Talk:Tau (2π)

RFC on tau

I have started a RFC on the notability of tau on the talk page of the article in my userspace. The RFC can be found here. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

“ “It’s the angle in the middle of a circle,” said the Mathematical Ninja. “You may know it as 2π, but τ is better yet.”

“I thought it was 360!” said the student.

“Get out of my shop,” said the Mathematical Ninja.

”

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

Time to restore the article

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

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

Tau supporters

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

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

Tau haters

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

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

Requested move (4)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

  It was not a redirect when the move was initially requested; it was an article. Powers ^T 16:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  Only as the proposer created it as such before the RfC was properly closed. But now that is resolved there's no article to move, to whatever name, and this discussion should be speedily closed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  That still has not been properly close, just reopened. So there's still a question here of whether to leave the article at this title, if the close says it's OK to have this article. The fact that the article got locked in the redirect state merely confuses matters. Dicklyon (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  Here's a link to the RfC User_talk:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant)#RFC:Article_Notability, with the statement by the closing editor at right. Read the full comment for the reasoning but the outcome was "this article is not yet ready for mainspace".--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I see my statement was not clear. The redirects like Twice pi, 2pi, and others which reflect the constant value of tau need to be redirected to the new article name which ever is agreed upon. -- Reddwarf2956 or John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

As there is no article here, per consensus, this RM is moot I believe. This should be speedily closed as no action taken. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

why this is not useful

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

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

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

You actually described the reason for interest in tau beautifully, "that something that seems as immutable as the stars, namely π, all of a sudden turns out to be amenable to challenge". Full stop. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That was actually my reason for interest in $\tau ={\frac {\pi }{2}}$ which happens to be notable; see Albert Eagle. As for the other value, it seems to be as notable as stardust. Several people at WPM hope that's what you would do about your τ activities here: Full Stop. Tkuvho (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice carefully that I didn't initiate this round, and barely made any edits to the proposed article. I've been happy to provide help and support to those who have, but getting rid of me won't solve your problem. As I told Waldir last year, he, I, and Michael Hartl could all disappear off the face of the Earth tomorrow, and interest in tau would still continue to grow. Stephen Abbott's public declaration has been joined by Phil Moriarty, Steve Mould, James Grime, Bruce Torrence, Colin Beveridge, Ben Hummon, and Robin Whitty. Consider how many views just the 3 YouTube videos by Vi Hart and Numberphile continue to get EVERY SINGLE DAY. (And the new comments in support that keep appearing there.) Every undergraduate MIT applicant now finds out about tau. Nah, I'm gonna be the least of your problems. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

@User:Joseph Lindenberg: Instead of seeking to confront the WPM group, I would urge you to work together. I have had the opportunity several times to mention the fact that youtubes are not an indication of notability. In fact, it is an informal "guideline" of WPM since it appears at the top of the talk page as a response to a FAQ. I don't think I ever suggested that anybody should disappear off the face, etc. Arm yourself with patience EVERY SINGLE DAY and wait until Abbott, Moriarty, Mould, Grime, Torrence, Beveridge, Hummon, Whitty, and Khan publish a notable book at a respected publisher. Then there will be something to talk about. Tkuvho (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I wasn't arguing about whether the YouTube videos indicate notability, and I certainly wasn't accusing you of suggesting I should disappear off the face of the Earth. My point was that new tau supporters are clearly being created EVERY SINGLE DAY. That will inevitably lead to more and better sources, as well as more people showing up here pushing for a tau article, whether I'm silent or not. But I think we all agree that at the moment, on Wikipedia, the issue deserves a rest. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection

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

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

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

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

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

I've re-protected this page for because of edit warring and no respect for the closing RFC: suggest creation of the article. Any edits need to be cleared by first stating them here as a 'new section'. John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Where do we go from here? Many believe that this article ws improperly deleted and should be restored. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is against you. You lost, go work on something else. If you keep labouring the point it's disruptive (and this is from someone who didn't even vote). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is to work on creating a new article on tau in user space; make it good quality and rely on excellent sources. Focus on the phenomenon of tau as a quixotic/humorous effort (not as an actual math value used by mathematicians). Work on it for a few months; then move the article into article space. If anyone objects to the article, the AfD process should be used, not RfC. --Noleander (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You would need to overturn the previous consensus before moving it into userspace. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There never was a consensus to delete and the merge was a sham. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Noleander,I would be happy to work on the article if that really is the best way forward but I do question the need and the wisdom of collaborative editing in a userspace.

