This is an archive of past discussions about Tau (2π). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Result was merge to Pi. Delete votes were discounted, as this is not an AFD (although the accompanying text for a few delete !votes clearly suggested they supported a merge to Pi), as were comments along the lines of "keep because I like it. This leaves a good majority supporting a merge to Pi.-RunningOnBrains(talk)03:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
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.
I would like to gauge consensus on what the configuration of this article should be. Some items to consider are:
The only reliable sources we have about "tau" actually concern "tau day", and are news stories of the human interest variety. Not only are such sources poor for scientific topics, but they are notorious for conveying a false sense of notability to a topic. "Viral" human interest stories are a phenomenon not unknown to the Wikipedia community (see, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett). In the spirit of WP:ONEEVENT, it is essential that we actually gauge those sources for whether the subject is of lasting (scientific) importance.
The remaining sources that specifically address "tau" are all self-published sources, and none of them is by someone who seems to be a recognized authority on geometry or trigonometry as would be evidenced (for instance) by widely cited publications on closely-related topics in the peer reviewed scientific or educational literature (WP:SPS). These sources also are all primary sources (WP:PSTS). There isn't a single reliable scientific secondary source that discusses the use of the term "tau" in a mathematical setting.
The closest thing we have is the Palais opinion piece in the Mathematical Intelligencer. The purpose of this editorial is to advocate that 2π is more fundamental than π, but nowhere does it advocate the symbol τ. It is, moreover, a primary source (as an opinion piece).
This article was previously at AfD. Although I argued (I felt very convincingly) that for mathematical topics, we need mathematical sources—and that means properly peer reviewed sources—the fact that "tau day" showed up in some human interest stories was taken as evidence enough for the closing admin to consider the topic sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia article. To his credit, the admin left a great deal of latitude in the final form that the article should take. But it may be necessary to reassess even that decision.
So, in light of the failed merge proposal, as I see it there are exactly three options that are consistent with our policies (WP:SPS, WP:NOR, WP:PSTS, and WP:NEOLOGISM). These are:
Move the article to tau day, and make it about the day. (Although the day is of dubious notability, this seems to be most consistent with the sources introduced at the AfD.)
Move the article to twice pi, and make it about the mathematical constant 2π. Sources of high scientific credibility can be found about 2π, but if that's the case then we shouldn't be engaging in advocacy of the protologism of "tau".
Delete the article. Advocacy of the constant 2π can easily be covered in a paragraph of the main pi article, but it is insufficiently notable to deserve its own article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I would redirect this to a section in the article pi, I don't see anything in the article that warrants having a separate article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I looked through that, but I don't agree that we need a page of formulas stated in terms of τ. For example I have never seen τ used in any calculus book I have taught from, nor in graduate books, they always just use 2π. The page seems to be claiming there is some sort of controversy with proponents and opponents of τ, which I find a little silly, any "controversy" is a joke at best. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment Carl, "redirect" votes aren't too helpful as they don't express the intention of the voter. Obviously this can be redirected even if the article itself is deleted. If your intention is that the article should be deleted you should state so. Tkuvho (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
If no redirect is created after deletion, then obviously the redirect votes weren't taken into account, so a redirect opinion should be lodged to indicate post deletion disposition of the name. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to hit the "delete" button, just redirect this page to pi and put any appropriate information there. There's no need to lose the page history to achieve that. And this isn't a vote, it's not even a deletion discussion, it's an RFC. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Maintain in its present state[1] as a short article describing the advocacy and without any mathematical detail. We can maybe add a sentence in the π article pointing back here, but I don't want to clutter that article with more of this cruft, and on the other hand the human interest side of this does seem to (barely) be enough for a non-mathematical article. An acceptable alternative would be, as Sławomir and Carl advocate above, deleting this article and just leaving the sentence or two (nothing longer!) in the π article. Rebuilding it to Joseph Lindenberg's preferred version (essentially a content fork of π) is not acceptable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
delete. The improperly sourced old version is irrelevant: it's what can be reliably sourced that matters. tau day has the same sourcing issues while twice pi is an unnecessary fork of pi and turn (geometry). No need for a separate article when those cover it as fully as it can be reliably sourced.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds19:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
delete or KIWF. Anybody sane who does calculus or dynamics will support pi as more fundamental. leave it here for the loons to play with. I suppose tau day on the the 6th of february would be ok, but it's a bit unremarkable really. Oh i forgot wikipedia is only about the USA. Greglocock (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete and have a blurb section in the pi article, as per Slawomir's suggestion. There is simply no "meat" to the topic, a paragraph should be plenty. Rschwieb (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep with current title - Tau is very popular, and is recognized by many. Using another title will confuse people who are already familiar with the term and go searching for it. Rothschilde (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Tau is not "very popular": Most of the millions of engineers, searchers and teachers who use daily pi in there professional activities have never heard of tau. Most of the few ones who know of it consider it as a subject of in-jokes, like, apparently, the MIT's admission dean. D.Lazard (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. If there is any calculus book that works in terms of τ instead of π, I have never seen it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Do some web searching, and you'll find there are already an awful lot of people out there who support tau. SO IF YOU'RE RIGHT THAT "most of the millions of engineers, searchers and teachers ... have never heard of tau", then a whole lot more supporters will be appearing as they hear about. For a simple estimate, assume that the same percentage of people who find out about tau in coming months/years, as people who found out about it in the last 21 months, decide that tau is better. That translates into many additional eager contributors posting about tau over in the Pi article if you delete the Tau article. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
