Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix/Dragon Quest archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Soundtracks

Well, since popular series like Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts all have their own soundtrack album wiki pages, why doesn't DQ have one? Granted, the music from the series is perhaps some of the most complexing pieces of work by a video game composer, and many of the albums were even performed by London Philharmonic Orchestra! The impact that DQ has on video game music is profound, as it is the first video game series to be performed in a concert hall. --Aresmo 21:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hate to start off your talk page like this, but fair-use images aren't allowed outside of mainspace. That means that you need to take down the Dragon Quest logo on the Wikproject page, and replace it with a free use image. --PresN 21:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to correct us any time we do something not allowed, like that. No worries about it. Also, if you like it, you can come on board for the project. Icecypher 09:15 (CT) 14 February 2007
I replaced the fair-use image with an image that I created. --Rika95 05:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I put a proposed logo for the project up in the thread on Slimeknights. As I said there, we need to be careful about not breaking copyright so I think a slime is out of the question. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy for their discussion on a logo.SMimas 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Slime was created by a wikipedia user, it's under some usage license frequently used by Wikipedia, so I think we may be fine using it for the time being. I invite anyone here who is very knowledgable about these things to please evaluate the situation.
Once we have a suitable logo, we can change everything so it all has one useful logo. :) Siyavash 22:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
My only worry about the slime is this WP:AN#Important notice regarding fair use that all administrators should see which discourages the use of fair use images. If you read the whole discussion concerning it you can see that there are a lot of people who are going out and deleting images. I think the ugly red background DQ can serve in the slimes place till we get a suitable logo. SMimas 00:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What about using the DQ monster medal, now used in the DQ stub? Zenithian 17:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Is everybody okay with that? I'll a day, in order to give folks a chance to respond. --Rika95 21:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, since I got no response, I assume that is a 'yes'. I replaced the slime with the image I created. --Rika95 05:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

I think we need to discuss this more before deciding when to use the original Japanese names or English localized names. Zenithian 23:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? As in, is there a specific page that you are referring to? In most cases the character names stayed the same in game transitions. The general formula is to use the most popular version of the name, and since this is the English Wikipedia that means that we would call Kukuru Angelo (As it seems it is already done). Erdrick should probably be called Loto (Though personally my preference is Roto) since he has not been called Erdrick since the Nintendo days, and when released on the gameboy he became Loto. 128.195.76.208 00:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the named mentioned in Wikipedia should be the one that is used in whichever game is being described. For example, when referring to the NES Dragon Warrior 1-3, Erdrick should be used, and when referring to to Gameboy version, Loto should be used. When referring to Eridrick / Loto in general, both names should be used. Some folks that are more familiar with the NES Dragon Warrior (me) prefer Erdrick over Loto. Rika95

Well, while both names should be used in the article on Eridrick himself, as I said above (but had forgotten to sign in), their is a precedence in Wikipedia to use the name that is most popular. I would generally think the more accessible gameboy game name of Loto should be used in the majority of the page. SMimas 00:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Reading the project page again, I think agree that "In general, new localizations supersede older localizations" since they will become what the popular name is, but that is only more reason that Eridrick needs to be changed to Loto. In the same place we can put Kukuru/Angelo instead since that is a case of a difference based on localization. SMimas 00:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Folks that are only familiar with the NES Dragon Warrior and never played the GameBoy Dragon Warrior would not recognize Loto. I never knew what Loto meant until someone explained it at Slime Knights. Rika95

That's why it is important that the site mentions that he is called Eridrick and that Eridrick redirects to Loto. I'm not suggesting that we never use the name Eridrick, I'm just saying that through the article the default name should be Loto and the article name should be Loto. As I said, as a Japanophile purist I personally use Roto (Even though I was brought up with Eridrick.) but Loto is the last version of the name that Enix put out, so that is the name I think we should go by. SMimas 01:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I would be fine with this if everytime Loto is used, it would link to the page that explains that Loto = Erdrick. It would also help if there be a brief explaination that Loto = Erdrick the first time that character is mentioned on the web pages. --Rika95 01:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If we are to rename everything to its more recent description, (i.e. Loto instead of Erdrick, Dragon Quest (for all the games) as opposed to Dragon Warrior for some and Dragon Quest for others), can we at least have a page documenting the differences (people, places, and objects) among the various English released versions (i.e. the NES, GBC, and post-merger titles)? Zenithian 16:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Dragon Warrior stays for DQ I-IV & VII since the most recent release called them that. The differences in names probably only belong in the related game info. Like in Dragon Warrior the we write "Loto (Eridrick in the original Nintendo release) for the first instance of Eridrick, and then change any further mentions of his name to Loto. SMimas 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Go back and read Siyavash's writing. He proposes to eliminate confusion by calling Dragon Warrior II (and the other pre-Dragon Quest VIII games) by their original Japanese names, so every Dragon Warrior# page would need to be renamed Dragon Quest#. Zenithian 20:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I know that is what Siyavash wrote, but as in the case of Erdrick I'm suggesting that latest localization should be given preference. While the games would be called Dragon Quest if they were re-released now anyone in North America can only find the game in (used) stores under the name Dragon Warrior. SMimas 20:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading various WP policies (in particular WP:NCON), and a Google test, Erdrick appears 854 times as opposed to Loto's 708. Roto appears 535 times. Words included (all the words) were the name in question, dragon, and enix (these other two were necessary to exclude Loto-Quebec and unrelated content); wikipedia was excluded (without the words) and only pages written in English (language selection). Zenithian 20:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that gives a point towards Erdrick, but Loto probably counts as an official name, and so there is a point for that as well. SMimas 20:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is my very first time working with wikipedia to create or edit pages. I have found information at Wikipedia, but I never created any information for Wikipedia. Anyways, since I don't work-- I should have lots of time on my hands-- I decided to help out.

