Talk:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation/Archive 2

Cast table
Why are editors insisting on changing the cast table layout? It works how it is. Please do not change what is not broken. Thank you. JguyTalkDone 23:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Influence of Tatort
Has there been any discussion on the relationship of the long-running German police procedural Tatort with CSI, as a creative influence or source of inspiration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.40.54 (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion on the article itself, not on the subject of the article. Perhaps your discussion might be best fit for another forum and then linked to the article if it finds of relevance? JguyTalkDone 16:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Theme song (Pilot Episode)
Does any one know the name of theme song of the CSI-Pilot? (you can see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wb3KyXUNw0 ) i think it is not >Who Are You< from The Who. The article konw nothing about that song :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.220.118 (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you are correct. The original Pilot (and all the way up through the first season if memory serves) was a different song. Find a source. JguyTalkDone 17:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Cast Table
I believe this cast table is easier to read, and also is more organized, I've added it to the page, feel free to revert but I believe this is better than the alternative. Thanks


 * The table is elaborate, but clear, so I have no objections to it. I have, however, reverted your changes moving Laurence Fishburne.  The 12th season hasn't started, and even though it's in reruns, the current season is the 11th.  The cast descriptions, table and infobox should be consistent with the current season, not an upcoming one. Those changes can be made in September. Therefore, the table should be adjusted to reflect the cast as of Season 11, with the Season 12 column hidden or removed. I know you've put a lot of work into the table, so I'll give you a chance to make the changes before I blunder in.  Drmargi (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've edited it to reflect the eleventh season, rather than the twelfth, thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.52.109 (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks anon! That looks great! I'll port it over to the other CSI related articles if you haven't done so already. Thanks again! JguyTalkDone 14:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks great, anon. You've put a lot of work into the table.  You might want to think about registering and working on this article regularly.  I noticed you had to fix another anon editor's mess already.  Drmargi (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I decided to register, thanks again. Jane_Rizzoli (talk) I attempted to export it to the CSI: NY article, but it was reverted after an hour or so, I have, however, put it on the Rizzoli & Isles article. —Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC).


 * Welcome to the fold! You did such great work, I'm glad to see you registered!  Keep doing what you're doing!  Drmargi (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Warrick in the cast table
Somebody keeps changing his status in season 9 from "Main" to "Guest", although he only appeared in the first episode, he was MAIN cast for that episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.52.109 (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe a footnote is in place for that particular season citing Dourdan's appearance as "Main Cast" for the first episode? JguyTalkDone 13:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Either a footnote or a hidden note might help. I can think of a number of other instances where main cast actors remained billed as such until their final appearance very early in a season.  If an editor want to move him to guest, they need a source that says, contractually, that's what he was.  Drmargi (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Fox
Some new articles have emerged suggesting Fox was recurring during season 11, however I believe CBS press releases are more accurate, and they in fact listed her as main cast, and not recurring, she also appeared in the opening credits. How should we play this? Jane Rizzoli (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * CBS wins as far as I'm concerned. The cited source is a news/gossip reporter with a history of getting these things wrong. Drmargi (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We've had a huge discussion about this up above, if you read back a few months on this talk page. As far as I know, CBS didn't bill her until regular until season 9 in the middle some time. Even though she appears in the opening credits as 'starring', there was no Verifiable evidence to suggest otherwise. I'd trust CBS.com as well. JguyTalkDone 19:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Different Theme Music Season 1?
A recent editor changed the article to read that "Who Are You?" became the theme music season two. I thought about it a while, then reverted it. I have no recollection of anything other than that song being the theme for S1; it certainly is in reruns. Moreover, 11+ years after the fact, it feels like the editor might honestly think that's what they recall, and be editing accordingly. But 11 years is too long a time to depend on memory alone. And of course, another possibility is that the music was changed for release in another country that didn't have music clearance, or something like that. I think we need a source that verifies the music was different. Drmargi (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I might have done that, or had an agreement with it in a past discussion. I do believe it was different, but you are correct, 11 years is a long time to recollect from memory. If memory does serve me, however, I do remember the pilot episode having a different theme to it, one with no words. I'll try to get Season 1 on DVD from Netflix and find out. LOL JguyTalkDone 19:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can see the music they are referring to here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=4zPxRlNO-dU I think it was just a them tune change for the UK (for the first season) like had been donw for the various Law & Order shows Pat (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not unusual for the pilot to have different credits and music than subsequent episodes, but the remainder of the first season had "Who Are You? -- I'm sure of that. I checked Netflix this morning, and they're not available for streaming.  It's not uncommon that when shows, especially new ones, cross the pond, they don't have the same music because the show doesn't have the music licensing for international distribution.  Drmargi (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it was more than just the pilot with different music. I could dig out the DVDs to see what they've got, but recent television re-runs on Sky in the UK have first season episodes with the original non-The Who music. GRAPPLE   X  01:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't go by what's being shown in the UK or is on UK release DVD's. The music licensing there may be different than in the US.  We need to be sure of what was done in the US as the country of origin and first point of broadcast.  Drmargi (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the constant back and forth on this is getting a bit ridiculous. Certain users shouldnt be editing the article until a consensus is reached here, I would also suggest looking up WP:OR. If it continues we may have to request portection for this article Pat (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor is depending on his/her own home-recorded tapes. His/her talk page offers no insight into his/her nationality other than referring to education in the US.  The tapes could have been made anywhere, from other than CBS, or at a time when "Who Are You?" was not licensed for use other than on CBS.  It's all WP:OR and doesn't pass WP:VERIFY.  Drmargi (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't attempting to have an edit war with anyone, I was simply correcting what I thought was a mistake. You asked for a source, so I provided one.  My father obsessively collected all the episodes of CSI from the start by recording them off of VHS.  They were recorded in Michigan.  I have no reason to suspect that the tapes have been doctored at all, mainly because my father lacks the know-how to make that happen.  The Who's song is the theme song for all the episodes after season 1, but before that it's the song in that YouTube link I posted.  What's the source to suggest something to the contrary?  If anything, I would imagine a purchased DVD collection would have a greater chance of having changes made than when the shows originally aired.  But, quite honestly, I don't really care.  Leave the site whichever way you want.  I thought the information I had was an interesting bit of trivia.  It's kind of a silly conversation to be having, when the whole thing could be resolved by changing a few words.  Instead of "From the start, CSI's theme song has been" we could have "CSI's theme song is" and all would be kosher.  Anyway, the only reason I changed it back was to respond to your comment when you undid it.Chyken (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

