Talk:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation/Archive 1

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

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

message: Who's the current Director of the Crime Lab in the 2005 plot line? It used to be Brass, but he was replaced in the pilot, and Ecklie is not the Assistant Director, but who's the Director? -- The Anome 12:24, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
:I think Ecklie actually is the director as of the most recent season. -Etoile 18:15, 14 Jun 
2005 (UTC)
Nope, Etoile. Before the split of night-shift team. Ecklie is a supervisor on day-shift. --Genocide2st 19:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Director of the Crime Lab 

message: I tried to clean up this entry, but it needs a lot more information!
*Above comment by User:Gabrielarana.  DuctapeDaredevil 22:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entry needs more information 

message: On the right side, under networks, should "Spike TV" be added in addition to CBS?
*No, since Spike only picks the show up in syndication. The reason I added CTV to the list was because CTV does a simul-cast with CBS of CSI on Thursday nightPinkfloydfan 01:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Networks 

message: This may be of more interest for another article that i'm not gonna make the effort to track down:
In summer 2005 (July, i think), a CSI:LV ep aired (presumably re-aired and presumably from 2004-2005) in which a hotel exec had done two murder/rapes something like 5-10 years apart, the second being that of an airline stewardess whose luggage he kept. Between the two, the technology had been developed to remove the repetitive background printed during manufacture of a bedspread from an image, producing a usable handprint, which the judge would not accept as the basis for a search warrant on an ex-con (who turned out to have been the victim's dope-dealer but not the perp) bcz the technology was too new.
A murder case w/ some of those particulars actually existed, but it was over 25 years ago. 
* JPL or one of its sub-contractors developed related technology for analysis of images returned from space, 
* the evidence was a floral-print bedspread with a bloody handprint, and 
* "picture subtraction" was successful in tying a suspect to the scene, to the investigators' satisfaction, but 
* it was ruled legally irrelevant for lack of basis in "established science" validating it.
I've formally requested an article on picture subtraction, but this may be either another path to that article, or of use for this talk page's article -- tho obviously research at WP is needed first. (Hmm, to provide a basis for accepting it as verifiable knowledge. [grin])--Jerzy·t 15:18, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
:I Googled for "picture subtraction", and failed to find any uses of the term in the sense that was meant in the series. I agree, this technique is certainly a valid image-processing technique, but the term "picture subtraction" does not seem, as far as I can tell, to be used for it. Can you come up with a non-CSI cite for this technique? -- Karada 07:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I've found the term which is commonly used, namely "image differencing". I'll edit [[[WP:RA]] to request this, iinstead. -- Karada 07:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Subtraction 

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

message: New in these parts... Just noticed that the link to "David Berman" goes to someone besides the David Berman who acts on the show.  They don't look remotely alike.
Whoever knows how to handle something like this, please do.  Thanks!
Bobbo
*:I will try to create a disambiguation page for David Berman and then we will need to add a page for this David Berman Gadig 18:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Berman is not the David Berman listed in Wiki 

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

message: Now that most characters are getting their own articles, do we really need that much information about them listed on the main page? A lot of series articles only list the characters, with links to their profiles, and I think it's a good idea that helps unclutter the page. What do you think? --Andromeda 16:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There should be a character page like the episodes page. Vesperholly 05:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters information 

message: The IMDB link in the top-right box links to The O.C, and not CSI. Paranoid as I am I figure this is either a prank by some kid, or some network station promotion attempt...
Anyway, it should be changed.
Fixed
Stordoff 16:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMDB Link 

message: The criticisms section as it stands now is completely unsourced and comes off as irredeemably POV. I have placed an   tag on the section. 23skidoo 04:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms section is a mess 

