Jump to content

Talk:Death Note/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Section on Function of the Death Notes

This section follows directly after the Introduction, suggesting that the person who put it in thinks that the five rules governing the action of the Death Notes are more important than the characters in the story. I'm not sure of that at all, and recommend shifting this section to later in the article and shortening it. I don't see any real significance to listing the rules without explaining how they are used in the narrative. In other words, this section has an in-universe quality without ever situating the rules in the narrative or its outcomes. Moreover, Light adds some fake rules to throw off pursuers, and if we're not careful, we'll get an endless spiral of more and more details that fascinate fans and otaku but aren't encyclopedic.

A better opening might be something like "The Death Note notebooks operate under a complex set of supernatural rules, not by the whim or will of the human being who uses them" and we take it from there. Otherwise, it reads like an instruction manual for a video game.

Comments?

Timothy Perper (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'm going to move the "Function" section to immediately after the "Characters" section. I'll wait a few days for comments, and then make the move. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Since no one objected, I moved the section. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed Header to "Copy Cat Crimes and Imitations"

Before, it said only "Imitations," which could mean other manga that have imitated the plot, characters, and so on of Death Note. That's not what the section is about, so I changed it to reflect the real content more accurately. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Rem being female...

In one of the earlier episodes when Rem tells Misa Amane about how to kill another shinigami Misa says "Rem would you ever fall in love with me" and rem said "dont be ridiculous, you think you can kill me that easily". What proof is there that Rem is Female..?67.81.169.196 (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Death Note: How to Read 13 - Her profile states that she is female. That is beside the point; Shinigami cannot have intercourse with one another, nor can they have intercourse with humans. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Besides, as I recall, her being female is referenced multiple times throughout the anime (though I could be wrong, I never paid particularly close attention to this before). And for a bit of original research/personal interpretation, Rem always just struck me as a female character anyways. —Dinoguy1000 20:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Rem is said to be female in the manga as well. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It specifically states her gender in, I believe, book seven, when Rem reveals herself to Misa in order to warn her about Kira; she says that she herself is female, and so understands Misa's feelings for Light very well. 67.159.136.174 (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

She is female in book 13 Poohman0 (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC) mercinary

New section "Parodies" added by someone

Which is fine, but the single sentence added needs a citation to convince readers that (a) it is Light Yagami, especially if he can't be seen fully and (b) that the show he maybe appears in is a parody of "Death Note." The Wikilink doesn't mention DN at all, nor mention Light Yagami, so more is needed. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone removed it, so I guess the question is moot. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a video clip of the Light Yagami cameo from Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei on Youtube from one of the episodes. User:Omegafouad 8:24, 23 September 2008
It's pretty much useless trivia anyway. Doceirias (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Survive a GAR

I have been making som clean up to avoid a the article being removed from GA but it still needs some things. The plot needs a bit of expansion to tell the rest of the story, reception needs a bit of expansion and avoid the use of so many quotes. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC) good job ! Poohman0 (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Macbeth

Compare the story of Death Note to the story of Macbeth. If you look at it like this, you'll find that Death Note is based off of Macbeth. Notice:
1.) Macbeth is Thane of Glamis, happy as is, and a friend of King Duncan.

  • Light is a high school student, preparing for college, and top of his class, and happy.

2.) Macbeth learns from witches he will become King.

  • Light gets a death note.

3.) Macbeth plans to kill Duncan and deal with Malcolm to get the crown sooner.

  • Light plans to kill criminals to create a brighter world.

4.) Macbeth's obstacles disappear due to his evil plan.

  • Light's obstacles, L, Rem, and Watari, disappear to his evil plan.

5.) Macbeth becomes King of Scotland.

  • Light becomes God of a New World, or damn close.

6.) Malcolm and Macduff form an army to oppose Macbeth.

  • Near forms the SPK and Mello takes a branch of the mafia to oppose Kira.

7.) Macduff kills Macbeth and someone kills Seyton, Macbeth's right hand.

