Proposed merge[edit]

This is for the discussion of the merge of Hi-5 (Australian TV series) and Hi-5 (Australian band).

  • Agree. The Wiggles is a good example of everthing being on the one page, they are a much more successful and well-known group and all information fits onto one page. The TV show and the band itself are almost one and the same, apart from some occasional touring. Quaidy 23:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. By this stage the pages have been kept separate and this has been successful. There is now enough scope to view the two as different. Discussion now closed. SatDis (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Hi-5-logo.png[edit]

Image:Hi-5-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 04:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hi-5 (Australian TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 22:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So very sorry SatDis. I took this on and then got busy with real life issues. Have not forgotten about it. Thank you for your patience (you had to wait long enough for a review without more delays). AIRcorn (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all Aircorn, I appreciate the attention regardless. Please let me know if you have any questions during the review. SatDis (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I generally do reviews in three parts. The first is related to the criteria and what I feel needs fixing to pass as a good article. The second are general comments I have. Some relate to the criteria while some are area I feel can be improved (and sometimes they are just questions so I understand the topic better). Finally I chose some random and not so random sources to check for accuracy and non-plagiarism. Feel free to question any comment I make here, I am happy to be convinced that you have it right the way it is.

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

To be honest this was a lot better than I expected. For an article about a preschoolers TV show it was interesting and well written.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Few minor issues in the comments section
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Not terrible comfortable with the you tube source, but have no reason to think it is not genuine
    C. It contains no original research:
    Few issues with the source check that need to be cleared up
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Copyvio check tool results[1]. Manually checking those above 10% showed most similarities were due to attributed direct quotes.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Some repetition between sections (especially between the Format and Educational theory sections)
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    One overly promotional sentence identified
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Lot of recent activity, which I am guessing is due to the revival. Note too concerned about this. No current disputes on the talk page
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Only one image. The licensing says that it has been released into the public domain.[2] However I am a little skeptical as logos are not usually released to our standards. It is the uploaders only edit at commons and there is no link to where this license is applied. Either way I think it would fall under fair use for this article, but that would require some rational. Will think on this or seek advice if you can't assur me it is in the public domain
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Some more images would be nice (maybe some cast), but not necessary.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Main issue is with some information not being supported by sources


Comments

Source check

Reply

Aircorn

I am going to assume good faith with the uploader on the image being free. If someone more knowledgeable in this area decides it is not then I think you could use some non-free rational to keep it. Happy with the you tube source now. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using promotional sources as long as we keep it in perspective here. Everything else looks much improved. Going to pass this. AIRcorn (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much Aircorn !! SatDis (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hi-5 (Australian 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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial edits[edit]

Please listen to me do not put it the note de Leon Jones because it's not messy even without note i am the lawyer like Diana Harkusha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseatienza (talk • contribs) 05:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See H:FOOT. "Footnotes are used most commonly to provide explanatory information". The footnote displays this further information for interested readers, while leaving "Series 1–8" in the prose signifies the episodes in which she was a main cast member. SatDis (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Table of columns for the cast, segments and the amounts of series they did[edit]

I've just got a fantastic idea! If that's okay with you, why don't we do a table of columns like on Saturday Disney?! That way, on this article, people who'd go on it will be able to know who did which segment without having to go onto the articles of each series or the member! Thank you! 58.174.1.223 (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The correct protocol for these situations is to list the cast members. It can't be put in a table format, for example, because Charli's direct replacement is Casey, but then the segments swapped and Lauren hosted Charli's segment. To avoid confusion, this is only specified in the season articles. The articles should be encyclopedic as possible, and tables complicate this. SatDis (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But what about the amount of series that they've done? Like when they first appeared and when it's their final series? 2001:8003:A98C:F100:E939:AB4:6CA4:B14A (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That information is already communicated through the list. A table would serve no further purpose - the only reason it works on the page for Saturday Disney is because the date of the hosts' first and last appearances is available. SatDis (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How Hi-5 (the TV series) was concepted[edit]

How about if you put in the original cast/members in that section, like on the article of the band itself of how they've been formed?! 2001:44B8:2FE:C000:9F:FC64:5B22:8419 (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This information is covered in the band page and would just be repeated on the TV series page. The TV page focuses on the conception of the program itself rather than the hosts featured. SatDis (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then how come there's nothing about the original cast that's been consisted?! It's only been said on the article of the very first series, back in 1999, which was 21 years ago! EDIT: Please, someone do this thing! That way, people would know who started it in the first place! THANK YOU! 2001:8003:A98C:F100:FCAB:44C4:60A6:92C6 (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-5 airing on the ABC[edit]

Since when did the show air on the ABC?! They've only appeared on the Nine Network! It was only from 2009 to 2011 when they've had to film the segments over at the ABC Studios! Will you please tell me what exactly is going on?! Thank you! 2001:8003:A909:EA00:69DA:C1BD:C79C:EFE4 (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Released series from 2021[edit]

About the released series that's coming this year, is this a scam or what?! I've been trying to find out about it, but there's nothing! 2001:8003:AC05:FA00:B1C7:40D:C9E9:FF50 (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is vandalism. There is no new series - the edits should be reverted if added. SatDis (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categories