Talk:Search/Old

Welcome, Bienvenido, Bienvenue, Wilkommen!

Talk about the new search engine! Problems? Questions? Feature requests? Any are fair game.

Can't find hyphenated forms

lsearchd finds 19 hits for "wholly-owned", while CirrusSearch finds about 6,000 hits for "wholly-owned", almost all of them being "wholly owned", which is correct. How will mishyphenations be found and corrected? Chris the speller (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Chris the speller: "wholly-owned"~0 should show this, but it seems it doesn't. This means that it doesn't have that exact combination in it's history, which might be due to the index not being complete yet. —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 14:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

TheDJ: I've checked the lsearchd results, and any results there are out of date and thus no longer shown in the up to date cirrus search or the hits are in urls (which are excluded from the cirrus indexing I vaguely remember).

There is documentation on the possibilities of Cirrus here: mw:Help:CirrusSearch —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 14:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

TheDJ: Thanks, but I am already familiar with the possibilities and the state of the index. I have used CirrusSearch extensively. What I should have asked is "How will mishyphenations be found and corrected, now that the developers are determined to foist a search engine upon us that is bereft of function?" Chris the speller (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems that 'upvoting' results causes the exact match to drop below the fold. I have reported this as: bugzilla:70905 —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 21:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The real fix for this problem will come in response to bugzilla:70950, not 70905. Chris the speller (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

BUG: Some pages can not be reached with the new search! They are inaccessible and seem not to exist!

Today I spotted a huge problem with the new search enginge. I believe its about capitalization but am not sure about.

Problem description (in the german wikipedia):

Yesterday I searched for STS (new search enabled). I believed there must be a page with the lemma STS, a disambiguation for the abbreviation STS. Entering STS into the searchbox I automatically get to the page de:Staatssekretär with the hint (StS leads to this page). So I searched a bit more for this disambiguation page. But it was impossible to find one. so I created a new page called de:STS (Begriffsklärung). I used the new search to find meanings of STS. All I could find was about 6 meanings, which I wrote down at this new page.

Today I disabled the new search engine, and voila ... a page named de:STS appeared. And there are about 20 meanings I coul'd never have found with the new search engine.

After this I made some tests, and my result is: de:STS is inacessible with the new search engine! I could not find any way to access this page. No way! Everything I tried ... STS seemed not to be existing.

So what about this? Any Ideas? Entering STS brings me directly to de:StS instead of de:STS. Is this a problem with capitalization? -- ~ Lord van Tasm (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Lord van Tasm: Now I made a new test after a hint of a user who could not reproduce the bug. And the bug is away ... has anybody fixed it? One hour ago the bug was still there ... Lord van Tasm (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

mmm Mbilizi.leonard (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Bug exact image name can't find

This image: No_SVG.svg can't be found on the first 100 hits with the exact file name. The image is from 2014-05-27

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=100&offset=0&ns6=1&search=No_SVG.svg → User: Perhelion 12:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems now working... → User: Perhelion 05:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Shut off the crappy MediaWiki seach and use Google: http://www.google.de/search?q=site%3Acommons.wikimedia.org+filetype%3Asvg+file%3ANo_SVG.svg&oq=site%3Acommons.wikimedia.org+filetype%3Asvg++file%3ANo_SVG.svg → User: Perhelion 12:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

very good man i liked it.

Perhelion: Karan shankar (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

40 hits in old search, zero hits in new search

please try this search: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=intitle%3A%22education+research%22+OR+intitle%3A%22educational+research%22&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go Fgnievinski (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I've submitted a bug report here: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67735 187.8.22.234 (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

How anarchism can solve Israel - Hamas problem?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Anarchism is defined by some as a philosophy in which any action or idea should be dismantled if it cannot be justified. So if war is not not justified then it should be stopped. It applies to both Hamas and Israel. Advanisg (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question about the new search

Does the tester need to be on the desktop in order to see the new search function? Adam245 (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

i have try

I first used it , I have try . Pojun518 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Search prefs

I can't find a way to get more than 20 search results by default. Is this not possible? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: This is not currently possible —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 14:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to look through Bugzilla at some point to see whether it has been requested. 20 search results is almost never useful for me: I either need one (the matching page) or 100. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It tried to use 20 if no preference is specified, but because the way the function works it always specifies the rclimit preference as fallback. Since that defaults to 50 it means you never get to use the 20 that the caller specified.