You just have to use the right search terms, because tau and pi show up a lot in the names of fraternities and societies like Tau Beta Pi. I usually add a third search term like circle, math, mathematics, or number to weed out those pages. Another of my favorite examples is that when you type just the two words "pi is" into Google or Bing, the top autocomplete choice is "pi is wrong". How do you think it got that way? Aren't there a lot of other phrases containing "pi is"? Also, look at how many new comments get posted every single day on Vi Hart's YouTube video about tau. I'm too busy now doing my taxes and other things to compile a long list for you. Try what I described with using a third search term. Then maybe you'll see what I'm talking about. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Can't believe I have to explain the joke in that MIT cartoon to you, but here goes. They weren't making fun of tau. They were making fun of the belligerence in the tau/pi debate. Did they depict the pi supporters as any less caveman-like than the tau supporters? No. Go take a look. I'll wait. ...OK, now do you get the joke? They're saying we can have both numbers. At MIT. And at Wikipedia. I've never tried to delete or rename the Pi article. How about returning the favor? As further evidence MIT wasn't making fun of tau, see the follow-up to their announcement, where Associate Director of Admissions Matt McGann shows Vi Hart's video and asks MIT applicants, "What do you think? Are you sold on Tau? Or are you a Pi loyalist?" Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
No changes for now - Slawomir already deleted ALL mention of tau from the Pi article. There were only five sentences. If we are to believe that he's not simply pursuing a scorched earth policy here, why not put something about tau back in the Pi article first? Before trying to delete this article as well? Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep with current title Wikipedia is not a scientific publication, the idea of 2pi has been floating around for a long time and has generated some discussion. It does not compete with the article for Pi and the WP:POINTyness of this page is getting boring. If you're not in favor of ou, fine, but take that sentiment elsewhere. 07:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleuske (talk • contribs)
If "the idea of 2pi has been floating around for a long time" as you say, then surely the correct course of action is to move the article to something like 2π rather than using the neologism tau. This was one of the options I had presented. (Also, calling my actions WP:POINTy while in the same breath describing my sentiment as anti-tau shows a complete lack of understanding of what WP:POINT is even about.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
See my earlier comment about the use of a "multiplied noun" as an article title on Wikipedia. That's never done. (The comment is near the end of the section of this page called "Title".) Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The relevance of that post was questionable. There are articles (in that post!) that are "multiplied nouns". Even if 2π or twice pi were not acceptable article titles, that does not mean that we should use a neologism that is not accepted by the scientific community. (In fact WP:NEOLOGISM is policy.) Rather your argument against "twice pi" or "2π" seems to support redirecting this to pi and adding a paragraph there about 2π. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I see your point. However, there is no policy-based reason that we can't have 2π or twice pi as the title of an article (if indeed the constant 2π is notable independently of its relationship to π, which is what some people seem to be claiming here)—see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In fact, we have many articles whose titles are in this spirit: for instance, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + … instead of ζ(1) or −1/2. There is also the article −1. We usually go by whatever the commonest form of something is (in this case, 2π is the clear winner since no sources use τ). However, even if we wished to have an article title that was not a "multiplied noun", we would still be forbidden by policy to use a symbol that is not used in the sciences (WP:NEOLOGISM). Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep because tau is a fact, Wikipedia is supposed to keep information open, and tau makes more sense in most applications than pi. Just because YOU don't use it doesn't mean nobody does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.24.106 (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, no one does use it. I've never seen tau used in any textbook or scientific article for this purpose. In the entire history of this article, and the many debates that have surrounded it, not a single reliable scientific source has been presented where the symbol τ is used for this purpose. As for the argument that "[it] makes more sense in most applications", Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment "Tau is a fact"/"Tau makes more sense"/(paraphrased):"even if you don't use it somebody does" None of these statements even border on being a supporting reason in any sense. Two are just mere assertions of opinion. The last is a non-reason because it apparently suggests that any belief, no matter how exceedingly rare, shouldn't be excluded from WP. This use of tau does not rise to any reasonable threshold of notability. Rschwieb (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep like this. Something should be said about it, and I rather have it here (without the undue/original research stuff there was before) than in a section over at pi; a simple "See also" link in the pi article is just fine. I certainly support moving the article to 2π or similar while retaining the current title as a redirect, since different names and symbols for the constant have been proposed in the past, and this would make the title more consistent with the article content. Nageh (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
That proposal was already discussed here. It appears to have been rejected because tau (like pi) is simply a number, while turn is an angle or an angular unit (like degrees and radians). Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
2π is a dimensionless constant, a turn is an angle (which we defined(!) to be equal to 2π radians). Merging it there would be a "type error". —Ruud17:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Because radians are such a "natural" unit for angle they are often considered dimensionless by convention. That does not mean a turn and 2π radians are not still angles, while 2π does not necessarily have to be so. By your logic we might as well redirect 360 to turn. —Ruud11:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Merge to Pi. The current article is problematic because both the title and introductory paragraph will leave an unsuspecting reader with impression that "tau" is an accepted name for the mathematical constant equal to 2π. This is not the case. Both the fact that 2π is such an ubiquitous mathematical constant and any notable information about "the tau movement" can be discussed in a short paragraph in the article on Pi. Moving the article to 2π and moving any mention of "tau" from the introduction would also be an acceptable alternative. —Ruud10:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I beg to differ. As I already pointed above, all major (alive) proponents of 2π have agreed on using Tau. Is is not a "neologism", for it's not a new word — sure, it's a recent coinage, but AFAIK it is not challenged as a shorthand for 2π. Quite the contrary: rather than tacit acceptance or neutral stances, there is explicit endorsement from all major proponents and most supporters. Are you aware of any (current) prominent opinion opposing τ as a notation for 2π, instead of (or in addition to) opposing the notion of 2π being the proper circle constant? --Waldirtalk14:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Bollocks. Please try to provide some of the sources Mark Hurd suggested below. The name "tau" is completely fringe terminology for 2π. 99% of mathematicians wouldn't have a clue what you would be referring to. —Ruud17:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Is is not a "neologism", for it's not a new word : So if I propose to move this article to "Fred", that would be ok, since "Fred" isn't a new word? That's a beyond-ridiculous interpretation of the WP:NEOLOGISM policy. Please read it again. Especially the part that reads: "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
