Proposal to remove WSExport support for ebook export from Wikibooks

There is a ticket on Phabricator to remove Wikibooks ebook export from WSExport. I can see why this has been raised – most Wikibooks are probably not easily exported to ebooks and the formatting could work very badly in many cases. I've suggested that it may be better to enable (or disable) export per book, depending on whether the Wikibook is going to export well or not. But I though best to mention. JimKillock (discuss • contribs) 22:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Video games have become an important part of our culture and there’s no any reason to not allow strategy guides for video games when strategy guides for board games are allowed. Also, this might attract more people to start contributing to wikibooks and then they might also start contributing to books not related to video games and to other Wikimedia projects as well. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 08:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

As a sidenote, I would like to add that I don’t agree with the sentence "Games in a series should be part of the same book" either. I think that if strategy guides become allowed, we should cancel that rule as well since there are many games that have enough information to fill an entire shelf. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 20:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I 100% agree: this isn't just for academic textbooks but manuals, guides, annotations, and even a cookbook. Why not have a guide to how to complete a certain task like a video game? It seems like an arbitrary limitation that also limits us from the tens of thousands of possible contributors who have written for GameFAQs, fan sties, and other sites for the past 25 years. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Support I don't see why not, and it does feel like an arbitrary limitation that is detrimental to Wikibooks. The reasons why such guides were disallowed is shady at best; if I understand correctly from Pi zero, it was some bizarre proclamation that "Wikibooks would not accept anything that could be put on StrategyWiki" (quoting him). Books based on game strategies sounds logical to me. This proposal is sensible. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Support although I feel that maybe more than a simple "!vote" will be required per WB:DM#High impact decisions. I have thought about this issue a fair bit recently, and perhaps I should write down some of my many thoughts as they may be relevant. But see my comments at WB:RR/G#A question about Shelf:Electronic_games. If this passes it will be a pretty major development for the project, but I feel it should be a worthwhile one. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Support Not for the strategy part of the guide, but for the explanation of the ephemera and references to the other games. People looking at wikipedia in 200 years won't be able to find or understand this. BTW I am uncertain whether WB:DM#High impact decisions will help, as it is de facto policy and there are a lot of gamers Wakelamp (discuss • contribs) 06:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Support In addition to what others have said, Games have been seeing greater adoption in education over the last decade or so as a teaching tool. The Mission statement of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." This proposal supports that goal. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 13:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Support seeing Jimbo's comment below, Mrjulesd excellent analysis of Wikibooks' history with allowing/prohibiting video game books and the fact that we have other "games", or recreational activities: such as Chess, Backgammon, Badminton, etc., I support this proposal to our guidelines. I'm not a fan of video games but I see no reason to disallow strategical books relating to it. I think preventing Wikibooks from allowing extensive video game 'books' prevents us from attracting a wider audience that we can so acquire. Editors from various interests are very much welcome to our community. I also do slightly believe that the stigma regarding video games was ignorantly negative at the time (that being 2006). Many years later we find many studies defying stereotypes, such as video games make one "intellectually lazy" and "socially isolated", such as a long-term study of the impact of video games showing that "video games may also help children develop problem-solving skills" and several studies observing "strengthen[ing] ranges of cognitive skills such as spatial navigation, reasoning, memory and perception" (see "Video game play may provide learning, health, social benefits, review finds", 2/14). With video games being played by "gamers" increasing every year, it only makes sense that Wikibooks accommodates to the world's demands. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Support I think Atcovi is on to something, re the reputation of video games. Like conlanging, video games get no respect. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment , unlike board games or sports, many popular video games today, particularly online multiple games, are constantly being patched and changed. Thus any strategy guides from sometimes as recently as a year in the past can be rendered obsolete. Over time games can change quite drastically over its successive patches as features are added or removed bit by bit. There's even the possibility that a game has its servers shutdown by the developer, rendering whatever content on this site as useless. This is not an oppose vote per se, but just something to consider. For an analogy of game patching, it may be like a guide to investing in the stock market: the buys and holds are going to change every day (or even hour for algorithmic traders).--Prisencolin (discuss • contribs) 04:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment I think this is a valid concern, as outdated information may lead the reader astray, but one that goes beyond strategy guides specifically. There are WikiBooks like How to Convert Videos for the iPod and Transferring Data between Standard Dial-Up Modems which have become more of a historical artifact then useful guide in the current day. Yet several featured books are on topics with frequent major changes such as Blender 3D: Noob to Pro and How To Assemble A Desktop PC and they get maintained to be viable in the current day. Granted these fields might not change as much as a hugely competitive game, but they still need frequent editing. This is actually mentioned in the Manual of Style - "Books that are about computer software or rely on the use of computer software to illustrate examples should clearly indicate which version of the software is relevant to the book, page, or section at hand.", but I see this guideline commonly ignored, which is a shame. Basically I think that this should be addressed on an individual level by either updating the content to be current, adding a note to the preface that the book as outdated and should only be used as a historical reference, or nominating the work for deletion if appropriate. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 07:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Mbrickn here. In fact, there is a reason why it is encouraged that users be bold in making updates. This is Wikibooks, and a major advantage over paper is that the latter would become outdated, while the former will continue being updated to keep up with new features or changes. I do not see this as a concern personally. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 08:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Prisencolin: I don’t think this would be much of a concern. Those books will just say what version of the genes and will be useful for people interested in retro gaming. It’s obvious strategy guide for Pokémon yellow won’t be very helpful for pokemon sword and shield, and that a strategy guide for Minecraft 1.7 might contain info irrelevant for minecraf 1.17. However there are many people interested in retro gaming and legacy tech, so the books will stay relevant. However, with multiplayer games I understand your concern. And I agree with @Mbrickn:, we can add a template above a book about Minecraft 1.7 and say that the info in this book is about a legacy version and might not be relevant if you are playing the latest version. I don’t think that these books should be deleted. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 10:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment Ironically, I made the case several years ago that the Wiki formats were perfect for keeping and contrasting both the tried and true configuration information or tips, strategies and what-not, and the newly fashionable. One need only set off the older, dated in some way to delineate it is possibly obsolescent or obsolete. A small template changing font color and/or face that shouts 'I'm superceded' or 'A dated old method'/'Older version only', etc. are recommended. [re: {{Col}}, <g>]
 • An inline tag, we've also used here and there for similar notice informationals.
 • The irredeemable 'totally obsolete' object (assets) happens only relatively rarely in a simulator software suite like Trainz, even over a 21 year lifespan. However, that sort of brand is rare, as the user community has a huge say in where the product has come from and evolved toward, and maintaining backward compatibility has always been a top five goal, a back burner priority more or less. The software engineers do like to fiddle though, so things do drift despite a community and company commitment to backwards compatibility, but with the half-million or so assets currently on the Download Station there is a lot of interest and momentum in updating where needed. Hence... its far more stable than other leisure time software. Most computer games, especially those this proposal is most likely to benefit have a much briefer lifespan that, but I'm disinclined to think any edit warring would result. If two camps have a specific strategy philosophy, both should get a soap box... just fork to separate threaded sub-pages along that topic line from a common general information body. If you see the header box here about half the links along the bottom are branch heads leading five major topic areas, the smaller links to specific reference groups. But digital modeling in a virtual world requires technical instructionals for rank beginners, tyros, through expert references; but we have various strategy expositions as well. The bottom line is whether the work is of sufficient interest to attract a crew of editors, and whether it should be locked once it reaches an expiration date. FrankB 07:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)}}

