Jump to content

Talk:The Sarah Jane Adventures

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 79.75.111.140 (talk) at 08:57, 30 September 2008 (→My cast and broadcast edits: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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].

Though we've yet to see the episode[s] in just under a fortnight, I'm not sure I like the inference that the 1st and 2nd episodes are in September 2009, based on the children going to their new school. Of course, going to the new school was mentioned at the end of Invasion of the Bane as being "next week", so that returns it back to January, which stops any complaints of mine dead! [User: Stripey]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.93.125 (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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
Late breaking news - alas, also from SJA.tv is the following: "The Sarah-Jane.tv blog are reporting that Daniel Anthony has been confirmed as a new regular in The Sarah Jane Adventures.

The actor will play Clyde, a 14 year old who attends Maria and Luke's school. He replaces the character of Kelsey, who has been dropped from the series following her solo appearance in the pilot episode Invasion of the Bane. The new character is introduced in the first adventure of the forthcoming series." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.211.151.151 (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

While we're on the subject of actors being canned, I wonder whether K-9 has only made a couple appearances because he's on his own series, or maybe because he was a bad idea who was overplayed to begin with. I hope I'm not too POV here, but come on, he only has one point of articulation - there are action figures cooler than him. I would say that he probably killed the last attempt at a spin-off single-handed, but only if he had limbs instead of that blocky casing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.0.61 (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, take a look at WP:TALK. Secondly, the only reason K9 was barely used was legal rights issues. TalkIslander 23:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no offence...

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

Er... no offence taken, but the series has already begun. The special which aired on New Year's Day was the pilot. The page was created when the BBC's in-house magazine Ariel reported that the series was being produced. What's the problem? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...Then just ignore me lol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.196.146 (talk • contribs) 12:58, April 1, 2007 (UTC)

Problems with reference coding

I made some changes to what used to be called the "pilot" section, and tried to use the referencing style present on the site. However, there seem to be at least two paradigms in place, and I can't quite work out which one takes precedence. If my edits confused the footnoting order, I apologize in advance and ask for help straightening it all out. The article doesn't seem to cite its references in numerical order once you hit the seciton I was editing, now called "A programme without a pilot", although footnote markers do seem to be pointing to the correct reference. CzechOut 02:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messy format

Why does this article have such an odd a messy format? On every computer I've been on the cast picture obliterates some of the text and appears to float in the wrong subsection, and also the [edit] links for some of the sections are in odd places. Doctor Who doesn't have this problem and in Torchwood the TV show infobox just pushes the [edit] thing a little to the left. I think it is because those pages have more subsections. Is there any way to fix this? --GracieLizzie 10:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with formatting, so it's not a widespread problem.Gwinva 11:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaked Spoilers

Is Wikipedia really the place for leaked spoilers? The source they cite is Outpost ... but Outpost doesn't cite a source at all. Despite Outpost being mostly reliable, surely this information still has a realistic chance of being incorrect - a point that the article doesn't even address. On top of which, while people coming to this page ought to be prepared for spoilers of the Announced-By-The-BBC sort, surely this kind of info without a spoiler warning is going it a bit. --Steffan Alun 13:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Car

What is the car Sarah Jane drives?


attractiveness of characters


thomes knight[luke smith]is cute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.9.244 (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Nissan Figaro. --GracieLizzie (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Since it's been eight months since this merger was proposed, and no action has been taken, I'm going to be BOLD and close it as do not merge. The consensus (such as it is) seems to be against the merger (with the possible exception of Mr. Smith). If anyone wants to re-open discussion for any of these individual pages, please feel free to do so. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, these first four articles are just glorified plot summaries. I suggest that until conception history can be obtained, the minor characters list is moved to accomodate all characters and merge these four in. Will (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that as of June 2008, Mr Smith also appears in the Doctor Who episode, The Stolen Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.118.252 (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Support - none of them have enough info to warrant a separate page just now, so merge to one article. StuartDD contributions 10:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC) change to Keep. StuartDD contributions 11:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Suggestions - Mr Smiths page cetantly should be merged, as for the others it could go either way, I personly believe there is slightly too much information to merge all of these articals, maybe if you have one page for the minor charicters and one for the major. However if the programme gets a second series then I believe there will be too much information on them to keep together.--Wiggstar69 12:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the first 3 have enough screen time and development by the end of the series to justify keep. Mr Smith has not had that much development or diversity of story, so I say Merge him into List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor characters. Radagast 20:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Screen time and on-screen development doesn't really equate to real-world notability for fictional concepts. For the type of DW character article that's desirable, see Martha Jones and Jack Harkness. Will (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My implication there is that the articles have room to grow, which will contribute to their notability once they're beefed up. Give them a bit of time, once the current series is over they can be grown coherently. Radagast 13:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other way around. You can always split later if there's just so much real-world goodness it can't fit on one list page. I doubt Luke Smith is mentioned in newspaper articles as an icon the way Martha or Jack is. In fact, a lot of classic Doctor Who character articles don't need to be unique articles, but I won't argue with diehards about that one...~ZytheTalk to me!
I agree on Mr. Smith, but personally I would rather that Maria, Luke and Clyde had there own articles. --GracieLizzie 12:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that they all deserve their own articles - with Mr Smith it may be best to wait before moving him now he's been outed as a villian in 'The Lost Boy' - each character warrants their own page considering how much they have done throughout the series and their development - they just need updating as they don't look like they were touched since Invasion of the Bane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.164.138 (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is to avoid clutter. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no more out-of-universe information to add.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article shouldn't be merged. Maria Jackson isn't a minor character. She's one of the main charactersThink about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke and Clyde are, like Maria, effectively Sarah's companions, in the same way Sarah once was to the Doctor. So they should keep their seperate articles. Digifiend (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think that Luke constitutes a "minor character". Blurgle Fragle (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed — especially since he's now appeared on the parent programme. There should probably be some reviews of "The Stolen Earth" and "Journey's End" which mention him, which should provide the real-world notability that WP:FICT seeks. Since this discussion isn't terribly active, I'm tempted to remove the merge tag from Luke at least. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any sense in putting maria into the minor characters (using an example from Doctor Who to prove my point here) - Sylvia Noble has done alot less than Maria in the scope of her appearances on TV, Leo Jones has barely any significance and they justiffy their own articles. If they do Maria certainly warrants one 86.131.169.159 (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

