Talk:Sarah Jane Smith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sarah Jane Mosley?[edit]

I seem to remember that some of the novels suggested that Sarah Jane eventually married one Paul Mosley. I had a thumb through Interference and found references to Paul, but couldn't find the surname Mosley — I suppose it must come from another novel. Anyone remember which one? (I'm not sure about the spelling.)

--Josiah Rowe 17:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You've got me, there. Try asking on OG? --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:40, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Found it: it's Morley, not Mosley, and the reference is in Christmas on a Rational Planet. I'll put it in the article. --Josiah Rowe 03:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Not sure whether it's accurate to say that according to Miles Sarah "was married" to Paul between 1996 and 1998; the two references are that she's seriously involved with Paul in 1996 (Interference), and has the surname Morley in 1998 (CoaRP). Interference also shows the Pertwee-era Sarah getting a vision of her future, in which she has a husband on New Year's Eve 1999. Putting all that together, it says that Miles would have Sarah marrying Paul Mosley between 1996 and 1998, and remaining married to him at least until 2000. But I'll leave the wording to your judgment, khaosworks. --Josiah Rowe 04:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Great article on this interesting companion, but, as a minor point I wonder if it might be appropriate to replace the image with something a bit more recent? Sarah Jane's appearance in the trailer for Season Two lifts her out of the 'classic' series and into the current one. Does anyone else agree? Yallery Brown 22:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure a screenshot of her current appearance will be taken at some point, but it's the classic Sarah Jane Smith that many people remember and love. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

K9 Adventures here?[edit]

I know that the early rumours in the Sun suggested that a K-9 and Sarah spin-off was in the works, but the latest info on K9 Adventures seems to suggest that it's going to be a bit more distant from the character's Doctor Who roots. I haven't seen any press mention Sarah Jane in reference to K9 Adventures, and Nathan Baron of the Yahoo! Doctor Who group has said that she won't be involved. Should we remove the reference from this article, or wait till we have more information? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 04:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

My take on it is that Sarah is so tied to K-9 now that it seems odd not to mention it briefly, even if in the end we say she's not involved. As far as I can tell, K9 Adventures won't use wholly BBC-owned characters, i.e. The Doctor, but that doesn't seem to apply to Sarah, who's been used in Downtime, for example. So it still may be open for her to appear, whatever Nathan Baron (who dat?) might say. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 06:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Nathan Baron is the moderator of the YaWho mailing list, and a moderately reliable source — not as rock-solid as Shaun Lyon, but better than (say) Eye of Horus. Here's a link to his comment (you may have to join the group to read), but I don't know what his source is. I suppose that for now we can leave it as is, and amend when we find out more. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to be snarky, saying someone is more reliable than EoH is a textbook example of damning with faint praise... --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 07:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I won't argue with that. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 07:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Aberdeen[edit]

Is School Reunion the first time we find out that where the Doctor had mistakenly dropped Sarah off at instead of South Croydon? Or was Aberdeen mentioned before? Should the article be updated to make note of that? GracieLizzie 20:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The article's been updated, and yes, School Reunion was the first time we found out where that not-Hillsview-Road was. :) —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 00:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

10th Doctor[edit]

While I agree that the 10th Doc shouldn't be listed among Smith's affiliations, the criteria is questionable IMHO, because if we're to take that criteria at face value, Sara Kingdom shouldn't be listed. -EmiOfBrie 23:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I may not have worded the criterion in the best fashion — but the point is that the "affiliated with" field should be used for characters/organizations that the character is primarily associated with. Sara Kingdom is primarily associated with the First Doctor (and, I suppose, the Space Security Service, but they don't get their own article here). Sarah Jane Smith is primarily associated with the Third and Fourth Doctors, and with K9. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 00:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

School Reunion and The Five Doctors inconsistencies[edit]

Sarah Jane claims to believe that the Doctor died when he did not return for her, and yet she encountered the Fifth Doctor in The Five Doctors. Can we come to a consensus as to whether this is:

  • a continuity oversight included (deliberately or otherwise) to increase dramatic tension (and it wouldn't be the first continuity error involving Sarah Jane)
  • memory loss (though this seems a extremely long bow to draw. Evidence?)
  • A lack of understanding that the individual she met in The Five Doctors was subsequent to 'her' Doctor, and therefore that he was not dead. The Third Doctor stated that he would 'explain everything' to her, and while this is not explicit, the point made by another user that Sarah Jane is not stupid and would likely insist on an explanation is a good one.
  • Any other options?

