This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Numbers This article 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I think something on the numerological/religious/mystical significance of the number 36 would be appropriate to add, there's some info on a few sites I've found, but I can't think how to phrase any of it, or properly designate it. Some sites claim that the number 36 was associated with the Tetractys of the Pythagoreans, and that it was viewed as representing the world.

• Some examples, starting this Quote (within a quote) from here; [1]

For example, consider the following Pythagorean reference (or mnemonic device, if one prefers) concerning the number 36 as explained by W. Wyn Westcott:11

Plutarch, "De Iside et Osiride," calls the Tetractys the power of the number 36, and on this was the greatest oath of the Pythagoreans sworn: and it was denominated the World, in consequence of its being composed of the first four even and the first four odd numbers; for 1 and 3 and 5 and 7 are 16; add 2 and 4 and 6 and 8, and obtain 36. (W.Wyn Westcott, Numbers: their Occult Power and Mystic Virtues, Sun Publishing Santa Fe, 1983:114).

• And also this quote from here; [2]

The number of 36 was the highest oath for the Pythagorean. They are captivated by the following mathematical properties of this number: 36 = 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8 = (1+3+5+7) + (2+4+6+8). As the number of 36 is formed as the sum of the first four odd numbers and the first four even numbers Pythagorean made conclusion that 36 is a symbol of the world.

• Also from this site; [3]

Now 1, 6, 12, 36, 111, and 666 were the most sacred numbers in Astrology. Priests of Sun worship used the numbers mathematically by the way the stars travel across the sky to predict future events. They invented magic charts to perform this most popular form of divination. Like the Roulette wheel, the charts were divided into 36 numbered divisions. There were 6 columns in all directions with the numbers 1 to 36 placed inside the entire chart. Any direction you add the columns, they add to 111. There are six squares in each column and 6 x 111 = 666. If you add all the numbers from 1 to 36 they will also add to 666. So you see, the number 36 was a sacred number that identified with the 36 room gods of the Zodiac, and the number 666 was a summary number of the Sun-god, because it was his sacred number as the Ruler of the Zodiac.

• Also Rabbi Pinchas Winston, whose book I've included under literature, has written a lot about the significance of the number 36 from what appears to be a kabbalistic approach. The entire text of his book can be accessed online by clicking on 'table of contents' here; [4] and a site based around his work, with some essays and articles (amongst others) concerning the significance 36 is here; [5].

Also some sites associate it with 666 since that is the 36th Triangular number (The sum of 1 through 36).

There's more out there but that seems like some main points to suggest anyway. So if somebody would like to sort all that into something I'd be very appreciative thanks. Number36 03:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article says that 36 is the only triangular number whose square root is also a triangular number ... what about the number 1? 199.196.144.13 (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 1 also fits the bill. In fact, there might be plenty other such numbers and the article might be wrong. PrimeFan (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like so many other articles, this one has accumlated a ton of unsourced trivia. I've tagged most of them, except that ones that are immediately apparent mathematically. Many of these should probably just be omitted; many will also be easy to find sources for, I expect. Dicklyon 00:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the too many fact tags off, and just left the article's unreferenced tag.

I notice that on July 27, an editor removed a ton of unsourced trivia, and User:Number36 reverted with this diff summarized "(The article may require pruning, but not wholesale arbitary deletion. Many of the deleted facts are relevent.)" I agree with him; good revert. But then the other editor should have come to the talk page to work out a consensus on what stays and what goes. Basically, it should be easy; anything sourced can stay (unless we agree it's irrelevant), and anything not sourced is free to be deleted by anyone who thinks it should go, after which the burden of citation in on anyone who wants to restore it. So let's do that, OK? Number36, since you added most of these in the first place, and you seem to be an expert on the number 36, I presume you have sources that you can cite. How much time do you want before I start removing unsourced items? Dicklyon 01:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly with what you are saying, the policy you cited clearly states that facts need citations when 'challenged or likely to be challenged', I take as implicit that this refers to legitimate challenges, while with something like the creation myth with Tane may need a citation, which I actually did add at the time but was subsequently removed by another editor, I disagree that something like the atomic number of Krypton, or the existence of the Adelaide 36ers needs anything more than a link here, and that goes for the bulk of things which you placed separate 'citation needed' tags on. Before you remove any individual fact I request a detailed argument on why you believe it reasonable to believe that there would be a challenge of said fact, in line with that portion of the policy that states this as a criteria.Number36 01:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm likely to challenge a lot of them, esp. anything that's not self evident, like sports trivia, and even non-trivial mathematical properties that I'm not aware or can't trivially verify. Dicklyon 02:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to Eyrians purge, that had less to do with sourcing than it did with what Eyrian considered 'Trivia' and/or relevant to the subject of the Number 36, and while I'll not deny he had a point in that regard, unfortunately due to the nature of his mass purge, valuable and relevant information was lost from the article, such as that in the french language the number 36 is used to imply in a general sense that there is a lot of something, sort of how we might say 'dozens' for instance, or in the french phrase which translates as 'seeing 36 candles' an equivalent of our 'seeing stars'. Or a book written by a Rabbi about the significance of the number 36 from the point of view of his religion.Number36 01:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are interesting. So I hope you'll be motivated to add their sources soon. Dicklyon 02:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way would a book not be it's own reference? It's a published source of the information that it exists. Likewise I note that you added the 'citation needed' tag to things like number of inches in the yard, this to me is nothing more than silly, it is broad general knowledge, and this level of citation would demand the tag at the top of every single page on Wikipedia.Number36 02:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't put the book into the article, so you have to talk about it and put a reference to it. I recommend the Template:cite book for this. Have you ever done citations? I can help if not; point me at what you've got. I'm guessing you have not, base on this diff where you put a web ref into the edit summary instead of into the article. Dicklyon 02:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added links at the bottom when I have thought it warranted it, by observing the majority of pages on wikipedia I came to the conclusion that it is not necessary to do this for every minor and easily verifiable point, especially if it is a point of general and basic knowledge such as inches in a yard. For others on this page in the past I included an external link as a reference, a lot of these though were removed by another editor a while ago without explanation, and I requested one but they never got back to me. This is what I did in the case of the book and it appeared thusly;

