This talk page is intended for discussion of template content and links. For discussions relating to technical aspects of the Find sources template, see Template talk:Find sources
Module:Find sources is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible module. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit.
This 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.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability
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]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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#654501:09, 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#654513:53, 20 March 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]
Add Reuters and AP search as link codes to the Find sources module. There is some discussion on this change at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Replace nyt with reuters; while the proposal to replace NYT with Reuters is clearly controversial, there seems to be less controversy with adding it (and/or the Associated Press) as an option, and in either case having them available as a link codes would be a prerequisite.
I believe adding the following to the code in Module:Find sources/links should work (though I'd appreciate a double check; also as far as I know news wires are not italicized as titles the way newspapers are, but again, a double check on language and formatting would be appreciated):
["ap"]={url='https://apnews.com/search?q=$1',display="Associated Press",description="The [[Associated Press]], an American news agency",},
["reuters"]={url='https://www.reuters.com/site-search/?query=$1',display="Reuters",description="[[Reuters]], an international news agency",},
Not opposed, but imho, this isn't the sort of thing that should just be added to the module as a simple response to an edit request (although I think it's fine to request it that way), but by broader consensus, as this would have a wide impact. Mathglot (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me! Two questions:
I want to make sure I really understand the change I proposed here, since I'm not generally familiar with modules. I was under the impression adding the link codes wouldn't impact existing templates, though looking more into it, it also seems like there's no configurability in the current templates so maybe adding the link codes is a useless no-op. Is the right thing here to seek consensus on the full change altogether (i.e. get consensus on adding one or both newswires to the find sources template before making any changes like adding them as options to the link codes list)?
Is the right place to seek consensus the VPR thread (Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Replace nyt with reuters)? Adding the sources to the default find sources does seem like a pretty major change, and I assume a handful of editors doesn't make a proper consensus for something like that.
As for #1, you're correct; merely adding the config wouldn't change the behavior. Not sure about the second half of #1, but as it wouldn't do anything and consensus isn't guaranteed, it seems to me it would just be clutter, and there's no rush, so why bother?
#2 Wasn't aware of it until you mentioned it, but VPR is a highly visible location and one possible venue, so as it's open there already, that would certainly be the place to gain consensus for it, imho. I'm not a gatekeeper here, just trying to add my own opinion about your questions, but as it's a highly visible change, imho a solid consensus should be sought. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are two relevant entities here: Module:Find sources and Template:Find sources. The module is the sort of core, which contains the structure for adding links, whereas the template is what determines which links are actually used, and is what appears on many talk pages. There are a few other templates that also use the module core.
Adding AP and Reuters to the module is something I'd support, as they could feasibly be used. But adding them to the find sources template in addition to NYT is something I'd oppose, as that'd be the first step down the path that ends with us listing every large-scale reliable news organization, and then we have something that's no longer one line but half a dozen, contributing to talk page bloat and banner blindness. We need to think about that actual workflow that someone search for sources for an article goes through. It's generally not to go to the website of every reputable news organization to see what coverage they have; rather, it's to use Google News, which will bring up stories from the NYT, AP, Reuters, and all the others. {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
["bbc"] = {
url = 'https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=$1',
display = "BBC",
description = "[[BBC]], British public broadcaster",
},
["wsj"] = {
url = 'https://www.wsj.com/search?query=$1',
display = "Wall Street Journal",
description = "The website of ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', a [[newspaper of record]] for the United States.",
},
Ack, I'm only seeing this now, but this was a bad outcome, starting us down the path that'll end with us listing a dozen different high-profile newspapers. I've come to the view that we shouldn't be listing any newspapers individually in the find sources bar — the geographic hurdles, combined with the difficulty of achieving consensus on the outlets to use, and the banner bloat issue, are part of the reason. But really the main thing is just that people don't generally find sources by looking through archives in specific publications — they instead do searches on Google News or other databases that turn up broader results. {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Module talk:Find sources/links
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Done Note this specific edit does not change the output of any Find Sources template, which is controlled by the relevant subpage of Module:Find sources/templates. Hence this edit is innocuous and never required consensus. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)