Talk:Psych: The Movie

Sage Brocklebank as Buzz McNab

Hello, evneryone! I have repeatedly reverted the information that other editors have repeatedly added again, that Sage Brocklebank's character, Buzz McNab, will be part of Psych: The Movie. I am a huge Psych fan, so I have searched extensively each day for news on this show. While many people have expressed their hope to see this fan-favorite character return, no source has indicated his involvement. I would hope he will make an appearance, but until that is verified by a reliable source, we cannot assume that he will make an appearance. From what I've read, it appears that the bulk of the movie will be set in San Francisco, where most of the Psych team moved at the end of the series' run on TV. McNab was one who stayed behind, becoming the Junior Detective and partnering with Betsy Branigan. But the long and the short of it is that, until we have a source explicitly stating that Brocklebank's iconic character will be in the movie, it is speculation at best. Wikipedia, as I have often observed, doesn't thrive on what people hope. Rather, things have to be verified by a reliable source to be considered for inclusion here. And until we have such a source verifying Brocklebank's participation, it is speculation and should not be included. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I cannot stress this enough: Unless and until Brocklebank's return is verified by a reliable source, he should not be included on the cast list. So to those trying to add him, find a source for it or knock it off! Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only source verifying Brocklebank's involvement thus far has pictures from a paparazzo, which likely do not qualify as a reliable source. So until such a source verifies Brocklebank's participation, his name should not be included on this list. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sage Brocklebank did appear as Buzz McNab towards the end of the movie when El Proveedor said all of Shawn's psychic future visions of him came true. It showed a flashback of El Proveedor having those things happen that Shawn said with the help of Buzz. --Alexjjj (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Cast Billing Order

While I applaud the efforts to ensure accuracy on the cast list, I have not seen anything in the information about Psych: The Movie that concurs with what is asserted here in this cast list: that Omundson will not be getting his regular billing as the third star of the movie. His scaled-back role shouldn't deprive him of a series honor that will continue. And as for the supporting cast, the order I have put them in reflects the order in which they are currently being billed from what I can see. Also, supporting actors like Levi and Fuller should not be billed with the main cast when they have not been listed as being so in any source. The guests, no matter their prominence on the world's stage, are likely billed in the order of their involvement. And as we know from the series, any love interest of Gus is billed higher than Woody and the bad guy of the show. I would ask that the order in which I now have the cast not be reverted or changed unless a reliable source verifies the need for it. And I have not seen one that would justify or support the changes that were made prior to my revert a few minutes ago. If there are any issues any of you have with the current listing of the cast, please post them here prior to implementing any such changes. If proper conversation and discussion is not allowed to enable a consensus decision on this, it shouldn't be touched. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, everyone! The billing order for the cast that is currently listed is from IMDB, which is considered a reliable source, AFAIK. Therefore, any further changes to the order of the billed cast (either regular or featured) needs to have an appropriate source cited for verification. Additionally, I have found and therefore have added a source verifying John Cena's participation. I have not, however, as noted above, found anything other than paparazzo pictures, which are hardly conclusive for Wikipedia purposes. Hope this helps explain the recent changes I have yet again implemented in this article. Thanks.

Buzz McNab

Was he in the movie? I just watched it and don't recall seeing him. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

He does not in fact appear in any capacity. Shmuser (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Shmuser: If he didn't appear I'm removing him from the cast listing both here and on List of Psych characters TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Sage Brocklebank did appear as Buzz McNab towards the end of the movie when El Proveedor said all of Shawn's psychic future visions of him came true. It showed a flashback of El Proveedor having those things happen that Shawn said with the help of Buzz. --Alexjjj (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alexjjj: So did he actually appear or was it archive footage from the series??? TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: It was new footage. The scene had a filter applied so you could see it was from the past. It also seems to imply that Buzz may know that Shawn is not really a psychic now as well. --Alexjjj (talk) 17:45 PST, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alexjjj: Huh, I must have missed that too. My mistake. Shmuser (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alexjjj: You're right. I don't know how I missed it. His name also appears in the closing credits. Thanks for correcting my mistake. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Plot description of movie

