Jump to content

Help talk:Searching/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Recent edit conflict

LittleBen, I'm sorry for making one edit that undid your many edits. I was lead to believe you gave me that right. Can we discuss before making your changes? — CpiralCpiral 03:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Your English is not so good, and the page now looks really awful. Also the Google search-related stuff was all mixed up with Wikipedia search related stuff. My refactoring is a big improvement, and (as I promised) I have made almost no changes to the section below the Intro., I haven't even tried to improve the English. Let's get WP:3O if you don't agree. LittleBen (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I haven't seen your version yet. Please relax. I didn't know there was a WP:3O. Let's talk first.
I've reverted your revert. Let's try to talk first, as we were. Apparently, there's been a misunderstanding, that's all. I'll look forward to working with you tomorrow, and I won't revert again until I look at your version. But please, if you put your version back, that might be your third revert. All I ask is for a break 'til tomorrow, please. Thanks. — CpiralCpiral 04:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
If you are going to ask for a WP:3O committee, I think that is shirking your responsibility to discuss here first. I have repeated my objections of your version and given reasons with supportive links and previous discussions. You have not countered in a discussion. Do you see what I mean? — CpiralCpiral 17:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

For example: Under Syntax, Phrases in double quotes does not apply to Wikipedia Basic search.
The example under Exclusion ( payment card -"credit card" ) surely does not work with Basic search for this reason.
For example: Under Parameters
Surely the following example ( intitle: "international airport" ) does not work with Basic search for this reason.
Huh?? As I pointed out, your attribution of Google search is wrong. I strongly disagree with this assertion, and other technical and linguistic aspects of your version of WP:Search reality. — CpiralCpiral 17:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I have consistently implied "no" and "wait", and "still editing", and "fork the version" because you have missed my pointed, oppositional reasoning (the previous discussion about "basic" verses "advanced", and the Google search attributions). I want us to voluntarily revert to my last revert level, and then have discussion on your proposed changes, because I've been here editing for many weeks, and have reasons and research to back them up. It seems unfair for you to supervene so forcefully, and are now only reporting on the changes you made without discussion first, as if there were no other active editing in progress.— CpiralCpiral 17:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Your previous version did not make much sense, the English was quite poor. We really need to get a third opinion, but I think it has been considerably improved. I've about finished cleaning it up. The introductory section must be very brief and easy to understand, but it's not so much of a problem if the detailed geeky parts of the body are difficult to understand. So I haven't corrected most of the poor English in the body, other than making it clear what is being talked about. LittleBen (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Latest revert

I've read the version LittleBen wrote. I have to reject it on several grounds, but the onus is not on me to list all the changes made. Suffice it to say that there was a section removed, and sections added, and section headings changed. Two of them, in Search results page, were irrelevant to that section, and one that was relevant was moved out. Old text was used from previous versions of the twenty I'd made over the last ten days.

LittleBen, there's not been specific criticisms levied that made most (if not any) of those changes consensual. But hey, now that you seem finished changing things to exactly what and how you want, you have a single "prev diff" at the top of the page history that you can use to see exactly what to discuss, to say specifically why you made those changes. But first, it is only fair to give my version a read and a consideration. I'm done with what I thought was doing your well wished and patient suggestions, cheering me on on my last of ten days of work: making the intro simpler and shorter, making a few other text changes to the body. I've reverted for the last time if you will do me the respect of reading my version, then discussing your changes before you make them. Thank you very much, LittleBen, for your recognition of my presence as an active editor here.

Now we are ready to discuss again, and that is the way it should be. Any complaints about the new images and the captions? Did you notice the new hatnotes that avoid using the phrase "click here"? I hope so! LittleBen has a proposal for the intro, and I will return to devoting my time to this talk page until we've got all proposals decided. There is one for the intro, one for a fork of a Help:version to a Wikipedia:version, and I suppose one for the section moving, deleting, and renaming that LittleBen made. — CpiralCpiral 08:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The reasons why my version of the introduction, and my other changes are a huge improvement are:

  • Your English doesn't make any sense, it's illogical.
  • To give just some examples:
The user does not need to know or learn what a database is in order to search Wikipedia; unnecessary sprinkling of geek words everywhere just intimidates users:
<Quote>automatically search the database<Unquote>, <Quote>match a page name in the database, a "search" of the database<Unquote>.
You say <Quote> "A list of search results appears on its own page, (along with the usual search box seen on every page)".<Unquote> But the special:search box on the search results page is NOT the same as the basic search box seen on every page.
You say <Quote> "The search results page can be accessed manually. While the search box is empty, clicking on the magnifying glass (or performing a "null search")". <Unquote> But there are NO search results if you do a null search, so you do not get a "search results page". This will not make any sense to most people.
<Quote> "The refinement of search results offers a mouse-driven interface".<Unquote> is not even English, it does not make any sense.
These three points may have merit, but should have been lodged before the changes were made. Let us start to discuss these three in the next section. The current venue is no good for discussion, as it is peppered with personal insults in a section titled "Edit conflict" and "Latest revert". Please relax, have good faith, and start again. You've got everything going for you, but I'm lacking a few things that are important to me: fairness and discussion on a point by point basis before changes are made.— CpiralCpiral 18:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Your version of the introduction is very long, ugly-looking, and poorly-organized.
  • I have explained to you why a brief mention of namespaces, particularly categories, is so very important; you also had a long discussion with another user above, but even after long discussions with two users you have stripped out all of this important material yet again.
  • I have already explained that many of the items in Parameters and Syntax sections DO NOT APPLY to the default Basic search box that is on every page of Wikipedia. Readers will be totally confused. Only brief and easy examples that apply to the Basic search box should be shown with the explanation of the basic search box (if any examples are shown at all), and the long and detailed Parameters and Syntax sections should be clearly marked (as I have done) as applying to Special search.
For example, under Help:Searching#Syntax, Phrases in double quotes DO NOT WORK in the default Basic search box that is on every page of Wikipedia. There is also a long discussion above of a bug that is still not fixed.
A search for <Quote>payment card -credit<Unquote> works in the Basic search box, but a search for <Quote>payment card -"credit card"<Unquote> (the example shown under the Exclusion section of Help:Searching#Syntax) DOES NOT WORK in the default Basic search box that is on every page of Wikipedia.
Wild card (*) and Fuzzy (~) search do appear to work in the Basic search box, but it should be tested whether they can be used both as prefixes and suffixes; also it should be tested whether the wild card can be used in the middle of a word.
  • Important differences between the Wikipedia search engine and Google are not emphasized. For example, in Google there cannot be any space between parameters like intitle: and the word or phrase that follows them, but this is not true for WP; on the other hand, this means that these parameters (including incategory and prefix) must be used at the end of the search string. intitle: can be used in the Basic search box, but—as quoted phrases are not permitted in the Basic search box—this is not so useful. (One example for prefix does not even include the parameter prefix: <Quote>Talk: "heat reservoir" OR "ocean current"<Unquote>).
  • The section Other uses (at the top) is not about the Wikipedia search engine at all, it is about using Google to search Wikipedia, so I moved it to the bottom.

