Wikipedia talk:OUP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Example error?[edit]

The "Example" seems to refer solely to Questia, rather than to anything to do with OUP. Is this intentional? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that's an artifact from using the Questia page as a template. Working on a OUP example today. The Interior (Talk) 18:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Alumni access[edit]

As an alumnus, I'm not applying (for now!) since I assume (based on past examples) that I should be able to apply for this based on my alumnus status, and thus should not be taking away the opportunity from others.

However, as has been done by similar programs in the past, please can you provide links on how to do so - not least, to avoid alumni taking up space on this programme that could be better used by others. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure alumni don't get this package - but they do get JSTOR, as I do. However any UK resident should be able to get these at home via their local library, which the page should say. Manchester Libraries allow any UK resident to register with them, in case your local library doesn't - see http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200062/libraries/78/join_the_library. The process is a tad odd - if you are asked if you are accessing via Cardiff libraries, say yes - I think they handled the national deal with OUP. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
My library (both City and Shire Councils) only gives me access to the ODNB, which is why I'd applied for this OUP offer. I have HighBeam courtesy of Wikipedia and pay for my own Questia but no JStor unfortunately. Face-sad.svg I hadn't realised anyone could sign up under Manchester Library so have just registered there - I wasn't asked anything about accessing via Cardiff libraries though? Thanks for the tip as it means I can remove my name from this list now. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't go through Manchester myself, but at a certain point when logging in I get a couple of options, of which Cardiff is one, and works, recognising my library number. The Manchester package doesn't seem to include American National Biography, and Oxford Bibliographies Online, but has the rest; this may be typical of UK library packages, but they have other useful stuff. Let us know how you get on! Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Have people been approved from that list?[edit]

I put myself down for access to Grove on at 23:14, 6 May 2014 , 106 on the list and have not heard a thing. Access to Grove would be very useful for the articles on Baroque music I have been expanding and writing.Smeat75 (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I was also wondering how this was progressing. I signed up in April for the ODNB but haven't heard anything back. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys, if you are under 130 on the list and are not indented you have been approved, we're just waiting on processing and distribution. Thanks for your patience. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks, Nikkimaria. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Is that under 130 or at and below 130? You'll see why I have a particular interest in that fine point of distinction. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
There are 150 accounts available. I believe Nikkimaria was referring to how many users have been evaluated. The Interior (Talk) 08:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
That's correct, and I'm past 130 now - I just didn't want to say everyone who isn't indented is checked and good to go, because chances are as soon as I say that someone new will appear ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Now that I'm approved, assuming I am (which may be incorrect, I'm listed at 1), how do I get the appropriate authentications? --Bejnar (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You are indeed. We will shortly be sending out a link to a form for users to fill out, enabling us to process accounts. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I submitted the form immediately after receiving the email three and a half weeks ago, on July 17, and I haven't heard anything since. I hope it's simply taking a while to process things, but I just wanted to make sure my information hasn't somehow gotten lost somewhere along the way.... Thanks for any update you can provide. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 22:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It's now been over a month since I submitted the form. Has anybody received access? If nobody's gotten it yet, that's fine; I understand that things can take time, and I'm certainly not trying to nag. I'm just wondering if everybody else has been processed but something went wrong with my account. Perhaps Nikkimaria knows something? MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 18:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Same here, I guess it just takes time.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • We pass the form results on to the people at Oxford, and then they need to actually activate accounts, so unfortunately that's not a timeline we have control over. We're hoping it will happen very soon, but I can't give firm dates at this point. Apologies again for the delay. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the replies. No need to apologize. I wasn't complaining or getting impatient – simply wanted to verify that it wasn't just me. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 22:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

thank you[edit]

Face-smile.svg Thank you very much! Yoav Nachtailer (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Got it at last! Apart from thanking the Wikipedians who helped to make this happen, I'd like to thank the OUP for making this really useful access available to us. Is there an email address I could write to, or could someone convey thanks on my behalf (or on behalf of a group if others want to join me in this)? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I echo what JLAN said. Thank you. THank you. Thank you to everyone involved. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

New reference tool[edit]

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) 04:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Renewal[edit]

