This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs Plants vs. Zombies (disambiguation) (13 participants) Covet Fashion (4 participants) Vector TDx (2 participants) Fred Haslam (game designer) (3 participants) SureAI (9 participants; relisted) Mighty Rabbit Studios (2 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Pokémon Emerald (discussion) Home video game console generations (discussion) HoYoverse (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates List of generation IX Pokémon (nom) Mario Party: The Top 100 (nom) Good article nominations Donkey Kong (start) Puff-puff (onomatopoeia) (start) Gengar (nom) Leifang (nom) Barry Burton (start) Tina Armstrong (start) Birdo (nom) Shin Megami Tensei V (nom) Alex Thach (nom) Justin Yu (start) Theatrhythm Final Fantasy: Curtain Call (nom) Kim Kitsuragi (start) Miner 2049er (start) Pokémon Sword and Shield (start) Portal Stories: Mel (nom) Pixel Piracy (start) Ether One (start) Yoshi's New Island (nom) Dr Disrespect (start) Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass (start) Async Corp. (start) The King of Fighters '99 (nom) Hotline Miami (start) DYK nominations No did you know nominations Reviews and reassessments The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (nom) Pokémon Channel (nom) The Sims 4 (rev) Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (nom) A Space for the Unbound (rev) Articles that need... assessment (0) (0) reassessment (0) cleanup (7) infoboxes (33) cover art (248) screenshots (8,821) photos (66) translation from japan (191) creation merging Square Enix Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Square Enix, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Square Enix-related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Square EnixWikipedia:WikiProject Square EnixTemplate:WikiProject Square EnixSquare Enix articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Chaosdruid, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 13 August 2011.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles Previous copyedits: /  This article was copy edited by Scapler on 17 January 2010. This article was copy edited by Dianna on 24 February 2011.

	Dragon Quest has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 2, 2007 Good article nominee Listed November 3, 2009 Peer review Reviewed March 5, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 4, 2011 WikiProject A-class review Not approved March 19, 2011 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 1, 2011 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: http://news.denfaminicogamer.jp/projectbook/torishima http://scroll.vg/issues/02 https://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2016/10/15/kazuhiko-torishima-on-shaping-the-success-of-dragon-ball-and-the-origins-of-dragon-quest/#1b1b1ac8d9ab https://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2018/03/28/yuji-horii-talks-about-making-dragon-quest-xi-and-the-origins-behind-the-series/?sh=21f61b2d37d4 https://news.denfaminicogamer.jp/interview/170927 https://natalie.mu/music/column/453335/page/3 https://en.as.com/meristation/news/akira-toriyama-and-his-long-standing-legacy-in-the-video-game-industry-n/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Wikiwhat?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cart size had nothing to do with it. DQ5 was very sloppily coded, and attempts at localization came out too buggy. They decided DQ6 would be localized as DQ5 instead (source, an old Enix newsletter). Then the American office closed before they could finish. ROM size was never cited as an issue in any of this.76.226.216.165 (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I Support A-Class. --JDC808 ♫ 23:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I also support, now it's A-class article.--Wangxuan8331800 (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's interesting but not really necessary as 'Journey of the Cursed King' was the name it was released in in English in Europe and this is the English language Wikipedia. It makes sense that the subtitle would be translated for other languages. eyeball226 (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[3] - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already used that. There wasn't much as it was mostly about Horii.陣内_Jinnai 16:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is relevant to the Dragon Quest series article (given the current FAC) or more for the Dragon Warrior article, but here's what I have from Nintendo Power (I provided the full citations below for easy copypasting to articles if needed):

• "Dragon Warrior". Nintendo Power (7). Redmond, WA: Nintendo: 39–50. July–August 1989. ISSN 1041-9551. OCLC 18893582.
  • That was one of the main features in that NP issue, featuring over 11 pages on the game (obviously geared toward those who are not familiar with RPG video games)
• "Dragon Warrior". Nintendo Power (8). Redmond, WA: Nintendo: 20–27. September–October 1989. ISSN 1041-9551. OCLC 18893582.
  • More in-depth coverage of the game, but only up to where the player visit's Erdrick's Cave and Garinham.
• "Dragon Warrior Text Adventure". Nintendo Power (11). Redmond, WA: Nintendo: 51–54. March–April 1990. ISSN 1041-9551. OCLC 18893582.
  • Basically a fun little text adventure (i.e. pick a path and go to a certain page or, in this case, another numbered text box) of the first part of Dragon Warrior. It should also be mentioned that this issue features a full map of Alefgard in its insert.
• "Dragon Warrior". Nintendo Power (6). Redmond, WA: Nintendo: 52–53. May–June 1989. ISSN 1041-9551. OCLC 18893582.
  • This was NP's preview of Dragon Warrior.
• "Pak Watch". Nintendo Power (5). Redmond, WA: Nintendo: 103. March–April 1989. ISSN 1041-9551. OCLC 18893582.
  • A mention of Dragon Warrior in its "Pak Watch" section, which previewed future NES games. It mentions the relation to the first three Dragon Quest games which were already released in Japan. Here's the brief excerpt:

• "NES Journal". Nintendo Power (1). Redmond, WA: Nintendo: 92. July–August 1988. ISSN 1041-9551. OCLC 18893582.
  • This talks about the release of Dragon Quest III in Japan, to much speculation by Enix with regards to sales and by Nintendo with regards to potentially bringing it to America.

It may also be worth mentioning that Dragon Warrior debuted at #7 on Nintendo Power's "Top 30" list in issue #9 (November-December 1989), went up to #5 in issues #10 and #11.

I also believe there was some preview coverage of the first DQ game (i.e. Dragon Warrior) in one of the issues of Nintendo Fun Club News, but I don't have that issue on me at the moment; perhaps later this weekend I can find it. Also remember that NP released two separate strategy guides on Dragon Warrior – one came bundled with Nintendo Power #9, while the other came bundled with the game itself for those who received a copy of the game from Nintendo Power as part of their free giveaway. –MuZemike 06:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice collection of sources above. I believe the August 1991 issue deals a great deal with DQ2 and DQ3 as well. Though my memorey may be foggy.... Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Sneak Peeks – Dragon Warrior". Nintendo Fun Club News (4): 14. December 1987. ((cite journal)): Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Looks like the first ever preview of the game in America. The review features screenshots of the Japanese Dragon Quest plus all the terminology used in that version (i.e. Roto, Dragon King, Radatome Castle).

–MuZemike 23:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under the References section, there is a list of all mainline Dragon Quest games that are first released in North America. The list was previously listed as the following:

   * Chunsoft. Dragon Warrior. (Nintendo). Nintendo Entertainment System. (1989)
   * Chunsoft. Dragon Warrior II. (Nintendo). Nintendo Entertainment System. (1990)
   * Chunsoft. Dragon Warrior III. (Nintendo). Nintendo Entertainment System. (1991)
   * ArtePiazza. Dragon Quest IV: Chapters of the Chosen. (Square Enix). Nintendo DS. (2008)
   * ArtePiazza. Dragon Quest V: Hand of the Heavenly Bride. (Square Enix). Nintendo DS. (2009)
   * ArtePiazza. Dragon Quest VI: Realms of Revelation. (Nintendo). Nintendo DS. (2011)
   * Heartbeat/ArtePiazza. Dragon Warrior VII. (Enix). (2001)
   * Level-5. Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King. (Square Enix). (2005)
   * Level-5/Square Enix. Dragon Warrior IX: Sentinels of the Starry Sky. (Nintendo). (2010)

There are a few problems with the list (Apart from Dragon Quest IX being incorrectly listed as Dragon Warrior IX).

1. Nintendo only published the original Dragon Warrior for the NES and Dragon Quest IX for the Nintendo DS outside of Japan. Enix had published Dragon Warrior II (NES), Dragon Warrior III (NES), Dragon Warrior IV (NES), and Dragon Warrior VII (PS) in North America. You can go into each game's Wiki entries, GameFAQs entries, and MobyGames entries to verify.

2. The entry for Dragon Warrior III shows the game's North American release on the NES, and does not refer to the game's Gameboy Color remake, published in North America in 2001. Given the case for DQ3, why does DQ4's entry only show its North American remake on the DS, but not the original release, developed by Chunsoft and released for the NES in 1992?

