Wikibooks talk:Game textbook guidelines

Archived discussions

• Archive 1, November to early December

Lets get this policy started

Aight, seems like discussion has died down. But there are still game guides that don't look so good out there, so we need some policy right now to at least begin cleanup of the poorly made guides. To start things off, I say that guides contain more guide material than appendicies. Just that seems to be where game guides ususally go. --Dragontamer 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You know, I actually like this approach better. Raise the standards, not get rid of it all. If we want the game guides to be taken seriously, they should be something that would be almost an academic study of the game, not just a page of cheat codes or hacks that would allow you to cheat in multi-player games. History of the game, earlier games that "inspired" the game design (no software is written in a vaccum... it all has some history to some earlier piece of software), and the philosophy of why the game was designed would be useful. A brief interview of the game designer would be interesting as well, or perhaps a summary from other sources if it can be found.

Strategies and statistical analysis would also be very useful. One game guide I like is Monopoly which does this kind of detailed strategy without copying the game rules. --Rob Horning 18:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that would be something even I might support. :-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the idea of an all-encompassing book is great, as long as the guide content doesn't get buried--most of our visitors are still only wanting to know how to finish a particular level or beat that final boss. However these individual sections must still be longer than (and "superior" to?) their existing Wikipedia entries. Garrett^Talk 21:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny, I've know people who have written the philosophies of why you should choose XXX maple story character over another. Brute force for Warrior, Technology superiority for Crossbowmen, etc. etc. :) Strategy analysis has been done in fighting games such as Dead of Alive; why the "slope" offers an advantage, how to take advantage of a "slope", and tiers in SSB:M have been created based on frame-by-frame analysis of the game. I think it is possible to do that :)

Now something that has been brought up is the "cookbook" style books, geared towards video games. That is, that book right now that is being written about Fighting Game moves. I'm sure there has to be a way to include that here? Or is it good enough to clean up the fighting-game moves into histories and patterns of the common attacks? d df f punch == long range from Mortal Kombat Lu Kang but has been used in Street Fighter for Ken/Ryu and the like? --Dragontamer 23:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There are many more ways to teach somebody how to play a game other than walkthoughs. For instance, you can have incremental hints, in-game help, practice your skills et cetera.--Branko 16:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. But I'm sorry to be ignorant, but I don't see your point :-/ Maybe you want to make it a requirement that all game guides should include more than just a walkthough? --Dragontamer 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I was merely agreeing to the above, and stating a couple of further ways that games can be taught. As for requirements, I believe in as little requirements as possible.--Branko 17:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Policy: Game Books must be more than just a common walkthough or databases

Every game has its own walkthough already, be it at GFAQs or some other random place on the internet.

Idealy, games guides should include stuff that is useful not only to the gamer, but stuff that is useful for the game developer. This does not necessarily have to be formulas; for example, a breakdown of the AI in pac-man so that the gamer can predict where the ghosts go would be more than enough to fit this requirement. --Dragontamer 14:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Policy: Game Books must be well formatted

Basically, just organize the book so that you can click on "level 10" and you'd have a walkthough of it right there and then. --Dragontamer 14:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Policy: Spoiler-free in regards to storyline

No story should be spoiled by the guide. However, cheats and level guides aren't exactly "spoilers". If a "spoiler free" section is made in the book, then it should not contain the "answer" to any puzzle. --Dragontamer 22:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say this is an impossible requirement, and one that doesn't make a lot of good sense to try in many cases (for example, you may fight a boss who was earlier an ally). If you're doing a walkthrough, you will be giving spoilers. A better idea may be to put a spoiler warning around major info of that sort, or to put a general spoiler warning on pages which may contain spoilers. --Gabe Sechan 22:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Aight, i can settle for that. --Dragontamer 00:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

How about the Fighting Game Moves guide?

