Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Databases/Requests/Archived requests

Banta's Greek Exchange

1. 'Banta's Greek Exchange' and 'The Fraternity Month' (http://archives.library.illinois.edu/archon/?p=collections/controlcard&id=10598)Naraht (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

   @Naraht: Have you tried contacting a University library directly: those don't look like resources available in larger subscription databases or publishers (our focus). It appears publication of these have Also, try WP:Research exchange which is better at handling requests for limited use resources. I am seeing HaithiTrust records of both (which suggests to me that they aren't of continued publisher interest). Astinson (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

   @Astinson (WMF):Closest Library with them according to Worldcat is 80 miles away (DC -> Wilmington Del), but I agree that it is certainly less broad as a resource than most listed here. I'll check WP:Research exchange. Thanx.Naraht (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

   @Naraht: You might try Inter Library Loan with the local public or university library as well. Sometimes they will share it with the local public.Sadads (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

   My son is attending University of Maryland, I'll check both to see if they'd be willing to ILL to my local library or to Maryland, College Park's Library.Naraht (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

ScienceDirect

1. ScienceDirect, a platform for access to nearly 2,200 academic journals and over 25,000 e-books. It`s availabe at some University libraries. JimRenge (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

   I entirely agree, access would be highly appreciated. Hippo99 (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

   Seconded. Despite talk of open access, many science journals useful as sources for wikipedia (reviews journals such as the Annual Review and the Current Opinion series for example) are still difficult to access without subscription. Hzh (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

   I also agree. Though I just got JSTOR access, I still find that a lot of journal articles I need access to are only available through ScienceDirect. – Maky ^« talk » 08:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

    Done@Maky, JimRenge, and Hzh: The partnership has opened up at WP:Elsevier ScienceDirect. Make sure to sign up, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

RIPM

RIPM (= Répertoire international de la presse musicale – the title is french, but the content is multilingual) Retrospective Index to Music Periodicals is an Online Archive of several hundret Music Periodicals (1760-1966) in every european language. It is one of the main sources to classical music. ripm.org. --Konrad Stein (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Hi @Konrad Stein: I have started talks with RIPM. I will let you know if/when the partnership becomes available, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

   Thanks a lot. I am curious. Yours --Konrad Stein (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

   @Konrad Stein: I wanted to let you know about the status on this: They are changing some of their software infrastructure, I believe to facilitate more public landing pages for citations from Wikipedia and other sources, so the donation is forthcoming.Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

   Once again: Thanks a lot. Nice to see, that there is someting on the move. --Konrad Stein (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

   @Konrad Stein: Now launched, see WP:RIPM. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

HeinOnline

HeinOnline: carries just about every law review, law journal and bar journal there is (at least within the Anglosphere). Also carries a great deal of works essential to research of common law legal history, such as the full backlog of the English Reports, of the Selden Society and Stair Society publications, old statute books, and loads more. Many of these sources are difficult if not impossible to access without access to an academic law library (and even then, you'd only be able to get a lot of the older stuff on microform). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Yes, I have seen these HeinOnline citations, but have had trouble accessing the articles, when researching topics I write about on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

   @Mendaliv and WeijiBaikeBianji: Now launched, see WP:HeinOnline. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Taylor and Francis Online

Taylor and Francis Online Hundreds of peer-reviewed journals and thousands of ebooks, including Routledge titles. RolandR (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

1. I agree, would be highly useful. Hippo99 (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

   Me too. Routledge is a major publisher of religion and social science-related articles. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

   Access to these journals etc would be an excellent aid to editing. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

   Yes, would be useful. JimRenge (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

   Yes, I was just looking for an article, and it's in that database. (The article: Bonnie Blackwell (2004). "How the jilt triumphed over the slut: the evolution of an epithet, 1660-1780". Women's Writing 11. - It's for the Jilt shop article - if anyone can email me a copy, I'd appreciate it.) --Rosekelleher (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

   We have tried to get a foot in the door several times in the last 6 months: we have gotten some more promising conversation from some contacts w/i TandF in the last month from people we met at conferences. I hope to be able to report progress soon.Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

   Thank you so much, Astinson (WMF)! These are very promising news. Your endeavor is highly appreciated. Hippo99 (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

   Thanks for the contacts with the publisher. I agree with the other editors here that the Taylor and Francis Online materials are very helpful for improving articles here on Wikipedia, and I would be glad to refer to them with the usual Wikipedia Library credit to the publisher if they become available to us. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

   Where do we find "the usual Wikipedia Library credit"?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

2. I agree with this. Carrite (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

   Fleshing this our a little: T&F has a complete digitized archive of the journal Labor History, which would be gold to me in my work. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

   We are almost there: they have had a series of delays through their end: pay attention for our next distribution, I think we will have a group of selections available for donation, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

   Thanks for your efforts. Please do ping us again if something with T&F opens up. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

   It would be great to get access; I paid to get an article from the T&F site recently ... but it did turn out to be very useful! SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

   Thank you so much in advance, Astinson (WMF)!! I agree with Carrite - please ping us upon availability. Hippo99 (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hippo99, Sagaciousphil, JimRenge, RolandR, and Kautilya3: Now open, see WP:Taylor & Francis. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC) @Rosekelleher, WeijiBaikeBianji, and Carrite: as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Newspaperarchive

Newspaperarchive.com Site claims to be world's largest newspaper resource with "145+ million pages and growing" papers dating back to 1607. I think it would be tremendously valuable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Seconded. Includes the Jamaica Gleaner 1834-Present; a key resource for that country. -Arb. (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

    Not done@Dr. Blofeld and Arb: I am going to make a judgement call that working with them is not in the best interest of our Wikipedia readers who might in turn subscribe to the service (see this article documenting complaints and the discussion of problems at our article on the company. Moreover, the BBB rates them as an F in responses. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

   Astinson (WMF) Has it occurred to you that a rival was responsible for that content in the wiki article? It doesn't seem neutral to me not to mention the error claim being 11 years out of date. It would be like comparing wikipedia in 2001 to today! It seems poor judgement to dismiss a resource with 145 million pages outright like that just because one or two people said something negative about it. I've done some searches on it and it often picks up sources which would likely be of great benefit to wikipedia. The F score if you look is mostly based on complaints NOT related to the resource itself. 89 complaints on Billing / Collection Issues was the largest one. Out of the 200,000 odd stated users of the resource there's just 140 complaints in 3 years. Do you think that's a fair judgement to make that it's not in the best interest of wikipedia readers? Look at the bottom of the page here for the esteemed institutions which they claim regularly use it. If Harv, Princeton, NY Times, CNN, National Library of Medicine and The Wall Street Journal thinks it's good enough then surely there's more good to it than might seem apparent?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