Given the issues raised above, I have corrected the entries as following:

   * Chunsoft. Dragon Warrior. (Nintendo). Nintendo Entertainment System. (1989)
   * Chunsoft. Dragon Warrior II. (Enix). Nintendo Entertainment System. (1990)
   * Chunsoft. Dragon Warrior III. (Enix). Nintendo Entertainment System. (1991)
   * Chunsoft. Dragon Warrior IV. (Enix). Nintendo Entertainment System. (1992)
   * ArtePiazza. Dragon Quest V: Hand of the Heavenly Bride. (Square Enix). Nintendo DS. (2009)
   * ArtePiazza. Dragon Quest VI: Realms of Revelation. (Nintendo). Nintendo DS. (2011)
   * Heartbeat/ArtePiazza. Dragon Warrior VII. (Enix). PlayStation. (2001)
   * Level-5. Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King. (Square Enix). PlayStation 2. (2005)
   * Level-5/Square Enix. Dragon Quest IX: Sentinels of the Starry Skies. (Nintendo). Nintendo DS. (2010)

The updated list shows only the initial versions of each of the games that have been released in North America. Since the Super Famicom versions of Dragon Quests V & VI have never been released outside of Japan, their NDS releases are the initial versions that got released in North America. All other entries on the list only show the first releases of the games, for consistency. If there is a reason that the GBC remake of DQ3 cannot make it onto the list but the NDS remake of DQ4 can, please let me know.

I have one more question: Why is this list necessary? If so, why wouldn't it show the original Japanese release dates? Or European release dates? Why only North American release dates? 128.253.117.78 (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, MobyGames and other Wikipedia pages are not what you should be using to compare who published what. They are not reliable sources and there is currently a dispute with GameFAQs/GameSpot. Go with IGN/Gamespy if you can't get access to it.

As for DQ4, that is used because that's what I have access to and as such am basing it on that. I also happen to have access to the original NES version of DQ, but as i also have access to the remake for GBC; however there are some sections, notably Loto Erdrick section, that require the NES one over the GBC one because it makes it easier for verifiability since they use the same translation.陣内_Jinnai 01:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand: where are your sources that Dragon Warrior II-III were published by Nintendo in North America instead of Enix? If the sources I provide are unreliable, can you at least identify reliable sources that show Dragon Warrior II and III were published by Nintendo?

Is Gamasutra reliable? This article http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3520/the_history_of_dragon_quest.php also says the NES versions of Dragon Warrior II-IV were published by Enix America, not Nintendo.

Why does it matter if the content of the NES version of DQ3 takes precedents over the GBC version? We are talking about initial release dates here, not about the content. My understanding for the list is simply: put only the first North American release versions of the games on there. The NES release of DQ3 was released before the GBC release, so the NES version is put up there. The NES release of DQ4 was released before the NDS release, so the NES version should be put up there.

Unless the entry lists only the most notable entries of the series, instead of the initial releases, then I stand by my correction.128.253.117.78 (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it says Enix, then that's fine. It can be changed to Enix. I could swear somewhere they said they didn't, but if that's the case, that's fine.

As for DQ4, its what I have access to. If something needs to be verified, its what I can access and what most people will have access to given the popularity of the DS and age of the NES. As for DQ3, the releases are both fairly old. The NES one is used because its easier to use for verification purposes because of the consistent translations. If someone else agrees though, I don't mind changing that one.

The list isn't about the initial release date; its about verification and what sources are being used for verification and what sources people will likely have the best access to.陣内_Jinnai 01:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses general references as if it was required to use those that are listed as general as inline references it would needlessly bloat the inline citations of the article and signifigantly harm the readability since in many cases there would have to be atleast 3, if not in a number of cases more than 9 references after multiple sentences; and harming the readability of the page has been used to not promote articles in the past. The use of the general references is largely confined to the first section Common elements and Notes and I have done my best to find secondary sources whenever possible to note things and furthermore tried to remove any unsourced claim that could be thought to be a as unsourced commentary. What remains is, as far as I can tell, factual information that can be verified by playing the game. That not everyone has access to those games doesn't matter; we don't apply that standard to books. That I cannot use the citation template to state where exactly is because core has basically done nothing to integrate video game citations into the template and the methods in ((cite video game)) are lacking at best (and finding someone to code that is difficult).

The claims made are not original research either. It's merely stating that they are common elements throughout the games as can be noted by playing them. That is something that is allowed per stuff WP:CALC (not specifically, but its not using synthesis to advance a position not supported by the games; ie that X are elements reused in multiple games). The rest is with translations; if I were to put the Japanese names in, they'd be translated in a literal manner very similar sounding names.

