Jump to content

Talk:Jumping the shark/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Removed and redid list

After looking at the article for some time and pondering what to do, I have decided to list the "shark jump" moments into a table. I have referenced the JTS website to provide such examples. I did this to reduce examples, reduce the article's length and to provide an overall cleanup. I hope people will like what they see; the orginal list (which I am in large part responsible for) is still available through the article history feature. [[Briguy52748 21:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)]]


In general, lists of examples tend to become tedious as contributors add their own favorites. Lists of miscellaneous information are generally discouraged in Wikipedia. There also appears to be considerable controversy over which examples should and should not be considered 'Jump the shark' moments. I therefore recommend keeping the examples to a minimum and directing those interested in submitting their own example to an external site or sites.Cnilep (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

JK Rowling

She jumped a shark with the statement that Dumbledore is a homosexual and should be considered for addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.255.2 (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source stating this? Blackmetalbaz 02:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/21/film.books (24.179.35.163 (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
The reference doesn't say that was a 'jump the shark' moment. Also, she said it after all books were finished, so I don't see how it can be a jump the shark moment... Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
In any case, if "jumping the shark" is supposed to be a desperate action by a series of creative works in decline, how can it possibly apply to a book series, the limited length of which was announced by the author far in advance? --Michael K. Smith (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations

There appears to be a massive list of examples of things that have 'jumped the shark'. I'm willing to buy that this term has some kind of notability, but do we actually have verifiable sources for every example on this list, or does much of it constitute Original Research, being simply personal opinion? I'm new to this Wikipedia editing lark, so haven't deleted anything, but if there's anything not sourced I will start deleting it pretty sharpish. Blackmetalbaz 02:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there's way too much original research / personal opinion in the examples, e.g. "the death of Diana Hyland, who only appeared in the first four episodes of Eight is Enough, as Joan Bradford." Phlar (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed from article

This absolutely has to be the "contribution" of a very critical observer of media production. To actually base any theory or opinion of "appeal" in media as "noted" from a single media entity is to be mildly critical very narrow in scope.

added by 65.5.170.200

Apparently he doesn't understand the dscussion page concept.-Giant89 15:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Evel Knievel?

This statement in section [Term used in other contexts] needs a citation:

Evel Knievel retired after his attempt to literally jump the shark in the winter of 1976; the Fonzie stunt satirized this.

There should also be some mention of this on the [Evel Knievel] page. The incident is currently described there as:

On January 31, 1977, during a dress rehearsal for a CBS special on live daredevil stunts at the Chicago International Amphitheatre, Knievel crashed, breaking both arms and his collarbone. In the process, a misplaced cameraman was injured, losing an eye.

It was a shark tank Evel jumped, right?

--Joe Wiki (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The section on Burning Man is a bit out-of-place, isn't it? Do we add sections on everything that someone-or-other has said has "jumped the shark"? -- Doom 03:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Never jumped

Different shows should be used for examples here, the majority of the shows listed have only been on TV for 2 or 3 years. I think a show can only really "jump" if it's been on for 5 or more. Although one of the reasons some shows never jump is because they were never of a high standard anyway. 193.1.36.14 (talk) 10:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


What about the more ridiculous ideas on Lost? Polar bear, coming back from the dead, invisible person, being magically healed. When does preposterous writing turn into jumping?

X-files after making a movie is jumping the shark. Yet went on for another 4 years after jumping. C2s (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That section has, in any case, been rearranged to remove the table and examples.
I think that this article may be a bit over-focused on the website as distinct from the phenomenon (which, as the numerous deliberate references in TV shows demonstrate, is one that goes far beyond that one website). I think that including lists of shows which have not jumped the shark is going a bit far from the topic of the article. TSP (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Lost never jumped. It was bizarre from the beginning. And it is very possible to jump the shark at any time (even a movie can jump... "Predators (2010)" comes to mind). I think it is best described as a moment or event that "makes the bubble pop," when the established threshold of plausibility (different for every show) is crossed.199.59.174.46 (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Firefly movie?