  • Near gets enough evidence to arrest Light and Mikami, Kira's hand, and they die.

8.) Scotland is free from Macbeth.

Interesting Thesis

The only thing that has me scratching my head is #2. Macbeth learns that something will happen to him in the future. Not so with Light. He receives something. Other than that, it's not a bad thesis at all (In my opinion, at least!).
--NBahn (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think so. A good portion of the driving force behind Macbeth is Lady Macbeth, whereas Light is fully self-motivated. And if you try to compare the intelligent, scheming Lady Macbeth to... Misa, I will smack you with a wet trout. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Now, if this appears in a reliable source, it would make a great addition (I wonder who will make this comparison first?) WhisperToMe (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Seperate Game Article?

I think that we are capable of writing an article for the 3 games, and give reliable info for how they were developed, slightly extended plot section, where & when they were released, features that they have (IE: Multiplayer, different language, etc.), VA's, etc. We're perfectly capable of an article for them, so long as we find reliable sources. Anyone agree? Skeletal SLJCOAAATR Soulsor 21:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

...Hello...? Skeletal SLJCOAAATR Soulsor 20:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
...........Skeletal SLJCOAAATR Soulsor 15:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh what?

How can "L the ProLogue to DEATH NOTE -螺旋の罠" be "Eru za Purorōgu tu Desu Nōto -Rasen no Torappu-". It should just be "L the ProLogue to DEATH NOTE -Rasen no Torappu-". Unless there are furigana, and a reliable source for it, that part should be removed. This also relates to my LONG ago battle that the kana "tu" doesn't exist, at least in Hepburn, which Wikipedia uses (unless there is furigana stating it is "エル・ザ・プロローグ・テゥ・デスノート"). And I didn't see any furigana on the main "L the ProLogue to Death Note" page. Moocowsrule (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

Amazon supports the トゥ. The box also appears to have furigana that are...impossible to read, but we had to get "罠" being "torappu" from somewhere.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
"罠" being "Torappu" is from the main pages. But yes that Furigana is *VERY* small... I didn't even see it on one of the main pages. Are you sure Amazon in a RS? I mean that's not an Amazon endorsed page, but a page made buy (stupid pun [REALLY stupid pun]) a user. It's usually written with the Katakana "te" and with a small "u" though (at least that's how I've always been writing it)... I've always seen it as "テゥ" instead of "トゥ", because far away that might be mistaken for "tou"... or at least that's what I think... but I guess you're correct. This page provides better (and larger) Furigana. But it appears only to say "Za Purorōgu Tu Desu Nōto" not "Eru Za Purorōgu Tu Desu Nōto". I think it should be changed to "L za purorōgu tu desu nōto" but maybe with the capitals... no wait I think it should be "L the proLogue to Death Note" because that Furigana is there only to help non-English speakers with the pronunciation. According to the main site (and this one), the Official title (in Japanese) is "L the proLogue to DEATH NOTE -螺旋の罠-". Plus it appears to use "Razen" instead of "Rasen", but when I try to zoom in, it gets pixelated. Moocowsrule (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

"Watashi wa Kira dess"

"Watashi wa Kira dess" would be the Dutch romanization of Japanese. It's not a "more phonetic" way of transliterating. The cow says MOO!!! —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC).

When there are internationally standardized systems of Romanizing Japanese and (1) "dess" violates all of them and (2) "desu" is usually pronounced "dess", then yes, it is a more phonetic way of transliterating.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure? I thought the Dutch had their own Romanization system, to make it more phonetic and easier to pronounce for native Dutch speakers... I must have been wrong. Moocowsrule (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

Plot section

we need to put down a plot section beacuse this is the main page for DeathNote Poohman0 (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Can you handle it?

