Jump to content

Talk:List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials

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

Timing

[edit]

Without specifying a location the time "Autumn" is meaningless. While it's autumn in one place it may be spring in another. Of course in the tropics there is neither. Please use calendar periods onlly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.65.165 (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Numbers

[edit]

Should the pilot be listed as pilot; and the series numbered 1 to 10? 77.99.102.81 23:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. 217.44.115.84 17:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Simply because as you say 'the pilot', it in fact was not a pilot. A new year special actually. 89.241.163.61 (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How Much of this page is fact?

[edit]

I've read and checked the page, lots of the information seems to have been obtained from the website sarah-jane.TV, which I have to remind you is not a reliable source. Some the names put under directers I'm still unsure of. Can I ask people to reference everything written until after the episodes have been shown, and when writing references make sure there from reliable sources.--Wiggstar69 14:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

[edit]

Being two parters does not make them "technically" serials and it also doesn't stop them from being episodes. Will is simply confused. Matthew 08:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also tagged the episode section for references. Matthew 10:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There serials because they do not have seperate titles, its like that on the list of dotcor who episodes page too.--Wiggstar69 11:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You totally misunderstand what a serial is, these are simply two-parters. That doesn't make them serials. Matthew 11:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read Serial. Matthew 11:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A serial is more then one episode under one name.--Wiggstar69 11:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An example of this is The Edge of Destruction which is two episodes and labeled a serial--Wiggstar69 11:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're being a bit of a lemon. Simply being two-parts doesn't make something a serial, like I said: I suggest you read Serial (or you could try this or this). If you can demonstrate (with proof) these are serials then I will bow to you, right now you are just showing me that you believe two-parts = a long work. The ball's in your court now... dude. Matthew 12:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another day on Wikipedia, another war over a small matter... As far as I can see, these are stories that are told in more than one part. That much is clear, isn't it? Right, let's have a look at my OED:

"serial noun a story or play appearing in regular instalments on television or radio or in a magazine or newspaper: a new three-part drama serial."

Hmm, that sounds suspiciously as if these two-parters could well be serials. Let's see what else I have. Oh, hey, here's Tulloch & Alvarado, communications and media academics par excellence, with their take:

"The episodic serial ... is characterised by there being narrative continuity, but for a limited and specified number of episodes. The viewer has to see all the episodes encompassed within one title to understand fully the narrative structure and story."

Which, shorn of verbiage, means a story told over a number of episodes.

On the whole, I'm inclined to still believe these are serials. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 12:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to believe your "evidence" only serves to strengthen my position, like you say "The episodic serial ... is characterised by there being narrative continuity, but for a limited and specified number of episodes. The viewer has to see all the episodes encompassed within one title to understand fully the narrative structure and story." Matthew 14:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To provide context for the Tulloch and Alvarado quote, I should point out they state that Doctor Who (the original series, naturally) falls into this definition of episodic serial. That the narrative extends for a limited number of episodes means that there is more than one serial within a given season. Hence, as Wiggstar69 points out further up the thread, The Edge of Destruction is a serial.
Perhaps you're getting confused with the fact that, in the UK, "serial" can also be taken to mean "miniseries"? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 15:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Sarah Jane Adventures stories

[edit]

I've moved this back to List of The Sarah Jane Adventures stories, given that we're grouping serial episodes together. I hope that meets with the approval of other editors. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 10:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode dates

[edit]

I notice someone's put in all the dates for the episode broadcasts, now that the first episode is confirmed for 24 September. Do we know for a fact that there won't be a break in transmission, or are we making assumptions? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 12:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The episode dates are confirmed here (click on an episode for details). They are being braodcast weekly. StuartDD ( t • c ) 21:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Banks has just done what other people have also attempted here: he's taken the confirmed date and worked from there. Fansites such as this don't generally constitute reliable sources. We're better off waiting for reliable sources, such as the BBC Press Office, the Radio Times etc. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Brief History of TIme (Travel) also has the episode dates as weekly. StuartDD ( t • c ) 10:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and how do you think he arrived at those? There's no rush here, especially not when schedules are so easily subject to change. We're better off putting in accurate information closer to broadcast than making assumptions now and then having to correct things. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 12:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't Series Three of Doctor Who interrupted by something as silly as a soccer match? There's always the chance of there being a change or a break in transmission, but we can, as with Who, assume that there will not be. --Johan (speak to me, human) (yes i've been here) 19:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was different. The episodes were confirmed as weekly by the BBC, but later they posponed one of them. In this case, it has not been confirmed by the BBC that the episodes are weekly. It is being shown on CBBC, and they usually show more than one episode of a show per week. StuartDD ( t • c ) 19:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was the Eurovision Song Contest that postponed Doctor Who... (which is even worse then soccer). — Edokter • Talk • 19:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Happened again this year too. In SJA's case more than one in a week on the same channel would be a repeat. Digifiend (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original airdates

[edit]

