Wikipedia talk:Newspapers.com/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Copyright

I'm not aware that Newspapers.com specifies how it obtains or under what licenses/agreements it displays the page images. How certain are we that Newspapers.com is copyright-compliant? If Newspapers.com is infringing on copyrights, seems like WP:COPYLINK would come into play, unless it's being considered an arm's-length issue. Woodshed (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Newspapers.com Terms and Conditions page links to parent company Ancestry.com Copyright Policy page. How they negotiate copyright with newspapers that agree to be archived with Newspapers.com is their concern. Newspapers.com is not infringing on copyright. - Paulscrawl (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Woodshed: As I understand it: Newspapers.com both capitalizes on the US Public Domain law in the same we do for pre-1923 items, while negotiating republication rights to copyrighted materials with licensors and publishers. For WP:COPYLINK: we assume that our partners, which are all major publishers used for academic or public research, have negotiated copyright for their content per a good legal standard, otherwise we wouldn't negotiate a partnership. Thanks for the query, Sadads (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Use for what articles

Hello, thank you for this interesting offer. I just wondered for what kind of Wikipedia articles these newspaper articles were suitable. Historical topics, for example, are supposed to be written on the basis of modern scholarly literature.--Ziko (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If a topic or person is already in an encyclopedia, sure, you can use the most up-to-date scholarly literature. For the other 90% of biographies of notable people in Wikipedia you have to synthesize a biography from what newspapers found to be notable at that time. With biographies obituaries are detail rich. Same for more obscure, but still notable, historical events. Check out any of the biographies I am currently working on at my user page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Website problems

Has anyone else noticed that Newspapers.com website is down a lot, either completely down or the search function takes you to the "Place" and "Year Range" filter which does not work. This is the 5th time it has gotten stuck or not available at all. In June it was unavailable for a three day period. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it incompatible with Windows 8? Is it incompatible with Google Chrome? I cannot figure out why it is down most of the day.

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ):There shouldn't be a compatibility problem with Windows 8 or Chrome. We have had some downtime in the past week because we were featured on a TV show and had a traffic spike on a couple of occasions. We have updated our servers and should be stable now. Are you still seeing the problem? If you notice other problems or have questions, you can contact me directly or just send an email to support@newspapers.com and our support folks can help. --Drinknews (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is working today, and is amazing. I have been able to add to both Wikipedia and my own family history. I love the clip function, and that the search feature not just looks at the OCR text but also the information fields in the clippings. That way people can correct the spelling of the name and future searches will pick up the corrected spelling. I have been really disappointed in the quality of the Library of Congress newspaper archive online. I still have trouble with all Ancestry.com websites using Google Chrome with Windows 8 on an HP Touchscreen computer. When I click a button using the mouse, nothing happens. I am able to use Ancestry and in IE11 without a problem. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not working on my other computer in Google Chrome so the problem is not the touchscreen or Windows 8. It takes me to the "Place" and "Year Range" filter which does not work. I can perform the same search properly in IE11. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Down again all day for me in both Chrome and IE11. I think it is just the website and there is no correlation as to what combination of browser and hardware I am using. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I was notified that I was to receive an account?

Don't seem to have heard from anybody since. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Did I do something wrong?

I received an e-mail about getting an account through here (and got a reminder today), and I set it up today. Only now, I try accessing the sources and I can't access anything, it says I have to subscribe. Am I only limited to the clipping section? Either I'm missing something or the accounts' lack of access makes it kinda pointless. Wizardman 00:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Mine took three days to work after setting it up. BusterD (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Josve05a

@Sadads: I have still not been "upgraded". I still have a "free membership", which means I can't do nothing... (t) Josve05a (c) 12:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Same; I haven't received an update since registering prior to my post above. Wizardman 17:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Wizardman: I just sent your information to our partner, so it should be upgraded soon, sorry I didn't respond sooner to this. As for @Josve05a:, yours was in the last group of updated accounts, and I have asked our POC to check on the status. Sadads (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wizardman: and @Josve05a:, sorry for any delays. Accounts have been activated, Sadads (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

More accounts available and new coordinator

Due to the success of the pilot program so far, and the large number of requests from users, Newspapers.com is giving the Wikipedia Library 100 additional accounts. As well, the program has a new volunteer coordinator. @Sadads: handed off to me last week so I'll be screening and processing accounts, starting with requests that have accumulated while we waited for more accounts to become available. HazelAB (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Hazel. Do you have any plans to fill out the 'Metrics' subpage that seems to have previously been planned? I would find it interesting. Cheers, Sam Walton (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Samwalton9: We are keeping metrics offwiki right now, because of the nature of Wikipedia link tracking tools and to keep the manhours down for processing metrics into wikitext as we scale up the number of partnerships (if you would like to be a volunteer partnership metrics coordinator, I am looking and would love to on-board you!). We are using links as a shortcut for number of references, because we are handing the accounts to experienced Wikipedians and because that is the kind of metric our partners are used to. I will move them on wiki for Newspapers.com this afternoon, because you requested; I will say the growth on Newspapers.com has been one of our largest we have seen (typical growth is 3-10% per 6 months, Newspapers.com has been around 500% since inception last July), and about 1/2 that growth is directly attributable to the open access clippings (which we see as a major victory). I think this resource hits the right balance of open access, usefulness, interest amongst Wikipedians, and relative under-use in the past. For any other partnerships, if we you have any requests, we are happy to share! Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Astinson (WMF): I'd definitely be interesting in hearing what being a volunteer partnership metrics coordinator would entail! Sam Walton (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sam Walton: Brilliant! The Newspapers.com metrics at Wikipedia:Newspapers.com/Metrics. Chart coming soon!

The main role of the volunteer metrics coordinator will be to collaborate with me on a) updating the monthly or bi-monthly status of link metrics in a Google Spreedsheet (2-3 hrs a month), b) Update historical records of user tracking spreadsheets (5-10 minutes a month), and c) generate quarterly report emails for our partners of number of accounts distributed and changes in links from those records (currently ~ 3-6 hrs a month). Most of this infrastructure I set up already (though feedback would be welcome) and we hope to automate most of this, eventually, but our interest for new partnerships is quickly outpacing our ability to get a tool in a development pipeline. You will need to sign an NDA, and go through our initial interview process for general volunteer coordinators at Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Coordinators/Signup. Of course this is all volunteer, and you will be collaborating with me, so we can let you do whichever amount you would like, based on interest, skill, etc; there are some other opportunities as well (updating on-wiki metrics, by example). Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd certainly be interested! Would you like me to fill out an application at the signup page? Sam Walton (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Yes please: That would be awesome! @Nikkimaria: will capture that information, and get the initial volunteer setup started, and talk through what else we are doing in the Library and what opportunities would be available! Point to this conversation in application, so she knows what we are thinking :) Astinson (WMF) (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Done :) Sam Walton (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Strange issue