That was not my point, it was just a passing observation, and I stand behind it. Nevertheless, I agree that WP:NEOLOGISM applies, precisely because I am willing to interpret the project rules liberally rather than blindly adhering to their explicit wording. (I suggest you do the same regarding for instance WP:SPS). Still, while I agree that the quote above is relevant, you will surely agree that (1) the 2π concept is not new, and is notable, and (2) nobody currently refers to the 2π constant as 2π. Even those who originally proposed a different letter (Palais, Harremöes) today endorse τ. All secondary sources do so too. All supporters as well. What I offer is that it would simply be a disservice to readers to remove tau from the title of this article, because that's the term people will search when looking for this concept. Two excerpts from WP:TITLE: "the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles" and "be recognizable to readers", which represent the WP:CRITERIA of consistency (see also Lindenberg's "multiplied nouns" argument above) and recognizability. There's also this relevant passage from WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." In summary, I am just defending that we must attempt to cater to the spirit of the rules and the mission of the project, rather than interpreting the policies and guidelines literally and discarding whatever doesn't fit perfectly to the wording provided. --Waldirtalk10:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, we definitely disagree on a number of things. Most glaringly "nobody currently refers to the 2π constant as 2π". You mean except for all mathematicians currently in existence? Also, I assure you that I am not blindly adhering to the explicit wording of WP:SPS. As someone with experience in applying this to fringe topics like this, I can assure you that my interpretation is fully consistent with its intent. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I strongly oppose to the assertion "nobody currently refers to the 2π constant as 2π". It is the opposite which is true: in every mathematical text I have ever seen, the constant 2π is referred to as 2π, even when it appears many times in a few lines, like in Root of unity or Quintic function (Palais article is an opinion, not a mathematical text). D.Lazard (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to its use as a single symbol, of course (such as Laurent's usage). Note that I said "2π constant", not merely "2π", which obviously occurs pretty often in math: after all, that's precisely one of the reasons mentioned in favor of τ. --Waldirtalk17:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
2π being a constant, any distinction between "2π constant" and "2π" is a mathematical non sense. More, you use improperly "symbol" in the meaning of "name". The fact to have, for a naming something, either a single character, an ideogram, a chain of characters or a formula is only a question of choice. The name 2π is very short and this is certainly the reason for which mathematicians do not need any alternative name for this constant. Moreover it is well known by everybody who has taught mathematics or written mathematical papers that unnecessary notation is confusing. That is a fact which is not in favor of tau. D.Lazard (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
(@Waldir) I think you have adequately staked out your position. You believe that the article should be about attempts to rebrand the mathematical constant 2π as something else (possibly τ). However, to write such an article requiresreliable secondary sources such as published literature reviews on this subject, peer-reviewed papers in the history of mathematics, or reliably published textbooks in the history of mathematics. In short, some historian needs to have written, in a properly peer-reviewed source, something like: "Many mathematicians over the ages have tried to redefine the mathematical constant of π..." (or whatever). To call it τ, that person would then need to go on to say "...and such-and-so has suggested the symbol τ." We are an encyclopedia, and explicitly demand such sources (WP:PSTS).
Nothing I've seen even comes close to that. We cannot accept sources that are written as it were in the moment, especially written by the proponents of a new idea. We don't accept cartoons or proclamations of MIT admissions deans (as has seriously been put forth as a reliable source here). This runs against the very core of our founding principles. We must apply those principles here with the same vigilance as in articles like intelligent design, orgone, or the Flying spaghetti monster. There is no double standard for topics that one feels are "clearly" not fringe just because they don't involve UFOs or mysterious energies or works of God. We have no scope for such distinctions (WP:NPOV).
The only meaningful datum we have to go on are the sources: are there reliable secondary sources to substantiate and provide context for the subject of an article? In this article we see sources that are advocacy pieces and (almost) entirely self-published—the authors of which appear to have published no reliable secondary sources on the history and cultural context of mathematics, to say nothing of the subject of 2π versus τ—YouTube videos, and human interest stories (which I firmly believe are never to be considered reliable sources in a scientific setting, and will defend this at WP:RS/N if you would like to start a thread there as to why you believe there is an exception in this case).
That said, of course we should welcome an article written from what we normally consider to be reliable sources. However, it seems that in order to do that, we need to divorce ourselves from the idea that random Google/YouTube searches for "tau" and "circle" are magically going to give reliable sources that provide meaningful historical and reliable mathematical context for an encyclopedia article. Rather, we should be looking at books and journal articles (dead tree if necessary). An article written from such sources could be worthwhile. If there are no such sources, then clearly there can be no article. This is the very essence of our guiding principles: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Sławomir, for your clear exposition and good arguments. I can perfectly understand what you mean and I do agree to a certain degree. My only objection is that for a concept that is so recent (the naming of the constant, not the proposition of the constant itself) it is not reasonable to expect such scholarly sources to exist, such as cultural/historical perspectives on the issue -- not the least because, admittedly, while this issue has huge pedagogical consequences, it is not especially groundbreaking, mathematically speaking. The flow of knowledge consolidation takes its time, especially regarding dead tree publications, and in a subject whose consequences lie mostly in a basic level of science acquisition, it is perfectly understandable that this could take even more time in the tau case than for the average new theory or fact.