There was never a consensus to delete this article and the 'merge' RfC has revealed itself as a ploy circumvent an AfD; there are now only two sentences on the subject in the Pi article. I do not think that there is any WP policy which allows editors to continually delete an article.

The other problem that I see with userspace is that it will probably not attract a sufficiently wide range of editors and who will edit will depend on whose userspace it is.

I am not sure what the applicable dispute resolution procedure is now. Maybe we should just create a quick article somewhere and then put it up here and immediately open an AfD? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The consensus on this has been tested twice in little over a year and each time has found there's not enough reliably sourced content for an independent article. The problem wasn't quality but notability, and this won't be changed by better quality prose. Please accept this and find something else in the encyclopaedia to work on. Don't create an article that there's a clear consensus against creating, triggering yet another time wasting discussion. That really would be disruptive.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the AfD result was 'keep'. The merge was a sham, we have two sentences in the Pi article now; that is not a merge it is a virtual delete.

I have great difficulty understanding your strong feelings on this subject. We may have an article on a subject of marginal notability but that is hardly unique in WP. I am also rather puzzled by your use of the word 'disruptive'. There is currently nothing to disrupt. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

it's evident that you are on a crusade to have this article for advocating Tau. Continuing the crusade, and this discussion wastes everyone's time considering the consensus is against you. That is why it is disruptive. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The AfD recognised that there was "a strong consensus that the article should be renamed or merged", and merge is what the subsequent RfC determined. So they are in agreement, and the latest RfC has confirmed them. It's disruptive to deliberately go against or ignore consensus, especially after its been confirmed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What exactly am I disrupting?

Regarding crusades, I have no strong feelings for or against the use of Tau, however there are, without doubt, people who do promote the concept. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It is disruptive to refuse or fail to get the point. We've had three discussions on this now with a clear and straightforward outcome. Now is the time to move on.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

In defense of Martin Hogbin against IRWolfie's baseless accusation that he is "on a crusade to have this article for advocating tau", I'd like to point out this post Martin made last year:

"Tau is the least interesting mathematical concept that I have ever heard of. The less said about it the better as far as I am concerned."

So either Martin has undergone a Road to Damascus conversion, or he has simply come to recognize that despite his personal feelings about tau, it's appropriate for Wiki to have an article. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be clear from the recent RfC that WPM members do not oppose the creation of a tau article (whatever its name), but merely think that this is does not meet notability criteria at this stage. Whenever such an article is proposed again, a consensus should be sought at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics first. Tkuvho (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not think WikiProject_Mathematics is the appropriate place to seek consensus, for the same reason that WikiProject_Astronomy is not the right pace to discuss whether there should be an article on the Flat Earth Society.

Joseph Lindenberg expresses my position well. The concept of Tau has been around for years and the response of serious mathematicians has always been the same as mine, which is 'Yawn. Whatever. Can we get back to something more interesting'. The fact remains, though, there are is a movement, which has been around for years, to promote Tau and which has received significant publicity in the media and some less serious mathematical publications. It is not 'popular culture' it is a movement by a small group of enthusiasts.

The purpose of WP is to report facts as they are. The facts may be summed up as: there is a notable movement to promote the use of Tau; there is no significant discussion of the subject by serious mathematicians. Martin Hogbin (talk)

The consensus is that there is not a movement worth having an article on here. Time to move on ... IRWolfie- (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not so clear cut since there were editors that felt there is room for an article on the movement, see this edit. Tkuvho (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

How do you feel about the proposal that we write a new article, possibly in userspace to be moved here, then immediately start an AfD, with only two options, 'keep' or 'delete'?

