Jump to content

Talk:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(345 intermediate revisions by 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{TelevisionWikiProject|class=B|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject CSI}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{ArticleHistory
| action1 = GAN
|action1=GAN
| action1date =2007-09-30
|action1date=30 September 2007
| action1link =Talk:CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation#Good_article_status?
|action1link=Talk:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation#Good article status?
| action1result =Failed
|action1result=Failed
|action1oldid=161407560


| action2 = GAN
|action2=GAN
| action2date = 2008-05-21
|action2date=21 May 2008
| action2link =Talk:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation#Failed "good article" nomination
|action2link=Talk:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation#Failed "good article" nomination
| action2result =Failed
|action2result=Failed
|action2oldid=214062330
| currentstatus =FailedGA
}}
{{FailedGA|21:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)|topic=Arts|page=1}}
{| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk"
{{Todo|nocats=yes}}


|action3=GAN
== Episodic trivia - to be moved into episode articles ==
|action3date=21:06, 30 June 2008
|action3link=Talk:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation/GA1
|action3result=not listed
|action3oldid=222717298


|currentstatus=FGAN
These trivia points have been cut from the article, as they don't belong. I'm sure they ''do'' belong in articles about the individual episodes (when they get created), so recorded here ready for moving over in the future.
}}
*Episode 2.23: '''The Hunger Artist''' - Title (and plot somewhat) taken from a short story by ''[[Franz Kafka]]'' called ''[[A Hunger Artist]]''.
{{afd-merged-from|Andrew Lipsitz|Andrew Lipsitz|03 October 2010|date=November 2010}}
*Episode 3.05: '''Abra Cadaver''' - This episode features a guest appearance by [[Tom Noonan]]. Noonan and series star [[William Petersen]] played villain and hero, respectively, in the film ''[[Manhunter (film)|Manhunter]]''.
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
**Of note is that this particular episode is one of the top contenders for ''CSI'' to attain a possible [[jump the shark]] moment.
{{WikiProject Television|csi=yes|csi-importance=Top |importance=high}}
*Episode 4.19: '''Bad Words''' - One of the two cases in this episode involves the death of a champion [[word game]] player. The word game involved is Logos, a [[Scrabble]]-like game which uses circular tiles and no board. It also involves the word exvins, a plural of exvin, defined by the victim to his opponent (the suspect) as a "wine aficionado who no longer drinks". Both words are correctly regarded as phonies (fake words) as both the American and British Scrabble lexicons (''Official Scrabble <nowiki>Players'</nowiki> Dictionary'' and ''Official Scrabble Words'' respectively) do not list them. Furthermore, Sara said to Gil that the word EXVINS is not even "in the [[Oxford English Dictionary|OED]]."
{{WikiProject United States |importance=low |USTV=yes |USTV-importance=Top}}
*Episode 5.08: '''Ch-Ch-Changes''' - The outlaw doctor who performs "benevolent" ''[[sex reassignment surgery]]'' goes by the name "Dr. Carl Benway." Dr. Benway is the name of "an amoral physician" in much of the writing of [[William S. Burroughs]]. "Ch-Ch-Changes" is a variation on the song "Changes" from the [[David Bowie]] album ''[[Hunky Dory]]''. (The lyrics to "Changes" could be interpreted as Bowie's meditation on physical and emotional metamorphosis in a time of questioning one's true gender.)
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement |importance=Mid}}
** The original showing of this episode closely coincided with [[Transgender Day of Remembrance]]
{{WikiProject Nevada |importance=Low |Las Vegas=yes |Las Vegas-importance=High}}
*Episode 5.24-5.25: '''Grave Danger: Vols. I & II''' - This season finale episode directed by [[Academy Awards|Academy Award]] winner [[Quentin Tarantino]] has a very similar situation to a part of Tarantino's second ''[[Kill Bill]]'' film: CSI Nick Stokes is captured and buried alive in a [[Plexiglas]] coffin while an Internet camera broadcasts the live entombment to CSI headquarters. In ''[[Kill Bill Vol. 2]]'', [[Beatrix Kiddo]] ([[Uma Thurman]]) was also buried alive in a coffin. In addition, Grissom and the Bride say the same phrase, "on any other day, you'd be one hundred percent right. But today, you're one hundred percent wrong" when asked if there were police outside a building and if she was lying about pregnancy, respectively.
}}
**Also, this episode was postponed by Five when it was due to be shown in the [[United Kingdom]] as it featured a [[suicide bomber]]. The episode was planned to be shown on [[12 July]] [[2005]], just days after the [[7 July 2005 London bombings|London Bombings]]. However, the day it was planned to be shown, it was revealed suicide bombers committed the atrocities in London. Five quickly pulled it from schedules and showed it the next week instead.
{{To do|nocats=yes}}
**Tarantino has stated that this episode was heavily inspired by the 1972 made-for-TV movie [[The Longest Night (film)|The Longest Night]] where a woman is kidnapped and buried alive for ransom.


{{Archive box|auto=long}}
==GLAAD Controversy==
{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
I saw no mention of the controversy regarding how CSI portrays LGBT characters. From what I've read on other sites (www.afterellen.com) there were complaints that CSI reinforced negative stereotypes. Personally, I'm a fan of the show and I didn't find it that offensive, but I think this at least deserves mention if organizations like GLAAD were complaining about it. [[User:Mayuko|Mayuko]] 18:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
|maxarchivesize = 100K
:Fair comment. I've added a basic entry regarding this, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=CSI%3A_Crime_Scene_Investigation&diff=78912550&oldid=78760246 diff] --[[User:Oscarthecat|Oscarthecat]] 18:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
|counter = 2

|minthreadsleft = 5
== CSI: Vancouver ==
|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation/Archive %(counter)d
Anyone heard rumors of this? [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] 21:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
}}

{{Broken anchors|links=
I haven't heard of that, but I'll look into it. It's probably just rumors, but it would be cool if it's true. 19:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
* <nowiki>[[List of longest-running American primetime television series#Scripted television series|seventh-longest-running scripted US primetime TV series]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Scripted television series) is no longer available because it was [[Special:Diff/745224923|deleted by a user]] before. <!-- {"title":"Scripted television series","appear":{"revid":551798355,"parentid":551062284,"timestamp":"2013-04-23T14:04:03Z","replaced_anchors":{"Scripted Television Series":"Scripted television series"},"removed_section_titles":["Scripted Television Series"],"added_section_titles":["Scripted television series"]},"disappear":{"revid":745224923,"parentid":745210736,"timestamp":"2016-10-19T23:37:31Z","removed_section_titles":["Scripted television series","12 seasons and up","10–11 seasons"],"added_section_titles":[]}} -->

}}
This was shot down in a December 2006 release of The Halifax Daily News, in Nova Scotia, Canada. There is no desire whatsoever to expand on the spinoffs, whether to Vancouver or not. 17:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I think happened:When William Petersen found out that there was another "CSI:" spinoff(the "Miami" one), he threatened to quit, but then CBS bigshots made him change his mind--for the time being...but when "CSI:NY" came around, WP made the same threats again, but then realized that it was useless, at the same time realizing that co-creators Anthony Zuiker and Ann Donahue were about to suffer from "burnout" over having to produce ALL THREE "CSI's" at once...[[User:Michaela92399|Michaela92399]] 17:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

