Jump to content

Talk:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.14.89.251 (talk) at 21:26, 25 September 2008 (Gary Dourdan / Warrick Brown). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconTelevision B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject CSI

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
Current status: Former good article nominee

Episodic trivia - to be moved into episode articles

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.
  • 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.
    • Of note is that this particular episode is one of the top contenders for CSI to attain a possible jump the shark moment.
  • 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 Players' Dictionary and Official Scrabble Words respectively) do not list them. Furthermore, Sara said to Gil that the word EXVINS is not even "in the OED."
  • 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.)
  • Episode 5.24-5.25: Grave Danger: Vols. I & II - This season finale episode directed by 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 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.
    • Tarantino has stated that this episode was heavily inspired by the 1972 made-for-TV movie The Longest Night where a woman is kidnapped and buried alive for ransom.

GLAAD Controversy

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. Mayuko 18:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. I've added a basic entry regarding this, see diff --Oscarthecat 18:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSI: Vancouver

Anyone heard rumors of this? Zazaban 21:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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...Michaela92399 17:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Cody.Pope 19:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Daltrey? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EntwistleDaltreyMoonTownshend (talkcontribs) 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? --Oscarthecat 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was thinking of doing that and setting it out like the Desprate Housewives page which lists International Broadcasters. Airdates of Desperate Housewives -- 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. --Oscarthecat 10:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update - now moved. --Oscarthecat 16:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Tntnnbltn 18:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to start one off, I'm happy to contribute! --Oscarthecat 16:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me too --Attitude2000 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 (computer games, 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. (Emperor 03:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
There iv created it, now u can all flesh it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanDud88 (talkcontribs) 20:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
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. — Sandtiger 21:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. (Emperor 23:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
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 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 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 books, graphic novels, board games, etc. that CSI has spawned 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. — Sandtiger 02:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. (Emperor 02:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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? -- Beland 07:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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.--Attitude2000 19:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"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. David Spalding (  ) 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting problem

The three infoboxes at the start of the article are surrounded by a <div ...>...</div> 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 (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 {{Crime Scene Investigation}} needs to be tweaked to solve this issue. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 05:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airdates of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation

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

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?--Rabbitdude 06:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be the word 'Fuck'? You can say it you know >>ME000<< —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.225.105.124 (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boratism?

Just watched episode 14/7. Brass uses the term "sexy time" with a smirk on his face. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.76.37.154 (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]


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. --68.144.228.198 01:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

  • [3] - large archive of news articles about CSI
  • [4] - even larger archive of news articles, not all of them are relevant though
  • [5] - Some really good articles about the show's origin, style, special effects, etc., basically everything we need to put in an encyclopedia article.
  • [6] - about the "CSI effect"
  • [7] - also about the CSI effect
  • [8] - about the "CSI shot"
  • [9]
  • [10]

(Feel free to add to this list if you find online sources that can be used for the article)— Sandtiger 17:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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. Editus 11:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 national geographic. Besides the article also mentions how the show sparked an interest in forensic science, which is also part of the CSI effect.— Sandtiger 12:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. 24.44.171.195 23:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. 24.44.171.195 07:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem seems to be that if an anonymous user removes something without leaving any comment in the 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. (Emperor 10:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
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... 24.44.171.195 14:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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, 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? -- Denelson83 23:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. LoneGunmen 18:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article status?

Looking at the Good Article criteria, I think that CSI is a justifiable candidate for GA status. Consider the criteria:

  1. Well written: spelling punctuation and grammar are all correct, complies with Manual of Style
  2. Accurate and verifiable: the article is well sourced throughout, contains no OR, and has a defined reference section at the end.
  3. Broad in its coverage: this is fulfilled on both counts:
    1. Major aspects: addresses premise, style, characters and critical reception without going into unnecessary detail, which is better placed in character or episode articles.
    2. Stays on topic: it is definitely written in summary style - see point 3.1, above
  4. Neutrality: checked this for weasel words, bias etc myself. Curiously, considering the criticism CSI receives from many sources (the law and the PTC among them), there is next to no vandalism or weaselling in this article.
  5. 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.
  6. Images: limited usage, only to illustrate article topics, no unnecessary character images, short captions, fair use justification, the works.


