Talk:Hawaii Five-O (1968 TV series)

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

Requested move 9 October 2015[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: not moved. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 08:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– Or Hawaii Five-O (1968 TV series) and Hawaii Five-O (2010 TV series). Many sources use 'O' and '0' dividedly for the older, original series; probably the same for the reboot. This all comes down to divided usage by sources. However, more disambiguation/precision is needed. Meanwhile, either O or 0 should be base title of DABpage. Stats are provided in the discussion. George Ho (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the older series, I found sources using "Five-0": (just older sources) [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] (newer, fresher ones) [8][9][10][11][12] For the same older series, "Five-O": (newer sources only) [13][14][15][16][17] For the reboot: ("Five-O") [18][19] [20] [21] ("Five-0") [22][23][24][25][26] --George Ho (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit upfront to not reading all of your citations, please forgive me, I will go back and read them. I offer this: In season 1, episode ?, of the reboot there is a discussion that starts with the question of why is Steve, as quarterback, wearing the number 50. Steve explains that it was something his father came up with - they were they 50's (50th state). Kono thinks that this is the perfect name for them and so it was/is. The reboot is Five-0 (zero). I would say that any inconsistencies in the first show were lack of attention to detail (no disparagement intended). This is my super fast answer and I am happy to discuss it more and/or provide any assistance in proof-reading the pages here and providing consistency. Norawashere (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The article explains the discrepancy between names - Although the show's name has always ended with the numeral "0", the soundtrack album, released in the late 1960s, used the letter "O" instead of the numeral zero. The letter "O" is sometimes used to differentiate the original series and the revival which premiered in 2010, and always uses the numeral zero. The name has always been pronounced "five-oh" and "Hawaii Five-O" is the common name, so there is no need to move this or the other article. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Number '0' is also pronounced as "oh", AussieLegend, especially when you pronounce phone numbers or area codes. George Ho (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, and that explains the discrepancy between using "0" and "O" for the original series. Hatnotes are best for situations like this, especially when the series are closely related. There's no need for a separate dab page for only two series. That just forces readers to have to look in more places than they should have to. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AussieLegend, we are not forcing readers when disambiguation happens. I believe that, when the reboot ends, number statistics will go down. Although it has more hits than the original, that's just recentism. Readers may type either one and end up with a page that they are not looking for. Were they searching for the original or the remake or both? Here are stats, especially for Norawashere and Calidum: the Jack Lord/original series (this month), reboot (this month). George Ho (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment there are two pages for the two series. You want to add a dab page and that makes three which, last time I checked, is more than two. So yes, we are forcing readers to look in more places. Using reventism is a bit of a stretch. The newer series has been running for 5 years, which is not really recent. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If books are not enough, AussieLegend (may I ping you again?), I'll go for news articles also but just this year's. For reboot: (Letter "O") Christian Post Latin Post [27][28]AV Club[29] Hollywood Reporter Broadway World (number "0") [30][31][32]Hollywood Reporter (not a typo) TV Guide Broadway World (uncertain) EW Broadway World (not typo) George Ho (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calidum, how is this case no different from others? Official titles of Ocean's 11 original and reboot use different spellings to distinguish from each other. However, the official title of the original series has been Hawaii Five-0. Before the reboot, sources frequently used "O" and "0". George Ho (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose-A separate page would not have added to the my knowledge when I was still learning which show was which. The average viewer/reader would probably not know which show used the 0 or the O and depend on the year and other clues to make the decision. I agree that an additional page with only two choices would just add an extra click without any other (that I can see) straight-forward benefit. Norawashere (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Saying "1968 TV series" in the article title would still be somewhat confusing because the series lasted past 1968 (i.e. 1968 to 1980). Maybe "original" would be clearer. The new one could be "remake". I agree that the letter "O" is confusingly similar to the number "0" and I also agree that many people will be unsure whether the letter "O" corresponds to the original or to the remake. Instead of "original" you could write "twentieth century"....But I would just follow the Star Trek precedent: Star Trek: The Original Series.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Like AussieLegend says, 2 is less than 3, and a dab page makes 3. To what end? The nom asserts, without any basis, that "more disambiguation/precision is needed". Clearly that is untrue. After all, the two titles exist as they are without disambiguation, have for years, and the nom obviously knows this. This fact proves without any doubt that no more disambiguation/precision is needed. --В²C ☎ 00:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly true. My interest in research at that time wasn't at peak. Too bad everybody majority here wants it as is. George Ho (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want it as-is. I'd like to add parentheticals: (original series) and (remake series). Incidentally, there was also a movie: Hawaii_Five-O_(1997_TV_pilot).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) My bad. George Ho (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It's a useful discussion. I hope at some point people will realize that the infinitesimal difference between the two titles is insufficient per Wikipedia policy. That doesn't mean we need a disambiguation page necessarily, but adding parentheticals would be fine if we can agree on the parentheticals. I would also be open to a disambiguation page in view of Hawaii_Five-O_(1997_TV_pilot).Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anythingyouwant, since each title meets WP:CRITERIA for it's respective topic as well as (if not better than) any other potential title, and the difference is sufficient to establish a unique title for each use, that is all that is required by policy as well as reality. For the life of me I can't understand what issue some people see with this. --В²C ☎ 02:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that the present titles leave a lot to be desired with regard to this criterion: "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." Most people won't recognize that "O" is a letter whereas "0" is a number, and even if they do recognize it they will not recognize which corresponds to which series.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The O/0 difference is always going to be an issue. The hatnote, which is required in any case, makes it clear to readers as to which series they are looking at. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hatnotes can be removed once disambiguation happens. George Ho (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the similarities in the titles, the hatnotes should be retained. A reader looking for a specific version of the series is likely to arrive at the wrong one. If a reader ends up at Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) while looking for the original series, the location of that article is not obviously Hawaii Five-0 (1968 TV series). --AussieLegend (✉) 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either AutoComplete or dabpage page (if AutoComplete is disabled) would help. --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 20:35, 13 October 2015 (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.

