Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

SAGE and The BMJ can't be accessed anymore

It seems that SAGE Journals dan the BMJ are no longer available for all The Wikipedia Library users Antya Anantari (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Antya Anantari: BMJ still works fine for me. See phab:T391570 for SAGE journals. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

My bad, The BMJ is working fine now after I change my browser Antya Anantari (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Sage has resolved the issue, we should be able to access their collections now. Please let me know if you're still facing any issues. VSj (WMF) (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

How to bypass paywalls

I hope this is the right place to post this.

https://www.tivocommunity.com/threads/tips-for-getting-paywalled-articles.584832

HarleyRandomBoy 19:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@HarleyRandomBoy Not really. That web link requires me to log in, so is itself effectively paywalled! Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like the Tivo Community's trying to drum up business  :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I forgot that the topic was on a section that only established members can access. How about this?HarleyRandomBoy 21:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Newspapers.com searching not working?

I was literally using Newspapers.com an hour ago, but now any search on it is returning saying no results. I have no filters on or anything, so I'm not sure what's going on. Silverseren^C 21:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I was gonna say that it works fine for me, but after further testing I can confirm that it's broken, somewhat. Some searches work, some don't. Other people reported it too (, ), so it must be a problem with the website itself. Try tweaking your keywords in meanwhile. AstonishingTunesAdmirer ➜ 23:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it's an off and on again issue for people, which isn't very comforting. Means they haven't narrowed down the problem itself. Any insights on what sort of keyword tweaking has been working for you, AstonishingTunesAdmirer? Silverseren^C 23:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I tried searching a phrase in quotation marks and it showed 0 results. Then I added a word and it worked. Then I removed the word along with the quotation marks and it also worked. If you have a specific example that doesn't work for you, I can give it a try. AstonishingTunesAdmirer ➜ 23:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Things are working again for the moment. I just was wondering on my options if it happened again at some point. If it does, I'll try messing around with quote marks and such. Thanks for the tip! Silverseren^C 23:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Springer's journals not working

Apparently Springer's sites cannot be accessed through the Wikipedia Library. This includes Nature and its connected journals and SpringerLink – it says "HTTP Status 400 – Bad Request". This looks Springer-specific (I also tested ScienceDirect, it worked for me and showed the full article). Alfa-ketosav (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

As of 13:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC), the error is still there. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alfa-ketosav: Could you link to a journal you are trying to access? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Nature is an example. However, Springer Link also does not work: both redirect to an IdP site. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alfa-ketosav: Both work for me. Have you tried clearing your cookies? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, now both work. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Newbie question

What's the recommended practice of citing a newspapers.com link? Here's the current one I just made (it's the first time I've used this):

• Dalkey, Victoria (February 21, 2014). "Art: Crocker exhibit devoted to works of Jules Tavernier". Sacramento Bee. p. 25. Retrieved June 25, 2025.

Should I add anything else? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas The usual way to cite newspapers is using the {{cite news}} template. That has a parameter |via= which allows newspapers.com to be mentioned. See Charleen Kinser for an article which uses that style of citation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Viriditas (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

British Newspaper Archive

Per the August–September 2024 discussion here, BNA access appears to have stopped due to difficulties in setting up a viable way to access it. Does anyone know if there has been any movement on this front? It's an incredible resource, and was extremely valuable when it was available. It's unavailability also has the attendant detriment that already cited works are no longer accessible, because (unlike newspapers.com and Newspaper Archive) it doesn't have a clipping function, such that everything remains behind a paywall. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

We have not been able to make much progress on that front unforunately. I will check with them again if there's a way to overcome this issue. VSj (WMF) (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts! BNA is amazingly useful indeed. Mapple (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Vipin. Fingers crossed. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Springer access expired

The WMF's access to Springer journals seems to have expired again. All closed access journals/book chapters, including those that I had access to several months ago, are no longer available e.g. , . Can this be fixed? Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Other editors like @Olmagon: have reported the same issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I also am having the same or a similar issue, but I was trying to access some books about grasses and grass like plants to improve Graminoid. To check if it was just the books I was trying to access I check to see if I could access the chapter Peach in a book I have used in the past. Edit to add: also I did try using a different browser and clearing cache and cookies on my usual browser. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@VSj (WMF): is the WMF already aware of this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. Yes, I have emailed SpringerNature to reinstate our access. I will update here as soon as we have an update. VSj (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

SpringerNature has reinstated our access. Let me know if you're still facing any issues. VSj (WMF) (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Excellent news! Thank you. —Kusma (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

