Talk:Dragon Quest X

Possible deletion

I know its early but considering the time it takes for one game to come out in this series (general 4-5 years since #6) we are probably talking about a release in 2012 or something. Maybe its a bit premature to make an articel at this timeOttawa4ever (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC).

It's received significant press coverage. Deleting it mere days after creation is pointless. If deleted, it will eventually be recreated. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldnt doubt it would be recreated one day. But significant press coverage is not one sentance of it being mentioned at another games release. If theres significant press please add it to the article. Each of the three sources now say the same thing. (And just because im a big fan and own a wii Id be very happy to see this happen :) ) It seems still premature to start this article even.....but i could be wrong. How would you feel about a redirect/merge?Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This was already discussed and voted on like 2 months ago. There was many people opposed to deletion and redirect. Stop trying to delete this article: you are going against the consensus. 71.193.200.106 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

The article was created december 10th, my post was two days later. The comments here are from 3 months ago and after taking it to the main series page for consensus and it was decided to hold off any merge or deletion. Look at the facts before you start making posts like this (and vandalizing the page as in the revision history), no one is presently trying to delete or merge this page Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Since there were a few recent discussion additions opening this discussion further to the main series page I have added some additional information about this article there Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

afd merge

As I noted on the AfD review, the discussion was not imo properly notified to the Dragon Quest Task Force, which was listed on this page otherwise I would have been able to easily show any quick google results that say Square-Enix will be releasing info on it this month. My guess is around the time of the US DQ6 release.陣内_Jinnai 07:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Tentative oppose recreation until the announcement is actually made As noted in the AFD review by yourself, you feel the task force wasnt properly notified- no one else has said that for a reason to overturn the merge at the review. The merger here had complete consensus from everyone involved within the AFD discussion during the entire week at which it was listed at AFD, list of Games-related deletion discussions, and list of video game related deletion discussions. Proper notification was given. The merge can clearly be undone if the information which was due at the end of last month (end of January and the date at which the AFD discussion initiated) according to your sources posted at the AFD review come to pass, which currently didnt happen. That i no doubt would certaintly satisfy all those who discussed merge at the discussion. Otherwise We shouldnt speculate or as you say guess when this information may or may not come. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It actually isn't so easy because the info would need to be merged to the main page and then unmerged. Since the current mainpage is undergoing copyedit request to be brought to FAC, this would put an undue burden as it'll have to be undone in likely the next couple of weeks. If it isn't, then yes, I could see it being merged.陣内_Jinnai 18:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I dont know about the others involved in the AFD, but i see no huge harm waiting a few more weeks (3 perhaps?) before merging to see if any announcement comes out of the DQ6 release. Does that sound acceptable to you? (And others?) Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said, if nothing comes in a few weeks, I don't mind merging.陣内_Jinnai 19:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that there has been a lot more added and some recent reconfirmation I'd like this to be rediscussed. I know we generally don't keep seperate articles on unreleased games so far from their deadline, but something stuff like Chrono Break does exist. FE using the proposal up WP:Notability (video games) it could be argued there has been continued commentary and ongoing speculation about the game. The question here is whether it has enough development info or speculation.陣内_Jinnai 18:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it'd be best to leave it alone for now. I'm sure that it will have new information in the near future, and its existence isn't hurting, say, the series' hypothetical featured/good topic (yet). Plus, it will be split out eventually anyway; no need to modify the series article to include it and then to exclude it later. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ill be a tad direct because i think things needs to be said. The additions yesterday did not address the concerns raised in the merge discussion, one primary concern was all the speculation about it- This was only added to with these new additions and more crystal balling. Im sorry to say- but it is the truth. I honestly understand that theres some who really feel passionate about keeping this article- I mean who really doesnt like DQ whose played it right?, and maybe thats a reason to keep it with all its supporters (more consesus against the merge). But the manner in which this has been handled is a prime example of gaming the system I think to curve policies in wikiepdia to satisfy our passions, first we have a delay after a consensus AFD outcome for a month for something that didnt happen, then if the merge took place it would have caused instability of the dragon quest article and by preventing it the DQ series article can more easily become a featured article, and now adding more of the same speculation and Crystal balling- None of the actions of which addressed the outcome of the previous AFD discussion. It feels like we've pushed the line and lets see if we can push it just a bit more to flip the outcome of the afd. The bottom line is no announcement has come yet and we dont know when this will. I think you guys all do fine work (New age, Jinnai and so on) But i do feel this was not handled well at all. Im tired of arguing about it, Im tired of the way wikipedia's policies are all twisted around and only being used when it suits peoples desires, Im tired in general right now with all of this, its one article that really isnt hurting anyone out there. If you want to stop the merge on the basis of more speculation I wont be stepping in the way anymore, (Ill even go as far to say that theres new consesus to oppose the merge). I dont mean (or want) to offend anyone here, I just figured i should voice how i feel over this. Thanks and happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The notion that I have any vested interest in preventing a merge is a fairly strong AGF violation. It has nothing to do with its merge and everything to do with its merge target. I do not believe in excessive merging to series articles, as if we did this too frequently for one series, the series article would be over-encumbered. My only motive for editing this article - evidenced by the fact that my only major editing in Dragon Quest has been on Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime and Slime (Dragon Quest) - is curiosity as to whether it could work. That's the motive for most of what I do - Pixel Force: Left 4 Dead, Donkey Kong Jr. Math, Kid Klown in Crazy Chase, Rugrats: Search for Reptar, etc. I've no deep interest in any of the three above-mentioned topics, merely curious as to whether such a topic should work. Don't overreact and make interpretations of a situation without giving the person the opportunity to explain their actions. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The merge target is the core of this and its push for FA. Which is a fair concern, but still not handled correctly or a legit reason to prevent a merge which had consensus. But Im tired of it all, its just not worth it, the article isnt hurting anyone standing. As for you pointing out a AGF worry- my words are meant against how this merge has been handled,Please keep in mind the following notes i made above, and dont over react to them; Like i said above; I think you guys all do fine work (New age, Jinnai and so on) But i do feel this was not handled well at all. as well as saying I dont mean (or want) to offend anyone here, I just figured i should voice how i feel over this. Thanks and happy editing, Ive assumed good faith. I have nothing more to add to this. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this article now can stand on its own. While I said before in the AfD to merge, that was because it looked like this. Because the article has drastically changed, the previous consensus is not valid. Before, it could have easily been a small mention in the series article. Now that there is actual good information from many reliable sources, this would be ugly and undue weight in the series article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

