text:
Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals/2022/February

Not allow users to decline permission nominations.
This would not allow users to decline permission nominations. If someone does a bad faith one, we just let it run its course. T. Gregtregretgtr (discuss • contribs) 17:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Why we might want this

 * 1) Some vandal/troll/what-have-you can use that Cyrillic "a" looking like a normal "a" or some other letter that looks almost the same.
 * 2) Some users should be admins, but aren't.

Discussion
Sorry, I'm not seeing why this is needed. Is this a problem that is coming up frequently? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, but I am MAD because impersonators can reject nominatons for permissions (Cyrillc "a",anyone?). T. Gregtregretgtr (discuss • contribs) 23:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Heads up that ping doesn't work if you don't sign your posts. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You misspelled "unsigned". T. Gregtregretgtr (discuss • contribs) 23:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeesh. This is why we collaborate. Thanks, T. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Revive Arbitration as a policy.
What this would do is make Arbitration a policy. Also, I am adding TABLE !VOTING, where you !vote with a table with columns saying your signature, and the reason you chose that option. T. Gregtregretgtr (discuss • contribs) 17:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 * This isn't a vote, just a comment. I'm unsure what re-allowing Arbitration would necessarily solve at Wikibooks in 2022.
 * As you are aware, the only Arbitration case happened in 2007, and that was solved via other means. These days most editors stick to their books, so the chance for conflict between editors is very low, and what conflict does exist can be solved by other means. This is important, since the Arbitration policy itself noted it should be used only as a last resort.
 * There are certainly uses for Arbitration, and I'm not opposed to it as a concept. However I don't like excessive bureaucracy and rules. If the current framework is adequately handling disputes, then the Arbitration policy is perhaps best kept as a historic document, to be revived in the event it becomes obviously useful again. That's how I see it anyway. Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 03:32, 5 February 2022 (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)
 * 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)
 * although I feel that maybe more than a simple "!vote" will be required per WB:DM. 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. 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)
 * 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 will help, as it is de facto policy and there are a lot of gamers Wakelamp (discuss • contribs) 06:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * Symbol comment vote.svg 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)
 * 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, 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)
 * 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. 🇨🇴 [re: Col, ] 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.  Fra nkB 07:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)}}

 * 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)
 * Symbol comment vote.svg 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)
 * Symbol comment vote.svg 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)
 * , 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 ’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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Why not? I think we should allow them.--YavBav09 (discuss • contribs) 12:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * --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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * -- 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. Fra nkB 07:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * per all above. AnotherEditor144 (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 Reading room/Archives/2007/June where there was a mixed reception to the proposal, but the proposal seemed to stick. There is an obsolete policy at Game textbook guidelines, and 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 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 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. 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 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)
 * I've asked him to comment directly if possible, given his role. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. as not previously pinged. I will also make a posting at 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)
 * 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 Would you like to support or oppose in the above section? -- Jules  (Mrjulesd) 15:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like I'm a bit late for the party, but yes if it means anything now. --Anton Buckharin (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

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 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)
 * , 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)
 * and, 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)
 * , 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)

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

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 Game textbook guidelines or Game Books. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * Well then I guess I 🤷🏻♂. I honestly think it’s better to discuss each policy separately and then maybe some will be implemented, maybe all will, and maybe none will. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 10:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with him, presenting the rules to discuss would be useful. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * do you have any specific ideas on how that could be done? -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think it would be best if you wrote the policies you have in mind and then we can discuss each policy individually. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 08:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you're saying, the "proof is in the pudding" so to speak. But is seems to me that we all pretty close in our views so far, so I'm hoping that whatever we come up with be acceptable to all. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , yeah I also think that our views are similar. One policy I thought of is about games in the same series, and separate books for different aspects of the same game. Currently, in Shelf:Electronic games, it’s written:  I think that it made sense when strategy guides where not allowed and you were only allowed to write about games if the information you wrote was "useful for non-gamers". Now, I think we should cancel this rule because different games in the same series should get different strategy guides. Far Cry Primal and Agra Cry 5 are entirely different games with entirely different plots and there’s no reason that they should be forced into the same Wikibook. Also, there’s the point about writing separate books for different aspects of the same game. I’m not entirely sure about this but I will mention it anyway. As  mentioned in the original discussion at Reading room/General, it’s possible to have a book about the different creatures in ARK Survival Evolved. I would like to add that it’s possible also to have a wikibook about building guides for different structures in ARK (all the building guides in one wikibook, not a separate book for every structure). I would love to hear other opinions as well. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 13:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Well those are good points. But the main thing to recognise is that its not directly policy, but rather someones interpretation of policy at that time. The only official rules are pages in Category:Wikibooks policies and Category:Wikibooks guidelines. So that description may only be needed to be updated, I don't think it has any official status. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, then I think that this sentence should be removed from the shelf as it can cause a lot of confusion and isn’t even an official policy. Also, that’s what I meant about discussing each policy individually, I think that this sort of discussion (sort of like the one about notability below) makes a lot more sense. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

AnotherEditor144 t - c 08:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * new policy per Mrjulesd.
 * I strongly believe we need a new policy. There are too many unknowns in regards to video games that need to be clarified, such as what can be presented, notability, guidelines preventing spam/promotional-only pages, acceptable sources etc. Also, the decades of hostility towards video games should be, in my opinion, clearly clarified (that we are open to video games and all contributions towards this are very much welcomed!)... this can be achieved through a policy that is discussed and shown majority support. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 18:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree with your reasoning, but as me and replied to, I think that it’s far better to discuss each policy separately than to discuss should be have new policies. Maybe all the proposed policies will be accepted, maybe none will, but I think that some will and some won’t. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure, we could do that.. Personally I believe that will lead to a totally new write-up, but we can only see once we do. My apologies for not properly assessing your responses, I was skimming through a little fast. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 18:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * per request. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * has this project ever had a notability guideline at all? What is Wikibooks is a little vague on this topic, it just describes "textbooks, annotated texts, instructional guides, and manuals." I agree that this would help to stop books about games with little relevance to the world. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, there's no notability guideline. There was a discussion a few years back here that gives a sense of why. It can always be changed of course. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t really think a notability guide like in Wikipedia is really necessary. There can be a game that was discussed by many independent sources but it’s impossible to write a good strategy guide for, or a game with practically no independent sources talking about, but with very complex mechanics that it’s possible to write a great strategy guide about. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 12:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My view is that we have always had the notion of notability here, but its been very much more pragmatic than explicit. For example, books on topic that are obviously made-up or dubious have been deleted on that basis. I think that quite often all you need is a Google search to form a reasonable opinion. I think we should probably stick to "mainstream" games, but quite how you define mainstream would have to be debated. -- Jules  (Mrjulesd) 12:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with your statements, but I think that instead of looking on is the game "mainstream", we should consider is their enough content that can be written about the game. Pong and snake for example are mainstream games, however, for obvious reasons I don’t think we are gonna have strategy guides about them. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 13:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think an important point is that by "allowing" books doesn't necessarily mean that we think they are particularly recommended. Also a book on Pong or Snake would probably be allowed under current policy, as long as strategy was not discussed; see WB:GUIDE, at the moment we don't disallow video game books per se, only books that focus on strategy. Since they contain little strategy, a strategy guide to them would be pointless, but a book on their history and development and so forth might be . -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree with your statement that it’s possible to allow books about some games but not encourage them. Also, I think that a book about the history of one of those games should be allowed and even encouraged. My point was that in my opinion, we shouldn’t try to define what is "mainstream", but instead focus on weather there’s enough content that can be written about the specific game. Because pong and snake don’t contain much strategy, there wouldn’t be a point in writing a strategy guide about them. However, there can be a small indie game (by small I mean not famous, not a game with a lack of content) with tons of strategy involved, and I think that strategy books about such games should be encouraged. Does this open up the possibility of using Wikibooks as a platform for promotional material? Yes, it does. But I think that we shouldn’t try to fight against this. In my opinion, if a wikibook about a game is good, of high quality, and doesn’t violate any of the guidelines, I don’t think it should be deleted just because one of the goals of the author(s) to write the book was to promote their indie game. That being said, if it’s just a simple advertisement "please buy that game" sort of thing then it should be deleted. The argument can rise that the devs of a game can’t write about their own game with a neutral point of view, and to this I would like to reply that I don’t think that a point of view is relevant in writing a game strategy guide - it’s a guide on how to complete certain tasks on the game not a review. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"I don’t think it should be deleted just because one of the goals of the author(s) to write the book was to promote their indie game." - I am not sure that's something we'll allow, as it could be considered as advertising. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , my point is that if they wrote a good strategy guide and NOT an advertisement, I don’t think that we should start digging for clues weather or not promoting the game was one of the motivations of the author to write the wikibook. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * and, I recommend you draft a policy at Strategy_guides. I'm not a gamer, and hence am unfamiliar with the ins and out of a strategy guide. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 21:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * right I'll look into it, I've got some ideas so maybe I could come up with a draft. But I might do some sandbox work first (its a habit of mine). I have removed "Games in a series should be part of the same book." from Shelf:Electronic games per you suggestion, as I don't believe it is particularly warranted or supported by policy. -- Jules  (Mrjulesd) 21:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you very much! I think we should ping the other users who support this idea that will also be able to contribute their ideas. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 09:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft policy created
See Strategy guides. Some points:

