Wikipedia talk:Look it up

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Help:Searching
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Help talk:Searching

Wikipedia Help

This redirect is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles

Wassup

Since the Where to ask a question people have had such a hard time protecting the focus of their page, I'd like to provide some background to anyone who edits this. Enjoy the below, copied from elsewhere:

virginity

Copied from Wikipedia_talk:Where_to_ask_a_question on 20:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC) , moved there from Humanities Reference Desk

what is virginity ?

See virginity. I never understood how people could find the Reference Desk but not the search...very strange. Neutrality^talk 15:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the first and I'm guessing not the last either. :-P Dismas|^(talk) 16:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, try looking at the Main Page. The Ask a question link is displayed relatively prominently, in the middle of the screen at the top, right under the introduction to what the site is. It says, Welcome to Wikipedia, click here if there's something you want to know. The search box, on the other hand, is smallish and off to the left, where eyes don't often go at first, and there is no hint that you can look things up that way. --Black Carrot 17:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also states we're an encyclopedia with over 900,000 articles. Call me crazy, but wouldn't be logical to be able to search them all? People just need to look past the length of their nose (as they say here in the Netherlands). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there should be a re-design that moves the search box. User:AlMac|^(talk) 09:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A more traditional and encyclopedic wording than 'search for _____' would be 'look _____ up'. And yeah, now that I'm thinking about it it does seem really odd to have all the functions of the site in the introduction, except one. Black Carrot 13:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited : Wikipedia:Reference_desk/How_to_ask_and_answer and Wikipedia:Where_to_ask_a_question too, putting "search first" more prominent. --Harvestman 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Black Carrot 20:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's not forget Black Carrot's good comment above. We offer the "Ask a question" link much more prominently than the "Search" box - well, duh: No wonder new readers use it! We need a "Search" (or "Look up") box right under the Welcome line before we can even think about blaming others. This is more important and helpful than most of the other links in that prime place. It would also help if we added a search box to the top of this (helpdesk) page. Common Man 22:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need "did you search yet?" twice at the top of the same page, within five lines of each other. I think that should be reverted, and the problem should be solved elsewhere.

I'm moving this discussion to the talk page. Black Carrot 23:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the Reference Desk

Copied from Wikipedia_talk:Where_to_ask_a_question(following virginity) on 20:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to introduce myself. I hail from the 5 Reference Desks. Until a few minutes ago, I had no idea this even had a talk page, let alone that it had such a fascinating history. Having properly updated myself, however, I think I have something to add.

Quite a few posts on the Reference Desks are questions that could be and should be and usually are answered by typing a single keyword into the search box. I don't actually mind, since it's not hard to redirect people, but I do think that, if people don't know where they're going, there's something wrong. Now, it could be this could be corrected at our end, perhaps by adjusting our Search First message somehow, but I don't think people should get lost in the first place. The problem, as far as I can tell, is that (as stated in virginity above) on the Main Page, there is a large box of suggestions on how to find something out, including FAQs and Ask a question, and no mention within it of a way to look articles up directly. Stop a moment to savor that, by the way:

An encyclopedia does not tell people to Look It Up.

That's the terminology people have come to know and love with all reference books, from encyclopedias to dictionaries to the majestic thesauri. It seems as though a Look it up choice could be added without changing the layout substantially, so people who started from the Welcome and moved forward would know where to go. This would link into the Searching system of directions, and the Asking system would be free to just differentiate different kinds of questions. I'm not sure this would be the best option, though, and it would certainly take some work to mold a number of other pages (such as Searching) around it, and/or it around them, and there would be the redundancy of the search box. If you're interested, I'll suggested on the Main Page talk page. --Black Carrot 00:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BC, welcome to WP:ASK, a favorite piñata as it hangs in plain view on the Main Page. I want to thank you for taking the time to review this page's history before "whacking" away. I believe your suggestions are well thought out and encourage you to proceed. I'll see you around, here and at the RDs. :-) hydnjo talk 01:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'd like every major player on this page to cast a vote, if you all don't mind. Black Carrot 01:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think if you invite Superm401 and HappyCamper you'll be on your way to a quorum. hydnjo talk 02:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know me...make the changes and see what happens. It's reasonable, and it's not reckless - and besides, you can't find out if it works or not unless you experiment! :-) Green light from me. Thanks for letting me know about your ideas - that's always appreciated. --HappyCamper 03:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main page is protected, so his experimental abilities aren't boundless. However, that doesn't mean we can't discuss about the issue. First, the Go function on the search box does of course accomplish a look up. The problem is that this may not be intuitive to everyone. Maybe we can think of a better method. Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft would appreciate it. Perhaps there could be another search box that more clearly explains how to do a lookup. We could use a Help:Inputbox like this (functional test):

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on 6,912,867 articles.