So, what do we need to do to get this article to start status? Looks pretty close now!Judgesurreal777 21:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be start right now. Once more information is known to put into the article, then it will be expanded. But until then, there isn't anything to do, other then what Retro Hippie found. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Quest X Demo?

I don't know japanese but I know that Dragon Quest X will be at least mentioned in the 25th Anniversery DQI*II*III compilation. Sorry if it's a youtube video (I'll try replace it with another link) but it's an official trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxUk3xTwLh4&feature=channel_video_title SimpsonsMan1234 (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

CERO rating

This game is rated A All Ages in Japan so add it. Look at the Japanese Website.169.244.49.193 (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Verifying the IP Block

I'm going to add in this as a source for the IP Block being present. This is from Square-Enix's official FAQ for the game. It's written in Japanese but it's where they confirm the error message you receive and their policy of not allowing foreign connections to connect to the game.

http://support.jp.square-enix.com/faqarticle.php?id=2620&kid=64325

I'll add this in as a source on the main article.

13:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)CranberryFo (talk)Cranberry

Tiny Images in this and Other Articles

Why even provide images if they are _always_ of such low resolution [these days]? Stop being so cheap with bandwidth, it's absolutely ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.79.235.41 (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• It has nothing to do with bandwidth, see WP:IMAGERES. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cognissonance (talk · contribs) 01:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

And then there were two... Cognissonance (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Synopsis

• "the protagonist forges a friendship bond" — Improve prose: "the protagonist forges a friendship".

Development

• I suggest illustrating the return of veteran developers, using images of art designer Akira Toriyama and composer Koichi Sugiyama. Another image depicting the Squenix game engine could also be useful.
• CGI — Link to Computer-generated imagery
• "¥1200 and ¥2000, then set it at ¥1000" — Parenthesize the $ equivalent for each.

Overall

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall: You have made a near flawless article. Congrats! You're my first immediate pass.

   Pass/Fail:

   @ProtoDrake: And you always remember your first... Cognissonance (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)