I think there should be links to external sites. There are some listed already, however I think that the existing links could be better organized with subheadings. What should be the style for subheadings? I think some good names for link subheadings could be:

  • Official Square Enix Sites

These sites are either hosted or funded by Square Enix.

  • Fan Created Sites

These are sites created by fans of the Dragon Quest series.

  • Video Game Sites

These sites preview / review video games in general, sell relevant merchandise, or provide video game communities.

Rika95 01:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, while it is important to have some outside links Wikipedia is not for a collection of links. The official Enix sites should be here, but I've heard that only one fan site should be here to show an example of one. Video game sites should probably be only used as references. SMimas 00:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the most useful fan sites should be provided. There are multiple useful fan sites:

Provides comprehensive information about all Dragon Quest games

Provides fan art

Provides examples of Dragon Quest merchandise

I appreciate it when Wikipedia links to other sites that I might not otherwise locate via search engines. It really helps a lot. Rika95

I'm pleased to see Dragon's Den on the page. The page would look better if the sites were organized by type. --Rika95 01:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Emblem of Roto

When I went to create a site for this manga I noticed that the Japanese page for it had a link to The Lives of Dragon Quest; Crest of Roto. As the official English title of the manga is Emblem of Roto I'm going to move the page to Emblem of Roto and we can start cleaning the page up (Since it seems that it was written either by someone with little grasp of the English language or some sort of translations software.) SMimas 02:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Redundant

Isn't this a bit redundant? We already have Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As there is a Wikiproject for Wikipedia:Final Fantasy I would say no, it is not redundant. Dragon Quest is a popular series of games with anime and manga spinoffs. I believe that there is enough information to warrant a project. Especially since none of the Dragon Quest pages are Good Articles it seems that there is a need for a coordinated effort to improve the quality of these pages. SMimas 02:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You realize that WPSE is the successor to WPFF, and that WPFF is due to be marked inactive as soon as Deckiller's big merge project is done, right? No sense having so many different projects with overlapping scopes, especially when this is entirely redundant to an existing project (WPSE). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This is the first day of the project and already there is a great deal of discussion and planning, which did not exist even with the WPSE, so obvious WPDQ is fulfilling a void that WPSE failed to fulfill. Siyavash 04:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
None of these issues are particularly limited to DQ, though. There's a naming issue that has been discussed both in general at the CVG project and in particular at the SE project, a fansite issue that has been dealt with in general numerous times at CVG, and something about a manga nobody has yet responded to.
I just don't see any reason they couldn't have been brought up where there are already more eyes watching. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Dragon Quest is big enough to warrant a Project, especially since it hasn't been treated seriously in Wiki all this time. Many (western) people on the web see SE and think Final Fantasy, anyway. Why not have DQ as a project on its own, where it'll receive the respect it deserves? Icecypher 08:56, 14 Februrary 2007 (CT)
Why can't it be respected in a non-redundant project? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, theoretically we could all just move ourselves over to WPSE and write the same things that we are writing here over there, but my hope is that a separate Dragon Quest project will gather together the people who are interested in Dragon Quest, and not necessarily the other SE games (There are more then a few fans of DW who are turned off by the company but are fans of the game.) The pages need more attention because at the moment they are not very encyclopedic and as far as I can tell none of them approaches even good article standings. While as you can see, many of the members of this project are new to Wikipedia and it will take them time to learn all of the policies that have been established, I think that with this project we are more likely to get the Dragon Quest sites up to standard. Also, while it people indeed decided to merge the Final Fantasy Project into Square Enix, even though the vote was done back in October they have not even mentioned the merge since and have even gone on to have conversations about the project image. Moreover if you look at the talk page it has been much more active in the last few months then the Square Enix projects talk page has been since its inception. To me that seems to point to the Final Fantasy project serving a use to its contributers more so then the Square Enix project. Thus I suspect that this project too is better served as a subproject of WPSE rather then being merged in, at least at this time. SMimas 01:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Um... There are no plans, to my knowledge, to deprecate the Final Fantasy WikiProject. There was some back-and-forth on the idea, but nothing even resembling consensus for the removal was achieved, and both projects receive about the same level of activity. I've no idea if there's enough interest in the Dragon Quest series to support a independent project, but that does seem to be the case with the Final Fantasy project. It's the same reason why all of these projects aren't just folded back into Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games, honestly: a specialized focus tends towards more efficiency, and a smaller pool of articles ensures that more attention can be devoted to each. While I've no real personal interest in this project, if the coordinators can demonstrate interest and fulfill a useful function, I see no problem with it, and I wish them the best of luck. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Alefgard

We should have a page focused on Alefgard. Content on the page should include:

  • The games it appears in
  • Rubiss, its creator
  • unique theme song when traveling on Alefgard fields
  • Geographic similarities / differences between Dragon Warrior 1, 2, and 3.

