Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Film images

I know this doesn't usually fall under what the Wikipedia Library seeks to achieve through agreements but we desperately need to improve our stocks of images of films. Particularly post 60s. The commons coverage particularly after the mid 70s is appalling. I think the quality of the articles would benefit massively if we could make a few agreements with film companies and for them to agree to allow us to use screenshots from films and even trailers in the articles. I think there's a way that the film companies could benefit rather than suffer from having quality screenshots of their films in wikipedia articles as it would make it more likely that somebody would want to watch the film. It is possible you could contact some of the major ones like Warner Bros., Disney, MGM, Paramount, 20th Century Fox etc and see if we can get some of them to donate images or allow images from their films to be uploadable to wikipedia? It would really be a major breakthrough for the film and actors projects on here if this could be achieved. Is it possible somebody here could try to approach them and make some agreements? If nobody here can do it I'll try to contact them myself. I'm of the opinion that images should also be included in what the library looks to make agreements for as for film especially they're a vital aspect of the content which is generally missing from the articles. If we could make agreements with these companies to freely use screenshots and trailers from their films it would be extremely valuable for the site I think and potentially benefit several hundred thousand articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this idea: I know you're intentions are good, but honestly this raises all sorts of red flags, regarding conflict of interests. If we were to host images for them, we would essentially be advertising on Wikipedia, which is something that is a big no no due to various reasons that are covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. What we could possibly do is go through a third party archive. For instance perhaps, Martin Martin Scorsese's Film Foundation or another charitable organization could loan images to us. However I would strongly oppose any relationship where an organization gets financial compensation for there work with us. --Deathawk (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No they wouldn't "get financial compensation" to work with us, you've totally misinterpreted what I'm getting at. What I'm saying is that images of films on wikipedia wouldn't harm the company. The images would first and foremost benefit us. Given that we have the articles anyway, do you really think having images of films is going to degrade articles to advertising? OK, perhaps a link to their site is a bit much but you're kidding yourself if you think that a lot of the big agreements in the wiki commons haven't been made because of the selling point of driving traffic to their websites directly from the images. If those aren't really that problematic I don't see why these would be. The point is that images of films would massively benefit wikipedia articles, regardless if the companies saw improved DVD sales or whatever. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If it were made clear to them that wikipedia only wanted images at a width of 200px (or whatever the preferred size of an infobox image is) and not at a size and resolution that would service a poster print industry, they'd be more inclined to view the upside for them rather than the downside. Bazj (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld, Deathawk, and Bazj: TWL has long focused on access to materials, not donations of content (that is the work of GLAM-Wiki and other community led partnership models (for example, the recent TED Wikipedia in Residence positions). If there is a video library that can be used by editors to improve research or development of content in Wikimedia projects, we would be happy to pursue it: for example, see WP:Alexander Street, which includes a number of documentaries and major news programs like BBC and 60 minutes. We would also be happy to advise volunteers on developing partnership relationships with organizations like the The Film Foundation. However, direct donations are outside of our scope of supporting the volunteer community in research. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought User:Astinson (WMF). It just seems ridiculous that one of the world's leading websites can't feature content which is prevalent on the web anyway, screenshots of films are everywhere! Perhaps though there are some film institutions which feature scholarly videos discussing film which could be approached like The Film Foundation or BFI etc? Perhaps Erik or Shawn in Montreal might have something in mind on that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Astinson (WMF):, I've brought it up on Wikipedia talk:GLAM, perhaps a conversation about it could resume there?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Yep the GLAM community has the most experience developing this kinds of partnerships, so many editors involved there will know common pitfalls. I think you would have no problems approaching either of them and at least getting a conversation with the organizations. Collective GLAM-Wiki and TWL experience suggests that if you email someone saying that you are affiliated with Wikipedia, you likely will have no trouble starting a conversation. Its often best to walk in the door having a pretty clear ask ("we would love a batch of images select images from x collection, to adequately illustrate y articles, using z community approved proccess "). Our process at Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Processes/Pitching_partners works fairly well in most partnership settings, but would need to be tweaked to represent the partnership model you plan on following, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: Don't forget that screen shots from feature films is of questionable legality, despite the fact that they may seem to be "everywhere." Nearly all the screen shots you see in Wikipedia are from trailers which, when produced before a certain date (which I forget) have been legally determined to be public domain. - kosboot (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I know, I've done a lot in finding images myself, The Quiet Man for instance! And what you say is why I think something directly agreed upon with wikipedia would make it perfectly legal to feature screenshots and trailers from the films of a given studio. Imagine if we made an OTRS agreeement with Paramount or somebody and licensing could be attributed, allowing us to upload whatever images we want to List of Paramount Pictures films and get them all kitted out with nice photographs and trailers. If they're notable enough to have full articles on wikipedia then they should be seen purely an encylopedic subjects. A big part of film as a visual medium is imagery and they can go a long way to improving understanding of a film and in commentary. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