Note, however, that while Wikipedia is WP:NOT#NEWS, it has been deemed perfectly appropriate to cover recent events whose notability is confirmed by reliable news coverage. I know that mathematical sources would be preferable for this article, but specifically in the issue of naming the constant Tau, the subject is undeniably a "human interest" one, and therefore human interest news stories should be considered as valid sources (as well as the self-published mathematical texts, videos, images, etc).
Secondly, to clarify: I do not believe the article should be about the proposal to name 2π as τ. I believe it should be about the 2π constant, which has been proposed by several people, and whose characteristics can be neutrally described (per WP:CALC), but I don't believe the naming of this constant as tau should be purged off. I already mentioned below that I am willing to accept a compromise where the article is moved to 2π or some similar name — as long as the tau concept is not removed from it, for that would be confusing to readers. In any case, even if I accepted that the current sources are not valid for providing evidence of the notability of the tau subtopic, and the appropriateness of its coverage in a Wikipedia article (which I don't), we would still be left with the proposals for using a constant that is twice the value of π, regardless of what name it is given — and note that there aren't even competing naming proposals: there were individual initial suggestions that differed, but they have unequivocally converged.
Summing up: my stance is that the article should remain in place, about the 2π constant, and the consensus among its proponents to name it tau should be included, preferably in the title, but most definitely in the article text. Also, please note my proposal below to cool off this discussion for a bit. --Waldirtalk09:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
While "the tau movement" may be very cute, it remains completely fringe. No serious mathematical publication has been brought forward using this terminology/notation. If there is any material worth preserving at all it can be done so inside another article. Devoting a whole article to this would be giving it undue weight. —Ruud11:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't really understand your response. You suggested merge to Pi and I countered with merge to somewhere else, yet here you're talking about separate articles and "the tau movement" out of nowhere... --Cybercobra(talk)23:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep or move to 2π. I already expressed my opinion on why I think Tau should be in the title (2nd comment here and 1st paragraph added on this edit). But if it is moved to 2π and this title is kept as a redirect, I wouldn't object, even though it's not my preferred option. Deletion or merging to Pi, however, are not desirable outcomes, since the concept definitely begets coverage, so deletion would actually harm the project, and merging would probably create quite some controversy in the Pi article, which would only waste everyone's time and would end up in a watered-down text that would not serve the readers properly. --Waldirtalk12:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean create a new, separate article titled 2π, which would be strictly about the mathematical constant 6.28, and make this article only about the proposal to call that mathematical constant by the name tau? --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep Calm and Carry On without adopting any of the three options proposed. Notability is adequately established, and there are sufficient reliable sources to be clear on the meaning and history of the term. All of this was established at the AFD last year, and there's no particular reason to believe anything has changed since then, The wording of this RFC is fatally flawed to begin with, presupposing that the initiator's analysis already represents consensus. Furthermore, this discussion cannot result in a deletion, despite that being offered as one of the options. Thparkth (talk)12:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Graham's hierarchy of disagreement.Notability of the notion of "tau day" was perhaps established at the AfD, via the news sources presented there (which were all about the proposed holiday). This is one of the options I presented. As for whether these establish notability of tau as a mathematical concept, well that actually requires mathematical sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I understand that this is your opinion. However the AfD specifically demonstrated that your opinion is not the consensus view. Thparkth (talk)14:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
What is the "consensus view" as you see it? Various options for the final configuration we bandied about in the AfD. The closing did not rule on that matter. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I understand your opinion to be that the topic is not independently notable, because the sources used as evidence of notability are not "mathematical" sources, and they are primarily concerned with "Tau day" rather than "Tau" itself. The question of notability was addressed in the AfD. In assessing the rough consensus, the closing administrator noted that "The original nomination specifically addressed sourcing, and invoked the GNG; this was adequately rebutted, and a number of the comments acknowledged explicitly or tacitly the nontrivial coverage." So at the time of the AfD, the consensus was assessed to be that the topic had sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable. Thparkth (talk)16:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I have read and reread the above to determine what you could possibly [interpret as a "personal attack"]. Because so many of us are of a like mind with Slawomir, you will have to accept that it is a natural question and not a personal attack. Rschwieb (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
You were inattentive in reading that AfD. The consensus at that AfD is that there were some news sources mentioning "tau day" published in the yellow press, and this was the "adequate rebuttal" of the GNG objection referred to in the closing statement. Of course, if we were to base an article on those sources, it would be about "tau day" not the mathematical constant. There was never any consensus at the AfD that sources not published in reliable scientific sources can be used to base scientific articles. The consensus was decidedly against this proposition and, moreover, it would be absolutely unprecedented and would fly in the face of some of our most dearly held principles (I will not argue this again here; see my other comments in this discussion). The rest of the closing of the AfD was (emphasis mine): "I see a strong consensus that the article should be renamed or merged somewhere, and given the degree of participation here I am prepared to call this a local consensus to the effect that, while notable, the topic is best addressed within another article. This well within editorial discretion, however, I do not see agreement as to a merge target." Once again, the purpose of this RfC is to assess how this material is to be covered on Wikipedia. We have yellow media reports that basically center on the notion of tau day, and self-published articles discussing the mathematical notion. Moreover, there have been discussions both here and at WP:WPM showing a wider feeling that this article is problematic in its present form. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, I should add that your post is almost entirely on the lower levels of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. Rather than addressing the substance of any of my points, it dismisses them by "Responding to tone" ("the wording...is fatally flawed") and "Contradiction" ("All of this was established at AFD...") If anything, the discussion here shows emphatically that there is not consensus that the topic is notable and the sourcing adequate, quite apart from the outcome of that AfD. Furthermore, although the outcome of that AfD was "keep", the precise wording of the closure was more like "keep in some form". The precise form that the "keep" should take, or whether it is necessary to revisit even that decision, is the purpose of this RfC. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Pointing out a formal error which is sufficient to invalidate your RFC isn't "responding to tone". Pointing out that your argument contradicts a recent AfD outcome is not, in itself, contradiction. You should just have called me an "ass hat" which I wouldn't presume to contradict! Thparkth (talk)14:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Again, not a response to anything substantive. In my reply, as well as the wording of the RfC, I have clearly shown why I believe this RfC is consistenwitting the closing admin's remarks. Do you have anything to add to this RfC, or are you just disrupting it for purely bureaucratic reasons? Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with User talk:Sławomir Biały's comments. One further point needs reinforcing: namely, that tabloid coverage and youtube videos are useless in the opinion of WPM. I added such a comment to the FAQ there, but it was deleted by a tau supporter. Tkuvho (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Merge to π As far as I understand, this is really a fringe subject not studied in the mathematics literature, and as such really only deserves minor coverage in a related article; the π article would be the best place for that coverage to appear. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Notability has not been established. No number of sensationalistic tabloid pieces can establish notability, and the same goes for youtubes. There are no credible scientific sources dealing with this. Tkuvho (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Merge to π. The only reason for a separate article here is clearly to serve as some sort of advocacy. There's nothing in the content itself which couldn't be dealt with (and likely dealt with better) in the Pi article. (and I don't see anyone, including myself, saying that Tau doesn't exist. It's simply not widely used, and I don't see anything either in the article or that is possible to add to the article which makes it important for there to be two articles.) — V = IR(Talk • Contribs)01:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem is they've removed ALL mention of tau from the Pi article. There's literally not even a link to this page over there. I actually wouldn't be so opposed to merging into the Pi article if I thought the content would actually survive very long over there. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
I just want to know how far τ would have to go as being used for it to be worthy of a Wikipedia article in the terms of those who don't think it does now:
Never
Many text books using τ instead of 2π
Many peer reviewed articles using τ instead of 2π
One text book to only use τ and never 2π
One peer reviewed article to only use τ and never 2π
One text book to mention τ but use 2π
One peer reviewed article to mention τ but use 2π
Many people suggesting τ may make more sense than 2π, but it is probably too late to change now
One reliable source suggesting τ may make more sense than 2π, but it is probably too late to change now
Some other minimum.
In my opinion this is similar to the controversy about a page reflecting the currrent reliable sources that were wrong when someone actually fact-checked the historic records, except the (correct) conclusion here is no where near as clear cut.
Mark Hurd (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
What you are proposing is a hypothetical discussion and not many people are going to be interested in one of those. I suggest you cite ONE textbook using tau (two pi), and we will take it from there. Tkuvho (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
My posting wasn't a direct response to Mark Hurd's posting. I wasn't trying to say this was one of the things he listed. It's about what I've been saying about seeing more and more people supporting tau. This computer science professor clearly was doing that in his exam. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I explained above how to do a google search with the terms tau, pi, and a third term like circle, math, or number. Since writing that, I've noticed that two or double or twice may also work as a good third search term. I know these aren't the kind of footnotable usage in math journals you're insisting on. I'm not claiming that. I'm saying I see many people out on the internet agreeing with the arguments put forward about tau. Now maybe it's just that Bob Palais has an enormous amount of time on his hands, and he has gone all over and posted using aliases on all the forums, ghost-written the newspaper articles, and even offered to help this computer science professor write his exam so that he could sneak something in about tau. But I promised Waldir I'd quit being so sarcastic, so that's probably not the explanation. What I'm saying is that, even now, it's not just a few people, and it's growing fast. Why not agree to delay this decision for 3 months until the day after Tau Day? If tau is really a dud, the newspapers will ignore it this time, we'll all know I was wrong, and I won't fight deletion/renaming/merging. If the opposite happens, Wikipedia won't have to change the page title back to tau, or deal with new tau pages being created that day. Punt this decision forward three months to June 29? The right decision should be a lot clearer then. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there a single calculus textbook that mentions τ? The lab assignments above just look like instructors with a sense of humor following current events - not any sort of "support for τ". — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure looks like he's evangelizing to his students. Why would he reprint all that stuff from the Tau Manifesto AND provide a link to the Tau Manifesto website if he were just making a joke? Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you must never have written a lab assignment. This type of thing is very common - it's just a way of making an otherwise boring assignment a little more interesting. It is not "evangelizing". — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Is this exam a peer-reviewed source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in the history and cultural context of mathematical developments? Has its author published articles in such? If not, then this is totally irrelevant to the discussion. No number of primary sources are adequate to justify the existence of an article. Google all day, if you like. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I probably should have indented those under Tkuvho's last post. This is really more follow-up to the issue of how much use of the name tau is out there. I am getting more familiar with the formal requirements for sources here at Wikipedia, so I see your concern about secondary sources. The two are related though, in that if many people have indeed started to use the name tau, secondary sources will inevitably follow. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Per Lindenberg's suggestion above, I propose that this discussion is left cooling off for a few weeks and restarted after tau day (28 June). The events, reports and publications released around that time should provide us with a clear insight regarding the current status of this topic, and allow us to take a more informed decision. What do you guys think? --Waldirtalk09:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to wait. Everyone in the discussion agrees that τ has been mentioned, the question is just how we should cover it on Wikipedia. Π day, and by extension τ day, are mostly novelty days enjoyed by a few college students, they aren't particularly important holidays in the broader sense. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I don't see why we should attach any significance to these arbitrary dates. (Also, I once again question the assertion that "news reports" are somehow relevant in ascertaining notability of scientific matters. This has repeatedly been shown not to be the case.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The idea is not to give importance to those dates, but in practice, it is likely that many activities or works related to tau will be released/reported on that day, whether they happened then or have been in the works for a while. Since it's just a few weeks away, I see no downside in both cooling off this already long debate, and having the chance to include the extra information in the discussion. --Waldirtalk09:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with waiting for tau day, or omega day, or any other day, to see if tau can gain notability that would make an article appropriate. In the meantime, we should redirect this to pi. Tkuvho (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Merge and redirect into Pi. I defend Slawomir's removal of the blatant advocacy previously in the article and I don't feel that there's enough left to justify a stand-alone article. This can be revisited in a couple of months. ReykYO!21:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