Note that I have not deleted any of your material other than completely rewriting the Introduction at the top. I have changed the order of the other material to a much more logical order without deleting anything, and (other than the Introduction) fixed the English only where absolutely necessary in order for non-geek English-speaking readers to understand it. LittleBen (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I note that well. But every word counts, and you have changed many, many words, and lot's of headings.— CpiralCpiral 18:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Wait now, obviously we must—per all rationality, obligation, and rules—discuss first, and then if absolutely necessary, call for special committees meant for special education upon us afterwords.
Please understand as to this discussion I claim we need to have, but have not had yet: the pace of things. I've been
  • studying Alan Liefting's fork idea posted above, as per the section I started during all this:Fork page. (I've appealed to him on his talk page here.)
  • editing this help page, as is obvious from the twenty edits over the ten days leading up to the current revisioning efforts and reverts.
  • dedicating attention to my recent major reconstructions at Page name (both versions), and User preferences, and major edits at Namespace, Help:Link and Wikipedia:Shortcut#List_of_prefixes.
This little ditty is now my top priority.
Now, we should discuss so that possible afterwords we earn the honor of a third opinion at WP:3O. Or either of us can fail discussion disrespectfully because of talk page guidelines, and get an adjudication at the 3RR Edit warring noticeboard. Rather, let's restart our initial exchanges, which were intelligent and productive, it seemed to me.

I'll open up fresh new talk page sections for LittleBen's points: 1)The basic introduction, which will encompass the three quotes I responded to above, and most of the other points made here, and 2)The new section headings: they're currently moved, renamed, and removed. Perhaps the intro proposal already exists as a discussion, but so do other discussions we have referred to (and can continue to refer to). OK? Happy editing!— CpiralCpiral 18:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The outline reconstruction

                     Previous version                                                                                                                                    Current version 

1    1 Search results page                                                  1 Search results page
2        1.1 Refining results                                                   1.1 Refining results using Special search options
3        1.2 Other uses                                                         1.2 Using Wikipedia search to jump directly to a page
4        1.3 User preferences                                                   1.3 Redirects
5        1.4 Redirec                                                            1.4 User preferences
6    2 Search engine features                                               2 Wikipedia search engine features
7    N/A                                                                    3 Searching Wikipedia with the Special:Search box
8        2.1 Syntax                                                             3.1 Syntax
9        2.2 Parameters                                                         3.2 Parameters
10        2.3 Stemming                                                          3.3 Stemming
11        2.4 Using the search to directly get to a page                        2.4 Using the search to directly get to a page
12    3 Specialist searches                                                 4 Specialist searches
13    4 If you cannot find what you are looking for                         5 If you cannot find what you are looking for
14        4.1 Delay in updating the search index                                5.1 Delay in updating the search index
15    5 Open search result lists and search suggestions in new tabs         6 Open search result lists and search suggestions in new tabs
16    6 More search scripts                                                 7 More search scripts
17        N/A                                                                   7.1 Other ways of searching Wikipedia
18    7 See also                                                            8 See also

( sed 's/$/^/' sectionHeadings2 |awk '{print FNR $0}'|paste - sectionheadings1 | column -s^ -t # with user pref 'number headings')

Referring to the line numbers, then...

Comments on (2)

  • "Special search options" could be confused with "search options which are special". — CpiralCpiral 00:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Reference to a page in the Special namespace is the same thing as calling it "Search results page". MOS:HEAD says that headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. — CpiralCpiral 00:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments on (3)

  • Calling it "Wikipedia search" is redundant. Of course it's "Wikipedia". Its on every page.— CpiralCpiral 00:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "Jump" is a fine term, but elsewhere we're using "navigate" or "go". Let's limit the number of terms we use to refer to one event. Remember, these are section headings. They should never change, else {{anchors}} will pock the bay for every heading change.— CpiralCpiral 00:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments on (17)

  • "Other ways of searching Wikipedia". "Wikipedia" is redundant. "Of searching" is redundant.— CpiralCpiral 06:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "Other ways" is misleading. There is only one way, and that is the search engine. Previously the section was named "Other uses", when it meant 'other uses of search results page', when it was under the section Search page results. It starts "To get Wikipedia search results...". It was moved under a section called More search scripts, a place where it has no purpose being, as it is not about scripts.— CpiralCpiral 06:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments on (6)

Comments on (7)

  • "Searching Wikipedia..." is redundant. (See above for a good reason to keep section headings tightly adhered to the MoS.)— CpiralCpiral 02:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "...with the Special:Search box". 1)Special:Search is a page, not a box. The search box is the white square that takes queries from the keyboard. The page interfaces the box, and the box interfaces the search engine. Every search box is the same interface to the same search engine. There is no Special search box. (There is no Basic search box. There is no Basic:Page either.) "Basic" and "Special" are sloppy terms, esp. in headings. — CpiralCpiral 02:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "Search results page", "Special:Search page", and "Special search box [sic]" are synonymous. The previous version uses the first term only.— CpiralCpiral 06:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments on (11)

  • "Using the search to directly get to a page." Search engines "Search". They list results. They don't navigate or "Go" to a page, unless you get technical about it and talk about the details of how they find the page to go to. The search box can be seen ideally as a navigational tool for those who know their page names, and this is so basic it needs no mention. As an exercise in thoroughness, we must describe the search box as having two functions though, one navigating and one querying. This does cause question-marks in the person newly seeking help, and that is why there are talk page complaints "How do I not go to a page?" i.e. How do I search only? The previous introduction gave three ways to search from the nav box, and these formed the second paragraph. Now please read that section heading one more time.— CpiralCpiral 06:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If it should be a section, it's in the wrong section because it is not a search engine feature, it's a search box feature, in that it also functions as a nav box. (But a nav box is not a search box. A URL is a nav box. It gives no search results.)— CpiralCpiral 06:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There is Help:Navigating, so I moved the section there. I also added a hatnote saying this page is about searching.

