Template talk:Search

Moved to #1911encyclopedia.org no longer available

Anyone still using the 1911 links? Pcb21 Pete 11:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started using them, and I think the verification process could use a Google-assisted link to wikisource, probably after gwp (although Google didn't seem to see the index pages of Tim Starling's TIFF dump). Is there an admin listening who can make the edit? David Brooks 21:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worthwhile to add Project Gutenberg to the search list? I get hits there for folklore and history searches using Google to do a search restricted to site:www.gutenberg.org. RainbowCrane | Talk 03:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could someone please add this template to Category:Search templates. John Vandenberg 08:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To perform a phrase search I need to hand code the phrase like:

• {{search|%22a+b%22}} = (
  • wp
  • g
  • b
  )

Can that the template be improved to do a phrase search with either of the following:

• {{search|"a b"}} = (
  • wp
  • g
  • b
  )
• {{search|a b}} = (
  • wp
  • g
  • b
  )

John Vandenberg 08:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have created a new template for my own purpose: Template:Missing article. It uses the parser function a number of times, so Im not sure how well it will perform in comarison to this template. John Vandenberg 10:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please add Citizendium to the list of sources. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

Could someone please add google define: something. Thanks --Ricardo 13:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Editprotected}}

Please move the documentation to a standard /doc page with {{Documentation}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --- RockMFR 02:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} The Wikipedia search link is hard-wired to en.wikipedia.org and so logs you out on the secure server. Instead of:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search={{{1}}} wp]

this works in a fully server-independent way:

[{{fullurl:Special:Search|search={{urlencode:{{{1}}}}}}} wp]

example: wp

or just this if you prefer, though it gives a link color slightly different to the other (external) links:

[[Special:Search/{{{1}}}|wp]]

example: wp

• Anakin ^(talk) 12:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! • Anakin ^(talk) 12:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Encarta link. Sole Soul (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

I agree with the above, Encarta search needs to be removed (since it is not coming back and I highly doubt a public domain version would arise out of the same domain) and in its place Citizendium and Google define can be added (as suggested above). I believe this to be of no real controversy. Kind regards. Calaka (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Removed encarta. If others agree about the addition of Citizendium and Google, please replace the request. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation should at least clarify the acronyms and state the search engines. Mange01 (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Template talk:Find sources#Why only Google links?. Mange01 (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the 1911 site search, it uses the param "custom?sitesearch=", but not for en.wikipedia.org, why? emijrp (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Template:search has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The link "1911" refers to 1911encyclopedia.org, which is shut down. If we want to refer to a complete third-party searchable online edition of EB1911, there's encyclopedia.jrank.org. Possibly the Gutenberg copy, but I don't know if it is complete or whether you can constrain the search properly. David Brooks (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure what it is being requested here, if anything. Please clarify and reactivate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to merge this template with the Template:Missing article. Before finding this template, I edited the other one, and have removed some deprecated parameters which still exist in this template, and added some new useful search search tools, for example HathiTrust.

This edit request to Template:search has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add a:

{{Merge|Template:Missing article}}

or else merge these directly. I am currently also having issues where the alternate template gives rise to a </br> addition at the end of each line, as can be seen at [1]

Thanks, -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF: {{merge}} is for articles. Template merges should be proposed through the WP:TFM process. The extra newlines were not caused by a </br> (which is invalid in any case, the only valid forms are <br> and <br />) but by the newlines before the <noinclude> within the {{missing article}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see. I placed this one TFM, but as for the newlines, I don't really understand that, seeing as I thought I deleted them, but thanks for the tips. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a {{tfm}} to this template as well. SiBr₄ (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1911encyclopedia.org has not been available for at least two years, and an alternative should be found for searching the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. There are other sites available for perusing the contents, but I haven't spent any time to figure out which one might serve best as a replacement. archive.org might be an option. --Mikaka (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility would be a link such as [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search?search={{{1}}}&prefix=1911+Encyclop%C3%A6dia+Britannica&fulltext=Search+in+the+1911+Encyclop%C3%A6dia+Britannica+(mainly+titles)&fulltext=Search 1911] to search the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica on Wikisource. From what it appears, the URL brings up a list of search results for the search query even if the query corresponds to an entry that is included in the encyclopedia. (For example, searching for "Liberia" leads to these results.)