Yep, it is needed.Tintor2 (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers

Take a look at the "production" section - the last part contains spoilers. I would put a spoiler tag, but Im not sure how to do it; Im also kinda scared to read the article.. 89.77.118.185 (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  • We generally don't have spoiler tags anymore. See Wikipedia:Spoilers - "However, since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are largely considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the Content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers." WhisperToMe (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Plot" should not disclose the whole story like the death of a character, it should be written with the intent to give a small glimpse of the story without reviewing too much detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.170.80 (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

China Ban Misleading

The section on being banned in the PRC seems misleading. The sources only state specific schools and jurisdictions banning pirated versions of DN, but the title suggests that the whole PRC banned DN. --Gary123 (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

How Do I suggest a merger?

It seems to me that given the comparatively small amount of differences between Death note (FILM) and Death Note (Manga) I think they need to be merged. Even Dragon Ball had more differences between the two versions of the story from Manga to Anime versions and was ruled needing Merger.198.146.53.94 (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

umm

isnt "Watashi wa Kira dess" [sic] (私はキラです, wrong, shouldnt it be 'Watashi wa Kira desu' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.22.234 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. "dess" is phonetically correct, but the word is typically romanized "desu". Regardless, the note was written with Latin characters, and the spelling used was "dess", hence the spelling in the article. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Name Clarification

I would add this myself, but the page is locked. It is probably worth clarifying that the reason it is called "Death Note" is because "note" or ノート means "notebook" in Japanese. It is a poor translation to call it "Death Note" in English, but I imagine the pronunciation was retained due to the familiarity of English speakers with the Japanese title. Here is a link that should qualify as a source of the meaning of ノート: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MDJ%A5%CE%A1%BC%A5%C8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.237.74.100 (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Handsome L?

Are you kidding me? It was stated by both the mangaka and the writer that they wanted to make L NOT handsome. Who wrote this article? A yaoi fangirl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.129.184 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I already removed it (and FYI, that's not as bad as it was - an IP originally added "a sexy" there, a few days ago - it was later changed to "a handsome"). ···「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk to Dinoguy1000 21:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

some retard also added I love Light Yagami at the last paragraph of the anime section, and I can't remove it, for some reason. Edit won't show it, what the hell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.89.209 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Plot is a spoiler.

Just a friendly suggestion. When I was looking for Death Note's anime original run dates, I noticed that the section called "plot" is actually a summary of the series. Believe me if I had not seen Death Note already, I would've been so angry because of someone that thinks writing a plot = writing a summary. That section should be edited into a correct plot summary, or at the very least have a spoiler warning. That's just my opinion, so future readers that are interested in reading the plot of the series to decide wether to see it or not don't be spoiled of this great anime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.53.122.54 (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPOILER. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a spoiler free zone. If someone does not want to be spoiled on the plot of a fictional work, common sense would dictate that you do not go and read a Wikipedia article about it. The plot section is just that, the actual plot of the series, not a teaser or intro piece. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary

I just want to ask a small favor from every one who changes the plot summery and that if your going to change it please make it better detailed and dont just erase it and put less detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aluminia (talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)#Plot "This should comprise a succinct description of the plot and major subplots, but please avoid excessive details of twists and turns in the story."Tintor2 (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary is also a good read. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree.Tintor2 (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I appoligize and wish to move forward

Since it has been suggested that I act more civil in the process of updating this article, I wish to comply and add my contributions. I apologize for personal attacks made on my part. Whether my attacks pertain to be true or not is irrelevant. I acted childish and stupidly. It was exceptionally rude of me.
Beyond that, I request edit to certain criteria in sections of the Death Note article. I request to add information to the upcoming American Death Note Remake under Live action Films. This is information pulled directly from my "sourced" article that i wish to add: "No word yet on casting choices or whether or not the "Shinigami" characters will be CGI or not, but the studio is apparently reaching out to Joseph Gordon Levitt for a role, though that role is unknown."[29]
Perponents have suggested that this is speculation. I strongly dissagree. It is simply an update of relevant information concerning the usage of "Shinigami" in the upcoming film. Hardly speculation at all. As well, there is a constant removal of my information concerning the approach of executives to Joseph Gordon-Levitt for a role. According to the "sourced" article this is fact. Mr. Levitt "has" been approached. There is no speculation used  in that statement either.
So it is now that I ask whether you think it would be proper to add such relevant information to this article. I feel it will be a good contribution to the section and article overall. Please, discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cali boi16 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 24 September 2009