Press Release from CBS clarifying spelling[edit]

  • CBS explains spelling of name for both series

I found this reference today http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/hawaii-five-0-name-16415/. This is the full press release: THIS JUST IN… SHORTEST PRESS RELEASE IN CBS HISTORY EDITORS NOTE: The “0” in HAWAII FIVE-0 is a zero, not a capital O there is also one from the LA Times that references the same press release.http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2010/07/cbs-explains-why-it-likes-numbers-more-than-letters.html

  • I was not able to find an independent source for the original Press Release. So it appears that, after all of our debate, both series are spelled the same, Hawaii Five-0.

Call one, Hawaii Five-0 (1968) and the other Hawaii Five-0 (2010)? The second article calls out Wikipedia for being wrong. Too bad we can't tell the world how hard we tried to be right.

Requested move 10 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: no consensus. There are suggestions for moves to other suggested titles, but there doesn't appear to be consensus about which title it should go to; that's a discussion for another RM. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– In the previous RM, I proposed disambiguating both articles by debut year. However, the consensus unanimously opposed it because the year disambiguation didn't look desirable. Also, hatnote arguments were posted but may no longer hold water. A guideline WP:hatnote does not address the spelling and usage of O/0. Either WP:DAB, WP:NOTPAPER or WP:GUIDES, which says that some exceptions can be made or common sense be used, would triumph WP:hatnote. The hatnote would no longer be necessary per WP:disambiguation#Usage guidelines. The passage about "O/0" (also mentioned in previous RM) is disputed and may be unreliable for this discussion. I tagged the passage for such issues.

