Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Why there is Ancestry.com in The Wikipedia Library? Ancestry.com is not reliable source. Vitaium (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It's true that genealogical sources aren't great to use on their own as references, but for biographical articles they can help identify birthplaces, relatives, military experience, citizenship, travel, circumstances of death, etc., that can be independently sourced once known. It's a great timesaver. Penny Richards (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

To add to what Penny said - we received a large number of requests for a partnership with Ancestry.com from editors who said they'd find it useful :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe also note here that Ancestry.com now seems to own Newspapers.com, one of my favorite sources. I also find this true of the (current) Wikipedia taboo site - Find A Grave, which is also owned by Ancestry.com. It's a starting place to help direct you in other areas for the research. — Maile (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally I think that Find A Grave is unfairly denigrated on this site. Sometimes it is a good source of information. Shame. Coretheapple (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the idea is brilliant, and would gladly enroll if eligible, but I keep getting a popup that says I don't have enough edits and that I haven't agreed to the terms of use. But in fact I have over 1400 edits, have been an editor since 2008 but the popup gives me nowhere to go to say so or agree to the terms of use. Possibly the problem is that the enrollment process switched my username to CharlesHBennettW which has no edits. As best I can remember CharlesHBennettW is an alternate username I created several years ago when I tried to join other Wikimedia projects like Wiktionary or Wikipedia.fr so I could contribute to them but for some reason the software wouldn't let me do so under my original username CharlesHBennett. If this is the problem can someone tell me how to merge these usernames, since I am just one person with no desire to lead a double life, or evade editing controls (I've even thanked people who reverted some of my ill-considered edits), and would like to belong to the Library and other projects, as well as Wikipedia.en where I do most of my edits, under one username.CharlesHBennett (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Mine seems to have expired. Can I get a renewal please. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: To request a renewal just head over to https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/, find Newspapers.com in 'My collections' and click 'Renew' or 'Extend' in that tile. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies if this has been asked before—going by the several section headers on this one page I'm sure it has!—but, when I click 'Go to site',it just takes me to the front page and asks me to sign in from there. What with? Many thanks in advance!  :) SN54129 12:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: When you first signed up for Newspapers.com you should have provided an email address for your account at Newspapers.com. They then upgrade that account to one which is 'subscribed' and gives you access to content. That access only lasts a year, however, and it looks like you last renewed a little over a year ago. If your login details don't work you probably need to click the 'Extend' or 'Renew' button on that Newspapers.com tile in the library. Does that help? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

hanks very much, Samwalton9 (WMF)! Of course, being me, I can't remember that email address, but I've had a go at extending my membership and we'll see how it goes from here. Thanks for your prompt assistance, and also for the baby steps  :) SN54129 12:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been browsing at my access on the Library Card Platform. Clicked on "Open Edition" - never viewed it before - what opened is entirely in French. At least, I think it's French. Here's the link it pulled up when I clicked on it:

https://www-openedition-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/

Is it supposed to be that way? — Maile (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Most of the content is French, but there is some English. If you need an English-language interface, there's a switcher in the top right. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I am searching for two UK Government reports, published in 1922. The Parliamentary archives tell me they are available through ProQuest.

The second is:

"EXPLOSION WHILE BREAKING DOWN .22 MINIATURE RIFLE CARTRIDGES AT DUDLEY PORT, STAFFORDSHIRE. EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875. FINAL REPORT TO THE RT. HON. EDWARD SHORTT, K.C., M.P., SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT, IN THE MATTER OF A FORMAL INVESTIGATION HELD AT THE VICTORIA LAW COURTS, BIRMINGHAM, ON 22ND MAY AND ON 24TH JULY, 1922, BY LIEUT.-COLONEL SAMUEL FLEMING"

and the first has the same title, without the words "FINAL" and "AND ON 24TH JULY,".

However, I can find neither report, accessing ProQuest via TWL, and searching for their full title, or on parts of the titles such as

