Talk:%s

message: I've found this shortcut very useful also! I always type "wp [...]" in my firefox URL and get the search immediately, though usually I just type "wp" to get directed to the main home page. We should keep it here! It's not doing any harm ... Vecter 01:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We also have the problem of the javascript used on the main page - to remove the title from it - doesn't include the case where you are redirected to the main page. I've brought it up before but probably in the wrong place (main page talk) since it was ignored. Which will be fixed first: Firefox or Wikipedia? It's like an OpenSourceWar! -- drrngrvy tlk @ 23:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: %s

message: The second part is just trivial information about a program, and doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedia. The first part... does this really need a definition?  Shouldn't it redirect to the main page? porges 08:31, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
I'm changing this back to a redirect to the main page and splitting off %s (printf). Mcpusc 03:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's what the user was actually searching for, and didn't not enter a search term -- see the above discussion for why this goes to the main page. IceKarmaॐ 03:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to not really make sense for this article to go to the main page...  Typing no search term and hitting enter, of course does even not go to the main page, it goes to the search page, and one minor browser's special feature used by some users really seems no good reason to divert a name like %s with a well-known other meaning, to a page other than the article that explains what it means to say %s. --Mysidia (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Last year I created a page %s (printf) to address the issue; at that page users felt that %s did not warrant its own page. I agree with that sentiment, as %s is part of the printf syntax, not something deserving of its own page. Mcpusc 23:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the defalt term for a bookmarklet that comes with firefox.  See above.--michael180 21:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: %s is a string placeholder in a printf format string. It's not the name of a bookmarklet; it's simply an artifact of the programming language used to implement quicksearches in FireFox. Mcpusc 22:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, it's no bookmarklet, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%s  is NOT a valid URL; the article can really only be reached by actually searching for the text "%s". --Mysidia (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a Quick search, though. Open Firefox, type "wp" (without the quotes) into the Location Bar, and press Enter. Guess where you end up. Notice the message "redirected from %s". --Zarel 03:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Mysidia, yours is the only active dissenting opinion on this subject, and your redirection of this article has been reverted again.  Please do not act in opposition to the public opinion in making changes.  In an effort to dissuade further discord on this subject, a request for comment may be placed; but I don't believe that necessary at this point.  —  THOR =/\= 07:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. -Falcorian 08:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I have listed %s on RFD; hopefully, that should draw sufficient attention to the problem as to settle the issue.  Most importantly;  convenience of a few editors doesn't trump usability for readers, encyclopedic merit, etc, there are a few reasons this redirect is harmful.. it's counterintuitive, obscures searches, and makes no sense, i.e. such as redirecting Pink elephants painting daisies to love., the example used for redirects that should be deleted.   And Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Mysidia (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Most people coming to this page expect a rediret to the mainpage, I know I do. I firmly vote for this page to redirect to the mainpage. --Brian Sisco 02:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Make your voice heard here, that's where this battle has moved now.  —  THOR =/\= 06:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  uhm 

message: Pending RFD I've moved the template below the redir to allow it to wrok! Rich   Farmbrough
: The RFD page explicitly says, in the fourth paragraph starting with a bold first that a bug causes any text below redirs to be discarded and hence to place the tag above the redirect, so I've moved it back. ThomasHarte 23:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rfd 

message: Keep
* %s → Main page -- this redirect in its current form is at best confusing and does not have encyclopedic basis; the title is related to a programming topic, and should be or point to an article related to its title, like %d, for instance: these are format specifiers which are ubiquitous in the subject of computer programming, it is senseless to redirect readers who attempt to lookup these subjects to the Main page, please see Talk:%s.. --Mysidia (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results of RFD - 2005 

message: This feature (typing wp [search term] in the address bar, and then Firefox will search Wikipedia for [search term]) is no longer default.  I had a fair bit of difficulty re-adding this feature to my browser, since it continues to redirect to the Main Page without a warning.  203.87.119.103 01:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you don't need to get to %s to institute a search, only right-click within the Wikipedia search field and click on "Add a Keyword for this search ...".  Secondly, I've found that the latest version of Firefox still includes this search by default, perhaps they changed the search term though?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Default no longer 

message: new text::%s leads to a copy of the main page for technical reasons. See also printf.