sigh... OK. There I was sitting and working on this wikibooks project that I started last night, and made considerable progress on, when in the middle of editing a new entry, I see "You have one new message." So I go check it out, and there's a message from LV that reads "Good Luck!" and I thought, "how nice." So out of curiosity, I clicked on LV and went to his discussion page, where I saw the comment about game manuals, and followed that to the Staff lounge page, and ultimately ended up here. After reading everything that LV had to say, I honestly can't tell if LV's good luck was genuine or sarcastic. Why did I end up here starting this project? Well, one day I went over to the Ken Masters page on wikipedia and proceeded to add some of his move lists, which were promptly deleted from the page, much to my chagrin. So I thought about it, read the wikipedia policies, and read the wikibooks policies, and concluded that wikibooks would be precisely the place to work on such a project, and it could be even better and bigger than if I had done it on wikipedia in the first place. And there were other video game manuals on the site so it seemed like the perfect place. I made sure to cross reference everything between my WB pages and the appropriate WP pages and so forth. I was relatively happy... until I read a message that wished me good luck. Funny how that works.

Look, I can understand the desire to have serious content on WB. It certainly would help to make WB one of the more valuable and worthwhile resources on the internet compared to the crap that's out there. But serious is in the eye of the beholder, and I find the topic I am writing about, namely fighting game moves, to be a serious topic. After all, I'm a game developer, and I take such topics seriously. Will everyone who visits WB consider the topic a serious one? Probably not. Will some people who visit WB consider it serious? Well, if I did, I don't see why someone else out there would not. I'm sure I could find many books on WB that are about subjects that I don't consider serious subjects, but are here none the less. Who is the arbitor of "serious"? Is it the person who owns and runs WB? Is it a right your earn only after you have contributed a certain amount of text? Is it open to the public forum? Here's my biggest question: What does it really hurt to have not-so-serious topics in WB? Is it causing an increase in the cost of running WB? Is it slowing the site down? If someone didn't do a search for game manuals, would they even know that they existed in the first place? How does their exsistance stop casual readers from using WB the way it was intended? Just food for thought. I figured if I could find a book on a subject in Barnes and Nobles, or Waldenbooks, then it would be appropriate for me to offer similar content on WB for free.

I'm not going to work too hard on this project now if it has the potential to be deleted. And if it went away, I would be sad, but I've got other projects that I can work on. But the if the existance of the page helps even just a few people, isn't it worth having around? Isn't that the point, to help readers? That's what I thought it was for... Plotor 22:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The "good luck" was the ending of the standard Wikibooks {{welcome}} template. I didn't mean anything sarcastic about it at all. I am sorry if you took it as such. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The scope of Wikibooks is starting to be very difficult to assign. I really don't know what to say about that guide you are starting, and as far as I could tell, it is in good shape. I know I used your guide as an example in my argument; but I'm sorry that I didn't know it existed (seriously, I didn't). But now that it is there.

As for the basics, I know User: Jimbo Wales is basically the guy in command here. He is the creator of wikipedia, and is part of that board thingy (not too sure about things). Things are getting confusing as far as I could tell on this, and I'd hate to loose a contributor to this project; especially that I know you are doing a good job (so far) with your guide.

As far as arguments are, I hope you understand the Jokebook incident? Its organization is similar to yours IMO (a cookbook style organization that has little "teaching" value and won't be used in a classic kind of class). As far as I know, the current test for what is on Wikibooks is "Will it be used in a class?"

Now, I don't really agree with that test, but that is what seems to be what most people follow. Strange that we have at least 2 bookshelves on games that technically don't follow that test :-/

Well, lets me put the situation straight now. Wikibooks is going through a policy defining period, and not everyone believes Video Games should be on Wikibooks, and not everyone agreed on it before. The issue has however; been brought out by 3 deletes by User: Jimbo Wales, 2 obviously bad books that proclaimed racism, and 1 book called the Jokebook. The Jokebook is really the only real controvercial delete left, but the Jokebook authors simply moved the Jokebook onto another site an now the debate has shifted over to Video Games.

