Talk:Star Trek (role-playing game)

Too many fictional references
All these wikified links that lead to nothing, are they necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiman (talk • contribs)

I removed the link to the Sixth Fleet, on the grounds that all the other games on this page have some official claim - the ones people paid for were licensed by Paramount pictures, ST:ACTD was endorsed and paid for by Paramount for three years, and STSF uses the chat rooms on the official Star Trek site in order to play. 6th fleet would seem to fit better under the 'any one of the many online text based role playing games' tag than getting its own bullet point in this article. - Mnemeson 12:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I just removed a URL added for it. My edit description wasn't entirely clear; my reasons are the same as Mnemeson's. &bull; WarpFlyght (talk &bull; contribs) 05:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only are there too many fictional references, there is no content other than lists of books. What encyclopedic information is there in this article? --Gavin Collins 10:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Notability template
I have reviewed this article and found it to be:
 * Failing notability requirements of WP:BOOKS as it contains no assertion of notability, analysis or context;
 * Has no independent sources which can be verified;
 * The article itself is primarily focused a list game settings which make up the content of this book.

In my view the removal of the templates without discussion was an attempt to start an edit war, into which I will not be drawn. I propose nominating this article for deletion to obtain peer review. If you diagree with my viewpoint, I am open to discussion.--Gavin Collins 11:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't about one particular book, or even one particular game for that matter. This page is analogous to having a List of Star Trek role-playing games article, or even a disambiguation page for Star Trek role-playing games, as, since you can see, there are several games (produced by completely different and independent companies) that have all had the same (or similar names). As such, I feel the existence of this page is entirely appropriate. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Gavin, you're again demonstrating that you don't understand the articles that you're tagging. Please try to take the time to understand what's going on before tagging articles and accusing editors of starting edit wars. A cursory review of a few of the articles on this list would have made it clear that this isn't about "this book", but about several separate books from different publishers. In other words, your 3rd bullet point doesn't apply in any way. Rray 16:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I understood that already. It is the notability that is not proven. Could I suggest moving this article to List of Star Trek role-playing games as mentioned above? --Gavin Collins 17:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you had understood that already, you wouldn't have written, "The article itself is primarily focused a list game settings which make up the content of this book." Rray 04:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The notability of what? Of games played by tens of thousands of people? I mean, just in Italy something like a thousand people play only in the mainstream Star Trek sims. Sorry for the removal of the templates if it was me, it wasn't any attempt to start any war, I just felt them quite inappropriate and acted accordingly. I totally agree with Craw-daddy and Rray. --Raistlin 19:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW: this page does not speak of a book, so WP:BOOKS is utterly irrelevant. This page needs no further sources, as it links other, verifiable articles. You may be correct that it's primarily a list: you are welcome to expand it or mark it as stub :) --Raistlin 19:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop Removing Notability Templates
Note to Rray: Please cease and desist from removing the Notability Templates from articles that do not have reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability, such as the article Star Trek (role-playing game). Unless you are prepared to actually add such sources to the article, I would be grateful if you would not revert my edits without good reason.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is basically a list of related items and probably should be moved to List of Star Trek role-playing games, or moved into a section of Star Trek games. Besides that, however, the notability of this article, like any list article, depends largely on the notability of the items listed, as well as there being enough similarity between the items to validate listing them together.  The items in the list are all obviously related by the fact that they are all Star Trek-based role-playing games.  The question then becomes "Are the items in the list notable enough"?  Note that not all of the items in the list need be notable articles -- this is a list of games of a particular format, not a list of articles.  Gavin, I'm curious -- what would you think that the notability standards for a list (as opposed to a article about a subject) should be? This article should be moved to a better title as above, however. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that lists fall outside the notability requirements because they are effectively appendices to more notable topics. I have seen lists deleted because they were being used as coatracks for plot summaries or image galleries, but if they are concise and contain useful information, then I am a big fan.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it would seem that, if this article is renamed as suggested above, then the notability template wouldn't need to be on the article. It's a list, without plot summaries, and contains useful information (pretty much the contents of the list). I think that a good idea here would be to propose a move to  List of Star Trek role-playing games (see below), and to discuss it for a couple of days to make sure there's no objections to the move. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merging this article into a more appropriate article would be fine. I removed the notability tag because the subject of the article is notable. I'll continue to remove notability tags when warranted. Rray (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving this article to List of Star Trek role-playing games
I think that this article should be moved to List of Star Trek role-playing games, since it's a list rather than an article about a particular Star Trek RPG. Any objections? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say to just make the move already to a "List of ..." page as suggested. At least a couple of these items (I think) already have enough sources (on their individual articles) to demonstrate their notability.  --Craw-daddy | T | 18:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Percy has added the disambiguation tag to this page. Is that a satisfactory solution for everyone who has an interest here?  As I stated in a previous comment, this is fine with me as it effectively is a disambiguation page, or moving it to the list as suggested is also fine.  --Craw-daddy | T | 12:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think moving it to a list article would be more appropriate. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think classification as a disambiguation page is appropriate, as such a page cannot be used a coatrack for info boxes and image galleries. I therefore agree with ArglebargleIV proposal. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

List Inclusion Status
So it's a list of Role-Playing Games ONLY Officially Sanctioned/Licensed by Paramount/Viacom? Is that correct? The page needs to state explicitly what it is listing. BossAnders (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)