cameras you use on the show
what are the models of the nikons they use. thank you

alan isle of wight — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.53.168 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Something like this should be contained to a forum about the article's subject. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks. JguyTalkDone 13:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

New Characters - Season 12
Morgan Brody (New CSI season 12) already has a CSI Character page, but D.B. Russell (New CSI Super Season 12) does not have a page yet, we need to create one. Am I right? --DisneyCSIfan (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd wait. Appearing in one episode so far (season only started again this past week, right?) doesn't really bode for notability. In a few weeks there'll be more episodes to base a fictional biography on, and more reviews to gauge the reception to the character and Danson's portrayal. GRAPPLE   X  00:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but why is Morgan Brody's page already made, when she is also new to the cast?? --DisneyCSIfan (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at it this way - that article is 109 words long, and the CSI navigation template just lists article names and is 131 words long. There's no point in having something so short, so someone's just jumped the gun with it. It's better to wait and work on something with better material than rush it now and forget about it. GRAPPLE   X  02:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes sense. --DisneyCSIfan (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Season 12 - Revise page
Someone needs to rewrite the plot description (with D.B. Russell as Supervisor, Catherine Willows as Asst. Super, Nick Stokes, Sara Sidle, Greg Sanders, and Morgan Brody as CSIs, Jim Brass as Captain of LVPD, Al Robins, and David as Coroners, and David Hodges as Lab Tech) --DisneyCSIfan (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Plot
Someone needs to re-write the Plot section in a way that gives an overview of the entire series. At the moment it reads like a copy-and-paste from the CBS publicity department for this season only. Winter Maiden (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing stopping you from doing it. --Drmargi (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Job title or job descriptions?
Recently a slow edit war over the capitalization of the job titles of various CSI characters has heated up, with two editors on the verge of 3RR. I've warned both and suggested they talk, not edit. Here's the opportunity to make your case, particularly for putting names that are proper nouns (such as Medical Examiner) in lower case. --Drmargi (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what the problem is, and I'm surprised there would need to be a discussion on this topic. It's basic elementary (or middle school) English; something everyone should have learned. But, I guess this can be a learning experience. And you just need to go to WP:JOBTITLES to see Wikipedia's guideline on the subject. Basically, if it goes before a name, it's capitalized. If it doesn't, it's not (usually). Example: President Obama, and president of the United States. So, titles in a character description section are capitalized if they go before the name. Besides, the column heading in the table is "Occupation", not title. And I hate to correct you but, medical examiner (in this case) is not a proper noun. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is wrong, specific job titles are ALWAYS capitalized for example: "CSI Night-Shift Supervisor" is capitalized, while: "supervisor" is not. --JohnDoe98 (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your argument? It's hard to believe you're seriously saying that. Did you read the link I gave? I gave a source (and no better source for this site than the MOS). You need something to back up your claim. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My statement stands --JohnDoe98 (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting us nowhere. You two need to hash out a compromise that will work for the article instead of staring at each other, waiting for the other to relent. I've also restored an overwritten comment. Please be careful when posting. --Drmargi (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hanging like meat
What was the name of the episode where they found all those dead bodies hanging like meat and one person was alive still or something like that? ~EgyptKEW9~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptKEW9 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