The bottom line is there is nothing contriversial that does not have inline citations. If you have a specific item you think, given all I said above, is still controversial and uses a general ref (without someone trying to make a point by claiming that everything without an inline citation is controversial), please explain why you feel a general ref isn't appropriate for that statement (noting that general references are allowed as a legitimate citation style and the reason for their use here has already been explained).陣内_Jinnai 17:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this here as it'll affect this page. For more info check out List of Dragon Quest media. It lists everything and dates with notes. What you see on the main page for the series is the initial Japanese release.

NOTE: One thing that may simplify things is that we've decided at WP:VG to use NES and SNES for all instances of Famicom/Super Famicom we can (maybe one instance the first time noting the name change), unless its part of a title. This should help clarity things.

• Dragon Quest' was released in 1986 in Japan for MSX and NES. It was later released (1989) in the US under the title Dragon Warrior. Between that time, yes, 2 other DQ games were released in Japan.

  DQ was also remade as part of a compilation for the Japanese SNES and a stand-alone title satalite SNES-type system exclusively in Japan. It was later re-released for the Gameboy Color in the same compilation (DQ1&2) format. That version was brought to the US. Since then its also been released on some mobile phone devices. I can only verify the Japanese release, but I've heard it was released in the US by my friend who had it on his. I cannot confirm that though.

  Dragon Quest is also the only game without a subtitle to it; all of the other Japanese games have subtitles, but none with the Dragon Warrior name use them.

• Dragon Quest II was released in 1987 in Japan and 1990 in the US as Dragon Warrior II. Both for the NES.

  As mentioned previously it was released with Dragon Quest a couple times as part of a compilation. The title has also been released on mobile phone only in Japan

• Dragon Quest III was released in Japan in 1988 and the US in 1991, again both for the NES.

  The game was remade for the Super Nintendo only in Japan and later for the Gamboy Color. That version was translated into English as Dragon Warrior III also. The title has also been released on mobile phone only in Japan.

• Dragon Quest IV is where things start getting complicated. DQ4 was released in Japan in 1990 and in 1992 in English as Dragon Warrior IV.

  Later, it was ported to the PlayStation in Japan with an attempted release in the US (it was cancelled during production). It was later re-released on the NDS in Japan and in the US as Dragon Quest IV: Chapters of the Chosen. It was also released in Europe with the same title except without the "IV".

• Dragon Quest V was released for the SNES in Japan. There was an attempt to release it in the US for the SNES, but that was cancelled.

  It was later released for the PS2 in Japan and later still for the NDS in Japan. The NDS title was translated into English as Dragon Quest: Hand of the Heavenly Bride. Removal of the roman numeral in Europe again.

• Dragon Quest VI was initially released for the SNES in Japan. No English release planned.

  Later, an NDS version was released in Japan. This one was eventually released in the US as Dragon Quest VI: Realms of Revelation", although the original planned released subtitle was "Realms of Reverie" (I'll have to find a source for that, but I'm sure one exists).

• Dragon Quest VII is was released for the PS1 in Japan and later released in the US as Dragon Warrior VII. This is the last main-series title to be released under that name. It was released before the remakes of 4, 5 and 6. There have been no remakes/releases, thus the oddball in the naming sequence.
• Dragon Quest VIII was released for the PS2 in Japan and as Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King in the US. The European released removed the roman numeral. This is the first main-series title to be released outside Japan with a DQ title.
• DQ9, ditto DQ8 except for its name. It was released in Europe with the roman numeral.

That is it for the main series. There are some special issues with naming for the spinoffs, but nothing as complicated.陣内_Jinnai 03:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, for the Game Boy Color (re, Jinnai's 2nd paragraph in the first bullet), the compilation was known as Dragon Warrior I & II in North America in 2000, though it was known as Dragon Quest I + II in Japan in 1999. As before, I prefer the versions which are more known to the English audiences, which in most cases would be Dragon Warrior up until the 8th installment in the series (excluding 5 and 6, which were Japan-only, and in which 6 has since been released in North America as Dragon Quest VI). However, we can make an exception for 4, as 4 was not very well known on the NES, as it was released very late in the console's history (December 1992), and it was quickly drowned out by the flood of SNES, Sega Genesis, and TurboGrafx-16 titles in the market easily; more would likely recognize the recent Nintendo DS remake of Dragon Quest IV as a result. –MuZemike 06:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To make it even more clear as far as the conversation on my talk page is concerned, Dragon Warrior is the game itself, while Dragon Quest encompasses the entire series of games. The above explains (hopefully good enough by Jinnai and myself) why the games were named as they were. –MuZemike 06:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, it has helped a lot during the copy-edit, though Jinnai's edits pre-copyedit also helped to remove a large amount of the confusion :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