Hello, is the archive of accessible through any one of the databases? Regards, --Mihai (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Dan Mihai Pitea and Mihai:, WP:EBSCO Academic Search complete and likely Onefile has several magazines published by Time Inc, including Time from 1923.Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the reply. I'll apply then for EBSCO access. --Mihai (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


Hello, is the archive of accessible through any one of the databases? Regards, --Mihai (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Dan Mihai Pitea and Mihai:, WP:EBSCO Academic Search complete and likely Onefile has several magazines published by Time Inc, including Time from 1923.Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the reply. I'll apply then for EBSCO access. --Mihai (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Government Publications?

First, I guess, in general, does anyone know whether there exists a consistent copyright status for government publications from governments other than the US? I ask because I have seen more than a few such publications included in the bibliographies of some reference sources, and think they might be very useful, if they are available.
Second, I think it might be very useful to have at least some of the most respected sources published by governments available in the public domain, like the US Government's country guides, at least available on commons, and maybe set up for transcription over at wikisource. Would there be any way to do so, and/or make it known to the editors that such works are available? John Carter (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

John Carter Probably Public.Resource.Org has the best collection and most institutional knowledge on the US government's guides to copyright. I do not think it would be easy to start collecting guides. In most cases, there is no certain place to look or place to ask. I am not aware of any place on-wiki where such guides are already curated. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Metrics coordinator(s) wanted!

Interested in helping to keep Wikipedia Library partnerships available? Then please sign up to be a metrics coordinator! With over 50 active partnerships requiring tracking and regular reports on source usage and general progress we're struggling to keep up, and would really appreciate an extra pair of hands or two. No particular skills required other than an interest in playing around with data (nothing more complicated than a spreadsheet), the ability to communicate clearly, and a desire to help the library continue to distribute free access to great resources. Feel free to drop me a message on my talk page or an email if you want more information. Sam Walton (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

How about adding Library Genesis?

Library Genesis is a great tool. Yes, it has legal issues (that are in court), but the point is it exists and is a very valuable tool that would be (is...) a great help to many editors. Should we link it here? I know there's a tendency to say no to anything that smacks of copyright problems, but we already have an article on it (Library Genesis) that links to its search engine, so it's not like it's not here (on Wikipedia) already. Linking it from here, or a subpage, seems reasonable to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's forget legality. Ask yourself: WWWLPD? (What Would Wikipedia Library Partners Do?) Namely, WWWLPD (say, Cambridge, Oxford, and JSTOR) if Library Genesis (or the next "great" pirate site) was systematically and officially credited for their copyrighted property, works owned by publishers who have donated access to Wikipedia? Hint: it starts with "s" and rhymes with "do." Elsevier can answer any further questions. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion Piotrus. The world of paywalled publishing is very frustrating to many, and websites like LibGen and Sci-Hub offer a tempting alternative. Indeed, we can't recommend them because they provide unlimited, unencumbered access to nearly every paper imaginable for free, and as far as I can tell very illegally. Cheers Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Ocaasi (WMF) & Paulscrawl, I see your point. How about we add a warning then, such as "We do not recommend nor endorse the use of LibGen / Sci-Hub and related websites, which provide unlimited, unencumbered and illegal access to nearly every academic paper and numerous books free of charge. We stress again that the use of those resources is likely illegal in many jurisdictions, and the use of those databases is not endorsed by the Wikipedia community." I think it is important to warn the editors who may not be aware of the potential issues at stake here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
That would be both unnecessary and unwise, given the prior existence of carefully crafted official disclaimers:
All backed by Wikimedia Foundation Legal Policies
Editors are free to shoot themselves in the foot, as are readers. This is user-generated content. Linking to file sharing sites' home pages for articles on such that have achieved Web notability is fine; linking to a specific pirated copyrighted work is not and latter links are sooner or later taken down by vigilant editors and, presumably, bots. Pretty simple. Seems to have worked for as long as we've both been on Wikipedia, for well over a decade now, right? -- Paulscrawl (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding open source college textbooks