It's a stupid function so I just removed the preference fallback on search pages. rclimit mentions many places in which it is used but search results isn't one of them. Considering how much I loathe preferences I would be very unlikely to consider introducing one for this. 😂 (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

^demon: Why did "the caller specify" 20? My rclimit is 200 (two hundred) and I still found that too short fairly often.

I'm willing to live with a Javascript hack, if that would avoid creating yet another preference. What I don't want is my current workflow:

1. Search for something in the Wikipedia: namespace that I know I read a long time ago.

2. Argh, there are only 20 out of five thousand pages showing. No wonder I can't find what I'm looking for. Switch to 500 items.

3. Next page.

4. Next page.

5. Next page.

6. I'm not finding it. Maybe that was foo bat instead of foo bar. Search again.

7. Argh, there are only 20 out of five thousand pages showing AGAIN. Switch to 500 items AGAIN.

8. Repeat from step 3 four or five times, until I'm ready to use Google search on the site to avoid this nonsense and/or go to San Francisco to strangle whoever is responsible for this.

P.S. If you wanted to create another really useful pref setting, it would be "Don't include old AFDs in my search results unless I specifically ask for them". But I realize that this, too, is something of a niche setting.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: Most users aren't looking for 200 results :) I think a JS trick would do it for now for you--the 'limit' parameter is what you'll want to set.

Longer term as we revisit how Advanced Search works we could possibly move the limiting there as well and make it sticky like ns prefs are. 😂 (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find text inside of templates.

For example if I search the IMDb-ID of en:12 Years a Slave (film), "2024544", I just get an result, if I use the old search. CennoxX (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

CennoxX: There is a new keyword for this called insource In a followup step, there will be some attention spend on improving the Search UI, to make these more advanced options a bit more usable. —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 14:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Deactivated all Beta features

Today I deactivated all Beta features. First: the talk-pages are only in English. I don't know whether I could only post feedback in English or in other languages and I know, many people don't give feedback at all because of this. Second: I will not test any software from the WMF, until the Foundation keeps the superprotect right, which is a thread to all communities. Don-kun (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, why no seperate talking pages in each language? Looks like wikipedia becomes more like facebook. Can we please stop this? Lexikon-Duff (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Lexikon-Duff: People are welcome to post in any language they desire. There are usually people around who will provide a translation into another language. It is very simple, people who need to READ this, mostly share one common language and that is English. So a feedback page in swahili is useless, because no one would do anything with that feedback. —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 14:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@TheDJ "It is very simple..." just create seperate talking pages for each wiki. Greets Lexikon-Duff (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Lexikon-Duff: And what will that achieve ? who is going to read it or even visit all those pages ? There would be too many to keep track off. —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 20:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be even simplier: give the feedback-pages an intro in the most common languages, that says everyone can write in the language they prefer. Maybe also track from where the users come from and set a suitable language at the top of the intro. (but not remove the other! the best guess may not be the right one!) Don-kun (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you Don-kun Train990 (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Chun Lee Lexikon-Duff (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"United States" as the most relevant article?

Using the existing/old search on WP-en, a search for "the village of the roses" yields the following results:

1. Glassan: "also the Village of the Roses is a small village in rural County Westmeath, Ireland."
2. Wild Rose: "Wild Rose is a village in Waushara County, Wisconsin, United States."
3. Rose-Belle:"Rose-Belle is a village of southeastern Mauritius"

With Search enabled:

1. United States (redirect The United States of America) (section Literature, philosophy, and the arts)
2. Houston (redirect The Capital of the Sun Belt)
3. Minnesota (redirect Symbols of the State of Minnesota)...

Glassan does not appear to be within the top 30,000 results (I checked). The disambiguation page, Glasson, which also contains the target string, is at number 23,600. Search appears to be treating words like the and of as equally important to nouns, and then ranking them according to "meshiness". Removing those words brings Glassan to number 2,048, with the disambiguation page somewhere between 3000 and 3500

In other words, Search supports all the biases of Wikipedia (American articles are linked to more American articles, boosting their ranking), struggles to identify important words and ignores perfect matches. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Bleh. We're actually rolling out a performance improvement now that fixes this. You can (prematurely) enable the performance improvement with a url parameter like so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=the+village+of+the+roses&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&cirrusUseAllFields=yes Manybubbles (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, it works a lot better all right. I'll probably still just disable the beta version until that improvement has been rolled out - it's a bit too beta for me. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Feature request: Search depth for Categories