I'm getting the same issues described in the section above (#Did I do something wrong?). I clicked on the link I was emailed and created my account. Now I can search the database for specific terms (something I couldn't do without an account), but I only get a snippet view and when I try to open up the full page, it says "You need a subscription to view this page" and tells me to start my "7-day Free Trial". --Jakob (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jakec: Your full access hasn't started yet because Newspapers.com still has to activate it on their end. It's a two part process... That should be done very soon. Sorry about the further delay! HazelAB (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay. That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. --Jakob (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for my account to be activated too... just thought I'd mention that. Mabalu (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Mabalu: Your account should be activated. What happens when you try to sign in? HazelAB (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, brilliant - it's working now. For a while I was having exactly the same problem as above and thought I needed to wait for an email saying I'd been cleared. Thank you! Mabalu (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Pre-1923 pictures

I'd like to clip the picture from this and use it in the article on Stephen L'Hommedieu Slocum. I'm sure this question has been asked before, but I don't recall the answer: can I crop to the picture and upload it to Commons, or here? With the appropriate source noted, and a reference to the clipping URL? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I've uploaded a couple of pre-1923 images cropped from Newspapers.com. I emailed them to query basically what you're asking since on their terms and conditions page it states "Ancestry does not claim an exclusive right to images already in the public domain" but "you may reuse public domain images so long as you only use small portions of the images or documents for personal use" and "If you wish to republish more than a small portion of the images or documents from any of the Websites, you agree to obtain prior written permission from us.". The reply I received said "the intent of that section of the terms is just to stop people taking large portions of the site" and they said I'd attributed this image correctly. Sam Walton (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- that's what I thought would be the case, but it's good to get it confirmed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for investigating/clarifying this @Samwalton9:! Sadads (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

New reference tool

There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Three Came Home (book)

This is an article which I have expanded with help from Newspapers.com and nominated for DYK. However, I faced one problem. This clipping includes portions of an image which I hadn't clipped and the clipped text is much smaller in print relative to other clips. Is there any solution for this?--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Skr15081997 That's an odd one. I'm not sure what's happening, but we'll look into it. As a quick fix, if you extend the left boundary of your clipping over to the edge of the paper, it looks like that will get rid of that fixed height. Thanks for letting us know about the problem. We'll fix it.Drinknews (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Metrics

Hi all, I've just updated the Metrics subpage with the latest numbers. 182 accounts have been distributed so far and there has been an increase in links of over 800%! Sam Walton (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Those numbers sound great! My primary interest is in old-time radio, and I have found many articles at Newspapers.com that have provided useful information about both people and programs of that era. Having access to contemporary coverage helps both in writing and in editing articles. I hope that the people at Newspapers.com will continue to provide accounts for this valuable resource in coming years.Eddie Blick (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Permanence of clippings

As I have used Newspapers.com and created citations for Wikipedia articles, I have sometimes wondered what would happen to the related clippings when my Newspapers.com account expired. Today I received an answer via the Newspapers.com Facebook page. The answer:

Once you've made a clipping, it will stay on the site and people will continue to be able to see it and the page it came from. The person who made the clipping can delete it and then it would be gone, but it will not go away if their subscription expires.

I'm passing this information along in case anyone else who received a Newspapers.com account through Wikipedia may have wondered the same thing. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Clippings may disappear when newspapers.com replaces low-quality images with higher-quality ones for a given publication. The notification email that is sent to the creator of the clipping reads:

As part of our continuing effort to improve Newspapers.com, we have replaced some images on our site with better quality versions.

One of the pages we replaced, Oshkosh Daily Northwestern (Oshkosh, Wisconsin), 1 Apr 1940, Page 18, includes your clipping: Census of 1836 and 1940 Found to be Lot Different. Your clipping will no longer appear on the site, so we have attached a copy of your clipping to this email for your convenience.

The improved images will be on the site in the coming days if you would like to recreate your clipping.

If the clipping is recreated, it will get a new url. Helperzoom (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Newspapers.com Best Practices

Best practices

1. Use newspapers.com title field to increase findability - location and dates matter to search engines, so be specific. Keep title short and keyword loaded. Example of short, descriptive title - with place and MM/DD/YYYY date in full title

2. Use newspapers.com comments field to add further references - see above example.

3. Optionally (but likely great for SEO) put "— See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARTICLE " at the end of the newspapers.com comment field for your clipping. Won't hyperlink, but search engines still index plain text URLs. Example of Wikipedia linkback on newspapers.com)

Questions:

A. What is the exact number of characters allowed in the automatically created URL? Seems to cut at whole words, at or above 37 characters - see first example. 40? (Please answer this question right below this sentence.)

B. What are your recommended best practices to increase findability and usability of your newspapers.com open access clippings? Add a new number (starting at 5) in the far left-hand column below, ideally with a linked example, as above. Thanks! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

More Best Practices

4. Use newspapers.com comments field to type out entire clipping or short extract that captures import of clipping. Not necessarily article lede, but may include pithy quote, searchable names, etc. Eases readability/findability for both or human and robot eyes; enables easy copy and paste. (Note: newspapers.com comments are limited to 250 characters. Character counter keeps you on track.) Example of quote on newspapers.com -- Paulscrawl (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

5. Find a neat picture of something on Newspapers.com? While we're not supposed to download and repost images from Newspapers, even for PD papers, what you can do is clip just the image, or image with caption, as you would normally clip an article. Then you can use the {{external media}} template to put a floating box in the article you're writing. That way, editors can click through and view the image at Newspapers.com. Examples: Enos v. Snyder and John R. Brinkley#Political career. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, re-uploading images from public domain newspapers is fine as long as you're not doing it in huge quantities, see #Pre-1923 pictures above. Sam Walton (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

6.

question about use

So far I have used Newspaper.com to make clippings that I can link to in the external links section, or to cite as newspapers. But I found an advertisement from 1886 for the subject of my current article (him and his orchestra). Can I upload the clipping as a photo and put it in the article as a photo, or am I limited to pointing to it with a link?Jacqke (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This is the clipping I would like to use as a photo for the Carlo Curti article: this clipping as a photo.Jacqke (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine. Per my message at #Pre-1923 pictures above, as long as you're not scraping and uploading tons of images it's fine. Sam Walton (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll be conservative with that.Jacqke (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Macro to help with citations for Newspaper.com sources

I use publications from Newspaper.com so frequently that I created a couple of macros to save time and typing when I add "Retrieved October 8, 2015" and "– via Newspapers.com" to what the Cite News template creates. The macros require having AutoHotkey (a free program) running on your computer. (I use Windows; I don't know whether AutoHotkey is available for other operating systems.) The macros let me produce each of the quoted lines with four keystrokes, which saves a lot of time and typing over a number of citations.

