Talk:Drama/Archive 3

a rather large gap.
The history of European drama appears to skip from Jonson to Ibsen. Major stuff not touched upon: drama of the Spanish golden age; the classical French drama of the seventeenth century (Corneille, Molière, Racine); Caroline and Restoration English drama; the whole drama of the eighteenth century; classical German drama (Lessing, Goethe, Schiller)...really inexcusable. john k (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. "Inexcusable"? Astonishing. The only thing that's inexcusable is your failure to understand how Wikipedia works. If you feel that something is missing from the article, feel free to add it, citing reliable sources as evidence. Of course all of that, and much more, is missing. Instead of adopting an attitude that is inexcusable in a Wikipedia editor, get off your arse and do the work yourself. DionysosProteus (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Er, let's try to give this a more positive formulation: John K, you are right - the article needs more historical info, including on the topics you mentioned. Can you write something up based on published sources that you can cite? That would be very helpful! Thanks, guys, and happy editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge Drama (film and television) into Drama
[now &#93; is a recently created article. Last month, it was a redirect to this article,. It seems pointless to have such a vague title for TV and film genre, when the genre of drama is much broader than TV and film, occurring in other media as well, such as theatre and radio plays. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support per nomination. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, this is getting confusing, the original proposal was to merge Drama film, with Drama (genre), a stub by renaming. There is no need for this discussion since the 'genre' article is 2 lines long. This article could mention, film, TV, radio etc, all of which are forms of dramatic performance, but 'drama' is not a genre of drama! That meaning of 'drama' is almost exclusively used in film, TV, radio etc. For similar reasons I would argue that there is no need for the old redirect from 'Drama (genre)' to here. … … ps if the underlying objection is "the genre of drama is much broader than TV and film", why not go to the 'genre rename discussion' and suggest Drama (film and TV genre). Drama itself (in its meaning in this article), is only a genre of performance, or narrative.Pincrete (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think part of the reason why you feel "Drama (film and TV genre)" is preferrable to "Drama (genre)" is because you are concerned that the page "Drama," about a separate subject, already considers drama as a genre. It doesn't. The page "Drama" is a page about a format/mode of storytelling, not about a genre. Formats are ways to express a written story (through poetry, through cinema, through short-story prose, through live theatre [i.e. drama], etc.). Genres are a category of stories all considered together because of something(s) in common (without necessarily regarding how the story is expressed or the form it's presented in): sci-fi (stories with advanced technology), fantasy (stories with magic), comedy (stories with humor), Spaghetti western film (stories with rugged cowboys adventuring in the Old American West when specifically in movie format and directed/produced by Italians), etc. Drama in its normal sense is not a genre; the word is ONLY being used to describe a genre when one means "stories with a serious (rather than funny) tone." This is why "Drama (genre)" is the most suitable title. Wolfdog (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with Pincrete's comments. However I'm concerned that by creating Drama (film and TV genre), we'd be creating an article with no clear scope. How does film and TV drama differ from Drama drama that we'd need to split it off? It seems that whatever you'd say about film and TV drama could easily be incorporated into the master article on Drama. I'm also worried that such an article would turn into this version of Comedy-drama, which is not much more than a bloated definition of "Comedy-drama" plus a cruft-bait litany of examples, many of which are based on personal interpretation. I say that we merge and save the Drama (genre) for yo Mama (genre). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and Comment: I am confused and concerned by this nomination for a merge by an anonymous user, which appears to be a sort of "counter-discussion" begun several hours after (and in reaction to) an original discussion I started here. The specific "genre" known as drama is not the same as drama in its broad literary/theatrical sense. As I already stated on that other discussion's page: "Drama has these two major meanings:
 * Live performance, in general, as a mode of storytelling [and I'll add, in a similar vein, the mode of writing/literature intended for such live performance] (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." By this I meant simply that the two meanings don't make sense if interchanged in the example sentences I gave. On that other page, I was trying to show that dramas in the sense of "drama films" (as well as dramas on TV/radio) are referring to a genre (like comedies, thrillers, romances, etc.), not drama as a general mode of storytelling. All I was suggesting on the original discussion is that "Drama film" be moved to the more inclusive "Drama (genre)." However, "Drama (genre)" should NOT be moved to the page "Drama," which strictly speaks of drama only in the first sense of the two italicized meanings above. Wolfdog (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * NOTE created the new "Drama (genre)" article out of the longstanding redirect to "Drama". As a new article was created without notice or discussion, when it was long considered just part of this article, seems like it's a perfect time for a discussion. I don't see why you would be confused by this, since it is a discussion on your recent creation of a new page separating that out of this article. Hence, here we have a discussion on if it should be separate or not. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually created the article only until the point when I realized that it should simply have all the info already available on the page "Drama film." My only concern with "Drama film" is its title. In my opinion, all its info is wonderful as it is, and the info should merely be merged to the name "Drama (genre)". That is the discussion that should be happening, seeing as I'm the one responsible for creating that article (which is admittedly pitiful at the moment) "out of [a] longstanding redirect." So I was confused when I was alerted that a second discussion was occurring (i.e. this one here) whose outcome could contradict the outcome of the original discussion I'd established, which is still ongoing. This confused me because interested parties might end up at either of two different places for a discussion that should really be happening as a single event. See why I might be confused now? But, thank you; I appreciate your giving an explanation/NOTE. Wolfdog (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support a merge of the drama film and drama (genre) articles with a new article having the title of "drama (genre)" but having the longer edit history of the drama film article. I do not support a merge into the main drama article.  