Oppose I predict edit wars, because some strategy is supposedly “better”. Gosh. Board games, on the other, have an “open source code”, that is the game’s rules, which can be understood by a layperson, so the argument for or against either strategy is within one person’s scope. ‑‑ Kai Burghardt (discuss • contribs) 21:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment I disagree about board games being categorically simpler. Books such as Chess Strategy and Go cover games with simple rules that lead to deep strategies. In such games there can be genuine arguments for different playstyles when it comes to human play with no true correct answers (Until such games have been firmly mathematically solved). Yet these wikibooks seem to exist just fine, and the wikibook Chess is even a featured book. Games with more complex mechanics are not necessarily more complex to actually play, whether on a board or a computer, and these games often have systems that can be exploited to lean in the players favor with simple rules of thumb. If multiple good strategies exist, why not just list them and let the reader decide what is optimal? --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 22:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment Wikibooks is a site that offers instructional guides. Of course, because different schools of thought exist, and these instructional guides should offer information in an unbiased manner, this is already a solved issue. Edit wars will not be a problem because this guideline is already a thing. If there exists controversy, it should be addressed in the Wikibooks itself with no bias presented. This site will not be a site to hold opinions so long as this trule is made clear to everyone -- Musical Inquisit (discuss • contribs) 05:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kai Burghardt:, I don’t agree with your statement about edit wars. There can be edit wars about any topic - for example in English Wikipedia I read there was an edit war about was Copernicus German, Polish, or Prussian? Does this mean that there shouldn’t be an article about him? I understand your concerns about people writing about their favorite strategies and deleting other strategies, and I agree with @Mbrickn:’s idea: just list all strategies, their advantages and disadvantages, and let the reader decide which one to use. Yes, there can be edit wars but they can be sorted out by admin interference and aren’t a reason to not allow this topic. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 18:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Support Looking back at what Wikibooks includes gives us insight into whether or not video game strategy guides should be included. "Wikibooks is for textbooks, annotated texts, instructional guides [emphasis added], and manuals," which may "be used ... for self-learning." Video game strategy guides are absolutely for "self-learning" because optimization strategies can only improve someone's understanding of the game. We can judge such a standard for chess in that aspect. Plus, strategies for games in generals are "instructional books." By what Wikibooks claims is included in this project, I believe video game strategy guides (and strategy guides in general) should be allowed -- Musical Inquisit (discuss • contribs) 04:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Support, with the caveat that there is a line between a guide, and a personal blog. If a "book" becomes someone's documentation of their own personal journey through a game, with no wider discussion / analysis, then it should still be out of scope per existing policy. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment Yes I've been thinking about this a bit, and perhaps we will need some sort of policy to create a high standard for video game content? It could attract a lot of "fluff", so this may be necessary. The writing should be in an academic vein, but it certainly should be possible for contributors to achieve this. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Support We have a rule against that?.. O.o Maybe it was just Jimbo trying to avoid competition for his commercial WikiCities/Wikia project...--Reseletti (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Support Why not? I think we should allow them.--YavBav09 (discuss • contribs) 12:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Support It's fine for me. If there are different views on how to play a game, just list those methods separately and let readers choose their preferences. Since it is video game strategy guide, I think we can expand it, such as the inclusion of speedrun strats for any% or even 100% if possible, the evolution of speedrun strats, and others. YouTube channels such as Summoning Salt did a great job on explaining the evolution part, while other YouTubers provided a lot of content related to speedrun strats. CalciumTetraoxide (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Support --つがる (discuss • contribs) 23:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

