Talk:Area of a circle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC article title: "Area of a circle" or "Area of a disk"

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.

---

apparently, the article was titled "area of a disk" for a long time...was recently changed to "area of a circle" (the recent consensus is for this title) but was changed back to "area of a disk." See above talk section "move history" for this...policy arguments can be made for either title so I think it's going to come down to simple consensus/preference...

my vote: area of a circle (see earlier section for my reasoning, if interested) 68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Area of a disk. "Area of a circle" is genuinely ambiguous. The policy argument here is in WP:COMMONNAME: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." The ambiguity is not some academic or theoretical ambiguity, but has to do with how the terms "circle" and "disk" are used in this very article. It has been asserted that the need to maintain this distinction is rare, but that is clearly wrong. It is more accurate to say that outside of geometry, the distinction is rare. Within geometry, such as the topic of this article, the distinction is an essential one that we need to maintain for the sake of having clear notation. Up until my own recent corrections here, this article talked about integrating a function over the circle, when it meant the disk, but also integrating a function over the circle, where it actually meant the circle. It seems to me that there is no good policy reason for moving the article to "area of a circle". Sure, by "area of a circle" most readers typing into the search bar will mean "area of a disk", the subject of this article. That can easily be handled by redirects in the usual way. And it's not as though the word "disk" is some obscure word coming from the more rarefied parts of geometrical jargon. It is a common English word, being used in its common English way. But the article title should reflect the contents of the article: using "circle" to mean one thing in the title, and another thing in the text, is confusing in the extreme. Sławomir
  Biały 13:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

what you quote from WP:COMMONNAME suggests "disk"...but there's a lot in that policy page (I think a lot more) that would suggest "circle." and the policy page even says that consensus must ultimately decide...I'll note again: the article is about the concept that everyone knows as and even refers to as "the area of a circle" so it's odd to name it something else...especially since there will never be another article titled "area of a circle" which describes the area of all circles as zero. And again the more precise language can be used within the article proper...but this is about the title...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to quote other parts of the policy. But as I have clearly articulated, precision of terminology, which is one of the bullet points listed at WP:CRITERIA, is explicitly mentioned in WP:COMMONNAME. It is also a very important consideration in relation to the article, because both terms "circle" and "disk" are used in the body of the article in their precise, mathematical meanings. Please find a rationale in policy that suggests that we should use a term in the title if that term is used in a completely different sense in the article, thanks. Sławomir
Biały 14:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Weakly for Disk. Of the five bullet points at the top of WP:COMMONNAME, Recognizability and Naturalness favor "circle", Precision and Consistency favor "disk", and Conciseness favors neither. Based on usage within the discipline of mathematics, the common and correct choice is "disk", and WP:COMMONNAME explicitly recognizes that criterion, as Sławomir Biały has pointed out. Most readers will search for "circle", but the redirect transitions them to this title painlessly. On the other hand, if the title used "circle", then the intro text could painlessly transition the reader to disks. The practical difference for Wikipedia readers is very small, and consensus built in one year may change in the next year, so this RfC seems like not a great use of our time. Mgnbar (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

seems like an ideal case for an RfC as can go either way...that is both arguments are pretty valid so it's going to have to come down to pure consensus...one reason it may matter practically is the google results..if google "area of a circle" this article doesn't appear...but if titled differently it would probably appear at or near the top...I think this is probably relevant as Wikipedia has an interest in people reaching its content etc...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a valid argument for the other side. I'll reiterate that question: "Please find a rationale in policy that suggests that we should use a term in the title if that term is used in a completely different sense in the article." Sławomir
Biały 15:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

it's entirely proper to get more specific and technical in the article proper, to parse things more...but there's far more utility for the title of the article to simply be "Area of a circle"...particularly since there's nothing technically incorrect about the universally used phrase...it's the phrase used for the concept, so it means the concept by definition...Encyclopedia Britannica simply states, for example, "The area of a circle is the square of the radius multiplied by π." See Mgnbar's response above too as far as the guidelines....here's an additional quote from the guidelines too: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." Check out "Bill Cherowitzo" well stated post in the "move history" thread too...68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

"there's nothing technically incorrect about the universally used phrase...it's the phrase used for the concept, so it means the concept by definition" This is precisely the problem. The term "circle" actually means the boundary of the disk. So the phrase "area of a circle" for "area of a disk" is in fact precisely technically incorrect for the concept it refers to. I do not dispute that many sources do define the phrase this way. My point is that the article uses the words "circle" and "disk" in their precise mathematical senses. See the first sentence of the article.

Now even if we grant that the article title should "the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists", in what specific way does having an article title be "circle" rather than "disk" actually benefit readers? I have clearly identified why it is essential that the title be "area of a disk", for reasons that are clearly and immediately related to reader comprehension, as it applies to the text of this article. Can you please articulate what the clear and immediate reason for changing the title to "article of a circle" is, for readers of the text of this article. So far your arguments seem like academic concerns over trivialities like what term is more popular, not what servers readers better. It seems to me that the reader is better served by having words actually mean things, rather than having the same word mean different things in the article depending on some arbitrary criteria that you haven't specified. Sławomir
Biały 16:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

the more specific meaning and terminology can immediately be stated beneath the title...and the article proper will largely use this terminology...not a problem...the primary way it benefits readers is that they'll actually find the article...if someone goes to Wikipedia and searches "area of a circle" they'll get there...nonetheless it will still throw a large number of people who might worry they've arrived at something different (think of middle school student looking for the formula for "area of a circle"...she's never heard the term "area of a disk" before)....the other problem is if you search "area of a circle" on google this article does not appear, whereas it would appear at or near the top if it was titled "area of a circle...Wikipedia has an interest in people finding its content....(probably the case we won't convince each other...that's why others will have to come along for consensus)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That is so counterfactual that I baulk at taking it as intended in good faith. For a start, when I checked out google with area of a circle, I got (among scads of other hits -- what else is new!)
Area of a disk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_of_a_disk Wikipedia Jump to Non-Euclidean circles - We can also measure the area of the spherical disk enclosed within a spherical circle, using the intrinsic surface area ...
Are you sure you have the same google in your neck of the woods? Incidentally, using just area circle I got the same hit, even earlier, so let's not get too too concerned about our obscurity, shall we? As for its throwing a large number of people, get real! Where did you get that statistic from; let's see you find just one live example! If anyone can read well enough to use WP at all, they will know what "disk" means when it appears, and right at the top along with this obscure title, it says "Redirected from..." And if they can't, then whichever literate friend is helping them could help them a bit more by reading that for them too. You might as well argue that we should make it easier by hyphenating the syl-la-bles like they do in kids' readers so that we don't throw them. Inventing such obsessive subjunctives is no sound argument; it goes beyond barrel-scraping. JonRichfield (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Area of a circle as by far the more common term, and the term more readers will recognise and understand. I don’t see how it is ambiguous. If you draw a circle and need its area then there is only one possible meaning, that I can see. Looking at the article it mentions 'circle' 91 times, 'disc' only five, that suggests that even within the article it is the more common term.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Area of a circle per WP:TECHNICAL. This is a topic that school children learn and so its introductory components, at least, should try to be at that level (where circle is by far the more common name for this topic) than at the level of research mathematics (where circle is clearly incorrect and disk is the correct word). We can gently steer readers towards more accurate terminology (as our lead sentence currently does) but I think using "disk" in the actual title will violate the principle of least surprise for most readers. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Area of a circle. The trade-off between "jargony in a way that will be off-putting to almost everyone who reads it" and "technically imprecise in a way that will never actually confuse anyone" is not difficult. --JBL (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Weakly for circle. Although I mostly agree with the arguments above that the article and the title should be consistent with one another, I see this as more of a reason to use circle more and disk less. I do not think this is confusing or even technically inaccurate. Names in mathematics are not so clear cut that the fact that a distinction is frequently drawn between 'circle' as the boundary and 'disk' as the circle and its interior makes referring to a circle as both the boundary and interior incorrect. The page Circle acknowledges that it is in "strict technical usage" that a circle is not taken to mean the interior as well. The page Polygon indicates that a polygon can either be the boundary or what is enclosed, and nobody is confused by this. Slawomir Bialy mentioned that different usages of circle caused confusion in the article, for example, when in one setting integrating over a circle meant over a curve, and in another over the area enclosed. I can see some legitimate reasons to want to use disk in this circumstance and maybe others like it, but I feel that with careful phrasing you could get by without it. I guess the question is whether this would be more of an issue than losing the visibility and clarity from titling the article 'area of a circle,' which corresponds to just about everyone's expectations and memory of the formula that the area of a circle is πr^2, a statement which is completely unambiguous because if you understand the concept of assigning an area to a one-dimensional object then you understand that area is zero, and if you don't then area implies two-dimensional. It seems that the content of WP:COMMONNAME - the section that this links to, not the whole article although that is also important - suggest several reasons for going with circle, such as:

'Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.'

'Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic.'

'In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article.'

Nat2 (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Weakly circle Although many mathematicians might call it a disk, the common name in general use is circle. Also, reliable sources seem to be supporting that as the more common name too. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Area of a disk. "Area of circle" is like "volume of sphere" or "area of ball". It doesn't feel right. YohanN7 (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I learned the formulas for area of a circle and volume of a sphere when first taught them; I think this is probably very common and most people visiting the article would not even understand what sounds wrong about "volume of sphere". It seems reasonable to explain the technical distinction, but Wolfram Mathworld for example has no issue discussing the areas of circles and the volumes of spheres and tori, even when in the last case it refers to a torus exclusively as a surface. Do you have a reliable source that objects to the correctness of phrases "volume of sphere", "area of circle", or even "volume of torus"? Nat2 (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