I'm glad to see you've finally calmed down; a good night's sleep helped with that, I'd assume? =)
I think we could probably add something along the lines of your proposed addition, but we cannot copy the text verbatim from a source - I would recommend something more along the lines of "Although no casting choices have been revealed yet, Joseph Gordon Levitt may have been approached for one." Unfortunately, that still sounds way too much like original research... I really can't figure out how to word it any better, though. Also, I don't think it's really necessary to note the bit about the Shinigami either.
One last note, could you please start signing your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of comments, or clicking the signature button in the edit toolbar? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I do sincerley apologize. I see your point. The wording should be changed. May I recommend: "There have been no announcements concerning casting choices, but apparently Joseph Gordon Levitt has been approached for a role, though that role is unknown." Cali boi16 (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I think probably the text "though that role is unknown" is redundant to the first part of the sentence. Other than that, your version sounds pretty good. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Right then. The redundant text should be scratched, while the rest of the sentence is added. Agreed? Cali boi16 (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
That sounds good to me; I have asked AnmaFinotera to stop by and offer her opinion on it, and it may be good to wait for one or two others to stop by and weigh in. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The more, the merrier, I assume. It's fine with me. Does it usually take as long for input from your peers?Cali boi16 (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
In this case, because of the edit warring that previously occurred, wider input is definitely needed, if nothing else just to make sure everyone involved is on the same page. As for how long responses from others takes, note that we can't be online 24 hours a day, and some of us don't live in the United States. There is no rush, so it's okay to wait a few hours or a day to give everyone else a chance to have a look. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I honestly do not see a need to state "No word yet on casting choices or whether or not the "Shinigami" characters will be CGI or not, but the studio is apparently reaching out to Joseph Gordon Levitt for a role, though that role is unknown." - if its not known, it isn't included, and doesn't need to be stated (i.e. no need to state the obvious). At best, I would just note that "Vertigo has reportedly approached Joseph Gordon Levitt about appearing in the film." However, I do wonder, what makes Shakefire a reliable source per WP:RS? I'm not seeing anything on their site that would seem to indicate that they meet this guideline. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. If you read earlier, we already cleared that issues of which you have called to question. Now what I want to add is: "There have been no announcements concerning casting choices, but apparently Joseph Gordon Levitt has been approached for a role." There has been much speculation and rumor that celebrities such as Zac Effron or others have been confirmed to be in the film. The statement claiming no casting choices have been made dispells such speculation and rumor and replaces it with known fact. Thereby, it is relevant and should be included. Cali boi16 (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Where is this cleared? I do not see anything about that actually discusses the reliability of the source, only that you feel it is reliable and relevant, and by being removed, others appear to disagree. This is not a "known" fact, it is another statement of rumor, possibly a more confirmed rumor, but still a rumor. Therefore, it is valid to question, is this a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You have no evidence that the source is faulty. Other than your conviction that it "might" be. Others appear to dissagree out of their own opinions or beliefs. The fact that many dissagree, again, does not prove the source faulty. It is a matter of their opinion. I have a source that is not bias or set-forth with an agenda, the source simply reports what is fact, until this fact is disproven I see no reason to believe it is unreliable, as should you. Cali boi16 (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Please review WP:RS, then show how this source is reliable. Just because it doesn't "appear" faulty does not make it reliable by Wikipedia standards, which has very specific guidelines about the type and quality of sources that we use for articles. You may feel it is fact, but without any evidence that the site is reliable per Wikipedia standards it is not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