As long as we don't conflict with StrategyWiki, I think I'm fine with this one. Pandakekok9 (discuss • contribs) 14:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment My hope is that we can avoid "competition" (so to speak) with StrategyWiki and other wikis by having a tone and style much more in keeping with a well-written wikibook. On the one hand, it might have aspects of a well-written Wikipedia article on the topic; but on the other hand, reflect the differences between textbooks and articles. This should be achievable, and it would keep books closer to our basic educational and academic aims. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pandakekok9, Mrjulesd: I agree with Jules, I think that just like there are printed books about video games, there also should be Wikibooks about this topic. For example, if I wanted to make a book about redstone in Minecraft or command block (not sure if they count as strategy guides though), I should be able to. Same goes about guides for different aspects of other games like GTA, Far Fry Primal (or any other Far Cry, just my personal favorite), ARK, Ultima, and much more. The rule that they must be books not articles still applies, however there still can be “competition” if we produce higher quality guides than strategy wiki, but who knows that might encourage them to improve their guides. And btw, about the comment above saying that video games change, for Minecraft, it’s simpler - just specify the version of the game in the title and there’s no need to delete the book since some people do play older versions of the game. However, with online games that don’t have a game launcher, things are more difficult, and the books should be maintained and maybe there should be a template telling when was the las time the information was verified so the reader can decide for himself if it’s still relevant. For retro games, like Ultima, that’s completely irrelevant, so a book about Ultima II (just an example) doesn’t really need to be maintained much once all the relevant info is added, except for reverting vandalism of course.-Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 17:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Support -- I think the telling point that it may attract a bunch of new editors with the time and energy to contribute, is a great strategy to win better content and collaborators overall. I also expect that will cause some short term disruption and a bit of extra demand on admins should arguments become heated, but level headed and mature youngsters will also emerge who can be recruited to be additional admin fire power too. Also, it seems logical that the management at the policy level can bless this as a trial project, and if it proves intractable, remove sanction and halt additional titles--or work on any, should it prove to be too unwieldy and effectively unworkable. FrankB 07:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Support per all above. AnotherEditor144 (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Support The opportunity to make strategy guides available in libre wiki form on a site like Wikibooks will be good for gaming and good for Wikibooks. I haven't played games in a very long time, but having played them in the past, I can't see any downside to this. Maybe the initial concern was that people wouldn't take Wikibooks seriously if it was just another site for strategy guides. But now Wikibooks clearly has had many established uses for a long time, and this would only add to these. פֿינצטערניש (discuss • contribs) 22:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Support I supported their inclusion back in 2006, I support their inclusion now. It'll feed a whole host of new editors into the wikibook ecosystem and help with other projects too. Pluke (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

I'll bring up some points about the rule, and whether it is wise to keep it. This is based upon what I've gleaned while here, but I haven't been here very long really.

