Jump to content

Talk:Love Hina/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Italicized terms?

So, unless I haven't noticed some guidelines, why are anime and manga italicized? Goldy496 03:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Initial discussions

Is this really a shojou manga? It seems aimed at males... Alan d

I think this is basically for general audience. This is not so-called hentai manga, which is read exclusively by males. By the way, I bought finnaly volume 9 and 10. The story is going awesome. If I have time, I will much more story synopses. Cheers! -- Taku 22:44 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
It is "officially" said to be a seinen anime/manga. Emperorbma 02:12 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Where does it say it was a seinen? It came out in Shonen Magazine and is a shonen according to anime news network. Maybe its like American Pie and co. where they have to claim to have an older audience then they actually do to avoid censors. I always just assumed it was a shonen for sure until I read whats on Wikipedia. - Eean
Ooops, it did come out in Shonen Magazine. Guess it is technically shounen, though it seems more seinen to me. Just more evidence that it's hard to categorize anime/manga just by the plot. -- Khym Chanur 00:20, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I actually don't like a bullet-list of events. Why do you think it's better? I think a simple English paragraph can be compact and easy to read. -- Taku 17:23 27 May 2003 (UTC)


Compact and easy to read, yes, but it can't provide much info, and there's a lot going on in each Love Hina book. Daveryan 13:10 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think normal English paragraph can provide more info if you wrote cleverly. Bullet-lists can be taller than compared a paragraph with the same information, which means less information. Besides, it is uncommon as enclyclopediac article as is the case here. -- Taku 15:36 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I like the shortened a summary of Book 9. It is quick and easy to read. We certianly are going to add a summary of each book from 1 to 13 (14? - Daveryan), so the length of that is best I think. My friends borrowed other books so I just added about book 9 but in the future I probably will add others too or of course anyone can do that too. -- Taku 04:16 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Who thinks that this article should be split into sub-articles, as it's getting a bit unwieldy (and I'm restricting what I put into the book summaries so it doesn't make the page too big).

Something like this perhaps:

What do you think? Daveryan 21:05 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me... If nobody has started splitting it up by the time I get back in tonight, I'll have a go at an initial division.

Araynon 14:48 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, as 1 person approved and no-one disapproved, I did it. Daveryan 20:35 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Oog. Do we really need the kigurumi picture? Kigurumi always creeps me out. I'd rather have fair use pictures than fan-based products. RADICALBENDER★ 15:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

What the. I don't like this kigurumi? pic either. Can we remove it? -- Taku 17:29, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
That picture is just plain creepy. -Sean 02:12, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Soooooooo if there isn't a character named "Hina" in the show, perhaps someone who knows could add something to this entry explaining what the title means. (Is the "Hina" related in any way to the "Hinata Apartments?")

That last question, btw, is from me: Jay (Histrion) 22:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The name Hina is from Keitaros grandmother Hina who also owned the apartment/girls dorm before passing it onto Keitaro.--NobleServent2 14:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)NobleServent2

Don't delete the last sentence of Critical Reception. For one, Love Hina does border on porn, and I'd have to say that anyone who thinks otherwise is naive, to say the least. Secondly, that statement is true. At least one person does believe that statement: that is, me. Finally, I'm sure a lot of other people who also frown down on vulgar harem type anime like LH would agree with me on this. Whatever other edits I made were just pranks and attacks on a series I utterly hate, but this statement is much more legitimate. Think about that if you're going to delete it.

I have to say that if you delete the last sentence in critical reception, you're either a retard or you don't believe in freedom of speech.

Or you live in a fantasy world where Love Hina and anything similar to it are virtuous for every imaginable reason.

do any of u know where i can read this on the internet since i cant find it in stores? thanks. secret admirer

I might know one... --tjstrf talk 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Im not stupid so please give me a direct link or ignore this.

On the meaing of RABU hina...

After toying around with the web and a dictionary a few alternatives have come up.