Explosion While Breaking Down Miniature Rifle Cartridges at Dudley Port

Can anyone else see them? Do we get access to the full ProQuest contents, or are UK Parliamentary publications, or other parts, excluded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Different ProQuest subscriptions have different databases. I checked a college-based subscription I can access, and it includes more databases than the Wikipedia Library access. Using local public library card for online access gets me a different mix that's a little less than TWL's. More isn't automatically better, of course--the right handful of rich resources is better than a bucket of less applicable materials. But to answer your last question--no, TWL's ProQuest isn't the full contents of ProQuest. But maybe someone can get to the materials you need. Penny Richards (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Also: To tell how many databases your subscription accesses, there's a line under the search box on ProQuest that will say "You are searching 23 databases containing scholarly journals, books, videos & audio, dissertations & theses, newspapers and more" or "You are searching 4 databases containing scholarly journals, books, videos & audio, dissertations & theses, newspapers and more." (The former is how it reads when I go through a college-based portal; latter is from when I go through TWL.) Penny Richards (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for comparing. I'll try WP:REX. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I got a renewal notice, and for a while it worked, by logging in with my email-named account. But today I tried to search for some stuff and I get "You need a Publisher Extra Subscription to view this page" when I try to access a newspaper article, and my account settings are saying "You need a Publisher Extra Subscription to view this page." ... help? Ealdgyth (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I came here to ask about my Newspapers.com access as well. My access with them has been pending since...wait for it...2018. It's really helpful to get access to the information that sometimes is *only* available behind Newspapers.com's paywalls. Can anyone help? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Samwalton9 (WMF) Can you help me with this? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Same here. Can't access behind the paywall and I don't have the $76 to spend at the moment. -- Srwalden (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Newspapers.com access is given in 1-year increments, so you've has been expired for some time. To request a renewal just head over to https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/, find Newspapers.com in 'My collections' and click 'Renew' or 'Extend'. Once that's processed, you'll get another year of access and need to renew again once that's up. -- Netoholic @ 07:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Netoholic... I actually gave up on getting Newspapers.com through the Library and am paying for access but it would be really nice not to have to. Shearonink (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, whenever you're ready, follow the steps above. -- Netoholic @ 19:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I got an email on 9 Feb saying that my subscription had been renewed and that "You can expect to receive access details within a week or two once it has been processed." ... I've yet to receive such details and my account still shows "registered guest" status at newspapers.com. Am I missing something that I need to do? I've double-checked my spam folder and nothing there. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I've renewed my subscription a few weeks ago. Last year, it also took weeks after I applied to have access. It would be nice to get a faster response, but I know that it takes some time. – jona ✉ 13:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: - are you sure you are logging in to Newspapers.com using the same account email address you provided with your application? I got a confirmation on Feb 17 that your account was renewed. I'll add a comment to your application, please reply there. -- Netoholic @ 07:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for resolving this, it's working now. I'll try to remember this when I renew... heh. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Just renewed and it went smoothly. Thanks to all concerned! Coretheapple (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing an issue where my article title-search at the main TWL search page fails to find the article I'm interested in, but redoing the same title-search succeeds when performed instead from the partner's 'Access collection' search page.

Steps to reproduce:

1. The article in question is "The mythical 'Gerasimov Doctrine' and the language of threat" (doi=10.1080/21624887.2018.1441623).
2. Start by logging in at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ .
3. Search for The mythical 'Gerasimov Doctrine' and the language of threat (unquoted; include the single quotes which are are part of the title)
4. In this result page I see no relevant results among any of the 23 snippets on page 1—the only page of results.
5. Note: Based on a search at my public library digital offerings, I found a summary page (metadata, abstract) of the desired article, which named the publisher as "Taylor & Francis".
6. I went back to TWL my_library, and scrolled down to the Taylor and Francis badge, and clicked the blue Access collection button.
7. This brought me to an oclc.org domain search page for searching T&F only.
8. I entered the article title in the search bar, and clicked search.
9. This brought up this search results page, and the very first result was a snippet for my desired article.
10. Clicking the article snippet brought me to this url, which includes the doi in the url path.
    • Not only did this web page provide the metadata and abstract, but it contains the full text of the article on that page (in html format).
    • There is also a PDF button which allowed me to download the article in PDF format, and
    • an EPUB button which brings up a print-format version of the article in my browser.

So, I have a question and a comment:

• Why does the initial search fail? That seems like a bug to me, or is there something I'm missing? Should I file a phab ticket?
• Whether a bug or a feature, it seems to me there should be a doc page about searching TWL somewhere (is there one?) and it should include the fact that a failed search on the main page may not mean that TWL partners do not have the article being searched for, and that a more targeted search restricted to the collection of the individual partner may succeed where the more general search failed. It also implies that if the publisher/partner is known, it may be better to begin the search there.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding users @Sdkb, Wikmoz, SandyGeorgia, and Shibbolethink: who I believe may be interested in following this. Mathglot (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: I think some of the hyperlinks above have session data included, and if you click them directly you may not get to the same page I saw; you may have to go through all the steps in sequence, in order to see the same results. Mathglot (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure who can help with this issue so am pinging Samwalton9 (WMF), but happy for any help. Searching for the name of an academic in the search bar at the top of the my library page brings up numerous articles in Gale (multiple people I get the same situation). When you attempt to access the link, the results always end up giving a brief abstract and then say "Access from your library. This is a preview. Get the full text through your school or public library." If you go to the actual Gale page and press on the Academic One File tab, you can actually retrieve the complete article. BUT, if you then add the link (for example, {{Gale|A396768686}}) to your citation, it reverts to the abstract and not the full article. This is highly frustrating because the search links only stay active for like 15 minutes, so you have to find them, format them, save them in your article, within that short time frame or you are looking at an unrefreshable locked page. Then to access the full article you have to go back to the Gale page at the library to access. This seems like quite a roundabout way to work, especially if say two articles are comparing an academics work and you cannot see them simultaneously, unless of course you kill a bunch of trees and print them out. Is there a reason this has to be so difficult? Is there an easier way to get the citation template to revert to the full article rather than the abstract? SusunW (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey SusunW, I can't replicate that "Access from your library" behaviour searching via the library search bar - could you elaborate on your process there? For the citation, unfortunately full text is through the library proxy and citations generally shouldn't be proxied. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I'm not sure I can explain it any better. If I go to the main search bar the results are an abstract. Typing in a link that results for say Gale A396768686 I get the message as I said "Access from your library. This is a preview. Get the full text through your school or public library." I then have to back out of that, go to the library, sign in because it will have logged me out (annoying because it happens all the time, why won't it leave me signed in?), find the Gale icon, and search for the article name to get the full article. Then it doesn't stay live long enough for me to read the whole thing (unless its really short like this example), or even input the full source in a citation. Within a short period of time, it automatically goes to a page that says "Thanks for visiting! You have logged out successfully. Where can we take you? Library home page. Start a new session. Access Gale Academic OneFile." If I push on the Library home page link, I get an error message: "Welcome to Gale North America. You appear to be visiting us from Mexico." (No duh, I am in Mexico, which is in North America, hello.) If I press on start a new session, sometimes it works that I can paste the name of the file again and access it from the search result, but sometimes it doesn't. If I push on the access Gale, it takes me back to the abstract. Bottom line, I spend hours just trying to read, format and access a single source because of the roundabout way to access it and the short period of time it stays "live". SusunW (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The logging out sounds like it might be a browser issue or extension that blocks or clears cookies - that could potentially be contributing to the access problem as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to see if that was the case and so I waited a while to reply to troubleshoot. It isn't my browser and I don't have any extensions loaded that I am aware of. I don't get logged out of any other site, nor en.WP, only the library. I've examined the cookies and that isn't the issue either. Just did another search and actually tried to press that "Access from your library" button, Wikipedia doesn't come up and obviously, when I try to have it search using my location, you know, in North America, it tells me to try "Gale international", which also doesn't work. SusunW (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

