Talk:CSI: Cyber

Really a mid-season replacement?

Is Cyber really considered a mid-season replacement when CSI is scheduled for a full run (hence the move to 10pm Sundays to avoid off weeks) before Cyber commences? It seems more like CBS are attempting to keep both alive for this season, see how they fare, and then choose if one or both should return next year (2015/2016). Mc8755 (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Cast

A table and a list? Kinda' like wearing suspenders and a belt... - ^theWOLFchild 22:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The cast table is for a quick overview. The list has the character details. 76.254.18.69 (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ted Danson

The character has been confirmed by CBS [1] to be transfered from CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Claiming that he should not be under Cast until he mades an appearance is like claiming that series that has not yet aired should not have Cast and characters section (because for example: none of Supergirl cast has made an appearance on the show so far)... Maticsg1 (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW, there have been a few of us trying to add him and only one user reverting our edits, which means that majority feels like he should be listed. Furtherome, this one user has not really made any argument why Danson should not be listed (he did point to some Guidelines that have nothing whatsoever do with this), except of: you should wait till Fall. Maticsg1 (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a possibility that Ted joining the cast hasn't been confirmed... I am not saying anyone is wrong or right in this dispute because I don't know either way. Just pointing out that maybe its not been confirmed. Just saying. I am not asking for anyone to prove to me that its been confirmed or otherwise because it doesn't matter to me really. DarienLeonhart (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

CBS has given a press release about TV Season 2015-16 in which they confirm that Denson will star alongside Patricia Arquette in CSI: Cyber. But anyone trying to implement Danson in Cast section is reverted by one user who says that we should discuss it in Talk section (which is ironic, because she is obviously not willing to make any arguments here). She only stated in Edit summary that we should wait until he shows up in an episode (in Fall) before adding him, but following this logic, any unreleased TV series or Movie should not even have a Cast section, just because it was not yet released, therefore character did not show up in a series/movie yet. Furthermore, if we browse thorugh other TV articles we can see, that in majority of them cast is added when confirmed by reliable source (which network that produces the series is), so we should strive to consistancy and not rely on a will of a single user with no valid arguments. Maticsg1 (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're right or wrong cause like I said earlier, I don't know which is right. Also I have no idea who you're referring to that is reverting the edits, but someone did say to check the policy... and the policy does say that edit wars are not permitted. And before this becomes an edit war, it should be discussed. It is my personal opinion to let the Wikipedia Site Moderators add the pertinent information. Best way to avoid edit wars in my opinion. DarienLeonhart (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, and I also admit that I should have opened a topic here before reverting her reversal for the second time. The point is, that others users have made this same correction that I have, and she keeps reverting them with no valid reason. Shouldn't she be discussing it then (if more users try to make the same edit and she is the only one that thinks that the edit is not appropriate)? Anyway, I have opened this topic to state valid arguments about this edit, why Danson should be added to Cast and characters. Maticsg1 (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Maticsg1, you have minimal command of editing practices here, and are taking this far too personally. The practice here is to reach consensus, a mutually agreed upon solution to a problem. We discuss the issue, not the editor, and we do not make personal attacks, as you find it necessary to do. As the article stands, Danson's move to the cast is explained in the narrative, which is more than adequate for now. He will still appear in CSI once more, in the film, before moving to CSI: Cyber. This is an entirely different situation than Supergirl, which is a new show, and it would be misleading to add him to the cast of a show he's not on yet when he is still appearing on another show as the same character. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, and we make judgments about how to present information encyclopedically. I've cited policy that is on point, your edits have been reverted, and the burden is now on you to establish consensus that the content has to be added. Darien is telling you the same things I did, and I hope you're prepared to work collaboratively now. --Drmargi (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not making any personal attack and I apologize if you have understood it as such. I just pointed out that you had not made any valid arguments yet. A character can appear in more than one series simultaneously, he is not the first one to do so (actually it happens quite often when it comes to franchises). First season of CSI: Cyber ended, so adding him to the cast would not be missleading (I agree that it would be if the first season was still airing). I also hope that you are prepared to work collaboratively, because so far you have reverted (on your own, without any discussion whatsoever) three people that felt that it is appropriate to list Danson in Cast and characters. Maticsg1 (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the validity of arguments is in the eye of the beholder. And the number of editors reverting (especially given two are IPs) isn't germane. I've reviewed WP:BRD, and how the burden is on you to gain consensus, a process that takes place in this talk page, not via edit summary. During a disagreement, the article stays at status quo, as I have been keeping it. I've laid out policy that applies, and explained the need for clarity with regard to where Russell is in the CSI universe (still on CSI.) Sniping back at me about working collaboratively simply weakens your position. Moreover, I fail to see why it is so damned important to have Danson on the cast list for a show he's not on yet while he's still appearing on another show, especially given the narrative already explains that he will be joining Cyber once CSI concludes; it adds nothing, and potentially confuses, and it feels more like winning than editing based on what's best for the article. Drmargi (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to refrain from comments about my intentions as you do not know me, please keep it to discussion about the article and stop being hostile. Also, please refrain yourself from using words like 'damn' as they do not belong in a civilized discussion. The point is, that he has already been casted by CBS on the show CSI: Cyber which basically means he should be in the Cast section. If you feel that it might be confusing, maybe a note can be added that he will start appearing in season 2. It is a fact, stated by the network itself, that he is part of a cast, not a speculation. By the way, CSI: Cyber articles are, thanks to your reverting, currently inconsistent (CSI: Cyber, List of CSI: Cyber episodes). Maticsg1 (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Now this talk page is being turned in to a war. Drmargi is a Senior Editor of Wikipedia. Drmargi knows what she is talking about it so I say let it be... Drmargi or one of the other senior editors will add Ted Danson to the characters section if/when it is deemed necessary. Continuing this argument when it's clearly going no where is pointless.DarienLeonhart (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Either way, as I have mentioned, currently the articles on Wikipedia about CSI: Cyber are inconsistent, and they really shouldn't be. Maticsg1 (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