If you are interested in having the macros, or if you want to know more about the process, just contact me. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Question

I just wanted to check in about an issue I ran into yesterday. I had an account through this program beginning in February 2014, and applied for the renewal in July. I have some vague recollection of receiving a followup e-mail regarding the renewal process, and following it to the best of my ability, but I can't find the e-mail now — and when I tried to use my account yesterday, it was expired. Accordingly, I just wanted to ask: does a possibility of getting it renewed again still exist, or have I lost my place in the queue? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Your account was extended and should be good till August 5 2016. What happens when you try to log in... does it say "expired"? HazelAB (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm going to smite my own forehead now. I had forgotten that I used a different e-mail address to register for the account than the one I normally use for most Wikipedia stuff — this all happened because I got logged out of the system the last time I cleared my cache, and it seems I tried to log back in with the wrong e-mail address. I just logged out of the wrong address and back in with the other one instead, and everything's fine after all. My apologies. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Glad to hear everything's okay! All the best HazelAB (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait time for upgrade?

Just wondering how long the wait is normally for account upgrades. I was approved to receive an upgrade on October 9, got the email, followed the instructions to create a free login and submitted my information on the Google form by October 10 (as noted on my talk page). My Newspapers.com login has not been upgraded, I have not heard anything since then and it appears that my initial application request has been removed from the project page here. What is the status? Thanks! Slambo (Speak) 01:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Slambo: sorry for the delay in upgrading your account. Normally the upgrade happens within a week of registering and filling in the the Google form. Unfortunately you and several others who were approved around the same time were overlooked and have not been given full access yet. This should be done early next week. I'll let you know when you have access. By the way your application request was moved to the list of active accounts a week or so ago in anticipation of your getting access. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Way cool, thanks for the update and for the work in coordinating access. Slambo (Speak) 15:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Publisher Extra Subscription on Newspapers.com

Is there a possibility that Newspaper.com accounts provided through Wikipedia can be enhanced to include the Publisher Extra Subscription option? I'm not sure when the extra option began appearing, but it seems that more newspapers are being put under that classification, making them unavailable with our WP accounts.

I greatly appreciate the free access that I had last year and continue to have this year, but it's frustrating to see a potentially useful article in the list of search results, only to realize that if I click on it I will get the message "Upgrade to a Publisher Extra Subscription to view this page." (This inquiry was prompted by a search in which 19 of the first 20 results were from Publisher Extra Subscription newspapers. Obviously not all results are that extreme.) Eddie Blick (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have also been running into the unavailable "extra" articles more often, especially from Google searches. In fairness, this appears to reflect additional newspapers being added by Newspapers.com, rather than any diminishment of the freely available library. Access for sourcing purposes would indeed be welcome, if it could be arranged. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Teblick:@Arxiloxos: Newspapers.com's Publisher Extra was announced on January 14 in this blog post. This content is not available via our free Wikipedia accounts. We asked, and here's the explanation, from Newspapers.com: "The papers that we are putting up in the Publisher Extra collection come from agreements with publishers. The license agreements for them are different from those of other papers on the site. Those agreements don’t include approval to give away access to this Publisher Extra content. We’ll continue to add more content to the basic subscription and we can continue to give access to that content to Wikipedia editors, but we can’t include the Publisher Extra content." All the best, HazelAB (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@HazelAB: Thanks for the explanation. I'm disappointed, but now I understand the company's position with regard to licensing agreements. I also realize that I shouldn't complain, since what they do make available for free continues to be valuable in my research. I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Teblick: Thanks for the understanding! We have run into similar barriers before, it appears to be a common issue with currently publishing newspapers and the licensing agreements that publishers sign. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Teblick: We now have access to Publisher Extra! If you still have an active account you'll be getting an email from Cameron soon to ask whether you'd like to upgrade your account. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: That will be great! Yes, my account is still active; in fact I use it nearly every day for Wikipedia-related research. I look forward to having access to the Publisher Extra issues, and I thank whoever worked with the Newspapers.com people to bring about this change. Eddie Blick (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Yes please, me too! And thank you for doing this, I know it's been a longtime hope and goal, and it will be amazingly useful. Penny Richards (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I communicated with Cameron about getting access to Publisher Extra Subscription and he suggested requesting a renewal through the Wikipedia Library platform. It would probably be a good idea to request access to Publisher Extra Subscription in the comments. Cxbrx (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Account status

In October, I requested a renewal of my Newspapers.com subscription. I thought it had been renewed, but this morning I found a message, "Your subscription expires in 7 days. You can easily renew now." at the top of the site's page. Can I do something to extend my subscription through Wikipedia? I use Newspapers.com daily, doing research for new articles and adding material to existing articles. Losing access to it would greatly hamper my work on Wikipedia. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Teblick: Your 1-year account would expire on March 2 if it were not renewed, but it will be, so you will not lose access. Even though you requested renewal in October, my practice is to inform Newspapers.com customer service closer to the renewal date. This seems to work well. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@HazelAB: Thanks so much! I'm glad to know that. Newspapers.com is my primary "go-to" source for most research. I appreciate your help in ensuring continued use of it. Eddie Blick (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Inquiry Concerning Newspapers.com Account Access

I know the minimum qualifications are six months of editing and at least 500 edits, but I was curious—given the current number of users and demand—whether there could be exceptions to the rule. There appear to be over 100 slots readily available and not much recent request activity.

I started editing in January of this year and have since made two pages myself, Albert O. Vorse, Jr. and Cecil E. Harris. As you can see (from the former in particular), I do my best to provide references from primary source documents; to that end I have a Fold3 account through my work volunteering at an historical landmark. Having Newspapers.com access would be an invaluable tool for furthering the pages I've made so far, for improving the strength of references for pages I have planned, as well as for improving the referencing of existing pages made by others. It looks like the current WWII ace pages link primarily to acepilots.com rather than contemporary news accounts, official military documents, etc.

Feel free to email me to discuss this further. Thanks so much! Finktron (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate newspaper names

Editors should be warned that the newspaper titles shown on Newspapers.com web pages (say, on the top frame outside the newspaper viewing window, or on clipping pages) may differ considerably from those on the nameplate of the printed newspaper. See examples at [1], [2], [3], [4].

These mismatches are especially common when names vary over time; for example, newspapers.com applies the single name "Pittsburgh Post-Gazette" to the Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette (1877-1901), The Pittsburgh Gazette (1901-1906), The Gazette Times (1906-1925), Pittsburgh Gazette Times (1925-1927), and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (1927-present).