Funny, because Wikipedia is hardly known for it's standards of accurate information. But suddenly standards are everything when there is bias from certain administrators. This has not been brought up before by "any" administrator since the source was put up over 4 months ago. It is peculiar when no administrator including yourself has questioned the reliability of a source until an "argumentive editor" wishes to add further contribution. Cali boi16 (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see the source added as I didn't have the page on my watchlist, however if it were not locked I would remove it for lacking reliability. Further, I am not an administrator and please remember to assume good faith and maintain civility in discussions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I find it hard to assume good faith when only "you" have brought up question of reliability to my source. Are you somehow special from your constituants to see this? Do you believe yourself more intelligent that the peers around you? No, since the beginning of your tirade of accusations you have attacked my additions and even the reliability of a source which by no other reason only "you" seem to question. So as you can see it is hard to assume good faith as only "you "want to strip my contributions entirely. By reason, it would be the simplest explanation is usually the truth. Which is that you seem to have an agenda towards me. If I were an outsider looking in on this conversation I would undoubtedly come to the same conclusion. Cali boi16 (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Cali, please keep in mind that any editor can call into question any part of an article given a good reason to do so. AnmaFinotera has raised a valid concern regarding the source used here, and it would be far more productive to either demonstrate how it passes WP:RS or find a reliable source to replace it. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 208.124.109.20 (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Its obvious to me now that I cannot prove my source is reliable. Go ahead and remove the source and my contributions as well if you believe you should rightly do so. Thank you for your time because it was certainly a waste of mine. Cali boi16 (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding a Sub-category to Live-action films

As well, I would like to discuss the addition of a subcategory to the Death Note Live-Action section. I would like to seperate the difference between the upcoming 2010 American Remake from the original live-action films. Not seperate the sections persay. But I wish to emphasize that there will be a future project seperate from past projects. It will only be a subcategory under Live-action. Therefore, there will be no additional section to confuse readers. More emphasis will be placed upon the future project. Which will lead readers to become further interested in the article. Please, discuss. Cali boi16 (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC) 

I strongly disagree with the need to create any kind of subsection for this remake at this time. The section is not long enough to warrant any kind of additional sectioning. Unless and until the new one actually happens, there isn't much more to be said about it except some speculation and updates. If it actually does happen, then there may be a reason to do a subsection, but not now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
While I agree the section is not very long, the need foe emphasis should be placed on the future movie. Even in obscur articles there are subsections concerning movies coming out in 2013. And these sections hardly contain as much information yet they are given their own section. Why? Because readers like emphasis on upcoming projects. It gives them something to look forward to. This movie is set to be released much sooner than some obscure spider-man 4 movie that hasn't even started production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cali boi16 (talk • contribs) 20:13, September 24, 2009
First, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because others have inappropriate sections does not mean this one needs it. Sectioning it at this point would be giving it undue weight and goes against WP:MOS regarding sectioning. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
There has never been claim that these sections were inappropriate before. I find it funny that when I recommend this subsection that it is regarded as inappropriate article. It seems bias plays an underlying role in your decision making. The emphasis on this "undue weight" interests readers and is very relevant. Cali boi16 (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

L: Change the World Light Novel

Please see my discussion on the new light novel for the third film. I added information about it the article for the film and this article, but since I don't have the book and there are not reliable reviews for it yet I have no sources to cite. If someone who owns it could help with adding information, that would be appreciated. -- Rue Ryuzaki  jam  19:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is common for an adaptation of a film, comic, etc. to have differences with the original media. Just see the film adaptations of Death Note or the anime's end. Since there is no sources for such info, it is WP:Original ResearchTintor2 (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Heh heh heh, now that I have the book I can cite it directly. Sources have been added. -- Rue Ryuzaki  jam  20:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a synthesis of published material that advances a position; the novel does not mention the differences and it makes no sense mentioning that in this article since this article does not have a plot summary section of the film.Tintor2 (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Plot Mistakes

