Talk:List of Psych episodes

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the discussion was to redirect all of the episode articles except American Duos to this page's list of episodes.

The following is an episode review discussion that is intended to evaluate articles for individual episodes. See WP:TV-REVIEW and WP:EPISODE for more info.

Per WP:EPISODE, not every episode of a TV show should likely have an individual article. This can be for many reasons, such as notability or sources, or even just what format fits best for that show.

Season 1

• Pilot (Psych episode)
• Spellingg Bee
  - Spellingg Bee (Psych episode)
• Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Piece
  - Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Piece (Psych episode)
• Woman Seeking Dead Husband - Smokers Okay, No Pets
  - Woman Seeking Dead Husband - Smokers Okay, No Pets (Psych episode)
• 9 Lives (Psych episode)
• Weekend Warriors (Psych episode)
• Who Ya Gonna Call?
  - Who Ya Gonna Call? (Psych episode)
• Shawn vs. the Red Phantom
  - Shawn vs. the Red Phantom (Psych episode)
• Forget Me Not (Psych episode)
• From the Earth to the Starbucks
• He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not, He Loves Me, Oops He's Dead
• Cloudy...Chance of Murder
• Game Set...Muuurder?
• Poker? I Barely Know Her
• Scary Sherry: Bianca's Toast

Season 2

• American Duos *
• 65 Million Years Off
• Psy vs. Psy
• Zero To Murder In Sixty Seconds (created Aug 11)
• And Down The Stretch Comes Murder (created Aug 12)

* — notability established during this review

There are also 9 subsequent redlinks is a redlink that should be considered a part of this review should [an] articles be started for them it during its course. --Jack Merridew 10:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Matthew removed 8 of 'em so I'm refactoring my comment. --Jack Merridew 11:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

None of the article pages seem to assert individual notability. — The Storm Surfer 11:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree — guess I should have stated so explicitly. I don't believe many even link to tv.com or imdb. They have been tagged for not asserting notability for about 10 days now. Absent someone editing any of these to establish a reasonable claim of notability, these should all be redirected to the LOE. --Jack Merridew 11:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if you guys would do a little googling when deciding the fates of articles. A search for psych pilot on google news turns up a lot of RSs with info that can be incorperated. I added a bit of it to American Duos, but it's frustrating to have to follow the ep review people around and try and save easily salvageable articles. It would be a lot cooler if the review process involved adding all the info from RSs that can be found, then redirecting the ones that don't have RS info. - Peregrine Fisher 18:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

First, it is not the responsibility of other editors to source material someone else has failed to source. Secondly, having a lot of google hits means nothing. Have you checked all those hits? Do you know they are all reliable? DO you know that the information in them is encyclopedic itself? Or that the majority of those hits are not simply repeating the same information? It isn't hard to follow the "review people" around, as the review page itself is always updated when a new discussion is started, and none are archived until they are finished. The great thing about Wikipedia is that nothing is ever lost. So if the articles are all redirected, there isn't a problem. If you find that in the 21 google hits you got for the Psych Pilot give enough information to assert notability, and provide enough real world content to warrant a separate article, then it's easily accomplished.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Really; as Bignole says. If this review process results in reliable citations that establish notability (yada, yada, yada) being added to episode articles (which would then not be redirected), then, fine, but it's is not the "review people[s']" responsibility to add them, it an option for anyone who would like to edit the articles. Go for it. --Jack Merridew 08:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Ya gone for it. The refs Peregrine Fisher added to American Duos do seem to establish notability for the episode; I'm specifically referring to these two: [1][2] --Jack Merridew 08:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum 2: This episode also appears to be a bit beyond mere plot summary. --Jack Merridew 12:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Before one can really get an impression of notability we need some more real world information in these articles. Even without a notability discussion, we have WP:NOT#PLOT. If we can find some real world information, or some hints to where real world information can be found, we should be able to get a better picture of the situation. -- Ned Scott 01:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

TVSquad.com seems to have reviews for most of the episodes. [3] - Peregrine Fisher 01:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add more such links — I know there are some already. I don't see that site as serving to establish notability, though; it seems to be the same sort of fan-contribution site as tv.com et al. --Jack Merridew 08:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely sure, but after reading TV Squad, I think it's more like an online newspaper, not something that allows anyone to write reviews like tv.com. - Peregrine Fisher 16:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Still seems a blog — albeit a limited access one. --Jack Merridew