==Upcoming Characters==
Can anyone find a cite of Freya Adamson as an upcoming character? I've looked but haven't found anything about it or even anything on who Freya Adamson is. Also, I've included [[Liev Schreiber]] on this list and cited a source, however I couldn't find his character's name. If anyone knows it please add it in. --[[User:Cody.pope|Cody.Pope]] 19:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Roger Daltrey? {{unsigned|EntwistleDaltreyMoonTownshend|24 November 2006, 20:35 (UTC)}}

It's Michael Keppler

== International Broadcasters - split? ==

I've added the splitsection tag to this section. It's huge, and showing no signs of shrinking. Over 10k already. Perhaps it should be an entirely seperate article? Thoughts? --[[User:Oscarthecat|Oscarthecat]] 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:Well I was thinking of doing that and setting it out like the Desprate Housewives page which lists International Broadcasters. [[Airdates of Desperate Housewives]] -- [[User:DanDud88|DanDud88]] 15:25, 8 December 2006 (GMT).
::Sounds a good idea. Will let the article concentrate on CSI itself, rather than this broadcast information which is of marginal interest. --[[User:Oscarthecat|Oscarthecat]] 10:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::'''Update''' - now moved. --[[User:Oscarthecat|Oscarthecat]] 16:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

== [[CSI franchise]]? ==
Would anyone be interested in creating a [[CSI franchise]] article, similar to what exists for ''[[The Law & Order franchise]]''. This page would be able to discuss the history of the various CSI series, common themes and critisism, stuff like the CSI effect, etc. [[User:Tntnnbltn|Tntnnbltn]] 18:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:If you'd like to start one off, I'm happy to contribute! --[[User:Oscarthecat|Oscarthecat]] 16:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
::Me too --[[User:Attitude2000|Attitude2000]] 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
:::This makes sense and the Law & Order one seems a good template to work from. How the franchises have crossed and developed, pop culture references and spin-offs ([[:Category:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation computer and video game|computer games]], [[CSI (comic book)|comics]] and novels - there is technically an entry for the novels but I'd suggest: [[CSI (novel)]]). If you gt things moving I'd imagine it would be rapidly fleshed out. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] 03:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC))
::::There iv created it, now u can all flesh it out. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:DanDud88|DanDud88]] ([[User talk:DanDud88|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DanDud88|contribs]]) 20:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:::::DanDud88: you just replied to a topic that was started 4 months ago. I doubt there's still any interest in fleshing out that article. Besides, aside from being about forensics, there really isn't much else in common with the 3 shows. &mdash; [[User:Sandtiger|<span style="color:#0080C0">Sandtiger</span>]] 21:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Well I don't know. I'm still interested in giving it a go as I think there is a lot information that the entry could draw together. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] 23:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC))
:::::::Ok I've looked at the article and I see what you're trying to do. I'm not sure though if "''CSI Franchise''" is the correct title for that article, or if that's even the right place for the content that you wrote.
:::::::* The title sounds vague. Help me out here but I can't imagine anything unique that can be written that actually belongs in article with that title.
:::::::* If it's about the '''Cultural of impact of CSI''' then it should probably go into the [[CSI: Crime Scene Investigation|main article]]. Also there is no such thing as ''Cultural impact of the CSI franchise'' because the franchise '''is''' part of the impact of the original series. In fact Bruckheimer himself said that CSI:Miami and CSI:NY were only created because the original show was so popular that he wanted to beat [[Medical Investigation|CSI-copycats]] to the punch.
:::::::* If it's about similarities between the shows, I really don't see any that would be worth discussing. They're all about forensics, but that's pretty much it.
:::::::* If it's about differences between the shows, those are probably better discussed at either the Miami or NY articles, to explain how those shows are unique from the original show.
:::::::* Now merchandising would be interesting to discuss. I thought it was interesting that aside from the usual [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-9327910-6844100?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=csi&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go books, graphic novels, board games, etc.] that CSI has spawned [http://store.cbs.com/section.php?sid=593&cid=2971 forensics-related "toys"]. But this would really be better in an article called [[List of CSI Merchandise]]
:::::::I appreciate your effort here, I just thought I would point these out so we can work in the same direction. &mdash; [[User:Sandtiger|<span style="color:#0080C0">Sandtiger</span>]] 02:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::This might be better discussed over on the talk page of the entry concerned. To clear things up: By franchise I mean the shows and the spin-offs so it includes what the merchandising aspects as well as things like mentions in pop culture. You can't really discuss cultural impact without taking the whole of the franchise into account and to be honest I added that in passing. When the rest of the entry is padded out it will be a minor part of it but it fits with the fact that the franchise has made such a deep penetration into society hence the need for the franchise to "cash in" on it. If need be we can trim that bit down but at the moment it is a stub and most of it still needs expanding so I'd say we wait and see. As has been said it is the Law & Order franchise entry that we are using as a guide. Good catch on the "toys" front (I hadn't realised there was so much!!) - add it in. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] 02:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC))
:::::::::*shouldn't the "In popular culture" section of the [[CSI franchise]] article be in this article [[CSI: Crime Scene Investigation|main article]] ? i have seen many TV show's articles with this section in the main article (see [[Friends]] ).[[User:Yamanbaiia|Yamanbaiia]] 15:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

== Realism ==
One criticism I seem to remember hearing is that the cases on the show are almost always solved. Does anyone have any statistics for the country or for the cities the show and spinoffs are based on about solved vs. unsolved murders? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 07:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
* Actually, when forensic evidence becomes invovled, there ususally isn't much that can't be solved. Cold cases become re-opened and solved on forensic evidence. It's not possible to find convicting evidence on someone and then have them still claim they didn't commit the crime. However convicting the person and being able to use such evidence is another story, which is not what this show is about.--[[User:Attitude2000|Attitude2000]] 19:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
**Yes, but it's TV, it's only entertainment, it's not real, of course the good guys always win >>ME000<< <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/217.225.105.124|217.225.105.124]] ([[User talk:217.225.105.124|talk]]) 08:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== "Critical Reception" ==

There's a section head called '''Critical reception''' with three paragraphs which don't seem to refer to any critics or reviews. Just viewer response. Suggest renaming to "Viewer response" or some such. [[User:Davidbspalding|David Spalding]]&nbsp;(<big><font color="darkred">[[User talk:Davidbspalding|☎]]&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/Davidbspalding|✉]]&nbsp;[[Special:contributions/davidbspalding|✍]]</font></big>) 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

== Formatting problem ==

The three infoboxes at the start of the article are surrounded by a &lt;div ...&gt;...&lt;/div&gt; to force all three boxes to the right side of the screen. The problem is that this messes up formatting in Firefox (2.0); the text of the article overflows into the actual infoboxes ([http://www.infynity.spodzone.com/temp/csi.png screenshot]). In Opera it just forces the page too wide and I get a bottom scrollbar. I tried tinkering with the HTML in various ways but I wasn't able to fix the problem. I suspect that {{[[:Template:Crime Scene Investigation|Crime Scene Investigation]]}} needs to be tweaked to solve this issue. -- [[User:Heptite|Heptite]] [[User talk:Heptite|<small>(T)</small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Heptite|<small>(C)</small>]] [[Special:Emailuser/Heptite|<small>(@)</small>]] 05:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

== Airdates of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation ==

I have listed [[Airdates of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation]] for AfD. The nomination can be found [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airdates of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation|here]]. Thanks. -- [[User:Wikipedical|Wikipedical]] 20:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

== Did I hear it right? ==

I was watching the CSI episode ''Law of Gravity'' and I thought that I heard the F word muttered by the killer. Did I hear that right?--[[User:Rabbitdude|Rabbitdude]] 06:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Would that be the word 'Fuck'? You can say it you know >>ME000<< <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/217.225.105.124|217.225.105.124]] ([[User talk:217.225.105.124|talk]]) 08:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Boratism? ==

