# Knowino:Village Inn

The Village Inn is a gathering-place for the community. Anyone can post news, announcements, and suggestions here. Add a new topic...

##  Some important announcements

1. On Monday, January 24 (or possibly earlier, but no later), I'll try to move this site to a "en." subdomain. That means the new URL will become, say, en.knowino.org rather than knowino.org. This is to demonstrate our commitment to multilingualism, and to ensure that we won't have to make this change later, breaking all links to the site in the process. The base domain (without the "en.") will then serve as an "index".
2. By January 24, we need to decide whether to stick with the name Knowino (knowino.org, en.knowino.org), or to use Tendrl (tendrl.org, en.tendrl.org) or some other alternative. While I don't mind "Knowino", several people have—since the change—indicated their preference for "Tendrl" instead. Additionally, "Knowino" poses several translation difficulties. The key is for us to make an informed decision while we still have that opportunity. I'd love to hear your feedback.
3. A good friend, who happens to be an excellent artist, has offered to make a logo for the site. Over the course of the next few weeks, I hope to work with him on this.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank, once again, those who have contributed to the site so far.—Tom Larsen (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Maybe your good friend is able to create a name and a logo in a single heroic act? :-) --Boris Tsirelson 07:17, 17 January 2011 (EST)
Possibly! ;-) Worth a try, I suppose...—Tom Larsen (talk) 08:22, 17 January 2011 (EST)
I sort of liked Wikipendium.--86.81.145.23 10:13, 17 January 2011 (EST) (This is a msg from Paul Wormer).
The trouble is that Wikipendium.org is already taken.—Tom Larsen (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2011 (EST)
No, the trouble is that it's unoriginal. Stick with Tendrl. 173.20.51.14 22:15, 18 January 2011 (EST)
It is great we are moving, but is that the only language to be created? I recommend you create the other languages too. (P.S. You can also downgrade to MediaWiki's current version. Lots of things are breaking for me...) Hydra (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2011 (EST)

┌────────────────┘

It's certainly my intention to start Knowinos/Tendrls/?s in languages other than English, but we should probably try to establish this project somewhat beforehand.

What's breaking with MediaWiki?—Tom Larsen (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2011 (EST)

Ah, lots of gadgets that can work with Wikipedia. Hydra (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2011 (EST)
Hey wait, I just realised it is January 24 already and the site is not moved yet... Hydra (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2011 (EST)
Yes, I plan to make the move today.—Tom Larsen (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2011 (EST)

┌─────────┘

The past few days have been very busy for me, and today was no different; however, things should be back to normal tomorrow. I meant to make the move on January 24, but decided not to risk making a hash of it; so I expect to get around to it on January 26 (Melbourne time).

For the time being, are there any preferences for a name—Knowino, Tendrl, or something else?—Tom Larsen (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2011 (EST)

I cannot pronounce Tendrl, and I did not know the word tendril, so probably for non-native speakers of English the name is not so fortunate.--Paul Wormer 05:30, 25 January 2011 (EST)

Hmm, that's interesting, and it does pose an issue.

Here's a list of names I've thought of, along with various pros and cons. Feel free to add to the list.—Tom Larsen (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2011 (EST)