maybe similar to Wikipedia_talk:The_Wikipedia_Library/Archive_6#Library_access_issues?.

I am using VPN/Proxy to access Wikimedia and have IPBE rights in enwp, metawiki. When using Search feature on TWL, the webpage pops up: "File missing: docs/suspend.htm". Then I can't login and access the library. I'm sure I only downloaded one article from Jstor collection to test the download feature. Kethyga (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

WOOOOOO! SN54129 13:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh excellent. Thank you for the happy news. Penny Richards (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thank you. Coretheapple (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Excellent news, keep up the good work! Mathglot (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Special:LinkSearch shows that we have almost 300 external links to the subdomain doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org, example https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22993-2.

The latter URL provides no useful content for someone who is not a signed-in Wikipedia Library user.

Should these be converted to DOI links, where possible?

Here is an example conversion; the rendering changes from:

Albrecht Rothacher (1993). The Japanese Power Elite. London: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 50.

to:

Albrecht Rothacher (1993). The Japanese Power Elite. London: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 50. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-22993-2.

Can a bot do this? Regularly? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

And here is a different conversion, requiring the use of {{doi}} for an otherwise untemplated citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Two groups where you might find someone to help-out w/ bots are -- WP:BOTREQ and WP:BOTS. Crossposting there might be useful. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Citation bot can be at least unleashed on a few of them. WP:AWB can handle the rest easily. Just search for "doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org" and replace with "doi.org" Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The latter would still leave a value in the |url= parameter, rather than |doi= (in the former example conversion) and not use {{di}} in the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you; I am familiar with them - but we first need to demonstrate consensus for the change . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Proxys are a blight on accessibility and web friendliness, and should be purged (I've nuked 50 or so links with Citation bot already). You've explained why above. Citation bot already does this on CS1/2 templates. The only thing that needs to be taken care with here is user pages / sandboxes and talk pages (where discussions like these refer to these links), and TWL pages, where there's a good chance someone has access to that proxy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Purged on the mainspace. Left the discussions/sandboxes alone for now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello and good day Wikipedians. I recently gained access to Newspapers.com via Wikipedia Library. I have submitted a request for Ancestory.com but I am aware that there is a wait list. How hard is it to get Ancestory.com access. If it is easy to gain access is it just a matter of accepting to many people at the same time? In short, can I expect any action on my request or should I just write it off as a long shot? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I actually emailed @Samwalton9 (WMF) about this yesterday. I'm sure he'll reply too, but he essentially said there's no news. I had Ancestry access until recently. There was a previous discussion about this here: Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library/Archive 6#Ancestry.com issue. It wasn't difficult to get access before, but it seems to be an issue at the moment. I guess "wait and see" is the answer. In the meantime, your local public library might have Ancestry access. TrottieTrue (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, TrottieTrue, even if it's a non-update update. It was such a useful subscription to have! I miss it daily, especially the time it saved in establishing basic details. Penny Richards (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Penny - yes, I agree, it was really useful. Let’s hope it comes back before too long. TrottieTrue (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Earlier today, I received an email with the log-in details for Ancestry via The Wikipedia Library. Thanks to those who have made this possible - it's a great resource, for which I am very thankful. Shame it's a new account, as it meant I had to copy all the stuff I'd saved to my Shoebox over to the new account. Hopefully next time I can just renew the Ancestry membership for this account. Penny Richards and Gandalf the Groovy, maybe you'll hear something soon. TrottieTrue (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I heard today! Very glad to have this tool again. Penny Richards (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Me too - although it looks like its already filled up all the available accounts. I wonder if any more might be added? An editor I know no longer has access to Ancestry, as it expired recently, so he's now on the "waitlist". TrottieTrue (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Netoholic: I have left you a message on the Library Platform my Application History. Newspaper.com was only a 3-month renewal. Strange. I see by the multiple threads above, that we are having subscription/renewal issues with Newspapers.com. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Netoholic: My Newspapers.com subscription expired sometime yesterday. I've requested a renewal on the Library Platform. But why only three months at a time, now? — Maile (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

That's weird, because I renewed in March also and mine came thru as 1 year. Could be a typo or something on their part. You should get a renewal in a couple days. Let me know if its not 1 year. -- Netoholic @ 06:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Netoholic: This really gets old. As of today, I cannot access the newspaper.com site, not through my normal account, nor through the Wikipedia Library. Lana at Newspapers.com Support emailed me on June 30 that my subscription was extended for a year. It was working yesterday. But as of today, although I can access all other subscriptions through the Library Platform, this one insists I go to the application. And the application tells me it was "sent to partner" on June 30, but no record of anything else. Please get this fast tracked. Thank you.