--Rika95 06:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. What reliable sources independent of the games have been written about Alefgard? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources can be maps of the games and specific soundtracks. I obtain the information regarding Rubiss from playing the game. A screenshot of Rubiss explaining that she created Alefgard should suffice. --Rika95 07:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are primary sources. This isn't a fanwiki; you need to establish that a fictional concept is important in the real world, or it'll be merged or deleted. This is the upshot of WP:FICT and WP:WAF. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Would sources in japanese count? Or is something the english-speakers can understand needed so something can exist in Wiki? Guidebooks for the games (not the ones included in them, but special ones) do mention Alefgard, it really is an important part of Dragon Quest, way more important than Final Fantasy VII's Midgard, at least before the spin offs of that Final Fantasy VII. Icecypher 09:02 14 Februrary 2007 (CT)
Japanese sources should be fine, though I am sure that an English source would be considered better.128.195.76.208 15:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

English or Japanese or Swahili, it doesn't really matter. The problem is that Alefgard isn't actually important in the real world, and the only sources you're going to find will deal with it as an aspect of a larger fictional work (namely, each of the first three DW games). Unless you can find some sources about Alefgard as an artefact of the real world (for example, articles about the creation of Alefgard, its impact on fans or popular culture or other games or whatever), all you're doing is rearranging plot and backstory of the DW games into a new way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You say that pages about fictional places shouldn't have Wikipedia pages because they "aren't important to the real world." Midgar is a fictional place that "isn't important to the real world." According to your logic, then there should not be a Wikipedia page for Midgar. However, a Wikipedia page for Midgar exists. That must mean that it is okay for Wikipedia pages to exist about places that "bear no importance to the real world." With all due respect, I think that the fictional places in Final Fantasy VII and Dragon Quest I - III are important because they pertain to pop-culture. Providing such pages can help people better understand fictional places that are intensely meaningful to the lives of gamers that experienced them. I feel that it is appropriate that pages dedicated to both Midgar and Alefgard exist. --Rika95 01:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The FF project is working on reducing in-universe FF cruft, though. I don't think repeating the mistakes they're trying to correct is a good idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good, but it is not like we are trying to create a page for every single town ever featured on Dragon Quest. Alefgard has been featured, at least, in the first three games of the main series, with appearences in other games, like Itadaki Street Special and Caravan Heart. It has also appeared on comics not directly related to any of the games. It is also a place that, by itself, identifies Dragon Quest. I guess you would have to have played the games to see how important it is to people who know Dragon Quest. Icecypher 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Pants have been worn by characters in every single Dragon Quest game, plus every single spinoff. Should we write Pants in Dragon Quest?
I know that sounds silly, but it would be just as reasonable. You need reliable sources independent of the subject, not synthesis of your personal observation of the games. Reliable sources help us separate the important (important in the real world, not the fictional one!) from the unimportant, and keep the article from degenerating into a few users' essay on the setting of the game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, pants were not worn by anyone on Slime Morimori (n_n).
Okay, can you please tell me how this is applied to other games, outside of Dragon Quest? I see there are pages for almost anything everywhere, while we cannot even create a page for one of the most recognized icons of the Dragon Quest phenomenon. For example, how is the Galactic Federation (from Metroid games) more important in the real world than Alefgard is? I truly want to understand how this works. Icecypher 19:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
In practice? There's a ton of articles that are nothing more than synthesis of personal observation. There are also a lot of editors cleaning up after overenthusiastic editors who never got or chose to ignore the advice I just gave you. Ask Deckiller or Steel359 or Combination, if you don't take my word for it. Rather than make a mistake and have to correct it, why not start out on the right foot?
Before writing sub-articles, why not concentrate first on the game articles? It shouldn't be hard at all to find good English-language (they don't have to be in English, but unless you read Japanese it's easier) sources for DW7 and DQ8. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Existing Dragon Quest Pages

There are bound to be quite a few Dragon Quest Wikipedia pages scattered throughout this site. I think it would help to have an index of all existing Dragon Quest pages. This would enable us to determine how to improve them, or if we should remove them and include their data in other Dragon Quest pages.

--Rika95 19:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea, Rika. We can start by looking at the DQ Category, but also have to make sure there are no pages without the category tag attached. Icecypher 20:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Siyavash tagged them all already. Here's the ones I know -

I did just add the WPDQ Article template to Zenithia. Zenithian 20:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for locating them. This should help. --Rika95 23:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a few more. Thanks to all those who helped split the Dragon Quest Monsters article into a series and game articles, and those who did the same for the Torneko games. Zenithian 01:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Quest Characters

I realize that some characters from the Dragon Quest games appear in Dragon Quest manga. I wonder how this should be done. Should we have a single page that lists all the characters for one particular manga series that provides detailed information that pertains to them in the manga and game? Should there be a list of the characters from that manga that only provides information that pertains to them in the manga, and then have pages about them from the game link to the manga? Or should there be individual pages for each character in a manga that are also major characters in a Dragon Quest game? Examples I can think of are the characters from Dragon Quest IV. There are probably more, but I know very little about the manga.