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

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

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

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

message: I'm interested in how people view CSI's "pushing" of science and use of questionable (or more accurately - not real) scientific methods. I cite three cases:
# A victim has been stabbed to death with a knife. In the medical lab, in order to reconstruct the murder weapon, clay (or some type of material) is poured into the wound. It sets and when removed, wallah! A perfect mould in the shape of the knife which caused the wound.
# A clay pot in the episode "Committed". Crafted while two people were having an argument. Of course, the marks on the pot were vibrating to the argument. When the clay pot is analysed, they shoot a laser at it and get a sound back. Behold! It's the argument being played back - reproduced from the bumps and grooves made in the pot during the argument.
# Any episode which ever involves image enhancement. The classic case is zooming in on an image - "enhancing" it to the pint where a crisp clea image is on screen. CSI: New York took this one step further I believe when they used it in a case of somebody's eye. We zoom right in and enhance the eye perfectly "There's a reflection there, can you enhance that?" and we do. Once again, through the magic of fakey science, we have a clue. The reflection off of someone's enhanced eye.
Are there other cases where CSI simply makes stuff up or takes methods so far to the extreme in order to get clue's that the show loses its credibility? I think it's well worth mentioning as part of the article.
:Well, whenever I've seen forensic teams on TV newscasts and so on, they wear jumpsuits, booties, gloves and showercaps so that they won't mess up the evidence. I find it ridiculous when one of the female characters, with all that hair exclaims "I've found a hair!". Sure, lady. It's probably your own. :D Vince In Milan 13:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 9.8m/s^2 is the acceleration due to gravity, how fast you accelerate in free fall. I don't know the deacceleration due to wind resistance (Terminal velocity occurs when the deacceleration due to wind resistance equals the acceleration due to gravity)  but in free fall it would take about five and a half seconds(53.6/9.8).--XirSponge 04:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: :Another concern with CSI is not its factual flaws, but conversely, the raised awareness of forensic science — to the point of paranoia — that it encourages amongst criminals. FBI agents and police detectives have expressed distress that CSI is educating criminals in how to leave a "squeaky clean" crime scene. In shootings, shell casings are more frequently being removed from the scene of the crime; stabbings and other crimes often leave no fingerprints; and many criminals have found ways to be generally more stealthy at what they do.
I'd like to see some research on this one.  Most of what you see on CSI has been public, common knowledge for years.  PrometheusX303 13:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSI makes criminals smarter? 

message: A section called unsolved cases  were you post up the cases that csi had not solved or continuse like the paul miller case. It will begin with which episode the case began in and with episodes contiune that case and also when was it solved, and we can add it to the all the csi shows so i just want permission to do that or if you had ideas to make it better. --LeafGreen Ranger 21:59, 14 April 2006 (BST)
: Sounds like a good idea to me. Prometheus-X303- 21:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a bunch of more fancruft to clutter up the article to me. 75.2.38.48 23:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can We Add This To All The CSI's 

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

message: I don't think I need to expand upon anything further from the title of my message here. I just spent 10 minutes reading through and correcting a number of moronic mistakes in the trivia section, where someone had italicised the names of David Bowie and William S. Burroughs, not to mention tried to pass off "comicbook" and "comicbooks" as if they are actual words. The level of ridiculousness for that kind of stupidity to slip by those editors who take this article seriously and treat it as a viable source of information regarding this show is mind boggling.
The entire section itself is poorly organised. An episode-by-episode breakdown of things like that belongs in a guide on TV.com and not in any type of encyclopedia. 75.2.38.48 23:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And there's way too much trivia in general. It seems a bunch of people just decided to add their favorite scenes into the trivia section. It needs quite a bit of trimming. --Optichan 18:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Recently I cleaned out the trivia section on [[House (TV}]] and moved a bunch of overly detailed info to the show's list of episodes. Trivia sections are inherently a sign of poor writing. If the only way you can fit something into an article is to cram it under the heading of trivia, it either does not belong there (it might fit better in a different section or article), or is too trivial to be included in the encyclopaedia at all. Johnleemk | Talk 09:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can somewhat understand the episode-based trivia (although I agree the points would be more appropriate in an episode-by-episode listing), but information about who publishes the comic book, that it is the highest-watched show in the Netherlands, information about the actors having worked together on previous pilots or series, characters "making out" in unaired scenes, and factual inaccuracies from the show (that could likely be its own Wiki entry) all seem superfluous. SINsApple 02:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  I moved a few episode-based trivia to their own article, where the episode already had an article.  Suggest all the remaining episode based trivia items be removed. --Oscarthecat 06:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section of this article is of poor quality, to say the least. 

message: 99.99% of the people putting in C.S.I will be looking for this and not the Order of the Star of India......  
Pure inuyasha 21:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  C.S.I should redirect here. 

message: The only area of controversy I've come across is the "product-placement" morality, mainly anti-drugs, particularly in the early episodes.  I'd have thought that was worth mentioning.  An issue shared with CSI Miami.  From the other side, in political terms, there also seems to be a conservative suspicion of treatment of family morality, particularly  abortion.
 