   @Astinson (WMF): Two current/recent deletion discussions that would have been easily resolved by access to the Gleaner print archive; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Dalhouse & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Andrew Juvenile Remand Centre. -Arb. (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

   @Arb: Thanks for letting me know! We have had some very successful discussions with Newspaperarchive, @Dr. Blofeld: convinced me to reach out to them elsewhere; before they give us a donation, they are making some changes to their software which will make them a better resource for both our editors and our readers. We hope to have this access in the next couple months, but not in the near future (less than a month), which is unfortunate for these discussions, but will benefit us in the long term. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

   Thanks. That's useful to know. -Arb. (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

   @Arb: Thinking about these particular situations: you could draftify the two articles for deletion or pull on copies from http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/ if they get deleted . Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

   I am very glad to hear this resource may be available w/in the next few months. Great news. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

2. Support—I've found this to be a very valuable resource in the past, but due to a change in my current economic circumstances, I had to let my subscription lapse. Those willing to log in through Facebook can access a limited number of articles each day, which helps, but it pales in comparison to the productivity I had with a full subscription in the past. Imzadi 1979 → 00:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
3. Support - Appears to have a large stack of sources, evenmore that Newspapers.com --Peaceworld 22:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld, Arb, Imzadi1979, and Peaceworld111: WP:Newspaperarchive.com. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Science, AAAS

Science, AAAS: One of the most influential and prestigious scientific journals. Many of the most noteworthy scientific discoveries are announced here. Anyone can get create an account that offers access to full text research articles and reports published more than one year ago back to 1997, but some of us need access to the current year's publications and older material. – Maky ^« talk » 17:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Maky: now open, see WP:AAAS. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

AAJ, CAJ, AJ

A lot of mountaineering achievements are recorded in various alpine journals which are primarily only available on a fee basis. It would be great to have subscriptions to American Alpine Journal (AAJ), Canadian Alpine Journal (CAJ) and the Alpine Journal (AJ). While there are some other good "mostly free" reference sites that myself and others use for articles on mountains/volcanoes and related landforms, it would be great if we could quote the mentioned journals directly when writing about the climbing history of mountains. RedWolf (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hi @Redwolf:: do you have a sense of how many Wikipedians would use this resource? I ask, because Alpine Journal appears to have a free archive up until 2008 and I am not sure of the scale of demand/usage. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

LAT

Which of these should I sign up for if I want access to the historical archives of the Los Angeles Times? pbp 20:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Hi @Purplebackpack89: Proquest controls access to the LATimes collection more generally, and the LATimes also offers a service: at this time we don't have a donation from Proquest. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

   @Purplebackpack89: WP:EBSCO BusinessSource complete includes the LATimes Archive. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

   Good to know, thanks! pbp 20:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Business Source Complete

Business Source Complete has archives of many magazines, and many other things. Journals and magazines, other sources, subject title list. I encountered this site because some citations mention it as an archive of Electronic Gaming Monthly, Emedia Professional, and Forbes magazines. These three particular magazines are essential sources of the history of video gaming, computing, and other types of media; they contain a business perspective on consumer stuff, like the relationships, contracts, and quotations behind the scenes as well as reviews. But BSC goes vastly beyond just those kinds of sources. I have no idea how much it costs. Is this type of resource appropriate to this project's pursuit? Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 21:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

1. You should know: BSC's archive of EGM only goes from Dec. 2000 to Jan. 2009. That said, it does have page scans for all those issues (some are really low-quality). Its coverage of Emedia Professional only goes from Jan. 1997 to Sept. 1999 (and only has some pagescans). Gale's Business Insights database is much better for Emedia Professional (but still only goes from Jan. 1997 to Aug. 1999). All that said, EBSCO's databases are nice and have pretty widespread coverage of a lot of topics, and I don't think I've seen a university library without it either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

   @Mendaliv: Thanks for your analysis. So you're saying this is a fairly essential resource? I wouldn't want to request a big and expensive subscription if it serves only a few things, or if it overlaps with other resources that we're already subscribed to. Are Forbes, Emedia Professional, and EGM all unavailable via existing Wikipedian online sources? Also use {{reply to }} so that we'll ever see your fine replies. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 17:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

   @Mendaliv and Smuckola: This is definitely a reasonable resource to ask for. We have had several Ebsco and Proquest databases on our radar, but both publishers have been hard to get a fruitful foot in the door for starting a donation. Ebsco is one of our priorities to talk to at every conferences, and we are hoping donations like WP:DynaMed which we got through networking, will help us build a relationship that allows us to ask for more opportunities.Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

   @Smuckola: I'm really not the right person to comment on whether a particular database is essential. All I know is that I've never seen an institute of higher education (whether a university or local college) in the United States that lacks EBSCO access. And I don't mean to say that it would just be a niche tool: EBSCO's databases are broad and uniformly scholarly. I'm not sure whether any of our other partner databases have those periodicals. I can tell you Questia doesn't, and I don't think JSTOR does either. So EBSCO would definitely fill some gaps, but not having seen a broad comparison of their products, I can't say for sure where those gaps lie. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

   @Mendaliv and Smuckola: Keep an eye out for our July/August release. We expect to have this along with several other exciting sources, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mendaliv and Smuckola: WP:EBSCO. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Veterinary sources

