Talk:Death Note/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Note?

Shouldn't it be called a "death notepad"? Seems like a mistranslation to me. --132.68.41.57 10:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a translation, it's the name of the manga given by the author (it's written in English originally). It might not be completely correct English, but I don't think we're going to change the name either way. --Mythril 12:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Mello is female

I don't mind this information, since it doesn't spoil the story as much as the info about who dies and whatnot. But does anyone have a source for this information? Or the number of the chapter where this is revealed? --Mythril 21:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean Rem? It was sort of a spoiler that Rem is a girl, but Mello is, first off, a guy, and second of all, they don't really make his gender a secret. --Eternal Trance 03:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's confirmed that Rem is female in ch 47. -Anonymous

Yeah, Mello's a male. But the fact that he likes to wear skin-tight leather sorta contradicts his image. >_> --Jinjo Ghost 23:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose speedway bikers have an effeminate image using your reasoning. ^_^ Coder Keitaro 10:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

This page has some spoilers above the spoiler line. Section 2.6 is named "Successors to L" and it appears in the table of contents well above the spoiler warning. Perhaps this should be fixed?

One is hard pressed to find much information in this article without seeing spoilers... I would suggest following the design of the Fullmetal Alchemist page instead; have basic character descriptions on the main page with a link to another article that explains the story of each character in more detail. One Alternate 04:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, any information about characters from the second arc such as those about Mello, Near and Mikami, should be considered spoilers, and removed.

Possibly... If more people agree, then do it. I do feel that since these characters are so important to the story, that it'd maybe be confusing not to at least mention them in the article about Death Note, in case people want to find out about them? Then again, I guess it may not be Wikipedia's job to inform about everything in a series... Actually, if those characters are to be removed, then all the info about minor characters should probably be removed too, leaving only the most important info. --Mythril 11:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed spoilers and spoiler characters. Information about them can still be found in Characters of Death Note. --Anonymous

Stub

I still think this is a stub. There isn't anything but two paragraphs and the rules. Hm, perhaps a picture could fix that ;)? Philip Nilsson 09:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It needs some cleaning up. I think I'll do it when I have a bit more time on my hands, these days I've been swamped. Shingen 21:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think there's too much plot info... I think someone should cut down plot detail to a minimum. And it's hardly necessary to show the Shinigami rules in detail either, is it? I was thinking about removing that and do what I mentioned, but I thought I'd suggest it here first...--Mythril 10:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Since noone's protested, I'll cut away lots of plot info from this article the next time I feel I've got some free time to spare. --Mythril 21:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Finally took myself time to do this. Still think it's too much text though... Anyway, if anyone wants to add back spoiler info, I feel that adding it in an own section like I did with plot details may be better. --Mythril 21:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

wiki should back down to nobody. We have spoiler warnings, so put spoilers. - Malomeat 11:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a website I have you can look up at

http://www.apparentlyappalled.com

• And this has WHAT to do with Death Note? Shingen 21:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

IIRC it had some relevant information. No longer though. —Philip N.✉ 21:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Names

I was curious, does anyone think that Shidou (one of the Shinigami) might actually be an over-literal translation of the name Cid? Seeing as there's English names throughout the series. -Pandaman87 21:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible, but I don't know how to confirm this. --Mythril 20:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Anime

Removed the part about it being made into an anime until we can get a source on that. Something from a message board doesn't really count as a source, unless if there is a link which can be confirmed as being from the studio themselves. --Burbster 22:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.chuosha.co.jp/html/0605/0515_1.html The Deat Note part of the article confirms it. Kazuhara 17:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rough Translation -- 202.156.6.54 08:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Death note, which has finished its serialisation in Shuueisha's Weekly Shounen Jump magazine, has had its adaptation to animation announced. It will be shown on Nihon TV, and its movie adapation will screen on 17 June. Related works are as below:

2 June - Movie Guidebook

4 July - Comic book 12 (final)

1 August - Novelisation

Some undisclosed plans are also currently being carried out

L acts kind of familiar

Is it just me or L kind of looks like Howard Hughes in his paranoid phase, sans beard and germ phobia. You know like Mr. Burns in that Simpsons episode where Burns starts a casino. His fingernails are long, and he dresses very loosely. Maybe he is based on somebody else... Anybody here to clarify.

I found an interview here (and I suppose there're quite a few more places to find it if you don't trust that one/don't like the format) that says a bit about how L was created, though it didn't reveal much about his model. --Eternal Trance 03:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"very very inappropriate"

"The last episode, which was released on May 2006, is heavily criticized by fans because it is very very inappropriate and not up to the standard."

This is so subjective it reeks of fanboy. Someone please change this.

Removed it, also removed other unserious changes by the same user. --Mythril 20:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What the heck? "Characters that die"?? Is that section entirely necessary? Not only is it a major spoiler, but rather indecent as well. Rexas 18:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How To Use

Since there are quite a lot of Death Note rules (http://www.deathgod.org/main.php?x=info/dnterms), should there be a separate article with all the rules or should they be lumped together on this page? StrawHatLuffy 17:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping we'd get a separate page going for it. But I figured that if we just kept the basic rules, we could leave it on the main page like seems to have been the case. If someone would like to take the time to do so, then it should be fine. --Trance 23:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Rules of the Death Note StrawHatLuffy 15:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed and went ahead and somewhat cleaned up the Fake Rules section. >.> Nice job with it, though. --Trance 04:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Nonsensical Material

I removed the line "In short, a super hot guy who just happens to be brilliant." from the short bio of Light on the main page and replaced it with something more suitable. Wikipedia is not a toy to descibe how attractive people are. Espically when it has no relevance to the brunt of the subject. 3:00, 1 July 2006 (US Central)

What Prelude to Death Note?

I noticed a mention about this in the Unwritten Rules section. I think there should a bit more information on this. When/where was it published? What else was said in it? --Trance 18:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The prelude would refer to Death Note pilot chapter that is to be included with "How To Read Volume 13" StrawHatLuffy 12:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Death Note and Marysueism

In the two years of publishing of Death Note, nobody seems to have noted the fact that both Light Yagami and L are Mary Sue characters. They share a lot of common characteristics to this kind of character. --Loborojo

So you're saying that Light and L are basically perfect people, who use their flaws to become all the more popular??? IS THAT WHAT YOU THINK??? HUH??? HUH??!! Yeah, I agree with you =) If you want to add that, don't be afraid to! SuperDT 05:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You know I was just kidding with the "IS THAT WHAT YOU THINK??? HUH??? HUH??!!" part, right? Good, cause some people get really butt-hurt about that ^_^

Basically they share a lot of common characteristics with Mary Sues. I tested Light with the *The Universal Mary-Sue Litmus Test, and this character scored 158. Above 50 is enough for a character to be considered a definitive Mary Sue. The marysueism in DN is particularly annoying to me, and I can't understand why DN is praised so much when the script is so focused in portraying the characters in an indulgent way. --Loborojo

I fail to see a need to include this until there is official criticism of the series mentioning it. This would go under original research as of now, eh? That's not what Wikipedia is for. It's not a critique and rating system; it's here to provide information about the series. --Trance 00:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Trance does have a point. SuperDT 08:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's about objectiveness, why is the Death Note article filled with all the subjective positive point of view found in most animanga articles? I don't see how Light is "An intelligent young man who picked up the Death Note" and L has "his great powers of deduction and insight" when it's the author who is manipulating every other character around to make the scenario as favorable as possible for the protagonists. --Loborojo