Just watched episode 14/7. Brass uses the term "sexy time" with a smirk on his face. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/212.76.37.154|212.76.37.154]] ([[User talk:212.76.37.154|talk]]) 20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


== Characters and Cast ==

Is it necessary to mention the names of the actors in the beginning of the characters section? The information is already presented, and seems a little redundant to me. --[[User:68.144.228.198|68.144.228.198]] 01:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

== Page needs overhaul ==

For an article about a landmark TV show, I find this page to be underwhelming to say the least. To anyone interested in helping to improve this page:
* [http://members.aol.com/jrd203/csi-news1.htm] - large archive of news articles about CSI
* [http://findarticles.com/p/search?qt=CSI&qf=free&qta=1&tb=art&x=0&y=0&sn=0] - even larger archive of news articles, not all of them are relevant though
* [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000723335] - Some really good articles about the show's origin, style, special effects, etc., basically everything we need to put in an encyclopedia article.
* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4284335.stm] - about the "[[CSI effect]]"
* [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,749437,00.html] - also about the CSI effect
* [http://www.innovision-optics.com/news/news30.shtml] - about the "[[CSI shot]]"
* [http://archive.salon.com/ent/col/mill/2001/02/10/csi/index.html]
* [http://archives.cnn.com/2000/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/21/csi.interview/index.html]
(Feel free to add to this list if you find online sources that can be used for the article)&mdash; [[User:Sandtiger|<span style="color:#0080C0">Sandtiger</span>]] 17:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Minor detail re the above: I would not use the listed BBC article about the CSI effectas source material; as there is a conflict of interest, as rival channel Five shows CSI in the UK. Example of such animosity: British fans of CSI may have watched a Tonight With Trevor Macdonald documentary about the CSI effect on ITV1. In it, forensic shows on BBC1, BBC2, Channel 4 and Five (i.e. all the terrestrial channels except ITV1 *strokes chin with suspicion*) were criticised. QED. [[User:Editus|Editus]] 11:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for your input. Negative criticisms about the show are welcome, and in fact, necessary to create a balanced article. And tt's not just BBC, check out this article from [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0923_040923_csi.html national geographic]. Besides the article also mentions how the show sparked an interest in forensic science, which is also part of the [[CSI effect]].&mdash; [[User:Sandtiger|<span style="color:#0080C0">Sandtiger</span>]] 12:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

== Radiohead music and citation of recoilmag.com ==

No offense, but is the idiot that cited recoilmag.com as their source for the number of times Radiohead songs have played throughout the history of CSI for real? This is a parody website similar to the Onion. I am not disputing that Radiohead has appeared often (I've frequently noticed it), but this is definitely not an appropriate citation. I am rewording the sentence and removing the citation. [[User:24.44.171.195|24.44.171.195]] 23:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User Fogeltje has reverted this change without explanation. I have changed it back. Unless you can confirm that Wikipedia supports citing parody websites, where the information is clearly fabricated, the removal of this citation should stand. [[User:24.44.171.195|24.44.171.195]] 07:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

:The problem seems to be that if an anonymous user removes something without leaving any comment in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] then that raises a red flag and can lead to rapid undoing. Even when you are right, as in this case. Explaining your actions whilst editing can help avoid edit wars, as can dropping a note to the party involved. Hopefully this note should catch the attention of most editors. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] 10:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC))
::I will be more diligent about including proper edit summeries in my edits, though it seems somewhat harsh to blanket-revert anonymous edits without even a cursory review of what was changed, especially since I did add this comment before making my edit. Oh well...live and learn... [[User:24.44.171.195|24.44.171.195]] 14:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

== Inconsistency due to fiction - LV(M)PD ==

There is no "Las Vegas Police Department," yet we see the acronym "LVPD" all the time in CSI. The real name of the local police force in that city is the [[Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department|Las Vegas '''Metropolitan''' Police Department]], which also serves the rest of [[Clark County, Nevada]], and we do see cases outside of Las Vegas proper in CSI. How come we don't see the correct acronym "LVMPD" in the show? Is it because the real LVMPD refused to licence its name to the producers of this show? -- <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"> [[User:Denelson83|Denelson]][[User talk:Denelson83|'''83''']] </span> 23:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That is quite possible, I know in the game [[True Crime: New York City]] the [[NYPD]] didn't want any involvement in the game, so the game creators changed the acronym to PDNY. [[User:LoneGunmen|LoneGunmen]] 18:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

== Good article status? ==

Looking at the [[WP:GA?|Good Article criteria]], I think that ''CSI'' is a justifiable candidate for GA status. Consider the criteria:
#Well written: spelling punctuation and grammar are all correct, complies with Manual of Style
#Accurate and verifiable: the article is well sourced throughout, contains no OR, and has a defined reference section at the end.
#Broad in its coverage: this is fulfilled on both counts:
##Major aspects: addresses premise, style, characters and critical reception without going into unnecessary detail, which is better placed in character or episode articles.
##Stays on topic: it is definitely written in summary style - see point 3.1, above
#Neutrality: checked this for weasel words, bias etc myself. Curiously, considering the criticism ''CSI'' receives from many sources (the law and the [[Parents Television Council|PTC]] among them), there is next to no vandalism or weaselling in this article.
#Stability: not in middle of an edit war (see above), is unlikely to change much at all unless [[Sara Sidle]] dies at the start of season 8.
#Images: limited usage, only to illustrate article topics, no unnecessary character images, short captions, fair use justification, the works.
<br>QED. [[User:Editus Reloaded|Editus Reloaded]] 18:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

:Hi, I'll be doing this review. After a quick look, I see that some references feature nothing but a url. These references need access dates, publisher info, titles, basically anything that can be added to give us a better idea of where the info came from. I'll give it a more thorough look soon. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 22:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

::Oops, I see someone else has signed up for it. Is it all right that I do it, though, since I haven't edited the article before and have no conflict of interest? [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 22:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
:::yes, it's better if you do it since i have added to this article and i won't be completly objective, feel free to delete me as a reviewer.[[User:Yamanbaiia|Yamanbaiia]] 22:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

::::OK, sounds good. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 22:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

===GA review===
On the breadth criteria, I don't think this article is quite there yet. I've looked over several other TV series GAs, such as [[Prison Break]] and [[Smallville (TV series)]], and noticed that they all have a production section, which this article lacks. How and where is this series shot? How was the idea for the show developed? How did they choose their cast members? Why is the series set in Las Vegas? Anyway, the article needs to talk more about this. I'd say that's the biggest problem with it right now.