How could the firefly movie be Jumping the shark, the series was already "dead" for a good while before the movie was even mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockgar (talk • contribs) 02:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


-- I have to agree with this as Serenity/Firefly does not even appear on the movie list at jumptheshark.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.205.244.66 (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have changed it to The X-Files, as this is the top example given on the Jumping The Shark site. The Wikipedia article is listing categories given on the web site, so it makes sense to use the examples given on the site.Hobson (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that most Firefly fans loved Serenity. This article's reliance on one web site's opinion is very troubling; there's no reality check (and balance) when you do that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed Items

Hi,

I've removed quite a lot of items from the page. As I understand it, this page is specifically about "jumping the shark", the phrase and reference. As such, references to the particular term "jumping the shark", of which there seem to be plenty, seem to be valid; but generalised parodies of the idea of series getting worse as they go on seem to be a bit off-topic. This applied to most of the 'Simpsons' section; I've left in the one which explicitly referenced jumping the shark; but I've taken out the ones which were simply references to the idea that clip shows indicated that a show had passed its peak, and the like. Let me know if you disagree with any of this. TSP (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

An addition to the comedy/dramatic series references section

Hello,

I've added a reference to a season nine episode of The X-files entitled 'Jumping the Shark' (The 15th Episode of Season 9). Here are my sources:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751148/ (the imdb site for that episode) and http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/xfiles/episodeguide/nine/page15.shtml (The BBC's synopsis of this episode).

Spookykat78 (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please patrol redirects and similar titles

Interested parties should periodically patrol the incoming links to the these similarly titled and/or thematically related articles:

and fix those links/redirects that are to the wrong page. I would do it myself, but I'm sure the same will need to be done on a regular basis, and I'm certainly not going to do that. Hence this note. - dcljr (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, looky there. This talk page has a "To do" box at the top. Added my "request" there, too. - dcljr (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merger proposal

It was suggested at the closure of the Nuked the fridge AfD discussion that Nuked the fridge be merged with this article or that some call for consensus be made with regards to the two articles (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nuked_the_fridge).

  • Support
  1. I support this merger as Nuked the fridge is a neologism with insufficient meaning apart from a contemporary reference to "jumping the shark". The AfD debate also provided some compelling reasons to support a merger, namely that some sources cited in Nuked the fridge equate or relate the two terms explicitly. Protonk (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per Protonk Diego (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Same as above. "Nuking the fridge" seems to be a modern day "jumping the shark", popularized by people too young to be familiar with the context in "Happy Days". Themfromspace (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Naturally, having been the one to suggest bringing this up here :) Shereth 14:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. I'll support it. As it essentially just means the same thing and almost all the references describe it as an updated version of jump the shark. Vickser (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Me too. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Sounds good to me. The article should be trimmed down for the merger, though. 1 paragraph at the end of JtS should cover it sufficiently. R. fiend (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  8. Agreed; any merge should be limited in scope, of course. Powers T 13:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  9. Merge, but limit to origin and the mainstream media adaption/assessment of the phrase. --MASEM 13:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. I think this works well as a stand alone article. There has been talk of cutting down the article if it is moved, but I feel this would not work well as the information presented currently is relevant. Furthermore, though the phrase is compared to "jump the shark" it does not have an exactly identical meaning. Also, and I know that pointing to the existence of one article does not justify another, but I feel this is worth mentioning, this page has a link to the page "marrying Irving," which is in far lower use than "nuke the fridge" [1][2]--AndrewK (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral

Outcome

I'm going to merge it. I'll try to see how to do that without mussing up the main article too much. If I can't do that, I'll make a redirect. People can cut and paste content selectively from the history after that if they would like. I'll archive this discussion once I'm done with the merger. Protonk (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2008 (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.

Updated "Nuking the fridge" in response to the merge

The article should have been "Nuking the fridge" rather than "Nuked the fridge" in the first place. The references at Newsweek [3] and a new Times Online article [4] both use the 'ing rather than 'ed. Additional, it has always been "Jumping the shark". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.125.6.249 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, a search for "nuke the fridge" should be directed here, as the most likely searched verion would be of the basic verb "nuke" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.110.17 (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons Episode: Itchy & Scratch & Poochie

Hi Wikipedia contributors - surely one of the most well-known references to Jumping The Shark is the Simpsons episode Itchy & Scratch & Poochie, which begins with the programme-makers reacting to falling ratings and introducing a new unsolicited character who had nothing to do with the original premise. It would seem to me the reason this isn't included in the references section is that the phrase isn't used, though surely the episode is almost exclusively about the phenomenon, and particularly the 'New Kid In Town' device. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.84.67 (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree its a great example. Add it if you want to. --24.21.148.155 (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I added a sentence about "The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show" in the Cousin Oliver Syndrome paragraph of under the Common Methods heading. --Brijohn6882 (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"Nuked the Fridge"

