This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject CSI franchise, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the CSI franchise on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taylor Swift, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taylor Swift on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
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)
Done This was an act of vandalism and has been reverted by another editor. :) JguyTalkDone 02:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Its far more concise and a lot less messy - any objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Table is organized by job title rather than cast recency and does not work for that reason alone. Current cast should be up top. Table is too elaborate with more detail than needed. --Drmargi (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the entry, the bio information on the principal characters is at least three seasons out of date.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.
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)
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 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? 18.104.22.168 (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. --MASEM (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. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 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. --MASEM (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. --MASEM (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. --MASEM (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. 22.214.171.124 (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. --MASEM (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.
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)