Talk:Jam & Jerusalem

Date

The Manuel of Style, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_formats_related_to_topics, states that if an article relates to a particular country then its advisable to use that country's date system. This is a British programme, so I have done that. Most British people have their birth/death dates in this format so I don't see your problem. --Berks105 12:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay fair enough, I'd read the part further up the page which contradicts this WP:MOSDATE#Dates_containing_a_month_and_a_day. I have no problem with it, I just thought Wikipedia did. As I have my date formatting set to date/month/year it made no personal difference to me, I just thought we should abide by the rule. Obviously when there's too different rules, this isn't as easy as I once thought. ~~ Peteb16 12:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Christmas special

The current pattern of scheduling would lead me to believe that a Christmas special cannot follow the end of the series. Episode 5 would presumably be broadcast on 22nd December and episode 6 would be broadcast on the 29th. Either one of these is likely to be Christmas related however, but if the relevant episode turns out to be part of the normal run of the series, the title 'Christmas special' would be a bit ambigous. ~~ Peteb16 14:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got a "Christmas special" from the Radio Times, that stated that six episodes and one Christmas special were made. I suppose we can't tell whether they are wrong until the Christmas schedules are announced. --Berks105 23:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Real location of fictional town

I have amended the Jam & Jerusalem with the addition of the line:

Some have suggested that the show is based on the actual village of Chagford where Jennifer Saunders has a home.

Twice now User:Berks105 has deleted this with the note that it needs referencing. What reference is need? I am a resident of Chagford and know that Jennifer Saunders owns a house on the edge of the village. And as a resident have been part of the village discussions that 'suggests' the sitcom is based on Chagford.

Below are some link to site showing that JS has a house in Chagford

[1] [2] [3]

I'm sorry, but the fact that members of your village have suggested that the sitcom is based on Chagford is totally irrelevant to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia can't put village gossip on there. If Saunders herself says it, then fair enough, but otherwise it is not relevant. --Berks105 10:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jamtitle.jpg

Image:Jamtitle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Done.--UpDown 08:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Article title

The style of the programme title, according to the BBC, is Jam and Jerusalem, not Jam & Jerusalem, so the article title should probably be changed accordingly? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't realise they used & in the title sequence. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the "sometimes styled" sentence. It's unnecessary, the 'official' styling is with a "&". It is also common sense that a "and" maybe used and we don't need to state it.--UpDown (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, although all of the references on the BBC website use "and". Cordless Larry (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Genre

I have found a few sites that have marked jam & Jerusalem, when i have edited it, UpDown has erased them, and i have been advised to go to the talk page and start a wider discussion. Does anyone else agree? I will post some links.

[4] [5] This one is a POV, but i think it makes it's point (sroll down to about half way to where it says NOT A Sitcom)[6] [[7]] Another POV [8] And another POV [9] I will eave it up to you lot to decide whether you want this down as a sitcom or a dramedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HAA Best (talk • contribs) 12:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. However, links [4] and [6] are from TV.com and IMDb neither of which of are considered reliable by Wikipedia. Links [7], [8] and [9] are blogs, equally not considered reliable sources. That leave only [5]. And as I have said the official website [10], uses the term sitcom.--UpDown (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically then, we have 2 BBC sites, one which calls it a comedy drama in the title (but comedy in the actual listing) and the official page which calls it a sitcom. I think the official page has to be the one we go with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ged UK (talk • contribs) 19:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidental music

Kate Rusby is shown as the performer of the title music. This is true; but I believe that she has also provided some incidental music, such as her version of Kooks (David Bowie) in the 9 August 2009 episode. Is there potential for a subsection on the incidental music? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Both Sides, Now (Joni Mitchell) 23 August 2009 episode --Redrose64 (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Raif or Raph?

I would expect Tash's son's name to be spelled Raph rather than Raif. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00m6567 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00m6zkp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.145.31 (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's spelled "Raph" in the three relevant issues of Radio Times for August this year. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Should I change it then? I don't want to be reverted and marked as a vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.145.31 (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done I've amended throughout. I have given a full list of Radio Times references in the cast list, which should avoid reversion issues. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your change Redrose64. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.145.31 (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Jam = jelly?

The article currently states that the American for jam is jelly. Surely the American for jam in this case is jam. Or do the British reserve the word jam only for the American jelly? Put another way, doesn't the title refer to preserves?

I always thought the "translation" went something like this:

1. in the sense of un-aged gelatin: British jelly = American Jell-O (if served as a dessert) or American jelly (if referring to a side dish to a savory main course — that is, something not traditionally spread over bread — or a way of preserving meat; e.g. cranberry jelly, mint jelly, or jellied, canned ham)

2. in the sense of preserves: British jam = American jam (e.g. Ameican strawberry jam)

3. in the sense of a seedless, clear, fruit spread: British jam = American jelly (e.g. American, grape jelly)

In other words, the British don't differentiate between seedless and seeded fruit spreads. But I would've thought this show's title was referring the second meaning. Am I horribly off-base? CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 08:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's jam as in "a preserve containing whole fruit, which has been boiled with sugar until the mixture sets" (Collins English Dictionary, 1979, ISBN 0 00 433078 1). That's all that is intended by the term; even though in Britain we also have overlapping terms like "marmalade", "conserve", "preserve" and "jelly" - I would not like to give precise US translations for any. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What you're describing is "jam" in the American sense, as well. The article's confusing parenthetical which tries to "explain" the American is in error. American "jelly" never employs whole fruit, if the intended usage is as a spread over bread. American jelly (again, as used on bread) is just made from juice, and is generally considerably less expensive than jam as a result. Removing that bit from the article. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 05:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have examined the products on offer at my local supermarket (in England), and feel that I can make the following summary:

• marmalade is used when the principal fruit is a citrus fruit, whatever the actual fruit content (20%-47% noted)
• jam is the general term when the principal fruit is not a citrus fruit. Typical fruit content is 35%-45%
• extra jam is a jam where the fruit content is 45% or more, and is divided into two sub-classes:
  • preserve is an extra jam with a fruit content between 45% and 50%
  • conserve is an extra jam with a fruit content between 50% and 55%
• jelly is made from fruit juice. The only one on sale was described as "bramble jelly", made from blackberries; the fruit content is 38%.

None of these are dictionary definitions. There are probably food standards regulations covering which names can be used for different products. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

BBC America's production role

This article should make some mention of the fact that BBCA were a co-production partner, at least within the first season. End credits state "A BBC/Saunders & French Production, produced in association with BBC America". This BBC press release dates from the heady early days in 2006 where the co-production arrangement was announced, while this Guardian article gives details on the reasons BBCA later withdrew from direct investment in BBC comedies. BBCA's involvement helps to explain why the Series 1 DVD was released so much earlier in Region 1 than the "domestic" market of Region 2. I might add something about this later, but in case I don't, I leave it behind for others who wish to incorporate it into the article. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 06:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Series 3 numbering

Is there any reason not to split summaries and credits for series 3 into six episodes rather than three? Although they were first aired together, they were filmed as six episodes and air as such in reruns (as the article itself notes), and are presented as such on DVD. The airdates and viewing numbers could simply be merged cells.HarashoEli (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)