EBSCO search bar not working

The search bar at the top of The Wikipedia Library hasn't worked for some time. I noticed it breaking down here and there a few weeks ago for the first time. The error message I get is "A System Problem has Occurred To begin a new session, please login again." Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Seems to work fine for me; try clearing cache/cookies? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that worked. Is that something I should get in the habit of doing for the Library? Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it's a good troubleshooting step when you run into issues with databases generally. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's giving me the error again and now the clearing of caches and cookies isn't working. Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The Baghdad Observer

Is there any possibility of getting access to the digitial archive of The Baghdad Observer which is held by East View Information Services (which has some archives already in the Library)? It appears to be a Hoover Institute/Stanford University product. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

We have limited access East View Press, you can see more details and browse their collection here. For the resources that are not included, please feel free to add them to the suggest page of the library. We are constantly working with existing partners to expand access to more collections. Thanks. VSj (WMF) (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Access to the cited source through TWL

I found inconsosatency in time specification in the article Nganasan people#Genetics; description of the problem at Talk:Nganasan people#Time inconsistency. To correct it I needed to access the cited source to verify what's correct, but I could access the summary, and not the rest of the contents.

I was offered to access that through "my institution" or payed access (as by several other paywalled sources), so I logged in to The Wikipedia Library (was found eligible) and tried to access the rest of the article. The Springer Nature page asked for the name of my institution and I offered TWL (in several ways). The page offered several partial matches (of which I recognized several), but not TWL.

Any chance that could be made reachable too? Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Marjan Tomki SI: When going through TWL, the "Access through your institution" option usually does not work. Instead, navigate to the article through TWL, or replace the "www.nature.com" part of the URL with TWL proxy version of it, "www-nature-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org". A tool like Zotero can automatically redirect pages to TWL proxy. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

For the reference you posted there, this link should provide access through TWL: https://www-nature-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/articles/s41586-019-1279-z ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. To navigate through TWL was (at least up to now) taking a lot of time, since interface required/encouraged choosing provider first and searching within that only second, which took concentration off the task at hand (contents of the article and it's verifiability, in that case).

Using TWL proxy seem straight-forward and quick, and when I'll start to use it, it should help a lot. At the moment, task at hand is diagnosing and reporting a bug in creation of url links from book id template to the library SW at sl Wikipedia, which also could take some time, and I am not logged in to TWL during that time. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

New(-ish) Wikipedia Library access template

Just a note to draw people's attention to a template I created recently: Template:Wikipedia Library access (alias TM:Twlac). I created it as a way to avoid the hassle involved in manually checking whether or not TWL has access to a particular source.

The idea is that regular (non-TWL) URLs and DOIs should be used in citations, to ensure that readers who don't have access to TWL (ie. the vast majority of readers) can access the ordinary link; this new template could then be tagged on to the end of the citation to direct any future editors with TWL access to an accessible version of the source. The template can take a URL, a DOI, or a JSTOR ID, and converts the input into TWL link format.

Markup	Renders as
{{#parsoid	Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.

(See the documentation for further examples.)

I have very little prior experience of making or editing templates, so I'm very open to feedback and contributions to any aspects of the template that need improvement/could be made more efficient/etc.

On a broader scale, I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on the template's suitability for being included in mainspace articles, as opposed to just on talk/project pages for instance. Given that such a tiny proportion of readers could make use of the link, is it actually beneficial to add this template to mainspace citations, or would it just confuse/distract readers? Should a feature be added to the template so that it only displays for auto- or extended-confirmed users—ie. the users for whom the template is most likely to be relevant? Or should the template be limited to use in non-article namespaces such as talk pages?

If anyone has any thoughts on these issues, or on any other aspect of the template, please feel free to share them on the template's talk page; I'm really keen to get an idea of the community's views on this! Thank you in advance! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see also the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#New(-ish) Wikipedia Library access template. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Eligibility rules?

I'm curious about the 500 edits / 6 months eligibility rule. Why does this exist? I remember a few years back, I was doing an article review for somebody who needed to find better sources but wasn't eligible for TWL access under that rule. I enquired on their behalf and the TWL staff was kind enough to bend the rule and grant them access. I had mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, I was happy that I was able to get this person access, but always suspected I had twisted the TWL staff's arm and put them into an uncomfortable position (and if that was indeed the case, my apologies). I am currently in a similar position (doing a FA review for somebody who could benefit from, but is not yet eligible for, TWL access), and I'm hesitant to repeat the arm twisting.

