Talk:Jones & Jury

Is or Was

I came here from the ANI board . I took a look and it actually looks like Mr._Yondris_Ferguson is correct. The show's no longer on, therefore a past tense verb "was" makes sense, especially since the sentance in question reads (before my change )

Jones & Jury (also known as Jones and Jury) is _{emphasis is mine} an American nontraditional arbitration-based reality court show that was originally aired in the 1990s

The sentance makes no sense that way, as it indicates the show IS running and WAS running in the same sentance, so I've changed it to:

Jones & Jury (also known as Jones and Jury) was an American nontraditional arbitration-based reality court show that was originally aired in the 1990s

This makes sense. Also, I saw nothing in MOS:TV or MOS:LEAD that forbade a past tense verb to be used when talking about a show no longer aired. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

From the last sentence Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Lead_paragraphs: References to the show should be in the present tense since shows—even though no longer airing—still exist, including in the lead (e.g. Title is a...). I think that is pretty clear. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie Okay, I was bold, you reverted. No problem, I see your point, however, it also says at the top

Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.

If we're talking about a show that no longer airs, common sense says use past tense verbs, don't you think ? KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

We go by policy, not what you think is common sense. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Laugh --- you're as bad as I am (I'm not insulting you by that , either ). MOS:TV/ MOS:LEAD is a guideline, not a policy, so common sense can be used for this. Tell you what, you and I don't agree, no problem. I'll start an RFC and we'll let consensus decide. Sound good to you ? KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 17:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Per policy: You're going to have to start this discussion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, instead of here, and wait for a consensus before making your edit if you wish to change this policy and this one. For the time being, your edit will be reverted until a consensus is reached. Take care.  MegastarLV  (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Concerning the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

While MOS is a guideline and can be changed on specific articles, that has to be done by consensus. The consensus he though is to follow the guideline and use "is an" and "was" The majority opinion suggested following the guideline and explained why it is correct for television shows. AlbinoFerret 04:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the lead contain the sentence currently worded as:

Jones & Jury (also known as Jones and Jury) is an American nontraditional arbitration-based reality court show that was originally aired in the 1990s

or should the lead contain the sentence worded as :

Jones & Jury (also known as Jones and Jury) was an American nontraditional arbitration-based reality court show that was originally aired in the 1990s ? KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 17:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Vote

1. • Support Jones & Jury.....was an ....that was originally..... this makes sense since the program is no longer running, and the verb "is" refers to present tense. Therefore a past tense verb is needed for this sentance to make sense. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh

Per policy: You're going to have to start this discussion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, instead of here, and wait for a consensus before making your edit if you wish to change this policy and this one. For the time being, your edit will be reverted until a consensus is reached. Take care.  MegastarLV  (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, MOS isn't policy, it's a guideline and common sense can be used (i.e consensus ) so the RFC here is fine, as it's a question for this article only. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 10:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Jones & Jury (also known as Jones and Jury)... is an ... that was originally aired" is correct. Writing about works in the present tense has long standing and wide community support, reflected in both MOS:TENSE and WP:FICTENSE. MOS:TENSE, the more relevant of the two here, says By default, write all articles in the present tense, including for those covering products or works that have been discontinued. Articles discussing works of fiction are also written in the present tense (see WP:FICTENSE). That the series is no longer running is irrelevant. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• is an We can generally presume that most TV shows are recorded and that those recordings of the show exist in some archive and can be reaired if desired. It continues to exist so present tense to describe it is appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This is pretty straight forward for works of fiction, which this show isn't, as stories exist outside their medium and exist as long as they can be remembered. Reality shows and live real-time aired shows like news reports are more problematic as their enduring existence depends on their being recorded or not. An airing (a showing, or performance) is transient and is appropriate to be described in the past tense after it happens. The recorded show, episode, series, story, book, are indefinitely enduring so are appropriately described using present tense. Only real issue I have is for live shows that are provably known to have never been recorded being described in the present tense. I think that is wrong, but that is not the issue in this case. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Was and was -- Proper English. Damotclese (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Proper English - "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" was a novel that was written is more correct than is a novel that was written? Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

After all, "The Adventures of Tome Sawyer" is still a novel. Jschnur (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Is an / was Per AussieLegend and Geraldo Perez. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Is and was As per MOS:TENSE. Jschnur (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• The first verb should be is, per established convention. The thing is that regardless of whether a show is still in active production or not, recordings of it still exist and at least in theory the show can always still be rebroadcast on an "oldies" or "retro" channel (even game shows, probably one of the last genres that one would ever previously have predicted to actually have any significant rerun value, actually do show up in reruns on the Game Show Network and rerun channels.) So even if the series has ceased production, its basic state of being a television series has not receded into the past. For the same reason, a film that was made 50 years ago still is a film, and a novel that was published 200 years ago still is a novel — it may not be current, but copies of it do still exist, and reprints or rereleases of it are still possible. It's appropriate to use the past tense in contexts that are clearly in the past — "was originally aired in the 1990s" is entirely correct — but its basic state of being a television series still is true regardless of whether it's still in active production or not. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Is and Was - The show still exists, maybe not on daily television, but there is a version of it somewhere. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Was an, this is not like a novel or film, which is forever the same created work, this is a programme format which is no longer being produced, the recordings may still exist, but the programme as such does not exist. Comparable is a 20 year old defunct news programme, recordings, but not the programme may still exist. Recordings of either could be referred to in the present tense. … … ps in what sense is this a 'work of fiction'? .Pincrete (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2015 (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.

Merger proposal

I propose that Jones & Jury (TV series) be merged into the page Jones & Jury, which currently serves only as a redirect to the page for Star Jones, who was the host of the show Jones & Jury. There should not be redundant pages for the same topic. Wcreed88 (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Wcreed88, this page is a redirect as you have noted. There is no content to be merged with. I've redirected the page to Jones & Jury (TV series) for now, which is the better target in my view but you may want to consider a page move from Jones & Jury (TV series) to Jones & Jury by placing {{db-move|page to move from|reason for move}} on the Jones & Jury page. --86.149.244.69 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

86.149.244.69, I'm good with the modification you made. It still achieves the same goal I was aiming for. Thanks for doing that.Wcreed88 (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jones & Jury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116141958/http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/exhibits/mason_%26_associates/documents/reality_series_by_title.pdf to http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/exhibits/mason_%26_associates/documents/reality_series_by_title.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)