Despite readers' best to search for either series, the needed disambiguation is belated. Alternatively, I can scrap out "TV" and go for Hawaii Five-0 (original series) and Hawaii Five-0 (remake series) instead. If both articles are disambiguated, a set index would be more possible than a typical disambiguation page, but neither is ruled out. If primary topic is an issue, then neither is primary to me. While the original series has long-term significance, the remake page is more visited. Of course, just one may be disambiguated, depending on your choice. George Ho (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COMMONNAMES, Randy, ambiguous names can be avoided, regardless of commonality of either name in reference to the older or the newer series of the same name. Also, we can't figure out which "O" or "0" refers to unless saying "zero" refers to... which one? WP:PARENDIS says that parenthetical disambiguation is possible if natural disambiguation does not produce "an optimal article title". George Ho (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks George Ho, Support the 'original' and 'reboot' series descriptors which make sense without the 'TV' included (redundant with 'series'). That 0 or O is an odd one, and should be uniform to both series. If Hawaii 5-0 means a phone number (I've never seen either show) then the number 0 seems appropriate. Randy Kryn 16:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Five-0 means either that, Randy... or possibly the 50th US state, Hawaii. George Ho (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since both a phone number and the 50th state are numbers, then a '0' seems the way to go for both titles. Randy Kryn 17:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "phone number" was my sarcasm, Randy ;), but I was serious about the "50th" state part. However, would this affect your interpretation? George Ho (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it is the number of the state. Still a number though, so '0' seems the only option. Can't imagine where the letter O would fit in. I thought that maybe HA-50 could have been an emergency phone number for whatever criminal fighting force these characters belong in. Are super-heroes involved? (kidding) Randy Kryn 17:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate, Nomentz? George Ho (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. 1st I think both should have the same prefix with a suffix providing disambiguation. 2nd I think the prefix should use the 0, as the "oh" was always just an abbreviated spoken form of the digit, as in spoken phone numbers. 3rd, as the (year) suffixes have been voted down already, I'll go with (original / reboot) as now proposed.
Btw - In my long forgotten youth, when ZDF showed the original series, I always was convinced that the title was the emergency call number - prefix-of-Hawaii five zero (spoken as five oh).--Nomentz (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all changes proposed here: we have a clear WP:NATURALDIS situation with the current setup - why meddle with it?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How are 0 and O distinctive and precise enough, and how are the titles "optimal"? By the way, IJBall, the old rule "natural disambiguation is not possible" no longer exists due to language change. George Ho (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what that means, but changes my mind not in the slightest – the 2010 version has used "0" at the end from the very beginning, and there are plenty of RS out there to show it's so. The current arrangement of the articles is wholly satisfactory (under NATURALDIS), and does not need to be changed (beyond perhaps adding a few more redirects). (See also Calidum's TITLECHANGES point.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase it for you, IJBall. You cited the "natural disambiguation" policy, which is inadequate enough to handle the 0/O distinction. Also, multiple sources use 0 and O interchangeably to refer to the original. Also, the policy exemplifies typically distinctive names with "English language" and "English people" and people of similar names, like William Thornton or Bill Thornton. I don't see examples of very similar names with distinctive spellings not influenced by uppercasing and lowercasing, e.g. 0 and O. Any other examples of distinctive spellings? George Ho (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In your opinion." "0" vs. "O" is fine for most of the rest of us. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IJBall, well, which is which and why? I don't see a natural distinction - that is one, that will lead me to my target without using a disambiguation header.--Nomentz (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 2010 version has been using the "0" since the beginning. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about the original series? George Ho (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody have access to the script? Other than that: the German-dubbed version's title was "Hawaii Fünf-Null", both decimals written as words, so I'm pretty sure "zero, too!" --Nomentz (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found a TV Guide article from 1970s using 0 and O interchangeably. So do the sources: [33][34][35]TV Guide again. I found scripts using "O"... or "0", but it looks almost not easy to tell. This uses O; other sources: [36][37][38]. that uses 0; other sources: [39][40][41]. This source looks confusing. By the way, this book uses "O" to refer to the newer remake. This source doesn't use 0 or O to refer to the remake; just "newer version." George Ho (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the other sources that use either 0 and/or O existed before the newer remake. Older sources prior to 2010 do not determine distinction between the older and the newer series. George Ho (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources using O for the remake: [42]Daily Mail. More sources using "newer" or similar instead of 0/O to refer to the remake: [43]. At the time of James MacArthur's death, EW, Star Advertiser. Entertainment Tonight, Christian Post, and some other sources use 0 and O interchangeably for the remake. George Ho (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How are my reasons not good enough for title change, Calidum? What are your other reasons besides title stability? George Ho (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. What problem are we solving? We have two articles at distinct and unique COMMONNAME titles. If it ain't broke... --В²C ☎ 19:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How are 0 and O distinctive enough to differentiate the original and the remake for everybody, Born2cycle? I told Randy that COMMONNAMES warns us about using titles that are less clear to readers, even when commonly used. As said already, "0" also refers to the original. George Ho (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason titles have to be distinctive at all is because titles are part of URLs, and URLs must be unique. Well, using 0 and O are distinctive enough to make unique URLs, so they are distinctive enough, period. The part I bolded is a fundamental concept about WP titles that some people have a hard time grasping, but the ratio of Opposes to Supports here suggests most people get it. As to the clarity for readers requirement, it is met splendidly by these titles. Lack of clarity would be to title the articles incoherently; that's not the case for either title. --В²C ☎ 22:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Born2cycle: Very few people type in exact URLs to search for the original series page or the remake series page. Even so, groups that know how to type in URL of either page would assume that "0" is the original and/or the remake. Same for "O". The groups might forget the distinction and then use instead the words "original" / "remake/reboot", "Jack Lord version" / "hot cast version", "old" / "new", etc. Saying "zero" or "Oh", and typing 0 or O would not help much unless... maybe technology embracers want the 0/O kept? George Ho (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Typing in "Five-0_(original_series)" and "Five-0_(remake_series)" for those typing the URL might benefit more than just "Five-O" and "Five-0", even when the former pair looks longer than the latter. Also, the former pair is more memorable to type. George Ho (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic, but which one benefits more while typing the URL: /Janet. or /Janet_(album)? George Ho (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason URLs have to be unique and thus titles have to be distinct from other titles has nothing to do with anyone typing in URLs. I don't know why you mentioned that. The conventions for Wikipedia titles were established long before the "peek ahead" capability was added to the WP search box. Most people get here from Google anyway. There is nothing preventing you from creating wordy redirects that will show up in the search box. All this brings us back to my original question: What problem are we solving? You've go to be able to answer that if you expect to persuade anyone to accept a move proposal. --В²C ☎ 05:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about (in)convenience, Born2cycle? Many searchers type "Hawaii Five-O" for the remake, especially ones at Google; those typing on Wikipedia and ignoring the AutoSearch entered "Five-O" intended for the remake and landed on the original instead. "Five-O" is easier to type, while "Five-0" is more accurate... but somewhat not in many searchers' minds. Hatnote would give readers information and access, but it does not solve inconvenience of searching. If (in)convenience is not enough, how about clarity? The 0/O distinction isn't clear enough for everybody to differentiate between then original and the remake. Even Template:Hawaii Five-O includes the year duration of each show. Also, what about consistency? I don't know any shows with distinctive spellings, but I hope that original and remake of a series are differentiated. Something must be done about Hawaii Five-O (season 7) and Hawaii Five-0 (season 7); I thought the former was a redirect to the latter until I read the former as one of the seasons of the original. Same for other existing seasons. George Ho (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, which one do you (only you) personally type, "five-o" or "five-0"? For which show? George Ho (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I reread your comment about clarity. Seems I'm unable to convince you how the current titles are less clear than they are to others. As for the ratio of Oppose:Support, reread the arguments by opposers. One or two suggest the alternative that was already rejected in the previous RM. One is IP and... I don't know whether that person follows this discussion or not. He hasn't discussed much since. One says the setup is "natural", which I'm not convinced. One says it's "stable", which I thought is an inadequate reason to retain the current title setup. Also, he did not yet comment on the original. Apparently, the consensus looks split. George Ho (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't get it. What difference does it make whether the actual title is Hawaii Five-O and Hawaii Five-O (original) redirects to it, or vice versa? What's wrong with having the title at Hawaii Five-0 and having both Hawaii Five-O (remake) and Hawaii Five-0 (remake) both redirect to it? Why does one of those have to be the actual title? Please explain. How is typing or convenience affected regardless of which setup we use? The only difference I can see is that with the current setup that name of the topic is accurately reflected in the title of the article; I think that's helpful. But it terms of real practical impact on anyone - none. What am I missing? --В²C ☎ 16:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Born2cycle: I don't know... your common sense? How is "0" commonly known as just one show, the remake? How is "O" commonly known as just the original? Before the remake, "0" and "O" had been used interchangeably to refer to the original. "Hawaii Five-O", and you'll see results of the reboot. I don't see why you are happy with the current setup. Hollywood Reporter uses the letter "O" to refer to the newer series; so do Jobs & Hire, TV By the Numbers, EconoTimes, Parent Herald, Broadway World, Vanity Fair. Some other sources use "0" and "O" interchangeably to refer to the reboot/newer series. How do these sources not convince you? --George Ho (talk) 19:29, 17 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.

