Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks/Unstable/book criteria/video game guides

Two more additions
I have added sections related to study guides and to how-to guides here and here. I apologise for not adding these earlier. I never really noticed the advertisement in the staff lounge or on the bulletin board, and I just now decided to add my own $0.02.

I realise that how-to guides are a touchy subject. I tried to remove ambiguity that I know has been dragged to death in the past. Unfortunately, I am afraid I may have added some myself. Specifically, I tried to note that how-to guides should be somehow relevant to education provided by universities, home-schools, etc. I provided the example of an appropriate how-to-create-a-video-game guide, as it would certainly be relevant to computer programming programs across the country. I know that is a very loaded topic, and please feel free to change my wording or my example if necessary.

Regarding my slew of edits, I think that the motion to enforce should probably be closed and re-opened or delayed because of these new additions, which I realise significantly changes the meaning of this version. I do not intend to do last-minute back-room additions akin to United States Congress. On the contrary, I hope that these changes do not change the intended scope of Wikibooks, but instead more correctly define it. Right now there are several study and how-to guides, and I think that they are something we should definitely keep. That is why I added these.

Cheers, Iamunknown 06:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree with both additions and believe they make the text longer then necessary. I think study guides are being mostly moved to Wikiversity because that is one of the focuses of that project rather then this one. Even if this is not the case I believe the wording of the text before the addition may of been enough to permit it somewhat. The point of defining textbooks was to make having so many sections completely unnecessary. I believe textbooks as defined in this text covers howtos as you tried to define it. I think both additions should be deleted as they are just adding instruction creep that is not needed. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 09:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe [if] you feel strongly about having it be explicit that something along the lines of "study guides, howtos and a book on video game programming are examples of textbooks." This of course is dependent on how others feel about using that as an example. This is an alternative to having these two sections. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 09:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I will agree with you that by the current definitions given, a how-to guide is redundant to a textbook. As I defined it, the former introduces a subject, whereas the latter covers a subject; well, the latter could very well just introduce/cover the subject!
 * Study guides, however, have what I consider a distinct scope. That is, study guides are meant to review material, which I consider distinct from covering it. They may or may not have a central narrative, as they may contain relevant points in a list or partial-prose format. Thus I consider them necessary.
 * I don't know why you would consider me strongly believing in a video game programming textbook. For one thing, I have not played a video game in two years, could care less (I spend all my time elsewhere – a.k.a. wikiwiki), and thought of that off the top of my head.
 * Iamunknown 10:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I made some changes here another point is the addition of the study guide section is in contradiction of the Wikibooks complements Wikimedia section that says that exams are not permitted here. I wasn't saying you felt strongly about it, just giving an alternative to the additions of two sections which you added, if you feel strongly that it needs to be covered. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 10:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I partially restored my edit here. I think that study guides are specifically distinct from textbooks for my reasons previously stated. I don't think that it contradicts the Wikibooks complement Wikimedia section because it is does permit doing testing on Wikibooks, it is permits providing study guides for testing that is totally external to Wikibooks. --Iamunknown 10:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is in contradiction and here's how and why:
 * Your addition state in the study guide section that "Study guides are a kind of review text that help students and professionals prepare themselves for subject, standard or professional examination."
 * And the Wikibooks complements Wikimedia section states that "Quizzes and Exams: Wikibooks is not the place to host quizzes, exams or other tests of comprehension. However, Wikibooks textbooks can contain example problems, study questions related to the narrative of the text, etc."