No, but they give mathematicians severe rashes. I said it doesn't sound right when I have my math hat on. This is a math article, and that fact suffices for me to cast my vote. YohanN7 (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I am a professional mathematician. "Area of a circle" and "volume of a sphere" are phrases that I use happily. No one is ever confused by them. The fact that they have a minor technical imprecision is overwhelmed by the fact that people are not total morons. --JBL (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Surely, "volume of a sphere" is only incorrect to the same extent as "volume of a barrel", since the barrel's volume is only that of the wood/metal/plastic of which it itself is composed! But as you say, "people are not total morons", and are generally more interested in the volume which the barrel is capable of containing .... ditto 'Area of a circle'. Pincrete (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Area of a circle per JohnBlackburne, JBL, Joseph2302 and others. There is no reason why the difference should not be explained in the article, but the 'natural name' one learnt in basic maths at school trumps precision here. Pincrete (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Question Would I be correct in thinking that the distinction is because a circle does not have area, in the same way that a line does not have width? If so would honour not be satisfied by explaining this, briefly, in the lead. Or would 'area within a circle' be correct terminology, not as the article title, but as part of the opening explanation? Pincrete (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

right, that's basically the technical distinction that can be made...though the article title can be changed right now without having to alter anything at all really as the current first sentence does a great job of explaining things technically..68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's tempting to add something about Osgood curves to the article (simple closed curves that, unlike circles, do have positive area) but I suspect it would be more confusing than helpful to much of this article's audience. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I wonder if it would work to do something like this: In the first sentence, simply say that the area of a circle with radius r is πr². Later in the lead, remark that although it is common even in mathematics to refer to the area of a circle, in a technical sense what is meant is the area of a disk, because a circle is a curve and a disk is the space bounded by that curve. For most of the article, disk can be replaced by circle. In the sections where the distinction is necessary - basically the ones involving integrals - it could be phrased like "let C be the boundary of the disk D (in other words let D be the region enclosed by the circle C) so that C = ∂D. Then the article could be named 'Area of a circle' without contradiction. Nat2 (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

yes, certainly the article proper can be very precise, careful, and technical in explaining the topic. but the topic (as far as the title of the article) imo is indeed "area of a circle."68.48.241.158 (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to this suggestion. What is wrong with the way the article states things now, using the correct "area enclosed by the circle"? Is there really any danger that a reader will not know what is intended? Sławomir
Biały 21:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't look at his specific suggestion very carefully...so wasn't endorsing it...just supporting the generic notion that the article proper can be very precise/technical etc..68.48.241.158 (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not object to using the phrases "area enclosed by a circle" or "area of the disk enclosed by a circle"; they are accurate and they are clear as long as 'disk' is understood. About a month ago, several sections up under 'First Sentence', the same IP user that started this discussion, challenged the first sentence (when the title was still circle) due to a misunderstanding of the term 'disk'. I have long been exposed to and am familiar with the distinction between circles and disks and clearly you have as well. I am just trying to imagine what it would be like to read the article without this understanding, and I am concerned that for an average reader with a high-school level exposure to mathematics the introduction of disk without a clear explanation of what it means may be legitimately confusing. Perhaps we need input from the less mathematically indoctrinated; after all, much of this topic is important to and can be understood by even people with only a grade-school level exposure to mathematics. Isn't there often a banner on the article page informing the viewer that a discussion about moving the page is underway? If we added that we could possibly gain input about whether or not this concern is legitimate. I also think that titling the article 'Area of a disk' probably reduces its visibility on Google for example (as mentioned above) and I am not aware of a reliable source indicating that 'Area of a circle' is inaccurate. Nat2 (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I think I qualify as "less mathematically indoctrinated", and have to say that it took me a while to understand WHY there was this discussion/distinction. Clarifying the distinction to non-mathematicians within the lead seems helpful, the 'disc' title, simply confusing. In ordinary usage, the circle is the 'shape' and 'area of' self-explanatory as meaning 'area bounded by'. 'Disc', in ordinary usage, is a slim circular object. No infant is told to 'draw a circle on your paper, now cut out the disc bounded by that circle'. In most practical uses (an area of grass?) 'circle' is the more commonly used term. Pincrete (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Area of a circle. Although I twinge every time I hear this improper locution, I have to admit that we can not change this popular expression. What we can do is make sure that the article is accurate, using clear and modern terminology (without being pedantic about it). We should bring up the issue early in the lead, state the problem clearly and then drop it. As a title, while Area of a circle is not technically correct today, it is historically accurate. This is the term used by Archimedes in Measurement of a circle; he, and other ancient Greeks, did not talk about disks. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that even if one doesn't like the universally used phrase or word for a concept it's still the universally used phrase or word for the concept..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Area of a disk. This problem, though genuine, is a solved problem, as already pointed out; and if we do not apply the solution properly we will exacerbate and perpetuate the existing problem. Some people have a short-sighted policy of using lay-speak for article titles because (as they rightly see it) people who need to look up search terms often neither know the technically correct terms, nor their implications. However, to use incorrect, illiterate or misleading terms in an article title commonly distorts and diminishes the value of the article, where the popular misconception creates and reinforces misunderstanding, ambiguity and ignorance -- which is the very opposite of our aim and duty in Wikipedia. A criminal example is in the use of common names of organisms instead of the biological names; including where those common names are regional, temporary, ambiguous, partial, and impermanent. To write the text to match the title then distorts the article. As someone has pointed out already, to obviate that problem is one of the proper functions of redirection and disambiguation! By all means have Area of a circle, Area of a ring. Area of the projection of a sphere and whatever else anyone likes or needs, but if you like them, put them into redirections, disambiguations or set indexes or the like; that gives the best of both worlds, plus helping to educate the innocents who got it wrong (if wrong it is; it isn't always wrong). By the line of reasoning that demands "Area of a circle", we would not have an article for "Helix" because Joe Blow only knows "Spiral", and we wouldn't have "Rectangle" or "Ellipse" because Joe only knows "Oblong". We have two duties: proper articles under proper titles on the one hand, and on the other, tools for adequate disambiguation, redirection, and perspective wherever they are needed or helpful. The argument that we have to admit that we can not change this popular expression is irrelevant and spurious; we need not change it if we cannot, and it is not clear that we cannot anyway, but even if we cannot, that does not imply that we have to entrench and indulge ignorance and delusion. By using the tools already at our disposal, we can help to mend such deficiencies without frustrating or confusing users who need the help. JonRichfield (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

you think the title of the "Coyote" article should be "Canis latrans"??...I tend to disagree with even people who agree with the title being "area of a circle" who think that title is somehow technically wrong. It's not technically wrong; it's just that the concept it is naming can be additionally and more precisely explained (which the article proper will do)..but the name of the topic imo is "area of a circle" by definition in that this is the term used for the concept described in the article...68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Not relevant. To indulge your quip, Canis latrans not only would be better, but would neither inconvenience nor confuse anyone searching or reading the article, as long as the proper and helpful redirection or disambiguation or both were in place, which they always should be, and when I notice such items missing, I add them. I assume that you do too, unless you argue that no one has the right to look up a subject under more than one heading, or that there must be a separate article for every headword. (Good luck if so, but pardon my lack of enthusiasm!) Your quip would have been more telling if the example you had chosen were Wolf or Wolf (disambiguation) or Gray wolf — see whether you can work out why! And yes, as things stand, Canis lupus would decidedly have been better than Gray wolf, which should be retained as a redirection. And after digesting that, have a good think about the implications of say Fish and Shark and Bull shark and Ragged tooth shark. You might find it more comfortable to avoid such byways, but it would be an edifying exercise.
You were in a stronger position with "It's not technically wrong; it's just that the concept it is naming can be additionally and more precisely explained", but I beg to insist that to argue that therefore there is some advantage to changing the title to "area of a circle" is reminiscent of Bierce's simile of "...like one who should plead robbery in excuse of theft..." The fact is that precision in expressing or describing a concept is precisely (you should excuse the term!) what we strive for, along with clarity, helpfulness and the like, being the sort of thing that editors of any encyclopedia should aim for, not so? Note that Nat2 approvingly refers to "the correctness of phrases "volume of sphere", "area of circle", or even "volume of torus", but in doing so, misses the point drastically, which is precision, rather than simple error. Those phrases are necessary shorthand or periphrasis where no simple term has been coined or assigned. It would be perfectly possible to coin say, Spharea, sphervol, torea, and torvol and on and on, or to refer to the volume enclosed by a toroidal surface as a "doughnut", and the plane surface delimited by a circle as a "cookie", and in some cases coinages of such types are justified when a common form of reference is currently too cumbersome or confusing, but the world is too full of concepts for us to have separate terms for every one. Even if we permitted words up to 30 letters in length, that would permit probably less than 1e40 words, and there are far more distinct concepts than that in the real world.
Where however, a precise term does exist, it is altogether considerate and virtuous to set an example, even if we cannot and would not impose any particular usages on the reader. And the precise term and usage do already exist in this case, namely in disk.
And that is exactly the point: by remaining with "Area of a disk", plus a redirect from "Area of a circle", we do not add a single click to the burden on the user, and at the same time we retain all the precision that is available, and therefore is desirable, and without coining or forcing anything at all. "Area of a circle" doesn't even have the justification of being a common name; it is a misnomer for a technical concept, and though we would not forbid it, we are neither logically, practically, nor in good conscience required to encourage it. Nor is it a basis for changing an article title that so far has caused no inconvenience apart from the burden on contributors to this RFC. JonRichfield (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

please see my indented post above from May 3 that explains the practical reasons for the proposed change/why this discussion is worth having...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

See below. JonRichfield (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Along the same lines, I don't feel that the phrase 'area of a circle' is incorrect because:

• It is not ambiguous.
• It is commonly used.
• Reputable sources use it (even some that specialize in math).
• I have not seen any reputable sources claiming that it is incorrect.

Admittedly there may be reputable sources that I don't know about. But after Googling phrases like 'circles have no area' and 'the area of a circle is zero', the closest I could come up with is this page, which mentions that strictly speaking a circle has no area, but quickly gives in to area of a circle. The title of the page itself is 'area enclosed by a circle', and in the table of contents it is just listed as area of a circle. I don't see the analogies to 'spiral' and 'helix' for example as holding very well, because 'spiral' is a more broad and imprecise term than 'helix'. If they referred to literally the same thing, then there would be no need for a separate 'helix' article. And in cases of scientific names vs. common names, WP:COMMONNAME gives examples of both. If the common name is ambiguous because it may refer to a variety of things, which is frequent, then there is a case for using the scientific one. But if there is no ambiguity, there is reason to use the common one. I think the quote "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." applies here. Nat2 (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Even if I were to agree with what you say (guess!) you have said nothing to suggest why a title of "Area of a circle" should replace the current title, nor in what way anyone who prefers the latter (which, please note, already exists as a redirection) is in the slightest disadvantaged or even incommoded by the status quo. As things stand, the principle that "article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors" is in full force, and the current title (not to mention existing redirects) suits the interests of both readers and editors. Until you can beat that, there is no reason, not even your personal preference, to change the title; if you were proposing a new article in the absence of the current one, your position might have been more defensible, but as things stand... And just in passing, what on earth gave you the idea that "'spiral' is a more broad and imprecise term than 'helix'"??? Both terms are described with reasonable precision and accuracy in WP in separate articles that link to each other, and various mathematical encyclopaedias describe them with various degrees of lucidity. I suggest that you do a bit of reading. JonRichfield (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

please see my indented post above from May 3 that explains the practical reasons for the proposed change/why this discussion is worth having...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Your post that you now have referred to more than once, thank you, rather to my surprise, because its content is rather embarrassing, gave no reason that I have not yet dismissed, both with reason and by now with repeated explanation. If you think that I have been too uncharitable, by all means explain, preferably rewording it this time a bit more defensibly, but until you, or someone else, can make a substantial point, I can hardly be expected to respond. Changing the title of an article is not a trivial concern and demands a positive reason, not a matter of minor whim or taste or common misconception. Nor is precision unimportant in the title, a blemish that may comfortably be explained away in the article body. This is an encyclopaedia, remember. So far no substantial reason whatsoever has appeared. The concept of a common name does not even arise; this is not like "coyote" for Canis latrans. The convenience and function for a reader, whether mathematically sophisticated or not, does not arise either, being already fully accommodated. The value of the article's content is not affected by having by precision in the title; in fact, rather the contrary. Accordingly, the argument is vacuous, and the incentive nugatory. Should you happen to think that I have simply joined the ranks of those who attempt to dismiss your valid points by ignoring them, please do feel free to mention anything that you think has not yet been addressed, and why you think it is important to mention it yet again. JonRichfield (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

this is the post, I meant: "seems like an ideal case for an RfC as can go either way...that is both arguments are pretty valid so it's going to have to come down to pure consensus...one reason it may matter practically is the google results..if google "area of a circle" this article doesn't appear...but if titled differently it would probably appear at or near the top...I think this is probably relevant as Wikipedia has an interest in people reaching its content etc."68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Most of your comments were indented, so forgive the confusion. However, with that settled and cleared up, please note that where an RFC can go either way, is a particularly bad situation to rely on consensus. That line of reasoning would leave us relying on being able to call a 52% majority a consensus, which I hope you agree would be nonsense.
I do hope however, that by now you have realised that as things stand Wikipedia's interest in people reaching the content they seek is already very fully realised in the current matter under discussion, consensus or no consensus. If you disagree, try searching for both titles in turn and see whether you can tell the difference in keystrokes, clarity, precision, or response. I certainly could not, but feel welcome to let us know your results. And if you cannot, please explain why we should approve changing the title or moving the articleJonRichfield (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