I have never seen this show; I happened upon one of the episode articles and took a look at others and saw a pattern — a lack of assertion of notability. So here we are. --Jack Merridew 08:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with these articles is the likely Original Research in the allusions sections. — The Storm Surfer 15:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to view them as a form of trivia section; I'll look again and see. --Jack Merridew 12:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• All these should be redirected to the LOE. The Psych episode might just qualify as asserting O-O-U notability, but the send-up of American Idol can be noted on the LOE page as well and I would argue that it should be redirected as well until more explicit notability can be established. Generally, the content here is nothing more than the usual goulash of plot summary and trivia that is explicitly discouraged by WP:EPISODE. Eusebeus 10:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean the American Duos episode. --Jack Merridew 12:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are some shows allowed to have an article for every episode (ie arrested development, the office, the simpsons, South park) but shows like Psych and Monk not allowed to have articles for every episode? I mean arrested development episodes aren't that notable by the end of the run for AD it had a weekly viewer ship of just over 1 million and they hardly made an impact on pop culture but psych has higher viewship but they are up for deletion. Actually i love arrested development and dont think they should delete the episode articles but i also dont think they should delete the psych articles either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjfg45 (talk • contribs).

It's not that some shows are allowed to do this and some are not, it's more like, we haven't gotten to cleaning up the majority of the articles yet. Right now it's very likely for someone to find tons of these articles, but that in itself doesn't mean they should or should not exist. Nor is the situation about popularity, but rather, cleaning out stuff that is just plot summary which doesn't aid or have real encyclopedic content. -- Ned Scott 06:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok i see thanks for clearing that up but why put these up for deletion and not on a list of articles for cleanup? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjfg45 (talk • contribs).

Redirect them all, save the American Duos one. They have either obscenely long plot summaries, or few liner ones. And none but the aforementioned one asserts its own individual notability. i ^said 03:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge them all to LOE (per WP:EPISODE) by creating separate pages for seasons, so the pages stay under control. Keep the second season episodes for now as they need some attention to receive the references if available (merge later if needed). Encourage adding the future episode info to season articles. feydey 15:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] motion to close

I move to close this discussion and redirect all save American Duos — Have any other episodes been significantly edited since this discussion began? --Jack Merridew 10:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Give it time. The episode notability guidelines are just that — guidelines. They are not hard-and-fast rules. --Nricardo 01:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It has had time. Do you have anything to offer that will serve to establish notability of any of these episodes? --Jack Merridew 11:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

its had a little time, but who are you to say its had enough. maybe you should at least wait a few weeks til the half season is over so people can gather all the information necessary and maybe ideas will be more clear as the plot develops that can help with notability. You need to see the whole arc of the season before you determine what role each episode plays in its role in the overall story arch. so wait a few weeks til season is over. Its not like it makes that big of a difference til then. 68.72.139.153

We've been conducting this review for over a week now. No one has offered anything new in days. If something turns up that establishes an episode as notable or someone cares to edit the articles so that they are more the just WP:NOT#PLOT, fine. If, in the meantime, they're redirected, well, that's what the history link is for. --Jack Merridew 13:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Also remember, There is no deadline. Stardust8212 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read that essay? Like the parts where it says We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established. and Above all, creating an article without establishing the basis of the content and its significance is a bad idea. Create, or resurrect a stub and expand, an article when there is a solid basis for it existing. -Jack Merridew 11:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't make that clear, I intended that comment for the IP editor, not you, I assumed the context of my comment would be clear from the link but clearly I was wrong. So, yes, I did read it, thanks. Stardust8212 13:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh... makes all the difference! Sorry for barking. I was thinking that the comment meant that there was no deadline for doing something about these articles... --Jack Merridew 13:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

while you've been conducting this review for a week it doesn't mean everyone is like you and checks this multiple times per day. Some people only get around to it once or so a week, if even that, so I dont really think one week is justifiable to determine a deadline before anything is offered up. 68.72.139.153

I'm sure there are many, many people who visit this page rather less then once a week. Same for the episode articles. --Jack Merridew 11:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I say do it. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but eventually, and not permanently. If one of these articles turns out to be notable, someone can revert the redirect and add the notability-asserting information. — The Storm Surfer 01:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not today, but mebbe tomorrow... --Jack Merridew 11:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Be bold and redirect as you suggest above. The anon IP objections are unremarkable. Eusebeus 09:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.