Talk:Action comedy

Requested move 3 December 2022

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

No consensus to move to a hyphenated title. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for the proposed move at this time; however, there is sufficient support to move this to Action comedy and merge in the TV version of the concept. BD2412 T 18:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Action comedy film → Action-comedy filmAction-comedy film – Adding dash since this is most common in reliable sources about this film sub-genre. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Contesting this one; I'm not seeing anythign like universal inclusion of a hyphen in sources, and I think we need to assess how this phrase is supposed to be parsed. Is it a comedy film that is also action (that would be "action comedy film"), or is it a film that's of the action comedy genre? (that would be "action-comedy film"); or finally, is it a film which is both action and comedy, separate, which would be an "action–comedy film" (per MOS:ENDASH). Personally I think the current title is fine.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  It needs a hyphen because this is a compound modifier where "action" and "comedy" work together to function like one adjective, per Grammarly. I agree that it is not universal, but the hyphen is more relevant to avoid WP:EGG because one could easily have action comedy film. That is less likely when it is presented as a single adjective. Does this satisfy or not? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Given it's not universal, I think this should go to a full WP:RM discussion rather than be decided here. (I have no opinion myself about the title.) -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @Erik, personally I agree with the change you want to make (although please don't cite the awful Grammarly!), but @Kj cheetham is absolutely right that this would need an RM. Feel free to start it, or let me know if you need help. Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  @DrVogel:, is Grammarly wrong about "action-comedy" being a compound modifier to function like one adjective? A film that has action and comedy? (Looks like the technical move was moved to be a typical RM.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: While I don't think "action comedy film" is a detrimental article title, I think hyphenating it as "action-comedy film" makes it crystal clear that it is a genre in its own right (as a hybrid genre). This term will be most used in film articles' first sentences, and per WP:FILMLEAD, it should verifiably be the primary genre or sub-genre, so writing "action comedy film" can make it look disjointed, that it could link to action film and to comedy film. We want to avoid genre bloat or appearance of it, and "action-comedy" makes it clear that it is a distinct genre. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support, since this is a hybrid genre of its own (and it's always called action[-]comedy, not comedy[-]action, comedic action, or other names).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Merge with Action comedy which should be retitled to include the hyphen. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  There can be action-comedy TV series, so that page is a broader article that covers both kinds of media. Not sure if there are other kinds of media that are action-comedy as well. If there is a way to reformat it, have at it, but "action-comedy" by itself isn't a film-specific term. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Because this article itself is so short, I thought it is better merged. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I admit my interest was more in creating a film article, but I think it is possible to do more research to cover action-comedy as a broad genre. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no universal use of the hyphen - indeed, I'm tending to see more usage without the hyphen. As regards grammar arguments - I don't think we should be using a prescriptive approach on Wikipedia, rather we should be following a descriptive approach: that is, we follow what the majority of reliable sources do; and at the moment I'm not seeing that the majority of sources are using a hyphen. I do support a merge to Action comedy at this time so the two articles can be built together, and then splits can take place as and when appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per SilkTork.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. We do get our data from sources, we will mash it round in many ways, but each statement of fact must be tied to a reliable source. We do not get our typography and presentation from sources. If the source has "on the eighth of December" or "on December 8th", their styling is absolutely ignored. There are many exceptions, because reasons, but I don't think this is one. So we should do as we like. I like the existing title cos it's prettier, to me anyway. Herostratus (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
• Move: to action comedy, but no hyphen, like romantic comedy. Because action comedy TV series is nothing but a list (and this article too is short), they are better off as one article. I was initially in favour of the title action-comedy, but now I agree with others that the inclusion of a hyphen looks absurd. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  "Action comedy" is an ambiguous term that could refer to a film or to a TV series. See Talk:Action comedy § Ambiguity. There are numerous reliable sources identifying TV series as action comedy, but more research is needed to pull together a history and an academic reading. In addition, per WP:NLIST, cross-categorization lists are feasible. The film article has prose and and a list, and the TV series has a list for now. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – I don't mind it either way; seems like a style preference. While I'm not opposed to the proposed move, I will note that the occurrence rate of the hyphen in the first 39 sources I looked at on Google Books (I dropped one from the first 40 hits) was right at 33%. Take that lightly with a grain of salt, as a much larger sample could show otherwise. Also, there is already a redirect that works just fine for any instances where the hyphen is preferred. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Non-RS sources