I don't have immediate access to university journal searching resources, so I'm not even sure where to start and what to recommend with this request. It just seems to me that the amount of veterinary material (peer-reviewed) available through JSTOR, and various other searches I have access to is quite low. Most of our articles on livestock and pet breeds of domestic animals are based largely on tertiary sources ("breed encyclopedias" and fancier magazines) most of which are not actually reliable sources for anything about veterinary medicine, being neither comprehensive nor current with regard to such science. Even just trying to adequately source and cover the pertinent details in Manx cat (with regard to what causes the taillessness of this breed, how it relates to taillessness in other breeds and other species, and what medical conditions are associated with it, in actual fact, not just in breeder supposition) has proven quite difficult. In looking over livestock articles (cattle, goats, etc.) I see a general lack of any breed-specific veterinary information. (On the up side, a few of the dog articles are better in this regard, as the medical conditions some popular breeds are unusually susceptible to has been the subject a lot more coverage in secondary source material.) There's also a wealth of genetic-study material that has come out in the last decade, but finding any of it is quite challenging.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: From the collections that we have right now, I would recommend WP:RSUK, WP:Elsevier ScienceDirect, WP:AAAS, WP:De Gruyter and WP:TANDF. JSTOR and MUSE are primarily humanities and social sciences. Some of the medical sources we have will have some veterinary material as well (though not much I am imagining). I would also, suggest using some libguides from various other research libraries. Both West Virginia's and the NIH's are promising starting points, thought much of what they are pointing to search tools and indexes. These are very useful starting points, and with our Resource Exchange, you should be able to get access to most things with the help of people who have research access. In particular, this source seems promising, and has the ability to sign up for free if you participate professionally in (which you do as a public knowledge contributor, though they don't have a field for that (I would select librarian, since Wikipedia is the public knowledge library)). We are going to ALA's annual conference this week, and I will keep an eye out for explicitly veterinary publishing. Let us know if you consistently run into a particular paywalled database over and over again (alot of people in the Sciences run into Elsevier's ScienceDirect, so we hope to get more copies of that). Cheers, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much; I'm sure that will help. It's not so much that I keep running into a paywall, it's that I can't find any relevant information most of the time, because the databases and searches, not just the content, aren't readily available via the paths I've been e-trodding so far.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The "librarian" thing worked with IVIS. Has quite a few papers and such on Manx cats, my main research target for the moment.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Gale Reference & Research

Gale Reference & Research Database of many otherwise difficult-to-access sources, including Associated Press, Chatham House, Punch, Smithsonian Collections, many other press archives, and thousands of online books. RolandR (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Gale offers interesting coverage of some useful sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@RolandR and WeijiBaikeBianji: Some of these resources are now available at WP:Gale. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Brill Online

Brill Online, which is Brill Publishers' online resource, has a pretty good variety of sources. One particular source they carry in their Reference Works collection is the Recueil des Cours, or the collected courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. These include highly cited textbook-length documents generally covering public and private international law, as well as a lot of very good specific lectures on international law topics. They also carry a lot of journals and other books on a broader series of topics than international law. I think they have both French and English sources, and I believe they're all DOI-tagged (so would be very accessible). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

1. 1. Agree, Brill is also publisher of the very useful and influential Encyclopedia of Islam (EI), which is also available through their Brill Online offering. I recall they have material available in German as well. Milliped (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
   • Actually I'm wrong, the sources aren't DOI tagged, but do all have useable permalinks to landing pages for each document. Some of the other reference resources they have cover biblical studies, Jewish studies, Islamic studies, medieval history, and Ancient Greek, Arabic, and Hebrew linguistics. Brill Online also covers e-books and journals of publications by Brill, Martinus Nijhoff, and a bunch of others. A lot of it does have to do with international law and international relations. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
     • @Mendaliv and Milliped: We are talking to Brill right now, and we hope to have a donation available soon. Keep an eye out! Sadads (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mendaliv and Milliped: See WP:Brill. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The Miramar Ship Index

As we have more than 36.000 ships by name now in Wikimedia Commons, it is time to investigate extra on the old ships. That takes a lot of energy, as there are only few public databases where the information can be found. The Miramar Ship Index has more than 260.000 single ships listed and the number of searchable index entries is more the 600.000. Is it possible to obtain a concurrent use license for users working on the proces of naming the ships in Wikimedia Commons.

I myself am working on the Dutch Wikipedia, but my main activity is categorising in Commons. Stunteltje (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Stunteltje: Do you have a sense of how many users would be able to use this? If there are a lot of users working on this, I think we should be able to get a partnership. We generally don't do narrow interest source outreach, unless its part of a larger more versatile collection. I see its been used about 1000 times on English Wikipedia, so it seems quite important as a citation, but I only see about 12 links on Wikimedia commons (the main value for our partners, is visibility of their source, so we need to be able to articulate how often it will get used, even if its not a high visibility/readership usage).

That being said: since you know the source so well, we would be very happy with you adapting our pitch process and approaching them yourself, in part because you know how the source will be used, you can discuss more directly, the scale of impact. Once the conversation starts (you can cc me at astinsonwikimedia.org), we can facilitate distribution of the access and/or advise on other parts of the negotiation. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any idea about the number of users that would use the license. The use was free, untill a couple of years ago. You didn't find much references in Wikimedia Commons, as I used the information of The Miramar Ship Index very, very much, but didn't make any note in the categories when a ship was found. Did not realise it was of importance at all. As I didn't make a category for the Official Numbers. Very important for ships before the IMO number registration. Now we have to categorise the older ships in Wikimedia Commons, the Official Number is more important and can be found in this Index. Also the other way around: if a user has found an Official Number, the right ship by year of completion can be found. So I think a lot of users will use the licence, when they realise the benefit of it. Being just a simple user without any competence to find out, I don't know how many serious categorisers for ships there are in Commons.

I will try to start the negotiation. A long time ago I already mentioned the possibility of negotiations to mr. Rodger Barrington Haworth, but hadn't any autorisation to do so myself and didn't continue it. Stunteltje (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

How many of these ships are on Wikidata? I'm not sure what's exactly in the index, but it being an index, it sounds like Wikidata could have a place for it, and it would be easy there to create a large number of citations, which in the (far?) future could link back to Commons.----AWossink (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Stunteltje: I wanted to check if you have started the conversation. How is it going? I haven't seen anything in my email astinsonwikimedia.org . Let me know if you need any help. We are probably going to announce our next batch of partnerships in a month or two.