During the copy-edit a couple of things came to light that may need attention:

Lead

• "... main series has an anime and manga adaptation" - each had both, or just one or the other? If you are consider it an and/or, then perhaps "... main series has either an anime or manga adaptation, or both."
  • Fixed.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "The original concept for the first game took elements from the western RPGs Wizardry and Ultima" - seems strange without mentioning a "later concept" or "later games used a concept of" - perhaps it should read "The original concepts, used since the first game, took ..."
  • Fixed.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

• "In Dragon Quest, players control a party of characters ..." - is this the first game of the series or the series as a whole, the lead mentions "The basic premise of most Dragon Quest titles" and "usually" - if this is the first game, then "In the first game of the Dragon Quest series, players control a party of characters ..."
  • For the series.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "When a character gains a new level, the statistics (stats) of the character are upgraded." - I expected to read "by something" or an explanation - does this increase their possible stats (they could gain a max of /20 pre-battle, now they can gain up to /25) or just give them some back (they had 15/20, now they are at 20/20)?
  • They increase from 20->25. Not sure how to clarify that.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like "When a character gains a new level their statistics (stats) are uprated, e.g. maximum health might rise from 20 to 25."

• "In Dragon Warrior, players must visit a church (known as a House of Healing in the NES translations) and talk to a priest or nun to save the games' progress; in Dragon Warrior, players had to talk to a king to save their progress," - Here it seems that there is something awry. Either: one should be Dragon Quest; or the "games' progress;" should be "games' progress or talk to a king."
  • Fixed.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "... and at a certain point during the games the player meets a character" (para 4) - is this: one certain point only and only one character per game (1 point 1 char); multiple points with only one character per game(X points, 1 char); or one point per character with multiple characters per game (X chars X points, 1 point per char)?
  • One character/game, but they can continue to go back to them and trade in more medals.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters

• "In Dragon Quest the monsters can join the player's party and fight in battles." - Dragon Quest the first game, or throughout the series? Also - do tehy join the party or "they can be selected by the player to join the party"
  • Clarified and expanded.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Slimes designed by Toriyama, for use in Dragon Quest, have become the official mascot of the Dragon Quest series." - perhaps better as "The "Slimes", designed by Toriyama for the first game, became the official ..."
  • Fixed.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• There do not seem to be any descriptions of the other monsters, perhaps these can be linked through with a brief description?
  • None of them are really anywhere close to notable save maybe some bosses and then its not really appropriate here (this is dealing with common elements and bosses are unique to each game). Any attempt to describe them without a secondary source would probably be marked as OR.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erdrick (aka Loto)

• The whole second paragraph relates solely to the Warrior series.
  • Yes, but as each one of them has their own seperate article, this is the best place to put it as it would be redundant info in 3 places.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zenithia

• "it is one of several elements" - not sure where that is going, perhaps "and also appears".
  • Clarified.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Games

Main series

• "Dragon Quest was released in Japan in 1986 and in North America as Dragon Warrior in 1989" - This is contradictory to the Dragon Warrior article - there it says the first Warrior game was released in 1986.
  • It's not. First paragraph:

  • Dragon Warrior, known as Dragon Quest (ドラゴンクエスト?) in Japan, ...[was] published by Enix in Japan in 1986.

• Look at those opening sentences in Dragon Warrior:
• "Dragon Warrior, known as Dragon Quest (ドラゴンクエスト?) in Japan, is the first role-playing video game (RPG) in the Dragon Quest media franchise" - not correct, it should be "Dragon Warrior, known as Dragon Quest (ドラゴンクエスト?) in Japan, was released in 1989 and was the first role-playing video game (RPG) in the Dragon Quest media franchise to be released (in North America/outside of Asia)."
• "It was developed by Chunsoft for the Nintendo Entertainment System, and published by Enix in Japan in 1986." - that is not correct as that article is about Dragon Warrior - it should say, "Dragon Quest was developed by Chunsoft for the Nintendo Entertainment System, and published by Enix in Japan in 1986." is correct. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • That's the problem with a series known more commonly by one name, but an indivisual game known more commonly by another in one country, yet still published originally by the series name.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music

