Talk:Tau (proposed mathematical constant)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Closing RFC: suggest creation of the article

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 am closing the RFC above as requested on the Administrators' Noticeboard. I have read much, but not all, of the discussion above, and I glanced at the two prior discussions:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tau (mathematics), result: keep (2011)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tau_(2%CF%80)/Archive_3#Request_for_comment , result: merge to Pi (2012).

I have also read User:Tazerdadog/Tau (Proposed mathematical constant) and find it generally acceptable and of the quality of a typical Wikipedia article, but far from perfect. I also skimmed Michael Hartl's Tau Manifesto.

I have edited Wikipedia on and off since November 2005. I have more than 30,000 edits under various usernames. In real life, I excelled at high school math, and I took two semesters of calculus in college, so I am familiar with integrals from 0 to 2pi that are a major concern of tau advocates. I personally grew up with pi and would prefer to keep pi, but I see why Hartl disagrees.

The votes supporting and opposing creation of the article are approximately equal in number. If this discussion were an AFD, the result would probably be "no consensus, default to keep." I saw the suggestion above that someone should boldy create the article and immediately submit for AFD. I don't think the procedural posture of this RFC, starting with no article, should change the result. In other words, "no consensus, default to no article" is not the right answer because Wikipedia generally has a bias to include or retain content when there is some doubt about doing so.

That consideration, ultimately, is what convinces me that the article should exist. I recognize that serious mathematicians do not use Tau (2pi). But Wikipedia is not only for serious mathematicians (although there is some outstanding content at list of integrals, for example). Wikipedia is for casual math readers too. The coverage of Tau (2pi) in the "popular culture" section of pi is woefully inadequate in terms of the arguments for using Tau, and the identities of those who have advocated for Tau. The only real remedy for this inadequacy is to keep the three sentences in pi but to spin off the remaining content into a new article on Tau, roughly to be written as in Tazerdadog's usespace. The abundance of news sources on Tau (2pi) is more than sufficient evidence of its notability as a cultural topic. You may characterize these articles as "slow news day" pieces, but there are dozens of them, and at some point one has to concede that Hartl and his colleagues have succeeded in getting the attention of thousands of students, fans and critics.

As one of the supporters pointed out, the mere size of this discussion - everyone seems to know about it - is evidence of Tau's recognition in the knowledge community.

Ultimately, the question is "what is Wikipedia?" Having been around Wikipedia for more than half of its existence, I think Wikipedia is close to a catchall for anything and everything people want to put into it. This is not a personal inclusionist assessment, but a realistic view on an encyclopedia that now numbers more than four million English language entries, some of which are far worse than the proposed new article. I've been around for the deletion wars on Daniel Brandt and The Game (mind game) and for the arbitration on September 11 conspiracy theories. With "the game", the issue wss whether, if almost everyone on Wikipedia knows about "the game," do you really need serious secondary sources, and if so, how many. Ultimately the sources were found and the article is here. I don't remember the September 11 conspiracy theories arbitration, but with regard to the substance of the issue (I have seen the film "Loose Change" on the web), it may be WP:FRINGE but Wikipedia covers it.

There's also a difference between September 11 conspiracy theories and Tau: it can be said that the conspiracy theories are ridiculous, and are notable only to the extent that some people do believe them. Likewise with moon landing hoax allegations or whatever that article is called. Not so with Tau, which is just a number. The fact that it is double a more notable number is no reason to exclude it from Wikipedia. As noted above, 2 is double 1, and 4 is double 2, and all those numbers have articles.

Nevertheless, I could certainly see changing the angle of the article to be about the Tau manifesto or Tau movement rather than the more neutral Tau (2pi). Because even as just a cultural movement by a few weird people, it's notable.

Again, I just don't think an encyclopedia that gleefully includes so many other fringe topics can exclude a fringe topic in the domain of mathematics just because the mathematics scholars in the community reject the underlying concept. To them I would say: if you don't like it, don't read or edit it. Otherwise, live and let live.

I remand the matter to the community of editors for a decision on the name of the article and the precise contours of its content. If this closure stands, someone else should move Tazerdadog's draft into mainspace. My recommendation is to move it to Tau (2π) and have a WP:RM from there. Chutznik (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe I've made my opinion known, but there is a significant difference between a potential article on Tau (2π) and an article Tau movement (or tauism). I still think that Tau (2π) should redirect to a section of π, but, if the closure stands, Tau movement might be a distinct article. That would be in keeping with WP:FRINGE; the article would be on those supporting the fringe concept, not on the fringe concept, itself.

I decline comment as to what the consensus is, because history shows I'm not good at determining consensus as to consensus. However, I disagree with your analysis, as well. If there is no consensus, the formal result should be no consensus, default to merge, rather than no consensus, default to keep. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if this is no consensus then it means no consensus to overturn the previous RfC, or no consensus to move this from user space. Not no consensus so the previous consensus is overturned. As for "even as just a cultural movement by a few weird people, it's notable." that is simply one editors opinion and is not supported by sources as per WP:RS and WP:N. The editor closing a discussion should not chose the outcome based on their own view of the question, but should evaluate consensus taking into account relevant policies, per WP:CLOSE#Consensus.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - That isn't an assessment of a consensus, it's an non-administrator's personal opinion of what they would like Wikipedia to be. That other fringe articles exist is not cause to keep or remove any other fringe article, and Wikipedia is actually not for everything. I believe an article on a movement would be deleted or redirected very quickly, as there are no reliable sources that mention any such "movement" but in trivial passing; there is less notability for that then the actual subject. There is no consensus that this subject warrants a separate article on Wikipedia, and so was merged into an appropriate article with due weight. That is what the previous consensus determined, and that consensus has not changed. The article was not deleted, so how AfDs close do not change that, because a "no consensus" here would not remove any content from that article. - SudoGhost 00:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• I feel someone needs to thank Chutznik for the recommendation. So, Thank You. John W. Nicholson (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• It was ambiguous from User:Chutznik's post whether or not he is an administrator. I examined the list of administrators here without finding "Chutznik". The closest find was "Schutz". My preliminary conclusion is that User:Chutznik is not an administrator. See also here. Tkuvho (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just noting that one need not be an administrator to close even a controversial discussion in most cases. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Chutznik's comment is a supervote, not a close, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Given the many editors disputing this close I've requested an administrator look at it again.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• I was asked to come here as an uninvolved admin. I didn't read the RFC, but I did read the close. IRWolfie is completely correct, that is a textbook "supervote", not a close. This close should be set aside or simply treated as an individual !vote, and it should be closed by someone else without a personal opinion on the topic. I'm not comfortable closing the RfC or I would myself. Closing doesn't require an admin, but one this complicated requires someone experienced in dealing with contentious RfC closure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:48, 7 May 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.