Alright, I just got in through my original account Newspaper.com by signing in there from scratch. But going through the Wikipedia Library Platform does not allow me access. — Maile (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thats correct. Newspapers.com doesn't work like many other Wikipedia Library resources. It requires you to be logged in on Newspapers.com, the WL link is really just a redirect to their website. -- Netoholic @ 02:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! That explains it, then. I need to log like I always did. — Maile (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Recently, my application for the Ancestry.com World Explorer membership was approved, and I was emailed login details for my account, with which I was successfully able to log in. However, the account is only has a "registered guest" membership and not the World Explorer membership that is listen on the Wikipedia Library. I tried calling Ancestry.com tech support and they had no idea about the Wikipedia Library, much less on how to help me. I know there are previous discussions about this, but no one seems to be having this specific issue. Any help here? Thanks in advance! AgeOfPlastic (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Readers of this page may be interested in a discussion taking place about providing better access to partner direct search links, by means of a configurable nav box with links that go straight to the partner search page (or even to the partner's search result page, under parametric control). Please see Template talk:TWLJ#Reimagine as direct access nav box. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

For months I've been able to access and download articles from JSTOR. For no reason I can determine, I'm now back on a limited access basis, meaning I can access up to 100 articles per month but I can only view them online, not as downloaded pdf's. With that, I'm now uncertain about my status as a WP Library user. I recall signing up, but none of the particulars.

How do I determine if I'm in fact registered? I'd also appreciate feedback on my access to JSTOR. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

In fishing around a bit, I was able to access JSTOR through the Library's listing. This provides me with the download feature, so generally speaking I'm okay with that. The downside is that for months I was able to navigate directly to JSTOR, which I do frequently. Apparently, I'm now going to have to go through an additional step. Does anybody know why or how this changed? Allreet (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Going through the Library's listing loads the oclc.org proxy. If you log into jstor.org with a username/password (if the Library still supplies one), you won't need the proxy. czar 02:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet: As Czar explained, the only way for websites like JSTOR to know you're a Wikipedia editor and accessing via the library is to go to https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/, sign in, and click the 'Access Collection' button under the relevant entry. You'll then be routed via the IP proxy, so that JSTOR can know where you've come from and that you should have access :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Czar and@Samwalton9 (WMF). What's strange is that I was able to access JSTOR articles without going through the library for 2-3 months. So I was surprised yesterday to find I was back on the 100-articles-a-month plan. I'm sure there's an explanation for how that happened, but I don't need to know. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Allreet My very untechnically-oriented experience is that when I search google, I get and can access Jstor without signing in as long as the Wiki-Library has not decided to arbitrarily sign me off of the library. I do not know why this happens, as I do not get signed out of Wikipedia, only the library, repeatedly. If I sign back in to the library, the Jstor access returns without limits until the WPLibrary signs me out again. I assumed this only happened to me because I am in Mexico. I also get weird messages from time to time from EBSCO host that I must sign into their international channel because the WP version is only for North America (um, like someone doesn't really understand geography). If I sign out and back in, the problem goes away. (At least once a year I have to have newspaperarchive.com "whitewash" (whatever that is) my account or I cannot access it.) In spite of the occasional issues, I am still thankful to have access to sources I would not be able to use otherwise. SusunW (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

SusunW: Well, that explains most everything. You may be untechnically-oriented but practical results are equally valuable. I was a technical writer for a software company for 20 years and my only background was as a writer, which turned out to be more useful in what I did than a knowledge of coding. The main difference: I was paid considerably less. Drat. I just tried JSTOR directly and I'm again being recognized without going through the Library. Now I understand why. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Allreet Glad to be able to help and glad that worked for you. Again, I don't know why that log-off thing happens, but as long as I have a solution, I'm happy. SusunW (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Allreet, the 100-article limit means that you're using a standard JSTOR account, i.e., anyone can sign up for JSTOR and have that limit.

There are two ways to access JSTOR through the Wikipedia Library: with and without a proxy. A proxy is what changes your web address from jstor.com to www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org—it's routing your traffic through oclc.org to get to JSTOR. When you browse to jstor.org via Google, you won't have the proxy and will need to sign in with a JSTOR account. Your access will depend on whether that JSTOR account is attached to the the Wikipedia Library (unlimited views) or unattached (standard 100-view limit).

When you use the proxy by browsing via the Wikipedia Library link, there is no need to log in, as JSTOR already knows you're coming from an approved site. (This is how most college access works.) If you log in with your account to the proxy, you will likely need to do it each time because the proxy won't remember and either way it won't bring you extra benefit.

