Jump to content

Talk:Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHawaii 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 8, 2017Good article nomineeListed
December 20, 2017Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Season seven of "Hawaii Five-0" to contain 25 episodes?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move 19 November 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)[reply]


– 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)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Those RMs attempted to move the original primary topic series, there was support for distinguishing the remake. Please look at closing comment of the non-admin who closed. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure what happened with what Randy Kryn did here, but I fixed it in this edit. Steel1943 (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've got a hovering keyboard error that I have no idea how to get rid of, and as I type often the cursor will just jump somewhere and do havoc, and I have to either know it's occurring or I miss it. Does anyone know how to fix a hover-activated thumb-dancing keypad? I've tried to and, as of yet, to no avail. Randy Kryn 17:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Use a USB mouse? But, in all honesty, I have no idea. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Even with the previous RMs, the use of "O" vs "0" is not WP:NATURALDIS or WP:COMMONNAME since it honestly isn't clear of its a "0" or an "O". That, and do people call the new series "Hawaii-Five-Zero"?? Steel1943 (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per WP:NATURALDIS and WP:TITLECHANGES. In short, this is a solution in search of a problem: there isn't one, so let's just drop this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As proposer of two previous RMs, the remake series needs further disambiguation, though the remake gets more hits than the original... or maybe it's the other way around. Anyway, neither O (letter) nor 0 (number) meets criteria, though the five criteria seen in the page are "goals", not "rules". To summarize the section "Deciding on an article title", we consensus must consider which title fits best for the article's subject. Also, "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)[reply]

  • Oppose - Per WP:NATURALDIS and WP:TITLECHANGES. The current title arrangement has been in place since 2010, is consistent with WP title policy, and creates no issues for anyone. Adding unnecessary baggage to the titles is contrary to WP policy and solves nothing. Many sources distinguish based on O/0. A convention does not have to be adhered to perfectly by sources for us to use it too. The point is that it's a reasonable and natural disambiguation, and far preferable to adding the totally unnecessary, pointless, and rotten-smelling parenthetic disambiguations to these titles which are and have been clean and tidy the entire decade. --В²C ☎ 19:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The current title is predicated on two tenuous assumptions: that O and 0 are sufficiently different to serve a disambiguation function and that readers would likely know that O refers to the 1968 series and 0 to the 2010 one. No evidence has been presented here that either of these are so. —  AjaxSmack  02:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the first assumption, since "O" and "0" lead to distinct URLs they are "sufficiently different to serve a disambiguation function". As to the second assumption, I don't see how the current title is predicated on it. That is, no more knowledge that "O" refers to the '68 series and "0" to the '10 series is required of the reader than would be required if this title is changed as proposed. After all, if the title is changed as proposed, Hawaii Five-O is will continue to be the title of the original series, and Hawaii Five-0 will redirect to the reboot. --В²C ☎ 16:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Both titles are recognizable as referring to either series. There is no need whatsoever to be able to identify which of the two series each title represents. It doesn't matter. Swap them. They're distinct and appropriate titles for each. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? --В²C ☎ 07:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried telling you the problem over and over. However, you still insist that 0 and O are distinctive enough to differentiate the original and the reboot? After so many replies, you still don't see how 0 and O loses their clarities anymore. This will be the last time telling you the problem:

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)[reply]

