Talk:Psych

Original research
I'm moving two sections of trivia over here as original research:


 * The concept pokes fun at Johnny Smith, the authentically-psychic protagonist of another USA Network series, The Dead Zone. USA Network ran an advertisement starring Anthony Michael Hall and James Roday as their respective characters, comparing the merits of their respective talents, only to realize that their lot could be worse when they overhear Adrian Monk counting out 100 individual kernels of corn (and returning the excess three).  Spencer's partner and comic foil Gus also seems very much like a mirror to Johnny's friend and confidant Bruce, and Shawn's working relationship with the Santa Barbara Police Department mimicks Johnny's involvement with the Cleaves Mill PD.


 * The series also borrows elements from the Sherlock Holmes mythos; Shawn's ability to deduce whole crimes from the most obscure details puts him firmly in the Sherlock role, with Gus as his Watson, with Lassiter, O'Hara, and Vick in the roles of the various Scotland Yard inspectors that approached Holmes for help. Lassiter's name is very close to the most well-known Scotland Yard detective in the Holmes canon, Inspector Lestrade; like Lestrade with Holmes, Lassiter is exasperated by Shawn's effectiveness because he does not understand Shawn's methods.

--TorriTorri 04:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The first example is one of the commercials to advertise USA's various shows. 74.137.230.39 23:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It took me a long time to understand that allowing people to make ad hoc changes would eventually destroy the usefulness and credibility of Wikipedia. (That doesn't mean I tolerate the vicious and personal attacks I've received.) The rule that article contents must be traceable to some "expert", trustworthy source, makes sense. But consider the following, from this article...


 * "Psych: The Musical"
 * Before season 8 was aired, the show did a special, 88-minute musical episode. This episode does not fit chronologically in the narrative; there are situations in the episode that would imply that it takes place sometime before the middle of season 7.

Who determined this? Obviously, someone who watched the episode and noted these things. Is this person a respected Psych expert? We don't know, because the article isn't publicly signed. This, then, is OR, and should be moved to the OR section.

The fundamental problem is that Wikipedia's "rules" on what comprises expert knowledge and what original research is are poorly defined. "Simple" observation ("It's raining.") isn't original research, because it's plainly obvious, yet you continually berate people about such things. "Analytical" observation (as in the example given) probably is OR -- but how much analysis, and of what type, is required? (You might not believe this, but I'm knowledgeable about many things, and every change I've ever made has been intended to improve Wikipedia. But, of course, I'm not an expert on my own motivations, am I?)

You need to think through this, and come up with reasonable descriptions of what comprises original research, along with convincing examples. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Psych in New Zealand
Psych is no longer aired in New Zealand. it finished season one (with the exception of episodes 10 11 and 14 which were not aired for some reason.) and has been replaced by 'are you smarter than a fifth grader?'

Remove Anne Dudek from the infobox
Anne Dudek should not be listed as a main cast member. She only appeared in one episode and her character was scrapped after that. Therefore, she cannot be listed as a main cast member, because that would be false. LocalContributor281 (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * she was credited with the main cast in the one episode she appeared in, this makes her main cast per MOS:TVCAST. This is the standard, see similar examples at The 100 with Kelly Hu or List of Lost characters (the people in the recurring chart listed as starring in the final episode), there's plenty more. The Doctor Who  (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To me, that is still not a legitimate excuse to putting her before everyone else who was, in fact, a main cast member. Putting her before others confuses the reader into thinking she's the tetaragonist of the show when in reality, she's not.  The very least that I find acceptable is making a note in the infobox that she only appeared in the pilot.  If not, then this would be totally misleading. LocalContributor281 (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition, I'm trying to bring in User:Peteforsyth so that he can take a look at this. He's contributed since 2006, so I'm sure he'll come up with a reasonable plan to sort this out. LocalContributor281 (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not an "excuse" it is the valid reason why she belongs in there, she was credited BEFORE Bernsen in the pilot who was also a main cast member so that eliminates your above point. Anyways, I've left a detailed response on the talk page of the user you linked. The Doctor Who  (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm responding to the request above. This is not an area I've edited in much, so my opinions probably aren't worth too much. IMO has done a good job, here and on my user talk page, describing Wikipedia's decision making process, and citing past precedent. I do think it's important to keep in mind that sometimes a rigid rule does not apply well in a specific case, and it sounds like that's the position  is taking here. I always try to keep in mind, what is the best way to ensure that a reader gets the information they want/need? To me that's the most important consideration in a case like this. Since I'm not too familiar with the show or the characters, though, I can't say what's the best way to implement that principle in this case. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I was going to start a discussion about Dudek in the infobox, but lucky for me someone else had already done so fairly recently. Just because it's in the MOS doesn't mean it has to be done. That's what WP:IAR is for. For example, I recently started a move discussion because I noticed there were a lot of articles that did not comply with MOS:VATITLE. Even though the guidelines say that the pages should be moved, the consensus is clear that the MOS is actually wrong and that the MOS should be changed instead. The same thing could apply here.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 07:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Anne Dudek in the main characters subsection
While MOS:TVCAST states "the cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits", the keyword is "should". MOS:TVCAST does not dictate that the original broadcast credits always be used because it's not always beneficial to use this order. The purpose of using the original broadcast credits is to "reflect the entire history of a series", but that's not accomplished by listing Anne Dudek fourth, above characters who were present for the entire history of Psych.