New cast member
In Season 13 Episode 14, Exile, Alimi Ballard makes a guest appearance as a newly promoted detective, this should be added as a recurring cast for this season until he becomes a regular. []
 * This is sourced by a fan site, which is unreliable. The character can be added as recurring when she actually does recur.  --Drmargi (talk) 06:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean 'he'

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (TV series) Detective Kevin Crawford / Det. Kevin Crawford / Music Producer / … – Sheltered (2013) … Detective Kevin Crawford – Forget Me Not (2013) … Det. Kevin Crawford – Exile (2013) … Detective Kevin Crawford – Strip Maul (2012) … Officer Kevin Crawford – Lady Heather's Box (2003) … Music Producer

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0050584/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.43.75 (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ian Moone (I am No One)
Did we ever learn who is Ian Moone?? Quis separabit? 00:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * On the Season 11 boxset featurette for the Sqweegel episode, Carol Mendelson said they'd like to see him return for a follow up but didn't know when they'd find the time to write the character back in. It showed the flexible guy who plays Sqweegel, but no we never found out who in the show was meant to have been the killer.Mc8755 (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

English???
Am I correct that the en in en.wikipedia.org means this is the English version? How did it get to be Spanish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KathrynBassett (talk • contribs) 00:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ This was an act of vandalism and has been reverted by another editor. :) Jguy TalkDone 02:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Cast and characters
--Drmargi (talk)

George Eads leaves CSI: Las Vegas, he is actually former character!!!!! Catherine Willows was a supervisor after Grissom leaves CSI. In seasons 10-11!!!!!

Don't undo changes again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lado85 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As of the current season (15) he is still a current character. If/when the 16th season begins, then move him.  --Drmargi (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

And what about Catherine Willows? She was a supervisor. Don't remove this - (Supervisor, seasons 10–11).

