Talk:Comedy-drama

Dramady/dramedy

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

• 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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Stand alone article

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)

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)

List of TV programmes/shows

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)

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)

WikiProject class rating

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)

Current content is inadequate to justify an entry.

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)