Talk:Drama film

Improvements

• I would like to improve this article and bring it to the level of Comedy film at the very least. Calling for help! DevanJedi 01:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added a history of sorts to this page in an attempt to expand it. This is my first edit on a page, so please comment back on how I can do better. Also please feel free to add anything to improve my additions. Any comments on my edits are greatly appreciated, thank you. MoonKnight52 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Question/suggestion: Why "Drama Film" and not "Dramatic Film"? The whole reason I even got to this article was because I was going to change the phrase "drama film" in an article about a specific movie, because I thought that it sounded weird. Maybe that's a subject that's already been discussed, but that's my two cents.Moofoo (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think "drama film" is fine-- you don't call it an "action-packed" film or a "suspenseful" film, so "drama" works better than "dramatic." My two cents: it seems sloppily written, as a whole. There's a lot of more casual wording, and like the disclaimer says, original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.123.14 (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "drama film" sounds weird. Very weird. The use of this term appears to be a Wikipedia fetish; I can not recall seeing the term used anywhere else, ever. 66.67.24.71 (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved/procedural close. I'm sorry if this feels like a supervote, but this has all sort of gone wrong. Simply moving "Drama film" to "Drama (genre)" seems obviously unacceptable without a fairly major change in scope of this article, which is specifically about film. Expanding Drama (genre), partially by merging this article there, which I think can proceed. Whether to consider Drama itself in this merge seems a separate question, which I won't address here. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Drama film → Drama (genre) – "Drama film" falls under the larger category of "Drama" as a genre. When someone describes a film as a "drama," they mean that it is largely serious and emotionally turbulent; when someone describes a TV show, radio show, etc. as a "drama," the same meaning is being used. This is because the word "drama" can be used to mean a broad genre of fiction: the opposite of "comedy." (This is also different from the use of drama to mean the mode of presenting a story through a live performance.) BTW, "Drama (genre)" already exists as a simplistic stub that can overwritten, since I'm the only one, so far, who's edited it since redirecting it away from "Drama" just today. – Wolfdog (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 05:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Procedural close the target is an article, and has a merge request on it. WP:Requested moves is not the same thing as WP:Proposed mergers and WP:RM does not handle merger requests. This is an improper request and should be closed immediately. Further, we already have an article on drama. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The merger proposal appears to have been made after the move proposal, both are too trivial in terms of content to affect outcome.Pincrete (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• You added the merge tag to Drama (genre) with this edit [1] so, it is procedurally invalid to have this move request occur. If you wanted a move, you should not have created the new article at "Drama (genre)" in the first place [2], since requested moves are not for merge requests. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

67.70.32.190 I did not add any tag. The 'genre article' is less than two lines long, which I did not write. Rather than arguing procedure, would it not be more constructive to try to sort this out ? Pincrete (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm mixed up the comment chain. I apologize for my error. The nominator of the move request also used merge tags. I mistakenly thought I was replying to Wolfdog. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that a new article exists at the destination. It either needs to go through deletion; Or if it be found to be not needed, per the other discussion and not merged but simply redirected, whereupon, we will have a new greenfield discussion about moving this article. Since Requested Moves is not Deletion either, we cannot just delete an existing article. If the target is merged to "Drama", then "Drama (genre)" could be moved to Drama genre to preserve whatever history is necessary, to clear "Drama (genre)" of history concerns. The primary problem here is the nominator used a merge request and a move request at the same time, and also created a new article. If the redirect is restored through the other discussion without merger, we can start a new move request discussion (or new section, post redirection).

The scope of the new article is different from this article, and merge tags were used, which would lead to the conclusion that the nominator really did want to merge a subtopic into a more general topic, and add television (as the new article states its scope to be) making this the wrong process, and like any other move request that are used for mergers just be quickly closed and reopened in another process, the merger process. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that a split would be more in line with what should be done if we are to create a "genre" article that covers all media. But if the new scope is for only television and film, I don't see why we should move this article at all, since dramas exist in radio, etc as well. This aricle currently dicusses the history of the drama genre in film, and I don't see why we shouldn't have a specialty article on the history of dramas on film, and another for the history of dramas on televisions. Only about half of this article is more generally applicable to a wider drama genre article, and drama on film can certainly be done in a more comprehensive and in-depth way. A comprehensive and in-depth article on general drama genre would also have subarticles about various mediums in which it occurs, so we should also have an article about film.