Do we really need this rule? If it's impractical to hand out library cards to everybody, would it at least be possible to lower the threshold a bit? Alternatively, would it be possible to legitimize my previous tactic by officially allowing somebody who is already a TWL user to sponsor a new applicant who they felt was deserving of access? Perhaps in conjunction with a commitment to mentor and supervise the applicant to prevent abuse? TWL is truly a wonderful resource and it would be great to provide this benefit to more of our highly valued new editors. RoySmith (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I've also been wondering about this. At the last WCNA, there was a panel discussion with Kenyan editors who mentioned that Internet access is limited in rural areas, and many people there can only get online for brief periods per month. This makes the edit count requirement for TWL access an undue burden, even for those making substantial contributions. Could a different metric be used for those editors? Nick Number (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

See phab:T314357. The relevant part is this:

These requirements were previously 1000 edits / 12 months activity until approximately 2015 when we lowered it. The new criteria were chosen largely arbitrarily. The library has approximately 60 Memorandums of Understanding with publishers which include the current activity requirement. These would each need to be renegotiated with the relevant publishers - this took a lot of work when we lowered from 1000/12 to 500/6, when we had approximately half the number of agreements. Because the ability to login to the library is gated by these activity requirements, we would need to reach 100% agreement on lowering the activity criteria to change them, unless we change how access to the library functions. We preferred a single set of criteria, checked at login, so that users can gain a clear understanding of how the library works without needing to verify themselves against multiple sets of criteria.

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand this is a cumbersome process, and appreciate the effort that got us to where we are. But the memoranda will inevitably need to be renewed or renegotiated at some point. In preparation for that, can we agree on a set of criteria that would accommodate editors who, due to limited Internet access, can only make a small number of large edits? Nick Number (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I have been lurking for quite a while, watching edits on this page as a general reminder to myself when I actually need access. The way I look at this is ... this rule exists to ensure an editor is active and serious about editing Wikipedia, instead of just wanting free access to stuff they don't want to pay to get. As for rules, I would add an additional rule that clarifies when access should be taken away from inactive editors. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that opening up access would not be helpful. Coretheapple (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the rule prevents equity and sustainability. I have a university account so I can get behind a paywall community libraries do not have the resources you often require. If you live in developing countries internet is expensive and not having online resources immediately available costs money. People should not have to pay to be a wiki editor but they are if they are paying for internet and can’t find reliable secondary sources. Can’t we have affiliates sponsor opening the libraries to people they train and mentor? I’ve never heard of a library say they had too many people visiting and using their electronic resources. RosPost RosPost 17:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi all - thanks for sharing your thoughts here on this topic!

It should go without saying that I obviously would love for everyone to be able to freely access the information contained in the collections we provide access to, and not just in the context of Wikipedia. Even limited to Wikipedia, it would be an incredible improvement if anyone with an interest in editing could gain access. This rule doesn't come from a self-imposed limitation, but rather as a consequence of how we get access to content for the library. Rather than paying for access to the databases in the library, we negotiate with publishers for free access. These negotiations often hinge on the argument that providing this access for free results in active Wikipedia editors using the publisher's resources on Wikipedia, and therefore more citations link back to their websites, which results in more visibility of their content. Publishers are often concerned about opening up access to a hard-to-define global pool of anonymous internet users, because they don't want to undermine their business models of charging money to access their content. To assuage those concerns, we needed clear boundaries on how we would determine which volunteers were likely to use their library access to improve Wikipedia, versus simply having a dormant Wikipedia account to get access for other purposes. As I noted in the quote ARandomName123 helpfully shared above, the current criteria were decided quite some time ago, and were not informed by much data analysis, the library was a much smaller project at that time. It's possible that a slightly different set of criteria could be determined with more effort put in, but I'm honestly not convinced they would be significantly different, I'd still expect it to be in the hundreds of edits and at least a few months of editing activity. It's very easy to make a Wikipedia account, sit on it for a while, and make some inconsequential edits. We've seen users abusing the system in this way even at the 500/6 criteria level!

I'm not currently convinced that the large effort required to do that analysis and update agreements would be worth it, given that it's unlikely any change in those existing criteria would be significant.

All that said, I do like RoySmith's idea to think about other ways to verify active editors in good standing. A sponsorship model could be one option that I'd be interested to think more about. We've talked about that in passing a few times in the context of in-person editathons - what if an event organizer could enable temporary library access for the day for the people in the room? There's still the issue of agreement wording to figure out there, but it does strike me as a better option. I can't make any promises about quick changes here, but this is something I'd like us to keep thinking about. If you have other ideas for how to verify who is or isn't likely to use the library productively on Wikipedia I'd love to hear them. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Somewhat pursuant to this, I raised a question about this at the Village Pump here that I think contains a relevant concern. WP:TWL says (correctly, it seems) that for automatic access It can be accessed by any registered editor whose account is six months old, but here it says 6+ months editing (my emphasis).

