Talk:Psychos (TV series)

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psychos (TV series) → Psychos – Only plural title. Unreal7 (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Unreal7 (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Since there is a specific named use for the plural form, it should be at Psychos. People searching for other uses of "psycho" but using the plural form can be redirected via hatnote link. --B2C 17:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the best place for Psychos to redirect is to Psycho as it does now. Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose the primary meaning is the plural of psychopath, so should point to the same location as psychopaths -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not the primary use of the plural. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with user:Dicklyon, oppose. Lesion (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, being in plural is enough to distinguish from the other meanings of "psycho" in the disambiguation page. JIP | Talk 16:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How's that? Plural of a word is still the word itself. It's not like we don't have an article concerning psychos, since we do have a psychopaths pertaining article. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - But Psychopaths is a redirect to Psychopathy only because we have no other use for the term "psychopaths" on WP. If there was a book, play, film or TV series named "Psychopaths", Psychopaths would and should be its title. --B2C 16:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would only be the case if it were the primary topic of "Psychopaths" (or in this case "Psychos"), if it isn't then it shouldn't deserve the undisambiguated title. As psychopaths are those that suffer from psychopathy, we have a primary topic contention. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not entirely correct, B2C. For example, dogs quite rightly redirects to dog despite the existence of Dogs (Pink Floyd song) among other things. It very much depends on what we can expect the reader to be most likely looking for. Jafeluv (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Psychos is easily used to reference the ambiguous subject of Psycho. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Extras, Neighbours, Flaws - pluralising seems to work fine. Unreal7 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.