OUP has proposed a renewal and expansion of the program. Because this renewal has three streams instead of one, and because some waitlist entries have been pending for so long, I've moved the waitlist here and am pinging all entries. If you are still interested in access, please move your application back to the main page and specify which stream(s) you would like. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC) @Alexander Doria, Hack, Homoatrox, Melly42, Biblioworm, Brianann MacAmhlaidh, and Tony1: Nikkimaria (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC) @Jefferyseow, Mike Christie, TeleD, The Land, Shabidoo, and Rodomonte: Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC) @Cpt.a.haddock, Carrite, The Discoverer, INM, AmateurEditor, Ca$e, and Parkwells: Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC) @Jmbranum, Thine Antique Pen, Trust Is All You Need, Prioryman, Atsme, Ghirlandajo, and TodorBozhinov: Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC) @Smkolins, Oceanh, Manxruler, Leif Czerny, and Justlettersandnumbers: Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC) @Winner 42, Xover, Reify-tech, Blarcrean, and Peripatetic: Nikkimaria (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Extended content
  1. Alexander Doria. 13k contributions on the French Wikipedia and several good articles on greek philosophers. I'm mostly interested in accessing the rich set of classic antiquity studies. Alexander Doria (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    Peripatetic (talk · contribs), 2 May 2014. Contributor to the English Wikipedia - have created more than 900 new articles in the last 9 years, putting me at number 502 in the all-time list. Love to create more and more new articles on lesser-known topics, especially relating to the arts and humanities. Access to OUP would be the perfect gateway for this kind of work. --Peripatetic (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
    Hi Peripatetic, you don't have email enabled - once you've enabled it please de-indent. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Blarcrean (talk · contribs) I have been a contributor to Wikipedia since 2009 with a modest 2300+edits to my name as well as original articles mainly on Southern African humanities-related subjects - believing that OUP access would prove invaluable for improving materials available in Wikipedia for a relatively neglected part of the world.
  3. Reify-tech (talk · contribs) 9000+ edits since 2011. I work on a wide and eclectic range of topics, including science, technology, art, design, architecture, culture, history of technology, museums, transportation, and biographies of people related to these topics. Reify-tech (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2014
  4. Xover (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) Maintaining and verifying references, and creating and expanding articles, within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare (e.g. my current long term project: Edmond Malone). --Xover (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Winner 42 (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) I have encountered numerous times when I need access to OUP sources for verification, but have not been able to. I edit a wide range of articles and would benefit from this access. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  6. Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email). Help! My subscription seems to have expired. I am well stuck without it. Have already needed GroveArt twice this morning … Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  7. Leif Czerny (talk · contribs) contributor on de.wiki. OUP offers access to many relevant sources regarding contemporary philosophy. i'd like to be able to check facts and quotations, add sources and extend articles on individual philosophers, topics and philosophical traditions.Leif Czerny (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    Hi Leif Czerny, you don't appear to have a valid email address enabled - please do that and then unindent yourself. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    What's wrong about my email?Leif Czerny (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. Manxruler (talk · contribs) I've created 52 articles and made over 37,000 edits, mostly on historical subjects. Would appreciate access to this. No current access. Manxruler (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  9. Oceanh (talk · contribs), active on Wikipedia since 2007, >20,000 edits, mainly content related, often with a historical perspective. Would appreciate access to the Oxford University Press (have currently no access). Oceanh (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  10. smkolins (talk · contribs), active since 2005, over begun over 100 articles, with > 25k edits (few deletions, DYKs and barnstars) with religion and science themes still looking to do more. I've run across instances where an OUP access would certain have helped. --Smkolins (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  11. TodorBozhinov (talk · contribs), active since 2005 in the areas of Bulgarian and Balkan history, geography and culture. OUP access would provide me with valuable resources to improve this corner of Wikipedia. Toдor Boжinov 21:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  12. Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs), active since 2004, the first person to receive a DYK medal, ca. 267,000 edits in total (82,000 in the English Wikipedia + 172,000 in the Russian Wikipedia). My area of expertise is the history and culture of Russia and Ukraine. The OUP resources are likely to be helpful in improving the coverage of these subjects (which is still poor). --Ghirla-трёп- 06:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  13. Atsme (talk · contribs) -- active since 2011, most active this year with a full slate of articles yet to write, and could really use access to OUP. My interests are wide ranging but my favorites are ichthyology, medical science, BLPs, and conservation. Keeping my fingers crossed. AtsmeConsult 05:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  14. Prioryman (talk · contribs) Long-term contributor (since 2004) with around 50,000 edits in that time and plenty of FAs and GAs (see my user page for a list). Mostly focusing on history and archaeology (see e.g. Pevensey Castle, which I'm currently getting up to FA quality). OUP would be extremely useful in accessing some of the more specialised journals which I can't get otherwise.