--Superm401 - Talk 03:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more along the lines of working within what's already there, like this:

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

In this English version, started in 2001, we are currently working on 6,912,867 articles.

The idea would be that, if you're new, you read the intro and follow it. Also, if you're new, you want to start out with something explaining it. Then, maybe the search box could be left on the left for everyone else. I'll suggest it. Black Carrot 16:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking things up

Copied from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft on 20:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC); Updated 02:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You people are messed up.

The reason I came here, though, is that there's something missing from the extremely prominent list of options on the current page and all of your drafts. So that you have a reason to listen to me and implement my suggestion, I'd like to take a moment to explain how I got here: Wikipedia_talk:Where_to_ask_a_question#From the Reference Desk There seems to be general consensus on the reference desks that people are winding up there who have no reason to be there, and after a short discussion it was determined that the problem could be the main page. After talking with the people one level earlier (Where to ask a question), I am more certain of it, and they support my idea for fixing it, not least because it would solve one of their problems too.

My idea is to include Look it up with Ask a question , Index/A-Z and Portals. This should be prominent. Not neccessarily more prominent than anything else, but certainly not less prominent. This is the main function of Wikipedia. You type a word in, it takes you to the article. The search is weak and I've never used a portal, but I can always rely on that. This is also the main function of an encyclopedia, other than the ones based on a tree like Portals and Categories, which for some reason seem to be completely seperate.

I hereby demand flaming criticism, and will not rest until I get it. Should none appear within a week, I will assume that means that everyone agrees. --Black Carrot 17:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like that's going to happen! Okay, I have a flaming criticism for you... ;)

I have a criticism of you post: you said something was missing, but then you didn't specify what that was. Instead you went straight into your idea or solution. So...

What exactly is missing from the front page and all of these drafts?

By the way, take a look at the browsebar's solution to this:

Portal topics: Activities; Culture; Geography; Health; History; Mathematics; Nature; People; Philosophy; Religion; Society; Technology; Random portal

Notice that "Wikipedia FAQs" and "Ask a question" have been combined into "Questions". Do you think that helps? And if not, why not? We need to understand this issue as well as you do, if we are going to solve it.

--Go for it! 00:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you follow the link? I think I was pretty clear about it there. What's missing from the front page, as it stands now, is an easy and self-explanatory way for people to look something up, as people are wont to doing in encyclopedias. So, quite a few people do the next best thing and ask at the reference desk. Combining all the places one could ask a question under one Questions heading is a good move, and I admit I hadn't thought to follow it and see the changes, but I think it would still be a good idea to have Look it up seperate. There's also the fact that it doesn't actually involve asking a question. This would, of course, make it harder to fit everything in. Black Carrot 01:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Look it up page, which is well written, and agree entirely that people should be encouraged to search, rather than ask questions. I have one slight problem with the phrasing: what is the difference between "Look it up" and "Search"? To me "Search" is more intuitively understood, and "Look it up", despite being described as a traditional way to use an encyclopedia, is actually a rather colloquial term. 62.31.128.28 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. By 'colloquial', what do you mean? If you mean most English-speaking people don't use it, that could be a problem. I've just put a question about that on the Language reference desk to find out. Also, to me, search isn't just counterintuitive, it's downright inaccurate. The point of the Go function on the search bar is to take you directly to the article you typed in, just like a lot of print books are trying to do when they arrange things alphabetically. The Search function is an actual search. Black Carrot 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the error rate at WP:RD or at WP:HD will be aided by having a "look it up" link on the main page. Having tried to work against these problems of people asking at the wrong places, I've decided that there is only so far that you can explain that people are in the wrong place, and those making the errors are generally just stupid. Another link will sadly not reduce stupidity. jnothman ^talk 03:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to reduce stupidity, and I'm not trying to tell people they're in the wrong place. I'm trying to prevent them from ever getting there, and I'm trying to do so by taking advantage of their laziness and lack of interest in anything not immediately obvious. I think this would help, and if it wouldn't help enough, I'm open to suggestions on tweaking. I'm also open to a trial period.

What, exactly, have you been doing? Black Carrot 19:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've decided it would be better to not have this on the main page, and have removed it from voting. Black Carrot 22:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wassup Continued

Here's how I see this page. It is short, simple, helpful, and everything on it is directly related to looking something up. Any further edits of it should have the effect of condensing it, not expanding it. Anything on it should be intuitive to every person who passes through, especially those new to Wikipedia, and people should be able to read the entire page without devoting to it any effort, thought, or time. This is not a repository for diverse knowledge, it is a signpost. Go wild.

