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

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

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)[reply]

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

Once again: Thanks a lot. Nice to see, that there is someting on the move. --Konrad Stein (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Konrad Stein: Now launched, see WP:RIPM. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Me too. Routledge is a major publisher of religion and social science-related articles. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Access to these journals etc would be an excellent aid to editing. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
Error in Template:Reply to: Input contains forbidden characters.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)[reply]
Thank you so much, Astinson (WMF)! These are very promising news. Your endeavor is highly appreciated. Hippo99 (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Where do we find "the usual Wikipedia Library credit"? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Carrite (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Error in Template:Reply to: Input contains forbidden characters. 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)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts. Please do ping us again if something with T&F opens up. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Seconded. Includes the Jamaica Gleaner 1834-Present; a key resource for that country. -Arb. (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Thanks. That's useful to know. -Arb. (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support - Appears to have a large stack of sources, evenmore that Newspapers.com --Peaceworld 22:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

LAT

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

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)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89: WP:EBSCO BusinessSource complete includes the LATimes Archive. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, thanks! p b p 20:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]