Jump to content

Talk:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Changes lyrics

On a more serious note, does that speculation regarding the meaning of the lyrics to David Bowie's "Changes" really belong in an encyclopedia article? -Etoile 16:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Other shows siphoning ratings

The bit about shows launched to try to "siphon" CSI's ratings seems to violate NPOV. (Not to mention the fact that at least one of the shows mentioned therein, L&O:SVU, predates CSI.) 24.161.108.255 08:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Director of the Crime Lab

Who's the current Director of the Crime Lab in the 2005 plot line? It used to be Brass, but he was replaced in the pilot, and Ecklie is not the Assistant Director, but who's the Director? -- The Anome 12:24, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think Ecklie actually is the director as of the most recent season. -Etoile 18:15, 14 Jun

2005 (UTC) Nope, Etoile. Before the split of night-shift team. Ecklie is a supervisor on day-shift. --Genocide2st 19:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

First things first, Jim Brass was the Supervisor of night shift, never the director of the Las Vegas Crime Lab. Because Holly Gribbs died on his watch, Brass was transferred to another department and position. He became Captain of Homicide.

Conrad Ecklie was promoted from day shift Supervisor to Assistant Director, as mentioned in episode 5x05, "Swap Meet". Ecklie replaced Robert Cavallo (frequently spelled "Carvallo", most likely due to being spelled that way on imdb.com, yet both visual and audio references in the actual series give his name as "Cavallo").

The actual Director of the Las Vegas Crime Lab, if there is one, has never been seen on the program, and no name has ever been given to this character. It's possible that the Sheriff is the de facto Director, without having the title of Director. --Mapsandlegends 23:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


Clarification, Brass is a Captain in Homicide, not of. Ipstenu 20:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I've added a cleanup tag because this article is mostly a conglomeration of facts and doesn't really have a nice flow to it. --tomf688(talk) 02:36, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Entry needs more information

I tried to clean up this entry, but it needs a lot more information!

  • Above comment by User:Gabrielarana. DuctapeDaredevil 22:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that the entry was really "cleaned up" - it looks like a lot of information was removed, and I'm not sure if it's for the better or not. YMMV. -Etoile 15:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many of the facts were irrelevant and seemed only to underscore the rivalry between ABC and CBS. Though the length may have decreased, the amount of information --save the needless aside of the choice of Las Vegas-- has remained the same.

Address significance

I noticed the address 3057 Westfall Ave. Las Vegas, NV 89109 mentioned in at least two episodes (5x22 and 5x24). Is there a significance to this address or numbers? To no surprise, the address did not come up anywhere in Yahoo! Maps, Mapquest or Google Maps. - Ash Lux 22:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You get a hit for NV 89109 but i don't think anything else. Erm.. since i don't live in the US are my results correct. I trust the address is fictitious.

Networks

On the right side, under networks, should "Spike TV" be added in addition to CBS?

Picture Subtraction

This may be of more interest for another article that i'm not gonna make the effort to track down:

In summer 2005 (July, i think), a CSI:LV ep aired (presumably re-aired and presumably from 2004-2005) in which a hotel exec had done two murder/rapes something like 5-10 years apart, the second being that of an airline stewardess whose luggage he kept. Between the two, the technology had been developed to remove the repetitive background printed during manufacture of a bedspread from an image, producing a usable handprint, which the judge would not accept as the basis for a search warrant on an ex-con (who turned out to have been the victim's dope-dealer but not the perp) bcz the technology was too new.

A murder case w/ some of those particulars actually existed, but it was over 25 years ago.

  • JPL or one of its sub-contractors developed related technology for analysis of images returned from space,
  • the evidence was a floral-print bedspread with a bloody handprint, and
  • "picture subtraction" was successful in tying a suspect to the scene, to the investigators' satisfaction, but
  • it was ruled legally irrelevant for lack of basis in "established science" validating it.