As a result, WP now has countless inaccurate citations from editors who have relied on the names from newspapers.com without checking the front page for the actual names. Most of these are minor inaccuracies, but some aren't. Phleg1 (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC); edited 13:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up Phleg. Indeed, all Nashville papers get subsumed under The Tennesseean, which is called The Nashville Tennessean before 1972, and didn't exist until 1907, when the American and the Banner ruled the roost in Nashville. For somehow, newspapers.com does not account for this even slightly. Cake (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Phleg1: Good catch. I'll contact Newspapers.com to see if they're aware of this. Sam Walton (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Our contact at Newspapers.com is passing this along to the relevant team, though it seems its an issue they were previously aware of. Sam Walton (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I have access

I was using Newspapers.com the other day, and repeatedly saw messages to sign up blocking papers. Does my account not cover paid papers, or did I do something wrong? I signed up in October, do I need to renew? Thanks, this is a great resource to have!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 04:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Patrickneil: Your access is good until October 12 2016. It may be relevant that since January Newspapers.com has added "Publisher Extra" content that is not included in our Wikipedia subscriptions. It appears in search result lists with a little plus sign next to the newspaper title. Then when you click on the result you get a message inviting you to upgrade your subscription in order to view the Publisher Extra content. Does that sound familiar? HazelAB (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

List of newspapers?

Is there a list of newspapers that we have access to? It seems that everything I search for falls into the extra subscription category. Leschnei (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Leschnei: You should have access to everything other than the Publisher Extra (orange plus) newspapers. We've asked about getting access to this but the answer has been a no so far unfortunately. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice the plus symbol on the search page at first. Now I can avoid going to the restricted articles which will let me avoid some frustration. Leschnei (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Open Access icon?

@Sadads and Trappist the monk: why does the suggested citation format include an open access icon? It seems as if this symbol is not needed here. --bender235 (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Bender235: its part of the larger OASignalling strategy, being supported by tools like WP:OABOT. We want to give some type of visual indicator that though this piece is typically behind a paywall, the clipping allows folks access. Though, I believe the standard for what the OA resources look like, has changed per a discussion related to WP:OABOT. @Ocaasi (WMF): Sadads (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bender235: Sadads (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, the thing is if "not behind paywall" is indicated we'd have to put on almost every external link on Wikipedia. Also, there is apparently also a green "free to read" icon (, currently used to indicate ArXiv and PMC links), sort of a weaker version of since Open Access seems to have legal implications beyond "being free to read." --bender235 (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bender235: I think the distinction is that Newspaper.com sources are usually paywalled, but links to clippings are free to read in this case, so labelling that is useful to readers. I also believe the green and orange icons refer to Green/Gold Open Access. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

See the discussions about the lock icons at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Adding open access links to references and Help talk:Citation Style 1#Free-to-read icon.

The norm for almost all external links at en.wiki is that they lead to a source that is not protected by registration or paywall. We should not highlight the norm. We should, when the external link does lead to a registration or paywall, mark those links with an appropriate icon:

(blue for visual accessibility against black or white backgrounds)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Update to Example ?

• Similar to Wikipedia:Newspaperarchive.com :
• {{cite news|title=Obituary Notes: Charles Wingate | url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/141558/the_new_york_timesnew_york_new/ | newspaper = The New York Times | location = New York, New York | date = September 2, 1909 | page = 9 | via = [[Newspapers.com]] | accessdate = July 21, 2014 }} {{free access}}
• "Obituary Notes: Charles Wingate". The New York Times. New York, New York. September 2, 1909. p. 9. Retrieved July 21, 2014 – via Newspapers.com.
• Proposed Wikipedia:Newspaperarchive.com :
• {{cite news|title= Appeals Heard in Criminal Court | url = http://newspaperarchive.com/profile/stephanie-morgan/clipnumber/16765/ | newspaper = Bluefield Daily Telegraph | location = Bluefield, West Virginia| date = July 19, 1932 | page = 4 |via = [[NewspaperARCHIVE.com]] | accessdate = July 21, 2014 }} {{free access}}
• "Appeals Heard in Criminal Court". Bluefield Daily Telegraph. Bluefield, West Virginia. July 19, 1932. p. 4. Retrieved July 21, 2014 – via NewspaperARCHIVE.com.

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thoughts? Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Access is too limited to be of much use

When I got access, I was assuming I could see old copies of my city's newspaper of record, The Courier-Journal, but alas, it appears nearly the entire paper is locked up behind the Publisher Extra membership. I wanted to verify some facts from 1925 about the 1st National Spelling Bee and the paper's involvement with it, but no dice. The only value I'm getting from this (very) basic subscription is being able to verify what pages certain titles or content is on. Oh well. Maybe I should start a local GoFundMe campaign to pay for full access. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Stevietheman: Unfortunately the content that's being added as part of Newspaper.com's Publisher Extra membership can't be included in our partnership. We've asked multiple times if there's any way this could be done, but they're restricted by their licensing terms with these newspapers. We'll keep looking into whether there's any way around this, but I'm not optimistic. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Stevietheman: While not ideal, it is possible to read Publisher Extra contents via the OCR text transcription. OscarL 11:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, for the record, I've also noticed that "Publisher Extra" is really kicking a flaming hole in how much I'm actually able to use newspapers.com for referencing anymore. I'm somewhat lucky in that I can still use it to get at some defunct Canadian newspapers that wouldn't be ponying up for "publisher extra" licensing, but it was also the only access I had to any American news coverage predating the Googlability era and I've almost completely lost that — when I tried to use it earlier this week to improve the sourcing on a Canadian home renovation reality show that also aired on HGTV in the US, every single viable source about the show was behind the PubExtra paywall and I literally didn't have one single solitary thing I was actually allowed to see besides "what's on TV tonight" grids. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@OscarLake and Bearcat: We now have access to Publisher Extra! If you still have an active account you'll be getting an email from Cameron soon to ask whether you'd like to upgrade your account. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That's great. When can I expect an email? OscarL 15:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Request to fix/improve a reference

I added a reference to an article using the Newspaper.com result from a Google search. The sentence being referenced was not added by me; I was just adding references to unsourced content. Can someone with access to Newspapers.com please verify that I used the correct article in the reference and, if possible, add a free to read link in the reference? Thanks. AHeneen (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@AHeneen: Unfortunately the donation to Wikipedia editors doesn't include Publisher Extra content, of which this newspaper is one. Sam Walton (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Troubleshooting question

A few weeks ago I officially switched my browser from Firefox to Chrome, due to increasing difficulties getting Firefox to work properly on my computer anymore. Ever since the switch, however, I now can't actually view articles in newspapers.com at all — the page starts to load normally and then it just goes blank, and nothing I can do actually restores the page. Is this happening to anybody else in Chrome, and does anybody know how I can fix it other than reinstalling Firefox just to view newspapers.com when I need to? Bearcat (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Although nobody answered my question at the time, I just wanted to follow up with the information that I found the source of my problem: my virus scanner, Avast, has an irritating "SafePrice" module that was loading each time to offer me membership discount coupons to the site, and that plugin was causing the actual pages to blank out. Once I turned it off, the problem disappeared. So if anybody else is having a similar problem, now you know. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Status of renewals

Is any information available about when approved renewals for 2017 will take effect? I see on the project page that several other Wikipedia folks are in the same situation that I am, having been approved for renewal but without having the subscription reactivated. I realize that I shouldn't complain about something that I will receive at no charge, but I really miss being able to go to Newspapers.com for searches. I often find myself thinking that I will search for something there, only to remember that I don't have access to the articles. Eddie Blick (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Cameron said on his talk page that he's just waiting for a response from Newspapers.com--the renewals have been sent in, there's nothing more he can do until they respond. I share your impatience!-Penny Richards (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Penny Richards: Thank you! I hadn't thought to look on his talk page. I appreciate your feedback. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Does Newspapers.com object to creation of a web archive of a clipping?