Those descriptions are, if I'm not mistaken, taken from the Shonen Jump descriptions of the characters. You know how in the magazine here they describe, say, the Naruto characters before beginning a chapter. They'll give a short blurb describing them and what not. But if that's not the case with these descriptions, oh well. You can edit out all the good adjectives if you want, but I can't say they're exactly detracting from the article itself. Regardless of whether or not you think Light himself is clever, that's how he's supposed to look. From the back of the first volume of the manga: "Light is an ace student with great prospects..." Aka, intelligent? I don't really think it matters either way. If you honestly think the article has lost its objectivity, go right ahead and edit it to be more objective. --Trance 03:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked the test and from what I see...at this rate everyone is Mary Sue. Some points that was made was such that the points should go down instead of up from what I see. But when it comes to the the Wikipedia article, it should be as neutral as possible but with the Shonen Jump info, it should be fine. And besides, "An intelligent young man who picked up the Death Note" only equals to a character who is smart and picked up the notebook. "His great powers of deduction and insight." Is his powers bad as such that he have no clue who is Kira? I understand what you mean but from what I see, it is neutral. - GatoGirl 12345 (No Account)

Yes, I see a lost notebook, I pick it up therefore I AM INTELLIGENT. Sure. We never see Light actually STUDYING, but we've to believe he's #1 just because the script writer says so. We see FBI agents in Japan even though they're not supposed to be there, but we've to believe it because the script writer says so. An so on. Please people...

OK, let's consider a description with commercial purpose neutral. Let's go to the Coca Cola article and write it's the best drink ever invented and Polar bears love it... Hey it's NEUTRAL! I understand what you mean but from what I see, it is NOT neutral Loborojo

Since Ohba made him into an intelligent guy, we can put it as the truth. Anyone else who says he is intelligent and that his intelligence was never in the story, that wouldn't be neutral. Light being an adorably cute guy, that isn't really neautral. He is suppose to be cute and popular for the whole ladies and manipulation part of it but it was never written down that he was as lovable as a bear. We did see him studying...for one on the video camera arc, and the reason why we saw his teacher was so that we can see him being pressured to be at the top spot again. It was also clearly written that L and Light both got into Toudo University (I think the first part is spelt wrong) with a perfect score...(and that was their version of The University of Tokyo since it was such a top college.) If the author told us that he is an intelligent young man, he is an intelligent young man. If the author told us he was popular, he is. And for the former and the latter, Ohba told and Obata showed. For SJ, a fan, or an anime director telling us that, it wouldn't be entirely the truth...would it.

"Yes, I see a lost notebook, I pick it up therefore I AM INTELLIGENT." - Loborojo

Nope, that wasn't what the writer meant. It ment that he is (1)intelligent and (2)he picked up a notebook. But it would be best to rearrange some of the words anyways if you still think it isn't neutral. What I am saying is if it is considered as a truth (that we get it from the story), it shouldn't be a bias favoring Light. - GatoGirl 12345

Any western novel similar to Death Note?

Anyone knows?

I want to know if Death Note is original creation, or under influence of western suspense novel. 218.111.216.176 14:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a Japanese story that was similar to DN that was created earlier. The idea, as the author said, isn't that new. - GatoGirl 12345 (No Account)

Death note colors

Well I remember reading manga 11 and it said that the DEATH NOTE come in diffrent colors if that is true then why do we see only black DEATH NOTE's any explenations for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KiravsL7 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we only see two Notes out of thousands and thousands. But this isn't the place; this is for discussing how to improve the article. You want to go to a forum for this kind of thing.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Death note sequel

I heard from somewhere that there is going to be a sequel to the anime, is this true? And if so, what information has been released on it? 69.67.92.147 (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a forum. If there was information on a sequel, it would be here. Rau's talk 20:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Demographic Categorization

Seinen is the more appropriate term for this kind of Anime. Not only gore or "H" content can make an anime shonen, the complex and the adult theme, in the non-sexual meaning of it, make this anime recommended to the grownup crowd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.143.4 (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We base the demographics on the magazine in which the manga is/was published. The only exceptions is when we have a published reliable source that gives the demographic. To do it any other way is engaging in original research. --Farix (Talk) 16:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

People might say, if it is NOT Shonen, why is it published on Shonen Jump -->

Since it is a highly ambitious series expected to be the main series of the year, the widespread Shonen Jump probably was the only medium suited for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.143.4 (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Right... Eh, I agree with the comment that if it wasn't Shonen it wouldn't be in the Shonen Jump. Unless there are some crazy things I have no idea about, shonen mangas go in a shonen magazine =) 71.234.99.64 (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

minor mistake in article

probably not a big deal, but the adult swim online stream updates with a new episode on Friday night not Saturday, a day before the television premiere. 209.6.168.94 (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Then correct it :) If you know it's right, then why should we be discussing it? IceUnshattered (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Those two articles are taking up way too much weight for such minor topics. This is a single series that can easily incorporate all of the possible information in an appropriate amount of prose. No, it will not be too long, and no, these are not appropriate summary style splits. TTN (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, you just want everything to be on one page. These are appropriate splits no matter how you slice it, and claiming otherwise doesn't make you right. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Until we actually type up appropriate sections and actually see that the information cannot be handled here, I think its rather rash to say that. With a plot section, a characters section, and the episode list, the characters should be good as gold. All of the stuff based upon the Death Note and Shinigami should fit just fine into a good setting section. TTN (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because it can does not mean it needs to. A list of characters, two even, is a perfectly appropriate split per summary style, especially when it covers characters from multiple incarnations of the works. It does not need to be, nor would it be adequately covered, on a single page. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a sufficient reason for a split, the characters should be covered within the main article. While you may want to split a series that has reached 300+ chapters and 100+ episodes, this is a fairly small one that should work well in prose. As the films have a separate article, they can cover the characters in prose as well and relate to this as needed. Do you have any sort of similar series that shows that such a small series cannot be covered within prose? TTN (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Size and complexity are two very different things, and you're attempting to dodge the issue by claiming that a limited number of chapters/episodes automatically equates to how far the characters should be covered. In light of "merges" like this, I am not convinced you have an adequate idea of proper coverage. The fact remains, short series or not, a list of characters is an appropriate expansion of any fictional work, regardless of size, so as to provide in depth coverage that would otherwise clutter the article. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it's going to clutter the article? You would be amazed at how easily these can fit within prose if actually written correctly. It really just depends on the series; some will require lists, while others can be covered within prose. You're not even giving it a chance just because you're "wary" of me. As for that episode list, did you even look at those summaries? They're not even close to salvageable, so it's best to just wait for someone knowledgeable of the series to fill them in with well written ones. TTN (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, you're not willing to give anyone a chance to improve an article, nor do you accept any sources given unless a mountain of editors force you into submission. Sorry, but there's a reason I'm wary of you: you don't know how to compromise. Half the time, you don't even seem to know how to merge. This list does not need to be merged. It's an acceptable split and provides better coverage than prose within other plot summary does. As for the episode list, I think Masem said it best in the ArbCom you find too pointless to bother with: "I'd rather see a merged page that needed to be tagged for having too much plot (simply because all of it was imported in without question) than a bare merge page that incorporates none of the redirected article. Even if its just copying the plot section, that still leaves topic coverage there, just in need of cleanup."[1] — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't turn this into a personal thing. This is about these two lists being irrelevant, and trying to base a lot of your argument on my personal actions is really rather pointless. If you would like me to explain my personal interpretations to you, feel free to drop by my talk page.