P.S. I think, show will not return for season 16. George Eads leaves show, Ted Danson joins another series main cast (Fargo). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lado85 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait until we know for certain and stop forcing an incorrect edit. --Drmargi (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. No Problem with George Eads. But Catherine Willows actually was a supervisor after Grissom leaves CSI. Don't remove this - (Supervisor, seasons 10–11). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lado85 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's officially cancelled as of this date
CSI will NOT be returning for a 16th season per CNN - http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/12/showbiz/gallery/canceled-tv-shows/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.44.45 (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hasn't been confirmed yet. News will come Weds. --M ASEM (t) 00:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How much more confirmation do you need? 65.24.44.45 (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's all rumor. Wait until CBS confirms.  48 hours isn't long.  --Drmargi (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you read some of those articles? This one from Variety states: "CSI still awaits a decision for its season 16 series ender, but it has not been axed. The long-running procedural, which wrapped up its 15th round earlier this year, could get a short order, followed by a TV movie for its grand finale." That means it's not over until it's over. We'll know for sure in two days. What's the rush? 76.254.19.63 (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We rather have a confirmation that it will end, and will end on the 2 hr movie event, than to simply go with "it has not been picked up for a 16th season" because that's vague. --M ASEM (t) 02:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Now that we have confirmation that the series will end with the movie, the sources that I read are treating the movie as the last episode of the series, not a special event. As such, we should not be saying the last episode is the one that aired in Feb., and treat the movie as a double-length episode. --M ASEM (t) 13:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can find dozens of sources that are treating it as a television movie - not an episode. Might I also add: Exiled: A Law & Order Movie (Law & Order) and Homicide: The Movie (Homicide: Life on the Street) prime examples of what a television film is for a television series - they're not episodes. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 13:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an unusual approach, though, in that when they finished season 15, they had no idea of the fate of the show, and so they are making one more 2-hr length episode (a movie, fair enough) to complete the series. This is the key part. It's not a random continuation like those examples above - this is to give the series its closure. --M ASEM (t) 14:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Homicide ^ is the exact same as CSI in this respect (Homicide ended, then a movie came a long). "335 episodes + a television movie". Otherwise, why would previous media sources spread rumours saying "a television movie and 6 episodes may be part of the deal"? they've made a clear distinction between the two. Like Homicide, and Law & Order, should we not treat CSI the same? —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 14:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Homicide the Movie" is consider "a film based on the series", in that the movie came well after the series was cancelled. All sources I'm seeing on this CSI movie say it is the series finale and part of the show proper. --M ASEM (t) 14:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it would make for easier reading if the TV movie had its own page, it saves changing cast tables and positioning, etc., for example if Danson doesn't appear in the movie but Petersen does would that mean Petersen was a current cast member at the time of the series end whilst Danson was not? Also if its included on this page that means it will have to be added to the episode list and then it would merit its own entry anyway in the style of a season page. --Unframboise 16:13, 13 May 2015 (GMT)
 * It is highly likely that the movie/episode will have its own page once it airs - it's the last episode of the show that created the procedural drama, its definitely going to get attention. That's not an issue, though whether its treated as a spin-off movie and separate from the show, or as a 2-hr movie event episode that is considered part of the series is the question that remains. --M ASEM (t) 15:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So what's the decision? Is the conclusion considered a 16th season even though it's only two hours? Is it an episode making the total 336? Or two combined episodes making the total 337? Or is it just a special event? My first choice would be to consider the conclusion a very short 16th season consisting of one two-hour episode, not a special event. Second choice, it would be one long episode at the end of the 15th season. People are making a lot of changes to the two pages -- CSI & franchise -- and this needs to be decided. 99.155.192.173 (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not a 16th season, but whether it is a late 15th seaosn episode or a standalone movie, and we're still discussing that. Since we don't update those until the episodes air, we don't need to rush. --M ASEM (t) 19:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not part of the fifteenth season, either. The fifteenth season finale was billed as such, and the movie will air during a different TV year altogether. I think the real question isn't whether its a movie or not, but whether the movie is considered a special as part of the series run, or a one-off reunion event. All will become clear when CBS issues press releases, I think. Production codes will have a lot to do with it, and so will the opening credits sequence on broadcast --user:unframboise (user talk:unframboise) 16:28, 14 May 2015, GMT.