• allmovie.com
• The Script Lab
• The AV Club
• rottentomatoes.com
• Men's Health

None of the above are RS for this subject. Sfetcu is self-published. EEng 04:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Split

Related discussions on other talk pages:

• Talk:Action comedy film
• Talk:Action comedy TV series

If any editor in the future wants to revisit creating standalone articles for action comedy film and action comedy TV series, please feel free to ping me. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Pinging you as requested. @Erik:. I tried to find serious discussion on action in television in general and even that proved to be very difficult, with even the more academic sources stating that despite the terms being used widely, there is very little study of action alone as a television genre. I'm more tempted to propose to re-name this as "action comedy film" and perhaps lose the television information as there is no real serious information on it as a unique television genre (outside of the usual suspects of top ten lists), but that's not really a strong case to build an article. I'd probably suggest dropping the television information and re-tiling this article and re-direct action television or comedy television for other tv sources pointing to this. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy lately. I guess I felt before like we should be able to separate hybrid genres by media and have distinct articles for these. Like for example, it always bothered me that romantic comedy doesn't have a sub-article of romantic comedy film. I do feel some disappointment at the idea that we won't really articulate anywhere on Wikipedia what TV series have been called action comedies, as it had seemed okay here as an embedded list. But at the end of the day, I feel done with this topic, so feel free to do what you think is best. Just wanted to give you some context for what I was thinking in the first place. Erik (talk | contrib) 11:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

No problem. I genuinely would like to have one for television that goes beyond a vague list, but I'll probably suggest a move per the fact there is no real discussion on the topic as a television genre. And honestly, there was barely any serious discussion on it as a film one unfortunately. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Image request

I saw the image request. I added a screenshot from The General. Maybe we can also add images of Eddie Murphy and Jackie Chan, especially named in the article body? Not sure where to fit them. Is it too upfront to put them in the lead section? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, I tried to look for a more action-comedy-oriented video clip for The General for a more dynamic element, but I'm not sure if one exists in Wikimedia Commons right now? Link here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I've swapped The General image for Eddie Murphy. I know The General is casually tossed into being an action film or an action comedy, but from the prose in the article and the action film article in general. The term is usually applied to American productions much later. I've placed in an Eddie Murphy pic from commons that I've found there which I think helps match more what the prose discusses. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 12 August 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

---

Action comedy → Action comedy filmAction comedy film – Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. On trying to expand the article, I only found information and serious writing about the topic as being a film genre.

Research on trying to find any serious information about action comedy as a television genre has become unfruitful. Basically nothing on Google Scholar. (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22action+comedy%22+television&btnG=)

I had recently created the action television article to have it unique from the action film article. While I even trying to write about the genre for television, Yvonne Tasker, who has written extensively about action in terms of television and film for decades, said that "action as a broad television genre was 'largely untheorized' in comparison to other television formats more distinct to television." In short, there was little discussion of it as television genre.