• "with three [[Software synthesizer|synthesizer]] [[Channel (programming)|channel]]s" - the NES has hardware synthesis, using chips, and the channels are not really programming channels, as it was an analogue 5 channel system. The first two (2) channels are pulse (square), and the third (3) being a triangle. The fourth (4) channel is a noise channel and the fifth (5) channel is the DMC (PCM) channel. There may be some confusion here as the famicon could use the VRC6 chip, built into the game cartridges, which allowed an extra 3 channels above the 5 already available in the machine itself (Memory_Management_Controller#VRC6). I have changed it to "more sophisticated music with [[Memory_Management_Controller#VRC6|three extra]] [[Nintendo_Entertainment_System#Audio|synthesizer channels]]"
  • As that was quite technical, I approve of offloading that to the appropriate articles.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Books and anime

• "Beginning in 1989 with three series" - three series of what? It could do with some sort of explanation
  • 3 different spinoff book/manga/anime series began publication that year (described in the next 2 paragraphs).陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Any chance of translations for Derupa! Iruiru! and Dai Bakuhatsu!!!?
  • I'll look into that and if I find it, add it.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

• "commonly referred to as the "Zenithia trilogy"" - does not appear to be supported by the ref.
  • It had been referenced earlier so I didn't think it was that controversial, but I added it anyway.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural impact

• [a] 'Slime,' -> 'Slime,' - this is because it is not clear if the initial quotes means a slime, or slime in general. I wuould imagine that the intent was to show the difference between Japan and the rest of the word, asking someone in the UK to "draw a slime" (something specific, reaction would be "which one") would be an entirely different from asking them to "draw slime" (non specific, people would attempt to draw it as we all know what slime is). In this case I think it would be best to leave out the "a".
  • I think it was specific. I can go to the ref and check, and if so, quote "draw a slime", but the section was paraphrased so I didn't quote it. I'm not sure if he meant "draw a slime" as in a type or "draw slime" as in the more general term.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Dragon Quest's music has had a major impact." - I do not think that is correct, perhaps in Japan, but not to the rest of the world. Consider the impact it as had in Africa, in Europe, in South America, in the Middle East. I have changed it to "has been influential on various sectors of the performing arts.", though I suspect it should have "in Japan" or "in Japan and Asia" at the end of the sentence.
  • Well, its had impact beyond that I would suspect with the multitude of video game ochestrals that appear in the US. Since it was one of the first, it would have impact beyond Japan and Asia (due to US gamers listening to those soundtracks as they grew up just like in Japan). However, I agree its not a huge impact and even with that taken into consideration, it would have been one of several video games that have had such an impact. The impact its had on Europe has been less, but I do believe there's been a few such orchestras.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy and reception

• "The original Dragon Quest game is often cited as the first console RPG" - First RPG, well there are several issues there, "console RPG" seems to refer to Japanese games only, whereas we have several non-Japanese RPG games before then: AD&D: Treasures of Tarmin (for the Intellivision), Ultima IV (Atari XL series, though not sure of the exact date even though I had it), Dragon Stomper (aka Excalibur), Adventure, Phantasy Star, etc. If it said "the first console RPG in Japan, and the one that led the way for following games of the genre." I would probably agree.
  • I'm just stating there was the source says. As for "console RPG", there was a huge debate about console RPGs. While I agree with you, saying it is a Japanese RPG when the source says "Console RPG" would be OR. Even if we don't have a description for console RPG, it is still used by the media and public.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• BAD, BAD SYN - "... cites Quinton Klabon of Dartmouth College as stating Dragon Warrior translated the D&D experience to video games set the genre standards which have not changed since." Though I am not going to comment on whether or not some man-in-the-street qualifies as undue weight, notability or other points, my main concern is that it is entirely mis-quoted and out of context. The original quote states, "Although all it did was translate "Dungeons And Dragons" themes to video games, the invention of the battle system, creative plot, and all of the genre standards were created." The quote odoes not even contain the last few words "which have not changed since"
  • First off, as for the source its published by Gamasutra, if they consider it reliable, then by WP standards, we should as they did not publish everyone's thoughts, just a select few.
  • As to the quote, it was mentioned elsehwere, but yea, if its not mentioned with that guy it should be removed, which I did.
• A large amount of paragraph 5 is uncited, though it has one cite ... half of your gold on hand.<ref name="kurt"/>, this appears to not be relevant to the sentences preceding it.
  • Party correct.

  • As a concession, dying isn't nearly as harsh as other games. Other than a few odd dead end moments found throughout the series, there is no "Game Over" in Dragon Quest. Rather than forcing you to reload a previous save, you're simply transported back to the closest church, with all of the equipment and experience you've gained, but only half your cash.