I know it has been done before but there was a rather unusual migration through AfD, Merge/Rename. I think the subject either stands in it own right or we ignore it (maybe keep the two sentences in Pi). Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There were two editors at WPM that feel there may be room for an article on the "movement". I personally don't think so (until I see more evidence beyond media reports) but you might want to take this up with them. Tkuvho (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This was raised and considered during the RfC, but gained very little support, e.g. here. It was added to the RfC after the RfC started but many editors !voted after that and others were participating, so felt their existing !vote already covered the notability issue.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The notability argument seems to me to be an excuse by people who just do not seem to like the idea of Tau. It quite clearly meets the requirements of wp:notable here for example is a course on the subject at one of the world's most prestigious universities. Many of the RfC respondents seemed to think that Tau needed to a notable subject within mathematics, which is not the case. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The idea that an article should be created and then sent to AfD isn't something that would happen. The repeated consensus is to merge and redirect an article on Tau, so if another article were recreated it would simply be redirected. No AfD required since there's already a consensus for the subject, this one being only days old. - SudoGhost 23:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

@User:Martin Hogbin: Ironically, your best piece of evidence in favor of this has already been dealt with here, a discussion you participated in.

Furthermore, the organizers write that "This course will certainly leave you with an informed opinion on a topical if fringe mathematical issue." Therefore even the organizers agree with the majority of wiki editors who feel that the topic is indeed fringe. Tkuvho (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Dealt with rather badly. You said, 'Correction: the seminar is not organized by Oxford University but rather by the Center for Continuing Education'. That is a department of Oxford University, look at the logo at the top right and the 'ox.ac' domain, see here for confirmation. We know the subject is fringe, there is no dispute about that, that is why we it should be a separate article from the mainstream Pi. WP:notable specifically says, 'Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept'. Oxford is also not the only academic institution to mention Tau. You may not like it but it is out there, and it should therefore be in here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Despite claiming to not care, you are still here arguing away. Seriously, you lost the discussion and the issue is now closed, move on and stop trying to rehash this. Consensus is against you, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not care about Tau; I do care about WP coverage and policy. What exactly is your objection to the existence of a Tau article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see the last question (and answer) at the FAQ. Tkuvho (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I asked about your reason. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Objection to IRWolfie's deletion of someone else's Talk page post

Even if he is correct that the post violated WP:NOTAFORUM (which may be marginally true in this case), this is a very bad way to deal with it. First, it's unfair to all other editors, who end up not knowing the post was ever there unless they scrutinize the history of the Talk page. The only reason I found out about it is that the same IP editor redirected Tau_(2π) earlier today, against consensus, so I looked at their recent activity on Wikipedia. And that's the second reason harshly silencing people on Talk pages is a bad idea. I'm not condoning what they did today, but it's a predictable reaction to their treatment 2 days ago. Wikipedia has enough trouble with that sort of misbehavior as it is. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty standard to delete posts that treat talkpages like a forum for discussing a topic but aren't related to improving the article. What is the point in bringing this up on this redirect page? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to harshly silence repeated behavior that goes against wiki policy, and I agree with User:IRWolfie-'s edit. Tkuvho (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that for "repeated behavior that goes against wiki policy", it could be appropriate. That was not the case with this editor. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am the editor who pointed out that τ is more fundamental than π. I did nothing wrong. Whether τ makes mathematical salient to whether we should have an article about it. I merely pointed out that the origin and radius define a circle. If we define a circle merely as having a constant diameter, then curves of constant width are circles. c/d is not a constant and does not necessarily have anything to do with circles; while, if r is constant c/r is not just a constant but the circle constant.

As for restoring the article, I am guilty as charged. but, ¿am I guilty of anything? The consensus was keep —— ¡not delete! ¡The deleters violate consensus!

76.103.108.158 (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As you well know, the consensus at the AfD was clearly not to delete, but was also clearly to merge. None of the subsequent AfDs have even questioned that consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

And as you well know the merge was a sham. An attempt to delete the article by stealth. Martin Hogbin (talk)

It's possible more could be added in Talk:Pi, but there doesn't seem to be a source for anything more about the phenomenon. There's source for why τ is better or worse than π but that's not appropriate for any Wikipedia article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The clear understanding of a merge is that all or most of the material on both articles is retained but nothing is duplicated. Nothing like that happened with the Tau/Pi merge, I wonder how may of those who supported the merge would have done so had they known what the result would be at the time.