I've formally requested an article on picture subtraction, but this may be either another path to that article, or of use for this talk page's article -- tho obviously research at WP is needed first. (Hmm, to provide a basis for accepting it as verifiable knowledge. [grin])
--Jerzy·t 15:18, 2005 August 1 (UTC)

I Googled for "picture subtraction", and failed to find any uses of the term in the sense that was meant in the series. I agree, this technique is certainly a valid image-processing technique, but the term "picture subtraction" does not seem, as far as I can tell, to be used for it. Can you come up with a non-CSI cite for this technique? -- Karada 07:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah. I've found the term which is commonly used, namely "image differencing". I'll edit [[[WP:RA]] to request this, iinstead. -- Karada 07:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Comic Book!?

I was browsing through bookshelves at a library and I found a CSI comic book or graphic novel, if it is the appropriate term. I am so amazed that they made CSI in comic book form, when I read some parts it's a bit funny seeing the characters. Maybe because I am used to seeing the real ones.

In any case, if anyone who has extensive knowledge of this, please enlightenment everyone.--Janarius 02:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The comics are published by IDW Publishing. Google for "CSI comic", which gets you this, [1], among many other hits. -- Karada 07:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
The CSI Graphic novel, entitled Serial is written by CSI novel and PC-game writer, Max Allan Collins. It is drawn and inked by the people who worked on Road to Predition with Collins. The basic plot is a serial killer copy-catting the Jack the Ripper murders during a Ripper-mania festivle in Vegas.
They are published in the UK by Titan Books who have a page on them [2] as do IDW Publishing [3]. I haven't read them but it looks like we need and entry for the graphic novels/comics as both the Titan and IDW Publishing only point at general pages - there is possibly enough information here for someone more knowledgable to at least get a stub going. Also while we are at it there are CSI novels that need their own entry too. (Emperor 19:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC))
OK I started the entry: CSI (comic) - hopefully someone can expand that at some point (Emperor 01:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC))

Regular Characters?

According to the article, Wallace Langham (David Hodges) and Louise Lombard (Sofia Curtis) are listed as being main characters in Season 6. While they are definitely major recurring characters, in my mind, only people featured in the introductory credits should be considered "main" characters. And, as of Dog Eat Dog, they are not listed. In keeping with this, I suggest that we move the entries on Hodges and Sofia to the recurring characters section as well as remove them from the table at the top. Rascalb 10:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

David Berman is not the David Berman listed in Wiki

New in these parts... Just noticed that the link to "David Berman" goes to someone besides the David Berman who acts on the show. They don't look remotely alike.

Whoever knows how to handle something like this, please do. Thanks!

Bobbo

Ray O'Riley

When and why did Detective Ray O'Riely leave the show? Pinkfloydfan 04:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Characters information

Now that most characters are getting their own articles, do we really need that much information about them listed on the main page? A lot of series articles only list the characters, with links to their profiles, and I think it's a good idea that helps unclutter the page. What do you think? --Andromeda 16:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There should be a character page like the episodes page. Vesperholly 05:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr Robbins entry includes the following information "He has two prosthetic legs, and it has been implied that he lost them in an accident while trying to dig up a floor at a crime scene." but on his profile page it says "the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation Companion makes reference to his involvement in an accident with a drunk driver". More detailed citations are needed for both references and the CSI Companion may not be canon. -- Horkana

The IMDB link in the top-right box links to The O.C, and not CSI. Paranoid as I am I figure this is either a prank by some kid, or some network station promotion attempt... Anyway, it should be changed.