Just wondering whether there might be any use of mentioning, possibly for use as sources, some of the newer open source college textbooks like can be found here and here, and, I suppose, whether they might qualify as RS or not, although I assume many or most would qualify for use here. They might certainly make writing some of the articles related to their topics easier. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Highlighting free to read external links

The WP:OABOT project aims at enhancing citation templates with free to read links to references, when they are available. We plan to change the visual appearance of many citation templates so we seek consensus here first - we need your input!

Concretely, we plan to change the style of links that are known to link to a free to read resource. Just like links to PDF files have a small PDF icon at the end, we plan to add a small logo indicating that a link is paywall-free. For instance, we know that all links defined by |arxiv= are free, so all citation templates using this parameter would become like this:

{{cite arXiv | collaboration = LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration | last1 = Abbott | first1 = Benjamin P. | arxiv=1602.03840 | title=Properties of the binary black hole merger GW150914 | date=11 February 2016}}
Abbott, Benjamin P.; et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) (11 February 2016). "Properties of the binary black hole merger GW150914". arXiv:1602.03840 Open Access logo PLoS white green.svg

In this case, the free to read icon would appear without changing any of the template arguments - the Module:Citation/CS1 would be modified directly and this would affect all citation templates globally. We would make this change for other identifiers that are necessarily free to read, such as |pmc=. Technically, the icon would be inserted using CSS code (the same way PDF icons are currently displayed). It could replace the external link icon (->) to save space.

We also want to be able to add this icon on arguments that are not always free to read such as |url= or |doi=. To do so, we would need to change the template to indicate that the link is free, for instance by adding |doi-free=true or |doi-free=10.1016/S0168-0072(03)00052-6

{{Cite journal| doi = 10.1016/S0168-0072(03)00052-6| doi-free=true| issn = 0168-0072| volume = 124| issue = 1–3| pages = 71–106| last1 = Coquand| first1 = Thierry| last2 = Sambin| first2 = Giovanni| last3 = Smith| first3 = Jan| last4 = Valentini| first4 = Silvio| title = Inductively generated formal topologies| journal = Annals of Pure and Applied Logic| date = 2003-12-15}}
Coquand, Thierry; Sambin, Giovanni; Smith, Jan; Valentini, Silvio (2003-12-15). "Inductively generated formal topologies". Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 124 (1-3): 71-106. doi:10.1016/S0168-0072(03)00052-6 Open Access logo PLoS white green.svg. ISSN 0168-0072.

Of course, multiple links in the same citation template could appear with the free to read icon. − Pintoch (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

This discussion really ought to be on a general forum like WP:VW or Help:CS1, than on a specific sub-project initiative's talk page. So if you have comments, post them at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Adding_open_access_links_to_references, not here, otherwise they likely won't be read. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


I note MBlairMartin claims to be a Wikipedian-in-Residence despite having a brand-new account. How exactly is this possible? Chris Troutman (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Chris. First off, Wikipedia Library doesn't control WIR positions. You may be confusing our visiting scholar program (WP:VS), now coordinated by Wiki Ed in the U.S. region. As for explanations, it's either a hoax, or more likely a legitimate alternate account from someone who doesn't want to link their real life identity to their prior [extensive] Wikipedia contributions. You could reach out and ask the editor. You might also check with Wikimedia Cascadia, as this is in their region (Pine might have more info). Cheers! Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, apparently I'm confused. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Keeping track of my accounts


Is there an easy way to see which WL accounts I have, when they started, and when they're due to expire? Perhaps there should be a pubic log page for each user? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy, we don't have a way to do this in our current system but our upcoming Library Card Platform (alpha release in August) will. Good idea, and something we're doing... Cheers, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for Librarybase: an online reference library