My VPT concern was answered with reference to a bug related to edit count, which has since become irrelevant in my case, but as of now I have access to TWL because my account is older than 6 months (I created it a year ago) but I have only been editing for 5 months (my first contribution was February 17, 2025). It would be great if this wording could be clarified in one place or the other. Based on my experience, account age is the relevant criterion, not the editing history, but as it stands I find the wording ambiguous. NovaHyperion (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Access to Library with New Account

Hello! My previous account (4444hhhh) that I had for a million years has been locked out, and so I had to create a new account. Would there by any possibility of accessing the library sooner? Many thanks. Piranga94 (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I can vouch for Piranga94 being 4444hhhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as they claim. They discussed this situation on Wikiproject Paleontology's Discord server, using the same discord account they were using when they had access to the 4444hhhh account. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Piranga94 This is something we can do, but is there any proof you can provide of being the same user, besides the vouch above? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Only way I can think I can prove is maybe IP Address login info? I am assuming if I am logged in on the same devices? That and email info is the same too now that I am thinking of it now. Piranga94 (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Piranga94 If I sent an email to 4444hhhh would you still receive it? If so you could forward it on to us and I think that would do the trick :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe so!! Go for it. Pardon the delay I am at work. Piranga94 (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

If your old account has a working email address connected to it, you can probably just recover the password. See Help:Reset password RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, unfortunately not - "This user has not specified a valid email address". Hmm, let me think if there's another way we could verify this. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Huh, that is weird... But then again, that could explain why I also did not have a log in info recovery when I was trying to create new password. Mind you I probably made the account when I was a kid back in 2007, so it is equally possibly that I somehow created my old account without an email... Thank you everyone for looking into it. Piranga94 (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

MUSE access seems to have expired

@VSj (WMF): looking at MUSE, I don't seem to have any access to any closed access books, including ones I previously had access to (e.g. ). I assume this means that the WMF's access has expired? Could this be rectified? Many thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this @Hemiauchenia. We have reached out them for help on this. VSj (WMF) (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

See phab:T402502. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Cambridge University Press access expired?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T404456

I'm trying to use Cambridge University Press, but while it says authenticated by Wikipedia Library, it won't let me access sources I could before. I know this happened previously with SpringerLink, which got fixed a bit ago, so same probably happened here and I wanted to get it fixed. Thanks Shredlordsupreme (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Can confirm that I also don't have access to closed access CUP sources through the Wikipedia Library proxy (e.g ) @VSj (WMF): are you aware of this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this, we have reached out to Cambridge University Press for their help. VSj (WMF) (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I use the Zotero extension in Firefox, and when I try to access a paper on cambridge.org, I get a constant redirect every few seconds, causing an intermittent page refresh. I'm not sure if this is related to the issue, though. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Photo search

Is there any way to search for photos in Wikipedia Library sources or in academic sources generally? For example via reverse image search.

Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

jstor.org/images may be of some help. RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Citoid queries

There have been no responses to queries raised at Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library/Citoid.

Please can someone take a look?

And should we redirect that page here (or to WP:VPT, or somewhere else)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Good spot, I wasn't aware of this page. I think, because that page is primarily about Citoid rather than TWL, the talk page should probably soft redirect to mw:Talk:Citoid. What do you think? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Works for me. I'll implement that, but leave the existing queries for now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Bug

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T404708

For some reason I can't access the website because I apparently haven't edited more than ten times in the last month (which I have). I have logged out and back in, but I still don't have access. Is anyone else aware of this issue? Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:43, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm reporting the same issue. I checked my Wikipedia Library Profile/Settings and my "Recent global edit count" is negative. It has to be a bug. NGPezz (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

It will supposedly be fixed on October 1st. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:35, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Alexeyevitch: so two days without the lib eh? I don't know what we're paying for, really I don't! —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, is there any update on this issue? I still can't access The WikiLibrary Antya Anantari (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I still can't access it. I will try again tomorrow. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

+1 Apparently I have made -100,300 edits, and none in the last 30 days  :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:37, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

This is an issue for me too. Checked it today, says I have negative 19740 edits recently. dbeef [talk] 19:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi I always suspected you were a net negative to the project. Now we have proof. Although, to be honest, I'm shocked at just how much of a negative you really are. RoySmith (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I've surpassed myself Roy. "Only a master of evil, Darth" 😁 —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

• I have this issue as well - it cannot detect my 10+ edits in the last month. Andre🚐 15:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

It's working for me now, my recent edits have returned to the positive range. I did have to log out and back in again for the reset to go through, it's not entirely automatic. NGPezz (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

+1 Working for me now. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about this - unexpected side effect of a change elsewhere in MediaWiki. I believe that this should be resolved for everyone now. You may need to log out and back in to prompt an update. If that doesn't fix it for anyone please let me know. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Seems OK for me too now, Samwalton9 (WMF). Thanks for expediting the thing so quickly! —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Libraries (collection)

My apologies if I'm posting this in the wrong place. I wanted to make people in the library research/resources part of the Wikipedia project namespace aware of this AfD.