Fixed Stordoff 16:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms section is a mess

The criticisms section as it stands now is completely unsourced and comes off as irredeemably POV. I have placed an {{unreferenced|date=August 2006}} tag on the section. 23skidoo 04:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Grissom and Brass

I usually only watch the show in sydication, but it seems to me that, at least in the begining, Grissom and Brass didn't get along too well. Does their relationship improve in later seasons? PrometheusX303 19:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It does indeed improve, however, Brass does not like the fact Gil rarely has a gun with him. The main reason they were not very friendly in the beginning was because Brass was the original Grave Yard Supervisor and was demoted to homicide after the Holly Gribbs incident. After Brass was placed in homicide, the CSIs and Brass all started to have improved realtionships.Pinkfloydfan 00:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Episode Numbers

The episodes page states that The current number of episodes to date is 130. However, this article frequently uses numbers much higher than 130. What gives? PrometheusX303 20:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That's actually quite easy to explain. The two most common ways to number an episode are either by it's broadcast/prodiction number(ie, the 18th episode aired, or the 32nd one produced) or, as used here(and in most other articles as well) to code it as the Season Number, followed by the Episode Number for that season(assuming the above examples are CSI episodes, the 18th episode, as it was part of the first season would become 118, or 1x18, with the x serving to seperate the season and episode numbers, and the 32nd episode would be 209, as it was the ninth episode of the second season). It takes some getting used to, but once you do it becomes a rather effective way of keeping track of where in a series a particular episode fits. Sehvekah 08:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hodges Article

The article for David Hodges links to the article on the keyboardist for Evanesence Pinkfloydfan 04:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

new section

i added a controversy section, what do you think? anything to add?

Move General CSI or Possible Merge

I think the content non-specific to any particular CSI show (criticisms, controversy, style) could go to a seperate page. If not all of them, perhaps just criticisms could goto CSI Effect. Albert109 22:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

CSI Fallacies

I'm interested in how people view CSI's "pushing" of science and use of questionable (or more accurately - not real) scientific methods. I cite three cases:

  1. A victim has been stabbed to death with a knife. In the medical lab, in order to reconstruct the murder weapon, clay (or some type of material) is poured into the wound. It sets and when removed, wallah! A perfect mould in the shape of the knife which caused the wound.
  2. A clay pot in the episode "Committed". Crafted while two people were having an argument. Of course, the marks on the pot were vibrating to the argument. When the clay pot is analysed, they shoot a laser at it and get a sound back. Behold! It's the argument being played back - reproduced from the bumps and grooves made in the pot during the argument.
  3. Any episode which ever involves image enhancement. The classic case is zooming in on an image - "enhancing" it to the pint where a crisp clea image is on screen. CSI: New York took this one step further I believe when they used it in a case of somebody's eye. We zoom right in and enhance the eye perfectly "There's a reflection there, can you enhance that?" and we do. Once again, through the magic of fakey science, we have a clue. The reflection off of someone's enhanced eye.

Are there other cases where CSI simply makes stuff up or takes methods so far to the extreme in order to get clue's that the show loses its credibility? I think it's well worth mentioning as part of the article.

Well, whenever I've seen forensic teams on TV newscasts and so on, they wear jumpsuits, booties, gloves and showercaps so that they won't mess up the evidence. I find it ridiculous when one of the female characters, with all that hair exclaims "I've found a hair!". Sure, lady. It's probably your own. :D Vince In Milan 13:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE don't use "wallah"! The correct word is VOILA. Timrem

It's a TV show. Most people don't stay up at night worrying about how accurate the show is.-Raven 00:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the terminal velocity of a falling human body: The episode states "9.8 meters per second." The terminal velocity article says that a "skydiver in a normal free-fall position with a closed parachute is about 195 km/h (120 Mph)" That converts to about 53.6 m\s, correct?

Also, how long would it take the body to reach terminal velocity? It certainly wouldn't begin at the moment of the fall. Would it reach tv at 6 stories? PrometheusX303 21:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

9.8m/s^2 is the acceleration due to gravity, how fast you accelerate in free fall. I don't know the deacceleration due to wind resistance (Terminal velocity occurs when the deacceleration due to wind resistance equals the acceleration due to gravity) but in free fall it would take about five and a half seconds(53.6/9.8).--XirSponge 04:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


