Talk:Immortality (CSI: Crime Scene Investigation)

Contents

Drmargi, Aussie I'm just a little concerned that much of the content of this article has been slashed. I think the dates of when lead actors of a 15-year-old genre-defining TV procedural filmed their last ever scenes is extremely relevant to this as many of these actors were responsible for making CBS the number one network. Maybe it could be condensed a little, but things like Anthony E. Zuiker's (the creator) reactions to the ceasing of production, the actors comments on one another, should at least be noted. It's no different than casting sections on other articles, really.

My second issue is the episode boxes. If they're being removed, then I feel there should at least be footnote on how this "movie" was, during production and filming, seen as the shows sixteenth season, and filmed as a two-part episode. This not only affects this article, but also has ramifications towards CSIs overall episode count (considering this one episode, when it is clearly not, would bring the total to 336 and not 337 - and that is just factually incorrect).

I think it's a little hasty to swoop in, without so much as a discussion, remove the contributions of other editors because one or two editors deem the content to be unworthy. I think it has great significance.

--Unframboise (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The information about last filming dates can go in the characters article, or in the individual character pages, but is far too long and crufty here. All this article needs is the nuts and bolts. It's all still in the edit history and easily moved to another page. I see nothing wrong with noting that the tweet indicates it's been shot as two episodes, but it's going to be broadcast as a film, not as two episodes, so the episode boxes simply don't belong in the article. You might also make a note on the list of episodes page that the film was shot as two episodes. That probably leaves CBS the ability to rebroadcast or syndicate the film as two episodes, but we don't know for sure. All you have to go by is one photograph, balanced against a sizable body of publicity that what we will see is a film (not a two-part episode or two episodes.)

You have to be careful not to make assumptions; we have to go by what we know and can verify, not what we think we know from a picture. Even then, just because we know something, it doesn't have to go into the article. --Drmargi (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, it just seemed a waste for the information to simply disappear, especially when it could be incredibly useful in the future. I suppose re: the AZ tweet, personally I consider a set photo tweeted by the creator (Marg Helgenberger also tweeted a similar picture) to be more reliable to entertainment sites, not less, although that's probably a matter of personal preference. Thanks for your prompt reply. --Unframboise (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)