Talk:Hotarubi no Mori e

Collaboration project (questions, notes, source discussions, etc.)

If anyone wants to help out, I plan to re-write this article over the next day or two. I primarily need help with Japanese sources (locating, translating, etc.). If no one offers help, I will do my best to work off of Google Translate, but I'd rather see this be a collaborative project.

To start things off, I would like input on the title of the article. According to the MoS for anime/manga, we need to use the English title... but I can't find an official one. According to Anime News Network, the title would be "The Light of a Firefly Forest". However, I've seen several others use "Into the Forest of Fireflies' Light". I can't find anything "official", though, since most English sites only use the Japanese title (the current article title). Suggestions? – Maky ^« talk » 02:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Since it hasn't received an English license, it should just stick with the romaji title. Summer Wars is a good reference in style, aside from the characters section, but does not have enough content for Featured Article. This Kanji to Romaji website might prove useful. I just realized this article includes both the manga and film. A better example would probably be Tokyo Mew Mew. Good luck. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'm also looking at School Rumble, the last anime/manga article to pass FAC (from what I can tell), but the others you listed are also good. But to be clear on the title, should we mention any of these alternate English titles in the article and use redirects? – Maky ^« talk » 04:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless an English title is official, it shouldn't get a mention other than a translation of Hotarubi no Mori e in the lead in the {{Nihongo}} template. Examples of this sort of thing can be seen in such articles as Kore wa Zombie Desu ka? and Boku wa Tomodachi ga Sukunai with the use of 'lit.' to show a literal translation of the Japanese, or with Lotte no Omocha! which just lists the translated title as the last entry in the Nihongo template without a 'lit.' or 'literally'. You can add any redirects of translated titles if you want.--十八 04:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Perfect! Just what I needed to know. Thanks. – Maky ^« talk » 06:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: Since I am still compiling a list of English sources, determining what constitutes a reliable source for an entertainment-centered article, and reading the manga, I probably won't make any major edits for another day or so. I'll be writing the first major revision off-line, so if anyone is planning to make major contributions, please let me know. Otherwise expect a new lead, cited plot, as well as Production, Media, and Reception sections. The areas in which I will need the most help will be with the infobox and the Production section (which I suspect will come from Japanese sources)... but we'll see what I manage to find. Not only to do I hope to take this to GAN (and beyond), I also hope to nominate it for DYK when I'm done. – Maky ^« talk » 06:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Another thing—I realize that there's an organizational problem with the page, and I plan to address it. The manga, Hotarubi no Mori e, has four volumes, of which the movie only covers volume 2 (entitled "Into the Forest of Fireflies' Light"). Each of the other three volumes have their own titles and cover unrelated stories. (Please keep in mind that I cannot translate Japanese, so I still don't know what "Hotarubi no Mori e" means literally.) This makes me wonder if the infobox should have the movie poster or cover art from the manga instead. If it should have the manga instead, would this be a legit source for the fair-use image? I can't seem to find an "official site" for the manga, unless it's the same as that for the anime. Thoughts on any of this are welcome, of course. – Maky ^« talk » 06:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be more precise, Hotarubi is the second one-shot manga in a collection of four one-shots; the collection itself is titled Hotarubi no Mori e, but I suppose Hotarubi no Mori e and other stories would have made more sense. There was also a second collection released in 2011 containing Hotarubi, two additional stories, and a 'special chapter' of Hotarubi.--十八 10:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting... None of the sources I've gathered so far have mentioned the additional stories or special chapter, unless I missed it. (Correction: As I learn to navigate Anime News Network, I'm finding more about it, but not much so far. I'm assuming the new ones haven't been translated to English yet, right?) Would you please either post or email me a link? Also, do you or anyone else have any online or offline (print) reviews of the manga? Everything I'm finding is for the film, and Manga: The Complete Guide doesn't appear to review it (from what I can tell from Google Books), probably because it's not licensed in English. – Maky ^« talk » 15:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