I feel the critism section is too large and certainly far too promenant. I think it shouldn't be broken down so distinctly on the contents section nor should it come so high on the list. This is a listing on CSI not a listing on the critisim of it.--AlanD 22:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

maybe the criticism section should be in a separate article, referenced from here? It's not inconceivable that someone might come to wikipedia to investigate a questionable point raised on the show. Jeh 09:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "it's so dark!" point, I have to say... when I drop a contact lens in the bathroom, the quickest way to find it is to turn the lights out and use a flashlight, with the beam parallel to the "suspect" surface. The light refracts through the lens and lights it up, my eyes aren't distracted by all the peripheral vision, plus anything on the surface will cast an obvious shadow. And I see all kinds of other stuff, like hairs, that are normally unnotoceable. So the principle isn't wrong, just the extent to which it's used on the show. :) Jeh 09:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Cause they use it EVERYWHERE! The lab is dark, the morgue is dark... PrometheusX303 13:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually according to police officers and crime scene specialists many really do turn the lights on to look at the scence. In CSI the lights are probably kept off to set a dark mood for the scene. Symmetric Chaos 13:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The show is categorised in the "science fiction" genre, and therefore lots of the criticism would not apply. The Criticism section needs to reflect that. --Kvasir 06:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the fact that cars will protect you from lightining listed as a fallacy? A car does, in fact, make an excellent insulator and does not transmit electricity to a body inside. A car is not full proof, as lightining bolts are immense sources of energy, but a car does provide protection. Scheater5 23:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


I think that if, as mentioned, some fallacy was "corrected by Grissom", it shouldn't even be mentioned. A character on the show had a false notion of what was going on. The character made a mistake, not the writers. I won't remove anything because I don't know which one they are talking about, but it seems pretty retarded to mention it as a mistake.70.81.154.95 07:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That the car will protect you (somewhat) is not in question. But the show claimed that it would protect you because of the rubber tires. That's incorrect; a lightning bolt that jumps from cloud to car won't have much trouble with another few inches from car to ground. Reality is that the car offers some protection, NOT because it is an "excellent insulator," but because its body is an excellent conductor. As such it forms a (nearly) equipotential shell around the occupants. Therefore, even if you are inside a car when the car is hit by lightning, even if you touch two different parts of the interior of the metal body, no current will pass through you. At least, that would be true if the car body offered utterly no resistance. In practice, what with a lightning bolt being on the order of a million amps or so, a resistance of just 1/100 of an ohm will give you a voltage drop of 10,000 volts, which is considerable. (And please, I don't want to hear the old "it's not the voltage that is deadly, it is the current" saw. There's plenty of both in this situation to be deadly. Jeh 08:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


so many things are wrong with the show. SWAT teams assemble wrong, crime scene INVESTIGATORS are storming into building guns drawn (in real life most csi dont carry guns because they are extra weight) the take downs are all wrong, dna tests take 5 minutes not days, they find evidence so impossible that they show does not do a good job. anyone that has any police/millitary expreiance can pick out all the errors very quickly

This above comment was apparently made by 75.4.172.180, just editing this to reflect that. --85.197.239.159 00:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

CSI makes criminals smarter?

Another concern with CSI is not its factual flaws, but conversely, the raised awareness of forensic science — to the point of paranoia — that it encourages amongst criminals. FBI agents and police detectives have expressed distress that CSI is educating criminals in how to leave a "squeaky clean" crime scene. In shootings, shell casings are more frequently being removed from the scene of the crime; stabbings and other crimes often leave no fingerprints; and many criminals have found ways to be generally more stealthy at what they do.