 * The later section permits tests and quizes within books, but disallows books that consist of only being a quize of exam book. Which contradicts what you added. Such books aren't really approperiate here and belong on Wikiversity. Wikibooks provides books for learning about a subject and Wikiversity provides materials for study for a subject in preperation for exams and tests. Wikiversity use to be a project on Wikibooks before it was seperated and that is probably why you can find some books of that sort here, but which probably need to be moved there or changed to be more then just a book on preparing for an exam. At least that is how I understand things. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 10:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Most study guides that I have read are not quiz and test material. But they generally neither have a central narrative nor are something more than a collection of articles or list of terms, quotations, facts, images or other information.. Thus by our definition of textbook, they fail on two counts. Note that these are study guides for standard examinations that I have taken. I cannot judge by others experiences without data collecting.
 * But specifically because study guides contain review material, whether it be prosaic in lists or in questions with answers in the back, I think are appropriate for Wikibooks. They are review texts (though I could imagine them using images depending on the subject, such as multimedia or something), not review media. They do contain text that can be used for quizzes, exams or tests of comprehension, but as texts hopefully to be printed off, published, or used as ebooks they are not meant to have dynamic javascript quizzes such that Wikiversity has nor should they.
 * Study guides are not generally quiz or exam books, but are instead combinations of prose, lists, (maybe graphics like I said above), and raw data which a student or professional can use to study for a subject, standard, or professional examination. I think that there is a distinct difference.
 * Iamunknown 10:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Simple lists and tables generally do not count as individual textbooks. However, if these "resources" are accompanied or paralleled by a narrative, then they do qualify. For instance, a textbook could contain appendices that contain lists and tables. However, these appedix pages do not stand alone as books. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you saying you don't agree with his addition on study guides too? --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 15:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Videogame guides
The time has come for us to finally make a decision on the topic of videogame strategy guides. This issue has been in the air for some time now, and although we haven't made an explicit policy about it, the numbers of videogame guides has been constantly decreasing. We are at the point where the wholesale expulsion of these books would not be a significant detriment to the wikibooks project, or the wikibooks community. To this end, I have added the following text to this policy, and I would ask that it not be removed from this policy barring discussion and agreement on the matter:
 * http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks%3AWhat_is_Wikibooks%2FUnstable&diff=735417&oldid=732375

Some points of justification for this: While last, the final point above is the one that should carry the most weight. I think it's time that we finally laid this matter to rest, once and for all. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Jimbo has specifically mentioned videogame guides as something that does not belong on this project. He personally attempted to add such text to the previous version of WB:WIW, although he was reverted after some discussion.
 * 2) Strategywiki is a much better, focused place to host such guides. Many guides have been moved to that location already.
 * 3) Videogame guides have been being deleted on VfD for some time now, especially those that have been transwikied. At the very least, policy should be made to match practice.
 * 4) Many decisions that have been made about videogame guides (especially on VfD) have not been grounded in any kind of policy, and are therefore open to too much ambiguity.
 * 5) While it may be a slippery slope, videogame strategy guides are not textbooks, and no educational institution teaches a class about how to play videogames, with an associated textbook.

Application of Proposal - An example
How would this proposal be applied to the new wikibook on The Lord of the Rings: Guide_to_The_Lord_of_the_Rings? Is this a textbook? If not, what would have to be changed to make it a textbook? Clearly, the works of JRR Tolkein are legitimate subjects of classes at a university. DSYoungEsq 17:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's well within the scope of wikibooks, as an annotation. -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * An annotation in the event that the text of the original book was reproduced here on our servers (a large task, and likely illegal, I think that book is still under copyright). However, it would definately qualify as a "reading aide", or a "study guide", both of which are perfectly fine here. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, yep... that's what I meant. :) -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. What about Roulette? Now I don't know of many colleges that teach a class on how to play gambling games. How would this be significantly different from Computer Game guides? DSYoungEsq 22:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting example. A book on Roulette (like a book on any casino game) might be used in a school that trains people to be employees of casinos. "University" is probably too broad a term in any case, since we write a lot of stuff for primary and secondary education, vocational/technical training, etc. -- SB_Johnny | talk 23:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Quoting from the section just above this one: "While it may be a slippery slope, videogame strategy guides are not textbooks, and no educational institution teaches a class about how to play videogames, with an associated textbook."  I think it would be difficult to assert that this is absolutely true, and still maintain that the roulette example is legitimate.  Frankly, I think one could easily replace the words "videogame strategy guides" with "roulette guides" and the sentence would still be true.


