Talk:Comedy drama

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles Comedy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Television High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Lhynard, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 3 January 2012.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

In whose universe is this a real word? --Dtcdthingy 15:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Who says we can't make up new words to define new things? -66.92.0.61
• Exactly. Though I will agree that this article seems too TV centric. 216.80.93.248 (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It does sound like something somebody's made up. The other listings in the category "Dramedy" use the phrase "comedy drama". Suggest this page should be renamed Comedy drama. JW 13:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't have anything to do with this page, but it's a fairly common term. [1] [2] Feelingscarfy 14:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose the move. Doing a google search for "Dramedy -wikipedia" on English pages, gives 64,400 hits, including this one from the Museum of Broaodcast Comunications [3]. Paul August ☎ 21:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Try "comedy-drama" and you get nearly 600,000. "Dramedy" is quite obscure and not in as common usage as "comedy-drama" or any of the other terms. And the category title and the other articles all use "comedy-drama" not "dramedy". JW 23:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "comedy-drama" drama also finds "comedy, drama", "comedy drama", "coemdy/drama", and others. "comedy-drama" may be the most common term, but I can't tell from that google search. We shouldn't move until we can find more definitive proof which of the several terms, including "dramedy", is really the most common. Paul August ☎ 23:53, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The "dramedy" was a fad term, even if it's still in use. It was only popularized around the time of the two shows that most exemplified the half-hour format, The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd and The Slap Maxwell Story. Everybody snickered at the name then as needless jargon. It's still out there but I think "comedy-drama" has it beat by a long shot, and "dramedy" is just another also-ran term like "comedic drama", "dramatic comedy", etc. --Dhartung | Talk 09:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"comedy-drama" or "drama-comedy" is hardly different than "comedic drama" or "dramatic comedy".

"Dramedy" is a unique term with a unique meaning.

• Support - I'm usually in favour of using real English words for simple concepts. —Michael Z. 2005-08-28 15:50 Z

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 21:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

"Dramedy" is used in Australia, too. Source: ABC Television series Short Cuts and its novelisation by Marieke Hardy. --Switch 12:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word dramedy has been around since the 1980's so yes it is a real word. A "comedy-drama" and a "dramedy" can be two different things. Dramedy should have it's own listing. (For example, this article ( http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/D/htmlD/dramedy/dramedy.htm ) beats Wikipedia by far, which as of now has no real article on Dramedy alone.) So move it back. 75.33.77.212 06:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User 75.33.77.212, please RTFA that you cite! It is about the origin of the genre, not the word dramedy itself. JVC 10:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the neologism dramedy is included in the introduction it is not yet cited or explained within the actual article itself. I expected anything notable enough to be included in the introduction would be a summary of existing information actually in the article. I'll resist the urge to delete the word entirely as there seem to be people here who might be interested enough to write a proper subsection and back it up with sources. I very strongly support the use of the clearer unabbreviated term "comedy drama" which is far easier for readers to understand, even readers with English as a second language. A well written article would not expect readers to know or learn jargon and slang to be able to read and understand it. Keep it simple, and clear. -- Horkana (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "dramady"

Not even going to bother reading several paragraphs of inane discussion, I will point out that if this article is to stand at all, it must indicate the earliest known and attested-to use of this word. Without such, this article should be deleted, as I have never heard this word before in my life, and it sounds like some random guy thought it sounded cool and made the article. Additionally, if this word was only used fairly recently, and by only one or a select few of people in some form of relation to one another, these would not be sufficient grounds to document this word, since it is still essentially a made-up term used by a small minority of people. "Neologisms" do not have place in an encyclopedia unless they are of importance to a language, culture, science, or some such field. A word used by a small minority of people remains a word if it is part of an existing controlled vocabulary, or is integral to a particular language, culture, etc. Until such time as this word can be sourced as having been used by a significant number of people consistently and with the same intended meaning, this article should not exist, and searches for the word should redirect to an appropriate section of a significantly related article, or otherwise have it's own small section on said article.

