 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
The link says "Of course, many public, university, and institutional libraries elsewhere in the world subscribe, and should offer remote access." -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 12:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- As there was no response, I went ahead to remove the words "UK public". -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 07:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
This template seems useless. It implies that only one library gets the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography so that a Wikipedia reader must subscribe directly or join the one library that does not require a subscription. Maybe that used to be true, but I used another library, not in the U.K., and accessed the ODNB without subscribing. It is more accurate to say of the ODNB that a "subscription may be required". That is accurate for a great many publications, and that is the wording I apply in articles, which I do without needing a template, thus reducing the Wikimedia server burden. I know of no case where it is accurate and not misleading to say, more absolutely, "subscription required". A subscription may not be required if a library makes it available. To argue (reasonably) that a library subscribes and therefore that "subscription required" is appropriate, besides presuming that libraries don't sometimes get a publication by other means (e.g., besides offering a free trial, a publisher might provide free access to a few very visible libraries and thereby promote sales elsewhere), still makes this template for ODNB misleading or wrong, as its phrasing makes a distinction it shouldn't. In addition, the link for "UK public library membership" is not to the or a UK public library but is to someone else's page of advertising or spam. I am inclined to propose that this template be replaced by a redirect, so that articles do not need editing to replace the template with one saying just "subscription required". I am also inclined to make a similar proposal for the wording of the {{ Cite ODNB}} template, in that case to edit part of the displayed text. Do this template in full and the other template's related wording still serve a purpose? Nick Levinson ( talk) 15:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- The url is to http://global.oup.com/oxforddnb/info/freeodnb/libraries/ which is in the domain of the Oxford University Press and it explains who has access to its ODNB publication. I fail to see why you think this is spam as it is a reference that confirms the content of the template. Yes anyone who has a subscription can access it, so you can access the ODNB in many libraries around the word (because they have a subscription). The difference is that with a UK public library card (BTW it is not one library, it is many libraries run by different local authorities each of which issues its own library cards for its own collections), one can access the ODNB from anywhere, not only in a library but at home or on a public network such as those found in an internet connected coffee shops anywhere in the world. -- PBS ( talk) 00:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Reducing the wording seems a reasonable thing to investigate, but I would quite like to retain this link and a clear indication that it's accessible to (effectively) all UK readers; they form a large portion of the audience for these biographies, which are mostly UK-related, and it's a bit misleading to say "subscription required" and put people off without also saying "...but you probably have it even if you don't know". Andrew Gray ( talk) 10:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't use a U.K. library either and I accessed ODNB content from outside the library, too. The linked-to OUP page names only the U.K. libraries and not the one I used or most other library systems. The wording displayed by the template does not include U.K. academic and corporate libraries, some of which, I imagine, also subscribe. Since ODNB is presumably mostly on British subjects and articles citing it likely are mostly on British subjects, too, probably most readers following citations will be in the U.K. and thus will presume that the libraries they need to use are in the U.K. even without being told the nationality. Since the linked-to page is primarily advertising (it is not even the page for logging in through OUP) and the original linked-to page is perhaps appropriate for an article about ODNB but not for a link reading "UK public library membership", from which I expected a page about U.K. public libraries (and so hadn't clicked on the link), the wording is confusing. But I don't want to make ODNB or any other referent seem hard to verify where it's fairly easy to get to, so a wording that invites access is a good idea. What would seem to satisfy the varied concerns is re-wording the template result to, e.g., "libraries may have access or subscription may be required". Nick Levinson ( talk) 17:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The link include the wording "many public, university, and institutional libraries worldwide also subscribe to the Oxford DNB. They should offer remote access: ask your librarian if your library subscribes." which I think helps explain the situation to those not located in the UK. I think your proposed wording that is too verbose for this template. Personally I would cut it down to a "subscription or library access required" -- PBS ( talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your proposed wording is an improvement. The link seems to add nothing, because "library access" implies contacting a library for information without the link. The link does not go to a list of libraries in which I might recognize one I had not thought to ask or offer a way to log in via a library, so it remains just advertising, which, I think, we don't offer for EbscoHost, JStor, ProQuest, or University Microfilms, and shouldn't. And I still prefer "may" for accuracy (e.g., corporate desktop access is not included), but my previous proposal was too wordy. How about "subscription or library access may be required" or "subscription or library access useful"? Nick Levinson ( talk) 16:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please use HTTPS for the URL in this template ( https://www.oxforddnb.com/help/subscribe#public). Logan Talk Contributions 20:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