Nuking the fridge is a colloquialism used by some film critics and fans and has a meaning similar to jumping the shark. It is used to denote the point in a movie or movie series, usually one with a pre-established tone of only semi-seriousness, at which the characters or plot veer into an over-the-top level of the ridiculous or incredible, thus leaving one feeling alienated from the intention of the film. A series that "nukes the fridge" is typically deemed to have passed its peak, changing the tone of the series so far that viewers see it as having fundamentally and permanently strayed from its original premise. After this point in the filmmakers' attempt to keep the story fresh, critical fans often sense a noticeable decline in quality.

The term is an allusion to a scene in the film Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull of the Indiana Jones franchise, first released worldwide on May 22, 2008. In this scene the title character is literally hit by the blast of a nuclear weapon while hiding inside a lead-lined refrigerator in a desperate attempt at survival. The fridge is hurled a great distance through the sky, while the remaining structures surrounding it are obliterated, and tumbles hard to the ground, whereupon an uninjured Indiana Jones emerges to witness the mushroom cloud miles away. Disappointed fans of the series found the absurdity of this event reflective of the decreasing quality of the series and adopted the term "nuke the fridge".

The first public use of "nuking the fridge" as a direct metaphor is reported to have been on May 24, 2008 on Internet Movie Database boards.[citation needed] The phrase was adopted by others on the board during that same weekend as a wide number of users began referencing the refrigerator scene in a derogatory way, before eventually emerging elsewhere on the Internet.

Media notice of the phrase includes articles in Newsweek Magazine,[8] the Toronto Sun,[9] the New York Times,[10] a tongue in cheek reference in Entertainment Weekly,[11] and a discussion on WJXT-TV.[12] The phrase was also Urban Dictionary's "Word of the Day" for June 3, 2008[13] and MSN's A-List Searches' Hot Topic of the Day on July 6, 2008,[14] and has been used on countless other blogs and websites[citation needed]. On Monday, July 7, 2008, CNBC ran a story entitled "Have Media Stocks Nuked the Fridge?"

I fail to see how this meets the standards of an encyclopedia article. Most of the section seems unneeded. Also, someone did not use fact tags properly, so I fixed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nblschool (talk • contribs) 20:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Revisited

Consensus was arrived at in AfD or above or both (I don't care) to merge Nuking the Fridge into Jumping the Shark, so simply deleting the entire section again will be interpreted as an act of vandalism. The section has been expanded from the above first stab, and has some sources (but not enough - specific statements in the section need to be sourced directly). Don't delete it, since consensus says it must be there (in some form); work to improve it.

When I first looked here, I saw no mention of it, and there wasn't an article on it, so I started writing one (I since noticed the anon's mass deletion of it and undid it). Anyway, the small start I was working on is now at User:SMcCandlish/Sandbox and editors of this article may wish to look at that, not for its text (though it does have sourced quotations as to the meaning of the phrase), but mostly because it has 3 complete and 1 incomplete inline citations, that even fully and properly use {{Cite web}}. My material and sourcing research can easily be massaged into the extant text in this article to improve it. I won't bother myself, as it is about 1 a.m. in my time zone and I have other things to do (and have little interest in this article, with a lot of others to work on). I'll leave it to the regulars here to take what they like from my sandbox (which is unlikely to be erased or replaced any time soon) and use it as they see fit. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The article deals with the expression as it was already common usage. I think it needs a little time to be used more, and also, it should help to add more examples than just Indiana Jones 4. And, sorry, I thought the gimmick with the fridge was funny. --Surten (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Surten
If any of the sources are wanted from my sandbox, go copy them today as I'll wipe that page and use it for other testing and development pretty soon. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Why does nuking the fridge redirect here if the redirect note is the only mention of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.70.110 (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I can see the problem of which you speak. Not sure how to fix it. The data must be lying around here somewhere, I'm just not sure where. Seems consensus never changed on the issue of where the info belongs, but I'm not sure. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The only problem really is that it just goes from a listing of ways shows 'jump the shark' into a history section with not delineation between the two. Can't we just include a small blurb ahead of it that says something along the lines of "A recent adaptation of the phrase jumping the shark is "nuking the fridge." Or something to link it to the article it has now been merged into. Right now it's just there and has no thematic link other than the content of the article itself. —VTmarik (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.80.192 (talk)
When I removed the "Nuke the Fridge" section, there were no citations. Even if it was notable two years ago, I see no evidence that this phrase that I've never seen outside of Wikipedia is notable now. - JeffJonez (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Buzzwords of 2008

"Nuke the Fridge" was one of the choices of NY Times on "the buzzwords of 2008" list source: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/weekinreview/buzzwords2008.html 84.90.24.77 (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

MSN Year in reviews 2008

Nuke the fridge at "cinematic bummers" http://movies.msn.com/movies/year-in-review/bummers/?GT1=28134 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.24.77 (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The website ITSELF has JTS?