 * If we are not going to allow videogame or computer game strategy guides, we should do so by specifically excluding them, not through torturous interpretations of words like "textbook." Of course, if we are going to exclude them, there should be a good reason to exclude them, something other than, "Jimbo says," or "they aren't part of the mission."  I can think of several good reasons; let's make it explicit, let's spell out exactly why, and then we can stop worrying about the dichotomy between Roulette and Everquest.  DSYoungEsq 02:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very much trying to avoid invoking "Jimbo says" as rationale for making decisions here. The undeniable fact is, however, that Jimbo did say these things, and he sounded pretty serious about it at the time. The videogame guides in particular have been a target of numerous deletion attempts, and a large number of those guides have been deleted in the past year or so. There are plenty of "slippery slope" continuations that we could take: if videogames are not appropriate, then what about other "non-video" games, such as chess, and Roulette? Or, to really blur the lines a bit, what about a book detailing strategy on a collectable card game, like Magic the Gathering? Alot of the grey area I think we can hammer out using our own judgement, but we need to draw a line in the sand somewhere to use as our starting point. I would make the argument (spurious though it is), that people in this world can make a living playing Roulette (or other casino games), that Roulette strategy has been a topic of serious academic study, and that a book about roulette would implicitly be a book about probability and economics. Of course, the counter-argument could be made that plenty of people recently have earned prize money for competing in videogame competitions, but we can just ignore that for now. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You see how this gets difficult? Trying to differentiate Roulette from a guide on how to play Magic: The Gathering is very tough.  If we try to rely upon some generalized description of what a Wikibook should be, we will never be able to make that distinction.  This leaves us with making a specific exclusionary rule.


 * Which brings us to the main issue: what is the rationale for NOT allowing gaming guides as wikibooks? They teach you how to do something, as much as a book on roulette or craps does.  They are as likely to be part of a "university" course catelogue (that is, extremely unlikely for either).  They service much the same sort of audience (someone with an interest in a recreational pasttime).  And other than attempts to assert they don't meet the main "mission" of Wikibooks, or an appeal to "Jimbo says," no one seems able to articulate a good reason why they shouldn't be allowed.  I, personally, have always suspected that a good reason not to allow them is because of trademark and copyright issues that would inevitably crop up, but I also suspect that the main reason that they are frowned upon by TPTB is that they appeal to kids and computer geeks, which are somehow not quite "acceptable" as an audience.


 * So, I guess my suggestion is this: articulate a working rule that would exclude gaming guides, and articulate a valid reason why they should be excluded. Otherwise, let's stop trying to split infinitismally thin hairs. DSYoungEsq 02:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My counter-suggestion would be to delete Roulette, and all other such books that are inappropriate here. The primary rationale for not allowing gaming guides is that they are not textbooks, and they are not used in any school ever to teach a class. No teacher uses a gaming strategy guide to teach a class, and there are similarly no classes at any school titled "how to play doom", or "how to win at everquest". The rationale is that this simply isn't the correct place for these books, in the same way that this is not the correct place for encyclopedia or dictionary content. This is not to say that the subject of videogames is never discussed academically, and plenty of colleges and universities teach classes about how to program videogames, or how to appreciate videogames, or even a critical understanding of videogame themes. Notice however that none of those topics involve videogame "strategy", or "walkthroughs".
 * With this in mind, we do not necessarily need an explicit rule to ban videogames, because they are already banned by our other rules (must be a textbook, must help teach a class, etc). We are making it an explicit rule, however, because of confusion that has been caused in the past by leaving it implicit. There are schools in this world that teach games like Chess, and I suspect that there are even some schools that might teach Roulette, although I find that pretty unlikely. We can sort through these games on a case-by-case basis, and remove the ones that do not meet our mission. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have long been an advocate of keeping the Video Game books on Wikibooks, and I still fail to see why this is such a huge point of interest that they be eliminated only because of their content. That perhaps some standards ought to be established to raise the bar on what would be considered acceptable, and make some video game book policies that are exclusive to the "genera" of Wikibooks, but I still don't see why having a book about Roulette or even Doom is necessarily something that can or ought to be removed strictly because of the title and subject matter.  OK, I admit that a book which is strictly a walk-through perhaps shouldn't be on Wikibooks (such as "how to play Doom") that goes through each level and talks about the monsters.  But a legitimate textbook can be created about the topic that would include some strategies, biographical information about the designers of the game, history of the game including influences on subsequent games, and chapters about game modding and how Doom influenced the video game industry.  This is a very valid and legitimate Wikibook that would indeed be used in a university curriculum as a textbook.  Particularly as something to be reviewed as a part of a study of video game design, which is a university major at several colleges, where both bachelors and even graduate degrees are offered.  There is a place for these books here.  --Rob Horning 18:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)