(@JonRichfield) I'll try to respond to both your above comments since you responded to mine in both of them. The argument that most stood out was that disk is more precisely correct than circle and that we should use more precise terms in article titles. I agree that disk is precise. However, when I said area of a circle is not ambiguous, I was claiming that it is not imprecise; the reasons why this is so are laid out above, but essentially come from the fact that there is no real reason to refer to the 'area of a circle' that is always zero. An analogous situation in more technical mathematical notation is the use of the / symbol in algebra. One takes E/F to mean E extends F (as a field extension, if E and F are fields) and G/H to mean G mod H, where H is a normal subgroup of a group G or an ideal of a ring G. Since fields are rings, if E is a field then one could interpret F as an ideal and E/F to mean E mod F; however since E is a field its only proper ideal is the zero ideal and thus E mod F would just be E. So there would be no reason to use the notation in that way, and the use of / to indicate different concepts remains unambiguous. The same is true with phrases such as "volume of a sphere."

What you say here is largely true, but as in the case of "volume of a torus" or "volume of a sphere", it deals with notation or terminology of convenience in a technical field where in each context all interested parties ideally agree on the terms and concepts. Nothing about it suggests any reason for changing this article, which is didactic, rather than of the nature of a professional dialogue, such as in the contexts you discussed. JonRichfield (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You also suggest that Canis latrans would be more appropriate than Coyote. I am not sure why, since the disambiguation page for coyote does not lead to any other species. Coyote is both very common and sufficiently precise. The fact that the Coyote article has the name it has appears to indicate a consensus contrary to your reasoning; WP:COMMONNAME likewise gives an example of referring to a species by its scientific name and an example of doing so by its common one; issues of both precision and prevalence are important in choosing. If you feel that you have done your duty in presenting arguments you see as reasonable then that's fine; everyone will see your input. However, if you wish to convince other people and influence the consensus, you may want to try to understand more what seems reasonable to them. The consensus expressed in WP:COMMONNAME is that the most common name in reliable sources is generally preferred, unless it is ambiguous or otherwise unsatisfactory. Since the area of a circle is taught to preteens, a substantial part of the readership will be outside the mathematical community; probably a very strong majority. I find no issues with the phrase area of a circle. I did not in my response to your post explain my positive reasons to choose area of a circle, which I listed in my original support for it. In my response I only treated your arguments. Nat2 (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Try not to tempt me into too deep a discussion on common names. Part of my reasons are to be found in Common name, to which I expect to add more sometime. There you may see just some reasons why common names almost always are variously problematic. More half of the common names that you may find in WP article titles are parochial (that is the correct common name because that is what we have called it round here during the last five years) ambiguous or downright meaningless. Trust me, if you do not happen to be a professional in the field, you could rapidly lose interest in the matter unless you have more time on your hands than I would wish on you. A more practical and useful approach would be to use a technically correct and reasonably stable term, and add as many redirects as you please. Because most common names of any long provenance or wide distribution are grossly ambiguous, you commonly would need disambiguation instead of redirection actually, but that does not affect the central principle. And, given that in most cases the most stable and meaningful term is the technical one, which accordingly makes it the best for the title, while the redirections remain benevolently and cheaply available, it makes sense in the few cases in which at least in one language the common name is stable and unambiguous (remarkably few) to retain the same convention and expedient. It costs nothing in convenience or helpfulness.
Note that it is a different matter with certain classes of trivial names and artificial groupings, such as Sucrose, Sugar, or Fish.
Whether you find an issue with "area of a circle" is not relevant; to justify a change, you need to identify a positive benefit of the change; your four points (if we are talking about the same points) were negatives: they were arguments that the change might be no worse. JonRichfield (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, (small sample) if counting weak votes as halves the consensus is breaking down to a ratio of exactly 2 to 1 in favor of "area of a circle"...I'd bet this ratio will remain pretty constant....note too this is a sample of generally advanced/interested math types...less advanced/interested editors would likely weigh in even more predominately for "area of a circle"...obviously, I hope a ratio like this will constitute consensus to change the title in that I think it's a better title (and not that I think the people in favor of "disk" are somehow wrong or bad...just that I think "circle" is preferable)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I see that Slawomir Bialy has added a second paragraph that uses the phrase area of a circle (bolded) which explains the technical distinction. I like this edit and think I can settle for it. If someone is looking for the phrase area of a circle they will quickly be drawn to it, and the paragraph is a good explanation. I think it will work well for google searches too; searching 'shoelace method' brings up 'shoelace formula', for example, even though the specific phrase is used later on in the first paragraph. I don't know if that's actually something that Wikipedia cares about but I think it's worth considering. I still think that it is worth considering what less mathematically-inclined editors think, but this could be a good compromise. Nat2 (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the circle itself has zero area. It's the area of the interior of the region that we're interested in.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's good content too for the article proper...but don't think it solves the problem of keeping the article titled "area of a disk."68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

would prefer it be constructed to bold "area of a disk" and suggest this is technical the more precise term....68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, as far as I understand, this is a problem of English. In Russian (for instance), one says "площадь круга" (area of disk) and "длина окружности", never "площадь окружности" (area of circle), nor "длина круга" (length of disk). And the same in the (rare) other languages that I happen to know. If you know many languages, please comment... Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

that's interesting and surprising...though likely not relevant to this decision..it is true in English though that the phrase "area of a circle" can be defined in all practicality as meaning "the area enclosed by a circle" or "the area of a circle's disk" etc..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I exaggerated a bit. "Площадь окружности" is indeed unthinkable (since "окружность" is somewhat technical), but "длина круга" is possible in common parlance (since "круг" is non-technical). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I disagree with the IPs recent edits intended to imply that "area of a circle" is somehow universal or vastly preferable to "area of a disk" in terms of actual use. This seems not right from the point of view of pure mathematics, and I am afraid I must insist that, before further emendations are added, that very good reliable sources attesting the "universalness" of "area of a circle" are needed. A crude Google Scholar search does not bear this out. For example, "area of the disk" gives just over a million hits, which is around the same number as "area of the circle". I think we stick with "often", rather than "universally" or "usually". It is a more neutral point-of-view word. Sławomir
  Biały 17:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

the only contention at this point is whether the word "often" or the word "usually" should be used in this beneficial new paragraph about the predominate use..."often" implies something other than the reality of the predominate use in the real world....whereas "usually used" "most usually used" or "universally used" is more accurate vis a vis reality for the encyclopedia...68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I see a pretty equal split, possibly with more informal sources using "area of a circle" and the more formal sources using "area of a disk". I would need a good deal of convincing that "universally used" is anywhere close to being accurate for an encyclopedia. Obviously, you are prepared to cite a reliable source? Sławomir
Biały 17:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

it's a matter of common sense/experience...but a google search can be used, I suppose...even you cite a factor of five in terms of common use of "area of a circle" via google...(common use being a search of google books/simple google web as opposed to google scholar)...but since this paragraph is about the phenomenon of the predominate use, I really don't understand what you're arguing about...68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but Google does not support your contention: [1] versus [2]. They seem about the same to me. And we can't cite the common sense of 68.48.241.158. Sławomir
Biały 17:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

it's such small, petty issue, which is why I tried to deal with it quickly on your talk page instead of here...but now I suppose others can weigh-in as to whether "often used" is the phenomenon being discussed in this paragraph or something more along the lines of "usually used" or "nearly universally used."68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

also, I suppose all this beginning with the most recent "comment" should be moved into its own thread, as it doesn't really have anything to do with the RfC...I don't know how to do this...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

But it is relevant to the subject of the RfC. The chief argument favoring "area of the circle" has been that the WP:COMMONNAME is so overwhelmingly prevalent that it trumps considerations of accuracy. But the numbers are not very overwhelming at all, which makes the case for COMMONNAME quite a lot weaker I think. Sławomir
Biały 18:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

we're discussing content in the article proper which can/will remain independent of the article's title...if you've got stuff for the other discussion about the title, by all means, put it in there...but this needs to moved as it's of no interest to people who want to weigh-in on just the issue of the title..so if someone could pleasemove everything after the most recent "comment" to it's own new thread.68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

No, let's not. People are perfectly capable of reading this relevant information. They may agree or disagree, but I do not think it is proper to exclude it. Sławomir
Biały 18:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

we're debating a single word or turn of phrase in the body of the article now...the other discussion is about what the article should be titled...if you've dug up something in this discussion that just happens to have relevance to the other thread than, by all means, put it up there!!...????68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

move it and then collapse this back and forth about moving it!!!! (I don't know how to do either)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Arguing about 'often'/'usually' is probably lamer than 'circle'/'disk'! 'Often' is sufficient to make it clear to mathematical dunces (like myself), that we aren't the only ones to 'misuse' the terms. Pincrete (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

lol, yes, yes it is. I'm willing to drop the fight.."often" is fine though not quite as accurate to one's experience of the world as some other language would be...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Area of a circle. The guidance on common names would seem to give this an edge, although disk does have a decent case. If someone asks what pi*r^2 is, they're probably going to mostly reply with the grade school answer of area of a circle. Looking at google, circle gets about 400 million hits vs. 190 million for disk. Even if it is technically incorrect, we aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Countless schools teach it as area of a circle, so it makes sense to have it titled as such and guide the readers to the terminology issues in the article itself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Area of a disk Per Slawekb's comments above that it is technically wrong to call it the area of a circle. In any case, the calculus classes that teach the derivation of the formula all pose it as the "area of a disk", so I see the COMMONNAME argument as weak here. It is not as if only pure mathematicians use the term.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Area of circle,

