Template talk:Pi box

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Numbers This template is within the scope of WikiProject Numbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumbersWikipedia:WikiProject NumbersTemplate:WikiProject NumbersNumbers

There used to be an icon in this template indicating the approximate value of pi. I agree that such an icon would be inappropriate if this template were used only for the main pi article, because the value of pi is given elsewhere in that article. However, this template is also used in many other related articles that do not mention that pi is approximately equal to 3.14.166.137.138.215 (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Requested move/dated|Template:Pi box}}

Template:Pi → Template:Pi box — I was about to create a typographical template with this name, only to find out it's been taken by this box template. A better name would have been Template:Pi box. — Edokter (talk) — 13:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment exactly what do you want to replace this with, at this location? 65.93.13.60 (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said; a typographical template, so that typing {{pi}} would result in π. — Edokter (talk) — 12:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But π and Π are two different characters, and you can already do it with HTML "π" and "Π" which is shorter than the template form. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those entities (π Π) are not in serif (π Π), which is what this template would solve. — Edokter (talk) — 11:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • π Π (<span style="font-family:serif;">&pi; &Pi;</span>) It depends on what your font settings are. If you use a serif font it will be serifed, if not, then it won't. Though that still doesn't get to the point of which Pi/pi it will display, since {{pi}} is exactly the same as {{Pi}}, hence the appropriateness of "Pi" as the lowercase one. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]
• (←) span style="font-family:serif; is not enough, and is even discouraged because it renders too small on most skins. Some mathematical constants like pi are by rule of thumb rendered in serif. And the template would take any font-related issues into account. I don't know what the major objection is. This is a sidebox, so it should be named appropriately. The casing would be solved using {{pi}} and {{PI}}. — Edokter (talk) — 15:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I was checking Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Pi, and I found some bizarre templates related to robotics which link to it. Any ideas how that happened? Obviously, if the template is renamed, all legitimate uses will have to be fixed before a new template is placed, and it would still make prior revisions of those pages unreadable. To avoid problems, the new template will have to check for a magic word such as {{pi|π}}, and revert to the old template if the word is not present. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That also allows {{pi|Π}} to be distinguished from {{pi|π}} — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I fixed this problem. I think the person who made the {{robotic laws}} template copied the {{pi}} template leaving the |name=pi. It seems odd that this would cause this sort of problem. Before I removed this line clicking on the edit "e" would lead to the pi template instead. At least that is fixed. TStein (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• support: I am not a big fan of the proliferation of ad hoc solutions to equation and variable formats. I would rather not have to do a hack like this. On the other hand {{pi box}} or {{pi navbox}} makes more sense for this template and unfortunately there is no real alternatives to hacks like creating this new {{pi}} template to format pi correctly under (hopefully) all the many different styles fonts and settings. TStein (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this is to be used for math wouldn't class="texhtml" be better for formatting it? Dmcq (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the idea. The template would contain <span class="texhtml">&pi;</span>. — Edokter (talk) — 14:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't <math>\pi</math> sufficient for displaying a properly-formatted ${\displaystyle \pi }$? Powers ^T 00:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not ideal; <math> may not scale when forced (by user setting) to render in PNG. — Edokter (talk) — 16:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then that bug ought to be fixed; I don't like using a MediaWiki template when have a viable alternative. Powers ^T 18:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I doubt that that bug will be fixed any time soon. There are way too many different fonts, styles, math options, and systems to find one fix to rule them all. There are only two ways fix this bug, that I can think of: either start a new math system from scratch that has more parameters and is significantly more flexible in the back end that it can adapt to all the different styles or limit the options somehow. Neither solution is easy. I would not hold my breath waiting. We are going to have to continue doing hacks like this for a while yet.TStein (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no notable objection, I'll start preparing the move. — Edokter (talk) — 10:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pi" is correct usage in straight text, while "π" is properly for equations and explanations of equations. This is standard treatment for math symbols. Even universally understood symbols like "1" and "2" are spelled out in published text oriented toward the general reader. "π" certainly looks cool, but "pi" remains common usage and by an overwhelming margin. On Google books, pi irrational gets vastly more hits than π irrational. CNN uses "pi", the BBC uses "pi", and the New York Times uses "pi". This entry in Merriam-Webster is entitled "pi". The "pi" entry in Britannica is a good model. They clearly have no policy or technical issue that prevents them from publishing a "π", yet they use it only for equations. Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia does the same (p. 4105 -- sorry no link). If the idea is that the symbol "π" represents specialist scientific or mathematics use, Van Nostrand's is the authority on that. Math journals can go either way. Check here and here for journal articles with "pi" in their titles. In short, "pi" should be introduced as the primary usage, i.e. the mathematical constant pi (π). This keeps the cool symbol right at the top of the box, while at the same time letting the reader know what established usage is. Kauffner (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see π in running text all the time when referred to as the mathematical constant. Also, I don't consider this box running text. If you want to establish a fixed notation in these cases, perhaps WT:MOSMATH is the better venue for that. — Edokter (talk) — 10:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. This is not established usage, and certainly not in a mathematical context, which is where this box appears. Hans Adler 18:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

aint nobody given any reason why the edits I made are problematic. youre just reverting like idiots thinking your usernames will save you. pretty hypocritical whining about me not posting here on this page while you just keep hitting revert.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.175.117.2 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~).

The edit summary of the first revert was "But this box is about π, not irrationality nor transcendence". This is the reason for which your edit is problematic, because this navbox is here for helping readers to navigate between articles related to π. So it is problematic to add links to Transcendence or irrationality, are these topics are not directly related.

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. This means that every change must be the subject of a consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS). When some editor disagree with an edit, the normal rule is to revert it until a consensus is reached. This can be achieved by a discussion on the talk page, and this is to the author of the first edit to open the discussion by explaining the reason for which they think that the edit improves Wikipedia. This standard process is described in details in WP:BRD. In any case, edit warring as you do can only lead to be blocked of editing. Such a block is decided by an unvolved administrator. Here, you will probably not get a consensus in favor of your edit, as two different editors have reverted it. Also, attacking other editors ("idiots", "hypocritical") is certainly not the right way for getting a consensus in your favor.

As you are clearly a new editor that ignore Wikipedia rules, I'll assuming good faith (see WP:AGF), and revert you again, without a request to WP:ANI. But, if you continue edit warring and/or personal attacks, such a request will be unavoidable. D.Lazard (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"So it is problematic to add links to Transcendence or irrationality, are these topics are not directly related." pi is irrational and transcendent. you don't know what you're talking about if you think those concepts arent directly related. stop working on math articles and people who know what they're doing fix this shit.

i'm the one who posted to the talk page. i'm the one who explained my edits without making up bullshit claims about transcendence and irrationality not being related to pi. i'm the one who tried to make a compromise. unless youre sucking the admins dick, its gonna turn out worse for you than me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.175.117.2 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I am sucking the dicks of several admins right now. And as a proficient admin-dick-sucker, let me reassure you that it has no bearing on the links that go into this template. Now then, if you're done acting like a 13-year old and want to continue discussing the matter like an adult, then you're welcome to. Otherwise, you're not going to find your stay very productive.

Anyway, it surely makes more sense to link to articles about the irrationality and transcendence of π in a sidebar about π rather than to articles about irrational and transcendental numbers themselves. Sidebars group together articles about closely related topics, and those are too general to be included here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]