Cast Table
Now the series is nearing its close, the ordering of the cast table (which has bugged me for a while) may be in need of an update. Are there any objections to it being ordered with the original cast first (in credit order) followed by subsequent cast members listed in the order they joined the regular cast? --Unframboise (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait for the movie. There's no rush.  --Drmargi (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:TV, this is not how it should be done, and Unframboise is right; this ordering should have never been done in the first place. Because once you reach this point (a series ending), you just have to fix the table to the proper order. You don't place "current" cast at the top just because it's current, articles reflect the entire history of a series. It doesn't make sense for an actor who's been main cast for last few seasons to be placed above an actor who starred in the first ten seasons or so just because they're currently not on the show. The idea of waiting for the TV movie to air to rectify these changes is odd, as what I did here is eventually just going to be implemented anyway, why not just do it now? Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * MOS:TV does state that the "cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series." - I think this is reason enough to re-organise the cast table. --109.158.107.195 (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That quote refers to the infobox, not a cast table. Cast tables are not addressed in MOS:TV.  Frankly, I think the whole damned thing should go.  It takes up far, far, far too much space for the little bit of fancrufty information it provides.  But given the mania for these useless tables, we're lumbered with them.  Given that, the table should reflect the show as readers (this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, after all) need in the moment.  The lead is Ted Danson, not William Peterson.  The table should reflect that.  --Drmargi (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's the other way around. WP:TVCAST is directed at the cast section, but also applies to the infobox, and states The cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Cast tables have received no support and WP:TVCAST specifies prose. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * To me it's the other way around, it's more appropriate to look at the series historically, not "in the moment" for an encyclopedia; while a fan site would be more "in the moment". Regardless, WP:TVCAST supports this change to the correct formatting. I don't even watch CSI, but how does it make sense for an actor who's been a main cast members for all 15 seasons to be placed below an actor who's been a main cast member for just the last few? The ordering is too "in-universe", not encyclopedic, and not adhering to looking at the article historically. Again, this change be will be implemented anyway, so why not fix it now, especially when there's several editors trying to implement the change. As for the table, it's not replacing prose, so it's not that harmful, however, it could definitely go though. At the very least, cast tables just belong on the list of characters page, not the main article, and can be helpful for shows such as this–with a large, evolving cast. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Drovethrughosts. I think the table, now it has been simplified, should be kept in some form simply because the cast is so large, although re-written, clearer prose that also specify appearances would be a good compromise. As for the order in which the cast are listed, the original cast should DEFINITELY be listed first, with subsequent cast members in the order they joined the regular cast (the order would then be: Petersen, Helgenberger, Dourdan, Eads, Guilfoyle, Fox, Szmanda, Hall, Lombard [...] Shue, Wellner. user:Drmargi seems to be the only person objecting to this change, so I'm going to make the edit (simply because WP:TVCAST makes editing the order not a choice but a necessity). If there are still users that think the "current" cast should remain at the top of the list, then it can be discussed further and reverted if a consensus to do so arises. Sorry for being brash, but now we have the outside opinion of an experienced user AND wiki conventions to back this decision, it seems silly to continue with the back and forth. --Unframboise (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: I tried to implement these changes but they were immediately reverted. user:Drmargi stated that the discussion here means it cannot be edited. I hate to say it, but this isn't the first time I've had this conversation with this user, and I think it's her plan to stall proceedings until September 27 when its all null and void anyway. --Unframboise (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Unframboise. As always, a stranger to AGF. With an ongoing discussion, you don't make changes to an article that are contentious, as yours most certainly were, and you don't unilaterally decide on consensus. Moreover, your edits added a considerable amount of bloat that an IP spent several days removing. The table should go, period. Absent that, leave as is; it's been that way for years, literally. That's very long-standing consensus. I don't see the need to make a major change now, when it can be finalized in six weeks, after the movie finale runs. Everyone wants to jump the gun these days. --Drmargi (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as contentious when there's been four editors recently (myself, Unframboise, 109.158.107.195, and Ilija zmikic) trying to fix something that is erroneous and against Wikipedia's Manual of Style (WP:TVCAST). Just because an article has done something wrong for years, doesn't mean it can't be fixed immediately once spotted. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)




 * Also, I don't appreciate my comments being deleted because of wiki conventions on personal attack (which this was not), especially when when people bring up wiki conventions on cast lists you shrug it off as a "contentious subject" and refuse to allow edits. Can't have both. --Unframboise (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't want it removed, don't make it a personal insult. Discuss the issued, not the editor.  --Drmargi (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to remind everyone to comment on the content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks are not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Aussie; a simple question: in your opinion, as an experienced, should the cast list be re-organised in accordance with the WP:TVCAST guidelines, or should it remain the way it is simply because it has been incorrect "for years?" --Unframboise (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe that the cast list should comply with WP:TVCAST. The cast table belongs either in the rubbish bin or the character articles. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no issue with the table being sent to the big Wikipedia in the sky, as long as the relevant information from it is added to the character descriptors. Should, in your opinion, I update the article, or should I wait for Drmargi to agree to such a change? --Unframboise (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * TVCAST is still part of a guideline. It's not mandatory that we comply, just very highly recommended and Wikipedia is not working to a deadline so there is no urgency. We still need to form a consensus and input from is essential to building that consensus so yes, we should wait for her opinion. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm agreeable to an update of the cast list with two conditions: a.  that the table is removed in toto; and b. that the fancrufty bloat that was just removed from the character descriptions is not returned to them. They are concise now, and should remain that way. --Drmargi (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm agreeable to that to, as long as descriptors such as (regular: seasons 1-5 and TV Movie) can be added to the end of each character summary. This is useful information that a wiki user may need to know. --Unframboise (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That's perfectly appropriate. It's the narrative bloat that has to stay out.  --Drmargi (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to comment that conciseness in the main series article is entirely appropriate. What I see in this revision is OK. Something like "Fred Bloggs as John Smith" and nothing else, as I've seen in some articles is too short. Slightly longer descriptions (a couple of paragraphs) should be in List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters, which seems restricted to just tables at the moment. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur. An IP user came through last week, and took about three days cutting the minutia, trivia, fancruft and bloat from the descriptions, to the lean ones we have now.  One of the reasons I reverted the last edit to them was that it needlessly added a good bit of that excess narrative back.  All that should be added is the appearance duration data proposed above, and we're good.   --Drmargi (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I went to edit the page before and noticed somebody had already done it. I return 10 minutes later and it's been reverted back. Table and all! What gives, Drmargi? I was going to follow IP's lead and give it another shot but I'm not going to waste my time if it's going to be reverted by you even AFTER a consensus was reached. What did you take issue with re: IPs edits? Please help all sane minded wiki users out here, again, Aussie!