I have recently become aware of the importance of using Wayback Machine or a similar service to create archives of Web pages that I use for references on Wikipedia. I wonder whether the folks at Newspapers.com have any objections to doing that with the clipping pages that we create. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't see why that would be an issue, at least in the case of Wayback Machine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Indiana Gazette date issues

While looking for sources for an article I'm writing, I came across errors on Newspapers.com's scans of The Indiana Gazette. For example, the website says this scan says it's from 1978, but the newspaper is from 1996. I checked some of the other provided scans of this newspaper and it seems that the dates of the scans for the Indiana Gazette have been mixed up. I emailed the website to let them know. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that sort of thing happens more than one would expect with Newspapers.com's archives. I have encountered erroneous dates like the one you cited. Less frequently I have even found incorrect names for the newspapers. Eddie Blick (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333 and Teblick: Best to report these things to Newspapers.com directly, should help them fix these errors :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and I have reported them. I was just trying to point out that MrLinkinPark333's experience was not an isolated incident. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I have an active account, but site not recognizing as subscribed

Hi. I have an active account (I'm in the list of current subscribers at the Approved subsite to wp:newspapers.com), but when I click through a standard entry (not a premium entry) I get a 'sign up for a free trial' notice indicating that I'm not currently subscribed. Could you verify the status of my account? Or should I followup with newspapers.com support? Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ceyockey: You last applied for a renewal around this time last year, so I assume your account has expired. Please add your name to the renewals section and Cameron11598 can get your account reactivated. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Ahh, how quickly a year flies by. Apologies for the mistake. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Publisher Extra now available!

Good news everyone: Newspapers.com have managed to sort out the problems that were stopping us being able to get access to Publisher Extra newspapers! If you still have an active account you'll be getting an email from Cameron soon to ask whether you'd like to upgrade your account. New accounts will come with Publisher Extra by default. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That is indeed good news, especially as so many newspapers are now listed as 'Extra'.--Wolbo (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I just received a renewal, but Publisher Extra does not appear to be included by default. (I realize that a renewal is likely different from a new account.) Almost all on a current results page are Extra newspapers and I receive "You need a Publisher Extra Subscription to view this page".--Rpclod (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rpclod: if you send me an e-mail via Special:EmailUser I'd be more than happy to have your account upgraded to publisher's extra. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I communicated with Cameron about getting access to Publisher Extra Subscription via email and he suggested requesting a renewal through the Wikipedia Library platform. It would probably be a good idea to request access to Publisher Extra Subscription in the comments. Cxbrx (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't have access to Publisher's Extra yet, either. Do I need to send a request? Eddie Blick (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I haven't received an email; I DO want the upgrade.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Samwalton9 (WMF) That's awesome news! I haven't received an email either, but would love access. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cameron11598:, thank you for all of your work on this.--Rpclod (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Will clippings from Publisher Extra content be freely available to readers as clippings from standard content is now? If the clippings will be restricted, in what way, so we can use the appropriate url-access indicator? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ceyockey: Clippings are, I believe, by definition free to access. There may be some restrictions on what you can create a clipping of, but I would be very surprised if a clipping, once made, was further restricted. --Xover (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ceyockey: and @Xover:, Clippings are indeed free to access. After reading the posts above, I went to a Publisher Extra clipping using a browser in which I was not signed in to my Newspapers.com account. It let me see both the clipping and the full page on which the clipping appeared. Free access is limited to that one page, however; an attempt to go to other pages in the issue brought up the message "You need a subscription to view this page." Eddie Blick (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

For multi-page articles, I typically clip the other pages, which makes them accessible via the 'other clips' collection, or can be included in an wikipedia article via a note. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Upgrade requests

As I as well have not received an email related to the upgrade availability, thought I would start this section specifically targeting those folks who want to ugrade.

• User:Ceyockey (talk to me) I want to upgrade. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ceyockey: Please email User:Cameron11598 via Special:EmailUser to get your account upgraded :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I communicated with Cameron about getting access to Publisher Extra Subscription via email and he suggested requesting a renewal through the Wikipedia Library platform. It would probably be a good idea to request access to Publisher Extra Subscription in the comments. Cxbrx (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm using, but not completely as requested...

Hi. I've been using Newspapers.com extensively of late and attributing to newspapers.com using the 'via' parameter. However, I'm not wikilinking to the newspapers.com article nor adding the free access template. I'll explain with the intent of eliciting comments on this approach.

• First, about the free access template. Best practice is that sources are open to all readers, though there is no penalty or objection to using sources which are not generally available, such as paper books or paywall-bounded scientific journals. However, I've taken the notion that where an online source is available, if it is freely available, no need to indicate this, but should indicate the state of restriction for non-open sources. As an aside, the url-access parameter used in some sources have a 'free' value indicated in documentation, but this parameter is not recognized by the template interpreter (e.g. try using 'url-access=free' for template:cite journal - it fails).
• Second, about wikilinking to newspapers.com . This is part oversight and part intention. I've been of the opinion for some time that linkage to articles in citations confounds topical linking with informational linking. Topical linking is linking from a related topic, whereas informational linking is from a resource that could be completely unrelated in topic but provided to support context of use or other non-direct informational purpose. As an aside, I encourage linkage of journal titles in citations to the ISO-4 abbreviation rather than the main journal name, which if used consistently could distinguish between the two use-cases; this is particularly important for articles which have relatively little information in Wikipedia about them and topical interlinkage is far and away less prevalent than informational interlinking. Ok, back on topic - I would actually suggest that the wikilink target for the via parameter should be to wp:Newspapers.com as this would provide the context of use and avoids confounding the informational with the topical linkages.