 * It is at a draft stage, if you don't like it edit it: but at the same time, it may be less confusing if you discuss significant changes here first.
 * Its what I would like to see in a policy: but it may be different to the views of the community.
 * It mostly reiterates current policy: but at the same time I feel this could be most helpful.
 * Its best not change aspects related to current policies: if it describes a current policy, it could be removed, but we can't override any existing policies at this stage.
 * Please give feedback: there may well be things needing to be changes, but its probably best to discuss first if these are major.

Thanks, -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I saw your draft and I have a question about screenshots. You wrote: "Screenshots taken from copyrighted games, that do not explicitly allow the free reuse of screenshots, are subject to the rules for non-free media." I was wandering, how is it possible to know which games allow the free reuse of screenshots? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 15:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you'd have to look at the EULA (end user license agreement) of the game in question. Its not something I'm an expert at, but if the game is copyrighted, then most likely any screenshots would also be copyrighted. Open source games are likely not restricted, although they may have stipulations such as attribution requirements; again the EULA should be consulted. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I searched for ARK EULA and it doesn’t discuss screenshots at all, only banning guidelines. Does that mean that screenshots are not allowed? Also, from I can find screenshots of Minecraft are allowed. Does this mean they can be uploaded to wikimedia commons or must they still be uploaded to Wikibooks? -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not a lawyer, but if the EULA of a copyrighted game isn't explicit, then screenshots are probably non-free. Unfortunately Minecraft EULA is not compatible with Wikimedia, so only non-free images are allowed; e.g. see Minecraft, all the images there are non-free. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * and, Unless the game itself is under a free licence (for instance, the source code is publicly available online), with rare exceptions this would mean that any screenshots of that game would be considered as non-free and such users would have to request uploader. This is the reason screenshots of even Visual Studio Code are considered as non-free.
 * That is, it is de facto expected that game screenshots will be considered as non-free media. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see. I guess demonstrative images about ARK (similar to the example you put about Portal) would be more useful for players. But I didn’t quite get your point about Minecraft. Do they have to be uploaded to Wikibooks? I think that few screenshots here and there like in the Wikipedia page would be enough for a Minecraft guide. Is this what you meant? Also, I think it would be useful to add examples about few very popular games (Minecraft, GTA, and Pokemon - doesn’t have to be those 3). If they are very popular games, that increases the chance that it will help more users, and also it will give people willing to write about other games a general idea of what to search for. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait one more question not related to game strategies, if I wanted to write a wikibook about Godot (an open source game engine), would the screenshots be considered free. Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * any Minecraft images would have to be uploaded locally to Wikibooks, and would be non-free media. Also I completely agree with Leaderboard's statement. We could add some examples to the policy. About Godot: maybe, but you best check the EULA. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you very much! Just to make sure I understand everything correctly, it’s allowed to use non-free images in Wikibooks but they must be uploaded locally. Is that correct? And is that true also about ARK screenshots? I can imagine few cases in which one or two screenshots can drastically improve the guide. Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, only non-free images should be uploaded locally, and that would include ARK screenshots. Public domain, or compatible free license, screenshots should be uploaded to Commons. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Jules is correct. I am not sure what you mean by ARK screenshots though. Regarding Godot, that engine is licensed under MIT, so as long you are willing to licence whatever screenshots you make out of it as free, then yes it qualifies. That is, you can write a wikibook about Godot and its images can be released under a free licence. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for clarifying! When I understood that ARK screenshots are not free, I thought at first that they can’t be used at all. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 18:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this policy as is, but have a slight addition to note as well. There is an additional way to use screenshots from proprietary games, which should have no conflicts with existing Wikibooks policy. A number of developers of proprietary games release screenshots under open licenses, which are then uploaded to commons, and then have their open license ORTS confirmed. For example the developer of the MMORPG EVE Online has released a number of screenshots which may be useful for illustrative purposes. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 19:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , great to know! This will be really useful for writing about those games. Hopefully more devs decide to release screenshots as it is good for Wikmedia and also for their business (increases exposure to their games). -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 19:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * do add it if you like. To frank I was trying to keep it short as we already have Media. But looking at these comments has persuaded me that it needs to be explicit, Media is comprehensive but I don't think is particularly understandable. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Looking at it again, the policy actually essentially mentioned it earlier and I must have overlooked it. Still I implemented a short description of the process while trying to keep it concise. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 21:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

"Notability"
I think that we should have a notability guide for strategy guides not based on how popular the games are, but based on how much strategy is involved in them. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 11:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we should keep all discussions related to strategy guides in one place (for now), and hence moved your comment. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see. Thanks for clarifying. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * please see the current draft at Strategy_guides. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. I think that the rule you wrote make sense because it’s general enough to include a wide variety games but also exclude games that are not notable at all. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 15:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Games with articles on Wikipedia should be deemed notable. Otherwise, maybe case by case.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 20:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They're actually roughly equivalent. The way this is written is that a game would likely pass notability requirements on Wikipedia, as the reviews on the aggregator sites I mentioned are usually considered to be reliable. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree with Jules. In order for a game to pass Wikipedia’s notability rules for video games, it must have significant commentary and analysis. The rule written in WB:GUIDE is sort of similar only that it allows a wider array of games. In Wikipedia, you need many sources and reviews so that you can gather as much info as possible, write in a neutral point of view, and avoid plagiarism. Because those Wikibooks will discuss the strategy I think that Wikipedia’s standards are too strict here. If the game you want to write about has an article in Wikipedia you will definitely find at least one review of it. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Then we may write about more games than Wikipedia. Yet will remain separate? Or will we consider a merger? I ask here as non-Wikimedia Wikitravel merged into Wikivoyage.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 04:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , wikitravel was never merged with wikivoyage. The are two separate wikis. You can enter wikitravel here and wikigoyage here. I expect strategy wiki to remain a separate wiki but of course I’m not in charge of it - the people running strategywiki will decide. Maybe they will want to close it who know🤷🏻♂. Btw I don’t expect or want it to be shut down. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 07:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * that's interesting whether a merger should take place with strategywiki. Perhaps that's something that should be mooted? At the very least, I expect that works could be imported here, although if there is much point is an interesting question.
 * My own feeling is that it is unlikely that merger will take place, as the WMF probably wouldn't want it. But that content could be imported is a lot more likely, although I haven't looked into the feasibility of it yet as regard to licenses and so forth. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought of them as separate wikis, though it is allowed to import StrategyWiki content to Wikibooks if users desire at WB:RFI (this will require a user to have  that admins do not have and is granted only by stewards; I used to have it for some time in the past). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant importing the contents from Wikitravel to Wikivoyage. As we have a cookbook namespace, will we have a strategy namespace? If yes, I look forward to writing "Strategy:Infiltrator II" with detailed tips.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 04:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any consensus to use a dedicated namespace. Of course, if consensus is gained later, I think moving them to one would be easy. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don’t think we need a namespace because strategy guides will be just like any other wikibook (see Minecraft resource gathering for an example). In my opinion a separate namespace will just distract potential readers and contributors from editing those books. Also, I think that importing some of the content from strategywiki to Wikibooks is a great idea and needs to be done as some of the content like this book about Pokemon FireRed and LeafGreen are very good. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 09:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