What's everyone think? --Random832 01:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done This change is too controversial for editprotected (see above), and besides, printf is not the only use (it should probably go to a disambiguation page). If you want this change made, suggest it at WP:RFD. --ais523 12:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Picaroon (Talk) 02:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Eh... Wouldn't it be easier if string variable stuff is located to an article, say, %s (C). It will, however, have only marginal use compared to technical redirection to Main Page. -- Xepheid 10:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  compromise 

message: Although it breaks the redirect, I believe the RFD notice should be put back. In my opinion, without the notice, the whole process is hidden from the users which really defeats the purpose of putting it up for discussion. User:Phil Sandifer has declined to put it back, but I think it's necessary. Other opinions? --Falcorian (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, except virtually everybody who'll discover the discussion via the %s page are people who were trying to shortcut into the main page via their firefox bookmark and are irked that suddenly it's not working anymore. Which is hardly ideal for understandable reasons. Trying to draw attention to this in other ways (e.g. appealing to editors who might be interested in this via their talk pages) would probably be better for everybody involved. --AceMyth 05:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see this as a problem as they make up the vast majority of users who will be using the page that's being discussed, and should have their say. Further I can't support hiding the 'inner workings' of wiki in any form, as that's really the whole point, the open access. And lastly, what sort of consensus can we claim if we've obscured the process so that only certain individuals are aware of it? --Falcorian (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying, sure, the vast majority of people entering the discussion are all going to weigh on one side of the issue, and that's all right, because that would reflect consensus. But let's have a discussion because discussions are fun. I believe this line of argument falls right under the proverbial snowball clause. --AceMyth 11:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the basic problem - the RfD is a very technical matter of interest to only a handful of active contributors - it was, frankly, a weird choice to RfD it instead of taking it to the talk page, since it's not actually a deletion nomination. It is not OK to leave a non-functional page that is highly confusing to casual browsers in place here. The problem is that users go "Oh, Wikipedia must be broken" and wander off. The inner workings of the encyclopedia need to be accessible when possible - that doesn't mean they need to be, in every case, shouted to the rooftops. This is a case where convenience, another major goal of the project, needs to trump. Phil Sandifer 13:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I support Phil's decision to remove the RfD notice and not put it back. The fact that the RfD was flooded with FireFox users who had stumbled upon it tells us that FireFox users were stumbling upon it. In droves. The RfD discussion was much more technical and esoteric than most people can understand, so there was little benefit in having them be able to see it. Kla'quot 06:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFD Notice - 2007 

message: I find it a nussance that the page now says "The main page appears below for technical reasons. For information about %s, see printf." This will cause confusion to those with less technical knowledge, since they will wonder how they ended up with a page titled %s when they intended to simply go to the main page (when using the wp shortcut in firefox). For everyone else it will just be an annoyance and seve no useful purpose. Anyone with the technical knowledge to want to know about %s would know that it is a part of printf and would look there first. Plus all the printf article says about %s is, "s : Print a character string.", not really notable or worthy of the notice, especially since there are no redirect pages or articles for the other parts of printf, %i, %d, %c, etc... --Android Mouse 12:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree, this would have been an excellent point to bring up in the RFD we just had on the subject, and is probably a little late now. Although I suppose it is quite possible you didn't know it was going on if this talk page wasn't on your watch list, as the notice was only up for a short time. --Falcorian (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any communication with the Mozilla Dev? I made a search term for youtube and get redirected to url.com/%s . It would be nice to have it go to a homepage when there isn't a search term. --x1987x(talk) 01:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Printf

message: Can we have the disambiguation notice set as a class that people can hide if they want (using monobook.css)? Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 15:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (it's called .page-percents-disambig). --ais523 15:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I normally get onto wiki by "%s"ing all the time, so the notice is a bit throwing off to me. Thanks anyway :) Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 16:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit 