@AWossink: I think this would be one of those indexes that we slowly acquire data from (and/or index the identifiers from in Wikidata), so that we can help with cross-database work. Like Sum of All paintings: I think this is mostly a matter of having the right people involved and interested. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Didn't start negotiation, as I am not sure how to represent Wikimedia and in my work (more than 20 jears ago) only used to negotiate for a multinational. Need help in this, indeed. Not even a member of Wikipedia Netherlands. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Stunteltje: The draft email at pitch process frames the outreach well, and feel free to revise it to better fit your comfort level. You don't need to be a "member" of anything to this outreach: your work as a volunteer editor makes you a representative of the community as an editor (feel free to write something like "I am a volunteer supporting the Wikipedia Library and WikiProject Ships. I have cc'ed the Wikipedia Library Project Manager, Alex Stinson"). Moreover, feel free to give yourself the title "Wikipedia Library Volunteer", because as soon as you started corresponding with us, you became a volunteer supporting our mission. If you like, we can also help you become a coordinator: which requires just a bit more information on our part, so that we know how to help you stay engaged. Here is our coordinator signup page: Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Coordinators/Signup. Wikipedia is a great community to Be bold in!!! and we would very much like to help you represent the community. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Answer from New Zealand: Complementary access to editors possible for a trial period. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Now available at WP:Miramar. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Cambridge University Press

Cambridge University Press or http: http://journals.cambridge.org - would be great to have access.I'm so tired (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC) (talk)

1. @Tonton Bernardo: I have put in a second round of inquiries today, hopefully we will hear more :) Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

   1. @Astinson (WMF): Thank you, Astinson. Rgds I'm so tired (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
      1. @Tonton Bernardo: So, sad news: I think I got the first firm no we have had from an academic publisher, through one of my contacts at Cambridge. I hope to continue being persistant about it, but we haven't had any traction with them yet. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
         1. @Astinson (WMF): Thanks again, Astinson. Rgds I'm so tired (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it would benefit me personally but I agree it would be an excellent one to make an agreement with and a lot of people would find it a great resource.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: Any chance you could create List of Cambridge University Press journals? It might be useful to view a full list on wikipedia in alpha order or by subject.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There are rather a lot of them at present, as per here, and I have no idea how many which have been discontinued. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Was it something like this what you had in mind? Or was it something different you were thinking of? --Xover (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed good ole User:Xover, nice one. Perhaps italicize the titles though? That list would be most useful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll clean it up a little and mainspace it when I have the time. Thursday-ish, probably, but no promises. --Xover (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Done. A little later than planned, but, I think, also rather nicer than it first seemed likely to be: List of Cambridge University Press journals. --Xover (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tonton Bernardo and Dr. Blofeld: WP:Cambridge. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks Nikkimaria ! Applied. User:Tonton Bernardo I'm so tired (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Annual Reviews

This website has 46 scientific journals that can be accessed after you subscribe, primarily biomedical/life sciences. They also have life and physical science journals as well. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: Wikipedia:Annual Reviews :) Sam Walton (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Oops my bad. Lol. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

British Council Library

A big collection of 100,000 academic e-books, 7000 full text e-journals, 50 digital magazines. They offer Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi and Tamil newspapers which would be very helpful to Indian editors. --Skr15081997 (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Skr15081997:. That is an interesting idea. It looks like they are a membership library based in India and focused on providing an aggregation of resources from different publisher databases for people in particular geographies.

That looks like something that would be best facilitated by the volunteer community or affiliates in India - both because access appears to be geographically bound, and because it also includes a physical access donation. That being said, we would be happy to either help you, or someone else that is in the local user group or meta:CIS-A2K. If you are interested in helping us figure out who to best lead the relationship, I would suggest that you email me at astinsonwikimedia.org. We also have our process/strategy for getting database publishers at: Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Processes/Pitching partners, and there are other outreach strategies that might work as well (it looks the British Council Library, doesn't host the material, but simply provides access to it). Thanks again, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Astinson (WMF): when I posted this, I wan't aware that BCL doesn't host the content. The academic journals they provide are covered by WP:Gale. The Indian newspapers and magazines, BCL provides access to are hosted by http://www.pressreader.com. Access to them would be of great value to Indian editors. Thanks, --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Skr15081997: Glad the GALE coverage is good (its a really broad collection --- we were really celebrating getting WP:Gale and WP:EBSCO -- because they are massive collections -- and as they expand to support more editors, they will really help support a wide range of editing). How much of an archive of back issues does pressreader have? I can't find a good concrete documentation of what is in their collection, and how useful it will be. For example, several of their "major partners" are typically free-to-read w/ ads. If there is a big backfile that is better than the websites, I would appreciate any information you have on it. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Skr15081997: Just wanted to check, and see if you saw my question about pressreader, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Astinson (WMF):, they don't offer a big archive, just last 3 months and then the earlier ones become inaccessible. --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Oxford (UK) Bibliographies

I would love to have access to Oxford Bibliographies, especially (in my case) http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/obo/page/chinese-studies#4. It has many, many useful articles on Chinese research, but users can normally get access only through an institution. Evangeline (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Evangeline: The WP:OUP collection has access to these (we are also getting expanded access to their journals soon, so you will get even more strong material). Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Book Review Digest (via EBSCOhost)

• https://www.ebscohost.com/public/book-review-digest-plus-h.w.-wilson
• https://www.ebscohost.com/public/book-review-digest-retrospective

My kingdom for BRD. I use this database every day for WP and I'm losing it as I leave my current institution. BRD is the longest running index of book reviews. There are two databases: BRD Retrospective covers 1903–1982, and BRD Plus covers 1983–present. The latter (1983–present) is a higher priority, as it'd be most relevant for WP editors, but I'm losing my print access to the equivalent of the Retrospective too, and I use that weekly. My kingdom for these two databases! Make this happen, TWL? (By the way, I'd be happy to volunteer to manage these accounts if it entices y'all to expedite the negotiations. Though I imagine EBSCO might just add access to the existing TWL EBSCO package.) czar 15:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: I can't make any promises yet but this it's likely this will be included soon :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: see Wikipedia talk:EBSCO#Lots of new EBSCO resources! :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): great! Thanks! Hopefully we can get the Retrospective (pre-1981) access soon as well czar 19:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