If that's not enough for you, here's one more: the more sources use 0 and O interchangeability to refer to the remake, the less likely the 0 and O would make a huge difference anymore. However, I based my arguments on the lack of primacy. I still support parenthetical disambiguation on the reboot anyway, even when the original is not yet disambiguated further. George Ho (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added two more articles for discussion. George Ho (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"You still insist that 0 and O are distinctive enough to differentiate the original and the reboot?" Yes, obviously. They've been doing the job for six years. Hawaii Five-O takes you to the original article, and Hawaii Five-0 takes you to the reboot article; therefore they are distinctive enough to differentiate the original and the reboot.
You also don't seem to be paying attention to what I wrote, "There is no need whatsoever to be able to identify which of the two series each title represents. It doesn't matter. Swap them. ", because you keep pointing out stuff like sources using O and 0 interchangeably to refer to the reboot. That's my point. We could use the 0 (zero) in the title of the article about the original series and the O (oh) in the title of the article about the reboot. That would be fine with me, except for WP:TITLECHANGES, and apparently there is an argument to be made favoring the current assignments. You seem to think the title of each article should clearly identify exactly which topic is the subject of the respective article. Yes? If so, why do you think this? --В²C ☎ 16:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your quoted comment sounded like sarcasm, so I haven't taken that seriously. Additional disambiguation helps clear up confusion and reduces ambiguity of the 0 and the O. Also, even the same title of both series still have "Hawaii" and "Five". Speaking of "Five", I looked up "Hawaii 5-(zero)" or "Hawaii 5-(Oh)". This book, this magazine, that book, and this travel guide mention the original. Meanwhile, this book, that book, this magazine, and this article mention the reboot. Moreover, neither series uses "5-0"/"5-O" as official titles. Even we can't know what "5" should refer to without consensus's decision. I don't know what this book refer to. Your arguments sounded more like "I just don't like it" with vague rules attempting to disguise the disdain. The policies that you mention derived from the consensus policy and are asserting the consensus principle. Somehow, the consensus appears divided. George Ho (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, the struck source mentions some school basketball team. This article mentions the reboot. George Ho (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't sarcasm; it was serious. So is the question/statement I bolded just above, which you too conveniently ignored, unless "Additional disambiguation helps clear up confusion and reduces ambiguity of the 0 and the O" is supposed to address it. What confusion? The titles have been like this for years. What evidence of anyone being confused is there? Yes, both titles are ambiguous but what consensus is that the original series is the primary topic for O and the reboot is the primary topic for 0, therefore there is no need whatsoever to "reduce ambiguity". Let's not forget the purpose of disambiguation on WP - it's to resolve conflicts with multiple articles sharing THE SAME title. The O/0 distinction in this case RESOLVES that conflict, so there is no need to "reduce ambiguity" any further. --В²C ☎ 20:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here are past discussions about the situation: there and there and all the way up (or in an archived page if archived). The "(2010 TV series)" does clearly indicate the reboot series, not "0" alone. Also, the ongoing big number of hits for the reboot series is too recent to consider the reboot the primary topic of "(zero)". Of course, the nominator here says that "0" must be redirected to the original. That person and I have different opinions about primacy. As for the letter "O", we might debate it some other time. I thought the "O" is re-debated, but I guess not at the moment. George Ho (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to think the title of each article should clearly identify exactly which topic is the subject of the respective article. If so, why do you think this? --В²C ☎ 16:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you have been doing to me; however, that's not important. WP:COMMONNAMES says this overlooked passage: 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, natural, and consistent (see below) with other articles, including the article about the original series. Add "(2010 TV series)", so the proposed title will meet four three criteria... well, just not concise. Still the parenthetically disambiguated title, which meets four three criteria, is more suitable to most readers than just a very, very concise title that does not meet... or no longer meets four three other criteria. George Ho (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rethinking about naturalness, I realize that "Hawaii Five-0" also is a natural title that readers search for. Nonetheless, I still believe that the proposed parenthetical disambiguation will work better for most readers than an ambiguous title, despite its conciseness and naturalness. --George Ho (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2016‎ (UTC) (See below)[reply]
I realize "Hawaii Five-0" would meet consistency because other titles are disambiguated by just small details, like Stayin' Alive and Lovin' You. However, the proposed title for the reboot also meets consistency because other television shows are disambiguated this way. The consistency criterion, despite being met by two titles, is very difficult to choose one over the other. However, recognition and precision criteria weigh more and are more important than conciseness and naturalness ones. (See below) George Ho (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back. "Hawaii Five-0" no longer meets naturalness. Despite concision, the readers would use the title to search for both series. "(2010 TV series)" wouldn't be either but is a better alternative. Therefore, "naturalness" criterion would no longer apply to this case and shall be disposed out of this discussion. George Ho (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of words there but I see no answer to my question. Using the mobile interface with the current title layout if I type in "Hawaii F" in the search box my top two choices are:
  • Hawaii Five-0 TV series (remake)
  • Hawaii Five-O American police procedural drama series (with a mini photo of Jack Lord)
What is the problem? --В²C ☎ 16:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? Have it your way. I can't handle anymore your disregard to my answers that I provided for you. You still asked the same question, and I repeated or rephrased the same answers. Look at the consensus; the majority agrees that the 0/O alone is not sufficient for the reboot... Maybe, per consensus, the 0 and the O refer to the original? Or maybe 0 refers to both, while the O refers to the original? George Ho (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disregarding what you're saying. You're disregarding what I'm saying. You keep stressing that 0/O do not distinguish them because either one can refer to either series. But I'm not disputing that! I'm saying... SO WHAT? What if both titles were identical? Why would that be a problem? Why do they have to be different at all? You have not answered this!!! Well, they have to be be different because if they're exactly the same then they have the same url and that won't work. Okay, so one is 0 and one is O. Now they have distinct urls. Problem solved. --В²C ☎ 15:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I apologize for being unclear. Ignoring the technical issue (urls must be unique and titles form the unique part of our article's urls), what would be the problem if both articles had the exact same title (say Hawaii Five-O)? My point is this: if there would be no problem if the titles were exactly the same, then there would be no problem if they were almost exactly the same (e.g., differing only by O/0). So, to argue that there is a problem with the titles being almost exactly the same, one should be able to explain why titles that were exactly the same would be a problem. I honestly don't see what the problem would be (ignoring the url/technical issue). Please explain. And please don't repeat that users would not be able to distinguish the articles from the titles if they both used the same title. That's obvious. What's not obvious at all, at least to me, is why users being able to distinguish articles from the titles alone is of any importance whatsoever. I hope that's clear. --В²C ☎ 00:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, having two articles using the exact same title is impossible; the system does not allow that for technical reasons. If that happens, the content would be affected, or the server would not handle the technical mishap. Also, if both topics go under one article due to technical reasons, the editors would have difficulties editing the article about two shows. Also, readers would be annoyed by having the older at the top and the newer at the bottom (or the other way around). Of course, The Sandy Duncan Show shows two different shows... or concepts but the same actress and the same year. "Hawaii Five-O" or "Hawaii Five-0" would have a very, very large size. Splitting content would be the best way, but titling a split content would be the editorial discretion. About 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)[reply]