All that info was taken from the Japanese wiki page, which provides an overview of Hotarubi and it's related stories; the three in the original volume are: Hanauta Nagaruru (花唄流るる), Kurukuru Ochiba (くるくる落ち葉) and Hibi Fukaku (ひび、深く). These were all published in a single volume in 2003. The second collection was released in 2011 with the original Hotarubi no Mori e, Taion no Kakera (体温のかけら), Hoshi mo Mienai (星も見えない) and Hotarubi no Mori e (special chapter) (蛍火の杜へ 特別編). As for reviews, those are generally hard to come by, especially for an unlicensed manga. You're best bet is reviews of the film.--十八 20:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the Kanji for the stories. I was going to ask for that, so you beat me to it. ^.^ Anyway, I now have all my notes and sources pulled together, and I'm beginning the slow process of writing the article. I'll have a few things I'll need help with when I'm done, but more on that later. Thanks again for all the help so far. – Maky ^« talk » 02:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary: Although I still have a lot to write, I am going to put the plot summary in for the second story of the manga (and film). This will partly replace the existing plot summary, and I encourage comments. The old summary had spoilers, which I know is fine on Wiki (per WP:SPOILER), however, I weighed that with what I read at WP:PLOTSUM. The only thing I really feel is missing (besides the plot summaries for the 3 other manga one-shot stories) is the real-world context (see Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works). I will add this real-world context when I have more time to go through my review sources, some of which are already cited. (I was just using their "synopsis" or "plot" sections for starters.)

If people feel the ending needs to be discussed, I have an alternate that replaces the sentence starting "Meanwhile, Hotaru struggles with her emotions..." which will fully outline the events through the end. But like I said, I have reservations... mostly on copyright grounds, but also on the grounds that the end only brings to a conclusion the conflicts already established in the story. Anyway, constructive criticism is more than welcome. The plot summary section is the part I'm least comfortable writing, so I'd like to start working out the problems now before the new article comes online in full. Meanwhile, I'll be working on the rest of the article. – Maky ^« talk » 05:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot of work has been done in a short time, enough for Wikipedia:Did you know I believe, if nominated soon. The summaries are decent, though I always prefer the conclusions in mine. I don't think the sentence explaining how the plot differs in the animated film is necessary unless it's drastic like Fullmetal Alchemist. For the production section, is it necessary to note the same group worked on Natsume's Book of Friends? For the reception section, there are issues with the accuracy. The sale information were based on the first weeks, so those are not the average weekly sales. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 16:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, and especially the correction! I've fixed the sales information in the article. I also appreciate the feedback on the plot summaries, though I may wait to see if I get more feedback before taking a hatchet to it. As for the mention of Natsume's Book of Friends, it seems to be a popular topic in most reviews/news articles, so I figured it merited a mention since it is there most popular (and somewhat related) work. Do you feel it should be moved to a different part of the article? Otherwise, do you have a second to assess whether or not the article is currently B-class? Again, the summary of the reviews is coming later tonight. Again, thanks! – Maky ^« talk » 19:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-write nearing completion

I still have to summarize the published English reviews of the anime film and work in some real-world context from those reviews into the plot summary, as well as tweak the lead... but otherwise the re-write is nearly done. However, there are a few things I could use some help on.

1. Opinions: Can/Should I include a small screenshot showing Gin wearing the mask, possibly including a young Hotaru? Fair-use images are touchy subjects, but I feel that it's important to show Gin wearing the mask so that readers get a better picture.
2. Opinions: In regards to #1, should the infobox use an image of the manga cover instead of the theatrical release poster? If so, should the theatrical release poster be deleted, or should that be the second fair-use image?
3. Opinions: Are the plot summaries adequate for the other 3 one-shot stories? There are no reviews of them that I can find, so I can't provide a real-world context. Instead, I can only recap key events. I also can't provide details about the other stories in the special edition, so maybe the "Plot" section should be restricted to the anime-specific story, and maybe someday the extra chapter (if someone ever reviews it)... Thoughts?
4. Translation help/verification on Japanese sources used in the article
5. Translation help and inclusion of material from the following sources:

• Official website - News
• Official website - About
• Official website - Special (Mainichi Film Award)
• Official website - Special (Jury Prize)
• Official website - Special (Dubbing Report)

Feedback, in general, would be greatly appreciated. Once I'm rested up, I plan to finish the article and submit it to both DYK and GAN. Oh... and a good suggestion for a DYK hook would be nice. – Maky ^« talk » 11:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This is in response to the message left on my talk page; in the future, just post any comments here, since it's on my watchlist and I'll see it. First of all, the original publication dates for the one-shots was taken from the Japanese wiki. From my experience with Japanese manga volumes, the publication dates for the chapters are always listed somewhere, usually on the very last page of the volume. It is thus conceivable that that information could be cited using the volumes themselves as a primary source. Second, Hana to Yume is a magazine, but it's also an imprint Hakusensha uses for their manga, not just the ones published in the magazine itself. The manga was all published in LaLa and LaLa DX. And it's one of my personal preferences to only list one ANN link, so as to reduce redundancy. Anime News Network links to related series internally on their pages, so listing each one is excessive.

You may also wonder why I removed the production section and incorporated it into the anime section. Basically, as it was, the production section was redundant to info already in the anime section, save for one line. Second, any production info should primarily be about the manga itself, since it's the primary media.--十八 23:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I have to rely on others to do the Romaji/Kanji translation for me, and I mistakenly overlooked your edits on your talk page. I thought you were someone else. -.- Anyway, I understood why you deleted the "Production" section, and in hindsight, I agree. Thanks for explanation for the publication info. I just wish we had sources for the publication dates. I can get one of them through amazon.co.jp, but not the 2002 date. I just ordered the original manga from Japan, but it will probably be the 2003 copy, even if I could decipher the copyright info anyway. Btw, since no one is stepping forward to offer help in translating the Japanese sources above, I was wondering if there was anyone you could recommend? I want to push for FA, even if the article is small. I think if I cover those sources, that should meet the requirements for comprehensiveness. Arigato. – Maky ^« talk » 00:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There aren't very many of us left in WP:ANIME that can read Japanese, or who would be willing to take to the time to do it unless they were interested. However, even if those sources were translated and incorporated, you'd need at least some information on the production of the manga to even get the article up to GA (or even if you could get it to GA without it, which I doubt, you wouldn't be able to get it to FA without it). That would come from an interview of the author, most likely, though there might be some production info in the original manga volume.--十八 02:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been down this road with other GAs/FAs: The lack of published information does not preclude comprehensiveness. Sometimes the information doesn't exist. It's like failing an article about an animal because we don't know much about its behavior. Sure, someone may know some interesting information about, but unless it's published, then an article on the animal will be comprehensive as long as it covers all the available sources. That's why I'm trying to find someone who can read Japanese. I will have access to all the Japanese sources (those listed above, plus the ability to scan any other material from the original manga), so as long as I can get that included, then I should be able to move forward. There really shouldn't be that much to translate and include... – Maky ^« talk » 02:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Images in the article

I would like another opinion. I feel like I'm pushing the limits of fair use, so I don't want to add another image to the article. However, I am contemplating the possibility of replacing the theatrical release poster with a snapshot from the movie. In particularly, I'm thinking about this image. Other options can be found here, or I could take my own snapshot (possibly the point after Gin has placed his mask on Hotaru's face where he leans in to kiss his her)... reducing the size and quality, of course. (Actually, someone has already taken the snapshot of that scene.) Thoughts? – Maky ^« talk » 06:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say that, typically, using images from specific scenes is when they have some real world context, such as a reviewer or reviewers specifically citing a scene as noteworthy or controversial. Just posting a semi-random scene of the characters would not really satisfy WP:NFCC point 8. At that, I'm not even sure if the film poster satisfies the same point.--十八 20:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This makes me wonder, then, about the images used on Angel Beats! and Madlax. I saw it as a chance to illustrate both the praised artwork and the "tender" romance described in the reviews. The poster at least shows the artwork and the initial age difference, which I could highlight in a new caption. But I guess if people feel it needs to come down, then so be it. – Maky ^« talk » 20:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't say much about Madlax, but in Angel Beats!, there is a large cast, and it's helpful to distinguish between all the names in the character list; Hotarubi, on the other hand, has two.--十八 04:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Which is it? tankōbon or tanpenshū