  15. Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs) A long-term contributer, active for a number of years and contributed to featured and good article content here on Wikipedia. I mostly write on topics regarding authoritarian ideological movements, and authoritarian party-states. For instance, I've recently worked on the article (or articles relating) to the Communist Party of China and the Workers' Party of Korea, while also working on personal dictatorships such as those of Syria presently and the Ba'ath dictatorship in Iraq. OUP resources would in all likelyhood improve my coverage over these areas (and others). --TIAYN (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  16. Thine Antique Pen (talk · contribs) - I've been contributing here for a while, have made over 40,000 edits to enwp, and created over 9,000 articles covering a wide range of subjects. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    Jmbranum (talk · contribs) I have been an editor for more than 8 years. Most of my work has been on local topics in Oklahoma and Texas but I also frequently edit on topics related to religion (especially the Mennonite and broader Anabaptist traditions). The religion topics are where access to OUP would be most useful to me in editing. --Jmbranum (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    Hi Jmbranum, you don't have email enabled - could you please do so and then unindent yourself? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  17. Parkwells (talk · contribs) An editor since 2008, I have 90,000+ edits, working on improving sources, cites and content of articles. Have concentrated on 19th century US frontier and southern history, but have covered many other topics as well, 20th-c. European art and literature, Central and South American archeology and colonial history. I am interested in seeing another perspective on history of the Americas.Parkwells (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  18. AmateurEditor (talk · contribs) I have been active since 2009 with about 3000 edits. I am interested in OUP resources in order to find references for history and political science. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  19. ca$e (talk · contribs), mostly active in german wikipedia, coordinating and contributing mostly in areas of philosophy and religious studies, >40.000 edits to date, OUP access would help gravely, as my university does not provide it
  20. INM (talk · contribs), active since summer 2007 in the German Wikipedia, > 4000 edits, mainly working on musical topics, most of all on Renaissance and Baroque music. It will be very useful to have access to the New Grove Dictionary, be it for a rapid access to data like birth dates, publishing dates or name spelling, be it for a fast overview over the English speaking musicological literature (I mainly read the German discurse). --INM (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  21. The Discoverer (talk · contribs) I mostly edit topics related to India, Catholicism, and science. I hope to use these resources to improve the historical perspective of articles. The Discoverer (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  22. Carrite (talk · contribs) - Access to American National Biography would be very helpful. Editor since the end of 2008, 51k+ edits (top 900), 2/3 to mainspace, and 231 article starts by my count (official number is higher). Carrite (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  23. Cpt.a.haddock (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) I am primarily interested in improving the quality of articles on Indian History, a contentious field where reliable citations are sorely needed. Access to OUP's books will be a singularly invaluable resource.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  24. Rodomonte (talk · contribs), active in the German Wikipedia since 2006, > 2000 edits. I’m writing and editing articles on classical music with a focus on opera. Access to Grove Music Online would be extremely useful for background research. Rodomonte (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  25. Shabidoo (talk · contribs) I'm an eclectic editor, however I've been wanting to add more profound content to and improve articles on politics, classical music (mainly specific works mostly symphonies and chamber music), contemporary philosophers, kurt vonnegut novels and on political legislatures. At this point in the project I feel that enriching the content is more important than creating new articles. I feel pretty limited having only open-access journals to find sources for more detailed information. --Shabidoo | Talk 06:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  26. The Land (talk) - working on classical music, particularly violin history. Access to Grove would be very helpful here to supplement my own sources. Regards, The Land (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  27. TeleD (talk · contribs) – I'm editing in german WP, especially in medieval history of England and Wales. I have no access to OUP, access to the DNB would be very helpful. Regards, --TeleD (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  28. Mike Christie (talk · contribs) - I have been working on creating minor biographies recently, and would find this useful -- I can't find many resources on the soprano Frances Peralta, for example, but OUP has a journal, Opera Quarterly, that has an article about her. I've also written quite a few articles on Anglo-Saxon history for which this would be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  29. Jefferyseow (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) I edit entries related to 19th Century British Malaya (the Federated Malay States, Unfederated Malay States, and the Straits Settlements, especially Penang and Singapore). Sources are hard to find and access to this would help.
  30. Tony1 (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) PhD in music, and an abiding interest in en.WP music content. Tony (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  31. Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) I could use access to improve articles concerning Britain and Ireland in the middle ages.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  32. Biblioworm (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) I intend to work on articles about Medieval England, and I feel that access to the OUP (particularly the ODNB and Oxford Bibliography) would be useful. I'm currently on a bit of a break, but since it seems that I'll be waiting for quite a long time, I decided that I may as well put myself on the waiting list. --Biblioworm 16:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  33. Melly42 (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) I am very interested in naturalists biographies from the 19th and 20th century. --Melly42 (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  34. Homoatrox (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) I'm covering various Ancient Roman topics in ru-wiki (>20k edits), so the full access to Oxford Bibliographies will be very useful: there are many extensive overviews written by reputed scholars. — Homoatrox (talk). 21:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  35. Hack (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) I often edit historical British and Australian political figures. Hack (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  36. Ealdgyth (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) Had access through this program, now lost, would like a renewal if possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Do accounts that have been approved last year need to be renewed, and if so, how is the process? --FordPrefect42 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
If you've previously held an account that has now expired, just add your name to the application list - to get the same resources as last year, indicate the Scholarship stream. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Processing delay[edit]