Well I literally just finished watching the last episode and am certain that Light never begs Ryuk to help him so unless I missed that whole part and someone corrects me soon I'm going to change that 68.194.228.226 (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen the anime, but I can confirm it happens in the manga. -Tainted Conformity Chat 19:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Without checking the sources, I'm pretty sure that this is vandalism: "Ohba was also asked what he considered the most important thing in Death Note, and he responded by saying, "the human BECAUSE SHONA AND EMILY AND EMILIE ARE AWESOME!!!!!!and actions as much as possible." 212.10.53.219 (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. Thanks! <3 Vashti (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Last paragraph in the lead

"Several publications for manga, anime and other media have added praise and criticism on the Death Note series. The plot and violence from the story have been praised, noting it to be very entertaining. However, the series was banned in China due to various problems people had with children altering their notebooks to resemble a Death Note."

Violence? Last time I checked, Death Note is not a violent anime series. And is this little paragraph in the lead really nescessary? -- Rue Ryuzaki  jam  19:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's reception, though i can't find it in the article. if it has a source it can be kept.

if a review of the anime/manga got recognized for it's romance despite not being a romantic story, then it can still be added. It's not like it's saying it is a violent story. though the series did have violence.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Death Note Another Note: The Los Angeles BB Murder Cases own page

I am wondering if Death Note Another Note: The Los Angeles BB Murder Cases should have it's own page. The small section on this page only brushes over the plot plus it would have a reception section if it had it's own page along with a picture of the front cover etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamsDreams (talk • contribs) 22:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there third party commentary about the work? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

koreas 'red diary'

hey so i want to add an a bit under the imitations and copycat section of deathnote. it';s referring to the Korean version of a Desth note called a red diary. If anybody has any extra information besides what im about to contribute feel ree to edit or add.--Barnwelltynisha (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source that compares the two? Vashti (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Anime seperation

Shouldn't the anime have a seperate article? It can be noted for its music compositions and manga adaptation. --Arathun (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The manga isn't an adaption, but the original work. The project doesn't encourage separate articles if there are no substantial differences, and the anime here was fairly faithful. Doceirias (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how the WP-Anime/Manga Project's guidelines are worded, but I'd say that being in a completely different medium is pretty substantial. If this was not the case, there wouldn't be separate articles for the theatrical adaptations of Shakespeare's plays. The anime and manga are notable in their own rights and therefore merit separate articles. Additionally, information exclusive to the anime is left off of the main page and it's fairly annoying to not have a convenient cast/声優 listing in the article. 98.203.140.56 (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

the us tv rating is tv-ma.v/tv-ma/tv-14.v why shounen?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vygovno (talk • contribs) 08:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A manga is classed as shonen based on the anthology it's originally carried in in Japan, and the age range it was targetted at. Death Note was carried in Weekly Shonen Jump and considered a children's manga, as is clear if you read the interviews in HtR13 (Ohba and Obata talk about marketing it to children). Vashti (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Comic books and television are different. Same goes for U.S and Japan. Blood: Mature in U.S, but that is not so in Japan. Besides; for whatever reason, it's on [Adult Swim], which makes it likely that at some point kids, should they watch it, will see something the parents obviously wont approve of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.142.48.139 (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Network Other" Section is invisible

If you look at the source of the article, there's a "network_other" section under the anime infobox (right below "network_en") that has more than 10 networks and it's not visible. Ridhaintj (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits to Introduction

I'm not entirely sure why the last paragraph of the introduction was removed... the paragraph said this:

"On April 30, 2009, Variety magazine announced that Warner Bros. acquired the rights for the Death Note manga to be adapted into a live-action movie in the United States. Warner Bros. has hired screenwriters Charley and Vlas Parlapanides to adapt the manga into a screenplay. Unlike the Japanese Death Note live-action movie trilogy, the US-version will be directly adapted from the material in the manga and will not follow the storyline of the Japanese movie adaptations.[1] On January 13, 2011, it was announced that Shane Black has been hired to direct the film, with the script being written by Anthony Bagarozzi and Chuck Mondry.[2] The most recent projected release dates for this project are in 2014 (IMDB)."

