This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bracket article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Crystallography uses these things to denote whether a plane or direction is being discussed, and whether it's generic or specific. I have put up a basic account of their use in Crystallography#Notation, but you may want to wait a few days for it to stabilize before you copy it into this article. This may also convince someone to finally flesh out Miller index.-- Joel 06:14 & :18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
On chatrooms and message boards, actions are put in brackets.
There's also the "Insert Item" usage.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.188.172.165 (
talk) 05:33 & :34, 6 November 2006
Did any WP:think of the reader on mobile? Who thought it would be a good idea to have a long list of detailed Unicode code-points that the mobile reader would have to skip past before getting any content?
Is there a convincing reason to retain the current layout rather than put it at the bottom of the article as is conventional? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 00:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Organizing it by Unicode sub-range before bracket shape makes no sense, as readers aren't going to know the Unicode sub-ranges before looking things up.
The {{ unichar}} template has even automatically picked up some HTML entities ...
Who thought it would be a good ideawhen the revision history shows it was @ Uncle G, and you even spoke with him about this before where he showed a mockup.
The real problem, articulated by SMcCandlish earlier is that, largely because of the mathematical symbols (duplicating Bracket (mathematics)) the infoboxes are long. There is, simply put, almost more data dumping than prose in this article. Fortunately, it takes a pretty extreme 16:9 portrait view window to make the infoboxes be even as long as the prose in the sections, in landscape view the prose readily being longer than the infoboxes, and as I just demonstrated for one of the shorter sections whose infobox threatened to outgrow it that's because our prose is pretty superficial rubbish and actually could be significantly longer. Nowhere do we yet explain what a "tortoise shell bracket" is, for example, or properly explain a Chinese book title mark or proper noun mark.
There's a dubious laundry list of brace names that has grown over the years. I found a definite source for only one. Names like "Scottish bracket" and "French bracket" seem especially dubious, and "twirly bracket" et al. seem like outright slang dictionary territory. I couldn't find sources that supported any of these, except that I can find occurrences of "Tuborgklamme" (not "Tuborg bracket") so that one, amazingly enough, seems to be true but undocumented if it were actually stated as "Tuborgklamme". Uncle G ( talk) 08:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Nickps: I'm concerned by your addition of the html codes to the table Bracket#Unicode and HTML encodings for various bracket characters. What is 231C ... #8988; but a hex to decimal conversion? That html column is so mathematically trivial as to be way below the WP:NOTMANUAL threshold.
The table as a whole seems yet another example of the kind of pointless article bloat discussed at talk:A#Proposed deletion of section in this and all the alphabet, so I am at a loss to understand why you would want to add to it given the clear consensus to spring-clean out such detritus? How is it Wikipedia's role to replicate the Unicode standards? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 22:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I am at a loss to understand why you would want to add to it. Because it's incomplete. If there is consensus to remove it then it should go (and take the other overly long lists of characters that are in the infoboxes with it). But as long as it's there, it should at least have all the characters that belong in it. It's not like there was a pattern behind which characters were in the various lists and which were not. For example, U+0028 ( LEFT PARENTHESIS was listed, obviously, and so was U+FF08 ( FULLWIDTH LEFT PARENTHESIS. But while U+2985 ⦅ LEFT WHITE PARENTHESIS was listed in the Parenthesis infobox, U+FF5F ⦅ FULLWIDTH LEFT WHITE PARENTHESIS was not mentioned at all. That makes no sense so I added it to the Unicode table. Nickps ( talk) 23:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)