Perhaps you could tell me, what exactly is your personal objection to the existence of a Tau article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree that nothing about the Tau/Pi argument has any place in WP. The argument exists and we should report it, just as the Flat earth society reports the bizarre arguments used by the Flat-Earthers. I completely agree that WP is not the place for the argument to be played out. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No, a merge does not have to include all or most of the content. See WP:SMERGE for the guideline, but if the reason the merge is happening is lack of notability then it's possible that much of the article won't be used as it's not supported by reliable sources. This is especially likely when merging into a good or featured article where the GA/FA criteria mandate good sourcing. It would be wrong, or at least detrimental to the quality of this article, to include content from the merged article that wasn't supported by reliable sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Were the RfC respondents informed that a selective merge was proposed? The merge was a backdoor delete. There is no shortage of sources on Tau and the subject quite clearly meets the notability requirements for an article. There is a short course on the subject being given at Oxford University.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That is simply your view. The consensus, as arrived at by now three formal discussions, was that it is not notable as an independent topic. And Wikipedia works by consensus. Please accept that and move on.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Creating an /Arguments page

This page seems to attract almost as many editors as 0.999.... I suggest creating an /Arguments page so that "discussion"-type comments can be redirected there. Tkuvho (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Views are actually quite low, the big influx was due to advocacy on reddit or similar. See the spike here: [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that spike was due to Pi Day (March 14). The same thing happened last year. There was also a spike last Pi Approximation Day (July 22). --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It is almost τDay; so therefore, We should restore the article now.

τDay will soon arrive. We should return the article for it.

τHaters, I understand your pain. Centuries ago, someone measured across and around a circle and dividing circumference by diameter. Unless one thinks about this, it is not obvious that this is not the circleconstant. Unfortunately, the radius defines a circle. We all, at times make mistakes. It happens to the best of us. I certainly made some big 1s myself.

τHaters, please ask yourself this:

“¿How long do you believe you can keep τ off of WikiPedia?”

Even with all of the τhaters fighting τ tooth and nail, τ will eventually prevail. It is a Mathematical certainty because the radius defines circles. You might as well throw in the towel now and restore the article before τday.

76.103.108.158 (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Some good questions and should not be hidden. John W. Nicholson (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a single "good question", and it probably should be hidden. I'm not going to get in an edit war by hiding it, but I would have no objection to forcibly archiving it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there's nothing there except a pejorative ("haters") POV and misguided (τ is not "off of Wikipedia", just follow this redirect to find it) statement. The question is from an IP very familiar with the history of the article so is purely rhetorical and best ignored.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing good about this question, it has been debated to death and there is consensus not to restore it. You are a Tau WP:SPA dedicated to the article, but the article is a redirect. Now is the time to find other interests, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

SPA, you must not be talking about me or don't know what you are talking about. http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Reddwarf2956&page=*&server=enwiki&max=100&wildcards=true John W. Nicholson (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

95% of your edits on wikipedia (adding all namespaces) are in relation to Tau. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

So, if you, IRWolfie, and your freinds would agree to do as mister JohnBlackburne suggest "best ignored" totally on the subject of tau so that the real editors of tau can have an article there would not need for so much talk about tau and a real article would simply exist. And, I could go back to doing other things like creating articles on prime number conjectures like Firoozbakht’s and Oppermann's. If you have not noticed all you are doing is bringing out the 'pejorative POV' like "You are a Tau WP:SPA" and is misguided. The first writer for this section is correct in asking:

“How long do you believe you can keep τ off of WikiPedia?”