{{od|::::::::::::{}} We could have a proposal for a separate namespace. But personally I don't see it as necessary. We already incorporate books on games into the mainspace, for examples our books on chess, and I don't see video game books as being that different. It makes sense to have Wikijunior and Cookbook namespaces, as these are clearly separate from the other books we have here. But with video game books there is a blurring, as they may include other details beyond pure strategy, such as historical or technical details. But if peoples feel differently we could put it to the vote. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with what write about not needing a separate namespace for video game strategies. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 12:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, just been thinking, if we did have a separate namespace, one way would be to have something like "Recreational:" or "Games:", and incorporate books from Shelf:Recreational activities or Shelf:Games to it. "Strategy:" I feel would be too limiting. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, exactly. Also, there are game guides that aren’t really “strategy” - books that teach the readers how to do a certain task in a video but aren’t necessarily strategy so calling a book strategy:example would be weird. I don’t think we need a separate namespace unless there are plans to create a wikigames with all the game related books, if so I think “Games:“ makes sense. But just as it is I don’t think there’s a fundamental difference between books that discuss video games and books that discuss other topics. Wikibooks about history are not put in a namespace “History:” and books about programming are not put in a namespace “Programming:”, so I don’t see why we should have a separate namespace for video games. I put feels pointless, and as Jules noted also limiting. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 15:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * With no need for a separate namespace now, then I plan to soon start Infiltrator II under Category:Shelf:Electronic games based on Infiltrator II soon.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 01:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggesting 2 new templates
In the original discussion (when we were discussing should this policy be implemented), someone raised the concern that online games change frequently and that the strategy guides may be rendered useless. I suggest creating a template that says: "This online game was last reviewed on " and if this date is long time ago it will say that the info there might be outdated. If the game severs were shut down, it will be replaced with a new template saying that this book is only kept as a historic reference. If the game is offline, then those templates are irrelevant. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , when should the templates be created? Before or after the policy becomes official? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 20:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You can create the templates now. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 20:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have created template:InactiveOnlineGame. Does it need documentation? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * While not strictly required, it's always a good idea to have documentation for a template. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you very much! I have added a documentation. Can you please check if it’s good? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 21:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , looks fine by me. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 08:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you very much! Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"never been allowed"
, I’m not sure if this is the appropriate place to tell this, but you deleted the talk page of the draft so I will tell this here. You wrote that video game strategies where never allowed, however in Reading room/General, PiZero pointed out that in the past they were allowed but deleted following this discussion. Also, in Game Books, it’s written that Wikibooks about video games were "allowed and even encouraged" in the past. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 18:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that strategy games were really ever encouraged in practice. It was in 2006 that Jimbo Wales decided that video games guides wouldn't be allowed on Wikibooks. It's been nearly 15 years since then. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , yeah I agree that it doesn’t make sense that they were actually encouraged, but the fact that they were all deleted at some point proves that before that they were allowed. Maybe not banning them is called encourage for the user who wrote that they were encouraged, who knows. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 18:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Does Jules' update to the draft help? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes it does. I thanked him with the thanks log. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggested policy regarding Minecraft guides
The concern that appeared in the section above where I suggested 2 new templates is also relevant for non-online games, however because Minecraft handles versions in a unique way, this problem can be solved entirely by just specifying what version of the game this book is relevant for in the title. So for example, a book about resource gathering strategies would be called Resource Gathering Strategies for Minecraft 1.16.3. The best thing about this is that it will enable writing books about older versions of the games as they are still playable through the Minecraft launcher. This will be relevant also for other aspects of the game and especially for books about mods as they tend to change more frequently. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I haven't really replied before, but my feeling is that most wikibooks will eventually go out of date unless maintained, and this maintenance doesn't always happen. So video games are in no way unique in that regard. But if you just specify what version it is based upon, it will remain correct for that version at least; and later versions may be different, but they probably won't be that different (in the majority of cases). So I don't think it's too much of a worry; I don't think books get deleted much for being out of date, as its not accepted policy. Games never really go away, they just end up being emulated, although that might be difficult with multiplayer. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry for not expressing myself properly. What you told is true about all the games I have except Minecraft. In Minecraft, you have the game launcher and you can download and play any version (officially, you don’t have to resort to piracy). And since Minecraft servers are hosted by the admin or by a host the the admin pays and not by Mojang, there are many public servers that don’t upgrade to the latest version and just use the most stable one. And about multiplayer in retro games, I think we should have a tutorial both for the original hardware and for emulators so that it will be useful for all readers. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, you can just indicate on each page which versions that feature works with. That's what we do with software, for instance, Blender. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , yeah that’s probably a better idea. Never mind the suggestion. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ditto what Leaderboard said, you could specify applicable versions for particular features. Just curious, how many versions of Minecraft do you run through your launcher? Do the versions have many practical differences? It could get confusing if you use a lot of different servers. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , while many of the older versions (like the very first versions) are missing from the launcher, as far as I know all the other versions are available. And every version they add new features and redesign older features. For example, in version 1.16 they completely redesigned the nether so any guide about the nether from previous versions would be irrelevant. In 1.17 which Mojang is working on, they will completely redesign the underground so any guides about mining efficiently will be rendered useless. And I don’t think anyone plays on so many servers to the point that it can get confusing, and even if they do it wouldn’t let them enter the server if they are running the wrong version and it would tell them what version they should be running. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 20:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

