Talk:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | CSI: Crime Scene Investigation was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | ||||||||||||||||
 | Andrew Lipsitz was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 03 October 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
For all articles in Category:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
[[Category:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation images]]
[[Category:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes]]
|
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Immortality
editOn-screen credits ([3], [4]) clearly identify Parts I and II as separate entities. After going out of my way to overhaul the infoboxes on all CSI character pages, another user decided to accuse me of disruptive editing for listing final appearances as "Immortality Part II". I wanted opinions on this, because we count Grave Danger as two parts, despite it being broadcast in one block. The episodes had two production codes, two scripts, and were clearly identified as two episodes on screen - why can't we refer to them as "Immortality Part 1" and "Immortality Part 2"? --Unframboise (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
![[3]](https://jorjafox.net/gallery/cache/tv/csi/season16/immortality-1/immortality_095_595.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://jorjafox.net/gallery/cache/tv/csi/season16/immortality-1/immortality_096_595.jpg){kind=link}
- That's actually a tough one, as it probably depends in both cases. The on screen credits would be a WP:PRIMARY source - therefore if WP:SECONDARY sources as to how the episode/s are referred would potentially override the onscreen credits. There is also the possibly it isn't the same for both, like it could be that sources refer to Grave Danger as two episodes and Immortality as one episode. Dresken (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Grave Danger was produced and broadcast as a two-parter. Immortality was announced, produced, publicized, and broadcast as a two hour film, and recently reran as a two-hour film. Everyone else is perfectly comfortable with that. This is one editor who is trying to treat it in a way it has never been broadcast by interpreting the production codes. The Part 1 and Part 2 designations were used onscreen to identify production crew in what might have been two production blocks. We've been around and around about this whenever he attempts to treat Immortality as other than a two-hour film, but he continues to push a disruptive agenda. --Drmargi (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I can also link to several secondary sources, including TV Guide [5], Amazon streaming [6], TV.com [7], Rotten Tomatoes [8], and iTunes [9]. Amazon, iTunes and Rotten Tomatoes are what I would consider incredibly trustworthy in identifying episodes. I don't have a disruptive agenda - if I did I wouldn't be spending my time working to improve these pages. Discuss the issue, not the editor. --Unframboise (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't watched a single episode of this series so I can't comment directly, but we normally give on-screen credits more, ummm, credit than press releases and online TV guides. The on-screen credits are in the actual final product, so they have authority. When did these credits appear? Was it at the beginning of the program or in the end credits? Did Immortality air as a single program with one set of credits, or back to back with two sets of credits? All of these affect how we treat the program. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- As I said above, it was promoted, was broadcast, and was rerun as a two-hour movie with one set of credits under the title Immortality. --Drmargi (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Aussie, it was promoted and broadcast as the "finale", yes, but the on-screen credits (appearing at the beginning) list "Director (finale, part 1)", "Editor (finale, part 1)", etc.; Similarly, Anthony E. Zuiker and Marg Helgenberger tweeted images of scripts (Immortality Part I and Immortality Part II having separate scripts), and the production codes are different also (Part 1 is 1601, and Part 2 is 1602). It was aired and rerun in a 90 minute block, but so was Grave Danger - it took a long time for that to be rerun in separate parts, if I recall. Rotten Tomatoes, TV Guide and streaming services treat them as separate episodes, too. And, here's the kicker - so do CBS's press releases, for both original broadcast [10], and rerun [11]. Press releases also confirm the guest cast were hired episodically (i.e. for either Part 1 or Part 2, not "Immortality" as a whole). --Unframboise (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- As I said above, it was promoted, was broadcast, and was rerun as a two-hour movie with one set of credits under the title Immortality. --Drmargi (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't watched a single episode of this series so I can't comment directly, but we normally give on-screen credits more, ummm, credit than press releases and online TV guides. The on-screen credits are in the actual final product, so they have authority. When did these credits appear? Was it at the beginning of the program or in the end credits? Did Immortality air as a single program with one set of credits, or back to back with two sets of credits? All of these affect how we treat the program. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I can also link to several secondary sources, including TV Guide [5], Amazon streaming [6], TV.com [7], Rotten Tomatoes [8], and iTunes [9]. Amazon, iTunes and Rotten Tomatoes are what I would consider incredibly trustworthy in identifying episodes. I don't have a disruptive agenda - if I did I wouldn't be spending my time working to improve these pages. Discuss the issue, not the editor. --Unframboise (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Grave Danger was produced and broadcast as a two-parter. Immortality was announced, produced, publicized, and broadcast as a two hour film, and recently reran as a two-hour film. Everyone else is perfectly comfortable with that. This is one editor who is trying to treat it in a way it has never been broadcast by interpreting the production codes. The Part 1 and Part 2 designations were used onscreen to identify production crew in what might have been two production blocks. We've been around and around about this whenever he attempts to treat Immortality as other than a two-hour film, but he continues to push a disruptive agenda. --Drmargi (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect. It was broadcast as a two-hour movie, not vin a 90 minute block. You can't cobble together bits and pieces, interpret them, and make it other than what it was. Grave Danger was broadcast as a two-parter, and is not analogous. --Drmargi (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, press releases ([12] & [13]) state it was broadcast in a 90 minute block. I'm sat here with press releases, on screen credits, scripts, actor tweets, and a plethora of secondary sources that suggest it was two parts - so I'll let them do the talking for me. --Unframboise (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at this I see "ON THE SPECIAL TWO-HOUR SERIES FINALE". Where is a 90 minute block mentioned in that or the other link? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ::: Which simply renders your sources unreliable. It was broadcast as a TWO HOUR MOVIE from 9:00 - 11:00 pm on Sunday, September 27, 2015. I'm in the United States. I watched it, as did the critic for the Los Angeles Times: [14]. I think we might know better than someone with no access to original CBS broadcasts. --Drmargi (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- But, while I'm here, Hulu lists 337 total episodes, with Immortality Parts 1 and 2 as separate entities ([15]), Deadline states CSI aired 337 episodes ([16]), as do Digital Spy ([17]), and Hollywood Reporter ([18]). --Unframboise (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'd be wary of specific episode counts. More than once we've found that episode counts for TV series don't actually match what has aired - It happens all the time with Disney stuff. I'm not saying that's what has happened here, just saying, "beware". --AussieLegend (✉) 14:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Drmargi, but you can't render all streaming services, critics, reviews, tweets by the actors, and press releases unreliable because I don't live in America. And after last nights incident I think you should slow down with the nationalism. Aussie, the fact the press release specifically lists them as Part I and Part II suggests that they are two separate episodes. Not to keep throwing Grave Danger around, but its the only comparable episode I can think of, and press releases for that are worded as "TWO HOUR FINALE" also. It's still widely accepted as being two episodes ([19]). I don't see why this is being debated, I Rotten Tomatoes, actors, press releases and streaming services should be adequate evidence, versus the "It was broadcast twice as a movie" sentiment of the other side --Unframboise (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- You can't make a TV movie, as noted by the LA Times into something you want it to be, no matter what you throw around. That you didn't see the original broadcast simply draws your judgment into question. You can line up after-the-fact broadcast sources from here to Timbuktu, but it doesn't alter the fact that CBS promoted, broadcast, and reran Immortality as one two-hour movie, as clearly stated by the pre-eminent newspaper from the city where it was produced in the country where it was broadcast. --Drmargi (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- An LA times reviewer now takes precedent over the episode writer and series creator, CBS press, streaming services, a plethora of reviews, the lead actress, and a precedent set by Grave Danger? This sounds completely fair and reasonable. Why did I ever doubt you? --Unframboise (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Also, the fact you wouldn't listen even if I lined up "sources to Timbuktu" suggests that you're being completely unreasonable in this discussion. Many of my sources were released before the episodes even aired. --Unframboise (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Potentially it is even more nuanced than I first suggested. In the Tenth Doctor article (and others) states overall title for his two part finale when referring to final episode etc - however it is definitely broadcast, released on media, advertised and referred generally as two episodes. I was trying to find other examples - but I can't remember any other two parters airing back to back offhand. Dresken (talk) 06:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Also, the fact you wouldn't listen even if I lined up "sources to Timbuktu" suggests that you're being completely unreasonable in this discussion. Many of my sources were released before the episodes even aired. --Unframboise (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- An LA times reviewer now takes precedent over the episode writer and series creator, CBS press, streaming services, a plethora of reviews, the lead actress, and a precedent set by Grave Danger? This sounds completely fair and reasonable. Why did I ever doubt you? --Unframboise (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- You can't make a TV movie, as noted by the LA Times into something you want it to be, no matter what you throw around. That you didn't see the original broadcast simply draws your judgment into question. You can line up after-the-fact