Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals

Welcome to the Proposals reading room. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about suggestions for improving Wikibooks.

Do we really need FlaggedRevs?

I know that's kind of a "central" part of Wikibooks, but for mainspace articles, I'm seeing it as unnecessary. The reason is that by default, we set mainpage articles to show the latest revision by default, which means that there isn't any benefit for the average user. The exception is for the Wikijunior namespace, where we set the default version as the last reviewed one, and I think FlaggedRevs is useful there.

My proposal would hence be to discontinue use of FlaggedRevs on the mainspace - I don't see it as a particularly useful benefit here and personally only causes unnecessary overhead. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Keeping it is highly desirable imho, yes. There's a vast amount of sorting-out-of-what-isn't-vandalism contained in the revision state of pages. The information expressed by a review of a single revision of a page would be difficult to reproduce (the judgments involved are highly context-dependent, so one has to immerse oneself in the specific situation-as-was to figure one what was going on), and when you multiply that by the number of pages involved the cumulative value is staggering. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Highly desirable per Pi zero. I've done a fair bit of anti-vandalism work, and I find it invaluable to do so; since I don't have many pages on my watchlist its my main tool. Without FlaggedRevs I think that I would have difficulty in maintaining this work, as no other tools exist that I know of that would take its place. Sure you could use Special:RecentChanges, but it would be a lot harder to sort the pages. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Enabling blocking in abuse filter

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Start allowing game strategies

Proposal

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Discussion

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Implementation

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Please contribute to the below sections.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

Well then I guess I Support🤷🏻‍♂️. 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)

@Mrjulesd: I agree with him, presenting the rules to discuss would be useful. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard, Gifnk dlm 2020: do you have any specific ideas on how that could be done? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd:, 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Mrjulesd:, 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: "Games in a series should be part of the same book." 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 @ElfSnail123: mentioned in the original discussion at Wikibooks: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)

┌─────────────────────────────┘
@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

• Support new policy per Mrjulesd.

AnotherEditor144 ^{t - c} 08:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support 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)

@Atcovi:, I agree with your reasoning, but as me and @Leaderboard: replied to @Mrjulesd:, 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: per request. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Atcovi: has this project ever had a notability guideline at all? Wikibooks: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)

@Mrjulesd:, 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)

┌───────────────────┘
@Gifnk dlm 2020: "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)

@Leaderboard:, 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)

@Mrjulesd: and @Gifnk dlm 2020:, I recommend you draft a policy at Wikibooks: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)

@Leaderboard: 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). @Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Leaderboard:, 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

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Please contribute to the below sections.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

---

See Wikibooks: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)

@Mrjulesd:, 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Mrjulesd:, 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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 w:Minecraft, all the images there are non-free. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: and @Mrjulesd:, 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)

@Mrjulesd, Leaderboard:, 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Mrjulesd:, 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Mbrickn:, 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)

@Mbrickn: do add it if you like. To frank I was trying to keep it short as we already have Wikibooks:Media. But looking at these comments has persuaded me that it needs to be explicit, Wikibooks:Media is comprehensive but I don't think is particularly understandable. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Leaderboard:, I see. Thanks for clarifying. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: please see the current draft at Wikibooks:Strategy_guides#Only_include_significant_games. --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)

@Jusjih:, 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 Strategywiki: 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)

@Jusjih:, 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)

@Jusjih: 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)

@Mrjulesd: 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 importupload 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Jusjih: 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)

@Jusjih, Mrjulesd, Leaderboard:, 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)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Jusjih, Gifnk dlm 2020, Leaderboard: 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 @Mrjulesd: 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 w: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 <date>" 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)

@Mrjulesd, Leaderboard:, 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: You can create the templates now. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 20:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard:, I have created template:InactiveOnlineGame. Does it need documentation? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Leaderboard:, 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020:, looks fine by me. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 08:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard:, thank you very much! Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"never been allowed"

@Leaderboard:, 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 Wikibooks:Reading room/General, PiZero pointed out that in the past they were allowed but deleted following this discussion. Also, in Wikibooks: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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Leaderboard:, 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020:, Does Jules' update to the draft help? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard:, 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)

@Mrjulesd:, 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Leaderboard:, yeah that’s probably a better idea. Never mind the suggestion. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Mrjulesd:, 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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 Wikibooks:Game strategies and Wikibooks:Video game strategies should redirect to Wikibooks:Strategy guides. Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 13:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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 Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines or Template:Wikibooks policies and guidelines. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: I've have to agree with Jules here. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd, Leaderboard:, I see. Thank you very much. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 08:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Closing discussion?

@Leaderboard: 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)

@Mrjulesd: 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Leaderboard:, 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)

@Leaderboard: Excellent! Sorry, what is #wikimedia-1? Is that an IRC channel? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: It's the main mailing list (https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: ah I'm not a subscriber. Although perhaps I could become one. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 07:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Leaderboard:, thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 09:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Post-closure discussions

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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Leaderboard:, 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)

@Encik Tekateki: 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 Wikibooks: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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Mrjulesd:, 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: Wikibooks: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)

@Mrjulesd:, 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 <quiz display="simple"> {What is ROBLOX? |type="[]"} + A website where the content is produced by users (a user-generated website) || 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. - A website that gives information on a particular topic (an informational website) + A platform for developing games (a game development platform) || ROBLOX can be used as a game development platform because users can use the ROBLOX game engine to develop games. + A website for hosting games (a game host) || 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)

@Mrjulesd: and @Gifnk dlm 2020:, 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)

@Leaderboard: and@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Mrjulesd: 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)

@Leaderboard: 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)

@Mrjulesd, Leaderboard: 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Leaderboard:, 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Leaderboard:, 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 Wikibooks: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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: What are the differences? I presume walkthroughs would be describing the journey of a game? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard:, exactly. After seeing your comment, I researched a bit more into the difference between a strategy and a walkthrough, and in w:Strategy guide, it’s written: “Strategy guides are instruction books that contain hints or complete solutions to specific video games. The line between strategy guides and walkthroughs is somewhat blurred, with the former often containing or being written around the latter. Strategy guides are often published in print, both in book form and also as articles within video game magazines. In cases of exceptionally popular game titles, guides may be sold through more mainstream publication channels, such as bookstores or even newsstands. Some publishers also sell E-Book versions on their websites.”. In w:Video game walkthrough it’s written: “A video game walkthrough is a guide aimed towards improving a player's skill within a particular video game and often designed to assist players in completing either an entire video game or specific elements. Walkthroughs may alternatively be set up as a playthrough, where players record themselves playing through a game and upload or live-stream it to the internet. Walkthroughs may be considered guides on helping to enhance the experience of players, to assist towards unlocking game achievements or simply as a means to socialise with like-minded individuals as a distraction from everyday life.”. 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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: Contextual significance. Non-free media are used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in question, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. 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)

@Mrjulesd, Leaderboard:, 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Mrjulesd:, 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: 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)

@Mrjulesd:, sorry, I forgot to ping you. Thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd, Leaderboard: 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: It's OK, the limit is an advisory for a reason after all. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 10:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: 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)

@LocalHOI2Fan: 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)

@LocalHOI2Fan: 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)

@LocalHOI2Fan:, 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)

@Mrjulesd, Leaderboard: sorry I forgot to ping. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 11:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: Yes and yes. Looks fine to me. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: 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)

@Atcovi: 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 w: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)

@Mrjulesd, Leaderboard, Atcovi: 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)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: Done 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 Wikibooks:Reading room/Technical Assistance please. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: 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)

@Izno, Prod, ProcyonSW, 2005-Fan: 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 @Pandakekok9, Mrjulesd: mentioned about not wanting to compete with StrategyWiki. I'd love to hear their opinions on transwiking entire guides over. @Gifnk dlm 2020: 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. Prod (discuss • contribs) 04:39, 13 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:

1. 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.)
2. 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...
3. 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)

@ProcyonSW: I don't want to discuss this too much because I don't like getting caught up in debates, but I do agree with @Izno: 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 Wikibooks: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 @Mbrickn:, 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)

You can view SW in Monobook

@Mbrickn: 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)

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)

New reply tool and VisualEditor

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Is Wikibooks:Media#Non-free use to restrictive?