Truth is, for me, the dedication to this article is caused by making Wikipedia better. Because you are dedicated to doing the opposite and we have issues. It it getting to the point that every Pi-day and Tau-day is a reminder that Wikipedia does not have a full article on tau. Which is why every one of these two days has a peak of activity on Tau_(2π) as to check to see if the silly people have changed there minds. You are not saving the world, you are not making Wikipedia better, so what are you doing? John W. Nicholson (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the question "How long do you believe you can keep τ off of WikiPedia?", the answer is "Until reliable sources are found to establish notability". See also this FAQ, particularly the last question (and answer). Tkuvho (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for not being like IRWolfie and try to hide others writings. Second, I see some issues with the statement by the link given. One is that this requirment of sources is like requiring the group of physicist or astronomers to determine when a article on Titan_colonization is valid to exist. We all know that an article on Titan_colonization should be considered fringe and with little or no serious talk. Tau is simular in that there are a lot of people who see no need in spliting tau in half to make 2 pi. Second, when a source like http://horizonsaftermath.blogspot.com/2012/04/my-conversion-to-tauism.html with the pdf http://www.maa.org/Mathhorizons/apr12_aftermath.pdf . Yes, it is only an editorial, but even the fact that MAA published it makes it at some level higher than 'on the internet' of a credible source. You can not write an editorial on just anything mathematical (like 1 is prime or 2 is not prime) an expect it to be publish as an editorial. And, clearly, on reading, there is a level of exceptance by the MAA to allow this with tau. It is not 'in the news' on a day like Pi day or Tau day also. There is a need for the article as seen in the number of views on even none Pi or Tau days. If you say the source above is not notable as a fringe article then what is? Maybe call the article 'Tau (fringe)' as to be clear that this is not intended to be a mathematics community source, but a pop and pedagogical community source. You might not like it being that, but it is. John W. Nicholson (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! Mathematically, it is hard to think of a less interesting topic but there clearly are people who do find it important. Your example concerning Titan_colonization parallels mine of asking astronomers whether we should have an article on the Flat Earth Society. I do not see the need to change the title to 'Tau (fringe)' but we must make clear in the article that the subject has practically no interest for serious mathematicians. The objectors to a Tau article are, IMO, as crazy as the promoters of Tau.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, there is not a need for a separate article. We've had now three formal discussions which established it. All we have now is the same three or four editors who won't let this rest, despite the clear consensus reached. Just drop it. If you want to write about Tau no-one is stopping you. Get it published in a journal, or covered by news media, and maybe it will help make Tau more notable. But right now it's not notable enough for its own article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie, just don't feed the trolls on this Talk page. (I do use the term trolls affectionately in this case.) John Nicholson and I keep getting drawn back in only because you keep trying to silence other people on this Talk page. What's the point? Ignore them. This isn't the Pi Talk page, where it might obscure discussion on other issues. If 76.103.108.158 had made the same post on the Pi Talk page, I'd have been fine with you collapsing his post. But what other issues on this Talk page are there to be obscured by it? Listen, we all have better things to do than reopen this fight again now. Don't provoke another dustup. Just ignore the occasional post like the one that started this whole section, and John and I probably will too. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

After reading the section title and original post the only question I see is, paraphrased in a way that doesn't go TDLI, "how long will Tau not have its own article?" The answer is: "until an RfC is set up where consensus shows otherwise after a decent amount of time has passed since the last attempt at consensus." --RAN1 (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It would also help if the proponents of making it an article would argue on the base of notability rather than on the basis of WP:SOAPBOX. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The proposal to use Tau in place of Pi easily exceeds the WP notability criteria. It is recorded in many quality reliable sources and there is even a short course at Oxford University on the subject. Mathematically it is insignificant of course but that is irrelevant. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Again no it doesn't. We've had three formal discussions now on this which confirmed it is not notable enough. Please accept that and move on.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the objection? There are plenty of far less notable subjects with articles on WP. There seems to be some irrational (transcendental even) fear that a Tau article would in some way 'harm' Pi. That is the only reason that I can think of for such a ridiculously strong objection to a harmless article on a mathematically insignificant but clearly notable subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The objection is you're ignoring consensus. As for the reasons for which there is opposition to giving tau its own article, please see this section's oppose section. Also, you're not funny. --RAN1 (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What consensus? It was a no consensus although there was a slight majority that the subject was notable. The merge decision was a farce, the idea of a merge is to combine the two articles removing duplication. All we have in the Pi article is three lines of text. There was an RfC on deleting this article and the result was 'Keep'. Underhand tactics were used to reverse that decision. Now perhaps someone would care to answer my question. What exactly is the objection to having an article on Tau? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The consensus of the last RFC is against it being reinstated User_talk:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant)#RFC:Article_Notability. If you think there was something underhanded, go to WP:ANI or WP:AN, otherwise drop the issue. You are utterly mistaken if you think discussions on wikipedia are decided by numbers, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Just found this. In the conclusion on page 18, David H. Bailey and Jonathan Borwein call tauists "mathematical terrorists". Wow. Tau really does upset some people. Martin, better quiet down, or you'll find yourself in Guantanamo. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Guantaunamo, IRWolfie (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yea IRWolfie- has already stated this threat. I don't know if we want to push him over the edge. John W. Nicholson (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Cuba is nice this time of year, and I hear the resort is all-you-can-eat. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, that place has a different name than Guantaunamo, but that does remind me of a movie with Jack Nicholson. [[2]] It is the part with the truth being questioned that I am thinking about. "You can't handle the TRUTH!" John W. Nicholson (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Emphasis in the above post was added by me, in case anyone else is as slow as I was in seeing the connection. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how WP:N being called a "mathematical terrorists" is? John W. Nicholson (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not very. --RAN1 (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That's actually a legitimate point. I'm not looking to reopen the argument now. But when two mathematicians famous enough to have their own Wikipedia articles are aggravated enough by the tau movement to call them "mathematical terrorists masquerading as nice people, in their evil attempt to replace π by 𝜏 = 2π" — in what looks like a to-be-published paper — I think it says something about notability. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't. Perhaps it would do to close this discussion, there hasn't been anything productive from this section in the week that it's been going. In providing further evidence for the argument, "lack of consensus-building does not build consensus", this section has not helped build consensus. Until another RfC is made, this should be put to rest. --RAN1 (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree the issue needs a rest here on Wikipedia. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:LAWYER.John W. Nicholson (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:LAWYER#Misuse_of_the_term. Your comment is merely an ad hominem in lieu of an actual argument. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I think IRWolfie just misunderstood what I was trying to say. I wasn't saying that because Bailey & Borwein are famous, anything they write about also is. (That would indeed run afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED.) I was just using it as a quick way of establishing that they are respected, credible members of the mathematician community. And they apparently see the tau movement as being notable enough to write, "We must also warn the innocent reader to beware of mathematical terrorists masquerading as nice people, in their evil attempt to replace π by 𝜏 = 2π". But again, this is an argument best left for next time. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