How will this policy change get announced
Once the policy becomes official, how will it get announced to make sure that all users are aware of it? -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 17:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Some ways would include
 * Using MediaWiki:Sitenotice so that anyone who visits Wikibooks would be aware, and perhaps putting a similar notice on the main page
 * Posting on Meta-Wiki or Wikimedia-I (https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/), and the Wikigames proposal - Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you very much! The template has been on the main page for quiet some time but because I mostly edit using mobile view I haven’t seen it until now. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, it seems that fr.wikibooks already allows video game strategy guides of some kind, which is interesting. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Likely because Jimbo has never edited it. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggesting 2 new redirects
Hi y’all. In my opinion, the pages Game strategies and Video game strategies should redirect to Strategy guides. Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 13:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * While I don't particularly object to this, I don't really see the point either. If you search for either of these terms in the Wikibooks namespace and the draft policy comes up. Other policy pages don't have redirects. And there is a shortcut to this page at WB:GUIDE too. You can look up policies at places like Policies and guidelines or Template:Wikibooks policies and guidelines. -- Jules  (Mrjulesd) 18:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've have to agree with Jules here. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see. Thank you very much. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 08:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Closing discussion?
the draft policy has been up for about a week, and I don't think there's too much more to be done. Perhaps we should have a motion to close, to ratify the policy? We could ping some of the editors that earlier !voted on the proposal. Or any other thoughts on how to proceed? -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am open to closing it myself. I don't think we need to vote. Can you make an announcement at wikimedia-1 regarding this change in policy? I can't seem to do it myself. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it’s a good idea. Btw, does this policy change effect only English Wikibooks or all Wikibooks? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 15:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Only the English Wikibooks; our policies do not apply to those of other languages. However, that does not stop us from letting other communities know of our decision and encouraging them to follow our path.
 * P.S: I've announced this change at Meta's Wikimedia Forum, can someone do it in #wikimedia-1? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you very much! Btw, I think it makes sense to have a vote on weather or not to close this discussion (maybe some people think that WB:GUIDE isn’t complete yet - I’m not one of them). -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 18:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Btw, I’m see it became an official policy. Great! Thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So never mind the comment about having a vote. I agree with Leaderboard. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Sorry, what is #wikimedia-1? Is that an IRC channel? -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the main mailing list (https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ah I'm not a subscriber. Although perhaps I could become one. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 07:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually tried to, but it did not work for some reason. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait a sec, must this discussion remain open until someone manages to announce the decision to Wikimedia-1 even though the proposal was concluded, consensus was reached, and the policy became official? Also, one more question: because the policy is now official, can I start writing Wikibooks discussion video game strategies right now or do I have to wait until this discussion is closed? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 09:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if wikimedia-1 could be notified of our decision, but yes, since the policy is now official, you can start writing game strategy books right away. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 09:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 09:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A question about copyright
Btw, is map art in Minecraft under free use? Can they be uploaded to wikimedia commons? In case you don’t know, in Minecraft you can create art by placing blocks on the ground in a certain area and then use a map to map this area. This has many applications. This has many applications and I’m interested to know if it also has to be uploaded to Wikibooks because it’s technically the creation of the guy who draws the map art. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 13:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, no. If "map art" involves objects and assets from Minecraft itself, then that would not be free use (in general, unless the non-free elements can be cropped out). However, if it's just a drawing solely by the author, that would qualify. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see. Thank you very much! I think that it’s ok to upload to Wikibooks because if I cropped out the surrounding how would I prove that it’s a screenshot from Minecraft and not just something from MS-Paint. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Back on this topic, if we want to make the "open-source" video game guide, what if we needed to uses game art of the game itself? I believe we couldn't just upload to Wikimedia Commons ?
 * Note: It shouldn't be a problem for Open Source Game like https://www.unixmen.com/gaming-on-linux1131-19-awesome-opensource-games-for-linux/  but I meant for commercial close sourced games ?  Asked by Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 00:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * yes it is a bit tricky, as Commons isn't really an option, unless you go the c:Commons:OTRS route or create your own images.
 * However we are discussing a new non-free media policy below; see the draft at Media/sandbox. It is pretty well inline with that of Wikipedia, and video game articles there often have non-free media illustrating them, which is allowed within policy. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * May we record the chess moves from the automatic demonstrations by the computer with regard to copyright? So many video games feature chess and its variants like Chinese chess. If yes, maybe the notations from the computer playing both sides will aid studying.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 00:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that would be okay personally, though I presume you're referring to chess moves given out by the computer when playing against someone else? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean the moves by computer vs. computer, like a sample in Star Wars Chess.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 02:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that can be copyrighted, correct me if I'm wrong. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems correct, see see this recent judgement. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 08:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the valuable information that encourages studying chess.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 05:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Collections of Wikibooks about video games
Btw, if I make a collection of a wikibook about video game strategies, and the book contains fair use images, can I also use a fair use image as the cover image of the book? Because I think that a screenshot of the game would work best as a cover image but maybe that’s not allowed, idk. 🤷🏻♂ Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 08:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * as far as I'm aware, Collections is pretty well defunct. It was basically a way of collecting a book or several books together to create a downloadable PDF for offline use. That capability is broken at the moment, although it may be possible to order a paid printed copy of books (at least, you can do that at Wikiedia). -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you very much for the reply! It’s possible to order collections as printed books also in Wikibooks (I never did but I looked on the previews). But it has some issues, for example this collection about roblox game development contains a quinze in it (can be seen here, and in the preview it shows just the mediawiki code that was used to create this quiz not the quiz itself. This made me wonder if the same problems happen when creating pdf versions, but back to topic - my original question is can I use fair use images in the title page of the pdf version? 😅 If not, can I at lease use them in the pdf file itself? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 15:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Collections/ROBLOX Game Development links to pages in the Roblox Game Development and Lua Programming. Things like quizzes aren't functional in PDF versions (as far as I know). As far as I'm aware, rules for online and PDF versions are identical with respect to images and everything else; but its best not to use non-free media in title pages, as it may go against the rules. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see. I don’t think that quizzes are supposed to be “functional” in pdf versions (functional in the sense that they actually work - a pdf version is meant for printing if someone wanted an “interactive” experience, they would read the original book in Wikibooks. I do however expect them to render properly, I want the readers to see a box with the questions and the answers and not

{What is ROBLOX? + A website where the content is produced by users (a user-generated website) - A website that gives information on a particular topic (an informational website) + A platform for developing games (a game development platform) users can use the ROBLOX game engine to develop games. + A website for hosting games (a game host)
 * type="[]"}
 * Almost all of the content on the ROBLOX website is produced by users. This includes assets in the catalog, content such as comments, forum posts, group wall posts and so on, and also games.
 * ROBLOX can be used as a game development platform because
 * Games that use the ROBLOX engine can be hosted on ROBLOX..
 * I think you see what I mean. For copyright purposes, this is the link to the permanent revision from which I took this question (from my understanding I must link to it otherwise it’s copyright infringement). That’s the sort of thing that the collection creator does so I was wandering if pdf versions have the same problem. Again, I don’t expect an interactive quiz in pdf only an image of how it looks like in Wikibooks. Thank in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 16:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * and, I think the PDF version of a book isn't too different from taking a print version of any book and saving that to PDF. With that in mind, I think it's OK to have non-free images for a PDF version. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * and I was talking about the title page. For the book mentioned, the title page is Roblox Game Development, and there is no image. But if you were creating a Minecraft title page, one solution would be to use something fromc:Category:Minecraft. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Even for the title page, I think it is reasonable to assume that the fair-use image is useful, as it "identifies" the book. Hence I am personally inclined to think that this usage is fine. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * well you could be right. But erring on the side of caution, it might be best to use a free image if available. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I see, c:category:Minecraft has many good images that can be used for title pages. c:category:Roblox has much less images and most of them are not suitable for being on a title page. the pdf version of the book about Mandarin has an image on the title page while Chinese (Mandarin)/Print version doesn’t. And when I asked about using fair use images in title pages I meant is there a policy that forbids that. Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 18:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not aware of such a policy (one that explicitly blocks fair-use images in PDF versions) Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you very much! I heard that in Wikipedia there’s a policy that doesn’t allow fair use images as cover images of books but maybe I’m mistaken. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of such a rule (also I am not sure what "cover images of books" would mean for Wikipedia because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, unlike Wikibooks). Regardless, I think you'll be fine from a Wikibooks perspective. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I meant w:Book:The Simpsons episodes and other similar books. They are collections of different Wikipedia articles and if I’m not mistaken I think there’s a rule that forbids the usage of fair use images as the cover image, but I could be wrong. If you press on the cover image of this book you will see that it’s in public domain because it doesn’t meet the “Threshold of originality”. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 09:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Walkthroughs
Ou the new policy that can be found at Strategy guides only discusses strategy guides so I was wandering are walkthroughs still not allowed? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 * What are the differences? I presume walkthroughs would be describing the journey of a game? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , exactly. After seeing your comment, I researched a bit more into the difference between a strategy and a walkthrough, and in Strategy guide, it’s written:  In Video game walkthrough it’s written:   When asking this question I didn’t realize they were so similar to each other. I thought that strategy guides and walkthroughs are entirely different - with strategy guides only giving strategies and walkthroughs just giving a step by step tutorial without explaining why this is the best way and without giving multiple ways. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I always intended it to describe walkthroughs as well as strategy guides, so I have amended the lead to make this clear. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that you added the words “and walkthroughs”. Thank you every much! (btw, to y’all wandering I didn’t ping him because I thanked him using the thanks log and I think it’s spam to also ping here.) -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 21:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