I'd like to see some research on this one. Most of what you see on CSI has been public, common knowledge for years. PrometheusX303 13:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

True and there is also a semi humorus 'scientific' law that states something to the efect that the more a person tries to remove evidence the more that will be left behind. Symmetric Chaos 13:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Shows like The New Detectives and Cold Case( I think that's the name of it) actually go more in depth when discussing forensice techniques. PrometheusX303 13:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


Can We Add This To All The CSI's

A section called unsolved cases were you post up the cases that csi had not solved or continuse like the paul miller case. It will begin with which episode the case began in and with episodes contiune that case and also when was it solved, and we can add it to the all the csi shows so i just want permission to do that or if you had ideas to make it better. --LeafGreen Ranger 21:59, 14 April 2006 (BST)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Prometheus-X303- 21:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a bunch of more fancruft to clutter up the article to me. 75.2.38.48 23:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI

A category related to this article, Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI, was nominated for renaming. The debate ended with a consensus to delete the category. I raised the matter on Wikipedia:Deletion review as the category was never tagged for deletion. It would be good to get opinions from people actually interested in CSI. Tim! 14:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section of this article is of poor quality, to say the least.

I don't think I need to expand upon anything further from the title of my message here. I just spent 10 minutes reading through and correcting a number of moronic mistakes in the trivia section, where someone had italicised the names of David Bowie and William S. Burroughs, not to mention tried to pass off "comicbook" and "comicbooks" as if they are actual words. The level of ridiculousness for that kind of stupidity to slip by those editors who take this article seriously and treat it as a viable source of information regarding this show is mind boggling.

The entire section itself is poorly organised. An episode-by-episode breakdown of things like that belongs in a guide on TV.com and not in any type of encyclopedia. 75.2.38.48 23:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And there's way too much trivia in general. It seems a bunch of people just decided to add their favorite scenes into the trivia section. It needs quite a bit of trimming. --Optichan 18:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Recently I cleaned out the trivia section on [[House (TV}]] and moved a bunch of overly detailed info to the show's list of episodes. Trivia sections are inherently a sign of poor writing. If the only way you can fit something into an article is to cram it under the heading of trivia, it either does not belong there (it might fit better in a different section or article), or is too trivial to be included in the encyclopaedia at all. Johnleemk | Talk 09:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I can somewhat understand the episode-based trivia (although I agree the points would be more appropriate in an episode-by-episode listing), but information about who publishes the comic book, that it is the highest-watched show in the Netherlands, information about the actors having worked together on previous pilots or series, characters "making out" in unaired scenes, and factual inaccuracies from the show (that could likely be its own Wiki entry) all seem superfluous. SINsApple 02:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I moved a few episode-based trivia to their own article, where the episode already had an article. Suggest all the remaining episode based trivia items be removed. --Oscarthecat 06:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

C.S.I should redirect here.

99.99% of the people putting in C.S.I will be looking for this and not the Order of the Star of India......

Pure inuyasha 21:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Clues of Season 6 finale

These are the clues I found from the website:

  1. Jim is dead (Clue: dead jim, with "DEAD" sign)(as seen in "bang-bang")
  2. Something about Sara and Grissom? They turned their head to each other, and in "Time of your Death" it was hinted their some romance involved. Also, grissom's right hand turned, while before turned can see all his finger...perhaps hiding a ring from view?
  3. Nice is gonna get married (that wedding ring on his right hand ring finger)
  4. one of the casino "disappeared" (may be Lucky Dragon, indicating the crime will occur there)

Spoiler for Season 6

"In the Season 6 episode "Bang-Bang", Jim Brass was shot during a hostage situation by a through-and-through bullet through his right chest. The summary of the Season 6 finale "Way To Go" indicates that the wound, while not immediatly fatal, still put him in a critical condition." Thanks! As this hasn't aired yet why isn't this spoiler tagged? Or why is this information included AT ALL?

Controversy : anti-drugs message?

The only area of controversy I've come across is the "product-placement" morality, mainly anti-drugs, particularly in the early episodes. I'd have thought that was worth mentioning. An issue shared with CSI Miami. From the other side, in political terms, there also seems to be a conservative suspicion of treatment of family morality, particularly abortion.