To me, the hyperbolic language of that passage is a clear sign that they are writing with tongue in cheek, and is not so much their honest opinion of the tauists but is rather making fun of the way the tauists think of themselves as revolutionaries. I think the intended meaning is more like "There are some silly people who think that this change is important. Don't bother paying attention to them." —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly. But that kind of derision is explicitly allowed in meeting the requirements for WP:FRINGE. The fact that there are enough tauists out there for these guys to take the time, in a formally published paper, to ridicule them, supports fringe notability. (In combination with all the other sources, of course.) --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yea, they may have seen [[3]] and realize they needed to say something even if it is "tongue in cheek" because of the subject matter of pi. John W. Nicholson (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And WP:PROFRINGE. And the Notability section following that. And WP:CRYSTAL. And WP:NOTFORUM. If this has nothing to do with building consensus for whether or not the redirect's namesake should be split off into its own article, this should really stop. This has been dragging on for way too long, and it's gone to the point where it's disruptive and time-wasting. Please stop. --RAN1 (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks RAN1. For pointing to this "To be notable, at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it." Wikipedia:PROFRINGE#Notability I think the disparaging remark about tau supporters says something about this as fringe article. And, "Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals"Wikipedia:PROFRINGE#Reliable_sources like [4] and which ever journal this Bailey & Borwein paper is publish. How I count this is 1 published and 1 pre-published "Reliable sources". And so, the only argument you have is me connecting the dots as to why they "may" have wrote the paper with the WP:CRYSTAL. The sole reason for my statement was to point out the sources, not to read some crystal ball argument for you. That is why I used the words "they may have seen" not "they saw".

As for stopping, sorry for being civil and talking about this, the clearing up of tau's WP:N, if you feel the need to leave sorry for that too. I am not holding you here or forcing you to leave. I am sure you feel the same with me. John W. Nicholson (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