message: If you'd like to hide some of the new changes to this page, simply add the code below to your monobook.css page.
 /* Don't display some stuff on the %s page */
 body.page-_s #t-cite,
 body.page-_s #lastmod, 
 body.page-_s #siteSub, 
 body.page-_s #contentSub, 
 body.page-_s h1.firstHeading {
  display: none !important;
 }
 .page-percents-disambig{
  display: none;
 }
Be sure to purge your cache afterward to see the changes. The tabs at the top will still apply to the %s page, but the main header and the notice will be gone. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! Now I can pretend it doens't exist. ;) --Falcorian (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiding the new changes 

message: Personally, I find the new changes (ie. the removal of the automagical redirect) irritating. There was extensive discussion on this and the decision was to keep it as it was before the last edit. It'd be nice if there was some sort of system of getting 'votes of approval' before being able to make these sort of edits. Since that's not realistic atm, being bold is fair enough, but I vote in favour of reverting. Fast. :) -- drrngrvy tlk @ 17:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel exactly the same way, I described a little bit farther up this talk page why it is unreasonable to have this page redirect to printf yet we don't have redirects for %s, %c, %i, etc. I also don't feel a clear consensus was reached for these changes. Numerous times people have suggested changes but every single time the consesus is to leave it as is, simply an unaltered redirect to the main page. I'd like this problem actually fixed not some CSS hack posted. --Android Mouse 17:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This was the logic brought up in some of the previous discussions. People tended to agree that %s wasn't notable enough to warrant its own article. Very few people seem to expect a search for %s to lead to printf anyway, given the tiny amount of criticism the silent redirect has. Having any redirect text there at all is a pain, IMHO. -- drrngrvy tlk @ 00:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is not convenience but precision, making it understandably unpopular. Yes, we are a web site, but we're also an encyclopedia. Why sloppily circumvent a bug when the end user could actually learn something, and the Main Page can still be displayed via transclusion? GracenotesT § 00:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a user wanted to learn about programming or other technical topics they will go to it themselves. There is no reason to advertise another article when they weren't intentionally looking for it. --Android Mouse 01:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only advertising in the same sense that Moon is advertising Moon (disambiguation). In terms of content (and not, say, this) we shouldn't have to pay for Firefox's faults with this (minute, but still palpable) quantity of imprecision. I have no problems with creation of the other redirects. GracenotesT § 02:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The moon page displaying the disambig link isn't an accurate comparison. With %s, I'd say more than 99.99% of the people viewing it didn't intend on really looking for an article titled %s, but for the main page. With the moon article, it much more likely that the user could have wanted to find information on the many other meanings of the word. You also bring up us having to pay for firefox's faults, I don't see how anyone is paying. No one is hurt or inconviencined by a simple redirect on a page that would otherwise be nonexistant, although the contrary is true when if this would change as it has. Plus, wikipedia aims for usability, there are guidelines to restrict article sizes for the sake of catering to older browsers who can't support them. If anything that would be more of an incovience than this redirect, yet it is tolerated nonetheless. --Android Mouse 03:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does transcluding the Main Page reduce usability? The same content would exist on the Main Page would also exist here. GracenotesT § 22:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It hurts usability to those who don't intend on and have no intention to looking up '%s'. It is an unneeded advertisment that adds clutter while wasting precious screen space. I've also not any reason why '%s' is notable enough for this notice. Someone else pointed out that the page visits to '%s' far outweigh those to printf, reflecting the relative lack of interest to it compared to the main page. --Android Mouse 00:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Eh, I must take issue with your use of the word "advertisement". Believe me, I have no personal affiliation with printf! To use an example: if the Wikipedian community suddenly disappeared and Wikipedia only continued to exist as a pile of revisions (and the former group is a means to the latter), the utility of this page would not make sense. The reason we may want to include a note about %s is because it's complete; because people should expect it of an encyclopedia to be a compendium of human knowledge worth knowing, rather than a quick look-up service or just another website. My far-fetched ideals, though, may need to take a backseat to reality, consensus, and vaguely immediatist utility ;) Perhaps Firefox 2.5 shall take care of this bug. GracenotesT § 01:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not using the word advertise as you are interpreting it. I am using it synonymously with 'to give notice'. If the wikipedian community suddenly disappered tomorrow and all that was left were the revisions then the future readers could easily see this talk page and easily figure out what the page was for. Although I'd have to say, that is a far fetched thing to plan for. --Android Mouse 04:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed no other definition of "advertising" than the common one, so thanks for the clarification. By all that's left are the revisions, I mean just that: a database of wikitext, lacking the context of a website, a browser, maintenance, growth. But yes, a surreal fantasy. GracenotesT § 04:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Then the question is, how would they arrive at the revisions of the %s articles in the first place? Perhaps they too would be using buggy software that would bring up %s when quering the database for the Main Page revisions ;-)  --Android Mouse 04:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They would undoubtedly arrive at it from wanting to know about %s :) Well, I suppose we can redirect for now, although let's see what happens when the bug is fixed, agreed? GracenotesT § 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I brought up the same point in the RFD. I was tempted to make a stupidly long -r page, but I figured it wouldn't violate WP:point over something like this. ;-) --Falcorian (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet more changes 