According to Help:CirrusSearch, you can use incategory:"Categoryname" to search for Items in a specific Category. However, this does only give you results from this specific category, not from its sub-categories. For file search at Commons it would be incredibly helpful if one could specify a search depth/number of subcategories to be included as it is implemented in tools like Catscan. The way it works now is, to be honest, next to useless for this application. El Grafo (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely want to do this! We've already got a bug for it, we just haven't really started implementing it yet. Catscan and FactCCI are the two tools I'll be looking at for ideas :) 😂 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Tools for WikiGnomes

I mostly find small problems in English Wikipedia and fix them. I have developed a variety of searches which find such errors. An example would be at this search for the ordinal error 1th which works with the old search, but not when the new search is turned on. I have a long series of similar searches set up at w:en:User:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Ordinals. I haven't found ways to do this in the new search. I think it is likely that I will have to rewrite my many queries, but right now I'm not even sure such things will be possible. Please suggest how to move forward. SchreiberBike (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I did some poking and think I found the root cause: -"quoted phrase" is being misinterpreted. I've filed that as Bugzilla:70301 and will work on it soon. NEverett (WMF) (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I proposed a fix for what I think caused your issue. In all likelyhood it'll head to wikipedias next Thursday. You can work around it by replacing the - before the quotes with NOT. This won't be required after next Thursday. In addition the <<-广声法师>> clause won't work until this Thursday - there is a fix for that heading out as well. NEverett (WMF) (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

And another thing: thanks for doing this work. Its something I really want to make sure we don't totally bust with Cirrus. I don't imagine it'll be a perfect switch but I want to make sure nothing becomes impossible. NEverett (WMF) (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. I'll give it another try at the end of next week and let you know how it works. SchreiberBike (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tried turning New Search back on and the results I get look about the same as they did when I first posted above. SchreiberBike (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

OK! I found another problem with Cirrus after trying your query again. It was kind of being masked by your first problem. I've proposed a fix for it (https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/161474/) but haven't yet got it reviewed. Once its reviewed I'll try to get it released quickly and verify your query works. It might not be Monday but it should be soon. NEverett (WMF) (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look now! NEverett (WMF) (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This is great. It looks like I think it's supposed to look. I'll play with it some more and see if I can turn up any problems. Also, I'm getting more results with Cirrus than with the old search; that's good. The new search also takes the portions in quotes more literally than the old e.g. a search for "1th" only returns articles with that exact string included. Thanks! SchreiberBike (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for finding and reporting this. I'm glad its working well for you now! NEverett (WMF) (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been playing with Cirrus search in English Wikipedia for a bit and one difference I'm finding, which is significant for the kind of work I do, is that it doesn't see the hidden text of references. For instance, if I run a search for "XIth century -368vebleninstinct" (not in quotes) in the old system, the article w:en:Workmanship does not come up because one of the references in that article has the string 368vebleninstinct in a web address. However when I run that with the new search, it does come up. That also means that I can't search for other articles which use that same reference (although there may be a special search for that). If that's a deliberate choice, I can adjust my queries to not use the hidden text of references as exclusion criteria, but I'd rather not.

I've also noticed that the new search does not pick up the comment text of {{clarify}} templates in the form {{Clarify|date=October 2014|reason=Should this be '1st', '11th' or something else?}}. Again, that's something I can work around if needed, but if I don't have to that would be better.

Another possible problem: With the new search, a search for "XIXth century" (not in quotes) has w:en:Provisional Government of the French Republic in its results, but that article doesn't have the word century in it. Same for w:en:German military administration in occupied France during World War II. On the other hand, some articles, such as w:en:Cathar castles in a search for "XIth century", have come up in the new search that never did in the old search. SchreiberBike (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for trying it!

By default Cirrus tries hard to search on visible text to make results make more sense for casual readers. So not picking up hidden text in templates is totally intentional. It has a syntax to search in the article's source though. Searching for <<XIth century -insource:368vebleninstinct>> doesn't pick up w:en:Workmanship like lsearchd did with your old search. Is that a decent work around?

I can explain w:en:Provisional Government of the French Republic as well. It does contain the word century but its hidden and Cirrus doesn't properly remove the text. Its in the navbox at the bottom of the page which you can explode by clicking "French Topics". I've filed this as bugzilla:71562. I figured out what was up by adding ?action=cirrusdump to the page and searching for the word "century" in the result. Its in the "auxiliary_text" field which is usually stuff like image captions and tables. In this case the navbox snuck in. NEverett (WMF) (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been using the new search for a while and have liked it, especially the fact that it doesn't see things in the source text like linked URLs, but I ran into a possible issue with this search on English Wikipedia for example. It looks for "11st" which is usually an error intended to be be "11th". In the search above, it turns up places where one line ends in a "1" and the next line starts with a "1st". I don't think that is what is intended, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. SchreiberBike (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, will "intitle" searches be available in new search. They don't seem to work now. Thanks. SchreiberBike (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Filed the 11st issue here: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73558

I think its caused by how we squash the extra text. You can work around it for now by searching for insource:/ 11st /. Its not as good because it wants spaces only rather than word breaks. You could also try insource:11st. Its _probably_ not as effected by the bug.