I've also posed a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries

The article Canadian Libraries (collection) is being considered for deletion.

This is the first sentence from this list article:

• "Canadian Libraries is a digital collection of ebooks and texts at the Internet Archive. This collection contains over 400,000 items sponsored by Canadian Library Partners:"

A previous AfD was conducted in 2015 under a different name:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Libraries

DGG strongly argued then to keep this list and the article was kept on WP:IAR grounds as a resource.

Please share your assessments of this article, positive or negative.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Is Taylor and Francis access working?

In the past I've found that Taylor and Francis grants access to old articles. I was looking for

• Masson, O. (1921). XXIV. The constitution of atoms. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 41(242), 281-285.

The first page looks promising but "Read this article" is a paywall. https://www-tandfonline-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/epdf/10.1080/14786442108636219?needAccess=true Johnjbarton (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Not every T&F journal is accessible via the Wikipedia library. In this case it's so old that it's public domain. You can often find the contents of old journals like that on BHL or archive.org. In this case I managed to find the work you were looking for on BHL . Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I was able to verify the content I needed to.

I've not encountered BHL, I'll look in future. I do know that Taylor and Francis is hot and cold but older stuff usually hits. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I have not had problems accessing T&F recently. (t · c) buidhe 17:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Full Newsbank access?

I'm looking for an article in the Houston Chronicle archives (already posted to WP:REREQ).

• "Phog Allen helps save early event" April 3, 1988 Houston Chronicle

I'd prefer to just grab it myself... does Wikipedia Library offer the Newsbank service? No discussion in the Archive.

I have access to my local paper via Newsbank via my local library. But is there a way for us to get access to all papers they hold via The Wikipedia Library? 15:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC) PK-WIKI (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like newspapers.com (which is available via TWL) has the Houston Chronicle, but only up to 1970-something. I checked Proquest (which I have access to via the New York Public Library) and they don't have it. You can suggest new collections for TWL at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/suggest/ RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah Newspapers.com has this particular issue but I cannot find the column that shows up in Newsbank... PK-WIKI (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@PK-WIKI: I found the article in The Salina Journal (it was a syndicated story): https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-salina-journal-early-ncaa-tourney-sa/184126158/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-salina-journal-early-ncaa-tourney-sa/184126163/ DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Can't access newspapers.com

I could on Tuesday and today they're telling me to subscribe.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Can confirm I am seeing the same thing with my Wikipedia Library account. Jessamyn (my talk page) 15:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

My login has persisted, and I'm able to access w/o problem. Could it be a problem only after logging out, I wonder. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I was at a library. I've never logged out at home.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

And at home I'm being told to subscribe.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I am experiencing the same thing beginning about 12 hours ago. wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library says that my subscription to newspapers.com expired on September 29, although access continued working up until yesterday afternoon. I think TWL should notify users that their subscription to a resource is about to expire so we can renew our applications as promptly as possible. -Reschultzed (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes that seems to be the same thing for me. Expired a few weeks ago, was working up until yesterday. I have applied for a renewal. Jessamyn (my talk page) 16:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I've forgotten how to renew.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Go to there very bottom of https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ and click Renew under Newspapers.com ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I hope I did that right.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

According to TWL mine doesn't expire until May 2026, but I lost my access sometime between Oct6 and Oct 10. Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Really?! So this might not be a renewal issue then, but a much broader actual problem. It's just for a lot of us, our renewal period coincided with this issue. That's a revelation. Thanks, Gamaliel. Silverseren^C 17:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

How long does renewal take?

Related to the above topic, I put in my renewal request on September 28th. It has just sat at Pending ever since then. This is taking a lot longer than last year when I renewed (which only took a week to happen). Is there some reason for the current delay? Silverseren^C 23:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for contacting you directly, Samwalton9 (WMF), but I'm not sure who specifically is in charge of renewals, particularly when it comes to Newspapers.com. Do you happen to have any info on what's going on with that system? It's never taken this long before for annual subscription renewals to happen and it's really hampering my ability to work on article improvements. Silverseren^C 17:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I am also experiencing the issues above -- Wikipedia Library says my newspapers.com access expired on Sep 29th, but it was working for me until around Oct 9th (I have since re-applied after realizing I lost access). My previous application was approved in six days by User:Nikkimaria, so maybe they can assist? Thank you, --Habst (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