  

  An example of a Debris Disk, which is not a circle.

  although I am more into Science/Astronomy "Disk" could mean something like a Debris disk which is more of a ring rather than a circle (See the image of the Debris Disk around Fomalhaut beside this comment). Therefore, Area of a Circle would be a better name plus also note that Area of a Circle is definitely more common than "Area of a Disk". Davidbuddy9 Talk  04:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not a topic in astronomy, but maths and logic. In applied disciplines the application of terms commonly is loose, sometimes because none of the established vocabulary is suitable or convenient, or because of slovenly practice. For example, the "debris disk" could better have been called "debris ring" without the confusing imprecision of either "debris disk" or "debris circle", neither of which would suit. "I suppose "debris toroid" might have merit, if it referred to the more or less toroidal envelope of the main orbits that the occupants of the volume follow. But none of that is relevant in the current connection. JonRichfield (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree the first part of his discussion isn't relevant...at the end he supports his vote via common name though...so certainly his response shouldn't be disregarded as nonsensical...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Kindly note that I used no contemptuous terms such as "nonsensical". Nor have you any grounds for suggesting that I thought his argument should be "disregarded" and in fact I emphatically did not disregard it; I explained the reason that his argument was inappropriate in context, however much merit it might have in a slightly, but importantly, different context. In fact, I actually was interested in his main point, which at the least was from a point of view different from the content of the discussion so far. I trust that you were not trying to enlist his support by drumming up and exploiting discord in the discussion. JonRichfield (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

While you didn't use the term nonsensical, 'slovenly' is reasonably contemptuous. Also I think meant the IP meant that Davidbuddy9's argument had weight, not that you had failed to considerate when he said 'disregarded'. While 'area of a disk' probably does not bring to mind for most people anything in astronomy, I can see how for someone acquainted with those particular disks it might, and since disk has a variety of non-mathematical uses, outside of mathematics it might well bring to mind different concepts for different people. Area of a circle to my knowledge has no other meanings. If the article did not make it exceptionally clear that 'area of a disk' and 'area of a circle' are the same thing (which it now does), I do not think it would be obvious to everyone that they are. The reverse is not true for 'area of a circle'. The non-mathematical uses of terms are relevant, for the general reader, to the clarity of a mathematics article. (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Nat2 the reason that "slovenly" might have sounded "reasonably contemptuous" is simply that it was reasonably contemptuously intended, but please note that the object of the contempt was neither the correspondent, nor the correspondent's views, but the terminology that he referred to (and that he did not actively promote or recommend; he just mentioned it as an example in common practice). You do not make it clear why you seem to think that by countering the argument itself as I did, I held it in contempt or suggested that it did not have weight. All I did was to point out that it was not directly relevant and that the example presented was one of unnecessary imprecision. And if as you say, "area of a circle" means exactly the same as "area of a disk", then that in isolation provides no positive incentive for changing the article title. We do not spend our time and effort on compounding confusion by seeking out titles that might pointlessly, though harmlessly, be reworded (more than half, I would guess). You say that "area of a circle" has no other meanings, but you fail to resolve the question of whether it has any fundamental meaning at all, and in particular, if it does,then how clear that meaning might be. Try: "Area of a set of points equidistant from a particular point in that plane". Hmm?
Bear in mind that the user who prefers either title to the other, gets where he wishes equally fast and conveniently no matter which he searched for. Furthermore, by using the existing title, we certainly do not impose anything on anyone; we do nothing along the lines of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (which someone objected to, not you, of course) but we do assist in a small way in alerting minds that are not familiar with a point of precision that might someday assist some teacher or some pupil. How? we do not know; we might even stimulate some mind into rebelling against the disk. But one way or the other, writing great wrongs is not something we have to avoid, just not something that we are not committed to, and that we must not distort our mission with. And anyway, nor is our mission wronging great rights.
As you rightly say, the non-mathematical uses of terms are relevant to the clarity of a mathematics article, but that none the less does not mean that the title of the article would benefit from being the less precise; such issues should be dealt with in the text, not the title, which should be as precise as clarity permits. You also might find it helpful to examine the existing articles on Circle and on Disk (mathematics), both of which are compatible with the current title, but not with Area of a circle. We are supposed to bear the interests of the user in mind, and a reasonable consistency is one way to do that. The sum is that wherever there is an argument for the change, it is not a positive argument, which is what is necessary to justify a change, and not a single argument for the harm of leaving things as they are, has been unanswered, not the familiar-name, the precision, nor ease of access. So what remains? The initiative for this change is bankrupt. JonRichfield (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

you continue to assert that you've addressed every argument (and done away with them..which I disagree with)..but you've never particularly even addressed this one: (quoting from myself in earlier post): ..."if someone goes to Wikipedia and searches "area of a circle" they'll get there...nonetheless it will still throw a large number of people who might worry they've arrived at something different (think of middle school student looking for the formula for "area of a circle"...she's never heard the term "area of a disk" before)....the other problem is if you search "area of a circle" on google this article does not appear, whereas it would appear at or near the top if it was titled "area of a circle...Wikipedia has an interest in people finding its content." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.241.158 (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Permit me then to repeat my answer here as well: That is so counterfactual that I baulk at taking it as intended in good faith. For a start, when I checked out google with area of a circle, I got (among scads of other hits -- what else is new!)
Area of a disk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_of_a_disk Wikipedia Jump to Non-Euclidean circles - We can also measure the area of the spherical disk enclosed within a spherical circle, using the intrinsic surface area ...
Are you sure you have the same google in your neck of the woods? Incidentally, using just area circle I got the same hit, even earlier, and area of disk even sooner yet, so let's not get too too concerned about our obscurity, shall we? As for its throwing a large number of people, get real! Where did you get that statistic from; let's see you find just one live example! If anyone can read well enough to use WP at all, they will know what "disk" means when it appears, and right at the top along with this obscure title, it says "Redirected from..." And if they can't, then whichever literate friend is helping them could help them a bit more by reading that for them too. You might as well argue that we should make it easier by hyphenating the syl-la-bles like they do in kids' readers so that we don't throw them. Inventing such obsessive subjunctives is no sound argument; it goes beyond barrel-scraping.
And you claim that I have not in fact scouted every point presented? Well, there is a simple way to demonstrate the inadequacy of my claim: tabulate your (and any other) points in one column of a three-column table (if you need help setting one up, just ask!)
In the first column put your pro points (it is not necessary or desirable to include the arguments, especially after all the current flood of spittle and ink, just "Common name", "Accessible" or the like should do.)
In the second column the counter-point could go in the same way, but the idea is that you do not fill that in; I, or similarly opined participants could do that; no reason to make you do ALL the work. Items that you do not mention, I would happily append to the table, leaving you to insert your counter-points in turn. Of course, if you happen to think of something new, feel welcome to add those as well. The third column is left for readers who would like to tally their plusses and minuses. Again, anyone who thinks that between us we are missing something could add other rows, but I'd be mildly surprised if the completed table were even a dozen points long; Nat came up with 4 and the text so far has been repetitive to a degree.
So: are you game? Or do you just wish to talk fast and hope no one will notice the fine print? JonRichfield (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

just a note: the article appears about 15th according to my google search of "area of a circle," lost onto the second page of results...certainly it would soon appear at or near the top if titled "area of a circle."68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I note that, despite the contention that "area of a circle" is incorrect, there are by my count six uses of the phrases "area of a circle", "area of the circle" and "circle's area" in the article to describe the concept, outside of the discussion that this is technically incorrect. (The phrase "area of the/an ellipse" is also used a few times, but I'm not sure whether an ellipse can be used to describe the area inside the boundary or like "circle" correctly just descibes the boundary itself.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

reading through quickly, the phrasing in the article proper generally seems to keep it along the precision of "area enclosed"/"area of disk" etc...which is good and proper...I don't see many if any examples in the article proper of just "area of a circle" but for that new paragraph in the intro (but of course "area of a circle" should be the title of the article imo)...68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment and suggestion. While I agree with Sławomir and others about how unsavory an incorrect title is, I am not in agreement with their assessment of WP:COMMONNAME. What I have seen on this page has convinced me that amongst people who should know better only about 50% use the correct terminology. These arguments have almost completely ignored the, shall we say, silent super-majority, of people whose geometric studies probably ended in high school. Be that as it may, I do have a compromise suggestion. The popular and contemporary geometry textbook author, Gerard Venema, has used the term Area of a circular region in his Foundations of Geometry text. At first I was a little skeptical about this, but the more I have thought about it, the better it sounds to me. The primary benefit of this title is that it is at least correct. Also, it should not produce a surprise response from anyone redirected here from Area of a circle and only a mild groan from those redirected from Area of a disk. Having some form of circle in the title satisfies my need to see a connection with the common name which I believe is needed for several reasons, one of which is providing a historical referent (when people start referring to squaring the disk I will know that this misnomer has finally been put to rest.) Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I also like this suggestion. However, I worry that it may stray even further from the COMMONNAME implementation that others have proposed, so I can't see it getting much real traction in this rfc. Sławomir
Biały 22:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

yeah, it's an interesting idea but in the end I just couldn't support it...it ends up muddling things, I think...I'd prefer "area of a disk" to this, probably..so still support "area of a circle."68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It also conflicts with WP:TITLE#Conciseness. I too doubt that anyone is going to support this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

and, indeed, imagine trying to make the basically analogous change of "squaring the circle" to "squaring the disk"....68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Time to Close:This has been open one week now; about a dozen people have weighed-in..the ratio is about exactly 2 to 1 in favor of "area of a circle"...It's been a few days since anyone has "cast a vote." It seems the arguments for both sides have pretty much been stated and are becoming tiring (that is, I don't think people will be coming along with particularly novel ideas)...It would seem too that the input supporting "area of a circle" has cited/argued along the lines of policy at least as much as the input supporting "disk." There's probably a lot of people who noticed/were made aware of this RfC who just didn't care either way...but there's also the notion of that silent/unaware "super-majority" that was mentioned that common sense suggests would hugely side with "circle." So, should an admin go ahead and change the title so we can move on from this?? I don't think the people in favor of "disk" are really going to lose much sleep over this (particularly with the new paragraph in the intro..) Also, should a note be placed in the TALK BOX referencing this to help avoid this issue coming up again too soon in the future?)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I would definitely object to that proposal; it would fly in the face, not only of the preponderance of arguments presented, (would you care to itemise them if you doubt that? ) but that to change a title without a functional reason also is against policy. This is not a show-of-hands classroom debate, please note, but an RFC, and a simple majority is no mandate. JonRichfield (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC

you're characterizations simply aren't in the record, particularly the functional reason one...according to policy, numbers are very relevant, particularly when they can be supported by policy (which they can be)...this has simply run its course...time to move on..68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from contacting me on my talk page unless you have something that concerns me personally; what you said in your message did nothing of the kind and it is neither acceptable nor courteous for you to pursue the RFC where the rest of the participants here are not party to the exchanges. You said in part: "but you should consider the article "squaring the circle"....changing it to "squaring the disk" is the analogue..." It is nothing of the type. The issue here is whether to change the title of this existing article from the precise and inoffensive "Area of a disk", while retaining the convenient "Area of a circle" where it serves as an effectively transparent and functional redirection. If the article had originally been "area of a circle", I should have refrained from comment, though I might have added "Area of a disk" as a redirection and ensured that the issue were mentioned in the article. To speak as though it were a matter of incorrectness is an insult to everyone's intelligence (or should be). That point was quite adequately dealt with by Nat and others in the contexts of torus, sphere and even barrel. The analogy to squaring a disk is invalid because in that connection the difficulty applies just as strongly to the perimeter as to the area; also it would be inconvenient as well as unnecessary to make a change to the established article's name. So let's stick to the point shall we? JonRichfield (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

there was nothing unacceptable nor not courteous about my post on your talk page..that suggestion is ridiculous..but, no, squaring the circle has nothing to do with the perimeter in that it's an issue of area, of squaring the disk...I will not engage you here nor there any longer, however...as it's boring and tiring..this discussion has run its course...I'm not filling up this talk page with you any longer..particularly since your tone is generally unfriendly..respond if you like but I won't respond to you again..68.48.241.158 (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

When you made your post yesterday, it had not been "a few days since anyone has cast a vote.". It had been two days since a straight vote, and less than one day since a comment. The discussion seems alive still. You have been trying to declare your side the winner since May 5, when the RfC was only two days old.