OpenAthens & ResearchGate

One source in particular, behind SagePub.com's paywall is Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery. Apparently access is free to institutions that have OpenAthens. I don't know much about that system, and whether WMF would qualify for it. Some of this material is available via the unfortunately named ResearchGate (sounds like a scandal), but they will not give anyone an account without a .edu e-mail address. (There's some back-channel way to get one, but even then they still seem to want you to be a "published" "researcher". I have a mainstream book, but doubt I'll qualify because I don't work in a lab. Heh.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I am pretty sure OpenAthens is an authentication protocol for accessing services that your subscribing libraries have access to. We can't join the access, I don't think, because we aren't a subscribing library: the organizations that subscribe as coalitions frequently buy in groups, and the licensing is contingent upon a purchasing framework. We are in a much better position to negotiate with the publishers directly, and we are in the process of building a tool that can give us the kind of authentication protocols we need to simplify access through a donation from OCLC. Similarly ResearchGate is kindof questionable in its aggregation practices: there isn't much value beyond what we hope to get by extending our SAGE stats donation WP:SAGE. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Astinson (WMF): OK, though WP:SAGE is redlinking.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Sorry, meant to write Wikipedia:SAGE Stats, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:, @Astinson (WMF):, so wait, this means that if I want to get access to, say, "Evolution & Development", and the web page on which I have found the issue that interests me offers access via OpenAthens (like a lot of journals do), then we are better off negotiating with "E&D" directly? For each journal? (am I misunderstanding something?). Because there are thousands and thousands and thousands of journals— would we really need to negotiate with each one in order to do this? (If so, can I put E&D on a list somewhere?). KDS4444^Talk 03:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@KDS4444, @Astinson (WMF): Tens of thousands. There are at least 28K academic/scholarly journals, and 47K academic/scholarly periodicals including those that aren't technically journals, and that's still excluding various publications that aren't technically periodicals. So, it is certainly better for us to seek access to gateways to lots of them rather than seek access to specific ones, in all three of the senses of 11 how much access to scholarship we get, 2) how easy it is to get it (search a huge aggregator vs. search at hundreds or thousands of publishers' own sites), and 3) how much effort is spent getting it. From a researcher perspective, it doesn't matter to me what protocols put the PDF in my hands; I'm perfectly happy to log into a cooperating university's uni. library site and using their R'Gate or OpenAthens access, as a "virtual visiting scholar" or something, rather than having some kind direct WMF access through the RG or OA access protocols.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

In the interim, I've found it more expedient to just buy a .edu e-mail address from Fiverr.com (various .edu sysadmins will create accounts for people for US$5–$15). Given that this is pretty public activity, they've been at it for a long time, and most people like being employed, my assumption is that they have permission to do this. Maybe because their institution (perhaps in the wake of the Aaron Swartz JSTOR suicide debacle) considers it part of their educational mission to assist the public in gaining access to educational resources, and it effectively cost them nothing (the sysadmins will still be on the payroll, watching things compile and eating Doritos at their terminal, if they're not creating accounts for people). I know that's how I'd feel about it if I were a university or college administrator, anyway. Regardless, I'm not asking any pointed questions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

WorldCat

https://www.worldcaat.org/ I agree with others that Proquest would be great! I think WorldCat is free, it be great if it was amended to this list! You put in your zip code and it tells you where the closest copy is. Frederika Eilers (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Frederika Eilers: Worldcat is already included in a number of the community's search and discovery resources, including Special:BookSources and a number of the maintenance templates across Wikipedia. Is there a particular place where you would like to remind editors about it? Thanks for asking for the support! Sadads (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Royal Society of Chemistry

Royal Society of Chemistry--Freshman404^Talk 05:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Freshman404: We are already distributing access to RSC Gold; is there another database from them you're requesting? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Ulrich's Periodicals Directory

http://www.ulrichsweb.com/

Ulrich's is a database for periodicals. It's most important as a metareference—e.g., if I want to see what databases cover a periodical I'm after, I can check the publication's listing in Ulrich's. Would be very helpful for determining which TWL partnerships carry access to specific journals. czar 16:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: This seems like a useful tool, so thanks for the suggestion, but we have some more useful solutions for the problem of figuring out which partnerships have specific journals in the works! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Royal Irish Academy

Access to RAI content (http://www.jstor.org/publisher/rsai) would be great for historians. Nmclough (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nmclough: As far as I'm aware you should be able to get access to this from JSTOR. Sam Walton (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Bloomsbury's Drama Online and Bloomsbury Collections

Bloomsbury Publishing has various online services, usually offered to libraries and academic institutions, related to their publications (see Bloomsbury - Librarians & Researchers). Of these, the ones most obviously relevant to the project is Drama Online and Bloomsbury Collections. These contain a wide variety of "books, journals, major reference works and online libraries" relevant to humanities and social science. Personally (and on behalf of WikiProject Shakespeare) I would be most interested in the Arden Shakespeare imprint (who are, along the Oxford Shakespeare, the critical editions of record for Shakespeare's plays, as well as a ton of related and supporting scholarly literature)—both the current "Series Three" editions, as well as the older editions—and their Great Shakespeareans series of reference works on biographers, critics, actors, actor-managers, and directors. Through Oxford Journals, Cambridge Journals, JSTOR, and Project MUSE, the coverage of journals and articles that we have access to in this area is pretty good, but for books and reference works it's pretty slim pickings (I have literally just yesterday finished building a shelving unit to store my personal library of paper books on this topic, and neither my square footage nor my purse can support any further expansion of this library. Online access to these works would be a great boon!).

I know Bloomsbury has been focused on building up their academic publishing over the last few years, so I would imagine they'd be at least somewhat interested in an arrangement that would get their works cited more; and the fact that they even have a point of contact ([email protected]) and terms for "Librarians & Researchers" makes me hopeful that they may be amenable to the idea of participating in The Wikipedia Library. --Xover (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Xover: Coincidentally I'm speaking to Oxford University Press this month about the potential for access to Bloomsbury's Who's Who? which they currently distribute; I'll investigate the potential for a broader partnership with Bloomsbury. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): Thanks! And while you're talking to OUP, give them a little nudge about access to The Oxford Shakespeare series? :) --Xover (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): By the way, since I touched on it above, The Oxford Shakespeare, among many other Oxford scholarly editions are available on Oxford Scholarly Editions Online. The OUP access currently doesn't appear to include access to this, but it would be very useful for all literature articles (not just Shakespeare). --Xover (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): Any progress with Bloomsbury? Access to The Arden Shakespeare and their Great Shakespeareans series would be a tremendous help. --Xover (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Xover: Working on it, no progress yet. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): Any news on Bloomsbury? --Xover (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Who's Who and Who was Who