Comments on (15)

Comments on (12)

Comments on (16)

Some thoughts

I was asked for my input, so here it is:

  • First off I'm really glad that people are trying to improve this page. Help pages are highly viewed, and this one is especially so (329,000 views in March!), yet they remain under-edited.
It was so bad for so long.— CpiralCpiral 08:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • My view is that forking between Help: and Wikipedia: space would be a Bad Thing, and confusing for readers and newbies, introducing the need for additional hatnotes etc. Help namespace is for help with the software, Wikipedia namespace is for internal pages for editors: policies, guidelines, noticeboards etc. Admittedly that distinction isn't completely clear cut, but it is a useful general rule. Help:Searching is entirely about a software feature, there aren't any elements that would be better suited to Wikipedia: space, so I see no reason to fork any of the content there.
  • As far as I can tell, most people arrive here from the prominent link at the top of Special:Search. Something to bear in mind when deciding what to focus on, or what to lead with.
  • Images should be better quality, and .png rather than .jpg. I'll fix this myself later this evening.
  • As has been pointed out already, we should avoid mentioning technical details that aren't relevant to the end user (e.g. calling a search a "database query")
  • Google's search operator help page seems like a good model for the more advanced search topics. We should use headings or bold bits in simple language use-cases e.g. "Search for either word" rather than technical terms like "Boolean search"

-- the wub "?!" 16:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

In my recently grown opinions, language sensitivity warnings (ala Boolean, and you have a point) on the talk page, plus horrid overall page condition, plus a WikiMedia/Wikipedia terminology learning curve are why decency has not prevailed. I think Help:page name gets fewer edits than WP:Page name. Edits are more important than hits because they induce the inevitable mediocrity, a rise above what this page was. Sharing a thought just now: if you we want 100% audience coverage plus bold contributions, with lots of adrenaline that squeezes out discussions, then get two (or category has three) versions, keep each with as many multiple drafts going as possible, plough in as many links in hatnotes and see also as possible, and then after, when lulls set in, concentrate on merging. If ya get a real gem, wrap it in templates, tables, and CSS, and {pp-move} it.— CpiralCpiral 08:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Can't say database? Database and query are right up there with "network". Anyone who reads Wikipedia reads books, uses the web, has heard of electronic spreadsheets, databases etc. Yet I can appreciate the simple beauty of Help:Introduction to navigating Wikipedia/3.— CpiralCpiral 08:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Have you read my previous answer to you: an entire subsection to Page fork called Rationale? Let's compare the five versions in the table in Page fork and also answer why some titles are red. (That was my intent, 'til I got side-tracked, in the two sections previous to this one.) I would like to finish posting the second half of almost done research if you seem interested in the first part.— CpiralCpiral 08:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Page fork

I nominate we move WP:copy-paste the page to Wikipedia:Searching (with attributions), and delete the redirect from the new, Project version to the Help version. Special:WhatLinksHere says about redirects that 22 go to Help:Searching. That's it. (No redirects to WP:Search or WP:Searching.) There's no move protection template. — CpiralCpiral 05:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Rationale

Relevant past discussions:

Style. MOS is Project space (despite the misleading psuedo-namespace "MOS"). Each Wikimedia project has Help pages for MediaWiki usage pertaining to the Main purpose of that wiki. Then there are their Project pages. The general idea of style is covered MediaWiki page themes (layout, skin, etc) and Help space pages pertain to that. The actual content of the Main pages needs a MoS, which is a Project page specifically covering the verbiage and the variations in language. See Style (sociolinguistics) to understand the importance of how a social group's meanings are attributed. This includes terminology, and the level of their abstractions wielded on a page. If it's interpretable it can be edited. The interpretation of texts from a linguistic perspective is presented in Stylistics. If the help an audience needs is vast, and if the audience is vast, we obviously need a page fork to encourage editing. Rather than making section 0 easy, section 1 mediocre... section 8 impossible, why not create a consistent audience style where possible? Which author needs the additional gradient (the geek gradient) beyond the required one in MOS:INTRO? A Help page is like one official spokesperson consisting of all the editors of the page, and if the speech is long, it better be interesting.

Help:Search has languished in the dust for a very long time, as have many important Help pages. Not so much Project pages (e.g. Page name). Why? For example, a forked WP:Searching would have many more advanced search-box queries examples, and advancing editors that were eager and willing to record the interesting ones as they go. Per the multiple drafts model, the worded aspects of things derive from the eagerness that would affect those words. Q. How are we gonna get advancing editors to edit Help:Search? A. WP:Copy-paste a version to the Project namespace. Let the already advanced editors give back by contributing to the "front door" that Help pages are. Then, like the furiously atrocious exposition of computing-related articles (that test notability and WP:NOT constantly), they will be edited a lot. We could have two sections "Search examples" and "Advanced search examples", but perhaps the advanced one would need an introduction, etc. Certainly the section "Search results page" could go into much more detail about "refining results", "user preferences" the redirects, and even the Wikipedia search engine future, or comparisons with general web search engines.

Motivation. In general the wisdom of multiple purposed activities means good copy editors like to learn as they edit. At once they learn and share what to them is comprehended, but needs improvement. Advanced topics become more clear on the page, once they are multiply drafted. Editor conflict might induce the creation of multiple drafts from a few authors, but so does activity that is peaceful enough to invite many authors. Peace is intrinsic to being OK with the conceptual levels, and this might means two versions of the same subject. New users are more likely to hesitate to edit.

The future. Help pages might become a Simple Wikipedia, like our Help:contents and Help:Introduction to navigating Wikipedia/3: gems wrapped in plenty of tables, templates, and CSS silk. In general, I have read that Wikipedia pages tend to mediocrity. I guess watchers of Help pages tend to be editors of Help pages, and these editors tend to advance into Project space, so can rarely be counted on to be vigilant Help watchers for many years. This is not so for the MoS (and some other Project pages), where goodness is more prevalent because there is usually someone guarding the sacrament by undoing a naive edit in reference to a past discussion.

To find out empirically the nature of our dichotomy, perhaps look for historical patterns. That is the intent of the two-column hypertext list that follows this paragraph. Now for (admittedly biased) patterns and clues as to the nature of our dichotomy between Help and Project namespaces:

  • A redirect from Help to Project might be trying to tell us something if it is very old and very WhatLinksHere-ish.
  • If a pagename that has a Help version and has a redirect from its WP version did evolve from its Help version and maybe it wants to evolve. The redirection, Help-->Project might want to evolve and the direction P-->H, might be encouraging more readership to evolve. These might directions might be suggestive. (See below how they might only be the need to have the word "Wikipedia" in the title, which is silly, and definitely worth discussion.)
  • Other Wikimedia installations are ridden with our clues as to "What is Wikipedia's Project namespace?" There is mw:Help:Contents#Wiki administration, which is a very good clue for deciding when and if to fork Help pages, as it clearly delineates my audience question. The answer to what vexes us is, I believe, that we want readers who're commensurate with editors. (The other prefixes for Help:Contents are listed at Help:Interwiki_linking#Project_titles_and_shortcuts. To get a list of namespaces there, click a null search, then click advanced.)
  • Our Project space is MediaWiki's Manual namespace. Mw:Help:Contents act as "the front door to wiki user", i.e. for "any new user", but the way they describe there Manual namespace is: "All technical or more detailed stuff behind the surface, that is not part of the basic help pages. MW:Manual:Contents says "This is a technical manual for the MediaWiki software", and it says "not for end users'" Help pages. The MediaWiki wiki says there mainspace is for pages "all about the software". (See mw:Project:Namespaces. To extend this argument, one might see the other prefixes for Project:Namespaces, listed at Help:Interwiki_linking#Project_titles_and_shortcuts.)