This is not the same situation as Harold Perrineau in Z Nation, where his character was set up as a decoy protagonist who didn't make it past the first episode. Dudek was supposed to be a main character who appeared throughout Psych, but test audience reaction caused her role to be written out and replaced. It's more beneficial that readers understand why Dudek was credited as a series regular for appearing in one episode and Maggie Lawson was effectively her replacement. In the entire history of Psych, Lawson took Dudek's spot and was billed fourth in every episode after the pilot. Bluerules (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The entire history of the series includes Dudek. She received main billing in the episode that she appeared in. Reflecting the entire history of the series means including the original broadcast order, and adding new cast members (Lawson and Nelson) to the end of the list. This precedent is the same that was used with Kelly Hu on The 100 and Nia Peeples on Pretty Little Liars, so it's not unheard of. The Doctor Who  (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not the same precedent. Hu's character was written to be killed in the first episode, like Perrineau in Z Nation. Peeples appeared in more than one episode. Dudek was intended to portray one of the leads, story concepts changed after the pilot, and her character was replaced by another character for the rest of the series. If the intent was to have Dudek leave after one episode, then treating her like a standard series regular wouldn't conflict with reflecting the entire history of Psych. But that's not what happened.
 * 119 episodes credited Lawson and billed her fourth. Lawson was not just a new cast member, but a replacement for Dudek. It's rather absurd not to have Lawson fourth in the characters list for being absent from one episode - and again, that's why the guideline is not concrete. The entire history of the series does not include Dudek as a main character. Dudek should be in the main cast section to reflect the original intent for her character, but to accurately reflect the entire history of the series, it needs to be established what really happened with her character. Reflecting the entire history of the series means reflecting that Lawson was deemed to portray the fourth-most important character for all eight seasons, the role Dudek was supposed to have. Bluerules (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why whether or not the character was intended to leave after the first episode makes any difference. You're saying it would've been acceptable to list her as is if the producers had originally intended for her to leave after the first episode? In either case she was credited the exact same way. Regardless of whether or not Dudek was in the list Bernsen was still credited before Lawson ever was. The entire history of the series does include anyone and everyone that ever was billed as a main character, including Dudek. The order of credits doesn't always deem the "most important character", it often has to do with contracts, notability of actors, and a hundred other things. To establish "what really happened with her character" something could easily be added into the production section under a casting heading, that still doesn't mean we should change the cast and characters section. The Doctor Who  (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To not acknowledge that the purpose of the character changed will mislead readers and leave out vital information. Remember, the pilot is a proof-of-concept episode and those concepts can change when a series is ordered. In the case of Psych, that concept was Barry as Lassiter's partner and love interest. It's not comparable to other shows with one-episode regulars because it's not the same situation. Whereas Hu and Perrineau left their series under briefer, but standard circumstances, Dudek was cut from the produced series because her character concept didn't work in the pilot. Her role was filled by another character in the produced series. In other words, there's a disconnect between what was planned for the series (Lassiter and Barry) and the actual series (Lassiter and Juliet).
 * I understand contention to removing Dudek entirely from the main characters subsection, but that's not being discussed here. Whether she's a list item or in prose, she's still identified as a main cast member and either approach provides a reflection of the entire history of Psych. However, the prose description of her character provides a more accurate reflection of the show's history as it developed from a pilot to a full-fledged series. We're not losing the history of her originally being billed as a main character and we're gaining more information - information best suited for the character section because it is about the characters.
 * The cast order is generally taken at face value. When Psych received a series order, Lawson was billed fourth in every subsequent episode. At face value, Lawson played the fourth-most important character. I'm open to compromising on this subject to have Corbin Bernsen fourth, but I still question the priority towards the pilot's credits over the produced series' credits. This goes back to my point in the beginning - MOS:TVCAST is a recommendation, not a definitive rule. It wouldn't allow for exceptions if there weren't scenarios that benefited exceptions. Bluerules (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if I don't agree with it entirely, in an attempt to reach compromise do you have any objection with the changes I just made? Of course that casting section needs expanded and if no one else beats me to it, I'll hopefully get around to it in the next few weeks. The Doctor Who  (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the description could be tweaked slightly, but otherwise, I support the changes made. Bluerules (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not that you need my permission, but feel free to change any of the wording. My concern was more the formatting and separating a character vs. casting section than it was the wording. Glad we were able to come to an agreement! Thanks,  The Doctor Who  (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Production section
...is really a list of random trivia and OR. Can anyone help bring it up to snuff? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Psych Main Characters
Shawn and Gus are the top main characters of Psych TrenholmA02363703 (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)