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Done, there is sufficient support to make this official. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

---

I've been looking at Wikibooks:Media#Non-free use, and to me it seems over restrictive. In particular it says:

The inclusion of non-free media files is strongly discouraged and must only be used when:

1. Free license or public domain alternatives aren't available;
2. Creating a free licensed or public domain alternative is not an option;
3. Books are enhanced by related media being used;
4. A reasonable rationale has been given for using a non-free media file; and
5. Deleting a non-free media file would render a book unusable.

Now my big issue is with point 5, as it seems to almost completely ban the use of non-free media in books. After all, it could be argued that any book is usable without media, although of course that would be highly detrimental: but it would still be usable of course. I don't know how much this has been applied in practice, but for me (unless I am misunderstanding something) it suggests that it would be almost impossible to use non-free media.

Point 2 is also difficult, as it could be argued that any non-free media could be independently replicated to some degree. Again this suggests to me at least an almost complete ban.

Now I contribute to English Wikipedia, and they have a similar policy at w:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, which is used in templates such as w:Template:Non-free use rationale 2. To me this seems a lot easier to work through, and is presumably not illegal as its been used countless times for the project. In a nutshell it says this:

1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material.
3. Minimal usage.
   1. Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
   2. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace
4. Previous publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor.
5. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
6. Media-specific policy. Non-free content meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.
7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.
8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
9. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following: (see policy)

To me this seems particularly superior, and could be adapted for this project. Any views on this? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: How about simply remove point 5? That point is ambiguous anyway, because it does not define what "unusable" mean. With regards to point 2, I don't think that sounds like a complete ban. All that is saying is that if a free alternative exists, use that instead, and sounds sensible to me.

I am not in particular praise with Wikipedia's policy, mainly their point 3. I get very irritated when I see computer screenshots (which are usually fair-use) that are reduced in resolution by some DatBot (if I recall correctly). The problem is that in many cases, this reduction in resolution (unless manually overturned) loses important and crucial fidelity. The rest seem similar to Wikibooks, only a bit more detailed. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: thanks those are really good points. Maybe getting rid of Wikibooks point 5 would solve it. With Wikibooks point 2, maybe it could be amended to "Obtaining a free licensed or public domain alternative is not an option"? I think that's probably what it was meant to mean anyway.

Also instead of Wikibooks point 5, we could simply explain what a "A reasonable rationale" means in a little more detail. One way of doing it might be by saying "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material." and "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

Also I think we should get rid of "The inclusion of non-free media files is strongly discouraged and must only be used when: " and replace it with "The inclusion of non-free media files should be done with caution, and must only be used when: " --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mrjuiesd: Your suggestion looks fine to me. @QuiteUnusual: because I know you had expressed concern over the policy not being detailed enough. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

With some modification, I prefer the Wikipedia policy as it provides lots of detail, and is pretty unambiguous. It also makes it look like the policy has been thought through to ensure it is legally compliant - I don't think ours does. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: I've been thinking about this a bit, and one possible way forward would be to adopt the Wikipedia policy but to make a modification about resolution. We could say instead "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate should be used, if this is adequate for the purpose of the media". This suggests a default of low-res, but gives some flexibility if this is inadequate (e.g. high-res screenshots from Visual Studio, if high-res was needed to read the text). Any thoughts? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: That is OK with me (I personally prefer removing the resolution part since the benefit of keeping a low resolution is dubious, or alternatively discourage high-res instead of forcing low-res), I wonder if or whether that's the only modification @QuiteUnusual: had in mind. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I meant modified to deal with the concerns you raised earlier re. image resolution plus any wording that doesn't align with Wikibooks (e.g, substituting "one article" for "once per page" or "once in a book"). QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 12:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────┘
@Leaderboard: I really think we need some restriction on resolution. Consider the following scenario: strategy guides take off here, and some high-res screenshots are locally uploaded. Now its pretty unlikely, but conceivably the copyright holder could sue the WMF for copyright infringement. Now this would be a disaster; but if most media here was low-res this would be very much less likely to happen.

Now possible phrasing would be something like Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used, unless legibility could interfere with the medias' purpose. which would give some leeway for higher-res if needed. Another thing we could do is have a "grandfather clause" for media already uploaded, e.g. say the policy from 1 April 2021 is as follows. Any thoughts? (also QuiteUnusual) --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd:, must all screenshots be low res? Also, what is the maximum resolution that they can be? Btw, I agree with your suggestion to remove rule 5. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 11:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: Firstly, I'm only talking about non-free media uploaded locally; if you can get an c:Commons:OTRS release for screenshots it wouldn't apply. Secondly, I'm saying that media should be in low res unless there is a need for high res, for example elements aren't legible unless it is high res. Another option would be to crop an image, so a low-res image is again sufficient.

Under the proposal, there wouldn't be a maximum resolution, but rather the onus would be on the uploader to keep resolutions low if possible. A low res image typically wouldn't be more than about 500pxX500px, which is large enough for most purposes; and of course this could be made big using the image options; and also a high-res image could be cropped to show details, making it low-res. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: Honestly I was thinking to keep that limit at 800 * 600 atleast; 500px would be a lower bound. I think sufficient fidelity would be retained at that resolution. I am OK with discouraging unnecessarily high resolution images (such as Full HD or higher) in general though. How about something like this: "The resolution of the image should generally not be above 800 * 600px, however, this is not absolute and higher resolution images may be uploaded with rationale." Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 14:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: that sounds fine. How about this Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate should generally be used for media. The resolution of media should generally not be above 800px by 600px; however, this is not absolute, and higher resolution media may be uploaded with a reasonable rationale. And the rest would be basically the same as en.wp policy, with minor changes. How does that sound? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: That looks OK to me. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose we replace Wikibooks:Media#Non-free use with the text at Wikibooks:Media/sandbox.

Please correct it if you feel it's necessary, but abstain from major changes unless you discuss here first.

• Support as proposer. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support looks good for me. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 07:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 08:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Looks good ! But will the depository here are separate entity from Wikimedia Commons ? Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 11:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Separate from Commons, but part of this wiki, as wikis already have the capability to upload locally; this is just an updated policy for it. For examples see Category:Non-free files, it contains locally uploaded files. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

You have my Support Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 14:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment Hi, I try the Upload Files function on the left bar BUT it leads me to Wikimedia Commons . Is there any way to upload to Wikibooks depository? Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 03:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Encik Tekateki:, you'll need to go to Special:Upload instead. That being said, it will not work for you yet because you don't have uploader, and you'll need to request it at WB:RFP, where it can be given by any admin. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Add autopatrol to Wikibooks:Autoreviewed_users

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

importupload for Wikibooks

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Proposal to update Wikibooks:Card Catalog Office with Wikibooks:Card Catalog Office/sandbox

I've been working on a new page for Wikibooks:Card Catalog Office, which I have created at Wikibooks:Card Catalog Office/sandbox. Its rather more detailed, and it combines elements of Wikibooks Stacks/Departments with that of the present page.

When visitors first visit the site, the most likely way they're going to search is by going to "browse" on the left sidebar. Hopefully this page will be more engaging and give a better sense of where to find content than the current page. Any views are most welcome. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Leaderboard:. Another thing I was thinking of doing was to raise Shelf:Recreational activities to Department:Recreational activities. It seems to me that this is the most popular shelf in Department:Miscellaneous, so it makes sense to give it more prominence. I've been studying the Wikibooks Stacks a fair bit, and I think it is actually very easy. I think what you need to do is:

1. Update Wikibooks:Card Catalog Office.
2. Create: "Department: Recreational activities" and "Category:Department:Recreational activities" with the relevant templates
3. "Shelf:Recreational activities", "Shelf:Collecting", "Shelf:Games", "Shelf:Outdoor recreation", "Shelf:Physical fitness", "Shelf:Tourism", "Shelf:Arts and crafts": migrate parent=Miscellaneous to parent=Recreational activities
4. "Shelf:Athletic games", "Shelf:Board games", "Shelf:Card games", "Shelf:Electronic games", "Shelf:Game design" are already subshelves of Games, so wont need migration.
5. Rebuild these shelves through purging.

Any thoughts? If it didn't work it would be easy to reverse. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 10:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Update on my work

I have made some changes that I would like to advertise:

• I have created a new department, Department:Recreational activities, which was previously a shelf. This means that Shelf:Games is more visible.
• I have updated Wikibooks:Card Catalog Office and Wikibooks Stacks/Departments; they now use CSS flexbox, and should display ok on smartphones.
• I have created Wikibooks Stacks/Adding books and Wikibooks Stacks/Detailed structure, which should help with understanding of Stacks.
• I have updated Main Page with more departments, using CSS flexbox for smartphone rendering.
• Miscellaneous changes here and there.

As a general point, I'm learning more about Wikibooks Stacks, although I don't fully understand it I'm getting more aware of how it can be manipulated. I think I might manipulate Stacks further, I am concerned about smartphone rendering on pages. I imagine many users are put off by this, as most users today use mobile devices to access websites.

Any comments are welcome. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove flood flag from own account

What do you think about the suggestion to give a user who has the flood flag the permission to remove it from his own account? This way users could remove the flood flag themselves when they are done and not have to ask a bureaucrat for doing so. Regards --Zabe (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Zabe: sysops can remove the flood flag from their own account when they are done, and hence there is no need to ask a bureaucrat (who can still remove the flood flag from anyone if needed). Is there something I'm missing? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 12:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for new Main Page

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Eager inexperienced editors

Since the beginning of the year the Oberon book has received the attention of two eager but inexperienced editors. Scanning interactively or by automation, small syntax errors were found and within 24 hours, several pages were edited. In most cases the changes were helpful. Closing an open tag, adding the BookCat template at the bottom of a page & etc. In a few cases damage occurred. For example </div> was added at the end of a heading when it belonged at the end of the page. Consequently the default font of the page became the Wikimedia default rather than the font attribute in the opening <div ...>.

One such edit is easily reviewed and approved or corrected. When a dozen or more edits occur in 24 hours, review, with correction of erroneous edits, can become a sizeable burden.

Regrettably in my two cases, explaining the difficulties resulted in the editors reverting all of their edits. Not a good outcome. Currently I can imagine two possibilities to improve the circumstances.

(1) Protect pages.

(2) When an editor is new to a book, require an interval between edits. For example, after a first edit to a book, require at least a week before a 2nd edit is allowed. As edits accumulate, the interval can decrease.

In my view, administration required for protection is excessive. The interval between edits seems a workable possibility. What other ideas are there?

Regards, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 13:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@PeterEasthope: I've got a counter-proposal; how about fixing the lint errors on your book? The reasons you're geting these problems (as far as I can see) is that the book has lint errors, meaning that well-meaning but maybe inexperienced editors try to fix them, but cause problems in doing so. See Special:LintErrors for the special page; there are also help pages at mw:Help:Extension:Linter and w:Wikipedia:Linter. If you get stuck, please ask at Wikibooks:Reading room/Technical Assistance. If you fix the lint errors then things might sort themselves out. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, will learn to use the lint tools, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but do ask if you need help. For example, to check the lint errors for a particular page, go to page and click on the "Page information" link on the tools section of the left sidebar. If there are any lint errors on the page it will show there at the bottom of the "page information" page. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Commented out the first closing span tag in my sandbox copy of HTMLDoc.Mod. Sure enough "Page information" shows "Lint errors, Missing end tag, 1". Will work through the pages, hunting errors. Thx, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 17:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@PeterEasthope: I think I've fixed it. If you have any more queries please ask. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Image-linking with regards to licensing

Hi everyone,

I'd like to bring the following discussion to your attention: c:Special:Permanentlink/559354101#Question_about_licensing_–_fulfilling_different_licensing_requirements.

I was asking about linking images and licensing, and did get an answer with information I wasn't aware of. I took a quick look at your image-help and did not find a corresponding hint either. So maybe you'd like to add information about this to your help pages. I will do so for german wikibooks.

Best regards --HirnSpuk (discuss • contribs) 11:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

HirnSpuk I apologize for seeing this so late. At the link you posted you made an interesting point about physical book and ebook licensing. I think instead of manual attribution, which is unsustainable to do accurately on larger works and error prone, it may be best if a template were developed which automatically handles attribution at the end of a book for all used assets using machine readable tags on commons. I'm unsure if this is truly a good approach or if there are better ideas though - Just what came to mind. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 00:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Mbrickn, no need to apologize :-)... I need to, because I forgot to clearly mention, what's the problem: Images usually may not be linked, because licensing-requirements are lost that way. There even might be problems, when printing content.

I like the idea of machine readable tags, though I'm not skilled enough to even remotely jugde how this might be feasible and what benefits it could bring. In svg you can attribute within the file pretty easy, though I don't know if anybody uses this.

I was playing with the Cite-Extension to do something similar. Though it needs manual work. If you take a look at this edit: b:de:Special:Diff/prev/960255. For now I didn't make a Template out of this, it was just simple playing around.

Maybe all Wikibooks could team up and talk about a "possible solution" (assuming this is some kind of a problem), so we could present something to the mediawiki developers and/or to commons with one voice? This might be interesting to other Wikiprojects as well (thinking about e. g. Wikivoyage)?

Best regards --HirnSpuk (discuss • contribs) 08:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Creating subshelves for Electronic Games

Now that there are a few strategy guides on WikiBooks, I've realized that Shelf:Electronic games, a shelf which predates the recent decision, is getting a bit cluttered by vastly different book types. I propose creating two subshelves to help readers find material relevant to their interests.

• Strategy Guides for specific games.
• Electronic Game Development (Concerning development of video games, idea for WikiBooks like Game Creation with the Unity Game Engine, Creating a Simple 3D Game with XNA, ETF Mapping, Game Creation with XNA and How to Mod Civ 4)

There are a few edge cases that don't fit neatly into either subshelf, such as History of video games as well as Metal Gear Series, which is closer to Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter in format then a strategy guide. A third potential subshelf might include guides to simulation games/tools which existed on Wiki-Books prior to the strategy guide decision such as Trainz, X-Plane Flight Simulator, SimCity and Urban Planning and 0 A.D., but as these are the only current items in this category, I'm unsure if it's currently warranted.

Thank you for your time and consideration! --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 00:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mbrickn: thanks for sharing your thoughts! I was thinking of this idea but decided to let it of until more books are written. There are only two books about Minecraft and I don’t think a shelf with only two books is worth creating. However, it seems there are 4 books about Mario so I Support creating Shelf:Mario, Shelf:Mario franchise, Shelf:Mario video games, or whatever. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 12:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not mind this proposal either. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 14:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I worded that poorly, though I'm glad I did because your idea is intriguing. I was simply proposing a general strategy guide shelf, to contain strategy guides as a whole separately from other electronic game content. However I do think some larger series would benefit from their own shelves, as you mentioned. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 19:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mbrickn: It’s possible to have both. Like there’s Shelf:History by continent, it’s possible to have Shelf:Books about electronic games by series (surely there’s a better way to word it). Then it’s possible also to have Shelf:Strategy guides. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 10:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gifnk dlm 2020:That makes sense. I think I would arrange it like such (Using Mario and Final Fantasy as placeholder series):

• Electronic Games
  • Game Development
  • Strategy Guides
    • Mario Series
    • Final Fantasy Series

or with an extra shelf

• Electronic Games
  • Game Development
  • Strategy Guides
    • Strategy Guides by Series
      • Mario Series
      • Final Fantasy Series

What do you think? Thanks you for your input! --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mbrickn: I think it’s over all a good idea but with a small problem. There can be books about Mario series and Final Fantasy Series that aren’t necessary strategy guides (for example books about the history of these games). That’s why I suggest the following categorization:

• Electronic games
  • Game development
  • Strategy Guides
  • Games by Series/franchise
    • Final Fantasy Series
    • Mario Series
    • Minecraft
    • Pokemon Series
    • ...

That being said I think franchise is better than series since not all notable games are part of a series. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 20:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I see! That makes more sense, and I Support your version as you have laid out.--Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 20:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, but how about simply:

• Electronic games
  • Game development
  • Strategy guides
  • Final Fantasy
  • Super Mario
  • Minecraft
  • Pokemon
  • ...

Slightly simplified would be better I feel. We can put (say) a Final Fantasy book on both the Strategy guides and Final Fantasy shelves, if both are applicable.

Also, I feel maybe we should rename "Shelf:Electronic games" to "Shelf:Video games"? Although they aren't synonyms, the books we currently have all fit the description of video games (from looking through them earlier). It's a name that's more commonly used. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. I'd Support that as well. Very versatile. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 00:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I just realized I overlooked Shelf:Game design somehow, which while not quite the same as Game Development, is being used as a shelf for that topic in common use. It already exists, so there's no need for a seperate Game Development shelf.

Oh yeah, it exists but should be in Shelf:Electronic games and not in Shelf:Games. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 08:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment there are 10 books about Mario. I suggest to create a shelf for Mario games.-Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 06:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mbrickn:, I think we shouldcreate a shelf called electronic games by series that will work sort of like how Shelf:History by continent works. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

That may work. I've been thinking and perhaps it may be best to have some sort of list of popular culture series instead of limiting them to games alone. For example, there is Guide to The Lord of the Rings, analyzing the books, but there are also over a dozen video games based on the series as well, in addition to board games, movies, etc. This would be of potential value to someone studying popular culture. Combined with the organizational style proposed by User:Mrjulesd would offer more flexibility for authors of Wikibooks on other related subjects. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

OpenStax/Wikibooks Collaboration?

OpenStax seems to be on a similar trajectory with a lot of the textbooks in similar subjects to that on Wikibooks. What if we were to share resources in between and complete some of the books on our end, and help begin some of theirs, or we gain some additional editors/people who could assist in making the books. I know this is a bit of a far-out idea, but I could look into it if it seems like a remotely good idea. Also, I'm a new user because I'm intrigued by the project, and so my lack of knowledge and general experience is very present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addy135 (talk • contribs)

@Addy135: Please explain your proposal further. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

OpenStax has a lot of funding and editors for their work, and its typically for free use (aside from printed publication prices from them). If Wikibooks were to partner with them, there could be additional funding and editors creating books over here at Wikibooks possibly? I'm not really too sure on this idea and I'll have to come back to it later. Addy135 (discuss • contribs) 07:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Addy135: I am not sure how exactly you want Wikibooks to partner - some examples would be helpful. Any freely-licensed book can be imported here after all. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 08:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok. I'll look more into it. How would I close this section? Addy135 (discuss • contribs) 03:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Reading room discussions aren't really closed per say. They typically go into an archive from what I understand once discussion has stopped and someone decides to sweep the room, like Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals/2021/January. I'm relatively new to editing Wikibooks, but I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. :) --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 22:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

As per working with OpenStax content in Wikibooks, there are a few things to note. Organizational partnering (In terms of sharing resources officially, etc.) is something that's a bit out of my depth, but it would probably require community consensus, and possibly the consent of the Wikimedia foundation and Rice University, which manages OpenStax depending on the exact nature of the collaboration. However, as Leaderboard points out, we are mostly free to import OpenStax content to Wikibooks due to compatible licenses. There are a few caveats of course. The biggest is that not all OpenStax content is open enough for Wikibooks, due to incompatible licenses. For example the OpenStax Calculus Book volumes 1, 2 and 3 are licensed as CC-BY-SA-'NC-4.0. The NC, or non-commercial component, is right out for most Wikimedia projects, based on the Wikimedia Commons document describing how they license things here here. Fortunately most OpenStax books do not have this non commercial requirement, making this a non issue for them. The second issue (Which is more on Wikibooks then on OpenStax) is that Wikibooks uses Creative Commons 3.0 and GDFL, and OpenStax uses Creative Commons 4.0. I'm not sure how CC 4.0 licenses interact with a site using a 3.0 license for it's content, but I suspect this is the easier factor to solve (But I'm not a lawyer).--Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Pseudobot change proposals

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Wikibooks:Administrators/Temporary administrators

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Adding URL file upload to admins and uploaders

I'm noticing cases where non-free images are legitimately taken from different sources (for instance, from StrategyWiki), and hence I was wondering whether we could enable URL file upload for admins and uploaders, so that they do not have to manually download the images every time they want to use it. What do you think? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 12:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That seems like it could be a timesaver, especially on slow connections. I'm not an uploader though. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 01:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Certainly useful, but on a sidenote: do the recent videogame-related uploads (character sprites, item icons, step-by-step game screenshots) even meet WB:NFCC? They're certainly nice for players, but many don't seem necessary for reader's understanding. I'm not familiar with Wikibook's interpretation of what is and isn't acceptable, but if it's anything close to other Wikimedia projects their usage would fail NFCC. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I think if you provide a good enough rationale for both gamers and non-gamers to understand (e.g. why it's important have this exact picture and what it shows), it should be fine. For large artworks or box covers I try and upload them smaller. If I'm not mistaken, this is probably why only certain people are given the uploader role. 2005-Fan (discuss • contribs) 19:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

That, and the fact that free-use images should absolutely go to Commons. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)