message: (display Main Page underneath a comment at the top about printf or whatever else "%s" may refer to.)
# This "vote" is absolutely blatant forum-shopping. --Random832 00:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note, that no one has came here and clamed they were looking for information on %s. Even searching for this page on google or the wikipedia search feature turns no results to this page: . The only way someone would arrive here (without the bug in firefox) is to literally type in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%25s. Typing in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%s generates a bad request. If the user knew how to look up percent encoding and ecnode the url themselves, they would most certainly be able to figure out what happened when they get redirected to the main page. --Android Mouse 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can type %s into the search, and click "go". Google treats % as some sort of "generic symbol", and gives bad results. Yahoo ignores the % and gives same results as search for "s". Google may have ranked this page low because it is new, because it largely duplicates content, or because "%s" only appears once on the page. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just the same, it is much harder to find this page than it would be to find any other normal page on wikipedia. --Android Mouse 19:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transclude 

message: (simply redirect to Main Page.)
# Redirect. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: Please define "transclude" in the introduction for this voting process. I'm not familiar with the term, and wasn't sure exactly what it meant in this context, even after looking it up: Transclusion--Dbolton 20:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Transclusion really just means to use a template and have the template substitute information on the page. Currently, the %s article transcludes the main page by pretending it's a template (using the code , thus allowing everything from the main page to be included in the %s article. A transclude vote is identical to a keep vote in this situation. Hope that clarifies. --MZMcBride 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I added some comments above, hope that helps. — flamingspinach | (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks--Dbolton 19:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I responded to your comment. Plus no one said this poll is going to determine anything. It is a good way to get the opinions of others. Yet I haven't seen a single person claim they came here with the intention of finding more information about printf. --Android Mouse 00:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter claim seems suspiciously anecdotal to me :) Not to mention that those previously coming here looking for %s would be rather confused (mainpage has no #contentSub). GracenotesT § 01:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not anecdotal, that's inductive. --AceMyth 18:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And a strong induction at that. --Android Mouse 18:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: note: "Transclude" is the status quo. This is what the current revision of the page, right now (00:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There was already an RFD, and the RFD notice was placed on the page, while not for the entire discussion (since someone made a bad decision to remove it), for at least part of it. The voting there was also initially overwhelmingly in favor of leaving the redirect, and now this is basically having another vote so an entirely DIFFERENT group of people now have to be convinced. Rinse and repeat until we get the result whoever started this discussion wants. --Random832 12:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That strikes me as more than a little peculiar. If the previous RFD overwhelmingly supported redirection (as it had been for at least a couple of years), why is it now a transclusion? — flamingspinach | (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say the RFD supported Transclusion (by a slim margin, but still). However, I think the topic is in need of another debate (this one) as the RFD was purposefully hidden from the users (I'm not asserting malice, simply a fact, you can read up on it a few sections up) and as such can't be considered a truly valid representation of the will of the editors. --Falcorian (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: How does what's there right now (go on, click "Article", this talkpage will still be here when you come back) reduce your convenience in using firefox? _i_ use the shortcut feature, and I'm the one who proposed this! It's generous to allow this to exist at all, putting the main page under the title %s is indisputably unencyclopedic. --Random832 00:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usability is important. (In fact, isn't the improvement of usability one of the main goals of redirects?) The note is very likely annoying to very many people (at least it is for me) and helpful to very few. -- bcasterline • talk 00:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One means to achieve usability is redirection. Another is transclusion. At some point where the difference of usability between the two is beyond subjective irritation, content should take precedence over function. GracenotesT § 01:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is inconvient because I have to look at the unappealing notice everytime I use the shortcut. It also pushes the page down even farther, so those of us that often have to use computers with low resolutions get more screen clutter than necessary and the main page is already poorly designed and cluttery as is. Plus, no one has given me any reason why '%s' is notable enough for a redirect. If there was no firefox bug to support this article, it would have been deleted along time ago under the  criteria. The amount of people that will benefit from transclusion is greatly outnumbed by the number of people who will be inconvienced. --Android Mouse 01:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's annoying, and it's added clutter, it's unnecessary, and it's not clear that it's needed (nor that printf is the only such page to include in a note). --Falcorian (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Didn't someone provide css code you can put in your monobook to hide it and make it look exactly like the main page, if you really care so much? --Random832 03:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's besides the point. I mean, if we REALLY wanted to, we could just fork the whole encyclopedia over this issue. Why not transclude? Because, as I stated above in my redirect vote, a transcluded Main Page is nonetheless not the main page. Simple as that. Oops, forgot to sign this. — flamingspinach | (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why _not_ transclude?

