, by proposing the appropriate weighting strategy. The rest of us among your groupies would applaud heartily and ignore your curious line of reasoning in connecting the mathematical nature of the topic with its relevance to notability or the nature of the subject under discussion. This said, having personally expressed support for the article, though I also expressed (and still do) disdain for the substance of the topic content itself. I similarly would vote for the notability of a suitably written article on say, homeopathy, though personally I regard the subject as not only fringe, but also nonsensical, a favourite topic of parasitic quacks, and logically dismissible (which is a rare distinction in empirical as opposed to formal topics such as maths). Sorry if I lose you there; can't win them all! JonRichfield (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the knowlege of experts. But when you say " Among editors who participate meaningfully in the project" are you referring to the WP Mathematics project? The only special powers that project members have is to decide which articles to include within their project umbrella (and the rank/weight). WP project members have no special authority by virtue of their contributions or editing history or project membership. Besides, the math specialty is not very relevant if this article is considered simply to be documenting a quixotic (perhaps even humorous?) effort to establish an alternative to pi. --Noleander (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you view some of their videos. They are full of odious claims that all the problems of learning trig are due to the fact that all the textbooks are using the wrong constant. Such a claim is unfounded and sensationalistic, but unfortunately seems to have attracted media attention. This issue is closely related to mathematics education. For this reason, editor experience in the area of mathematics is relevant. Tkuvho (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't seen the videos. The point I was trying to make is that, in the past, there were incidents when editors lied about their credentials, e.g. Essjay controversy, so the general rule is that we should not take editors' claims of expertise at face value. So, if 20 editors claim they have PhDs in math and they all think article X should be deleted, we should ignore their claim to have the degree when assessing the deletion decision. --Noleander (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• Using tau instead of pi is a very reasonable idea, but let's just suppose that a grassroots movement arose for some idea that all of us agreed was pointless mathematically. (Make something up -- Whenever the number 473 appears anywhere, it should be written as just the symbol ☎.) And it turned out not to just be a fad or joke-of-the-month. Nearly 3 years after the idea's introduction, its following continued to grow. As Noleander points out, math expertise telling us that it's an unproductive idea is really irrelevant to the question of notability. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• That would be assuming that there were suitable references that could establish the notability of the subject; this article does not have that, whether about tau or "the movement" that doesn't seem to actually exist outside of a sentence or two in newspapers. I agree that whether it is unproductive or not is irrelevant, but that is also a red herring; it isn't notable, that's the issue. - SudoGhost 00:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• While I agree that a "math expertise telling us that it's an unproductive idea is really irrelevant to the question of notability" from the stand point of Wikipedia, I also think that if that same expert went and had that opinion published by say MAA about tau stateing that it was "an unproductive idea" I would find it notable and able to be used as a source in the article. (The best I have seen, by the way, is in the defense of pi is the Pi Manifesto.) My point here, is to get you to see that with a fringe article the level of "notability" is lower than with a peer reviewed paper sourced article. Yes, I agree that even fringe articles needs a level of "notability", but it is also clear that the level with the tau article can not be treated same level as the one that pi working at with the peer review support. (And, we don't want a fringe article mixing in with a peer review sourced article.) So, we need a fair method to keep peer reviewed sourced articles seperate from fringe articles which can take on the support from notable opinions from MAA and cited by a reliable source. Sources that are use like at this one http://mathdl.maa.org/mathDL/?pa=mathNews&sa=view&newsId=1154 . Note that I am not saying the MAA article as the useful source, but the source KSL is useful and is linked to http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=16237037&s_cid=rss-960 . In other words, If the the source of the source is notable to true "math expert" editors then it is notable enough for fringe because there is a level of OCE and/or peer review screening at this "math expert" source. Which means, the KSL source only holds about the same notable level of exceptance as a good fringe opinion, but that is good enough for this fringe article because if it is cited by a reliable source then it is most likely notable at the fringe level. (P.S. I added comments regarding 'fringe science' as to try to place tau in the most neutral manner as posible. Is the comments clear?) John W. Nicholson (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I see tau is now being taught at UC San Diego.