A question about game notability and screenshots
Hi, been a long time since the last message was posted here, but I have a question regarding a wikibook I would like to start working on. I have been thinking recently about a wikibook about Fireboy and Watergirl, and I have two questions. The first is wether or not this game is notable? I have found several reviews (1, 2, 3, 4, and much more). Is this enough to show that the game is notable? Another question is about screenshots. The way I envision the book is that every chapter will be about a certain level in the game and will contain at least one screenshot of this level (sometimes more is necessary) and a guide on the different ways to pass this level. I have created the book Minecraft resource gathering but since I’m a bit busy I didn’t have the time to make screenshots for the book. Since Fireboy and Watergirl can be played in the browser I think I will be able to start working on this book right now theoretically. But does such book follow the guidelines? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * hi. My feelings is that the game has a reasonable appearances of significance, particularly on the basis of the Australian Council on Children and the Media. For your second question, the main question to ask yourself is about this from WB:FU: 🇨🇴 In other words, avoid decorative usage, the image should help with understanding of the topic. Post the minimum number of images to convey this, and include a rationale for usage each time. Also, try to keep the resolution below 800*600. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your screenshot proposal looks OK. WB:FU is meant to prevent unnecessary use of non-free images; if you think it's needed, go ahead. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you very much! I don’t think there’s any way to describe the levels in Fireboy and Watergirl without showing screenshots of them, and if the screenshots end up being more than 800*600 (which I hardly believe will happen) I will rescale it. But what do you mean by including the rationale each time? Should I write with each image that I upload a justification to why this image is necessary? If yes, then how should I word this justification? Is there any example that I can follow? Thanks in advance -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 19:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * see WB:UPLOAD point 5: you need to include the non-free use rationale template for each use of the file, which must be filled with a rationale for "Why a book or module requires the use of this media". -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see. Can you send an example of a file with non free rational so that I can get a better idea of what should be written? Thanks in advance. P.S. I’m so used to Middle English Wikipedia that I want to type Wp/enm/Ping instead of ping every time. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 20:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * see any of the files listed at Category:Non-free files, there are literally hundreds of files you can look at. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. I think I understand what should be written. I will start work on this book in the coming days. Thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I forgot to ping you. Thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * can I upload an image that is 922*486 pixels or do I need to resize it? 922*486=453438 and 800*600=480000 so technically 922*486<800*600. I just wanted to makes sure that it’s not against Wikibooks policies. Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 10:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's OK, the limit is an advisory for a reason after all. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 10:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 10:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

A question about game manuals
Hey, I've recently joined, and would like to aid the games section by adding game manuals from various systems. Would game manuals fall under copyright, and would they even be allowed in the games section? Thank you in advance. -LocalHOI2Fan (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

 * What do you mean by "game manuals"? Do you mean the official documentation from the game manufacturer? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Leaderboard The manuals included with games that are sold physically (or sometimes included digitally) that include information on the games, (such as how to play them, online functionality, etc.) without typically giving the information a strategy guide or walkthrough would. -LocalHOI2Fan (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC) LocalHOI2Fan (discuss • contribs) 19:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, the documentation itself must be under a valid license (that is, it cannot be fair-use). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Leaderboard: So if I were to add game manuals, I would need to provide proof of owning the game and the manual? LocalHOI2Fan (discuss • contribs) 15:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , a valid licence doesn’t mean owning or not owning the game. What Leaderboard meant is the copyright of the manual. If you create something you automatically own it and people can’t copy and distribute it without your permission. If the developers of the game wrote that they allow all people to distribute it then you can upload it but I think Wikisource would be a more appropriate place for this. Fair use refers to a way to distribute copyrighted stuff legally under certain restrictions if it’s (you are allowed to quote few sentences in order to write a review for example). Most likely it’s copyrighted because the copyright even of the earliest games hasn’t expired yet. Still worth it to check about the specific game you want. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Btw, correct me if I’m wrong, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 12:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Did I upload properly
Hi, I have just uploaded File:Fireboy watergirl forest temple levels.png. Did I do it properly? And the author should be the one who created the screenshot, right? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry I forgot to ping. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 11:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes and yes. Looks fine to me. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 12:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Quality of writing
Hi, I have just recently written the page about the first level in FireBoy and Watergirl. Can you please check if it’s quality is good enough? If someone who never played this game sees it will they understand how to pass the level? Starting from this level things just get more complicated so if it’s not clear I prefer to know now and not later. Here’s the page: Fireboy and Watergirl in the Forest Temple/Level 1. Thanks in advance. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 08:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've went ahead and did my fair share of improving the page. This is what I can conclude for this page.

 * The first point of improvement is breaking up your text into paragraphs. Most likely the audience for these types of pages are teenagers/children. To improve the fluidity of the page, breaking the text into small paragraphs will be easier for a person who's new to the game and needs step-by-step instructions. Secondly, repetitive use of "then" is irritating to read. Vary your transitional words. Here's a really good list of transitional words: https://www.smart-words.org/linking-words/transition-words.html. Also, "just" is used way too many times. If a sentence sounds fine without "just", then you probably don't need to add that word. Thirdly, being specific is essential, especially for a step-by-step instructional guide. Using words like "it" as in "Just move it till it", and "one" in "the platform will go back up so the second player has to stand on the the second pink button in order to let the first one get up" is perplexing. What is "it"? What is "the first one"? I was confused when I stumbled on these sentences while editing the page. Fourthly, grammar needs to improve and typos need to be fixed. Statements like "Just move it till it touches the wall on the left and use to as a stepping stone..." and "...so the second player has to stand on the the second pink button..." are not what is expected from a quality page.

 * Other than that, I'm very much interested to see what other contributions you have! Thank you for your contributions and please reach out if you have any more questions. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you very much! I will take all your comments into consideration in future pages. About the buttons, I agree that it’s irritating. In this level it’s more or less ok since the design is simple - you just start from ten bottom and work your way up to the top, but other levels have more complicated designs, so I was wondering is it possible to add text on top of the image by any way except editing the image itself? I think it will be more convenient if the buttons are numbered and the text will refer to them as button number 1 and button number 2. I mean sort of like in London, if you press on the map you will see that the dot and the word “London” are not part of the image. Is it possible to add numbers in a similar way? Thank in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with your idea. It would be pretty helpful to include dots. I suggest maybe experimenting with similar templates (example, w:Template:Australia Labelled Map) in a sandbox. Use the documentation as a guide and cater it to your topic. I'm piled up with other matters at the moment, but I could assist with this after my examination period. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good luck with your exams! I will start experimenting with these templates in the sandbox. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 12:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I started experimenting with this in Fireboy and Watergirl in the Forest Temple/Level 1 but there’s a problem. From what I saw this problem isn’t visible in desktop view but if you go to mobile view you will see that almost half of the image is cut out. I couldn’t figure out what’s causing this problem. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have time, do you know what’s causing the problem? It’s a bit weird as the problem is only visible in Mobile View and not in Desktop View and that’s probably why the revisions were accepted by whoever reviewed the page. Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've cleaned up the syntax somewhat. Please see the documentation at Template:Image label begin or w:Template:Image label begin for the correct syntax. Also, this page is for proposals, ask technical questions at Reading room/Technical Assistance please. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 19:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