 * --Unframboise (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Just ONCE, can you try assuming good faith instead of picking a fight? Did you read my edit summary?  I'm not responding beyond this, because you clearly didn't.  --Drmargi (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's hard to assume good faith when every edit is met with a reversion. I did read your summary, which is why I just asked "What did you take issue with re: IPs edits?" I asked this in order to ascertain how you would like it laid out in future. --Unframboise (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My edit summary addressed what was at issue. That's why we use edit summaries.  I've removed the table.  Go add the tenure dates, and we're done.  Addition of content that treats the film as past tense violates WP:CRYSTAL; source any cast you indicate will appear in it.   --Drmargi (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

FTR, I believe the cast table has value, and should be included somewhere (if not the main article) – the version that was here could certainly replace the one at List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters, as the version that was here is better than the latter article's version of the table. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * IJBall, personally I love the cast table and I think it does have great value. I have a correctly ordered version in my sandbox ready to put it back because it's VERY helpful in navigating the series. I think, as things stand, it may be a good idea to put it back and actually reach a real consensus on removal.
 * Drmargi, updated with tenure dates. Check your attitude at the door next time, a please wouldn't go amiss. --Unframboise (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The table is back out, per consensus above. You cannot unilaterally throw out what we JUST agreed to.  It either stays out as per consensus, which you just agreed to, or goes back to previous status quo.  As for attitude, you've got a helluva nerve,  Try examining your own actions. --Drmargi (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I conceded to your change, yes, but it appears that other users, such as IJBall, think the table holds value. And I do happen to agree. When dissenting voices still remain a consensus has not been reached. A consensus WAS reached for the re-ordering, but there are still people who don't agree to the table going. Please continue to discuss first . And if the old order must return to facilitate this discussion, then feel free to revert. BUT a consensus between ALL users MUST be reached--Unframboise (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Then there's consensus for nothing, because my agreement was predicated on removal of the table, and the article remains at status quo, with the old ordering.  If you were to read IJBall's comments, he mentions putting the table somewhere, not specifically here.  Please take the time to read carefully, and respond to what was actually said, not what you want to see.  And do not DARE refer to me in such a misogynist way again, or we'll be talking to an admin.  --Drmargi (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If this keeps up, and WP:RfC may be advisable. On my end, I just think the table should be somewhere, and if not here, then it should be moved over to replace the (main) cast table currently over at List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry . I would refer to members of BOTH genders as such so don't think yourself too special. I think we do need WP:RfC, but personally I don't see User:Drmargi's issue. She's saying she agrees it should be updated and correct per CAST guidelines but OH WAIT, not until September because it's been wrong for so long then what's the point. I mean the version she insists on implementing has Harnois before Hall so it doesn't even follow the current credits, it's just plain incorrect. It needs to follow wiki conventions and I don't see the issue with re-ordering a few of the names. --Unframboise (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC).