Hakluyt bean 13:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy : anti-drugs message? 

message: I saw no mention of the controversy regarding how CSI portrays LGBT characters. From what I've read on other sites (www.afterellen.com) there were complaints that CSI reinforced negative stereotypes. Personally, I'm a fan of the show and I didn't find it that offensive, but I think this at least deserves mention if organizations like GLAAD were complaining about it. Mayuko 18:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair comment. I've added a basic entry regarding this, see diff --Oscarthecat 18:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As a Bisexual and Transexual.. I've never really found anything offensive in CSI. Yes they've made their characters around stereotypes, but they have to be dumbed down for the general public, without getting into some big debate about who people are transexual.. But certainly worth noting TigerTails (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GLAAD Controversy 

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

message: Can anyone find a cite of Freya Adamson as an upcoming character?  I've looked but haven't found anything about it or even anything on who Freya Adamson is.  Also, I've included Liev Schreiber on this list and cited a source, however I couldn't find his character's name.  If anyone knows it please add it in. --Cody.Pope 19:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming Characters 

message: One criticism I seem to remember hearing is that the cases on the show are almost always solved.  Does anyone have any statistics for the country or for the cities the show and spinoffs are based on about solved vs. unsolved murders? -- Beland 07:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been persistent criticism that because of the way that many of the CSI crews handle the evidence that it usually will never stand up in court. Also some basic rules are always ignored; such as even if a single bullet is shot then there is almost always a hearing no matter how small.Zorro444 (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Realism 

message: There's a section head called Critical reception with three paragraphs which don't seem to refer to any critics or reviews. Just viewer response. Suggest renaming to "Viewer response" or some such. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Critical Reception" 

message: The three infoboxes at the start of the article are surrounded by a ... to force all three boxes to the right side of the screen.  The problem is that this messes up formatting in Firefox (2.0); the text of the article overflows into the actual infoboxes (screenshot).  In Opera it just forces the page too wide and I get a bottom scrollbar.  I tried tinkering with the HTML in various ways but I wasn't able to fix the problem.  I suspect that  needs to be tweaked to solve this issue. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 05:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting problem 

message: I have listed Airdates of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation for AfD.  The nomination can be found here.  Thanks.  --  Wikipedical 20:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airdates of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation 

message: I was watching the CSI episode Law of Gravity and I thought that I heard the F word muttered by the killer.  Did I hear that right?--Rabbitdude 06:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did I hear it right? 

message: Just watched episode 14/7. Brass uses the term "sexy time" with a smirk on his face. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.76.37.154 (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boratism? 

message: Is it necessary to mention the names of the actors in the beginning of the characters section? The information is already presented, and seems a little redundant to me. --68.144.228.198 01:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters and Cast 

message: For an article about a landmark TV show, I find this page to be underwhelming to say the least. To anyone interested in helping to improve this page:
*  - large archive of news articles about CSI 
*  - even larger archive of news articles, not all of them are relevant though
*  - Some really good articles about the show's origin, style, special effects, etc., basically everything we need to put in an encyclopedia article. 
*  - about the "CSI effect"
*  - also about the CSI effect
*  - about the "CSI shot" 
* 
* 
(Feel free to add to this list if you find online sources that can be used for the article)— Sandtiger 17:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input. Negative criticisms about the show are welcome, and in fact, necessary to create a balanced article. And tt's not just BBC, check out this article from national geographic. Besides the article also mentions how the show sparked an interest in forensic science, which is also part of the CSI effect.— Sandtiger 12:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page needs overhaul 