My close of it (I was just closing the template, not the discussion) was reverted. I've asked again at WP:ANI for an admin or uninvolved close. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment posted in the wrong RfC
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please stop circular debates:When someone claims to be a researcher but has already decided the answer to their research question they are no longer a reasearcher, they are an activist. The end result of their research has become clouded by their bias regarding the research question. With HF it would appear that the activists cannot accept that methane is a naturally occuring substance in ground water, ever, and that it must somehow be related to fracking. The HF activists cannot beleive that the chemicals used in fracking do not nominally reach the surface. Taking the whole discussion and going around in circles while being ignorant of the source of the argument is not going to resolve this dispute. A real researcher goes in with the hypothesis (H0) that X does not cause Y, and they does statistical testing of the data to prove H0 true. The activist sets out to prove that X does cause Y, and then they keep refraining the question until they can make their predetermined belief true. A real researcher goes in with the full belief that they do not know what causes Y or if it can even be determined. Sonarclawz (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2012 (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.
life of pi over
An additional reference has just been added to the article with the sensationalist headline "life of pi is over?", brought to you by the helpful Times of India. Tkuvho (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone actually read these references? To read them, you would think that the mathematical world has been turned upside down by an organized revolution. In reality, it's just some wacky dudes with Youtube videos and personal webpages. It really reaffirms the conclusion of debates like this: items appearing in the local press are not at all reliable for assessing the notability of scientific developments. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a silly title, and fails to distinguish between "mathematicians" and "a few mathematicians", but it's no worse (or better) than the other "further reading" links aleady on the page. Jowa fan (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't help comparing the tau affair with non-Newtonian calculus. After several years of debate, this was found to be non-notable, and deleted after having wasted many hours of editor time. The framework for such affairs is all too familiar: take a famous scientific notion, string together an argument challenging it, and look for a greedy publisher. Tkuvho (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Tau does not seem remotely notable to me. However, whether it is worth the effort of arguing to have the article deleted is another matter. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Lindenberg commented above as follows: "I've never tried to delete or rename the Pi article. How about returning the favor?" Returning favors is fine, but the idea that there is some kind of symmetry between pi and tau that clamors in favor of reciprocity is precisely an instance of parasitism on the part of tau advocates. Tkuvho (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Parasitism? Could you further explain your use of that term? Your comment above about "look for a greedy publisher" sounds like you're accusing me or other people involved with tau of somehow having a book we're trying to sell. Where do you get any such notion? My comment about "returning the favor" was in the context of discussing the MIT cartoon, which encourages live-and-let-live between pi supporters and tau supporters. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
"Live and let live" again is guilty of an odd attempt to imply a symmetry which is only there in the imagination of Palais and his followers. It should be noted that this is not the famous Palais (as in Palais-Smale) but someone with about 3 or 4 publications (perhaps a relative). Tkuvho (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
He's his son. And you know the three-legged pi Palais originally proposed as a symbol? His dad was the one who designed it. That was mentioned on Bob Palais' website and in his paper. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Tell you what: get the father to endorse the "tau movement". I assure you WPM will take the idea more seriously. Tkuvho (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Folks at WPM feel the same way. Do try to channel your energies at wiki more constructively, i.e., toward other pages. Tkuvho (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Tkuvho, can you understand why, after I put a lot of work into this page, and then saw all my work wiped out in a single day, that invitation doesn't have a lot of appeal to me right now? Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
In your nine months of participating in the project, you have almost exclusively dedicated yourself to advocacy of the τ notion, and promotion of your own work. Neither of these activities are in any way compatible with what we do here. While I'm sure you are capable of doing constructive work here in accordance with our pillars, I see little evidence that you have any inclination of doing so. Prove me wrong if you like, but it's no skin off anyone's teeth if you stay or go. There's really no sense in playing the victim card. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Joseph, I sympathize with your predicament. Something similar happened in the case of Non-Newtonian calculus. I can only suggest that you redirect your energies in a more productive direction, i.e., another article. Tkuvho (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Tkuvho, I do genuinely appreciate your suggestion. For the last couple weeks, Wikipedia has been very aggravating to me, but obviously I'll get over it. Yes, I very much favor the tau idea and am optimistic about its chances. (But I NEVER wrote anything like the edit summary you quoted into the article itself. That was a reply to the preceding editor, explaining why I thought there should be more about tau in the article on pi.) Do understand, I haven't been trying to do anything underhanded here at Wikipedia. If that were my intent, would I have used my real name as my user ID? As a new contributor, I haven't been aware of how stringent Wikipedia's requirements about notability and footnotes apparently are. I still find it incredible that The Tau Manifesto can't be footnoted in an article about tau. And that tau is "not notable", no matter how many people are discussing supporting it, until it appears in official math journals. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Tau is not notable from a scientific perspective; however, it is notable in that it received significant news coverage once. And for that notability we mention it in this article (though I am of the opinion that the article's title should be changed to something neutral). I do not see any issue with using the Tau manifesto for additional sourcing to Hartl's reference of the constant as tau; it is also a courtesy to the reader who quickly wants to find out what Hartl is up to, without requiring us to go into any of this. Get rid of some of the redundant news sources, instead. Nageh (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Whether they are in Further reading or References it is excessive to have twelve references, almost all in support of just two facts. Many if not most do not introduce new information, they re-report what was originally in The Times newspaper, in some cases using identical wording. When the sources are essentially the same there is no point listing so many of them.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds22:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Given the doubts some have expressed about notability, it seemed necessary. But give me a few days – I'm busy right now – and I'll sort through them, move some to footnote other text, and delete some. I'll also take Nageh's advice about using the Tau Manifesto as a reference for Hartl. Can I likewise use Bob Palais' website as a reference for the fact that he now supports using tau? Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
All of these additional references are sensationalist and stem from dubious publications, and therefore don't belong in a scientific page. Tkuvho (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Articles with titles like "Life of pi over" are clearly either sensationalistic or incredibly bad journalism. You can take your pick. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Sławomir here. There are enough reliable sources reporting on the Tau/2π issue; we don't need to resort to prove notability through sheer number of references. About three per claim suffice, as Nageh suggests below. We should pick the more respectable/neutral/informative ones and stick to them, IMO. --Waldirtalk04:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, is it primarily a scientific page? I wouldn't say so – after all tau isn't notable for its scientific merit. And what concerns the Tau manifesto, it is mentioned in the article just as in the media that reported on Tau, so either we explain it or we link to it. Nageh (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Back on topic: this is far too many references to support a single fact. I think there is little question that the requirements of verifiability are met regarding the statement "Some individuals, such as Robert Palais and Tau Manifesto author Michael Hartl, have proposed giving this number its own symbol and using that instead of π in mathematics notation." Indeed, a single reference would suffice. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Generally, when you want to make a point – show that something is indeed covered by multiple sources – you include about three references. Ten references is excessive, and really should be trimmed down. I certainly agree on that. Nageh (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, just in case doubts about tau's notability arise in the future, I've listed 22 of these sort of news references in my sandbox. You'll notice that all of them are at sites that are substantial enough to have a Wikipedia page about them. Feel free to swap some of them in if you like them better than what we're currently using. I can start deleting some references, but at this point, I don't feel too strongly about which ones. Certainly though I agree with Waldir about the basis on which to select them. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I like the Deseret News article, in part because it would appear they did actually interview Palais, not to mention getting a picture of him wearing a Tau shirt. The Toronto Star article seems good too; says they interviewed Hartl by phone; Wikipedia says it's Canada's highest-circulation newspaper. How about this. Which references bother you guys the most? Let's start by cutting those. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Some of the "largest circulation" outfits are tabloids. As such they may merit wiki coverage, but may not be suitable for notability discussions of a scientific page. Most editors seem unexcited about pop culture articles masquerading as scientific ones. Tkuvho (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree it can be difficult to tell which are respectable newspapers outside your own country, but I see no indication The Toronto Star is what we in the US would call a tabloid. Any Canadians here? Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
So nobody has any references they dislike more than the rest? Or like more than the rest? Last call before I go eenie meenie miney moe. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hartl: no publication record
The fact that Hartl has no publication record in math is significant and should be mentioned in the lede and not just a footnote. Tkuvho (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is significant for quantifying the level of its notability. But this is not the subject of the article and thus is misplaced in the article itself. D.Lazard (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I've merged him with popular culture since that is where the due weight is given. As an aside, a mention in an advocates section only makes sense for actual mathematicians. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Stubify?
The lede is nearly the same size as the actual article. Perhaps we should stubify since there isn't really a lot of content? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Tau (2π). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Sometime in the indefinite future, the circle-constant τ will have its own article again. When it will be, we shall need to decide whither to put it. We do not call the article about 10 “10 (2*5)”:
Looking around I find that nonlatin letters are spelled out in English in the English WikiPedia. Lettered mathematical constants have (mathematical constant) in the name like “e (mathematical constant)”:
That particular choice was rejected at least twice, before the article was merged. For the foreseeable future, the most common use of "tau" as a mathematical constant is an alternate term for the golden ratio. However, if the subject ever becomes notable, other than as tauism (mathematics), I would suggest tau (circle constant) as a neutral name, in the absence of evidence that there is another circle constant called τ (= π/2?) — Arthur Rubin(talk)03:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that would be a good idea. Pi is very widely known as a circle constant whilst Tau is hardly known at all as such. Calling the article just 'Tau' may suggest to our readers that Tau is in common usage as a circle constant, which is obviously not the case. Making this clear by calling the article tau (circle constant),which is a neutral and descriptive title, seems to me to be an excellent solution to this conflict. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The real question is, is the new facility exactly twice the size of the old one? Otherwise they are alluding to an unrelated constant. Tkuvho (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
That's the piece's author saying that, that's not an indication that this is the reason the building is named so, nor does a play on words contribute towards the notability of the constant. - SudoGhost06:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
You seriously figure the local news reporter just came up with that by himself? And yes, I think this does contribute toward notability, but we'll wait to hash out that argument at the next RFC. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