Just as a note: Tendrl is pronounced "ten-drill", and knowing the word "tendril" is not really a prerequisite to understanding what the project is about. Take "Google", for example: the name is based on the word "googol", but I suspect most people don't know that.—Tom Larsen (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2011 (EST)
Why did you remove the vowel? Tendril is OK by me. The four consecutive consonants make it difficult to pronounce. --Paul Wormer 02:55, 26 January 2011 (EST)
Mainly because Tendril.org is taken. The pronunciation of Tendrl is, however, the same as "tendril". I can see your point, though.—Tom Larsen (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2011 (EST)
I'm ready to make the move to an "en." subdomain, but we should probably decide what to do about the project name first—we have time, and there's no point making a hash of things.—Tom Larsen (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2011 (EST)
After seeing all the suggestions below, I still think "Knowino" is the best. I think it is best to stick with Knowino. Hydra (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2011 (EST)
Name Pros Cons
Knowino
knowino.org
• Makes it clear that the project is knowledge-orientated.
• Could imply a "particle of knowledge" to scientific readers.
• Now-I-Know?
• Unclear pronunciation.
• Poses translation difficulties.
• Has been alleged to sound too [Larry-] Sanger-ish.
• Know-A-Wino?
Tendrl
tendrl.org
• Shorter.
• Some people like it.
• More distinctive than the hundreds of other "wiki" and "-pedia" sites.
• Unclear pronunciation.
• Poses translation difficulties.
Librepedia
librepedia.org
• "Libre" means free in the sense of freedom.
• Clearer pronunciation.
• Easier to translate.
• Has "pedia" in the name (like a gazillion other projects).
• Name is a bit long.
• May imply political "liberal" to some.
Knoogl
knoogl.org
or Knoogol
knoogol.org
• Knowledge-googol.
• New-goal.
• Pronounceable (I think)?
• Butt-ugly as an English word.
• Ambiguous pronunciation: Is the "k" silent?
• Let's not talk about translating this one.
Ething
ething.org
• Everything.
• Electronic-thing.
• "E-thing" is fine, but "Eth-ing" sounds too much like "f-ing". (Sorry, but programmers should think of everything.) :-)
• No clear meaning or pronunciation: is it "eth-ing" or "e-thing" or what?
• I don't know.
Wikipendium
wikipendium.org
• Not sure.
• A bit unoriginal.
• Too reminiscent of a certain failed "-endium" project.
• Domain name is taken.
TheGuide
theguide.org
• Play on "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
• Easy to translate and pronounce.
• Sounds a bit like a travel guide.
• Based on my sense of humour, which is probably a bad start. :-)
•  ?
•  ?
Petaurista
• Unclear pronunciation.
InfoHearth
•  ?
•  ?
Competium
• Competition + competence = compendium
•  ?
Candlewiki
• Relatively easy to translate and pronounce.
• "Candlewiki" combines the words "candlewick" and "wiki".
• "Candle" signifies enlightenment, knowledge; "wiki" describes the technical nature of the site.
... ... ...

Maybe Competium? You did inspire me to check out some Latin names, like Sapientia (which isn't too bad, in my mind, but the domain name is already taken). There are two main things I think we really need for the site name: (1) simplicity—it's crucial that people be able to remember the name easily; and (2) originality—something that hasn't been tried before.

The simplicity principle rules out names like Competendium, in my mind, because I can't spell it without looking at it several times. (If I recall correctly, I even had this problem a while ago with Citizendium—I had to look the site up on Google to get the name right.) And originality disqualifies Librepedia, because it risks becoming yet another 'pedia that people can't confidently pin down in their minds.—Tom Larsen (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2011 (EST)

(I used the word "mind" three times in that last post—you can see that I'm clearly obsessed with sapience.)—Tom Larsen (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2011 (EST)
Competium, OK. Still "Competition + competence = compendium" (thus, closer to the point than Sapientia), but easier than Competendium. A bit in use in Spain (the word I mean, not the domain), which should not be an obstacle. --Boris Tsirelson 06:58, 4 February 2011 (EST)
To me competium sounds as if we want to compete (with WP?) --Paul Wormer 08:05, 4 February 2011 (EST)

##  Feedback requested on dispute resolution processes

I've expanded Knowino:Dispute resolution, and would appreciate any feedback that you have on the processes outlined in that page. Cheers!—Tom Larsen (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2011 (EST)

##  Structuring information

With Knowino, we have the opportunity to find novel ways to structure, categorise, and index information. So this is a request for any and all suggestions—let's find ways to make content findable and more user-friendly!—Tom Larsen (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2011 (EST)

##  Syntax highlighting extension

I have just installed the GeSHi syntax highlighting extension, so now you can get automatic, consistent syntax highlighting and verbatim output using the <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight> tags. For example:

<syntaxhighlight lang="c">
#include <stdio.h>

int main (void) {
printf ("Hello, world!\n");
return 0;   /* exit */
}
</syntaxhighlight>


produces:

#include <stdio.h>

int main (void) {
printf ("Hello, world!\n");
return 0;   /* exit */
}

This example is obviously in C, but many other languages are supported. See the list of supported languages. I hope you find this feature useful!—Tom Larsen (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2011 (EST)

I believe an easier method is to use the <source> tag. It is much simpler and still gives the same results. Hydra (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2011 (EST)
The <syntaxhighlight> tag was created to avoid conflicts with the <source> tag found in languages like XML. For other languages, though, <source> should work correctly.—Tom Larsen (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2011 (EST)