--Rika95 00:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Stub marked for deletion

I notice that the Dragon Quest template stub is marked for deletion. Discussion on deleting the stub is already happening. So far, everybody in the discussion is in favor deleting it. I don't understand what this means, but I figure it might help to let people know about this. If the Dragon Quest template stub gets deleted, how would this impact the chances creating organized Dragon Quest pages on Wikipedia? --Rika95 02:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Barely, if at all. The number of Square Enix stubs as a whole is very modest, and that type isn't proposed for deletion. Nothing is stopping you creating a talk-page template feeding into Category:Stub-Class Dragon Quest articles, on the pattern of the copious numbers of such 1.0 assessment entities. If the numbers of such articles increases dramatically, nothing would prevent the later recreation of suc a template (or indeed stub category, if really necessary). Alai 14:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No original research

From Wikipedia's No original research page.

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

  • It introduces a theory or method of solution;
  • It introduces original ideas;
  • It defines new terms;
  • It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
  • It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
  • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
  • It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

Since we would not be doing any of those things by including content we get directly from the video games or comics, the point of our violation the No Original Research rule is not valid.

No analysis would be made, just inclusion of statements.

  • Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. The White House's summary of a president's speech is a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.
    Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; newspaper accounts which contain first-hand material, not merely analysis or commentary of other material; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

No interpretation would be made, so this should be okay, as written on the rules:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

So, as you can see, we can be compliant of this and still create pages for things of relevance and significance to Dragon Quest. Icecypher 20:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In principle, yes. In practice, it's functionally impossible to write a stable, reliable, and above all, citation-worthy article that relies solely on primary source research. First of all, as you've quoted, you can only use primary sources for quantitative claims, not analysis. Any analysis based on primary source material is original research. And while not all articles need to be heavily analytical, all need to assert a reasonable claim to notability. In rare cases, notability can be assumed to be self-evident: the current events issues explicitly cited by the excerpt above are a good example of this. Most of the time, however, an article needs to let the reader know why it matters. That's an analytical process, which means you need a reliable secondary source. Which is why, in general, there's an observable correlation between articles relying exclusively on primary source material and articles relying on original research. There's really very little you can do with primary sources that's suitable for an encyclopedia.
That said, there's undoubtedly a lot about the Dragon Quest series that is very notable indeed, given its sales and cultural prominence in Asia. Unfortunately, I suspect there's not a whole lot of secondary source material available in translation, so writing articles relevant to the series is probably going to rely on the ability of editors to access and understand foreign language sources. But, assuming that you can overcome that hurdle, there's surely a lot of room for growth.– Sean Daugherty (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The translation issue is why I suggested that the best place to start is DW7 and DQ8, since the sources won't be 12 years old or in Japanese. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have issues from Nintendo Power that cover games from the Dragon Quest series:

Dragon Warrior: vol 6 pages 52-53, vol 7 pages 39-50, vol 8 pages 20-27, vol 11 pages 51-54, NP Strategy Guide

Dragon Warrior II: vol 16 pages 66-67, vol 27 pages 27-29

Dragon Warrior III: vol 27 pages 26-39

Dragon Warrior IV: vol 46 pages 82-87

I also own published manuals for Dragon Warrior 1-4, Dragon Warrior VII, Dragon Quest VIII, and Dragon Warrior Monsters.

Would printed works, such as manuals, strategy guides, and magazine articles count as sufficient secondary resources? --Rika95 21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Manuals are primary sources; they're written by the creators of the game. They're as much a part of the game as the game's text.
Strategy guides are kind of a grey area; they're typically written with cooperation from the games' developers and publisher, and tend not to have much in the way of analysis. They can be good for sourcing that such-and-such obscure part of the game exists, but are bad for establishing importance.
Magazine articles are going to be the bread and butter of sourcing articles about games from the last ten years. They're secondary sources, and as independent as anything gets in the game industry. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should work on providing more secondary resources. Providing such resources for the pre-Internet games can be hard, because they would mainly be printed materials that would likely no longer be in print. For games that got published ever since the Internet became widespread, obtaining secondary resources should be easier-- the information can be found at online magazines.

If anybody else happens to have magazines or news reports with articles pertaining to Dragon Quest, please provide them. --Rika95 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

id hafta look for it, but i know i have the nintendo power issue where they discuss dw6 coming out in japan Evaunit666 01:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Volume 81 (Feb 1996) of Nintendo Power covers Dragon Quest VI on pages 64-67.--Rika95 03:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

References

Ive done a lot of work with the Dragon Quest VI page, but theres still something missing: references. And since the whole concept still confuses me of actually how to cite sources on wikipedia, Id appreciate it if someone could help. thanks : ) Evaunit666 02:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a new references section in the To-do list of the project. Since we're under scrutiny, the Dragon Quest pages will hardly grow before we add references to the ones that already exist. Icecypher 23:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lists of characters

The category for Dragon Quest characters needs more entries. While it is not wise nor necessary to start creating pages for every character ever to appear on a DQ game, a page listing characters from each game could be added. I just created the List of Dragon Warrior IV characters (it needs input), and some could be created for the otehr games, as well. Icecypher 23:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Quest Monsters page name

A page for the first Dragon Quest Monsters game has been created. It is named using the japanese name, instead of the localization name. Should the page be Dragon Warrior Monster (video game), so it keeps the norm? Please reply with your opinion. Icecypher 17:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think, since the other games use warrior when applicable, it should be dragon warrior monsters. Evaunit666 00:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Quest Heroes is not a series

According to all articles, the spinoff series is called Slime MoriMori in Japan; it is composed of two games:

  • Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest: Shougeki No Shippo Dan
  • Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest 2

The first game was not released outside of Japan, while the second was released as Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime. The second game's article should definitely use the English name since we're on the English Wikipedia. However, you can't name the series "Dragon Quest Heroes", it's not the title of the spinoff series. It's only the title of the second game. In English countries, Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime doesn't belong in any series (apart from the global DQ series of course) since there is only one game. A series can't be composed of only one game; the only name that encompasses the two games is Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest and this name has no English equivalent.