No need for title change[edit]

There have been multiple RM proposals. None have succeeded, though participants often express support for some kind of change. Why?

The titles of the two related articles, Hawaii Five-O and Hawaii Five-0, are perfect as they are. There is no need to change one or the other, much less both. The worse case is if someone looking for the remake types in "Hawaii Five-O" and ends up on the original, which immediately identifies it as that and provides a hatlink to the remake. Disambiguating these titles is unnecessary - each is unique and therefore they're distinct. Hawaii Five-0 might not be the most common name for the remake series, but the other one is already taken by the original, and this one is commonly used; it's a perfectly natural disambiguation, which is preferred to parenthetic disambiguation. It's great that we have this O/0 distinction to create separate titles without parenthetic disambiguation - let's not waste this opportunity. Leave the titles alone, please. --В²C ☎ 19:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The closer has clearly stated there is a majority for not having a O vs O distinction (which is what it appears as on the Wikipedia app). Hawaii Five-O (season 4) Hawaii Five-0 (season 4) etc.In ictu oculi (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? I'm not disputing what the (non-admin) closer stated. I'm disputing all arguments I've seen for a title change here, including all WP:JDLI rationalizations. --В²C ☎ 21:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • How are arguments favoring title change similar to "I just don't like it" arguments? From what I've seen, opposers cited policies without summarizing them... or are trying to disguise their "I just like it" arguments with bare rationale of policies. George Ho (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is nothing wrong with this title, not in terms of policy, nor in terms of practice, convenience, or anything else. Arguments for changing are groundless. They're pure JDLI. If the title is changed to be disambiguated (AFAIK all proposed changes involve adding parenthetic disambiguation to the title(s)) then there will be something wrong with it: it will be disambiguated, unnecessarily. --В²C ☎ 02:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you are typing "Hawaii Five-0", which show do you search? And what about "Hawaii Five-O"? George Ho (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll put this another way: if you look for remake, do you type "five-o" or "five-0"? Same for the original. George Ho (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please answer this. Do you expect users to know to type Hawaii-Five-O (original TV series) or Hawaii-Five-O (remake TV series)? Or do you expect them to rely on search box to show them these options? If the latter, it already does that due to redirects. If the titles are changed, that won't change. So what are you talking about? Please be clear. --В²C ☎
            • Let's not count all demographics as one. We can't assume all doing one or the other. We should split demographics instead. In other words, your question either implies misassumption about all readers or tests my assumption about users. We focus on either one demographic or more. One demographic does one thing; another does another. Also, you evade my question about your experience with "five-o"/"five-0". By the way, the AutoComplete tool is unreliable source to resolve the 0/O. Even readers intend to search one show but are led to the different one by clicking either name. E.g. the readers' intent is the remake, but then they click the name "Hawaii Five-O", which lead them to the original series. The articles tell readers what the shows are, but the current titles might not. Angry, readers would not finish reading the introduction about the original and then rely on either search box or hatnote instead. Of course, many readers repeat the stages of misdirection if they could not tell the difference between the "O" and the "0". George Ho (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • We agree on demographics focus. Allow me to rephrase. Do you expect ANY significant number of users to type ANY of your proposed unnecessarily disambiguated titles for either of these articles? (By the way, I say unnecessarily disambiguated because these two titles are already disambiguated as much as necessary to be distinct, therefore any further disambiguation is unnecessary). If not, then how does switching to unnecessarily disambiguated titles address anything?