Hello again, everyone! I was more than slightly bothered to come to this page earlier today and find out that a play-by-play, scene-by-scene description of the course of events in the movie had again been detailed here. I believe it would be more appropriate to only focus on general elements of what happened. I say that because, if you look back at any of the episode descriptions for this show, a brief summary of the critical plot elements is provided, rather than detailing every nuance. Could the description as it is be expanded? I fully believe it could be, and it should be. But I am not comfortable with the idea of a large-scale detailed summary appearing here, primarily because prior versions of a more detailed plot were either tagged as being too lengthy or reverted in the past. So I decided to be bold and revert to the shorter description for now. And again, I believe that that description as it now stands can and should be expanded, but not to the extent of the most recent more detailed version that appeared here before I reverted it. Just some food for thought. My thanks to you all for your consideration of this matter. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I personally, did not find it to be overly detailed. Maybe it could use some trimming, but it was a movie, after all, and I've certainly seen longer plot descriptions. I say we trim the fat, not reduce it to a single short paragraph. Bkatcher (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

We agree on only one thing: that the description as it now stands is too short. If I were the only editor who had reverted the more lengthy description back to this one paragraph, you'd be making a fair point. But the fact that the more lengthy summary has repeatedly been reverted by several editors, not just myself, telss me that the lengthy scene-by-scene summary is not working. If you look at any of the Psych TV show episode summaries, they are brief one-paragraph summaries describing the key elements of each episode. The Psych movie was essentially the length of two standard Psych episodes, and yet more than a half-page summary was advanced (and repeatedly reverted) for it here. Additionally, if material in dispute has been reverted by several editors, that is a key indicator it is not working as-is. Therefore, until the issues with the more lengthy summary are fixed, the shorter summary needs to stand. And anyone who wants to rework the summmary to a more manageable level can do so through copying over the longer summary to the sandbox or a subpage on their user page, in order to tweak it appropriately there before bringing it back here for discussion. That is standard Wikipedia procedure in cases such as this. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Considering this is a TV Movie it should follow the rules of MOS:TVPLOT which at a maximum if you consider this an episode article should be no more than 400 words. The longer version in question is 841 words long which is too long per MOS:TVPLOT (which maxes at 400 words) AND WP:FILMPLOT (which says between 400 and 700 words). So either way whether we used TVPLOT or FILMPLOT it's just simply too long. Not only that but the plot summary should be exactly that, a summary. The longer plot, which was a scene-by-scene description, is simply a WP:COPYVIO per Wikipedia policy and was correctly removed by myself and others. So, I do agree the plot could be expanded from it's CURRENT version and NOT the longer version; but, if doing so it should stay under 400 (or 700 if we decide to go by FILMPLOT) words and NOT go into extensive detail. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

TheDoctorWho, I agree completely with what you said. Thank you also for bringing up the specific relevant policies relating to this matter. I am sure I had at least a cursory understanding of the policies involved that made the scene-by-scene description unacceptable, but I wouldn't have been able to cite them with their relevant Wikilinks. I would be perfectly content if we used the movie-length standard (700 words max) for the description of this movie. A scene-by-scene description as previously and repeatedly reverted, just through my best-guess eyeball estimate, may have been roughly 4-5 times longer at minumum than the 700 word max. So fleshing out the existing description to 700 words would, in my opinion, be the right approach in this case. Thanks again. By the way, kudos on your awesome user name. Clever and original. Reminds me of someone. Perhaps a certain TV doctor, maybe? --Jgstokes (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing

When you do the full formatting of citation to the same article two or three times in the same paragraph, THAT is what is redundant.--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, but there are a few Wikipedia policies that would disagree with you on that, such as this one and this one, to name just two. Based on those policies, what you see as redundancies are commonly-understood and frequently-utilized practices here on Wikipedia, so unless you want to start a general discussion to get this changed Wikipedia-wide, those policies would guide what happens in this case, which is stylistically consistent with all other pages about Psych and other TV shows. But above and beyond that, the biggest problem I have with your conduct is your unilateral removal of these sources with no consensus to back you up on that, and the fact that I am one of a couple of editors who have reverted your changes in this respect sends a pretty clear message to me that the consensus won't side with you on this one. But I do have a suggestion: there are some articles here on Wikipedia for which, if the same reference is used more than once in-article, a <refname= > set of tags would be used around the first citation of that reference. Once the ref name has been invoked in-article, then a shortened version of the tag would be utilized every time the reference is used. And I would be satisfied with that solution on this issue if it would work for you. But Wikipedia never was, is, or will be a one-man effort, so if you have objections to future content, I'd suggest you discuss them on talk before removing material on a large scale in the future. Otherwise, you run the risk of violating this policy, this policy, and perhaps one or two others. That's my two cents on this matter. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)