Hatnotes and text in the intro can sufficiently disambiguate this topic from the main drama article.  Please also note the move being discussed here duplicates this one to a degree.  —  AjaxSmack   15:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge as proposed (more comments in a section below). The last proposal might work. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support in general; I'm not going to favor one exact way to do it, we just don't need two articles on the same thing, artificially divided by whether a recording device was used.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Comment. The drama genre isn't exclusive to film. The Literature template has "Drama" listed as a genre and that links to the Drama article. It is unnecessary disambiguation, so redirect and add the R from unnecessary disambiguation template to it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Betty Logan, there are two discussions going on (of which this one was opened later), I'm just trying to tie things together. The first 'genre rename discussion' relates to the use of 'drama' in film and TV (to mean anything which isn't a comedy/musical/western/thriller/sci-fi etc) eg Schindler's List. I appreciate that Drama is a genre of literature, it is also form of performance, but how should article titles distinguish between its 'broad brush' use in film and TV and its other use, (this page), meaning live theatre, performance etc? Pincrete (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am temporarily withdrawing my support of restoring the redirect to get more background. I think merging Drama (genre) and Drama (film) is a bad idea since the latter is specifically discussing a particular medium. On the other hand I don't think Drama (genre) serves any purpose at all in its current form, so it definitely needs to be developed or merged with or redirected to something. Betty Logan (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My idea is to merge Drama (genre) and Drama (film), broadening the resulting merged article so that its reach extends beyond just cinema. Much of the current information on the film article can stay the same... except for simply being broadened in scope. The particular medium (film) is not so important a distinction as the genre (which can incorporate film, TV, etc.), IMO. This is one of the everyday senses of the word "drama." (Person A: What kind of a TV show did you see today? Person B: Oh, it was a drama. There's no significant difference in meaning here regarding whether a TV show was being discussed as opposed to a film or a radio program. The significant difference isn't with the medium so much as with the broad genre itself, which should be set apart from Drama in its literary/theatrical sense. That seems to me the more important distinction to make on WP. Whether we're talking about a film drama, TV drama, radio drama, etc., we're all talking about the same category of things. These are all a single entity.) Wolfdog (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So basically something along the lines of Thriller (genre)? That does sound like a way forward and I would support that. Obviously if we supported the move the article would definitely need to be generalized, so would this be a project you would be undertaking yourself?. Betty Logan (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly right! Wolfdog (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wolfdog, while I initially agreed with you in the 'film' discussion, I'll tell you what I see as the dangers of your proposal. 'Drama' is a much used word, the use you are suggesting is every dramatic narrative in whatever format that isn't a comedy/musical/bio-pic/?? what else? This is much too big to be a genre and would contain most other known genres (thrillers, some sci-fi, some romance, etc etc etc). If one thinks of Schindler's List (an historical drama it says on WP), 'historical' is as much a defining characteristic as 'drama' (and HD has its own article). The danger of your proposal is that half of the films, TV series/plays, radio plays ever written would be within it. Pincrete (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pincrete I don't think there is any "danger" that half of the audio(visual) media out there could be hypothetically classified within a genre of "Drama"; this is already true for other broad ideas with Wikipedia pages, like "Fiction" and "Narrative." And beyond this, I'm not sure that your concern is necessarily true anyway. Funnily enough, I actually just read an article whose author warns readers "Don't make the mistake of thinking drama is an easy catch-all genre - it's not." She speaks about "genre," which can refer to ways of eliciting emotions ("a thriller is thrilling, a horror is horrifying") or speak to expectations of the fictional setting itself (Western, sci-fi, etc.), concluding that "drama" as a genre term actually is more specific than most genre terms because it defines both: "Drama delivers the emotional and relational development of realistic characters in a realistic setting. It offers intense character development and tells an honest story of human struggle." (This would immediately exclude all fantasy and many kinds of sci-fi, for example, as well as all comedy and many kinds of horror. It lends itself more to historical and present-day settings of the real world.) This is essentially the same definition already used as the first sentence of the page "Drama film." Only now, "film genre" could be changed to "genre." Wolfdog (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wolfdog, up to you, though I think hard to define what is in/out. I could see the sense of the article being about the use of the term, rather than as a 'genre'. Narrative, Fiction, (and Drama), Music, Ballet etc only attempt to sketch a broad definition/history etc. But as I say, up to you and others. Pincrete (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove merge proposal?
As the serious discussion of merging ended in September 2015, I suggest that the merge banner be removed. Is this acceptable? Rwood128 (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Drama genre is mis-named?
Re the above, see my recent comment on re Drama (genre),, which was made before I realized that there was a merge proposal (the banner is missing!). I must admit that I have not read the above, but isn't a central issue that the article Drama (genre) has been mis-named? Rwood128 (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Banner now in place. Rwood128 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