                As to your question about my experience, which I ignored due to its irrelevance but I now address to humor you, I'm likely to Google "Hawaii Five O" regardless of which series I'm seeking; the first WP article in the results is the remake and the summary shown is sufficiently descriptive to identify it as such. The article about the original series does not show up in the first page of results, so if that's what I'm seeking I'd add "wiki" to the end of the search string and re-search. This time the original series pops up third in the results. But it's also possible I'd click on the link to the remake series and then click on the hatnote link to the original. In the unlikely event that I'm using the search box on WP, I still would enter "Hawaii Five O" and click Search. The first result on the results page is the original series and the second one is the remake, again with sufficient descriptive information to identify the one I'm seeking.

                There, I've described in detail how the current configuration works and is non-problematic. Can you describe a scenario in which it is problematic, or how title changes would improve any such searching scenario? As much detail as I provided in answering your question would be appreciated. --В²C ☎ 21:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, B2C, your scenario contradicts itself. You were browsing for the fun of it. Also, it does not justify keeping the current configuration. You would likely add more words to narrow results at either Google or Bing if you wanted to search for the original. The remake is the popular search. Here's my scenario to prove how problematic the distinction is:

I hear a person discussing "Hawaii Five-Oh". I assumed that he was referring to the original due to the title's similar pronunciation. However, I heard his elaborations about the series and realize that he was discussing the newer series when he mentioned the leading hot Asian chick and two hot leading men. In another discussion, I would hear "Hawaii five-zero" from one person. I engage in the discussion. The person mentions "Jack Lord" or the "older" series, though I assumed that he was referring to the remake due to the title's similar official spelling and pronunciation.

I am at Google and wanted to search for the original series. I typed in "Hawaii Five O". I saw a bunch of results of the remake and one or two about the original. I added the word "original" to narrow down the results. Alternatively, I could add "Jack Lord" instead because I am familiar with the actor. Then when I looked at the year period, at last I found the original show. On the other hand, a person wants to search for the remake and then types "Hawaii Five O". Fortunately, that person found the remake. Less fortunate for those searching for the original at Google.

Bing makes the search easier by including the original and the remake if you type in the "O" letter. However, I could type in "Hawaii five 0" (zero) if I want to look for the original, but I end up with just results of the remake. To narrow the results (or for faster access), I added "original" on the search box and found the original just by looking at the debut year and/or the main actor's name. I could not tell at Google or Bing what (oh) or (zero) refers to. Actually, the cast names and year gave away the results.

For TV.com page results at Bing, I clicked on "Hawaii Five-0" believing it is of the original, but I found the remake instead. The Bing descriptions of the TV.com pages did not help me much to tell the difference. The description saying that Steve's father was killed did not help much; fathers of both characters named Steve were killed in both series. Also, mentioning "Leonard Freeman" in the other description was inadequate. Both TV.com pages could mention Freeman, though only one did. The one discussing the murder of Steve's father was assumed to be the original sometimes, while the other mentioning Freeman was assumed sometimes to be the remake. Actually, that was the other way around, but sometimes it's confusing. Also, TV.com is user-generated, so the website is unreliable.

