Talk:The Sarah Jane Adventures

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Confirmed?

May I ask what the source of the whole SJI concept is? It is not the newsletter, as that is not published. It is whoever claimed to see the newsletter. Nobody knows whether this is true. Until the BBC says on their website that it is going to happen, I suggest that we say it is unconfirmed (since it is).--Keycard ^(talk) 07:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The newsletter isn't published on the web, but it is a published document, and two independent sources (Outpost Gallifrey and The Stage) have reported on its contents — both quoted the relevant paragraph from Ariel and both are cited on the article page. We can certainly say that it has not been officially confirmed, but I think that callling the production "rumoured" is a bit too strong. Does Ariel have a habit of reporting on programmes that aren't actually being developed? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've toned the language of the introduction down a bit, and added a note that it hasn't been officially confirmed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not that Ariel may be the liar, but that the sources of OG and The Stage may be. Have you seen a copy of Ariel with that article? If not, then you're simply believing what's been said by OG's news page, which is not normally considered a verifiable source for WP's purposes.--Keycard ^(talk) 14:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with Angmering, below) But surely The Stage is a verifiable source? It's a major trade newspaper, and meets the verifiability criterion (remember, it's "verifiability, not truth"). Everything in the article is cited, so if the whole thing were to turn out to be bollocks it's not a problem any more than it would be a problem if the New York Times published an article, someone created a page based on it and then it proved to be false. See WP:V.

And frankly, I think that OG's news page is a fairly reliable source for Doctor Who news. WP:V says "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and I think Shaun does an excellent job of that (unlike a lot of other Doctor Who websites). I wouldn't rely on something said in the OG forums, but if it gets to the news page it's pretty solid.

Is there anything in the article now that you think doesn't accurately relect the state of what we do and don't know? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at BBC Radio Norfolk tomorrow — I should be able to pick up a copy if that's any help. But then again I might be a liar too! Angmering 17:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe you, Paul! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather embarrassingly, it turns out I *am* a liar — I'm at the BBC on Friday, and was writing under the rather befuddled idea that today was Thursday. Oh dear! Angmering 17:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll never trust anyone again. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

As promised, I was able to pick up a copy of last week's Ariel at BBC East in Norwich today.[1]. I have now seen the Sarah Jane report, such as it is, with my own eyes.[2] Sorry about the digital photos, I don't have a scanner.

Of course, it could still easily all turn out to be bollocks, but there's no doubt that Ariel certainly ran the story. Angmering 16:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Paul. Does that satisfy your concerns, Keycard? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Air-date

This would indicate it's going to air at some point over the Christmas period. HornetMike 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's widely believed to be airing on New Year's Day, but that hasn't been officially confirmed, and it's awkward to say "at some point around New Year's" in an article. I think it's best to leave it as "early 2007" until we've got official confirmation of the broadcast date. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary

I know no-one will be able to answer this, but both this article and the Torchwood one, prior to the airing of Everything Changes, that is, say/said "set in modern day". Well, what's that? Is it January 2007 as per the airing date of the first episode? Is it Christmas 2007 as per The Runaway Bride or is it circa. 2008 as per Greeks Bearing Gifts?--Stripey1 11:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I've just read the part saying it's set "a year and a half" after School Reunion. As 'School Reunion' is set in Very Early 2007, that would be around Very Late 2008...meaning after all currently-airing Torchwood episodes. Hmmm...not sure what I think of that... [User: Stripey].

Frankly, the dating of all "contemporary" Doctor Who and spinoffs is a mess. I tend to regard it as the current production team's tribute to the UNIT dating controversy and leave it at that. :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is all a mess, you're right. The worst culprits in my opinion are Love & Monsters (as the fact it shows Early, Middle and Late 2007 has been ignored by every episode since), The Runaway Bride (for offscreen signs indicating 2006), Greeks Bearing Gifts (the first episode to establish a year of circa. 2008, since ignored by every episode since), Out Of Time (which couldn't decide between 2006, 2007 or circa. 2008) and Combat (which suggests the same as 'Out Of Time'). [User: Stripey].

Blue Peter

Did anyone see the Blue Peter today (11 December 2006). It had a clip of Sarah Jane Adventures showing Sarah Jane interacting with the same alien from the Torchwood episode Greeks Bearing Gifts. Anyone have more info?

Creator

Although Russell Davies is correctly listed as creator of he Sarah Jane Adventures series concept, he did not create Sarah Jane, the character, so I've adjusted the infobox to recognize Robert Holmes. Technically the series should be listed as being based upon Doctor Who, created by Sydney Newman, as well (much like the divergent Trek spinoffs still retained credit to Roddenberry) but that's probably going a bit far. 23skidoo 19:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

full episode on main page?

I know on the other Doctor Who wiki pages, there are links to the episodes. I am also aware we have only the pilot so far. I do however feel that under "story connection to the doctor who universe" is not the right place for the full synopsis of the pilot episode - not everyone wants to see the full synopsis of the episode when they come to the wiki. —The preceding Pixiestix 17:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC) NEVERMIND, between the time i started to write this discussion, and actually posted it, it was fixed.Pixiestix 17:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

If they don't _want_ to see spoilers they _shouldn't_ come to a website that *will* [emphasis added] contain spoilers, it's as simple as that. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood what i meant, i wasn't saying spoilers in general, but a full episode synopsis right there in the middle of the front page with no proper labeling or anything. HOWEVER, it is quite a moot point since someone else obviously agreed and already fixed it. Pixiestix 17:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bannerman Road?

Is this a wild coincidence, or a reference to Delta and the Bannermen? My money lies with the former, but it's fun to suppose otherwise. Bieeanda 21:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unconfirmed but.... Kelsey may have been sacked

Apparently Porsha Lawrence Mavour has been let go because she had a bad attitude and wasn't working well with the rest of the cast or something. It has yet to be confirmed, and the SJA.tv blog is the source I have for this [3] which unfortunately doesn't pass WP:RS even though I've found them to be very reliable personally. Keep your eyes peeled for any more verifiable sources. --GracieLizzie 18:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly won't be complaining, she vehemently annoyed me, hehe. --Matthew

no offence...

I would rather prefer it if you written this article when the series had actually begun... - Zora —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.196.146 (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]