message: has changed this back to a redirect, which I think matches the concensus here. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no argument that doesn't match consensus :) GracenotesT § 01:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should go back to what was decided in the RfD. — The Storm Surfer 06:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed to redirect 

message: Why do we need 64 kilobytes of debate about one small thing like %s? I will keep out of the debate (although I side with the redirect people), but isn't 64KB just excessive? This, that and the other 10:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because people care about where the page is pointed. --Falcorian (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, democracy, or anarachy, it's an idiocracy; on high-profile pages, nothing productive can be accomplished in less than 3 year's time — TheBilly(Talk) 02:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless debate 

message: Why was the redirect changed to a non-silent redirect, and why was this done without establishing consensus anywhere? - Chardish (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a change made to MediaWiki:Monobook.css following discussion . --MZMcBride (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer a silent redirect 

message: i got the following results... from an actual search for %s (specifically done after several "requests" here)
    * Race and ethnicity in the United States Census
      13 KB (1880 words) - 03:44, 26 March 2008
    * 1980s
      67 KB (9999 words) - 23:33, 26 March 2008
    * 1990s
      103 KB (14579 words) - 00:00, 27 March 2008
    * 1960s
      41 KB (5784 words) - 15:57, 26 March 2008
    * 1970s
      45 KB (6830 words) - 14:39, 26 March 2008
    * U.S. state
      47 KB (6787 words) - 19:44, 24 March 2008
    * 1950s
      40 KB (5811 words) - 14:35, 26 March 2008
    * 1930s
      15 KB (2007 words) - 18:10, 26 March 2008
    * 1920s
      14 KB (1885 words) - 05:24, 26 March 2008
    * 1940s
      13 KB (1749 words) - 20:05, 26 March 2008
    * Georgia (U.S. state)
      77 KB (10601 words) - 20:23, 26 March 2008
    * People's Republic of China
      92 KB (12744 words) - 20:54, 26 March 2008
    * McDonald's
      25 KB (3681 words) - 16:48, 26 March 2008
    * Master's degree
      9 KB (1228 words) - 19:42, 26 March 2008
    * 2000s
      8 KB (1156 words) - 23:19, 24 March 2008
    * Bachelor's degree
      43 KB (6592 words) - 21:00, 26 March 2008
    * United States
      164 KB (23300 words) - 17:56, 26 March 2008
    * Harry S. Truman
      117 KB (17295 words) - 23:15, 26 March 2008
    * Macy's
      39 KB (5721 words) - 01:25, 26 March 2008
    * Ulysses S. Grant
      79 KB (11946 words) - 18:52, 26 March 2008
85.149.120.16 (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the same as a search for "s" - the "%" is ignored when searching (this is the case for both mediawiki search and google searches). --h2g2bob (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the search for %s 

message: When I type "wp" into the URL for my Firefox browser, it takes me to http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=wp , not any Wikipedia search page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.64.207 (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to manually add the keyword. ffm 19:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: Oh no, Firefox 3 beta 5 no longer takes me to the main page. Merzul (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, very inconvient. --Falcorian (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I will miss this page :P 