Thanks for reading. Please be polite in your rebuttals :-) - and in your support. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

First, I agree that free should be the default, however, I think that it is useful to let people know that newspaper articles that are normally subscription-based (like the New York Times) are freely available in that particular instance. Second, I would rather have the only link in any reference be to the article which is serving as a source and not to the newspapers/journal wikilink, but that is because I frequently constantly click on the wrong link. Now that I think of it, having the newspaper link set off by 'via' probably helps me avoid clicking on it. Leschnei (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is any assumption that things are freely available. For example, Oxford has sources that are open and closed, some require subscription, some don't. Newspapers.com, likewise, has various subscription platforms, so what may be available to you, may not be available to someone else, especially a reader who is not a WP editor. Free access, simply tells anyone they can open it. As for linking to the source, I do. I am a researcher, primarily. If a journal has published on a particular topic, it may well be that they have other articles on the subject which would help me in my research. No to journal abbreviations. There are far too many acronyms and abbreviations already in use on Wikipedia. Our primary service is to our readers. The jargon we use should not interfere with the reader's ability to understand what we mean. SusunW (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

freely available—no, not an assumption; rather a best practice. What I will generally do when looking at things I have special access to is to log out from the resource or access from a different PC (for resources that authenticate on IP ranges) to see what the "public" engagement experience would be; more work, definitely, but best practice.

journal abbreviations— I use these in the background, not as the displayed text. For instance "J. Mol. Biol." and "Journal of Molecular Biology", where the citation link would be Journal of Molecular Biology; the user sees the full journal name, not the abbreviation.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. A couple of points on this…

First, the |*-access= parameters in the CS1 templates are the way they are as a result of several RFCs in which only partial consensus was achieved. There were various more comprehensive frameworks on the table of which only parts gained consensus. But in any case, the current state is that for all URLs the default is presumed to be free access so that an access level should only be given if it differs from that. Clippings on newspapers.com are by definition free to access, and so no access parameter should be given. Articles on JSTOR, identified with the |jstor= parameter, are presumed to not be free to access, and so an explicit access level should only be given when access is free. The same applies for DOIs (for Oxford journals, say).

The example citation on this page is a bit unfortunate because it puts a free access icon at the end of the citation, implying that the citation in its entirety is free to access, which it will not be for articles that are too large to be in a single clipping. I thus recommend against using the {{free access}} template in newspaper.com citations.

Linking authors, publishers, and journals (etc.) in citations is subject to local citation style, but I would highly recommend it: it provides, possibly crucial, information for the reader, and it is metadata that makes the citation unambigiously parseable for software. In this light, linking to the ISO 4 code (which is a remnant from the limitations of paper) is a distinction without difference: the reader won't see the codes, and wouldn't be able to easily understand them if they did, and the link would be a redirect to the journal's article anyway. What's important is that a reader can click on PMLA instead of googleguessing that the citation can be found in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act; and software can resolve the link to Shakespeare Quarterly, look up its Wikidata item (Shakespeare Quarterly (Q7462811)), and from there all the structured data it needs (including identifiers).

Finally, citations are used in mainspace, and articles in mainspace should never link to other namespaces, particularly not project-space (Wikipedia:*). The |via= parameter should point to our encyclopedia article on the database provider which is written for the general audience, and not to the project-internal page on how wikipedia editors should gain TWL access to it which is written only for Wikipedia editors. --Xover (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

What has happened to the Extra Subscription?

Samwalton9, I am no longer able to access papers which used to require Extra Subscription, but then we gained permission for them. Am getting the notice "You need a Publisher Extra Subscription to view this page". Has our access been revoked? This is a critical source and definitely needed. SusunW (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Cameron11598 Can you assist? I am in the middle of an article and suddenly all the sources I had saved to review are not available. (Though newspaperarchive.com has some of the same newspapers, apparently they do not have duplicate collections as many of the articles I am finding in newspapers.com marked as extra subscription cannot be accessed.) It is impossible to work further on the article, as no other sourcing for this area of Arizona seems to exist. SusunW (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW: I'll follow up Monday, the folks at newspapers.com don't work weekends but I'll see what I can find out in the mean time. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW: In the meantime do you know which specific articles you need? If so shoot me an email I have access to newspapers.com. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cameron11598 I have access to newspapers.com, just no access to the Extra Subscription articles. I'll send you an e-mail, there are a lot of them. SusunW (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cameron11598! I'm having the same trouble as SusunW. Thanks for helping us out! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Fixed --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Not fixed for me! I was searching this morning and didn't have access to the Extra Subscription articles. I tried logging out and logging in again, just for kicks, but still no access. Leschnei (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: Could you look into this? :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: I seem to be having a similar problem, just since today. Not sure if my entire subscription has expired or not. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: Hi, I unexpectedly received a "Your subscription expired just now." error message this morning at Newspapers.com, with no access to any content. I'd be grateful if you could check whether this is part of the same problem that other users have been experiencing. Thanks. Doremo (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Doremo and Jweiss11: Looks like you both last renewed your access just about one year ago. You can renew it again here when logged in. If anyone else is getting a fully expired subscription, just request a renewal :)

Thank you. Doremo (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

My subscription is still active; I just can't access the Extra Subscription articles. Leschnei (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, if you haven't already done so please request renewal through the library card platform. @Leschnei: you will need to do so as well. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks Leschnei (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• FYI - I apparently never lost access. Maybe the permissions outage only impacted a subset of subscriptions? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I had just hit the one-year mark on my subscription; for some reason, I thought that I had renewed in the spring. Not sure why I could still access the non-extra papers, but it should all get sorted now that I've requested renewal. Leschnei (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Cameron11598, I submitted a renewal application and it looks like you reviews it and sent it to Newspapers.com on September 1. Thank you! How long does it typically take them to process the renewal? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Approved accounts is an inactive page

On the main Wikipedia:Newspapers.com page there is a link to approved accounts but it says at the bottom it is outdated.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Use of "via" and "free access" symbol in Newspapers.com citations

Does WP have a clear policy on whether the inclusion of "via=Newspapers.com" and the free access logo () is recommended in citations, as implied by the example given in this article? When I added clippings to this article, another editor removed those items as "pointless". I asked at the Helpdesk but got a somewhat confusing response. --Muzilon (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I fixed your help desk link

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Muzilon: Policy? No. Citation format is, in the main, up to a consensus at each article to decide.

However, in a slightly narrower sense of the question, some factors bear on this in practice. When using the CS1/CS2 citation templates, there was an RFC recently that established some rules for use of access indicators: all general web sources (anything with an URL) is presumed to be free to access by default and should not be marked in any special way. Only if the source linked to by the URL is not freely accessible should an access indicator (like |url-access=subscription) be used. For non-URL identifiers the opposite holds: these are not presumed to be free to access by default and should only be marked when they deviate (that is, when they are free to access: |doi-access=free). I'm not, personally, particularly happy with that approach, but it is the best guidance we have, being the result of a community consensus process. And while not a policy, per se, it is generally binding as the reigning consensus.

As for |via=, SchroCat is slightly too economical and emphatic in stating, covering both issues, that "they are pointless" in the above linked discussion. For access indicators they are entirely correct, as per the above, but for |via= a different recent RFC (that was launched by an editor that didn't like the practice of adding it) established that there is no particular consensus for or against its use in general, so long as it is used in accordance with its intended use (to indicate a third-party service through which the source was accessed, when it is different than the publisher). For Newspapers.com this is an entirely appropriate use, in the general case. However, I'm guessing SchroCat's comment was intended to be read as their personal disapproval of its use in the specific citation on that specific article.