I've seen elsewhere that after each episode is aired on BBC One, there will be a chance for viewers to see the next episode straight afterwards on the CBBC Channel. doesn't that make the origonal broadcast of Revenge of the Slitheen (part 2) the same day as part one? StuartDD ( t • c ) 18:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose it does. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 18:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CBBC listings confirm it.[1] --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 18:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are also showing th first episode on the 23rd [2] - so I've put that in the table. StuartDD ( t • c ) 19:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, that's Invasion of the Bane (60 min timeslot) StuartDD ( t • c ) 19:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? The listing states it's the first part of Revenge of the Slitheen. — Edokter • Talk • 19:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it take 60 minutes to show an episode that fits in a 25 minute time slot?[3] --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 20:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not. The BBC is getting sloppy I think. Leave it at the 24th for the time being. We'll know on sunday. — Edokter • Talk • 20:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, everybody in my house got excited thinking it was on a day early.--Wiggstar69 15:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion here as to which dates to use. StuartDD ( t • c ) 17:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm...guess I should have read the talk page first...but anyway, I just realised that this needed a footnote explaining how episodes 1 & 2 of Revenge aired on the same date. DonQuixote 22:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good idea. StuartDD ( t • c ) 13:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at this and read the date information as meaning that there were only nine episodes. Partly that was because the footnote was on 24 September 2007. Once I had worked out what was meant I modified the footnote and moved it to apply to the column header. I think that it is clearer now.
FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Production codes

[edit]

Do we have any (sourcable) production codes? — Edokter • Talk • 15:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None that I know of, just the usual consensus based story numbering we have now. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, for clarity as i've heard discussions elsewhere... we are using 1.0 instead of 1.X for the NY Special. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATMarsden (talk • contribs) 12:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Writer's Tale specifies that the production codes for SJA are 1.X for "Invasion of the Bane", 1.1 for Revenge of the Slitheen Part 1, 1.2 for Revenge Part 2, and so on. Shouldn't the episode guide and the individual episode articles be changed to reflect this? — Pdb781 (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a book I presume? If it says that, they should be changed. — Edokter • Talk • 23:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's RTD's book. It lists all the eps and production codes as reference on one of the first few pages. How should they be presented though? 1.1/1.2? 1.1 & 1.2? — Pdb781 (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC
Been expeirmenting... how are they listed in the book? — Edokter • Talk • 23:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think "1.1 & 1.2" linebreaks workst best in the table, "1.1 and 1.2" in the articles. — Edokter • Talk • 23:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're all listed separately in the book (1.1 Revenge of the Slitheen, Part One.) Your plan works though. — Pdb781 (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've mocked up a different scheme in my sandbox - what do you all think? Etron81 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bit too cluttered IMO, especially the "Part I/II" column. — Edokter • Talk • 23:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I supose - it might work better if the lines dividing the serials was darker - I don't really know how to do that though... Etron81 (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I updated my sandbox to include dividing lines for each serial - is this any better? Etron81 (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(←) I think the current table looks OK. — Edokter • Talk • 23:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

television stories?

[edit]

Should we change this to television stories? after all, there are going to be audio stories StuartDD ( t • c ) 10:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this was a good idea, the title could mean 'all' sarah jane adventures stories.--Wiggstar69 11:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for 'episodes' or 'serials'. — Edokter • Talk • 11:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Serials' since most of them are made up of two parters and this would be the same as the similar doctor who page.--Wiggstar69 11:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials. List of The Sarah Jane Adventures episodes already redirects here. StuartDD ( t • c ) 12:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Also fixed the double redirect. — Edokter • Talk • 14:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Series 2 titles

[edit]

These have been revealed in the new DWM, apparently. They have aleady been added to the table (I just fixed the formatting), but I do not have the issue to add a reference - can someone who does add the reference?

Bold titles

[edit]

Frankly, I don't like them. I prefer the plain tables over the use of {{Episode list}}. — Edokter • Talk • 02:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The old layout also matched its parent series Doctor Whos serials list. The colours also make my eyes sad. What was the reason for the change? Davhorn (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at {{Episode list}} and it does not seem to say anything about needing to colour the heading line. Also I looked at a sample (9 from the first 50) of the pages that transclude {{Episode list}} and only one of them does colour the heading line.
A few that I looked at with a large number of series & episodes (e.g. >5 & >10) make some attempt to colour code the series to make a large page more usable, by having a summary table (one line per series) at the top with a colour indicator which is also used on the individual series tables - however usage of that is inconsistent and so is no real guide. See List of The X-Files episodes for an example.
The Sarah Jane Adventures does not have anywhere near enough episodes to need that sort of assistance and the colours chosen were not good (black writing on dark backgrounds) so I have simply reverted those colours.
FerdinandFrog (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it because most LOEs use {{Episode list}}; to my knowledge, only the DW LOEs and the Simpsons master LOE don't. Sceptre (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

series 3 casting

[edit]

The Hull Daily Mail reported yesterday that Eleanor Tomlinson is to play an unspecified alien in one of series 3's stories. Not a suitable source to cite, because the article misidentified the broadcaster - since when is SJA on Cbeebies? - so we need another source before it can be added. Here's the link anyway. http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/Eleanor-s-latest-TV-role-world/article-1036733-detail/article.html Digifiend (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth writing one or two episodes?

[edit]

The article has ", with Gareth Roberts and Joseph Lidster also returning with one story each." and in the next line ""will appear as the Doctor in two episodes written by Gareth Roberts". So which is it? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Each story is comprised of two episodes. Sceptre (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Series 3 titles confirmed?

[edit]

Can someone confirm that Doctor WHo Magazine 412 has given the titles to the series 3 episodes? — Edokter • Talk • 17:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot confirm it is 412 but I found this article if you can match the month it might be 412 http://news.thedoctorwhosite.co.uk/sarah-jane-adventures-series-3-titles/ thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also found one for 4+5 http://news.thedoctorwhosite.co.uk/the-sarah-jane-adventures-series-4-titles/ http://news.thedoctorwhosite.co.uk/the-final-three-sarah-jane-adventures-titles/ thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_The_Sarah_Jane_Adventures_serials&oldid=1208458763"