Another possibility is a link to the StudyLight.org site. From what it appears, the URL format would be https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/bri/view.cgi?w={{{1}}}. With this URL format, the site gives a page about the entry if the search query corresponds to an entry in the encyclopedia (such as a search for "Liberia") but gives an error page if the search query does not correspond to an encyclopedia entry (such as a search for "Libyria".) The error page has a search box of sorts.

(As a side note, the StudyLight.org 1911 EB entry for "New York" has at the top the text "See New York (disambiguation) for articles sharing the title New York ." (though with no actual hyperlink to a disambiguation page), raising the question as to whether the text was originally copied from a Wikimedia site. Since the 1911 encyclopedia itself is out of copyright in the US, copying its text should not be an issue, but other text on Wikimedia pages may well be copyrighted.) --Elegie (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a project on Wikisource — s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica — that has many articles already, and growing. Use the Template:EB1911 when referencing articles from there. DivermanAU (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica

• {{Cite EB1911}} — to cite an article in the EB1911
• {{EB1911}} — to attribute text copied from the PD EB1911 (see [[WP:PLAGIARISM}}

-- PBS (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Google and Bing search engines support HTTPS. Using HTTPS for the links in the template that are for Google or Bing searches would provide increased privacy and security for users. Assuming this would be useful, please change the links as follows:

• http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipedia.org+{{{1}}} should be changed to https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipedia.org+{{{1}}} instead.
• http://www.google.com/search?q={{{1}}} should be changed to https://www.google.com/search?q={{{1}}} instead.
• http://www.bing.com/search?q=site%3Awikipedia.org+{{{1}}} should be changed to https://www.bing.com/search?q=site%3Awikipedia.org+{{{1}}} instead.
• http://www.bing.com/search?q={{{1}}} should be changed to https://www.bing.com/search?q={{{1}}} instead.
• http://www.google.com/custom?sitesearch=1911encyclopedia.org&q={{{1}}} should be changed to https://www.google.com/custom?sitesearch=1911encyclopedia.org&q={{{1}}} instead.
• http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcmag.com%2Fencyclopedia_term%2F+{{{1}}} should be changed to https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcmag.com%2Fencyclopedia_term%2F+{{{1}}} instead.

Thanks. --Elegie (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Also added https on Britannica and HathiTrust. Didn't see the 1911 link was under discussion; sorry about that, I'll be happy to put that back in if there's a working url. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit. I considered also mentioning Britannica and HathiTrust as far as using HTTPS, but I was not sure about requesting edits to a substantial variety of external links all at once. For the 1911 encyclopedia link, removing the link is probably a good idea for now, given that 1911encyclopedia.org is not operational. (I did a posting under "1911encyclopedia.org no longer available" about possible alternatives for the 1911 EB.) --Elegie (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It seems that a lot of external link templates have been updated to use HTTPS, so this request may be uncontroversial. However I suggest leaving this request for a day or two to see if anyone else has a view. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has been done and I'm fine with that — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain why this template isn't showing up like it's supposed to? See here: Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Natural_sciences/Biology#Unsorted

Anyone have help/ideas? Is this because of the merge? Note that both the Template:Missing Article and Template:Search are not working. --Iamozy (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have update the template to use a lua module. this should reduce the complexity and removes some pages from Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. I have applied uniform urlencoding to the input as well. see the testcases for comparisons. let me know if there are any problems. Frietjes (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a |long=y to toggle the full list of links to further reduce the number of pages in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Frietjes (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Perhaps a Google scholar link would be useful? It's a pretty key resource for all non-biography articles (espec. science and medicine). 131.172.249.81 (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, also implement gn and gb options for Google News and Google Books while we're at it. We use those resources heavily.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Module talk:Search

 – * Pppery * _survives 00:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One call was colliding with the GSBL, so I inserted a do-nothing 'nop' on the query. See also WP:VPT#Weird_warning. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]