message: No offense, but is the idiot that cited recoilmag.com as their source for the number of times Radiohead songs have played throughout the history of CSI for real?  This is a parody website similar to the Onion.  I am not disputing that Radiohead has appeared often (I've frequently noticed it), but this is definitely not an appropriate citation.  I am rewording the sentence and removing the citation. 24.44.171.195 23:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem seems to be that if an anonymous user removes something without leaving any comment in the edit summary then that raises a red flag and can lead to rapid undoing. Even when you are right, as in this case. Explaining your actions whilst editing can help avoid edit wars, as can dropping a note to the party involved. Hopefully this note should catch the attention of most editors. (Emperor 10:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be more diligent about including proper edit summeries in my edits, though it seems somewhat harsh to blanket-revert anonymous edits without even a cursory review of what was changed, especially since I did add this comment before making my edit.  Oh well...live and learn... 24.44.171.195 14:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiohead music and citation of recoilmag.com 

message: There is no "Las Vegas Police Department," yet we see the acronym "LVPD" all the time in CSI.  The real name of the local police force in that city is the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, which also serves the rest of Clark County, Nevada, and we do see cases outside of Las Vegas proper in CSI.  How come we don't see the correct acronym "LVMPD" in the show?  Is it because the real LVMPD refused to licence its name to the producers of this show? --  Denelson83  23:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency due to fiction - LV(M)PD 

message: Looking at the Good Article criteria, I think that CSI is a justifiable candidate for GA status. Consider the criteria:
#Well written: spelling punctuation and grammar are all correct, complies with Manual of Style
#Accurate and verifiable: the article is well sourced throughout, contains no OR, and has a defined reference section at the end.
#Broad in its coverage: this is fulfilled on both counts:
##Major aspects: addresses premise, style, characters and critical reception without going into unnecessary detail, which is better placed in character or episode articles.
##Stays on topic: it is definitely written in summary style - see point 3.1, above
#Neutrality: checked this for weasel words, bias etc myself. Curiously, considering the criticism CSI receives from many sources (the law and the PTC among them), there is next to no vandalism or weaselling in this article.
#Stability: not in middle of an edit war (see above), is unlikely to change much at all unless Sara Sidle dies at the start of season 8.
#Images: limited usage, only to illustrate article topics, no unnecessary character images, short captions, fair use justification, the works.
QED. Editus Reloaded 18:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'll be doing this review. After a quick look, I see that some references feature nothing but a url. These references need access dates, publisher info, titles, basically anything that can be added to give us a better idea of where the info came from. I'll give it a more thorough look soon. Wrad 22:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I see someone else has signed up for it. Is it all right that I do it, though, since I haven't edited the article before and have no conflict of interest? Wrad 22:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, it's better if you do it since i have added to this article and i won't be completly objective, feel free to delete me as a reviewer.Yamanbaiia 22:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, sounds good. Wrad 22:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Haven't looked at this article in a while, but I see that it now has a production section and relevant references throughout as requested, so I'm going to re-nominate. Editus Reloaded (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added those sections before I knew what "reliable source" meant. It needs a LOT of clean up before being a GA but hey! since you've already nominated I think it's hammer time (??).--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 19:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, yes. I've found two unverified claims so far, and I'm only on Conception and development. Speaking of which, I shall move Style (section 3) into Production as section 1.3, because it seems strange to have Style out on its own. Editus Reloaded (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I've worked my way down to Guest Stars (most of the reception, criticism and all the other stuff like it is very well written and sourced anyway) and the most obvious gap I can see is referencing when different musicians had their music used for the show. Personally, I would like to get rid of most of that list on the basis that it is just a list, but put my delusions of autocracy on hold for the moment and get a consensus on this. Editus Reloaded (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article status? 