  1. RABU
    • I personally think this can only mean love.
    • However according to some it might have a nasty connotation due to words like love hotel (Considering how dirty Love Hina is, why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.63.90 (talk) ). I personally don't give that theory much credit though.
    • RABUKOME is in Japan a standard abbreviation for romantic comedy. Might be a coincidence though.
  2. hina
    • Possibly abbreviation for hinata. (hinata by the way seems to mean sunny place, sunny spot or the like (litt. facing the sun) - evidence for this: the kanji on the cups in Haruka's tea-house and on her apron if I remember correctly)
    • Keitarou's grandmother's given name is Hina.
    • hina is Japanese for young bird and can apparently be used in slang much the same way as in English. So that would give us translations like chick and bird (in the meaning doll).
    • Interestingly enough it can also mean countryside. It is like rural but has a more noun-like feeling though. It is probably said in much the same way as the village where I come from, or maybe like la montagne in France. Although much of the story is set in urban areas like Tokyo readers cannot have missed the fact that Hinata is a little mountain village. Rustic is the word that springs to mind...

So what could RABU hina mean? It seems to me that something along the lines of Love Birds would make for a litteral translation.

It should be noted however that there might also be a bit of double entendre going on - that might actually be the reason why the western publishers decided not to translate the title. Just a thought.

Shinobu 11:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Post Scriptum: Wouldn't it be nicer to have the cover of the Japanese version on the main page?

Disclaimer: I am not from Japan, or France, or an English speaking country. I'm pretty sure about most of this, nevertheless it needs to be reviewed by native speakers. Also I'm not sure whether Hinata would be considered a village in English. Where I come from there is no word really for anything in between city and village.

I would have to say that Hinata is more of a semi-suburban town. They have mass transit systems running though the town but no major housing community as in suburbs, nor skyscrapers as in cities. 6/26/2005 yes, 2005. I got into it late :(

I don't know. Even a village like Beilen can have a railway station and a freeway entrance/exit, so you'll have to forgive me for not being utterly convinced yet. Of course, Beilen has no tram, but then again trams are quite rare here, even in cities. Shinobu 3 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)

Several times within the anime, Hina is referred to as the short version of Hinata. The "town" is Hinata Hot Springs and is set within the Kanagawa Prefecture. If you look up all of the hot springs within the Kanagawa Prefecture you'll see that most of them are in the far southwest corner just to the northeast of the Hakone volcano around Lake Ashi. Because this is a popular tourist destination, it has an abundance of roads and trains, but is not deemed a major city although it would certainly have an abundance of schools and shopping because of the modest population. The closest city is Odawara on the coast and is roughly 10 miles away. In the anime, you can often see the ocean from the “town”. From Odawara, it’s about 40 miles to downtown Tokyo and since this route is serviced by the “bullet” train, getting to Tokyo from the “town” would take about 40 minutes.

Although Hinata Hot Springs is fictitious, if it was real, it would be located here.

Separate Manga & Anime

Could we seperate the manga from the anime into two seperate articles? I know it seems like a hassle but I feel that the anime and manga are very different. Usni

I can see what you mean. However, the two are closely related. I also wonder what our Love Hina coverage would gain from such a separation. Your thoughts? Shinobu 17:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I am in favour of creating two distinct sections within the article, as the manga and the anime are completely different, but for an article split to be performed, we'd first need a sizable amount of content, so... really, I don't see how this could be useful in the near future. What this article could use is some expansion. --Sn0wflake 18:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I second that. The content on the Love Hina page has a lot of room for expansion, and if enough content is added, we could potentially split it. For now, I think we should just stick to one article.71.111.98.144

Love in Love

I just redirected Love in Love to this article, being as the only content was "Love in Love is Korean name of Love Hina". If this information is accurate, notable, and verified, someone may want to merge it into the article. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 07:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Japanese cover?

Has anyone got the cover of volume 1 of the Japanese version? Apart from the fact that I like it better, I think it would be better to illustrate Japanese books with their Japanese covers. Shinobu 07:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Jippe has found the Japanese cover. If there is no opposition, I'll upload it and replace the cover image in the article. Shinobu 14:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Duck and Cover

If you look at the Duck and Cover page, there is a list of media that refer to it. I think the English rtanslation of Love Hina does - read the article to see what I'm talking about. I was wondering if someone could get a scan from the managa to put in the Duck and Cover article. -Litefantastic 14:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not in the Japanese version. As expected. Shinobu 14:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Nice to see it lived up to my predictions. -Litefantastic 23:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

citations

we need some citations for the two Cartoon Network things in the infobox. dposse 02:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)



allright. http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=168

Is that respectable source where they even list the cast for the mexican version good enough? or should i look around for more =)if it is then someone please add it.--RinGyaku 08:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the other Tama-chan?