message: Does this work on IE? C Teng 13:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it, unless you set it up yourself. Shamess (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Explorer 

message: Sorry, but typing anything not formated like a URL into the Firefox URL bar searches Google. "wp" leads to http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=wp
%d
And. guys, this is why disambigs EXIST! ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd settle for transclusion.  One line saying "The main page appears below for technical reasons. For information about %s, see printf." would not hinder anyone looking for the Main Page, and would help those looking for %s. Seriously, what's wrong with transcluding it‽ ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wrong?  Nothing, I suppose, but at the time of the above vote (see Talk:%s#Vote) there was a clear consensus for redirection as opposed to transclusion.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it's ALL been discussed, multiple times. --Falcorian (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: the way I see it, no matter what we do, the main page is only 1 click away. But someone looking for information on %s has no way to get information, as Google would ignore the %. This is (was) a glitch with Firefox, and nobody should expect the main page when no page is entered anyway. This is irrelevant anyway, because the "wp" function no longer works. I repeat: transclusion can only help. How is one supposed to research %s‽ This is very unencyclopedic. I repeat: all this does is save people looking for the homepage a single mouseclick, and makes it impossible for anyone to research %s, because search engines ignore the %.  ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're on the subject of repeating... This is just repeating the above discussions. --Falcorian (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Stats for June. 488,933 views – I imagine a very, very tiny percentage of those were trying to find more information about %s. FF2 had this 'bug,' FF3 doesn't. When more people have adopted FF3, we can reconsider what to do with %s; until then, it will stay a redirect to the Main Page. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: As a compairison, %d has ~5 people a day. --Falcorian (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google 

message: 
Please add  per nomination at wp:rfd. Letsdrinktea (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --- RockMFR 22:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: The decision to remove the redirect was based on assumptions which turn out to not be true.  The idea that nobody uses it any more is based on flawed data, the graphs showing there was no activity on %s when the raw data shows ~3600 hits per day as I and Phsource outlined above.  The idea that the need for the %s redirect is because of a Firefox 2 bug is also incorrect, more utilities have the same issue where a blank search generates a search for %s.
Furthermore, no evidence has been presented that %s needs its own page.  Evidence against is the lack of searches for %d.
And no vote was taken on removing the redirect, despite it being a known contentious issue.
Therefore, I propose putting the redirect back, BUT with a provision to remove it in the future based on the traffic data.
I propose we agree on a minimum number of hits per month to %s where we decide there's no longer enough users to support the redirect, rather than somebody coming along and just deciding to change it.  Rather than picking an arbitrary number, I propose that when %s (remember to use the raw data as the graphs often get it wrong) gets less traffic than either scanf_format_string or printf_format_string we conclude that there's no longer enough users making use of the redirect to support its special case.  Based on how fast %s is dropping off this will probably be in a couple years.
Then we don't have to have a fight about this every few months.  How's that?
--Schwern (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we at least redirect it to Special:Search to make it consistent?  — Dispenser 22:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The redirect is for people who use a search keyword with no search as a shortcut to the main page.  Redirecting it to the search page defeats the point.  --Schwern (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  A blank search from the site search box or Firefox 16's search box shows Special:Search.  This is intentional as users may want to select namespaces or avoid redirects.  And due to some weird quirk, it's the only way a search like "User: Dabfinder" will work.  — Dispenser 05:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I understand you correctly, your argument is that since a normal blank search goes to Special:Search then the %s blank search should also go to Special:Search to be consistent, yes?  This comes down to what the user expects.  Expecting a blank search to go to the main page is a quirk, but its a quirk that's been around for years and a subset of users (those whose search widgets produce a %s) have gotten used to.  Unfortunately I can't say how many of the 3600 hits per day represent users who prefer that behavior and how many are annoyed at it.  Given that there wasn't a huge backlash this time when %s was changed, there might not be many left.  Your argument makes sense and I cannot refute it with data.  At this point I think I will drop the torch.  Personally I've adapted by adding a keyword specifically for the front page.  --Schwern (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put the redirect back & establish a sunset