We have to draw a line somewhere, and we can argue internally endlessly without getting much resolution. So a useful technique is to try really hard to reference some external standards.
- What about guides to games that are not video or computer games?
These can include guides on how to play chess and go (which we already have), bridge, whist, etc.. together with suitable strategies; conceivably this may also include more modern games such as risk or monopoly or cluedo. To my mind, guides on well-known intellectual games such as these have educational value and are worth keeping, but your comments would be welcome.
My question would be whether or not there exist classes at accredited institutions on the subject which use something similar _as a textbook_.
Notice how this works: first, we can be quite broad in what constitutes a textbook, for example at my sister's cooking school, they use a cookbook for a textbook, no question.
But in virtually every university, there are classes on Shakespeare which use Hamlet as material, but not as _textbook_ per se.
I am unaware of any course at any accredited institution which teaches risk or monopoly or clue. Chess and go, probably, but I actually don't know. Doom? No.
- Your comments included a direct reference to wikibooks having
textbooks suitable for "elementary school, high school, or college courses" (and I'm not sure what age groups you meant by "college" as it seems to mean different things in the US from what it means in the UK). I trust this list was not meant to be exhaustive and that you would agree that textbooks related to professional learning (eg accountancy), adult learning (eg cookery) and (if not covered by "college") university learning are suitable for wikibooks.
Yes! I think we should be quite broad about it. The key point is that there have to be some kind of courses offered by some kind of serious institution of learning.