Something I recommend is to download the free/open source citation manager Zotero, which not only helps export and format citations into Wikipedia house style, but also has a web browser plug-in that will detect that you like using the oclc.org proxy and will ask you whether you want to transfer to the proxy whenever you browse to regular jstor.org in the future. This will make sure you're always browsing with access and will save some confusion over how to get back to the article by backtracking via the Wikipedia Library interface.

That's the gist (in broad strokes/the details might be a little off). Hope it helps. czar 21:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Excellent information. I'll download Zotero per your recommendation. I now understand the proxy piece of this including how I ended up again on JSTOR's "100 article plan" and how to avoid it. All shows it never hurts to ask. Actually, information like this should be made available to all new up-and-coming editors: grist for an online course? In any case, I limped along for years without any JSTOR and Internet Archive access, thinking it was closed to individual non-subscribers. Of course, the Library itself was a great discovery as well. Live and learn. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

How can we reach out to folks running Wikipedia Library, so that they in turn reach out to archives/databases and such and ask them to join? There are some niche but useful paywalled archives I'd love to see added to the WL. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: You can click 'Suggest a collection' to navigate to https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/suggest/, where we're collecting suggestions :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Ping User:BOZ - if you can figure out how to request Pyramid content, we can ask there. The problem is I am not sure they even offer a subscription, just pdfs for sale... could still ask WL to ask them to give as a "free" account (with pre-purchased archival stuff?)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

If you're actually "collecting" suggestions on that page, then please moderate it for the love of god... The abundance of duplicates, copyvio site suggestions, and sites that are already in the library makes you go "Clearly no one's seeing this, why bother" and feel stupid to participate. Nardog (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way to find out if Nederlands Soortenregister [nl] is a partner in the project? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I have recently noticed that various newspaper archive links are redirecting to the newspaper's home page.

These pages are found via a Google search. But clicking on the link brings you to the homepage rather than the archived story. No Google cache seems to be available. And the pages are often not archived by the Internet Archive.

For example:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-11-16-9311160038-story.html

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1998-10-26-1998299087-story.html

These newspapers both appear to be owned by Alden Global Capital and/or Digital First Media, if that's the problem. Note `ct-xpm` and `bs-xpm` in common in the URL slugs.

Is there any way to disable this redirect? Is anyone involved with the Wikipedia Library and/or Newspapers knowledgeable about this problem or able to alert the newspapers to this issue? Any better place on Wikipedia to post this question?

PK-WIKI (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

PK-WIKI, both of those links for me resolve to an actual article rather than the newspaper's home page - is it possible there is something unique to your setup that is causing the redirection? Or maybe the issue was temporary? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Is something up with this partnership? I noticed that links to clippings there don't seem to be working--they landed me at a login page that didn't accept my current saved credentials (which usually work, I've used the site within the past week). When I checked "My Applications" at TWL, it doesn't show any past record of subscribing or renewing (which I know I've done annually for a while). BUT, weirdest twist yet, I can login by using the "access collection" button at TWL. But if use clippings from there, will anyone be able to access them? Doesn't seem like this will work for citations as it stands. Penny Richards (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Penny Richards, it's moved to no longer require applications; everyone who meets the minimum requirements has access automatically. You should still be able to go through Access Collection to save clippings - is that working for you? (You might need to strip out the proxy from the clippings link to make it accessible to everyone). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll play with it. Good to know it's not just me, anyway, so thank you! Penny Richards (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Greetings!

I am still new to the Wikipedia Library, but shouldn't De Gruyter Journals be part of the collection?

I am trying to access the following source, but can't find my way to access the article anywhere:

Kearns, C. M. (2022). 7 Irigaray’s Between East and West Breath, Pranayama, and the Phenomenology of Prayer. Fordham University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780823293148-008

Thanks a lot in advance to you good folks!

Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya, try here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria! That worked like a charm! :-)

Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Where did the 10+ edits criteria come from and what is its basis and purpose?

Been editing since 2011, have 23,600 edits, and am not blocked.

Took a three-week break from editing and now find myself ineligible to access the library (face palm).

I'd like to access the library in order to finish bringing Nonmetal up to FAC standard.

I'll now go and repeatedly knock my head on my study desk. Sandbh (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sandbh: The Wikipedia Library is intended for use by Wikipedia editors to edit Wikimedia projects. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure that the people using TWL are actually active editors, rather than previously being an editor and then qualifying for free access to these resources forever, despite no longer contributing to Wikimedia projects. We think it's a fairly low bar to clear, and you can do so in a single day by making 10 edits and then attempting to login again :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no option for me to sign in. Again. This last got straightened out July 27, 2022, and it initially worked well. Now it no longer recognizes my password, or my account. Can't sign in under Ancestry.com, which is how Lana at Newspapers.com Support instructed me. Can't sign in under Newspaper.com. I have emailed them, but this is chronic with them. Please get this fixed. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Maile66: - your account was last renewed recently, so should be active. Even if it wasn't, your email address/account should still exist. Are you sure you're logging in with the correct email address? I can send you an email with the email address we have on record for you at Newspapers.com if that would be helpful. Pinging Netoholic who processes these applications. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Fixed - thanks for mentioning. It wasn't automatically loading my email address as a sign-in, but Maile66, which is how it used to be. I hope this is the last time this happens. — Maile (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Every time I try to go into a paper today, logged into my Newspapers.com account and everything, it's saying that I need a "Publisher Extra Subscription" in order to view the pages. What the heck is that about? Silverseren^C 22:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Unpaywall is a browser extension for Firefox, Chrome, and (inserting my plug here for the best browser out there:) Vivaldi, which places a little open padlock icon onto the paywalled page of the journal article you are interested in, and all you have to do is click it to access the free version of the article. If there's a free version out there, Unpaywall will find it; if not, it places a gray, locked icon on the paywalled journal article page. Techcrunch review here. (Mentioned before at TWL, but pretty much buried.) Try it out, it will save you tons of time searching for a free version of articles you are interested in. Mathglot (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Vouch. Great for finding accessible PDF's for citations sometimes. Chillabit (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

