Talk:Death Note/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

blanc et noir

This article fails to mention that an artbook of death note has also been released in Japan titled "blanc et noir" Source: http://www.shueisha.co.jp/s-book/blanc/com/ I believe this is the only artbook of such that exists Adreamtonight 09:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Categories

Death Note is palced under some odd categories, namely the Drama anime/manga, articles with unsourced statements, and Motif of harmful sensation. First, does Death Note really fall under the Drama genre? Second, I think we've cited our sources pretty well, and it's a whole lot better than many articles out there, and I believe it doesn't need the articles with unsourced statements category. Lastly, according to the definition of Motif of harmful sensation, it's when harm befalls someone who has a certain sensation. Can someone please tell me how Death Note falls into that category? Thanks! SuperDT 02:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Articles with unsourced statements category is automatically added by the failed verification template, which can be seen next to the final citations in both the Manga and Movie sections. The Manga citation doesn't exist anymore (and does not appear on the Wayback Machine), and the Movie citation doesn't appear to have anything to do with Death Note. When these two citations have been clarified and/or replaced with better ones (preferably in English), the verification tags (and, by extension, the unsourced statements category) will be removed. --Ppk01 20:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Death Note DS Game

I just found out that the Death Note game for DS is coming out February 2007! While I am excited, this raises an important question: Do we add the info now, while there's sacrce info, or wait a little longer and get some details, which probably won't come out for another month or two? Source: [1]

This brings up an interesting question: should all the forms of Death Note (Manga, movie, anime, now game) get their own articles? Squierhater01 01:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful at this stage for anyone to upload some screenshots if they have them? Prodigis

If you guys are looking for screenshots and information about the game, check GameBrink's review: http://www.gamebrink.com/nintendo-ds/2186-Death_Note-reviews-1.html

Shinigami vs. Death God

I really can't understand why shinigami is used in place of Death God. The term "Death God" is the one officially used within the series, and with all the uproar over the official names of the characters, surely instances of shinigami should be replaced with Death God? I cite the WikiProject Anime and manga article guidelines as a reference, which say "[c]haracters should be called what the series officially states their romaji names as. If that does not exist, use what they are named in the most recent or popular English translation, if it exists, isn't egregiously bad, and is the generally-used name". Though I have not read the officially translated manga, the original Japanese version of the anime certainly uses the term Death God in its English "How to use it" instructions. Therefore, I propose that within Death Note articles throughout Wikipedia, the term Death God be used in place of shinigami. --Ppk01 20:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

To put it shortly, Shinigami is the casual term, used by people like Light, Misa, Mikami, some of the Task Force members, etc. Death god, or god of death, is the more formal term, used sometimes by L, Soichiro Yagami, etc., and in the Rules of the Death Note sections. To me, it really depends on the context. In Volume 7, the second most recent English translation, L calls Rem a shinigami, the Task Force members call her a shinigami, and Rem calls herself a shinigami. Is that enough to be the generally used term? SuperDT 00:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then. I must get around to reading the manga one of these days... --Ppk01 22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the Japanese version, everyone says Shinigami, obviously. The instances you mentioned were choices made by the translator. Chibi Gohan 21:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word Shinigami can be seen in common use in the series Death Note and BLEACH. I think this helps people get their own sense of the word. Since it is used loosly people already know that it means "Death God" in most cases. Nicknchops

Shinigami is the Jappanesse word for "Death God". I think its use makes sure that you know that the charracters are in Japan, it gets you into the story and keeps you there. I also agree that it is used depending on what charracter is speaking. Charracters in Japan would most likely use the term Shinigami, while when you meet Near or Mello (who appear in books 7 and on in the manga) will use Death God (The text in the Death Note that Ryuuk dropped was in english, because he thought it was Earths most popular language, he most likely wrote down Death God because most people who spoke english as a main language would not know what it meant). I know that I enjoy the use of Japanesse words in manga, and I think that it shouldn't matter that it is used. Comment if you find what I said insightful please.

Just curious

How much more does this article need to be improved before it can be considered an A, GA, or Featured article? SuperDT 00:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. Let's nominate it and find out. --Ppk01 16:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the anime broadcast in HDTV?