I think this information is valuable and relevant to the wiki readers... apparently someone even reported my addition of the last sentence "The most recent projected release dates for this project are in 2014 (IMDB)." as vandalism, this is obviously incorrect, since the definition of vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
Therefore, the addition of that last sentence doesn't qualify as vandalism, because my intentions were simply to update the content of the introduction.

The point I am making is that I think this last paragraph should be kept in the intro, including the 2014 projected release dates, I even included a link in the 2014 (IMDB) showing the information confirming the 2014 release date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophios (talk • contribs) 18:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Copycat Crimes and Imitations

is that section really true? it seems unlikely that a kid would be punished just for owning a journal with the word "Deathnote" on the front. 98.142.48.139 (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It means that the owner of the note-book wanted those people dead, it wouldn't hold any consequence if it was blank, if there were names written in it, however, it means that the person, again, wanted those people dead. 208.118.152.37 (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

But "death notes" have existed in schools long before the show even aired. In fact, I'd argue that the show took its premise from lists such as these, so I wonder as to their noteworthiness. Maybe we could condense that part into a small paragraph and keep all the references? Aside from that, however, I think we should change the title to remove the word "crimes," as there is only one real crime listed there. Maybe change it to something like "Influence on real life events?" SweetNightmares (awaken) 01:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


All the references seem to go to the same website, called "anime news network". Not sure if that's credible enough to have an entire section on copycat crimes. Not to mention, having a book with some names written down seems like a silly reason to expel someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.55.74 (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Rumors

I don't know if it is correct but I think rumors shouldn't be in the Wiki. There was added a rumor that Zac Efron might play Light and Johnny Depp playing L in the new film in the section for the live action films. NoJoker 23:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

One shot special?

I keep hearing about a death note one shot special aka chapter 109. What is this and has this been localized in english and where can I get it. --Ukokira (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC) never mind ukokira — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.225.180 (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed this link because it no longer functions:

If anyone can find an archive of it, we could put the link back in. The archive at archive.org seems corrupted, though. --Mr. Billion (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Genres

Hey guys, I was wondering if you could capitalize the names of the genres, for some reason it bothers me, and you should shorten it to simply Dark Fantasy and Psychological Thriller, as those two seem to be the most prevalent genres of this series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvan Dreams (talk • contribs) 00:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it's Dark fantasy. All the shinigami are covered by supernatural.--71.126.156.208 (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
From Dark fantasy: "Dark fantasy is a subgenre of fantasy which can refer to literary, artistic and filmic works that combine fantasy with elements of horror. The term can be used broadly to refer to fantastical works that have a dark, gloomy atmosphere or a sense of horror and dread."
Sounds like DN to me. However, I don't see any need to shorten the list of genres myself - or to capitalise them, as it's not good English to do so. Vashti (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sidebar?

The sidebar we have in this article, listing all the published material, seems a little cumbersome. Would people be on board with breaking these out where possible to separate articles or sections, and moving the links to the DN infobox? I can't believe anyone reads through that whole list, to be honest. Vashti (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

cApItAlS

I've left a comment at WP:MOS, to try and shed some light on the whole "Death Note"/"death note" thing. Vashti (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus from the MOS and WP:DISPUTE is that not only "Death Note", but "Shinigami", "Shinigami Eyes", and "Shinigami Realm" should all be capitalised - that is to say, full HtR13 capitalisation is to be followed. Needless to say, I strongly disagree with this, but them's the breaks. :) Vashti (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

authorship

Why is there no mention of J.G. Ballard's 1959 short story 'NOW ZERO'?

Death Note surely owes it's existence to Ballard's original story of '59 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayamoi (talk • contribs) 23:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

More examples needed?

