Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Thank you editors

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you all, for supplying us with the sources we need to write up these articles for our beautiful project. It's greatly appreciated. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, indeed. Thank you to everyone — all of you have been incredibly generous and tremendously helpful. — The Most Comfortable Chair 16:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

SAGE journals

Does TWL provide access to this, d'you know? I haven't got it, but perhaps I just didn't apply, or there were no vacancies. ——Serial 13:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not one of TWL partners, so I assume the answer to your question is no. I have access to SAGE through my alma mater, and I think some of the other regulars here also have access. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Bruce1ee! ——Serial 13:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No archiving?

What's up with ClueBot not having archived anything in more than three days? DanCherek (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The bot goes to sleep sometime. Don't worry, it will start working soon. --Gazal world (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

ClueBot III does go down from time to time, but I see it is running at the moment. Hopefully it will get to RX soon. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it's working again! DanCherek (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is. Thanks to Worldbruce for the interim manual archiving. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

I posted here the other day with a request for a particular article in Benezit. I received an email with the text, a pointer to the Wikipedia library and also two archived copies of the entry. Well done, this is a wonderful part of Wikipedia. --- Possibly ☎ 21:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:RX! —Bruce1ee^talk 21:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Without this page, I'd be quite screwed with my article work - many of the sources available here aren't within a reasonable distance from me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

How to volunteer to fulfill requests?

I would like to help fulfill resource requests. Can anyone tell me how I can either sign up or where I would check to see what people are requesting? (Am rather new to this.) Srrlib (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Srrlib: At the requests page. You can see how previous requests are addressed (the ones marked resolved are archived after a few days). Thanks for offering to help! ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 22:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

And there's no need to sign up. Have a look at Fulfilling a request at the top of the WP:RX page – that should be enough to get you going. —Bruce1ee^talk 22:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Userbox

Hi! I just made a userbox about this page, in case y'all want to add it to your userpages. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Section headings

I notice that the instruction to add a heading is now bolded in red. I frequently miss doing this. I shouldn't do, because I am well used to adding a section heading on new posts. Speaking personally, I think the reason that this happens for me is because there is already something written in the heading text box (the instruction to write something!) plus, there are a whole bunch of other instructions that precede it. Anyway, the red shouting worked this time. We'll have to see if I keep that up. SpinningSpark 15:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I was just about to come here about this issue. I've gotten the section headings fine, but I watchlist this page and a lot of its edits are people fixing their heading. I think the autofilled text is a negative. Vaticidalprophet 15:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I used this page for the first time a couple of weeks ago, and I was about to hit "Publish changes" when I noticed that the edit reason said /* Please replace this subject line with a more meaningful description of the request. */ new section. I think the pre-filled heading is the problem. TompaDompa (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Fine with me. Scrolling through the history of the page it does seem to happen a lot so it could be worth a shot. Another option would be a JS form, like the one used at WP:RFPP/I, where you can require certain fields before someone submits a request. DanCherek (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to bring this up... it seems like we have consensus here—can someone who knows how to change this do so? Best – Aza24 (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done and I also adjusted the wording in the editnotice [1], feel free to wordsmith further. DanCherek (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

This could cause problems. If the subject line of the new request is populated, it works fine. But if the subject line is left empty, the new request is added to the bottom of the page without a section header. See this edit. I've also tested this with a copy of the WP:RX page in my sandbox. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It prompts you if you don't fill out the subject line and you have to click "Publish changes" a second time, right? I thought that would be enough of a reminder but I guess not. I still think a MediaWiki JS form may be a good resolution but I think we'd need the help of an interface administrator. DanCherek (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek: You're right, it does prompt you if you leave the subject line blank. I've just tried it on the WP:RX page. I guess when this edit was saved earlier, the requester ignored the warning. I had tried it previously in my sandbox, and it didn't prompt me for a subject, which is what led me to my above conclusion. So, I'm sorry, I got it wrong. I take back what I said above. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek: It happened again today here. It seems some editors either don't see the warning, or simply ignore it. Maybe this isn't a big deal, but I think we need watch it and see how often it happens. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see how it could be easy to miss, if they think that it just didn't go through the first time they clicked for some reason and didn't look closely enough. DanCherek (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Just an update: there have since been 16 more instances of users not populating the subject line, resulting in new requests with no section headers. Here are the last three occurrences: [2], [3], [4]. In many cases the requester adds the missing section header themselves, but some don't notice it. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you think we should bring the default header back? DanCherek (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

My personal feeling is yes, but there was consensus above to remove it, and it works most of the time. I think we need to hear what other regulars feel about it. —Bruce1ee^talk 23:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

JavaScript request form

Example

I have created a sample JavaScript form for creating a new request at User:DanCherek/Resource-Request-form.js. The image shows what the interface looks like. This would enable us to require a section heading before the form can be submitted, and it also sets the edit summary accordingly. I based the script on the one implemented at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thoughts? DanCherek (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek I like it. My knowledge of JavaScript is dangerous, so I can't comment on the code, but if it works as you describe, it will be great. I assume it will be called when the "Click here to create a new request" button is clicked. Just keep in mind that not all requesters use that button. Some simply add their request to the bottom of the RX page, although they will generally always add a new section header.

Can you put a copy of the RX page in your sandbox and link your JavaScript so we can test it? —Bruce1ee^talk 09:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure. For security reasons, auto-loading the form isn't possible until an interface administrator moves it to the MediaWiki namespace, so here are the steps for testing:

1. Make sure you are comfortably reassured that the code at User:DanCherek/Resource-Request-form.js is safe. (It should be, and is set up to run on only one particular page, but it's good to double check.)
2. Do one of the following:
   • Add {{subst:lusc|User:DanCherek/Resource-Request-form.js}} to your common.js file, then go to User:DanCherek/Resource Request and click the new request button.
   • Or, if you don't want to edit your common.js file, go to User:DanCherek/Resource Request and click the new request button. It will not load the form because it isn't in the MediaWiki namespace. Use your browser's JavaScript console to run the following: mw.loader.load('/w/index.php?title=User:DanCherek/Resource-Request-form.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript').
3. In both cases you should see the form appear. Clicking "Submit request" will add the request to User:DanCherek/Resource Request.

DanCherek (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek: I've played around with it a little, and it appears to be working fine. Just a couple of observations: The header must be entered first, otherwise the "Submit request" button changes to "Add heading" and no request preview shows. Can the "Add heading" button be made more prominent? Currently it looks greyed-out and it might not be clear to the user that a heading is required. Also I see there is an "edit" button next to the section header in the preview, which, if you click it, doesn't behave as expected. Can the "edit" button be removed from the preview? Otherwise it's looking good. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I will work on those items (not sure how long it will take as I am a JS newbie!). One other thing I forgot to include was the information in {{Resource Request submission/Edit intro}}. DanCherek (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Managed to get rid of the "edit" button... DanCherek (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Bruce1ee, do you mind giving it another go when you have a chance and let me know what you think? DanCherek (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek: It looks fine now. I like that the submit button won't work or only appears once something is typed into the header. I haven't been able to find any issues, but perhaps some of the other RX regulars should also try it out. As I said earlier, not all requesters use the "create new request" button. They simply add their request to the bottom of the RX page. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, anyone who manually adds the request should not be affected by any of this. DanCherek (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek: I saw your edit summary and I"m a bit confused as to what request form you're wanting to test. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Blaze Wolf, thanks for the quick response! Sorry for any confusion. We are trying to develop a new form for people to request resources on this page – it looks similar to the screenshot that I displayed above. To test it, just follow the three steps that I posted above on April 18 (I bolded the part where it says "here are the steps for testing"). Let me know if you have any additional questions! DanCherek (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek: It looks good, however the issue I have is that it uses the "cite journal" template by default (which is just what's already there). While sometimes that may be helpful, shouldn't it give you the option of different templates (such as "cite web")? Also, when I click the new request button, I get an error in the corner saying "Invalid withJS value Only pages from the MediaWiki namespace are allowed" even with the script installed. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful! The use of {{cite journal}} was just matching the current WP:RX default. Changing it to something else is trivial but allowing people to switch between options may be a bit more involved so I'll give it some thought. Yeah, I am seeing that little corner pop-up too – I think it will go away if/when we change the script location from my own userspace to the MediaWiki namespace DanCherek (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah alright sounds good. The thing that bothers me is without that I can just use my citation tool to use a template other than "cite journal", but with the script I have to use cite journal (which might not work if I'm trying to get info from a paywalled source) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that's a really good point. I use the citation toolbar quite a lot when editing too, and I forgot that that's not there in the form. Hmm, that probably needs to be resolved somehow before deploying this. DanCherek (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:RR (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Suppressed edits

Does anyone know why the edits between 18:21 August 16, 2022 and 10:37 August 17, 2022 on WP:RX were suppressed? I can't see what the edits were and I can't see who it was who suppressed them. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It was related to this section: Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_137#Sign of the Sun video game source request. DanCherek (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, I see it. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

British Newspaper Archive

A few days ago, I noticed that the British Newspaper Archive recently reestablished a relationship with The Wikipedia Library. I applied, and received access today. Thought I would mention it here; it is the frequent topic of requests, and an extremely valuable source to which others have perhaps long wished (as I have) to have access. Plenty of subscriptions are still available. Now, if only there were a way to clip articles... --Usernameunique (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding ProQuest

Whilst not a request per say, I figured this resource oriented page would be the best place to ask. I am wondering if the ProQuest historical newspapers are included as part of the free access through Wikipedia Library. I would specifically like access to the Chicago Defender archives. Is it possible for me to access this resource with my basic level library access? Thanks in advance. Thanks, Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Samwalton9 (WMF)... —Bruce1ee^talk 17:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Gandalf the Groovy Thank you so much for this. I have been asking for years for access to all of the Associated Negro Press which is a special collection within Proquest. Nice to have another voice encouraging adding this collection. SusunW (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems Proquest has all the Black oriented newspapers while Newspapers.com does not have many. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

That's true, Gandalf the Groovy. My research shows that the The Associated Negro Press/Barnett Collection which is held by the Chicago History Museum Research Center was digitized by Proquest and is a part of their History Vault Module, "Civil Rights and the Black Freedom Struggle". A response from Sam Walton and Jake Orlowitz on 8 October 2018 was that our ProQuest agreement didn't include the collection but that they would work on it. The best I can suggest at this time is to search the Pittsburgh Courier in Newspapers.com or the Baltimore Afro-American in Newspaperarchive.com, unless of course you are in Chicago. For me, I'm in Mexico, so it's a wee bit far to go. SusunW (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I've also been pushing for All Africa as well. SusunW (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy We currently have access to ProQuest Central, Literature Online, the HNP Chinese Newspaper Collections, and the Historical New York Times. We've asked about Historical Newspapers in the past but because the request had to go to a different department than the one we're typically dealing with they weren't able to get any traction. They did note we should ask again in a year or two and I last spoke to them about this in late 2021, however, so I'll see about bringing it up again. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Samwalton9 I do appreciate the difficulties and that you are continuing to try to get us access to this collection. So frustrating that it is so difficult. Fingers crossed that this time it might work. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

DCW Conversation Hour July 2023

Hello all, I want to share with you all that Deoband Community Wikimedia, a recognised affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation is organising its upcoming conversation hour on 9 July 2023 and it relates to the Wikipedia Library. This might be of interest to you all and it might allow you to directly interact with the speaker, Sam Walton, from the WMF, who is of course an admin on this Wikipedia in his volunteer capacity. Please check with this website. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, this is happening tomorrow at 15:00 UTC. Please check with event page and know more about the conversation. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

JSTOR

Maybe I'm missing something, but I have never yet been able to access JSTOR content via my Wikipedia library login. Though I am logged into the latter, when I follow the link to JSTOR it seems to think I am not logged in. An "Access provided by Wikipedia" banner is displayed, as are "register" and "login" links, but the content of articles is not visible. Can anyone advise, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

That's odd. Do you have an example of an article you cannot access at JSTOR via The Wikipedia Library? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Criswell, Cloyd M. (1949). "A Note on Mr. F. Roberts Johnson's Line Drawings for "Hamlet"". The Shakespeare Association Bulletin. 24 (1): 54–55. ISSN 0270-8604. JSTOR 23675324. Retrieved 2023-07-12.

This one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're logged into TWL for JSTOR, the article you need is here MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I am logged in to TWL. When I follow your link I get "register" and "login" links, but the content of the article is not visible, as I described above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

There should be a download button as well before the article text. You might need to contact TWL to let them know the issue. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Requests we can't handle

There's a few requests on the page that have just been left open for a while that I don't think we can really fulfill (mostly asking for really large, unspecified page ranges). Should we just leave them until they get auto-archived? If there's no chance of them being filled, should they just be archived now? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please remember to mark {{resolved}}

@LouisAragon, Sammielh, GlatorNator, WhisperToMe, SusunW, Jlwoodwa, Bookku, Alaexis, Smuckola, PaleoNeolitic, Nyttend, Tintor2, 0mtwb9gd5wx, Apoxyomenus, Vortex3427, Dympies, TrangaBellam, Beeblebrox, and Temerarius:

The resource request page has ballooned to its largest size ever, in part because many requestors may have overlooked one instruction: "Once a request has been fulfilled, add the {{resolved}} template [to your request section]". That's how the archiving bot knows to remove your request from the active list. It's also important because it makes it easier for volunteers to fill the requests that are still outstanding. Please review your open requests and update any you can. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Worldbruce none of my 3 requests were actually resolved. 2 didn't even had a response, but I cleared 2 assuming that they couldn't be found, even though I'd like to have them. I left the most recent one open. I appreciate what y'all do to find sources, especially since I have no access to a library at all and don't want to slow down your processes in helping others. SusunW (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Susun. What were the two you cleared? I have a pretty robust library system and might be able to track them down. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Eddie891 one was for Dumont which Worldbruce found and sent, the others were for Bogdanović. It's in archive 151 Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive 151#Probably will need inter-library loan. I really appreciate you trying to help Eddie891. SusunW (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I just requested those two and will update as I hear back. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

You are a gem Eddie891. Please ping me if you find them. I truly appreciate the help. SusunW (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@SusunW, Just sent what should be the first source. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much Eddie891. I got it and appreciate the help. SusunW (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@SusunW, your other request should be sent as well. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Eddie891 You are the best! Thank you so much. Looks pretty detailed. I appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. I'd suggest setting up an automated archiving of sections after 30-60-90 days of inactivity. Alaexis_¿question? 06:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Mine was also not resolved. Temerarius (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the item for me. Until your response, my request was still outstanding. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder! I received two of the three articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Page activity/size

Wondering if anyone has impressions on activity on this page now vs in the past, or the how the average time for a request to be answered has changed. I doubt the exact statistics themselves exist, just curious. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

One can get an idea of page activity and size from [5]. We didn't always have automatic archiving set up, which may partly explain the anomalously large size in 2015. My recollection of 2012-2014, which are no longer displayed on the graph, is that they were lower than 2015 in edits and size. The disruption of COVID-19 in 2020-2021, including the closing of most libraries, had a dampening effect on requests. The creation of the WP:TWL bundle has probably reduced requests somewhat, and improved fulfillment speed. My sense is that the average time for a request to be resolved has remained fairly constant, but that's hard to track. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

That's an illuminating list of most prolific editors; thanks for the link. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Huh, that's a lot of my name showing up there... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Brainstorming ways to make RX more productive while reducing load on volunteers

In discussions on a tangentially related topic (building repositories of book citations at the incipient {{Reflib}} project), Mike Christie came up with a great idea for RX, based on leveraging some of the ideas that are going into building Reflib into a system that could turbocharge productivity at RX, while simultaneously reducing load on volunteers. This is just an idea at this stage, but I wanted to involve RX asap to see what you think and get your feedback. You may be aware that some users maintain lists of their own home library holdings as a user subpage, for example, this one. I only just learned of this list, though it's been around for years, and it's not the only one out there. So Mike's idea, and I hope I'm representing it correctly, is to somehow centralize, or import, all these user lists into a data repository of some sort which would be available to RX for search purposes, and to help fulfill user RX requests by linking them up with users holding the requested book.

Without saying anything at this point about how this would get built, let's imagine that we take a short ride in Doc's DeLorean, and when we step out, the system is finished and ready to go. Now, when someone comes to RX with a request, either we look it up in the system and return a list of holders of the book, or maybe we just notify holders of the active request for the book being sought. (Thinking about privacy/outing issues here, and whether we want to deal with that.) The DNA of RX would change somewhat, so that instead of members of RX acting mostly as servers who watch incoming requests and serve up books to requesters themselves, RX would become more of a platform or intermediary, connecting requesters with servers (book holders) in the central repository, with RX members maintaining and improving the platform and getting notified automatically when some request matches a book in their library. In theory, over time this could goose the productivity of RX a lot, as the size of the repository grows by importing more and more lists of user reference libraries, which in turn, will make it more interesting for users to come search here and increase the likelihood of a successful match. There will always be a need for the traditional RX book-serving function, because no repository will ever have everything. Mike, please jump in and correct anything I missed or got wrong.

I came into this by the side door, so to speak, namely via the {{Reflib}} project, which is not about building repositories of books, but rather building repositories of CS1 and CS2 citations in given topic areas. But there's a clear parallelism between the two ideas, and the two projects could each benefit by linking with the other, improving the user experience even more. Someone applying to RX for a given book might be connected to the book holder and at the same time also get a link to a preformatted citation for the book so they wouldn't have to write it themselves. Someone coming to {{Reflib}} looking for some good sources on Ancient seafaring, would come away with a few pre-made citations, and maybe also a notification informing them that one user has book A, and three users have book B, with links to the RX platform to discuss the book. So, that's it in a [coco]nutshell; would love to hear your thoughts about this, whether you like it or don't, and if you do, what you think the functionality ought to be. Mathglot (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a lot of words but I'm all up for making resources easier to find. I have my own library (User:HJ Mitchell/Library) inspired by Mike's and would love for it to be more discoverable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like a proposal to make WP:SHARED more efficient. A searchable repository would make the personal libraries easier to use, but we've already got a catalog of 2.7 billion items in 72,000 libraries - WorldCat - a catalog that Wikipedia editors don't have to maintain.

It's swell that volunteers are willing to share their personal libraries, but most of what's in them is already easy to obtain. Consider, for example, the first book in each of the first three major sections of the fine User:HJ Mitchell/Library: ISBN 9780950996745, ISBN 9780080370989, and ISBN 9780755316335. Two of the three are available to any editor for almost instant checkout at archive.org. The third is held by 53 WorldCat libraries. One would think that some RX volunteer would be able to access one of the locations easily, even if not quite as easily as HJMitchell. The books RX has real difficulty with are those that aren't in WorldCat at all or are very thinly held. Take for example, current requests for two specific years of the Dobson High School Yearbook, or ISBN 9789994400249, held at only three WorldCat libraries. It's highly unlikely that those sorts of books are in any Wikipedian's personal library. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I bet it could be more workto enter your entirelibrary than the current system. (t · c) buidhe 16:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be implemented. However, we have to ask: How many requests at REX could have been answered by these resources faster than they were answered here? How many editors who aren't active at REX would be willing to handle random requests to scan their personal libraries? How do we keep this list up to date with who is active and inactive? I live within a 10 minute walk of a library with several million items and have full access to it. It's not practical to list all of those in the way you're suggesting, yet I may as well own them for how quickly I can pop over and scan a section. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Notes

Notes

Header image and awkward self-required disclaimer

So, since the resource is abbreviated "RX" and is meant to be scholarly and informative, ℞ is a natural symbol to gesture towards—but due to an overabundance of caution, the page seems to feel a need to first joke about providing medical advice, and then disclaim that it does not. I'm not against the page having a wordmark of some kind, but it feels like this image could just be removed from the page, it's awkward. Remsense留 21:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I find it amusing, honestly. But my sense of humor is sometimes a bit out of the mainstream, so if others think it's just corny, I don't have a problem with getting rid of it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Likewise, if other people enjoy it, I don't mind keeping it. It doesn't bother me. Remsense留 22:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Cluebot III is very fast...

...and I had very little time to publicly thank Zero0000. Zero might not mind, but I feel this (lack of public thanking) does not promote a proper culture. I feel I am being rude. To extend it further, it is kind of dehumanizing, since thanking is part of human nature. (I know, I am over over stressing to make a point). Can someone change its settings? Cinadon36 19:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: Cluebot will only archive requests that have been tagged with {{Resolved}}. I see that Zero0000 tagged the request here, presumably after sending the article to you. The bot then archived the request 14 hours later here. —Bruce1ee^talk 22:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Archive delay

It seems like ClueBot hasn't been archiving the page for quite a while. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)