You speculate about a "silent/unaware super-majority" that obviously sides with you. If the opinions offered in this RfC could be overwhelmed with vague claims of much wider opinions, then what would be the point of the RfC?

You seem eager to complete this process. Perhaps you are surprised that it has gone so long already. Perhaps you are astounded that some editors disagree with you. But they do, and for legitimate reasons. Regards. Mgnbar (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I would add that most of the arguments in support of circle cite WP:COMMONNAME, as if there were a vast supermajority of reliable sources using that terminology in favor of disk. I have given actual numerical evidence to suggest that, although circle may have a slight edge numerically, the difference is not nearly so vast as has been suggested. In some searches, the two terms appear to have about an equal number of hits. So I don't think those !votes count for much. They amount to WP:ILIKEIT. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

the post I'm writing now is becoming more like personal forum discussion in I think the RfC has run it's course but I'm curious what Slawomir thinks about the "squaring the circle" terminology (as I respect his general mathematical learnedness)...is this fairly analogous or completely analogous (technically speaking) to this discussion? that is, more precisely should be "squaring the disk"?68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I tried to summarize the RfC objectively as possible in that "time to close" post (and believe I did)..the discussion has basically died off...for the past few days it's mostly consisted of one editor aggressively (abrasively?..he's accused me of being inappropriate, not courteous, and acting in bad faith...none of which are in the record) and long-windedly restating arguments. it's tiring...another editor suggested "the silent super-majority" and common sense suggests it exists...it seems the process has run its course and should be acted upon...as this is in the spirit of how Wikipedia works...many people took the time to participate here; it shouldn't be for naught...ie the status quo just remain because people move on/forget/lose interest in what has transpired here (since I initiated the RfC I figure I should at least try to shepherd it through the process as no one else might)...and no one should lose sleep over any of this...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Not so fast; declaring victory by bulldozing through a conclusion when you have failed to establish any points is neither ethical nor even permissible. I offered to help you with a tabulation of the pros and cons, but since you did not take advantage of the offer, I've started a table for you (and anyone who finds the walls of text too repellent (and don't I sympathise!)) You and anyone are welcome to add rows or edit any or the pro entries (and within reason the cons) but in either case try to stick to points that have already been urged and that affect the issue of whether to change. I'll be back for more, but am at the moment in a hurry, so forgive the temporary incompleteness. Will be back JonRichfield (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Circle - The RfC is still open, so I'll add my weight to the side wanting "circle". I won't belabor the arguments too much, except to say that I've never heard anyone, including teachers, from elementary school through (undergraduate) university, say "area of a disk", that in fact, despite my college education I was (until this moment) under the mistaken impression that "disk" meant a "very thin but still 3d cylinder" so seeing the title in, say, a google results page would mean that I would skip past it, thinking google had brought up the wrong page. Disk, in this context, seems jargony, and not at all how people tend to use the word in day-to-day life. The name of this concept is "area of a circle", and even if circle is used differently in a technical sense, that shouldn't change the article's common name. I agree that WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies here. Crap, I said I wouldn't belabor the point... Fieari (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary subsection to help editing

Pro-change	Con-Change	--Remarks Column--
Common names preferred for titles	Not a common name, but an imprecise term of convenience	---
If a strong majority of a few RFC respondents dislike a title, that justifies change even if others dispute the logic	Article title changes demand positive reasons & every positive reason is disputed	---
By analogy to eg "volume of torus", "area of circle" is acceptable and natural	No accepted term exists for eg "surface of torus" but the term "disk" is accepted and avoids inconsistency with the definition of "circle"	---
Everyone understands "Area of circle", so there is no point to speaking of "disk"	No more than they understand "disk", so that is no positive reason to change title	---
No one says "Area of disk", so it is hard to find the article and potentially confusing	Not so, the redirection is efficient & educationally alerts readers to a point of precision.	---
The entry does not appear in google on the first page	It does appear in Google, in fact in response to several forms of keyword wording	---
The expression "area of circle" is in wider use than "Area of disk"	That is not the issue; disk is inarguably precise and correct, as suits a title; redirection prevents any hypothetical confusion	---
The redirection violates the Principle of least astonishment	No more so than every other redirection	---
per WP:TECHNICAL... introductory components, ... should try to be at {school} level, (where circle is by far the more common name for this topic)	We do not generally start technical articles with prevalent school howlers, yet we do not thereby experience gross reader confusion.	---
"jargony in a way that will be off-putting to almost everyone who reads it" as this usage of disk is peculiar to specialists	No jargon involved; familiar, transparent word, its precision fully explained in context	---
Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title	It does when the technically name presents no functional disadvantage. If misnomers are current, they appear in redirections	---
Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic	It is not pedantic to use a technically correct term in the title of a technical article	---
"an article title is a natural language word or expression that indicates the subject," and circle is more natural in this phrase than disk	"Area of a disk" is precisely a natural language expression that indicates the subject	---
"a minor technical imprecision is overwhelmed by the fact that people are not total morons"	Exactly because people are not total morons, they will not be overwhelmed minor technical precision	---
"the 'natural name' one learnt in basic maths at school trumps precision"	It does in the redirection, but not in the article title	---
"the topic (as far as the title of the article) ... is indeed "area of a circle"	"Circle's" definition is the line, hence the area is NOT the topic, & no reason for imprecision in the title	---
It is not ambiguous or imprecise in the sense that it is difficult to misunderstand what is referred to	It is avoidably imprecise; even colloquially, imprecision is undesirable in maths	---
It is commonly used	Many commonly used misnomers are tediously drummed out of pupils; that is no reason to support them in our titles	---
Reputable sources use it (even some that specialize in math), so users familiar with those sources will expect it	Its use in reputable sources does not make it mathematical nor helpful to the reader	---
Reputable sources do not claim that "circle" is incorrect in this context	Reputable sources define circle as a line (cf. Disk), implying the error	---
We aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.	We aren't trying to. The idea is to be helpful to the learner/reader	---
"Squaring the disk" sounds absurd	"Area of a disk" does not, & squaring is not relevant to our title here anyway.	---
"Some form of circle in the title satisfies my need"	That need is what the redirection satisfies, you can search for it any day	---
The silent super-majorities support it	Attempts to appeal to silent super-majorities "amount to WP:ILIKEIT"	---
We must hurry and close because some parties are tired of this	So are other parties, but justification of the change has fallen down on every point.	---
Consistent terminology is a bad thing in mathematics articles, worthy of ridicule	WTF?	---

Further discussion (section of convenience)

OK, I proposed tabulating the pros and cons and someone didn't find it expedient or didn't know how to, so I did it for him so that it became easier for anyone to follow than wading through the walls of rhetoric, though I suspect that those who are pushing the case will find this table even less expedient. Now, having been forced to state both sides of the issue, I cannot claim to have been impartial, though I have relied on quotes or partial quotes as far as was reasonably convenient. I therefore invite those who disagree with the table to rectify especially the first column, but please put any new rhetoric outside the table, because brevity and clarity are the very point of the tabulation. We don't NEED new walls of text. Let me know wherever in my haste I have perpetrated incomprehensible telegraphese JonRichfield (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Your attempted tabulation of pros and cons looks extremely biased in favor of one point of view to me. It looks more like a tabulation of (1) arguments in favor of your position and strawman arguments against them, and (2) arguments against your position and your rebuttals to them. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur with this assessment of the table. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

David Eppstein and Bill Cherowitzo Of course it is; I was the one to establish the table because no one else did. Remember? I realised that someone who had not thought of condensing the matter or putting work into itemising it would not like it, but what did you expect when any one side composes the source for a whole topic? But we need a balanced, itemised summary; have you read the rest of this cat-fight and assessed its practical effect? Did you read what I said at the end of the table? I therefore invite those who disagree with the table to rectify especially the first column, but please put any new rhetoric outside the table, because brevity and clarity are the very point of the tabulation. We don't NEED new walls of text. Let me know wherever in my haste I have perpetrated incomprehensible telegraphese. Where you don't like what you see as straw men that I put in the first column (generally copied from others' text. please note!), feel not just free, but welcome to right matters; I cannot be expected to put your spin on what are not my views of matters. As for refutation, what do you do you demand? Capitulation? Where you feel that I have omitted something, insert a new row. I even don't object to good-faith editing in the middle column, though I should prefer you to edit the right-hand remarks column for that. Just please don't fill the table with more walls-of-text; I doubt that we are in the market for a lot of that. I trust that you will admit that I have not omitted many of the points at issue. If you think that I have, please add rows on a similar basis. JonRichfield (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

viewing this as a "cat-fight" is simply odd. that and along with other things you state suggest you should perhaps look into the "Wikipedia is not about winning" policy, the "dropping the stick" policy," and "the failure to get the point" policy. your table is misleading and therefore unhelpful (and nobody cares to correct it as this entire discussion has run its course and is tiring)..you've weighed-in plenty..please consider being done..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

