Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Web article notability
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus. —spookywillowwtalk 02:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
The result of the debate was No consensus. —spookywillowwtalk 02:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Following up Forum:SH:Web article notability, I'm proposing adding the following text to the Wookieepedia:Notability policy's real-world section, as a subheader above Merchandise.
- Wookieepedia does not maintain articles for individual articles posted on websites, with the exception of the following cases:
- In-universe narratives and short stories, such as "The Old Republic: Smuggler's Vanguard"
- Hyperspace: The Official Star Wars Fan Club articles presented as in-universe reference works, such as "The Written Word"
- Star Wars Insider supplements, such as "The Story of General Grievous: Lord of War"
- Other Hyperspace-exclusive reference works no longer available to the public, such as "The Forgotten War: The Nagai and the Tofs"
- Multi-part article series, with a minimum of at least three parts, published on an officially-licensed website. Examples include Chronicling The Clone Wars, Ships of the Galaxy, and Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Warfare Author's Cut.
- Databases and other reference articles based on The Essential Atlas, such as Star Wars: The Essential Atlas Online Companion, "The Knight Errant Gazetteer", "Where in the Galaxy Are the Worlds of Rogue One?" and "Where in the Galaxy Are the Worlds of Star Wars: The Force Awakens?".
As a reminder, this will affect the articles listed here.
Support
- Cade
Calrayn 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC) - CometSmudge (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- —spookywillowwtalk 03:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- NanoLuukeCloning Facility 03:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bonzane10
05:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC) - ThePedantry (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- CooperTFN (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- OOM 224 01:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
- I'm not opposed to deleting some of these, which are simply summaries of information, but a good number of them are reference works with large amounts of new material which isn't mentioned anywhere else. I don't see why having an article for these is any different to having one for magazine articles or similar and most importantly I think it's useful to have appearance sections for them to keep track of linking, as it would potentially result in some subjects not being linked anywhere else. The list also needs looking over more carefully, since the first two I checked, Barely Tolerable: Alien Henchmen of the Empire and The Imperial Warlords: Despoilers of an Empire are both three part series that would kept under the "multi-part article series" criteria listed here. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll remove those two, but I don’t think your argument about linking holds any water, because there really shouldn't be a case where something is only linked to by a media page. It should be linked to by other IU articles. And as I explained on the SH, these are unlike magazine articles in that their content is readily available to the user who is viewing the Wook, unlike a magazine article that they don’t have access to. These started out as a pre-archive practice and it’s inconsistent for us to still have them when we’ve stopped such a practice. Cade Calrayn 14:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- While technically in the long run everything could be linked somewhere else, appearance sections also play an important role in linking for whatlinkshere, highlighting that the source needs to be checked for existing subject articles that lack it in their appearances. This is even more important for the various redlinks as it stands as a reminder that they need to be filled and means a search for that term on the site shows that the subject has been mentioned in something but that we haven't covered it yet. Even if we fill every redlink from the exisiting articles and comprehensively add them to appearances sections I still would want to make sure that any future reference articles can exist for the same reason. Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- How do you square that with the modern policy of not creating articles for web articles, though? Because what you're suggesting is to continue to have these outliers and no consistency whatsoever. The guidelines above are a good starting point for a consistency policy, and I'm not suggesting we straight up delete the entire list right away, but that we look at each one more closely and see if they qualify under the reference work point. Cade
Calrayn 15:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see the modern policy as having changed much. I can't think of any examples of modern articles that have been reference works with entirely new material, everything is pretty much a summary or promo for an upcoming project. We simply need a policy to have articles for any web article that introduces new in-universe content without it just being a preview of an upcoming project. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- How do you square that with the modern policy of not creating articles for web articles, though? Because what you're suggesting is to continue to have these outliers and no consistency whatsoever. The guidelines above are a good starting point for a consistency policy, and I'm not suggesting we straight up delete the entire list right away, but that we look at each one more closely and see if they qualify under the reference work point. Cade
- While technically in the long run everything could be linked somewhere else, appearance sections also play an important role in linking for whatlinkshere, highlighting that the source needs to be checked for existing subject articles that lack it in their appearances. This is even more important for the various redlinks as it stands as a reminder that they need to be filled and means a search for that term on the site shows that the subject has been mentioned in something but that we haven't covered it yet. Even if we fill every redlink from the exisiting articles and comprehensively add them to appearances sections I still would want to make sure that any future reference articles can exist for the same reason. Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll remove those two, but I don’t think your argument about linking holds any water, because there really shouldn't be a case where something is only linked to by a media page. It should be linked to by other IU articles. And as I explained on the SH, these are unlike magazine articles in that their content is readily available to the user who is viewing the Wook, unlike a magazine article that they don’t have access to. These started out as a pre-archive practice and it’s inconsistent for us to still have them when we’ve stopped such a practice. Cade
- Per Ayre. NBDani (they/them)Yeager's Repairs 12:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- SaintSirNicholas (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- We're supposed to be comprehensive right? I don't see how removing all this is comprehensive. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 14:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per Ayre and JMAS. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lewisr (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know I'm usually a deletionist, but some of the articles linked on Cade's subpage seem like regular reference pieces that don't make sense to delete. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 12:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- — As an inclusionist, I've got to put the fries in the oppose bag, I am afraid. — Commandant Bhatoa (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per Ayrehead and JMAS.Dr. Kermit(Complain.) 21:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Discuss
- Othernotedly should this fail to pass I do think a follow-up CT noting that we don't really ever (even now) host articles from individual websites from non-LFL sanctioned websites would be approved. If this ends in not support, which is fine, it could easily be read from the letter of the law that the opposite was voted for - to not restrict articles on individual web blogs from... less credible sites than StarWars.com. Since generally, how Wook works is that is when one thing is shot down, the opposite is assumed true. And I don't think thats the intent of most folk voting above to include distinct/individual pages for web articles/blogs from every Screenrant, Forbes, New York Times article solely because it's about SW., but for a brief period until a new CT is held, that would essentially be allowed.—spookywillowwtalk 15:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think keeping these articles could actually be actively harmful to readers. If I see a link to a web article, I expect that clicking it will take me to the article itself, not another article about it, which is almost always a stub that barely exists and has no information that isn't on the actual article itself. It's frustrating to click on the link, then go back and find the much smaller link that has the information that I'm actually looking for. CometSmudge (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- This would be solved by changing how we format those links to priortise the live article rather then deleting the articles. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I strongly agree, and in fact this was my original intent behind coming up with the guidelines. Our media pages serve to document information that the reader doesn't have access to; with (still-live or archived) webpages, the information is just another click away. And if we change the way the template displays it, then we'll end up shunting these articles to nigh-invisibility. Cade Calrayn 17:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)