Also, can you give me an example of intitle not working? Its working for me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=intitle%3Atelecom&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&profile=advanced NEverett (WMF) (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember what I was working on when I ran into the problem, but I think this is similar. Even with "Falklands" in quotes, it returns items without that string in the title. I get similar results for "Thrushes". Thanks SchreiberBike (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

General Search Behaviors

When zero results are found, it would be helpfull to remove special characters from the search string and rerun the search without them. Eg in the german WP it's often not clear, if a title uses a - or a (eg UEFA Champions League but Fußball-Bundesliga). Eg a search for Fußball Regionalliga 2014/15 even in the did you mean results does not show the correct article which is Fußball-Regionalliga 2014/15 88.144.205.72 (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

New search not good at searches of the form "Bloggs, Joe"

I do a lot of reference improvement on Wikipedia. Our cite templates put the last name of an authors first, followed by a comma, and the given name (e.g., "Bloggs, Joe"). One very common task among people who improve references is to look for existing articles for reference authors so that authorlinks can be added. This was conveniently done for instance in Firefox by just highlighting the name and using the right click menu to search on Wikipedia as I have it setup to do. The old search was pretty amazing at finding the correct author article even when the search had the names backwards. The new search engine is hit or miss and overall I would say it is pretty terrible at it. For example a search for "Gettleman, Jeffrey" on the English Wikipedia completely misses the existing article "Jeffrey Gettleman". I'd estimate that the new search "completely misses" the obvious intended page about a quarter of the time when using this search format. About half the time the intended target is within about the top 5 results. And the remaining quarter of the time it actually finds the target. This is compared to the old search which is almost always spot on.

I don't know how the internals of the old search work, but I would venture a guess that when a search term like "X, Y" is given, it does a search for "X, Y" and "Y X". Perhaps that is missing in the new search. When I said above that the old search was pretty amazing, I meant it. Very often, it returns the intended result first even when initials are used for the first and/or middle name. It's also possible that it was taking into account redirects and stuff to figure out the intended target.

I've been using the new search (the beta implementation) for a while now. My overall impression is that except for the above issue, where the new search is inferior, I haven't noticed any significant change in quality of the returned results. They are about equally good and I would have trouble noticing which engine I was using if I had to guess. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Another example on the English Wikipedia I found right after my post above is "Georgiadis, Nicholas J." which does not list any author article in the results. Searching for "Nicholas J. Georgiadis" still does not find any author article. Finally if "Nicholas Georgiadis" is searched, it finds the article for "Nicholas Georgiadis". Clearly the search is not being as "fuzzy" as it needs to be. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I can explain the "Georgiadis, Nicholas J." issue - his page doesn't have a "J." in it at all. If you add a redirect from "Georgiadis, Nicholas J." to "Georgiadis, Nicholas" Cirrus will pick it up. Or something - so long as a J. ends up in the page. I tried the search with lsearch and it didn't find the "Georgiadis, Nicholas J." article at all either.

As for how the old search handles "X, Y" vs "Y X":

1. It searches for articles containing X and Y, unions the set together.

2. Of those, it runs down the positions of X and Y and if they appear close to each other and in the order they appear in the search query it pushes that match up in the ranking.

3. If they appear close together but not in the right order then it pushes them up, but not as far. (I think this is true, at least.)

Cirrus right now only does steps 1 and 2. I think I can replicate that last behavior in Cirrus which should help your searches.

There are other searches you could do in the mean time that'd pull the author up in the results but they aren't as quick to type. Stuff like <<Georgiadis, Nicholas hastemplate:"Template:Infobox person">>. It'd be useful for a tool but isn't fun to type. NEverett (WMF) (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This still seems to be an issue. The new search simply isn't good at finding articles when the given name and surname are reversed. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Its something that I spent some time working on but never got to finish. NEverett (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Documentation

The page for enabling beta features directs me for information to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Search. There I do not find a short, understandable description what the new search features are at present and what the difference to the old search is. Therefore, I do not bother to test this feature. WolfgangRieger (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I took a stab at adding that: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Search&diff=1180052&oldid=1173154 NEverett (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