I hit this page looking to see if there was any more recent information re: Tama-chan the seal. Might I suggest someone take pity on the pinniped people by making some sort of cross-reference? A separate article? Something? Arigato gozaimasu. StJ. Tremayne 15:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


kaolla design

The article says that kaolla is based on Ed, but Akamatsu wrote in a book that she is strongly inspired by Nadia from The secret of blue water.

You gotta admit, she acts pretty much 100% like Ed, often to the point of doing things Ed has done. It's not much of a stretch to say that even if she doesn't physically resemble Ed too much, her personality is almost definitely based on hers. 70.48.219.16 03:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It would have been nice if OP's book would have been identified, because then it could have been used in a citation. Shinobu 14:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Flawed Names (One or the other, please)

I just noticed that some of the characters names have their surname last, lets either choose english form or japanese form.

Probably simple oversight. Why don't you fix it yourself? On Wikipedia we use Western order for all people born after the Meiji restoration. Shinobu 14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

about the critical responses section...

Should the fact that there are people out there who hate the Love Hina books because they have a bad and terrible view of girls (E.G. they're having a chest so big that if this were real life they would have to use a wheelbarrow as a mode of transportation, they're being loud, whiney, silly, obnoxious, spoiled, throwing temper tantrums, Etc., Etc..) be mentioned? Now granted the thing might be original research, but the critical response section of this series of books is original research anyways. and I personally know quite a few people who feel this way about it, (this thing, as well as how the majority of the competitors (save for Misty and Jessie, of course) from the pokemon episode "Princess Vs. Princess" were squealing like animals and trampled ash and company, is what I dubbed the female anime stereotype.), some are peers at school, and others are relatives —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.243.22 (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

P.S. when i said "they" in the semi-sentence, I meant the books have portrayed a bad view on women. also, sorry if i am double posting.

To me, the whole Love Hina manga appears to have two levels. On one hand, it is (hilariously) cheap, violent, sexist and prejudiced in many ways, thus appealing to readers who enjoy lots of fan service and humor based on simple stereotypes. On the other hand, it seems to be a huge parody of the whole manga tradition, repeatedly commenting the clichés both inside and outside itself. I find this one of the ultimate strengths of Love Hina; I can enjoy both aspects as far as they meet my tastes, and it can be a lot more complicated and thought-evoking than if Akamatsu had chosen only one of the approaches. Any comments? How widely have views like mine been brought up in reviews? Jippe 10:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh noes! A harem anime! What has the world come to?! Really though, it's a harem manga/anime aimed at guys. This concept has been done before and it will be done again. 148.78.245.12 06:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
@having a chest so big that if this were real life they would have to use a wheelbarrow as a mode of transportation: I beg your pardon? The girls in Love Hina don't appear exceptionally well endowed to me. But then again, I'm Dutch so my perspective on this might be different than yours.
@they're being loud, whiney, silly, obnoxious, spoiled, throwing temper tantrums: In other words, they're portrayed as real people, instead of the over idealized puppets found elsewhere.
It is easy to comment on Love Hina, as it provides amply material for criticism, but please keep it serious. Shinobu 14:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

27 TV episodes?

In infobox I found 27 TV episodes. How I know it's wrong becouse existing 25 TV episodes (and 2 special movies). ANN

prove it. Extate 00:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Er... List_of_Love_Hina_episodes focoma 10:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone probably interpreted the OVAs as TV Episodes? Goldy496 03:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
There are actually 30 TV episodes. Search on youtube "love hina 30" and you'll find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.87.47 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Haruka, Keitaro's aunt?

In many of the articles, it makes notes that in both the manga and anime it's possible that Haruko is Keitaro's aunt. However after watching episode 20 of Love Hina, Haruka's Grandfather is made to note that he is Keitaro's Great-Grandfather. Would this debunk the theory that Haruka could be Keitaro's cousin? At least of course in the anime...I'm not sure about the manga. TCL 17:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, first time user... but In a novella, it states Haruka as his aunt and cousin. His grandmother adopted her after her parents died. Pyro Yuy

The link to the English Tokyopop website doesn't work.Nukleoptra 12:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Spaces