Hakluyt bean 13:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Further re "product-placement" I (think I) can see it but I can't see it referenced anywhere. However if anyone can it could be a useful addition to "controversy". It's this kind of thing btw: "Prime Time Propaganda" and also here: Office of National Drug Control Policy

Hakluyt bean 13:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"CSI: Dunnys Office"

Is this genuine? I looked at that image, and it appears awfully fake... That, and the entire premise of the show seems rediculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.184.49 (talk • contribs)

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)

Fair comment. I've added a basic entry regarding this, see diff --Oscarthecat 18:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
As a Bisexual and Transexual.. I've never really found anything offensive in CSI. Yes they've made their characters around stereotypes, but they have to be dumbed down for the general public, without getting into some big debate about who people are transexual.. But certainly worth noting TigerTails (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

CSI: Vancouver

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

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)

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)

Roger Daltrey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EntwistleDaltreyMoonTownshend (talk • contribs) 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)

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)
Update - now moved. --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. Tntnnbltn 18:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to start one off, I'm happy to contribute! --Oscarthecat 16:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Me too --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 (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))
There iv created it, now u can all flesh it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanDud88 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
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)
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))
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)
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))

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)

  • 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)
There has been persistent criticism that because of the way that many of the CSI crews handle the evidence that it usually will never stand up in court. Also some basic rules are always ignored; such as even if a single bullet is shot then there is almost always a hearing no matter how small.Zorro444 (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).


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)

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:

  • [4] - large archive of news articles about CSI
  • [5] - even larger archive of news articles, not all of them are relevant though
  • [6] - Some really good articles about the show's origin, style, special effects, etc., basically everything we need to put in an encyclopedia article.
  • [7] - about the "CSI effect"
  • [8] - also about the CSI effect
  • [9] - about the "CSI shot"
  • [10]
  • [11]

(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)


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)

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)

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)

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)

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))
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
OK, sounds good. 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. 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. Editus Reloaded (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)\
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
Anyone visiting a page like this should expect spoilers. See WP:SPOILER. --Fogeltje (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)

$35K O.B.O.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

An Entertainment Weekly interview with CSI showrunner Carol Mendelsohn states that, "Current cast members Liz Vassey (lab rat Wendy) and David Berman (coroner David) have been upped to full-fledged series regulars" EW Interview. While I haven't seen their names appear in the opening credits yet this season, they are supposed to become series regulars rather than just recurring guest starts.71.169.183.239 (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

sentance which needs more clarification

"As a result, in the Season 8 finale, the undersheriff shoots Warrick in the neck and chest while he is sitting in his car, and then leaves him to die from his wounds. He dies in the opening moments with Gil Grissom holding him in the Season 9 premiere. "

The undersheriff who? It appears he is not mentioned anywhere else in the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Undersheriff Jeffery McKean (my spelling may be off here) never was a strong character before Warrick's murder, other than an occasional antagonist to the staff of the crime lab (mostly to Brass and Grissom, when the solving of a case had political benefit for McKean). I do not have enough myself to put together an article in list of characters, but I agree with EnigmaMcmxc that more information about him should be included in the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation article. He was indeed critical to the storyline of Warrick's death. Bloo (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Although it hasn't been so bad lately, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation has seen much poor editing and vandalism from unregistered (IP) users and new users registering only to make unrelated comments or vandalize. I personally do not believe this article will ever make "Good Article" status largely due to this. This certainly is not the only article that suffers from this - all three of the CSI shows and most other crime show articles do - but the CSI shows do seem to get it more than many others. Anyone agree that the CSI shows need some sort of protection from unregistered users? Even a period of a month or so would probably make many of the vandals give up, and allow new registered users to be offered help so they can contribute constructively to Wikipedia (making the good faith assumption)? I'm willing to hear other views on this. Bloo (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Riley Adams's rank