message: On the breadth criteria, I don't think this article is quite there yet. I've looked over several other TV series GAs, such as Prison Break and Smallville (TV series), and noticed that they all have a production section, which this article lacks. How and where is this series shot? How was the idea for the show developed? How did they choose their cast members? Why is the series set in Las Vegas? Anyway, the article needs to talk more about this. I'd say that's the biggest problem with it right now. 
There are also several citation needed tags which would need to be fixed if it were to become GA. Also, the article kind of stops verifying itself with sources right around the "Soundtrack" section. That's also a bit of a problem. Other than that, the article is pretty well sourced and neutral. I'm going to fail the article for now, since I don't think these issues can be addressed in seven days or less, but feel free to resubmit once the ref and breadth problems have been addressed. Also, if you leave a message at my talk page after addressing, I'll take a look at the article and let you know if there is anything else it may need before another nomination.  Wrad 23:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't looked at this article in a while, but I see that it now has a production section and relevant references throughout as requested, so I'm going to re-nominate. Editus Reloaded (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added those sections before I knew what "reliable source" meant. It needs a LOT of clean up before being a GA but hey! since you've already nominated I think it's hammer time (??).--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 19:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, yes. I've found two unverified claims so far, and I'm only on Conception and development. Speaking of which, I shall move Style (section 3) into Production as section 1.3, because it seems strange to have Style out on its own. Editus Reloaded (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I've worked my way down to Guest Stars (most of the reception, criticism and all the other stuff like it is very well written and sourced anyway) and the most obvious gap I can see is referencing when different musicians had their music used for the show. Personally, I would like to get rid of most of that list on the basis that it is just a list, but put my delusions of autocracy on hold for the moment and get a consensus on this. Editus Reloaded (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: Pardon me if I'm wrong but I've looked everywhere on the net and I haven't found a single verified news about the 7th season DVD release of CSI on the 20 of November 2007 in Australia. Ephie-sama 14:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Region 4 DVD releases updates 

message: I removed a section added by an annonymous ip to the character section regarding Ronnie Lake. I'm dead set against posting anything regarding a replacement for Sara until CBS or the producers actually announce a decision. Speculation will only make the article look silly in the end. Remember when everyone thought Rosie O'Donnell would be host of The Price is Right? -- Redfarmer 23:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything I've seen, all rumored of course, has pointed towards Ronnie Lake being a four-episode character. I doubt they'll make her full-time. Though I did like the subtle mention of Miami and NY in her first ep. Cougar Draven 06:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has been confirmed that Ronnie Lake will not be replacing Sara Sidle in the cast. The female CSI lead will probably be filled by DNA tech Wendy Simms. In the Season Eight episode "You Kill Me", Simms states that she is strongly considering taking her field test. It seems that CBS is trying to reuse a plot line (Greg Sanders leaving the lab, becoming a CSI.. ect. ect) but I sort of like the idea.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.118.158 (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ronnie Lake 

message: Who keeps on changing the episode count to 170? I have to keep reverting it to 171 and I might get blocked because of the three-revert rule. Whoever is reverting it to 170, please stop. Far out!--RoryReloaded 09:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far out 

message: I think the article has improved since the last GA review, but i can't renominate because of the  tags in the "Style" section . The rest of the article is referenced and well written, and the only stability problem we've got is the whole Louise Lombard is/is not a main character. When googling about CSI's style, i only found other sites that have copy-pasted this article (HA!). I don't want to remove it so does anyone have anything about CSI's style? any source for the "CSI shot" or the avant-garde stuff??  -Yamanbaiia 16:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DVD bonus feature on the Region 2 release of CSI The Complete Season 3. I added this reference God knows how long ago. Editus Reloaded (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA problems (Style section) 

message: Chatter on TV.com suggests that Jorja Fox's abscense on CSI is only temporary, that she will be back "sooner than you think." Does anyone have a source to confirm or deny this? I know TV.com isn't the most reliable source in the world, but if the chatter is right, it may affect how Sara is classified on the main page. -- Redfarmer (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you have Jorja saying that she believes that Sara will be back, and here you have Carol Mendelsohn saying that she too believes that Sara will be back; probably as a guest star, neither of them says that she'll be back as a main character, so i would leave her in that new section. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I'm really hacked off with the Sara spoiler, being only on episode 801 here in the UK.  I managed to skip that section pretty quick so I don't know the details thankfully.  I suggest you add a spoiler warning at the top of the article. 86.53.51.180 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone visiting a page like this should expect spoilers. See WP:SPOILER. --Fogeltje (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Until She's brought back don't doing any confuse pls  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.234.80 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jorja Fox/Sara 

message: I found much talk of this a few months ago, right after the CSI:The Experiance came out at the Museum of Science and Industry (The exhibit was loads of fun, if any one is planning on seeing it.) Many people were saying that this is going to lead to a CSI:Chicago. Considering the fact the Chicago is the 4th busiest crime lab in the U.S, it seems pretty plausible. Many rumors of Emmy Rosum, from  The Day After Tommorow playing a  Catherine Willows  esque charecter were popping up as well. I'm trying to look into it but all I can find are gossip sites and those are hardly citable sources. Any one have information on it?  Broadway4life155 (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSI: Chicago 