I'm not sure whether to call the collection of 4 one-shot stories published in 2003 a tankōbon or tanpenshū. I suspect the latter, but the former seems to get mentioned more on forums and other informal sources. For now, I've included both in the article. However, if someone knows which is best to use, please fix it. – Maky ^« talk » 05:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"Tanpenshū" just means "short story collection", whereas a "tankōbon" is a publishing medium basically denoting the approximate size of the book. So it'd be more accurate to use "tanpenshū" as an adjective as in "tanpenshū tankōbon", but it's unnecessary to use the Japanese word in this context.--十八 06:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you for the clarification. – Maky ^« talk » 06:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Imprint vs. magazine

Can someone explain the difference between the "imprint" and "magazine" for the manga infobox (regarding the latest edits)? I have the original tankōbon manga (2003), and I've had the copyright page translated, and nowhere does it mention LaLa or LaLa DX. ("Hana to Yume" is printed on the top of the front cover.) The same goes for the 2011 tankōbon manga—I don't see where LaLa is mentioned (only LaLa DX). I just want to make sure everything is sourced properly, and I don't know where this information is coming from. – Maky ^« talk » 16:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see these copyright pages myself, if you can. But regardless, there's no evidence that these manga were actually published in Hana to Yume. Hakusensha uses Hana to Yume as an imprint for their shoujo manga, regardless if it was actually published in Hana to Yume or some other magazine like LaLa. According to the Japanese wiki, the manga in both tankoubon releases were serialized in either LaLa or LaLa DX (not including the special chapter of Hotarubi which was original to the tankoubon). I know this can't be sourced to the wiki, which is why I suggested taking the info from the tankoubon. I would be pretty surprised if the serialization info isn't somewhere in the tankoubon, since every one I've seen has this info, typically on the very last page.--十八 20:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I have emailed you, and once you respond, I will share scans of the copyright pages from the 2003 and 2011 books. As always, your help is greatly appreciated. – Maky ^« talk » 21:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

An imprint, also called a publishing label, is the publisher name under which a book or comic is published under. It is quite common for publishers to establish multiple imprints to distinguish different types of books. For example, Random House Publishing has several imprints such as Skylark (children's books) and Del Rey (science fiction and fantasy). In this case, Hakusensha uses the Hana to Yume imprint to publish all of its shōjo manga tankōbon under. Shueisha does something similar with the Jump Comics imprint, which it to publish most of its shōnen manga tankōbon that were serialized in Weekly Shōnen Jump. —Farix (t | c) 01:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Good explanation—thanks! – Maky ^« talk » 04:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hotarubi no Mori e/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk · contribs) 04:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

Prose

• "According to Midorikawa, Hotarubi no Mori e was successful because even the people who were critical of her artwork were drawn into the story and read it from start to finish. Because of the previous criticism, she speculated in 2003 that hiding Gin's face behind a mask had helped." - What previous criticism? (Did they think she couldn't draw faces/expressions?)