[Not a Library question, I realize, but a question to which Library users could well know the answer.] According to loc.gov/rr/news/oltitles.html, "New York Herald Tribune morgue is at the Briscoe Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin." It provides a non-working link to the place (for which a working link is digitalcollections.briscoecenter.org). And yes, the Briscoe Center says it has the NYHT. Has anyone found any way to browse this, or (far better) to search within it? -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

If you have Wikipedia Library Card, there's a search engine for the NYHT Briscoe Center here. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, you may not need a WPL card. I just logged out and was able to access the search engine anyway. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

But Grand'mere Eugene, it doesn't work. Or it doesn't for me, anyway. I've no interest in Ernest Hemingway, but in those days he was (to my mind, inexplicably) much celebrated and chitchatted about in the US, I believe. So I typed in "hemingway" (sans quotation marks), expecting several dozen hits. Instead, I got a grand total of two (2) hits, for photos, neither obviously relevant to the NYHT and indeed both postdating its demise. Does searching there work for you? -- Hoary (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

No, you're right, it looks like it is supposed to be a search engine of the NYHT morgue, but instead it searches other Briscoe holdings. The link you provided above says it's a BETA version, and, "Our new Digital Collections system provides improved access and tools to make research faster and more effective. Check back frequently as we add content and refine the functionality of this site." Maybe your best shot is to use the "Contact us" link to ask for help searching the morgue. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

A very sensible idea, Grand'mere Eugene. A few minutes ago, I did just that. Incidentally, I'm starting to wonder if I've misunderstood "morgue". Wiktionary gives us "The archive and background information division of a newspaper"; but I suspect that Briscoe uses it in a way that does not include "pile of old issues (whether on paper, reel-to-reel microfilm, microfiche, PDF files, or whatever)", and instead is just "material kept by the newspaper for possible reference or (re)use". -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Archive turns out to be vaguely defined in terms of a newspaper's morgue, Hoary. The problem, from our research point of view, is that most old-timey newspapers had neither the space to accumulate print copies nor the personnel/technology to bind and preserve the newsprint. I double-checked the usual indices like Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive, and the Library of Congress, as well as Readers' Guide Retrospective: 1890-1982 (which alas, I had forgotten indexes magazines but not newspapers) — but no ref to NYHT except in articles of other newspapers printing obits and and marriage announcements.

It's possible that NYHT may have been microfilmed by the end of its run in 1966, perhaps available in some university research libraries like Harvard's Widener Library, or even or top-tier graduate journalism programs like Columbia's.

Was there some article or topic in particular you were hoping to find in Briscoe's holdings? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Grand'mere Eugene, Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive, as well as such improbable sites as "Old Fulton NY Post Card", have done an extraordinary job of scanning and OCR'ing newspapers. The content of many of these newspapers is, I presume, of great potential value (perhaps holding as-yet unnoticed keys to mysteries in Pynchon's novels, or similar), but some of it strikes me as (sorry!) risibly parochial. (Not just who's marrying who. I came across an article taking up one third of a page that listed which sons and daughters were currently visiting which parents.) All praise to the scanners. The NYHT is before my time, but I'd understood, or misunderstood, that it was a major newspaper, sometimes rivalling the NYT. I'd presumed that a number of university libraries would have kept old copies, in some analogue form or other; and that faced with the choice between scanning/digitizing the NYHT and the Podunk Weekly Bugle, they'd choose the NYHT. (Though come to think of it, this would have had a lot more pages per week.) So I rather presumed that some website, somewhere, would have it available (very likely behind a paywall). ¶ So what's my interest? Nothing of stunning importance. Recently I've been trying to improve the article Morris Bishop (a high percentage of which is mine). As several of Bishop's books were reviewed in the NYT during the lifetime of the NYHT, I thought they might have been reviewed in the NYHT too: and just want(ed) to take a look. -- Hoary (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

---

• There are a bunch of smaller questions within this question. First, to my understanding, a morgue file is a special kind of archive that would be more for clippings and ephemera for journalists' internal usage than a public archive. Like it might have some interesting stuff, but you're looking for something like a print index or just an indexed database of the final print articles. To the general question, the NYT archives are very robust and would be my personal preference for this type of sourcing unless there is need for corroboration in a competing newspaper. If looking for general book reviews, there are better sources than both the NYT and NYHT, namely Newspapers.com or the Internet Archive (text contents search) to hit many periodicals at once with direct search, but even better for this time period is Book Review Digest. I do a lot of book review work so let me know if you need a hand.