The structure of the page is flowing, and it is convenient for those who want to know certain information of Death Note since the classification is really detailed. The most effects Death Note has made are argument for and against whether it is appropriate for audience of all ages or not and if there will be crime based on it. I think more events should be included, and I'm pretty sure they are easy to be found since there are bunch of examples in twelve years, for example the news article "'Death Note' passed around elementary school terrifies students, parents" posed by EYEWITNESS NEWS wfsb.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5DC:2000:6001:9F72:199E:8A8A (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

While we shouldn't list every example, we should limit the examples to those that have received widespread coverage in the form of national or international news. —Farix (t | c) 21:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is this a "copycat crime"?

The article notes that there have been various "copycat crimes" but then only mentions that people were possessing notebooks identical in appearance to the ones in Death Note. I don't think that's a copycat crime, mostly because it's not a crime. I didn't go through all the references but I doubt that most of them refer to them as "copycat crimes" so should that perhaps be removed or rephrased? Petr Hudeček (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The Manga Murder was a crime committed with reference to the series, supernatural notebooks don't exist, but the Copycat crime article gives the definition as "a criminal act that is modeled or inspired by a previous crime that has been reported in the media or described in fiction." So the term works for that incident. Only one other incident listed says people were arrested, but even then you can be arrested and not commit a crime. On the other hand, they are kind of like death threats, which are crimes.
Should any of the incidents besides the Manga Murder even be detailed here in the first place? They could all be combined/generalized into one or two sentences? Xfansd (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Petr Hudeček and Xfansd. After reading the article, I kept thinking that there were more unmentioned DN-inspired murders, whereas in reality all I cound find is one barely related murder and a bunch of people writing names into their "Death Note"-looking notebooks. I wouldn't be surprised that at least some of the mentioned incidents were just an overreaction. Although some of them might have been classified as crimes as explained by Xfansd, but there is a world of difference between the first example and the students that wrote a list of people (or even a "hit list").
The statements might be technically correct, but I do think that "various copycat crimes around the world which were based on Death Note" might be slightly misleading.
Maybe splitting the section into two ("Copycat crime" - one example/"Imitation incidents" - the rest) will help? The wording is an issue, so I'll put "clarification needed" on one of the statements. 31.130.23.114 (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Death Note. 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:

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) 08:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Genre

There seems to be a lot of changing when it comes to the genre, so I was wondering if we could have a civil discussion on the matter to decide what the genre(s) will be. I feel like 6 is too many, especially given that you could combine several of these into one. For example, mystery and detective could easily be filed under just mystery. Or, detective and supernatural could be filed under occult detective. I wouldn't consider the series a dark fantasy either tbh.--108.28.124.56 (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Detective fiction is a sub-genre of mystery, so mystery can be removed. Dark fantasy and supernatural seems similar to me. Any other suggestions? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, remove dark fantasy cause I really wouldn't consider Death Note as one. Also remove tragedy cause, yeah it involves a lot of death, but that's not what the creators were going for. A lot of other manga/anime would be considered tragic by this definition--Valkyrie Red (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed remove mystery, dark fantasy and tragic.Lucia Black (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
What about horror, it does have some supernatural horror elements in the manga?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Chuck Palahniuk's 'Lullaby'

Lullaby came out in 2002, and Death Note in '03. Has Lullaby ever been cited as an influence? tharsaile (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Death Note. 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:

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) 07:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death Note. 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:

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) 07:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death Note. 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:

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) 22:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Novel

I suggest that the novel "Death Note Another Note: The Los Angeles BB Murder Cases" should be put in the section Infobox animanga/Other, since it has its own article, it's redundant putting details in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moon 218 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Review(s)

--KrebMarkt (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Neo-Noir Comics Sub-Category?

It's come to my attention that Death Note has a lot in common with the genre of neo-noir: a genre of fiction inspired by film noir emphasizing cynical characters, stylized imagery and emphasis on complex scenarios where the central character must unravel a conspiracy directly affecting the central conflict of the story. Death Note seems like a natural fit to be described as neo-noir.Internet Informant (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that call Death Note a neo-noir series, it should be added to the category. If there's no sources, then that's a personal interpretation. - Xexerss (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_Note/Archive_8&oldid=1252404667"