Does anyone know if Death Note is broadcasted in High Definition? Because I looked at my episodes that I've got saved, and Episode 1 was in 720p High Definition, and the rest weren't. Was this the only episode broadcasted like this? RedEyesMetal 16:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No it's not aired as HD/HiVision, however there are upscales I removed earlier today sentence claiming that it would air as 720p HD. 84.248.132.197 19:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly by "there are upscales"? It must be broadcast in high definition by some broadcaster if it's available in the high definition format for downloads. If they were just scaled in size during editing, quality would be much lowered, would it not? Nique1287 20:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Quality is lower, for example if you look at outlines you will see it is very blurry. I upscaled regular 480i (deinterlaced) to 1280x720 (Lanczos3) and it is sharpen than "that 720p" floating on p2p. More proof: There is no HiVision logo at start, while Death Note movie that aired at 810p had, both aired at NTV), further proof: There is a lot of other series upscaled floating on internet. There are even DVD-Rips upscaled to 1280x720. For image look at http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/7600/untitledor4.png. 84.248.132.197 15:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protect Death Note?

Should we get Death Note Semi- Protected? I've noticed a lot of reverts done to stop vandalism and loads of link spam, and I think getting it semi-protected would at least help to solve this problem a bit. --SuperDT 18:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I only see about 8 reversions over the past 3 days. Doesn't seem bad enough to merit going all the way to semi-protection, IMO. --Gwern (contribs) 20:40 10 December 2006 (GMT)

I vote semi-protect. J'onn J'onzz 01:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I also want to vote for a semi-protect of this page. It gets vandalized far too much and it's a pain to keep it going in the right direction.--(十八|talk) 01:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

GA

I find this article meets the Good Article criteria. For future improvement, I would recommend:

• Move the citations in the lead to the appropriate place in the main body of the article. Some of the information, such as the licensing by Viz, may need to be repeated in the main body in order to do so. That's fine. No citations in the lead is one of the FA/MoS guidelines.
• Tighten up the text further. It's quite well-written, though.
• Add information about the game and new movie as it becomes available. I'm sure this will be done, just mentioning it for completeness.

Congratulations, and thanks for your hard work. Shimeru 23:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Conscerning Introduction

This is just a random side comment that I thought perhaps people interested in the anime could help me shine some light upon. There are a lot of symbolic artistic liberties taken in the show's opening; the apple and it's association with the tree in the garden of eden, with Ryuk representing the serpent. I also noticed, curiously, that there were occasionally minor changes made in the introduction. Eventually L's representative (the name escapes me) is no longer donning his suspicious looking trenchcoat, which seemed obvious to me as the episodes in which this change is implemented take place after he has revealed his identity.

There is another symbol that I don't entirely understand. I noticed in the second episode the platform L was standing on was tinted a golden color, instead of silver. Meaning? I'm not sure myself, possibly it was there to accentuate that L was on the "spotlight" of the series in that episode. - Xvall

Thank you for your tought-provoking questions. While we would love to answer these questions, Wikipedia talk pages are there for discussing changes to the article and such, not a forum for posting questions about the article's subject. May I suggest one of the many Death Note fan forums out there? Thank you ^_^ SuperDT 01:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, see Wikipedia:No original research. --Gwern (contribs) 01:54 9 January 2007 (GMT)

Licensing information in lead section

I removed the information regarding VIZ Media's US licensing of the anime from the lead section. It is a recent event, but does not seem like it is of enough importance to be in the lead section, the rest of which contains basic information and what forms the story exists in. Other forms have been licensed as well (the manga by VIZ as well) and this is not mentioned in the lead... I don't feel that information needs to be there and I think it is dealt with well enough in the specific later sections. One Alternate 13:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, reverting it back as per guidelines in WikiProject Anime and manga article guidelines. One Alternate 09:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Misa's Gothic Lolita clothing

