Talk:Battletoads (1991 video game)

Some proposed changes
Information to be added or removed: Brief mention of the official strategy guide

Explanation of issue: Although I am the book’s author, I assume that the book’s existence would be of interest to readers. It is long out of print, but is part of the game(s)’ history.

I’m suggesting the following be added somewhere appropriate:

The official guide to Battletoads, Battletoads in Battlemaniacs, and Battletoads/Double Dragon was written by Steve Schwartz (Battletoads: The Official Battlebook, Prima Publishing, 1994).

GameMaven (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Please provide either the or  numbers for this book. When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the  template's answer parameter to read from yes to no. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  02:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ISBN 1-55958-469-6
 * Thanks for the help!
 * GameMaven (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging for their input on this. Regards,  Spintendo  06:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I for one have no problem adding the mention if there's a reliable secondary source mentioning said guide as being relevant in any way during the course of the game's history. While I don't doubt the quality of the material, I hadn't heard of it before, and the book's author asking for it is biased at best, and could easily be called out as self promotion. Another issue could be finding a way to seamlessly integrate the mention into the article in a way that it doesn't look forced. Note that we're not mentioning any other related products (merchandise, publications, toys, etc.) --uKER (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you uKER for your input, which I completely agree with. To that end, the COI editor is kindly asked to provide a WP:SECONDARY source mentioning this item as relevant to the article. When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the  template's answer parameter to read from yes to no. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo  17:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Such books were seldom reviewed or commenting on beyond mention of their existence, which is what I’m suggesting be done here. In the days before the Internet, magazine articles and these books—especially the official ones—were the primary help sources for games. As for self-promotion, I haven’t written a game book in 20 years and am unlikely to write another.

Other items (tote bags, figurines, etc.) obviously aren’t relevant to a game. However, note that the Mega Man page currently has separate sections for Junior Novels and Comic Books, which are considerably less relevant than an official guide. If you believe that when someone is reading about a game that the mention of an official, publisher-commissioned or authorized guide isn’t both relevant and useful to readers, go ahead and remove them. I don’t have a problem with it. I just thought that the added info would be appreciated by Wikipedia readers. GameMaven (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

One last thing... Although the current guidelines don’t appear to distinguish between opinions and statements of fact regarding whether the person who is the subject should be allowed to make additions or changes, I think they should. Mentioning that official guides exist is a statement of easily verifiable fact. There is a huge difference between that and saying “they’re marvelous and everyone should have one.” The latter is an opinion and would typically be biased if offered by the author, publisher, manufacturer, etc.

Also, I have a good friend who’s a famous guitarist with his own page. I mentioned this guideline to him today, and he wasn’t aware of it. Although a fan initially created his page, he has contributed the majority of the material, as well as corrected any submitted errors. The only difference between us is that I readily admitted who I am. I suspect that many, many such Wikipedia additions/edits are made by the subject, people employed by same, etc., and they—like me—have no idea that they’re doing anything wrong. The bottom line is that when information is factual versus opinion, the subject is generally better suited to add and edit the material than an uninvolved outsider. Regardless, you’re all pros at this and know the rules. Just let me know what you decide. Thank you for considering the additions, as well as helping me learn how to use the site. 21:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)GameMaven (talk)
 * While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. Here, all that is being requested is a secondary source reviewing the guidebook as relevant to the video game; I don't think that this is too prohibitive of a request, as the reviewing of books is a practice which has been going on for as long as books have been available as a medium. If you need additional help tracking down any pertinent reviews which might exist, please feel free to let me or another editor know. Regards, Spintendo  17:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Unlike fiction, game books and even computer books were seldom reviewed—particularly prior to and during the early days of the Internet. I will do searches, but I don’t remember seeing reviews of my books or of those by other game book authors. For example, my Compute’s Guide to Nintendo Games sold over 100,000 copies and was featured in every Sears, BDalton, Walden books, and KMart in the US, but I don’t recall any reviews. I assume you’re talking about magazine, radio, website, etc. and not Amazon, right? But I’ll let you know if I find anything. GameMaven (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I managed to find a review of the Battletoads book in a magazine at the Internet Archive. See page 96 of Electronic Games: https://archive.org/details/Electronic-Games-1994-03/page/n95
 * GameMaven (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Here are some other mentions of the books that I found. In general, though, most merely cite the books’ existence and that they’re official:


 * Mega Man
 * http://themechanicalmaniacs.com/articles/officialGuide.php. (Review)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_Man:_Dr._Wily%27s_Revenge


 * Virtual Bart
 * https://gamicus.gamepedia.com/Virtual_Bart
 * https://archive.org/details/sg_Virtual_Bart_1994_Acclaim_Sculptured_Software
 * https://archive.org/details/SNES_Longplay_536_Virtual_Bart


 * Alone in the Dark 3
 * https://gamicus.gamepedia.com/Alone_in_the_Dark_3


 * GameMaven (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing the Electronic Games source. It appears (at the outset) to be acceptable, but I'd like to have a look at it. If appropriate, then the question of where the claim should be placed needs to be addressed. Also, given your concern for direct conflicts occurring with article content demonstrated in this post, the name of the article of the guitarist mentioned by you where undisclosed COI editing is taking place would be appreciated. Finally, we thread comments here on the talk pages for readability, so it would be much appreciated if you threaded yours (I went ahead and threaded your past comments already). Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  21:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * As for identifying my example, it was meant solely as an example to make the point that I believe many Wikipedia pages are being created, added to, and edited by the page subjects or people directly involved in the page’s topic. In the case of the guitarist, there’s no intent of his profiting from the page nor is there one from my mentions of 25 to 30 year-old official guides. It’s just more information for people who are interested.
 * Given our discussions here, although I’d like to have my own page at some point to document what I’ve been told is an impressive career, I now know that creating it isn’t allowed. I’ll play by the rules, although I assume that scads of article subjects are not doing so. Thanks for your guidance and the time you’ve spent on this. I appreciate it. GameMaven (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I just found another mention of the book here at the end of a Wiki page: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Battletoads GameMaven (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Two secondary sources have been submitted in this section. I boldfaced them to make them stand out. Any of the page editors care to weigh in concerning whether the links are sufficient?GameMaven (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

How about we not add it. Wikipedia is not the place for GameMaven to promote his books - It appears all GameMaven wants to do - get books s/he authored added to aricles. WP:NOTHERE applies. It's not about if the book has had publicity. Toddst1 (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Battletoads is the best game ever
EX and PT I will be the best game ever EXandPTFan (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)