This article should in fact be titled "Drama (genre)", because of the historical context that it provides, even though it does not really deal with the later developments, in radio, film and television. Perhaps the merge should be reversed? Rwood128 (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * But was drama a genre originally? Weren't the original theatrical genres comedy and tragedy. Doesn't this need to be clarified?

In the Wikipedia List of genres drama is defined as follows (to add to the confusion):


 * Drama is a genre of narrative fiction (or semi-fiction) intended to be more serious than humorous in tone, focusing on in-depth development of realistic characters who must deal with realistic emotional struggles. A drama is commonly considered the opposite of a comedy, but may also be considered separate from other works of some broad genre, such as a fantasy.

Rwood128 (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The word "genre" is very widely over- and mis-used, on WP and elsewhere. Drama, in the sense of all the dramatic arts, is not a genre but an artform and artistic medium. And, as you say, it has a number of genres. We should not have any article called Drama (genre) - genre of what?? The list definition seems to refer to television drama (or something), and the article should be given a more specific title.  Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary has : "With the: The dramatic branch of literature; the dramatic art", and the other main meaning is "a play". This needs to be better clarified in this article. In fact should it be called A drama or The drama, rather than simply Drama?


 * The article Drama (genre) appears to be based on a narrower use of the word drama, that refers to a play which is neither tragedy or comedy and I have attempted to clarify this. But is the term used for theatrical plays? Maybe the correct title should be A drama (genre fiction), because genre fiction appears to be its concern and not genre.


 * Perhaps the merge banners should be dropped given that six months have passed. I can change the title of Genre (fiction). Is this acceptable? Rwood128 (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's clearly going nowhere. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have taken the liberty of replacing the word genre in the Drama (genre) article with "type", as this seems more appropriate. Rwood128 (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I have revised the lede of Drama (genre) have suggested that a more appropriate title for this article would be A drama: genre fiction. Rwood128 (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Genre fiction appears to refer only to prose works. I therefore suggest a better title would be Drama: media genre. But Im no expert and badly need advice – though I strongly feel that the current title is confusing. Another possibility might be Drama: a modern play genre. Rwood128 (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Moving it in mid-discussion was premature. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What about Drama: the modern genre? Rwood128 (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In accordance with naming conventions, can we truncate this to "Drama (modern genre)"? No need for "the," right? Wolfdog (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really believe there is a genre that spans both film, tv, radio etc. I think the article, currently 90% about cinema, should be broken up (ie the short para about tv sent somewhere else) and renamed Drama (film) or something. I wouldn't be amazed if there are already other articles covering this ground. (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Wolfdog and Johnbod I also wonder if the term is used in the same way in the contemporary theatre, as it is for films or television?

A university course in modern drama is usually a course about plays of all types of play not those as defined in the article Drama (modern genre) (e.g. . Students studying drama may, of course, be studying literature but they can also be actors, etc. at a Drama school.