There are also several citation needed tags which would need to be fixed if it were to become GA. Also, the article kind of stops verifying itself with sources right around the "Soundtrack" section. That's also a bit of a problem. Other than that, the article is pretty well sourced and neutral. I'm going to fail the article for now, since I don't think these issues can be addressed in seven days or less, but feel free to resubmit once the ref and breadth problems have been addressed. Also, if you leave a message at my talk page after addressing, I'll take a look at the article and let you know if there is anything else it may need before another nomination. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] 23:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

:Haven't looked at this article in a while, but I see that it now has a production section and relevant references throughout as requested, so I'm going to re-nominate. [[User:Editus Reloaded|Editus Reloaded]] ([[User talk:Editus Reloaded|talk]]) 16:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

::I added those sections before I knew what "[[WP:RS|reliable source]]" meant. It needs a LOT of clean up before being a GA but hey! since you've already nominated I think it's hammer time (??).--[[User:Yamanbaiia|Yamanbaiia]]<font color="#203"></font><sup>([[User talk:Yamanbaiia|free hugs!]])</sup> 19:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Hmmm, yes. I've found two unverified claims so far, and I'm only on ''Conception and development''. Speaking of which, I shall move ''Style'' (section 3) into ''Production'' as section 1.3, because it seems strange to have Style out on its own. [[User:Editus Reloaded|Editus Reloaded]] ([[User talk:Editus Reloaded|talk]]) 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I've worked my way down to ''Guest Stars'' (most of the reception, criticism and all the other stuff like it is very well written and sourced anyway) and the most obvious gap I can see is referencing when different musicians had their music used for the show. Personally, I would like to get rid of most of that list on the basis that it is just a list, but put my delusions of autocracy on hold for the moment and get a consensus on this. [[User:Editus Reloaded|Editus Reloaded]] ([[User talk:Editus Reloaded|talk]]) 18:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

== Region 4 DVD releases updates ==

Pardon me if I'm wrong but I've looked everywhere on the net and I haven't found a single verified news about the 7th season DVD release of CSI on the 20 of November 2007 in Australia. [[User:Ephie-sama|Ephie-sama]] 14:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

== Louise Lombard/Sofia Curtis ==

I added Louise Lombard/Sofia Curtis back to the main characters list. She was deleted by an anon IP stating she was not on the show anymore. I don't believe this is an appropriate reason to delete someone from the main characters section, especially considering the articles for the other two shows keep information about characters who are no longer on the show in the article ([[Kim Delaney]], [[Rory Cochrane]], and [[Sofia Curtis]] in [[CSI: Miami]] and [[Vanessa Ferlito]] in [[CSI: NY]]). -- [[User:Redfarmer|Redfarmer]] 12:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
:She no longer appears in the introduction of the show, with the main charaters, that's why she was deleted. If we start mentioning every other character that doesn't appear in the intro but does appear on every episode ([[Archie Johnson]], [[Wendy Simms]], [[David Phillips (CSI)]], [[Mandy Webster]]) the list would be too long. I want to delete Sofia from the list again.[[User:Yamanbaiia|Yamanbaiia]] 13:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
:::But those people were never main characters in the opening credits. As I pointed out, the other articles for the spin offs maintain a list of all characters who have appeared in the opening credits, even if they're not on the show anymore. Not being on the show anymore does not equal never being on the show. If Grissom quit would you want his name completely removed from the page?

:::Besides, they haven't officially written her out of the series yet and she was in the season premeire. Her character is really up in the air right now. -- [[User:Redfarmer|Redfarmer]] 14:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
::Perhaps split the list for active characters and those no longer in the show - if a main character leaves they still count as a main character. ([[User:Emperor|Emperor]] 14:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
:::That's what the other two articles have done, and rather successfully I might add. I was kind of thinking that myself but just didn't get around to it yet. -- [[User:Redfarmer|Redfarmer]] 14:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
::::How about using the [[Smallville (TV series)|Smallville]] character section as model?(Original cast+Additional Cast) In the "Additional Cast" part Sofia and the others. Maybe a "Notable guest stars" part as well? The others CSI's have a very complicated way of listing it's characters, and are not good articles.[[User:Yamanbaiia|Yamanbaiia]] 14:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::We don't need to list anyone else other than Sofia on the main page; the [[Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation]] and [[List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters]] articles are adequate to list them as they were never in the opening credits. Sofia was in the opening credits for a year. I think the only reason this is an issue at all is because this is the first time a character has been in the opening credits of CSI and subsequently left the show. The other two shows have had to deal with numerous cast changes. -- [[User:Redfarmer|Redfarmer]] 14:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::She hasn't left the show. If you don't think any other characters should be in the main article then a "Past/Former main characters" section would do[[User:Yamanbaiia|Yamanbaiia]] 15:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Or, perhaps, changing "Past" to "Recurring", and including them. Though, Redfarmer brings up a point. The respective character pages seem to be enough space to list them, and there's no reason to clog them up here. [[User:Cougar Draven|Cougar Draven]] 01:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I'd be very against including recurring characters on the main page if they haven't been in the credits. Yamanbaiia is right that the other two CSI shows' pages need to be cleaned up and this may be one of the first things that needs to be done: remove recurring characters from them as they look messy. -- [[User:Redfarmer|Redfarmer]] 19:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I guess this problem isn't a problem anymore, as Louise Lombard was added back to the main credits. Does anyone know what's up with this opening credits mess they've created? First Wallace is added to credits, Louise is billed as Special Guest Star, and now she's back on the opening credits, and Wallace is gone? He got like.. two episodes? Or have they started putting Louise/Wallace in the opening credits only for episodes they appear in? Anyone know? [[User:Daniel Berglund|Daniel Berglund]] 22:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I didn't notice on Thursday; bad reception. However, I'd bet that you're right. See [[List of The X-Files episodes#Season 9: 2001-2002|X-Files Season 9]], specifically 9x03, for reference, re: Mitch Pileggi. [[User:Cougar Draven|Cougar Draven]] 06:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::hahaha....I think that the problem now is...why is Hodges listed as a main character when he isn't. Maybe next episode Hodges will be included again. We'll see.[[User:Yamanbaiia|Yamanbaiia]] 10:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Screw the indentation. And Hodges is, technically, a main character, as is/was Sofia Curtis. If the correlation between their presence in an episode and their presence in the main credits continues, I'll assume a causal relationship, and recommend that they both remain in the Main Characters section. [[User:Cougar Draven|Cougar Draven]] 10:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
::Yeah sure, "technically" (because of time on screen, salary, fandom, whatever), but not factually. CBS is saying Hodges is not a main character, why should Wikipedia say otherwise?[[User:Yamanbaiia|Yamanbaiia]] 17:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
:CBS is saying Hodges isn't a main character ''on that episode'', not overall. I say we wait, if necessary, several weeks, to see if a trend emerges. Besides, this has been a long time coming. It was rumored [http://www.csifiles.com/news/110205_01.shtml|over two years ago], and [http://www.csifiles.com/news/180605_02.shtml|then confirmed] a few months later. [[User:Cougar Draven|Cougar Draven]] 17:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
::What with Langham's presence in both the credits and the show, I'm going to support keeping Louise Lombard in the list, and suggest that Langham be added. [[User:Cougar Draven|Cougar Draven]] 02:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
:::When Jorja Fox leaves the show she should be in a different section of main characters ( with LL ) maybe something like "Past main characters". I still think that someone that's ''not'' a main character should not be listed exactly as the other ones, it's confusing, and we are still going to need the section for when Jorja Fox leaves. Or she too is going to be listed as a regular main character indefinetely? -[[User:Yamanbaiia|Yamanbaiia]] 09:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
::::We don't know how Jorja Fox will be leaving yet. As far as we know, she could just leave, as per Aiden Burn, or she could die, as per Burn c. CSI: NY 2x23, or Tim Speedle CSI: Miami 3x01 (I'm really burned about how they handled Rory Cochrane's return, by the way, but that's a different argument). If she leaves alive, then yes, a "past main characters" section, containing her should be added. If, however, she dies, then it should read "former characters". Besides, from what I've seen, both LL and WL are still main characters. [[User:Cougar Draven|Cougar Draven]] 21:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
:As for Sofia, I'm all for putting her in a past characters section again as it seems evident now the producers don't intend her to be a main character anymore. This is probably the same section Sara should go in once she leaves the show. -- [[User:Redfarmer|Redfarmer]] 23:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