StrategyWiki
I don't appreciate one user importing strategywiki instead of building your own content. StrategyWiki is not a "fork" of wikibooks. Wikibooks kicked all strategy guides off the site almost 15 years ago. Since then many users decided to contribute to strategywiki directly. Your users importing content from us without any discussion is not something I would have expected from a reputable community like wikibooks. -- Prod (discuss • contribs) 22:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 * That's how free licensing works. As much as you may dislike it, it is not something you can change, even if it were valid to assume bad faith about local editors here. No discussion is required under the license and the imports are proceeding with the mechanisms that are provided to meet the terms of the license. Izno (discuss • contribs) 22:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right. These few users are targeting our "featured" guides. -- Prod (discuss • contribs) 22:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I did find one guide, Mario Adventure, that was deleted off StrategyWiki a few days ago, but is being allowed here. Since several of the guides originated from here & I try to attribute the sources (and nobody has shown significant opposition yet), I figured it wouldn't be an issue bringing them over. 2005-Fan (discuss • contribs) 00:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't do this. We have developed extensive tools and means of verification over the years that WB simply doesn't have, and is unlikely to invest in.  You are bringing information over that, as time goes by, is likely to be corrected and updated on our site, and readers here will not receive the benefit of those updates.  Over the years, we have defined StrategyWiki as a go-to source for video game wiki walkthroughs.  Bringing them here does no benefit to the video game community, it only potentially fractures that effort.  SW exists for a reason.  Duplicating the guides here serves no beneficial purpose.  ProcyonSW (discuss • contribs) 00:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 * The worst part about this, is that these guides are particularly reliant on the images that these guides include. SW is an extremely visual site.  You're pulling all of this text over without any of the accompanying images.  The readers of WB will be utterly confused and perplexed by the references that aren't present.  This whole effort is a gigantic mistake.  ProcyonSW (discuss • contribs) 01:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't mind restoring any of those guides that were outside StrategyWiki scope and having them moved here (Super Mario Forever, Koopa Kingdom Escape). I take issue with you targeting our most popular guides. -- Prod (discuss • contribs) 01:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We are not able to prevent the user from importing from strategywiki as long as the licences match, unless you get consensus from this community to prevent importation from StrategyWiki. There is little I can do myself as the licence does not prohibit importing. Same for images under Wikibooks' fair use policy. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 05:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I noticed above that mentioned about not wanting to compete with StrategyWiki. I'd love to hear their opinions on transwiking entire guides over.  point about creating competition for a guide is fine, as long as someone shows interest in maintaining the guide here, which is not what this user is doing.  -- Prod (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with transwiking or using content from other wikis. It's problematic, IMO, if the said content has been completed and polished almost to perfection in SW, and no significant changes in the content were made to differentiate it from the original. I think a better idea here is if Wikibooks writes the guide for an audience that StrategyWiki doesn't target. It seems SW writes guides for a general audience, so how about we focus on the specific ones? Like writing an RTA speedrun guide for Super Mario Bros. on the NES. Pandakekok9 (discuss • contribs) 01:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * From Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney The guide you are about to read was originally written on StrategyWiki, where it is the #1 most popular guide. Since July 3, 2021, it has also been included here at Wikibooks.
 * On StrategyWiki, this is a featured guide, meaning it meets our highest quality standards. Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Justice For All (also a featured guide on StrategyWiki) - transwiki'd. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (complete/stage 4 guide) - transwiki'd. The Legend of Zelda (stage 4 guide) - transwiki'd.
 * Rest of the Ace Attorney series: Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Trials and Tribulations (stage 4 guide), Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney (stage 4 guide), Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Dual Destinies (incomplete guide), Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Spirit of Justice (incomplete guide), Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth (stage 4 guide), Gyakuten Kenji 2 (stage 4 guide). Notice that the only ones transwiki'd are the ones which are complete that probably can't be improved much? This is targeted and this is problematic.
 * Speedrun? Sure write it, we might even link to it.
 * I ask that the community here decides if this is what you want, allow 2005-Fan to make the strategy guide section a mirror of StrategyWiki, or if you want to build your own content. As Jimbo and Leaderboard have said, it's up to the community here to decide how you wish to proceed. -- Prod (discuss • contribs) 05:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking all of yesterday on how to go about this & respond to both you and . In this edit summary I said that I'd make the Oracle games the last two that I'd directly import over (seeing as they go hand in hand with Link's Awakening, which has already been brought over). After reading some of you & Procyon's comments I felt a bit remorseful for directly adding too much, and there was a point raised that the ones that were added are yet to have their images added (I am still planning to add to those). If this continues Wikibooks could earn a reputation of having tons of imports & not enough original content. 2005-Fan (discuss • contribs) 11:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I did import Final Fantasy Mystic Quest some days ago, and that one is very incomplete, so it wasn't all the 100% guides. 2005-Fan (discuss • contribs) 11:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . Until the community decides if mirroring StrategyWiki is a good way to jump start wikibooks content, would it be possible to remove their import access? The original admin request was only for undeleting content. This goes beyond that "temporary admin" scope. -- Prod (discuss • contribs) 14:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I did ask for permission before doing additional tasks. 2005-Fan (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed you did, and if you had asked for importer access at RFP, I would have granted it. There's no limitation on importing compatible material from other sources - a large chunk of Wikibooks came from Wikipedia as well. I don't see any need for a community discussion about copying from another project - it is both implicitly and explicitly allowed and there is nothing in policy to suggest limitations should be imposed and that has been the case for more than ten years ("At Wikibooks you can request pages be imported. Any pages within our scope will then be imported if possible" sums it up nicely. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I may request importer after September 28, depending on how much I get done now. The only use I'd have for importer is for deleted/redirected Wikipedia gaming articles (a LOT of them), as I've relocated and recycled several of them here lately. 2005-Fan (discuss • contribs) 15:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The policy allows for clarification/amendement of what temporary admins are allowed to do by asking any permanent administrator, and 2005-Fan had asked me to confirm whether importing was OK. And I was fine with it, citing QuiteUnusual for rationale. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, and , it is easy to hide behind bureaucratic distinctions of what is, and is not allowed. Whether what 2005-Fan is doing is allowed or not is not being debated.  Everyone, including myself and  recognize that it is allowed and permitted.  I am still attempting to appeal to all of your sense of decency, in an effort to, as  suggested, convince you to stop.  We are asking you to examine whether it is truly in either of our sites' best interests to conduct yourselves in this manner by endorsing 2005-Fan's course of action.  I would argue that it's detrimental to SW and WB, for all of the reasons that I outlined below.   ProcyonSW (discuss • contribs) 22:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