I have had similarly no luck in any articles outside listicles of "best action comedy tv" that really have no information to pull from other than various television shows may have been briefly described as "action comedy". With this, I propose re-titling the article as the only real meat and potatoes of it is related to film works, not television. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CNC (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose there is no need to prematurely disambiguate article titles, and the current title is consise. It is also possible that should information be found on television shows it might be better suited to be placed in this article, instead of having it's own article. A quick look does show some results, such as Chuck (TV series). Tiggerjay (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Your suggestion goes against WP:BURDEN and Wikipedia:Verifiability, specifically that its up to you to provide content if there is any, not just assume it exists. We don't just leave an article up and hope the sources come to us. As stated I've searched from (and as I've stated in my first statement, so have other who have spent decades in academia about the topic). There is little serious information on action television let alone "action comedy television". There are definitely Google search results, but it's all trivial mentions of shows or various cheap listicles. The ranker source for example, has no a trivial list users can vote up or down, no author attributed to it, and a vague genre description that doesn't get into any specifics. If you believe high quality content could be built for an article on the television side of things, could you present your three best examples? Because I would definitely not use that Ranker website.Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding -- all I am saying is that there is no need to disambiguate something that is perfectly concise the way it is right now, and there is no titling conflict. The current titling does not prevent Action comedy television from being created, and if that did occur, then it might make sense to move this clarify this article is exclusively about the film format. But moreover, it still permits the ability for someone to add television within this article, since this article as-is, already has a section titled film, leaving open the opportunity for other media to be included here. This is not to say where the correct place to put the television media should be, but rather, regardless of which approach is taken, there is no need to move until that does occur. TiggerJay (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair! Thank you for clarifying. That said, the material of the list seems against the policy of WP:NOTCATALOG, namely, as there is no serious documentation on what clarifies as it as a television genre. I know we're sort of veering off topic, but should that be removed? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I would agree in part with NOTCAT in general, even for the film section - as prose is frequently preferred. That being said, looking at the film section, aside from the quoted information talking specifically about film, it seems like a good amount of that section also applies to television series, such as Cynthia King referred to action comedy films as typically being reserved for action [show] where humor plays a much more central role. These [show] take on several other formats such as buddy [show] involving mismatched partners - as you can see where I replaced film with show, those characteristics still apply and are true of the television shows listed. If I was to suggest an edit of the article itself, I would think actually removing the lists and sections, and then rework the prose to include TV show examples as well. TiggerJay (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Would agree for removing the list as it feels like a hybrid probably better carried out by List of action films and List of comedy films. While I personally would agree with that definition, they specifically are talking about film in that source so its probably a violation WP:STICKTOSOURCE of going above and beyond what the source is saying. Like, we wouldn't say King highlighted that this happened when actors who had backgrounds in comedy such as Eddie Murphy began taking roles in action [shows] because that would obviously not be the case. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Final tangent though @Andrzejbanas -- would you be open to rescinding your RM proposal and we can both work on simply editing the page to remove both lists, and introduce prose instead combining both tv and film? If not, you can probably just leave this unanswered and we can get more opinions on your move proposal. TiggerJay (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm lead towards no, namely because I have searched and because basically came up with nothing. Remember that this all I really came up for action comedy even for film which is relatively sparse even in its own. Frustrating. I am in favor of removing the lists though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Comedy and WikiProject Film have been notified of this discussion. CNC (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONCISE and WP:OVERPRECISION, and simply being unnecessary. If it's true that this is a film-only genre, there is no reason that has to be specified in the title. This appears to be a content dispute. Changing the title to change the scope of the article and force out certain content is inappropriate. However, if that content doesn't belong here anyway, it can be removed or discussed without changing the title. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  It's not that there is no truth or non-truth about it being only a film genre. It that's there is no reliable sources that contain any in-depth discussion if it as a television or any other genre. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  That’s not a reason to change the article title. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 05:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  The article is only about a film genre, as action comedy is a term used for other formats, we should clarify that per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Which is a rule mentioned in your source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  But there is no article covering these other formats. As TiggerJay stated: there is no titling conflict. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is part of Wikipedia:Disambiguation which states in the lead (emphasis added):

  Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia

  And in § Deciding to disambiguate:

  Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing English Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. In this situation there must be a way for the reader to navigate quickly from the page that first appears to any of the other possible desired articles.

  When there is no existing article with this name, or that could or should have this name, there is no need to disambiguate. The current title works whether or not the article only covers film and whether or not it could or should cover other formats/mediums. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  Its not disambiguating. A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. In this case, action comedy can be and has been used for various television shows and other media which you can see by clicking the "what links here". As the article will basically only have film related material soon, it would be more clear that the genre.

  I understand your argument, and honestly I do not think its too bad. I just don't know which title would better follow the guidelines. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.