That is the situation in a nutshell. In my opinion, you are doing a great job on your guide, and I'd like to see it done. IMO, it would be better if you had a page on attack patterns, d--df--f punch for example, tends to be a long-range attack in Fighting Games. That way, it is useful to both Video Game players, and can be used in a Video Game Design class as the best "User Interphase" design. This is strictly opinion however, so I can't really guarentee a yes/no answer to your guide unless the admins/sysops get in here and agree with me. --Dragontamer 22:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, don't let MY opinions on matters affect your editing. WB is under some confusion right now, but hopefully things will be worked out soon. The Board is meeting this week, so hopefully we will have some closure on these issues. For now, just keep plugging away. If you, or anyone, has any questions, please feel free to ask me. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and believe me, I know what you are going through right now. When I got here, I started working immediatly on my MapleStory guide, then the whole Jokebook incident started up. I understand what it is like to feel that your stuff is about to be deleted. What I reccomend is to learn everything you can, and try to argue your point why it should be here. Also, you wouldn't have to worry about an immediate deletion; usually the admins give a couple of days for anyone to download the stuff before it is deleted. Even then, if something is "deleted", admins can still view what used to be there. So your work will still be saved, and I guess that is what counts. -Dragontamer 22:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

For (Wikibooks should include game guides)

• Game strategy guides qualify as how-to guides, and Wikibooks includes those.
• Wikibooks should include instructional material, including game guides, even if it can only be read outside of school.
• Wikicities is not a sister project of Wikibooks, so it is incorrect to imply that because Wikicities exists, we should move game guides from Wikibooks to Wikicities.
• Related to the above point, there is no other Wikimedia sister project other than Wikibooks that would be able to host game guide content, baring the possibility of creating a whole new Wikimedia sister project exclusively for this sort of content.
• Potential contributors can use the guides to become familiar with how to edit Wikibooks. Some contributors might be less afraid of damaging a game guide, rather than the calculus textbook.
• The game guides can attract readers to Wikibooks who might become contributors to other parts of Wikibooks.
• Some games are studied in schools, especially Chess. Also, schools for video game developers study existing video games.
• College major areas of study include video game theory and game design in some Universities. Some Game Design courses include:
  • UAT bachelors degree in Video Game design
  • Full Sail Game Design Major (BTW, 1st major univserity to offer game design major)
  • History of Computer Game Design at Standford University
  • University of Wales Computer Game Design Major
  • Discussion of a Master's Degree in Video Game Design at Southern Methodist University
  • Video Game Design Curriculum at Cornell University
• Wikibooks should include sports because many schools have sports teams.
• Many schools have extracurricular activities for groups of gamers. Some student government associations recognise these gaming groups.
• Wikipedia includes games, so Wikibooks should too. If a Wikipedia article exists, it ought to be reasonable to make a NPOV Wikibook on the same subject, given enough source material to work with to add enough content for a full book-length project.
• Students want to learn games. Wikibooks should include game guides so that these readers are satisfied.
• Game guides will help in the future the growth of Wikibooks. (Including game guides simply makes Wikibooks larger.)
• It would be difficult to remove or transwiki a potential of 2 bookshelves, Games Bookshelf and Computer and video games bookshelf
• German Wikibooks chose de:Go as book of the month. Other games at Wikibooks in other languages:
  • fr:Solution, truc et astuce de jeu vidéo video games
  • [[:de:Regal:Diverse#Spiele]] games
  • [[:de:Regal:Sport]] sport -- de-WB changed subjects -- Juetho 09:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • de:Regal:Spiele games
• Bandwidth issues for hosting and serving Game Guide content really is trivial and elimination of all game guides is not going to make much of an impact on server performance for any Wikimedia project.
• Gaming guides and Wikijunior are two relatively isolated development groups so there is not going to be any real impact on Wikijunior regardless of what decision is made on gaming guides. Besides, future directions of Wikijunior are going to open up a seperate domain like http://www.wikijunior.org that is already live. It is more likely that kids are going to start on Wikijunior and then discover the gaming guides later, especially given the limited content on Wikijunior at the moment.
• The actual transwiki (if it takes place) would be a minor inconveniance compared to the backlash of the readers and editors when they find out they are no longer welcome here.
• Writing textbooks should be encouraged. As it it, Wikibooks is woefully lacking in finished content. Chasing away potential authors is a bad idea.
• FUD arguments against should not count. Many of the arguments against focus on fears that something bad will happen if game books are allowed here. For instance, Wikiversity might split if it has to share the same room with game books, or children might read game books instead of the especially designated children's text books. These are problems that can be tackeld when we get there.