Misa wears Gothic Lolita clothing, not Punk Lolita or punk clothing. She doesn't wear a lot of buckles or chains (the punk lolita fashion)-- instead, she has various crucifixes (necklace and in one picture, an earing), which is part of the Gothic Lolita fashion. Furthurmore, the "Obata & Ohba Interview" from deathgod.org (http://www.deathgod.org/main.php?x=info/interview4) specifically STATES -- at least twice -- that the original designers intended it to be Gothic Lolita. Lolita is a fashion originating from Japan (not the book), so I doubt any possible translation errors can be in the case. Also, the "punk lolita" article on Wikipedia fails to state any specific distinction between Punk Lolita and Gothic Lolita, so the Punk Lolita article alone is unsubstancial when it comes to conclude that Misa's outfits are Punk Lolita in the first place. Observation 15:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, it's more of a punk lolita with gothic influences if anything, because if you look at the Gothic Lolita page, those are certainly not the kind of clothes Misa wears through the series. Secondly, I've looked at the actual page that interview is from in How To Read, and I see only one mention of gothic lolita (the katakana for gosuloli) on the page, which is in the interview, even though the translation claims that there's a caption about GothLoli on the accompanying image, as well as seeing a couple of katakana words that AREN'T in that translation, including "rock singer" (rokkushinga). Perhaps they intended her to have GothLoli influences, and I can't read Japanese myself (I know katakana and some hiragana, but no kanji, and very few word meanings), but I'm not sure about the translation at deathgod.org, and I'm positive she does not fit the description of Gothic Lolita fashion, as you would be if you compared her clothes through the series to the description in the article for GothLoli. Nique1287 19:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To Observation: First, us that contribute to this article do NOT accept deathgod.org as a reliable source of information; it's the reason why we don't list it in the external links section, nor cite it as a source. Second, if we continue debating about this, it will start turning into original research, and it may bring unnecessary information into the article, which is bad. I say we just call it "lolita" without being specific. SuperDT 16:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, just leave it as lolita. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So, Deathgod.org isn't a reliable source? Strange, I only used it because the Wiki article for Tsugumi Ohba cited Deathgod.org as their only reference, and they've had no problems so far. Also, note that not all Katakana words translate to their literal English counterparts. I found the Wiki article for Gothic Lolita confusing, as a lot of it descriptions were the same as the Punk Lolita article (the only significant difference I found were the chains), and used a completely-white costume as the front image completely white Lolita is a group of its own, called "White Lolita"). I did, however, compare images from magazines (http://community.livejournal.com/egl/3066586.html) and (http://www.avantgauche.co.uk/Gallery/index.html), but only some of them were definable, while others overlapped into both categories. It would be helpful if you, Nique1287, pointed out specifically why it's Punk Lolita and not Gothic Lolita, as you yourself has identified in the interview. And to SuperDT: I highly doubt unnecessary information will be added into the article -- the topic is only about the change of the "___ Lolita" words. But if a lot of people agree, then leaving it as "Lolita" also seems fine -- at least, more fitting than 'punk.' Observation 12:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the Gothic Lolita article has a picture of TWO little lolitas, white and black, as you would know if you'd looked a little more closely and read the caption. "Two girls in frilly, somewhat extreme "Lolita" dress that was popular around 2002 in Takeshita Street, Tokyo". As for differences between Gothic and Punk Lolita, gothic takes its cue from Gothic fashion and punk takes its cue from Punk fashion. Is that so terribly difficult to understand? As for why it's punk as opposed to gothic at the basic level, most of her clothes aren't large frilly dresses, all black and white with lace and ribbon.

The following links are ALL of Misa's clearly-visible outfits (except for the two times she appeared in just a shirt, and the one time she was in a t-shirt and jeans up to chapter 43 (the end of volume 4). Please forgive any copyvio, as I'm just trying to make my point here. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Now, the second one, admittedly, comes close to being Gothic Lolita, though the skirt is FAR too short. The last one is when she's in her Idol mode, and thus perhaps she isn't dressing in her usual mode so that she makes the impression of being cute and innocent. However, could you REALLY classify the other 7 outfits as being Gothic Lolita? Meanwhile, they take many hints from Punk, and most of them are hardly even Lolita at all! I can go through the rest of the series for further examples, and you can double check by flicking through your copies of the manga if you wish, I'm not hiding any outfits or anything. But can you see why I object to her being labeled as Gothic Lolita when she very clearly, in practice, is not? Nique1287 14:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Observation: What I mean is if we were to continue this debate, the article may eventually come out to sound something like: "Misa wears ____ Lolita, with a hint of ____ lolita, _____, and ______. But most fans agree she wears _____ Lolita." I've seen stuff happen like this before, and it isn't pretty to try and fix. I personally like the way Nique1287 worded it in the article: simply as many different fashions, depending on her mood. SuperDT 00:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Number of Episodes

