Talk:Dramedy/Archive1

Sorry for cutting out all the stuff about how Dramedy has become "more prevalent in recent years" and how "romantic elements" in sitcoms are examples of Dramedy, but they're simply not accurate. (Also, "Comedy/Drama" is not technically the same thing. "Comedy/Drama" is a more all-inclusive term, whereas "Dramedy" refers to something relatively specific.) I've realized this definition needs massive clean-up, so I'll be writing that up when I am able. JCaesar 18:25, 21 July 2006 (EDT)

Eh... hell, I've got nothing better to do right this second. "Someday" is today. JCaesar 18:33, 21 July 2006 (EDT)

Disputed

We need either citations for this part or it needs to be softed in order to convey that people might have different definitions.

In fact, it is very possible for a show to be a mixture of comedy and drama and not be a dramedy.
Romantic comedy, for instance, is a common example of a non-dramedic comedy/drama, as are most
action or sci-fi shows (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Magnum P.I., The Rockford Files, etc.).

--MateoP 21:50, 22 July 2006 (EDT)

MateoP, I'm a professional TV writer. This is my job. I have lived in Los Angeles for seven years now and have been receiving renumeration for work in the industry for two years now. I have heard the term used and have had it carefully explained to me by my agent, producers and critics. I have used it myself in pitch sessions. I am the citation. Stop changing the page. I'm filling in the definition now. Give me a minute, will ya?

And stop plugging in the inaccurate information. You're veering dangerously close to vandalism.

The only thing I realized in retrospect (understand, I just edited the page not ten minutes ago, and have had some time to proofread and research some of the stuff I wrote) is that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is one of those shows which some call a "dramedy" - although others argue with that description. I changed it to Firefly. I'm fixing that. Lay off, please. JCaesar 21:57, 22 July 2006 (EDT)

The part about the evolution is completely accurate and must remain. If there is specific problems, refine it, but don't remove. If you are declaring that the genre has remained about the same for all eras, then list specific shows (5 to 10) from different eras to show this.

Sorry, you don't count as a source for the disputed section. That's your opinion, and that's fine, but in that case it must be soften to convey that opinions may vary. Unless a citation can be found from published encyclopedias, especially television specific encyclopedias. --MateoP 22:04, 22 July 2006 (EDT)

MateoP, you find me a citation for your dispute from anything, I'll leave it. You can't. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY!

AND I'M WRITING A LONG, HISTORICAL DEFINITION NOW! These things take time. I've been working on it since yesterday. If you still have a problem when it's done, fine. But until then, stop vandalizing the page with inaccurate, unsupported information. JCaesar 22:07, 22 July 2006 (EDT)

I did stop adding information and won't until this is worked out. By the same token do not remove the disputed tag until the dispute is over.

A long definition for the disputed section above should include citations. Otherwise, to make sure the articles remains neutral, it should be softened to convey the fact that people can have different opinions on the topic. Therefore, something like "many people in the industry say that romantic comedies are not dramedies, but whether this is true or not is open to interpretation" or something similar would work. That would be necessary for the part about romantic comedies and action/scifi shows. --MateoP 22:11, 22 July 2006 (EDT)

1.) I do have the authority to remove dispute tags if there is no dispute. If you have not seen the information, you have nothing to dispute, so there is no dispute.

2.) "I think the word should mean something else" is not the same as, "I have cited references to back up the use of the word to mean something else." This is not a dispute, it is an argument, and not an entirely compelling one at that.

3.) Even a minor edit made to a page while someone else - anyone else - is editing the page makes the task of editing the page more difficult, as Wiki software does not allow overwrite editing. In most cases, this may be unavoidable. If you have been told someone else is editing the page, you are intentionally making their task more difficult, and that is not OK on any Wiki. What's more, if you're doing it to a mod, you should realize that we don't just have to accept it. We can take measures to ensure that you give us the time we need. This is a fact.