Hello, I might bring some JavaScript programs over here but I must ask; is the gadgets extension installed? Mr. Berty 03:32, 28 February 2011 (EST)

Not yet. Do you mean gadgets for your own personal use or gadgets that anyone can enable and use? What do you have in mind?—Tom Larsen (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2011 (EST)
Gadgets we can all use. See the documentation page for more info. Mr. Berty 11:02, 28 February 2011 (EST)
I'm willing to install the Gadgets extension if we have gadgets to install. Maybe you could post a list of gadgets that you think would be useful? Cheers!—Tom Larsen (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2011 (EST)

Here's just some of them:

There's loads more, I'm just picking out the top five. And, of course; these will need to be modified to suit Knowino. Mr. Berty 11:25, 9 March 2011 (EST)

##  Another possible name

How about "Wiknow"? It's a combination of "wiki" and "know", "we" and "know", and "wiki" and "now", depending on how you look at it.

I apologise for my lack of activity on Knowino over the past week or two. I was kept very busy with other events that, unfortunately, were of slightly higher priority. I plan to jump back into things now. :-) —Tom Larsen (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2011 (EST)

I don't know about the name. Perhaps we should stick with Knowino or Tendrl. Oh, and welcome back Tom!--Fred Anderson 09:57, 9 March 2011 (EST)

##  Our content

Having our 1000 articles, should we put prominently (to "About Knowino"?) something like this? --Boris Tsirelson 04:43, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

Go right ahead! :-) —Tom Larsen (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
I did. --Boris Tsirelson 04:19, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

##  Knowino's potential as the "reliable version of Wikipedia"

Hello, first of all I would like to salute this project, which seems to feature an interesting compromise between reliability and participation.

In what follows I hope you won't mind if I quote myself, adapting some comments which I think can be relevant also for this project from

I would really love to have a reliable Wikipedia, which could be cited without any qualms in any kind of paper.

One way to achieve this aim could be the following (unoriginal) one: the Wikimedia Foundation should hire Britannica-level experts (from, or compatible with, top universities) and add an "expert-reviewed" tab to its articles (the expert-reviewed version could be chosen as the default one by readers). This would be the ideal solution to me, since I think that to ensure the highest reliability, top experts need the financial ease conscientiously to do their work and the incentive to put their name at stake. The (much) higher reliability could attract the (much) higher amount of donations needed.

But since I think that this system would be considered too top-down by Wikipedians, I would like to submit some little proposals to Knowino's editors which are meant to bring this project closer to the utopian goal of a free reliable huge online encyclopedia.

1) I will quote from http://knowino.org/wiki/User_talk:Thomas_Larsen#Wikipedia :

"I think it's probably better at this stage that we don't import all of Wikipedia's featured articles at once, for two reasons:

• search engines will treat Knowino as if it were just another mirror of Wikipedia (and direct people to Wikipedia instead)
• people will treat Knowino as if it were just another mirror of Wikipedia (and go to Wikipedia instead)."

However, I think that recovering as much (good) Wikipedia content as possible would be desirable, since I am afraid that the need for reinventing the wheel deters many people from joining any encyclopedic project: there are already many areas where Britannica pales in comparison with Wikipedia in terms of detail, plurality of viewpoints, number of references, "up-to-dateness".

An alternative solution could be starting by importing every Wikipedia's featured article as soon as there is a Reviewer who can sight it.

I am no expert about search engines, but maybe problems could be avoided to some extent in a quick and provisional way by paraphrasing the imported articles at least partially, aiming at a better style.

At the beginning, there could be a template which emphasizes the fact that the article, besides having the qualities which can be attributed to Wikipedia's best content, has been reviewed by one or more experts and so can be reasonably considered reliable; in any case, one should be confident about that article more than s/he would be about a Wikipedia article even after investigating its edit history. Later, Knowino might strive for the ideal of an authoritative peer-review system, which would make its articles as citable as, for example, those from a magazine such as Nature, or an encyclopedia such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

As Knowino catches on, the next step might be importing Wikipedia’s so-called good articles in a reviewed (and, if necessary, expanded and improved) version, and then all the articles proposed by any Knowino’s editor to the appropriate Reviewers.