37's an oddly specific number of episodes for a Japanese Anime. Can I see a source on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.114.188.2 (talk)

Firstly please put new discussions at the bottom of the Talk page, and sign your talk page entries. Secondly, if you look at the entries on Anime News Network and AniDB, both list 37 episodes, and they don't tend to list false information on those sites, so they must have had a source at some point. Nique1287 15:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is that odd? While I know 13 and 26 are common, so's 50 and 51, I've seen 62, 11, 12, etc. Plus, 37 if roughly a full season and a half season, if you think of it as 25 + 12. Doesn't seem as odd now huh. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well usually if you see something like 12 episodes it's because they didn't include the "clip show" in the DVD release, I suppose it's possible that only 12 episodes were made, but a season in Japan is 26 weeks, (so 13 episodes for half-season anime) so they would have to have a 14 episode anime or a 1 episode anime to fill the gap, which is pretty uncommon in my experience.

But, more importantly, all the websites I visited (back in the day) listed Bleach as having 26 episodes, up until it went past the 26th episode. I'm not saying 37 episodes isn't the offical number, but even if it said 26 episodes I'd like to see an offical source as well. Just because (knowing roughly where the story is with regard to the manga) I think 26 episodes is too short, as is 37. --Aceizace 00:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if they cover an average of ~3 chapters per episode (someone should check and see how many chapters per episode it's been so far for this comparison though) 37 is an almost perfect number. Technically, 108 / 3 = 36, but 37 is closer to the half-season mark. If you add a couple of recap episodes, that could bring the total up to 39, which would give a whole season and a half by your reckoning (26 + 13). I'm not sure if they generally count recaps in the original episode count though, so my theory may be flawed. ^^; Nique1287 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll be perfectly honest, I don't have my copies of volumes 1~8 with me at university, so I can't really check how fast they're going. However I know that they introduce L before chapter 3 of the manga, but not in the first episode of the anime. My reasoning for saying that 37 is too short (minor spoiler:) is that I can't imagine them getting to "gap" before the end of this season at the rate they're going at, it seems likely (to me at least) that they'd put it at the end of this season, leaving all the rest for next season. Since the gap only happened just after half way through the manga (I think?), I can't see them shrinking the second half down to 13 episodes. I could go into why I don't think they'll get to it before the end of this season, but I really hate spoilers on talk pages, they take you so unprepared :-p. --Aceizace 14:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it really might be 37 episodes. It might be 36, and 37 would be just the "re-cap" of events and explain loads of stuff about the characters. Think of it as a animated version of Volume 13: How To Read. Just a theory though, I might be wrong. RedEyesMetal 19:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that they'd do that. I mean, once the story is over, not many people are going to want to watch an episode that just explains stuff we don't already know. Besides, how would it explain stuff about the characters? The only way I can see would be to have a voiceover of still images, or interviews or something, but I seriously doubt it'd work out. If people want to know more, they'll look for more info on the series, and they'll find HTR. Animating HTR would be kind of redundant. Nique talk 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Near & Mello's pictures

Hey there, can I ask why there are no pictures of Near or Mello on this page? Even uncyclopedia has them! [11] Although Near's isn't so good here (but I'm sure there are good ones out there) Mello's is definately good enough, provided it's not copyrighted or anything (happy to look into it). Just thought I'd ask if there's a specific reason or is it just that no one's put any images up yet? --Aceizace 00:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that there are too many character pictures on this page as is. Pictures are fine for the main Characters section of a series, but since Death Note's is separate, I don't think we really need any pictures of the characters on the main article, and some of them are shown quite large, which moves other sections around and makes it so that the pictures don't necessarily align with the description of the character shown. Near and Mello have pictures on the List of Death Note characters page, but I find that since the character summaries on the main page for the article are so short, since we're avoiding spoilers as much as possible, pictures can very easily mess up the aesthetics of the section. That's just my opinion of why there aren't more pictures of major characters here, though, since I haven't seen any real justification for some characters having pictures on this page and others not. ^^; Nique1287 00:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So there are, I had to cover the screen with my hand when I saw that page contained certain people's real names :-p (it's ok I already knew Mello's and I didn't see Near's (I've forgotten L's already...)). I agree with you though, but I think it looks worse without Near and Mello's pictures, because Mello's description starts next to Misa's picture. I think we should either remove all the character pictures (except maybe Light and Ryuk? Or maybe all?) or put their's in to try and format the descriptions better. --Aceizace 14:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Death Note Pilot