4.) Vandalism and 3RR are rules on any Wiki. You violated both. For that alone, your cool-off period could have been more than it was. When you come back later tonight, remember to respect the rules of Wiki usage. Thank you. JCaesar 22:40, 22 July 2006 (EDT)

Replies:

1) Of course I wasn't disputing future edits, that's not possible. I was disputing the current edit. That's what disputed tags are for: current edits. Not past edits, future edits, edits that may or may not occur, edits that occur on alternative dimensions. Current, real, edits. That's why the disputed tag was necessary. Until someone edits the article to try and resolve the issues of the dispute, and then everyone gets a chance to read the article and see if they still have a dispute or not, then the dispute is ongoing. That's how it works. The dispute tag is not just for the clairvoyant who know what the article will look like in the future.

2) My dispute was not over the definition of dramedy. My dispute, as shown above, was over whether or not sitcoms with romantic elements are dramedies, and whether action/scifi shows which have both elements are dramedy. That the article says they are not is my dispute. As said previously, if the lines were softened in order to convey that various opinions may exist, then there wouldn't be a dispute on my end. Or, alternatively, if all references to romantic sitcoms and action/scifi shows are removed then my dispute would be resolved. The sentence "Romantic comedy, for instance, is a common example of a non-dramedic comedy/drama" is a statement of fact. Statements of fact must be backed up with proof when disputed. Either offer proof in form of verifiable source or soften/remove the text.

3) First off, you being a mod doesn't allow you a priviledge of having an exclusive right to edit a page. When you take a long time to make your edit, especially on a hot-topic page, then you're going to have this problem. Deal with it like everyone else, by copying and pasting the differences between your edits and the previous edits. You do not have the right to tell people to stop editing articles because it inconveniences you. This is not your blog.

Secondly, my last two edits were simply putting back in the disputed tag. I said twice (here and here) that I wasn't going to actively edit the page anymore (by inserting sections that I believe to be correct and you believe to be incorrect). So if you had simply left in the disputed tag you wouldn't run into a software problem.

4) Vandalism is blanking an article or replacing text in an article with a random curse word. Adding information that you think is incorrect isn't vandalism. Having different opinions than you is not vandalism.Nor did I violate 3RR. I only did 3 straight reverts (here). In all of the other edits, I readding information I thought to be correct, while taking into account the problems others have. This edit shows how I added more information that said that the word dated back to Mash. My next edit, this diff showed me taking into account your comment about how they were also popular in the early 80s, and your comment about early dramedies being more half-hour. My next two edits were only reinsertions of the disputed tag.

On the other hand, as these diffs prove (here, here, here, and here, you had 4 straight reverts. Note that all of your reverts are based on simple disagreement.

Lastly, since you say your gave me a "cool-off period" you should probably re-read the talk page and edit summaries. The person who was writing in all caps + bold wasn't me. I wasn't the angry one. You have let your anger get the best of you and wildly abused your technical power in order to get your way. --MateoP 00:31, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

1.) MateoP... your opinion - anyone's opinion - is not "fact." It is my opinion that the articles for American Idol should state the show is a complete waste of airtime. Should I dispute the article on the basis of my "different definition" or my "opinion"? Unverified beliefs are not the basis of a dispute. That is all you have.

2.) A pissing contest based on your opinion does not make a page a "hot topic."

3.) If any user should come across the page in the next hour or two and be under the mistaken impression that the facts are not under dispute from MateoP, God of All That Is Right About Television, upon whose word every user should breathlessly hang, I will personally track each and every such user down from their IP addresses and inform them that you do, in fact, dispute facts. Fair enough for you?

4.) In retrospect, maybe I should've protected the definition page rather than blocked you for two hours. I apologize, and accept all consequences. Nonetheless, it doesn't take much effort to stop doing something you have been told not to do, particularly when you are given reasons - researched reasons - why you are wrong and should stop doing it. JCaesar 00:58, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

My dispute was not based on an opinion. My dispute was based on an unsource statement of fact. The statement of fact being that romantic comedies and/or action/scifi are not dramedy. All statements of fact, when under dispute, need sources.

It's hilarious that you call me "God of All That Is Right About Television" when you, in fact, made the lame attempt to claim that you are a source and that whatever you say goes.