And in the specific case, this is an issue that must be resolved among the editors on that article. It also should be resolved on that article's talk page: opening three threads in different venues about this will often be seen as forum-shopping. Which, if nothing else, is a bad start when you're dependent on persuading the other interested editors to your point of view.

As it happens, I agree with Trappist the monk at the help desk that "|via=Newspapers.com is appropriate; {{free access}} is not" in that article, but as neither one of us edit there our opinions matter little. --Xover (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Please be assured that I have no strong opinion either way, am not intent on persuading other editors, and am not intentionally "forum-shopping." When I asked at the Helpdesk (which seemed the logical place to ask in the first instance), I was told I should have raised the issue on the Talk page of the article where the issue happened to arise (John Le Mesurier). I followed that advice and left a message on the John Le Mesurier Talk Page, and received an opinion that seemed to contradict the opinion given on the Helpdesk page. (In fact, another editor who had no prior involvement left a message on my personal Talk page thanking me for raising the issue at the Helpdesk and saying he would like clarification too.) --Muzilon (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record the citation examples on pages like this are simply examples we put together following the citation template documentation and current practices. They're not intended to be requirements and we're happy to change them as guidelines and practices change :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

In that case, I support removing the {{free access}} template from the example example citation for the reasons stated in my response to Editor Muzilon at the help desk.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. And similarly at Wikipedia:Newspaperarchive.com, thanks to the note from Muzilon. --Xover (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

In your reply to me at the help desk, you made no mention of confusion. At the conversation on your talk page, you say that my WP:HD post was confusing. What about that post needs clarification?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Uh, you said that the Newspaper.com guidelines here had been edited to advise editors to use rather than because the latter was "clearly inappropriate." However, you also said that - in your opinion - using on John Le Mesurier was not "appropriate" either, when the example given in the guidelines here does include . (The other editor who commented on my personal Talk page apparently found this a bit confusing too.) And it's helpful if you provide a wikified link like WP:CS1 rather than plaintext like "cs1|2" - I wasn't familiar with the latter WP jargon and had to look it up. --Muzilon (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

ADDENDA: OK, I see the free access logo has now been deleted from the "example" here. Tagging editor Teblick, who may be interested in this development. (It may be worthwhile noting that the parallel guidelines for Wikipedia:Newspaperarchive.com still include the logo, however.) --Muzilon (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't wikilink cs1|2 because I did wikilink {{cite news}} which was the cs1|2 template in question.

Quoting you talking about me: you said that the Newspaper.com guidelines here had been edited to advise editors to use rather than ... I think that you are mistaken. At this 28 July 2016 edit, Editor Nikkimaria removed this bullet point:

• Make sure to include the {{Open access}} template in citations of clippings: we want our readers to know that they can access these articles.

The {{open access}} template was switched to {{free access}} with this 7 September 2016 edit (after the 'requirement' to use an {{xxx access}} template – sentence above – was removed).

{{open access}} is clearly inappropriate because 'open access' means that the source may be re-used; such re-use is governed by a legal agreement between the publisher, the author(s), and the re-user(s). Wikipedia has no place in that legal agreement so applying {{open access}} to a Newspapers.com clipping citation is inappropriate. {{free access}} is inappropriate because cs1|2 templates have internal support for access icons and rules that govern their use; adding {{free access}} to cs1|2 template citations is contrary to those rules.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the guidelines here formerly recommended using the open access logo (), and then somebody changed the guidelines to say (or at least imply) that the free access logo () should be used instead. (How many editors never caught up with that change and are still using ?) However, the guidelines have now been changed yet again, and the current example does not indicate any logo at all. I personally shall therefore refrain from using (much less !) when adding Newspapers.com clippings in future. --Muzilon (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Muzilon: You are entirely correct that the example citation provided was misleading, and that the conflicting guidance from various places is apt to cause confusion. It was good that you brought the issue up so we can attempt to at least lessen the contradictory guidance. --Xover (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Would someone please clip two articles

I'm currently waiting for my account to be renewed. As it is unclear how long that will take, would somebody please clip two articles for me? They are the two articles that come up, both from October 1983 issues of The Boston Globe, when searching for "Ian D. D. Eaves" (link). Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Done and done. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 22:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Nova Crystallis! --Usernameunique (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Technical problem

I'm having a technical problem when I use newspapers.com, so I wanted to ask if anybody else is experiencing the same thing and knows how to fix it, or whether it's a weird thing that's only happening to me.

Basically, what's happening is that making newspapers.com clippings causes my right-click context menus to go haywire. I have no problem using the site, until I save a clipping — but then, when I try to paste the clipping's URL into the Wikipedia article I clipped it for, for some reason my right-click context menus suddenly lose the "paste" option, and I have to manually Ctrl-V it instead. I can still copy text with a right-click, because I do still get context menus that include the "copy" option, but the "paste" option is gone. And this doesn't just apply to whatever I'm copy-pasting directly from newspapers.com either — once the clipping has stolen my paste, I permanently lose the ability to paste anything from anywhere until I completely reboot my browser. (For example, I had to Ctrl-V the WikiProject templates into Talk:The Paper People, because I still couldn't right-click any menu with the word "paste" in it.)

Firefox, if it matters.

So, is this happening to anybody else, or is technology just conspiring against me? Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Very odd. You might have better luck contacting Newspapers.com directly about this :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is my account not renewed?

Being handled off-wiki

I received an email saying I had not registered with newspapers.com. I did a year ago, and I have been trying to get that renewed since April 30. In fact, before that, but I could still access newspapers.com before that. My attempts to renew before April 30 got a response that made it sound like I was signing up for the first time. When I try contacting newspapers.com, they say they have to be contacted by Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC) Apparently you have to click on the "apply for free access" link and apply de novo each year. Coretheapple (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC) I did that when it seemed nothing else was working, and I keep getting emails that don't explain why but just tell me I did something wrong.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC) From: N M <redacted> To: Undisclosed-recipients:; Subject: Newspapers.com Date: Sat, 4 May 2019 23:13:29 +0000 Hello! Thank you for applying for access to Newspapers.com through The Wikipedia Library. They have informed us that you do not currently have an account on Newspapers.com under this email address, which means they are not able to activate your subscription. Could you please create an account on Newspapers.com? Once you have done this please post on your application so that it can be re-sent. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC) I hesitate to provide suggestions as I don't want to louse anything up. Why not take it up with N.M.? Coretheapple (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC) I sent N M a response. I haven't checked my email yet. I have my password saved at home and won't be getting on my computer there until tomorrow.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Okay, I got the responses I was looking for. I was just afraid I had forgotten to do something and it seemed like no one would tell me what was going on.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please clip three articles from The Age for me?