John, even if we're sure we're right, consensus is required here. It's clear people are too tired of arguing about this issue to be swayed right now. Allow some time. New sources continue to appear, and that'll make it easier to convince them in the next RfC. (Speaking of which, check out what the guy teaching tau at UCSD has been up to. Pretty slick. Almost looks like he's developing a textbook.) There was considerably more support this time around than last, and that trend will continue. Sometimes people just need time to change their view. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to go with that, not wishing to be sent to jail for discussing a subject. Let me know when the time comes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As it stands, I am just reacting to what others are saying or doing. So, I will agree some time later. But then, the question becomes 'How much time later?' and 'How many people need to be misinformed about tau, by not having any or nearly nothing as for information?' John W. Nicholson (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Start John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not collapse conversations here. This page is for discussions on improving the Tau article. If yo do not wish to participate that is fine, leave the page for those that do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am collapsing them per WP:NOTFORUM, WP:TPNO, and WP:RTP, please move your discussion to your user talk pages. As it stands, your discussion here is off-topic. Until another attempt to find consensus is made, there is no reason for you to have your tau-related discussions here. --RAN1 (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Repeat: "Please do not collapse conversations here. This page is for discussions on improving the Tau article. If yo do not wish to participate that is fine, leave the page for those that do." Also, you do not know what is being talked about leave it along. And, hiding my questions is not helping your position. John W. Nicholson (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, since Martin and John had both already agreed to my call to put this discussion on hold for a while, I'd like to ask RAN1 to please not re-collapse anything here again and thus provoke a restart. Let's leave the discussion as it stands right now. Truce. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am still collapsing that one section since it is irrelevant to this discussion as well as disruptive. Aside from that, I'm willing to leave the other stuff uncollapsed. --RAN1 (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Above here, where I put the "Start", is the start of a true "irrelevant to this discussion" statements cause by your action of blocking and hiding. It is still going on with my comments, and may continue if you reply to mine. I ask you RAN1 which area has more "irrelevant to this discussion" statements and why? And, I also ask if you get my point? So, I suggest that you quit trying to hide what others state no matter what it is. By the way, you are wondering why I took away the hide again. I did it because 'Tau is the TRUE circle constant.', and if you can not handle that, then I am sorry that "[y]ou can't handle the truth". John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I request that you look at WP:TPNO before responding further. I also request that you read WP:RTP. This discussion has gone on for way too long, and unfortunately you seem not to be able to get the point. Discussions (or taunts, such as the section I collapsed previously) are irrelevant to making the article better. I collapsed that discussion because it has absolutely nothing to do with the article but rather your and Lindenberg's dispute with IRWolfie. If you are going to waste time being disruptive with comments like that, in the future they will be collapsed. I also remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum, and that this talk page is not your general discussion page for tau; those will be collapsed too as they are also irrelevant to the improvement of this article, or lack thereof as it might be. I ask that you please stop disrupting Wikipedia by continuing your discussions here. --RAN1 (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Guys, enough. RAN1, what you wanted to collapse is just a little humor that helps lighten the mood. IRWolfie, bravo on Guantaunamo. I promise to give you full credit every time I repeat that joke. Let's let this page rest for now and attend to other things. I, for example, have to go find out whether that link I posted means that the NSA has been wiretapping my calculator. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks like editors still wish to discuss this subject so I will continue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I just now came across the thing about the Tau Building, and I thought it was worth sharing. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Move-Target

Sometime in the indefinite future, the circle-constant τ will have its own article again. When it will be, we shall need to decide whither to put it. We do not call the article about 10 “10 (2*5)”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_(2*5)

Looking around I find that nonlatin letters are spelled out in English in the English WikiPedia. Lettered mathematical constants have (mathematical constant) in the name like “e (mathematical constant)”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/e_(mathematical_constant)

I propose that we move the article after we restore it sometime in the indefinite future to “tau (mathematical constant)”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tau_(mathematical_constant) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.108.158 (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

We can discuss any such issues when the need to discuss them actually arises. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That particular choice was rejected at least twice, before the article was merged. For the foreseeable future, the most common use of "tau" as a mathematical constant is an alternate term for the golden ratio. However, if the subject ever becomes notable, other than as tauism (mathematics), I would suggest tau (circle constant) as a neutral name, in the absence of evidence that there is another circle constant called τ (= π/2?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. Pi is very widely known as a circle constant whilst Tau is hardly known at all as such. Calling the article just 'Tau' may suggest to our readers that Tau is in common usage as a circle constant, which is obviously not the case. Making this clear by calling the article tau (circle constant),which is a neutral and descriptive title, seems to me to be an excellent solution to this conflict. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the redirect to Pi as this seems to sabotage the very solution proposed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted that page blanking; if you think the redirect should be deleted, open a discussion at WP:RfD, but blanking the page isn't the appropriate way to go about doing that. - SudoGhost 08:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In Bethlehem Pennsylvania, they're naming a building after tau. Seriously.