== Ronnie Lake ==

I removed a section added by an annonymous ip to the character section regarding Ronnie Lake. I'm dead set against posting anything regarding a replacement for Sara until CBS or the producers actually announce a decision. Speculation will only make the article look silly in the end. Remember when everyone thought [[Rosie O'Donnell]] would be host of [[The Price is Right]]? -- [[User:Redfarmer|Redfarmer]] 23:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
:Everything I've seen, all rumored of course, has pointed towards Ronnie Lake being a four-episode character. I doubt they'll make her full-time. Though I did like the subtle mention of Miami and NY in her first ep. [[User:Cougar Draven|Cougar Draven]] 06:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)\

:: It has been confirmed that Ronnie Lake will not be replacing Sara Sidle in the cast. The female CSI lead will probably be filled by DNA tech Wendy Simms. In the Season Eight episode "You Kill Me", Simms states that she is strongly considering taking her field test. It seems that CBS is trying to reuse a plot line (Greg Sanders leaving the lab, becoming a CSI.. ect. ect) but I sort of like the idea. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.186.118.158|67.186.118.158]] ([[User talk:67.186.118.158|talk]]) 22:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Far out ==
Who keeps on changing the episode count to 170? I have to keep reverting it to 171 and I might get blocked because of the three-revert rule. Whoever is reverting it to 170, please stop. Far out!--[[User:RoryReloaded|RoryReloaded]] 09:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

== GA problems (Style section) ==

I think the article has improved since the last GA review, but i can't renominate because of the {{Tl|Fact}} tags in the "Style" section . The rest of the article is referenced and well written, and the only stability problem we've got is the whole Louise Lombard is/is not a main character. When googling about CSI's style, i only found other sites that have copy-pasted this article (HA!). I don't want to remove it so does anyone have '''anything''' about CSI's style? any source for the "CSI shot" or the avant-garde stuff?? -[[User:Yamanbaiia|Yamanbaiia]] 16:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
:DVD bonus feature on the Region 2 release of CSI The Complete Season 3. I added this reference God knows how long ago. [[User:Editus Reloaded|Editus Reloaded]] ([[User talk:Editus Reloaded|talk]]) 10:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

== Jorja Fox/Sara ==

Chatter on TV.com suggests that Jorja Fox's abscense on CSI is only temporary, that she will be back "sooner than you think." Does anyone have a source to confirm or deny this? I know TV.com isn't the most reliable source in the world, but if the chatter is right, it may affect how Sara is classified on the main page. -- [[User:Redfarmer|Redfarmer]] ([[User talk:Redfarmer|talk]]) 13:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
:[http://tv.popcrunch.com/jorja-fox-on-the-view/ Here] you have Jorja saying that she believes that Sara will be back, and [http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Exclusive-Csi-Boss/800024964 here] you have [[Carol Mendelsohn]] saying that she too believes that Sara will be back; probably as a guest star, neither of them says that she'll be back as a main character, so i would leave her in that new section. -[[User:Yamanbaiia|Yamanbaiia]] ([[User talk:Yamanbaiia|talk]]) 14:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
:Well I'm really hacked off with the Sara [[Spoiler (media)|spoiler]], being only on episode 801 here in the UK. I managed to skip that section pretty quick so I don't know the details thankfully. I suggest you add a spoiler warning at the top of the article. [[Special:Contributions/86.53.51.180|86.53.51.180]] ([[User talk:86.53.51.180|talk]]) 22:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::Anyone visiting a page like this should expect spoilers. See [[WP:SPOILER]]. --[[User:Fogeltje|Fogeltje]] ([[User talk:Fogeltje|talk]]) 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Until She's brought back don't doing any confuse pls <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/124.120.234.80|124.120.234.80]] ([[User talk:124.120.234.80|talk]]) 15:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== CSI: Chicago ==
I found much talk of this a few months ago, right after the CSI:The Experiance came out at the Museum of Science and Industry (The exhibit was loads of fun, if any one is planning on seeing it.) Many people were saying that this is going to lead to a CSI:Chicago. Considering the fact the Chicago is the 4th busiest crime lab in the U.S, it seems pretty plausible. Many rumors of Emmy Rosum, from [[ The Day After Tommorow]] playing a [[ Catherine Willows ]] esque charecter were popping up as well. I'm trying to look into it but all I can find are gossip sites and those are hardly citable sources. Any one have information on it? [[User:Broadway4life155|Broadway4life155]] ([[User talk:Broadway4life155|talk]]) 18:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but keep in mind that the producers of the CSIs also put down a rumor about CSI: London a year or two ago saying three is enough. Also they tried a fourth [[Law and Order]] and that tanked too. [[User:LoneGunmen|LoneGunmen]] ([[User talk:LoneGunmen|talk]]) 01:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

== Grissom's Middle Name ==

Cast/Character section gives Grissom's middle name as Arthur. To quote the character, "Cite your source". I don't recall Grissom being given a middle name at any point.

[[Special:Contributions/82.42.83.17|82.42.83.17]] ([[User talk:82.42.83.17|talk]]) 21:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