The NYPL has NYHT archives through ProQuest and has 146 hits for "Morris Bishop", if there's something more specific you're after. Its coverage is 1841–1962 full text and PDF. czar 14:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your informative reply, Czar, and for your offer of help. That the NYPL has NYHT archives through ProQuest is surprising and excellent news. You provided a NYPL/NYHT link for this, but I wasn't sure how best to use it. What I tried was first to log in to ProQuest via TWL, and, when I'd done that, to paste your link into the appropriate form of my browser, and click on it. Unfortunately the NYPL greeted me with "Please enter your library card bar code and pin or password in order to access this database." I doubted that this would be what I need for TWL, but I couldn't think what else it could be, and therefore (timidly?) refrained from experimenting. Thinking that ProQuest/NYPL might be among TWL's "Available Collections", I looked there for ProQuest and NYPL but found nothing. When you access NYPL/NYHT via ProQuest, are you perhaps doing so thanks to some institution's contract with ProQuest that's more cornucopious (and more expensive) than TWL's? If not (if you are there as a user of TWL), then I'd very much like to know how you get in. -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that link is only accessible through the NYPL. Anyone with a NY (the state, not only the city) address can apply for NYPL remote library access. ProQuest (as well as EBSCOhost, Gale, etc.) has many database products, of which they only offer TWL a small fraction. If there are specific queries you're looking to find beyond just the mention of Bishop, I can run those for you.

The best route is still Book Review Digest (linked above), since its editors have already indexed all the NYHT (and other book reviews) if that's what you're after. czar 02:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Got it, Czar: the NYPL is discriminating against me, just because I don't live in NY state. (And of course I pay no taxes there, so fair's fair.) Right then, now all I have to do is work out how to get the IA's "advanced search" to do what I want it to do. Is Book Review Digest the "creator" or the "collection" or some custom field of text that appears within it? Whatever I ask for, it seems to be interpreted as "search metadata"; and unsurprisingly nothing useful appears. I switch "search metadata" to "search text contents" and a slighly different and equally useless (to me) selection appears. Meanwhile, simply looking for "book review digest [year]" (sans quotation marks) brings up the occasional volume of Book Review Digest (for this or that irrelevant year), but these are outnumbered by "HCUA Investigation of Un-American Propaganda" something-something. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that some party in this quest is (euphemistically) "challenged", and that the party in question is the one I routinely see in my shaving mirror. -- Hoary (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary, perhaps let's take this to Talk:Morris Bishop? czar 05:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The site is down for me. I keep getting a connection timed out error. Anyone else facing the same? Ciridae (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Ciridae, no. In general, you can try Is it down right now to get an idea if it's just you or not. Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

THANK YOU to all of you that worked hard to improve access to several important databases (publishers) and for eliminating applications for several such publishers (where possible) and for letting us know in a message sent today: "Congratulations! You are now eligible for The Wikipedia Library."

As it says on the "About" page:

Any editor can use the library if they meet a few basic requirements:

• You have an account that is a minimum of 6 months old
• You have made a minimum of 500 edits to Wikimedia projects
• You have made at least 10 edits to Wikimedia projects in the last month
• You are not currently blocked from editing a Wikimedia project

Mille grazie! Merci! ¡Gracias! Vielen Dank! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 03:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Markworthen: No problem! Glad you're finding it useful :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I used to have a notification on my notification box which said that I was now able to access this library (the wiki library) because I have made a certain number of editions in Wikipedia. Now it is gone. I used to access the library using that notification link. Any clues as to what happened? Am I still able to access it anyways? Thanx. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Joaquin89uy: I'm not sure what happened to the notification but yes, you can still access it directly at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/. I'd suggest adding that link to your browsers bookmarks for quick access :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Pbkauf: I like the idea of adding ocw somehow even though it's already free... Easier inclusion/screenshotting ? – SJ + 01:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Presumably you are talking about MIT Open Courseware. Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi all. Although Wikipedians are now allowed access to Taylor & Francis journals, I realize we cannot access anything more than any common person. For instance, the journal "Clinical Toxicology" [1] does not give us anything more than that a common person can access. Similarly the journal "Psychiatry, psychology and law" [2] does not give us anything extra. Maybe I am committing a mistake somewhere. Anyone who can suggest how to access all articles. Thanks. Anil1956

Hello @Anil1956. Since you've asked this question, I assume that you're able to access the Wikipedia Library now and your issue above has been resolved. Regarding your query about Taylor & Francis journals, I think the restricted access (or same level of access as normal) is for the specific journals you're looking for. I've checked for some different resources and they certainly are accessible on Wikipedia Library and not on the regular one. What I can suggest you here is, try using JSTOR. It generally has the same journals as T&F. Otherwise you can try specific providers like Science Direct for science related journals, etc. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other doubts. DesiBoy101 (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks DesiBoy101. This would be very helpful. Thanks again. Anil1956 Anil1956 (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

With Taylor & Francis we only have access to certain collections. We used to document this in the library but it looks like that's no longer visible. I'll look into fixing that. If you use the " Only show content I have full access to" checkbox in Taylor & Francis you shouldn't encounter anything you can't access. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