Now for Wikipedia, if I want to search for the remake, and I enter "Hawaii Five O", I ended up at the original instead. Frustrated, rather than read the whole introduction or article about the original, I just immediately clicked the link on the italicized notice at the top, i.e. hatnote. For the other person, the person wants to look for the original and accurately types "Hawaii Five-0" because the original show uses it officially. Then the person is led to the remake instead. Rather than read the intro or the article, that frustrated person found the hatnote and then clicks the link to the original at last. Neither person would remember the distinction between the two series and then types in the same spellings in their own ways. Both would frequently use the hatnote and then ignore the page about the other series. George Ho (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really having a lot of trouble following your train of thought.
  • You assert that my scenario contradicts itself, but don't explain how.
  • You assert I was browsing for the fun of it, as if that's a relevant statement, without explaining why.
  • You assert it does not justify keeping the current configuration, without explaining how.
  • Then you claim I would likely add more words to narrow the results at Google or Bing if I wanted to search for the original, without explaining the relevance or why.
  • On Google you say you add "original" to the search. Well, when you do that, the first item in the results is the WP article on the original series. Perfect. How is this a problem? And what does this have to do with the title? I don't know why you have have "looked at the year period"? What year period? Where?
  • As to the plain search of "Hawaii Five O" returning mostly information about the remake, that's a function of Google. We can't change that with titles on WP. That just reflects what most people are looking for when they Google with that search term.
  • I honestly can't make any sense of what you're saying about the hatnote links. How much clearer can we be? This article is about the original TV series. For the 2010 remake series, see Hawaii Five-0.
  • I have no idea why you even brought up TV.com.
  • On WP, you say you "search", but you seem to be clicking on "Go" rather than "Search". Very different. I recommend Search. But even if you click on "Go" and get to the wrong article, what's wrong with using the hatlink to get to the other one? There is no need to read the entire intro. It's arguably less effort that reading a dab page, the purgatory to which you seem to want to send everyone. At worst, it's comparable. More importantly, at least those who are seeking the original with "Hawaii Five-O" (and related redirects), and those seeking the remake with "Hawaii Five-0" will get their desired destination non-stop. By sending everyone to the dab page everybody is sent to a page they are not seeking. Dab pages have their place, but when there are only two entries it's pretty silly. And if you don't have a dab page then the situation is no different than it is now: people who enter "Hawaii Five-O" will get sent the article about the orginal series to which it will redirect. --В²C ☎ 22:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably we should leave Google, Bing, and other search engines out of this. Their missions are easy access for everybody. The statistics from those search engines is very difficult to analyse. People, including both of us, conclude different results and would disagree. Maybe we should solely focus on those using the Wikipedia search box instead. Different scenarios, different conclusions, disagreements; can the cycle break?

Also, why should the "O" belong to the original, not the remake or both? Why should the "0" belong to the remake, not the original or both? George Ho (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Others have explained why O goes better with the original and 0 goes better with the remake. I won't. It doesn't matter. Really. If nothing else, the worst case is which should belong to which is totally arbitrary and we should keep whatever it is now because it's not a problem, a dab page only would make it worse, and WP:TITLECHANGES. Google matters because undoubtedly that's how most people get to our articles, which is a major reason for why title specifics matter very little for readers. We can title these two articles Article500021 and Article500022 (doesn't matter which is which) and, with proper redirects, it would work just fine. --В²C ☎ 00:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We somehow have went beyond our peaks of disagreements. We will never change each other's minds. George Ho (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, and I'm all for agreeing to disagree. But I still don't understand what scenario you think is problematic with the current layout, much less how introducing a dab page will solve it. --В²C ☎ 01:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, IIO created a separate RM on the remake, so I'll comment there soon. George Ho (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the difference between O and 0 is not visible on most browsers or mobiles, O and 0 in this context is pronounced the same, and O and 0 is a distinction 99.9999% of people wouldn't be aware of, chances are they'll type either. Anyway it was a non-admin close with the closer saying there is support for disambiguation. Born2cycle has objected and will presumably continue to object, but that isn't a reason not to go ahead and make life easier for readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the next RM, shall we split the discussion into two: one about original and one about remake? George Ho (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WOW, the Authority for this is the Creator of Hawaii Five O; Leonard Freeman. During his 1960s to early 1970s Interviews with Hawaii Local Television Station KGMB (Over the air Channel 9 at the time); as not seen at the other 49 U.S. States nor Internationally, Leonard Freeman explained why the Alphabet "O"; and NOT the number "0" Zero. Partially, due to Budgetary Limitations, Hawaii Five O filming was Restricted to only the Island of Oahu at first; the Alphabet "O" was for Oahu, as kind of mocking the Budgetary constraints; as well as, Hawaii Five O (Oahu) Task Force.

Only AFTER Hawaii Five O became popular the Budgetary Restrictions stopped.

Hawaii Five O was really "A Big Thing" a Hawaii Don Ho saying; as an Economic Boost to Hawaii's Economy, as to why the KGMB Interviews of Hawaii Five O creator Leonard Freeman. There of course were some "Locals" that were complaining about the commotion filming was causing; the KGMB Interviews stopped that.

After Syndication, Hawaii Five O creator Leonard Freeman passed away, 1974.

