This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles
I'd like to see this page expanded instead of deleted. The nature of the game line and its metaplot means that it's more useful to talk about the whole range of books on one page rather than have the info on multiple pages. I realise that this hasn't been updated for an age, but I'd like to have a crack at writing something before it goes the way of the dodo. Ravenshawprime (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
This would be welcome, but what would be required are references that would deal with the notability of the "Trinity Universe" itself. While it may be a shared world, setting, or campaign universe, the Trinity Universe may not be notable in and of itself. (And I would tend to doubt that it is.) If that is the case, it would be more appropriate to say something about it in one of the game articles, and then include a link to that subsection from the other game articles. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think perhaps the best thing to do would be to merge all the Trinity related pages, redirect the individual pages to here and then try to build a comprehensive entry from the ground up. While the books are nominally seperate game lines, the fact they were all linked by their metaplot and cancelled at the same time indicate that they were one 'system'. Ravenshawprime (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'd probably agree with this idea. It should be much easier to write an article about all the game systems that would pass the notability requirements by combining them all together in this fashion. I'm definitely not trying to be the "policy police" but am trying to clean up the RPG articles a little bit. :) There's loads of them that need references, and I'm trying to provide some references as well, but it's a long slow process. Anyone who wishes to help out is always welcome. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
P.S. For example Adventure! won an Origins Award, which is some indicator of notability for that game. Add in a reference or two and you've already got a solid article on that game. Anything else that is out there for the other games is then gravy on top. Putting them all together in a coherent package, and it's a definite winner. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I would tend to agree, better to have one good article than four not-so-good articles. Ravenshawprime (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