== [[$35K O.B.O.]] ==
== Immortality ==
On-screen credits ([https://jorjafox.net/gallery/cache/tv/csi/season16/immortality-1/immortality_095_595.jpg], [https://jorjafox.net/gallery/cache/tv/csi/season16/immortality-1/immortality_096_595.jpg]) clearly identify Parts I and II as separate entities. After going out of my way to overhaul the infoboxes on all CSI character pages, another user decided to accuse me of disruptive editing for listing final appearances as "Immortality Part II". I wanted opinions on this, because we count Grave Danger as two parts, despite it being broadcast in one block. The episodes had two production codes, two scripts, and were clearly identified as two episodes on screen - why can't we refer to them as "Immortality Part 1" and "Immortality Part 2"? --[[User:Unframboise|Unframboise]] ([[User talk:Unframboise|talk]]) 02:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
: That's actually a tough one, as it probably depends in both cases. The on screen credits would be a [[WP:PRIMARY]] source - therefore if [[WP:SECONDARY]] sources as to how the episode/s are referred would potentially override the onscreen credits. There is also the possibly it isn't the same for both, like it could be that sources refer to Grave Danger as two episodes and Immortality as one episode. [[User:Dresken|Dresken]] ([[User talk:Dresken|talk]]) 02:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
:: Grave Danger was produced and broadcast as a two-parter. Immortality was announced, produced, publicized, and broadcast as a two hour film, and recently reran as a two-hour film. Everyone else is perfectly comfortable with that. This is one editor who is trying to treat it in a way it has never been broadcast by interpreting the production codes. The Part 1 and Part 2 designations were used onscreen to identify production crew in what might have been two production blocks. We've been around and around about this whenever he attempts to treat Immortality as other than a two-hour film, but he continues to push a disruptive agenda. --[[User:Drmargi|Drmargi]] ([[User talk:Drmargi|talk]]) 02:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
::: I can also link to several secondary sources, including TV Guide [http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/csi-crime-scene-investigation/episode-1-season-16/immortality-part-i/100100/], Amazon streaming [http://www.amazon.com/CSI-Crime-Scene-Investigation-Episodes/dp/B015V2D8G4], TV.com [http://www.tv.com/shows/csi-crime-scene-investigation/immortality-part-i-3250714/], Rotten Tomatoes [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/csi-crime-scene-investigation/s16/e01/], and iTunes [https://itunes.apple.com/us/tv-season/csi-crime-scene-investigation/id1042156310]. Amazon, iTunes and Rotten Tomatoes are what I would consider incredibly trustworthy in identifying episodes. I don't have a disruptive agenda - if I did I wouldn't be spending my time working to improve these pages. Discuss the issue, not the editor. --[[User:Unframboise|Unframboise]] ([[User talk:Unframboise|talk]]) 03:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
::::I haven't watched a single episode of this series so I can't comment directly, but we normally give on-screen credits more, ummm, credit than press releases and online TV guides. The on-screen credits are in the actual final product, so they have authority. When did these credits appear? Was it at the beginning of the program or in the end credits? Did Immortality air as a single program with one set of credits, or back to back with two sets of credits? All of these affect how we treat the program. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:#008751;">Aussie</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 12:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: As I said above, it was promoted, was broadcast, and was rerun as a two-hour movie with one set of credits under the title Immortality. --[[User:Drmargi|Drmargi]] ([[User talk:Drmargi|talk]]) 13:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::: [[User:AussieLegend|Aussie]], it was promoted and broadcast as the "finale", yes, but the on-screen credits (appearing at the beginning) list "Director (finale, part 1)", "Editor (finale, part 1)", etc.; Similarly, Anthony E. Zuiker and Marg Helgenberger tweeted images of scripts (Immortality Part I and Immortality Part II having separate scripts), and the production codes are different also (Part 1 is 1601, and Part 2 is 1602). It was aired and rerun in a 90 minute block, but so was Grave Danger - it took a long time for that to be rerun in separate parts, if I recall. Rotten Tomatoes, TV Guide and streaming services treat them as separate episodes, too. And, here's the kicker - so do CBS's press releases, for both original broadcast [http://www.thefutoncritic.com/listings/20150825cbs09/], and rerun [http://www.thefutoncritic.com/listings/20151203cbs01/]. Press releases also confirm the guest cast were hired episodically (i.e. for either Part 1 or Part 2, not "Immortality" as a whole). --[[User:Unframboise|Unframboise]] ([[User talk:Unframboise|talk]]) 14:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
{{od|:::::::}} Incorrect. It was broadcast as a two-hour movie, not vin a 90 minute block. You can't cobble together bits and pieces, interpret them, and make it other than what it was. Grave Danger was broadcast as a two-parter, and is not analogous. --[[User:Drmargi|Drmargi]] ([[User talk:Drmargi|talk]]) 14:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
: Actually, press releases ([http://www.thefutoncritic.com/listings/20150825cbs09/] & [http://www.thefutoncritic.com/listings/20151203cbs01/]) state it was broadcast in a 90 minute block. I'm sat here with press releases, on screen credits, scripts, actor tweets, and a plethora of secondary sources that suggest it was two parts - so I'll let them do the talking for me. --[[User:Unframboise|Unframboise]] ([[User talk:Unframboise|talk]]) 14:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Looking at [http://www.thefutoncritic.com/listings/20150825cbs09/ this] I see "ON THE SPECIAL TWO-HOUR SERIES FINALE". Where is a 90 minute block mentioned in that or the [http://www.thefutoncritic.com/listings/20151203cbs01/ other link]? --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:#008751;">Aussie</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 14:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
{{ec}} ::: Which simply renders your sources unreliable. It was broadcast as a TWO HOUR MOVIE from 9:00 - 11:00 pm on Sunday, September 27, 2015. I'm in the United States. I watched it, as did the critic for the Los Angeles Times: [http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-csi-finale-immortality-ratings-nielsen-20150928-story.html]. I think we might know better than someone with no access to original CBS broadcasts. --[[User:Drmargi|Drmargi]] ([[User talk:Drmargi|talk]]) 14:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
:: But, while I'm here, Hulu lists 337 total episodes, with Immortality Parts 1 and 2 as separate entities ([http://www.hulu.com/csi-crime-scene-investigation]), Deadline states CSI aired 337 episodes ([http://deadline.com/2015/09/eric-szmanda-to-abrams-artists-agency-as-csi-ends-1201543983/]), as do Digital Spy ([http://www.people.com/article/csi-series-finale-cast-members-talk-justin-bieber-taylor-swift]), and Hollywood Reporter ([http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rep-sheet-roundup-csi-star-827425]). --[[User:Unframboise|Unframboise]] ([[User talk:Unframboise|talk]]) 14:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I'd be wary of specific episode counts. More than once we've found that episode counts for TV series don't actually match what has aired - It happens all the time with Disney stuff. I'm not saying that's what has happened here, just saying, "beware". --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:#008751;">Aussie</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 14:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: I'm sorry, Drmargi, but you can't render all streaming services, critics, reviews, tweets by the actors, and press releases unreliable because I don't live in America. And after last nights incident I think you should slow down with the nationalism. [[User:AussieLegend|Aussie]], the fact the press release specifically lists them as Part I and Part II suggests that they are two separate episodes. Not to keep throwing ''Grave Danger'' around, but its the only comparable episode I can think of, and press releases for that are worded as "TWO HOUR FINALE" also. It's still widely accepted as being two episodes ([http://www.thefutoncritic.com/listings/20050425cbs06/]). I don't see why this is being debated, I Rotten Tomatoes, actors, press releases and streaming services should be adequate evidence, versus the "It was broadcast twice as a movie" sentiment of the other side --[[User:Unframboise|Unframboise]] ([[User talk:Unframboise|talk]]) 14:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
::::: You can't make a TV movie, as noted by the LA Times into something you want it to be, no matter what you throw around. That you didn't see the original broadcast simply draws your judgment into question. You can line up after-the-fact broadcast sources from here to Timbuktu, but it doesn't alter the fact that CBS promoted, broadcast, and reran Immortality as one two-hour movie, as clearly stated by the pre-eminent newspaper from the city where it was produced in the country where it was broadcast. --[[User:Drmargi|Drmargi]] ([[User talk:Drmargi|talk]]) 15:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::: An LA times reviewer now takes precedent over the episode writer and series creator, CBS press, streaming services, a plethora of reviews, the lead actress, and a precedent set by ''Grave Danger''? This sounds completely fair and reasonable. Why did I ever doubt you? --[[User:Unframboise|Unframboise]] ([[User talk:Unframboise|talk]]) 15:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::: Also, the fact you wouldn't listen even if I lined up "sources to Timbuktu" suggests that you're being completely unreasonable in this discussion. Many of my sources were released before the episodes even aired. --[[User:Unframboise|Unframboise]] ([[User talk:Unframboise|talk]]) 15:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::::: Potentially it is even more nuanced than I first suggested. In the [[Tenth Doctor]] article (and others) states overall title for his two part finale when referring to final episode etc - however it is definitely broadcast, released on media, advertised and referred generally as two episodes. I was trying to find other examples - but I can't remember any other two parters airing back to back offhand. [[User:Dresken|Dresken]] ([[User talk:Dresken|talk]]) 06:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
Someone needs to set up an article for the Season 1 episode ''"[[$35K O.B.O.]]"''. It is the only CSI episode article that just redirects to the episode list in the season's article. --[[User:Ifrit|Ifrit]] ([[User talk:Ifrit|talk]]) 10:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
== Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series ==