message: Cast/Character section gives Grissom's middle name as Arthur.  To quote the character, "Cite your source".  I don't recall Grissom being given a middle name at any point.
82.42.83.17 (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grissom's Middle Name 

message: Someone needs to set up an article for the Season 1 episode "$35K O.B.O.". It is the only CSI episode article that just redirects to the episode list in the season's article. --Ifrit (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[$35K O.B.O.]] 

message: I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 16:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series 

message: Look, GD hasn't left the show yet; he's still contracted through all of season eight. I reverted the changes that put him as a "former cast member," because the last episode of Season 8 is still two and half weeks away in the US. He should stay as a regular until then... and it's a pretty big spoiler, as well - so all references to him leaving were removed. Aatrek (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoilers are no reason not to include information, anyone reading a page like this should expect spoilers. Since the information is well sourced, it has been re-added.--Fogeltje (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Until an episode without him as a regular airs he's not a past character. A miracle could happen, or it could all be part of an evil marketing plan by CBS. Hold your horses, september is not that far.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 13:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary Dourdan / Warrick Brown 

message: this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7100495.stm mentions that there have been complaints that CSI teaches criminals to remove evidence of crime. Rds865 (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already an article about this phenomenon: CSI Effect. haz (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  helping criminals 

message: Two point as to why Bryce Adams should not be in main characters:
#She is not a main character on the basis that she is not a character in the show yet, in the same way that Elvis cannot be considered the greatest living musician today
#Miajmw has not bothered to read her own source; it expressly states that Katee Sackhoff, who Miajmw contends to have been cast in the role of Bryce, was in fact turned down for the role by CBS and Jerry Bruckheimer.
Let us put this speculation to rest for now, at least until someone comes up with a source that opposes this view. Editus Reloaded (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the entries for Bryce Adams and Ray Sanataro from the infobox, seeing as they haven't been cast yet. haz (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bryce Adams 

message: I read in today's Toronto Sun that Lauren Lee Smith will be joining the cast of CSI next season.  --James Duggan 21:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New cast member 

message: I've replaced both :Image:CSI-season1-promo.jpg and :Image:CSI-season 6-promo.jpg with :Image:CSI season 1 cast.jpg. The quality of :Image:CSI-season1-promo.jpg is too crap to make anyone out and doesn't include everyone. :Image:CSI-season 6-promo.jpg is a lot harder to justify as fair use for identifying the character as the actors aren't in costume or on set--the article might just as well have free images of the actors. Additionally, two images of the cast is one too many. One is sufficient (see other character sections in articles such as Lost (TV series) and Smallville (TV series) that just use the one image) Bradley0110 (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast images 

message: I added the refimprove template because this article is beginning to seem like a hotbed of speculation. The biggest problem I have right now is there is no reference from a verifiable source suggesting that David Berman and Liz Vassey are going to be added to the opening credits next season. Such a reference needs to be found or else this information needs to be deleted. Redfarmer (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An Entertainment Weekly interview with CSI showrunner Carol Mendelsohn states that, "Current cast members Liz Vassey (lab rat Wendy) and David Berman (coroner David) have been upped to full-fledged series regulars" EW Interview. While I haven't seen their names appear in the opening credits yet this season, they are supposed to become series regulars rather than just recurring guest starts.71.169.183.239 (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need more references 

message: "As a result, in the Season 8 finale, the undersheriff shoots Warrick in the neck and chest while he is sitting in his car, and then leaves him to die from his wounds. He dies in the opening moments with Gil Grissom holding him in the Season 9 premiere. "
The undersheriff who? It appears he is not mentioned anywhere else in the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Undersheriff Jeffery McKean (my spelling may be off here) never was a strong character before Warrick's murder, other than an occasional antagonist to the staff of the crime lab (mostly to Brass and Grissom, when the solving of a case had political benefit for McKean). I do not have enough myself to put together an article in list of characters, but I agree with EnigmaMcmxc that more information about him should be included in the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation article. He was indeed critical to the storyline of Warrick's death. Bloo (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sentance which needs more clarification 