 * To be clear, I'm referring to an RfC on just whether the cast table should be included here. An RfC on the exact order of the cast in the list(-table) is probably not going to be fruitful... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering why User:Drmargi keeps redacting my comments; comments that are in no way offensive and reflect only my everyday idiolect and language patterns. Who knows, the world is a mysterious place filled with mysterious people who do mysterious things. I've requested 3O on both of the issues, hopefully at least one of them can be resolved before I end up tearing my own hair out / banging my head against a wall / saying something unkind ! --Unframboise (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Calling somebody "honey" could certainly be taken the wrong way, especially when they aren't your honey and your true intent is questionable when you use edit summaries like How infantile can you be? A bit of Extra-Strength "Teen Spirit" Troll Be Gone handles those without the maturity to know what they're talking about, That and a bit of Troll Be Gone, extra strength, cures all ills. and Seriously. Back the f^€k off. This is not the place for that. Try to be more neutral in the way that you refer to people and consider that what you intend is not necessarily what will be seen. I'd remind you both that 3RR and general edit-warring principles apply to talk pages. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Now that this is settled, I'm wondering, shouldn't the actors/characters duration be in seasons, not years? Years is somewhat ambiguous, given network TV seasons air over two years. Example, 2015 can apply to both the final season and the upcoming finale movie. Seasons is much more defined and helpful, and is usually what is used to describe characters tenure on a show. Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I think the Cast Table actually had value, partly for exactly the issue you're alluding to. I think it would be my preference that it were restored to this article. Failing that, I agree with you that cast durations should be listed in terms of "seasons" not calendar "years". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The cast table takes far too much space for the small amount of information it provides. The character article is chock-ablok with nice crufty tables, and it can go live with them.  I have no strong feelings about years v. seasons.  I just used what was available in the article; another editor provided the recurring data.  --Drmargi (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071114233335/http://dollarforsense.com:80/Flyover.html to http://www.dollarforsense.com/Flyover.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Updating entries to CSI List of Characters
Looking at the entry, the bio information on the principal characters is at least three seasons out of date. It needs to be updated to reflect the current status of the characters.

I attempted to do so with David Hodges, to reflect the fact he got engaged, but his fiancee and he broke up during the planning of their wedding because of differences they could not resolve. Drmarji deleted my update. I'd like to know why. Out of date information is not as valuable as up to date information.

Roy Jaruk (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The descriptions of these characters are already overly detailed. Plot points and season-by-season details (such as David Hodges' engagement) go in the CSI characters article.  The main article should contain a brief character sketch that applies to any season, per WP:INUNIVERSE.  If anything, what's there needs to be cut further, not updated with minutia such as an engagement.  --Drmargi (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I found a conflict of information on the character 'Al Robbin's'. In the short on the main character page it says he 'lost his own legs whilst trying to dig up a floor at a crime scene', but in the individual characters page it says "At a young age, Al was hit head-on by a drunk driver and lost both of his legs. He walks with the use of prosthetic limbs and a crutch.". I think that the more detailed page is incorrect, but I cannot find a specific source for how he lost his legs. Gunnerclark (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No indication of show's success
Why was the text from the intro regarding the shows popularity removed? Even in the "Reception" section there's nothing to indicate the show was Number 1 in the US for the 2002-2003 season and Number 2 for years after, not to mention the mammoth international ratings that gave it the accolade of most watched show in the world five separate years? The reception reads like the show was poorly received when critics were very favorable (7.8 IMDB, 8.9 TV.com) and ratings made it a staple enabling successful spin-offs.


 * This information now lives in the production section of the article, although if you think it would be better suited to reception, then feel free to move it. Don't, however, reinstate it to the articles lead, as this makes for too long a read (and it isn't very pretty!) --Unframboise (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Identifying cast participation in Immortality.
Well, this is one for the record books. Following a little edit I thought was reverting a bit of vandalism, which resulted in a revert with a truly obnoxious edit summary , I noted that 16 (as in season 16) was being used to identify cast participation in Immortality, the series finale. Given that there is no season 16, the use of 16 seemed in appropriate to me, so I took a few minutes and accurately labeled their participation with the name of the film. It's an encyclopedia and we want content to be consistent, accurate and clear to our readers, so it seemed a perfectly reasonable edit, in fact, one that needed to be made. Shortly thereafter, that edit was reverted by the same editor, who again left an obnoxious edit summary which, like the first, was devoid of any semblance of WP:AGF. It also claimed consensus to use 16. I reviewed the pertinent articles and was unable to find any discussion of use of 16 versus the film title. I also noticed one or two other things:
 * * In the cast article and episode article use "finale" to label Immortality.
 * * This one and only place is the only place 16 is used, and with no key to explain what 16 means.
 * * The use of 16 misrepresents what the film is. A single film is not a season and CSI did not run 16 seasons.
 * * There are no space constraints that prevent the use of the film name, or at least finale, consistent with other articles.

