![]() | Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The Hawaii Five-0 episode list says that its current seventh season will consist of 25 episodes, the same episode order as its sixth and fifth seasons. The Honolulu Star-Advertiser article, "'Hawaii Five-0' Stars Gather for Blessing as New Season Begins", was published on July 6, 2015, before Hawaii Five-0's sixth season. Someone must have re-used this source for information related to its season 7.
Has the 25-episode order for Hawaii Five-0's 7th season been confirmed by anyone? This may be true according to The Futon Critic. Plus, the blessing ceremony for the beginning of S7's production took place on July 7, according to the CBS website. Jim856796 ( talk) 10:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus in the discussion is that the O and 0 distinction is not sufficient for WP:SMALLDETAILS. — Amakuru ( talk) 09:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
– A different approach to just closed RM at Talk:Hawaii Five-O. Clearly there is a primary topic here, but the difference between a O and a 0 doesn't show up on many browsers and mobiles. Even if it did would most readers know that a letter O and a zero were distinguishing marks between the original show and the reboot? As to long-term notability the original show was known worldwide 1968 to 1980, while the CBS reboot doesn't appear to have been seen much outside North America and now looks likely to be cancelled. In ictu oculi ( talk) 08:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." To rephrase, readers first before anyone else, like an editor or a specialist.
The opposers here citing "WP:NATURALDIS" misunderstand the rule and the principle: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title.
. The only commonly used titles are "Hawaii Five-O" and "Hawaii Five-0"; no other natural titles are commonly known or used, making WP:NATURALDIS inapplicable.
WP:COMMONNAMES is misunderstood as well. The rule's principle is using whatever is commonly used. However, the rule never encourages using ambiguous, confusing, and inaccurate names.
WP:SMALLDETAILS, though not cited, is totally misunderstood as well. The rule never enforces using distinctive spellings to lessen ambiguity. In fact, it tells us to be very cautious about using small distinctions. The "Considering title changes" section is misunderstood as well. It's been used as rationale for opposition. Nevertheless, the section rule also implies that even title stability is not enough to resist title change if reasons are good
enough to change the title. Reasons to change the title are reducing the ambiguity of the titles, making accessibility convenient for everybody, and shifting internet traffic.
By the way, the original series is not the primary topic, but I'll re-propose when this discussion is over. George Ho ( talk) 11:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Read another discussion by clicking here. In summary, two of us have peaked our abilities to influence each other to change our minds. George Ho ( talk) 04:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
For those wanting to vote, those favoring the current layout in previous RMs did not explain why people do not refer (zero) to the original and do not refer (oh) to the remake. Even when explained adequately, the 0/O distinction is not known to general readers. Multiple sources use the 0 and O interchangeably for the original and then used both interchangeably for the remake. Readers can recognize a series of the same name by looking at the year or the cast names. How would the 0/O also help readers recognize which is which? From what I learned in philosophy class, the words "Cup" and "Stop" don't tell us what they are. Instead, the ideas can explain what the words mean. Pictures, like a picture of a cup, don't tell us what they themselves mean; ideas can explain the meaning of pictures. Well, my philosophy instructor said it; unsure whether John Searle also did. George Ho ( talk) 04:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
To put it simply, the "O" and the "0" do not tell us what they mean. Our ideas do per philosophy teacher. And I still have no idea what 0 and O refers to, thanks to the successful reboot. George Ho ( talk) 04:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The O/0 interchangeability lost its meaning when the reboot became a total success. Before the reboot, (zero) referred to the original; so do the (oh). The reboot series became a great success; the sources discussing the reboot use O and 0 interchangeably for the reboot series. To rephrase what I said, the greater success the reboot is, the longer the reboot lasts. The longer the reboot lasts, the less clear O and 0 are anymore. O and 0 may still refer to the original, and O and 0 may also refer to the reboot. Sources say "oh" to refer to the remake and also the original. The "0" lacks clarity anymore; so does the "O".
Of course, right now, we are disambiguating just the reboot series. The proposer here has different opinion: the original series is the primary topic just because it's the original series. I might propose disambiguation on the original series after this; however, doing it soon would be appropriate if the proposal to only disambiguate the reboot series fails.
