This template was considered for deletion on 2017 May 14. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

been planning on adding Sage and Cambridge Core. Any objections? ∯WBG^converse 06:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk)

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fair enough—certainly a bit clunkier to use, too. Just a thought. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,...

((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]