Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/TripleA

TripleA
This looks like a game guide, so is inconsistent with Wikibooks policy of not allowing video game strategy guides and walk-thoughs. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 22:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I had noticed it also, but since it was extremely active I thought it would be beneficial to wait until content contribution died to propose a move to another project. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there are a few game guides that have been created in recent months and are being actively edited. No problem in my opinion (was it big,bad Jimbo who originally said game guides shouldn't be on Wikibooks?) and it's maybe time we relaxed the rules as to what's consistent and what isn't.  Also noticed several travel guides which I'm sure used to be discouraged.  A diverse range of books is needed on Wikibooks.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 23:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am new to Wikibooks. I don’t really have a vested stake in what happens to this TripleA rulebook. I saw that the game rulebook for TripleA was here and decided to contribute because I am like many who invest allot of spare time playing this game. It is a game, though not really a video game in the classic definition of one. It is more of a very advanced strategy game similar to chess; though with military units for pieces and a globe for a game board rather than a series of 8x8 colored blocks. It is based 100% on a board game.
 * TripleA is an electronic version of that Axis and Allies board game that can be played on the computer similar to the way chess is now often played on the computer. Those of us that play TripleA Axis and Allies are generally very big advocates as it takes a long time to master.
 * If it still qualifies as a video game, can we just move this book over to wiki page for strategy guides?
 * I did notice that there are a large number of strategy guides for other games here at wikibooks such as chess, operation, hearts, go, Reversi, monopoly, etc…, which are all board based games that now have a computer interface. I’m not sure why they are different than triplea.
 * Whatever happens, this rulebook is very useful to those of us that play this game a lot.
 * Americanknight (discuss • contribs) 00:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)18:23, 8 December 2011 (CST)
 * I did notice that there are a large number of strategy guides for other games here at wikibooks such as chess, operation, hearts, go, Reversi, monopoly, etc…, which are all board based games that now have a computer interface. I’m not sure why they are different than triplea.
 * Whatever happens, this rulebook is very useful to those of us that play this game a lot.
 * Americanknight (discuss • contribs) 00:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)18:23, 8 December 2011 (CST)
 * Americanknight (discuss • contribs) 00:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)18:23, 8 December 2011 (CST)


 * If we intend to relax that rule, we'd probably have to vote on it. I have no problem with TripleA on Wikibooks.  I looked at it when it was first created, and my thoughts then were that it looked more like a board game than a video game.  Chess is indeed playable on a computer now (my son spends most of his free time doing this), so the distinction between it and TripleA seems tenuous at best.  BTW, I think this book would stand a better chance of surviving the VFD if it were renamed Axis and Allies. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 00:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It could be relaxed informally unless the change is drastic, and opposed, several alterations have been made to the policy since it was last validated by the community. In any case I do not believe that what is in the policy can be simply relaxed. I myself have expressed reservations of the policy ban of video games as detrimental to the Wikibooks project visibility, retention of editors and donations. I see game manuals in a similar light to any other software manual than we have, and video game strategy as valid as any other table game... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel it "strikes at the heart" of what Wikibooks is. Is it for textbooks or for any book except fiction? A board game strategy guide, a list of types of a motor vehicle, and many other books here are not really traditionally textbooks. Extending by stealth into adding video / computer game strategy guides would be a mistake in my view. Maybe we need to question the scope of Wikibooks and then define it finally in clear terms. Once that's agreed we can happily add new books or remove others. On your point Panic about visibility I agree and disagree at the same time. Yes excluding game guides excludes a number of potential readers and editors. However, including them could pretty quickly lead to Wikibooks being dominated by this type of material ("Cheats for Pokemon Soul Silver on the DS" will soon arrive) and discourage the traditional, more scholary, work that has been here by trivialising the whole project. QU TalkQu 08:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think moderation would resolve the issue we have in establishing the distinction between other type of software manuals and table games or even puzzle solving texts. For instance a limit on how recent the games must be (would work well on table game and video game), that puzzle solving textbooks should only cover non obvious subjects (this would prevent mundane walk-throughs) or a myriad of other viable accommodations. In regards to the problem of trivializing the project I do not think it applies to Wikibooks since each book project is an island in itself, we already share it with cooking recipes and books for children without any issues.
 * The fact is there is no special negative impact to be add in bringing more people aboard, and for the "except fiction" part I would gladly support a specific namespace for that type of works (video games would be difficult to justify such a drastic distinction). I expect the project would be extremely revitalized by those types of changes. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 10:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So it is a board game guide in the same way as the Chess book so there isn't a breach of policy. I'm all for relaxing the video game rule and voting or whatever but I don't believe it's necessary.  Votes made years ago by users who aren't even here shouldn't require a huge amount of debate and weeks or drawn-out voting isn't productive.  This is the ultimate problem with policies and constitutions.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 11:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Policies and guidelines to be validated need a broader community approval if for nothing else so that the changes be noticed and able to be opposed as to initiate a discussion for consensus. This is why I particularly do not like the silent edits that have recently crept in on policies, when and if someone later raises a concern or objects to an enforcement they will have valid grounds to contest the action if the basis for the objection are of those changes, simply by the fact that they have not gone trough a community review process (I have particularly voiced this concern regarding some changes to the deletion policy), by normal practice this will invalidate not only the objected changes but the administrative action and then backwardly force the necessary review that may even validate the new changes but will not always cover the initial triggering event and consequences to those involved.
 * The problem is very similar to the issue we had with the Fork Policy and sadly we have been moving in a way that will foster a rerun of history. (Just because those that are ware do not object that does not signify that the decisions are correct or the best). In a real life example of this problem you can for instance look at the evolution of the ACTA (Well more grave there since secrecy was intentional). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an issue where I'll usually be in disagreement with most editors here including yourself. I believe that an excessive amount of bureaucracy (aka. policies) are one of the main reasons why contributions have plummeted on the smaller Wikimedia projects like Wikibooks.  A series of policies may be a good thing for a project such as Wikipedia (although egomania on the part of their admins doesn't help) but not for smaller projects it is unhelpful, confusing for most users and policies become outdated so quickly (look at the "discussion" votes for policies discussed in 2005-2006 and how many of those editors are still around now?).--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 20:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think no one will disagrees that bureaucracy should be kept to a minimum but bureaucracy is predicated in the increasingly complexity of actions and the rubber stamping of steps to complete them. In that respect we have no such problem, by historical evidence those involved in creating policies and guidelines are a minority, the active minority that rarely include any active content creators and have a huge representation of administrators, so policy/guidelines creation has been delegated to a very specialized group of Wikibookians and the discussion processes have no real impact in the growth of the project. Polices and guidelines can not be dismissed as irrelevant since they establish a common ground to all Wikibookians, determine expectations and procedures, and it would be hard to define any of them as complex or time consuming, by the contrary, by the simple fact of normalizing actions they ease participation and reduce conflict. All those involved in the creation of these rules have done a huge work in keeping most of the texts simple and generally focused in very specific areas, can you find any policy or guideline that you would consider unnecessary?
 * The most complex policy we have is the one that covers media use, but only at the surface, it is mostly an informative text that moves bureaucracy and administrative work out of Wikibooks.
 * I really find it hard to declare any process we have as bureaucratic, well except the new trend we initiated in validating administrators that started with Adrignola (that has good and bad aspects) and I for example would like more bureaucracy in dealing with Copyvio (since these deletions are not logged and generally not transparent to the community). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If thie game-play does not rely on any actual video, then perhaps I was mistaken in thinking of it as a "video game". In that case, I can see that it could be allowable and I would withdraw my request to delete it. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)