QED. Editus Reloaded 18:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Wrad 22:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? Wrad 22:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.Yamanbaiia 22:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds good. Wrad 22:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Wrad 23:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Editus Reloaded (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added those sections before I knew what "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 (??).--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 19:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Editus Reloaded (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Editus Reloaded (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ephie-sama 14:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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). -- Redfarmer 12:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.Yamanbaiia 13:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- Redfarmer 14:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. (Emperor 14:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
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. -- Redfarmer 14:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about using the 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.Yamanbaiia 14:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- Redfarmer 14:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 doYamanbaiia 15:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Cougar Draven 01:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- Redfarmer 19:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? Daniel Berglund 22:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice on Thursday; bad reception. However, I'd bet that you're right. See X-Files Season 9, specifically 9x03, for reference, re: Mitch Pileggi. Cougar Draven 06:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.Yamanbaiia 10:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Cougar Draven 10:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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?Yamanbaiia 17:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 two years ago, and confirmed a few months later. Cougar Draven 17:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Cougar Draven 02:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? -Yamanbaiia 09:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Cougar Draven 21:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- Redfarmer 23:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? -- Redfarmer 23:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Cougar Draven 06:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.118.158 (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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!--RoryReloaded 09:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA problems (Style section)

I think the article has improved since the last GA review, but i can't renominate because of the {{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?? -Yamanbaiia 16:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVD bonus feature on the Region 2 release of CSI The Complete Season 3. I added this reference God knows how long ago. Editus Reloaded (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Redfarmer (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you have Jorja saying that she believes that Sara will be back, and 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. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm really hacked off with the Sara 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. 86.53.51.180 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone visiting a page like this should expect spoilers. See WP:SPOILER. --Fogeltje (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until She's brought back don't doing any confuse pls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.234.80 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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? Broadway4life155 (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. LoneGunmen (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

82.42.83.17 (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Ifrit (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing 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 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. - LA @ 16:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Dourdan / Warrick Brown

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. Aatrek (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Fogeltje (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. 72.184.120.177 (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 13:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. 86.14.89.251 (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Rds865 (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article about this phenomenon: CSI Effect. haz (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Adams

Two point as to why Bryce Adams should not be in main characters:

  1. 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
  2. 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.

Let us put this speculation to rest for now, at least until someone comes up with a source that opposes this view. Editus Reloaded (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the entries for Bryce Adams and Ray Sanataro from the infobox, seeing as they haven't been cast yet. haz (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New cast member

I read in today's Toronto Sun that Lauren Lee Smith will be joining the cast of CSI next season. --James Duggan 21:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Failed "good article" nomination

Upon its review on May 21, 2008, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{expand}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}}, or similar tags

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 12:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renominated after removing details which are still unsourced, in accordance with Red Phoenix's view that two is a "large number" of {{fact}} tags. Editus Reloaded (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any fact tags should disqualify an article from GA nomination. In fact, any warning banner at all should disqualify an article from GA nominations. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 19:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cast images

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) Bradley0110 (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I'll be doing the Good Article review for this article. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • The image of the logo in the infobox is not low resolution, so it needs to be scaled down.
Done.
  • For the lead, I think the first two paragraphs should be combined, as they deal with the same basic topic. Then, some more points of the article should be added in a new paragraph. Some points to consider adding might include small notes on characters, awards, DVD releases, style/music, and maybe the number of episodes thus far.
  • What makes this a reliable website?
On their about section they state that Television Heaven is a factual work and not a work of fiction. Pretty ambiguous I know, but its not like the site is being used as a source for exceptional claims.
Done.
  • The last paragraph of the reception section needs some citations for the ratings.
  • These sentences "This campaign was reminiscent to CBS's Jericho fans' reaction over the show being canceled. On that occasion, fans sent over 20 tons of nuts to CBS headquarters." from the public reaction section don't really add anything, so I think the article would be better off without them.
Trivia removed.
  • Ref #50 is dead. Can a replacement be found?
  • Maybe the CSI Effect section would be better as a sub-section under criticism, add the info from currently in that section to it. Then, it won't have to be mentioned twice.
  • The rating figures for the 7th and 8th seasons need sources.
  • There are a couple of things cited by the IMDB that need a more reliable source. For example, "Anthony E. Zuiker chose to set the series in Las Vegas because—as mentioned in the pilot —that city's crime lab is the second most active in the United States, after the Federal Bureau of Investigation lab in Quantico, Virginia."

The article could also use a really good copyedit, but I'm willing to do that if everything else gets sorted out. The article will be on hold for seven days to allow for improvements. Nikki311 18:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the stuff that need better sources are on the DVD's extras, I'll try and find transcripts or locate the info on the DVDs.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 09:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The seven days are up, but I'll let the editors have a few more since progress is being made. I plan to close this review on June 30. Nikki311 02:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I went ahead and failed the article, but continue to work on this list and improve the article. Feel free to renominate in the future. Happy editing! Nikki311 21:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need more references

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 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. Redfarmer (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]