FWIW, I see tau is now being taught at UC San Diego. Here's the handout formula sheet for a Calculus III class there: www.math.ucsd.edu/~bhummon/10C/pdfs/formula.pdf. Also note the triangles on the third page use tau exclusively. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It is hard to conclude from that source that tau is "being taught" at UCSD. In that 2-page "formula sheet" uses tau, but is the sheet from a professor? or from teacher's assistant? If from a professor: Can we be certain the professor endorsed it & gave it to students? --Noleander (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If you poke around www.math.ucsd.edu/~bhummon/10C/, you'll see the instructor says he made up the formula sheet, and tau is indeed on the homeworks and the exams. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Quote from [1] "Convert the following angles to radians. Please write your answer in terms of τ . We defined τ in class: τ = 2π = 360◦" John W. Nicholson (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The course actually appears to use tau instead of pi. They do teach that 𝜏 = 2π, but everywhere else I see, they write things in terms of tau. This is a course taught by an accredited math department at a major university. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The course has adopted the standard Hughes-Hallet text which is in terms of π. So you seem to be arguing form a webpage and lecture notes for a course - both of which are extremely primary sources - and trying to extract a broader trend from them, while ignoring the more reliable sources, like textbooks, used by the same course. If there was a textbook by a major publishing company that used τ that would be compelling of a broader trend, but a formula sheet, lecture notes, or a practice exam are not. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Not just a practice exam. The actual exams and homework assignments for the course use tau, not pi. Learn tau or flunk the course. Interestingly, you don't even have to know pi for the exams or homeworks. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The exercise in not on the official web site of the university, it is on the personal page of a teaching visitor, who has recently defended his master thesis. He is very far to be "accredited" to represent his "accredited department". The only thing for which this link is reliable is to judge the quality of this unexperienced teacher. D.Lazard (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about, "not on the official web site of the university, it is on the personal page..."? Those are the exams and homework assignments for an actual UCSD mathematics course that actual UCSD students are taking this semester. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is right - the instructor does use τ on the exams. But as I pointed out the book they are using is entirely in terms of π, so it's not as if the course is entirely in terms of τ. And in any case this is at best evidence that τ might be becoming notable, not that it actually is notable. Exams for a course are not reliable sources for establishing notability. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

(joke) From the students point of view: As with any exam, if the instructor test it, then it is notable.

(serious) So, does this mean we need to change the history of radians? "The term radian first appeared in print on 5 June 1873, in examination questions set by James Thomson (brother of Lord Kelvin) at Queen's College, Belfast."

Looks notable for a fringe source to me. John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

John, let's face it. These guys aren't going to be satisfied until we raise Euler from the dead and get him to endorse tau. You got a good digging shovel we can use? Bring a pencil and paper too. They may insist Euler actually write something about it that will pass peer review. Ehhh... better bring two shovels. All of Euler's peers are dead too. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm flummoxed, how many articles in wikipedia would be notable under their standards (a peer-reviewed article, and nothing less). I hit random article 10 times to get a rough estimate.