It's now got all this awful TV Guide crap all over it. Did they buy it? Gone is the simple format and now has all this "splash" (pictures, videos, etc.)... no pun intended!

If they sold out to a big company, than it warrants asking if the website itself has Jumped The Shark. JumpTheShark.com now redirects to TVGuide.com/JumpTheShark. Macshill (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Looks like it's dead, Jim. --Bluejay Young (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
i noticed it redirecting to TVGuide.com/JumpTheShark. all i have seen is a bunch articles on jump the shark you can't vote on any show any more are they trying to improve jump the shark or do have to sign to tv guide to do it now honestly what's going on. guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.248.36 (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh no... I am completely shocked! They simply destroyed the entire website with all the contents, votes, comments and all that stuff?????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.81.209 (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Damn. :( 68.227.189.37 (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like TVGuide either wasn't happy with the original site being online, or is grossly incompetent. The new website is terrible, and there doesn't see to be any reason for anyone to visit it.129.2.167.219 (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I am curious to why the fan website made as a response to the destruction of jump the shark is not part of this wiki page- the site is www.bonethefish.com and has taken up the place of the now tabloid JTS site. There seem to even be a few news articles/blogs about bone the fish being made as a response to the TV guide destruction of JTS Here is an interesting article about it http://onlinelunchpail.blogspot.com/2009/04/when-jump-shark-jumped-shark.html 74.95.163.25 (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC) ShojenSword5

Time to change the article...

The jumptheshark website has basically been taken down, and Jon Hein is nowhere to be found. Time to change the article to reflect it. Also, an online petition to get the original set put back up has appeared several times in user comments on the site. TV Guide not replying to email. For what its worth, a sort of 'replacement' site has sprung up: http://www.bonethefish.com/ --24.21.148.155 (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

- A cursory search reveals that TVGuide.com did not delete the Jump the Shark site, they merely relocated it within their own site: http://www.tvguide.com/jumptheshark/ - retrieved 30 March 2010 32.97.110.50 (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet jumptheshark.com still redirects to the main TVGuide.com site. What absurdity. Powers T 12:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have multiple issues, why doesn't anyone want to talk about my issues? sniff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.130.233 (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Trimming "In Pop Culture"

This needs to be done BADLY. The IPC (as is the case with many articles these days) has started to surpass the actual article. We don't need a reference to EVERY instance, just those that are verified, and even then just a few to get the point across. -- TRTX T / C 13:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done. The question I asked myself when removing content was this: "Does this IPC specifically relate to Fonzie, skiis, or actually jumping sharks?" If it did not answer that question, I removed it. -- TRTX T / C 14:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Clerks: The Animated Series

One episode of Clerks: The Animated Series has a brief cartoon version of Fonzie jumping over the shark (followed by the shark eating some random person on the beach). I don't have any useful info like episode # and whatnot (and I can't check because my DVDs are shot) so I didn't add it in to the page. If anyone has the Clerks:TAS DVD, I think it would be worth it to find out where this scene actually is and then add that info to this page.

Just a thought. Eriksiers (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate info - Supernatural

On the "In popular culture" section, under "Sitcoms and dramatic series", the Supernatural example appears twice. Would anyone like to fix this? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Origin

Brent Barkley of Brantford, Ontario, Canada has been using the term since the mid-1980's, and as far as I can tell he is the actual originator of the phrase. How can I actualize this in the article with a proper reference? Thanks, SK. Sstteevvee (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

1) Find a reliable source. 2) Put it in the article. Powers T 23:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

coined by whom?

two different answers in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.236.44 (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy

Shouldn't this show be mentioned as having 'jumped the shark' right from the first episode? They're always going off in to randomness. And no this is not a rant against FG. Timeshift (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to decide when shows jumped the shark. We can only report what reliable sources have said about when a show jumped the shark. Powers T 13:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Common Methods Don't Include Jumping the Shark Origin

