# Talk:Hi-5 (Australian TV series)

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

Oppose. I initiated the split which was requested. The page was far too long and topically, the page would discuss the group and then the television series without any sense of congruence. There are few examples of TV series bands, but another that comes to mind is The Monkees, for which the band and television series are divided here on Wikipedia. I believe to ensure that a topic can be thoroughly covered without trying to cover two distinct topics, we'd be better off keeping the articles separate from one another. --lincalinca 11:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

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)
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.
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: 

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.
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)
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
One overly promotional sentence identified
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
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.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Main issue is with some information not being supported by sources


### Comments
Each episode features each cast member present their own individual segment Ungramatical. Also each is used twice close together, which is not the best prose.
I feel there should be some introductory text for the cast. Even something simple alluding to the leads mention of the cast (i.e. cast of the program, who became a recognised musical group for children outside of the series, known collectively as Hi-5).
I would also consider moving the cast section below production (or putting some dates beside the original and revival series) so that the time frame has some context.
By 2005, a studio audience for the songs of the week filming would typically consist of 200 children, and one episode would cost an estimated AU$50,000 to produce. Found this sentence a little confusing
The thirteenth and final series of the original Hi-5 premiered on 17 October 2011, in which the rich musical history of the program was recognised by reintroducing classic songs of the week to a new generation of fans. A bit promotional
following Nine's ongoing financial difficulties. Ongoing seems to suggest we should know of these difficulties already. Would suggest either a quick mention of the difficulties first or rewording to remove ongoing.
What system are you using to decide to italicise Hi-5? Some are and some aren't.
The cast are presented as older siblings to the children, educating the audience in a fun and entertaining way, through "play based learning", rather than appearing as adults who are teaching them. Repeated in Format and Educational theory
Harris intended for the themes promoted to be accessible so that the series would appeal universally, as she believed children were essentially the same around the world Same with this
Harris and Graeme-Evans based the series around an underlying educational structure, primarily using Howard Gardner's Theory of multiple intelligences. And this. Might need a rethink on organising the Format and Educational theory sections. Personally I think these fit better in the later section.
The program generated debate about what is considered appropriate television for children This is interesting. Can we expand on it?
Critical reception is a bit sparse for such a long running show.
Harris stated that of the group, the music itself has the ability to stand alone, describing them as "a part of Australia's music history." Confusing sentence
Spin of series section is a little repetitive too
a rare category What is meant by this?


### Source check
Hi-5 Singapore Special[3]
Youtube so not a great source. It is over 20 minutes so not keen to watch the whole thing to verify it. It also appears very primary (it looks like an episode) so not sure it would be useful for supporting statements like:
the cast are intended to act as older siblings of viewers, rather than adults teaching children
The name of the series was derived from the high five gesture
The cast are presented as older siblings to the children, educating the audience in a fun and entertaining way, through "play based learning", rather than appearing as adults who are teaching them which is a repetition mentioned above
Dancing is featured, with a focus on movements that increase the integration between the left and right sides of the brain.
If you can give me the time ranges on the video that are used to support this information then I will look at them, otherwise I am not liking this very much
Australian TV history timeline [4]
Supports statements, not plagerised and reliable enough
Channel 9 buys stakes in Hi-5 [5]
Reliable. Supports it first use but could not find where it supports The change of production company saw Harris and Graeme-Evans end their involvement with the franchise, which was placed under the direction of Martin Hersov and Cathy Payne, also Nine and Southern Star executives.
This children’s TV favourite is making a return to screens [6]
Fine
Hi-5 is a unique UK success story[7]
Good
"Hi-5 for edu-music show"[8]
Can't find any mention supporting The program generated debate about what is considered appropriate television for children.


#### Reply
Aircorn

First up, thank you for the praise on the article! As an adult with a passion for a preschool program, it's good to give the show some credit and receive positive feedback!
I have addressed all of your comments in some way, so I hope you will be able to find the changes as you look through the article. Most issues were fixed without any problems (as far as I can tell). Please let me know if any of the changes were not ideal or if I missed something.
Some of my comments:
Italicising Hi-5: When I refer to Hi-5 as a musical group or a brand or franchise, it remains as normal. When I explicitly refer to it as a television program, that's when it appears italicised, as Hi-5. It's a very fine line but I have ensured that every appearance is correct.
I have removed the repeated content in and placed it all where I think it fit best - mostly in the Education section. I have tried to limit the "Format" to a brief summary of the segments in the show, so I hope you will agree with my decision to leave that specific information there.
With the section on the spin-off series - as the information also appears earlier on in the "History" section, I'm considering just removing the "spin-off series" section altogether?
To address both the limited critical reception issue, and the "generated debate" issue, I have added a new paragraph which focuses on the discussion of the show's quality.
have also tried to fix the referencing issues. As for the Youtube clip, it isn't actually an episode of the television series, but rather an externally produced special. It is quite "promotional", but I have identified key time frames and included this in the citation:
High five gesture: 1:30
Dancing: 4:20
I have also replaced one of the uses of the reference with a more suitable citation.
I have added images, but as for the logo image in the infobox, I'm afraid I didn't add it, and I do not have much knowledge about the public domain. From what I can tell, the website it was retrieved from has since been removed. I am not sure about any further details.
Thankyou for the review, I appreciate it! SatDis (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
Thanks very much Aircorn !! SatDis (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

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:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60EWNzyNk?url=http://www.australiantelevision.net/awards/sma2002.html to http://www.australiantelevision.net/awards/sma2002.html
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be disagreement on how to list de Leon Jones on the "Cast" section. The "Cast" section specifies which series the presenters were part of the main cast. de Leon Jones had three guest appearances in Series 9, and this is listed as a note. This is due to the ease of reading; for casual readers to see that she was only part of the main cast for Series 1 to 8. This was approved during the article's Good Article review. The note relays the same information while appearing neater and more accurate. Without the note it looks messy. Please continue discussing if you disagree, rather than immediately changing the article. SatDis (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
Further controversy at this page and especially Hi-5 (series 2) (see discussion there also) revolves around IP addresses adding random airdates to the series - 2, 4 and 5. With Wikipedia, these need to be referenced - all of the other series provide accurate sources detailing the airdates. Please do not copy airdates from the Wikia page - they are unreferenced and unreliable also. If you can provide a reference, then you can add the airdate. SatDis (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
"Series 17" is an informal name and it is referred to on the page as "Series 1" of the revival. There are sources supporting that this is a revived series; and on Stan it is referred to as "Hi-5 (2017) Series 1". It does not make sense to list Series 13, and then Series 17. Readers will need to know what Series 14–16 is, and while we know it as Hi-5 House, technically that is a different show. SatDis (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Listing the specific Series 9 episodes de Leon Jones guest starred in is not essential, as it is already specified on Hi-5 (series 9). Keep the main page as general. SatDis (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Please do not change the awards and nominations section - this relates to WP:ACCESS. There is a violation with those uses of rowspan - screen readers for the visually impaired will not read the text properly with those rowspans in there. Therefore each row needs to be listed separately. In regards to the reworking of the Awards section, please keep as is. The only reason Logies and ARIAs are listed separately is because they are major Australian awards for which Hi-5 had many nominations for. The others can be grouped as "Others" - this saves a significant amount of page bytes. SatDis (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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