So thankful to have the Wikipedia Library as I use it constantly! S0091 (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Today I tried to access Oxford Music Online and Oxford Journals through TWL, but I find that the access for both services are blocked. The websites show that I'm logged in through The Wikipedia Library, but the contents cannot be viewed. Any idea what's going on? Thanks. --*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 07:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it's related to the recent migration to Oxford Academic? Many of the Oxford TWL links redirect to that page now. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that would make sense. --*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 22:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I've never tried to access ODNB through TWL before but although it says "Access the collection" the website says I don't have access. Does ODNB require an additional approval? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fehufanga, Olivaw-Daneel, and Mike Christie: Sorry for not updating here earlier - our access to Oxford University Press resources has expired (unrelated to the Academic migration I believe) so we're waiting to hear back from them on getting that reinstated. Hopefully it won't be too long. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Samwalton9 (WMF), so that is what has happened! Oxford resources are so valuable to our work and the access to it had been unhindered for long enough for us to get into a groove, the overnight change did disconcert me. Hopefully the foundation can sort it out soon enough so that we can access the platform again . MBlaze Lightning (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Just want to jump on this thread to thank you for explaining the issue. I tried to access a few resources today and thought something was wrong with my account. I hope WMF can reach an agreement soon :) Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 10:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Any progress on this? I keep hopefully trying various Oxford offerings but just get little red padlocks. Echoing above that this resource is extremely valuable for content building, perhaps the single most useful in the collection. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Same here, much of the content I have had very much use of before such as Oxford bibliographies and Oxford art is suddenly much more limited. Yakikaki (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Noting here that Grove is now accessible again for me. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 02:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Also noting that I can access ODNB now Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 18:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Netoholic: We really need to figure out a way to correct this once and for all. I refer you to July 2022. We had it resolved, in the fact that I was able to resume my old existing account. It's only been a matter of days since I've used it. Now it won't even let me sign-in. It wants me to sign in for a "free trial'. Honestly, I don't have problems like this with any other subscription. — Maile (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Access works differently than other Wikipedia Library resources. Make sure you go directly to https://Newspapers.com, log in with the same email address you received your subscription confirmation, and then verify your account level at https://www.newspapers.com/account/ says "Plan: Complimentary Publisher Extra Annual". -- Netoholic @ 00:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Doesn't work for me. Even if I follow your links, it's the same links I was using myself. FYI - I've tried it on two different browsers, just in case it was a browser issue. — Maile (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Netoholic: Everything is worse/more complicated now. And I have no access at all. RL has my time occupied, so this is my first reply/comment in a few weeks. But here goes:

  At some point, Ancestry.com mistakenly took over my access, but I could access it on both Ancestry.com as well as my old Wikipedia Library subscription. The Ancestry.com password that they gave me ended up overriding my old password on my browser.

  Meanwhile, I was accessing it through Newspapers and doing OK with that. Eventually, neither password worked.

  On Oct 18, I received an email from Newspapers.com saying, "Thank you for contacting Newspapers.com. We have added your complimentary annual Publisher's Extra subscription to your account. The expiration date is 10/18/2023."

  No password worked, so on Oct 18, I requested a Password reset, but RL issues have more urgency than thinking up yet another password in this mess - that is, I haven't replied to the request to create another password.

  The Library Card Platform shows it as "Pending", and as "Not Approved" on Oct 26.

I don't know what's going on, but I can't be on Wikipedia a lot recently, and this needs straightening out. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

There is literally nothing else I or anyone at Wikipedia Library or Newspapers/Ancestry can do to "straighten" out your account access until you complete your password change and can log in to http://newspapers.com using the same email address at which you got that Oct 18 confirmation. If your unable or unwilling to make the time to do so, then you can ask at the Resource Exchange (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:REREQ) for someone to look up the articles you need, "clip" them, and provide you the link so that you can view them. Perhaps, if as you say, you aren't as active on Wikipedia, then this will suffice. -- Netoholic @ 19:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have previously made good use of newspapers.com in creating articles, particularly biographies. Unfortunately my license expired a few days ago. I requested reapproval on 24 October, last time I recall this was a relatively quick and straightforward process but I've read somewhere that there is now a significant waiting period. Are you able to advise? - Dumelow (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

My fears of a lengthy wait were unfounded, all now renewed. Many thanks to whoever sorted this. The Library must be one of the most valuable services we have on here - Dumelow (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Dumelow, I will echo your statement, "The Library must be one of the most valuable services we have on here" -- especially with regard to Newspapers.com. That is my most-used source both for creating articles and for adding content to existing articles. Many thanks go to those who worked to make Newspapers.com and so many other sources available to editors! Eddie Blick (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Just how many book chapters are actually accessible through Elseiver's ScienceDirect? TWL description says "[over] 26,000 book titles", yet over at WP:RX, it says we don't have access to these chapters: [3][4][5]. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Oxford Reference doesn't seem to unlock all articles, for example I can't see the article Hüdayi, ‘Aziz Mahmud (948–1038 / 1541–1628) in the The Biographical Encyclopaedia of Islamic Philosophy. Sinuhe20 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Because of the Wikipedia Library, I was able to find sources to save Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Todd (journalist), helped forestall Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parapolice in addition to sources I add to AfC drafts I review to help those along. The WP Library is awesome! The more provided to us, the more we can do so keep up the good work and support! S0091 (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words @S0091 - I've passed them on the team :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)