  • That does mention it happens, but not the part about the added difficulty, but IMO that is implied in the other area that talks about Horii being a gambler.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General

• In general there is a great deal of confusion throughout all of the DW and DQ articles, such as: DW III says "Dragon Quest III sold over 3.8 million copies in Japan." - something that is not really relevant to the DW III article; and the DW III article has a Soundtrack section that lists DQ III as it's soundtrack.

The situation does improve after DW III, as DW IV redirects to DQ IV. I would suggest that someone goes through them all and strips down the mentions of DQ in DW and DW in DQ.

• When citing a video, consider using one of the templates such as Template:Cite video, that way the time of the quote of ref can be added.

I think that about covers most of it. I realise there may be some edits that are perhaps going to be of issue, but I hope that they have not changed any context and you can see where I am coming from, especially in considering the whole world rather than just Japan in some of the sweeping claims. Chaosdruid (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in some cases I'd agree. But in others, it's because the impact the games have had on other games which have kind of spiraled from there. IE, the idea of setting a template.陣内_Jinnai 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions Playing Dragon Warrior III with the name "Erdrick" is impossible in the original release and "Loto" in the GBC remake, as the game prevents players from continuing if the name is used. It however does not explain why this is the case (ie is it a glitch, storyline issue etc?) and can be a cause of confusion to people that did not play the game. I think a little more detail would be helpful.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In accord to the recent edits from the article about Dragon Quest series, I demand that someone also delete the very same references from there: Dragon Quest X. And also every reference from four years ago should be deleted, because they are "too old" as said by the last editor. --87.2.246.151 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Demanding" will not get you very far on Wikipedia. You used a reference that supports the game being in development for the Wii as support for the statement that it is in development for the Wii U. That latter statement is not supported by the reference from 2008. Feel free to add a reference that supports Wii U development, and all is fine. Nczempin (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that

However, the Japanese release of every Dragon Quest title continues to be on a Saturday and each new launch is widely anticipated.

But now, Dragon Quest X was released on August 2, 2012, which is a Thursday. I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor, but I will change the sentence to

However, the Japanese release of every Dragon Quest title continued to be on a Saturday until the release of [Dragon Quest X], which was released on Thursday, August 2, 2012. Nevertheless, each new Dragon Quest launch is widely anticipated.

--Sinni800 (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

introductory blurb says 9 main series titles. was this written before DQX released? romnempire (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When did Nintendo buys Dragon Quest? How is it a Nintendo franchise, exactly? 2602:306:CE6D:6FB0:DD5F:FC79:4548:311D (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this article needs an image of a screen shot in it.zeroro(talk)(edits) 23:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does, there is an image of the battle screen from the third game.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to inform anyone who watches this page that I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dragon Warrior. Anyone who watches this page might want to participate in the redirect discussion if they have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dragon Quest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111202223246/http://www.gamepro.com/games/nes/166693/dragon-quest/ to http://www.gamepro.com/games/nes/166693/dragon-quest/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110722143822/http://www.dqshrine.com/ma/4koma/ to http://www.dqshrine.com/ma/4koma/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Dragon Quest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100823045029/http://www.gamespot.com:80/gbc/rpg/dragonwarrior3/review.html to http://www.gamespot.com/gbc/rpg/dragonwarrior3/review.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080726233450/http://www.gamespot.com/news/6191376.html to http://www.gamespot.com/news/6191376.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100708012439/http://www.squareenixmusic.com:80/reviews/calvin/dq4ss.shtml to https://www.squareenixmusic.com/reviews/calvin/dq4ss.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110815200054/http://www.next-gen.biz/news/wii-gets-dragon-quest-x to http://www.next-gen.biz/news/wii-gets-dragon-quest-x
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100724034834/http://www.gamespot.com:80/ds/rpg/pokemonblue/review.html? to http://www.gamespot.com/ds/rpg/pokemonblue/review.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090730204546/http://www.next-gen.biz:80/features/japan-votes-all-time-top-100 to http://www.next-gen.biz/features/japan-votes-all-time-top-100
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050306170521/http://www.square-enix.co.jp:80/magazine/lineup-book/janrubetu/game_other.html to http://www.square-enix.co.jp/magazine/lineup-book/janrubetu/game_other.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110603150607/http://uk.gamespy.com:80/articles/492/492001p1.html to http://uk.gamespy.com/articles/492/492001p1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110219021928/http://www.gamespot.com:80/ds/rpg/dragonquestvi/video/6299097 to http://www.gamespot.com/ds/rpg/dragonquestvi/video/6299097
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110711071741/http://uk.gamespy.com/articles/492/492001p2.html to http://uk.gamespy.com/articles/492/492001p2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090930191551/http://www.next-gen.biz:80/features/japan-votes-all-time-top-100? to http://www.next-gen.biz/features/japan-votes-all-time-top-100
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090726010640/http://www.wired.com:80/gamelife/2007/09/hands-on-dragon/ to http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2007/09/hands-on-dragon/#more

