Module talk:Find sources

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Baratiiman (talk | contribs) at 17:07, 13 May 2023 (Template-protected edit request on 12 May 2023: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Baratiiman in topic Template-protected edit request on 12 May 2023
WikiProject iconReliability
WikiProject iconThis module is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Missing options

Please add the new links added to {{Find sources}} here as well. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Edit request 22 November 2022

Description of suggested change:

Change this: Find sources: "example text" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (July 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

To this: Find sources: "example text" – Google (news · newspapers · books · scholar) · JSTOR (July 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Diff:

Change this: Find sources: "example text" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (July 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

To this: Find sources: "example text" – Google (news · newspapers · books · scholar) · JSTOR (July 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

ORIGINAL_TEXT
+
CHANGED_TEXT

Uni3993 (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 03:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Uni3993 is requesting that Template:Find sources mainspace be formatted the same way as Template:Find general sources so it's clear each link executes a different Google search. It makes sense to me. Only question is can we drop the quoted text in favor of "Google" or keep both? Otherwise, the edits to Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources mainspace are pretty straightforward. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Wikmoz I prefer my version but that version would work for me too, so who will make the change, I'm not allowed to do it. Uni3993 (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
So sorry, Wikmoz, I meant to mention Uni3993's previous TPER at Template talk:More citations needed. The TE asked that this be discussed here. So an edit request is not really warranted until more editors opine about the change. Thank you very much for your input! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 07:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Uni3993 has proposed that {{Find sources mainspace}} be formatted the same way as {{Find sources}} with respect to clearly identifying Google search links by wrapping them in parentheses.

I've applied these necessary edits in the module sandbox: Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources mainspace/sandbox. Three edits: 1. Added "Google" link; 2. Added separator = ' ( ' ; 3. Added afterDisplay = ' )' at end of link set.

The benefit here is that the link targets are no longer ambiguous. The slight downside is that the "Google" link goes to the same target as the quoted search term. However, we're not short on space here so I don't see that as too much of a problem at all.

CURRENT: {{Find sources mainspace}}

PROPOSED: {{Find sources mainspace/sandbox}} (actual edit applied in Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources mainspace/sandbox)

The edits are fairly surgical so not sure how much testing is necessary. Open to feedback @Paine Ellsworth, Mathglot, and Pppery:. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wikmoz Looks good, maybe the quoted keyword that will be searched doesn't have to be linked to Google. That would be nice, so it would mean this keyword will be searched in Google and JSTOR and whatever service, not only Google. Uni3993 (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yes, looks good to me, too. I also think one doesn't need to link the keyword field (which could be many keywords). The "testing not necessary" makes me nervous; Template:Find sources mainspace/testcases doesn't exist, but Template:Find sources mainspace/sandbox does and already invokes the Module sandbox version; the testcases page could be easily cloned from the first two sections at Template:Find sources/testcases, and if those tests pass, that should be a good indication that it's good. Adding @Primefac and Sdkb: to ping list. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
I like the idea of removing the link from the quoted text. However, I think we'd have to remove the introLink and code it into the blurb, or modify the introLink code to allow plain text. I remember there was some complicated logic around repeating the article title so I'm not sure how to do this or if it's worth the effort given the additional testing that would then be required. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Find France sources

Reminder to self (or any interested party) that we have {{Find France sources}} as a working template that should be converted to the Module config. More eyes to look it over again and refine the search urls if possible would be nice (I just tweaked one param on Qwant that improved results a lot), and then convert it over. Mathglot (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

-wikipedia

This has been previously brought up in 2019 and 2021, and I'd like to bring it up again and see about pushing it to the finish line. The Find Sources module adds "-wikipedia" to the search strings by default. Personally, I'm just tired of removing that every time I use the template links. Adding "-wikipedia" to a search term may have once been a good idea, but in 2022, it's no longer a good idea, because these days, the word "Wikipedia" appears in many, many reliable sources, and "-wikipedia" would exclude any page that has the word "wikipedia" on it (indeed, many reliable sources now cite Wikipedia, even if they do so with caution, and almost every Google Book page for a book by a notable author has a knowledge panel with the word "Wikipedia", example below). If we want to exclude this website from search results, the correct string would be "-site:wikipedia.org". So, I'd like to propose removing "-wikipedia" or changing "-wikipedia" to "-site:wikipedia.org", which would exclude results from this website without excluding every other website that has the word "wikipedia" on it.