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

message: The image :File:CSI Raymond.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with File:CSI Raymond.png 

message: On play.com they have the full series 8 R2 in stock and in the article it says TBC which it obviously isnt, someone should change that.--82.22.96.118 (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 8 region 2 

message: These trivia points have been cut from the article, as they don't belong.  I'm sure they do belong in articles about the individual episodes (when they get created), so recorded here ready for moving over in the future.
*Episode 2.23: The Hunger Artist - Title (and plot somewhat) taken from a short story by Franz Kafka called A Hunger Artist.
*Episode 3.05: Abra Cadaver - This episode features a guest appearance by Tom Noonan. Noonan and series star William Petersen played villain and hero, respectively, in the film Manhunter.
**Of note is that this particular episode is one of the top contenders for CSI to attain a possible jump the shark moment. 
*Episode 4.19: Bad Words - One of the two cases in this episode involves the death of a champion word game player. The word game involved is Logos, a Scrabble-like game which uses circular tiles and no board. It also involves the word exvins, a plural of exvin, defined by the victim to his opponent (the suspect) as a "wine aficionado who no longer drinks". Both words are correctly regarded as phonies (fake words) as both the American and British Scrabble lexicons (Official Scrabble Players' Dictionary and Official Scrabble Words respectively) do not list them. Furthermore, Sara said to Gil that the word EXVINS is not even "in the OED."
*Episode 5.08: Ch-Ch-Changes - The outlaw doctor who performs "benevolent" sex reassignment surgery goes by the name "Dr. Carl Benway." Dr. Benway is the name of "an amoral physician" in much of the writing of William S. Burroughs. "Ch-Ch-Changes" is a variation on the song "Changes" from the David Bowie album Hunky Dory. (The lyrics to "Changes" could be interpreted as Bowie's meditation on physical and emotional metamorphosis in a time of questioning one's true gender.)
** The original showing of this episode closely coincided with Transgender Day of Remembrance
*Episode 5.24-5.25: Grave Danger: Vols. I & II - This season finale episode directed by Academy Award winner Quentin Tarantino has a very similar situation to a part of Tarantino's second Kill Bill film: CSI Nick Stokes is captured and buried alive in a Plexiglas coffin while an Internet camera broadcasts the live entombment to CSI headquarters. In Kill Bill Vol. 2, Beatrix Kiddo (Uma Thurman) was also buried alive in a coffin. In addition, Grissom and the Bride say the same phrase, "on any other day, you'd be one hundred percent right. But today, you're one hundred percent wrong" when asked if there were police outside a building and if she was lying about pregnancy, respectively.
**Also, this episode was postponed by Five when it was due to be shown in the United Kingdom as it featured a suicide bomber. The episode was planned to be shown on 12 July 2005, just days after the London Bombings. However, the day it was planned to be shown, it was revealed suicide bombers committed the atrocities in London. Five quickly pulled it from schedules and showed it the next week instead.
**Tarantino has stated that this episode was heavily inspired by the 1972 made-for-TV movie The Longest Night where a woman is kidnapped and buried alive for ransom.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscarthecat (talk • contribs) 07:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episodic trivia - to be moved into episode articles 

message: As far as I recall, only Gil Grissom's birthdate was stated in the show, yet almost all the characters have birthdates and ages listed. I propose to remove all of them except Gil's. Anyone agree with me on this? If there is citation for birthdates of the other, then I am more than happy to have them here. Bloo (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I went in and deleted the majority of them. I think I got them all. I left Gil's as it was referenced in the episode with Paul Millander (sorry, I do not recall episode name.) Gads, the vandalism is getting bad! TristaBella (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Today, I have reverted the birthdates and ages of nearly every CSI & CSI: Miami character, as the birthdates and ages often directly contradict what is listed in the page (ex. Catherine Willows page refers to the episode "Living Legend" and her being 16 when the movie Jaws came out, so she was likely born in the late 1950s, not 1963 - which would make her 12 or 13 and hanging and in a casino? And where the years of birth for most of the characters are coming from is totally beyond me.) I have attempted to politely warn this person about doing this - and find it isn't the first time they have been warned about stuff in the info boxes that is erroneous or superfluous. I plan to ask an administrator to also warn them. This is getting as bad as the people who keep changing Lindsay Monroe to Lindsay Messer on the CSI: New York pages. Alright, done with my wee ranting now. Bloo (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdates and ages of CSI characters with no citation. 