• The Wonderful World of Thirty-Six by Rabbi Pinchas Winston, about the kabbalistic significance of the number 36. [6]

if you can recommend a better or more 'proper' way to do it please do so. I still say adding citations for things like the atomic weight of Krypton and the Adelaide 36ers is pointless and that the policy you cite does not support this.Number36 03:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll fix that one for you, if you tell me what it supports. An external link does not make a suitable reference, since it's not attached to the thing it is supposed to support. You need to look at actual refs on articles that actually have them. The sad fact that the majority of articles remain unreferenced is what we're trying to work on. You're right that not every asserted fact necessarily needs to be referenced. The number of inches in a yard might be one such, but the number of imperial gallons in a UK beer barrel is somewhat more obscure, at least in the US where I am, and I can well imagine that others might feel that way about English measure of inches and yards, so someone might call for a ref and that would be justifiable. I added a few refs to the thirty-six officers problem, a short article that made several non-obvious statements (I had to change the date to a year supportable by the cited refs; you'll find errors that way, too). You can use that as an example of some ways to write refs. Dicklyon 03:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I applied that as source for the 4 Jewish looking points. Let me know if I got that right, since it's your source. Dicklyon 03:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a fact in and of itself, I can't imagine a lot of numbers have an entire book written about their kabbilistic significance, and I would consider that note worthy in and of itself. Okay, and how about this; [7] as a link that references the part about the God Tane?Number36 04:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd mention the book in the text; get rid of the bullets, mention the book and some highlights from it, and you'll only need a single ref on the paragraph. For the maori one, the cite web template will do; I'll add it. I fixed up the dragon and 9 and remove it from 36. Dicklyon 04:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hm, okay let me try a simple one then, The Adelaide 36ers.Number36 04:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that?Number36 04:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very much like that. Change the date format like I did to make it not red, and don't list the "work" unless there's a work title above the level of page title. Dicklyon 04:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. But you didn't have to change the day; it is already the 13th where you are, right? Dicklyon 04:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now you're an expert; you should put author = in the cite web thing when there's an author, and date = when there's a date. In my experience, if you want your work to last, you invest in references; that way, someone who might think differently can see your sources and will be less likely to mess it up, like they did your external links. Dicklyon 04:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd hardly say expert, is there some sort of instructional page that describes how to put these codes together somewhere? For that one I pretty much just copied and adapted your edit. I can do this, since it is at worst unnecessary in some of the cases imo, but won't deny I can see what you're saying as well. It will take a while though as I don't have access to the net every day, I'll be away for the next three days for instance, and I've already spent way to much time on here today (work piled up behind me irl, eyes strained -grah), but I can get to it, is this acceptable to you? Oh and yes, it is the 13th here already.Number36 04:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:cite web, Template:cite book, Template:cite journal, Template:cite, Category:Citation templates, etc. Dicklyon 05:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added a couple more, hopefully correctly. Going to get back to it on Friday (or Thursday for you), cheers for now.Number36 05:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe there's so much discussion over this. Who the hell reads about numbers anyways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.217.206 (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.ngcic.org/
  • In IC 1337 on 2011-04-23 17:08:25, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In IC 1337 on 2011-04-24 04:34:10, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-23 02:06:58, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-31 22:27:07, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 11 (number) on 2011-06-01 02:53:15, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 138 (number) on 2011-06-01 14:55:19, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 26 (number) on 2011-06-19 05:45:43, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 35 (number) on 2011-06-19 06:47:54, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#List of British bingo nicknames for a centralized discusion as to whether Bingo names should be included in thiese articles. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relating to the point already present in the article, that in French it is utilised as a placeholder number, there are some specific idioms that it may be useful to cite as examples; Voir trente-six chandelles (seeing thirty-six candles), being dazed/shocked, equivalent to the English idiom seeing stars; Tous les trente-six du mois (Every 36th of the Month) never or very rarely, somewhat equivalent to once in a blue moon; j’ai trente-six choses à faire (having thirty-six things to do), having a lot to do; faire trente-six choses à la fois (doing thirty-six things at once), something like juggling too much, or having a lot of irons in the fire; Trente-six métiers, trente-six misères, (Thirty-six Jobs, Thirty-Six Miseries), being stuck in a succession of dead-end undesirable jobs. There's a source here for the majority of those if it's deemed suitable.Frond Dishlock (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]