Last night, the subject of why we still have articles on individual one-off blog posts came up in Discord, so this morning I came up with some simple notability guidelines for what qualifies a web article as needing its own standalone Wookieepedia article. As some background, this practice originates from the site's early years, before we moved to relying on archival to ensure that information is not lost, and many of them predate the more modern citation templates. The Wizards of the Coast website was a particular offender, though many of those pages have been merged into their appropriate series. But nowadays, most web pages simply don't need to be covered in their own article here, and in fact it does a disservice to both the reader and the editor to use the int= parameter, as it shunts the link to the webpage itself over into a (article) link that is not immediately visible. We have articles on physical media because they cannot be accessed by readers without actually acquiring the media, but a webpage is accessible (and archived in case it ever becomes inaccessible).
So without further ado, the guidelines:
- In-universe narratives and short stories
- Hyperspace articles presented as in-universe reference works, such as "The Written Word"
- Other Hyperspace-exclusive reference works no longer available to the public, such as "The Forgotten War: The Nagai and the Tofs"
- Star Wars Insider supplements, such as "The Story of General Grievous: Lord of War"
- Multi-part article series, with a minimum of at least three parts (ex. Chronicling The Clone Wars, Ships of the Galaxy)
- 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?".
Unless anyone has any major complaints, I'll take this to CT in a few days. User:Cade Calrayn/Test4 is a list of affected articles and reasons for keeping/deleting; the Hyperspace and Living Force ones all fall under one of the above classifications and thus I've left them off the list. Cade 
Calrayn 19:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion
- Definite agree. Like, we (until very very recently) have had some standalone articles on single, standalone blogs (even still live ones!) and its like—really not necessary. A time and a place for them; which the exemptions cover.—spookywillowwtalk 20:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Personally I think articles with substantial lore like "Where in the Galaxy Are the Worlds of Star Wars: The Force Awakens?" are also notable, it's also useful to have pages since "Where in the Galaxy" made a bunch of planets canon, so having an appearance list with them all is helpful for readers and editors. But otherwise, I don't think regular blogs are notable at all. Rsand 30 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could specifically codify this article as an exception imo. NBDani
(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 22:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could specifically codify this article as an exception imo. NBDani
- Seems like a sensible update. Approved. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 06:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should specify that "multi-part [article series]" means "more than two parts" since I'm seeing plenty of two-parters in the affected list. Imperators II(Talk) 08:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Will do. —Unsigned comment by Cade Calrayn (talk • contribs)