1. Why do we have the rule? It appears that it was the decision of Jimbo Wales himself, back in the day in 2006 he made the following edit Special:Diff/434945 "Wikibooks is not a repository for video game manuals" which became "Wikibooks is not for video game strategy guides". And with Special:Diff/468012, under the puzzling section header "I love video game books" he claimed "The issue here is not about me not liking them, the issue is that the Wikimedia Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non profit organization which was approved as such by application to the US Government based on a particular charter of operations, and we have NO CHOICE but to follow that charter. If we expanded the mission of Wikibooks to include things which are outside the scope of our charter, we would lose our tax exempt status and place the entire project in peril, including Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and everything else." However there was no explanation of how these contradicted the charter. There was a latter discussion at Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2007/June#Removal of Videogame Guides where there was a mixed reception to the proposal, but the proposal seemed to stick. There is an obsolete policy at Wikibooks:Game textbook guidelines, and Wikibooks:Game Books was a rejected policy covering game guides. I'm sure there's far more about in other places.

2. Is the rule logical? well I would say not. The reason being is that games per se were never banned, and there is a shelf at Shelf:Recreational activities which contain many, with extensive coverage of chess in particular. So why are video games, which are basically games in electronic form, banned? One reason could be the proprietary nature of many video games; but in that case why did Jimbo only include video games in his ban, rather than proprietary games in general? I personally can't see the logic in it, if games are allowed then games in electronic form should also be allowed. One comment Wales made was "They belong at Wikia, or a generic wiki host"; Wikia, now known as Fandom, is a commercial wiki platform that Wales founded and was deeply involved with; this suggests a rather obvious possible conflict of interest. Also the extensive coverage of video games at Wikipedia heavily contradicts this blanket ban of sorts, why are these fine yet discussions about strategy not? Articles like World 1-1 also have extensive strategy. Another example is wikiversity:Category:Minecraft.

Perhaps back in the day it seemed that the project should avoid non-educational topics, as video games are often seen as being non-educational or trivial. But I think the world has moved on since 2006. Wikipedia, in particular, has huge resources regarding video games, with literally thousands of extensive article and hundreds of features articles; many contain a huge amount of detail including detailed plots, although strategy sections are usually minimal. But Wikibooks is stuck with an almost complete ban on the subject, and it seems quite behind the times. Video games dominate world gaming to a huge extent. Also many have hugely complex strategies and complexity, which rather diminishes any claim that they are trivial.

3. Is the time ripe for a change? Well there an ongoing discussion at meta:Wikigames (2) about whether there should be a WMF hosted game wiki. Consensus is unclear, but Pi zero and Leaderboard have made the point that perhaps Wikibooks may be a suitable site instead. So it seems like a good time to move forward. I would also note that Wikibooks is a fairly quiet project, and allowing video game books might help to inject some "lifeblood" into the project. I would note that I first became aware of Wikibooks through the chess guides hosted here, so never underestimate the draw that game guides could bring here.

4. Would video game guides contradict the rule forbidding primary research? This has been brought up, but I don't believe this to be the case. The reason being is that guides are essentially describing the workings of a software product. So they are basically software manuals, and are not primary in the sense they are secondary to an existing product that is being described. What is likely is the game may be used as a primary source for the guide; but this is allowed in places such as Wikipedia, which have extensive plots for games, films, TV programs and other media, where the product itself is often used as a primary source. This is allowed as it is not seen as original research, as it describes an existing product.

5. Could video game guides create problems with copyrights? I would say this unlikely, but possible. But there safeguards in place.

Firstly with text, I think it it is unlikely, unless texts are plagiarized. This is because there is a transformative process in describing a software product; although there is a single product, the number of ways it can be described is almost infinite. Therefore there is a "purpose and character of the use" which is "transformative", which is a key ingredient in US w:fair use law. There is also a huge transformative step in going from a piece of software to a description of a piece of software. This is also why plots of media (such as film plots) are allowed on Wikipedia, they're essentially considered fair use; see w:MOS:PLOT.