The articles, with my analysis of them.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Moragodage Christopher Walter Pinto. 2 sources, one from InfoLanka.asia, which appears to be a news site, and a book review by the island (editorial review only). Verdict-Not notable according to them. Saint-Laurent-de-Cognac (French Commune) Sole source: http://www.insee.fr/en/, which is not a peer-reviewed journal. Good luck finding a peer reviewed journal talking about this. Verdict-Not notable according to them. Indian Institute of Rural Management 2 references to http://www.iirm.ac.in/, which is not indepentent of the promoters and promulgators of the Indian Institute of Rural Management. Verdict-Not notable according to them. (and maybe according to me too) Saint-Cirq-Lapopie - ANnother French commune. sole reference is to this extrenal link, which is not peer-reviewed. :[2]. Verdict-Not notable according to them. J. R. Eyerman, a photojournalist. 3 references. The first is a broken link. The second is a piece published by LIFE magazine, which does not appear to be peer-reviewed. The third is an LA times obituary consisting of 6 sentences. Verdict-Not notable according to them. Count per Liter 2 references, both to scholarly articles. First reference: Peer reviewed scholarly article that does not seem to adress the topic as more than a label for an axis, as it is on ppeline deposits. (I could be wrong here, not my area of expertise) Second reference: on ancient maize horticulture, not mentioning (that I saw) Counts per liter. Verdict-Not notable according to them, as depsite the sources,they say there is insufficient depth. Normand Léveillé (Ice hockey player) References-seven [3], a hockey prospects site. [4], the page of a site he founded, so therefore is not independant of the promoters and promulgators. Several non-web sources I cannot evaluate. ^ Canada. Parliament. House of Commons - House of Commons debates: 2005 Issues 78-90 "Now, the Centre Normand Léveillé is established on the SaintFrancois River in Drummondville. It welcomes individuals of all ages with a light to moderate disability, be it physical or intellectual. I encourage you to discover this man ..." ^ Repère Volume 1 Services documentaires Multimedia, Bibliothèque nationale du Québec - 2005 "Centre Normand-Léveillé (Québec) - Jacqueline Simoneau Normand Léveillé: un homme de coeur et de courage. — Capital santé, 7, no 9. juil.-août 2005, p. 38-40. Portrait et parcours de cet ex-joueur de hockey professionnel ..." ^ www.efb.net "1 mars 2005 – Un arrêt en plein vol raconte la vie de Normand Léveillé, ex-joueur des Bruins de Boston, foudroyé sur la patinoire du Pacific Coliseum à ..." ^ Desjardins, Thérèse, Un arrêt en plein vol : Normand Léveillé l'ex-joueur de la LNH se ..." Léveillé, Normand, Centre Normand-Léveillé. Fondation - 2005 ^ Weekes, Don (2003). The Best and Worst of Hockey's Firsts: The Unofficial Guide. Canada: Greystone Books. pp. 240. ISBN 9781550548600. Verdict-Plausible notability, but would be wholly dependent on the print sources. Hootenanny (appears to be a scottish word for musical party) First reference: [5]. I see nothing referring to a hootenanny. Second reference [6] Very good reference from my perspective, however this is not peer-reviewed, so no dice. Third reference [7]. One small paragraph at the bottom. Not peer reviewed, so this does not establish notability according to them. Fourth reference is a broken link. Fifth Reference [8]. The word is defined and used in passing. This is not significant coverage. Sixth reference [9]. I fail to see what this has to do with a hootenanny, and am probably going to remove this as link spam. Seventh reference [10]. Hootenanny is included in the title of one of the songs. Eighth and final reference: Unable to access. Verdict:Not Notable by their standards. Guarapiranga (a resevoir in Sao Paolo.) Reference one SOLIA, Mariângela; FARIA, Odair Marcos; ARAÚJO, Ricardo. Mananciais da região metropolitana de São Paulo. São Paulo: Sabesp, 2007. I have no access to this. Reference two:[11] From a news agency. Not peer-reviewed, so not notable. Reference three: Broken link. Verdict-Plausible notability, but would be wholly dependent on the print source. Thomas Hussey (bishop) Reference one: [12]. Not peer-reviewed. Reference two: Normoyle, M.C. (1976). A Tree is Planted: The Life and Times of Edmund Rice. Congregation of Christian Brothers. pp. 49. found online here [13]. I found no mention of the subject. Verdict-Not Notable.

That makes 0 clearly notable topics, 2 plausibly notable subjects based on print sources I had no access to, and 8 clearly not notable articles by your standards. This shows how far that definition of notability is from mainstream here on wikipedia. Tau is clearly more notable than most of those topics. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

If you hit "random article" you're very likely to find an article with something wrong with it; Wikipedia is a work in progress. WP:OSE exists for a reason, just because other articles exist that may or may not be notable does not affect this article and its need to be notable. If you feel those articles have issues, you are more than welcome to improve those articles, by either looking for sources or bringing up your concerns at the given article talk pages. - SudoGhost 05:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You missed the point. Tazerdadog didn't say he found anything wrong with having those articles. People looking for information about those topics will be glad to find them. That's what makes Wikipedia so great compared to a normal encyclopedia, not that it's free or that you can edit it. Most people can afford $70 a year for an online subscription to Encyclopedia Britannica. And to be blunt, the articles there are a lot better-written. What draws people to Wikipedia is that it has articles about everything. Every obscure topic you can imagine. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

In what way does other articles possibly having issues affect this article? It doesn't. Wikipedia does not and should not have articles about everything, so if that's the point you're trying to make, then I did indeed "miss" it, because it's flat out wrong. - SudoGhost 08:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Never noticed it before, but the article about everything is actually surprisingly empty. There's much more content in Wikipedia's article about nothing. Seriously though, my "everything" obviously didn't mean literally everything. It meant much, much more than a traditional encyclopedia. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, the "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything" already has a page too. Namely, 42_(number). John W. Nicholson (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. This discussion piqued my interest, and from an outsider's point of view (artist, not math-nerd), it seems pretty pointless. I left a comment in the "Pi" discussion page, and I'll restate it here (didn't find a better place, hope it's good):

A) I skimmed (read first two parts, looked at diagrams well, then scrolled slowly to bottom) the article - I find it brings OR and many "citation needed" affirmations;

B) I believe "Tau" deserves a page because it's not original research, and there seems to be much in-field conversations about it.

Excuse me Tazerdadog and John W. Nicholson, but you guys look passionate but not impartial. Clean up the presentation and you get my full support.

For what it's worth, though, I SUPPORT the article. --David Be (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Another almost 6000 viewers got redirected senselessly today.

[14]

Sad, really. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.