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 TomyHun (talk | contribs) at 14:41, 28 October 2009 (So-called "notable" guest stars). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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]
The people putting in speculations about spinoff shows, the relationships between secondary characters and blatant fiction will keep any of the CSI pages from achieving GA status. But I seem to be the only one who sees it this way. Bloo (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing guest stars

In the list of guest stars there is one glaring omission. In series 8, while Nick is conducting an experiment in the lab, Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman from Mythbusters can be seen through the window behind him judging his experiment. Giving him the thumbs up when he achieves the desired effectEvilleOne (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this has been remedied. But I see a problem with guest stars with very little recognition by the general TV watching population being listed as "notable" guest stars. Somebody who was on 1/2 a dozen episodes of a 1 season CW Network drama doesn't really qualify and just takes up space. But then again, that is just my opinion. How do we decide who is important enough? The "Guest Stars" section is getting a bit unwieldy. Bloo (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast Table

It isn't really needed with the cast information below... 86.145.131.120 (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season CSI Night Shift Supervisor CSI Assistant Night Shift Supervisor Crime Scene Investigator (CSI) DNA /
Trace Technician
Medical Examiner Senior Detective Junior Detective
1 Doctor Gilbert "Gil" Grissom
(William Petersen)
Catherine Willows
(Marg Helgenberger)
Warrick Brown
(Gary Dourdan)
Nicholas "Nick" Stokes
(George Eads)
Sara Sidle
(Jorja Fox)
Vacant Greg Sanders
(Eric Szmanda)
Doctor Albert "Al" Robbins
(Robert David Hall)
Captain James "Jim" Brass
(Paul Guilfoyle)
Vacant
2
3 Greg Sanders
(Eric Szmanda)
David Hodges
(Wallace Langham)
4
5 Sofia Curtis
(Louise Lombard)
6
7
8 Vacant
9 Riley Adams
(Lauren Lee Smith)
Vacant
Catherine Willows
(Marg Helgenberger)
Nicholas "Nick" Stokes
(George Eads)
Doctor Raymond "Ray" Langston
(Laurence Fishburne)
10

This table is much clearer than the previous one. Character descriptions are below. Character descriptions are below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.171.69 (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. It's chaotic and confusing for all but the most hardcore fans -- and besides that, as was pointed out at the revert, it's inaccurate. Greg Sanders was the lab tech all the way into Season 5, and he wasn't replaced by Hodges. Hodges was not a DNA tech, and Greg, as far as I know, had nothing to do with trace analysis. Catherine was not the assistant night sup in Season 5; she ran the swing shift. But all that aside, did it occur to you just how ugly this new table is? It really needs to go back the way it was, and unless there's consensus one way or the other, it will. 70.181.171.159 (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC) --aka SchutteGod, too lazy to sign in--[reply]
I disagree with you SchutteGod. I have found a similar table in things like Law & Order etc, and I think it is a good way of listing characters in a long running programme. I certainly don't think it is ugly. Apart from a few incorrect details as you say, I think it is better than what there is at the moment. Alan16 talkcount 22:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear that comment comes from the originator of the chart, using his username as opposed to his IP address. The L&O chart, however, is neat and readable. This one is demonstrably not, with its sloppy set-up, mismatched column widths, etc., oh -- and did I mention it's inaccurate? Yeah, I think I'll be reverting to the old chart until a cleaner alternative can be proposed. 70.181.171.159 (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem I have is the current one is just as inaccurate (if not as messy, I agree there) as this one. It too lists Greg as starting CSI in Season 2 and other inaccuracies (Ray replacing Nick as opposed to Warrick sticks out). Padillah (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another point of interest to me: do we have the resources to determine this information? We can understand that this is happening but how do we know that Ray is replacing Nick? or Sarah is in for Riley? She may be helping cover Riley's work while they are a man down but to establish that she is replacing Riley would require in-show sources and I don't think we have them. Padillah (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Delaney in Season 10.

I have noticed the beginning of a possible edit war in putting Kim Delaney in the Info Box cast table. I can find no citation she will be joining, and only confirmation she has signed to stay on Army Wives. Anyone else heard anything other than the skuttlebutt opinions from anon IPs? Trista TristaBella (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Jean-Baptiste in Season 10?

Marianne Jean-Baptiste in Season 10 of CSI?? I find no information that confirms.--78.52.172.51 (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likely a vandal. There have been several incidences of new cast members placed in the CSI pages with absolutely no available citations. I, along with others, have been watching these to try and revert as soon as possible. Good job on your quick action. Trista (User Trista Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So-called "notable" guest stars

The list is getting somewhat ridiculous. Several added in the last week, one of them played a dead body! I think it might be time to move the guest stars page to the "characters on CSI" page, in order to keep the main page a bit neater. Or it's going to continue to be filled with people who are not that notable whose names are gone in two seconds at the end of the show (almost none of the lately added ones were in the beginning credits after the open of the show). TristaBella (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, notable is relative and that whole bunch looks like chaos to me. TomyHun (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]