This is an English language site, and the English language uses spaces. That's why. 70.48.219.16 03:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, for a non-Japanese it would be hard to figure out where the family name stops and the given name starts. Shinobu 14:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking about the parts that are in Japanese. I know other articles do this to for names, but for accuracy I think the spaces should be removed. --Ashitaka96 | E-mail • Talk | 21:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). I would also like to point out that there are circumstances where the Japanese actually do use spaces in names. Inserting a space between family name and given name does therefore not detract from its accuracy, and since it helps non-Japanese while not hurting at all, inserting a space is a nice thing to do. Shinobu 04:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Character Appearances

References people

All information in Wikipedia must be properly referenced, or it will be deleted. This article is mostly unreferenced ("Notes and references" section contains only two items) so please do something about it. Shinobu 01:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Motoko aoyama.jpg

Image:Motoko aoyama.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Fox816 11:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article really needs a clean up and improvement. I've had a go at redoing the Anime section, but most of the page needs a going over. I'll continue to change and tweak some things, but it could do with a lot more input, especially with references. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Novels?

I have seen two novels that cover the Love Hina series. Why is there no mention of them on this page? 24.178.70.200 (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually tried to track down Japanese sources for them awhile back, but never managed to find anything. Specifically, ISBNs and release dates would be immensely helpful. I've read both novels, so I know for a fact they exist and were originally published in Japanese, but couldn't find any sources to back it even after over an hour of searching. If you have sources, though, feel free to add information. ;) —Dinoguy1000 21:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Any Man's/Woman's Review

Is a random person's rambling on the subject of any matter really belong in a professional setting like Wikipedia? Posting these paragraphs seems to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability because the people cited here are rarely industry professionals. Their language is also rather redundant and unnecessary. "She found the music "incredibly cute"" "He praised the beautiful artwork, feeling the "sexy and cute" female designs were perfect for the series" "even though she would have been better for Keitaro than Naru." These are fan writings. The only people I can think of that would defend them are the people that wrote them. If I write that Motoko was a better match for Keitaro on my website do I suddenly gain accreditation? Obviously not. Therefore, keep these rather blog-like reviews off of the reception until you have a much more standard industry response. That would be my suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyoronoru (talk • contribs) 06:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Anime News Network is a professional anime website, and its reviews are reliable sources as you have already been repeatedly told. Regardless of whether you like the review, it will remain. They are one of the most prominent websites in the industry, nor are its reviews "blog-like." See Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga#Reference links for the projects official stand, which has been checked and considered valid by a wide consensus and many discussions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Finally, a proper attempt to address the issue. Thank you. Lets start with the issue of ANN itself, as you seem to be against the useage of ANN as a source outside of the citations used in the section. ANN as a whole is considered to be a reliable source by the project, and is used in many high quality articles. If anything they are probably the best anime site around for reliable sourcing and are anything but a random fan site. As for the comments themselves, while I agree they are not the most professional review to ever exist, I really don't see how they aren't appropriate for the article. By all means add additional reviews from other sources, but you were given many reasons to not remove the text but did so anyway countless times and have only decided to discuss it now despite my suggestion the first time Dandy Sephy (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That is because I couldn't believe such low-quality citations were used here. Even if it was from ANN, I couldn't accept such laughable excuses for reviews. If ANN has become a source with accreditation, I would recommend choosing far more professional writings on the manga. Considering how popular it is, it should have something that doesn't report a fan's OTP or whether or not they found the outfits "sexy". Now I will browse some other places to find some more serious reviews and replace these rather insufficient paltry ones, probably within the next two weeks or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyoronoru (talk • contribs) 07:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you will NOT replace those reviews. Whether you like the writing style or not, ALL of ANN's reviews are considered professional and reliable sources. They will remain here, period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
That shows poor insight. Simply placing a reliable moniker on a review does not make it a reliable review. The only reason I can see for you wanting to keep these reviews which are not worth anything by the common sense guidelines is if you wrote them yourself. You've edited over 35,000 articles and you cannot tell when a review is not a review of the quality of the series and rather an opinion of character pairings and outfits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyoronoru (talk • contribs) 07:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The comments are still relevant to reception, regardless of the overall quality of the "review". The comments quoted are the issue, not the review as a whole. Please also finish your comments with ~~~~ to "sign them", so the bot doesn't have to do it for you (it screws up the edit history) Dandy Sephy (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you then saying that relevance is more important than quality as a whole? If I were to replace these reviews with better quality, extremely relevant reviews there would not be an issue, correct? It is an improvement, after all. In fact, in the past 5 minutes, AnmaFinotera has added two superb criticisms of the series by two accredited people with a strong record and a good review. We need more reviews like that, and fewer reviews like the ones that just seem to be fan ramblings.Nyoronoru (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to preach to me that we need to expand the section, I'm the one that told you this in the first place and it has been discussed before. The problem is that you want to replace rather then add to the section. It's clear now that you are actually serious about improving the article, but this argument isn't doing any of us or the article any favors. In the current interests of the article, lets concentrate on adding to it rather then making "controversial" removals. As the article stands, the change you've been so determined to make isn't going to affect the article quality. Once the article improves to the point where we are undergoing assessment by "outside" editors it may be worth readdressing (if the comments are a issue it will be picked up by the person doing the assesment and reported back). However despite the amount of work put into the article in the last few weeks, we are still quite a distance away from that and energy is better spent improving the rest of the article Dandy Sephy (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I will ignore your thinly veiled accusation and presume you did not mean it the way it sounded. It is because I have made over 45,000 edits (wow, this will be 45,001!), including taking multiple articles to featured status, and to good article status (i.e. the best of the best) that I know what I'm talking about. Whether you feel the review is not "quality" is irrelevant and lacking in neutrality. We don't pick and choose which of a reliable sources reviews we like or don't like. Per consensus at the anime and manga project, a view upheld in dozens of featured article and list reviews, ANN's reviews, news, and general release information meet all requirements of WP:RS and are therefore usable and acceptable sources for use here. Not all reviewers of products write in dry, cut and paste reviews of series. Particularly amongst the realm of anime reviews, many do use a touch of humor, and in an animated series, character design is a very relevant part of the series, as is plot (which views on character pairings speak to). As for the quality, these reviews are from 2002-2003, and likely to be both reviewers earlier works rather than the more "polished" reviews found on the site now. Roger Ebert's first reviews weren't super high quality either, but that doesn't negate them, nor are these negated by being older. BTW, by nature, all reviews ARE opinions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
From what I can gather, you are basing your argument entirely on the quality of the writing. However, this is not how Wikipedia determines a source to be reliable. Instead reliability is bases on the source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. At not point does Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Reliable sources state that the quality of writing be considered. However, if you want to dispute Anime News Network as a reliable source, particularly for anime and manga reviews, then you should take your case to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and explain to a wider discussion why it fails Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Farix (Talk) 14:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This shouldn't be just a B class for such a great work