I recently read the Death Note pilot, and I was wondering whether it's canon or not. Is it? Willy101 04:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really, no. Firstly, Ryuk says in Death Note that there hasn't been a Death Note on Earth for centuries, which already retcons the pilot. Secondly, the Death Note pilot was, as the last word implies, a pilot, though a printed chapter instead of a TV episode. It was later "re-envisioned" into the Death Note we know and love today. So it's not really canon, and while it was the "predecessor" of the modern Death Note series, I personally don't feel it's really noteworthy enough to list on this page, though if a majority of people agreed to list it, I wouldn't contest the matter. Nique1287 15:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct Death Note Timeline?

I know the timeline for the manga is 2003, but is the movie set in 2005 and the anime in 2006?

Raye Penber's Date of Death in the manga is December 27th 2003, then Naomi dies 1st of January 2004.

In the anime, Naomi dies in 2007, so that means Light found the note in 2006 and killed Raye on December 2006.

But what about the movie? The movie lists it as 2006, but I'm thinking it might be 2005... RedEyesMetal 15:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter what year the events took place in, in the movies and the anime? The only reason the dates were changed, as far as I can tell, is because of the year the respective media debuted in. So the anime and presumably the movie (I haven't seen or heard any date references in the movie, but we can assume that it's 2006 since the movie premiered in 2006) start in 2006, and the manga started in 2003. Considering that the manga was the original medium and continues to be the most popular, the only dates that should matter within the plot are those outlined in the manga. Nique1287 15:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Is Light the protagonist?

I think its debatable if Light is a positive character. If Light is the protagonist then would L be the antagonist? Is L really evil per se? Light, being the main character, is cheered on or viewed as the character most likely to "win". Would this question come down to just a call of morals? --Nicknchops

It's definitely a calculated ambiguity. Each thinks he is in the right, and honorable men can easily differ as to whether which one is truly in the right of the matter. So far as I've seen the show, for every murder of a good person there are offsetting good deeds (for every Ray Penber and FBI agent, there's someone like a murder of Misa's family). --Gwern (contribs) 00:15 2 February 2007 (GMT)

Evil or good aside, Light is the central figure of the story, and is the protagonist. L, Near, and Mello try to stop him, and since they're trying to stop the protagonists, they must be antagonists. Protagonists don't have to be the good guys; look at Macbeth, for example. He was the protagonist of Macbeth, yet he was evil. Cheering on the evil protagonist is all up to the reader's morals. SuperDT 00:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What you said ^.^

Protagonist doesn't mean "hero," nor does antagonist mean "villain." They mean the central figure of a story and that characters main foil, respectively. Onikage725 19:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

New themes

Someone deleted them before (which is ok cuz I had them switched) asking for sources. On one note, I think putting a note for a citation is more appropriate than blanking the info. That said, I suck at citations, but here- http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=6592 and http://www.deathnote7.com Onikage725 13:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Until we see (hear? xD ) the themes in the series, it's best not to add them, since sources like ANN can be wrong on occasion, and while it's rare, it's best to wait and see if those really are the second set of theme songs before adding them here. Nique talk 18:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This article cites ANN no less than 10 times, so clearly they count as a source that can be used. They also aren't the only source. Just search around. If the information turns out to be erroneous, then it can be taken out, but as of right now those songs are reported to be the new OP/ED. It also is stated at www.55mth.com, which I can't be sure without characters installed, but I think is the band's official site. If consensus says that it is too iffy, then fine. I'm going to check the official Japanese site when I get home (can't check from work, proxy can't handle flash and I don't have the characters installed). Also, even if it is decided to take it off again, leave the citation (or some form of it), as the original OPs weren't cited either and that link shows both. Onikage725 20:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked 55mth, and it does confirm that as of the latter end of feb a TV-sized edit of "Whats up people" will be the OP for Death Note (Whats Up People- DEATH NOTE edition). I couldn't see anything about Zetsubou Birii(Billy) when I was browsing it, but ANN and DN7 say it was announced on there as well so I assume I overlooked it. Also of note, near the end of the song there's a whole mantra about "KIRA" sung in English.