According to Gamaliel just above, Habst, this isn't a renewal issue. Apparently, everyone's (or at least everyone here's) access stopped working around October 9th. Even those who wouldn't need to renew until next year. Our renewal period just coincided with that timing and may be unrelated to the problem. Silverseren^C 17:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Except I just checked, and I still have my access. It's not affecting all of us, categorizally, for whatever that's worth. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Clearly something weird is going on and it's not as simple as general access to Newspapers.com accounts. Which is par for the course with them, they have the weirdest account issues. Frequently caused on their side, for whatever reason. Silverseren^C 17:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I also just lost subscriber access as of a few days ago. I applied for renewal on October 10. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Same here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Ditto. Just checked. I have a registered and longstanding account that worked well until just now. I see that it is listed as "expired." I have placed a renewal request. Coretheapple (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

My renewal request was approved this afternoon, about 63 hours after I submitted it (I hope not ahead of people waiting longer). Access still does not work, though. -Reschultzed (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I just checked my TWL account and mine also has gone from pending to "Renewal - Sent to partner" as of the past few hours. Do note, Reschultzed, that that doesn't mean fully approved yet. It means that Wikimedia has approved our renewal request and sent the request to Newspapers.com to get the account extension done. Now we're waiting on Newspapers.com to do that last part on their end. Unfortunately, none of this explains why this all happened in the first place or what the heck is going on with Gamaliel's account above, since they weren't even up for renewal yet and they still lost account access anyways. Hopefully we get a response from Sam or someone else from the WMF Wikipedia Library team tomorrow (since I presume they don't work on the weekend, hence why we haven't heard from anyone official as of yet). Silverseren^C 01:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm confused. I have a longstanding account associated with Wikipedia. It worked when I last tried a week or two ago. But I tried again yesterday and suddenly it stopped working. I'm still a registered user but when I go to "My Library" I see that it says "expired" as of Sept. 29. I don't recall that as an "anniversary date" for access or whatever but there you have it. A shame, as I was hoping to do a thorough clipping search for a certain recently deceased actor but it will have to wait I guess. Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

You can still search the archives without pro access, and you can even get the OCR text on each page for free by changing the word "image" to "newspage" in the result URL and see "Extracted Article Text" section (this is all intended functionality). You just can't create clippings. --Habst (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. That's helpful, though it's much harder to create citable text and I am always a little mistrustful of OCR. Coretheapple (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Just went through my browser history, which shows beyond any doubt that I was able to use Newspapers.com as recently as Oct. 9, a good ten days after my account supposedly "expired" Sept. 29. Odd. Coretheapple (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I corrected the date of expiration to Sept. 29. That is the expiration date given on the library page. I gather that multiple editors saw their access terminate on that date. Coretheapple (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm still being told to subscribe.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Throwing in another example, I renewed a little while ago and it currently says "Expiry date: Oct 12, 2026" (i.e., a year from now!) but I always get popups telling me to subscribe. I notice that no special WMF URLs persist, I just end up at the regular newspapers.com site. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the special WMF URLs haven't been a thing for a while now. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Apparently there is a system-wide issue in which all permissions have been revoked. Coretheapple (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Just noting on the expiry date in The Wikipedia Library - this is a 12-month estimate from when we marked your application as 'Sent' so it generally isn't 100% accurate, and is (I can see) somewhat confusing right after your application has been approved, because your account won't be set up yet. I've just filed T407601 to clarify this. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, it looks like we approved a large batch of accounts last October, and this is simply the yearly expiry rolling around - as others have noted above, if you request renewal in the library we get that sent over to Newspapers.com as soon as possible (usually within a few days) and then we just have to wait a short while for them to configure the accounts. It should be the case that you get an email a couple of weeks before the expiry date (which is an estimate based on when we sent your application over, so is usually a little early). I've had a quick look and it seems like those emails might have silently broken at some point - see T407250 for more on that. I'm not sure why one or two users' accounts expired early, but that seems to be the exception - most reports here seem to be accounts that were set up 12 months ago and are just up for renewal. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I use an email address for Wikipedia that I go to only rarely so if I had gotten anything, I wouldn't have known. I used to use an email I use frequently but here was a problem with it. Besides, I get a lot of emails about Wikipedia (mostly about Phabricator) and I wouldn't have wanted those cluttering up another address.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I just realized. It asked me to confirm my email address. That is yet another email address, different from the one I use for Wikipedia. I wonder if that is part o the problem. Because the email address I use for newspapers.com had problems when I tried to use it for Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

If I go into account, I get a message saying "Limited Access You can only search and browse newspaper archives." Under Subscription it says "You're currently a Registered Guest. This free subscription gets you access to search newspapers but you will not be able to view the full page. Get a paid subscription for access."