broadcast sources from here to Timbuktu, but it doesn't alter the fact that CBS promoted, broadcast, and reran Immortality as one two-hour movie, as clearly stated by the pre-eminent newspaper from the city where it was produced in the country where it was broadcast. --Drmargi (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Drmargi, but you can't render all streaming services, critics, reviews, tweets by the actors, and press releases unreliable because I don't live in America. And after last nights incident I think you should slow down with the nationalism. Aussie, the fact the press release specifically lists them as Part I and Part II suggests that they are two separate episodes. Not to keep throwing Grave Danger around, but its the only comparable episode I can think of, and press releases for that are worded as "TWO HOUR FINALE" also. It's still widely accepted as being two episodes ([19]). I don't see why this is being debated, I Rotten Tomatoes, actors, press releases and streaming services should be adequate evidence, versus the "It was broadcast twice as a movie" sentiment of the other side --Unframboise (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'd be wary of specific episode counts. More than once we've found that episode counts for TV series don't actually match what has aired - It happens all the time with Disney stuff. I'm not saying that's what has happened here, just saying, "beware". --AussieLegend (✉) 14:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- But, while I'm here, Hulu lists 337 total episodes, with Immortality Parts 1 and 2 as separate entities ([15]), Deadline states CSI aired 337 episodes ([16]), as do Digital Spy ([17]), and Hollywood Reporter ([18]). --Unframboise (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609011639/http://www.parentstv.org:80/PTC/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2002/main.asp to http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2002/main.asp
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071202100512/http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2007/WAYCW2007.pdf to http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2007/WAYCW2007.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613060721/http://www.parentstv.org:80/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2006/main.asp to http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2006/main.asp
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/action/CSI/content.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sptimes.com/2007/10/16/Tv/_CSI__fan_says_losing.shtml
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141011060406/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=053106_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=053106_05
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413172935/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052808_06 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052808_06
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619131409/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/06/16/final-2009-10-broadcast-primetime-show-average-viewership/54336 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/06/16/final-2009-10-broadcast-primetime-show-average-viewership/54336
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120527194146/http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2004/main.asp to http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2004/main.asp
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070523142544/http://www.parentstv.org:80/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2005/main.asp to http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2005/main.asp
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070503021051/http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/fcc/Complaints.asp to http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/fcc/Complaints.asp
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2007/10/csis-launch-sav.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2002/main.asp
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2005/main.asp
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2006/main.asp
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2007/10/csis-launch-sav.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071002153806/http://www.law.asu.edu/Jurimetrics/ to http://www.law.asu.edu/jurimetrics
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719195320/http://law2.fordham.edu/publications/articles/200flspub5906.pdf to http://law2.fordham.edu/publications/articles/200flspub5906.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120421023509/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=060105_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=060105_05
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140703074558/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=053007_08 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=053007_08
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140702203432/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=060209_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=060209_05
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520034821/http://www.televisionheaven.co.uk/csi.htm to http://www.televisionheaven.co.uk/csi.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717115537/http://www.tvfestival.com/content/2010-Awards-listing/2010_awards_listingUK.php to http://www.tvfestival.com/content/2010-Awards-listing/2010_awards_listingUK.php
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213021446/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/26/we-look-back-at-the-top-tv-shows-of-2002/3513/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/04/26/we-look-back-at-the-top-tv-shows-of-2002/3513/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)