 * That's what I am waiting for. As I said, I cannot comment on whether what 2005-Fan's action is "right" or not since I don't have a background in video games. Hence I am watching what others have to say. As I said to 2005-Fan on my talk page, to my end what he's doing is OK as I can only look from a policy point of view, it's others like you that have an issue and that's what we are discussing on. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid I take a different view. It isn't just allowed, it is positively encouraged. The reason for the creation of all the projects was to create and share knowledge as widely as possible. The choice of site licenses was deliberate to encourage the copying, with attribution, of information from other places. The correct, and "decent", thing to do is to proactively encourage the sharing of content to make it as widely available as possible to the community of humans. In my opinion your belief that it is "wrong" is striking against the whole principles of the free content movement (see the quote below from CC, the purpose of the license is to "encourage reuse", not to limit it). You are welcome to ask the community yourself. I'm just saying I'm not stopping editors doing the thing these projects were intended to do unless the community decides to ask them to stop. The default position is it is both allowed and encouraged. "Creative Commons is a global nonprofit organization that enables sharing and reuse of creativity and knowledge through the provision of free legal tools. Our legal tools help those who want to encourage reuse of their works by offering them for use under generous, standardized terms" . The team at strategywiki is more than happy to leverage other people's contributions, given for free, and those editors agreed to license the content for reuse. You might like to consider whether they agree with you that when they knowingly licensed the content that way, the "management" of the project might try and limit its use. You were also comfortable using other people's freely given contributions - such as MediaWiki. As such, I don't think you've got a case that the content shouldn't be reused. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 08:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We will clearly perpetually disagree about this. My perception of your position is that you are choosing to defend an ideology regardless of the negative consequences (to both sites, not just to SW).  But it's your position and I respect your right to it.  I suppose I would be a little less outraged if it wasn't just SW that content was being poached from.  There are dozens of video game guide wikis with a compatible license.  Unless I've failed to witness it, I haven't see you transwiki content from any of them.  You appear to be singling SW out.  On the one hand, I could be flattered that you chose our content over everyone else's. But at the end of the day, we're still the only ones being subject to this treatment, either because of some shared history between our sites, or because of certain users' personal vendettas against SW's network (and if you look into it, your Results May Vary).  So if sharing is so encouraged, where is all the sharing from other compatible sites?  Why is SW the only target?  I'd genuinely like an explanation to that question.  From any of you.  (Sorry, thought I was logged in...) ProcyonSW (discuss • contribs) 17:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It all depends on the editors that are working on the book. Indeed, as you say, importation can be done from any wiki with a valid licence, and no discrimination (other than the transwiki allowlist) is done at all. If 2005-Fan (or anyone for that matter) wants to import from another compatible site, we'll allow that (and they've been doing a lot of that from Wikipedia for example). There is no policy that "singles" StrategyWiki. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know it's not a policy. I know no one is directing users to transwiki SW.  But that still doesn't explain why this experience has been isolated to us.  ProcyonSW (discuss • contribs) 21:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You signed up to produce free content. Being annoyed when it (potentially) gets a signal boost because the content was copied is antithetical to the spirit and wording of the license itself. That content is free to reuse for any use whatsoever so long as credit is provided (i.e. the history page) and the reuser does not attempt to attach other terms for other users (or remove these two terms) (under CC BY SA, anyway). I'm sorry you feel you have been wronged, but that's just the reality of the situation. At the end of the day, it is absolutely "right", because that is both the legal and social contract you signed when you decided to contribute under the license in question.
 * As stated elsewhere, you have some options:
 * Do nothing. The content you originally produced may continue to make its way here. It may not continue to develop, in which case Google probably eats the Wikibooks version forever. It may develop negatively (vandalism) in which case your version remains preferred by the masses. It may develop in a way you do not like, in which case the most you can do is continue to do some modicum of work here to stop that. I doubt you will want to do that. Lastly, it might develop in ways that you appreciate and subsequently you can share those changes back to your wiki (with appropriate attribution).
 * Regardless of all those points, Wikibooks still is at some disadvantage with respect to non free media. Some parts of any imported content will need to change regardless.
 * At the end of the day, it is the readers that are important, and doing nothing is probably the best way to find out what the readers prefer. Consider that SW may not be the best way to present guidebook formatted game strategy. (Conversely, consider how the lack of non free media will be felt for Wikibooks - all evidence indicates that users really like pictures and video.)
 * Change your license for all future contributions. This may have the effects of shuttering your own shareability both to and from the wiki ecosystem and of decreasing the health of your own wiki. You however cannot change the license on the contributions already present, so I do not see this as practical for your purposes anyway...
 * Convince the users here to stop. So far, I haven't seen anything persuasive to indicate they should, at the end of the day. "I don't like it" is basically what your concern boils down to. Which has rarely stopped anyone.
 * As for "it splits the effort", maybe so, but I think StrategyWiki is far more guilty of that supposed issue in respect to the topics it covers than anything Wikibooks could ever do.
 * Finally, if you are producing the superior product, you have nothing to worry about. The almighty search algorithm cares most about where people go, and if the content is there for you, they will go there. I anticipate, accordingly, you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
 * (Sorry Wikibookians for stepping on any of you lot's toes.) Izno (discuss • contribs) 08:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all arguing whether this move is legal or not. Yes, the licensing permits this, and you are not the first to wholesale duplicate our work somewhere else.  At the very least I can praise you for having the decency to credit our authors for their effort, which is more than other sites have done.  I am directly appealing to your third point: convince users here to stop.  It is beyond "I don't like it."  If that were my only argument, I wouldn't bother.
 * I am all for the effort of information sharing. But, for example, at SW we chose not to duplicate an entire Pokedex because Bulbapedia has produced the best one anyone could possibly look for.  And we link directly to it.  We recognize that their effort far exceeds anything that we could produce (theoretically) so we didn't wholesale migrate it to SW.  In doing so, not only are we respecting their expertise in the matter, we are strengthening user's access to the best possible source of information.  WB isn't doing that.  There's no effort to send users to the best possible source, it's glory hoarding for the sake of "See? We have content too."  Bravo?  That's nothing to be proud of.  If you were really interested in supporting the gaming community, you'd join our efforts on StrategyWiki rather than pretend as if you are somehow a source for valuable gaming information.  If someone has a question about the content of our guides, and they ask it here, who's going to answer it?  You guys??  What are you going to do, forward the question on to us?  This kind of stuff happens almost every day, and over the past 15 years, we've built up the community to deal with it because this is our passion.  It seems like your only passion is amassing content.
 * "but I think StrategyWiki is far more guilty of that supposed issue"
 * I would absolutely love to hear your attempt to justify that statement. ProcyonSW (discuss • contribs) 13:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to discuss this too much because I don't like getting caught up in debates, but I do agree with that this is making a mountain out of a molehill. I will share my thoughts and opinion on this subject matter.
 * For one, wikis (provided you follow the licensing rules, such as Creative Commons or GFDL) are a group of volunteers who are creating content on a subject. There's a copyright disclaimer saying that you're putting your work out there to be redistributed by others. I've set up MediaWiki before, and it says something along the lines "if you don't want your content mercilessly edited or redistributed, do not submit it here." Nearly all wikis have been spun off from Wikipedia and have used it as a basis at one point or another. The fact that Wikipedia has a dual license makes it more flexible to reuse, as long as you properly attribute (which is common sense because we want to know who did the original work). If you were all for information sharing like you say you are, we wouldn't be arguing about this. A better idea would have been using the CC-BY-NC-SA license when you set up StrategyWiki back in 2006, as this license is incompatible with the Wikimedia Foundation wiki licenses.
 * I know you're talking about the StrategyWiki community, but can you speak for absolutely every single editor who has edited on the website? It's one thing if you created a guide yourself, but it's another thing to speak for every single editor (including inactive ones) like you "own" the wiki and its content. A wiki is a collaborative community effort -- no one should claim ownership over others' work. I'm beginning to think that your main incentive for posting is because you're concerned over losing site traffic, as I can't see why else you'd have a problem with content being redistributed, especially if attributed and credited properly.
 * Also, when you provided an example on Bulbapedia and its Pokedex, you were basically admitting to the restriction of some essential and valid game guide content simply because you think a community does it better. No group of people should be a gatekeeper of information. If Wikibooks allows Pokedex entries (provided no copying from Bulbapedia or some other external source with an incompatible license), then that would only help Wikibooks attract more editors because they would feel more free and that flexibility to add their own content rather than feel, "there's no need to because someone else already did it." Perhaps they have a different way in which they want to display the in-game data?
 * Also, I do play several types of video games (especially platformers, RPGs, and Warriors), so if someone had a question, I could probably answer it. There are two other users making a Link's Awakening 2019 guide and a South Park of Truth guide respectively. Are you going to tell the authors of those two guides that they are putting hollow content on the site? Let's say if the situation was reversed and you transwikied those pages back into your wiki. Perhaps the editors would mind, but the administrative staff of Wikibooks would not mind unless you don't properly attribute to Wikibooks. If I made a guide here, my own writing and all, go right ahead and take it if you want. It's there for others to benefit from.