Anyways, how is it an acceptable split? Is it just because we do it with every single series without giving it a second thought? Is is because we have actually tried to contain the characters here, but have failed? You're going with the first approach, while WP:WAF clearly applies the second one. TTN (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You see, I wouldn't know whether it's the first approach or the second. The list is already here, and was when I took an axe to it a while ago. You should have seen it then. You can in fact: should only be 100 or so revisions down the road. In either case, shitty version or more readable one I pieced together, it is an acceptable split because the split is happened, and it has grown to a degree that re-merging would remove much of the content. As for the personal thing, your actions do have relevance to this merge, as they cast light on how you perform them in other situations. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's here does not mean that it needs to stay. That is the first approach, which does not help build quality articles. We should try to follow the procedure that makes more sense, and then split back when necessary. While the old version of the character was bad, the current version is still pretty much just as bad quality-wise. Either way, we'll either have a good, solid article, or a neat, trimmed list. It's a win-win situation, so why not do it? TTN (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And just because it can be merged does not mean it needs to be. The split is necessary now, as it contains coverage of the characters which we would not logically want cluttering up the main page. There's absolutely no need to jump through the hoops you're proposing. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you possibly say that it would clutter up this article? Three or four paragraphs to describe the main, main characters and their interactions, three or four paragraphs in the plot summary to give context to that (or however much plot summaries usually contain), and the episode list to add even more context and describe the minor characters is hardly clutter. It's pretty much close to what the article would need to become featured anyways, minus a few paragraphs. After that, the three paragraphs about the Death Note and Shinigami also easily fits. TTN (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Easy, because it lacks coverage on many of the smaller but still important characters. If not clutter then loss of content, which it would be both anyway. Also, arbitrarily picking paragraph numbers doesn't mean anything. Editing is not a numbers game. Since you keep asking why it must exist, I'll ask the opposite: why mustn't it? Is it really that much of a problem? Does covering characters in more detail on a separate list, which summary style dictates is an appropriate way to cover characters who on their own would not require articles, really bother you that much? These characters are covered in a reasonable, if somewhat ungainly, fashion on two separate lists. These lists are quite helpful in reducing the main article to a basic description, and there is no need to undo that work just to satisfy your attempts to back-approach WAF. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No valid content or characters will be lost. While the characters like the Sakura TV cultists and Near's team wouldn't require specific coverage, they would still be given appropriate depth within the plot summary or episode list. The numbers are just examples to give an estimation; it could easily more or less. Each character list needs to be based upon certain criteria instead of just created for pure convenience. Until it is actually shown that these lists are necessary to covering the topic encyclopedically instead of just providing fan details (if we do keep them, we're definitely going to have to merge them and cut it down to like 25-30 KB), we should not instantly declare them good "just because." TTN (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And by the same token you should not instantly judge them as guilty, an unfortunate habit of yours. You're trying for the most drastic approach for absolutely no reason, when you could take the time to trim the lists first. Before making claims of lack of subject knowledge, I was able to rewrite pretty much every entry without even having seen a third of series, so I doubt you should have trouble making a reasonable trim. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I planed on trimming it anyways, but given how pointless that would be if the article were to end up as a redirect, it makes more sense to follow this path. I also fail to see how just absorbing them for up to a few weeks is that extreme. If it doesn't work out, we just go back to the way that it was and trim. TTN (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're not going to bother because you're going to get your way eventually? Not buying it. At the moment there's no consensus for the action, so working on the lists is what comes next. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how this is not an acceptable split. There's no need for this discussion to even be taking place. Doceirias (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN, why are you so into merging stuff that is perfectly acceptable split as is? --Eruhildo (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it is not really acceptable. People have just gotten so used to it that they cannot fathom a perfectly reasonable summary of the characters. TTN (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like having two lists. We can have a basic (spoiler free) summary of the main characters on the front page, and one that discusses spoilers on the character page. It sounds like you're against bad writing on either pages, but there are better ways to achieve that than forcing an unnecessary merger. Doceirias (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree with TTN on this one. The only problem I see is that the page will be too big for its own good. We could scrap the content from Shinigami (Death Note) into List of Death Note characters. Can we agree on that? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problems merging those two articles; not sure why the Shinigami weren't on the character list in the first place. Doceirias (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

They were on both. I just centralized it in the cleanup. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Now if I can just get TTN convinced, this discussion may be over. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN won't settle for anything less than what he proposed. This discussion won't be over. Also, one agreement doesn't mean the list gets an automatic merge. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that one person's vote can't make a difference in this case. I'm hoping the community approves though. What do you think of my idea? That shinigami page doesn't merit an article IMHO. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to merging that. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As would I, though I think the Overview section should be merged to here. Also, most of the minor shinigami should probably be cut out entirely - they don't really merit mention. --Eruhildo (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to mention that in an argument such as this one, that we all should attempt to be WP:CIVIL and make sure to not create any WP:NPA.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 04:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to anyone in particular? From what I can tell, no one's attacking anyone here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a merge is appropriate, some content obviously has to be maintained on the main page for the series, but "List of characters" articles can provide useful introductions and summaries of the elements of a series. I am not opposed to these kinds of articles, and think that this one contains enough useful content to merit its existence. --BigCow (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer Sesshomaru's question: No, I wasn't refering to anybody in particular but this conversation seemed to be on the verge of it.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 00:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree almost completely with what Trust Not The Penguin/The Rogue Penguin has been saying all along. I think the split is appropriate, as the only way to merge while keeping it at a decent length seems like it would result in a loss of content, which I believe would have an adverse effect. Therefore, I'm against the [originally] proposed merge. The suggestion to merge the Shinigami article into the character article is a good one, though. --HeavenlyEire (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the list of characters is not needed in the main article, as it's already big enough. Please, have pity to us, Pocket PC owners. :) But I agree that merging Shinigami is a good idea. --deerstop (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Nothing wrong with having a separate List of Death Note characters. Shinigami, however, should probably be merged into the character article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Appears the majority has settled on merging Shinigami (Death Note) with List of Death Note characters. Can someone get this done ASAP? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the list of characters being seprate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poohman0 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with not merging the characters page to the main article. If having a brief summmary on the main article is bad, then just delete it and add a link to the characters page. BioYu-Gi! (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I support merging shinigami into the characters list, and I support removing minor characters with no/little relevance (don't take it to the extreme), which I will help with. I don't think it be wise to merge everything here, however. Wikipedia recognizes that seperate lists for books, episodes, characters, games, and other things are approvable if they are too large to fit in the main article or a sub article (like a media page). Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually plan on adding some more minor characters as the creators discussed some of them - I.E. the mafia people. One of them said that he believes that one mafia guy is the most evil character in the story. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Article too long already for a merge

I have seen the following (paraphrased) arguments for why the List of Death Note characters should be merged into the main article: 1.)"characters are an aspect normally best covered in the main article" - a silly assertion to make as the main characters are already covered, with a link to the List article for the rest of the characters; moreover, many of these are characters that appear in more than one incarnation of the series, and the list of them is fairly short and concise. A list of all the remotely important characters in the series, though, would be far too long to just cram into the main article without either making the main article longer than guidelines encourage (and those guidelines are there for a reason!), or losing valuable information, or even both.

