It would be useful if Jimmy would comment on the questions asked, but I would like to make the following comments (the numbers refer to Lord Voldemort's initial email): 1, 2. My understanding is that Wikibooks' purpose always has been to provide textbooks. Article II of the Wikimedia Foundation bylaws says, in part, refers to "... a collection of e-book resources aimed specifically toward students (such as textbooks and annotated public domain books) named Wikibooks". (see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws ) 3. The Wikimedia Foundation, operating through its Board, have overall control of Wikibooks (they set its scope in the Foundation bylaws, and can choose to change this or to close the project if they see fit). However, subject to this, Wikibookians deal with the day to day editing of the site, including the setting of site policies (whilst this is subject to them being consistent with what the WMF says, the WMF is very hands-off in this regard). 4, 5. Games guides are not textbooks. Therefore they do not fit within Wikibooks' purpose. 6, 7. Wikibooks' contributors must work within the defined scope of the project. They are on a very free rein as to what they do, but they cannot extend this scope. Requests for scope changes and new Wikimedia projects can be made on Metawiki. 8. "Textbook" has its normal English meaning. There is no special Wikibooks definition of it. A textbook on games, game design, history of games that would assist someone studying them would be within Wikibooks' scope. Note, however, that no-one would reasonably describe a simple games walkthrough as a textbook. They might call it a guide or perhaps, at a push, a manual, but it would not be a textbook in the normal sense. 9. A straightforward guide on a board game would not normally be described as a textbook. As for game guides, however, it would be possible to write a detailed textbook on some board games suitable for students. 10, 11. The talk of an "accredited institution" metric appears to have been suggested mostly by those speaking out in favour of keeping games guides, with the idea of rubbishing it as providing too narrow an inclusion criterion. We don't need such a metric - the general test is whether the book is or is not a textbook (but see my qualification of this below). An "accredited institution" metric along the lines of "if a subject is studied in a number of accredited institutions it can be deemed worthy of study" may be acceptable in the sense that textbook subjects meeting that test should be allowed. However, any such test should not be limiting - there are many worthwhile subjects for study that do not meet that test that are within Wikibooks' scope. 12. Inevitably the removal of game guides from Wikibooks will see those who only edited those areas of Wikibooks leave. It will also see those who spent some of their time on Wikibooks on editing game guides, and some time on textbooks, reduce the time they spend on Wikibooks. On the other hand, a more focused Wikibooks will help attract other new editors committed to providing quality open-content textbooks. 13. I would add the following. "Textbook" has its normal English meaning. There are many possible subject areas and styles for textbooks. The word should be interpreted widely on Wikibooks, but the meaning should not be stretched so as to include texts that are clearly not textbooks in any sense of the word. There are also some subjects that are innately inappropriate as subjects of textbooks, or which would be deemed unsuitable - these are few and far between, but might include textbooks extolling black (or white) supremacy, a textbook to train people in terrorism, a textbook on a little recognised constructed language (such as one I have just made up, or which literally only a handful of people have any interest in). Other than extreme cases such as these (which can be discussed on WB:VFD), all textbooks should be welcome on Wikibooks. X. There has not been a suggestion that all "How-tos" were removed. Jimbo has noted that some "How-tos" should be removed (which was certainly true at the time). This unfortunately, but I believe erroneously, was picked up by some to mean that all How-tos should be removed. Y. Eric Moeller's suggestion of renaming Wikibooks to Wikitextbooks has some merit. Although "Wikitextbooks" is longer and less sexy, it would make clearer to everyone what Wikibooks' scope is. Many people, particularly on Wikipedia, incorrectly think that any book content is suitable for Wikibooks. This is a misconception that really should be removed. Kind regards Jon (jguk)