So? If that's how Wikipedia staff wants it to be... Drmargi works for Wikipedia, you don't. And neither do I... So neither you or I have a say in what happens to the Wikipedia Article of CSI: Cyber or any other article. I see three options for you.

1) Continue to argue it when it's clear you won't win.

2) Ignore Drmargi and continue to edit Ted Danson into the Character section only to get it reverted every time to where you eventually get blocked temporarily or permanently which is up to the staff member blocking you.

3) Concede defeat and let it be.
DarienLeonhart (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you are snapping right now, my last post was just a notice, so that inconsistences can be dealt with (and Drmargi has in the meantime taken care of it). As far as I know she is an editor, not an employee of Wikipedia, and furthermore, I don't now why are you talking about a 'defeat'? Isn't the point of Wikipedia to make the content as best as it can be, so there is actually no 'winning' and 'loosing'? And also, 'it has to be like that because Drmargi said it' is not even an argument. Either way, once again, the last post made by me was not even about adding Ted Danson back to the Cast but to make articles about CSI: Cyber consistent, which they now are. There was no need for snapping like that. Maticsg1 (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

"Snapping" is another way of saying yelling and I am not yelling. If I were, I'd be using bold print or all capital letters. Quit making a big deal about a small detail or small inconsistencies. You got your reason as to why the addition of Ted Danson is being reverted all the time. And you're still continuing the argument. Let it go already.
DarienLeonhart (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I think someone needs to look up "to snap" in the dictionary. If it is so wrong to have Ted Danson listed in the Cast, then it should be wrong to have him listed as a star in a related article, don't you think? Either way, it has been taken care of. This is a talk page, made for discussing edits, if you don't feel like discussing it, you don't have to. Maticsg1 (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I dislike more than someone telling me to look in the dictionary. English is my primary language and I always got high marks in English class. Telling someone to look in the dictionary in way that you did can be insulting towards someone. Yes, this is a talk page, made for discussing edits, but you're only discussing an edit that is getting reverted/undone for good reason. Leave it alone already. Talk pages are not made for people to insult other people just as you have insulted me. I never said it's wrong or right to have Ted Danson listed in the Cast. The decision has been made by Wikipedia Staff that it should not be included until such time as CSI: Cyber season two has begun. Let it be. You claim that you're satisfied with the reason Ted Danson is getting reverted from the cast list and yet you're still making a big deal out of it. Let it go already. And don't use talk pages to insult people, even if you didn't mean to, watch the wording because just about anything can be viewed as insulting, like the dictionary comment.
DarienLeonhart (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not an insult, I literally ment it, "to snap" does not mean "yelling". The decision has not been made by Wikipedia Staff, it has been made by a single user, and I did not claim that I am satisfied with the reason Ted Danson is getting reverted from the cast, because I still think he should be there (for the reasons stated above). Maticsg1 (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Telling me to check the dictionary (for any word) is viewed as an insult to someone who speaks English as a primary language and received high marks in every English class the person has taken. As for Ted Danson and the Cast section. It's not going to be put there until Cyber Season 2 begins. Deal with it. Doesn't matter how many people say it won't be added as long as that person is Wikipedia Staff which Drmargi is. And in the usage you used it, "snapping" is something someone does when they are angry. So when someone says, for example, "He/She's snapped" It means they are angry and not afraid to show it... and "snapping" leads to yelling. So don't insult me again. I will take it to the authorities if I have to. But, for the love of God, give up the fight already. You've lost. Ted Danson will not be added to the Cast section until such time as Wikipedia Staff deems necessary. Continuing to argue that fact when it's been made clear that it won't happen is pointless.
