Talk:Dragon Quest

A header

>Dragon Quest I was originally developed for the MSX computer system and later ported to a less advanced system, the NES. No. Dragon Quest was originally developed "Family Computer" in Japan(=NES). after Family Compueter, MSX version was developed.

---

The series is very popular in Japan, to the point that queues of people wishing to buy the game could be seen at shops days before the release. As this included children, who skipped school so they could queue for the game, the Japanese Diet passed a bill outlawing the release of Dragon Quest games on days other than a Sunday or a holiday - the fourth, fifth, and sixth installments were released in Japan on holidays. The seventh installment is the first Dragon Quest game to be released in Japan on a Sunday.

This is a wide spread myth. While there was no actual law, the Diet DID request that Enix only release new installments on weekends. -DaimaouSaro

Are you serious about it ? Taw 13:20, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

> Yeah, as crazy as it may appear, that's true. The Dragon Quest series is really a major cultural thing in Japan: a new word used in the series was put into japanese dictionnary (can't remember the one though, something like 'hoimi' which means 'Cure'), there is also a story about DQ main theme becoming the Japanese students official anthem or something like that!!

Dragon Quest is my favorite video game series. It has the most personality out of any series I have ever played--Saro 05:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have never seen any verification for two of the common rumors that are associated with Dragon Quest: 1. "Hoimi" (the name of the first cure spell) appeared in Japanese dictionaries. None of the major Japanese dictionaries I have ever looked at contain this word, and I've never heard any more details of this.

2. It is illegal to release a Dragon Quest game on a weekday. Can someone provide some proof of this? It would be nice to have on the page. Chris Kern 08:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm pretty sure that the thing about Dragon Quests being released only on holidays by law is an urban myth, but it's sort of hard to get information about for whatever reason.

I don't know how this is usually handled for series, but concerning pages for individual entries in the series: are they really necessary? I ask this having created one myself, but it doesn't seem to add anything new, really. I've got two theories about how these pages would be best handled.

A) Merging them with the main DQ article by adding any information they might have that the main article doesn't, then having each different game in the series redirect to the main DQ page.

B) Relocating the information on individual games to their respective articles, so that the main DQ article is concerned mostly with the history, details, etc. of the series as a whole.

I can think of pros and cons for either way. Personally I think the second option is preferable, because just because a game belongs to a larger series doesn't mean it should get a respectable article of its own. But I'd like to see what other people thought about this. Zincomog 13 Apr 2005

• Agree with your suggestions. This article needs to be change. It should be like the current Final Fantasy article. Just a game list article. Too many redundant articles and information. --Chill Pill Bill 03:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I just now got around to looking at the DQ pages again. You did a fine job reorganizing everything. Thanks! Zincomog 18:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I think that we should rename this page to "Dragon Quest series". This page is really about the series and not about the first Dragon Quest game. Of course, "Dragon Quest" should still redirect to "Dragon Quest series", but having the new name on top of the article makes more sense IMO. --Greyhawk0 08:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Follow up: Heck, even "Dragon Quest (series)" would be of use. --Greyhawk0 08:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. People looking for "Dragon Quest" are more likely to be looking for information on the series, rather than on a specific, twenty year old game. The first game can be named something like "Dragon Quest (video game)" to disambiguate, but keeping this article where it is makes information access easier, IMO. – Seancdaug 11:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, after looking at other series it does seem better this way (though I wish categories would've allowed different names to be put for just this type of situation). I did add a one liner, that I got from Final Fantasy, on top for people looking for Dragon Quest (video game). I also referred to this article in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games to be made as a standard method of handling all game series. --Greyhawk0 08:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Puff-puff

Puff-puff is in the later games, and it refers either to rubbing a woman's breasts, or getting two slimes rubbed on your head.

The slimes getting rubbed on your head is a joke specific to DQVIII. The characters don't realize that its only slimes. They think its actually breasts.

"Puff puff" or (as it is known in japanese) "Pafu-Pafu" is a running gag in both Dragon Quest and Dragon Ball that implies touching or rubbing breasts and NOT oral sex.

It is started by Akira Toriyama, the mangaka who wrote the Dragon Ball series (later adopted into the Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z animated series), and the character/monster designer for the whole Dragon Quest series. It can be found in the earlier chapters of Dragon Ball with scenes involving Roshi.