I was careful to phrase my edit as being 'a conflict on the face of it', without conjecturing as to the cause of this conflict, as we really do have very little evidence to go on; trying to 'explain it away' seems to me at odds with the philosophy of Wikipedia. I'd like us to resolve this for completeness - should we add this a section about Doctor Who continuity errors, or add a brief section about continuity errors in Sarah Jane's article? --Sofaman 22:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that to come down on any of the options is probably POV, so best to leave it open and let people come to their own conclusions and theories. --khaosworks (talkcontribs)
I agree, so where best to place info about these discontinuities in the article? --Sofaman 02:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the bit about Sarah's lack of memory about The Five Doctors is already phrased in a hopefully vague enough way in the article itself (under the mention of her Five Doctors appearance). Another mention is in the notes for School Reunion, itself. I think going into detail is where the danger of POV lies, since there are potentially many, many theories and explanations, and even to list some is selective. I'm just being very conservative here, I know, but what do you propose? --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 03:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Any other options? - Yes plenty, probably! One is that the events of School Reunion happened before the Five Doctors in Sarah's life. This would appear to be contradicted by the appearance of Sarah's age though. Alternatively, the versions of people who appear'd in the Five Doctors were only the 'essence' of that person, rather than the person themselves - like the retired First Doctor for example. The 'I thought you'd died' could be a figure of speech. It could refer to his dying after the Davison Doctor met by Sarah in The Five Doctors. My guess is that they thought 'this might be a pain in the botttom for nerdy fans, but dramatically it's a good line and we are trying to make a Bafta Award winning television show and not a cult TV series accessible only to those with a video collection of the last 43 years'. There is also the thorny issue of Dimensions In Time (or as most fans call it, the Scottish Play) DavidFarmbrough 08:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been thinking exactly the same thing. It was strongly implied from the conversation between The Doctor (Tennant) and Sarah in School Reunion that she never saw him again after "Hand of Fear" when she obviously did (in her personal future from all her previous adventures with The Doctor - I imagine evidenced by the K9 unit she had with her - she only got this at the end of all her travels with The Doctor, right?) in "The Five Doctors". Furthermore, she was quite aware of the fact that the Doctor changes, she told Pertwee's Doctor (but you changed!) when she met him in "The Five Doctors", also she was there at the time when the change happened in the first place. Also, Pertwee presumably took her back home at the end of The Five Doctors (interestingly enough, The Doctor's past but her future/present). Presumably, they chose to at least sidestep around this event if they didn't ignore it ... It's also possible they forgot. Shan246
How about: She originally thought he had died but eventually learned he had not (for evidence that she did not still beleive he was dead, in School Reunion she also says she knew he would have been on the asteroid ship at Christmas). --Logotu
You could always argue conspiracy theory and say that there was a regeneration of the Doctor that we're not aware of and that Tennet is really the eleventh doctor and not the tenth(of whom the missing Doctor is one we've never seen) and that would make his line make more sense. Half a dozen times since the fifth doctor makes eleven. And no don't take this suggestion seriously, it was a funny thought that just occurred to me. -Anguirus111.