Really this has to be done asap, it doesn't look good for one of the best anime's of XXI beggining. Fiedore (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering that a couple of months ago it was only start class (and with multiple major issues), it's gone through a lot of hard work to bring it to B. Half of the article was completely rewritten, large quantity's of Wp:OR had to be researched and removed if no references could be found, pretty much most of the article had to be referenced and most of the media section was written. It's only been B Class for a week. Calling it "just a B class" feels a little insulting considering the effort involved in getting it that far, and B class is hardly a bad level of quality. Of 9394 anime and manga articles, only 47 are B class, and only 108 are rated higher (and those must go through outside review to reach that status). Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Also keep in mind that the standards for B class has been raised significantly with the i ntroduction of C class. Furthermore, WP:ANIME has deprecated the use of A class, so getting an article to B class is an achievement by itself -- it means that the article is but a copy-edit short of GA class. Regards, G.A.Stalk 16:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Light novels

Looking to replace the Amazon.co.jp sources in the Light novels section on the article with official Kodansha ones, I started looking through the merchandise listing for Love Hina, and managed to find an entry for the second novel (I thought this might have been the first novel, but the cover images don't match up). However, according to the page I found, the second novel was published February 15, 2002, whereas the article here says it was published in May 2001. Can anyone offer an explanation for the inconsistency (perhaps there are more than just two Love Hina novels in Japanese)? 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. Basically, the references and information were wrong with the 1st novel being referenced for the second novel. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, now it all fits together. I wonder why Tokyopop decided to go with the cover from an unrelated DVD box set for the cover of the first novel... In any case I did some cleanup and rewriting of the light novels section... How's it look now? 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably for the same reason they changed the cover for the first volume of the manga to something rubbish Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Dvds