My access had run out but it's now been renewed. So does someone need to go in and update the access to Unlimited, or subscription to Advanced (or whatever it is)? In Vitrio (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm in the same situation -- I renewed my WL access a few days ago and WL says it won't expire til next year, but when I log in to Newspapers.com it won't let me access newspapers and tells me to subscribe. It's not clear to me if we're just waiting for the WL renewal to make its way over to Newspapers.com or if there's another problem. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I do have access now, so it was just waiting for WL's renewal to reach newspapers.com. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I think last October was when we finished the process of switching from the proxy back to approving accounts, so it would make sense that the one-year access would expire now for almost everybody who's been using the site through TWL for longer than a year. If I look at my Payment History under Account Details on the site, it says that my access was approved on Oct 9, 2024, and expired on Oct 9, 2025. I guess the period between September 29 and October 9 was the same period that was spent approving the application last year. Hopefully Newspapers.com does its part of the process soon and we'll all be back to our research. -Reschultzed (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

In case it's helpful, I just received my Newspapers.com email saying I'm all set up again and I logged in and confirmed I've got the access I was expecting now. Thanks everyone! Jessamyn (my talk page) 15:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't get an email but I did sign in and I have access.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Have not yet heard from Newspapers.com and remain without access, but hopefully that will be resolved soon. Coretheapple (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

So I got my renewal approved by the Wikipedia Library, but I am still unable to make clippings. The site seems unstable for me in general—last night I kept getting 404 errors, and I had to log off and clear cookies. Now it's not giving me 404 errors, but the nag screen for Publisher Extra is failing to load its contents properly. Is this normal for renewals, do I just gotta wait a couple days? Or is this affecting other people? DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@DigitalIceAge: Approval by TWL (email reading "Thank you for applying for access to Newspapers.com resources through The Wikipedia Library. We are happy to inform you that your application has been approved.") just means they've sent it out to Newspapers.com. You now need to wait for Newspapers.com to approve it on their end. For me, my access worked after I received an email from Newspapers.com a couple days after TWL approval reading:

"Hello,

The account is under [email].

Thank you for registering your email address with Newspapers.com. Your email address has been verified and confirmed. Your account is now active.... " ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll go wait in the corner... DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I've received my approval email too. Waiting patiently for full access. Well, maybe not patiently. I love Newspapers dot com, as do we all. Coretheapple (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm a little late to the party, but I made a renewal after this discussion ended and it is still "pending" after six days. Just noting this in case the delays are because of an oversight related to this discussion. ミラP@Miraclepine 01:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC) Nvm, it's renewed anyways. ミラP@Miraclepine 15:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Pro Quest

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T409160

When I click on the access link to Pro Quest, all I see now is just one database: Education Research Index

Education Research Index combines ERIC, the leading education research database produced by the U.S. Department of Education, with the new Supplemental Education Index, which was created to expand upon the current scope of ERIC.

There are no journals, magazines or historical newspapers included. Did we lose access to some databases? Just a couple of days ago, I had access to historical newspapers and magazines, which I used as refs in articles. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm having the same issue on my end. DigitalIceAge (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Same here - an article I could access a few days ago now states We're sorry, your institution doesn't have access to this article through ProQuest. ResonantDis_tortion 08:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Me too - I was hoping to get access to an old NY Times article, to no avail. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully it's just a temporary glitch of some kind??? Or is it a permanent change? Cielquiparle (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I might add that the month-long Wikipedia November 2025 Unreferenced articles backlog drive is now in progress. That means that there is now a surge in several thousand articles gaining citations to reliable sources for the first time. This is a real opportunity for ProQuest to gain exposure as a valuable resource for researchers and for the general public (even if the content is paywalled, as we tag references as coming from ProQuest). Hope our member access can be fixed soon. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 to this. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It does seem that all the access previously offered via the Library has gone - the remaining database Education Research Index is actually freely available to everyone now - see the blog post. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): Any update on this, please? DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

While we wait, here's an alternative: many libraries, including public and university libraries, offer access to the ProQuest databases. You can use the "Find your library" search instructions on ProQuest's website. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I was already using my university's ProQuest access before finding out about TWL, but it doesn't have nearly as many databases as TWL's ProQuest. I suppose I could make do with it again but this is IMO a catastrophic loss, worse than last year's Newspapers.com outage (assuming this lasts as long, which I doubt). DigitalIceAge (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've filed T409160 to track this - we'll reach out to ProQuest ASAP to see about getting access reinstated. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Just as a potential workaround, editors might want to check with their local public or school library. Mine provides ProQuest access to all their patrons; I assume this is fairly common, so if you're stuck out, it's worth asking. RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Access looks like it has been restored. At least, I was able to access historical NY Times. Please do test it though. Thanks VSj (WMF) and team for sorting this out for us. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Works on my machine again. Thanks all! DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