Or you could say that the events of the Five Doctors never happened once everyone got put back in time

I think user Logotu is on the right track. When Sarah Jane says to the Doctor 'I thought you died' she isn't implying that she'd thought he was dead right up until that very moment. In fact in the following scene she says, 'I thought of you on Christmas Day, this Christmas just gone. Great big space ship overhead and I though, oh yeah, I bet he's up there', which she wouldn't think if she thought he was dead. The implication therefore must be that after an initial period of waiting for him to return ('I waited for you, I missed you,') she gradually concluded that he was dead ('I waited and you didn't come back and I thought you must've died'). However, as time passed she must have revised this opinion to conclude that she'd just been abandoned and he'd moved on ('Did I do something wrong? Because you never came back, you just dumped me...') so that by the Christmas before School Reunion she was able to suspect that he was still living (she may also have seen Harriet Jones's television appeal for the Doctor to come forward). At the end of the episode where she declines to go with him she says 'Anyway, by the time I stopped waiting for you I found a bigger life of my own'. That she met other incarnations of the Doctor in The Five Doctors would bear this out. So, why didn't she tackle the Third or Fifth Doctors about dumping her? The Third hadn't done it yet and she didn't get the Fifth on his own. Yallery Brown 12:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I know it's been over a year, but there is a very important "fact" that has been completely overlooked here. In her last scene in The Five Doctors, Sarah Jane makes it quite clear that she has no conception that the Fifth Doctor is the same being that she traveled with and saw change from his third persona to his fourth: She tells #5 that it was nice to meet him, and #3 answers as if she had said it to him, puzzling her; #3 says he'll explain, but almost immediately they are TARDISed/time scooped (depending on which version you watch) back to their "proper places in time and space" which are quiet separate, so it seems implausible that he had the opportunity to do so. Understanding (eventually) that #3 was lifted out of time from before he changed into #4, Sarah in "School Reunion" believes that the Doctor from his perspective hasn't seen her since she and #4 parted. It's that simple. I think Yallery Brown is pretty close on the "dead" line. Perhaps a conversation with the Brig (her "Give my love to [him]" line in Revenge of the Slitheen tells us she's not completely out of touch with him) let her know that he had not died then but somehow failed to inform her that the guy in the cricket outfit was yet another persona of the Doctor. I think that pretty much answers the question. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

SJA prep[edit]

I think this article will be in need of some work as the premiere of The Sarah Jane Adventures approaches; take a look at Jack Harkness for how a Doctor Who character has been given a more general 'Whoniverse' look.

Just posting so everyone keeps this in mind as New Year's approaches... Radagast 22:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As a bit of a followup: should the main image be replaced? With the series' debut having occurred, many readers will be expecting to find the 21st-century, older Sarah Jane depicted, especially the series' younger viewers who may not be as familiar with the 'look' that image has now. Radagast 03:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Last Appearance[edit]

Can the person who keeps changing her Last Appearance to 'Ongoing' because she's going to appear in SJA stop? Her last appearance in the show needs noting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Picture[edit]

Wouldn't it make sense to use the older picture, from when she actually was a companion, in the main box? john k 15:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? In The Sarah Jane Adventures she is the main character, in Doctor Who she was a regular but not the the main character. It'd be like using a picture from Cheers instead of Frasier on the Frasier Crane page. --GracieLizzie 15:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The picture is not from The Sarah Jane Adventures, but from School Reunion. Beyond that, she is still best known for her role in Who - it is unclear how long The Sarah Jane Adventures will even last. The iconic way people imagine Sarah Jane looking is how she looked in the 70s. It's worth noting that she also appeared in her own pilot in the 70s. Given that this is all SJA is so far, I don't see why it should be the model for our dominant impression of her. john k 00:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The picture of her in SJA is the most recent, if people are looking up a charicter they'll expect to see how she looks now.--Wiggstar69 12:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the header image should depict her now, with a still lower down from the classic series (but not the one that's already there. There are better pictures of her). Reason? After her appearance in School Reunion Sarah Jane stopped being just a character of the show's past and became a current character within the New Series mythology. It doesn't really matter whether the image of the character comes from SJA or School Reunion. It's the same character - the picture of Jack Harkness on his page is from Torchwood, not his first appearance in the first series of the revived Doctor Who - and the image should show how the character is currently or most recetly portrayed in the series. Yallery Brown 16:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Sarah Jane was a regular character on classic Doctor Who for over three years. She's appeared in new Who once, and The Sarah Jane Adventures has (to date) aired only five episodes, including its pilot. To say that her modern-day appearances outweigh her appearances in the 1970s is recentism, and should be avoided. I love the new series of Who and am enjoying SJA, but I think that 80 appearances in the 1970s outweigh 6 appearances in the 21st century. Therefore, I think the infobox should show the character as she appeared in the '70s.
As for the Cheers vs. Frasier comparison: if Frasier was in its first season, I'd argue that the Frasier Crane page should depict him as he was in the longer-running series. Since Frasier followed pretty much directly from Cheers and the two series ran for roughly equal periods, the matter is moot — but (to pick a silly example) I'd expect Joanie Cunningham to show the character as she appeared on Happy Days, not Joanie Loves Chachi.—Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 03:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Why would this be a question of quantification? Doctor Who (in its classic and new formats) is a continuous and evolving narrative and its most recent developments must be borne in mind when producing articles about its characters. Otherwise it becomes dated and stuck in the past. The stories aren't comparable to episodes of situation comedies that are often - but not always - disconnected from an overall narrative. Sarah Jane may have only appeared in one episode of the new series, but that appearance was significant and connected directly to her departure in the classic series. As far as the character is concerned there's no division between televised phases. Furthermore, The Master only appeared in three episodes. Should we therefore exclude pictures of John Simm until he's appeared in more episodes than both Roger Delgado and Anthony Ainley? Yallery Brown 14:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Nobody's talking about excluding images. The discussion is about which image should be featured in the infobox. I assume we all agree that it's appropriate for the page to show both how the character looked in the '70s and in the modern era: the debate is over which should be in the infobox. I suggested quantification as a rough measure of which image might be a better representation of how the character is viewed overall, attempting to avoid recentism. Here's another comparison: leaving aside fair use considerations for the sake of argument, should Sherlock Holmes be illustrated first with the classic Piaget illustration, or with a picture of Jonathan Pryce in the role? After all, he played the character most recently, in Sherlock Holmes and the Baker Street Irregulars.
I know that the case of Sarah Jane is different, because there's real narrative continuity between her appearances in the '70s and in the 2000s. But I still think that the infobox should show the most iconic version of the character, and in the case of Sarah Jane I think that's still the '70s version, who was a companion to the Third and Fourth Doctors. I don't think it's "dated" to show the character as she's most widely known — especially if the article also addresses her recent appearances comprehensively.
Despite all that, I don't really feel that strongly about the matter, and I don't think that the article would be harmed significantly if the images were moved around — I'm just giving my opinion. If other folks feel strongly that it's more appropriate to feature the character as she looks now, I won't stand in the way. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 18:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand your perspective and I appreciate your time in contributing to this discussion. My concern with comparing a character's appearances in the new series with theirs in the classic is that it is unfair, specifically because they are unequal quantities. Sarah Jane was in more episodes of the classic series principally, it could be argued, because there was more of the classic series than there has been of the new series. With the logic of quantification it could be decided that as the appearances of the Daleks in the classic series outweighs their appearances in the new series, they should therefore be considered 'classic' rather than contemporary and we should only use older images of them. While I wouldn't question Sarah Jane's status as an iconic character - in fact, I think the way she has been used in the context of the new series to represent the Doctor's previous history with companions has made her more iconic than she was, say, when she returned in The Five Doctors - I would say that unless there is a specific look or image for which is known exclusively, then a current image of the character's most recent appearance should be used. Yallery Brown 21:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed to death now but since Sarah Jane became a companion again (the Stolen Earth and Journey's End) has at least two seasons of her own spin off show and a range of toys (i think she does anyway) surely a modern picture should be in the box - perhaps a promo shot from the bbc website - and put a picture of her older self (from classic doctor who) in the sub section on her doctor who appearances. 86.165.60.6 (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Jessica Ashworth, Sarah Jane at thirteen[edit]

Jessica Ashworth's portrayal of Sarah Jane at thirteen should be mentioned but where? Not in the "portrayed by" field because we don't put Richard Hurndall there in the First Doctor's article. Any suggestions? --GracieLizzie 15:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC).

