Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dragon Quest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Dragon Quest, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Dragon Quest-related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

1 Soundtracks
2 Copyvio
3 Project Logo
4 Naming Conventions
5 External Links
6 Emblem of Roto
7 Redundant
8 Alefgard
9 Existing Dragon Quest Pages
10 Dragon Quest Characters
11 Stub marked for deletion
12 No original research
13 References
14 Lists of characters

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Project Logo

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] External Links

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:

Dragon's Den

Provides comprehensive information about all Dragon Quest games

DQ Shrine

Provides fan art

Besu's Slime Shrine

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Cat: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Dragon_Quest_30ab.html"