note: I do realize it took you not an insubstantial amount of time to construct the table, so feel a little bad that it will be/should be dismissed in its current state..and it's just not worth salvaging at this point in the discussion..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Circle, mostly per what David Eppstein said. Those who understand the subtlety of disk-vs-circle will not be confused by "circle", while those who do not understand that subtlety will be confused by "disk". EEng 12:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Those who 'do not understand that subtlety will be confused by "disk"' will not be educated by omission of the point, and if they cannot understand what to do when they get to "area of a disk", are unlikely to understand either form of article anyway. JonRichfield (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Give it up. I was friends with Andrew Gleason for 30 years, and I assure you he was happy to say "area of a circle" outside of analysis class. EEng 13:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I take back the "outside of analysis class": "Recall that the area of a pie-shaped piece of a circle is one-half the central angle (in radians) times the square of the radius." EEng 13:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice I am sure; I would have loved to have known him too. And von Neumann and Ulam, and Feinman, and Erdos, and.... well, Euler and Maxwell for that matter (though I would not have liked Gauss and Newton much I think). All of which has what to do with this RFC? If you think any of that counts toward a proper consideration of encyclopaedic structure, please add it as a row in the table. JonRichfield (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It shows that one of the "giants of 20th-century mathematics" thought area of a circle is perfectly fine, even in a technical discussion. No need to bother with your table. Give it up. You're wasting everyone's time. EEng 14:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not really about "subtlety", but rather about how the words "circle" and "disk" are used in this very article. Imagine if, instead of the article United Kingdom, we decided that the article should be renamed to England, but all of the references to United Kingdon and England be kept as they are. This is not merely some fussy issue to do with particular nuances of meaning. The terms "United Kingdom" and "England" are actually used in specific ways in those articles. Having a title that eschews this meaning, just because (perhaps) most people typing "England" into the Google search bar may actually mean "United Kingdom" seems an incredibly weak justification for titling the article, and the usage in the title is in direct conflict with the use in the article (and the standard meanings of the terms in mathematics as well). Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the analogy..there are separate articles for "England" and "UK" as they're about different concepts...there will never be separate articles for "area circle"/"area disk"...and the phrasing in the article proper simply creates no confusion/difficulties...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you from creating the article "area of a circle", showing that the area of a circle is equal to zero. But I would suggest that such an article actually would be confusing to most readers. In contrast, an article entitled "area of a disk" is (1) not confusing, (2) uses the term in a consistent way in the title as it does in the text, and (3) uses the word "disk" in its conventional English sense. As someone already noted, this is not some obscure term of art. However, what EEng has suggested is that it doesn't really matter whether we call it the circle or the disk. That is clearly false. He has clearly not yet read our article area of a disk, where the difference in meaning is not just some subtlety to do with whether some reader is confused for a fraction of a second before reading the first sentence, but that it actually does matter in places. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

PLEASE CLOSE: policy can justify either title (as has been fully borne out here)...novel arguments will not be forthcoming...counting weak votes as halves we stand at 9.5 to 4.5 in favor of "circle." (or better than 2 to 1) It is unreasonable to expect this ratio to largely change if this continues on (as you math folk understand)...some 16 people weighed-in, more than most RfCs I've looked at..and it's been open more than a week now. No one has weighed-in with a "vote" in several days but for a very recent "circle" vote. Policy says closure should not require formal/outside assistance..could someone please close it down with a brief summary note...and perhaps also add a note in the talk box pointing to this discussion...and then finally move the name of the article to "circle." This RfC has served its purpose; let's move on to other things please...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: ratio 11 to 5 in favor of "circle" is disregard whether weak vote or note (nearly same ratio)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC's traditionally stay open for 30 days. Closing after 9–10 days would be unusual... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Volume of a Ball? EEng 16:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

my reading of the guidelines suggest it would be perfectly acceptable to close this particular RfC as what it has shown has been fully borne out (as I described in previous post)..for several days we've mostly just had long posts just restating the same arguments again and again by people who've already weighed-in...we haven't had anyone new weigh-in for several days but for one new person who weighed-in along the lines of the rest of the consensus...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Still more discussion

Somewhat important COMMENT ON CLOSURE - sorry to yell. Closure cannot be forced by a few people requesting it. An RfC runs for 30 days by default. It takes time for people to notice the hubub or be solicted by bot. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

the policy page says it is listed for 30 days by default, unless ended sooner...not that it runs for 30 days by default...this can be ended sooner in accordance with policy...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe you should be glad that I didn't personally fulfill your request for closure though, because I'd have closed in favor of no change. Before I made my comment below I was uninvolved, and I see no current consensus for changing it ;) But I do think we have plenty of time; very few things on WP are urgent, and I'm personally happy to wait for more thoughts on this somewhat minor but obviously contentious issue. If you really want promote closure, a better place to do that might be to post at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure rather than here. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

well this would then turn on what constitutes consensus, which may have to be a separate debate (I hope not)..in this case because the appeal to policy is pretty equal for both sides (in both quality and quantity) I think the count must in the end decide..a ratio of 2 to 1 should certainly count as consensus in this context imo (otherwise what's the point of attempting to discover a consensus if it's just ignored?). I highly expect the ratio to remain pretty constant too, if not skew even more toward 'circle' as less interested math type people more slowly become aware of this rfc...I think it's less contentious than it seems too but for a lot of long posts recently from one editor...68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Area of a disk. Per Sławomir and JonRichfield, who have I think more than successfully defended the name as is. It's quite simple - disks are filled, circles are not. Circle may have a bit more currency, but disk is not a rare jargony term of art. We have compact discs and spinal discs and many of us remember floppy disks. Also on close calls and no consensus we usually default to no change, as described at WP:NOCON. Also this thread is a mess and is not organized at all. Half the problem is the RfC wasn't started right. Next time, consider adding a section for !vote and a section for comment/discussion. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

a big part of the mess is it's dragging on too long and some people are long-windedly restating arguments again and again...again, the policy can legitimately go either way here (as has been borne out) so in this particular case it's largely going to come down to a pure count...a ratio of 2 to 1 I would think most certainly constitutes a consensus in these circumstances...(and the notion of sampling would suggest it won't hugely change even though a fairly small sample)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I feel your pain. Without too free a mea culpa, I none the less feel that it is possible that you might have me in mind as one of the people who are long-windedly restating arguments again and again...again. (Your forgiveness if I should missattribute your intent, please). And for sure I see that I have noised my views abroad no less than 20 times in this RFC. Pardon me while I fetch something sharp and bare my wrists... Ooops... justasec! I see that someone who shall here be nameless and who is distinguished only by his number, has weighed in with 45. Mmmm... in the immortal words of the too, too mortal Chesterton, I think I will not hang myself today. JonRichfield (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

cute but all of my posts recently have been a long the lines of moving this along, being the initiator of the rfc (as opposed to substantively arguing the case)..back when the case was being argued in novel ways etc you'll see too that my posts weren't particularly long-winded..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Area of a disk, with redirect from "Area of circle". Is the article aimed at school-level readers, or university level readers? Looking at most of the article, it is clearly aimed at university-level readers. If the title is "Area of a circle", and a reader reaches the statement "The integral of ds over the whole circle $\partial D$ is just the arc length", they may wonder "is the article still using "circle" to refer to the enclosed area, or does it now mean the enclosing curve? And if it has changed to the latter, where did it change?" Maproom (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

policy of Wikipedia is to not be "aimed" at experts or university types, so not sure this is relevant..(in fact this article gets way too advanced way too fast in current state imo)..Seems logic cited here to align with policy actually points to "Circle"..68.48.241.158 (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

No, but it's supposed to be an accurate, neutral presentation of knowledge. The question "is the article still using "circle" to refer to the enclosed area, or does it now mean the enclosing curve? And if it has changed to the latter, where did it change?" seems to strike at the heart of the matter. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

quite a stretch to suggest there's any actual confusion created imo...what about the "semicircle proof" section and the phrasing there? are we going to change this to "the area of a semidisk.."?68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The idea that the article should try, as much as possible, to use a consistent terminology for things is hardly some outlandish suggestion worthy of ridicule, even if you may not agree with it. But, ok. I'm getting that you regard the following statement as true: "Consistent terminology in a mathematics article is a bad thing." Perhaps you would like to add this argument to Richfield's table? I will do it for you if you like. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

you must be having a bad day as normally you keep it professional...your recent addition to the already unhelpful table is just silliness and not consistent with your normal behavior...I commented on this "vote" as it seemed to contain a novel argument (though one that seems to have it backwards vis a vis Wikipedia policy)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You still have not contradicted the statement "Consistent terminology in a mathematics article is a bad thing." I am curious to know your actual opinion on the matter of consistent terminology. When I brought this up, you apparently thought it was worth sneering at, so I can infer that you must think that having consistent terminology is actually a bad thing? If not, please explain how on the one hand it is a good thing to try to have consistent terminology, and yet it is worth your ridicule. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I've always advocated clear and precise phrasing throughout the article..the article can use clear and precise phrasing and the exact nature of the phrasing may change slightly depending on context..I really don't know where you're getting this "ridicule" stuff68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your response to this vote, and your indication that "area of a semicircle" should be "area of a semidisk" is ridiculous. Do you or do you not believe that the article should use clear and precise phrasing throughout? If you do, then I fail to see how your response to my above reply is consistent. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually a little confused about what you're advocating here...my point is that it would be silly to change the phrasing from "area of a semicircle" to "area of a semidisk" because "area of a semicircle" is clear, proper, creates no confusion etc...doesn't your line of thinking suggest it would be better to change it to "area of a semidisk" or somehow avoid the phrase "area of a semicircle"?? And would you actually advocate doing this? this is along the lines of the "squaring the circle" article title..you seemed to want to avoid discussing this...I think this example is actually a major problem for wanting this article titled "area of a disk."..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Semicircle is the accepted term for half a disk. Squaring the circle is the attempt to find a ruler and compass construction that transforms a circle to a square enclosing the same area. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

who knows, perhaps there's a small contingent out there who is upset by "area of a semicircle." but note: I don't think it's been demonstrated (or can be demonstrated) that anyone out there of Wikipedia notability actually thinks it's somehow wrong/improper/confusing/upsetting to use "area of circle" for the concept of the area enclosed by a circle..you've basically only demonstrated that people also use "area of a disk," particularly in special contexts..and that "area of a circle" is generally far more often used for the concept...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It has already been noted that a positive reason for a change is required. Also, you're minimizing the argument to maintain consistency and precision again. The argument isn't "Waah, I'm upset by circle", it is: "The article uses circle to mean a curve and disk to mean the enclosed region, and the title should be consistent with the precise usage in the article, per WP:COMMONNAME." Wikipedia has plenty of articles (and titles) that I am sure are upsetting to lots of people. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

reason has of course been given for why a change is beneficial/required for improving Wikipedia (I'm not going to restate them at this point). And the phrasing in the article proper varies based on context, which is fine..but this is about the title...on balance I don't think the WP:COMMONNAME policy looked at in its entirety has worked out too well for "disk." (but this back and forth has mostly been meta-commentary at this point..though the last vote did bring forth a novel idea that seems erroneous imo...). 68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The word "disk" satisfies every one of the criteria outlined at WP:CRITERIA. The word "circle" fails both precision and consistency. So, per policy, "disk" wins, unless you can give clear, policy-based reasons that precision and consistency are irrelevant. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

it largely fails the first two...as an editor who weakly sided with you pointed out a long, long time ago now..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. It passes the first one, and I've already shown conclusively that it passes the second. Anything else? Sławomir
Biały 16:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

simply disagree, and others do too..but no, nothing else...but why does your username appear graphically different from time to time?68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