Against (Wikibooks should exclude game guides)

• Game guides are random guides on a subject that someone likes (see WB:WIW#What Wikibooks includes) so they are not allowed at Wikibooks.
• It doesn't matter if the games themselves are on Wikipedia. That is an encyclopaedia, this is not. The most editing article on WP is George W. Bush. Do we need a Wikibook on how to become the U.S. President? There is an article on Ann Coulter. Do we need a Wikibook on How to Talk to a Liberal (If you Must)? Just because something is germane to WP does not make it germane for WB.
• Yes, classes may be offered on video game design, but a textbook for those classes would not include multiple complete walkthroughs and cheat codes. Maybe one or two examples within a larger video game design book, but not one for every game available.
• Entertainment is not academic. Because game guides instruct the reader in how to entertain oneself, they cannot qualify as academic, which makes them less useful for Wikibooks. (Instructing the reader to entertain others might be academic. Game development instead of game strategy.)
• The game guides waste bandwith. Excluding them would reduce the stress on the Wikimedia servers.
• Game guides harm Wikijunior because children may read them instead of Wikijunior.
• There is no school class for videogame strategy anywhere. So Wikibooks cannot allow video game guides, even if its allows other game guides.
• Game guides reduce the standard of Wikibooks. Removing all game guides would reduce the scope of material on Wikibooks, which would have several benefits. Wikipedia would be discouraged from moving material to Wikibooks during "articles for deletion". Contributors would have more interest in Wikibooks because Wikibooks would be more academic.
• Moving game guides to Wikicities would help Google ads fund Wikicities. Though Wikicities is not a Wikimedia project, some Wikibooks contributors are also Wikicities contributors who support both Wikibooks and Wikicities.
• There are other places to go if you want to find video game guides.
• Just because something is easy, does not make it right. People claim the sheer difficulty of transwikiing an entire bookshelf should stop it from being done. Cleaning up after vandals is hard, should we just stop doing that too? Also, one can use Special:Export and Special:Import to help in transwiki.

Double-edge Arguments (Arguments that can be viewed to support either side)

For game guides	Against game guides
Gamers would be isolated if Wikibooks looked more academic	Other Contributors would have more interest in Wikibooks because Wikibooks appear to be more academic.
Wikibooks should have both Wikiversity books and game guides	Game guides might encourage Wikiversity to separate from Wikibooks (search MetaWikipedia:No to Wikiversity for GTA:SA)
Add For argument here	Add Against argument here

---

Here is a quote of User:Aya on Wikibooks talk:Policies and guidelines. One could argue that this is the appropriate location for game guides, or that they should be moved to yet another wiki.

It all started with the project now hosted at en.wikipedia.org. The idea being to collaboratively create a generalized encyclopedia with no (apparent) limitation on its scope. ... At some point, someone (perhaps Jimbo?) decided this was going to get in the way of creating an encyclopedia, so a number of other Wikimedia projects were set up, in the hopes that this data could be transferred to a more appropriate location. ... Over time, some content was transferred, while some was not. Since each project had its own 'what <project> is/isn't' page, users changed its scope over time as well. The endless cycle continues today:

1. Create a new wiki
2. Create a badly-defined scope
3. Fill it with inappropriate content
4. When it becomes unmanagable, goto 1

Strategy Wiki

I'm not sure if this has been raised or not, but a move of all game guides to Strategy Wiki may help to improve the quality of all the game guides while freeing up space and bandwidth on the Wiki Book servers. The guides would receive much more attention and would be better placed than in an academic area. Jackhynes 21:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of this site before (you must be new) but yes that's certainly another possible destination. When and if the time comes we may even end up lining up all the contenders and then voting between them, who knows? Anyway, thanks for the heads-up, I'm enjoying the OOT guide already. :) Garrett^Talk 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Video game walkthroughs to be removed from Wikibooks

Please see these postings from Jimbo [1] [2]. These manuals need to go (except if they can be shown to be of clear educational value - and maybe none of the walkthroughs we have meets that criterion, though there may be the odd exception).

This is a decision of Jimbo's based on Wikimedia Foundation's charter. Therefore, whilst the details of how it is implemented are open for discussion, and it is clear that Jimbo is happy for there to be sufficient time for the content to find a new home (or new homes) before it is removed from wikibooks, the general principle (that content should be educational) is not open for debate.