I have just modified {{plural:8|one external link|8 external links}} on [[CSI: Crime Scene Investigation]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=748576514 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
I am writing [[User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers|an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality]] as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the [[User talk:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers|talk page]] would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - [[User:Lady Aleena|LA]] @ 16:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609011639/http://www.parentstv.org:80/PTC/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2002/main.asp to http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2002/main.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071202100512/http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2007/WAYCW2007.pdf to http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2007/WAYCW2007.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613060721/http://www.parentstv.org:80/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2006/main.asp to http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2006/main.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/action/CSI/content.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sptimes.com/2007/10/16/Tv/_CSI__fan_says_losing.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141011060406/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=053106_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=053106_05
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413172935/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052808_06 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052808_06
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619131409/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/06/16/final-2009-10-broadcast-primetime-show-average-viewership/54336 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/06/16/final-2009-10-broadcast-primetime-show-average-viewership/54336


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
== Gary Dourdan / Warrick Brown ==


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
Look, GD hasn't left the show yet; he's still contracted through all of season eight. I reverted the changes that put him as a "former cast member," because the last episode of Season 8 is still two and half weeks away in the US. He should stay as a regular until then... and it's a pretty big spoiler, as well - so all references to him leaving were removed. [[User:Aatrek|Aatrek]] ([[User talk:Aatrek|talk]]) 18:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
:Spoilers are no reason not to include information, anyone reading a page like this should expect spoilers. Since the information is well sourced, it has been re-added.--[[User:Fogeltje|Fogeltje]] ([[User talk:Fogeltje|talk]]) 10:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 23:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Warrick's condition is left ambiguous at the end of the season 8 finale. Yes, I'm personally sure he's dead, but this was not definitive at the end of the episode, and there was nothing in the Boston Herald article to indicate that he was murdered. Since his status is unknown, I have removed and rewritten the sections stating him as definitively being dead. [[Special:Contributions/72.184.120.177|72.184.120.177]] ([[User talk:72.184.120.177|talk]]) 02:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Until an episode without him as a regular airs he's not a past character. A miracle could happen, or it could all be part of an evil marketing plan by CBS. Hold your horses, september is not that far.--[[User:Yamanbaiia|Yamanbaiia]]<font color="#203"></font><sup>([[User talk:Yamanbaiia|free hugs!]])</sup> 13:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
In the article [[CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation_(season_9)]] the impression is given that Warrick is indeed dead - the word "grieve" is used for one. However, the article doesn't state any references so I'd be intrigued to know where this info came from. Nonetheless this is at least some cause for noting that the character is dead. The reason Gary is contracted for season 8 will be that he is needed for corpse-shots, the funeral scene (which is to be expected) and flashbacks etc in further episodes. [[Special:Contributions/86.14.89.251|86.14.89.251]] ([[User talk:86.14.89.251|talk]]) 21:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
==helping criminals==
this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7100495.stm mentions that there have been complaints that CSI teaches criminals to remove evidence of crime. [[User:Rds865|Rds865]] ([[User talk:Rds865|talk]]) 21:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
:There is already an article about this phenomenon: [[CSI Effect]]. <font color="#FF0000">[[User:Haza-w|'''haz''']]</font> <font size="1">([[User_talk:Haza-w|talk]])</font> 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


I have just modified {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on [[CSI: Crime Scene Investigation]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=749091574 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
== Bryce Adams ==
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120527194146/http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2004/main.asp to http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2004/main.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070523142544/http://www.parentstv.org:80/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2005/main.asp to http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2005/main.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070503021051/http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/fcc/Complaints.asp to http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/fcc/Complaints.asp
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2007/10/csis-launch-sav.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
Two point as to why Bryce Adams should not be in main characters:


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
#She is not a main character on the basis that she is not a character in the show yet, in the same way that Elvis cannot be considered the greatest living musician today
#Miajmw has not bothered to read her own source; it expressly states that Katee Sackhoff, who Miajmw contends to have been cast in the role of Bryce, was in fact turned down for the role by CBS and Jerry Bruckheimer.


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 09:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Let us put this speculation to rest for now, at least until someone comes up with a source that opposes this view. [[User:Editus Reloaded|Editus Reloaded]] ([[User talk:Editus Reloaded|talk]]) 16:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=CSI%3A_Crime_Scene_Investigation&diff=213011834&oldid=213007209 removed] the entries for Bryce Adams and Ray Sanataro from the infobox, seeing as they haven't been cast yet. <font color="#FF0000">[[User:Haza-w|'''haz''']]</font> <font size="1">([[User_talk:Haza-w|talk]])</font> 09:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
== New cast member ==


I have just modified 9 external links on [[CSI: Crime Scene Investigation]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=792795267 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
I read in today's [[Toronto Sun]] that [[Lauren Lee Smith]] will be joining the cast of CSI next season. --[[User:Dubhagan|<font color="Black">'''James'''</font>]] [[User talk:Dubhagan|<font color="Green">'''Duggan'''</font>]] 21:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2002/main.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2005/main.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2006/main.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2007/10/csis-launch-sav.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071002153806/http://www.law.asu.edu/Jurimetrics/ to http://www.law.asu.edu/jurimetrics
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719195320/http://law2.fordham.edu/publications/articles/200flspub5906.pdf to http://law2.fordham.edu/publications/articles/200flspub5906.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120421023509/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=060105_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=060105_05
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140703074558/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=053007_08 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=053007_08
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140702203432/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=060209_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=060209_05


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Talk||{{error:not substituted|QF-tags}}<div style="display:none;">}}
==Failed "good article" nomination==
Upon its review on May 21, 2008, this good article nomination was [[Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#How_to_review_an_article|quick-failed]] because it:


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
<blockquote>'''contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{tl|cleanup}}, {{tl|expand}}, {{tl|wikify}}, {{tl|NPOV}}, {{tl|unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{tl|fact}}, {{tl|clarifyme}}, {{tl|huh}}, or similar tags'''</blockquote>


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 18:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thus making it ''ineligible'' for good article consideration.


== External links modified ==
This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the [[WP:WIAGA|good article criteria]]. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|resubmit]] it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it [[WP:GAR|reassessed]]. Thank you for your work so far.<!-- Template:QF-tags--> [[User:Red Phoenix|<font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix</font>]] [[User talk:Red Phoenix|<sup><font color="#FFA500">flame of life...</font></sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Red Phoenix|<sup><font color="#FFFF00">protector of all...</font></sup>]] 12:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:Renominated after removing details which are still unsourced, in accordance with Red Phoenix's view that two is a "large number" of {{tl|fact}} tags. [[User:Editus Reloaded|Editus Reloaded]] ([[User talk:Editus Reloaded|talk]]) 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::Any fact tags should disqualify an article from GA nomination. In fact, any warning banner at all should disqualify an article from GA nominations. [[User:Red Phoenix|<font color="#FF0000">Red Phoenix</font>]] [[User talk:Red Phoenix|<sup><font color="#FFA500">flame of life...</font></sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Red Phoenix|<sup><font color="#FFFF00">protector of all...</font></sup>]] 19:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
== Cast images ==


I have just modified 3 external links on [[CSI: Crime Scene Investigation]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/814557418|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
I've replaced both [[:Image:CSI-season1-promo.jpg]] and [[:Image:CSI-season 6-promo.jpg]] with [[:Image:CSI season 1 cast.jpg]]. The quality of [[:Image:CSI-season1-promo.jpg]] is too crap to make anyone out and doesn't include everyone. [[:Image:CSI-season 6-promo.jpg]] is a lot harder to justify as fair use for identifying the character as the actors aren't in costume or on set--the article might just as well have free images of the actors. Additionally, two images of the cast is one too many. One is sufficient (see other character sections in articles such as [[Lost (TV series)]] and [[Smallville (TV series)]] that just use the one image) [[User:Bradley0110|Bradley0110]] ([[User talk:Bradley0110|talk]]) 13:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520034821/http://www.televisionheaven.co.uk/csi.htm to http://www.televisionheaven.co.uk/csi.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717115537/http://www.tvfestival.com/content/2010-Awards-listing/2010_awards_listingUK.php to http://www.tvfestival.com/content/2010-Awards-listing/2010_awards_listingUK.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213021446/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/26/we-look-back-at-the-top-tv-shows-of-2002/3513/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/26/we-look-back-at-the-top-tv-shows-of-2002/3513/