The most common method would be desperate writers putting in an absurd plot point. Note that the episode of Happy Days that spawned this term could not fit in ANY of the common methods described. Very poorly done. Has anyone else noticed this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SemDem (talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of "Nuke the 'Fridge"

This is not a legitimate entry. One guy comes up with the phrase, mentions it on a few message boards, and suddenly it's mentioned in the same breath as a cultural phenomenon? Please! If it's legitimate, give it its own page. If not, nuke it. I vote for the latter. --12.106.209.61 (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree. Just seems like a reference to a particular instance of the same concept. In fact I am sure I could find other outlandish things in the other Indiana Jones movies so I'm not sure nuking the fridge is the best example of the decline in quality (I could list other, better examples, like the supernatural plot in general. But I digress...). By the way the Simpsons is peppered with references to this concept. The best is perhaps in "The Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase." The following quote from that episode: "...How do you keep "The Simpsons" fresh and funny after eight long years? Well, here's what's on tap for season nine. Magic powers! Wedding after wedding after wedding. And did someone say, "long-lost triplets?" So join America's favorite TV family, and a tiny green space alien named Ozmodiar that only Homer can see, on Fox this fall. It'll be out of this world! Right, Ozmodiar?" I believe the last "alien" reference is to The Flinstones. Note The Simpsons itself began "jumping the shark" around this time, and episodes of the show since then have been great examples of it. Nonetheless it's rare to have a show so self-aware of it. MDuchek (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, should be it's own page at this point. --Kb3777 (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

see the merging discussion on this talk page. discussed, decided, done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.212.46 (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I still completely disagree with it. My argument is not that it should be its own page. My argument is that "Nuke the Fridge" has nowhere near the level of popularity as "Jump the Shark" to the extent that almost no one has even heard of the former. It doesn't belong anywhere, let alone on this page. It was one person trying to be clever, trying to start a worldwide phenomenon, and failing on both counts. I can count on one hand the number of times I have heard the phrase used. Why does it belong on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.209.61 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be several reliable sources that discuss it in connection with the Jump the Shark concept. You say it's failed, yet it is well sourced and appears to have a place here on Wikipedia. I can't say that I've heard the phrase outside this page myself...but personal experiences aren't what we base decisions on here. --Onorem♠Dil 19:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Linkspam

I've removed (twice) a link per WP:LINKSPAM and WP:ELNO. Although the site in the link calls itself a "successor" to jumptheshark.com,

  1. This article isn't about the website, it's about the idiom.
  2. The website has no relation to jumptheshark.com; none of the former site's personnel or content were carried over. It's a 'successor' only in the sense that it came after, and there are other 'successors' in that sense.
  3. Googling the 'successor' shows no evidence of notability or authoritativeness.

71.62.123.39 (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm replacing the link, please do not delete it. It's has value relative to this idiom.

  1. It's not linkspam, it's been a part of this topic for over a year.
  2. It does have relation to jumptheshark.com and much of the old content of jts was added to BTF.
  3. There are some references to being the 'successor'. [5] Example.
  4. That external link provides value to users of the jump the shark wikipage. It is very closely related and contains some content from the old JTS website itself.

(Kb3777 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

Are you the same kb3777 that sells merchandise related to the site. If so, then this is clearly self-promotion; you're deriving financial gain from driving visitors to your site. Your reference that the site is a successor is another community-edited wiki, and even that reference says only that the site "bills itself" as a successor, but doesn't give any credible information to back this up.
I won't directly remove the link again, because of WP:3RR (even though this is technically over 24 hours). Instead, I've requested editor assistance here. 71.62.123.39 (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The anon is right about this. There is no cause to link to an unofficial successor here. The amount of time the link has been present on the page is not material, consensus can change. It would probably be a good idea to take a look at the the conflict of interest guideline as well. - MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I am following these guidelines. I do not personally profit from selling things on that website. - Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, which are external links, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.