They already had a smaller facility to house tech companies dubbed Pi (which originally stood for "post-incubation"). That filled up quickly, so they decided to develop another, larger facility. They're calling it tau. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The real question is, is the new facility exactly twice the size of the old one? Otherwise they are alluding to an unrelated constant. Tkuvho (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Cute. And if they ever saw the old building in half, I'll let you know. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

They're also both Greek letters. The story you link says nothing about reform of mathematical notation. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Picky, picky. Here you go. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That's the piece's author saying that, that's not an indication that this is the reason the building is named so, nor does a play on words contribute towards the notability of the constant. - SudoGhost 06:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You seriously figure the local news reporter just came up with that by himself? And yes, I think this does contribute toward notability, but we'll wait to hash out that argument at the next RFC. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I figure that that was in the reporter's wording, and that its WP:OR to draw from that sentence anything that isn't said. It doesn't matter what "I figure", what matters is what the source says. Speculation as to where that play on words came from doesn't create notability. - SudoGhost 08:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The article mentions τ as twice of half of the circle constant. ¿Is not that sufficient? ¡Bethlehem Pennsylvania is home of the Geologic Podcast and the mathematical circle-constant τ! 76.103.108.158 (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The reporter makes a play on words in his own voice about that fact; that doesn't make a building's name relevant to the constant's notability, no. Even supposing that's why the building is named as such, that would at best contribute towards the Pi#In popular culture, but it's ultimately just more trivial information. Actual sources discussing the constant itself are what is needed to show notability, this source comes nowhere close to doing anything of the sort. - SudoGhost 09:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

On another note, a one-line mention does not satisfy the significant coverage guideline under WP:GNG. It doesn't mean anything if they give it its own sentence, it's just a minor, passing and, as SudoGhost said above, trivial side comment that does not demonstrate notability, no matter how coincidental you believe it is. --RAN1 (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Revised Move-Target for τ

In consideration of the feedback above, it seems that the best location for the article when it will be restored is “tau (mathematical circle-constant)”:

<http://WikiPedia.Org/wiki/tau_(mathematical_circle-constant)>

76.103.108.158 (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's an appropriate use of hyphenation. Anyway the point is moot for now. *If* the subject becomes notable enough for a full article to be written about it, we can discuss the issue at that time. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

One must either hyphenate to gather circle and constant or write them as 1 word because they are both nouns. An alternative is “[[tau (circular constant)”:

http://WikiPedia.Org/wiki/tau_(circular Constant)

Which uses the adjective “circular”.

τ exceeds the notability requirement already. The πists refuse to admit this for partisan reasons. The πists also misinterpret concuss for keeping down τ:

The consensus is to keep τ. One could either keep is as a separate article or let it be its own article. The πists do a stealthy delete by having 1 sentence in the middle of 1 paragraph in the article π. When τists try to restore τ, in accord with the RFD, the πists scream “¡Breach Of Concensus!” stating that the RFD requires merge, which it does not, when in fact the πists violate consensus with their stealthy delete. ¿Is it any coincidence that the πists started their assault against τ on t/2-day 2012? It is a shame because at that time, τ was over halfway to a good article and ⅓ of the way to a featured article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tau_(2π)&oldid=481917070

Oh well, it is a mathematical certainty that τ will sometime in the indefinite future gets its own article. Being the mathematical circle-constant, it is a mathematical certainty because τ is the circle-constant. Besides Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi agrees:

1. First, they ignore you
2. Then, they laugh at you.
3. Then, they fight you.
4. Then, you win.

——

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

The πists ignored τ until τ/2-day-2012. After τ/2-day 2013, the πists destroyed the article while belittling τ. Since τ/2-day-2013, πists have gone from belittling to open hostility to τ. I predict that the πists will manage to keep τ off of WIKIpedia for this τDay but probably not for τDay-2014. By 2020, I see noway that τ could not have an article, despite the efforts of the πists.

76.103.108.158 (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Tau (Pi 2.0) --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:SNOW. May I also point out: this is beating a dead horse? --RAN1 (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

So, now you want us to talk about how snow is related to a dead horse when you were hiding what others were writing earlier? Great, just great. May I point out that your snow is not as dangerous as hail falling on a horse and beating it to death? (Yes, I know this unrelated to tau, but your comments are also unrelated too, RAN1. At least, I am trying to be funny about it.) John W. Nicholson (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)