2)In order to avoid the woo invasion which has plagued Citizendium, a conventional but objective criterion to exclude pseudoscientists from being Reviewers could be the following: the discipline in which a prospective Reviewer claims expertise should be among the subjects taught (by teachers who endorse it) at at least some university among the top 10 (or some other figure) of, say, the THES or Jiao Tong university rankings.

Thank you for your attention.--Analytikone 20:43, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

It came to my mind that a promising field to start with reviewing Wikipedia articles, not only featured ones, could be current events. The New York Times has its reference project, Times Topics ( http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/index.html ), and its editor John O'Neil has so commented about its rationale with respect to Wikipedia:

“JO: I think Wikipedia is an amazing phenomenon. I use it. But there’s no field of information in which people would find there to be only one source. On Wikipedia, there’s the uncertainty principle: It’s all pretty good, but you’re never sure with any specific thing you’re looking at, how specific you can be about it. You have to be an expert to know which are the good pages and which are the not-so-good ones. Our topic pages — and other newspaper-based pages — bring, for one thing, a level of authority or certainty. We’re officially re-purposing copy that has been edited and re-edited to the standards of The New York Times. It’s not always perfect, but people know what they can expect.” (from http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/02/the-context-based-news-cycle-editor-john-oneil-on-the-future-of-the-new-york-times-topics-pages/ )

However, if we have a look for instance at the Times Topics’ “Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)” http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html , we can see that the level of detail and organization of information of the corresponding Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Libyan_civil_war is higher beyond comparison (the two pieces of reference might have slightly different aims, but I think that the Wikipedia model has its raison d'être in any case).

If Knowino managed to recruit even a single respected journalist who is an expert on the Libyan situation as a Reviewer, the resulting reviewed article could attract much attention to the project even by being linked to by news sites: the last reviewed version of the article would be very useful as a reliable summary of the events (to laypeople and professionals) even if the review was relatively infrequent.

At a later stage I think that a bigger (but always not-for-profit) Knowino could even pay professional journalists to review articles about the most newsworthy events at regular intervals, up to daily. --Analytikone 06:57, 4 June 2011 (EDT)

Besides featured and current events articles, other candidates for early importing in a reviewed version could be of course the most viewed articles not related to news, and in particular those educationally notable, such as "George Washington" (a list which is a little outdated but still useful for finding such articles is at http://stats.grok.se/en/top ). Among those, Knowino editors could select those which require little work to be submitted to Reviewers for sighting --Analytikone 10:39, 4 June 2011 (EDT)

A nice business plan. So, who of us will hire the needed personnel? :-) --Boris Tsirelson 13:17, 4 June 2011 (EDT)
More seriously, when I first came to CZ it was my idea, to take math articles from WP, correct and approve them. However, (a) CZ does not like it because of the "google juice" argument; (b) the approval process on CZ is rather tedious (less tedious than FA on WP, see recent example, but also collective...) For now we have no "google juice" anyway, thus, nothing to loose; but in the future?.. --Boris Tsirelson 13:23, 4 June 2011 (EDT)
My suggestion about paid experts was only for a hypothetical future, when Knowino's donations grow substantially... Even when I wrote "if Knowino managed to recruit even a single respected journalist who is an expert on the Libyan situation as a Reviewer" I meant that it would be good to find a professional journalist willing to check at least some articles about current events on a voluntary basis.
Regarding "google juice", a reputation for reliability (and the ensuing incoming links) could make up for the similarity between Knowino's articles and Wikipedia's (but I suggested that Wikipedia's articles be paraphrased for a better style when possible before importing). --Analytikone 02:18, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
Analytikone, thanks for your suggestions! I like your idea about importing featured articles from Wikipedia; but I think we should import articles on a case-by-case basis, so that we can keep on top of them. I'll post a more in-depth reply to the rest of your points soon!—Tom Larsen (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
Featured articles hardly need our approval or protection; they are good enough, and kept in good condition, aren't they? On the other hand, very-very few math articles are featured; others do need care. --Boris Tsirelson 01:53, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
Unfortunately, it seems that Wikipedians themselves think that many featured articles decline in quality to the point that they have to be demoted: there are almost 900 items in the category "former featured articles", so almost one in four of all the articles wich were featured at some time were found not to meet the criteria anymore after discussion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Former_featured_articles ). And so it seems that there is no guarantee that even an article which currently belongs to the featured articles category still meets the criteria some time after its promotion, since later edits aren’t checked one by one.
Besides, as far as I know, the featured article review doesn’t require the approval of one or more acknowledged experts: thus successive expert-reviewed versions of sometime Wikipedia featured articles could be valued very much by readers and especially by students, professionals and academics, who could rely on them and cite them without reservation (and without having to investigate their edit history). --Analytikone 04:07, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
Well, I should add as a quasi-platitude that Knowino would gain an even greater edge over Wikipedia by importing an article which was never featured, but is worthy in some respects, and improving it until it can be approved by expert Reviewers: however, we should consider the trade-off between the advantages over Wikipedia and the required time and work.--Analytikone 05:07, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