If the reboot series is disambiguated, the "Hawaii Five-0" shall either be redirected to the original series or become a disambiguation page. However, if disambiguated, I might discuss how to handle the (zero) redirect page in the future due to opposing sides here. George Ho ( talk) 07:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Added two more articles for discussion. George Ho ( talk) 09:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.I'm going to tell you the criteria right away to consider which title fits best. Per WP:AT#Deciding on an article title, because choosing a title for the subject (only the reboot actually) is not simple and easy, especially due to divided consensus recently, we can apply at least one goal or more and disregard the other. "Hawaii Five-0" is concise, but the success of the reboot hurts the base title's ability to be recognized, precise,
What if both titles were identical?If you are discussing difference between 0 and O, nowadays people speak those interchangeably as numbers. However, typing exactly a "0" is not in readers' minds if they want to search either title. Probably they would use most likely "O" for either show. To rephrase the previous two statements, I was discussing "keyboard" use.
Why would that be a problem?Can you elaborate further? I always interpret the question as if you were disregarding what you admitted. To what does "that" refer?
Why do they have to be different at all?I always interpret it as your disregard, so I answered the same thoughts. Therefore, can you also elaborate this further? When you said "have to be different", do you mean 0 and O? George Ho ( talk) 23:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
why users being able to distinguish articles from the titles alone is of any importance whatsoever, are there any grammatical errors or something, or can you clarify that? The sentence doesn't look well written to me, no offense. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Ericp-nh, right over #Survey. George Ho ( talk) 17:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
To closer: If Ericp-nh doesn't come here, can this person's vote count? George Ho ( talk) 18:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the emailed redirect to here, George. I'm seriously confused as to how this survey works, but in any case, I really don't care a whit if everyone spells it Five-Oh or Five-Zero, it seems like calling it "Hawaii Five [0/O] (2010 TV series)" would remove any and all ambiguity. Ericp-nh ( talk) 20:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
'''Support'''
or '''Oppose'''
and then explain your reason, that would be great. Do that at (again)
#Survey.
George Ho (
talk)
20:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Born2cycle, if "Hawaii Five-0" redirects to the reboot, I shall have the redirect page discussed. Actually, 0 and O are interchangeable, so the "0" shall redirect to the original series. If not, I will propose a disambiguation page for the "0". Clear? Best to wait rather than challenge me or anyone else, which you are doing now. George Ho ( talk) 21:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: AmericanAir88 ( talk · contribs) 03:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Good day, I hope you are having a fantastic weekend. I hope we can get through this easy and stress free.
Welcome to the review for Hawaii Five-o(2010 TV series). I structure my reviews like a trial. My reviews are all about your voice as I will simply post issues and you will do the work solving them. If necessary I will make very minor copy edits to the article if I feel they don't need a whole bullet point dedicated to them. Anyway, I am looking forward to working with you. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 03:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@ TheDoctorWho:
AmericanAir88 ( talk) 03:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Second Rethrough: @ TheDoctorWho:
All Issues have been solved, the review table will now begin. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 20:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Check |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Check |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Check |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Check |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Check |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Check |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Check |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Check |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Check |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Check |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Check |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | @
TheDoctorWho: Maybe add an image of the entire main cast or the setting. For the length, one photo seems minimal.
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Passed |
Congratulations on passing. Your dedication and hard work was fantastic. I hope we can work together in the near future. Have a fantastic day. If you need any help on anything just ask. If you want me to take a look at any other articles you have for review, I will be more than happy to. Thank you. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 03:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi all
I wanted to write about a crossover with Gilligans Island because I thought it would make a good show but people keep deleting my contributions.
WTF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.13.173 ( talk) 11:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
It is worth writing about possible cross-over with new Magnum P.I., since this show still airs and takes action in the same location, but now about unplanned cross-overs. Кирилл С1 ( talk) 16:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
What does mean "Five-O" ?
-- AXRL ( talk) 13:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
"This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. " - How this problem could be worked out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Кирилл С1 ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hawaii 50. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 00:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that there was still some unnecessary hatnotes on series main article and its seasons articles. It perhaps was a remainder of the moving the pages suffered some time ago. Putting the year to distinguish the series not only with O and 0 was a good idea but, with it, the season articles became not ambiguous at all. Per WP:NOTAMB and WP:NCTV, I`m removing unnecessary hatnotes. Cvhcsee ( talk) 03:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The Hawaii Five-0 episode list says that its current seventh season will consist of 25 episodes, the same episode order as its sixth and fifth seasons. The Honolulu Star-Advertiser article, "'Hawaii Five-0' Stars Gather for Blessing as New Season Begins", was published on July 6, 2015, before Hawaii Five-0's sixth season. Someone must have re-used this source for information related to its season 7.