Their appears some obvious conclusions in the analysis below the list. I still believe Searching is a prime candidate two versions, for the same basic reason Links and Tables were. (Namespace's move should have not been merged back.) I make the effort to generalize for the sake The Wub, and PrimeHunter, and for other discussions. — CpiralCpiral 03:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Researched material for discussion

MediaWiki releases comes with 28, stock namespaces including Help and Project. Per WikiMedia project Public Domain Help pages The idea is to provide a set of pages which can be copied into a fresh wiki installation, or included in the mediawiki distribution. This will include basic user information and other Meta information, in a reasonably concise form. The basic concept is to create a compressed user guide, not a reference work. It should focus on what users want and not explain other functions. The key here is that Help do not explain much. They say "The help pages are very much targeted at normal visitors to a wiki website." I think Help pages "describe" MediaWiki software plus the minimumm wiki basics, and that forked versions of Help pages (into Project pages, other Help pages, etc) do explain, and in great detail and advance detail and technical detail what is given as the skeletal nodes in the meager description Help pages are to WikiMedia, and were once to Wikipedia.

As an analogy the Help pages of some wiki called "Wikisport" would be the MediaWiki help pages, plus they would add Help pages telling what sports are, the equipment, the players, the rules, like what a pool is, and what a diver does. Their added Help pages would teach, in low-level abstraction, about sports. Project pages like Wikisport:Olympic diving wouldn't exist in a Help version, but themselves might eventually, comprehensively cover the chemistry and physics and engineering of an Olympic pool and the triple back-flip in great detail so that the authors in mainspace could report notable sporting events, in the project's best possible style. Style would be things like advanced terminology, expected level of articulation of background information for the setting and players of an event page, how to categorize there article, etc. A Help level apprentice could start a page, and a Project level level editor could make it featured. To ascertain the target readership of a Help page in general for a wiki, please see mw:Project:PD_help#Target_readership_-_Normal_users, where it says that "[certain] information is to be kept a little bit separate, so that normal users are not confronted with information which is not relevant to them", namely that administrative information is not for visiting editors, like the IP that is largely sanctioned here.

Wikipedia is so vast that Help:Searching and Help:Navigating are, like categorizing, worthy of many levels. Search is worth explaining in great detail: the engine, the results, the refinement, other search engines that can search Wikipedia, query expressions of search engines, etc., etc.. Comparably, navigating to a page is relatively limited, and might not need to be forked into a Project page, but perhaps navigating category pages could be a Project page, but it's covered in Help:categories. If the previous paragraph and its linked reference is to be taken to heart, then our Help pages should not even mention Namespaces, because normal users are visiting IP's, editing articles, linking articles but not categorizing them. But they ship with Help:Namespaces, and we redirect it to Project:Namespaces because why? Visiting IP's are not going to categorize when they edit?

The original page names of the help files are on the left. Select added titles is starred. Most of them are discovered titles that have both a Help and a Project version. Done means forked. Redirects are shown with a directional arrow for consideration and discussion. 

Help:Bots                                   WP:Bots
Help:Category *                             WP:Categorization Done
Help:Categories                                  ↑
Help:Contents                               WP:Contents  Done
Help:How to delete a page                   WP:How to delete a page
Help:Editing                                WP:EditingQuestion?
Help:Editing pages             <--          WP:Editing pages
Help:Formatting                             WP:Formatting
Help:Images                                 WP:Images  Done
Help:Links                                  WP:Links Done
Help:Magic words               <--          WP:Magic words
Help:Merge history                          WP:Merge history
Help:Moving a page             -->          WP:Moving a page
Help:Namespaces                -->          WP:NamespacesQuestion?
Help:Navigation                <--          WP:NavigationQuestion?
Help:New pages                              WP:New pages
Help:Page name *                            WP:Page name Done
Help:Patrolled edits           -->          WP:Patrolled edits
Help:Preferences               <--          WP:Preferences
Help:Protection policy                      WP:Protection policy
Help:Page protection           -->          WP:Page protection
Help:Random page                            WP:Random page Done
Help:Range blocks                           WP:Range blocks
Help:Recent changes            <--          WP:Recent changes
Help:Redirects                              WP:Redirects  Done
Help:Searching                              WP:SearchingQuestion?
Help:Shortcut *                 -->         WP:Shortcut
Help:Signatures                             WP:Signatures
Help:Skins                      -->         WP:Skins
Help:Special pages              <--         WP:Special pages
Help:Starting a new page        -->         WP:Starting a new page
Help:Subpages                   -->         WP:Subpages
Help:Tables                                 WP:Tables Done
Help:Talk pages                             WP:Talk pages
Help:Templates                  <--         WP:Templates  Done
Help:Transclusion               -->         WP:Transclusion
Help:Undelete                               WP:Undelete
Help:User page                  -->         WP:User page
Help:Variables                  <--         WP:Variables
Help:Watchlist                  <--         WP:Watchlist

Note:

  • Entries marked with * were added to the original list from MediaWiki: Page name and Shortcut.
  • Entries marked "done" were forked here. Some of the already "done" ones are probably yet missing from the list.
  • Lines with neither * nor "done" are the same article (via redirect), and the mid-arrow shows the direction.
  • Entries marked with a Question? are in what I think is a similar purview: basic Help V. advanced Project versions.