Hi, all. I don't quite qualify for a library card yet; could someone please clip these articles for me, so I can replace the dead links in Great Ocean Road?

"Double Lines Needed On Ocean Road". The Age. 10 June 1961. [5]
"Widening of Lorne Road". The Age. 8 September 1962. [6] (I think this is the correct link.)
"Fire Survey Finds Another 200 Homes were Lost". The Age. 20 January 1962. [7]

Thanks! ChiaLynn (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done, check your talk page. Leschnei (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Account renewal

I applied for renewal a few weeks ago, but I guess it didn't get through yet. My publisher extra subscription ended yesterday. I made pretty good use of it and believe I should be renewed. Here are a few examples.--12george1 (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I should also add that the application status does say approved. But that's not what Newspapers.com itself is showing--12george1 (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Account Renewal (2)

How long does the account renewal process take? My subscription ended today (didn't notice it was going to end today). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Subscription

Hi, I applied for a subscription over a year ago and have heard nothing since. I was just wondering if someone could look into it for me, as I would love to use Newspapers.com to create more articles. - JuneGloom07 Talk 19:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@JuneGloom07: It looks like you were approved for access by Cameron11598 in October last year. You can click the Renew button on your collection page (click through from your user page) to request that access be extended. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): Okay, I'll try asking for access again. Thank you. - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Renewal

I've applied for a renewal of my account, just wondering if the process is still operating under the current circumstances? Kosack (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Was wondering the same, how long does it take to get renewed? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm still waiting. Who do I contact? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Mine came through two days ago, have you received any contact since requesting renewal? Kosack (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Editorofthewiki: It looks like your renewal request should have been sent off a while ago. I'll chase this up. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki: We sent your renewal request off in April and Newspapers.com confirmed renewal. Can you double check that your account is not currently active on Newspapers.com? If so we'll ask them to reactivate it. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It says "Renewal-sent to partner." But when I try to access Newspapers.com through the website, it keeps offering a trial period, indicating I don't have access. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha, sorry about that. We'll drop them an email and get that fixed. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It still hasn't been fixed. What's going on? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Help - newspapers.com is telling me I need a "Publisher Extra Subscription" to view any pages

I use newspapers.com a lot for research. Starting today, inexplicably, newspapers.com won't let me view articles anymore. When I click on a newspaper link, it prompts me instead with a pop-up saying that I need a Publisher Extra Subscription to view it.

Is anyone else having this same problem? How do I get full access again?

My editing abilities will take a huge hit if I can't find historical newspaper articles. SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Odd that you've gone from having Extra to not, but @Netoholic: should be able to help you get that back :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. @Samwalton9: have you seen this happen before? How is Wikipedia allowing its editors to circumvent newspapers.com's new access issues? SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, meant to ping @Netoholic:! SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I will say that yes we've seen this happen before - initially all Wikipedia Library accounts didn't have Publisher Extra and it was retroactively added later on, but editors had to request if they wanted it, so we're in a weird state where some accounts have it and others don't. The fix, at least, is as simple as asking Newspapers.com to update your account :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I just submitted an inquiry directly through their Contact Us form. Hopefully I hear back soon. SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Netoholic: I also need to have my Publushers Extra access re-instated. Thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

A few days ago I got that popup saying that I needed Publishers Extra. I logged in again and had full access once more. I can't guarantee that the technique will work for anyone else. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Did not help - cleared cache and cookies, restarted, etc. Thanks, though. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Ceyockey and SportsGuy789: - Subscriptions are given by Newspapers.com in 1-year increments, and it looks like yours expired (since your last renewal was just over a year ago). Visit https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/26/ and apply for a renewal. We should have it back to you in a few days. -- Netoholic @ 05:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • FYI @SportsGuy789: The "apply" button won't be active on the page that Netoholic linked to; you need to go to your applications set and you'll see a 'request renewal' button on there for Newspapers.com. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I contacted newspapers.com directly and explained the situation. They opened my linked email address to full access after a couple of back and forth customer service emails! SportsGuy789 (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Best practices for citing columns across multiple pages

For online material, one citation is often sufficient for citing a singular publication if it is structurally coherent. However, since newspaper columns are often truncated across multiple pages, several Newspaper.com clippings—and thus several unique URLs—are required for a non-subscribed reader to access the entirety of the cited work. When citing such a newspaper article, what is the recommended method for structuring the citation(s)? I was offered one recommendation off-wiki to simply have one citation linking the first page of the article, though this would not make the full article visible to non-subscribers (and the clipping may not include the relevant information in the article). --TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 21:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a good question, TheAustinMan. I have wondered the same thing. Not having seen any guidelines for the topic, I treat each continuation of a story as a separate article, using the URL of that page's clipping and whatever headline appears at the top of that portion of the story. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what the correct method is, but here's an example of what I have done:

<ref name=defiebre1987>{{cite web|url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/15260840/eagan_high_school_page_1/|title=Eagan High is going to be extra special, page 1|last= De Fiebre|first=Conrad|date=November 12, 1987 }} and {{cite web|url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/15260822/eagan_high_school_page_2/ |title=page 2|work=Star Tribune |accessdate=November 20, 2017 |via=[[Newspapers.com]]}}{{free access}}</ref>

resulting in,

De Fiebre, Conrad (November 12, 1987). "Eagan High is going to be extra special, page 1". and "page 2". Star Tribune. Retrieved November 20, 2017 – via Newspapers.com.

Leschnei (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Leschnei—I typically do not use the template "free access" as I consider this to be the default case, and only tag those things which are clearly not free. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ceyockey: I agree with you. I copied this verbatim from a reference that I added before I stopped using the 'free access' template. Leschnei (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Definitely at least two ways to do this, and I've done both - for good or ill. In the event that the citation is to a piece of information which is isolated within the article, such as within one paragraph, then I have clipped only part of the article and used that in the citation. On the other hand, if you do need the entire article (most common, I think), then I use a General citation block, include a cite news template, then add more information about the other clipped pieces after the main citation. In this case, I will typically include the start of the article in the cite news template. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

These sound like pretty good suggestions. Since {{cite news}} only supports one URL (aside from breaking up the template parameters as Leschnei did), how should the other clipped pieces be presented? Using the example above, perhaps something like

De Fiebre (1987), p. 2 ?

-- TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 00:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"p. 2" is one option. Another is to use the title on the second passage, which is usually different from the original title. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Request: A tracking category for articles using image citations

I think it would be useful to have a hidden tracking category or a convenient link to a list of articles that use non-clipped Newspapers.com links in their citations, which could be replaced with clippings by editors with the subscription. Assuming that the existing citation is already formatted with a valid title and enough context, then this kind of task could be done by backlog cleaners without needing input from the original editor. SounderBruce 21:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)