Hello everyone. I have submitted a grant proposal for Librarybase, an online reference library. My goal is to create a unified lookup database for sources based on data gathered from Wikipedia. I would like this to integrate with the Wikipedia Library so that you can do a lookup and see which databases have the sources you are looking for. Please review and leave your feedback on the grant proposal. Cheers, Harej (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Guide for getting Google Books available in full-view

Based on a few peoples request when I went through Google Books and got a previously closed book available for everyone to see, I created User:IJReid/Google Books trick, a relatively step-by-step guide to repeat what I learned to do. I hope many more people can benefit from this, but I am not sure how to inform others, so I am just adding a section here, where I hope it will be received well and then maybe distributed or mentioned more. IJReid discuss 02:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. HiemstraTIME (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Link to EBSCO database login page?

I recently started having issues with my computer, which forced me to switch to a spare. Unfortunately, that meant I no longer have access to my bookmarks, one of which was a direct link to the EBSCO database login that I had gotten from The Wikipedia Library. And i'm having difficulty finding that proper login page again. Going through the EBSCO and EBSCOhost pages doesn't seem to be finding me the right page to actually login. Can someone give me a direct link? SilverserenC 19:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Perhaps Thibbs can help? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
YesY Yep. Thanks for the ping, Samwalton9. I haven't had this page on my watchlist but Silver seren contacted me directly and I believe we resolved this a few days ago. I should have left a note to that effect here already. If this still isn't resolved then please do contact me again, Silver seren. -Thibbs (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, great! Thanks :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The Times

Hello. Is anybody subscribed to The Times? I need to verify the statement of Sting's album rating at [1]. --Jarash (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jarash: You can get access to The Times through Gale, or if you just need this source, it might be better to ask at the resource exchange. Sam Walton (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I have access to The Times, and can confirm that this article exists, and that it mentions Sting's If on a Winter's Night... as an "A-list Christmas album"; but it says no more than that. In general, as Sam Walton says, such questions are better addressed to the resource exchange. RolandR (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Anyone anywhere in the UK can get free online access to archives of the The Times, The Guardian and The Observer (ie: the content in the Newsquest/Gale databases) via Manchester Libraries Online. You do not have to be resident in Manchester. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you sure about this? I tried, but it insisted that I register, and then rejected my post code as it is not within the Manchester Metropolitan area. RolandR (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear. There are Wikipedians registered from outside that area - the tip was raised on Eric Corbett's talk page some years ago and definitely worked as of last year. Sorry about that. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Neither City of London nor Westminster require local residency, just UK proof of address. Cabayi (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. I don't have enough edits to apply for an Gale account and don't have an opportunity to go to Manchester. --Jarash (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library accounts available now (August 2016)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for free, full-access, accounts to published research as part of our publisher donation program. You can now sign up for new accounts and research materials from:

  • Nomos – Primarily German-language publisher of law and social sciences books and journals - 25 accounts
  • World Scientific – Scientific, technical, and medical journals - 50 accounts
  • Edinburgh University Press – Humanities and social sciences journals - 25 accounts
  • American Psychological Association – Psychology books and journals - 10 accounts
  • Emerald – Journals on a range of topics including business, education, health care, and engineering - 10 accounts

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including Project MUSE, EBSCO, DeGruyter, Gale and

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 18:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language! Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

Goggle Books access?

I applied, with great excitement, for access to the various resources that have been generously provided by the undying efforts of the volunteers here on this page. Unfortunately I've concluded that they are not actually that useful to me. That, of course, is going to be limited to my own mostly historical interests, but without doubt the main issue is that everything I'm interested in exists on Google Books, or not at all. The various newspaper services, for instance, have a tiny slice of what's available on Google.