Who's Who and Who was Who are among the most authoritative British biographical databases which have been continuously maintained and updated for more than a century. They have a large coverage of personalities from different professions in the United Kingdom (UK) and the Commonwealth since the 19th century. They also provide very rich and complete raw biographical data which can hardly be retrieved handily from other sources. Although Who's Who and Who was Who are published by the Oxford University Press (OUP), the OUP collection in the Wikipedia Library, sadly, does not include them at the moment. I understand that UK nationals have free access to the online version of Who's Who and Who was Who from their local libraries in the UK. However, people out of the UK, such as those in Hong Kong, may only gain free access to the online version from tertiary institutions or the printed and possibly outdated version from limited public libraries. It would be a great news for Wikipedians specialising in biographies of historical and contemporary people from the UK and other Commonwealth countries, if Who's Who and Who was Who are added to the Wikipedia Library. The subscription would, undoubtedly, greatly facilitate their painstaking research work and effectively strengthen the quality and credibility of biographical entries in Wikipedia. --Clithering (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Clithering: I'll investigate whether we can get access to this through OUP; that's probably the easiest route for us. I'll get back to you when I find out more. Sam Walton (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Parking this here since it would need to be through Bloomsbury. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Xover and Clithering: Who's Who and Drama Online now available through WP:Bloomsbury. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I can imagine the hard work it took to make the deal!--Clithering (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Bloomsbury Collections

@Samwalton9 (WMF) and Nikkimaria: Is Bloomsbury supposed to include Bloomsbury Collections? This is Bloomsbury's actual digital books (and journals) service, it looks like, while Drama Online is more of an educational resource that happens to contain content from some of their books. In particular, I was needing access to their Great Shakespeareans series, which is not available in Drama Online. In any case, I've received credentials for Drama Online but not for Bloomsbury Collections. --Xover (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Xover: Not sure - I'll look into this and see if we can get it added if not. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

PsychiatryOnline database

PsychiatryOnline from American Psychiatric Publishing would provide access to publications from the American Psychiatric Association, including four journals: The American Journal of Psychiatry, Psychiatric Services, The Journal of Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences, and Focus: The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry as well as a large number of books including the DSM Library (DSM-5 and others) and curated collections on psychotherapy, patient/family psychoeducation and other topics.

These sources are distinct from those available through Wikipedia:APA and would provide reliable medical sources for editors working on articles about mental illnesses, neuropsychiatric disorders, and some neuroscience topics. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 15:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@ShelleyAdams: Just a quick confirmation that I'm looking into this :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@ShelleyAdams: This is all but confirmed; hopefully you'll hear back from me with details in the next few weeks! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): That's fantastic! Thanks :) —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 20:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@ShelleyAdams: WP:American Psychiatric Association. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @Nikkimaria and Samwalton9 (WMF)! I saw it yesterday and already applied. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 03:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Newspaper aggregators

When describing current events, it can be very helpful to access quality newspapers. All too often we have to rely on simplified pieces in newsmedia that work mainly as TV channels (CNN, NBC, FOX). What about getting a service like Blendle to provide access for Wikipedians, like they provide access to school children? Or is there something like it already available? effeietsanders 23:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Effeietsanders: Unfortunately Blendle aren't able to provide access through TWL due to licensing restrictions. We'll keep our eyes out for a similar service. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

PILOTS database (traumatic stress)

From the website:

The Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress (PILOTS) Database is an electronic index to the worldwide literature on PTSD and other mental health consequences of exposure to traumatic events. Unlike other databases, the PILOTS Database does not restrict its coverage to articles appearing in selected journals. It attempts to include all publications relevant to PTSD and other forms of traumatic stress, whatever their origin without disciplinary, linguistic, or geographic limitations. The PILOTS Database is produced by the National Center for PTSD, and is electronically available to the public. There is no charge for using the database, and no account or password is required. Although it is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the PILOTS Database is not limited to literature on PTSD among Veterans.

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

And it is not limited to research conducted in the United States.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Markworthen: Can I just clarify that this resource is free to access? If so, we'll consider adding it to our search tool (when built), but there wouldn't be any need for us to contact them about a partnership with TWL. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is free. That would be great to add it to the forthcoming search tool. :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Graces Guide to British Industrial Hisory

Its not behind a paywall, but I suggest the Library gives some publicity to it. http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Grace%27s_Guide It has digitised very long runs of British technical periodicals such as The Engineer and Engineering There are biographies of many thousand engineers and indusrialists and pages about the engineering activities in British towns and cities. |Apwoolrich (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Apwoolrich: Interesting! We're still trying to decide how best to collate and publicise good Open Access content; in the meantime you could probably recommend this to relevant WikiProjects directly. Sam Walton (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

China related journals

Due to recent Chinese shannigans against me I'm wondering if it would be possible for someone to check which China related journals we have access to and with the ones that we don't if we could subscribe to all of then particularly English language ones? Also how do I sign up for all the history poli sci, law and social science databases at once without having to do each individually? ThanksNotgoingtotellyou (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Notgoingtotellyou: I would highly recommend WP:JSTOR, WP:OUP (particularly the journals) and WP:Project MUSE. We are also working on an international affairs collection from WP:TANDF. If you could point to particular journals that you need, we can seek out that publisher. When last we talked to Chinese Language editors, we learned that in the Chinese language context, most academic literature has been published and/or pirated in readily, and can be easily found online. However, for each of those, we need you to demonstrate experience developing content in Wikipedia (remember our accounts require a minimum of 500 edits to Wikipedia). I highly recommend doing more editing, and exploring tutorials like The Wikipedia Adventure, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Rock's Backpages

This website contains a wealth of music journalism from magazines and newspapers of decades past, most of which has been unavailable online. The articles include crucial release and production information, as well as important contemporary reviews. Their archives could help fill in much of the surprisingly large gaps in our popular music articles! SteveStrummer (talk)

@SteveStrummer: Good news! You can now apply for free access to Rock's Backpages on the Library Card platform :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times Archives

The Los Angeles Times Archives -millions of articles since 1881 - I know myself and a few west coast and film project editors who'd find this tremendously valuable