I wrote before that I would start with importing featured, current events and most viewed articles from Wikipedia (to improve and review them); however, my favorite general policy for the creation of Knowino articles would be the following: an editor who is thinking about starting an article (for example to deal with a red link) might consider whether importing the corresponding one from Wikipedia and improving it to the expert-reviewed status would take more work than achieving that status by writing it from scratch: if this weren’t the case, I think it would be better to import the article from Wikipedia and start working on it rather than “reinvent the wheel” (I think that especially we shouldn’t lose the rich and well-organized layout of references which can be found even in many not so good Wikipedia articles: in my opinion, as a starting point of research, the more references is usually the better, malgré Citizendium). This policy would have the following advantage among others over an automated complete Wikipedia fork: an editor who assesses a Wikipedia article for importing is much more stimulated to work on it rather than if s/he finds it among those automatically imported.--Analytikone 07:19, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

##  Notability standards

What are the notability standards of this Wiki? I can't find a page addressing this. Where does Knowino sit on the inclusionism/deletionism spectrum? Is it aiming for the same spot as Wikipedia, or more in one direction or the other? Zachary Martin 19:10, 4 June 2011 (EDT)

Some hints are given on "Guidelines": "All material that you post on Knowino should contribute, directly or indirectly, towards our mission" ("to create, disseminate, and promote free educational content"); "accuracy, objectivity, and readability ... are mandatory for all articles"; "limited original research is permitted"; "verifiable by subject-matter experts"; "We allow multiple articles...". --Boris Tsirelson 00:49, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
I was planning on creating an article on a topic of interest to me. But I was not sure whether it would be notable or not, so I am asking for guidance. I would rather not do so if it would just be deleted. Zachary Martin 05:08, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
You'd better ask specifically. Which topic? You see, for now our traditions are far from well-established. On this stage we act rather case-by-case. Probably I am more inclusionistic than Thomas (and Paul?), see for example here. --Boris Tsirelson 07:36, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
I'm very inclusionist with regard to non-political issues, the proverbial Pokemon figures are fine by me. Articles about computer games, sport heroes, pop and TV stars, elementary and high schools, tiny or large villages, railway stations, ... no problem to me. However, I'm wary of political/racial/religious issues, I wouldn't like to see Knowino develop into a propaganda vehicle for left or right wing politics, religious fundamentalism, forms of superstition, racism, etc. But, since I'm not intending to read all that's added, I could very well overlook such articles. I don't have the ambition to become a Knowino censor. I will restrict my attention mostly to science and math–that–is–not–difficult articles. (Difficult math is for Boris). --Paul Wormer 11:01, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
I have similar views to Paul: I'm an inclusionist when it comes to non-controversial topics, but have a more deletionist approach when it comes to topics which are likely to cause contention. Zachary, what kind of article(s) do you have in mind?—Tom Larsen (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
Well, if so, then probably something like that should be said in our "Guidelines". --Boris Tsirelson 01:49, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
Well, what about the religion of Maratreanism? Is that notable? Zachary Martin 07:10, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
Quite unexpectedly I've found some math there: Maratreanism's programme of mathematical research. --Boris Tsirelson 08:54, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

[unindent]

When you are able to write a neutral article about Maratreanism and its followers (for instance, just stating their main ideas and how many believers there are, and where they are located), and if you are not trying to convert readers or, conversely, try to ridicule this religion, I personally don't have a problem with it (although I had never heard of Maratreanism until now). [Other Knowino contributors may have a different opinion, I'm just giving my personal view here.] --Paul Wormer 12:03, 6 June 2011 (EDT). (Corrected my grammar. Paul Wormer 11:47, 7 June 2011 (EDT)).

