Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:13, 9 May 2013

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 June 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Mathematics Redirect‑class Low‑priority

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This redirect has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Life of Pi

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

RFC on tau

I have started a RFC on the notability of tau on the talk page of the article in my userspace. The RFC can be found here

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

This should be redirected again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong deletion process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to restore the article

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

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

Tau supporters

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

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

Tau haters

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

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

Requested move (4)

It has been proposed in this section that Tau (2π) be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log

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

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

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

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

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

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

why this is not useful

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

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

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

Protection

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

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

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

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

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

• Redirect-Class mathematics pages
• Low-priority mathematics articles
• Requested moves