With that in mind, and considering the post a few above this, is there any possibility of getting more broad access to full views on Google for accounts registered on the Wiki? Given that what we do here, take notes from books that other people need to look up, is precisely the whole reason for GB, it would seem there is no downside for the publishers. I know that such access is available at universities, for instance, so what is the chance we might arrange similar access?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: First, it's a shame that you've not found your access to TWL resources useful; if there are any resources that you think would be useful to you, please request them. Unfortunately Google Books simply isn't possible. I'm not aware that any universities have access to the unavailable, copyrighted, books scanned by Google, but there's definitely no legal or technical way that we can get access to them. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Well this is second hand, but I'm pretty sure students at Ryerson have access to all scanned materials. I can check if you'd like. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: Please do; we'd love to know if this is something Google Books are now doing and I'm struggling to find any information. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Input on Full Evaluation of WP:Research Help Pilot

The Wikipedia Library has now posted a report on its spring pilot test of a Research Help portal. As the report outlines, our target audience of readers and new editors generally reacted more positively to the pilot than experienced editors, who raised important critiques for discussion. The report provides more details on the results and some proposed next steps for the project. Your input is welcome on the report talk page. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

New IRC channel!

Hello everyone, we now have an IRC channel for TWL at #wikipedia-library connect. Feel free to join the channel and ask away your questions. Coordinators, please ask me or Samwalton9 to get voiced in the channel. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 20:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ping @UY Scuti: and Samwalton9 could I please be voiced or op'd in the channel? Thanks! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 DoneUY Scuti Talk 03:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

TWL Facebook group

Hi everyone! I am happy to announce that we now have a Facebook group The Wikipeda Library for better interaction with users and coordinators. Please feel free to join and invite your friends to join the group! Regards—UY Scuti Talk 17:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (November 2016)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for free, full-access, accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials from:


Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 18:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.
  • Getting "Server Error (500)" on the Foreign Affairs signup submission (after filling in the fields and clicking submit). Not sure whom to contact so posting here czar 22:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @Czar: Labs has been up and down for some maintenance today. I see your application(s, three of them!) though! Hopefully it will be more stable tomorrow. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Australian Newspapers

Hi... I'm interested in accessing materials from Australian newspapers - particularly ones like the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age - and am wondering if any of the resources available through the Wikipedia Library have substantial coverage. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried ? Cabayi (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@EdChem: Gale have the SMH from 2007, The Age from 1991, and a number of other Australian newspapers as part of Academic OneFile :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Cabayi, trove.nla has more than I expected but does not provide text for many articles. Sam, that's interesting. I'll consider requesting access, need to look at what other newspapers it has and consider whether I have sufficient need. EdChem (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@EdChem: Great! There's a list on the page I linked. Don't worry too much about having sufficient need - if you only use it to add one reference then we'd consider that worthwhile :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
One, Sam? These two edits today added six! And this expansion (my work, but not every edit is mine) added 132 references.  :) EdChem (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Then definitely go ahead and apply! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: change WP:TWL list?

The page Wikipedia:Unusual articles seems to have attracted the attention of growing youtube channel Wendover Productions. He has made a series of videos on article in this list, referring to the list as TWL, or That Wikipedia List. Googling "that wikipedia list" provides several links referring to this article, including the first link being this article itself. Said list seems to be becoming known on the internet as TWL, but WP:TWL already redirects to the Wikipedia library. Should the shortcut redirect to Wikipedia:Unusual articles instead? pluma 21:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

A-Z help?

I've been working on a tool of potential use to contributors here - an A-Z list of which periodicals are indexed by which TWL database. As you'll see, though, the search functionality is hacked together and is not private. Anyone have ideas/capability to make this better? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Our own Ulrich's. I like it. A lower tech solution would be to put the lists on-wiki: make pages A–Z and list the journals there, use the search function to find the specific journal title and see which databases list it (similar to searches in WP:VG/RL). Alternatively, someone could throw together a Python app that will eventually fall into disrepair. Alternatively, the TWL "library card" project could pull such a web app under its auspices. czar 18:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
That last is an eventual plan but at least a few months out. Think the first option would be a bit unwieldy with 90k+ entries... Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, meant to say pages, as in split the listings across (at least) 26 pages. The search can handle as many pages as you throw at it as long as they share the same root. Try searching for a game in the WP:VG/RL search to see what I mean (e.g., "Donkey Kong 64"). czar 19:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/A-Z. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