2.) The series is "too short" to merit it. I fail to see how 108 chapters/12 volumes of manga + 37 episodes of anime + multiple films is really all that "short"; in fact, 12 volumes is pretty darn long for a manga. Moreover, having read the whole manga by now, they have many new characters introduced at a fairly fast pace... many of whom, despite not being "main" characters, actually play a pretty big role in the series or plot (Raye Penbar, for instance). Some of these are even gone into detail on in the How to Read guide, including notes on their roles and development, especially when it comes to their role in the plot. This is far too much sourceable, informative, even notable content to neglect entirely, that nonetheless does not warrant dozens upon dozens of separate articles, but would also make the page absurdly long if included in the main article (remember, page size and article length are ALWAYS a concern here); having ONE character list with all of the key minor characters and relevant details on their development and role in the plot is a good idea, since it keeps it reined in without overloading the main page too much.

Now, the Shinigami article is probably supurfluous; not that I've looked at it yet, but all of the shinigami in the series are characters, and are fairly few in number regarding the important ones, and can thus be at least probably be included on the character list.

I also won't argue that the character list can't possibly need cleaning up, since I haven't read through all of it in detail yet (though the bottom of the page actually looks pretty decent, covering the key roles of the characters and a tiny bit about their development, all in very brief and fairly neutral words, which ostensibly is good form on Wiki, establishing contextual notability and citation of non-Wikipedia info sources to boot). I'm just saying - considering that the series is long, and does have a large, LARGE number of recurring characters or minor characters that play a big role in the series, much of whom have citable information on them from the How To Read book, I find it somewhat astounding that there are a people that honestly think the information on key minor characters should just be dumped back into the main article or erased, as opposed to simply tidying up the List article a little. You guys have very little concept of just how enormous this article would become in length, I think, nor how surprisingly important a large number of these characters are to the plot development, to think that such a thing would be a better idea than just simply cleaning up the List of characters article. Hell, if you want, I'll do a little of that a little in the coming weeks myself; I have a copy of How To Read, so it shouldn't be all that hard. 70.118.80.144 (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll note that it was one person arguing in favor of the merge, and everyone else disagreeing or proposing the Characters list/Shinigami list merge. I think we have clear consensus by this point, and can get on with things. Doceirias (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The aforementioned pages have been tagged, see this and this. Doc, do you have time to perform the standard merges? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit later than I thought, and it seems Doceirias missed my comment. Any objections in integrating Shinigami (Death Note) to List of Death Note characters? Consensus appears to be merge, and if none want to do it themselves I'll do it. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have none, though I think some of the stuff at the beginning of the shinigami article could go in the main Death Note article. I don't have the time to do it myself though. --Eruhildo (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So, Sesshomaru - Wouldn't it be a sort-of merge with some information going to the Death Note page and some information going to the Characters page? I'm not entirely sure if I want it be merged just yet, so let's see how the information would be distributed. I have used most of How to Read but I haven't used everything yet. According to Wikipedia:FICT#Summary_style_approach_for_spinout_articles it is acceptable to have "spinout" articles - "A spinout article on a single character or element that lacks sources of real-world coverage may be appropriate when the amount of content for that element would be distracting or otherwise too long within a parent topic or spinout article, as described by summary style." - I could see later tonight if I could add more information from HTR about the production of the series and about the Shinigami. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How much more time do you need? Because the majority want the shinigami page gone. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Want is a strong word; I have no real opinion either way. The only reason to have two separate articles is length, and if combining the two would be too long once Whisper finishes adding all the real world info, there's no reason to merge. Why not put the issue aside till he's done working? We can decide if the length justifies it then. Doceirias (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I too am willing to give Whisper the benefit of time. He's done a good job, if somewhat awkward in some places. I say let him finish. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is WP:SIZE a concern here? Just asking. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Where merging is concerned, only a little. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:SPINOUT#Splitting_an_article which describes some splitting and merging guidelines. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, if when more sourced content is added to the Shinigami, main, and/or character pages, the nature of the issue will change and it will help to poll again with the new details to see how the opinion shifted. - I had already added information about Obata's choices about how he created the Shinigami (plus character reception, etc. for individual shinigami) so it may help to read the page again. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The creators also discussed the popularity of Death Note and how they reacted to the popularity and discussion so I will add this in the reception section. This week when I finish my assignments I will do this. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is still more content that I have to add regarding rules of the Shinigami realm, aspects of the Shinigami, and punishments for Shinigami who break rules. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added some more details - If you want, Sesshomaru, you can start a discussion re-evaluating what to do with the Shinigami section. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Character Pages?

I have seen that someone has taken it upon themself to create character pages for Light Yagami, L, and Misa Amane. I personally question the notability of the three characters, but there is also a matter that there are not respective pages for Mello, Near, and Mikami Teru. I suggest re-merging the three character pages into the List of Death Note Character page, or if you would like, create character pages for Mello, Near, and Mikami Teru. After all, they all count as "main characters", correct?

Please offer your opinions on this. Love, IceUnshattered (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether Mello, Near, and Mikami are created is up to other editors - whether splitting them would be better for the structure of the article. As said at Summary style approach spinout articles are okay - It's just a matter of deciding which ones are better. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. They do not meet WP:FICT and should not have been created. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice how the list of Death Note characters is... a rather long, article, isn't it? WP:FICT has a provision:

• Wikipedia:FICT#Summary_style_approach_for_spinout_articles
  • So even if the article subjects are not necessairly notable we can still make spinout articles.
  • Also notice that without the info on Light, Misa, and L the character page is 41 kilobytes long. See Wikipedia:SPINOUT#Splitting_an_article WhisperToMe (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So rather than clean up this list, you make WP:FICT failing articles? How is that helpful? Argue all you want. They are not notable and should not have been created period. Adding in every last thing from that single source doesn't make them notable. You created them because you wanted to, and are using the spinout as an excuse to do so rather than clean up the list and find more appropriate solutions than just ignoring FICT because you like this particular series. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the thesis of the above response is completely incorrect and misses the point of Wikipedia:FICT#Summary_style_approach_for_spinout_articles. It doesn't matter that "adding every last thing from every single source" doesn't make them notable. The criterion for creating of separate articles is relative length of the original "list of characters" article and not notability. In fact "spinout" articles, according to FICT, are to be treated as sections of the parent article. ("Spinout articles should be judged as if it were still a section of the parent article, and identified in the lead section as an article covering elements within a fictional work.") The FICT article unambiguously describes this. I am not "ignoring FICT" (Why does fict have an entire section dedicated to spinout articles?) and I find the final above sentence dangerously close to being a personal attack. Let's talk about the issue and not about my preferences in fiction.

• First, please read Wikipedia:FICT#Summary_style_approach_for_spinout_articles - Second, as it says "A spinout article on a single character or element that lacks sources of real-world coverage may be appropriate when the amount of content for that element would be distracting or otherwise too long within a parent topic or spinout article, as described by summary style." WhisperToMe (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• For, as for cleanup, the actual List of characters in Death Note has been cleaned up - Now I am adding "real world" information about the intentions of the creators, traits of the characters as described by the creators, and reactions to the characters from third party sources. What I meant is that some content in Light Yagami, L (Death Note), and Misa Amane may need to be cleaned up. Even after that cleanup it is still too much to merge all of the information in one article. I have not completely exhausted what is in How to Read 13 and I have not extensively combed third party articles yet. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WhisperToMe on that topic. List of Death Note Characters is quite long, and after examining WP:FICT and the Spinout Article section, I think that it's appropriate that Misa, Light, and L have their own articles. I just hope that other editors will respect this and will consider this if Misa, Light, and L ever go for the GA status.

