User talk:Tommy Kronkvist/Archive 2008

Hyphens into ndashes
Changing hypens into ndashes as you did at Mikhail Tal is a good idea. You should probably refrain from changing mdashes into spaced ndashes (as you also did at Mikhail Tal), however, as that is a stylistic choice that should not be changed without good reason. Quale (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're perfectly right, and I know it. Also, I usually do not change em dashes into en dashes (or vice versa), since there really is no good reason for doing so. The only times I normally change em/en dashes is when both systems are used within the same article, and then I stick to the one method most frequently used in that specific article, whether em dashes or en dashes. As for the Mikhail Tal article – sorry, my mind must have tricked me, so to speak. In any case: feel free to change the spaced en dashes back to em dashes, if you like! Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I prefer the spaced en dash to the non-spaced em dash. I think the latter looks out-of-style.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, and Wikipedia's Manual of Style regarding em dashes says that "because em dashes are visually striking, Wikipedia takes care not to overuse them". However, it also says that "one style should be used consistently in an article", and if (non-spaced) em dashes are already in use I tend to stick to them. In the same way I don't change citation styles from say, plain text into cite book, or other more WP-specific code. I exclusively use en dashes and citation templates when I write a new article from scratch – however I don't change systems already in place. This because I feel that the stylistic choice by the writer before me should be respected. But again: I agree with you, as such. Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Once I read about the difference in the MoS, I started using the long dashes without spaces, since that is what it discussed first, so I though it was preferred. But then I got to looking at them and I thought "This looks like a Dover reprint of a book from 70 to 80 years ago", and I went to the shorter dash with spaces.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, in my opinon it's rather ugly in a typographical sense, and quite hard to read in comparison to en dashed text. Also, now en dashes are discussed before the em's in the MoS. Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Victor Korchnoi
Thanks for adding a nice reference to Victor Korchnoi. Quale (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking?
You may be WP:OVERLINKing some common words. Bubba73 (talk), 01:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. It's sometimes difficult to stake out the boundaries between what's good and what's too excessive, but sure, I'll hit the brakes. Thanks.


 * By the way, why do you most often use French spacing between sentences? Quite a common way of writing when using a typewriter, but redundant when using a computer. Not a big deal though – I'm just curious... Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is French spacing two spaces after a period? I guess I got used to doing that in the days of typewriters.  Usually it is not redundant on a computer (a text editor or word precessor for instance) but it is in these articles because the software standardizes it to one.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, double-spacing. It's all described in this (far too long...) article: French spacing. It might not be redundant while using some specific software, especially Linux-based text editors. However, in modern computer fonts all spacing should be built into the fonts' kerning table, and hence be redundant at the user level – it should be dealt with by the operating system, via the font file. In theory, that is... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I learned to type in 1972, on mechanical typewriters even. It still makes a difference in Microsoft Word, for example.  I just got used to it.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

New articles
Thanks for creating two excellent new chess articles! Not sure if you knew, but they were both in the top 10 most wanted chess articles User:Voorbot/Most_wanted_redlinks. We are lacking a lot of bios, which other wikis seem to have. It is nice to see that someone takes the trouble to add these obviously notable chess players! Regards, Voorlandt (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm aware of your bot and the lists. I frequently visit the WikiProject Chess page, and figured that it's about time for me to do some actual work too, not only read the information... More to come! :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothos

 * Nowhere in particular actually. It's being used in the papers you'll find annotated in some of the family articles, and it's being used on the German wikipedia.
 * If you have access to Joseph S. Nelson: Fishes of the World. John Wiley & Sons, 2006, ISBN 0-471-25031-7, you will want to check it out. First, it might be the primary reference; second, if it differs let me know - it's a default ref for the Fish project.
 * The rough outline (except the separation of Nothobranchiidae, which is only 21st century stuff) is actually an old proposal known in 1998, see here. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)