Has the 25-episode order for Hawaii Five-0's 7th season been confirmed by anyone? This may be true according to The Futon Critic. Plus, the blessing ceremony for the beginning of S7's production took place on July 7, according to the CBS website. Jim856796 ( talk) 10:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus in the discussion is that the O and 0 distinction is not sufficient for WP:SMALLDETAILS. — Amakuru ( talk) 09:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
– A different approach to just closed RM at Talk:Hawaii Five-O. Clearly there is a primary topic here, but the difference between a O and a 0 doesn't show up on many browsers and mobiles. Even if it did would most readers know that a letter O and a zero were distinguishing marks between the original show and the reboot? As to long-term notability the original show was known worldwide 1968 to 1980, while the CBS reboot doesn't appear to have been seen much outside North America and now looks likely to be cancelled. In ictu oculi ( talk) 08:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." To rephrase, readers first before anyone else, like an editor or a specialist.
The opposers here citing "WP:NATURALDIS" misunderstand the rule and the principle: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title.
. The only commonly used titles are "Hawaii Five-O" and "Hawaii Five-0"; no other natural titles are commonly known or used, making WP:NATURALDIS inapplicable.
WP:COMMONNAMES is misunderstood as well. The rule's principle is using whatever is commonly used. However, the rule never encourages using ambiguous, confusing, and inaccurate names.
WP:SMALLDETAILS, though not cited, is totally misunderstood as well. The rule never enforces using distinctive spellings to lessen ambiguity. In fact, it tells us to be very cautious about using small distinctions. The "Considering title changes" section is misunderstood as well. It's been used as rationale for opposition. Nevertheless, the section rule also implies that even title stability is not enough to resist title change if reasons are good
enough to change the title. Reasons to change the title are reducing the ambiguity of the titles, making accessibility convenient for everybody, and shifting internet traffic.
By the way, the original series is not the primary topic, but I'll re-propose when this discussion is over. George Ho ( talk) 11:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Read another discussion by clicking here. In summary, two of us have peaked our abilities to influence each other to change our minds. George Ho ( talk) 04:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
For those wanting to vote, those favoring the current layout in previous RMs did not explain why people do not refer (zero) to the original and do not refer (oh) to the remake. Even when explained adequately, the 0/O distinction is not known to general readers. Multiple sources use the 0 and O interchangeably for the original and then used both interchangeably for the remake. Readers can recognize a series of the same name by looking at the year or the cast names. How would the 0/O also help readers recognize which is which? From what I learned in philosophy class, the words "Cup" and "Stop" don't tell us what they are. Instead, the ideas can explain what the words mean. Pictures, like a picture of a cup, don't tell us what they themselves mean; ideas can explain the meaning of pictures. Well, my philosophy instructor said it; unsure whether John Searle also did. George Ho ( talk) 04:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
To put it simply, the "O" and the "0" do not tell us what they mean. Our ideas do per philosophy teacher. And I still have no idea what 0 and O refers to, thanks to the successful reboot. George Ho ( talk) 04:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The O/0 interchangeability lost its meaning when the reboot became a total success. Before the reboot, (zero) referred to the original; so do the (oh). The reboot series became a great success; the sources discussing the reboot use O and 0 interchangeably for the reboot series. To rephrase what I said, the greater success the reboot is, the longer the reboot lasts. The longer the reboot lasts, the less clear O and 0 are anymore. O and 0 may still refer to the original, and O and 0 may also refer to the reboot. Sources say "oh" to refer to the remake and also the original. The "0" lacks clarity anymore; so does the "O".
Of course, right now, we are disambiguating just the reboot series. The proposer here has different opinion: the original series is the primary topic just because it's the original series. I might propose disambiguation on the original series after this; however, doing it soon would be appropriate if the proposal to only disambiguate the reboot series fails.