So, do you think making spinoff articles for Mello, Near, and Mikami would be a good idea? IceUnshattered (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - I have no particular opinion about the matter at the moment - Maybe we can judge how substantial the content for Mello, Near, and Mikami is compared to the rest of the article. If there are third-party reviews from reliable and/or well-known published sources that describe reactions to Near, Mello, and Mikami that could help too. IMO it is easier to get reception stuff about the film as I am demonstrating by the additions of reception to portrayls of Light, L, Ryuk, and Shiori in the film. I guess there are not as many manga reviews posted in newspapers, but perhaps there is something that can bulk the content of Near, Mello, and/or Mikami to warrant creation of a separate article. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want an example of "Reception" that could be used for other characters see Misa_Amane#Reception WhisperToMe (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I've been flipping through the reception categories for all Death Note characters with their own pages (L, Light, Misa), and there really isn't much. IceUnshattered (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'll see if I find more about the movies, since reviews were written about them... WhisperToMe (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• By the way, I found a good source for reception is Google News - It lists all these reviews. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ohba

Is there a particular reason this article refers to Ohba-san as "he," when, in fact, she has been repeatedly referanced as being female? (Volume 13, or example) Din's Fire 997 (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Where is she referred to as a she? I have the VIZ Media English version of the How to Read 13 book - Page number? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Danggit, I admit I didn't think this would be so hard to find. I could have sworn the interviews had more instances of "she." I'll look through Vol 13 more intensely later, but I admit that I don't have a page number at the moment. It was somewhere in the shared interview, if I recall correctly.
    Although it's border-line OR, I will point out that her personal icon used in the intros and interviews appears female. Not a source, but something. Din's Fire 997 (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I own a copy of How to Read 13, just re-read all of the interviews, and did not see any reference to anyone's sex except for Obata's (Ohba refers to Obata as male on page 181 [as well as other times] - "His art exceeded all my expectations"). When it was fan-translated, there were references to Ohba's sex for some reason (but they don't appear in the official English release). But I noticed the same thing with her personal icon thing (the woman with the apple). -HeavenlyEire (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd have to look at her personal icon again. AFAIK we put greater currency in official translations than in fan translation works and so we should generally use the English HTR as a source. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

While Ohba's identity has remained a secret, the most common theories on his true identity are all male; it seems reasonable to default to that gender barring verifiable evidence to the contrary. Doceirias (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was using the English HTR as my source. I'll have to re-read it again...but I didn't catch any gender references aside from the icon. Doceirias: I've actually found no "common" theories - I have actually seen a lot of dissenting opinions (though it does seem many just assume Ohba to be male). I scoured the web trying to find some reliable info and came up empty handed. -HeavenlyEire (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So, how should we refer to a person of unknown gender? Do we completely avoid pronouns? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia has a massive section on the most common theory. But Gamou Hiroshi is unknown in English, so I'm not surprised you couldn't find it in English. "He" is standard when referring to someone of unknown gender; simply note that Ohba's gender has not been revealed. Trying to avoid the pronoun just makes things unreadable. Doceirias (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -HeavenlyEire (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool with that. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

While I realize it's probably a pseudonym, it's worth pointing out that the name "Tsugumi" is in hiragana. In Japanese, most names are kanji, but some women's names are hiragana (or that spelling may be chosen). Hiragana would not be used for a man's name. Thus, regardless of what the "theories" behind the authorship are (none of which are official enough that they should influence a Wikipedia article -- they would be considered "original research"), clearly the author and publisher of DN present the author as a woman. So, "she" should be used in the article until there is conclusive evidence to the contrary. (I just said this over on the page for Ohba as well.) 24.223.151.194 (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides the hiragana, where/how else would the author be presented as a woman? I don't think the hiragana is sufficient to assume that a woman is Ohba. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pseudonyms frequently use hiragana for males or females. Take Yuuki Masami just off the top of my head. The author and publisher of Death Note have presented the author without any references to gender whatsoever. Doceirias (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Tsugumi even a real name? If so, is it generally a male or female name? I have heard people claim that Tsugumi is used for females, but I've never ever heard of another person with that name. I believe I sort of tried to research this for myself once in the past, and all I remember finding was some book with a female protagonist named Tsugumi. Chibi Gohan (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Tsugumi Takakura, Tsugumi Sendo, and Tsugumi Higasayama are female. Not sure about any Japanese articles. But so far, all those who turn up are female. Of course, it could be a male using a female name...Or it could be one of those names that females usually have, though it could work as a male name, too.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Split article to Death Note media?

I noticed with the recent additions to this front page that the article is becoming extreamly long. So would it be a good idea to split the stuff like the video games and the bottem information into a page called List of Death Note media? RedEyesMetal (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's 58kb now, and it feels like all the parts are an appropriate level of detail. WP:SIZE suggests we're still doing fine; if we went over 60kb, we might consider splitting that off, but for the moment I think it isn't necessary. Especially since the article is unlike to be expanded much further (since the franchise is largely complete.) Doceirias (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the page is fine, for now. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

For now I would keep it in the article - If I found more notable reviews that looked at the manga, anime, and/or novel, then the article could grow some more. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary

It seems that the plot section should summerize the full story, from begining the end, not just the first few episodes. FYI, Wikipedia:Spoiler.→041744 02:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. It should summarize what needs to be summarized for the article in question. The spoiler guideline is not intended to require spoilers; it merely suggests that the are inevitable and should never be removed when their presence is appropriate. Doceirias (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

add to controversy section

I think a lot could be added to the "controversy" section of the death note page. There have bee nmany stories of people using their own Death Notes and getting i ntrouble for it, including one involving me and 18 other kids in my school. Ace-katana (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC) ace-katana

While I'm sure it feels different when you are personally involved, most of these incidents only rate local news coverage, and aren't really significant enough to be covered here. Something that hits national or international news is clearly notable; but given the sheer number of cases like that, there is little point in covering each of them. Doceirias (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikia

Mabye the editors here at Death Note should create a wikia for the series, like Naruto [2] and several other manga series already did. It could be used to store in-universe information not used here (minor character can even get articles), making it an alternative source for Death Note fans, since Wikipedia has rules about how much in-universe info can be in a page. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea, especially concerning the recent discussion over character pages. It would be helpful to have a little summary here on Wikipedia, as not in-universe as possible, and then the primarily in-universe all-Death Note wikia. The only concerns I have are that a) Are there enough people stalking this talk page who have enough time and resources to do this? b) Do we have enough info on the actual DeathNote series itself to create a separate wikia? IceUnshattered (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see the use of a Wikia for series such as Naruto that have extensively long story lines (about 40 manga volumes, 300 anime episodes and no end in sight). However, it doesn't seem that Death Note has that kind of sheer in-universe information so I think making a separate Wikia might be superfluous and therefore a waste of time/resources that could be better spent working on other projects. Deepraine (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikia is used for other info that Wikipedia cannot hold. Death Note is a roughly ten volume series therefore we shall not make a Wikia. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 01:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, but there are also the films, anime and manga differences, the novel, and the L movie! Plus you have the various death note rules and everything within Death Note: How to Read 13. Jump Guru, you might want to read these: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules of the Death Note and Talk:Death Note#Written Rules WhisperToMe (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's true..... i was only thinking about the volumes, and it has an anime of over probobly 100 episodes in Japan. I've been corrected, maybe we should make a Wikia. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 15:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The anime has 37 episodes and a two hour special - Still, I'm in support of a Wikia because of the fact that so much Death Note content (including video games with DN, plus the video games that star DN characters). WhisperToMe (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with WhisperToMe. But still, I repeat, do we have enough people that are willing to devote time into a separate Wikia? (P.S., Jumpguru, check your spelling on "probably" ^^). IceUnshattered (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, oh! -cough cough- There's one already. Here. IceUnshattered (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that so many people seem to be unaware of the Wikia interwiki syntax (wikia:wikiname:pagename), e.g. Wikia:DeathNote:Light Yagami? —Dinoguy1000 18:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know, maybe they've never needed to use it. I didn't know, but I've never needed to either. A lot of people don't even know you can link to our other Wikipedias like this ( [[:ja:夜神月|this]] ). --Eruhildo (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh -headdesk- Sorry, I've never needed to link to another Wikia before, so I didn't realize I could use that. IceUnshattered (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

too much unnecessary detail

This should be succinct. It has way too much detail and unnecessary information. SilverOrion —Preceding comment was added at 11:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, perhaps we could state what roles the creators generally took, but perhaps we could cut out the weekly schedules. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I say keep it all. This is great stuff, well written, sourced, exactly what we wish all articles had. Doceirias (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because the information is sourced, doesnt mean its IMPORTANT. This is like an information overload, its counter productive. SilverOrion