Ericp-nh, right over #Survey. George Ho (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To closer: If Ericp-nh doesn't come here, can this person's vote count? George Ho (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Ericp-nh: If you can type '''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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AmericanAir88 (talk · contribs) 03:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Good day, I hope you are having a fantastic weekend. I hope we can get through this easy and stress free.

Opening Comments

[edit]

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)[reply]

Issues

[edit]

@TheDoctorWho:

  • The lead needs to be expanded, especially the parts around " Like the original, it follows an elite state police task force set up to fight crime in the state of Hawaii." Done
  • The ending of the lead has two sentences of season seven and season eight. I suggest removing the season seven sentence and expanding on the eighth season sentence. Done
  • "The task force answers only to the Governor of the state of Hawaii and is given immunity and means to investigate crimes ranging from terrorism to kidnapping." Elaborate more on the immunity and the crimes. Done
  • "McGarrett chooses as his partner Honolulu PD Detective-Sergeant Danny "Danno" Williams." This area of the premise confused me. Done
  • The character listings in the "Premise" section becomes run-on and drags. Not done -Accepted
  • Any info on Kimee Balmilero? If not move to recurring cast section. Done
  • "This version did not go beyond the script stage." Citation Needed Done
  • "Production on the pilot was shot in and around Honolulu from February to April 2010." Citation Needed Done
  • "Exteriors representing Five-0 headquarters in the series are located at the Judiciary History Center of the Supreme Court Building in Honolulu, directly across the street from Iolani Palace, which represented Five-O headquarters in the original series." Citation Needed Done
  • The Broadcast and Streaming Section needs reworking. Done
  • Tons of Reference Errors.

AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @AmericanAir88: I fixed almost all the issues you mentioned above. I will not able to fix the "Premise" section without removing some of the character listings. I was also not able to find information on the part about the script so I removed the single sentence. Everything else should be fixed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second Rethrough: @TheDoctorWho:

  • References 25 and 32 and still broken. Also reference 32's title needs to be changed as it contains a url.
  • The lead doesn't need "expected to contain 24 episodes" put something along the lines of "On March 23, 2017, CBS renewed the series for an eighth season which premiered on September 29, 2017.
Everything else was perfect AmericanAir88 (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AmericanAir88: Alright those two things should be fixed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All Issues have been solved, the review table will now begin. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review Table

[edit]
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.
@AmericanAir88: I added a photo of the cast.
Check
7. Overall assessment. Passed

Closing Comments

[edit]

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)[reply]

Thank you so much for helping me to make this a good article! Let me know if there's anything I can ever do for you! TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crossover with Gilligans Island

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Five-O

[edit]

What does mean "Five-O" ?

--AXRL (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from the orgoinal Hawaii Five-0 series...which took place after Hawaii became the 50th US STATE 50th = Five-0!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.132.129 (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unadequate lead warning

[edit]

"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)[reply]

"Hawaii 50" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

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)[reply]

Hatnotes of non-ambiguous articles

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hawaii_Five-0_(2010_TV_series)&oldid=1218787680"