DarienLeonhart (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yelling can be a part of snapping, but is definitely not a synonym for it, but that is off-topic. If you feel I insulted you, by all means, report me, I personally don't see anything insulting about implying that someone's definiton of a certain word is false. Drmargi is not a Wikipedia Staff (if she is, please show me where she is defined as such, and I will gladly retract my statement). Either way, instead of filling the Talk page with statements like: "You've lost" (which is absurd as it is not about "winning" or "loosing", it is about providing factual and accurate information), you could let the topic be commented by someone else in the future, after all it is a discussion. If you feel like it is pointless, you are free to stop commeting it. Maticsg1 (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping other people from commenting. I won't take definition or grammar advice from someone who's spelling is poor. I'm done dealing with you. Like Drmargi said earlier, you are taking this Ted Danson issue personally. And yes, you've lost, as in lost the argument. You won't win in this discussion. So give up already. The information about Ted Danson is already on the CSI: Cyber article... at the top of the page. It doesn't need to be added twice. Drmargi also told you that it was already mentioned at the top of the article. But as I already said. I'm done talking to you.
DarienLeonhart (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to note, as I have said at the discussion started at Wikipedia:ANI, Drmargi is not a Wikipedia employee, and is not claiming to be. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

All editors in this discussion: Please discuss content, not other editors. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Luke Perry

Am I missing something here? He wasn't on any of the episodes in Season 1, nor either of the CSI crossovers (Kitty or The Twin Paradox). Was this just a storyboarded idea that fell through? IMDB also doesn't show any involvement with either franchise. Matt (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It probably was a fan prank that slipped through. If it's wrong, remove it. --Drmargi (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly and Variety announced his casting a little while ago: [2], [3]. There isn't much news after that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed him from the cast since he really wasn't on any of the episodes, even though it was reported in September 2014 that he would be on the show. Thanks for bringing that up. Maticsg1 (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Staff?

Move along now. Nothing to see here. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Drmargi is not a paid staff person (and neither am I). We are volunteers. Paid staff are employed by the Wikimedia Foundation and their usernames will always include "(WMF)" when they are acting in their staff capacity. Paid WMF staff do not decide routine content disputes, as the encyclopedia is written and edited by volunteers. All editors interested in this article should stop bickering with each other and focus instead on improving the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Another editor has this covered above, and it's been discussed on at least one of the editors' talk pages. Can we please let it drop? --Drmargi (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC) I dunno, seems like a perfect opportunity to stick my nose in and stir up some trouble.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Well, I'm not finding much humor in the situation, and hope an admin will hat this whole mess. --Drmargi (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

MacNicol leaving

It has been widely reported that MacNicol is leaving. On both this page and the episode page references noting his departure are being removed. Whilst Ted Danson's first episode hasn't aired yet, adding heed to the argument against including his arrival, MacNicol's last episode has. It's disheartening to try to keep this page up to date when people are working against that. Please discuss prior to removing references to his departure.

