Talk:Bracket

Crystallography

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)

Usage in chat

On chatrooms and message boards, actions are put in brackets.

"I know she can't sing, but I like Lindsay Lohan {ducks from flying vegetables}."

There's also the "Insert Item" usage.

"I don't care if [insert nominee here] deserves to be in the hall of fame, I think that Maris should be in."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.172.165 (talk) 05:33 & :34, 6 November 2006

Unicode and HTML encodings for various bracket characters

@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)

@JMF: I agree with that and I think they don't need to be there. The only reason I kept adding them was because the other characters in the table already had them before I started editing. In my opinion, the only ones that should be included are the named entities from List of XML and HTML character entity references for consistency with the infoboxes that also include them. That's why I added them in this edit. Nickps (talk) 23:05, 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)

In your place, I might have saved myself a lot of work and just deleted the whole thing straight off. Off with its head! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

On Brackets infobox

Hello fellow Editors!

Following Wikipedia guidelines on references in Infoboxes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#References_in_infoboxes) I want to remove excessive referencing of Pointon, Graham; Clark, Stewart (2014). "Punctuation Guide" from the Infobox only.

However, I met an opposition from another editor, who claims that I misunderstood the guidelines on using citations in info boxes and deleted information - imo, without factual proof for these accusations.

So they kindly suggested I find support from other editors. I also see this as the only way to resolve such conflict of rule interpretation.

For convenience of the discussion, let me quote the Manual of style for references in Infoboxes:

References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious. If the material needs a reference (see WP:MINREF for guidelines) and the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. But editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article.

My POV is that:
- content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere [in the article]
- information does also appear in the body of the article
=> no need for citation in the infobox, all the more 3(!) times which is cluttering

Please, express your opinion on the topic; and if you disagree with my position, please, provide references/quotes to the rules. Gregory108 (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

My Factual proof is the self-evident deletions of text in the relevant diff. MrOllie (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

None of the diffs shows I deleted the information if you pay attention. The information was reorganized for readability and more clear structure. Gregory108 (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not find the citations in the Infobox as cluttering, especially since this isn't a typical Infobox. In addition this edit only added a non-reliable source which is reason enough to revert your original edit. This edit was to remove an unreliable source so it was also an appropriate edit.VViking_TalkEdits 17:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

In another discussion I agreed to the unreliability and I do not suggest adding it anymore. (I have no objections to [this edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bracket&diff=1223425710&oldid=1223422620).

I suggest:

1) removing link that is repeated multiple times in the article body - following the guidelines - from the infobox only

2) restructuring for readability

In your opinion "no" to both? Gregory108 (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Blackboard bold markup

@Spitzak: Greetings! With regard to this revert: MOS:BBB requires that blackboard bold characters be written with <math>...</math> markup. The only common exception is when discussing characters themselves; this table is not discussing U+2124 ℤ DOUBLE-STRUCK CAPITAL Z, so I'm not sure why we'd use that character instead of following the general rule? The MOS also allows bold ASCII Z, if for whatever reason you'd prefer an all-text representation. -- Beland (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't {{math}} count as math markup? Mostly trying to get it so if the user copies the line and pastes it somewhere they get the matching text and can then delete the stuff between the brackets. Spitzak (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, {{math}} is often used for math markup on English Wikipedia, but MOS:BBB says not to use it for blackboard bold. When I copy and paste that cell with <math>...</math> markup, I get "⦉⦊". I guess that means the system has saved me a step if I was going to delete the content between the brackets anyway? If you want the whole expression to copy-and-paste exactly as written, the MOS-compliant {{math|⦉''x'':'''Z'''⦊}} pastes as "⦉x:Z⦊" which is the same except that (depending on your system) like the existing version it loses italics and bolding. -- Beland (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)