Talk:Action comedy TV series

Proposed merge of Action comedy film with Action comedy TV series
This "article" is nothing more than a list. Once the merger is complete, the new article should be titled action comedy, like romantic comedy. Kailash29792 (talk)  07:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for numerous reasons:
 * The term "action comedy" by itself is ambiguous as to whether or not it refers to a film or a TV series
 * The film-related coverage is about films, and it would be disingenuous WP:OR to frame that content as applying that coverage to TV series when it does not
 * Per WP:NLIST, cross-categorization lists are acceptable, meaning action and comedy and media type here. These media type articles are fairly new, and I have found coverage about films so far, and there is more to be added. For example, I have downloaded through the Wikipedia Library the book A Companion to the Action Film which has the chapter "Comedy in Action" which is completely film-focused. Research can be done for TV series as well.
 * Sub-genre articles are underdeveloped due to heavy, significant research needed, but for the main genres, there is universally a split between films and TV series in terms of listing works, and such a split can be acceptable here
 * "Romantic comedy" is a good example of problematic merging -- it is ambiguous, and it looks at first glance that it covers both film and TV, but it really is entirely focused on films even though there are numerous romantic comedy TV series out there. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Question – Is there a difference, genre-wise, between an action comedy film and an action comedy TV series, aside from the form of media it appears on? If not, then the article should be about the genre, dropping the form of media from the name. Unless we think we're going to have a really, really long article, there's probably no reason to split them. Besides, the TV series article is only a list at the moment. With a merged article there would be no ambiguity, because anyone that is led to that article, whether they are seeking coverage of TV or film, would find what they are looking for. If a list of TV series is all that exists in sources, then it should be converted to something like List of action comedy TV series, and then move Action comedy film to simply Action comedy. Even if the entire article (or most of it) ends up being about film, that's completely fine. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not found anything yet to compare and contrast films with TV series, but that relates to my point above. "Action comedy" by itself is ambiguous as to whether or not it applies to a film or a TV series. That's why Wikipedia articles for either kind of media write "action comedy film" or "action comedy TV series". If we link to just action comedy when writing "action comedy TV series" after a merge here, it leads readers to a film-genre article. It would be OR to assume that the film-focused content applies to TV series. Perhaps a list of action comedy TV series would work in the interim for use in action comedy TV series articles? It would be more directly relevant to link to a list of related TV series rather than an article basically about the genre but in the wrong media. We should be mindful of the film focus overshadowing a TV focus like what is happening with romantic comedy. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like we are responding in two places, so for now I'll focus future efforts here. I guess I'm having a hard time seeing how the term "action comedy" is ambiguous. While there may be slight nuances in the differences between film and TV, the genre as a whole will share certain characteristics across multiple mediums. enough so that anyone that lands there from film or TV will find the article useful. Any nuances can be covered in detail within a respective level 2 section (think "In film" and "In television"). Editors over time may even lean in favor of redirects that lead directly to the relevant level 2 sections. Article and section hatnotes also work well for directing readers to subtopics and separate lists (like the one suggested for TV).Bottom line is that if the article covers all significant aspects that are relevant to the "action comedy" genre, then it shouldn't matter if an editor has to scroll to the pertinent section they're looking for, right? The solution is to either scroll or use a better link/redirect to begin with, not split the article for the sake of navigation. At least that's my 2¢! --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When I say that "action comedy" is ambiguous, it is coming from a place of not seeing an encyclopedic scope for that genre in general. We have reliable sources mentioning action comedy films and mentioning action comedy TV series. That may tend to happen because we are in sub-genre territory and because film coverage is more prominent than TV coverage. E.g., we don't have articles for action television series or comedy television series (the latter redirects to a list) even though we know these should likely exist. (Right?) The problem with a merged article is that it will have the same sentence as a disambiguation page: old centralized page versus disambiguation page. If there are verifiably distinct categories (in the general sense of the word) of action comedy films and action comedy TV series, then we can have distinct scopes. To use an example, the problem with romantic comedy is that the film content fully overshadows any TV content. In the article, how does anyone start working on a TV scope within that film-dominated scope? What would happen if we had most of these details in a film-centric article and a stub TV-centric article? The latter would grow. The goal is to create spaces for developing topics. If I tried to create action television series, would someone be able to successfully push to merge that back into action fiction? I guess in a nutshell, the idea is to have fresh starting points to grow topics by media. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It looks like an admin abused their tools to cut the discussion short. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)