1. -Especially if NY Times proves unobtainable. A very right wing paper for the early 20th C but a good source as the century progressed. Carrite (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
2. @Carrite: Most of LAT is in the Business Source Complete part of WP:EBSCO, 19:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

ProQuest

ProQuest: It began publishing doctoral dissertations in 1939 and has published more than 3 million searchable dissertations and theses. JimRenge (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Agree, and suggest looking into some of their ancillary products, such as ProQuest Congressional or ProQuest Legislative Insight; while some of these primarily bring in primary sources, or otherwise freely-available GPO publications, it's much more easily searchable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

   @Mendaliv and JimRenge::I have started a promising conversation on this front, though the first partnerships w/ PQ might not be the specific databases you request (once in the door, though, these tend to become much easier.)Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

   Thanks for working on the contact; ProQuest would be useful for me too. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

   Their Entertainment Industry Magazine Archive and Historical Newspapers databases would be very useful. The latter one includes The Times of India, one of the most reputed Indian newspapers. It would be very useful for editors working on Indian history during the latter half of the 19th century and whole of the 20th century. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, this should be very helpful. --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
• As an editor working on rather controversial topics in the Indian sphere, the Times has a bit of a dodgy reputation, particularly for being even more sensationalist, and poorer with fact-checking and coverage, than many of the other mainstream Indian papers. That said, there are still immense gaps in nitty-gritty uncontroversial Indian topics, and the Times would certainly help with those. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
• I would also highly appreciate having access to old newspapers for India such as the The Times of India. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, Titodutta, and Vanamonde93: I can help out with the Times of India Archives if you have a specific citation in mind. Leave a note on my talk or at WP:RX - NQ (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That's handy to know, NQ. The Times of India can be rather dodgy nowadays but historically (say, pre-1980s) it was a very good newspaper and access to it would likely be very useful. I have access only to the ProQuest Times (London) and Guardian databases and use them a lot ... but rarely when I already know the specific citation because in that circumstance the cite has almost always come from a reliable secondary source anyway. They're better used, like the BNL, for broad searches that then become more specific. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• I really doubt they're gonna greenlight freely available downloads of pdfs of dissertations — that's big money to them — but this would be massively important if it could be swung. Carrite (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• @JimRenge, Mendaliv, Kautilya3, Titodutta, Vanamonde93, Skr15081997, Carrite, and Sitush:: We have another Newspaper database WP:Newspaperarchive.com and the massive WP:EBSCO which should provide an intermediary set of material, until we get a relationship with proquest: both provide quite a range of useful tools that might help fill the gaps you all talk about, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • As far as I understand the users above talked about Historical Newspapers (including The Times of India), EBSCO and Newspaperarchive.com don't have that material. I vote for ProQuest Historical Newspapers: South China Morning Post and ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Chinese Newspapers Collection. That are absolute unique collections of historical magazines of China and Hong Kong (form the end of XIX century). It's very valuable resource for all users who interested in history of China and Hong Kong.--Алый Король (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @Алый Король: Good to know: we have had fruitful initial conversations with Eastview and Newsbank, though neither are going to be ready for a donation soon; both of these have more global diversity. Though we have approached Proquest a couple times, haven't had a fruitful conversation yet. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I second thatVroy0001 (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

ProQuest Congressional

It has every Congressional hearing and every floor vote and floor speech in Congress, every CRS report, every GAO report, going back to 1790. Since many floor speeches and congressional hearings contain secondary sources placed in the record in their entirety, this is not only a great primary source but also a good source for secondary material. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Figureofnine: We have yet to find a profitable conversation with ProQuest. When we do, I will make sure to request access to this particular database. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be outstanding if you can do hat. Thanks so much. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Astinson (WMF): I was just discussing with somebody how useful this resource would be, We believe it has access to The Times of India archives which could prove extremely useful for older films on wikipedia. If you could try to contact them I'd be immensely grateful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you may be thinking of ProQuest Historical Newspapers. However ProQuest Congressional stands on its own merits. Sure hope we can get it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

ProQuest NewsStand

Extensive news archive; I had free access to this for a few years through my county library, but low take-up by the hicks and hayseeds in my county led to the library services manager not renewing the partnership :( I found this incredibly useful for my WP editing, and their pre-London Guardian archive was a treasure. Maybe they would consider a small trial? Keri (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Keri:: We are working on access to Proquest databases, but have yet to find a good person to talk too for a donation. Hopefully we find someone this week during the ALA conference. In the meantime, a lot of editors have been happy with WP:Newspapers.com and WP:BNA for historical materials. We are also in the process of negotiating several other newspaper databases, which I will try to ping you about when they become available (one of them will be in our next distribution in late July/ early August). Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I use both those archives, and find them very useful! The ProQuest NewsStand archive that was available through my library was particularly useful for its content from the 1990s and early 21st C though. Would be great if you managed to get something. I'll watch developments eagerly. Keri (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

ProQuest Historical, as I think it is called, would be helpful by archiving newspapers not on the Internet. ProQuest Congressional, as noted above, would also be invaluable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Harvard Library

@Samwalton9 (WMF):, my passion is in 1990's educational video games, and Harvard Library is perfect of this. I would really love access.--Coin945 (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Coin945: This is a library, that subscribes to a number of journals/databases/publishers. What in particular are you interested in accessing? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): oh apologies, perhaps I was a bit vague. I am seeking access to the Harvard Library catalogue. (Link is in the section header).--Coin945 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Coin945: If you want access to Harvard's catalogue that would fall under the visiting scholars program. If there are specific databases or publishers that they have in their collection, then I can look into whether we have them or could get access to them. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

As an addendum: We could look into a partnership with Harvard University Press for the resources published by Harvard themselves. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): I looked more into the sources I want to use - the majority of them are actually links to documents within ProQuest. So that makes my suggestion the same as the one for Proquest above. Still, it would be nice for Wikipedia to partner with Harvard. :)--Coin945 (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a minor update that I had a very encouraging discussion recently, and while it's almost certainly the case that nothing will be happening before this summer, I'm optimistic :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Samwalton9 (WMF), any updates? ∯WBG^converse 11:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Our partnership with ProQuest, along with a few others, is waiting on proxy implementation in the Library Card platform. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Samwalton9 (WMF), good to know that and many thanks for your (and others') efforts:-) Curious to know about the few others! And, any rough estimate about the timeline for proxy implementation? ∯WBG^converse 16:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It's actually pretty sad (and frustrating) that the WMF, despite it's cancerous growth, can't devote the optimal amount of resources to these technical affairs.