As this move is likely to have general interest, I suggest discussion on it is directed to the Staff Lounge, Jguk 07:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I do not recall anything in the Wikimedia Foundation charter being invoked, and User:Jimbo Wales did not invoke its position as the President (or whichever title) of the Wikimedia Foundation. However, the removal of video game guides appears to have broad support. Do discuss it at the Wikibooks:Staff Lounge. --Kernigh 17:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, Jimbo said "They are a violation of the educational mission charter of the Wikimedia Foundation!" on Wikibooks talk:Computer and video games bookshelf, Jguk 19:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe that is why totally perfect game books are being deleted. Well I think then the mission charter of Wikimedia Foundation needs to be changed. Biographies of indiviuals on Wikipedia are kept, & they are at such a high quality. Biographies of indiviuals have NO educational value, and they are still kept! How can people delete these books?!!???? Education is within the eye of the beholder. Games improve handeye coordination. How are books which help you achieve a certain goal in a game, games improve handeye coordination, not be educational?!!?!??!!100110100 of Wikipedia198.161.51.112 20:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Expanding and revising this guideline

The whole debate over video games has missed the mark entirely, in my opinion. This guideline was established well before the debate over video games was brought up by Jimbo, and it seems as though he didn't even know it existed or what direction that Wikibooks was going. I propose that we as Wikibooks contributors help define these guidelines and now try to make them more official policy instead as to what is considered acceptable for a Wikibook about video games.

This topic should not be forbidden, but instead the standards for what might be considered acceptable should be raised and narrowed. Mind you, this in effect becomes a sort of WB:WIW policies that apply specifically for this one bookshelf.

One "policy" that I think needs to be move to an enforced standard is that video game walkthroughs should be specically prohibited. That seems to be Jimbo's largest argument against video game books, and I would agree that they are not only non-textbook in nature, they are non-book in nature as well. These are in essence video game reviews, and that is something that should not be on Wikibooks, and reviews of this nature have been repeatedly culled from Wikibooks for a number of reasons. Art reviews and book reviews have also met similar fates in this regard.

A general deletion of all content on the video game bookshelf is simply pig-headed and wrong. That is deleting content strictly because of its topic, and does not follow any sort of guideline of any kind.

I think other areas should be addressed by this guideline. The whole point here is that authors who try to create a Wikibook should know in advance what is considered acceptable, and things like the Pokedex should not have been allowed to develop to the degree that it had before objections occured. Obviously some specific policies need to be established over acceptable content with this topic, and that is something that has occured with other collaborative projects in the past, including on Wikipedia. Because of the actions of a few, we have to be much more restrictive in this particular area than with other topics on Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 11:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you propose should stay and what should go? If we prohibit walkthroughs, and if we prohibit reviews, then what else is there to write on the topic of individual games? Besides perhaps an annotated discussion of the story or the dialog in a particular game, I can't imagine what else we would have here. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 14:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... it would seem that an "annotated discussion of the story or the dialog in a particular game" would be more germane in an encyclopedia article. I'm thinking Rob has the right idea. We can have plenty of books on the design of the game, the history involved in making it, any real-life implications of the game, other issues dealing with the game, plus a brief summary of the plot/characters if warranted. The topic is fine, the content is what needs to be judged. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are trying to walk a fine line, and are setting yourself up for future problems. "Real life implications of the game" and "Other issues dealing with the game" reek to me of ambiguity and--worse yet--of NPOV violations. The design of a videogame, like books on the design of any other peice of software, belong on the CS bookshelf (possibly with a cross-reference on the art bookshelf), not a specialized VG bookshelf. The entire subject of videogames is certainly not a taboo subject, but if we cut out all the fat, there is virtually no reason to keep a separate bookshelf around for it. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 16:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well then perhaps we don't need to have a separate shelf. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Although, now that I think about it, perhaps a good way to handle many of these games would be to have one main textbook (Video Games/Video Game Design/Issues in Video Game/Some other title) with each particular game as a chapter. Kind of like a book of case studies. Maybe chronological? Start with something like Pong/Atari-type games, move to NES (Mario Brothers/Duck Hunt), yadda yadda yadda, Playstation2 (Grand Theft Auto/Madden football... and yes, I know these have been around longer than PS2 ;-)), X-Box 360 (whatever the hot game of the moment is?). That way games could be looked at, but in an academic sort of way. Pinnacle games could be looked at with a few oddballs thrown in. This doesn't have to be the only game book on WB, but I think this would be a good start to show games have a place. Anyone wanna help start building a list of topical games? I already have pointed out a few to start. Thoughts? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been a long standing issue on Wikibooks as well, wheither a topic should be confined under one title or if multiple Wikibook titles can be created. Perhaps at this time, just to prove the point, video games should be put under a single book, especially if we can't find too much content from the individual Wikibooks that currently exist that don't fit the restrictions of no or very limited walkthroughs. If somebody wants to make, for instace, the Doom book that goes into detail about John Carmak and ID software, and does a scholarly textual exposition on the topic of Doom as a game, I don't see what the problem is. There is material available to write such a book, and I think there is value to having something like that here on Wikibooks. This is about raising standards and noting that Wikibooks that are about video games need additional restrictions precisely because this has been abused in the past. BTW, I do think that a general Video Game book that goes into the chronilogical order of video game design, starting with Space War (written about a decade before Pong) and ending up with MMORPGs would be a fun and interesting book. --Rob Horning 00:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This initiative of Rob's to regularise the situation, which includes WB:WIW and a new How-to book guidelines, is, in my view, to be welcomed. It would be good to emphasise that Wikibooks is for textbooks, and making it clear that "textbook" is to be given its normal, wide meaning. As Jimbo has noted, a game manual or walkthrough is not a textbook, but it is possible to have a textbook on game design or game strategy generally. I have made a number of suggested amendments (including a name change) to help reflect this.