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Dragon Quest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110628233823/http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/rpg/dragonquest8yangus/news.html?sid=6143244&mode=all to http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/rpg/dragonquest8yangus/news.html?sid=6143244&mode=all
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121105105737/http://www.gamespot.com/gbc/rpg/dragonwarriormonsters2/news.html?sid=2781146&om_act=convert&om_clk=newsfeatures&tag=newsfeatures;title;3&mode=previews to http://www.gamespot.com/gbc/rpg/dragonwarriormonsters2/news.html?sid=2781146&om_act=convert&om_clk=newsfeatures&tag=newsfeatures;title;3&mode=previews
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927185727/http://vgmusic.com/vgpaper.shtml to http://www.vgmusic.com/vgpaper.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Dragon Quest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110713004440/http://uk.ds.ign.com/articles/792/792134p1.html to http://uk.ds.ign.com/articles/792/792134p1.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091028165101/http://na.square-enix.com:80/zenithia/ to http://na.square-enix.com/zenithia
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121013235619/http://www.gamesradar.com/f/everything-you-need-to-know-about-dragon-quest/a-2010070916555415094/p-2 to http://www.gamesradar.com/f/everything-you-need-to-know-about-dragon-quest/a-2010070916555415094/p-2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dragon Quest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019134259/http://www.1up.com/features/dragon-quest-america to http://www.1up.com/features/dragon-quest-america
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/219727/roleplayers-realm-dragon-quest-25th-anniversary-edition/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Dragon Quest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added ((dead link)) tag to http://www.1up.com/news/dragon-quest
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/ds/rpg/pokemonblue/review.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120723143009/http://www.1up.com/reviews/zhp-unlosing-ranger-darkdeath-evilman to http://www.1up.com/reviews/zhp-unlosing-ranger-darkdeath-evilman
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/gbc/rpg/dragonwarriormonsters2/news.html?sid=2781146&om_act=convert&om_clk=newsfeatures&tag=newsfeatures%3Btitle%3B3&mode=previews
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.japannewsreview.com/entertainment/games/20070715page_id%3D711
• Added ((dead link)) tag to http://www.1up.com/news/dragon-quest-battle-system-revealed
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713004606/http://uk.psx.ign.com/articles/098/098821p1.html to http://uk.psx.ign.com/articles/098/098821p1.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120717044707/http://www.1up.com/previews/dragon-quest-viii_7 to http://www.1up.com/previews/dragon-quest-viii_7
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4006%3Ah51k26.2.6
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4006%3Ah51k26.2.5
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4006%3Ah51k26.2.4
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/219639/the-art-of-dragon-quest/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.next-gen.biz/features/japan-votes-all-time-top-100
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6COs9LyoD?url=http://www.1up.com/features/dragon-quest-complete-series-guide to http://www.1up.com/features/dragon-quest-complete-series-guide

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be included under he other spin offs. BrendanKennedy (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• LUIDA'S BAR.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Quest (TV series), Dragon Quest: Souten no Soura, and Dragon Quest Retsuden: Roto no Monshō don’t have enough reliable sources in English or Japanese to constitute anything other than permanent Start level articles, paragraphs of unsourced and thinly sourced materials. Better that any references they may have reside here, and if ever the materials exist for their independence are found, they can be recreated. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Dragon Quest Retsuden: Roto no Monshō has literally 3 sentences of sourced information, and the rest is scant plot summary; Dragon Quest (TV series) is about the same but with a few more unsourced sentences. Both are basically just puffed up catalog listings and have been for 14 years; sources have not been found after searching in Japanese-language media, and they can't really support themselves as notable outside the series itself. --PresN 16:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I tried my best and couldn't find anything solid in Japanese. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Dragon Quest (TV series has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 3 § Dragon Quest (TV series until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]