76.99.238.236 (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dramedy should be a stand alone article and not linked to Comedy-Drama or Drama-Comedy as the term is now almsot universally accepted in the entertainment media world. Magazines like Entertainment Weekly, People and even newsprints like the LA Times are using the phrase as exampled when they did so just recently when Ugly Betty won the Golden Globe. --Mezaco 00:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense at all. If they were different concepts then I would agree, but these are two different ways of saying the exact same thing. While I am not a fan of portmanteaus (actually, I really hate them!), this one is listed in the Merriam Webster dictionary with a date of 1978. 203.193.62.130 (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good proportion of this article should be re-organised into a list of comedy-dramas (or is the pluralisation comedies-drama? ;) perhaps organised by year. Most of the section 'Drama-comedy on television today', for instance, is a just hard-to-read listing of example programmes. JVC 10:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a big fan of Dramedy dating back to Ed. And after just watched Dan in Real Life, I came on to Wikipedia to try to find a list of movies and tv shows that I can check out. It'll be helpful if we can add a list of dramedy by year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.249.52 (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is a TV-only, ill-defined category that excludes very few TV shows. If you look at the list of properties, it allows any show that isn't a purely episodic, 30-minute sit com. There are no useful criteria of definition. It's not a well-understood category with academic backing.

Additionally, this is more of the kind of thing you hear in a puff-piece magazine than a serious intellectual category. If you want to understand the distinction between comedy and drama, you can go all the way back to Aristotle. If you want to understand a dramedy … there are no real references other than the fact that it made it into the dictionary.

We start with a impure but easily understood dichotomy between comedy and drama. We then say that any show that doesn't fit purely into either category is a "dramedy."

The problem with this category is easily seen if you look at the list of examples people have made. Do we really think Psych has major dramatic components? Do we really think Breaking Bad is substantially comedic? I've removed these terribly silly examples, but many of the shows on the list are totally subjective and debatable. Any drama with a funny moment, or any comedy with character development, you can argue that it's some kind of "hybrid." In reality, there are only a few examples that you can't easily say fits primarily and soundly in one category or the other.