References

-- user:unframboise (talk), 17.05.15, 01:26 (GMT).

Deadline says they "hear" McNicol is leaving. The other sources pass it on. RTE? That's an IRISH network -- what's their source? Deadline. CBS has not announced or confirmed his departure, nor has McNicol announced it himself. We don't report rumors. Please review WP:RS. Deadline is a gossip site that reports rumors, set-sider information and other unsourced gossip. They are not reliable unless they cite the network, and were wrong about other CBS programs when reporting what they "hear". BTW, it's poor practice, potentially blockable, to edit both logged in and as an IP, particularly when edits are controversial. --Drmargi (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Google sources nearly 200 articles noting his departure. CBS hasn't announced he's staying, either. Which they would, if over 200 news and media sources were announcing false casting changes to their shows. Feel free to block my account for accidentally forgetting to log in for an edit or two. There's nothing controversial about sourcing a departure. -- user:unframboise (talk), 17.05.15, 01:35 (GMT).

The network doesn't announce who is staying. None I've found source CBS, most source Deadline. There's no harm in waiting until we know definitively what's happening. Moreover, even if McNicol does leave, he may appear early in S2 to wrap up his story. You're making assumptions again. --Drmargi (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Deadline is more reputable than Hollywood Reporter, which you cited to prove Laurence Fishburne was a recurring Hannibal cast member. As I recall you refused to stop reverting edits noting him as main cast until the fifth or sixth episode aired. I give up. He's leaving. We'll see. --User:unframboise, 01:49, 17.05.15 (GMT)

Hardly. if you were in the U.S., you'd know how how completely wide of the mark that statement about HR is. Unlike Deadline, they fact-check and only report what they can verify. You might want to do a little research on Hollywood Reporter, which is the most highly regarded film and television publication, instead of leaping to yet another conclusion. BTW, whatever happened with Fishburne, I don't recall, but it's clearly long past time for you to get over it. Drmargi (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to compare Deadline.com and Hollywood Reporter reliability: [4]. Maticsg1 (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how a lawsuit in stealing Deadline's parent company's property has anything to do with which company is more trustworthy on their sources. Stealing property is one thing. Providing information about things like who is joining or leaving CSI Cyber is something else entirely. That's my opinion anyway, and that's all I have to say on the subject.
DarienLeonhart (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

If Company A steals article from Company B, then their articles cannot be more reliable than the ones from Company B (as they are the same), but do have less integrity, since Company B at least knows where the information came from. Maticsg1 (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I just hope you have fun upgrading all the pages when you realise you were wrong, and that Ted Danson is becoming a regular and Peter MacNicol is leaving. user:unframboise (talk) 20:40, 17.05.15 (GMT)

OMG, it's the end of the world because the opinions of other people are not the same as yours unframboise What you believe and what is fact are not always the same thing. MacNicol leaving the show has not been confirmed by the right sources... aka official sources. Ted Danson is listed on the page... at the top of the article. He doesn't need to be added to the cast list until the second season begins. and he definitely doesn't need to be listed twice. So stop acting like its the end of the world... because that already happened, on December 21st, 2012. Oh wait, we're still here, three years later. So not the end of the world after all. This is all I am going to say on the subject. IF you don't know what that means, it means I am done responding. It also means, do not add your two cents on the subject on my personal talk page either.
DarienLeonhart (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Excuse you, Mr. Condescension. I think you should have added the comments you made on drmargi's talk page here, instead of doing it in private. Firstly, to both of you, I may be from the UK but as somebody who has read extensively on the United States and is currently completing a Bachelors degree in American Studies, as someone who has wrote countless essays and papers on the US media, everything from Op-Ed papers are used in medicine to how satirical television conveys mainstream US views on feminism in politics, I would appreciate if you didn't imply that I was somehow unable to understand media and journalism. I won't be adding my two cents on your talk page, because I'm capable of drawing a line, unlike some people. Ha. unframboise (talk) 21:19, 17.06.15 (GMT).