| This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
The link says "Of course, many public, university, and institutional libraries elsewhere in the world subscribe, and should offer remote access." -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 12:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- As there was no response, I went ahead to remove the words "UK public". -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 07:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
This template seems useless. It implies that only one library gets the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography so that a Wikipedia reader must subscribe directly or join the one library that does not require a subscription. Maybe that used to be true, but I used another library, not in the U.K., and accessed the ODNB without subscribing. It is more accurate to say of the ODNB that a "subscription may be required". That is accurate for a great many publications, and that is the wording I apply in articles, which I do without needing a template, thus reducing the Wikimedia server burden. I know of no case where it is accurate and not misleading to say, more absolutely, "subscription required". A subscription may not be required if a library makes it available. To argue (reasonably) that a library subscribes and therefore that "subscription required" is appropriate, besides presuming that libraries don't sometimes get a publication by other means (e.g., besides offering a free trial, a publisher might provide free access to a few very visible libraries and thereby promote sales elsewhere), still makes this template for ODNB misleading or wrong, as its phrasing makes a distinction it shouldn't. In addition, the link for "UK public library membership" is not to the or a UK public library but is to someone else's page of advertising or spam. I am inclined to propose that this template be replaced by a redirect, so that articles do not need editing to replace the template with one saying just "subscription required". I am also inclined to make a similar proposal for the wording of the {{ Cite ODNB}} template, in that case to edit part of the displayed text. Do this template in full and the other template's related wording still serve a purpose? Nick Levinson ( talk) 15:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- The url is to http://global.oup.com/oxforddnb/info/freeodnb/libraries/ which is in the domain of the Oxford University Press and it explains who has access to its ODNB publication. I fail to see why you think this is spam as it is a reference that confirms the content of the template. Yes anyone who has a subscription can access it, so you can access the ODNB in many libraries around the word (because they have a subscription). The difference is that with a UK public library card (BTW it is not one library, it is many libraries run by different local authorities each of which issues its own library cards for its own collections), one can access the ODNB from anywhere, not only in a library but at home or on a public network such as those found in an internet connected coffee shops anywhere in the world. -- PBS ( talk) 00:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Reducing the wording seems a reasonable thing to investigate, but I would quite like to retain this link and a clear indication that it's accessible to (effectively) all UK readers; they form a large portion of the audience for these biographies, which are mostly UK-related, and it's a bit misleading to say "subscription required" and put people off without also saying "...but you probably have it even if you don't know". Andrew Gray ( talk) 10:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't use a U.K. library either and I accessed ODNB content from outside the library, too. The linked-to OUP page names only the U.K. libraries and not the one I used or most other library systems. The wording displayed by the template does not include U.K. academic and corporate libraries, some of which, I imagine, also subscribe. Since ODNB is presumably mostly on British subjects and articles citing it likely are mostly on British subjects, too, probably most readers following citations will be in the U.K. and thus will presume that the libraries they need to use are in the U.K. even without being told the nationality. Since the linked-to page is primarily advertising (it is not even the page for logging in through OUP) and the original linked-to page is perhaps appropriate for an article about ODNB but not for a link reading "UK public library membership", from which I expected a page about U.K. public libraries (and so hadn't clicked on the link), the wording is confusing. But I don't want to make ODNB or any other referent seem hard to verify where it's fairly easy to get to, so a wording that invites access is a good idea. What would seem to satisfy the varied concerns is re-wording the template result to, e.g., "libraries may have access or subscription may be required". Nick Levinson ( talk) 17:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The link include the wording "many public, university, and institutional libraries worldwide also subscribe to the Oxford DNB. They should offer remote access: ask your librarian if your library subscribes." which I think helps explain the situation to those not located in the UK. I think your proposed wording that is too verbose for this template. Personally I would cut it down to a "subscription or library access required" -- PBS ( talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your proposed wording is an improvement. The link seems to add nothing, because "library access" implies contacting a library for information without the link. The link does not go to a list of libraries in which I might recognize one I had not thought to ask or offer a way to log in via a library, so it remains just advertising, which, I think, we don't offer for EbscoHost, JStor, ProQuest, or University Microfilms, and shouldn't. And I still prefer "may" for accuracy (e.g., corporate desktop access is not included), but my previous proposal was too wordy. How about "subscription or library access may be required" or "subscription or library access useful"? Nick Levinson ( talk) 16:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please use HTTPS for the URL in this template ( https://www.oxforddnb.com/help/subscribe#public). Logan Talk Contributions 20:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)