(Translated) Love, battle of wits, tension

Egoistically bent sadist

Iron hammer of fragmented evil

Lives snatched away

Saturated with scoundrels, urgent, murder of criminals

Verdict! "Human rights," "trouble," "hatred"

Repentance spilling viscera

Snickering Shinigami, why this consequence?

Truth, no one knows the misery

“KIRA”

We are the “KIRA”

My name is “KIRA”

Even your “KIRA”Onikage725 00:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for artists to take inspiration from popular series, themes, or events. As it stands, the songs haven't been used in the series yet, and even if they are the 'new' OP/ED themes, I don't think they should be added until they are used in the series, or we have more proof than ANN (which, again, can be wrong on occasion, however infrequently it happens) and a fansite (Unless you can prove that DeathNote7 is anything official, it's still a fansite.) Nique talk 02:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nique. Sure, they might say that they're the official songs, but anything can happen between now and the time the new OP/ED songs are added into the series; e.g. they could switch to different songs. This is rather common, and is a possibility. I say wait until the new songs are added into the anime, then we can post them up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SuperDT (talk • contribs) 07:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

The band's official site should certainly count as a verifiable source. Saying that it can't be noted because "it might change" would be like saying that release and air dates for products couldn't be listed because they might change. If they change, the info is changed, simple as that. Last I checked articles were to be in the present tense with current information. Said fansite (DN7) itself cites 55mth, and you'll note that when I put citations I used 55mth and not DN7. Also, the ANN link lists the Nightmare songs, and at the least can serve as a source for that info, since it isn't cited at all at present. Likewise, this article cites ANN multiple times, so it is a little late in the game to call them unreliable. If someone were to blank info that cites that website and call for further sources they'd be reverted and called a vandal. Onikage725 11:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Naruto episode numbers aren't updated till they are aired, so why is it so hard to leave this info out till the episode with those themes air? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What does what the Naruto editors do with episode numbers have to do with this? Obviously that isn't a Wikipedia policy. Look at Stargate: SG-1 and Atlantis articles and they have episode numbers, titles, and synopses as released in the media, for the remainder of the current seasons. Atlantis even has the first 6 episodes listed for the next season. The current season information has been released, so the information is verifiable and relevant. The oncoming info has been released but is subject to change, and a tag was placed saying as such before the section.

The newest episode of Bleach is listed, even though it hasn't aired yet, and actually so is Naruto's.

And since this is Death Note we are talking about, you may note that we have listed through episode 20. Television air dates are subject to change, so if you want to talk about erasing Execution, Comrade, Matsuda (where the themes are supposed to kick in, or possibly the next ep), and Successor from the list of episodes then that would be cause to bring that up about this. If anything, those episodes being ok is an argument to not delete verified "pre-release" information (just like having the release date for the DS game, even though game's are subject to delays- we use the provided info and if it changes then we change it as well).Onikage725 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Episode numbers, as in "To date, (X) episodes have aired" on the main articles for very long series, or similar "limiting things to episodes that have aired on the main article for a series" situations. No series counts its chickens before they hatch on Wikipedia, as far as I've seen. Also, almost no info is released about anime series before the episodes themselves air, so comparing it to Stargate or many other English TV shows is moot. Nique talk 00:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't just use Stargate as an example. I used examples of episodes of other anime that haven't aired, including Naruto, the example used against me, which has the upcoming (and thus currently unaired) episode up. Death Note itself has the next 4 episodes and air dates listed. If the info is available, it is posted (i.e. Death Note, or my Stargate examples). If the info is not available, then it obviously can't be (i.e. Naruto and Bleach only having the next upcoming ep). Japanese as opposed to US "tendencies" in regards to released information aren't relevant. Also, a question for SuperDT- can you link me to that policy? I haven't seen it. I saw the article reference the official anime site, the live-action movie site, the Shueisha site, so I didn't think a second reference to the anime site or band press release would be a problem. If that is against policy then those would have to go? What I'm confused about was I tried to cite a reputable news source that this article has cited numerous times and I was smited on the grounds of unreliability. So what DOES constitute a good reference and how come noone's tried to find different references in those other cases throughout the article? Please help me here, cuz I'm very confused. It seems like we're picking and choosing when a particular source "counts." Onikage725 07:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just found the article and it doesn't say they are against policy.