With non-free images, this could be problematic. However on Wikibooks, local upload of media is highly restricted, meaning new users just can't come here and start uploading illegal non-free media. If they do so to Commons they'll get deleted. So i don't think that there will be too many problems.

6. Should we have book on proprietary systems? Now some hypothetical video game books will be on proprietary games, as these tend to dominate gaming. Should these be allowed? Well I don't see anything in the rules that disallow this, although books on these tend to be more unusual. We have proprietary games listed at Shelf:Recreational activities, and Shelf:Literature list books such as Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter; C Sharp Programming describes a proprietary programming language. So its not something that is excluded, although its rather less common than somewhere like Wikipedia.

Well anyway that's my 2 cents on the matter. Please comment if you disagree at all, or wish to bring up further points. @ElfSnail123, Atcovi, QuiteUnusual, Pi zero, Mbrickn, Leaderboard, Koavf: who have previously commented here and on the previous thread. Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice and thorough breakdown with a cogent argument. Agreed entirely. Seems unlikely that he'll post here but @Jimbo Wales: how in the world could the WMF lose its non-profit status by allowing someone to post a guide on solving a video game? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Koavf: I've asked him to comment directly if possible, given his role. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. @Gifnk dlm 2020: as not previously pinged. I will also make a posting at meta:Wikigames (2) to see if we can get broader consensus. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's the reply given by Jimbo at the above-linked:

At the time, the concept for Wikibooks was largely framed in terms of "textbooks" and so there was a view that unless an actual course is taught somewhere on the subject, it wouldn't be appropriate for Wikibooks. I believe it is up to the Wikibooks community to decide the issue in a manner consistent with the broad goals of the project, and of the Wikimedia movement more generally.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

--Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: Thank you very much for organizing the information in a neat and readable format! Much appreciated! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Well thought-out argument. I agree that it would not contradict the goals of Wikibooks to allow video game strategies. Anton Buckharin (discuss • contribs) 03:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Anton Buckharin: Would you like to support or oppose in the above section? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment Wikibooks has very strict rules for copyrighted images. This may prevent screen shots, even though these may be considered fair use. Would a video game guide be useful at all without screen shots? Agnerf (discuss • contribs) 12:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It wouldn't be as exciting without screenshots; that is, it wouldn't be as effectively advertising the game, but on Wikibooks it's not supposed to advertise the game. It's supposed to inform. So, turn this around: do screen shots really make the video game guide more informative? --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we have a major problem with fair use here as the EDP is nothing like a proper policy on when media can be used. For new contributors this can be discussed case-by-case as they cannot upload locally anyway, and therefore cannot upload fair use media. If you compare the policy here and here with the Wikipedia policy and the Foundation requirements for an EDP, I think we are a long way away from where we should be. Notwithstanding this, I think the critical point will be for each image, according to our policy, "... enhance[d] by related media being used", while generally NFC policies require the copyright image to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" which is a subtle but important difference - QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 13:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd preface this by saying I think allowing fair use images except where they are absolutely needed for educational content is a mistake and should be avoided when possible. The openness of Wikibooks is what helps set it apart from other projects and I don't want to see that damaged. However I think it's absolutely possible to make useful guides without using such images at all. For example a number of websites such as GameFAQs were built on hosting .txt files containing guides for video games, and the closest thing those had to images were custom ASCII artwork made by the author for maps and such. Rich text and HTML guides came later as technology improved, but generally weren't very heavy on images anyway (Taking screenshots, uploading them, and placing them in the guide all the time is a serious hassle for the author). Furthermore there are a number of games with ORTS confirmed Creative Commons screenshots submitted by developers on commons, such as can be seen on the category for FEZ or Celeste. In these instances, there's no reason walkthrough authors can't use or modify these images to illustrate basic UI concepts, etc. Additionally, some games are already open source with open licensed artwork and can just have screenshots posted to commons like normal, such as Battle for Wesnoth. In short if images are the hold up, why not just restrict image usage to those with already compatible licenses? --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I think a good example of what can be done is conveyed by images like c:File:Portal physics-2.svg and c:File:Portal physics-3.svg, or other images in c:Category:Video game gameplay. They take considerable more work to do, but they can convincingly convey game play aspects without resorting to non-free media. Its going to be simple for contributors: they are going to have to use ingenuity, or otherwise contribute to other wikis with less stringent rules on non-free media. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't see the need to change the rules for video games. Just like, say, software, the purpose of non-free images would be used under limited circumstances, for instance, to clarify a particular strategy. There is no need to make uploading of non-free images any harder than it is now. The question of the EDP itself is for another thread. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed no need to change the rules. As they stand, we ask people to explain the need for upload rights and to ensure they understand the policy before granting them. However, just like we ask people to acquaint themselves with Wikibooks if they've come from, say, Wikipedia, and to understand the differences, it is perhaps worth explaining - in a guide for Games Strategy Books maybe - the limitations on images so that people think it through before they start. These sort of guides would be great anyway (e.g., like the Class Projects one) for all editors in helping them get started. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 19:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Implementation