The number of annon ips changing Riley's rank from CSI Level 1 to CSI Level 2 have become out of control. Essentially, this is saying Riley was brought in at a higher rank than any other previous new CSI (a.k.a. Sara, Greg, and Langston). While this is not completely impossible, it does require some evidence to back it up before we simply change her rank. As it stands, I do not believe there is any reason to believe Riley is a Level 2 CSI. If anyone has evidence to back this up, I invite them to submit it. Otherwise, I say we should continue to revert on the spot anyone who changes Riley's rank without such evidence. Redfarmer (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As i have already said on her talk page, I believe its even stated in the show that she is a Level one, in her first episode with the people being killed and made into "art works" i'm pretty sure she states that she is level one at the bus stop when she is with grissom for her first job as a CSI. Maybe someone could check the episode to double confirm? Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 09:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The description of Riley Adams on this page states that, "She comes in as a second-level CSI..." It seems like by stating that she is a Level 1 in her heading, with this description following, there is a big contradiction. And when Greg gets promoted to Level 3, he makes a comment that he is now ranked higher than Riley--i.e., he was not ranked higher when he was Level 2. Also, in her biography on IMDB, it says she is a CSI Level 2 IMDB Riley Adams 71.169.183.239 (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
What CSI page are you talking about? The official site makes no such reference. I recall no such comment by Greg, only telling her he wouldn't use his new power over her for evil (i.e. he now has a supervisory role over her with his new rank, which indicates nothing about her rank except that he outranks her). Biographies on IMDB CANNOT be used as sources as they are user edited, just like a wiki, except worse since they are often completely unsourced. You need to do better than that. Redfarmer (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2009 (UTCL
She states in the show shes CSI Level 2 to Grissom 86.161.254.11 (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The image File:CSI Raymond.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Series 8 region 2

On play.com they have the full series 8 R2 in stock[12] and in the article it says TBC which it obviously isnt, someone should change that.--82.22.96.118 (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscarthecat (talk • contribs) 07:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Birthdates and ages of CSI characters with no citation.

As far as I recall, only Gil Grissom's birthdate was stated in the show, yet almost all the characters have birthdates and ages listed. I propose to remove all of them except Gil's. Anyone agree with me on this? If there is citation for birthdates of the other, then I am more than happy to have them here. Bloo (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I went in and deleted the majority of them. I think I got them all. I left Gil's as it was referenced in the episode with Paul Millander (sorry, I do not recall episode name.) Gads, the vandalism is getting bad! TristaBella (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Today, I have reverted the birthdates and ages of nearly every CSI & CSI: Miami character, as the birthdates and ages often directly contradict what is listed in the page (ex. Catherine Willows page refers to the episode "Living Legend" and her being 16 when the movie Jaws came out, so she was likely born in the late 1950s, not 1963 - which would make her 12 or 13 and hanging and in a casino? And where the years of birth for most of the characters are coming from is totally beyond me.) I have attempted to politely warn this person about doing this - and find it isn't the first time they have been warned about stuff in the info boxes that is erroneous or superfluous. I plan to ask an administrator to also warn them. This is getting as bad as the people who keep changing Lindsay Monroe to Lindsay Messer on the CSI: New York pages. Alright, done with my wee ranting now. Bloo (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

Cast Table

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

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)

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--
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)
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)
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)

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)

The table to which you refer appears to have been added by one rogue user who keeps trying to reinstate it despite multiple reverts. It has been reverted (yet again); let's see how long before the edit warrior shows up to change it. :P 70.181.171.159 (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Looking at the episode list, it strikes me that the number of viewers the series gets is now dropping as low as that of CSI: Sunglasses. Some kind of comment on that could be interesting. Nevard (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

CSI episode lists TfD

Nomination for deletion of Template:CSI season 1 episode list

Template:CSI season 1 episode list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CSI season 2 episode list

Template:CSI season 2 episode list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CSI season 3 episode list

Template:CSI season 3 episode list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CSI season 4 episode list

Template:CSI season 4 episode list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CSI season 5 episode list

Template:CSI season 5 episode list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CSI season 6 episode list

Template:CSI season 6 episode list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CSI season 7 episode list

Template:CSI season 7 episode list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CSI season 8 episode list

Template:CSI season 8 episode list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CSI season 9 episode list