Note for all: My apologies for the continued delay in processing requests - there has been a slight issue on the distribution side that we hope to resolve as soon as possible. I will let you know as soon as I have more information. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

As promised, here is the "more information": distribution of Scholarship and Law accounts will begin within the next few days. Distribution of Journals accounts happens via a different process and so will both now and going forward take 1-2 weeks longer than the other two options. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
For everyone whose username now appears here, OUP is in the process of creating your logins (with the above proviso that journal requests will take longer). If you were approved but are not listed there, that means that as of this morning you had not completed the registration form that was sent out by email - you need to do this even if you did it last year. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Nikkimaria Thank you for the update. They're not real swift on getting this done. I see some have been waiting since September. And if they're in the United States, we won't be expecting anything this holiday week either. But thank you for your efforts. — Maile (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Maile66: They're planning on getting Law and Scholarship accounts set up and sent out before American Thanksgiving; not sure about Journals. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, that's Law and Scholarship accounts for people already listed here. For anyone approved but not listed there, the holiday will indeed affect processing - for fastest results please fill out the form linked from the approval email ASAP (the email should indicate which stream(s)), and let me know if you didn't get it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Update: All Journals recipients who completed the form by 16 November should now have received their logins. For everyone who completed the form by this past Friday (4 December), OUP is in the process of generating logins for you (with the continued caveat that Journals take longer). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Email[edit]

@Nikkimaria: just noted that you told me to expect and email shortly 8 days ago, but I can't for the life of me find one. Has it not been sent? (apologies if I've not yet waited out the shortly time :D) --Errant (chat!) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@ErrantX: It was sent - if it's not in your spam folder please email me and I'll forward. @Everyone: "shortly" in this case means within the hour unless I say otherwise - if you also didn't get the email please let me know ASAP. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Mailed you. I think the gremlins have the original... --Errant (chat!) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation format[edit]

Hi, I see that there's a {{ODNBsub}} template for use when citing the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Are there other templates that need to be used for the other resources that have been made available? Then there's also {{ODNBweb}}. Some clarity on this will be excellent. Cheers.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cpt.a.haddock, you can either use source-specific templates like {{ODNBweb}} or a more general citation format - as long as all the components are included, their formatting isn't too important. {{ODNBsub}} is useful in any citation type to show people that the source can be accessed either by subscription or, in the UK, public library membership, but note that it's not in itself a full citation. {{ODNBweb}} is, as are the similar templates {{GroveOnline}} and {{Cite ANB}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Thanks. I've used {{cite ODNB}} like so, {{cite ODNB|last1=Raychaudhuri|first1=Tapan|authorlink1=Tapan Raychaudhuri|title=Gopal, Sarvepalli (1923–2002)|url=http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/94961|accessdate=25 November 2015|date=Oct 2008}} as it's the most succinct of the lot. If you think it's OK, I'll go ahead and add this as an example to the project page. Cheers.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Cpt.a.haddock: Sure, sounds good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this all there is to it?[edit]

