Module talk:Find sources
 | To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, all talk subpages of this page, as well as Template talk:Find sources and Template talk:Find sources mainspace redirect here. |
 | This module was considered for deletion on 2017 May 14. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
|
|
| Related pages |
|---|
Some google searches using this module have "-wikipedia" at the end
I've noticed an issue occurring with Template:Find sources mainspace that I believe originates with this module..
An example of what is occurring:
On this diff you can see Template:Article for deletion/dated at the top. The first two Find sources links search with "-wikipedia" included in the search term, which seems to negatively affect the results coming back.
I'm hoping that someone may know what is wrong so that this can be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanstrat (talk • contribs) 02:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Too complicated
This module seems to me like it is needlessly complicated. Why is it a good idea to store the configuration for each template in its own module subpage instead of in the wikitext of the template? That appears to make it harder to edit for no apparent reason. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am guessing because auto-documentation template also uses it? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- It would still be possible to implement autodoc even without /templates cfg pages. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- As I have just done. I also think that the /autodoc template config pages should also be in Wikitext and associated with the template, but it's not clear exactly where. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 15#Module:Find sources/templates/find sources. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources
Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Add Library Genesis?
I increasingly find Library Genesis to be a very helpful search engine for academic papers, more so than Google Books. In particular, it excells at finding book reviews. Ex. compare LG (blacklisted link removed -- * Pppery * it has begun... 01:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)) return hits and Google Scholar. I first noticed it few weeks ago while looking for reviews for this book I wrote an entry on. If anyone is concerned about legality, note that LG has been mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request (with a caution note) for quite a while now, with no objections/controversy. We could add a link to such note to the template through a tiny hperlink to address any related concerns. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Have
been planning on adding Sage and Cambridge Core. Any objections? ∯WBGconverse 06:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Fine with me. No objections, just like I presume no objections to my proposal above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Inclusion of NYT
I don't particularly have an issue with it, but I do want to just bring up for discussion the fact that the NYT is the only newspaper included with this template. While it is probably true that the NYT has the best claim to being the newspaper of record for the English speaking world, I'm saying that as an American, and I can imagine those in other English speaking countries objecting that the NYT is not the best source for them, and that perhaps another paper should be included, or that no specific paper should be included, so that Google News (a more dynamic way to find a quality source, but also not as curated) can be used instead. I guess my point is mainly that this template in some way implies that we're endorsing the NYT over every other newspaper, and while in a practical sense that's probably the reasonable thing to do for the situations this template is used for, we should at least have some discussion to establish a consensus. (Also, as a minor cosmetic note, NYT ought to be italicized, and I'd appreciate someone with template editing privileges making that fix.) - Sdkb (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Excluding non-Wikipedia source
I noticed the template's Google news search excludes this article, though the word 'wikipedia' does not seem to appear anywhere in it.
See: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- @Oornery: My best guess as to why this happens is that when Google crawled that page, it contained the text "Wikipedia", but it doesn't contain it any more. (Maybe it appeared in the "latest articles" feed or something like that.) However, if you notice a pattern of this occurring, it might be a good idea to report it to Google, as it might be a problem with their algorithm. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Internet Archive?
I use Internet Archive all the time to look for sources, especially on old topics. Would it make sense to include a full-text search of archive.org on this template? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, interesting thought. I do get a lot of sources value out of the Internet Archive, but I also see it as sort of a more advanced tool less essential than some of the others listed. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough—certainly a bit clunkier to use, too. Just a thought. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 24 July 2020
 | This edit request to Template:Find sources has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please italicize NYT
per MOS:ITALICS, since it's an abbreviation of the name of a newspaper. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't see the guidance you are referring to. Can you please quote the relevant MOS guidance? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Jonesey95, sure:
Italics should be used for the following types of names and titles, or abbreviations thereof:
- Major works of art and artifice, such as albums, books, video games, films, musicals, operas, symphonies, paintings, sculptures, newspapers,...
- To editors Sdkb and Jonesey95:
done, and also in {{Find video game sources}}. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 08:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 30 July 2020
| | This edit request to Module:Find sources and Template:Afd2 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please copy Module:Find sources/sandbox to Module:Find sources. This will allow the template to generate search queries for arbitrary page titles (specified by |title=) with parenthetical disambiguators separated from the main part of the title (this is already supported for the current page title).
Please also copy Template:Afd2/sandbox to Template:Afd2, which will make use of this new parameter.
I posted a section on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Find sources and parenthetical disambiguiators proposing these changes. There has been no response in the past week. The testcases are unaffected. The change is demonstrated in one of my sandboxes. Danski454 (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Done Please document the new parameter. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)