Notable facts about how Wikipedia "Help V. Project" has played out so far:

  • The original Help:categories morphed into two Help pages: the original Help:Categories remained very basic, Help:Category isn't. The project version WP:Categorization is highly abstract (of course because its steering an "all knowledge" project.) Categorization was a simple rename of a Help page forked to Project space.
  • Help:Template is far more advanced than WP:template. I guess "doing" templates is "helps" by explaining how-to, and "Wikipedia" templates is just a basic "hello" from Wikipedia. Again it's a title attribute, more than a namespace attribute.
  • Help:tables evolved thusly: Help:Wikitable and Help:Table/Introduction to tables; WP:Tables (plural) disambiguates between the three.
  • WP:links, WP:Tables were supervened by the MoS. Tables as a dab page (mnemonic multiple ) no doubt, so they could then have Help:Table.
  • Ironically, Random page has a Help version that redirects to Project space, and a Project version that redirects to Help space!
  • There is no Help:Bots. Is it too technical for Help?
  • Help:Category is considerably more technical than some Project help pages. This implies that technical levels are not the only namespace criterion. (See next paragraph)
  • Blue links on the left sometimes are not really existing as a page, but only as a redirect to new titles in Help, such as was done with Help:Images and Help:Variables. These might be marked as "done", but forking a page from Help to Help is another, un-researched aspect of Help V. Project.
  • Variables: both versions now point to a section of the other Help page Magic words.
  • Red links on the right are rare. Critically here, they mean we decided not to have that Help page in Project space.
    • Range blocks: is technical, but not administrative. Its content is virtually entirely IPv4 CIDR ranging, but that info is used by admins for blocking IP ranges. Although the blocking feature is not available to normal users, it mentions blocking in the first paragraph only.

These are all fine issues for discussions about the state of affairs as they now exist, and how to possibly manage the future evolution, as if there simply was not enough information yet during the discussions that encompassed the decisions back then.

An analysis for discussion. The page name is followed by the apparent reason it was forked (has two versions), as indicated by the "done" mark.

  • Red links on the left with a blue link on the right means we moved a page from Help to Project, a critical indicator here. I've indicated a possible reason, but each of these might deserve a discussion.
    • Bots: "Wikipedia bots"
    • How to delete a page: administrative pages are Project pages
    • Editing pages: "Editing Wikipedia pages"
    • Formatting: "Formatting Wikipedia pages"
    • Merge history: administrative pages are Project pages
    • New pages: "New Wikipedia pages"
    • Protection policy: administrative pages are Project pages
    • Signatures: "Wikipedia signatures"
    • Undelete: administrative pages are Project pages

Administrative pages are Project pages loses 5:4 here. It is most remarkable that choice seems to be made based on title attributes of the page in particular, and not on the namespace attributes in general. But that "silliness" of these results of this simple analysis is debatable.

Another analysis could look at redirects, and tally those reasons.

A fuller analysis would start from the two column list of pages from Category:Reader help and Category:Wikipedia help.— CpiralCpiral 03:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC) (updated version)

Help:Searching is definitely a help page and I see no reason to move it. See Wikipedia:Namespace#Basic namespaces for the difference between help pages and project pages. Sometimes there is reason to have a page in both namespaces. For example, Help:Redirect explains how redirects work while Wikipedia:Redirect is an editing guideline about how to treat redirects in the English Wikipedia. Help:Link explains how links work while Wikipedia:Link redirects to an editing guideline for the English Wikipedia. I don't see how a page about searching could be a guideline or something else that belongs in project space. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I meant "fork". Compare the two versions of Page name. I'm doing some research and will get back to you on the namespace contents of W:Project, W:Help, and MW:Project, and MW:Help, where I'll compare Wikipedia to MediaWiki. — CpiralCpiral 06:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Import/export

I want to Special:export Help:Searching, then import it to Wikipedia:Searching. (Only an admin can do it.) Then put a hatnote like on Help:Page name, advising of a more technical version WP:Page name. I've consistently conveyed the idea of forking. I want to fork the content, while maintaining the contribution history. There are history mergers and various administrative templates and special edit summaries to consider.

I thought surely it was fairly normal, and called it a page move, but my research so far shows it may not in fact be normal, but be an import/export, which is not normally available, like a move or a merge or a copy or a fork is. I glossed over the WT:page name#requested move discussion thinking it was normal to fork/merge/import/export, whatever it is. As I write above, there is a history that supports something like I'm trying to propose, but it isn't a move, its a fork. There is certainly a way.
I was thinking all the most important help pages need two versions. The five above have two versions. I was also thinking that a geek gradient dooms a Help page, but that geeks spur a Project version of a Help page to thrive. I was thinking Searching and Namespace, like Page name also need a Project and a Help version. I've written above how Categories evolved, and Redirect. I read on WP:Page name#Namespace, pagename, and fullpagename where it makes the very distinction I'm writing about here. All those check marks, plus all the red links are telling us something I'm trying to figure out, with the premise that content forking is done based on the contents of similar-subject/similar-pagename, but different technical level. I'm still researching what to tell PrimeHunter. — CpiralCpiral 06:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"Quotes" - error in docs, error in function, or unclear.

Documentation indicates that a search for, for example, "passed away" (with quotes) will find all pages containing the phrase and none without this phrase. However, it seems to find far more than it should. For example, this search term finds page Cast Away which, at the time of the search did not contain "passed away" or even "pass away" or "passed" in the page as viewed or in the Edit screen (which might have occurrences hidden in references, etc.) The page does contain "pass" and, elsewhere, "away". I don't know if the documentation is wrong, the function does not work correctly, or I have misunderstood something. If anyone sees this, I think this point belongs here as it is "discussion of the Help:Searching page itself" (if the documentation is wrong). Pol098 (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Bug confirmed. e.g. "passed away" - the 4th entry is Cast Away, but that phrase does not appear anywhere within the article, nor in any recent revisions. Ditto for the 3rd result, Whitney Houston. (I checked the html source code output, and the word "passed" does not appear within the articles, even in a hidden/piped link, or otherwise concealed location.)
You are correct in all assumptions and details.
IIRC the "exact phrase" search function did work correctly in the past, and it is giving fewer results than the same phrase without quotes (e.g. passed away), so I'm not sure what's happening. I will search for more info... –Quiddity (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 130#Errors from simple "exact phrase" searches, where an editor has given a likely reply. Hopethathelps. –Quiddity (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, article mentioned in another article in a piped link or link misinterpreted as piped such as "[[Whitney Houston#Death|passed away]]" interpreted as "passed away" being found in "Whitney Houston". Thanks for digging. If this is to be considered a feature rather than a bug, maybe the search help page should be modified? My opinion is that it's a bug. But I don't think I myself am in a position to do anything. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Govardhan Rao Ganji

He was B.Tech Graduate from JNTU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.147.64 (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but what do you mean, and how is this relevant and applicable? --Qwerty Binary (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Readability