I will no longer replace the link, but I will notify the users of my site of it's removal and let a consensus of users decide it's fate. The link provides relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in the article.--Kb3777 (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that bone the fish is the successor to jump the shark, here are some folks writing about it for the last year and change.TheSharkisdead (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)thesharkisdead

http://www.populationstatistic.com/archives/2009/07/19/dump-the-shark-and-bone-the-fish/ TheSharkisdead (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)thesharkisdead

Two points. One, if the source says, "Will “bone the fish” supplant “jump the shark” in popular lexicon? I don’t see it, but it’s a nice try." it's safe to say that it is not the obvious successor. Two, please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


Two Points for you Sheffield Steel-

1-http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BoneTheFish more "Bone the Fish" evidence to supplanting "jump the shark" 2- as to the Sock Puppetry, I concur with you that it is going on, however you are obviously guilty of it , especially since you are sockpuppeting Ollie and some of the other above posters.

I'll just continue posting more web articles proving the point, and you can make accusations. Thank you. [[]] (User ) 21:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)thesharkisdead

Compare and contrast: the above link to a wiki and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also, bear in mind that accusing another editor of misconduct - without having any evidence to back you up - is considered a form of personal attack. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks for more on this. When you're in a hole, stop digging. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm gonna stay fairly neutral on this, however, Sheffield, you say about no personal attacks (refering to thesharkisdead and accusing you of Sockpuppetry), yet you accuse (pretty much) of thesharkisdead being a sockpuppet. Unless you got proof, I find that pretty ironic. Whammies Were Here 04:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
SheffieldSteel's made his case [| here]. Did you want to see the evidence, or were you just trying to create a distraction? 71.68.80.196 (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you link me directly, as it seems you provided a link that is the front page to that area, rather than directly to the accusation, not unless SheffieldSteel has another screen name I don't know about (and therefore would prove right then and there that he is/has a sockpuppet.) Whammies Were Here 03:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
This article isn't about the jumptheshark website, so it doesn't need a link to either that or "Bone the Fish". The only reason there's a link to an archived version of jumptheshark is to cite an explanation of the term. The article is not about the website, so it doesn't matter whether "Bone the Fish" is the successor site/forum, its link does not belong here.--Chaser (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
What Chaser said. Plus, the site does not meet any of the other reasons to include it WP:ELYES and the self conflict for promotion purposes is just the frosting on the cake. Active Banana (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I agree with "SheffielSteel" attacking editors without proof is a most heinous act, but again, I've been accused without proof by Sheffield Steel of being a "sock puppet'- with no proof. Also at Shef... after another accused kb3777 of misconduct and promoting BTF to make money even though they had no evidence to back up the accusation, why didnt you bring that up? Did you not agree with kb3777, and you did not want to defend him because he had bested you in an argument?

Also the personal swipes about "digging a hole" are very inappropriate, you assume you are "winning" an argument, when I have easily pointed out many instances where you have contradicted yourself, or have done the very things you have accused me with no proof of. So please, refrain from your very opinionated and arguably very incorrect statements, as it would appear to some, that you are indeed in a hole yourself. I'll use your verbiage on this topic, since I don't feel the need to use more flowery adjectives to condemn your behaviour.

As to the other posters above, the massive change where the page "jump the shark" is reference in this artice from the TV Guide (2009) buyout should be noted as well as the creation of "bone the fish", while not as popular, I will take a minute and begin citing all of the sources regarding this. As to the "why" it is movement to take a new phrase from the old one that was indeed, driven by Jon Hein's website. Also, keep in mind, bone the fish has used wikipedia as a reference link to topics, as well as having a page critical of wikipedia, I would also surmise that there could be some bias to remove "Bone the fish" since it is critical of this site and many of the "editors". [[11:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)thesharkisdead

FWIW, I've submitted this link to be blacklisted. See here. ThemFromSpace 04:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The last thing I pretty much got to say on this (I am not going to get dragged into this anymore than I already am), is that someone from here, and ChubbyRain (the main guy that I know of on Bone the Fish) should just have a talk of some kind, go over some things, and get this settled once and for all. From what I see, both sides of this could turn very nasty. Whammies Were Here 08:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved user generated content from article

Theres plenty of reliable sources [6], we do not need to have this user generated content in the article Active Banana (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Common methods

The "Jump the Shark"[unreliable source?] web site listed 18 categories fans used to tag shows, signifying the point at which the show jumped. The categories include:

Nuking the Fridge once again....