Having partners ready to grant us access but not being able to, due to technical barriers from our side is pretty pretty horrible, IMO. ∯WBG^converse 18:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@JimRenge, Mendaliv, WeijiBaikeBianji, Skr15081997, Titodutta, Vanamonde93, Kautilya3, Sitush, Carrite, Алый Король, Vroy0001, Figureofnine, Encyclopædius, Keri, Coin945, and Winged Blades of Godric: Good news folks - we just made a bunch of ProQuest collections available through the Library Card platform! Our partnership includes ProQuest Central, in which you can find many of the above requested collections, including up-to-date content from major news websites like the New York Times and Washington Post, in addition to Literature Online, the Chinese Newspaper Collections, and Historical New York Times! The best part is that ProQuest is part of the new Library Bundle, which means if you meet our automatically-checked account criteria you can access ProQuest right away. Head over to https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ and log in - if you see that you meet the Bundle eligibility criteria, you'll be able to access ProQuest through My Library right away. Please let me know if you have any questions or feedback on the process. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

SpringerNature

1. SpringerLink: Scientific documents, including 5 million articles and 3 million chapters. – Maky ^« talk » 09:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

   I should also note that along with Elsevier and Wiley, this is another huge pay-wall for my research. (Although Karger would be very nice, these three are the "holy trinity" for my referencing.) Of particular note, this publisher is the biggest source of secondary sources (books and chapters, along with other articles) in my area of expertise. Though journal articles are very helpful, books and book chapters can be critical. – Maky ^« talk » 09:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

   Seconded. YohanN7 (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

   Agreed with the other editors that SpringerLink is very useful. I'd be delighted to link to their resources with the usual Wikipedia Library acknowledgement. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Maky, YohanN7, and WeijiBaikeBianji: We have been trying to start a conversation with Springer, and were event told that we had the contact with the right person, but haven't seen a bite yet. I would really like to prioritize Springer, but the recent merge with Nature seems to have shaken up their organization a little bit. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitely keep us posted. Between Wiley and Springer, this covers about 75% of the material I access. Thanks! – Maky ^« talk » 00:57, 25 September 2015

@Maky, YohanN7, and WeijiBaikeBianji: I did some further followup with both Nature and Springer, and the chaos/focus of the merger has caused a fair bit of delay on their end. We are going to re-explore in about 4-5 months, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 11:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone, just checking in here about SpringerLink. Would be great to access journals and books for WikiProject Computer Security work. Specifically, the International Journal of Information Security would be highly useful. Seba5tien (^talk/_contribs) 16:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Seba5tien: We'd still love to get access to Springer/Nature, but they still seem to be unsure who would be the right person at the organisation to handle a partnership like this; we'll try again early next year. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): any news on this access? :) Samat (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Samat: Not right now, but it's a priority for us this year. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Great to hear. Thank you! Samat (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Nature, NPG (Macmillan Publishers Limited)

Nature, NPG (Macmillan Publishers Limited): Another one of the most influential and prestigious scientific journals. Free registration seems to only give access to news and nothing else. – Maky ^« talk » 17:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

1. I concur that one. This is the journal I requested the most articles in the "article exchange" space. I don't know if this journal is part of any databases or not, but some Wikipedians seems to have access to it since my request always got filled by different Wikipedians. Amqui (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Maky and Amqui: We have tried to start conversations with them multiple times, but no bites. Hopefully the recent merge with Springer will make them easier to negotiate with, but we have also been hearing that the has also been a bit of an organization/staff change up as the merger is happening.Astinson (WMF) (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. This is definitely the pay wall I hit against the most often in my work contributing to Wikipedia. Amqui (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Maky and Amqui: We got pretty far in our latest round of outreach with Nature, but the chaos of the merger with Springer is preventing a firm decision/commitment. We were told to reapproach in 4-5 months. Hopefully thinks will settle down in the meantime, Astinson (WMF) (talk)

Thanks for the update, and for your work. Amqui (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Astinson (WMF): Any update on this one? Amqui (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Amqui and Maky: The last couple times we reached out, they still seem to be not sure who to talk too because of the merger. @Samwalton9: is going to be coordinating most of our outreach to publishers for the foreseeable future -- and Nature/Springer is high on our list of priority partners. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Amqui (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Maky and Amqui: It's just come to my attention that Gale have access to a number of Nature journals. This might be worth checking out if you're still interested. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): Thanks, I will check. Amqui (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Maky, YohanN7, WeijiBaikeBianji, Seba5tien, Samat, and Amqui: Good news folks - we just made Springer Nature available for access through the Library Card platform! After you've been approved for access, you'll be able to access Springer Nature through our new Authentication-based access method at My Library right away, rather than having to manage an individual username/password. Please let me know if you have any questions or feedback on the process. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

MGG Online

Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (MGG), the most comprehensive German music encyclopedia comparable to The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, is now available as an online edition https://mgg-online.com/, hosted by Bärenreiter and utilizing the platform of RILM. While previews of all articles are freely available on the web, full access to MGG Online requires a subscription according to the FAQ. Annual subscriptions are currently only available to institutions: libraries, research institutes, schools, and other organizations. Full subscription access to the database would be extremely valuable for all Wikipedia contributors working on (classical) music topics. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@FordPrefect42: Looking into it! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

...and where are we now? --INM (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@INM: No further unfortunately. I sent an email or two to contacts we were able to make at RILM, but have yet to hear back. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This all does not look like moving anywhere... --INM (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@INM: I was able to speak to RILM recently, and it sounds like we should be getting access to MGG! We're just confirming the details. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): any update on this? BTW: many thanks for your initiative so far! --FordPrefect42 (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@FordPrefect42: We had encouraging conversations with them, but our progress is stalled by some legal discussions right now. I hope to have more soon. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): any update? --FordPrefect42 (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@FordPrefect42 and INM: This got seriously caught up in legal conversations for a while there, but I'm pleased to say that RILM - including access to MGG Online - is now available to apply for on the Library Card platform :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): Although this took a while, this is really great news now! Many thanks for the ping and most of all for your endurance on this topic. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)