DVD releases?

Should we have a section about DVD releases? - Invasion of the Bane is already out. StuartDD contributions 14:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Two words...January 2009????? [for the next D.V.D. release that is].

Canada

Could someone mention the Canadian Broadcast in the International Broadcast section? I'd do it but being unable to cut and paste (I'm stuck using the Wii's Internet Channel, which has limited capabilities) makes it difficult to cite my sources properly. GracieLizzie (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will there be an American debut?

Anyone know if/when there will be an American debut? Sci-Fi Channel? BBC America? PBS? All of the above? None of the above? Nomad Of Norad (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See "International Broadcast" in the article! :) - Etron81 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase required?

A further implication of this reference is that the events of SJA series one take place before series three of Doctor Who. Only the first two stories. Smith and Jones could be any time after Revenge of the Slitheen, Clyde's debut story. Digifiend (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We know that Sarah-Jane must have first met Luke and Maria sometime after she featured in Doctor Who- because she said that the Doctor inspired her to begin looking into alien activities again. We can also surmise that it must be some time afterwards because in the final episode her flashbacks to the creation of Mr Smith imply that she was already well-connected in the alien-underground to have acquired the crystal that led to him being built. All we can discern following "The Stolen Earth" is that her adventures in her series took place during Martha's and Donna's tenures as companion. Jonty-comp (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where SJA fits in relation to Doctor Who episodes in covered in the Chronology of the Doctor Who universe article. You might wish to consider putting a reference to this article in the SJA one (perhaps in the 'Story connections' section?). Cuddlyopedia (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit leery of all these attempts to determine the chronology of modern-day Doctor Who — it's a real magnet for original research. It's slightly different from the UNIT dating controversy, because that was discussed in reliable sources long before Wikipedia existed. Unless there's been some discussion of these more recent chronology issues in Doctor Who Magazine or some such source, I think we should avoid mentioning them here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also confirmed for the second series are Gary Beadle and Jocelyn Jee Esien, who will be introduced as Clyde's parents Paul and Carla in the seventh episode I've added that to the actor's articles, I assume the Gallifrey One source linked at end of the papagraph mentioned it, so I cited it. Digifiend (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category: The Sarah Jane Adventures companions

The related Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures companions has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "dwmjan" :
    • {{cite journal | date = [[2007-01-31]] cover date | first=Clayton | last=Hickman | authorlink=Clayton Hickman | coauthors=Spilsbury, Tom | title = Writing Sarah | journal = [[Doctor Who Magazine]] | issue = 378 | pages = p. 5}}
    • {{cite journal |date = [[2007-01-31]] cover date |first=Benjamin |last=Cook |authorlink=Benjamin Cook |title = Doing It for the Kids |journal = [[Doctor Who Magazine]] |issue = 378 |pages = p. 37}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Adventures

That paragraph is confusing. Sounds like the same two stories were released in November of 2007 AND 2008. Can someone clean it up so it sounds clearer? The Core-Man (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My cast and broadcast edits

Just to say that I've moved a bit of material around to make the article flow better, but not deleted anything. My updates were not so much for the second series, as for the first - clearly a lot of work was put in after "Invasion of the Bane", but there was no mention of notable guest cast in series 1, for example, to match the level of detail concerning the first episode. I hope it's a bit more logical now. Maybe the prospective information about 24-part filming of Series 2 and 3, no doubt correct at the time, but not officially confirmed by the BBC and contradicted apparently in SFX, should be removed altogether?

IMHO we are writing this for a general Wikipedia audience, not an audience of Doctor Who fans, so it would be good to have more emphasis on the programme itself, rather than on K-9 and the Doctor Who links. In particular, how about a fuller description of the format/scenario to make the lead 2 paragraphs? --79.75.111.140 (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Sarah_Jane_Adventures&oldid=241970469"