Remove this article altogether. There just isn't enough encyclopedic or academic context to warrant an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerweck (talk • contribs) 08:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good article about "Tragicomedy" elsewhere in Wikipedia which discusses the real history of the mixed tragedy/comedy genre. This article seems to be unaware of this history and is instead actually describing a fairly new set of terms used in the contemporary entertainment industry for a special kind of entertainment "product." It is fine for Wikipedia to record these new terms, but the "History" section of this article gives the impression that the article is doing more than that. So I think the opening should be revised to clarify the true scope of the article. I pity the poor student who ends up hitting this article when he's researching, for instance, Shakespeare's contributions to the mixed comedy and tragedy genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acdavisad (talk • contribs) 18:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, I removed a litany of shows, films, etc. that are A) questionable to include anyway since we're talking about something somewhat subjective, and B) it doesn't seem to me that the aim of this article is to catalog every conceivable comedy-drama under the sun. Further, who has determined that Kung Fu Panda 2 is a comedy-drama? Rugrats in Paris: The Movie? Finding Nemo? All comedies employ drama to tell stories (Airplane!) so unless there is a clear reason why we should call something a comedy-drama, we probably shouldn't be adding anything to the list. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help focus the scope of this article, as most of the recent edits have involved adding to a growing list of examples, for instance the net of these good-faith edits by @Joetri10:. Clearly the purpose of this article is not to list every comedy-drama under the sun, or even every notable comedy-drama under the sun, so when will we have enough examples? Do we even need a list? Isn't that why we have categories? Couldn't sufficient examples be presented in prose? The benefit to prose is that we wouldn't have an attractive nuisance in the form of a list. It seems to me that the bulk of the edits in the past six months have been made to the list section. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The examples should be critically acclaimed award winning and highly discussed pioneers in the category that they are supposed to represent. When one thinks of a tragic love story, you think of Titanic. When one thinks of comedy, you think Tommy Cooper. Scrubs in it's run was and still is celebrated as a show that took comedy and made it unique in it's own style; that is how scrubs is celebrated. it was the at-the-time one of the most potent Comedy-Drama. however to the question of why do we need examples listed? You do have a point. In a summery of how this could be resolved, i suggest looking deeper into the meaning of what we are trying to write for so the examples listed are what everyone would attribute on eye. However i am also in favor of removing the entire aspect completely as it is rather mundane. *JoeTri10_ 10:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the list is to exist, I'm fine with Scrubs being on it. You've sold me. But at some point it seems we need to pull the plug, what with lists being cruft magnets, or let it grow and merge this section of the article into a "List of" article. The secondary aspect of my general complaint about this article has to do with personal interpretation. When I first encountered this article it was after I'd noticed an uptick in kids changing TV infobox genres from Comedy to Comedy-drama or Dramedy--it was like someone had just taught children this new word, and the kids went out and decided to make everything a comedy-drama, perhaps because they noticed drama and comedy being used together. ("Hey, he's happy, but now he's sad. Comedy-drama!") But is Kung Fu Panda really a comedy-drama? Rugrats? Gravity Falls? What the kids aren't getting is that all comedy uses drama to tell the narrative. Airplane! is a rib-busting comedy, but it employs heavy dramatic elements to play the comedy off of. On the other hand, you have M*A*S*H*, which although generally was a comedy, had serious themes and dealt with war and killing in a very serious way. That is obviously a comedy-drama. Breaking Bad was pretty heavy but had some really comedic moments. Is that a comedy-drama? Not necessarily. So, my rant being over, what is the metric we would use for inclusion on this list? A reliable source calling the film/tv show a comedy-drama? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say creating a criteria centered around sources is fine. As i mentioned before, anything that has been nominated for an award in the specific genre is normally officially recognized in said genre. It should also be noted that 'Comedy-Drama' needs to be the Primary genre. So for example 'Buffy' may be a Comedy-Drama but it's primary genre is 'Supernatural Drama' whilst 'Gilmore Girls' is primarily a Comedy-Drama. The page will have to be heavily monitored by the looks however. Seeing examples you listed that featured is laughable, i even saw Pokemon listed which was just plain silly. *JoeTri10_ 20:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any list that's termed "Notable..." should have an intro saying how they're notable (criteria). --Musdan77 (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Half of that stuff isn't considered notable. And anytime anything is added to the list that is relevant to the article, it gets deleted for no good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.192.54 (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement "Half of that stuff isn't considered notable" isn't accurate at all. These are all notable examples either per WP:NOTFILM or even per WP:GNG. Buuuut, there are a few facts to face: This is an article about the concept of "comedy-drama". What has taken on a life of its own, is the list of example titles that people have added, perhaps indiscriminately. If you want to discuss the scope of the article and a reasonable number of examples of "comedy-dramas" across the various media, that's great, let's do that. Removing titles as you did here with Diary of a Mad Black Woman, may not be particularly helpful because the title can be sourced as a comedy-drama, and is presumably notable. Now maybe there are better examples of films and TV series known for being comedy-dramas? Sure. And I'm game to discuss that. What we don't need are unexplained deletions[4][5]. Now, maybe if we were to set the bar higher and require some sort of award recognition for these series? Would that be better? I don't particularly care that the TMNT titles remain, but getting rid of the entirety of the animation selections seems controversial. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about Anywhere But Here, Raising Helen, or Birdman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C001:8A3A:14F9:65F:89A3:7BB9 (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about them? This is an article that attempts to describe what a comedy-drama is. There are a few examples. We surely cannot serve everybody's preferred example of a comedy-drama. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]