Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library | Databases | Requests
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Astinson (WMF) (talk | contribs) at 13:00, 24 September 2015 (archiving a few more). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
  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)[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]
  2. 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]

  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)[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]

  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)[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]

  1. 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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]

  1. 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]
  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)[reply]
  3. 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]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

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

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "librarian" thing worked with IVIS. Has quite a few papers and such on Manx cats, my main research target for the moment.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Databases/Requests/Archived_requests&oldid=682554458"