My access has been restored, also. Many thanks! Eddie Blick (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I have access again as well. Thanks for the prompt attention to this matter, it is appreciated.— Isaidnoway (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Update

I was able to access Brill today but not De Gruyter :( (t · c) buidhe 03:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Oxford research encyclopedias was also working for me (t · c) buidhe 22:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Newspapers.com mobile problems

After I do a search on Newspapers.com, any article I click on says "This page is not available: This page is pending publication, has been removed or moved to a new location". It works on desktop though. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9 Odd. Can you share the URLs you are on as you go through these steps on mobile? Thanks. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

It happens on every article I click on. It's just https://www.newspapers.com/search/ I can view clippings though. Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Problem on Taylor & Francis

I'm trying to get an article from the Mariner's Mirror () and the website is denying my request for the full article. I was able to download one article earlier, but now I can't get anything. What going on?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66 I think this might be a similar issue to the one with Emerald, above, where we do have access to this journal, but this article is just not in the date range we have access to. Sorry about that. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Crap, it is from 1948, so that makes sense.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Re: Emerald

Hello. I was just wondering if there was an update regarding the access of Emerald documents. I had previously started a discussion five months ago at Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library/Archive 11#Emerald due to this document being inaccessible, which has not changed, compared to another document that I am able to access. Thank you. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Huh. I kinda just assumed that we didn't have a subscription to all Emerald content, but now that I check the entry for Emerald at wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org it does say we're supposed to have "Premier journals collection" which certainly sounds like the one that's supposed to have everything. It seems like there's no easy way to check what Emerald is giving us access to as a user either, unlike with ProQuest, Gale etc. which all clearly show the database you're subscribed to and/or searching. I do have access to that specific article through another subscription though so let me know if you'd like me to send it to you somehow or something. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Well that's unfortunate as I had assumed that all documents on Emerald would be available via the Wikipedia Library. Though would it be possible for you to send me the document? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Alpha3031@Aviationwikiflight We should have access to everything listed here (dead URL at the time of posting due to Cloudflare outage). This includes that journal, but with a 2006 cutoff, so this particular item just happens to not be in our collection. Sorry! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Right, I can definitely do that. In fact, I've just sent a text copy of it to you via Special:EmailUser. (have not proofread it but I did redo the OCR for the start of column 3 since I noticed that was obviously wrong) Let me know if you'd like the PDF somehow as well (Maybe by replying, I don't think EmailUser has the ability to do attachments? But I should be able to attach it if you reply.) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

That won't be necessary. Thanks a lot for sending it. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

le monde

hi, if your an editor in good standing, is it possible to subscribe to Le Monde via the Wikipedia Library(if so , how?), thank you --~2025-43114-88 (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-43114-88: Yes, recent Le Monde articles are accessible via ProQuest in TWL. You will automatically receive access when your Wikipedia account is 6 months old, has made 500 edits, and is not blocked. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:23, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Cut-off descriptions & duplicate entries on TWL's main page

Hi, I was recently curious about TWL, so I looked through the various categories of catalogues, especially the "Earth Sciences" category, and I noticed while clicking on the descriptions of the catalogues, that some of them start fading before ending, or are obscured by white. Is this just a result of using images of the catalogue logos that don't have a transparent background? Some examples are:

• Haaretz Hebrew
• Magiran
• Nature (yes, the journal)
• Brill
• The Duncker & Humblot

I have also noticed that WSJ appears not one or twice, but four times on the "Earth Sciences" category; there may be other catalogues that are duplicates in other categories, but I haven't checked yet. Considering that the TWL main page is seen by a lot of people, and the duplicates would be hard to miss: Are the duplicates intentional? I am not an expert on TWL, so I am not sure. -BlueEleephant (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@BlueEleephant Thanks for checking this out! The fading text is simply indicative that there's more to the description but we couldn't fit it in that small space on the homepage. Once logged in, publishers have their full descriptions. WSJ appearing multiple times is a side effect of us having a number of different entries for WSJ for the different editions they're providing us access to. If you check the descriptions you should notice that they make reference to the different versions. I agree this isn't super intuitive, perhaps there's a way for us to make this all clearer. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Ohh, okay. Some of the catalogue descriptions are very long, yet fit in the small space, so I feel like there would be a way to get rid of the fading for all descriptions, which should make them clearer. Last time I checked, 2 or 3 of the WSJ entries had the exact same description, so maybe it is the same description that is the minor mistake. Either way, it is good to know the cause behind these oddities. -BlueEleephant (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)