I checked and Broadway online theatre guide does use this term. The London (England) theatre guide also uses the term, but in a somewhat meaningless (sloppy) way, as it is used for all plays that aren't light comedies (though even this (the definition of light) may not be true?), or musicals, so that "drama" here includes Ben Jonson's The Alchemist, various comedies and tragedies by Shakespeare, and All That Fall by Samuel Beckett. Rwood128 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes in live theatre the main word is of course "play" (as opposed to opera, musical etc), equating with "drama" (as opposed to documentary, musical, cartoon, horror film etc) in filmed media. As I say above, I think lumping tv and film dramas as a genre is a step too far - they should be taken separately. Single-programme tv dramas a la Play for Today are an interesting but somewhat threatened genre, by the time you take out series, docudramas, filmed plays etc etc. Those were Television plays, but that article only covers the UK. I'm surprized we don't seem to have a global article.  Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The name of this article
This article seems to be only concerned with one type of drama, live, stage performances. However, the term "drama" includes various other kinds of dramatic performance, such as closet drama, radio play, film, and television play. This needs to be clarified and perhaps ''Drama" should be re-named Drama (Theatre)? Rwood128 (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree with that, in a historical and global survey like this. But more relating and linking to other dramatic forms would be good in places. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a great deal of confusion about this subject in the conversations above. The article drama (modern genre) has no business existing as a separate article. There are plenty of sources available that will help unravel the tangled mess, which ought to be the guiding thread to a reworking. It most definitely ought to be merged into this article, which should also most definitely remain as simply "drama". Some editors seem to be seeking clear delineations where in fact none exist. The relation to genre is complex. The relation to enacted or read is complex. The historical trajectories of these terms are complex and most definitely not easily separated. That this article doesn't yet have a section on closet drama, for example, doesn't demonstrate anything--it's simply that Wikipedia thing that major articles are far more difficult to write than ones on minor subjects. Some of the arguments above confused the senses in which we use the word. I spend some time on the lede a while ago to try to clarify it with plenty of sources (I notice it's deteriorated since, proposing things that the sources don't support, so I'm going to clean it up). I've left the elaboration of the body of the article, on the basis of the sourced lede, to other editors. The theatrical focus isn't inherent to the subject. On the contrary, the way in which "drama" emerges as a proposed genre in the narrowest sense is inextricably tied in with its meaning as a larger genre -- that is, there are different 'scales' of genre. This starts with Aristotle. Drama is different from epic poetry (mimesis vs diegesis). Those are two large-scale genres. Within the former, there's comedy, tragedy, satyr plays (at first). In the 19th century, within Naturalism, Zola proposes a narrower genre term to describe plays inbetween comedy/tragedy -- "drama" -- much as "tragicomedy" functioned for the Romans and Renaissance. In those examples, Therese Raquin for example, the play belongs to the genre of "drama" in two senses -- it's a serious story that isn't a tragedy, and it's also in dramatic form. This sense develops into films and tv. All of which are drama. A sit-com is still drama, as much as a Ken Loach movie.  • DP •  {huh?} 13:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Having cleaned up the lede, it's worth clarifying some points of varying detail/generality. The greek word from which drama originates isnt' the greek word for action, its only one of them. Aristotle points out that the word used is Doric and not Ionian, suggesting an origin in the irretreviable past that wasn't Athenian (and possibly not even 'dramatic' in our sense - most likely choral songs).

When the lede says fictional mode, that covers all forms of fiction that employ mimesis to tell their stories -- radio drama, television, cinema, as well as theatre. It's all drama. It's not narrative. Ditto for the initial definition of in performance. An actor in a film or tv series is performing just as much as one onstage. The relevant question is the mode the work of art adopts to tell its story (i.e., it's not a novel or a short story). This has bearing on characterisation/character -- a novelist can tell us what's inside someone's mind, can describe and specify in detial aspects of that 'person', whereas in a drama (in whatever medium) involves a far greater degree of ambiguity that isn't resolved until it's enacted by actors. This goes, too, even for dramas not intended to be enacted (Peer Gynt, famously). Closet drama adopts the mode of performance, even though it won't be performed. It's about how information is communicated in that instance.