"The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." Clearly both titles satisfy this. I've already conclusively shown naturalness with over a million ghits. Anything else? (My name appears differently because busy body administrators have told me that it is less confusing for them if I use two different accounts to edit than just one. I male sure to minimize their confusion by using two different signatures as well. Do not ask me to understand the wishes of our benevolent overlords. I am merely carrying out their mysterious wishes. Sławomir
Biały 16:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, now I understand why one mathematician (my colleague) prefers "circumference" to "circle"; probably, he feels that "circle" is somewhat ambiguous. And indeed, Russian "окружность" is closer to "circumference". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Area of a circle" is the common phrase, while the area of a disk is the difference between the outer circumference minus the area of the disk hub, but compare with "Area of a tire" such as rubber tires on an automobile, where the area is primarily the "surface area" of the tire in 3D. Meanwhile the area of a disk should subtract the hub area. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment. The circle is just the outer curve, so the area of a circle is zero. The interior of the circle is the disk. It's area is $\pi r^{2}$. Sławomir
Biały 12:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The editor is confusing a disk with an annulus. I suspect that other readers would make the same mistake, because many real-life "disks" are annuli (e.g. compact disc). Mgnbar (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

so consider it weighing-in along wpcommonname and demonstrating a real world confusion if titled "disk" at the same time..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

A week later... (more discussion)

Now that it has been a legitimate week with no posts, I guess this discussion is finally beginning to wind down, although I don't see any strong consensus. I would like to take issue with a couple pro-disk points in general here as opposed to where they originally are stated so as to keep things short and readable, as far as that is possible.

• Some people have been saying that searching area of a circle on Google now brings up this article in a prominent position. For me it still comes up 15th as the IP said, on the second page of results, meaning in my experience practically no one will get to it from that particular search.
• It was also disputed whether Google bears out the fact that circle is significantly more common. A search for the exact phrase "area of the circle" brings up 1.37 million results while "area of the disk" brings up 1.18 million results; since these are fairly close, it was held that Google doesn't really support circle. However, "area of a circle" brings up 1.99 million results, while the phrase "area of a disk" brings up a comparatively measly 355,000. In my experience using 'a' instead of 'the' is more common; Google supports this for circle but not disk. Taking these results together, we get about 3.36 million results involving circle against 1.54 million involving disk, which is a significant ratio. The phrase "area of a disk", the current title, is out of the four by far the least common.
• It's been said that disk is a common term, just as understandable as circle, will not be surprising to the reader, is not jargony nor pedantic, etc. It is hard to tell how surprising and in fact confusing area of a disk might be. It is a common term in every day life, but not in this technical usage, so the common use of the term does not imply that the technical term is not jargon (I think this use of 'disk' is fairly jargony); hard disk and floppy disk are probably the most common uses of disk. There's also CD's and disc golf; disk has a circular connotation which is where hard and floppy disks get their name but they are not obviously circular on the outside, and I believe, although it is difficult to have real evidence either way, that for most people a very short right circular cylinder is a more intuitive idea of a 'disk' than the space bounded by a circle. Without immediate and clear explanation that the area of a disk is exactly area of a circle as commonly used, I think the possibility of legitimate confusion would outweigh the benefit of more technically standard terminology. I understand if others disagree.
• It has been said that this is a technical article and should have a technical name. This is true, but it deals with a basic subject that also has many applications outside of pure mathematics and is relevant to many people who perhaps either never took a calculus course or forgot most of it the week after finals. These are people for whom the circle/disk distinction will probably never matter, and they are an important part of the audience as well.
• Another claim is that the definition of a circle as a curve is equivalent to an assertion that the phrase 'area of a circle' must mean zero. This is consistent and appealing. However, the topic of the area of a circle has a history that I presume extends before this distinction between circles and disks and definitely has a scope the extends outside of it. 'Area of a circle' has a meaning not entirely determined by the words inside it, much like 'squaring the circle'. 'Of' is not a sufficiently precise word that 'area of a circle' must mean something different than 'area enclosed by a circle'.
• It has been pointed out that 'Area of a disk' meets all the guidelines for an article name. This is true. So does 'Area of a circle'. The question is which one is overall better.
• It has been implied that the existence of a silent super-majority is beyond proof and should not be taken into account. I agree that this 'silent majority' should not be invoked to try to establish consensus; however, it is worthy of consideration what the vast majority of people who do not edit mathematics articles on Wikipedia would think and expect. My life experience leads me to believe most people expect area of a circle and would !vote for it.
• It has been stated that a majority in an RFC is not sufficient to establish a reason to change if there are not undisputed positive reasons for the change. It is true that there should be good reason for a change; however, a strong consensus for a change is sufficient to justify one regardless of whether dissenters feel the reasoning is insufficient. Arguing that reasoning is poor is a good way to object to a change, but not to dispute the existence of a consensus. (For the record I don't see a consensus either way above.)

Well, that wasn't short at all, but if all goes well I will be responsible for no more walls of text on this page, although I might modify the left column of the above table. Unless someone brings up any really great points, my final stance is for circle, but I am willing to accept disk as long as the intro is clear. Nat2 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

the above is an absolutely excellent summary and contains excellent reasoning. Thank you for taking the considerable time to write it...it should be a huge help to whoever eventually comes along and closes this..(as far as "votes" I think we stand at 16 to 10 in favor of 'circle'..including new votes below and above since this post).68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. If your comments concerned a deletion discussion, please consider reading Wikipedia's deletion policy for a brief overview of the deletion process. We hope that you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the page says the count is indeed relevant and should not be discounted, particularly when policy support on both sides...this has been discussed plenty above. and this isn't a deletion discussion..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

And indeed, can someone advise on how this is going to play out? It would be totally reasonable to suggest that after all this the consensus has decided on "circle." But I'm quite concerned that all this time and effort and discussion is going to be for naught...the closure noticeboard is apparently backed up for months and months...and what uninvolved editor is going to want to figure this novel of a thread out?? Would it be reasonable for an involved editor to change this article to "circle" etc (policy says outside help for closure shouldn't be needed)...or is this going to lead to edit warring?? what's to be done?68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• Area of a disk. Both terms are in use, but this one is more accurate. I value accuracy more than the number of Google results especially if a redirect is available. At the very beginning of this article, both circle and disk are defined (with circle being the boundary of a disk). Area has a precise meaning too, and the area of any circle is 0 (using the definitions from the article). There's no question about that. The other title would just be confusing (unless we redefine the circle, but that would be a non-standard definition (in mathematics), and would require a rewrite of this article). MayorGayer (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

more accurate in rare and special circumstances but simply more confusing generally...but I'll update the tally above to count you..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "rare and special circumstances" such as those of geometry, which this article concerns. It is not constructive to dismiss the cases where one would use "disk" instead of "circle" as "rare and special". This very article is one of those "rare and special circumstances" that you have been so eager to dismiss. And over a million google hits does not strike me as either rare or special. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

yes, rare and special even in the world of mathematics/geometry..as has been shown above with examples..anyway, I'm going to try very hard for this to be my last substantive post vis a vis the question in this thread..so I hopefully won't respond if you follow-up....I'm only going to try to continue to see about bringing this to a conclusion..68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This is very misleading and not supported by facts. As far as I can tell, the examples you refer to are situations where someone uses "circle". So what? How does an example of someone using "circle" show that "disk" is therefore "rare and special"? That makes no sense at all. Indeed, I have shown conclusive evidence that "disk" is in no way rare and special, yet you continue to hammer on that drum as if repeating a discredited argument is going to make it more true. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The recent edits by Wikid77 (in the previous section) and Fieari (in the first section) give two examples of users who were confused by the meaning of disk, because its everyday usage is different from the mathematical usage. The idea that this could happen is the reason I originally considered 'disk' as potentially jargony, which has now received some corroboration. Some of this shows in the Google results for "area of the disk", too: out of the nine results on the front page which weren't this article, four referred to a measurement of a physical disk and were somewhat ambiguous as to what kind of disk is meant - one of these was a CD, which has both volume and a hole. One referred to the flow area through a rupture disk, which is probably not what we're talking about. The other four referred to the sense used in this article. Nat2 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Along the same lines, consider that looking up 'disk' in at least one dictionary (Merriam-Webster, online) gives definitions of disk including thin circular objects, but not the interior of the circle or any kind of plane figure. Or search 'disk' on Google images to yield first a plethora of CDs, then some floppy disks and hard drives before seeing anything that could be a depiction of a plane figure. These give pretty good indications of what, for most people, is associated with the word 'disk'. Nat2 (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

ANOTHER WEEK HAS PASSED (in case any uninvolved watchers of this want to do anything about this...I'd recommend the excellent summary/breakdown at the beginning of this section by Nat2)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Area enclosed by a circle? — Stanning (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

this is good phrasing for sure and it is used in the article proper..but doesn't really work by conventions of Wikipedia article titles due to being pedantic etc...but if you'd like to weigh in on "area of a circle" vs "area of a disk"...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought about this, along the same lines as 'area of a circular region' above. I like this better, since I think it is very clear and also perfectly technically accurate. Unfortunately, I think it is likely even less common in regular use than 'area of a disk'. However, at least one source does have its page on circle area have this title. Nat2 (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Area of a disk. OK, since you ask: I don't feel strongly about it, but this is a mathematical article, "part of a series of articles on the mathematical constant π" as the infobox heading says; it's not written for the general reader at all; so I'd use the mathematically-correct term "disk" in the title. If Jane Blow wants something simple about the basic subject, she can Google for "area of a circle" and find pages outside WP that explain the subject in general-reader terms. — Stanning (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

indeed the article needs to be slightly altered to better address the general reader (in order to be in line with Wikipedia article policy)..so part of your reasoning above seems to be a little misdirected...I'll add you to my tally above though..