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
{{Talk:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation/GA1}}


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
== Need more references ==


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 14:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I added the refimprove template because this article is beginning to seem like a hotbed of speculation. The biggest problem I have right now is there is no reference from a verifiable source suggesting that [[David Berman (actor)|David Berman]] and [[Liz Vassey]] are going to be added to the opening credits next season. Such a reference needs to be found or else this information needs to be deleted. [[User:Redfarmer|Redfarmer]] ([[User talk:Redfarmer|talk]]) 15:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:57, 17 July 2024

Former good article nomineeCSI: Crime Scene Investigation was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 30, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
May 21, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
June 30, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Immortality

[edit]

On-screen credits ([3], [4]) clearly identify Parts I and II as separate entities. After going out of my way to overhaul the infoboxes on all CSI character pages, another user decided to accuse me of disruptive editing for listing final appearances as "Immortality Part II". I wanted opinions on this, because we count Grave Danger as two parts, despite it being broadcast in one block. The episodes had two production codes, two scripts, and were clearly identified as two episodes on screen - why can't we refer to them as "Immortality Part 1" and "Immortality Part 2"? --Unframboise (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a tough one, as it probably depends in both cases. The on screen credits would be a WP:PRIMARY source - therefore if WP:SECONDARY sources as to how the episode/s are referred would potentially override the onscreen credits. There is also the possibly it isn't the same for both, like it could be that sources refer to Grave Danger as two episodes and Immortality as one episode. Dresken (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Grave Danger was produced and broadcast as a two-parter. Immortality was announced, produced, publicized, and broadcast as a two hour film, and recently reran as a two-hour film. Everyone else is perfectly comfortable with that. This is one editor who is trying to treat it in a way it has never been broadcast by interpreting the production codes. The Part 1 and Part 2 designations were used onscreen to identify production crew in what might have been two production blocks. We've been around and around about this whenever he attempts to treat Immortality as other than a two-hour film, but he continues to push a disruptive agenda. --Drmargi (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can also link to several secondary sources, including TV Guide [5], Amazon streaming [6], TV.com [7], Rotten Tomatoes [8], and iTunes [9]. Amazon, iTunes and Rotten Tomatoes are what I would consider incredibly trustworthy in identifying episodes. I don't have a disruptive agenda - if I did I wouldn't be spending my time working to improve these pages. Discuss the issue, not the editor. --Unframboise (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't watched a single episode of this series so I can't comment directly, but we normally give on-screen credits more, ummm, credit than press releases and online TV guides. The on-screen credits are in the actual final product, so they have authority. When did these credits appear? Was it at the beginning of the program or in the end credits? Did Immortality air as a single program with one set of credits, or back to back with two sets of credits? All of these affect how we treat the program. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, it was promoted, was broadcast, and was rerun as a two-hour movie with one set of credits under the title Immortality. --Drmargi (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aussie, it was promoted and broadcast as the "finale", yes, but the on-screen credits (appearing at the beginning) list "Director (finale, part 1)", "Editor (finale, part 1)", etc.; Similarly, Anthony E. Zuiker and Marg Helgenberger tweeted images of scripts (Immortality Part I and Immortality Part II having separate scripts), and the production codes are different also (Part 1 is 1601, and Part 2 is 1602). It was aired and rerun in a 90 minute block, but so was Grave Danger - it took a long time for that to be rerun in separate parts, if I recall. Rotten Tomatoes, TV Guide and streaming services treat them as separate episodes, too. And, here's the kicker - so do CBS's press releases, for both original broadcast [10], and rerun [11]. Press releases also confirm the guest cast were hired episodically (i.e. for either Part 1 or Part 2, not "Immortality" as a whole). --Unframboise (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. It was broadcast as a two-hour movie, not vin a 90 minute block. You can't cobble together bits and pieces, interpret them, and make it other than what it was. Grave Danger was broadcast as a two-parter, and is not analogous. --Drmargi (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, press releases ([12] & [13]) state it was broadcast in a 90 minute block. I'm sat here with press releases, on screen credits, scripts, actor tweets, and a plethora of secondary sources that suggest it was two parts - so I'll let them do the talking for me. --Unframboise (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this I see "ON THE SPECIAL TWO-HOUR SERIES FINALE". Where is a 90 minute block mentioned in that or the other link? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ::: Which simply renders your sources unreliable. It was broadcast as a TWO HOUR MOVIE from 9:00 - 11:00 pm on Sunday, September 27, 2015. I'm in the United States. I watched it, as did the critic for the Los Angeles Times: [14]. I think we might know better than someone with no access to original CBS broadcasts. --Drmargi (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But, while I'm here, Hulu lists 337 total episodes, with Immortality Parts 1 and 2 as separate entities ([15]), Deadline states CSI aired 337 episodes ([16]), as do Digital Spy ([17]), and Hollywood Reporter ([18]). --Unframboise (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be wary of specific episode counts. More than once we've found that episode counts for TV series don't actually match what has aired - It happens all the time with Disney stuff. I'm not saying that's what has happened here, just saying, "beware". --AussieLegend (✉) 14:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Drmargi, but you can't render all streaming services, critics, reviews, tweets by the actors, and press releases unreliable because I don't live in America. And after last nights incident I think you should slow down with the nationalism. Aussie, the fact the press release specifically lists them as Part I and Part II suggests that they are two separate episodes. Not to keep throwing Grave Danger around, but its the only comparable episode I can think of, and press releases for that are worded as "TWO HOUR FINALE" also. It's still widely accepted as being two episodes ([19]). I don't see why this is being debated, I Rotten Tomatoes, actors, press releases and streaming services should be adequate evidence, versus the "It was broadcast twice as a movie" sentiment of the other side --Unframboise (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make a TV movie, as noted by the LA Times into something you want it to be, no matter what you throw around. That you didn't see the original broadcast simply draws your judgment into question. You can line up after-the-fact broadcast sources from here to Timbuktu, but it doesn't alter the fact that CBS promoted, broadcast, and reran Immortality as one two-hour movie, as clearly stated by the pre-eminent newspaper from the city where it was produced in the country where it was broadcast. --Drmargi (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An LA times reviewer now takes precedent over the episode writer and series creator, CBS press, streaming services, a plethora of reviews, the lead actress, and a precedent set by Grave Danger? This sounds completely fair and reasonable. Why did I ever doubt you? --Unframboise (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the fact you wouldn't listen even if I lined up "sources to Timbuktu" suggests that you're being completely unreasonable in this discussion. Many of my sources were released before the episodes even aired. --Unframboise (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially it is even more nuanced than I first suggested. In the Tenth Doctor article (and others) states overall title for his two part finale when referring to final episode etc - however it is definitely broadcast, released on media, advertised and referred generally as two episodes. I was trying to find other examples - but I can't remember any other two parters airing back to back offhand. Dresken (talk) 06:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. 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: 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) 18:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. 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: 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) 14:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation&oldid=1235104126"