What might help is this: Ask why the information is or is not encyclopedic. This may help advance the discussion :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion either way, but I say consult the evil forces of WP:Notability. IceUnshattered (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving Plot Summary

I think that we should the plot summary to the top , so it'll be right after the contents table and above Development and Creation

--GuardianFayt (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The order is determined by how to get the reader to best understand the subject. However I do think the summary should be redone, as it is exactly the same as the first half of this fan-site article.→041744 18:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I would argue the plot should above development for that reason. Are we sure that fansite didn't just copy the Wikipedia article? It has happened before. ANN copied the plot summary I wrote for Baccano! Doceirias (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I can not know, however I would say it copied from Wikipedia... being so reilable (he, he..). I wasn't impling the plot shold stay womewhere over another just siteing the reason for order. I would agree with it being put above devolopment.→041744 20:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I also wonder if Staff is important enough to be over plot. I think it should be in an additional information column or something like that. Sort of like trivia to me.Megnetic (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue in favor of eliminating that entirely. The work assistants do is invaluable, but not worth mentioning them here, especially in a generic list. Doceirias (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how else I can mention them - The source does not state exactly what each of the staff members did exactly. They are invaluable (as you said) - What kinds of sources could explain what they do? Also some of them may become manga artists in their own right (so when they do, a wikilink could be established) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Death Note Rules

The Death Note article states that "Death Notes all have rules written on the Note's first page." This is not true. Shinigami already know the rules, so to have them written down is unneeded. Ryuk wrote them down on one notebook so that the human who found it would know what it did, and since Light is the one who found Ryuk's notebook, only Light's Death Note had rules in it. He later copied the rules down for Mikami's use - but most Death Notes will not have rules written on them. Luscinae (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if that's the case why don't You edit it?Megnetic (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Because I couldn't find the edit link, deary. I recall the page previously saying something along the lines of only more credible users being able to edit it at the time, so I signed up specifically to point it out. Luscinae (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it because that's how I remember it as well. But feel free to add the source in the anime or manga if I don't find it. And I'm also thinking it wasn't written on the first page at all, but on the front and back inside covers, but I don't really recall right now. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The rules were written on the inside front cover. Later, when Light had Ryuk write the two fake rules, Ryuk chose to write them on the inside back cover for some reason. I don't have a specific source for this, but it's been shown often enough in the anime that I can recall pretty easily from memory. In any case, I've more or less completely rewritten that section to correct information and cover the major points. —Dinoguy1000 19:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

L's Theme Sounds Like Tubular Bells

Has anyone made a reference to the fact this: [link removed]

sounds like this: [link removed]

Its not the exact same of course but I was wondering if maybe there has been mention of the similarities of the openings in interviews with the creators of Death Note or mentioned by the press at some point.68.226.119.187 (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• It always reminded me more of the Halloween theme. But unless the composer mentioned it explicitly and we can source it, it's original research. JuJube (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That's what Im asking for, if someone has a source of someone working with the soundtrack or the director that it was inspired by Tubular Bells. Also on a personal note, the Halloween theme is a lot faster than either of these. And Im not a musician but I think the Halloween theme seems to be the opossite. IE Tubular and L have low notes followed by higher ones aka going up where as Halloween has high followed by lower going down. Or a descent which would make sense since it was crafted for a horror flick where as Tubular and L's are more suspenseful and leading up to something not death. Just my personal take on it.68.226.119.187 (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please read Wikipedia:Original research WhisperToMe (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't the same, but they do sound a lot similar. Also this isn't the first time an anime has used a tune and modified it a bit, like Orochimaru's theme song from Naruto is similar to Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. This: [link removed] Sounds like this: [link removed] Moocowsrule (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Moocowsrule

Trivia: Death note characters use GNU/Linux?

I'm a recent fan of the series and noticed something peculiar at the back of my mind; the characters of the series (namely light and L) seem to be using a desktop Operating system reminiscent to that of a GNU/Linux desktop environment. This is viewable most notably when Light accesses his fathers computer and additionally (in an episode from 18-22, I can't remember which sorry) in the background of a conversation between L and other characters you can see an effect on the desktop similar (I say similar as a key word here) to an effect plug-in available in Compiz-fusion referred to as "water effect" (the effect in this plug-in is called "rain" and as far as I know these effects are only likely to be seen on a GNU/Linux platform). If no one else has seen this either not enough GNU/Linux users are watching Death Note closely enough or simply I'm mistaken and it's only a similarity. If someone can research into this and maybe get a reputable source indicating this usage I think it'd be something important to note about this animation series or at least it's characters in particular. Thanks for any responses in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nullhility (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this as being notable enough to merit mention, even with a reliable source. If there was some sort of deal brokered to feature a GNU/Linux lookalike in the series, or some sort of controversy surrounding its use/appearance, then we might have something, but the use of the system itself is just a nonnotable bit of cruft. —Dinoguy1000 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually saw Mac and Windows, but that is not notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia: Poor grammar in one para

Quote: A third movie premiered in February 2008, titled L: Change the WorLd. It is a spin-off focusing on L. Focuses on the last 23 days of L's life-span to solve the case that threaten the world.

The last sentence should be combined with its predecessor, and read something more like: It is a spin-off focusing on L, centering on the last 23 days of his life, spent solving a case that threatens the world. (or something like that) -- the existing last sentence has several minor grammar errors and is a bit stilted. I'd fix it myself but it's semi-locked.

I rewrote the last statement to flow better, and did some other cleanup on that section, as well as tagging it for expansion. —Dinoguy1000 17:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

L the Prologue to DEATH NOTE -螺旋の罠 (L the Prologue to DEATH NOTE Rasen no Wana)

I was reading through the article and read the section on L the Prologue to DEATH NOTE Rasen no Wana, and saw the Romaji. It said Eru za Purorōgu tu Desu Nōto -Rasen no Wana, and although this is a minor error, the character tu as mentioned in the article, does not exist in Japanese. The closest character would have to be Tsu. Being a noobie on Wikipedia, I can't edit this, so I'm asking somebody else to. Moocowsrule (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Moocowsrule

Tsu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsu_%28kana%29 Tu: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tu_%28kana%29&redirect=no Moocowsrule (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Moocowsrule

No offense Moocowsrule, but that proved absolutely nothing...anyway, the sound "tu" is conveyed in Japanese by way of トゥ.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the character. In Japanese "tu" is not a sound. Moocowsrule (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Shirokage