Calling this series Dragon Quest Heroes would be kind of like calling the Chocobo games "Final Fantasy Fables" even though only Chocobo's Tales is called so. Kariteh 10:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%; if more games are released, it'd be better to call it "Rocket Slime" series. Or "Rocket Slime" could be used to include the "unreleased" Slime Morimori. Icecypher 14:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
So basically, if there are two games with similar plot and gameplay, they can only be in a series if their titles are the same? Also, do not change the template to something that helps nobody except those who go to the jp.wiki. Give me one good reason to ignore naming conventions (and no, adhering to Japanophiles is a pretty terrible reason). - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[[1]] - The English name of the series is Dragon Quest Heroes. It is irrelevant that the first game in the series was not released in English. – ARC GrittTALK 18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
While none of us can really know what happens inside S-E America, I would still see the "Dragon Quest Heroes" as a tag title, which could actually be used for other spin-offs. That is why I think convenient to wait before naming the series that way. What if they do bring Yangus (sure) and label it Dragon Quest Heroes: Young Yangus? Would it be sensible to make that the series' name? At any rate, we do not know at this point. What I think could be done, is to use the american "Rocket Slime" as the name of the series, instead of the japanese one. Icecypher 18:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It says in the infoboxes for BOTH Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest: Shougeki No Shippo Dan and Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime that they are part of the Dragon Quest Heroes series. Note: the Dragon Quest Heroes page redirects to Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ARC Gritt (talk • contribs) 20:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
If the infoboxes say Slime Morimori is part of the "Dragon Quest Heroes" series, then perhaps that is what has to change. I still feel naming the series "Rocket Slime" is not that bad an option. Anyone has any thoughts on that? Icecypher 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use the "anti-Japanophile" stuff as an argument, this is quite irrelevant. As a matter of fact, I'm one of the least Japanophile person I know (I dislike manga, I find Japanese customs strange, and the only Japanese things I like are the video games).

Anyway... Nobody ever denied the fact that these two games belong to the same series. However, Dragon Quest Heroes is not the title of that series. As far as English names are concerned, there is no series at all, because the only game released doesn't assert itself as a sequel (even though it is one). Dragon Quest Heroes is the title of a game in English and Rocket Slime is its subtitle. This is fact, just like Final Fantasy Fables is the title of a game in English and Chocobo's Tale its subtitle. You wouldn't argue that Final Fantasy Fables is the English title of the Chocobo series, would you?