NewsCorp digital editions paywalled in Australia

Most of the newspapers in Australia are published by NewsCorp. Currently many (all?) of them are restricting online access to articles. You can view a couple of article for free each day but then you get the paywall message. This is hampering my ability to contribute to Australian contemporary content (I am not discussing historical content for which we have excellent free access up to 1954 thanks to Trove). Today I ran out of "free" articles in The Australian while trying to fix an article on my watchlist that had some newbie-added messed-up citations. So now I can't even finish that task, let alone the rest of my watchlist or anything else I might want to work on today. It's about $200 for an individual to get an annual subscription to just *one* of these newspapers. This isn't really viable for me to do as I may have the problem with one newspaper today and a different one tomorrow and so on. I suspect I am not the only Australian contributer hitting these paywalls. Is there any way that the Wikipedia Library could negotiate a corporate subscription to all the Newscorp papers in Australia that could be accessed by active contributors of Australian content? Kerry (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Sign up for the new Wikipedia Library User Group!

Hello Wikimedians! After much contemplation and planning, The Wikipedia Library has decided to move forward its longtime desire of bringing together Wikipedians and librarians by creating a user group. The user group is yet to be recognized by the Affiliations Committee, but you are welcome to sign up as a member by adding your name in the user group meta page. Once you do that, please join the discussion in deciding the user group name, logo, and organizers. You can even volunteer to lead the group! And of course please don't forget to invite your friends! The user group intends to,

Wikipedia Library User Group logo.svg
  • provide guidance for Wikimedians engaging with libraries, and libraries engaging with Wikimedia,
  • provide a venue for the exchange of ideas around collaborations and opportunities for Wikimedia and libraries,
  • work with libraries and library information schools promoting the use of Wikipedia in their curriculum, and
  • reach out to libraries that could potentially engage with Wikimedia.

Join us and help spread the news! Thank you, AVasanth (WMF), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (May 2017)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for free, full-access, accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials from:

  • American Psychiatric Association – Psychiatry books and journals
  • BloomsburyWho's Who, Drama Online, Berg Fashion Library, and Whitaker's
  • Gaudeamus – Finnish humanities and social sciences
  • Ympäristö-lehti – The Finnish Environment Institute's Ympäristö-lehti magazine


  • Gale – Biography In Context database added
  • Adam Matthew – all 53 databases now available

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including Project MUSE, EBSCO, Taylor & Francis and

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 18:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Aaron.
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.
We're aware of an issue affecting applications, whereby you may see 'Server Error (500)' after filing an application. This is an issue we'll get fixed, but your application has gone through if you see this. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


Hi, is there any subscription available to the Wikipedia Library that gives us access to PubMed? I find myself needing it increasingly, either for the occasional edit to medical articles, or to review others' edits, including at FAC. SarahSV (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin, my understanding is that PubMed offers free access (federal government?) to article abstracts and indexing, but the individual articles still belong to their publishing journal/author and are not necessarily open access—they can be behind any number of paywalls. Best bet is likely to request those citations through WP:RX so those with deep ILL and database access can search once and retrieve it. czar 00:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Czar, thank you. I'm about to post an RX request, but I find that I need these articles so often nowadays that I can't realistically post a request every time. Even if not making medical edits, I often see things that look dubious, but I can't see the sources. I was hoping the Wikipedia Library had something that offers access to medical articles—if not access to PubMed (that's a search engine, so perhaps I'm requesting the wrong thing), then MEDLINE. SarahSV (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, Hey Sarah. We don't have a single medical source, but you can cover a huge amount of content with these:
We're working on making this much more integrated with the developing Wikipedia Library Card platform. In the meantime, you're welcome to sign up for any/all of these. Cheers, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Jake, thank you, this is very helpful. I've put in a request for ScienceDirect, and I'll look at the others to see which to try. Thanks again. SarahSV (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Jake, just letting you know that JustBerry, who coordinates Wikipedia:Elsevier ScienceDirect, has not edited since 17 February. SarahSV (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: Hello! Sorry for the inactivity; how may I help you? --JustBerry (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Database suggestions requested

At The Wikipedia Library we want to make sure that you have the resources you need to write great articles. We've got a great collection of resources (including more than 80,000 journals!) from over 60 partners already available, and have some top priorities that we're working on adding, but we want you to tell us which databases we should be focusing on! If there's a paywalled database/publisher/archive that you wished that you could grab a free account for through TWL for your contributions to Wikipedia, please add a request on our requests page. And if the site is already there, add a +1 and any relevant details about the material you need so that we know there's additional interest - it helps us prioritise and also helps when we pitch the program to them! Thanks, Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Text of message to JSTOR

This was blocked by their spam filter.