@user:unframboise I actually agree with you that the information that is properly sourced should be included as such, but trying to argument those changes I only got comments like "you've lost, deal with it" and "it is unwise to revert an experienced user". Anyway, I still think those changes should be made, especially because, as the BRD states: "BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas." That is exactly what user:drmargi is doing. Those changes have been made multiple times by different editors, always sourced. Maticsg1 (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why Deadline.com is being questioned as a reliable source. As far as I'm aware, they're a top tier source for entertainment news. This isn't coming from someone random blog or person, it's from Nellie Andreeva, a professional entertainment journalist, it's her job to have "insider scoop" and knowledge. This isn't hearsay from someone on the street or someone running a personal TV blog from their basement, it's from a highly reputable source, so I don't understand why it can't be included. Several other reliable sources have reported on it such as Entertainment Weekly ("Now, EW has confirmed the Deadline report") and TheWrap ("TheWrap has learned"); they're not just sourcing Deadline, they're independent reports or confirmations. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

That's my main gripe with this, too. It seems that, as maticsg1 says, drmargi is simply "reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas," and because she's an experienced user it's being overlooked. Wikipedia is an editing community in which anyone should be able to contribute. Ideas of seniority threaten that. -- Unframboise (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2015 (GMT)

So, do we now all agree that Deadline constitutes as reliable source and that information based on their reporting (especially when confirmed by other sources as well) can/should be added to the article? Maticsg1 (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that's the consensus arising. I'll make the edit, and hopefully instead of reverting it straight away the editors in question will discuss any further changes if they still disagree. unframboise (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2015 (GMT) -- couldn't log in - sorry— Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.152.197 (talk)

To sum up, drmargi reverts the edits, pointing to a start of a discussion about them, after discussion starts she states that she finds sources unreliable. After her statements are challenged by multiple users, using valid arguments, the user - seeing all this - goes behind multiple editors' back to the Wikipedia Director saying that we "don't have a year's experience", "don't understand WP:RS or WP:VERIFY, two of them are basing their edits on a gossip site reporting rumors" and that we "need a firm hand". When the discussion comes to a point when everyone currently involved agrees about the reliability of the forementioned source and trying to implement changes, once again, changes are reverted pointing to this discussion. It is imposible to reach a consensus that way, and I don't know, maybe that's the whole point as in that it can't be said that the consensus was reached if someone is not involved in the discussion anymore, I don't know and I won't speculate, but the fact is, and I have been refraining myself from saying that for a few days now, because it may be a little "inpolite", but "reverting justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version" is an action of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Maticsg1 (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Edit: fixed typo Maticsg1 (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This is rather pedantic. "Deadline is better! The Hollywood reporter is better!" One specific parts of Drmargi argument is that the deadline article is speculating and not actually confirming the departure. Instead of discussing this the conversation has devolved. Is this a confirmation? If it is then you are golden. If the suggestion is still that the deadline.com as a source is bad I'd suggest WP:RSN as a means to get a consensus on this. Also just to point out, Peter MacNicol is a living person. WP:BLPSOURCES applies and not simply WP:RS.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion's basically dead, isn't it? The issue with the sources has been fixed by getting new sources (that aren't being contested) and attaching them to the content about MacNicol leaving. Nice compromise, problem solved. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference and original research

There is a issue with the current Reference #30 added by User:Rswallis10. Looking at the "Ratings Ryan" blog I found that the author is Ryan Wallis. Rswallis10 and Ryan Wallis appear to be the same person. That makes the reference original research. Even if the information is accurate, and there's no way to tell because the blog has no source, it may not belong here. I'm not going to delete it but does anyone else see a problem with this? 99.155.193.85 (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)