Could we keep the technical stuff were it should be. No need to confuse editors with explanations that need explanations. This is why there is a separate section for this information that is explained properly there.Moxy (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Disappointing to see no reply simply a revert - will leave edit for as few days see if there is a reply then fix.Moxy (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but could you be clearer and type syntactically correct sentences? Basically, you are suggesting that things should be clearer. Correct?
Considering how important might be, I am currently looking at whether this might be able to be drafted in a clearer manner and improving its quality. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
@Qwerty Binary: Hi. The sequence of events referred to in the comment, is in the edit-history of the Help page - specifically, there was some back and forth disagreement, until I stepped in and moved the technical info lower down, an hour after Moxy's 2nd comment. Therefore, this thread doesn't need anything in particular, but I should've replied noting the end-state, and that it had been resolved.
Re: syntax, iirc Moxy often (possibly always?) has to use a speech-to-text program, so allowances should be made for imperfections. Also, to err is human. ;)
Re: clearer - All our documentation throughout Wiki[p/m]edia needs to be clearer! Have at it. :) –Quiddity (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
@Quiddity: Noting that a speech-to-text program could be used, one such program should be returned to its point of sale if "were" is how "where" is spelt, haha.
I don't know what would fly with most others, so I will probably be progressively cleaning up and subtly changing the help page rather than making one big bold edit. Cheers. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a good approach. I agree with you that the current page reads like... actually, it doesn't read. It's a big blob of technical details being thrown at peoples head. Technical details are fine, as long as they are in the bottom sections or subpages. This thing could benefit from serious cleanup, should stop caring about people with the monobook skin, simple examples and good separation between the functions. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't get the drop-down list, and I noticed from above discussion it might have something to do with JavaScript. But, I checked that, and JavaScript is on. So, in my case, JS is not the reason for not having the list. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Different configuration OF LIBERTY SHIPS

over 2000 of these liberties ship were built. Some were built for various Cargoes. Cattle. Dry goods not heated or cooled and dry goods that were heated, cooled and frozen. Ammunition of all kinds building materials bulk and bagged. Some of these ships had different configuration. Do you have any information on this issue? Would Bureau of Ships have any information on this?

Dean S. Derby [details removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.95.55 (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a good place to ask general questions - I suggest you head over to the Reference desk, where there are volunteers who enjoy challenges like this one. Please don't post your contact details here or at the reference desk; replies will be given on the page where you ask the question. I have removed your contact details from this page to protect your privacy. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

keu si hak kane lay translated to english

keu si hak kane lay translated to english this is a form of dialect from Laos language.have a couple of saying i need translated , any help will be greatly appreciated they are from my girlfriend to me. need to find out what she is saying to me, thanks you

1) keu si hak kane lay

2) fan lay kong nor

3) Hak sua khao.555 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.139.212 (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you ask at the Language reference desk. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

math

what is the name of the greatest chord of circle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.99.119.181 (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the page to ask questions like this one, but you might be looking for Chord (geometry). -- John of Reading (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 November 2013

Bold textRAJAN.s.P.--101.63.174.139 (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)rajan s.p.

I can't tell if this is spam or merely misplaced. In either case, this request is on the wrong page, so I'm closing this request. RudolfRed (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

ARM Mina

Is it possible to tour this ship? I was in the US Navy on board from 1985-1990. I would like to reminse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.134.24 (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a good place to ask general questions - I suggest you head over to the Reference desk, where there are volunteers who might be able to help you. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

To search about a certificate

111.119.188.226 (talk)I want to kno about a investment certificate registration number is B1679688 and my email is [details removed]

Not done: This page is only for discussion of Wikipedia's Help:Searching page. You'll need to ask somewher other than Wikipedia, I think. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I have removed your email address to protect your privacy. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Defining stemming

Hi there,

I’m french and would like to suggest some “stemming” options in the french Wikipédia’s search engine. (Especially, I want the apostrophe “ ' ” to be recognized as “ ’ ” and vice-versa.) Does anyone know which place I should suggest it in?

Ok, that’s not quite stemming, but I don’t know how to name it and the behavior seems to be the same.

Thanks, --froisois (blabla) 15:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I’ve been looking around a little and it appears that the term would be more precisely “lemmatisation”. Fine, but the question remains: where do I suggest it? --froisois (blabla) 19:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2014

Coat's of arms the one i have is what looks like griffen,grasping a child on what looks to be a red hat of the period.MOTTO is SANS CHANGER,ie to change. Thank you.

31.185.224.237 (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you have in mind by posting here. To get help with reference questions, you could ask at the Reference desk; for help in using or editing Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, you could ask at the Help desk. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

suffixes with the prophet of Islam name such as Muhammad, Peace and blessings of God be upom him

Muslims throughout the world use suffixes, like 'Peace and Blessing of God upon him'. What is its origin and when did it begin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihasanpedia (talk • contribs) 23:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a good page to ask questions like this one. I suggest you try the Humanities reference desk. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

learning disability

I have a grandson with a learning disability but finished high school through the Special Education program. He has now been accepted at a college that has a 2-year program for people with Learning disability. We were surprised that financial aid is not availabe for this 2-year program which is very expensive. Is there a foundation or org. that could refer me to financial help. (This program would help him to live independantly. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.161.80 (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a good page to ask questions like this one. I suggest you try the Humanities reference desk. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2014

120.28.125.212 (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2014

116.202.125.157 (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -- Arjayay (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Jack Radics

{{edit COI}} Jack Radics Biography

<<copyright violation removed>> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.206.245.227 (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not post copyrighted text anywhere at Wikipedia; text at Wikipedia must be available for re-use, even commercially, under a free license. For advice on creating an article at Wikipedia, please see "Your first article". -- John of Reading (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Efficiency of the search engine

I noticed that changing a single letter in a word is enough for the search engine to fail in finding what you are searching for. For example, if I search Narcís Pascual i Colomer, the engine suggests to me Narciso Pascual i Colonel and then it won't find Narciso Pascual Colomer. Even if I search for Narciso Pascual i Colomer, it wont find Narciso Pascual Colomer. I have many other examples like that - ro:Discuție Ajutor:Căutare. It looks like the search is very weak. I can't say for sure, but I have the feeling that in 2008 worked better than now. I wonder why is that? —  Ark25  (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Jesmion

Iam glad about wikipedia search-engine, i have not been disappointed of a single search i would make, and what of you: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.5.101 (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

HOW CAN I DO MY SEARCHING HERE

HOW CAN I DO MY SEARCHING HERE — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERIC OGHOGHOSA (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a search box at the top right. Help:Searching describes how to use it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2014

I realy don't under stand what you want me to do I onley went to the 9th g in school what I now I tout my self I am 49 and all I want is to found out if john Merrill is my great grandfather I was in foster care most of my childhood can you help me or not I have no money to pay for info that's why I am on your site.

sorry if I dident give you what you wanted I will go some wear elase if you cant help me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dee merrill (talk • contribs) 12:30, 22 May 2014

Sorry, we probably can't help much here, unless perhaps your great-grandfather is listed at this John Merrill page (click on the blue link). Wbm1058 (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2014