There is a need for sections on television drama, as for radio drama, and the film genre of drama. These are all separate but intertwined things that need to be developed in relation to some proper sources. Same goes for Zola's sense of drama as a story in-between comedy and tragedy. The standard works for cinema studies Film Art for example, will help with that and avoid the confusions that seem to have emerged since the lede was composed. I propose that the sources ought to be of this kind of broad-scale academic treatment, rather than OR extrapolating from OED or whatever. In other words, it'll take a bit of research to address it properly. When I composed the lede, I tried to make sure that we used 'beefy' sources--that is, sources whose range and breath and depth was as significant as the subject of our article. I went to a large library and spent a long time collecting material from Encyclopedias and other works that offer detailed overviews at this scale. That the article hasn't yet acquired the same detail for film or tv as it has for theatre (and even that needs significant work) is because of the volume of work involved, not because the subject of the article is narrow.  • DP •  {huh?} 13:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, one further suggestion... As I've tried to make clear, the biggest problem, which I think is what has ultimately generated the confusions, is that it's far harder to work down from the large-scale to the detailed, than it is to go in the opposite direction. Perhaps we should look at creating smaller-scale articles that address the specific topics first, then summarise and frame with the kind of work I described above. For example, it would be far easier to write an article on "Television drama" or Drama (film genre), say. I think we'll find, if we look at the kinds of sources I've described, that those monstrosities Wikipedia is so fond of, like "drama film" are only used journalistically (and incorrectly).  • DP •  {huh?} 14:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This is very helpful. While I agree that there should be sections on film, television, and radio here, shouldn't there still be a separate article on film and television drama? Perhaps the title of Drama (modern genre) could be changed to Film and television drama? There are articles already for radio drama and the Theatre. Rwood128 (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that smaller articles are certainly possible, but I'd suggest that we ought to distinguish the media. I'd suggest something like Television drama and Drama (film genre), since the conventions involved can differ somewhat.  • DP •  {huh?} 13:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree, but for now wouldn't Film and television drama, or Drama (Film and television genres) be more accurate titles than Drama (modern genre)? It is divided into two sections? Additional emphasis on the different conventions can be added as necessary. Rwood128 (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand why that might seem so, but remember that the article(s) aren't just dictionary definitions of the 'form' of the genre, but ought to include, as this article ought (far better than it does), its historical development. The international scope of the history of television drama, as well as that of cinematic drama, would be great; their evolution, too, involving very different historical circumstances in each case (TV getting off to a far later start, for example). All of which suggests to me distinct articles (perhaps with notes refering the reader to pertinent sections in the other articles)... actually, thinking about that parenthetical note: in Britain, at least, there is a clear relationship between the development of serious drama on television and in the theatre (Mike Leigh, for example, comes to mind -- who of course is famous now principally for his 1990s+ films, though his career has a fairly clear segmentation between tv->film).  • DP •  {huh?} 15:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I fully understand what you are saying. My point is that your ideas will take time to implement and that the title Drama (modern genre) could be improved now. When will the articles that you refer to as possibilties actually be created? I might be able to help later this year, but lack expertise in this area – though I have researched novelist James Hanley, who also wrote many plays for radio, television and the theatre. The change in title would, I suggest, be an improvement, a step, however minor, in the right direction. It is great that you are working on this. Rwood128 (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not, really. I notice that this article hasn't improved in any significant way in the last few years. And looking over Drama (modern genre), I'm not sure there's much worth keeping or that would survive an OR purge. The very first sentence is plainly wrong, for example. And a great many of the films I noticed wouldn't belong in a treatment of the genre. I can recommend sources--at least, for a cinema one: The Cinema Book and Film Art both have digestible sections. But I am a bit immersed in early modern drama at the moment to devote any significant time to this or tv/film/radio drama. Perhaps editors in tv/media wikiproject might be persuaded to offer something? Regardless, I'm not sure how meaningful or appropriate a secondary 'combined' article would be.  • DP •  {huh?} 18:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had realized that you probably had other things that you wished to focus on. But, perhaps you can delete the films that you mention – I know nothing about movies! Hope that you can find time to do further work on Drama. Rwood128 (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, from what I saw, most of the content of the article was vague remarks about film in general with the adjective "dramatic" added, so that's a cleanup that'd rapidly escalate beyond the time I could give it--so, apologies. Unfortunatley the two overview books I'd go to first aren't previewable on google books...  • DP •  {huh?} 16:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Well maybe I will be bold and delete the un-cited material, much of which you suggested would not "survive an OR purge". Re the books, unfortunately I'm not sufficiently interested in film or television. Rwood128 (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)