68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I think about here is where I disagree. While much of this article beyond a lot of readers, part of its subject matter extends into pretty basic math and everyday life. The same is true with many articles (probably not all) having to do with pi - there exists literature about pi directed at a fairly general audience, so we can include that as well. Even the fact that this article is called 'area of a disk' in the infobox is probably unnecessary. Nat2 (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Area of a circle is the more natural expression, fulfilling the requirement of WP:COMMONNAME. BMK (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Area of a disc There is a distinction between the two terms. A circle is a one-dimensional object, and has a length; the disc is the two-dimensional object enclosed by it. It doesn't matter as much in this case as the corresponding distinction in higher dimensions, since area should make clear what we mean; but we should make the distinction here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  If compromise were sought, I could accept Area within a circle as idiomatic and correct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  I like Area within a circle. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

it's odd sounding and Wikipedia doesn't generally invent its own terminology for topics I don't think but goes with what the topic is predominately called in sources..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

"Predominately" has not been established. Nor is it the only consideration. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Nat2 broke down the google results well in that recent long post of his...specifically 'area of a circle' 2 million results...'area of a disk' 355,000...in that context 'predominate' applies imo...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I have already refuted that claim. Please stop repeating the same argument. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

of course you think that...but others clearly disagree too..and I was just pointing to Nat2's imo fair and careful discussion of the google results..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you dropped the thoroughly discredited claim that "circle" is overwhelmingly more common. I get that you think that approximately equal numbers of hits for "area of the circle" and "area of the disk" counts as predominate. But I think you should not use the word "predominate" to mean this, because that is a word in the English language that, like "circle", actually means something different than what you believe it does. Since we have established approximate parity between the two words, predominance in reliable sources can only be established by looking at specific sources, not a crude Google test. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything approaching parity unless some serious mental gymnastics are employed...but that will be for the eventual closer to look at...speaking of, the RfC template for this has expired and I've requested on noticeboards for an admin or experienced editor to close this...it may be a while before anyone undertakes it as it's novel length and involves a lot of valid arguments to wade through etc..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I see you continue to ignpre the evidence, deapite being reminded of it four or five times. Here are my Google searches, showing approximate parity between circle and disk: "area+of+the&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.5607j0j4&client=ms-android-att-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#q=%22area+of+the+circle%22 and "area+of+the&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.5607j0j4&client=ms-android-att-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#q=%22area+of+the+disk%22. Since neither is predominate, this issue cannot be settled by googliomancy. Other considerations at WP:CRITERIA rake priority. Sławomir
Biały 14:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

you snuck in the word 'the' which isn't a proposed title and isn't a commonly used phrase so..???...but Nat2 carefully explained all of this above...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you proposing that definite versus indefinite article is significant in this context? If so, please start another RfC. This one apparently concerns whether to call the disk a disk or a circle. If it makes a huge difference in the Google search results, mostly it's because Google is nor a very good way to settle these questions. The above shows parity between circle and disk. Period. So since there is no clear favorite, let's address the other WP:CRITERIA. As I've noted above, circle fails one, while disk passes all. So disk is the clear favorite under that guideline. Sławomir
Biały 15:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

get real...of course it is...and of course we've been discussing "area of a circle" vs "area of a disk"...people have spoken in "disk" vs "circle" as shorthand..the indefinite article is what's currently used (rightly) and no one is suggesting to change it to the definite article...red herring alert..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The presumption that the disk is more commonly referred to as "circle" rather than "disk" is simply false. If we leave out this discredited hypothesis, then "disk" is the clear winner. I would enjoin the closing admin to take that into account. Sławomir
Biały 15:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

and hopefully the closer will carefully look into what you claim above..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sławomir: I think you should take another look at this. Above you chastised 68-148 for repeating the same argument, saying you had refuted my claim that your analysis of the Google results left things out, but I don't see this refutation anywhere. The IP was referring to the second bullet point in my first post in this subsection, where I established that, in terms of Google results, the article makes a huge difference. "Area of a circle" is substantially more common than "area of the circle", and "area of a disk" substantially less common than "area of the disk". Adding both references to disk together and both to circle together, circle outnumbers disk more than 2:1. At best, this shows that circle is indeed more common; at worst, as you mentioned above, that Google is not a very good way to settle these questions. But in either case, your results do not show parity between circle and disk.

In addition, I think 'area of a disk' largely fails naturalness: we've seen input indicating that while disk is a common word, its mathematical meaning is unclear to many, and overwhelmed by its technological meaning. For instance, consider that searching "area of a disk" on Google Scholar brings up a majority of references to hard disks on the front page, or just search 'disk' on Google images. I should also note that both Google Books and Google Scholar show that "area of a circle" is more common than "area of a disk" by an even large margin. Nat2 (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, I think [3] is interesting and maybe more relevant. It might suggest that Google really isn't that important in how often the page is accessed, but that a large proportion of users are connected to school, given the decline of popularity when school is not in session and during the holidays. You can also see exactly when the article names were switched, and could speculate, although there really isn't enough data, that titling it 'area of a circle' was giving it more views. In any case it is another tool. Nat2 (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know both word well, but I know both words are not distinct. On wikipedia, we don't create new word. Individually I choose 'area of a circle' which is used as '円の面積' in japan. --Takahiro4 (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Area enclosed by a circle

Area of a disk strikes me as an oxymoron. It should be volume of a disk. All real-world disks have a height, and thus have a volume. This is absurd: "The discus throw is a track and field event in which an athlete throws a heavy disk (mathematics)—called a discus. Nobody can throw a circle! The obvious answer here is Area enclosed by a circle! Duh. — wbm1058 (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Since "circles" have zero height, the volume of the disk itself is technically equal to zero!

The current title requires disambiguation. Disk (mathematics) is not the primary topic for disk.

Area enclosed by a circle is more natural than Area of a disk (mathematics). Not to be confused with surface area of a disk. wbm1058 (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Area enclosed by a circle Math Open Reference
• Formula for Area Bounded by a Circle Wikia
• area enclosed by a circle Arlington, VA Public Schools (www.apsva.us)
• Calculus proof for the area of a circle Mathematics Stack Exchange
• Area enclosed by a circle WolframAlpha – Assuming "circle" is a plane curve
• The Circumference of a Circle and the Area of the Region it Encloses Illustrative Mathematics

A disk in mathematics lives in 2D space, and hence does not have volume even defined in the 3D sense, unless the disk is embedded in a 3D or higher-dimensional space. This is just like how the "series" in Taylor series is understood to be the math definition, not the colloquial usage of that word for a book or movie series, etc.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Taylor series is naturally disambiguated, so there is no realistic chance of confusion with a book series – there is no need for Taylor series (disambiguation), as no book, TV or movie series has that name.

In contrast, Disk (mathematics) is not the primary topic for disk, so Area of a disk (mathematics) is necessary to avoid confusion. wbm1058 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The argument for "area of the circle" has some merit, but this particular argument against "area of the disk" has little merit. There's no real possibility of confusion, because Wikipedia is never going to have an article on the surface areas of real-life disks. To put it another way, plumbing and mathematics both use the term "manifold". So should Symplectic manifold be called Symplectic manifold (mathematics)? No, because there is never going to be Symplectic manifold (plumbing). Mgnbar (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You're just repeating the previous argument. Manifold (fluid mechanics) is not the primary topic; manifold's primary meaning is in mathematics (the merits of that would be another question).

I'll add that this particular usage of "disk" (2-D geometry) is not familiar to me, so I suspect it's even less familiar to those with less math background than I have. I imagine that disc golfers might study the surface areas of their various golf discs for insights that might help improve their performance. wbm1058 (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Dimples and nicks increase the surface area of a golf disc. Disc Qualities and Their Effects On Flight "With more surface area, a larger disc will have more potential glide at low speeds than a smaller disc that covers less surface area." wbm1058 (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

What's your position on Guitar Man (Bread album)? Should it be titled Guitar Man (Bread (band) album), because Bread is the primary topic, not Bread (band)?

Who's to say that there won't one day be an album about bread, that just happens to have the quixotic title of "Guitar Man"? Should we plan for Wikipedia to have an article about it? Mgnbar (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hah, double disambiguation! I've never seen one of those in the wild, do they actually exist anywhere? The band is understood in context, as the food cannot make, nor is ever assembled into, albums (of music or photographs). There is no concept of "albums of food". Whereas, with "Area of a disk", the type of disk is not well understood by the context. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Google Ngram

This Ngram clearly points to "area of a circle" as being the dominant primary usage. I think from that we can assume that "enclosed by" is implied, i.e. it is well understood that "area of a circle" implies "area ofenclosed by a circle". So I can support moving back to area of a circle. I also am agreeable to area enclosed by a circle as harmless, and possibly helpful, clarification of the arguably ambiguous word "of". Area within a circle is also an acceptable alternative, for those who prefer "within" as slightly more concise than "enclosed by".

Stripping the dominant "area of a circle" from the Ngram, we find that "disk" only took off after 1980, and has been in decline since the mid 1990s. This meaning of "disk" feels a bit like a neologism (see WP:NEO). – wbm1058 (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"Disk" is a technical jargon term of mathematics. In mathematics, circles and disks are not the same thing. A disk is a region enclosed by a circle. That is why you have some mathematicians arguing fervently for "area of a disk".

In this post I am not arguing for one or the other. I'm just trying to help you understand the exact issue: In an article about a technical topic, which vocabulary is preferable: the vocabulary of the technical discipline that governs that topic, or the vocabulary of the wider society? Mgnbar (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the issue. The article titles policy says under WP:Article titles § Use commonly recognizable names: "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" – the Ngram seems clear on what is most commonly used. However, "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Hence my preference for area enclosed by a circle as this definitively clears up any possible ambiguity or inaccuracy with "area of a circle".

One more Ngram: "surface area of a <something>" has been running neck-and-neck with "area of a circle" in recent decades. One can easily see "surface area of a <something>" being reduced to "area of a <something>" where in context it is clearly understood that <something> is a 3D object and thus "surface area" is implied by "area". This is all problematic for "disk" where it is ambiguous whether that <something> is a 2D or a 3D object. A solution for purists might be area of a 2D disk but that may be stretching our limits for "common" usage. My math education was all before 1984... I'm thinking I might be more familiar with this concept of 2D disks if I was born after 1980. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

What you call a "circle" in modern math usage is what I call the "circumference of a circle". In my mind "circle" is somewhat synonymous with your 2D "disk". – wbm1058 (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

As the article says, "Informally 'circumference' may also refer to the edge itself rather than to the length of the edge." wbm1058 (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, there are four phrases in play here: "circle", "disk", variations on "area of a circle", and variations on "area of a disk". Further, there are two literatures in play: general English (as sampled in your Ngram) and the literature of the mathematical discipline.

For what it's worth, let me assure you that "disk" is not a recent fad in the mathematical discipline. For example, it appears in Walter Rudin's 1966 textbook Real and Complex Analysis and Michael Spivak's 1970 textbook A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry. The only reason it doesn't appear in 20 other textbooks on my shelf is that they all just say "ball" for this concept in all dimensions. (Which we could also pursue, but let's not. :) Regards, Mgnbar (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I understand your point about the primary usage in the literature of the mathematical discipline. But, this is policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal:

8. Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. (By which I mean: You have raised a valid point, relating to both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia policy. I have not checked whether this exact point has been raised in this discussion yet. Even if not, it is closely related to other points that have been raised. The problem, for me at least, is that both sides are able to make valid points, backed up by different parts of Wikipedia policy.) Cheers. Mgnbar (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The present article is written for academics, not everyday readers. Therefore it's logical to use the technically-correct term in the title. But as you say, texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics. So please rewrite this article for everyday readers as per policy, then the argument about the title might make sense. — Stanning (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the article is pretty accessible to the average reader. However, since all proofs of this formula rely on some sort of calculus, there's no way around that. --Jasper Deng (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2016 (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.