No, its correct. Its the same as the sound "ti" from ティ. The second character is a small character and so modifies the sound. Also note that this is in katakana, which is used for foreign languages; you'll find a few other modified characters with sounds that aren't in hiragana. --nyoro~! Highwind888 (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I know, it's that in traditional Japanese I don't believe there's the sound tu or ti, only tsu or chi. That's why loanwords such as two are tsu not tu. And I know that a smaller character indicates either a Sokuon or changes the sound and reading of the larger character. Like Shi (シ) becomes Sho (ショ) with the small character o. And putting a small Shi (ッ) is a Sokuon which doubles the letter after it, like in Matte (まッて).Moocowsrule (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Moocowsrule

As two people have already explained, this word is written トゥ, which is romanized correctly as tu. It is not written as ツ and should not be romanized as such. Doceirias (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Alphabet

I'm probably not the first person to mention this, but because Mellow and Near were possible succesors to L, L = M or N. LMN. Once again, this part of the alphabet being linked to the character's names has probably already been realized, and possibly confirmed. I'm not sure what I'm putting it here for, but somebody might be able to use it to improve the article (not me, since I'm more of discussion and fix minor errors kind of person). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.12.31 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And the Novel had a guy named B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.12.141 (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a reliable source, this is only original research and doesn't merit mention in the article. As it is, even *with* a source, I don't think it's notable enough to merit mention, since it doesn't seem to be a significant aspect of the series. —Dinoguy1000 17:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How to read 13

There's all this talk about Death Note: How to read 13, but what is it actually? Is it a manga, an anime, an interview of some sort? 84.87.168.39 (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Death Note: How to read 13 is a one-volume manga that features such things as character profiles and side comics (I think, I haven't actually read it myself). It's named as such because the Death Note manga originally ran for twelve volumes, and How to read 13 was written after the series ended (AFAIK). —Dinoguy1000 17:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's just a fan book. Interviews, data, character profiles, timelines, that sort of thing. Doceirias (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

DVD realease dates

What happened to the section that had the DVD series release dates in North America? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumaka (talk • contribs) 01:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It was removed. DVD releases are covered in the episode list, not the main article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Streamlining the development section

The section is WAY too clunky and filled with irrelevant junk. I've streamlined it to feature the most relevant material and placed it below the plot summary/deathnote rules section, so that the later two sections don't get buried by the development section--BakerBaker (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You aren't streamlining. Your edit is totally inappropriate, removing massive amounts of surced content without any discussion. As all of that content is sourced, if you want to "streamline" then discuss it first and do you edits a bit at a time rather than doing a huge chunk at once. Let's actually DISCUSS what parts you feel are excessive so there is consensus for removal. I do agree, there is a lot of unnecessary stuff in there, but discussion on what that is is neeeded. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Shinigami Death Note Characters.

Hi, this is my first contribution to the Wiki, but I noticed that in the main Death Note article, little mention is made of Gelus in the Shinigami section. I think it is important to include Gelus in the list as Misa Amane originally gains her Death Note when Gelus dies in order to save Misa from a stalker. Blood Red Rain (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia! Anyways, he is mentioned in passing once, that's it. So I don't believe he is notable enough to warrant mention. The list in this article is only for main characters, which he is not. Artichoker^[talk] 14:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

6 minutes and 40 seconds

Is also 6.66 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakageryu (talk • contribs) 07:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC) (extremely late reply) Well, does that matter? IceUnshattered (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Shinigami

If someone could please answer this question it would be most appreciated: why is shinigami so often in italic text throughout this page? ♥Tory~♥Amulet♥Heart♥ 20:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it is a Japanese word. Just like prima facie is in italics because it is Latin. Artichoker^[talk] 20:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. But then shouldn't it be in italic text only once? ♥Tory~♥Amulet♥Heart♥ 20:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be in italics in every instance. Just like names of video games and books are always in italics whenever mentioned. Artichoker^[talk] 20:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay I understand that. So shinigami should be in italic text wherever it appears? Well the last time I checked the Full Moon o Sagashite page the word shinigami wasn't always in italic text. Should it be there, also? ♥Tory~♥Amulet♥Heart♥ 20:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the instances of shinigami on Full Moon o Sagashite should be italicized, as any other article with that word. Cheers, Artichoker^[talk] 20:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I very much appreciate you replying and explaining that to me. ♥Tory~♥Amulet♥Heart♥ 20:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

For the general guideline behind it all, foreign words should always be in italics within text (not headers) unless its also commonly used in English, like queso, taco, lasagna, etc (hungry LOL). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Foreign words shouldn't be italicized in headers? Could tell me where it says that in the MOS? 'Cause I checked WP:HEAD and WP:ITALIC and neither of them say that. If it's true, I'm going to have to make a bunch of edits to a particular article. --Eruhildo (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It does not say that in the MOS, and she is wrong in stating that there is a general guideline for it. I can tell you that is it perfectly fine to use them in headers. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Foreign Terms and Headings. Just keep on doing what you have been doing. Cheers, Artichoker^[talk] 02:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Added Reference to Review in Protoculture Addicts

I added a reference to Carl Kimlinger's strikingly negative review of Death Note that just appeared in the current issue of Protoculture Addicts. Not all reviews of Death Note are positive, and such reviews need to be cited to maintain a balance among reviewers. I assume that no one is going to argue that PA is anything except a major publication covering manga and anime. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, considering that it's published by Protoculture Inc., the parent company of Anime News Network, which is more-or-less the de facto WP:RS for the animanga project. —Dinoguy1000 17:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on both counts -- PA is an excellent source and so is ANN. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Added Original Research Tag

Enthusiastic fans have been adding (for some time, I'm sure) a variety of "it means" and "Ohba said" style comments. All are interesting and most are unreferenced and unsourced. So they're original research. Along with a general clean-up and rewrite, this article needs sources, not more enthusiastic, interesting but undocumented fan gossip. Sorry, folks, that's how Wikipedia is -- no original research Timothy Perper (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well the "Ohba said" statements at least assert that at one point in time Ohba stated something, so those sentences require sources. JuJube (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, they sure do. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Banishment in China

I removed this:

Some schools in Shenyang, People's Republic of China have banned the manga after some of their students started to tease friends and teachers by altering a notebook to resemble a Death Note and writing their names in them. The newspaper Shenyang Night Report called Death Note "poison, creating wicked hearts". One major Chinese newspaper felt that the ban is an overreaction and is inappropriate.

because of the poor quality of the reference. Which schools? Which national newspaper? and we should be linking to the newspapers themselves as well as animenewsnetwork. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Theresa. Sorry to join in so late, but I just saw your comment. I'm afraid I don't agree that the reference should be deleted so completely. Let me explain.

Here's the URL you gave for that reference: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/article.php?id=6111. When it's clicked on, it takes you to a different website, http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2005-02-06/death-note-stirs-controversy-in-china. (Both accessed August 27, 2008.) Your comment dates the second site 2006-02-06, but the date given on the one I get is 2005-02-06. Did you copy the 2006 incorrectly?

In any event, the second (2005) site is the earliest web reference I've found so far reporting that Death Note was banned in China. The following website confirms the 2005 date for the Shenyang ban.

"Death Note in China - Success or Disaster?" (2007-03-26). http://comipress.com/article/2007/03/26/1711. (Accessed August 27, 2008).

There are other Chinese-sourced websites that report on the ban, but they're dated up to two years later. For example:

Xiao Jie. (2007-05-15) "Beijing publisher to ignore Beijing's ban of its horror story." http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-05/15/content_6103672.htm. (Accessed August 27, 2008).