EDIT: BTW, an example of this can be found in the japanese version of the Dragon Ball series. There is an old man character named Roshi who often tries to fondle (or as he calls it "pafu pafu") the breasts of female characters in the series.

Slimes

There's a fair bit of information about the Dragon Quest Slimes on the Slime page. Should the more in-depth information be moved here? Fortis 23:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

character classes

I think the page should mention the different classes that come up in the different games. I don't know of any other Rpgs off the top of my head that let you play as a Goof-Off, for example. ( I know the goof-off class appears in 3 and 6 , and probably others, too? )

Only DQIII, DQVI, and DQVII has character classes. They should be mentioned in their respective pages.

Captain N

Captain N links here. Could someone give more detail how the game apperead/was referenced in that show? Sign your contributions, whoever you are.

An episode of the first season was loosely based on the original Dragon Warrior. Kouban 07:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Dragon Quest Swords: The Masked Queen and the Tower of Mirrors

I've added this newly announced game to the list of titles, although it might not be a "Flagship title". Feel free to move it to a more appropriate location. jaco♫plane 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo-Playstation

Why are the current ones (VI-VII) moved to the Playstation system?

It is a business and creative decision. Similar to Final Fantasy series, the PlayStation had a larger user base in Japan and if you have played Dragon Quest/Warrior VII then you know it has spanned to multipie CDs despite having few movie files compare to Final Fantasy VII. Dragon Quest VII was a long game. BTW, Dragon Quest VI was for the Super Famicom/Nintendo. I think you just missed an extra Roman numerial. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 17:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Exact dates

Saying that Yuji Horii created Dragon Quest "in the mid-80s" is a bit vague. When was the first game released? --Navstar 18:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Titles

Wai, I don't think that's really important, but DQ VIII wasn't released as "Journey of the Cursed King" in europe. The subtitle was translated in the different languages. I'm German and we only know "Dragon Quest ~ Die Reise des Verwunschenen Königs", yupyup ^o^"

Anime

Back during the day, sometime in 1991 or before that, Akira Toriyama created three Dragon- titled anime. Dragon Ball, Dragon Quest, and Dragon Warrior. Can anybody provide links or information to these? -Izaak -Oh sorry, didn't see the links. -Izaak

Akira Toriyama did not create any of these anime - he created the Dragon Ball manga in 1984, which was later adopted by Toei the anime studio into the Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z anime in later years. The other two based on Dragon Quest have even less involvement from him...he only did the character designs and nothing else. - Aresmo 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Basic Gameplay

The top and middle portions of Basic Gameplay needs to be rewritten, the content is very poorly written, vague and not very accurate. I've cleaned up the lower portion.

-Wikiwhat?

Japanese law urban legend

The article flatly stated "There is a Japanese federal law stating that the Dragon Quest games can only be released on Saturday or Sunday, so as to avoid tens of thousands of work and school-related absences nationwide." This statement was backed up using this reference, but IGN is not known for careful research and I see no reason to take its word on Japanese law. This smells fishy; the Japanese Wikipedia says that Dragon Quest is normally sold on weekends but there is no mention of a law enforcing it. Unfortunately I cannot confirm that the law definitively does not exist either, or I would state in the article that the claim is a common urban legend. For now I have deleted it. Redquark 21:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I found a source backing up this urban legend [1]. It doesnt mention a law, but it says that, because of complaints, Enix changed its policy. If no one has a problem with it, I'll put it back in the article. Evaunit666 05:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Dragon Quest founded

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dragon Quest has been founded. I hope many will contribute :) Siyavash 17:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Merchandise

I suggest we mention the various merchandise that were made for Dragon Quest. They range from plushies and keychains, to T-shirts and quilts. Merchandise bear significant impact on the "real world." --Rika95 01:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalized

Well currently the article doesn't mean anything just a spam-page as of when im typing this someone revert it please 208.192.71.106 13:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

English titles?

I thought it was common practice to use the official english titles within the english wikipedia(section ect), instead of listing the original japanese game title, and then stating the english title. I note this only for Dragon Quest 8, where it seems it's listed as "journey of the cursed king" in both american, and Pal regions. - Dan

That is the english title, the japanese one is "Sora to Umi to Daichi to Norowareshi Himegimi". Icecypher 22:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Remakes

According to: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=175724 DQ IV, V and VI are being remade for Nintend DS. (Jon Choo 19:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

Merge with Torneko: the last hope

That tags been there for awhile and no ones said anything. I added some stuff to the torneko page and im still working on it, so i dont think they should be merged. Evaunit666 04:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So would anyone mind if i got rid of the tags? Also, one of the Torneko games links back to this page. I was thinking about making a separate page for that game. Any thoughts? Evaunit666 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Quest books

Dragon Quest e no Michi-anyone heard of that? I'm thinking about putting it in the main article. Evaunit666 02:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It covers the development of the first game only, but gets pretty in-depth. I don't have a scanlation or .pdf, sorry.(Fossilgojira (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

[2]- just something ill add later. Evaunit666 02:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Article?

Close maybe? any suggestions on improving the article would be appreciated! Evaunit666 03:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Status

The article is looking good! The editors have done a decent job of noting all of the necessary features in both the original culture and in later ones--there are separate entries for both the original Japanese and the American releases.

Breaking the article into sections for each of the story arcs that is found within the series was also a good idea. That will give readers an idea of the structure of the series, while giving them the opportunity to focus on one or more games as they wish.

A large chunk of the article is a list of the games in the series with their titles in different languages. Breaking this into the story arcs might be a good idea as it will add to the structure of the article. Putting in a small amount of information on each game will help readers to recognize which games they might want to focus on, while not revealing all of the details of each installment; the article does an overall positive job on this task.

Adding sections on the development and reception of the series as a whole adds to the richness of the information, and qualifies it--the article is not just a listing of games for fans, but can be used to critically examine the series's place in two distinct cultures.

There is one small area of concern in the "Loto" section of the page--there is a reference that is throwing off the width of the page. This should be taken care of as soon as possible to minimize the structural issue.

Overall, the article's prose is developed enough to warrant Good Status, though it is not enough to get reach the higher ranks within Wikipedia's guidelines. The editors are advised to check the grammar of the article in certain places, and to use prose that is a bit more accessible to the general public. As a gamer, I can understand the terms in the article, but someone with no outside knowledge of video games might have trouble wading through the information without help.

The article does have a neutral tone, which adds to its scholarly appearance. There do not seem to be any ongoing problems between the article's main editors, or any original research. The article is well-referenced, and there are no visible problems with the validity of the cited information, ie, no made-up citations, etc.

Unless the admin have any particular issues with the article, I think it can be labeled with Good Status, and, pending further development, could reach the higher levels.--Bakuen Goka 02:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputing the fanpatch legality

This has been untested, but probably would not pass in a court of law. However the statement makes it sound as though it already has been decided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinnai (talk • contribs) 05:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

what statement are you refering to, exactly? Evaunit♥666♥ 01:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph on "Outside Japan" talks about fan translations. Like I said, the paragraph imo just makes it sound like the matter has already been settled in court, which it hasn't. I have no qualms with a statement that would probably not pass in court. Specifically the part saying it is "technically illegal".Jinnai (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying, though I'm not sure what to change it to. I'm thinking you should edit it to what you think sounds right. Evaunit♥666♥ 01:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated.. Hope that sounds neutral enough.Jinnai (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

looks good to me. Evaunit♥666♥ 01:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Warrior IV - Dragon Quest IV?

Now that DQIVDS has been announced for an English release (under the title "Dragon Quest IV: Chapters of the Chosen"), should we call it "Dragon Quest IV"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd only use Dragon Quest when talking about the DS version and still use Dragon Warrior for the NES one. Evaunit♥666♥ 01:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Final Fantasy community established that the name can change to its current official title based on official re-releases of the game using that title. They aren't separate games - DQIVDS is a straight remake. Ton of expansion, but nothing like Metroid: Zero Mission or Sword of Mana. The official name for this game in the series is now DQIV, so I think the title should reflect as such. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