108.184.102.98 (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. – Wdchk (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2014

ss demerara 1889

86.181.149.115 (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.--Moxy (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

search fails if user is logged in on wikipedia

this search returns 40 hits if I'm logged off and zero hits if I'm logged in; bug? thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski: Do you have "New search" ticked in your Beta preferences? That would explain the difference, as logged-out users are still running the old search.
The documentation at Help:Searching still describes the old search, so I don't know whether these changes in behaviour are intended:
  • The documentation says that "intitle: speed OR intitle: velocity" should be accepted as valid, but the new search is returning no results.
  • The documentation says that "intitle: speed OR velocity" should have the same effect, but this revised new search only returns 20 results with "Education research" in the title, none with "Educational results"
-- John of Reading (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, "New search" is enabled for me; I'm reposting this at the mediawiki: [1] Fgnievinski (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Total Number of Pages in Category

I'd like to know how many pages are in subcategories, subsubsubcategories, etc.--137.205.174.41 (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2014

39.47.171.7 (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
However, I suspect you may be in the wrong place - This page is only for discussion of the Help:Searching page itself. - Arjayay (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2014

41.254.38.33 (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Less crude search option

IIRC, the search function has not always been consistently (!) over a day stale. What alternatives are not so out of date? This is an improvement?--{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 18:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Elvey: There is a new search engine almost ready for full deployment. You can try it out by going to the "Beta" tab at your preferences and ticking "New search". Using the new search, I have successfully found the last thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), which is only twenty minutes old as I write this. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Tested. Works! Thanks!--{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 20:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014

41.43.202.173 (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also reach consensus on your requested change. - Arjayay (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2014

Please send details off official HQ of REXAGROUP Financial Services.- I received notice to open accountbut do not have the addressfor contact or phonecall. Befor Iopen account with8 digits, I would like to contact off said Bank and visit for further inquiries! Hadigue (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as stated in big bold letters on the edit page:-

This is not the place to ask questions, to report errors, or to contact Wikipedia. - Arjayay (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Searching for a term without navigating to a page of that title

Suppose I want to find "Asturleonese" (as a single word) inside articles. I use the search box, but it automatically takes me to the hyphenated article "Astur-Leonese". How can I perform my actual search? Wiktionary does this properly, by having a search box with two buttons ("Go" and "Search"). WP seems to prevent me from doing it at all, or at least is making it so hard that I have to ask for help. 109.157.79.50 (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of Help:Searching shows ways to do it. Wiktionary has the same default Vector skin as the English Wikipedia with no "Go" and "Search" button. Do you have a Wiktionary account with another skin selected at wiktionary:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"Give us your feedback" - Qualtrics survey?

Hi, where does this "Give us your feedback" link come from? It goes to a Qualtrics survey. (There is a link to a WMF "Feedback privacy statement" which curiously states "you agree (...) to license under either CC0 or CC BY SA 3.0.") Who is responsible for this survey? Where will the results be analysed? Links? --Atlasowa (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This seems relevant: meta:Research:Measuring User Search Satisfaction by Oliver Keyes. --Atlasowa (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2016

120.29.111.17 (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Blank request — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2016

109.72.63.80 (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Since we've switched to a new search engine, the "Search engine features" section needs a careful overhaul. How much of the detail at mw:Help:CirrusSearch needs to be added here? What is the target audience of this page? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Here, Help:Search needs to be simple and entirely readable in one sitting for normal searches like other search engines. We need to update the changed stuff here: tightened syntax, changed semantics.
A new page Wikipedia:Search should offer the rest of the coverage, new stuff that is so awesomely thorough, it is for power users only. (You know project techies, like the kind now appealed to on the watchlist "if you do PHP or Linux, we're in dire need".) It's finally time to page fork, mostly because of the need to present a minimal amt of regex for everyone to get started using it, but also because the new stuff includes templates, which we don't want to have to explain. — CpiralCpiral 19:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
For starters there's mw:Help:CirrusSearch, Template usage, and Draft to consider. — CpiralCpiral 19:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I've started a CirrusSearch techno-oriented, Wikipedia/project namespace, version in DRAFT. So you don't delete starter material I've dumped there on purpose, I'll post here when phase 1 is done. — CpiralCpiral 15:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Phase 1 is done. This phase of the draft uses documentation from
  • Help:Searching/Features
  • Help:Searching/Regex
  • Help:Searching/Sandboxing
because advanced features like regex and sandboxing and hastemplate don't need to be on the introductory, exemplified Help version for newcomers, but do need to be on a complete Wikipedia version of Searching. The /Regex docs because of their special technical nature may need to be in various other venues.

@John of Reading: I've noticed Help:Searching documentation is not well sustained. I'm thinking that carefully compartmentalized subject matter, transcluded here, plus other places elsewhere will help. — CpiralCpiral 21:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Rough draft and section transclusions are done. Starting on integrating sections here and there on the wiki. Soon will cut and paste DRAFT to WP:Searching. — CpiralCpiral 08:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

What to tranclude where

I think we should keep Help:Searching and WP:Searching pure, and not transclude anything into them. This would simplify contribution attributions, and would also remove most of the confusion for new editors editing the whole page and seeing only a transclusion, or editing a section and ending up on another page.

I think adding section transclusion tags to Help:Searching#Search_results_page and WP:Searching#Search_engine_features is how to proceed. Currently the Help version has section transclusion tags on all subsections, so they can be transcluded as small sections into any other help page.

I think WP:Searching should then

See subpages of Help Search to see what I'm getting at. We're already transcluding

There reads: A list of matching page names drops down as you type the query. However, nothing "drops down". I looked the archives, and some suggested it might have something to do with JavaScript. I have JavaScript enabled, and it seems the problem has something to do with Internet Explorer. Maybe the only solution is to switch off from IE... 85.217.21.90 (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Strangely, I just noticed that Google gives me a drop down list. So, it must not be entirely the fault of IE. 85.217.21.90 (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It works on all browsers (including IE), but a drop-down only occurs when there is more than one match for the letters you are typing in. Once you type in enough letters to preclude anything else, it will only list that item. Even if you only type in one letter, the drop-down will occur. Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I am unable to reproduce 85.217.21.90's issue. Both the basic search and Special:Search are offering dropdowns. I tested using the word 'test' in Firefox (v40.0.3), Chrome (v43.0.2357.134 m), and Internet Explorer (v9.0.8112.16421). --Marc Kupper|talk 17:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Outdated sections?