I also wish to add that I think the point about potentially merging some of the content is a good one - so that we don't end up with a separate wikibook relating to study on each game, and instead having a smaller number of books describing aspects of different games, Jguk 17:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Added metric for what is acceptable here

Meh, I'm not sure if I should even comment on this, it almost seems like a minor edit, but just incase anyone disagrees with my edit, discuss it here. The only issue I can see that we run into is Chess strategies, as most strategy books for humans suck for computers. --Dragontamer 19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The only disagreement I have with it is that I don't think the answer to your question is conclusive on the point, although it would be a good indicator as to whether it is appropriate to Wikibooks. I've therefore toned it down a bit, but kept the implication, Jguk 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a notability criteria for games to have books on them here?

I've noticed that there's absolutely no mention of this anywhere in any of the Wikibooks policies I can find, and none on these guidelines. Well, for instance, take this freeware ASCII game that just had its first public release, Dwarf Fortress; it would plainly never pass, say, Wikipedia's notability guidelines on anything. Even though the version is technically an alpha, though, it's been in the works for around four years and is rather large and complex. Would it be approprate to write a textbook on it here? (The game could certainly support a large and detailed textbook, despite what it might sound like; my only real question is if such a low-profile games should have guides here in the first place.) My guess is no, but I couldn't find a single policy that would make its low profile an issue, so I thought that at least asking here could lead to the policies getting clarified. --Aquillion 21:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You have to understand that the notion of a "textbook" doesn't have anything to do with the notability of the game. Even the most notable games in the world simply don't get "textbooks" here on wikibooks. A "textbook" is a book that can be used as a companion text for a course of study in an accredited institution. For example, you could write a book that involves a completely obscure game, if you taught a greater lesson, and if the book could be used in a course. Also, we don't cater to hypothetical courses, such as "they could possibly teach this somewhere". Now, there are courses about video game design, but there are simply not courses on video game playing. Now, since this game you are talking about is in an alpha version, and is currently being developed, it is possible (albeit unlikely) that you could write a textbook on the rigours of videogame development, the fine points of videogame story line writing, The user-interaction methodology for a text-based game (or for that matter, the methodology for designing a text-based interface to any software program). In short, it has more to do with the way you write your textbook, and less about the object on which you write. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless: we'll need a metric to distinguish between Chess and other games. I'm all ears; and so is the policy. Jimbo himself said Chess is allowed on wikibooks; and i'm sure we all agree to that. But what we don't know... is where do we draw the line?

An edutainment game (Reader Rabbit for example) should be allowed on Wikibooks IMO; even if it is a video game; and a book on the act of playing the game as well. Finally; a well made game should be documented in a book somewhat. --Dragontamer 20:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)