Talk:Sarah Jane Smith

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be snarky, saying someone is more reliable than EoH is a textbook example of damning with faint praise... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I won't argue with that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  K9 Adventures here? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 10th Doctor

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ''SJA'' prep 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Last Appearance 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reprising the role 

message: 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)
thread_title:  32 year old? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current Status 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No fighting! Just discussions. :) I have no objection to waiting a few weeks. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Year of Birth 

message: 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)
thread_title: Final appearance episode title

message: 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)
replies: text: I've added this.Zythe (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Paragraph Introduction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sarah Jane Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017153038/http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article359785.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article359785.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030083559/http://www.liverpoolreporter.com/tv/elisabeth-sladen/ to http://www.liverpoolreporter.com/tv/elisabeth-sladen/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sarah Jane Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070220090435/http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/characters/sarahjane.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/characters/sarahjane.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A citation would seem to be required for the  assertion in the article that April Walker was taller than Jon Pertwee.  This seems very unlikely.  She does not appear that tall in her other TV programmes! 2.28.151.167 (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  April Walker taller than 1.89M (6 foot 2 inches)?