Cpiral, I reverted your addition of {{outdated}} hat notices to the "Syntax" and "Parameters" sections. I did some testing and did not see any evidence that the help text is outdated. Can you recall what the issue was? --Marc Kupper|talk 17:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As part of my testing to see if anything was outdated I ran across an anomaly that I reported to WP:TECHPUMP#Using two sets of "quotes" in searches produces odd results. I suspect that finding is a CirrusSearch bug and not expected behavior that we'll need to document. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It's true. See prefix:Help:Searching/Archive 5/. There are more operators, and subtle behavioral changes. They tried to keep it much the same, so you won't find much difference the way you went about it. It's mostly outdated by omission. Join me at the DRAFT. — CpiralCpiral 05:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Maybe there could be a section for such search options? I'm talking about /\ and /i part. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Not just a section. The page is out of date. We have a new search engine that changed some old syntax and introduced some awesomely thorough new features and syntax. — CpiralCpiral 19:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there any Mediawiki documentation that explains what has been changed or added? --Marc Kupper|talk 17:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Paltry amounts about CirrusSearch, (now at special:version 0.2), even at MW:Help:CirrusSearch and its talk page, and at elastica, and at phabricator and at the village pump. I use trial and error in a sandbox with {{search link}} and {{regex}} to figure things out. Help:Searching/Draft is as good as it gets. — CpiralCpiral 17:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

{{in title}} and redirects

I've been adding "In title" links to entries in List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names as a way of providing dab-like access to species names. But quite a lot of articles on species are at their common name, with a redirect from the latin name (eg Eudocimus albus).

Is there any way to search for a word in title or redirect title?

An ordinary search of the whole article is not helpful, as it can produce a lot of "noise" including articles with enormous navboxes such as {{Selachimorpha}} which are caught up in the search. PamD 16:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@PamD: You can serach for a word in title. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@AKlapper (WMF): Nothing there seems to show me how to search for a word in article title or redirect title: compare the result of All pages with titles containing Acaule and a straight search on "Acaule": two redirects are not picked up. That's what I'm looking for: a search which will find titles of articles and titles of redirects such as Lepidophyllum acaule but won't pick up an article like Purn Hill which happens to mention one of the species. Can you help? PamD 10:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@PamD:I'm afraid I cannot help as I don't work on Search functionality - I hope that the mw:Wikimedia Discovery team can. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@AKlapper (WMF): Well, thanks for taking an interest. I've raised it at Phabricator, will see what happens there. PamD 11:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Nice idea. Couple of problems, eh? Thanks for bringing them up here.
1) Redirects. Experimenting shows that intitle does not search redirects: although the wikilink operatingsystem (missing the space) exists, the same "title" intitle: operatingsystem does not exist. Sorry.
2) As far as filtering out articles that contain term but not in a pesky template? Well, what if it's in both the page and the template? If you want to filter all pages with that template, use -hastemplate: "pesky template". If you want to filter only pages with your term, see also
{{template usage | pesky template | your term | 0 }}
and the query from that search results page. After doctoring up the query you'd end up saying something like
: gigantus -insource:/{{ *[Pp]esky *\{{!}} *[^}]*gigantus/
That regexp only works where there are no embedded templates in the pesky template, or any right curly brace characters before the search term is found. — CpiralCpiral 22:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@Cpiral: I only mentioned the templates as one example of why a straight "search" isn't as useful as "in title": but there are lots of other examples, eg Purn Hill where an "Acaule" species grows. I was hoping to find a way to search in titles of redirects. I've raised a query at Phabricator in the hopes that someone there can help. It would also be useful for looking for people by surname where there are variant spellings which have been used for redirects - and really any case where someone wants to search on a word in titles. It's been a shock to realise, belatedly, that "in title" doesn't search titles of redirects: I've always taken the line that it doesn't really matter that much what title we use for an article as long as there are redirects from all the other alternatives, but in this case it makes a massive difference (eg whether a plant's article is at common name or latin name). PamD 22:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, there is a way to find a term in a redirect title: ~term. Try ~acaule, and you will see. You'll need to rely on the fact that titles weigh most heavily in page ranking to filter out the noise. Now, let that be a {{search link}}, and then add a note in the column of the table: {{nomirror}}←please read. — CpiralCpiral 01:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Enrique Peñalosa on mobile real-time search dropdown shows hilarious/inappropriate content

Hi everyone, when searching for "Enrique Peñalosa" in the mobile view of the Spanish version Wikipedia (es.m.wikipedia.org), not only does it show a match saying "Colombian Politician" (in spanish "Politico colombiano"), but also shows a joke/vandalism/inapprroriate sentence "eats his boogers" (in spanish "Se comia los mocos). How can one fix the mobile search result snippet so it doesn't show the inappropriate sentence? Thanks!--TuCove (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@TuCove: This addition comes from Wikidata. I have removed the extra text. Thanks for reporting the problem! -- John of Reading (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey John of Reading...thanks so much! :) Learnt something new today. --TuCove (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
So did we all (I hope). So much for the authority of Wikidata. Cf. The Signpost: "Whither Wikidata"; be afraid, very afraid. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Images

How to add a image? Scadgrad (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Help:Upload helps. Or Upload image (after reading the links there). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

How do I exclude commons results?

How do I exclude commons results? I want files that are on en only, not on commons.--Elvey(t•c) 07:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

See Help:Searching/Draft#Namespace, concerning all: and local:. — Cpiral§Cpiral 07:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect documentation of ?

The behavior of ? is not documented correctly. It functions as a wildcard character, as a quick search for superm?n demonstrates, returning both superman and supermen hits. The example on asking a question, how do clocks work? only happens to give decent results, because works appears in the articles in the results. The wildcard section should include ? with * and the question asking section should suggest dropping the question mark. 108.45.121.138 (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure the HelpSearching version should cover wild-cards like the Wikipedia:Searching version will. (See Help:Searching/Draft.) I'll take a look at the example you mention, put the recently removed "Outdated" back, and put a new "Inform:DRAFT" hatnote. Happy editing! — CpiralCpiral 17:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Good news! Next week we'll be rolling out a change that will make the how do clocks work? example correct, and I'll update the documentation of the wildcard to be correct. Most people using ? use it to ask questions, so we're going to treat it that way—by ignoring it. You'll still be able to get a one-character wild card by escaping the question mark, so superm?n would become superm\?n. TJones (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Intitle and OR

I think the statement Multiple "intitle" filters may be used with Boolean operators between, such as "intitle: speed OR intitle: velocity", but "intitle: speed OR velocity" also works is not correct. Special:Search/intitle: speed OR velocity shows results where the title contains "speed" OR where the article contains "velocity" it does not show results where the title contains "velocity" (unless it also happens to contain "speed".

I trust your certainty that that text is incorrect. — Cpiral§Cpiral 06:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Related to this, does anyone know how to restore OR functionality to {{In title}}? See Template talk:In title#OR malfunctioning? older ≠ wiser 15:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps use a search link. But OR is not working yet with parameters like intitle.
{{Search link}} has been open to use on content pages for some time now. — Cpiral§Cpiral 06:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Searching/Archive_5&oldid=1164994998"