In Japan, Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest was the title of the first game; Shougeki something was its subtitle, and Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest became the name of a series when Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest 2 was released. The fact that the first game was not released in English regions is not a problem per se; the problem is that we don't have an English name for the series. Rocket Slime is Dragon Quest Heroes, it's not Dragon Quest Heroes 2. Wikipedia's policy is to use English titles where applicable, and it's precisely not applicable here. The only existing title for this spinoff series, the name that encompasses two games as opposed to one, is Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest. Kariteh 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That is one of the most pro-Japanophilia arguments I've seen, right along with "not all games in the Mana series have Mana in the title, so let's call it Seiken Densetsu!". Slime MoriMori could never be said to not be associated with DQ Heroes, even the English version. It's completely verifiable that the two games are associated, so it is hardly a stretch to label Slime MoriMori as part of the series. The fact that to English gamers, Slime MoriMori is unfamiliar does not matter. That is a terrible argument, almost as terrible as the Seiken Densetsu one. You can't say that if a game does not have the same title, it's not in the series. Give me one good reason why title is the only thing important, while plot, gameplay, visuals, etc. have no importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh, please open your mind a little and listen to arguments, if you don't agree with them, explain your stance, but don't pretend they're not there. Repeat after me: nobody denied the fact that the two games are related. Nobody denied the fact that the two games are in the same series. They don't have the same title, but they definitely are part of the same series whether one of the game has not been released in English or has. The issue is on the name of that series, not the existence of it. Mana is a terrible counter-example to take, because it's irrelevant: Seiken Densetsu is the name of the series in Japanese, and Mana is the name of the series in English, so we should definitely use the English name (the article is still called Seiken Densetsu actually, but that's not my fault, I'd rename it Mana if I could do it with no protest).
That Mana example is totally different from the slime series: Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest is the name of the series in Japanese, and what's the name in English? Nothing. There is no name for the series in English at all. Dragon Quest Heroes is the name of only one game, it's not the name of a series. Dragon Quest Heroes will become the name of the series only if a third Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest game is developed one day in Japan and released as "Dragon Quest Heroes 2" or "Dragon Quest Heroes: something" in English regions. That day, Dragon Quest Heroes will definitely become a series name and the name of the article dealing with the 3 games. But that day has not come yet. As Icecypher noted, what if some game like Dragon Quest Shounen Yangus to Fushigi Dungeon (or whatever) or a totally new one would be suddenly announced in North America as "Dragon Quest Heroes: Yangus" or "Dragon Quest Heroes: something"? We'd have to deal with it.
But for now we can only deal with what we have. And the only fact that we have is that Dragon Quest Heroes is the name of one game, not a series name. Do you think a colon ":" is enough to assert that something is a series name? You shouldn't. "Final Fantasy Fables: Chocobo Tales" is the name of a game and Final Fantasy Fables certainly isn't the name of the Chocobo series. Kariteh 09:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
DQ Heroes describes Slime MoriMori and DQ Heroes. It is also the most recognizable name to use. So it's the best name to use, according to naming conventions. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Your statement is pure original research. I have given you facts, and all you give is baseless extrapolation over the name of one game. Mana describes a series, so we can include in it Seiken Densetsu 3 for instance even though it wasn't released in English. On the other hand, Dragon Quest Heroes simply doesn't describe a series at all, it's just the name of one of the game. This is fact. If you can bring one official source that refers to Dragon Quest Heroes as a series, then your argument will be valid. For now, it doesn't seem to be, so I'm editing the infobox. Kariteh 08:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Cute. But you yourself stated for a fact that DQ Heroes is definitely a sequel. Following this, what is the best series name to connect the two games? It is not original research to call the series DQ Heroes, because the game in English is verifiably called Dragon Quest Heroes, and it is definitely what people know it best as. Now, tell me, what is the best name to use? Naming conventions says Dragon Quest Heroes. Slime MoriMori means nothing to the readership, and has no purpose other than to serve a small niche. You seem to say that because Slime MoriMori lacks the Dragon Quest Heroes title, it cannot be considered a Dragon Quest Heroes game, and we must call the series "Slime MoriMori". However, while Mana is a different situation, there's been nothing to associate SD3 with the Mana series with the except of plot, gameplay, and visuals. If there's no association to the series in its title, why can it be described as a Mana game? Isn't that original research, under your argument? - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought the game is best known as "Rocket Slime", not as "Dragon Quest Heroes". Anyone want to give their opinion on that? I really have never seen anyone calling the game "Dragon Quest Heroes". Icecypher 15:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've never seen anyone refer to it as Rocket Slime; That's not the title, it's the subtitle. Not only that, but it doesn't tell people what the series is. When people refer to the series, they make it clear that it's a DQ game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The official, Square-Enix-managed fan site Slime Knights calls it "Rocket Slime", a piece of news there http://www.slimeknights.com/slimeknights/blog.html?bid=1&view=view_entry&blog_entry_id=261 says how IGN awarded Rocket Slime as best DS adventure game, other forums and sites dedicated to Dragon Quest call it that way, and fans who visit said forums do not use "Dragon Quest Heroes" when referring to the game. I don't want to appear as a jerk, but I simply do not see it as the game's title, but simply a tag. Can you please tell me where you've seen it referenced primarily as "Dragon Quest Heroes", and by whom? Icecypher 17:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It is original research to call the series Dragon Quest Heroes, because Square Enix has never called the series so (again, because they have no need to have a series name in English as they only sell one game here). As for Seiken Densetsu 3, the difference is that it is already established that Mana is the name of the Seiken Densetsu series in English; thus saying that Seiken Densetsu 3 is part of the Mana series is correct. On the other hand, Dragon Quest Heroes has never been established to be a name of a series, but only the name of one game. Calling this series "Dragon Quest Heroes" would be like calling the Chrono series "Chrono Cross" or even, in a way, referring to the Iliad and the Odyssey as the "Odyssey series". Kariteh 17:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
So since we cannot verify that DQ Heroes cannot be used as a series name, then we could logically say that SD3 isn't a Mana game because it has no association to the name. Name isn't important. It's not like the game changed its name to be separate from Slime MoriMori somewhat, like Cross did. It's not like the series changes its title for the sake of differentiating itself. Slime MoriMori is the JP title of the series. DQ Heroes is the English title. If we can find one single reliable source that groups Slime MoriMori under DQ Heroes or Rocket Slime, it is thusly the series title. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
...
The whole point of this discussion is to ask you to present a single reliable source that groups Slime MoriMori under DQ Heroes. Please present that source. Kariteh 19:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
If it's a sequel in Japan, it's a sequel in US. Does SMM not exist on the en.wiki? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Please stop ignoring my arguments; I didn't ignore yours. You're avoiding the relevant part of the discussion and are focusing on something no one even argued about (again, nobody ever said that DQH was not a sequel, the discussion is on the name of the series, not its existence per se). If you can give me a reliable source which refers to "Dragon Quest Heroes" as the title of the series which encompasses both SMMDQ1 and DQH:RS, then please do so. For now, all you're doing is extrapolating and taking one game's name for the whole series' name. Kariteh 08:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Disadvantageous to the readers is not a good thing to be. If DQ Heroes and Slime MoriMori can be connected, then they can be considered a series, even in North America. And in the end, the best thing to do is look at which name is better for our readers - the English name, or the Japanese name? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
"Appealing" to the readers is nice of course, but not when it's going against fact. Besides, the article of the series doesn't get deleted or something, it's still there for people to see and read. I'm sorry but since you have no source to establish your claim, I'm editing the template. Kariteh 22:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You know, in all actuality, your stance is supported by no one - your stance is to use Slime MoriMori, which is disavantageous, unappealing, and unhelpful to anyone who has not done any indepth research of the game. See, one person reverted you, I reverted you, and one person suggested to not use DQ Heroes - but never said to use Slime MoriMori, and in fact suggested that we change to the Rocket Slime series. Being bold ceases to be a factor when all oppose. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yada yada yada. You're opposing facts and are using too much assumptions; even your claim that the correct name is "unhelpful" is shaky. When someone types Dragon Quest Heroes in Wikipedia, what he wants to find is more likely the article about Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime than the article about a series which has never been called that name. Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest is clearly the name of the series since the first game is called Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest: Shougeki no something, and the second game exists as Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest 2 (Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime in America). On the other hand, "Dragon Quest Heroes" has never been used as a name for a series, it's the name of only one game. You claim the opposite, I asked you to bring a source to back up your claim, and you still haven't brought one. Kariteh 10:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm copy-pasting from my talk page since this is important to clear up the discussion:

PLEASE explain how you're the King of Wikipedia.

Because, see, your move is an unpopular one. Am I to understand that any policy or guideline allows you to do whatever you want and ignore anything said by anyone else? By the way, do you have a source to say that the series is called Slime MoriMori? Have SE called it the Slime MoriMori series before? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm not the King of Wikipedia and never claimed that I were it; do not resort to personal attack. Policy and guidelines allows to do things to some extent, but in this case it is not only about policy and guidelines, it's simply about facts and correcting an erroneous statement spread over a few articles and a template. Besides, you ask me to provide some source to back up my statements. Fine, I'm providing them. Just note that I find it curious that I asked you about sources first, and that you haven't provided yours. In any case...
  • Here is an interview in which Yuji Horii refers to the series as Slime MoriMori: [2]. For information, this interview was translated by Richard Honeywood, a Square Enix employee who notably translated Chrono Cross and Final Fantasy XI.
  • That interview is well enough, but you can also look at most professional video game sites (I mean, not fansites) to see that they use the name Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest to refer to the series. For example, IGN here and there.
Now, if you have a contradicting source from Square Enix which would refer to the series as Dragon Quest Heroes, again, please provide it. If you can't, I'm going to correct the template and the articles in about 24 hours. Kariteh 18:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Both are from IGN, not Square Enix and long before DQ Heroes' release. And the second one is referring to someone who would most recognize it as Slime MoriMori. PS: A 75% consensus against you and you still insist on forcing the articles your way. Am I to understand that you aren't claiming that you have more right to change the articles than everyone else? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
IGN is an established and reliable site, and Horii's answers were translated by Richard Honeywood, not IGN. We thus have two possibilities: either 1/ the second game's English name had already been planned to be Dragon Quest Heroes and Honeywood would have used that name to avoid confusion, or 2/ the second game's English name hadn't been decided yet. Case 1 is rather unlikely. Either way, I have proven that Slime MoriMori is the name of the series for both Square Enix and fansites, which was exactly my point if you haven't noticed. You still have yet to back up your baseless claims. Issues which are blurry need consensus to be cleared up, but blatant facts opposed to baseless claims don't. Kariteh 20:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Blatant facts? You say SE says it's the Slime MoriMori series, but how many times does SE call it that? None. Regardless, I've already solved the problem - neither are used. Everything's now hunky dory. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please try and come up with more sources for the naming

I think Slime MoriMori is a terrible name and doesn't do people reading it any favours as it's not easily recognisable, but here are some sources which Kariteh has found:

  • Here is an interview in which Yuji Horii refers to the series as Slime MoriMori: [3]. For information, this interview was translated by Richard Honeywood, a Square Enix employee who notably translated Chrono Cross and Final Fantasy XI.
  • That interview is well enough, but you can also look at most professional video game sites (I mean, not fansites) to see that they use the name Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest to refer to the series. For example, IGN here and there.

N.B. The guy from the IGN article refers to the Fusigi no dungeon series as the Mysterious Dungeon series, perhaps we should change that also?

P.S. No more reverts unless it's verifiable. – ARC GrittTALK 09:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

