Template talk:Irrational number
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Recent amendments
[edit]I want to scrutinize the current contents and growth of this template. These are my hypotheses:
- Irrational numbers are a meaningful category within the reals (no i, or any other number systems)
- "Almost all" reals are irrational (only prominent representatives in the template, most prominent: π)
- All roots are irrational, except for respective powers of rationals
- Transcendental functions do not preserve rationals
- For an overview, consult the article on irrational numbers
Accordingly, I suggest to
- remove a good deal of the many scarcely known constants, some roots and ln-s, and to
- stop adding new, only scarcely known constants to the template, but rather to the article on irrationals, and to
- agree on some ordering of the entries (value, alphabetically, importance, ...).
Especially point #2 allows for broad discussions, and the others are no axioms, of course. Purgy (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Illustration on right side - remove?
[edit]The illustration on the right side of the template appears to be nearly useless: (1) it is not legible, it is so tiny (even on desktop) that readers cannot grasp it; (2) it is not highlighting anything special or definitive about irrational numbers; (3) it focuses on 3 numbers that are called "gold" "bronze" and "silver" numbers ... I've never hear of those names; yes, the "golden rectangle" or "golden ratio" is super famous .. but that is not the "gold" number used in the illustration.
If there is no compelling reason to keep it, I propose removing the illustration. Noleander (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- I went ahead and removed it, since I could find no redeeming value; but if anyone wants to discuss its value in this template, please discuss here. Noleander (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)