This kind of thing happened a lot during the 1960s to 1980s (creators of Television Series mocking and or making Social Commentaries) just like StarTrek Creator Gene Roddenberry had a Restricted Budget until StarTrek became very Popular; however, this did not stop the Television Censors that stopped Gene Roddenberry from showing a Woman's Belly Button on Television; so in later Years, Gene Roddenberry mocked the previous Censorship of StarTrek by having a Woman with Two (2) Belly Buttons in Television Series Genesis II - Gene Roddenberry's StarTrek "Bloopers" Presentation at the University of Hawaii, and my brief discussion with him.

Most forgot about the Hawaii Five O creator Leonard Freeman KGMB Television Interviews (more than one) or that alphabet "O" not number 0 (Zero); most at the "Mainland" never saw nor heard the KGMB Interviews and would start thinking "50th State" as Hawaii 50,5-0, 5-Zero, not as intended as to why Five is spelled out instead of a numeric representation of 5. Didn't any of you think why Five is spelled out? Again that was answered with the Leonard Freeman KGMB Interviews, that had so many commercial interruptions (everybody knew this was the best time to buy commercial advertising time, Tidy Bowl, Spic & Span, S & S Saimin, Playtex, Sears Roebuck, J.C. Penny, Ala Moana Shopping Center, Lani Moo of Meadow Gold, Love's Bakery, etc.). There was also mentioned the negative advertising, publicity, of a number Zero in the Title of a Not Popular yet Television Series; another thing to consider why, wasn't this Hawaii Five Zero (if you believe that this now means the number zero and not the alphabet O); again this was all discussed during Leonard Freeman's Interviews with KGMB. If I had a Video Recorder I would have made a Ton of Money with recordings of those Leonard Freeman KGMB Interviews (note: Television Stations rarely kept their Magnetic Tape Videos and usually Rerecorded over those; reason why so many later Famous Rock Star Videos were previously destroyed, rerecorded over, the Ed Sullivan Show was later "Infamous" for Re Recording over rare video tapes); VHS and Betamax would be invented later.

Technology. The start of this "Controversy" coincides with the Television Critics writing Reviews of 1968 Hawaii Five O for Newspapers, Magazines, Hollywood Trade Journals "Rags", etc. that had nothing to directly do with the Television Series Hawaii Five O as Script Writers, etc. and really did not care about alphabet O or number 0; using Manual (Portable) Typewriters, as very difficult with speed (Article Deadlines), to rapidly Shift with weak left small finger against a spring loaded "Shift" key, press very hard the alphabet "O" with the right hand middle finger at the same time, instead of rapidly press number 0, zero, with one finger. Also most people were never formally in School taught to use any kind of Typewriter; with "hunting and pecking" being common making typing the alphabet O instead of the number 0 even more difficult to type with the required speed (words per minute; WPM Test later required for News Reporters, Journalists, Secretaries). Most people were still using "Carbon Manifolds" as carbon paper between sheets of paper, making typing on a manual typewriter even more difficult, having to pound the keys hard to make sure the letters, numbers, symbols were imprinted all the way thru duplicate, triplicate, sheets of paper and carbon papers; as Photocopiers were not widely used yet, and the Mimeograph Machine was still widely used (required copies for the Actors, Screen Writers, Producers, Directors, "Cast" and "Crew", Censors). The first 1961 IBM Selectric (Electric) Typewriters were not widely used yet; until the new 1971 IBM Selectric II Typewriter, that still did not have a correction capability. This is like Today as Millennials refuse to learn why, how and what to capitalize.

Lastly just watch the Title frames of both the "old" Hawaii Five O and the current Hawaii Five O Title Frame, as Intentionally the alphabet "O" (almost a square with rounded edges) not number "0" (an oval).

Nakamuradavid (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 October 2017[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  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