If the reboot series is disambiguated, the "Hawaii Five-0" shall either be redirected to the original series or become a disambiguation page. However, if disambiguated, I might discuss how to handle the (zero) redirect page in the future due to opposing sides here. George Ho ( talk) 07:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Added two more articles for discussion. George Ho ( talk) 09:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.I'm going to tell you the criteria right away to consider which title fits best. Per WP:AT#Deciding on an article title, because choosing a title for the subject (only the reboot actually) is not simple and easy, especially due to divided consensus recently, we can apply at least one goal or more and disregard the other. "Hawaii Five-0" is concise, but the success of the reboot hurts the base title's ability to be recognized, precise,
What if both titles were identical?If you are discussing difference between 0 and O, nowadays people speak those interchangeably as numbers. However, typing exactly a "0" is not in readers' minds if they want to search either title. Probably they would use most likely "O" for either show. To rephrase the previous two statements, I was discussing "keyboard" use.
Why would that be a problem?Can you elaborate further? I always interpret the question as if you were disregarding what you admitted. To what does "that" refer?
Why do they have to be different at all?I always interpret it as your disregard, so I answered the same thoughts. Therefore, can you also elaborate this further? When you said "have to be different", do you mean 0 and O? George Ho ( talk) 23:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
why users being able to distinguish articles from the titles alone is of any importance whatsoever, are there any grammatical errors or something, or can you clarify that? The sentence doesn't look well written to me, no offense. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Ericp-nh, right over #Survey. George Ho ( talk) 17:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
To closer: If Ericp-nh doesn't come here, can this person's vote count? George Ho ( talk) 18:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the emailed redirect to here, George. I'm seriously confused as to how this survey works, but in any case, I really don't care a whit if everyone spells it Five-Oh or Five-Zero, it seems like calling it "Hawaii Five [0/O] (2010 TV series)" would remove any and all ambiguity. Ericp-nh ( talk) 20:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
'''Support'''
or '''Oppose'''
and then explain your reason, that would be great. Do that at (again)
#Survey.
George Ho (
talk)
20:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Born2cycle, if "Hawaii Five-0" redirects to the reboot, I shall have the redirect page discussed. Actually, 0 and O are interchangeable, so the "0" shall redirect to the original series. If not, I will propose a disambiguation page for the "0". Clear? Best to wait rather than challenge me or anyone else, which you are doing now. George Ho ( talk) 21:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: AmericanAir88 ( talk · contribs) 03:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Good day, I hope you are having a fantastic weekend. I hope we can get through this easy and stress free.
Welcome to the review for Hawaii Five-o(2010 TV series). I structure my reviews like a trial. My reviews are all about your voice as I will simply post issues and you will do the work solving them. If necessary I will make very minor copy edits to the article if I feel they don't need a whole bullet point dedicated to them. Anyway, I am looking forward to working with you. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 03:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@ TheDoctorWho:
AmericanAir88 ( talk) 03:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Second Rethrough: @ TheDoctorWho:
All Issues have been solved, the review table will now begin. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 20:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Check |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Check |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Check |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Check |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Check |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Check |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Check |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Check |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Check |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Check |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Check |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | @
TheDoctorWho: Maybe add an image of the entire main cast or the setting. For the length, one photo seems minimal.
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Passed |
Congratulations on passing. Your dedication and hard work was fantastic. I hope we can work together in the near future. Have a fantastic day. If you need any help on anything just ask. If you want me to take a look at any other articles you have for review, I will be more than happy to. Thank you. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 03:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi all
I wanted to write about a crossover with Gilligans Island because I thought it would make a good show but people keep deleting my contributions.
WTF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.13.173 ( talk) 11:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
It is worth writing about possible cross-over with new Magnum P.I., since this show still airs and takes action in the same location, but now about unplanned cross-overs. Кирилл С1 ( talk) 16:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
What does mean "Five-O" ?
-- AXRL ( talk) 13:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
"This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. " - How this problem could be worked out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Кирилл С1 ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hawaii 50. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 00:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that there was still some unnecessary hatnotes on series main article and its seasons articles. It perhaps was a remainder of the moving the pages suffered some time ago. Putting the year to distinguish the series not only with O and 0 was a good idea but, with it, the season articles became not ambiguous at all. Per WP:NOTAMB and WP:NCTV, I`m removing unnecessary hatnotes. Cvhcsee ( talk) 03:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)