Talk:Bemelmans Bar

Citation content removal
Hi you cannot remove links to content simply because you personally cannot view the content. If this were true of all websites, we could not link to The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, etc., etc. Those news websites also require a login to access much or all of their content. Paywalled content is perfectly valid, per the policy at WP:PAYWALL. If you need help verifying the content, you may request it in places like WP:REREQ, as mentioned in the core Wikipedia policy WP:V. Please revert your edit, or allow me to. ɱ (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ɱ, my feeling is that the URLs could be included, per WP:REREQ ("A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the website itself is the topic of the article or the link is part of an inline reference"). The citations should be formatted to make it clear that a subscription is required, e.g. by adding subscription required. However, given that the citations all seem to require a Columbus Metropolitan Library card (something I doubt many New Yorkers, or even many readers in general, have), is it possible to provide a URL that is viewable by anyone with a Newsbank account? – Epicgenius (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried even contacting Newsbank months ago to ask for a better way to create or share URLs from their database; there isn't. ɱ  (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not a paywall, it's a "Users must live in Ohio" wall . By itself, that's no better for most readers than providing no link at all. Worse, maybe, if the reader is having the kind of day when the Internet feels like it's being awful just to spite you.... There's got to be a better way. (The article is available through newspapers.com and thus through the Wikipedia Library, but the UI is being uncooperative in generating a usable clip for me today.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was able to clip this from the newspapers.com website directly. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I've replaced the other newspapers.com link with that one. Thanks. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool, if you want to find more accessible links, sure, but in theory and in practice, one link that lets some readers read an article is better than no link at all. All this hate to a registration-required page is unfounded in our policies and guidelines. ɱ  (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A link that fills the space which should be occupied by a better link gives the illusion of a helpful citation and can make it less likely that the article is improved. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, but often there is no "better link". Nor did anyone substantially improve this article since its creation anyhow. ɱ  (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Done with new links, even if a paywall is far more costly than asking one of many Ohio Wikimedians for the text. ɱ  (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)