By the same token, shouldn't the main page on Sarah Jane talk [at least somewhat] about her not as a "character" but as a "person"? A start would be her birth year, now established as 1950/1951!

I put her birth year at the start of the artical, (trying to keep a wikipedia tone after seeing the first ever 'amazing story' from SJA!)
I belive Jessica Ashworth should be in the artical as she is now, I feel there is no reason not to have her in the "Portrayed by" because in the First Doctors' case he was being the same person, whereas here she is being a younger version of Sarah Jane.--Wiggstar69 20:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The opposite is done with Caitlin Blackwood as Amy Pond. So why is it done one way for Sarah Jane Smith, and the other way for Amy Pond ? Hektor (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The opposite (I.e including child actors) is also done with the Master. It seems that the 'Portrayed by' section of the infobox should contain all actors who have portrayed the character. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, checking further, the original example of Richard Hurndall has been rectified to being included in the first Doctors infobox as well. I am going to go ahead and change this to see if anyone still objects. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
There was also the name 'Jessica Mordridge' hidden in the infobox, but i have no idea who she is so I have left it blanked until a reference is provided. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Reprising the role[edit]

I feel like this section's just been salvaged from before Sarah got her own show. Shouldn't this, for chronology's sake, be placed in between the info on Doctor Who and Sarah Jane Adventures? Or some of it should, at least.Andral (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

32 year old?[edit]

I don't think it's a safe bet to say she's 32 in the top photo. Due to multiple issues, such as the UNIT dating controversy, and Sarah's stated age in Invasion of the Dinosaurs, it's unclear when in her life these stories took place.Andral (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"affiliation"[edit]

The non-inclusion (is that a word? Hmm...) if SJS as a 10th Dr 'affiliate' is seemingly based on one editor's opinion (see Talk above, May 2006)

That's fine, but debatable, surely. So, please can we debate it?

The reason for SJS's exclusion seems to be that the section was intended for "long-term" affiliation as SJS appeared only in one episode. Well,

1 - we are not obliged to accept the originating editor's intention. The fact that s/he or someone else had to but a note on the article instructing editors not to include Tennant's Dr suggests that others have also shared this view. 2 - SJS is definitely making a come-back in at least one more episode this series. Does Jack's constant coming and going qualify him as a 10th Dr "affiliate"? 3 - The reverting editor's suggestion that SJS most recent appearance was a like cameo is incorrect: WP's own definition of cameo appearance confirms that.

While this is a matter of mind-blowing triviality, I don't see why we shouldn't hurl the idea about.

I vote we change the "affiliated with" concept altogether (seems to have no logical basis and if its meaning has to be spelled out in a note I'd say it need reviewing). That or we end up with an editor making an arbitrary decision as to how many episodes /she thinks someone has to appear in before they qualify. And that isn't good. 86.165.34.125 (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So far as I'm aware, the affiliated field is to show which Doctors they were companions for. There's been a BIG discussion already on this subject, with consensious being that SJS was not a companion. Should we also add the First, Second and Fifth Doctors to the template on the basis of The Five Doctors? We can't add her on the basis of the returning rumour, as it is unsourced and WP:CRYSTAL. Jack is, I believe stated to be a companion by RTD or someone, same as that other controversal one. So far as I know, no equivalent statement exists for Miss Smith. --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 21:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
How nice to see a fellow MST3K fan here! :-) "Affiliated" is a terribly imprecise term, and its use in this context seems inappropriate, or at least, less than transparently obvious.
SJS's role in the 5 Doctors was small: with Tennant she was central to an entire episode. Big difference.
When SJS returns in the most recent series (and sorry to blow the surprise, but her return is already in the can) her episode tally with Tennant will increase again, at which point I'll certainly push for Tenth Doctor to be included in the list. 86.165.34.125 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
One in series 2, two in series 4, plus photo used in another episode. Total 4, including 1 non-speaking. However, she's not a companion in any of them, more an ally, like the Torchwood Three team and Martha Jones/UNIT in the same series 4 episodes. Digifiend (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
She is now, finally, a 10th Doctor companion! The BBC's official series 4 web site has just listed her as such. See [1] 81.155.88.44 (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to throw another wrinkle into this mix. She's now made almost two-thirds as many stories as the leader of the SJA team as she has regular, "classic" Who appearances. Personally, I think the character has outgrown the companion infobox. If a third series of SJA is commissioned, she will have made all but one as many stories in the 21st century as she did in the 20th. Throw in the BF series and she's made WAY more appearances as a central character than as a regular on Doctor Who.
Put another way, she's quite simply a lead character. Really, a slightly modified version of the {{Doctorwhodoctor}} template would be more appropriate. She's not affiliated with other characters; other characters are associated with her. While we're on the subject, I have a real problem with UNIT being in the list. In no way could she be said to be "affiliated" with UNIT. She knew some people there, but she's not affiliated with them. If Jo or Liz disobeyed the Brig, there was the possibility of real consequence. If Sarah does, all the Brig can do is look cross. CzechOut | 16:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you suggest making a special infobox for Jack and Sarah Jane, or creating special fields on the current one just for them? ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Current Status[edit]

I have two grievances regarding her current status: one, the incorrect episode is mentioned (Journey's End as opposed to The Stolen Earth), and two: we know that there's another season of The Sarah Jane Adventures, and let's face it, would it be called that if the principle character isn't in it, even though we know she is? 86.8.87.241 (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Year of Birth[edit]

Up until 21 October, the article stated Sarah Jane was born in 1951 with a reference to a statement in Whatever Happened to Sarah Jane? (WHtSJ). I changed the article to state she was born between 20 April and 20 May 1951 and altered the reference to note that she was shown as 13 on 13 July 1964 in WHtSJ, but also as a Taurus in Secrets of the Stars. Ckatz reverted it as 'trivia'. I then decided to try just altering the reference (as the year of birth seemed acceptable to Ckatz - as that's what he reverted the article to saying, which was what it had stated for a long time). However, the then reference did not in itself support 1951 - if you're 13 on 13 July 1964 then you were born in 1951 or 1950. But, also being a Taurus rules out 1950. I also added a note in the reference that a birth year of 1951 has implications for the dating of the Doctor Who episode Invasion of the Dinosaurs (during which Sarah Jane states she's then 23), but that such a dating would be controversial (with a link to the UNIT dating controversy). Czatz reverted it as 'not encyclopaedic and prone to speculation'. I reverted it back saying that a 'character's dob is not trivial, and no speculation involved here', but Ckatz re-reverted it saying take it to discussion. (Have you noticed how people usually say that after imposing their own view on the article? :) ). So here we are. My view is that Sarah Jane Adventures makes it quite clear that the character was born in 1951 (and - spoilers! - will make that much clearer shortly); that a year of birth (and therefore her age) is not a trivial fact for a fictional character, and that therefore it should be stated in the article, appropriately referenced; though where in the article can be discussed. What do other people think? (To pre-empt some possible objections: Wikipedia policy makes it quite clear that fictional works are reliable sources for their content, and obvious deductions are not original research.) Cuddlyopedia (talk) 06:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we can just wait until the spoilery event to which you refer, which will make Sarah Jane's birthdate explicit. I don't think there's any sense in fighting over it now. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 07:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
No fighting! Just discussions. :) I have no objection to waiting a few weeks. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Further to this, there are numerous reasons not to invest too heavily in the subject. First off, we have to keep the real-world perspective, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), and avoid any speculation. That rules out the attempt to reconcile information from different episodes, which is unreliable. (We have no idea if the details are accurate as a whole; episodes may be written by different writers, who may or may not coordinate such trivial details. Doctor (Doctor_Who)#Age demonstrates this well.) Second, the date doesn't belong in the lead, but (if at all) lower down in the article; again, see Doctor_(Doctor_Who), where there is no mention of the age in the lead. Third, inclusion of a relatively trivial detail - even if referenced - creates real problems with speculation about the character's "current" age. That is in part why there has been a move away from the inclusion of such details, as with the series Heroes. --Ckatzchatspy 09:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Like beauty, one man's trivial... :) First, the entire article is full of details that come from different episodes! As long as the information is reliably sourced and is not OR, there's no problem with Wikipedia policy - though that probably does rule out a bare statement (even with a reference) as to the character's date of birth. Second - agreed. (I would suggest, in any event, that information about the character in the 'Appearances' section should be seperated out into a seperate one. Such a new section would seem an appropriate place.) Third, one cannot prevent speculation, one can only strive to keep it out of the article, and that's best done by an appropriate inclusion that preempts such speculation, rather than exclusion. Fourth, any fan of the character (or other reasonable person!) will expect to see such information in a properly researched encyclopaedia article, and it is therefore likely to be continually added. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"In-universe/in-in universe" objection?[edit]

Ckatz and Edoktor: I completely fail to see your problem with the statement describing the results of a comparison between Sarah Jane Smith's novel The Day of the Dinosaurs and Mike Yates' claim of the real reason behind UNIT's evacuation of central London. It is right therecin the cited work, and has just as much context as the statement that she wrote those novels. Perhaps it would be acceptable if extended as "...under close scrutiny, at least by the Metropolitan." Considering the behavior of the two of you on Talk:Doctor (Doctor Who)#Reverting reversion by Edokter and the fact that administration (which I now know you both to be part of) refused to so much as acknowledge the facts of the situation, I should not expect any genuine discussion, but I hope that that was an isolated incident rather than standard procedure for either or both of you. Please show me that it was. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, but listing the "in-universe" article titles is enough for the section in question. Describing one particular article in detail is a bit unproductive -- unless it were in a wikipedia-article devoted to the whole series of articles, in which case all respective "in-universe" articles featured in DWM could be briefly summarised. DonQuixote (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)r existence
Seems to me that just listing the title (singular; there are several, but only one deals directly with Sarah Jane, hence only one is cited) "is a bit unproductive" as the point of this section is to report the varying descriptions of SJS's post Five Doctors/pre new series life as found in assorted of-dubious-canonicity spin-off productions, not merely cite their existence. Please note that the Missing Adventures/Past Doctors novels which are simple continuity implants to her run as companion to the Third/Fourth Doctors are relegated to the list. Furthermore, neither Ckatz nor Edoktor reverted the passage to such an extent as you suggest, so they don't feel your way, either, and everything else that significantly add to her biography (rather than just have her take part in the story) are described rather than merely have their titles listed, too. --Ted Watson (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
As it is now, it would probably be cut out anyway for copyedit reasons. It's just a little too much detail that, as written, just clutters up the paragraph and doesn't add anything. We could put it as a footnote, I suppose, but then again, I think it's a little too indulgent. "Mostly Harmless" DonQuixote (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Copyedit reasons"? What is that other than minor "mechanical" problems? Grammar, syntax, punctuation, spelling, etc.? As for 'doesn't add anything" it in fact makes the point that Sarah Jane based her novels rather closely on her own experiences with the Doctor more strongly than just the titles and the WIN bit do. And "a little too indulgent" fails to communicate anything relevant to me. You have completely abandoned the original criticism (not defended at all by those who made it) for things that even you seem to find a bit weak. --Ted Watson (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"Copyedit reasons" means that it doesn't work. As written, it's a bit of fat that needs to be trimmed. It really doesn't add anything (and therefore indulgent), and a simple "based on her experiences with the Doctor" would sum it up nicely. As to your other point, I can't really "abandon" something that I wasn't a part of.
Anyways, just think Ford Prefect. "Mostly harmless" DonQuixote (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
That is not the definition of copyedit, not at all. "...based on her experiences with the Doctor" would, as you say, "sum it up nicely," but as the cited source does not come out and say that, we're not allowed under Wiki regs to do so here. That's "synthesis" and Ckatz, the first of the two editors to have reverted me here, would have no choice but to admit that himself given this. And I just don't see the relevance of the Douglas Adams allusion; after all, Arthur Dent thought the entry was inadequate, offensively so (it seemed to me). --Ted Watson (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Er...yeah...for a quick definition of copyedit, see dictionary.com -- it includes