 * I was late to the video game guide debate on Wikibooks myself (I wasn't here at the time), but if you had significant concerns or opposed the new policy, you could've let the community know back then. 2005-Fan (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was there, we didn't like it, and there wasn't much we could do. So we moved on. Procyon wrote large section of some of the guides you've transwiki'd. -- Prod (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Consider that SW may not be the best way to present guidebook formatted game strategy."
 * I also laugh at this. We have conducted extensive studies and surveys on this subject, and the current design of our guides is the result of those investigations.  We listen to our users routinely and are constantly implementing improvements to make our presentation as clear and intuitive as possible.  If you truly believed our format was so ill-conceived, you wouldn't be trying to pass said work off as your own.  ProcyonSW (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Then why did I say on the Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney article that it is listed on StrategyWiki as the #1 most popular guide? As for an earlier comment about the images, it takes a lot of time to add them, especially when manually entering a summary and a non-free use rationale. Nearly all of the Zelda: Ocarina of Time ones have been added, and Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney ones have all been added. 2005-Fan (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, I didn't want to say this, in an effort to not appear callous, but I'm honestly less concerned about you stealing our traffic. We've put a lot of work into SW and earned our position in the search engines.  I don't really think WB is going to make much of a dent in that.  That's not why I'm concerned.  What I'm concerned with is there's already so many options for video game wikis who specialize in video games.  Could we rip each other's work?  Absolutely, as you've said, there's nothing stopping that as long as the licenses are compliant.  Do we do it?  No.  We stand on the merits of what we have to offer, and send people to relevant sources of information when the opportunity presents itself.
 * You've lifted entire guides from our site. You've modified the content to better fit your site's formatting, but you haven't really made an improvements to them.  And if someone comes across one of our guides on your site, finds a point that needs updating or clairifcation, and decides to contribute that nugget of info here, are you going to then retroactively apply that piece of information on our site?  Of course you're not.  Nor is the person who authored that content because, in all likelihood, that person isn't going to take the time to discover where that content originated.  They see it here, they fix it here.
 * We've spent years making SW a welcome home for authors passionate about sharing video game information with the general internet population, all out of sheer willingness to share the information and collaborate. You could just join us over there, collaborate with us and help improve the site, but you're not.  Instead you're diluting the effort that we've put into making SW a home for such authors all so that you can say, "Look, we have game guides too!"
 * Cool, you've got a Link's Awakening guide going that you established yourselves. I wish you felt like SW would be a good platform to develop that guide on, but you don't.  So be it.  But at least that's your guide.  And sure, other sites are going to rip it and further dilute the effort, but we're not going to be a part of that because it's antithetical to what we're trying to achieve.  At the end of the day, I can't stop you.  You seem hell bent on proceeding with your plan to transwiki from us whether it's actually a good idea or not.  But at least have the decency to be honest about why you're doing it.  You want WB to have some relevance in this area so you're grabbing the best content available in order to climb the ladder without doing any of the work.  Good for you if you can accomplish that.  Bad for everyone else.  ProcyonSW (discuss • contribs) 16:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am the current primary author of the Wikibook The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (2019 video game). I would like to make it clear that this book was not entirely developed here, as one page was imported from StrategyWiki during the import process. You can view this page here. Credit is given to StrategyWiki in the references footnote of this article of course, and such credit was given prior to the start of this discussion as you can see in the page history. I have no desire to harm StrategyWiki or it's community. Quite the opposite, I personally would much rather StrategyWiki flourish over the inflexible static and commercial guides which have dominated the industry since it's inception. That said there are good reasons I picked WikiBooks for this guide, namely because I don't intend this guide to be for gamers specifically (Though it can certainly be used that way). Plenty of guides with that purpose already exist, and I would bring nothing new or exceptional to the table there. Indeed, I consider my writing subpar compared to more seasoned authors of strategy guides at the moment. I want this guide to be for students of media and popular culture, as well as for other non traditional gamers who may use it in some media centric study. As such I have taken an approach which tries to make the writing style of the guide more accessible over a traditional strategy guide, as well as include notes on game design, and real world influences as encouraged by the Strategy guides guidelines. Currently this book is in development and these haven't been incorporated as much as I've planned, but writing a strategy guide, or any book, is a significant undertaking and is hard work (I'm sure you are quite aware of this!). Under the StrategyWiki guidelines, such fluff is explicitly discouraged and that's ideal for a wiki focused on strategy guides because fluff like this does reduce it's utility to gamers just trying to beat the game. If you are interested, I would be more then happy to help transwiki the guide to StrategyWiki once complete, and to make a version without such fluff to make a version more suitable for gamers and StrategyWiki guidelines. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 20:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I actually love the idea of what you're trying to achieve. And you're correct, as you've described it, it wouldn't quite be at home at SW, but I'm very curious to see how your work turns out, and to see if there are any lessons to be learned about how to make our guides more accessible as well.  If you'd like to trasnwiki it to SW, sans the "fluff" we'd welcome your contributions.  I'm not anti-competition for the sake of having "sole domain" over video game guides.  Heaven knows we have plenty of competition on that front, and we're a bit of a David to Curse Inc.'s Goliath.  I wish you the best of luck with your guide, and hope it serves the audience you're seeking to address.  ProcyonSW (discuss • contribs) 21:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll send a ping when it's more developed. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 21:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, companion guides for "see this design decision" would be amazing and are currently outside our scope. I remember watching a video about the game design behind the first level of Super Mario Bros. (this link goes into detail, I don't remember the original source). Having books like this that went over some of these concepts throughout games would fall inline perfectly with wikibooks existing focus, and would pair perfectly with StrategyWiki guides. -- Prod (discuss • contribs) 23:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 * While my following reason is purely based on layout and cosmetics, I also like the look of Wikimedia Foundation wikis (vector and monobook, mainly the latter) more than StrategyWiki's default layout. 2005-Fan (discuss • contribs) 21:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * False flag argument: you can very easily change SW's presentation to vector and monobook at will. See the thumbnail.  ProcyonSW (discuss • contribs) 21:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I do seem to be focused a lot on default site design & how most others would perceive it 2005-Fan (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Meriyakatariya8859@2005-Fan 2401:4900:4110:5FE7:5A23:1B6A:EB19:3CCC (discuss) 22:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not too terribly important to the topic at hand though, right? Besides, on most MediaWiki sites anyone can make the appearance whatever they want in their preferences. On this topic through, StrategyWiki does have the functional advantage of being able to make it's sidebar wholly optimized for gaming contents by default. As I said earlier, Wikibooks and StrategyWiki have different objectives, and that's fine.--Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 21:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Of the imported strategywiki guides, I happen to own most of the games that have guides with substantial amounts of content. I don't think most readers or editors are particularly sentimental over stubs. Would it resolve this whole issue if I just started writing a bunch of new guides from scratch? It would be a lot of work and take a lot of time, but I'm willing to do it if it puts this to rest. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If 2005-Fan had merely restored all the deleted content here, cleaned it up, Maybe imported a few updated pages with the latest changes, we would have had 0 issues. I would love to see original content being built here.
 * By targeting our most high quality guides, they made it personal. I know a number of small independent gaming wikis who are watching this discussion closely. This discussion has not been encouraging to them. Prod (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The most high quality guides were prob because they were of the most popular games. I actually did the Ace Attorney ones upon request from someone else. I was mainly focused on the Mario, Zelda, and Final Fantasy ones (to fill in gaps and compensate for those 15 years lost). I typed above that I'll stop importing, and I haven't done the Pokemon or MapleStory guides (which I see are featured ones as well). I see your Luigi's Mansion guide is at 100%, but I started a fresh one at Luigi's Mansion just days ago (although it currently only talks about the ghosts, which itself is from a redirected Wikipedia article). I keep planning but haven't gotten around to building up a Fire Emblem Warriors guide yet. 2005-Fan (discuss • contribs) 19:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

--Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 01:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think it would work, but for the codes I didn’t use . I added a space at the beginning of every line. Is there a way to imitate this effect? -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Anybody? Do you know if it’s possible? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nvm, I managed. Also I don’t think it has to be the same color as in the editor as it looks better that way and there will have to be screenshots regardless. -Gifnk dlm 2020 Merry Christmas 🎄(talk) 09:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Shelf:Grand Theft Auto
In Shelf:Electronic games, there are 4 books about Grand Theft Auto, so I suggest to create a shelf for the franchise. -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Shelf:Grand Theft Auto Done! Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 02:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄⛄🎇 (talk) 08:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)