I can't come up with a single good reason to use an inaccurate, misleading and unclear label for the cast participation in Immortality rather than simply using the film name. It makes no sense. --Drmargi (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems the 16 was introduced fairly recently on 2015-10-05 . I would barely call it status quo. Although he's right about the character pages, the first one I looked at I found this edit . Maybe referring to a consensus through editing - or perhaps it was decided on one character page? Regardless of that though, it does seems inappropriate to label it this way in either this or the character articles. Can't have season 16 of 15 - math does have it's limits. Dresken (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Season 16 does not exist. It does not exist on Google (search it). It does not exist on DVD. It does not exist with its own season article or on the List of Episodes page which gives "337 episodes of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation aired over 15 seasons". This very page states "The series concluded on September 27, 2015, after 15 seasons". The infobox's parameter for "No. of seasons" lists 15, and "No. of episodes" lists "337 (including Immortality)", indicating the film was an episode but not a reason. As a further example, Serenity was not referred to as Season 2 for Firefly. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 11:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching the cast article issue, Dresken.  As you might imagine, I had a little trouble separating the message from the spite in his edit summaries (the editor has a petty grudge he clings to like a five year old's woobie.).  It appears another editor felt the production code was a reasonable rationale to use 16.  I can see where that might make sense to an editor who understands production codes, but they are neither known nor transparent to the ordinary reader.  Moreover, they still mis-represent the film as a separate season.  I believe we are all in agreement that the film name is preferrable, and Alex has fixed the main article.  Our next move should be to fix the individual cast articles. --Drmargi (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there is no need to be rude. The first edit you made that I objected to involved you changing ONLY Paul Guilfoyle's "guest star: season 16" credit to "guest star: season 15", which was factually wrong. There was a consensus through editing that, due to "Immortality" being filmed under production codes 1601 and 1602 (i.e. season 16, episode 1, and season 16, episode 2), that this would be the best way to describe it - for clarity and for simplicity. I would not object to the use of "guest star: Finale" as strenuously as this, as it takes up less space and matches all material put out for the episodes (the onscreen title was "finale", and the DVD is labeled "finale").
 * My main issue, though,, is that when you change the main page to Immortality, there is no longer consistency across wikiproject:CSI, with some articles labeling "16" and others by episode names. If you want to go out and change every article, feel free, but don't do half a job. Also, it seems with every edit you and your pals get more sloppy - the last one lacked italics and had capitalization everywhere and anywhere. It's shoddy. --Unframboise (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Alex, Serenity was a feature film, shot and released as such. Immortality was an extended TV finale shot as Part 1 and Part 2, under two production codes (1601 and 1602), suggesting it was part of the main run of the show - and two distinct episodes. Much like Grave Danger Volume I and Grave Danger Volume II. What a bizarre argument for you to be making. --Unframboise (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If we could cut down on the slinging of personal insults and drama-mongering, and stick to the issue at hand, we might get somewhere. The aesthetics of the edits are minor, fixable things, and hardly worth the volume of invective I see here.  We already noted there was work to be done.  Now that the major issue, that use of 16 is a nonsense, is resolved, we can move on to the bigger picture.  Believe it or not, these things often are changed in increments.  It's not the end of the world.  --Drmargi (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You can talk. Flinging around statements like "clings to like a five year old's woobie". I've just gone out of my way and fixed all the mistakes on the page you ignored when hamfisting your edit onto it. Capitalized all the lower-case "immortality"'s, fixed the anomalous 16s you left lying around, added italics. If you're going to do a job, then do it properly. Pathetic. --Unframboise (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Unframboise, normally I would thank you for assisting this to a resolution even if there had been disagreements along the way. But I have to call you out on your attitude here. All of this would have been much simpler and polite if you had participated at all in a reasonable way. Pretty much every edit summary comment and talk post from you has been hostile and has basically prompted any response from anyone else that you received. All of whom were attempting a valid improvement to the article - there is no requirement for them to get it right immediately everywhere. And if you want to be treated nicely then you have to also treat people nicely. Dresken (talk) 07:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your opinion Dresken, but this user has been cyber-stalking me on here for a while now. Editing pages after I've edited them (even ones she's never ever edited before), rude messages, insults - but never enough for anyone to do anything about, redacting everything and anything, accusations of sock-puppeteering, discussing me on other users talk pages in a derogatory manner. You name it, she's done it. Now I appreciate your point of view, but I have no reason to be nice to this user - she's been making me life hell. --Unframboise (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil in public discussions and remain on topic. The above has nothing to do whether Season 16 or Immortality is to be used. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)