I have just received my access name and password and have been browsing. Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful for the opportunity. But maybe I'm not using it correctly, because it certainly doesn't live up to its promise. I got access to 10 products through Scholarship and tried them all. What I found is "not much". Extremely limited on the scope of subjects. Almost anything I looked for wasn't there. These sites don't seem to be real research opportunities, as much as they are one or two brief (very brief) overview articles on a given subject. All surface fluff and little details. Wikipedia itself has much more thorough information on a given subject. And by comparison, Jstor is much more informative and useful. Even Google books and all its limitation far exceeds this. So far, I found nothing of use to me. I guess I feel let down. I can't imagine using this to raise any article to Featured, or even to start one for DYK. What am I missing in how to use this? — Maile (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Maile66: A couple of things. First, there was a small confusion around what was included in this stream, which led to two broader resources accidentally being replaced by three narrower ones - this is in the process of being fixed and should be resolved by the end of the day. Second, I expect your level of success will really depend on what you are looking for. The two broader resources coming in today cover a range of subjects, but many of the others are narrower, so it helps to be aware of what will be useful to you. For example, Grove is very helpful to someone who writes music-related articles, but far less so to someone who does not; ODNB and ANB are great for UK/US biographies. What kind of information are you looking for? What kind of articles would you like to write? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, for instance, I was looking to supplement existing articles on Texas history. The articles on the Alamo or anything to do with Texas are scant to non existent on relevant subject matter. Oh, let's say Sam Houston, probably the largest figure in Texas history. ANB has one article. It's a brief overview, at best. I've also written many articles on women in America. Most of those names are not there. There is, for instance, no article on Jimmy or Rosalynn Carter, at least not searching by their names on ANB. You'd think they'd at least have all the presidents. Yes, I went through the others for other subject matters. I searched Grove Art for some artists by name, came up empty. AASC is similarly limited on the subject matter. So far, not of use to me. — Maile (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. Like many biographical encyclopedias, ANB does not cover living people (more about inclusion criteria here). I do see a few Texas history figures, though, and there may be more articles in the upcoming resources. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess this explains why the current president of the US is not in there. Thanks for the opportunity. Really, I appreciate it. But you have done a lot of reviews, so you can probably understand why I don't think this resource is useful to anyone getting articles ready for reviews. Oxford just isn't up to the task. — Maile (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Maile66: I'm not sure if any dictionary/encyclopaedia can provide anything more than a broad overview of any subject. For access to full-blown books on subjects of your choice, Questia might be more to your liking. You can figure out which books will be the most helpful using OBO articles such as this and this. Good luck!--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Cpt.a.haddock Thank you. I just started my Questia account, which looks fascinating. And thanks to your example, I see how OBO can aid in that. — Maile (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Oxford Handbooks Online[edit]

Can anyone else access this site? I have logins for the others but it doesn't work on this one. czar 23:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: Just looking into this for you. Harrias talk 12:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@Harrias, any luck? czar 20:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: I sent you an email about this, did you get it? Harrias talk 14:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
@Harrias, nope—would you please send it again? Nuvola apps email.svg mail czar czar 16:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: Sent again. Harrias talk 17:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
@Harrias, didn't get that one either. I just sent you an email so now you have my address. czar 16:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent access requests[edit]

There are quite a few OUP access requests that are pending approval. Would it be possible for the account coordinators to have a look? Thanks. --Dada (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Who's Who and Who was Who[edit]

May i know whether the account covers Who's Who and Who was Who? Thank you. --Clithering (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't believe so, no. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

How long are these active?[edit]

I haven't used mine for a while. Mine were activated November and December 2015. As of today, Oxford (all of them) tell me there is no account under my user name. — Maile (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I think I know what happened. But something needs to be said on the project page that these are 1 year accounts, subject to renewal. For whatever reason, it has marked all my individual OUR accesses as "renewal declined". Four of them are not due to expire until Dec 31, 2016, but they have already been marked as "renewal declined". Was that survey we took a covert way of finding out whose account they didn't want to renew? — Maile (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
No, but based on the approval date it makes sense that they'd all be expired now - I'm not sure why some would be showing a later date. I've added the date limit to the project page, and you're welcome to apply for renewal. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll look into this, I'm not sure we have a renewal strategy set up right now. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Dictionary of African Biography[edit]

Hi there,
I would be interested in one of those OUP scholarships. I'd like to access the Dictionary of African Biography – is that possible with that OUP scholarship, is it covered? Thank you! --Jcornelius (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Referencing[edit]

Dear readers, I have a question regarding the OUP "Reference" website. I searched up a certain historical figure (Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher) in Oxford Reference, and I got two hits that seem to be interesting. However, how can I now actually further view the sources itself? Sorry if this is a really "newb-like" question, but we all have to start somewhere don't we, haha. Bests and thanks in advance. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: For technical help with using OUP's website you might have better luck asking them directly through their support system. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Alrightttt. Will do. Thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: I'm not sure if you're having a technical issue or are looking for a tutorial. I've been using their site for a while, so I may be able to help with the latter if you clarify your issue. Eperoton (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
You need to log in on the left pane to view the full content. Also, be aware that their search engine isn't so hot, so try multiple queries. For example, "Blücher" gives more results, including an overview page. HTH. Eperoton (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Eperoton:, hi, sorry for the late response. Ping acts weird sometimes as you might know. I'll try to show more explicitly what I mean.
Ok I just logged in again through the left pane, and typed "Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher" in its search engine. I end up here. Two books show up, as you can see. Now lets say we choose the first one (A Dictionary of World History (3 ed.)). How can I now see more of the "material" about Blucher in particular from this book? This is namely all that I can see atm: "Blücher, Gebhard Leberecht von (1742–1819) Prussian field-marshal, whose victories were due more to dash and energy than to military tactics. Forced to surrender to the French in 1806, he helped to re-create his country’s opposition to Napoleon, and was commander-in-chief of the armies in their victory at Leipzig in 1813. The following year he led the invasion of France, gaining a major victory at Laon, which led to the overthrow of Napoleon. He retired to Silesia, only to be recalled when Napoleon returned. His intervention at a late stage of the battle of Waterloo was decisive.".
So basically, in other words; 1) how can I view the source more clearly, other than these few lines I cited above? 2) how can I actually cite the material? (for that you need to be able to see the page etc, apart from some specific stuff that was explained in the tutorial). Hope I managed to make my issue a tad more clear now. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: The text you've quoted is the entire entry on that figure in that particular book. As you can see in the search results (your first link), it's 98 word long. The "related content" links on the left might have a bit more. Note also that oxfordreference.com is just one part of Oxford Scholarship, along with oxfordscholarship.com (books), oxfordhandbooks.com, and others.
The main page of this project has an example citation. I prefer a slightly different format, which you can see at User:Eperoton/Sources. HTH. Eperoton (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

A few notes on OUP renewal/accounts that may be of interest[edit]

Just got my access to OUP renewed (thank you so much for coordinating Cameron11598!), and a few random points I noticed in connection with that that may be of either use or of interest to someone:

  • Renewal ended up creating new accounts instead of extending access for the existing accounts.
  • The OUP "Account Management System" (central auth for OUP services) stores your password in plain text, and even displays the password in the web interface. This is about as poor a security practice as can be imagined, so you really don't want to use a password that's valid anywhere else here. I recommend a password manager and a randomly generated password anyway, but particularly for these sites.
  • The American National Biography site doesn't use the AMS system, so your password here will be separate from the other OUP services, even if it will initially be set to the same text string. The ANB site also doesn't appear to provide any way for you to change the initial password, so once you change it on the other sites (and you really should do that ASAP!), you will no longer have the same password on all the OUP services (but a password manager will take care of that for you, they're really quite nifty! Did I mention I recommend them?).

Anyways, just a few random observations left here in case anyone finds them useful. --Xover (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That's really useful information Xover, thanks for posting it! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Journals stream seems to be no longer active, but the ODNB/etc is?[edit]

As mentioned in the header, my Journals subscription seems to have gone away but the ODNB/ANB/etc sub is still working? Do I need to renew the Journals or something? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Benezit[edit]

Last year we had access to the Benezit Dictionary of Artists as part of the OxfordArt subscription, but it seems we no longer do. Is that intentional/ an oversight/ something that could be fixed? It's not such a useful resource as Grove, but it has wider coverage, and that is sometimes valuable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Security reset[edit]

I just got an email from OUP that our passwords had to be reset due to some security concern - The email is addressed to Wikipedia Foundation. I followed the steps to have a new password mailed to me, but I haven't received one. I think one of our volunteers may need to follow up on this? Seraphim System (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey @Seraphim System: I'll look into this. (cc: @Samwalton9 (WMF):)--Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Cameron11598: Thanks, I had forgotten about this but I was able to get it working again Seraphim System (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Seraphim System: Oh well I'll email my oup contact and let them know. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)