Three classes of sources exist, each of which can be used within Wikipedia:

A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term mainly refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, and court records. Experts usually have advanced training, and use as many different primary sources as are available so they can be checked against each other. Thus, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reputable publisher, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources.

There wasn't anything interpretive about the two sources that were removed.

It is also said at WikiProject Anime and manga article guidelines that external links to the official site(s) are commonplace on anime and manga articles. Providing both the Japanese language official site and English language official site is ideal but either is fine. Wikipedia policy should be followed for fansite - only one should be provided per article.

Reference website such as AnimeNfo, AniDb and Anime News Network may be used in references. So seriously guys, please stop deleting me for referencing the official sites and ANN. Onikage725 15:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Onikage725 07:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not reverting your edits because you're referencing ANN and the band's website. We're reverting your edits because of the numerous other reasons we've listed, which can be summed up thus: the songs haven't been used in the series. The official site for the series appears to have NO information as to new theme songs. The new theme songs are very new information, and there's nothing to substantiate it yet except for a short note on ANN (which, again, doesn't mean much this early on, since it's listed information that was later changed a few times before, and you said yourself that the only source was the band's website for the ANN bit) and an entry on the band's official website, which could be heavily exaggerated (maybe they were contacted about the theme songs being used, and thought that it was definite? Who knows!). Regardless, the theme songs have not been used in the series yet, and should not be added to the page until they are. THAT is why we have been reverting your edits. Nique talk 16:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where ANN got it. I said DN7 got it from the band's site. It is little things like that that lead me to believe that we have been having a communication problem here which is part of our problem in this matter. I'm sure neither of us is trying to start a fight, but we clearly have different views on what is relevant info. For my part, I don' think we have the right to put our own POV on what counts as a source. If official sites and ANN are acceptable sources, "they might be exaggerating" or "they are on rare occasions wrong" are pure speculation or at worst POV bias. Onikage725 17:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of any supposed POV or errors in understanding, I seem to have to repeat myself once more: the new theme songs are as-yet-unsubstantiated except by the band's site. They should not be added to the page until they are either used in the series, or listed on the official Death Note anime website, or there is an official press release or SOMETHING else besides JUST the band's site. Nique talk 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the band (having signed a contract and listing all appearences including on television as in the case of Death Note) count as a primary source (which can be used as long as the information isn't "interpetive"). It is considered acceptable on articles about concerts and bands to refer to interviews and planned appearences and release dates. All of this is, like anything in entertainment, subject to change. If such a thing happens, then that info is changed. Wiki is an encylopeida and we write what other sources say, not impose our own views. If the source does not violate criteria, it shouldn't be a problem. I left it apart from the main part with the Nightmare songs to address your concern that it could change. There wasn't even a source listed for the two Nightmare songs before, leaving an unfamiliar reader to just take it on faith. Yet when I cited ANN and referred to the official DN site both were respectively removed, despite the fact that both are appropirate sources and already referred to in this article. See how I can get the impression that something is amiss?Onikage725 17:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the band could have gotten one phone call and exaggerated the inquiry into 'liek omg our song is totally gonna be in Death Note!' or something like that, when the call might just have been a preliminary check to see if the band would be interested. Theme songs which have been used in the series generally don't NEED to be sourced, because they've already been used, watching one episode is more than enough proof that the songs are, in fact, used. I do not see how you can get the impression that something is amiss when nothing is amiss, but can you see how one might get frustrated with your apparent unwillingness to read what has been said previously in the discussion? Take a break, breathe, and re-read everything that's been said in the discussion already. Also note that 3 editors so far have said that we should wait to say anything about the supposed new theme songs, until it is verified by official sources like being used in the series or on the official website for the anime, while nobody except yourself seems to understand why you're so adamant to include an as-yet-unsubstantiated-officially claim on a band's website. ANN is, if I recall, user-edited. If you have an account, you can go in and change details about entries. It wouldn't be unheard-of for an inquiry about interest to be blown this far out of proportion. Nique talk 18:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In short, can you prove it's not a hoax by the band? Can you give the episode the new themes will be in? Can you find on the official site anything about a second op/ed theme? The answer to all three is no, therefore the info should not be included. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, take it out if you guys want, we can wait out the two weeks. But to Wirbelwind, they say latter half of Feb, which would be episode 19 unless the network has any unforseen schedule changes. The official anime site doesn't appear to have been updated since 1/23 (and it isn't uncommon for official sites to be slow on the update). And Nique- As I said, the band could have gotten one phone call and exaggerated the inquiry into 'liek omg our song is totally gonna be in Death Note!' or something like that, when the call might just have been a preliminary check to see if the band would be interested. How the heck is that not anything other than original research? An official source says they've been contracted, that as of two weeks they'll be appearing with a show, and that the OP song has been edited for the anime and that the ED has been produced for it in collaboration with the show... but "the band could be exaggerating and the company could have just made a preliminary call" is a completely hypothetical guess. I just don't understand how an official press release is less reliable than your gut feeling/shot in the dark. Onikage725 02:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not an official press release, it's something along the lines of a blog news release on the band's website, with NO other sources saying anything about it. Nique talk 03:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I took it out then. I left the citation for the current themes in though. Not everyone who visits this page is necessarily downloading fansubs, so it can't just go without saying just because it is in the show. Onikage725 14:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Information on wiki needs to be cited and verifiable. Since the Death Note anime is not currently available outside of Japan, expecting the casual reader to illegally download episodes to check is not an accpetable reason to leave something unsourced. Onikage725 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is licensed and will be available from Viz for download legally shortly, if their press releases regarding the licensing were at all accurate. The citation is not necessary for the theme songs in the anime, not only because of this, but because, as I stated in the edit summary, the official site is ALREADY LINKED at the bottom of the page. Please consider further edits carefully, as your edits in the last few days have been bordering on an edit war, since you have refused to consider not only the integrity of Wikipedia (quoting unverified information), but also the integrity of the article (edit warring is destructive). Thank you. Nique talk 04:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly- what other anime articles let go is irrelevant. Information needs to be cited. The number of uncited articles and sections on wikipedia is appalling, and citations are encouraged. Saying that one citation isn't necessary because a different section of the used website is referenced earlier is ridiculous. I would prefer to use ANN to be honest (as it is in English), but you deleted that too because you don't approve its info on the 2nd OP/ED. Again, simply saying "well it is in the show" is not acceptable in general, but especially when the show is not available (legally) in english-speaking countries. That fact that it will be soon is not relevant. We are not editing for the diehard fan and fansub downloader. We are editing for the common reader.