For example:

  • Searching Google Scholar for wikipedia [1] brings 2.5 million results. That's how many pages are excluded by adding -wikipedia to a Google Scholar search string.
  • Searching Google Scholar for "quantum mechanics" [2] yields as the top result a 2012 book published by Springer called Principles of Quantum Mechanics. That's working as it should. BUT...
  • Searching Google Scholar for "quantum mechanics" -wikipedia [3] yields as the top result a book from 1998 called Quantum Mechanics. The 2012 book Principles of Quantum Mechanics is pushed down to the third page of search results [4].
  • Why? I think because the Google Books page for the 2012 book has the word "Wikipedia" on it -- it's the author knowledge panel that Google pulls from us -- but the Google Books page for the 1998 book doesn't have that Wikipedia knowledge panel on it and thus doesn't have the word "Wikipedia".

In sum, adding "-wikipedia" de-emphasizes the newest and thus most relevant results, so we should remove that string or replace it. It kind of defeats the purpose of having these Find Sources links in the templates in the first place.

I'm not sure if anyone is watching this page, but thoughts? What's the process for establishing consensus and making a change to a protected module? Thanks, Levivich (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

We should keep the exclusion term, but modify it to add the site: search param. The idea behind adding -wikipedia as an exclusion search term is a good one, but per your objections, it wasn't executed properly. The term should be: -site:wikipedia.org. If done that way, it will no longer exclude books or other documents with the word wikipedia on it.
Your comment and reasoning are valid, even if your example was not. Principles appears on the third page anyway, even if the query is formatted properly (e.g., like this). Further, in the original version of the query, the fact that Principles appears on the third page is good evidence that the book does *not* have the word wikipedia in it anywhere (that's the whole point of the exclusion term, to exclude such results; that this isn't always the case gets into the fine points of the search ranking algorithm, but that's getting way beyond scope here and doesn't change the argument). The fact that it's still on the third page anyway, means that Google's ranking algorithm is ranking other results higher, and has nothing to do with documents that do, or do not, have the term wikipedia in them.
However, keeping the exclusion term is still a good idea, and your basic argument is still correct, so the exclusion term in the module should be modified accordingly to add the site: search param. Mathglot (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, but what is the purpose of adding -site:wikipedia.org to a Google Scholar or Google News search string, since neither site indexes Wikipedia.org? (Remove the minus sign and I get no results.) It makes sense to add the exclusion for Google Web tho. Levivich (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Template-protected edit request on 12 December 2022

Please change "WP Library" to "TWL" as it is the more common term (see reference page). Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just as a passing comment: TWL is a lot unclearer for me as someone who knows nothing about The Wikipedia Library. TWL is just another TLA on wikipedia (of many) whereas at least you can gather that WP Library stands for Wikipedia Librabry even if you have a passing knowledge of Wikipedia. Terasail[✉️] 22:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Why not spell it out in full as "Wikipedia Library" or "The Wikipedia Library"? * Pppery * it has begun... 02:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Going ahead with this, because the tooltip for when a mouse hovers gives away "The Wikipedia Library", and "TWL" is more consistent with the other source-link initialisms. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 17:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Template-protected edit request on 6 January 2023

Add to Category:Articles for deletion templates as it is used at Template:Afd2. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 06:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

You need to specify what template you want the category added to. Presuming you mean Template:Find general sources (the target of Template:Find sources AfD), I'm not convinced it belongs in that category since its used for far more than AfD discussions. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Edit request 16 March 2023

Description of suggested change: Change the link for the "WP refs" link to the one used in WP:RSSE. Much more accurate than the current one (which as an example, the current one, when searching "Euro Truck Simulator 2", has a top result for "download.com" to "download" the game, as opposed to the RSSE one which has the top result of the game's page on Metacritic) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do you have the list of domains searched by the RSSE google custom search? The existing one lists 496 sites, and the list is open to view to anyone. I don't think we should change it to any list that isn't transparent about what is being searched. If it's already there, maybe I didn't see it; can you point me to it? Mathglot (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't believe the existing one is actively maintained. Is there an issue with one that isn't transparent about what's being searched? It says its limited to those published by "well-known reliable sources", but I"ve asked on the talk page about what sources are specifically used. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Barkeep has answered there. Consider further whether that's the set of pages you'd like to search. Izno (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Template-protected edit request on 12 May 2023

add google with brave search and sci hub Baratiiman (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: 1. We will not be linking to Sci Hub. 2. We already have one Google search. I don't see a reason to use a second. Izno (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
but google and bing dont work in my country only brave Baratiiman (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply