WikiProject iconLibraries Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Find My Past invoice[edit]

I have received an invoice from Find My Past for £157.24, due today. Presumably this has been sent in error? I was emailed, with a message saying “Please contact us at to make payment arrangements.” TrottieTrue (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TrottieTrue That's definitely not intended. Can you cancel your subscription for now? I'll email our contact right away. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have cancelled it. On 1 January I got an email saying: “Your Pro subscription will renew on 8 January 2024, granting you another 12 months of access to our vast record collection, handy family tree builder and so much more.
Because you’ve opted for auto-renewal in your account settings, we’ll take payment on 8 January 2024 and as our way of saying thank you for your loyalty, we'll apply a 15% discount. With billions of records at your fingertips, what fascinating discoveries will you make?”
Can you please resolve this for me?
TrottieTrue (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TrottieTrue Absolutely, and my apologies that you're having to deal with this. We had a lot of confusion around the codes at the outset of the partnership and weren't made aware of the proper procedure for activating them until recently. You (and all other BNA/FMP users) can expect to receive an email from me later today with more information.
Have you been charged money, or have you just received an invoice? Did you enter credit card details into the Find My Past website? If you'd rather discuss this over email please feel free to contact me at Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sam. I don’t appear to have been charged anything - it doesn’t look like FMP have any payment details for me anyway. I just got an invoice. I look forward to hearing from you about this being resolved. TrottieTrue (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TrottieTrue Thanks for that, very helpful. I've emailed support@ and cc'd you and our FMP contact to get this invoice cancelled. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I’ve received. Another editor I know also got emailed about their subscription renewing - I don’t know if they got an invoice though. TrottieTrue (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of transparency, and in case anyone else comes here facing the same issue, I'm copying the email I just sent to all BNA/FMP users below:
As a result of miscommunication when we set up this partnership, we were not made aware of the correct process for activating your codes. Activating them in the intended manner could result in you being charged money or sent an invoice when your subscription renews automatically. Please read on for more information.
The email containing your access code stated that it should be activated at or This was incorrect, though some users may have been able to activate codes here under certain circumstances. The codes are actually intended to be used as a ‘promo code’ when activating a paid subscription to these websites on the relevant subscription pages ( or The codes provide a full discount on a yearly membership. Unfortunately this requires you to enter credit card details and automatically puts your account on a yearly billing cycle.
If you have activated a code in this way please follow these instructions to cancel auto-renewal for BNA and FMP respectively: and Even if you haven’t entered credit card details you may still be sent an invoice if you redeemed a code.
We apologise for the confusion on this - we had a number of frustrating issues with the voucher codes when initially setting up this partnership and were not made fully aware of the required process. Our own testing of earlier batches of codes worked as anticipated on the coupon/voucher pages and didn’t require us to subscribe, which is how we missed these issues.
We’re following up with Find My Past (who operate both websites) to uncover whether there’s a better way to provide this access which does not require credit card details or signing users up to an automatically renewing subscription. Wikipedia Library access should be free for all users and we don’t want you to have to provide personal information or risk being charged money. No other library partner requires this and we actively avoid any access methods which require personal information or the risk of being charged.
If you have been sent invoices or charged any money for these accounts please let me know and I’ll do what I can to get you refunded.
Apologies again and I’m happy to answer any other questions you might have. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Credit card details were also required to activate an Invaluable account when the Library offered these. I declined to give mine, and my account there was never activated. Ironic, as I was the originator of the relationship with them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately myself and another affected user no longer have access to FMP or the BNA - I guess this affects others who have cancelled their subscriptions as per Sam’s advice. I hope it’s resolved soon. TrottieTrue (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same, yesterday. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before posting the above, I wrote to FMP querying the invoice. They replied:

Looking at your account I can see that your 1 year free access has ended and the system had attempted to renew it at the normal price as the automatic renewal was on within your account.
I have cancelled this for you now, if you're still entitled to the free subscription you would have to let the person who originally set this up for you know that your access has now ended.

My subscription has indeed been terminated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Samwalton9 (WMF) Did you miss this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing We don't have any meaningful updates on this so far, unfortunately. It looks like adding credit card information is required for the method they set up for us, but we're exploring some other options. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The requirements[edit]

Is there any particular reason that Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library doesn't directly mention the 500 edits/6 months (I think) limit? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång No particular reason, but they're visible when you click the first, bolded, link on the page, if you're not already logged in. Feel free to add them if you think it would be an improvement! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, so I added it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brill 'full access'[edit]

Hi, sorry if this is the wrong place! But a couple of times, I've gone into Brill through TWL to a green-open-padlock full-access item, and it still asks me for a username/password. Which, of course, isn't the WP info, but I have no other. Anything I can do, or is it a different level of access? Thanks for any help! ——Serial 15:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129 I've been largely unable to reproduce this issue unfortunately. Another user shared a URL which asks for a username/password, but I can't encounter it myself so I'm left a little confused - access still seems to mostly be working for me. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Access to Open Library through Wikipedia Library[edit]

While trying to add missing citations to Aileen Hernandez at Wikidata I could follow the probable source

Black women in America, 2nd ed.

by Darlene Clark Hine

through ISBN to Black_women_in_America at Open Library, which asks for logging in with Internet Archive account. Can I (and if I can, how) log in through Wikipedia Library, for which I seem to be entitled for?

It is probably unrelated, but might be interesting, that the same ISBN at Google books (where I also tried through all three links on Special:BookSources) just returned book not found, where it was - with some fiddling - at least found elsewhere, even if I couldn't look into it to cite from, yet. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Archive is being sued by publishers, some of which participate in TWL, for providing the exact service you mentioned. Providing access to it through TWL would jeopardize the whole enterprise of TWL. Nardog (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marjan Tomki SI: That would be the 2005 edition. You can access this directly through OpenLibrary using an OpenLibrary login, which is freely available from the website. There is no requirement that you have WML access to obtain an openlibrary login.
You can ignore (for the moment, at least) the Hachette lawsuit. Oh, and BTW, be aware that there are often several ISBNs for the same text (presumably different editions if you're talking about the same length ISBN) so it has its purposes, but if the ISBN doesn't allow you to get access, you'll have a hard time being sure that access isn't available using a different ISBN). Fabrickator (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nardog, @Fabrickator: thanks both for answers.
@Nardog: I get the general meaning, but tried to find the meaning of TWL, gut not yet with a success. Google gives a lot of spam garbage on first pages, and I am neither from US cultural area nor a native English speaker, so didn't quess the correct meaning yet.
  • on Open Library login: I saw it, but didn't see it was free, and because I work on WP intermittently and usually not from the same device, and because for verifying on adding sources for citations I seem to be needing several tens of logins and passwords (and I don't carry logins and passwords with me - e.g. skippering a hired sailboat and training a novice skipper, and after looking for weather data at internet caffe in marina if the weather keeps us ashore I could add something to Wikipedia ;-); that's why I tried through WP library.
I also thought that a lot less documents was digitized in my country than I am now finding is the case. It was google search often giving not found answers when I later found the data could be found targeting more specifically and/or with other tools. When I am working on a specific problem (as now a case about architecture, helping a historian find sources about a particular builder about a century ago, for a peer reviewed publication that will be a reliable source for WP too), I do test if being logged to see if it makes a difference on the results of a search. On that at the moment the result if not yet conclusive.
I find general google is mostly getting unusable for me. Several decades ago I could use logical operators which either don't work any more, or I can't find the proper part of interface that allow it's use. The so called AI seem's to learn from answers that most people click on, which is not what I rarely look for. But it is not only that the info is not on the top pages; if I go more specifically I get that it found no answers (where, as I mentioned above, I have got answers with other tools, when before recently I thought it was not digitized (yet)). I feel if I search for something specific and unusual google silently assumes it's a typo and goes it's way. If there's a source (or project or...) about better searching (and how to evade traps it seems I'm falling in doing it, I'd be deeply thankful for info (or link) on that.
Also, personal internet pages (or pages from personal or family enterprises) go offline (when they die, or stop paying for the space for any other reason), or often loose valuable info after they change ownership. The same often happens with enterprise pages after changes of ownership or changes of enterprise policy. When I made a set of links to such contents (regarding permanent anchoring, nautical) some of best info was on a server o someone doing maricultur; reliable info shared (not only how, but all the necessary why to) with no public relations professional bull shit, about what we should by targeting maximizing sales. When it went offline, I couldn't find anything even remotely like the same. In my eyes it is like Library of Alexandria (again), which was not destroyed by any singular cataclysm, but by slow erosion of mouldering papyri and parchments, which were not copied to new ones in time, because either economic power {to feed the scribes etc.), or will to sustain the library also got eroded. The same entropic process probably is/will be the problem with the info on the Internet.
  • On ISBN: I understand each edition gets it's ISBN, and your meaning is that the source having one of edition won't need a redundant other edition, and that's why only one edition was found at one source. At the time I trying that for one of the first times and was not sure if I understood procedure correctly (or the procedure had a problem).
Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to get article text from EBSCO?[edit]

I've found an article I want to read in EBSCO (permalink) but all I can see is the catalog entry. How do I get to the actual text of the article? RoySmith (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That record appears to be only the catalogue entry, I believe drawn from this index. I think based on the content it's actually referencing this article, though the title is different.
There's a checkbox in the left menu of the results page that lets you limit to only those entries that have full text. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this not available to everyone?[edit]

Wikimedia's and Wikipedia's principles are both to share free information accessible by everyone. Doesn't the fact that the Wikipedia Library is locked to a small amount of users contradict this principle? (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anonymous user. ...It can be accessed by registered editors whose account is six months old and has 500 edits. We aim to make access and use of sources free, easy, collaborative and efficient... Cheers. Lotje (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Library material is not provided by Wikipedia volunteers, nor by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is provided, as a courtesy, by the owners of the copyrights of the material, but only under restricted conditions. The owners would not allow access to their material via the Library by anyone if any random person or bot visiting the site could access it without restriction. - R. S. Shaw (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok 2A02:2F0E:106:D00:7994:382A:21CA:A71 (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any way for alt accounts to access TWL?[edit]

Hello, this is HistoryTheorist's alternate account created at a university library. I do not have access to the internet other than a guest research station so I cannot access my main account for a couple hours until I get home. (I will verify this identity when I get home.) Is there any way for alternate accounts of users with access to the Wikipedia Library to gain access on their alt? ResearchTheorist (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ResearchTheorist I'd love to be able to, but unfortunately we currently only have a mechanism to ignore all library criteria, which would effectively give your alt account access forever, regardless of blocks or recent activity levels. That's undesirable, but you're not the first person to ask about this, so I've filed T361200 - we could imagine having a setting to only ignore the minimum activity thresholds in the future. For now you'll need to stick to using your main account for library access, sorry! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]