Numbering&Search

I don't like that way of explaining it. It seems counterproductive. The search is explained below, as are quite a few other ways of getting around obstacles. To put a particular one, not to mention one as ineffective as Wikipedia's search tends to be, up in the main instructions seems like a bad idea. I do like some of the other corrections, though. Black Carrot 22:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions

Why in the world would anyone delete this? ~~205.196.208.20~~ Black Carrot 13:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Edit

If anyone wants to change the Bicycle link to something else, awesome, but keep a few things in mind:

The Bicycle article is about the most extensive article we have
The Bicycle article has been a Featured Article for quite a while, which the Chicken article is not (best foot forward)
People care about bikes more than they do about chickens
Bikes are mentioned three times in the introduction, not two, and it looks a bit silly to leave the third one in. Black Carrot 19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Duely noted. I agree Bikes are a better example than chickens, and I won't change it again. Barryvalder 22:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Search Box

BTW, a minor style question: does anyone know how to change the box in the Searching section from the Go function to the Search function? Black Carrot 19:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Wikipedia:Searching

Please see my merge/overhaul suggestion concerning this page, at Wikipedia talk:Searching#Merge with Wikipedia:Look it up. Thanks. --Quiddity 21:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

case-sensitive search?

Why is the search box so maddeningly inconsistent with case-sensitivity? Sometimes capitalization doesn't matter (good), and other times the search fails if caps are not used exactly right (bad!). Ian mckenzie 15:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I wasn't involved in its construction, so I'll go on what I've heard. At its most basic level, the Go button is apparently case-sensitive, because the article titles themselves are case-sensitive. Any non-case-sensitive situation you run into was specifically coded in for your convenience. It apparently takes quite a bit of work, though, so it only extends so far. I'm pretty sure the Search (which takes you to the search page, not specific articles) is case-insensitive. Also, I think if you type in an exact article, with random capitalization, it'll fail to find it, then kick over to the search system where it'll ignore capitalization and find that a title matches exactly, then take you directly to that article. Black Carrot 22:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine WHY Search and Titles would be case-sensitive. There can't be many (any?) article titles that are identical except for capitalization; if there were, a disambig page would sort that out. Here's an example of a case-sensitive Search: 'torcal de antequera' comes up with nothing, not even a list of suggestions, while 'torcal de Antequera' gets you there despite the first word not being capitalized. Does every article need a lower-case Redirect created to make Search work properly?? Grrr. Any idea who I can contact about looking into correcting Search? Ian mckenzie 21:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the titles have to be case sensitive because, if you look up at the URL, the address is the same as the title. And URLs are case-sensitive. Have you tried Wikipedia:Help_Desk? Black Carrot 00:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your above explanation probably came from Wikipedia:Go button. I don't know why the page is considered deprecated though, out-of-date and/or inaccurate...? --Quiddity 02:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, with a little experimentation, it becomes obvious that the engine simply cannot handle "mixed" case. eg clicking go for haroun and the sea of stories will fail. --Quiddity 02:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the news recently was an article "Wikipedia To Take On Google" if the search function on Wikipedia is anything to go by then Google have very little to worry about, in fact of all the sites I visit every week on the web Wikipedia must have the worst search engine of them all. Ricky540 23:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can the edit summary field be searched?

If I want to search for recent changes with specific text in the edit summary field, is there a way to do it? Say, for example, I wanted to find all edit summaries containing the phrase "external links" that have been submitted in the past hour. Is this possible somehow? -Amatulic 21:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not – though to find very recent additions with summaries containing "external links" you can just go to Recent changes and use your browser's Find function to search the page – Qxz 20:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Back

It's been a while. I'd like to thank profusely everyone who's defended this page while I've been gone. It's frightening how many vandals there have been since September.

I'd also like to thank those of you (principally 75.18.210.218) who were bold in editing. Your contributions are appreciated. You'll notice, however, that nearly all of them have been reverted. Here's why:

I left the link at the top and the Category tags at the bottom, since they're none of my business. I removed the foreign-language one that had snuck in there because I couldn't see a purpose in it, I'd welcome its return if it could be explained to me.

I removed the Table of Contents and the Search box because they displeased me. They're boxy and ugly, especially on such a small page. They take up room and add no value. If anyone disagrees with either point, I'd be happy to discuss it.

I removed, after some consideration, the added text in the Definitions section. Although I could see a case for their inclusion, I didn't think they were worth the space they were taking up. If anyone disagrees, I'd be happy to discuss it.

I also removed, after longer consideration, the added text in the Search section. I decided that every point it made would be better on the Searching page under the External Search Engines heading. If anyone would like to add those points there, they're welcome to, and if anyone would like to reinstate them here they're welcome to make a case for it.

I reverted the rearrangement and relabeling of the sections. I like it the way it is, I think it's short, snappy, easy to read and easy on the eyes. I also think it's ordered well. For instance, I think it makes sense to have the Skins section right where people who can't find the Search Box might see it, rather than further down the page.

I would appreciate it if anyone who wants to make future changes would explain their position on the talk page as I have done. Otherwise, they're likely to be reverted without further discussion. Thank you. Black Carrot 03:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]