– Per WP:TVNAME Additional Disambiguation if there are multiple television shows with the same name that debuted in separate years the article name should include the year in which it premiered. Although Hawaii Five-0 and Hawaii Five-O technically have different names because of the "O" versus "0" it has been determined at Hawaii Five-0 2016 Requested Move that the "O" and the "0" are not sufficient for WP:SMALLDETAILS. I believe since that page was moved from Hawaii Five-0 to Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) this one needs to be moved as well. TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 02:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AjaxSmack: The problem with determining primary topic on this is that in their official titles are different one using a "0" (zero) and the other using "O" (The letter). However using them without the years could cause confusion as some people may not be able to see the difference in the "0" versus "O". That's where WP:SMALLDETAILS comes in. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that AjaxSmack's question is an important one for the main article of Hawaii Five-O, although probably not for the others. For the others, the current names constitute an undesirable WP:Partial disambiguation, so I support those moves. My impression is that the 1968 TV series may be a proper primary topic for "Hawaii Five-O", although I think that "Hawaii Five-0" is likely to need disambiguation. @TheDoctorWho: It looks like you recently moved Hawaii Five-0 to Hawaii Five-0 (disambiguation) and then redirected Hawaii Five-0 to Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series). That looks clearly improper to me and against the spirit of the November 2016 RM. Why did you do that? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof: I'm completely sorry that was my mistake I did not see that move request until I filed this one I'll move it back now. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I know it is sometimes hard to think of every possible consideration and previous discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof: Yeah it gets even harder some places when things get archived (I know this one wasn't but it happens sometimes). Like I said though it was my mistake thank you for pointing it out to me. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof: Yes! That one needs to be moved too! Am I able to add it to this move request or do I need to open a second one since this one is already opened? TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I integrated it above. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either support or use "0" on the original series. The stats make the remake more popular than the original. Also, 0 and O are not distinct enough to differentiate both the original and the reboot. --George Ho (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Almost forgot, I originally proposed moving both series simultaneously, but that failed twice. But I guess disambiguating the reboot series first and then the original almost one year later would work strategically. --George Ho (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per the nominator's rationale. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – What's good for the 2010 series is good for the 1968 series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How in detail did the difference between "Hawaii Five-O" and "Hawaii Five-0" arise? Was it a considered policy, or merely by people continuing an old typo? I have many times heard the written digit zero being referred to as "oh" (not only in this series's title). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • My understanding is that nobody really knows. The 1968 series I believe interchangeably used letter "O" and number "0" at the end (or, at least, independent sourcing did....). The 2010 series has consistently used number "0" at the end, as far as I know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:54, 19 October 2017 (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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hawaii Five-O (1968 TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Five-O[edit]

What does mean "Five-O" ? --AXRL (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Book 'em, Danno, Clueless One. Seriously, Hawaii was the fiftieth state to be admitted to the union. I'm pretty sure the article mentions this. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The editor you referred to as "Clueless" is probably clueless because, in fact, no explanation is offered in the article at all. No explanation was present in the version of January 2019 when the above exchange took place.
I came here for the same reason as AXRL, as I have always wondered what the reason was. If you (or anyone) has some WP:RS explaining the name, please add it to the article. The "50th state" explanation isn't really convincing to me. It implies that another series could be created about cops in Juneau called "Alaksa 4-Nine". Or something. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a statement about the source of the show's name, with a reference. "Alaska 4-Nine" sounds like a great name for a show! CodeTalker (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool; thanks. It's still kind of unsatisfying, though, I guess because it doesn't make sense to me. It seems odd that a law enforcement organization would name itself after its state's rank in the union. IYSWIM. Thanks again, CodeTalker. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that Hawaii had become a state only 9 years before the show aired. "The 50th state" was a very common synonym for Hawaii. The meaning of "Five-O" was certainly clear to me at the time. CodeTalker (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh oh?[edit]

The title of this article uses the letter O. Is that correct? The reboot uses a zero.[44] Clarityfiend (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, the original uses the letter O while the reboot uses the numerical 0. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just went to Youtube and looked at the openings for the 2 series. The original uses a thin circle after the 5, the reboot uses a fat circle after the 5. I believe the thin is the number zero and the fat is a capital letter oh, so you've got it backwards. 71.184.87.187 (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original 1968 series uses the letter O. The 2010 reboot uses "zero". Please refer to press release (https://ew.com/article/2010/07/07/hawaii-5-0-press-releas/) iamdumdum (talk) 10:22 AM, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The press release doesn't say which series it's talking about, the original or the reboot. I believe that means it's talking about both. After all, it doesn't say to use the letter O when talking about the original, and the numeral 0 when talking about the reboot. It says use the numeral 0, period.2600:4040:5D38:1600:8D8:B43:FF2E:5BC2 (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes of non-ambiguous titles[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) 03:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wrong date for debut[edit]

TV history is one of my hobbies and it simply amazes me how much of it Wikipedia gets wrong.

In this case, Hawaii 5-0 did not debut on Friday September 20 1968. That was the 2-hour pilot “Cocoon” which aired on the CBS Friday Night Movies. Source is the Boston Globe which said: “ ‘Hawaii Five-O [sic],’ adventure film that inspired the new TV series of the same title, which premieres on CBS Sept. 26.”

And when the first episode “Full Fathom Five” aired on Thursday Sept. 26, TV Guide dutifully labeled it “debut.” Why do you guys insist on changing history? 74.104.189.176 (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on actual police unit?[edit]

I removed the claim from the lead that the show was based on "an actual unit that existed under martial law after World War II". The reference was to the main page of http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com with an access date of 8 Sep 2012. I've checked the Wayback Machine for that site on the nearest captured dates, 6 Sep 2012 and 12 Sep 2012, and I see no reference to the show Hawaii Five-O or to a statewide police force. I've also done some searching for other references to a real life basis for the fictional Hawaii Five-O unit but have found nothing. This needs a real source if it is to be re-added, and if it were to be added, it should be described in the body of the article, not just in the lead. CodeTalker (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hawaii_Five-O_(1968_TV_series)&oldid=1194422611"