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:
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

I want to scrutinize the current contents and growth of this template. These are my hypotheses:

1. Irrational numbers are a meaningful category within the reals (no i, or any other number systems)
2. "Almost all" reals are irrational (only prominent representatives in the template, most prominent: π)
3. All roots are irrational, except for respective powers of rationals
4. Transcendental functions do not preserve rationals
5. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]