Template talk:.(

NOT Redundant

The {{(}} template does NOT generate a pair of opening square brackets like this one does.  It returns a pair of opening curly brackets just like {{((}}.  That is {{(}} is redundant, NOT this template.  I checked both {{((}} and {{(}} before I added this.  Further, {{(}} should logically produce a single opening curly bracket so producing a pair of anything comes as a bit of a surprise.      mtew 18:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you're right - I saw it wrong, sorry. Can I ask then, why you need this templates?

Also I don't think there is a rule how templates should be named, especially when there are meant to shorten things up, and redunancy isn't based on the name but on usage, so I'll tag the double-bracing ones for deletion now. poke | talk 18:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't see the reason for templates like this. If it's for your own projects, you should place it in your userspace, not in the public template space. -- Wyn 00:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This kind of template is used for nested DPL commands.  Sometimes it is necessary to delay the effecting of a WIKI command until after the DPL command is completed; this series of templates provide that ability.  This particular template generates the first part of a WIKI link specification.  The .) template produces the last part. '!' and 'pipe' produce the part seperator. 

While it might be possible to do what this template does without using a template, the result would be obscure and difficult to understand.  These templates are a concise way of specifying the required operation.  That should also make it clear why these are in the general template pool.  Putting them in userspace would bloat their form to the point where they would be almost useless as a compact notation.      mtew 18:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

poke: I thought I had written a note explaining what I was doing, but I don't see it now.  Expanding on what I said to Wyn, I am working on some DPL for region summaries that I hope will eventually be useful as part of the main WIKI.  I also wrote something on naming; in summary, rules on naming are micro-management but the programming design philosophy of 'least surprise' is relevant. 

Hmm.  I ran across a note someplace about people using this WIKI for personal web hosting.  I can see that that could turn into a problem.  However, I am trying to build stuff for the main WIKI.  It is only personal in the sense that it contains what I want it to contain without first checking to see if there is a formal project that might cover it.      mtew 18:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you propose your ideas on the appropriate formatting page before you go to all the trouble to do all this. If it's something you hope to implement in mainspace, it needs to be discussed and consensus needs to be reached before it is implemented. I seems like you are going to a lot of work for something the community may not wish to use. -- Wyn 19:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not really a rational suggestion when applied to these particular templates.  Editing existing and widely used templates obvious requires community concensus, but adding a technically useful template is an entirely different thing.  The first puts a lot of other peoples work at risk.  The second can not do that since it did not exist before.  The real problem is that waiting to talk everybody into something is a recipe for inaction.  I saw a use for this, looked for it in the existing templates, did not find it, found similar items, and copied and edited one of those items to fit the purpose.  I considered the risk involved before I proceeded and concluded that there was virtually no chance of harm.  poke had an issue, and that issue has been discussed here.  I considered what he said and made a small change that his point implied would be a good one.  The comment that accompanied the change was intended to be amusing and in no way critical.  The intended undertone was that I felt his implicit suggestion was a good one, that I considered his advice valuable, and that his opinion is important to me.  I could be wrong, but my reading of his response was that he no longer has that issue with this template or the matching closing template.  The continued existence of these templates should be a technical issue, not one of status, prestige or control. 

As for the amount of work I am doing, it is my time and I find value in the way I use it.  I do not think my efforts are likely to be highly regarded by the community as they stand now and are not in the main space for that very reason.  In fact I don't know enough to know what is practical so discussing it on the formatting page now would be premature.  But the work I have done so far is the beginning of something that others might find attractive if it is further developed.  I expect that the result will be judged by its quality.  However, your comment contains slightly more than a hint of disapproval.  That is lowering my respect for your opinion.      mtew 22:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested on why you think these templates help in any way. You say, you are using them for nested DPL calls, but actually nested DPL calls given then a problem, when you have to use DPL-specific characters within the lower calls. Brackets for links are neither a DPL-specific character nor do they give a problem anywhere else. In fact they are always interpreted last by the wiki parser which results in that you should never have a problem with it. However, if there actually is something, where you need this template, I would really like to see that example. poke | talk 12:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It is precisely because they are interpreted last that make them useful.  They delay the effect of the generated WIKI code until the rescan is done.  They are useful in the same way {{!}}, {{(}} and {{)}} are useful.      mtew 18:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)