I have no problem with mentioning the phrase "Nuking the Fridge" on this page, my problem is with how it is presented. "Nuking the Fridge" in no way has the same notability as "Jumping the Shark", yet half, HALF, the article is about "Nuking the Fridge". This is against Wikipedia:UNDUE as it presents this new phrase as being as equally notable and used as the original phrase. From UNDUE; "Neutrality requires that each article... represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Proportionally (based on the amount of sources available for "Jumping the Shark" vs. "Nuking the Fridge" and the total length of the current article/main subject), the "Nuking the Fridge" section should be no more than a sentence or two at most.71.190.182.22 (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Got a suggestion for how to condense it? Active Banana ( bananaphone 20:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
its now down to one pargraph. The UNDUE can also be remedied by adding sourced content to the original usage - i am sure there are more sources out there to do so. Active Banana ( bananaphone 20:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would a film intentionally jump the shark?

Alright, I just channel-surfed onto a Syfy film of typical quality, Mega Shark versus Giant Octopus (you can keep that a red link if you want, no loss), in which a giant shark leaps out of the water and chomps a commercial passenger liner at its usual cruising altitude of 100ft or so (judging by the video). I don't think this is the only time I've seen a film "jump the shark" in one way or another. What strange impulse drives bad filmmakers to do something only because it is renowned to lower the quality of a film? Wnt (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This page is for discussing how to improve this article. This seems more like generic forum discussion. That said, without some sort of reference, simply having a shark that jumps in a film doesn't mean that the filmmakers intentionally were playing on the "jump the shark" concept (You do realize that it's not the shark doing the jumping in the original...) Bad sci-fi is its own genre. I have no doubt that this film is looking for intentionally cheesy bad scenes. --Onorem♠Dil 17:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Because he told Potsie he'd do it

OK, I am a fan of the Jim Rome show, and I think the joke is funny and I get it...but I am also a Wikipedian, and the part about Henry Winkler telling Jim Rome that his character jumped the shark because he "told Potsie" he'd do it is inaccurate. This is a joke typical of Rome's style of humor: By maintaining that something is true, when any reasonable person can tell that (in this case) it is just an audio sampling of Brett Favre speaking in the background of the shark scene. Rome then waits for people to call in to his show and tell him he is wrong. The point is that some people are so dense as to not realize that by thinking that Rome really believes this is true... and calling his radio show to tell him he is wrong...they in fact become the punchline. And Henry Winkler is just playing along with it. Anyway I am removing this sentence and call for discussion on the talk page before it is reinserted. The Eskimo (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition, that content is completely irrel to the subject of the article - the phrase used as a description of a TV series doing something ludicrous to attempt to maintain ratings. Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought Fonzie would have done it because the scriptwriter (with the approval of the storylining and producing team) would have scripted that episode's story that way. And that incident was scripted as a big stunt to attract interest in the episode. Those are the real reasons the shark jump occured (and those reasons are relevant to this article.) Whatever reasons (true or not) the fictional character of Fonzie gave within the show's narrative for the jump are really just in-universe trivia - possibly relevent if we were writing a synopsis of that episode's story - however that is not what this article is about. Format (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This article jumped the shark

... when it eliminated the Common Methods section, that being the most interesting part of the article to read.
It's annoying when you revisit an article in WP that you recall liking, and discover that the part of the article that made it interesting has been deleted.
Varlaam (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's another example of New kid in town that we probably all recall:
  • New kid in town: In 1969, when My Three Sons tried to boost ratings by adding an adorable stepdaughter rather than a son.
Varlaam (talk)

where jumping the shark term really came from

Jumping the shark never started with Happy Days and Fonzie. It started in the Batman movie with Adam West, as Batman, and Burt Ward as Robin. In the scene the dynamic duo were together where Batman was hanging from a rope ladder just a few feet above the water, and Robin was flying the Batcopter. Suddenly a shark jumps out and begins to attack Batmans' leg, but through sheer Batman intuition he has carried a pouch of shark repellant in his utility belt. It was at that moment where Batman gave the shark a dose of "Bat Shark Repellant" that the phrase "jump the shark was born!" 69.140.31.51 (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As the term is based on John Hein's popularization of it, we have to go with what show he accredits the term - that being Happy Days. It is true that the sharp in the Batman movie may have been a pre-dated example of it, but Hein clearly based on the term on Fonzie jumping the shark. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

IPC: Scooby Doo

In Lights Camera Mayhem - scooby stands in for a stuntman on a movie and rides a motorbike over a shark infested pool and Daphne says "I never thought I would see Scooby Doo jump the shark"

This is obviously a knowing reference but I am always wary of adding IPC links - is it worthy of listing.

Arachrah (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jumping_the_shark/Archive_2&oldid=1094926452"