English Wikipedia makes many references to (see for a list) - mostly to the African Plants collection.

I have transitioned the relevant specimen pages to The remainder require an understanding of the new naming scheme at the appropriate jstor sites, compared to the naming scheme at

I would be grateful if you could supply me with this information.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Farmbrough


Can any of our librarians with direct links to JSTOR help get this message through?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC).

My request for access to was approved but I never received instructions on accessing this resource. Is this the right place to request assistance? My content creation would be significantly enhanced with this access since many of the articles I create are based upon historical content related to newspaper coverage.

Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS)   22:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Cameron11598, who handles accounts. @Barbara (WVS): in the meantime, we're happy to help you access individual sources to the extent possible under fair use at the Resource Exchange. We're also able to help with print sources or sources that may not have. ~ Rob13Talk 16:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't really ask for a specific newspaper article since I would have to do a search to find it. Thank you.
Barbara (WVS)   18:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Bloomsbury access

I got an email on May 13 that I had been approved for access to Bloomsbury resources, but I haven't received my credentials yet. Just following up... - PKM (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@PKM: Could you please send me an email? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy

Just to notify you about the ongoing discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy. Join in there to comment. --George Ho (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted The discussion was moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy. Then I have relisted the discussion, i.e. gave the discussion additional 30 days. Therefore, more participants would be welcome to comment at the newer page there during the extended time. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Library card platform

I am getting weird messages via e-mail from the Library Card Platform. It indicates Dear 34469123 (whoever that is) your application for Alexander Street Press, Cambridge University Press, and Jstor have been waitlisted (each one was a separate e-mail). I already have access to each of those and did not ask for access. Why am I receiving this if I did not request access? Is this to move my existing accounts to the new platform? SusunW (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi SusunW and anyone else getting these messages: the developer for Library Card is importing data from all of the old spreadsheets/Google Forms, and it sounds like that's resulting in a bunch of strange emails getting sent out. Your access is exactly the same, and you don't need to do anything in response to this. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria Thank you. Wasn't sure if it was a glitch, if I needed to do something, or if I should just ignore it. I always appreciate how fast you respond and your help. SusunW (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, thanks. I've been wondering about this too. SarahSV (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
This issue shouldn't occur again, and the related issue of being addressed with an ID rather than your username should also now be fixed. Apologies for the confusion, we'll be sending out an email to clarify this. Best, Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

APA access

Hello, I made an application for American Psychological Association for Wikipedia in January [2] and received a mail last February informing me that I could have an access for Wikipedia, so I filled the form corresponding but since then, nothing happened... Could you help me ? Thank you, best regards, --Pierrette13 (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pierrette13: Apologies for not seeing this sooner. Do you have access now? If not I'll chase this up. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello hello Samwalton9 (WMF), thank you for your message, it's ok, I have the access now, best regards, --Pierrette13 (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Email delivery of Books & Bytes newsletter

We're excited to announce that email delivery of our bi-monthly newsletter Books & Bytes to your email is now possible. This is such an obvious thing that should've existed way long ago, but we finally got to it. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter via email, please subscribe here. If you have any questions regarding the subscription or the landing page, please drop me an email at avasanth[at]wikimedia[dot]org. Thanks --AVasanth (WMF) (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

New application process

I have just updated some of the partnership pages for which I provide coordination and I noticed that the description of the application process (specifically the process outlined here) is no longer accurate. I do think a template like that might be helpful to applicants to review before they click the Library card platform link, but it needs to be updated for generic use by all partnership pages.

Secondly: For the partnerships that I coordinate, I have marked the WP:PARTNERSHIP/Approved (and "Not approved") pages as historical and as archives. You can see what I mean at the top of this page. Do those headers make sense? Should all such pages be marked like this? -Thibbs (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Thibbs: That's a great point, and that template is one that we've been planning to either reword or just remove from the current signup pages. And yes that header looks good, I'll make sure we add it or something similar to all the Approved / Not Approved pages. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done Historical tag added to all Approval pages! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library/Archive 3"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA