Talk:Blue Dragon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Blue Dragon has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Video games (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Microsoft (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cartoon Network (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cartoon Network, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Cartoon Network on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
Wikipe-tan good article.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-class on the assessment scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Plot[edit]

I didnt go to specific into details of the plot because I have yet to beet the game(I'm on the thrid disk), if anyone has completed the game, please feel free to expand the plot(and remember to add refs).Gears Of War 12:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet to beet the game? Did you at least radish it? ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.210.33 (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hints on writing a good reception section[edit]

Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20080709 and read it well. Here's how I generally do it; you might find this helpful.

Go by category rather than by reviewer. In other words, check what all the reviewers said about gameplay/graphics/sound/plot/whatever other criteria there is. Find some common themes in these comments, and find some outliers (eg. A, B, and C loved the graphics because X, but D hated it because Y).

A good thing to end with is how reviewers recommend the game; do they say everyone should buy it? Nobody should? This or that age group should? This can say a lot about the game and it also is a nice way to end your article, since reception sections are usually last.

I need sleep. If you do some more expansion on the reception section I'll copyedit it tomorrow. —Giggy 15:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Giggy. I'd help out making the article more comprehensive in reception and all that, but as I have not played the game and probably never will (too poor to buy an Xbox 360), I really can't do anything else for this article. I'll let Gears of War take it from here. The Prince (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blue Dragon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello, I'm your GAN reviewer. My initial comment after a quick scan is the disproportionate amount of information regarding real-world and fiction. I believe that more real-world information, such as reception and development, needs to be added. --haha169 (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the Lead

  • "The game follows the story of five friends, Shu, Jiro, Kluke, Zola, and Marumaro, as they travel across the world to confront the evil King of the Grand Kingdom, Nene. The setting inspired separate anime and manga adaptations, although these follow the story to different degrees and feature a different cast of characters. The game follows a traditional role playing game element based around turns. Each player attacks depending on their agility and speed." - That entire thing needs a few cites.Yes check.svg Done
  • "Blue Dragon was apluaded for it's excellent use of the traditional element of role playing games, but was also critisced for the same reason." - How can it be criticized for something it was praised for? It needs a cite, as well as a deeper explanation. Oh, and "critisced" is mis-spelled.Yes check.svg Done
  • "Blue Dragon was sold in a game fashion, and in a bundle with the Xbox 360 composed of the game, the Xbox 360 system itself, and a Blue Dragon faceplate." - Needs cite Yes check.svg Done
  • I suggest that the lead be re-organized in the following way: Paragraph 1 deals with names, release dates, who made it (development), etc. Paragraph 2 deals with Gameplay. Paragraph 3 deals with Critical Reception and sales. --haha169 (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Yes check.svg Done

Comments on the "Gameplay" section

  • "...in that the game uses turn-based..." - change "in that" to "because". Yes check.svg Done
  • "with the former having places to rest and purchase items, while the latter contain numerous foes to be defeated." - needs cites. And I'm guessing that the dungeons don't have puzzles? How sad...Yes check.svg Done
  • BAD. The entire gameplay section, with the exception of the VERY END, relies COMPLETELY on current ref #2. That needs to be remedied.
  • I suggest a through copy-edit of this section, especially for the removal of VG Jargon - words that non-gamers can't understand.
    • Examples: "charge up" spells or attacks by spending additional time preparing them."
    • "As shadows increase in rank in a given class, they learn new skills, which can then be assigned to a limited number of skills slots." --haha169 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the "Plot" section

  • Seriously, the only major complaint is that the plot needs citations. See Golden Sun's plot for citation templates. --haha169 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Yes check.svg Done
I'm not sure if the plot section actually requires cites. If anyone has an idea on how to find these cites, please help. I did check out that of the example's but I'm not sure how to get that since I've sold the game.N.G.G. 23:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the "Development" section

  • "original story was created by Sakaguchi" - written by Yes check.svg Done
  • That same sentence needs a cite, (he wrote first 5 Final Fantasy series)
  • The entire first paragraph needs cites for each sentence.Yes check.svg Done
  • "confirmed that Blue Dragon 2 was in the planning stages" - Blue Dragon 2 is the sequel, I presume? Change to "...that the sequel, Blue Dragon 2, was in..." Yes check.svg Done
  • Are you certain that there are no more information that could be added into Development? --haha169 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done

Comments on the "Manga and Anime" section

  • The entire paragraph 2 needs cites.Yes check.svg Done
  • Why are "sneak preview" and "officially" inside quotation marks?Yes check.svg Done
  • The very last sentence needs a cite.--haha169 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Yes check.svg Done

Comments on the "Reception" section

  • "1UP! noted that Blue Dragon was missing "strong characters, gripping storytelling, and excellent pacing."" - The period needs to be outside the quotation mark, per WP:MoS. Yes check.svg Done
  • The last sentence needs a period at the end. Yes check.svg Done
  • I think some reviews should be removed from the box, because it looks odd that the text isn't wrapped around the review box.--haha169 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done

Comments on the "References" section

  • Current refs 6-12 should have a title. Use {{cite book}} please.Yes check.svg Done
  • Current refs 7 and 8, 9 and 10 are duplicates. Use <ref name=""> please. Yes check.svg Done --haha169 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Response[edit]

Thank you. In the temporary absence of those who requested the "Good Article" review, I've gone ahead and made some of the edits suggested here. I did some clean-up on existing references, added additional references, and expanded the "Development" section with further details. I also performed some of the needed miscellaneous copy-editing (e.g., where a period should be placed). I did not address every comment, but I just wanted to let other editors know that at least some of these have been addressed, so please take this into account when comparing the current version of the article against the review comments. --Slordak (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will. I haven't the time to go and check which of my above notes were corrected, but I'm sure they will be crossed out when Gears of War comes back. Thanks for you work. --haha169 (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Result[edit]

Due to lack of activity on the article (last edit on the 25th), and only one response on this GAN, I'm failing this article. There are simply way to many issues for me to fix them all by myself, and that shouldn't be requested of a GAN assessor either. If anyone decides to one day give the article a thorough copy-edit one day, please take my suggestions in consideration.

Thanks to all the editors for their hard work, nonetheless. Good luck next time! --haha169 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I was on vacation and couldnt do the fixes so I'll fix it up and then send it back to GAN. King Rock (Gears of War) 17:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Good job. I gave the lead and reception sections a quick scan, and it looks exceptionally better than before. Keep this up, and you can request it at GAN again in no time. --haha169 (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Suprised 3x DVD is glossed over[edit]

Coming on 3x DVD discs, shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.171.21 (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't glossed over, it says it in the data box on the right. "Media 3 DVD-DL" Unless some notable video game reviewer made a big fuss about this, there is no need to put anything about it down. mcnichoj (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And actually, the lead-in says literally "Blue Dragon is the first Xbox 360 title to make use of three disks". --Slordak (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Euro Cover?[edit]

Unless someone can give me a good reason as to why the European cover is being used, I will soon be replacing it with the US cover as that is the dominant cover for ALL games released in multiple regions. mcnichoj (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea pretty stupid, yet on other media topics the image must have the US regions image and none other. Some people really don't make any sense, and dive into the giant ocean called Hypocrisy. Killa Koz (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
No other media topics are like that either. It should be the first release cover, not US-centric. Really, the article should be using the Japanese cover, but it is currently using the European one because that was the FIRST English release, even if it is only by a few days. It could also use the cover for the highest selling release, which is mostly likely the Japanese since it had nearly a year to sell copies before the English releases. This is per the Video Games guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It's stupid things like that why the world doesn't like America... --Kurtle (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Blue Dragon (anime)[edit]

The "Manga and anime" section says the TV show "ignored most of the game's plot". Is this true? 'Cause if it is, there should no problem with having a separate article on the anime.--Nohansen (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a more accurate question is, is the plot of the Blue Dragon anime or manga significantly different from the game? If its just "left out side stories or parts of the game story", I don't think that's enough to justify any kind of split. Tales of the Abyss does that too, but doesn't mean the anime is significantly different from the series, just doesn't include the "entire" plot. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
What she said. Now, let us allow the people who've actually played the game and seen the show (read: not Nohansen and AnmaFinotera) discuss the issue.--Nohansen (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to have a seperate Blue Dragon page for the anime. The reason I think this should happen because the anime is very different from the game. there are things mentioned in the anime that are not mentioned in the game. The very reason I wanted to create a new Blue Dragon page in the first place because I feel that the anime and manga section needs work and badly. There are fans who would want to see this happen and i'm not the only one. Most of the game's plot is different from the anime version. For example, in the game, the main characters meet each other way later and in different circumstances, while in the anime it is entirely different. I'm a huge Blue Dragon fan and i'm not the type of person to just go off creating a useless article, I thought this ahead before even trying to create it.DranzerX13 (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

This isn't a fansite. What determines if they should be split is significant differences, not relatively minor changes. Can you be more specific in the changes made between the anime and the game. Is it the same basic overall story, or is the entire thing different? Minor changes such as when people meet is not significant enough to warrant a new article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that this is not a fansite. There are major differences between the game and anime plot, but although the characters are the same. Almost the whole game itself is different except for the characters which are the same. The majority of the plot such as in the game where a landshark terrorizes Talta village. The landshark was created by Nene, the ruler of Grankingdom. Now in the anime the main villain may be the same as in the game except that his whole plot is different in the anime than in the game. Nene's plan's and motives are way different in the game than in the anime.

1. in the video game Jiro went to school with Shu and Kluke and have known each other for quite a long time. In the anime Shu and Kluke didn't even know Jiro at the beginning. When Jiro first showed up in the anime he knew nothing about Shu or Kluke. Jiro and Zola were traveling together for quite some time before coming to Talta village.

2. in the video game Zola doesn't appear till much later. She is a professional soldier for the king of Jibral, but she only joined the party with Shu and the others because the king ordered her to do so. She didn't even know Jiro at the time. While in the anime when Zola first appears she and Jiro are traveling together and have known each other for quite some time before coming to Talta village.

3. A major part of the anime "The book of the beginning" and the "Seven soldiers of light" weren't even mentioned or seen in the game. Those two elements of the anime are a huge part of the story in the anime.

4. Characters that play a major role in the series such as Bouquet, Conrad, Delphinium, General Logi are anime only characters and not mentioned, seen or heard in the game at all.

5. What makes both the game and anime separate from each other is most of the characters have a different background from both the game and the anime.DranzerX13 (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)!

the Japanese wikipedia has a seperate page for the Blue Dragon anime. so if that does then why not the US site as well? both game and anime plots are completely different from one another.

reference: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUE_DRAGON_(%E3%82%A2%E3%83%8B%E3%83%A1)DranzerX13 (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)!

We are not a mirror of the Japanese Wikipedia, nor do we do something just because they do it. Really, I don't see that huge a difference beyond the changes in how characters meet. It isn't that much different from the FMoS anime and manga, which are easily covered in both articles. The anime episode list already covers the differences in the story line, and the differences in the characters is not so insanely different that they can not (and would not be) covered in the existing character list. As such, I'm still seeing no real reason to have these separate. Blue Dragon Ral Grad is separate as it has a completely different cast of characters and completely different story. I don't see the differences here as being significant enough to need yet another article that really ends up repeating most of what this article has. And please be more careful in your edits. In one of your responses here, you removed all of the contents of this page about your remarks, which is not appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What if there are fans who want to read about the anime version character profiles than the game? Blue dragon characters section really needs work. Each character having their own page with their profile information would be much better. I did create one with Shu but it is still incomplete. about removing those remarks, I didn't realize that I did that, sorry. From what i'm reading on your comments, you act as if you are the only one who has say around here. There are other admins too, ya know. let's all have a vote to whether there should be an anime page or not. the highest number of votes win. I will go to some Blue Dragon forums and paste a link here to get more voters if that helps.DranzerX13 (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

Have you played the game? Have you seen the anime? I know there will be many people who will agree that the Blue Dragon wiki needs an anime page as well. The storyline is completely different than that of the anime ther than the characters are the same.

Have you read the Bleach wiki? what about the Naruto wiki? they have detailed character pages for each character and looks really nice. The anime page looks wonderful on both of them, so I don't see why you are so bent on there not being a Blue Dragon anime page. I guarantee many Blue Dragon fans will agree with me on this one.DranzerX13 (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)!

Even if the anime were split from the game, the characters would be all in the same list. That would not be split at all, period. No one here is an admin at all, so not sure who you are talking about, nor did I say I was the only one who got to choose. This is a discussion, so please stop making such pointless side remarks and WP:AGF. I am speaking from my editing experience (which you obviously lack), my knowledge of the relevant guidelines and policies (something else you lack), my experience in crafting GOOD articles rather than fansites (again, something you have no experience/knowledge with) and my experiences with other series which have much greater differences yet still are easily and well covered in a single article. Also, Wikipedia does NOT work on voting (see WP:NOTAVOTE) but by WP:CONSENSUS based on existing policies and guidelines. Calling for "support" from other websites will do nothing but cause the entire discussion to stop. Period. You seem to have no knowledge of how Wikipedia works at all, which you really need before you go around arguing a case or making accusations. I presume by Bleach wiki and Naruto wiki you are refering to their ARTICLES (they are not separate wikis), an dyes, I not only have read them, but I'm an active editor on both. They do not have anime pages, there is an article on the Bleach franchise, focusing primarily on the manga (primary work), with anime and other adaption differences noted. Ditto Naruto, and almost every other high quality anime/manga article. But you didn't even notice seem to notice that...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

if AnmaFinotera is not an admin then she had no right to ban me or even delete the article I created in the first place.DranzerX13 (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

You're right, I can't ban you nor did I delete any articles. Admins deleted the articles and an admin blocked you when you continued to violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. If you continued acting uncivilly, making threats, and going against consensus, you will be blocked again because you will be reported to administrators again. What fans think is irrelevant, it is what the consensus of Wikipedia as a whole says. Again, this is not a fansite. I strongly suggest you go read some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before you continue along this line. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

umm if Bleach has both a main page (anime/manga) and its own video game page for each game then I can have one for Blue Dragon as well. if none of you are admins you have no right to delete my article that I created. I'm spending hours of my free time just to make this article, so if you guys are not admins and keep doing this to me i'll report you to wiki for deleting whole articles you had no right to remove. Unless an admin removed it then yeah that's different.

I removed a few of my comments and am going to place them in my user talk page. Anyways just so everyone will be happy I will add the anime info and that other stuff on the main page so that way you admins can't be mean to me or delete the page.DranzerX13 (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

I apologize if I've started trouble, but I have an idea that will solve everything and that will also make even the admins happy. no fights, no bashing or any of that. All I want is for things to go well. Here's my solution. I just redid the Blue Dragon main page to where both the video game, anime/manga will all fit. Check it! hope it's good. ^__^ again I apologize.DranzerX13 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

No, you can't. First, read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In reality, Bleach's video games will likely be merged to a list (and primarily because of quantity, not notability). Other series have already had this done, such as Dragon Ball. Just because other articles have not been cleaned up is no reason for you to decide to continue messing up this article. Your bad edits have been undone, yet again, and yet you continued making them despite others already reverting you. They were not appropriate. This article is primarily about the game. Sticking parentheticals on every header to note that is ridiculous and lacking in NPOV. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Screw this. i'm going to make my own personal Blue Dragon wikipedia using MediaWiki, because frankly i'm tired of you editors completely deleting my work when my work is completely relevant. i'm not going to create anymore character profiles or any more new pages, i'm just going to stick with updating episode lists and stuff. None of this has ever happened to me before on wikipedia until I started editing Blue Dragon. I have edited so many articles before and this crap hasn't happened once till now....ridiculous, very ridiculous. I have talked to other people on a few forums about this and they think it is ridiculous also. They told me it would be a better idea to make my wikipedia because of this. I don't hate any of you it's just, i've had enough.DranzerX13 (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

Wikia is also a good place for fictional topics to get more in-depth coverage, or so I've heard/seen, if you don't have web hosting space for your own Wikipedia. Would never go near the place myself, but several series fans seem to like it. Much of the inappropriate content removed from Bleach, Naruto, Dragon Ball, etc has apparently found its way there, as Wikia has fewer (if any) rules about the appropriateness of content. However, really your reactions here seem extremely over the top and make me suspect you must be a minor or something. This is a discussion, and should be a rational one. Instead of ranting and raving all over the place, why not just stick to the topic at hand and counter the arguments with your own views. Other people add their views, we discuss those views, consensus is reached. You aren't even allowing time for anyone else to join the discussion and complaining because your proposal met opposition. Also, your claims are fairly off. Much of the edits you have done have had to be corrected. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My main goal for the main Blue Dragon wiki was to make it look as detailed as possible so many fans will enjoy reading about it. That was what I wanted so everyone can see how cool it is and so forth. I don't see why wikipedia can't have a page for each character even if they are fictional characters. This place is a wiki about everything, fiction, non fiction, etc. just to let you know i'm 25 years old and am male. I love anime, it is my main hobby.DranzerX13 (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

No, Wikipedia is not a place about everything, it is an encyclopedia. It has rules and guidelines for what is and is not appropriate content, which have already been pointed out to you numerous times. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I had made a minor edit stating this about if Viz will release uncut DVDs of Blue Dragon or not. "Viz has not stated whether they will or not yet. For now they're releasing the North American edited TV version with a rating of "A" for all ages." because there is no proof that there won't be uncut DVDs. now as for Zatch Bell at more then one anime con they had stated that there won't be any uncut DVDs because of the fact they don't have enough sales for their edited DVDs. But as for Blue Dragon, none of this has even been said yet as the edited DVDs just started being released like around a few months ago.DranzerX13 (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

No problem, I edited that section some anyway. We don't generally mention "don't know if" yets, just don't mention its being released. Also removed some OR and other stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I read that, it looks good, AnmaFinotera.DranzerX13 (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

Japanese title[edit]

The Japanese title is "BLUE DRAGON", not "ブルードラゴン" per the Jpanese page. moocowsrule(Talk to Moo) 08:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a reference page to show that Blue Dragon in Japan is "ブルードラゴン" below the "Blue Dragon" part of the logo. 1. http://www.amazon.co.jp/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?__mk_ja_JP=%83J%83%5E%83J%83i&url=search-alias%3Ddvd&field-keywords=%83u%83%8B%81%5B%83h%83%89%83S%83%93&x=0&y=0 2. http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%96%E3%83%AB%E3%83%BC%E3%83%89%E3%83%A9%E3%82%B4%E3%83%B3DranzerX13 (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

Take Naruto for example. in Japan it is romanized as NARUTO in plain english but below it there is japanese writing of it in japanese. DranzerX13 (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

Yes, it was released officially as Blue Dragon (remember, we do not care about all caps here), but the DVD cover clearly shows ブルードラゴン as well, so its fine having both here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Check the main site. The katakana shown here is furigana, and is not a title. Naruto, isn't necessarily romanized as "NARUTO", that's the official title. the furigana shown indicates the reading, as most Japanese probably can't read Latin characters. moocowsrule(Talk to Moo) 09:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, its name is Blue Dragon, but that doesn't mean the katakana should just be ignored (nor should all caps of the same word be included). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The Japanese title isn't "ブルードラゴン" it's "BLUE DRAGON". The Japanese page and the official page use BLUE DRAGON not "ブルードラゴン". moocowsrule(Talk to Moo) 21:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
And? We are calling it Blue Dragon here. However, as the official page and the JA page also make a point of including the katakana, including on the game and DVD covers, it should be included here as well. There is no factual error in listing it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
But that's because it's furigana. Do you really think a native Japanese speaker would read "BLUE DRAGON" with ease? It's used to indicate pronunciation and that's all. That's the same as Naruto, Bleach and One Piece. moocowsrule(Talk to Moo) 22:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to use the sandbox for test edits before submitting my edits especially if they're big edits, and the such. if it is good then I will use those changes in the actual page.DranzerX13 (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC).


GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blue Dragon/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)

Article is very well-written. However, there are a couple of issues that need to be addressed below before I pass for GA.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The paragraph structure in the Story section needs improvement. There are a couple of one-sentence paragraphs in that section, which especially needs to be addressed. Make the paragraph structure more consistent size-wise.
    Yes check.svg Done--(NGG) 21:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    Good. MuZemike 22:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The last sentence in the Characters subsection (describing General Szabo) and the last section in the Development section (before the subsections, the reference to Blue Dragon Plus) are unreferenced. The last paragraph in the Manga and anime section are not only unreferenced, with the exception of the first sentence, but also has a pair of {{fact}} tags in there. Either reference them or remove them; I'm sure the Characters one is fairly easy to reference.
    Yes check.svg Done--(NGG) 22:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    Good. MuZemike 22:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Excellent coverage of the entire topic, which includes both the game and the anime and manga.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    No instability or edit warring since the push to GA. As a side note, it's interesting how some articles all of a sudden become amazingly stable after some good work being done on it.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    I went through and improved the images for you. Remember that they need to be of small size and low-resolution in order to comply with WP:NFCC#3. I have also strengthened the fair-use rationales, which is also a must to comply with WP:NFCC#8. I tend to demand this for Good Articles as opposed to other reviewers. However, this is an absolute must in order to stand a chance for FA status, as FAC reviewers will oppose on the basis of shobby non-free images/FURs alone.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Placed on hold until the necessary improvements can be made. MuZemike 20:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    Nice job! It passes GA! MuZemike 22:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I combed through the article for other syntax issues which may provide problems especially should this article approaches FA. Here are some of the things I have corrected (use this for future reference):

  • Consistency in comma usage → I am assuming the article is written in the North American style as opposed to Oxford style, so you need to place a comma before the conjunction. For example: "foo1, foo2, and foo3" instead of the Oxford style "foo1, foo2 and foo3". Stay consistent, and don't switch between styles.
  • Citation templates:
    • WP:CITE discourages the mixing of different citation templates. If you're going to use citations for references other than websites along with references from websites, stick with the {{citation}} template.
    • The pages parameter in the citation template refers to the specific page numbers in the reference, not the total number of pages (these were removed).
    • It is unnecessary to include the language=English in each template as, being en.wiki, the template defaults to English.
    • The publisher does not need to be wikilinked in every instance of the citation—just the first instance and that's it. This prevents excessive overlinking in the References section.
    • Stay consistent throughout all citations with the date formatting. I have changed everything to the MMMM-YY-DD.
    • For proper XHTML parsing, ref tags should follow <ref name="foo">{{citation...}}</ref> or <ref name="foo" />, with quotations around the tag, and in the latter a space followed by a slash after the right quotation.
    • I placed spaces after the end of each parameter in each citation. This helps the formatting in the text box and makes editing easier.
  • WP:MOS#Images discourages the forced resizing of images in the article, i.e. adding a size parameter in the File or Image templates. This hampers usability and borks up the XHTML code (that is, different screens, browsers, and OSes treat these iamges differently and may lead to issues if forced resizing is used). I have removed them.
  • Please consider moving the citations out of the lead, as they tend to clutter up the lead. (Even though WP:LEADCITE ultimately leaves this to the discretion of the editor, this is normally frowned upon by many reviewers at WP:FAC.) If the facts in the lead are not already mentioned in the main body of the article, then copy them into the main body and then remove the citation in the lead. If it already is in the main body, then simply remove the corresponding citation.

Hopefully, this helps out and gives this article a leg-up as far as consideration for A-Class or even FA is concerned. Otherwise, good job, so far! MuZemike 20:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

QEQE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.74.140 (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Grand Kingdom[edit]

I've played through this game more than a few times and I don't believe this term is ever mentioned. In fact, not much of anything about Nene's past is talked about. This seems to be purely an anime term and should probably be removed from the opening since it isn't actually part of the setting being described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.72.100 (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Blue Dragon (anime)-discussion[edit]

I am starting this section here cause I think there should be a page for the Blue Dragon anime which would separate the info of the anime from the info from the video game. Any objections? Rtkat3 (talk) 5:45, November 2 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the information needs to be split out. The information is useful here as the anime is based on the game. It is also not too long so no need for a content fork. However, if there is enough information (I am assuming it meets WP:GNG) then I have no objections to creating a {{main}} article just about the anime and link to it from here. AIRcorn (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I actually support this as well. The Blue Dragon anime, although based off the game, the characterizations and story can differ vastly from the game in which it was based off of. This is especially true for the second season, where it is an entirely original story with completely new characters who did not appear in the games (to the best of my knowledge). I really feel there is enough information out there and available that it could be it's own article, as the two are almost completely different. Mendinso (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Given the size of the material, I don't think a split is required at the moment. If you have some extra material then that would be a different matter. Op47 (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Now that I notice the split tag re-added, I also agree that the material shouldn't be split out. There is WP:SIZE to consider as well as the integrity of the article which is of WP:GA status. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Removed the tag. The poster had not started a thread on this page to discuss the split after tagging the section 3 days prior. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Blue Dragon ST[edit]

Doesn't appear to be independently notable of the game Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Problem solved. This page is very important as a GA, it makes Wikipedia better to handle such pressing issues in a somewhat quick manner. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)