ALTTP is right, the requirement is that the official title be English, not necessarily that it covers all the different versions. I think the article's name should eventually be Dragon Quest IV: Chapters of the Chosen... but should we wait for Square Enix's official announcement first? The title has been trademarked and is used by the ESRB, but I don't think the link between the game and that title is official yet (Wikipedia is not a "crystal ball"). Kariteh (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a DS game, and regardless, the fact that SE registered DQIV means they intend on using it as the official name. ESRB has been used as a source before. But anyway, I think it should just be Dragon Quest IV, if only to avoid confusion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What confusion? I think it should be the full title, on the contrary, so as to maintain coherence with the other DQ articles (they all have the full subtitles). Besides, "Chapters of the Chosen" is apparently just a translation of the Japanese subtitle, although not exactly literal. Kariteh (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree. In this situation, having been released originally w/o a subtitle would make it confusing to those who played the NES version. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to change it to Dragon Quest, you might as well put in the full title while you're at it. Why wouldn't you? The other articles have the full titles where applicable and you're trying to keep everything standardized. Evaunit♥666♥ 01:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides, it was released originally with a subtitle, "Michibikareshi Monotachi", so I don't see what's your point exactly. Kariteh (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I SAID fine. Is there any reason you're dragging out this ended discussion? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No reason not to be civil : ) We're here because we all like DQ and want to contribute to Wikipedia. Evaunit♥666♥ 00:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to continue a completed discussion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I've created a Dragon Quest VI: The Realms of Reverie page to make the eventual move easier (it already links to Maboroshi no Daichi). Yellow Mage (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Move Dragon Warrior Monsters (video game) to Dragon Warrior Monsters.

It's not really a case of "replacing the series article with the first game", it's more like replacing a redirect to the series article with the first game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any reason not to do this. Sgetz (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Itadaki Street?

Does anybody with more knowledge about Itadaki Street want to put in a section about the DQ related Itadaki Street games? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.98.31 (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That is something to look into. Is anyone knowledgable on the series? Evaunit♥666♥ 23:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence about Itadaki Street to the end of the first paragraph in the Spinoffs section, with a link to the Itadaki Street page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.98.31 (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Roto/Loto

There's another way to read the name of the legendary hero, ロト, which has been surprisingly overlooked: it's Lot (ロト), like the Biblical name. In spite of the official translations, I think this one might make more sense. sanjuro (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting; I've never heard that one before. Evaunit♥666♥ 03:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should talk to Yuji Hori about that one before taking it as anything but coincidence.

Yea, would be nice if he would comment on that.陣内_Jinnai 03:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging article of Dragon Quest X with the series article

I think we should merge/ redirect the article Dragon Quest X with this one. Mostly at the rate the games are actually developed being 95 for 6 2001 for 7 2005 for 8 and 2009 for 9. We are probably looing at 2011+ for X. My point is the only information we have on this game is that they said it will be on the Wii. As to date there is no further information (at least that i could find). And i doubt there will be any time soon aside from some info that could be placed here that may already be here. I dont know the procedure for doing this but if anyone is interested/ want to help i think the proposal has merit.Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, even though I wish it would come out sooner. Evaunit♥666♥ 14:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Support — I think it can better be covered in the context of the main article. With the verifiable sources being based on speculation with little else known for anything past one or two encyclopedic sentences, it should probably go into the Dragon Quest article under the Development section. MuZemike (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose — I came here today looking specifically for DQX info, and the separate page is exactly what is needed. More info on DQX will trickle out over the next year, and a new page will just have to be made soon enough. I say keep it because it is a major franchise, and the fact that DQX is coming to the Wii is a major development. You also say that you "doubt" there will be any new info any time soon, but that is incorrect based on the recent more accelerated publishing schedule of DQ. As soon as DQIX is released in Japan in March, SquareEnix will turn towards DQX and releasing information on that game. I would guess a 2010 release is not out of the question, though early 2011 is probably more likely. 71.193.200.106 (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to merge it now and they split the article again when more info comes. As it stands now there is not that much to say. --76.66.187.241 (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirection is fine too. One thing that is important to regard is that information on the game is not available at this point aside from one sentance being uttered at a press conference. If more information comes available that an article could be developed on then it would be fine to grow an article around. The key information is that there is no information, and no soucres beyond the murmered conference blip. There is no indication to where in the development the game actually is. Many games have been annouced for a system and have turned up on another system as well. At this point (and likely in the next few years) information may be sparse to non existant. One could argue for the last 2 years at least that the number 9 article should have been a redirect. But with the game's actual release date announced finally information is finally trickling into suitable references to make an article (Dragon Quest IX) that isnt based on one sentance uttered in a press conference. There is no more detail in the dragon quest X article than this page at this time and very likely in the months to come, a redirection i think is the best course Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaning towards Oppose now Information is starting to come out, at least enough to not have a merge, in my opinion. Evaunit♥666♥ 04:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The only additional information that has come out is a nintendo executive saying the series as a whole needs more support in north america. Something that would fit very well in the main series article. Bottom line is no info about the game.Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Regardless if there is not enough info to create a good full article, I think every game in a long-running series deserves its own space. We would have to write about every other game in the series, making the article larger and more difficult to read, as people can go to individual pages for the entry they are interested in. --Darkeagle7x (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I will admit that information released for the game in the next few months will be erratic, I think it would be easier to just keep the article and continue to update it as more information is released. Adding information to the main article is always a good idea, too, though. Evaunit♥666♥ 01:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

theres a line to be drawn (according to some) on wether an article is notable or not. But In my belief consensus is the way to go. Providing you guys are up to date finding information as it comes, and unless anyone else has a problem with removing the merge tags, it should be okay to take them down, thanks for the input.Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I came accross this interesting read today may not be entirely notable, But wouldnt it be funny if the press conference was actually about a wii version of Dragon Quest IX not actually X. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/12/rumor-dragon-quest-ix-coming-to-wii.ars . Though the source is funny it would be interesting to see if this is the case considering DQ IX has been delayed yet again until July. Lets see if this plays out Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering that this is now almost three months old I think we would have heard something more concrete by now. --70.24.180.231 (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing except the press release from december (around the time of DQ X announcement). In fact both bits of info (DQ Ix on wii and DQ X on wii) have had nothing really develop since then (aside from people thinking its great). I still bet its going be dragon quest IX that shows up on the wii, and X will never see the light of day on wii, but the next generation after this. In fact you could argue that FF XIV and FFXV are more confirmed than DQ X as square has taken out the web domains already for these games. Anyway for now I see the discussion closed on merging and deletion, give it some time, lets see what happens with both games Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I highy doubt that IX would be moved to the Wii. Since numerous screenshots have already been released and it has a release date. Granted it got pushed back but the time frame IMO would not be enough to change systems. Even if they did change It would more likely be moved to the DSI than anything else.--76.65.140.147 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the aricle more closely shows that it was the the release date was moved form March.28 to July. 11. Changing platforms to the Wii would likely take much longer than three and a half months to finish. --76.65.140.147 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, at the rate the dragon quest games are developed, your probably right lol (stupid delays) Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak Oppose. I don't see how merging this with the series article when they have semi-solid release date and a lot more insignificant titles with less info are separate. In addition, I do not see how merging a GA level article will enhance the series page, unless you believe it might be able to get it to FA.陣内_Jinnai 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi Oppose. I just see that the article will be deleted, and then in a few months it will be recreated. I am not sure we gain much be killing it to bring it back again, and why having people redirect to here would help. 72.237.4.150 (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If anything a merge is only perferred. for now i dont mind whether we keep or merge the article. A useful discussion though that i think is worth taking a look at is this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Zelda Project which was recently decided upon. Under similar circumsatnces to DQ X, the article was deleted and merged to the main series article. Ill argue a slight diference here though is Nintendo power has covered the game in terms of what it would mean to the company and does have a secondary source (Though is this not a regurgitation of the original primary source?). So dont confuse that Im trying to delete that article im not, but its worth reading to get an idea of what content is necessary to keep an article and save it from a merge or deletion. Which if we want to keep the article we need to keep in mind. At this time there is no specific policy that exists that says you have to delete or merge a future video game article. In films theres WP:NFF which doesnt exist for video games. Essentially all you need is primary and suitable secondary sources to keep an article. Providing a game isnt even made an article can still be in existance, See Duke Nukem Forever which has numerous secondary sources. The key is not WP:other stuff exists but is does the article have secondary sources. at least a few things to ponderOttawa4ever (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reason for DQV and DQVI not being localized in North America

The article currently states the following: "Both games were originally slated to be released in North America, but were later dropped due to technical reasons.", which is implausible for Dragon Quest VI, which was not released in Japan until a month after Enix of America closed. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Cartidge size is the main reason for both. I believe in both cases Nintendo denied them larger rom sizes for NA release (though I don't know for certain on that part). Like the other statements, such as DQ4 PS1 remake issue, I'm attempting to find sources for that they were originally considered for NA release (i believe there may be some ads in old Nintendo Powers for DQ5).陣内_Jinnai 02:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Spin offs section

I just made the Dragon Quest Monsters article match this one with the games section. I know for the FA, there should be prose instead of the charts and I was thinking we could just move the Spin offs chart info to their respective articles and just sum it up with a few paragraphs and link to the main articles. Ideas? EVAUNIT-666 13:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Should we do a timeline for the original releases?陣内_Jinnai 21:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I was actually wondering about that myself. For the DQM article, I used the North American dates for the timeline and wasn't sure if I should be using the Japanese ones. I think it'd be too much with two though. EVAUNIT^{神の人間の殺害者} 01:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Manga and Anime

I just corrected the anime and manga section of the article. Besides the fact that the existence of manga based on most of the series was confused with anime there was also a strange sentence stating that there was two series based off of III. I can only assume that it is referring to Emblem of Roto besides Legend of Abel. Since Emblem of Roto is not currently mentioned in the article (Something that I intend to correct after I fix up its article a bit) the sentence in the article was misleading as it was since it referred to Abel as "the latter" even though no other title was mentioned, and Abel was created in 1989, while Roto did not start until 1991. If someone wants to change the sentence back to referencing the existence of two series being based off of III than please keep this fact in mind.SMimas (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the reason for not listing every single series is because their so prolific and none of them are really notable with possibly the exception of the first one.陣内_Jinnai 20:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I was more concerned about the inaccuracy rather than debating what should and should not be mentioned in the manga section. But for argument sake, while their individual notability might not warrant a separate article on each that does not mean that they should not be mentioned in the main article. Just like how chapter and episode lists don't require that each element be notable in themselves to be listed on an anime or manga page. Saying that they are prolific is one thing, but mentioning their titles arguably gets the point across better. It shouldn't have undue weight, but the synergy that Enix created with their media blitz is an important part of Dragon Quest's history.SMimas (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does because when you get to a certain point it becomes excessive and almost trivial information. FE: If a title is translated into 50 languages we don't list each and every language in the pose. Now a List of Dragon Quest media should list each and every one. At this point we now have close to 10 manga based on it, at least one with a sequal.

As for the clarrification, what i meant was that the the first game has 2 seperate anime and manga based on it...actually 3 if you consider the sequal of the sequal. The anime and manga are not based on each other.陣内_Jinnai 01:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't think that the 15 manga different titles listed in the Japanese wikipedia (not counting "Those who Inherit the Emblem") really hits the level of undue weight, but its a style question, and obviously the two of us don't make a consensus one way or the other. A List of Dragon Quest media makes a lot of sense though since it could also cover the novels and Drama CDs. I'm willing to put work into such a list or article if you are. SMimas (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Quest Images

Question

I've been away for awhile, but to my understanding, if those two pictures are gone, it can be promoted?  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 03:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Walsh would be ok (image-wise) if they're gone, or if the two suddenly became critical to understanding (doubtful). I think they should go too (see thread above) but I wasn't really Opposing by the FAC's end anyway and I don't think I'll Oppose in a later FAC. I don't know if Malleus still wants the text cleaned up, or if Walsh or Malleus or $WIKIPEDIAN_NAME would recheck those or other stuff and Oppose. So I'd say maybe.--an odd name 09:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(There's also that whole "merge" tag thing, which should get resolved first to have it stable for 1e.) --an odd name 09:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

removed it because he did not leave any pages discussing reasons and it had already been decided by local consensus before to keep as there was enough info to pass the GNG and it will be expanded as more info comes out in the future.陣内_Jinnai 20:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A-Class Assessment

I'm interested : )  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 20:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)