Template:CSI season 9 episode list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CSI season 10 episode list

Template:CSI season 10 episode list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

'Was' instead of 'is

For the sections on Warrick and Grissom, wouldn't the correct word be 'Gil Grissom was a night shift supervisor'. and 'Warrick Brown was a CSI...'. Past tense would be appropriate for at least Warrick, as his character has passed away, but for Gil, I would think that even if he was to return, Catherine is the night shift supervisor, Gil wouldn't be entitled to that position even if he came back... Jmanfffreak (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


Minor correction: "CSI Level 3: Greg Sanders (Eric Szmanda) was was educated" should read:

"CSI Level 3: Greg Sanders (Eric Szmanda) was educated" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.25.132 (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Jorja Fox is not a main cast member for CSI for Season 11

She is reoccurring only. Please see the following sources, both from blogs and reliable sources:

http://jorjafox.net/blog/csi-season-11-cast-status/ http://www.cbs.com/primetime/csi/cast/

If you have found another source that says otherwise, please cite them properly in the article.

If the edit is continually made that says otherwise about Jorja Fox, the next step would be to request protection on this article per Wikipedia:Protection_policy.

Thanks.

Jguy (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested temp. protection for this article. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29
Jguy (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Why Sarah is not a main character? She is in the opening credits, like the other! Sarah is just the supporting cast, because that appears on this site? That's nonsense!!! Could also be said that David Phillips is also supporting actor, although he is in the credits.... -- 91.64.230.254 (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Except CBS press releasse bill her as recurring and him as a regular.... Wattlebird (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a formal warning to those continually editing Sara Sidle as regular cast. PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST. If you feel that she is regular cast, please CREDIT THE SOURCE AS PER Wikipedia:Verifiability or this page will be requested for re-protected. Thank you for your cooperation. Jguy (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but there are not a good sources to prove this, Jorja Fox appears in the main opening credits as "Starring". CBS Press Releases is not a good evidence, because there are a lot of mistakes in it. Please, stop revert this page. Series are more officially than the CBS Press Release. Please stop. DM-AVENGER (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. This policy clearly states that sources MUST be provided on anything that can and will be challenged. So far, the only source that has been provided is from CBS themselves. If you can come up with a better source than that, then by all means, go ahead. But right now, the only source we can cite in the article is the one from CBS. It does not matter if 'CBS' is inaccurate, because they're running the show. This is the ONLY source that has been cited; 'accurate' or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jguy (talk • contribs) 03:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence, that Fox is regular: entire season: [13] [14] -- 91.64.17.45 (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, it's very odd that we'd be trusting a third party site such as tv.com rather than both jorja's personal site and CBS press releases for the show, but I guess we can stick with it. My dispute with this is over as sources have been supplied which conform to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you 91.64.17.45. Jguy (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think TV.com is more reliable. Is it not another site that can be edited by anyone? AnemoneProjectors 21:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hm, Indeed. I was able to login to my TV.com account and add Kevin Bacon as a star of the show and then remove him without any sources. In this case, I don't believe tv.com to be a reliable source. I would still consider this article to be in dispute over Jorja's Fox. And so far, as recent events have proven, CBS and Jorja Fox's blog continue to be the most reliable sources. The edit for Jorja Fox being 'Reoccurring' still stands, I guess. Jguy (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Finally, CBS Press Releases listed Jorja Fox as a Main cast member... Jorja Fox is listed as a Main cast member in CBS Press Releases since Episode 9 of Season 11. http://jorjafox.net/blog/jorja-credited-as-series-regular-for-wild-life. SHE IS A MAIN CAST MEMBER. ;). DM-AVENGER (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there was a need for the caps and the smiley face at the end as I found that kind of rude, but this is not a place or time for that. Thank you for finding the source to list her as regular cast. Now, I wonder when she'll leave again (or Grissom will appear again) LOL. Jguy (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation/Archive_1&oldid=1146366519"