Talk:Love Hina

Added Love Hina timeline

I hope everyone will help fill in the missing/erroneous details! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZhangKhaiEn (talk • contribs) 04:27, December 27, 2005

Digital production?

I read somewhere that Love Hina was the first anime TV series produced soley in digital form- not using cameras or painted cels or any other methods used in traditional animation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 02:53, June 30, 2007

The road to GA

As far as I know, for the most part the article is in the position where it is almost ready for Wp:GAN. The two things that occur to me are the archived pages need their dates corrected, it's fiddly enough that I can't do it on my current internet device (my phone)with any finesse. If someone else could do that, I'd very much appreciate it

The second thing is the plot, especially how to convey the important, notable differences clearly. I think the manga plot is fine on it's own, but with the anime differences it becomes a different matter. The anime follows a very loose course of the manga events, before diverging into doing it's own thing entirely with a completely different ending to what happens in the manga story to that point. (I'd guess at least 50% of the anime is completely new content, and the other half is probably 75% not directly from the manga) The anime uses the manga heavily for the spring special and Love hina Again, before ending, whereas the manga keeps going past that point. Theres no easy A-B comparison, but they aren't superficial differences, the character development and motivations are very different in the two versions, but there are no secondary sources that discuss them in detail.

Currently the anime differences (which I've now restored with sources - which took all of 2minutes when i got decent net access) only cover the last 3 eps of the original tv run, which really are the most relevant details to distinguish between the two in this context. It's not perfect sure, but it's a start. I did remove the xmas special previously, but important character development occurs which should be mentioned. The spring special is more or less the same as the manga version upto a certain point, which is already discussed in the manga section. "Again" is almost identical to its manga chapters apart from the ending, but it was skipped over in the manga plot. This really needs input from someone who knows both works well enough to know the differences and their importance, i'm still working through my recent re-read of the manga, and dont have the anime version to hand. I have a grasp of the details, but my writing style is crap! Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to explain the "alternate ending"? On Negima! Magister Negi Magi, it only states that the last couple of episode deviated from the manga storyline in order to wrap up the first television series. The actual plot summary of those episodes is left to the episode list. Shouldn't that be all that needs to be explained here? And without third-party sources, I honestly don't think we can have a "Differences" section in the first place as it will only raise up OR flags. --—Farix (t | c) 22:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is. It's not simply about the alternate ending, it's about the differing motivations and character development. Not addressing the totally different interaction between the two leads (which is the bulk of the actual story) would be leaving out important information. If we are going to suggest other articles, Fulmetal Alchemist would be a better one. As for the claim of OR, using a primary source to give a plot summary doesn't seem like OR if it's just a summary. If we said "this and that changed in this version" then sure, but there's scope for renaming it if necessary or appropriate. it's certainly possible that they couldbe treated as two different storylines. The episode list doesn't help here. I will look for secondary sources, but I'm not going to have proper Internet at home for at least a week. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on a lack of reliable secondary sources, I'll cut the section. Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

To-do and peer review

To help address some of the issues raised, I've done some some copy editing and tweaking in the plot area and have gone down to around section 3.1. Hope this is of some help ds 14:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminatusds (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the edits. However I have restored the plot section to it's previous status for several reasons. Firstly, the tone of the changes seems to introduce more issues then it fixes in terms of copyediting. Secondly it introduced too much detail, haruka/seta's relationship and Kanako's appearance aren't essential in the overall plot and character development of the two/three central characters. I think these are best left to the chapter list once it's fleshed out better. Also it adds extra length which is the third problem, it needs to be short, and to the point. The existing text was narrowed down from a more detailed "sumamary" and seems to do a good job of keeping it simple while talking about the core dynamic that runs through the series. If you still think the section should be expanded a bit, then I'm happy to discuss it in detail. I've also removed some of the line breaks elsewhere, as short paragraphs will be looked down on by reviewers. I hope this doesn't put you off! Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I think you may be right about the haruka/seta thing. I'm not so sure about the Kanako issue. She is pretty much the major focus of vol 11 of the tanks and is an integral part of the events of vol 12, forcing Naru's hand and colouring her behaviour for the rest of the series. I happen to think that is part of the main story arc. However, I understand why you've reverted so it doesn't really bother me either way. It's nice to have it explained at very least ds 23:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree she should be mentioned, i'm trying to think of a way to do so in a concise way that conveys her impact. I'm actually at the point of rereading the series where she is about to make her appearance, so I'm hoping to find a way of doing it soon. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Love Hina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Quickfail criteria

1. Reliable sources: Verified
2. NPOV: Verified
3. Cleanup templates: Verified
4. Edit wars: Verified
5. Current event: N/A

Appears to pass quick fail criteria. On to the real review. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Criteria

Well Written

✓ Pass Prose is clear, no grammar or spelling errors detected. As far as I can tell, this is by-the-book as far as layout and style. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Factually Accurate

I had a slight problem here:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; --The plot section appears to be entirely unreferenced. Though I could speculate that it was taken from the source work, there's nothing here that explains where the information came from.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and --Almost everything else is referenced, so I would presume that it was left unreferenced on purpose