You don't own TVIV. It is not your personal blog. You can't tell people to stop attemping to improve an article and you can not use the technical powers you have been given to give yourself an advantage in editing. That is an outrageous abuse of power. The fact that you even went so far as to block a good user in order to get your way proves you are not worthy of holding said power. --MateoP 09:56, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

"My dispute was not based on an opinion." "it needs to be softed in order to convey that people might have different definitions." "That's your opinion, and that's fine, but in that case it must be soften to convey that opinions may vary." You have nothing except an opinion, and you have never claimed to have anything except an opinion.

JCaesar 18:55, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

OK, MateoP, you wanted a full explanation? You got it. Finally. I only spent... what... nine hours of my life typing it up? You wanted something verifiable? Verify all my facts. If I got one wrong, I'll fix it, but I don't think you'll find one I got wrong. You wanted examples from every era? I gave you one from every television season for twenty years (except one, for which I searched and searched and ultimately gave up, although if anybody finds a good one, that's why it's a Wiki).

Dispute if you have facts. If all you have is your opinion, then you know what they say in the Army about opinions in re: their relationship to anuses. JCaesar 06:56, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

Inappropriate threat

MateoP, this is your last warning. Let me type up the definition, or I'm going to have to give you a time-out so I can get what I came for done

Is completely inappropriate. You can't block someone for adding a disputed tag during a dispute. That would be an outrageous abuse of power. I am not, I repeat, not going to readd the section YOU dispute (and I'm leaving the one I dispute) to the article until this is worked out. However, the public should not be under the false impression that this article is agreed upon. Therefore the disputed tag is necessary. You can still edit the article while the disputed tag is up. I won't. --MateoP 22:17, 22 July 2006 (EDT)

Professional Sources

I did a quick google search for dramedy and found two proffesional articles that seem to agree with JCaesar. This one from the Museum of Broadcast Communications with lots of citations [1] and this one by a proffessor at the Edward R. Murrow School of Communication [2]. The first one is really dry and literary the second one is really long. The only definition that seems to agree with some of MateoP's points is the completely uncited user edited one from Wikipedia that has been copied all over the place and even that discounts a lot of what he's saying.The-jam 22:32, 22 July 2006 (EDT)

Last I checked, Wikipedia also claims the actors credited at the end of TV shows are called "cameos," which is in complete disagreement with every industry standard I've ever even heard. JCaesar 22:35, 22 July 2006 (EDT)

Potential Improvements

The Wiki is light on citations—and, frankly, that's fine for a Wiki of this nature, as for most things, the TV show itself is the citation. However, if it becomes a big issue (i.e.: a legitimate issue with anybody for any reason besides, "I don't want those to be the facts and you huwt my feewings"), I'll get the necessary citations for this article from books and Websites as appropriate.

More to the point, this page is now heavy on American dramedy history and development, but light on British and other history and development. I know the British concept of comedy/drama has always been more blurred than in America, and frankly, I don't even know if the British use the term "dramedy" as a result of that blurring, but if anybody has information on British, Canadian, Australian or otherwise usages of the term or lack thereof, I welcome its inclusion in this article. JCaesar 07:04, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

Even if there isn't much information on international definitions of dramedy, there's a lot of good information there and that's what really matters. But the one problem that the article does have is that it reads like an essay. It would be a much less intimidating page if some sections were put in. --IndieRockLance 14:45, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

Thanks. Fixing that now. Also, I'm leaving Growing Pains in the list for now, not because I agree or disagree with its inclusion, but because I honestly haven't seen the show in years and didn't watch it much when it was on. However, I've never heard it referred to as a dramedy, and as I recall, it adhered pretty closely to the conventions, structure and tone of comedies. If memory serves, I don't think it took on serious social issues on a weekly basis (in the same sense that, say, All in the Family or Murphy Brown) did, nor did it frequently deal with death, divorce, illness, etc. on a weekly basis (in the sense that M*A*S*H did or Scrubs does). At best, it was a straight comedy that went a little overboard with the Very special episode stuff. But since that's an impression I have based on what could very easily be a faulty memory, I'm not going to change it now, although I'd like someone to confirm or deny, please. JCaesar 18:38, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