Does anyone have access to any of the dvds? There are some extras on a couple of the discs that may provide some useful production info. I could rent them, but if someone owns them it would be much easier. Theres a (apparently badly dubbed) "interview" with the director and I believe a making of (possibly just the dub?) and I also believe there may be a text interview. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I got the Madman (Australian) version of the DVDs. Don't know if they'd be the same; I'll see what I can dig up. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master 06:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe Madman provided MVM Films with their own master, so that should work as they are on the UK release. Aside from being in PAL and not NTSC (and I think the covers are from the japanese dvds), I believe the content is identical to the Region 1 Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok... Done... I've listened and copied out the scripts to the Interview with Yoshiaki Iwasaki from vol 3 and Making of Love Hina from vol 4. That's all there was, so there you go... A bit of my soul died in the process tho... Uguu~ The interview wasn't too bad, just had a narrator who couldn't pronounce Japanese thing at all, and had snippets of the dubbed show, but Iwasaki's part were all Japanese with subs, which made my task all that much easier. The making of, however, was a different story altogether... Urgh. It was all about the dubbing process, and listening to and writing down the 7 whole minutes of terrible dubbing killed a part of my soul... It'll will require many hours of good anime to recover... So be grateful you didn't have to endure that! TωT -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master 00:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Amazing work, thank you very much! I was not expecting you to make scripts, I was just expecting a rough idea of what was on them! The dubbing script was bad enough , never mind listening to it *dies*. I'm sure there was a text interview or something on one of the discs..... - No need to script it though! There are one or two things I can use from the Iwasaki script, especially with a reference I have scribbled down somewhere.
Heh. It's all good. As I said, nothing a good anime can't fix! As for the text interview, I'll go thru the discs again, but I don't think there was any... maybe they didn't incorporate it into the Aus release? I'll let you know if I find something. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master 07:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

IT'S AN ENGLISH WIKI!!!

It's an English Wiki, so why are people bothering with extra bits like -chan? Don't go saying it's because you're a fan because these pages should be presented in a formal manner free from personal (fan) opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.70.222 (talk • contribs) 01:21, October 13, 2008

Partly agreed. Formality in writing the articles must prevail, so using -chan, -kun, etc. must be avoided unless the character is popularly known with the suffix in the name. (Example: Shin-chan from Crayon Shin-chan) Vekou (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Chapters

Just wondering.....What is the total chapters in the manga? And are there any movies? OVA? Or Hentai?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.7.196 (talk • contribs) 23:47, August 12, 2007

This is not a forum, this is a talk page to discuss improvements and/or the like to improve this "ENCYCLOPEDIC" article. Vekou (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an A Class Article

I think this article should be raised up to A Class and would nominate it if I knew how. It looks well written and such.Knowledgekid87 2:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

tell me about it. Unfortunately two problems arise. Firstly, WP:Anime doesn't use A class. Secondly, two of the references need replacing before being nominated for GA or FA (although its not quite at FA just yet). Much to my annoyance, I've not been able to find replacements, so theres no point sending it to GA. The reference for the tv air dates for the spring and xmas specials need changing. The dvd releases for Love Hina Again also need changing, but I have a source for that. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Why doesnt the WP:Anime use A class? B class is great but it does not really show how close an article is to FA Status.Knowledgekid87 11:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe the decision is basically a lack of dedicated copyeditors. And from my personal opinion from having rewritten 90% of the page over several months, I'd rather concentrate on reaching GA, then looking at FA. A class will just overcomplicate things. Besides, it's all redundant until replacement references are found. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Other licensors (manga)

What do we think of the details of Licensors of the manga? Currently the non Kodansha/Tokyopop releases are unreferenced, and I'm not convinced all of them are necessary to note. The English language Singapore relese I can understand, what about the others such as European licenses? Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's standard practice to note all language licensors in the infobox and to repeat them, with sources, in prose. Ones which can't be sourced (sources can't be found for them) should be removed, though. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Talk:Love Hina/Archive 1/GA1

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)

Title

What is the title supposed to mean? "Love in the Hina flats"? Thanks, Maikel (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I was debating if this was a "forum question" or if there was a need to address it. As far as I know (and it's been a while since I was involved in the series in anyway) there is no specific meaning behind the title and it may well be deliberately left open as ひな has several possible meanings, all of which could fit. It maybe that the Kodansha edition has a explanation but I don't have access to it.SephyTheThird (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Love_Hina/Archive_1&oldid=1211679714"