(c) it contains no original research. --Doesn't appear to have any OR

Placing on hold --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

✓ Pass I placed this on hold because none of the plot section was referenced. I was aware at that time of other GA anime articles that did not cite sources for the plot section. Also with WP:V I know that only material that is likely to be challenged needs to be cited. I still think that the section should be referenced and I still think that GA criteria at least prefers this, if not requires it. I'm going to go by the letter of WP:V and pass the article on this criteria. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Broad in Coverage

✓ Pass This article stays on topic. Keeps in-universe details in perspective and keeps a real-world frame of reference. It also addresses all the main topics required by the manual of style. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

✓ Pass I didn't see any POV issues. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Stable

✓ Pass As discovered in the quickfail test, this appears to just be steadily improved. No radical changes or edit wars. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Illustrated

✓ Pass Has images. Both images are appropriately captioned and tagged with a fair-use rationale. Both are relevant to the topic. Asthetically, I don't like how that image sits below the infobox, but technically everything is correct and the image is appropriate. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

On hold - I would hate to fail this review just on a technicality; but almost every GA has referenced its plot section. Criteria #2a requires that it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;.

I'm placing this review on hold for up to a week. Please let me know on my talkpage when this has been fixed and I will complete the review. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding references in plot section, a quick scan of Anime GA's show that many/most of them don't use references in the plot section or may only use them when comparing the anime to the manga, as the plot is expected to come from the primary source itself. Examples inlcude Full Metal Alchemist, Earl Cain, Lupin III + Azumanga Daioh (both of which retained GA status only few months ago). Gin Tama passed very recently and only has one reference in the plot section and it's not about the plot itself but more the episodic/arc nature. The question is, do you feel the plot statements are disputable? Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw the examples you listed before I put it on hold. By the letter of WP:V, this part is not likely to be challenged and probably wont be an issue. However, by the good article criteria, it does appear that you need footnotes or at least some sort of reference for this section. It just seems unlike a Good article to have unreferenced material, no matter how unlikely it is to be challenged. I have no experience with the work itself, so I'm not in a position to say wether or not it's accurate. It seems stable enough. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Kraftlos, your assertion is incorrect. Plot summaries do not require in-line citations, as the work itself is the source. This is per widely accepted Wikipedia consensus, and applies to film articles, television articles, book articles, chapter/episode lists, and anime/manga articles. Tokyo Mew Mew is a featured article, passed this year, and you will note its plot section is unreferenced. The good article criteria do not surpass the FA criteria, which again does not require an in-line citation on plots. Secondary sources are only needed with regards to plot where there is actual interpretation of the plot, and not pure summary, which is what this article contains. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto what AnmaFinotera said. The use of inline citations for plot summaries is conditional and usually up to the article contributor(s). They are not needed for sentences which generally summarize the plot. It is, however, probably recommended for statements which may require additional interpretation for readers of the work. Quotes would also require such citations. I didn't find anything would be challenged in any other review. Arsonal (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be careful not to conflate explicit consensus with "what we usually do". Has this topic been addressed in detail? I haven't been able to find anything. I'm going to pass this anyway, but I'm curious. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Plot summaries do not require referencing as per WP:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries Jezhotwells (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

All I read there is "All included information needs to be verifiable and derive from and be supported by reliable sources, and all sources (including the primary sources) need to be appropriately cited in the article: reference all information and cite your sources" It can't get much clearer than that. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen other GA articles with unreferenced plots (Tokyo Mew Mew is FA without a referenced plot) if you are going to reference it though I suggest referencing the manga as the source. I have read the manga and seen the anime though and there are notable diffrences in the two. The plot hits upon all the major things in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we already established that there were GA articles that didn't cite the plot section. I agree that it's not required. However, I would strongly urge referencing the work itself between now and FA. It just looks better and leaves less room for uninformed editors to bloat this section. When it's unreferenced, it seems really subjective.

As this was the only sticking point and the article is solid on all other counts. I'm going to pass it. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Pass - Appears to meet all GA Criteria. Keep up the good work! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Tokyo University

I wanted to double check. Does the English manga use the term "Tokyo University", and is it understood that Tokyo University refers to University of Tokyo? Does the manga give indication that it is the same one as the prestigious university and is not a fictional one or an alternative Tokyo __ University? Arsonal (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The first page of vol1 says "Tokyo University" twice, but useage could easily vary over the course of the series. However during the course of the series it does emphasise the prestige associated with the University of Tokyo, and the auditorium shown on the wikipage is used as a backdrop throughout the series. It's definately the same one. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Arsonal (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As reinforcement to this, I do believe the Engish uses the "Todai" nickname on occasion as well, referring once again to University of Tokyo. StryyderG (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I can verify that in the TokyoPop translation, they refer to "Tokyo U" inside Vol.14, 1, 2 and 3, and "Tokyo University" on the blurb of Vols.1, 2 and 3. On a quick scan I cannot find TokyoPop use "Todai" anywhere and I have only ever seen it on fan translations on sites like OneManga. Dont know if that information helps. FriendlyAnon 03:57, 12 June 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.17.187 (talk)