Does Knowino have any policy similiar to WP's Conflict of Interest policy? 121.214.35.35 06:00, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
No (to the best of my knowledge). At least, for now. --Boris Tsirelson 10:48, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

##  Dump

A dump of Knowino, of June 25, 2011, is available here (without images) and here (with images and review logs).

For an older dump, see here.

--Boris Tsirelson 07:29, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

Thanks, Boris!—Tom Larsen (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

##  MathJax: worth trying, or not?

See wp:MathJax, wp:User talk:Nageh/mathJax, wp:User:Nageh/mathJax.js, and mathjax.org. --Boris Tsirelson 11:31, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

It is not clear to me what the advantage is. Any browser can read our math formulas, so what new functionality does MathJax offer? --Paul Wormer 12:45, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
It is rumored that it makes formulas much nicer. (Or do you like to add sometimes these "\scriptstyle" and other troubles?) See wp:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#MathJax (when it is not yet archived there). --Boris Tsirelson 15:54, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
MathJax looks pretty cool: I'll look into it.—Tom Larsen (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
If the inline equations come out better then it is an improvement. I have no complaint about the display math as it is now, though.--Paul Wormer 03:52, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
Yes, I mean first of all inline equations. --Boris Tsirelson 05:23, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
I always use Firefox and the TeX .png equations are not bad in that browser. Today I used IE-9 and read tensor. I was shocked by the ugliness of the equations. Hope MathJax does a better job.--Paul Wormer 06:06, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

##  Layout

On Citizendium, the two founders of modern chemistry, John Dalton ‎ and Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier, have 46,900 and 3,453 views, respectively. Looking at the articles one sees that their main difference is layout. John Dalton has colored sidebars and different fonts, whereas Lavoisier has a classical layout. Is there a lesson to be learned?--Paul Wormer 04:30, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I doubt, for two reasons. First, the classical one has equally nice pictures, and so, the difference does not strike eyes (I think so). Second, I would be glad to know that visitors recommend articles to each other, but maybe this is a rare case? --Boris Tsirelson 12:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
On the other hand, I fail to find another reason. On WP they have 36 and 26 thousands of views the last 30 days, correspondingly. Google does not show CZ on the first 60 items on "John Dalton". --Boris Tsirelson 13:55, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Strangely, Google search for "en.citizendium.org/wiki/John_Dalton" gives 745 results, the same quoted - 40 results, "en.citizendium.org/wiki/Dalton" - 8,220 results, "en.citizendium.org/wiki/Antoine-Laurent_Lavoisier" - 107 results, the same quoted - 7 results, and "en.citizendium.org/wiki/Lavoisier" - 43,400 results. What could it mean (maybe nothing)? --Boris Tsirelson 14:12, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Hmm, on Microsoft search (Bing), the search for "John Dalton" gives CZ on item 15, "antoine-laurent lavoisier" on item 24. --Boris Tsirelson 02:22, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Also, "John Dalton" was created on CZ in Feb 2007; "Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier" --- in August 2009. --Boris Tsirelson 05:03, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Wow, you excluded the colored sidebar from Chemical elements! --Boris Tsirelson 09:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
I wrote the first CZ version of Chemical elements and did not agree at all with the way the article was developed further. Here I took the opportunity to cut out the stuff I didn't like.--Paul Wormer 09:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

##  highlight clicked reference

I was bold enough as to add something to MediaWiki:Common.css. Now, in every article, the list of references (if any) looks smaller, and a clicked reference is highlighted in blue. If you do not like it to look smaller, just say so, I'll revert this. But the highlighting is good, isn't it? --Boris Tsirelson 09:02, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Oops... After looking at Chemical elements (for example) I have reverted the size change. Indeed, its refs list was made smaller by a local css; twice smaller is terrible. Thus, now only the highlighting is on. --Boris Tsirelson 09:11, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Looks OK to me.--Paul Wormer 09:16, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

##  Targeted redirects

I am proud to present a new trick (to become a method when used twice). Just click sample point and observe the result! (But maybe you'll start seeing it only after Shift-Reload...)

More templates are needed for more comfort, but it works already.

Enjoy! --Boris Tsirelson 15:35, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

An unwanted side effect is detected and (hopefully) exterminated. To this end, "MediaWiki:Common.css" and "Template:Here" are changed a bit. The effect was, highlighting of chosen headings. --Boris Tsirelson 14:35, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Nice!—Tom Larsen (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2011 (EDT)