Second, before you go making accusations you may want to refer to the sections on reverting and assuming good faith. Your "revert first and explain why the other guy is wrong later" approach is confrontational and uncivil, and also leads to edit warring. As for verifiability, an official site would normally count as a primary source, which is perfectly fine as long as the information used is not subjective or interpretive. Personally I feel that your feeling tha the band is "exaggerating" is just that- interpretation. Even still, for the sake of argument, I took the info out. Still, you should look in the mirror (and your own talk page where other editors have complained about your behaviour) before accusing others of harming the integrity of Wikipedia (which borders on a personal attack, is poor etiquette, and is fairly uncivil.Onikage725 16:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Other editors have had "problems" with my reverts because they didn't understand the policies involved and/or why something was the way it was in the first place in the article, not because I am reckless in my edits, so I am trying very hard right now to remain within the Assume Good Faith guideline with regards to your accusations. You have been consistently re-editing this article with the same information when a consensus has already been reached. And I'm pretty sure that if the information is coming from one of the external links, every instance of information from that link does not, in fact, have to be cited in full, because the link is already there. Even if not, you have been toeing the line between innocent edits and an edit war, and you should stop and reconsider adding information 20 times when it's already been said exactly why it shouldn't be added, in simple and plain terms. Any further discussion on the matter is probably best left to user talk pages if it should continue at all, since this is apparently not about the article anymore. Nique talk 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the part about the songs myself to end this little dispute. The only other thing I've been doing is putting in a citation, using different sources even, that keeps getting taken out. The last time I changed it to reference the music index specifically. The fact that the air times are cited doesn't meen anything else is not needed. By that logic, most of the ANN references about release info and box office info should be deleted, and any reader can simply go to ANN themselves and search Death Note-related information. And I've tried to address your talk page, I was ignored. Onikage725 17:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Also note that you, myself, and Super DT have been mainly going through this. Wirbelwind had two passing comments. Also note in the page history, the revert was reverted twice by another user. 3 over 2 =/= consensus.Onikage725 17:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)