style, etc. Anyway, that's why just listing the titles is sufficient for this article. As for the Ford Prefect reference (not Arthur Dent--he wasn't the author), there's a lot of copy editing going on with encyclopedias (particularly with wikipedia where there's a lot of editors), so don't take it too personally. DonQuixote (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There is too much against "just listing the titles" including both precedent and consensus, so give up on it. I never said Dent was the author of "mostly harmless", but that he objected to it, was offended by it. Therefore your claim that I did does nothing but call your mental faculties into question. I can find nothing to support your definition of copyedit as you applied the word to this passage, as deleting it entirely. I must insist you leave this thread. --Ted Watson (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh...(why does no one ever look things up in a dictionary--even free online ones?) From dictionary.com: "to edit (a manuscript, document, text, etc.) for publication, esp. for punctuation, spelling, grammatical structure, style, etc." My copy of Webster's says: "to edit (a manuscript or copy) for publication", which doesn't really go into the specific unfortunately. From Wikipedia's article on Copy editing: "The copy editor is expected to ensure that the text flows..." etc.
I don't have access to OED.com at the moment since schools are closed, but here's a sample of a copy editor's work that I found online: [2], with the relevant part being: "As you'll see from my notes on the pages, the copy editor does more than check basic spelling and grammar. It's also my job to point out holes in the logic, imprecise turns of phrase, and other weaknesses, both minor and major, as I see them." Etc. Please feel free to research more on the topic.
And I never said that you said Dent was the author. I was pointing out the fact that I was using "Prefect as the author" for my point. I was saying that you missed my point by focusing on the wrong person. Prefect got his article trimmed down to "Mostly harmless." I even explained that it was about editors copy editing (sometimes trimming down) an author's work. Pay attention, please.
Going back to the passage in question, "These featured an extraterrestrial called the Doctor and his companion Nicola Jones, who frequently encountered WIN (World Investigative Network), commanded by General Lutwidge-Douglas." is sufficient in-and-of-itself and doesn't contain any original research. Adding the excised bit is adding more of the same and can be trimmed without any loss. DonQuixote (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I took so long getting back, but I had a lot of things happening during the Xmas/New Year season, and by the time it was over I'd forgotten about this. Simply put, "style" is in no way, shape, or form about content, which is what you edited out. Therefore, you have not substantiated your definition of "copyedit" at all. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
"Style" is how content is presented. A passage having too much content is a "style" of writing (verbose). A passage having too little content is a "style" of writing (terse). A copyeditor can, and does, suggest trims and expansions. DonQuixote (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Final appearance episode title[edit]

We need a source for this, as last I looked the story titles for the remaining SJA episodes have not yet been announced. Plus we don't know yet whether Sarah Jane might continue to appear in novels and audio dramas. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Also let's be accurate and call it SLA, Sarah's Lame Adventures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.81.85 (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Second Paragraph Introduction[edit]

The first sentence of the second paragraph contains a comma splice: "An investigative journalist, Sarah Jane is one of the Doctor's longest serving companions." I am going to cut out the first clause for grammatical reasons. But, the article might benefit from a short character summary written by someone more familiar with the character. Jocmckin (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added this.Zythe (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)