message: Upon its review on May 21, 2008, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:
contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, , , , , , etc, or large numbers of , , , or similar tags
thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.
This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria.   I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed.  Thank you for your work so far. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 12:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Renominated after removing details which are still unsourced, in accordance with Red Phoenix's view that two is a "large number" of  tags. Editus Reloaded (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any fact tags should disqualify an article from GA nomination.  In fact, any warning banner at all should disqualify an article from GA nominations. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 19:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The people putting in speculations about spinoff shows, the relationships between secondary characters and blatant fiction will keep any of the CSI pages from achieving GA status. But I seem to be the only one who sees it this way. Bloo (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed "good article" nomination 

message: In the list of guest stars there is one glaring omission. In series 8, while Nick is conducting an experiment in the lab, Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman from Mythbusters can be seen through the window behind him judging his experiment.  Giving him the thumbs up when he achieves the desired effectEvilleOne (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this has been remedied. But I see a problem with guest stars with very little recognition by the general TV watching population being listed as "notable" guest stars. Somebody who was on 1/2 a dozen episodes of a 1 season CW Network drama doesn't really qualify and just takes up space. But then again, that is just my opinion. How do we decide who is important enough? The "Guest Stars" section is getting a bit unwieldy. Bloo (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing guest stars 

message: It isn't really needed with the cast information below... 86.145.131.120 (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't. It's chaotic and confusing for all but the most hardcore fans -- and besides that, as was pointed out at the revert, it's inaccurate. Greg Sanders was the lab tech all the way into Season 5, and he wasn't replaced by Hodges. Hodges was not a DNA tech, and Greg, as far as I know, had nothing to do with trace analysis. Catherine was not the assistant night sup in Season 5; she ran the swing shift. But all that aside, did it occur to you just how ugly this new table is? It really needs to go back the way it was, and unless there's consensus one way or the other, it will. 70.181.171.159 (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you SchutteGod. I have found a similar table in things like Law & Order etc, and I think it is a good way of listing characters in a long running programme. I certainly don't think it is ugly. Apart from a few incorrect details as you say, I think it is better than what there is at the moment. Alan16 talkcount 22:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's clear that comment comes from the originator of the chart, using his username as opposed to his IP address. The L&O chart, however, is neat and readable. This one is demonstrably not, with its sloppy set-up, mismatched column widths, etc., oh -- and did I mention it's inaccurate? Yeah, I think I'll be reverting to the old chart until a cleaner alternative can be proposed. 70.181.171.159 (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem I have is the current one is just as inaccurate (if not as messy, I agree there) as this one. It too lists Greg as starting CSI in Season 2 and other inaccuracies (Ray replacing Nick as opposed to Warrick sticks out). Padillah (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

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

message: I have noticed the beginning of a possible edit war in putting Kim Delaney in the Info Box cast table. I can find no citation she will be joining, and only confirmation she has signed to stay on Army Wives. Anyone else heard anything other than the skuttlebutt opinions from anon IPs? Trista TristaBella (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kim Delaney]] in Season 10. 

message: Marianne Jean-Baptiste in Season 10 of CSI?? I find no information that confirms.--78.52.172.51 (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Likely a vandal. There have been several incidences of new cast members placed in the CSI pages with absolutely no available citations. I, along with others, have been watching these to try and revert as soon as possible. Good job on your quick action. Trista (User Trista Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marianne Jean-Baptiste in Season 10? 

message: The list is getting somewhat ridiculous. Several added in the last week, one of them played a dead body! I think it might be time to move the guest stars page to the "characters on CSI" page, in order to keep the main page a bit neater. Or it's going to continue to be filled with people who are not that notable whose names are gone in two seconds at the end of the show (almost none of the lately added ones were in the beginning credits after the open of the show). TristaBella (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree, notable is relative and that whole bunch looks like chaos to me. TomyHun (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  So-called "notable" guest stars 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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