Wikipedia talk:Look it up

message: 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)
thread_title:  Numbering&Search 

message: Why in the world would anyone delete this? 205.196.208.20 Black Carrot  13:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chicken Edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Search Box 

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge with Wikipedia:Searching

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  case-sensitive search? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Can the edit summary field be searched?

message: 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)
thread_title:  I'm Back