But we should discuss whether we need a separate article from drama to cover the genre of drama first, at talk:drama, since it was the target of "drama (genre)", the newly created short stub. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've slightly 'refined' my opinion, whilst any film etc (that isn't a comedy? or musical?) CAN be described as 'a drama', its use is largely confined to 'none of the above' films. Kramer vs Kramer or Schindler's List don't share much in common except neither quite belongs in any pre-made category. The term is widely used in film etc, but it isn't, of itself, a distinct, recognisable genre. Pincrete (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, since Drama (genre) is precisely 2 lines long, (both lines created by Wolfdog), it seems 'nit-picky' to quibble about whether those two lines can be merged anywhere. I no longer support the basic proposal, film, TV, radio etc can be called forms of Drama, but 'drama' is not a genre of drama! That meaning of the term is almost exclusively used in film, TV, radio etc, but not exclusive to film. … … ps I suggest Drama (film and TV genre) or Drama (film and TV) as alternatives, radio can largely be ignored because 'plays' is also used as a description there.Pincrete (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC) amended. Pincrete (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Pincrete and 67.70.32.190: I think there is some confusion regarding your two comments. First, 67.70.32.190, I already understand that "we already have a different article" about one kind of drama. But the word "drama" has (at least) two different meanings. (This is why I already wrote that "This is also different from the use of drama to mean the mode of presenting a story through a live performance.") Just like the name Mars (the planet or the Roman god), some words can have multiple meanings, and Wikipedia differentiates them if they're important enough. Drama has these two major meanings:
    • Live performance, in general, as a mode of storytelling (e.g. She studied drama for four years and has since developed into a talented actor.)
    • A particular genre of fiction that is mostly serious or emotionally turbulent, rather than light-hearted or funny (e.g. Let's watch a fun adventure show on television, unless you're more in the mood for something darker, like a crime drama.)

The two definitions are clearly not interchangeable. Secondly, Pincrete, technically, drama (using the word in its specific sense) is indeed a genre of drama (using the word in its broader, theatrical sense), though you wouldn't ever phrase it like that due to its obvious awkwardness. Instead, you would probably say "drama is a theatrical genre (along with comedy, romance, tragedy, etc.)." The obvious confusion that can arise here is why I'm so interested in differentiating the two meanings. Thirdly, Pincrete, I understand that I've only written two lines; that's why I've suggested that "Drama (film)," which has most of the info, should be merged to that new name, "Drama (genre)," and why I suggest the simple answer that those two lines should simply get "overwritten." (Excuse my typo in the original sentence I just quoted). Wolfdog (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Wolfdog, I think I basically agree with you. Where I definitely agree is that it isn't worth us spending XX00 lines discussing where to merge 2 lines! The discussion should focus on article names.

'Drama' as a genre is mainly used in film, TV etc. It CAN be used in relation to theatre, but genres there tend to be more specific 'kitchen-sink drama' etc. I thought you were meaning that the drama (film) article should focus on film + TV, that is why I supported and why I suggested the alternatives. If the intention is to make the article include 'live plays', then I do think the term is too broad to be very meaningful, except as a passing mention, meaning non-comedies/non-musicals. Which is the meaning it usually has on WP film articles that aren't thrillers/sci-fi/westerns etc.Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I agree: it is used mainly for fiction in the format of recorded performances (for example, you rarely hear a book called a "drama" or a live play called a "drama" to simply mean that it's serious in tone [though it's possible to hear this]. I agree that it's best to stick to the meaning of the word as a film/TV/radio genre; my biggest concern was that the wording "Drama (film)" is too narrow/restrictive. In other words, yes, "the discussion should focus on article names." Thanks for helping to parse this out! Wolfdog (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpfully IMO, a related discussion is going on on the 'Drama' talk page. I think this needs to be settled in a way that addresses both articles' concerns. Pincrete (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Relisting comment. Buggered if I know what's going on here, but I think it's safe to say there's not a consensus to do anything yet and more time can only help. Jenks24 (talk) 05:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support a move (or merge) per nom, i.e. "drama" also applies to other media besides film, and because "drama film" is an unnatural construction. Hatnotes and text in the intro can sufficiently disambiguate the topic from the main drama article. I also support the merge being discussed here and urge the RM closer to read that discussion as well. —  AjaxSmack  15:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

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