Unfortunately, the information I'm pulling from is a translation of the "Author's Notes" in the original manga, and Midorikawa did not elaborate. It would be nice if we could provide more details, but I think it's kind of self-explanatory. If you think I could reword it to make it clearer while also not leading the reader on to ask such questions, I can try. – Maky ^« talk » 07:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Midorikawa attributed the success of Hotarubi no Mori e" - this seems like it would fit better in "reception"

Good point. Moved. – Maky ^« talk » 01:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• " In 2011, she shared her excitement for the new anime film" - talking about her emotional experiences doesn't seem to fit quite right in the "production" section. Is there a way to distill out the encyclopedic information from this, maybe describing the process of the manga being optioned for an anime, and her involvement in that...? Same in describing the new chapter - that she responded to a request (or popularity of the anime/film?) to write an additional chapter, but seeing that the original story was complete, she chose to instead expand the story from the perspective of the male character... and again when discussing the voice acting, more focus on the emotional experience of the actors but not the facts around selection of voice actors, the recording process etc

I like that careful observation. Being a very emotional story, I figured that the emotions reported by the author and voice actors merited mention (as encyclopedic content). Personally, I don't see encyclopedic content as cold and emotionless. People respond to art with their emotions as well as their logical minds, so that is part of the "reception" on which I feel we should document. What I try to avoid is adding emotional content into my own summaries and descriptions, for example: "This story beautifully illustrates..." In re-reading this paragraph, I don't see any production value at all, and have therefore moved it to the "Reception" section along with the preceding material, as noted in the previous point. The only thing I haven't moved is the quick note about the voice actor who cried... only because I couldn't find a place to fit it in (yet). Now that everything else is in its appropriate context, let me know if you agree with this assessment. – Maky ^« talk » 01:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• The anime section talks a bit about production. It's becoming less clear to me what the focus of the earlier production section is (production of the manga only? manga and anime? other?). Some reorganization might help to clarify.

Some of this is me still learning how to write an article like this. Some of what you're talking about does sound like it belongs in the "Production" section, but then other tidbits about length and other stuff seem to belong under the "Anime" section... but I'm not sure what to pair it with. (I've tried, so let me know how it flows.) As for the production section, the WikiProject this article falls under suggests writing the article about the original content (in this case the manga was written first), and then build on it by also discussing the derivatives (sequels, spin-offs, anime, video games, etc.). In the "Production" section, I start by discussing the manga and try to move on to the new chapter and anime. I hope that as the new sources get translated (scheduled for ~2 weeks from now, per today's email update) there will be enough information about each to merit subsections. For now, I'm holding off because it doesn't look like it to me. If you disagree, I can go ahead and break it up now. – Maky ^« talk » 01:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• The reception section only talks about the anime, not the manga. Can you find new information (or slightly repackage pieces of information already included in the article) to give a sense of the popularity of the manga in a few sentences, before the discussion of the anime's reception? Lemurbaby (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Per the discussion we just had on your talk page, I'm going to pass this now but leave this point open in the hope that material will be translated or found that can help to balance this section with a greater discussion of the reception of the manga. Great work on this - Lemurbaby (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Images

• All non-free fair use rationales look good.

References

• All cites are in templates, used appropriately, and of good quality.

Looks good - and thanks for this, I hadn't heard of this one before but just found it on youtube and am watching it as I type. :) Lemurbaby (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Your concerns about the organization of the article are very valid. It all has to do with the article's history. I originally wrote it from the English sources, which offer very limited production information. After I made the acquaintance of a major contributor to the Midorikawa fan sites and that person offered to help translate the Japanese material, I have slowly added in what I've received. The headings of the article follow the guidelines for WikiProject Anime and manga, and sometimes it was hard to find enough material to merit a section, but hard to place the scraps without a proper header. I agree that some stuff belongs in the "Production" section, while some of the content there needs to be moved to the "Reception" section, possibly including the material on the emotional reactions of the author and actors. Anyway, I'm too tired tonight to reconstruct the article, and if I don't have time tomorrow or Monday (which I have a lot planned), then I will definitely do it on Tuesday. If I'm lucky, maybe the last of the translations will arrive before I start, and then I can finally organize everything (which should include more production and reception info) and pull it all together. But again, thank you! The suggestions are very helpful. – Maky ^« talk » 07:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources

After I read through this article, I looked at the sources and there doesn't seem to be any sources that were recently written (for example in the last ten years). If possible, more recent sources should be integrated into this article to maintain reliability. Emily Misaki YS (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)