This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Psych article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Psych received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
I'm moving two sections of trivia over here as original research:
-- TorriTorri 04:46, 16 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...
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 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 and has been replaced by 'are you smarter than a fifth grader?'
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)
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)
...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)
Shawn and Gus are the top main characters of Psych TrenholmA02363703 ( talk) 16:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Psych article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Psych received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
I'm moving two sections of trivia over here as original research:
-- TorriTorri 04:46, 16 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...
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 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?'
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)
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)
...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)
Shawn and Gus are the top main characters of Psych TrenholmA02363703 ( talk) 16:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)