This proposal looks like it has gotten the support of the community, and now we need to work on how it would be implemented on Wikibooks. Such as the structure, policies etc. This section is for related discussion on the implementation of this proposal, such as drafting a policy on video game strategy guides. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks Leaderboard! Well I think that maybe the first thing to tackle is WB:GUIDE (on Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks). I think maybe it should be removed from the page? Or perhaps some sort of note that historically we disallowed "video game strategy guides" guides, but that's no longer the case? Maybe that would be best to save confusion. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard:, Great! I think that it’s best to mention that in the past, game strategies were not allowed but now they are (to save confusion from editors thinking why it suddenly disappeared). But this is not the only page that must be changed, also in Shelf:Electronic games, and I’m sure in many other places it’s written that video game strategies are not allowed - it should be changed everywhere. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: and @Mrjulesd:, we can do that; I am thinking more on the lines of policies and rules regarding such books. For instance, should we have a separate namespace for video game books (I don't think so, but consensus may say otherwise)? What rules should contributors follow when writing such guides? Is there a specific style such books should follow (like in your Wikigames proposal)? And more. We do need to get a grounding of them before formally opening up, otherwise it could cause confusion. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard:, thank you very much for the reply! I don’t think we should have a separate namespace for video game books, I think it makes more sense to name a book Planet X3 strategy (just an example) than Video games/Planet X3 strategy. I personally think that the existing Wikibooks rules (except the one that forbids game strategies) are enough for ensuring that the game related content will not be spam. And about the style, I think that there shouldn’t be standard style that should be imposed. It depends on the games, and for different games different layouts may work best. However, Im sure that with time a "standard" style will emerge. This style will not be imposed, but most strategy books will use sine new editors will first look on other books before creating there own. I would love to hear other opinions though. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Btw, to y’all, if you plan on replying I would greatly appreciate it if you ping me so that I will be able to reply sooner. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 21:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
@Leaderboard, Gifnk dlm 2020: thanks for your responses. Well i think I concur with Gifnk dlm 2020 over not needing a new namespace, I am hoping that any vg (video game) books have a similar style and purpose to the books at Shelf:Recreational activities. But whether we need a separate policy/guideline with regard to vg books is an interesting question. I think there is three ways of looking at it:

• For a new policy would be the rather obvious view that to might help to encourage quality and purpose in new vg books.
• Against a new policy would be the view that we do have a fairly comprehensive set of rules over content, is anything new needed? Instruction creep can be a problem, especially since there wont be anything that much different to books already listed at Shelf:Recreational activities. If this didn't work, then a policy could be drawn up at a later date.
• A third solution would be to create something akin to an non-official essay for guidance, which could be converted into a policy if it seemed to be needed.

Any styles that would be required could be incorporated into a policy/essay, although I'm not sure whether this would be needed.

I can see both pros and cons, so I'm interested in views. If a new policy/guideline (or non-official essay) was deemed necessary, then one way of doing this would be to adapt Wikibooks:Game textbook guidelines or Wikibooks:Game Books. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support new policy. I've been thinking about this a bit, and I think we should have a new policy. Firstly, there is a historical view that vg books are unsuitable and damaging to the project, and having a policy may help to assuage those fears to some extent. Secondly, if we get a lot of new inexperienced editors, it may help to give them a "one stop shop" on policy, without them having to go around fishing for guidance. Even if it doesn't contain anything above our other policies, it could be helpful in this regard. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 02:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd, Leaderboard:, I’m not entirely opposed to having a new policy, and I think that your arguments make sense, but I’m interested to know what policies you would like to implement so we will be able to discuss the policies themselves. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 08:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: well that can be decided later, this is more a decision on whether we should have a policy at all. In my mind it might merely codify our existing policies for video game content, but it could have additional rules if deemed necessary. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 08:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support new policy per Mrjulesd. AnotherEditor144 ^{t - c} 08:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)