Well for it's first season or so it followed sitcom conventions pretty closely it started to loosen up a bit but then Kirk Cameron converted to Evangelical Christianty and started objecting more and more to all the serious plots because he felt they were immoral. It did always have the sort of plots you'd normally see on a drama though with the comedy weaved around them. It aired between Who's the Boss and Moonlighting and I'd say that's about where it would fall on the comedy to drama spectrum. It is a somewhat weak inclusion. Misfits of Science might be better but from the little I've found it didn't seem to take itself seriously at all so it is probably one of those rare hour long pure comedies.The-jam 21:37, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

True, but since structure is such an important element of the "dramedy" definition, I remember Misfits of Science well enough to say it was certainly structured like a drama. Granted, neither of those is all that great an example, but for lack of a better choice for that year, I'm erring on the side of Misfits of Science until/unless a better debut from that season presents itself. JCaesar 21:51, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

Disputed

The following is disputed.

Romantic comedy, for instance, is a common example of a frequently non-dramedic comedy/drama,
as are most action or sci-fi shows (Firefly, Magnum P.I., The Rockford Files, etc.).

This is a statement of fact that romantic comedies don't fall into the genre of dramedy. This can be fixed one of there ways: 1)A source which states that these genres are not dramedy. 2)The softening of the phrasing of that sentence. 3)The removal of all references to romantic comedy and action/scifi.

1.) The phrasing has already been softened. Please read what you have copied and pasted again.

2.) What is the factual basis of your dispute? Do you have one? Do you have a single fact at all? JCaesar 18:32, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

"However, the term does not merely apply to any comedy with some serious moments, nor does it apply to any drama with funny moments."

Most romantic comedies (Will & Grace, How I Met Your Mother, etc. come to mind) fall under this quote. They're primarilly comedies with minor bouts of drama that's typically only connected to the romantic lives of the characters. But, even then, the "drama" is typically flippant and light. Action/Sci-Fi series like Firefly have jokes in them, but the serious nature of what's going on is never compromised by the brief lines of comedy. By nature, these genres are firmly entrenched in one or the other camps. If the show is primarilly drama with a little comedy, then it's still a drama. If it's primarilly comedy with a little drama, then it's still a comedy. Only shows which balance both on a constant basis like Monk should be considered a true "dramedy" series. --IndieRockLance 14:51, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

Exactly. It looks like I'll have to write up a Romantic Comedy definition at some point, too, but basically: All comedy, by definition, is serious to the characters. This is the first thing you are taught in every acting class, comedy class, etc. It is a mantra and a cliche: "The secret to comedy is playing it straight." (Source: Mel Brooks' directors commentaries, every book Dell Close ever wrote, every acting book ever published, etc., etc., ad nauseam.) In romantic comedy, of [i]course[/i] the romance is important to the characters. That does not necessarily make it a "dramatic situation dealt with as [a] serious issue." Can a romantic comedy be a dramedy? Of course. Is it automatically a dramedy because one person thinks the romance is a serious issue? No. That's ridiculous. JCaesar 18:32, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

That's fine, I don't think it's automatically dramedy either. Then this line can be rewritten in order to make it clear that it can be or not. As it stands, it suggests that the romantic comedy is usually not dramedy, and that's a subjective opinion. If everyone agrees I'll rewrite the line to make it more neutral. --MateoP 18:38, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

Never freaking mind. The sentence isn't that essential. From the definition, any reasonable adult can assume romantic comedy isn't necessarily dramedy. I took the sentence out. Dispute resolved. Happy now? JCaesar 19:09, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

Since all this argument over one sentence which is now no longer in the article distracts from the more useful elements of discussion on this page, I'd like to just delete it all out, because I'm not sure a pissing contest over nothing is a useful discussion. Any objections? JCaesar 19:24, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

I object to deletion. Archival is fine for me, though. --MateoP 19:34, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

Keep it. No discussion should ever be straight-out deleted. As per MateoP's suggestion, you can toss the relevant dispute in a subcategory and archive it. --Wizardryo\^talk 00:44, 24 July 2006 (EDT)

That's what I meant, actually. I'll archive it when I get the chance. JCaesar 03:13, 24 July 2006 (EDT)