No, I figure that that was in the reporter's wording, and that its WP:OR to draw from that sentence anything that isn't said. It doesn't matter what "I figure", what matters is what the source says. Speculation as to where that play on words came from doesn't create notability. - SudoGhost08:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The reporter makes a play on words in his own voice about that fact; that doesn't make a building's name relevant to the constant's notability, no. Even supposing that's why the building is named as such, that would at best contribute towards the Pi#In popular culture, but it's ultimately just more trivial information. Actual sources discussing the constant itself are what is needed to show notability, this source comes nowhere close to doing anything of the sort. - SudoGhost09:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
On another note, a one-line mention does not satisfy the significant coverage guideline under WP:GNG. It doesn't mean anything if they give it its own sentence, it's just a minor, passing and, as SudoGhost said above, trivial side comment that does not demonstrate notability, no matter how coincidental you believe it is. --RAN1 (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
In consideration of the feedback above, it seems that the best location for the article when it will be restored is “tau (mathematical circle-constant)”:
I don't think that's an appropriate use of hyphenation. Anyway the point is moot for now. *If* the subject becomes notable enough for a full article to be written about it, we can discuss the issue at that time. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
One must either hyphenate to gather circle and constant or write them as 1 word because they are both nouns. An alternative is “tau (circular constant)”:
τ exceeds the notability requirement already. The πists refuse to admit this for partisan reasons. The πists also misinterpret concuss for keeping down τ:
The consensus is to keep τ. One could either keep is as a separate article or let it be its own article. The πists do a stealthy delete by having 1 sentence in the middle of 1 paragraph in the article π. When τists try to restore τ, in accord with the RFD, the πists scream “¡Breach Of Concensus!” stating that the RFD requires merge, which it does not, when in fact the πists violate consensus with their stealthy delete. ¿Is it any coincidence that the πists started their assault against τ on t/2-day 2012? It is a shame because at that time, τ was over halfway to a good article and ⅓ of the way to a featured article:
Oh well, it is a mathematical certainty that τ will sometime in the indefinite future gets its own article. Being the mathematical circle-constant, it is a mathematical certainty because τ is the circle-constant. Besides Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi agrees:
The πists ignored τ until τ/2-day-2012. After τ/2-day 2013, the πists destroyed the article while belittling τ. Since τ/2-day-2013, πists have gone from belittling to open hostility to τ. I predict that the πists will manage to keep τ off of WIKIpedia for this τDay but probably not for τDay-2014. By 2020, I see noway that τ could not have an article, despite the efforts of the πists.
So, now you want us to talk about how snow is related to a dead horse when you were hiding what others were writing earlier? Great, just great. May I point out that your snow is not as dangerous as hail falling on a horse and beating it to death? (Yes, I know this unrelated to tau, but your comments are also unrelated too, RAN1. At least, I am trying to be funny about it.) John W. Nicholson (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
More new tau stuff
It's Friday, so I'm too lazy to describe each item below. By the way, I think this is the most productive use for this Talk page until the next RFC. Rather than just getting in to the same old arguments again and again. When someone finds something new involving tau that might be relevant to notability, post it here. No need to even discuss it. As things accumulate, it'll become clear when it's time for the next RFC. That seems like a better way to gauge it than just arbitrarily picking some time period.
I wasn't trying to start a thread. By "let this page rest", I meant stop the endless repetitive arguing about whether tau should or shouldn't have its own article. That's what's trying everyone's patience, because we keep going over the same ground with the same information. I'm only encouraging that, when we come across any new information that seems relevant to that argument, we share it. That's all. No arguing about it. Just mention new stuff when it's discovered, so we all know it exists. Save any arguing for the next RFC. And if nothing much new or substantial has been posted, then it's not time for another RFC yet. I'm just as tired of wasting time here unnecessarily as you are. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
By not reading and being informed shows how you are guiding your argument. By trying to not talk about the fact in this article shows that you are misguided because everyone knows some day there will be an excepted source which no one can argue with. These that Joseph gave us today are much better than the prior to the last section one. Take a look them. They are not on some building which 'might be' named for being the second 'Pi' building. People are using tau; people are talking about tau. John W. Nicholson (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I agree that collecting more references, and not arguing for now about whether to restore the article, is a more constructive way to go. However, what you have listed above are not references. They are not sources *about* tau, they are examples of a few scattered usages of tau within a huge literature. There is no conclusion to be drawn from such a small sample, and anyway we should not be collecting examples and drawing conclusions from them here (see WP:NOR) we should be reporting conclusions that other people have drawn and have reliably published. So, frankly, I don't see the point of listing these publications here. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Very helpful feedback. Thank you. This was so much easier than initiating another RFC. (By the way, I do think the first one in the list fully qualifies as a reference, though what it has to say is short.) --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, when was the first usages of tau in excepted sources? This might be used as in the history of tau section when the article is wrote. For pi we have: "The earliest known use of the Greek letter π to represent the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter was by mathematician William Jones in his 1706 work Synopsis Palmariorum Matheseos; or, a New Introduction to the Mathematics." Clearly, that is not an issue in respect to "a few scattered usages of tau within a huge literature". John W. Nicholson (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Editors here, please stop telling others to stop discussing this subject. There was never a consensus to delete this article and there was only a very dubious consensus to merge, which was never done; the article was effectively deleted against consensus. Several very sensible proposals for new names for this subject have been put forward which overcome the objection that an article entitled simple 'Tau' might mislead our readers into believing that there is any significant interest in the subject by serious mathematicians. One thing is for certain, there is no clear consensus that we should have no kind if article on this subject, in fact, I am not sure that such a thing is even possible within the ethos of WP.
One way to resolve this issue is to have a civil discussion on what would be a suitable title for the subject that has been discussed at length here (I propose 'Tau (circle constant)' then start an article on the subject on that page and then start an AfD. Alternatively we could have yet another RfC on restoring the page under a different name. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Let me be the first to criticize this inappropriate use of the talk page. I'm very glad you're enthusiastic about tau, but inappropriate use of this talk page has been a real source of conflict. So please, let's go celebrate elsewhere. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