"'Death Note' website shuts down; creepy Chinese youth seek new ways to be morbid." (2007-07-22). http://shanghaiist.com/2007/07/22/shanghai_portal.php. (Accessed August 27, 2008).

"Chinese Students Fight Back at Death Note Ban." (2007-06-05). http://comipress.com/news/2007/06/05/2067. (Accessed August 27, 2008).

The third of these gives additional details that are themselves sourced to http://edu.qq.com/ = a Chinese language website. Other, non-Chinese language websites also discuss the ban, including

MacDonald, Heidi (2007-05-15). "DEATH NOTE banned in Beijing." http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/05/15/death-note-banned-in-beijing-2/. (Accessed August 28, 2008). [Don't be concerned by the word "blog" in the URL; MacDonald is a regular columnist at Publisher's Weekly.]

Katayama, Lisa (2008-05-19). "Death Note Manga Spawns Movie, Crime Wave." http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/news/2008/05/death_note. (Accessed August 27, 2008). [This is a more general discussion of crimes that seem associated with Death Note.]

A good many more websites mention the ban, and some of them have extensive comments by fans and other writers. If anyone wants, I'll post the URLs.

Let me make a more general comment or two. I don't read Chinese, and citing the original news sources (as you suggested doing when you removed the reference) won't do me any good, nor anyone else who can't read Chinese. We are stuck, unfortunately, with translations and repetitions on other sources.

Are those other sources reliable? Some are, like ANN, Publisher's Weekly, and Wired. The others might, for all I know, be less reliable (though I cannot attest to that), but they confirm each other, e.g., about the ban beginning in 2005. I don't think we can arbitrarily conclude that those websites are Wiki-unreliable; it seems to me that the consensus of data support the 2005 date and provide an indication that Chinese young people may be less placid than we Westerners may believe. In fact -- this is an opinion, not to be included in the article itself! -- my guess is that the Chinese authorities are less worried that 15 year-old Chinese believe that Ryuk is real than they are worried about student disobedience to centralized authority, whether it's disobedience about manga or about civil rights in general. But that's only an opinion.

BTW, I just checked all the URLs, and they all work as of the present moment.

So, I'd like to ask for comments before I rework the preceding and boil it down for inclusion in the article.

Timothy Perper (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I understand the problems of the primary sources being in Chinese it sure would be nice to at least know which schools we are talking about here and which official."Some schools" is really wishy washy. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it sounds wishy-washy, but the weasel words guideline indicates that there are some points where "weasel words" are appropriate, like when the alternative would be too detailed, placing undue weight on the phenomenon, and the reader may not benefit from the precise details. This is perhaps one of those cases? -Malkinann (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help, but I wrote author/translator Jonathan Clements (who is fluent in both Japanese and Mandarin) to ask him about it. His response is chock full of information and sources, so I'll reproduce it here in full:

As it happens, I have written about the Death Note topic myself in the

past. Here is my column from issue 35 of the British magazine NEO, which was published in summer 2007, and which I must have written a couple of months before.

You should feel free to quote as much of this as you like, as long as you cite NEO. This article is one of the many which will be reprinted in the forthcoming Schoolgirl Milky Crisis, by the way.

35: Bum Notes

Jonathan Clements is making a list

To Beijing, where Tsugumi Oba and Takeshi Obata's Death Note manga has kicked off a local controversy. The manga, also an anime and live-action movie, features a magical notebook which will cause the death of anyone whose name is written in it. Originally a possession of a spirit of the underworld, it falls into the hands of a Japanese boy, who uses it for good – sort of Ring meets The Equalizer.
Except now Chinese junior schoolchildren have been found keeping their own Death Note notebooks, writing down the names of their classroom enemies, and putting curses on their teachers. This, say the powers that be, Must Be Stopped.
But there's more at work here. The Chinese press first began covering Death Note copycats when schools banned the manga in Shenyang. Shenyang is the capital of Manchuria, which was effectively part of Japan in the 1930s. This both predisposes the locals to follow Japanese media, and the powers that be to get huffy about it.
Death Note is also merely one of several horror comics implicated in the backlash, and many are pirate editions – could this be an underhand way of cleaning up illegal presses, rather than children's minds? The Chinese government doesn't believe in "superstition", so banning Death Note for its occult influence is the thin end of a controversial wedge that would end in recognising the existence of the supernatural!
Speaking as someone who was reprimanded at school for employing sorcery in a hockey game (long story), I can attest that this is just children being silly. Children aware of their own powerlessness start looking for it elsewhere – in the occult, in religion, in music, in sports. Girls go through a teen witch phase, little boys decide they're Jedi. In Singapore, you can buy Death Note jotters in the local equivalent of Woolworth's. The Death Note controversy is less to do with the occult, and more to do with unruly children, an admittedly macabre fad, and yet another excuse to blame Japan for modern China's social ills.

---

I went and checked Chinese Wikipedia. The Death Note page is very detailed, and has a section on the controversies. It cites three references, one of which is the Anglophone Reuters piece that you and your wiki-associates have already read. The earliest, however, is this one:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/school/2005-01/11/content_2446984.htm

The page is still up, and refers directly to the Shenyang incident I cited in my article. So I would say that the comments on the US Wiki page are pretty fair. I'd never heard of the Lanzhou incident before, but Lanzhou is a town I know relatively well, and it's precisely the sort of place where the news is likely to carry tales of unwelcome Japanese sorcery in the midst of Silly Season.

Incidentally, there appear to be two legal Chinese translations of Death Note, one published in Taiwan, and the other in Hong Kong. Neither is directly accessible to young Mainland Chinese readers, however, as the Taiwanese translation would be in long-form kanji, and the Hong Kong one is presumably in Cantonese.

Feel free to quote this email as well, if it helps.

I hope this provides some hard data to shore up this section. Matt Thorn (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that is useful stuff. The xinhuanet site is in Chinese. Anyway, I'll try to put together a new section this weekend or so, using Clements' article from NEO, which I'll go look for next as well as the other sources. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find Issue 35 of Neo on the web; does anyone have a website for it? If not, does anyone have issue 35? If they do, can you post the exact reference to what Clements wrote above and mentioned as being in issue 35? Timothy Perper (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I just emailed Neo magazine in the UK asking them. In the meantime, we'll wait. I don't want to impose again on Matt Thorn to ask him to contact Clements, but if Neo doesn't answer me, I'll ask Matt. We will track down this reference. Timothy Perper (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Got it! Gemma Cox, the editor of Neo Magazine, just sent me the reference information. It's

Clements, Jonathan (2007, August) "Manga Pulse." NEO Magazine, Issue #35, p. 19.

OK, we can start to move on this again.

Timothy Perper (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I just replaced the old section with new, rewritten and better referenced material, including the Clements reference immediately above. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding new referenced introduction

I'm going to add a new introduction with lots of references and a few "citation needed" tags. It's a lot better than before. I don't really like the way all the dates clutter up the text, so I may put the dates into the footnotes, but other people should add references if they have them. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There are other problems with this article, including the in-universe descriptions of activities and motivations for Light, L, and (above all) Misa. I'm going to start working my way through the article, changing stuff and adding references. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I added citations for the manga serialization and the novel by Nisio. Hope this is what you were looking for, Tim. Matt Thorn (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It sure was. Many many thanks. While we're at it, Matt, can I ask you if you can find some Japanese references to the three Death Note films? I added references in English, from ANN, which ought to do it. The sentence is in the middle of the introduction somewhere -- it's easy to find. Timothy Perper (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the "rewrite introduction" tag because the intro is OK now. Timothy Perper (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)