For me, the best name, considering guidelines, would be "Rocket Slime", which I see as the real name of the game. If we go with other title, I could see it as "Slime Morimori" series. Never as "Dragon Quest Heroes" series. I still have to find people who think that is the name. But I absolutely agree with ARC Gritt, no more fights (noteworthy fact: Kariteh has not used personal attacks in his posts, please, ALTTP, stop doing it on yours). Icecypher 14:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. The 1UP interview predates any other alternative series title. Not only that, but the sequel wouldn't be out for many months.
  2. In those two interviews, it was IGN, not Square Enix, who referred to it as Slime MoriMori.
  3. No, we shouldn't. I don't think I've ever seen a game with the title "Mysterious Dungeon" in that genre.
  4. What am I supposed to say, Icecypher? "You are actually doing a wonderful job respecting the opinions of others, even though you're saying that this is how it's going to be and no one can put a word in edge-wise"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
In other posts, I had actually asked for opinions about that name, which never came; then you said no one ever calls it "Rocket Slime" while sustaining the most recognized name is "Dragon Quest Heroes". I posted what I have seen in regards of how people refer to that game, and simply asked about who calls it the way you said, since I honestly had not seen anyone do it before this discussion, and I spend most of my online time on Dragon Quest forums. You are simply supposed to back what you say, and it would be nice if the tone of your posts did not include condescension or downright insults.
Besides all the sources I posted before (look for that post, it's not difficult to find), a new one is here: http://na.square-enix.com/rocketslime/
See how the URL is not "Dragon Quest Heroes"? A strange choice, using the "subtitle" for the official page, isn't it?
Same for this official contest, Rocket Slime: Tag My Tank: http://na.square-enix.com/rocketslime/contest/
Where you can read this at the end: In addition to the goods, the winning entries for the Grand Prizes and First Prizes garnered some praise from Mr. Yuji Horii, the Executive Director of “Rocket Slime” and Creator of the DRAGON QUEST series and also from Mr. Yoshiki Watabe, the Producer of “Rocket Slime.” Icecypher 21:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice to know there are sore winners here. If you are right, then you are right - does it feel like you've achieved more because you condescend to people like with "A strange choice, using the "subtitle" for the official page, isn't it?". Reread civility some. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yay, I win! * dances *
Seriously, though, that's what we've been getting, and I admit there was no need to do that to you or anyone, so what do you say both you and I stop doing it? While I may not be the more mature guy in town, I know things are better when people with the same goal work together instead of fighting. From now on, I will try not to give in to temptation when I get the facts. Icecypher 14:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe I spoke in a mocking tone to anyone in this discussion - the only tone I ever spoke in was one of annoyance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In any case, let's none of us (that includes everyone) use words or tones that are out of place here. We can all learn from this. Icecypher 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
And BTW, no one ever disputed these two games were a series; the only thing that was disputed was the name of said series. No need to go over another undesired edit war just for that. As of now, the only reference to a series name has been "Slime Morimori". So that's the name used now. But everyone knows this is a series. We read all the posts and no one ever said the contrary. Icecypher 18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
"In those two interviews, it was IGN, not Square Enix, who referred to it as Slime MoriMori."
The second link is not an interview and was just to further the point. As for the first link, again, it was not IGN. IGN asked the questions and published the interview on their site, but Yuji Horii's answers were translated by Richard Honeywood, not them. Honeywood is a programmer and the chief translator in Square Enix's Product Development Division 3; he notably translated Chrono Cross, Final Fantasy XI, and Dragon Quest VIII. The linked interview is not the ramblings of a mere fansite, it's the words of Square Enix reported by a well-established video game site. Kariteh 08:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continuing here, apparently. Kariteh 20:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

About reference options

The next section starts with a question I asked Kariteh about valid options to use as references in the Dragon Quest articles. This is only his opinion from what he has observed, which means somethings could not be completely correct, but still, they might. Up till now, we have looked for references in printed magazines, but we have overlooked another (valid) source, online videogames sites. Please read his answer. We can start looking for notability and verifiability sources in reviews and in-game text, respectively. Thanks, KAriteh.

Hello, Kariteh. I have a question regarding valid references for articles.

I know third party sources are needed for all claims inside an article, so in-game quotes would be no-good by themselves for one. Can they be used, though, to reinforce part of the article when other sources are included? I have seen some featured articles that make use of that technique.

Also, are reviews from videogame sites allowed as valid sources? If so, is it all of them, or only "official editor's" ones?

I would love nothing more than making the best Dragon Quest related articles for Wikipedia, but you may be aware there is a lack of sources in english, and it is hard to find people who can acquire sources in japanese. If a mix of reviews and in-game quotes is a good option to use as reference, then some improvements could be achieved on those pages. Thanks in advance for your time. Icecypher 18:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In-game quotes can be used for plot details, and they're most often mandatory for this since there aren't many other publications which speak about the plots besides the games themselves (game manuals and strategy guides seem to be considered primary sources). For the rest (criticism of the game, notability of a feature/creature/character/etc.) reviews and interviews are good sources. I'm not sure if all reviews are considered valid sources; those of the "big" websites like IGN etc. are definitely valid ones though.
So basically, in-game quotes are necessary since we're dealing about video games, but the articles must always have some kind of out of universe perspective, presented in a "Criticism and reactions" or even "Cultural impact" section. If this perspective can't be established in an article, the article should probably be merged in a section of a larger article. In any case, that's how it is in the Final Fantasy related articles; I suppose they are a good example to follow.
"Some kind of out of universe perspective"??? The ONLY section in any CVG article that is in an in-universe perspective is the plot/story section. See Super Mario 64, OoT, Final Fantasy VII, Starcraft... etc etc etc... – ARC GrittTALK 19:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Now, now, snikt the claws away. I posted this because this actually helps us with the reference hunting, since we can use sources we have not exploited yet. Icecypher 20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the plot and story section is the only section which is in-universe. The issue is when an entire article is a plot and story section: see for instance Erdrick, Zenithia... "etc etc etc..." - Kariteh 08:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree it's hard to find sources in English about Dragon Quest though... Dragon Quest VIII is probably the easier to find. I searched for interviews of Yuji Horii for Chrono Trigger once, and I only managed to find one: here. It speaks a little bit about DQVIII in there, maybe you'll find it useful. Kariteh 21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Square_Enix/Dragon_Quest_archive&oldid=1137363912"