How should a beta tester know what may be a bug and what not, if there is no specification of what is to be expected? WolfgangRieger (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The old search system didn't have a spec at all. Cirrus has grown one in the form of somewhat readable tests (http://git.wikimedia.org/tree/mediawiki%2Fextensions%2FCirrusSearch.git/master/tests%2Fbrowser%2Ffeatures) but if you know something used to work and it doesn't or if you think the results are worse then that is a good time to file a bug with examples. NEverett (WMF) (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Search Engine Sucks

Your current search engine is terrible. As an online writer for the past several years, I have used your photos to illustrate my writings, but it's impossible to find anything with this new search engine. The photos you used to have are all gone, and when you do a search for a specific subject, you get a bunch of manuscripts, not photos. I truly wish you'd return to the "thrilling days of yesteryear," when photos were photos, not manuscripts. Thanks for the opportunity to tell you how I feel. I'll be back when we have photos on Wikimedia again. Nancy Hardin (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of what used to work and doesn't now? I think you mean that searching commons used to find better photos.

For the next few months you can get the old behavior by searching and adding &srbackend=LuceneSearch to the end of the url. The parameter doesn't stick so you'd have to add it back after every search. It'd be super useful if you can provide an example of a search that works well with the parameter and sucks without it. NEverett (WMF) (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Why!!! Arafat Ahmed Khan (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Integrate Wikidata

Have a look at http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=108 Magnus Manske wrote a js-code that shows you if there is a wikidata-article and added this info to Spezial:Search. Another positive feature is that it shows the label which is added in wikidata. For example it tolds that Ågestasjön is a lake in Sweden. I added the code to my global.js page and it is really helpful. And there is an other point. I have looked into the help pages of the new Cirrus search and the old search and i found lots of possibilities i didn´t knew. I think you should try and find ways that the search-box gives more information to its users what is possible. For example, Spezial:Search could be used for searching files on commons. My guess is, that less than 1 percent of the users knew that. If commons will be integrated into Wikidata (commons:Structured data), search will be getting even more central to users. For example, below full text search in the box there could be integrated a search field for commons search (and wikidata search, called: "media and data search ..."). Molarus (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Serious Issue on fr.wikipedia

Hello. We notice a seroius issue with the new search engine on the fr.wikipedia. As there are many articles the title of which contains characters such as hyphen, shout out... By using the previous search engine, when you proposed names as for example our ministers Najat Vallaud Belkacem (instead of Najat Vallaud-Belkacem) or Jean Yves Le Drian (instead of Jean-Yves Le Drian) : the answer was immediate and we obtained the direct link towards the article. Today, nothing more. There is also un other issue related to the use in a title of ’ instead of ' et vice-versa. It's urgent ! AntonyB (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@User:NEverett (WMF), can you please take a look? Merci! Elitre (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I took a look and I'm not sure the old behavior was. The full text search seems to find the people when you search with or without the dash. Do you mean that find as you type search?

Is the ’ instead of ' issue also with prefix search? NEverett (WMF) (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't hesitate to request more information in order to understand as well as possible our trouble in France.

First screenshot (not OK today, that's was OK with the previous search engine): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jean-Yves_Le_Drian_-_Not_OK.jpg

Second screenshot (that's OK if we add the hyphen) : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jean-Yves_Le_Drian_-_OK.jpg AntonyB (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the screenshot. Its a prefix search issue. I've filed it here: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73560 NEverett (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking account the bug related to ’ v/s ' but what about our main trouble related to the hyphen as you can see on the two screenshots ? Thanks for your answer. AntonyB (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This bug should cover both cases. I'll start work on it this morning I believe. I don't think its going to take that long to finish but getting it deployed and the index rebuilt will take some time. The earliest this would be fixed is late late Monday CET. NEverett (WMF) (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

will this extension be part of the mediawiki bundle?

moving forward will this extension be bundled into new versions of mediawiki like vector, nuke, wikieditor, etc? or is this something that will always have to be manually installed? Renamed user G3DXr4qY3n (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to bundle CirrusSearch I'm afraid we can't as it'd require all 3rd parties to install Elasticsearch. That's a really really big discussion. 😂 (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

insource: and non-wikitext pages

(Ugh, Flow.) I just noticed that searching for "wg" on Wiktionary finds wikt:MediaWiki:Common.js, but "wg insource:/wg/" does not. Why? — Keφr 18:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally pretty neutral to positive on projects to build threaded talk pages. But I don't have the kind of experience with talk pages that others do. Anyway, that is beside the point.

For your real question: Lame reasons. See T88247. NEverett (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)