Talk:Elisabeth Sladen/Archive 1

Picture

Lousy picture, can someone get a better one? james_anatidae 07:48, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone find a more up-to-date and flattering picture of Lis? There must be plenty of possibilities what with her recent appearance on Blue Peter and of course the forthcoming Dr Who appearance. The current picture on this site really doesn't do her justice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaunt (talk • contribs) 12:42, 25 April 2006

Khaosworks - thanks for uploading the new picture. Definitely an improvement on the older one. :-)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaunt (talk • contribs) 13:21, 28 April 2006

Also, can someone get a picture from her Doctor Who days, possible from the show itself? I'm sure there are plenty of screenshots on Wikipedia. --Howdybob 01:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I can, but it's not needed here for this article - there's a couple of shots of her at Sarah Jane Smith, which is a more pertinent location for them. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant here; it should go in the section about her time on Doctor Who. --Howdybob 05:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Added a biobox, persondata and a picture I found hidden on wikipedia (the copyright status of which I am extremely unsure.) What do you think? El Zoof 04:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:scifiradioguy text

User:scifiradioguy, all the text you added appears to be copied directly from [1]. Can you please confirm you are the author or have been permitted to add this, or else the additional material will need to be removed. (Khaosworks has rewritten some of it so the rest can be reworked too if necessary.) Tim! (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a bit late, but I'm the author of the borrowed material and am happy for it to be used here. Kevinwparker (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources and accuracy

In the third paragraph of ‘later career’ it used to state “Sladen was very heartbroken when Jon Pertwee, who was her closest friend, on Doctor Who” it now states "Sladen revealed in an interview with the BBC that in May of 1996 when Jon Pertwee (her close friend) died, she was heartbroken and cried for weeks." which is a more accurate reflection of the qoute listed in the references section. this still needs to be cited, which i do not know how to do, and fleshed out into more than just an extremly small paragraph or possibly removed altogether.--Jacobpaige (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

i've now read the article in question and have come to realise that the whole paragraph was a complete distortion of her actual words. the relevent paragraph in the interview reads "Tom Baker was always very sweet to me. It was in our interests to get on, but it was never forced. I adore seeing him now. No-one else understands what it was like. I was very sad when Jon Pertwee died. Doing the two radio stories (Paradise of Death and The Ghosts of N-Space) had brought a great deal of enjoyment to us both and given us a new relationship. We had both mellowed. Although I hadn't seen him much since then, when he died I realised how much I missed him because he was my Doctor. If I go to a convention now, Ian isn't there and Jon isn't there and you feel a bit lonely! Jon and Tom were two very different gentlemen in the way they worked – Jon enjoyed being much more protective towards the companion – and I liked the difference." Which implies that they liked each other but weren't particularly close at the time of his death.--Jacobpaige (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of File:Sarahjane.jpg

I just removed File:Sarahjane.jpg from the infobox because its use there fails Wikipedia:NFCC. 68.167.191.189 (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed it lasted so long actually. At least now we finally have an up-to-date, free image we can use.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Elisabeth Sladen: written by Elizabeth Swadling

Doctor Who, K-9 and Company Sarah Jane Smith title:elisabeth sladen's sja profile Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (January 2010)

Elisabeth Sladen

Sladen in 2003 Born Elisabeth Claira Heath Sladen 1 February 1948 (1948-02-01) (age 62) Liverpool, England, UK Other name(s) Elizabeth Sladen Occupation Actress, Presenter, Writer Years active 1965-present Spouse(s) Brian Miller (1968-present)

Elisabeth Sladen (born 1 February 1948, Liverpool) is an English actress best known for her role as Sarah Jane Smith in the British television series Doctor Who, K-9 and Company and the current The Sarah Jane Adventures, as well as in various audio stories.

She appeared as a regular on Doctor Who with both Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker, and has reprised the role many times. Sladen has been married since 1968 to actor Brian Miller. Their daughter, Sadie Miller, appeared with her in the range of Sarah Jane Smith audio plays by Big Finish Productions

Brian Miller is elisabeth sladen's husbund.

01 – "Invasion of the Bane" The Sarah Jane Adventures episode Cast Elisabeth Sladen – Sarah Jane Smith Yasmin Paige – Maria Jackson Thomas Knight – Luke Smith Alexander Armstrong – Mr Smith John Leeson – K-9

Guest stars Porsha Lawrence Mavour – Kelsey Hooper Jamie Davis – Davey Joseph Millson – Alan Jackson Juliet Cowan – Chrissie Jackson Konnie Huq and Gethin Jones – Themselves Samantha Bond – Mrs Wormwood

Production Writer Gareth Roberts Russell T Davies Director Colin Teague Script editor Simon Winstone Producer Susie Liggat Executive producer(s) Phil Collinson Russell T Davies Julie Gardner Production code 1.X Series New Year's Day special Length 60 minutes Originally broadcast 1 January 2007 Chronology ? Preceded by Followed by ? — Revenge of the Slitheen

IMDb profile

"Invasion of the Bane" is the first episode of the British science fiction television series The Sarah Jane Adventures. It was originally broadcast on 1 January 2007. Since the series was commissioned before the script for the episode was written, it is not a pilot, but a holiday special, and serves the introductory functions of a pilot.[1]

The episode focuses upon a thirteen year old girl, Maria Jackson, discovering the existence of aliens. After discovering that the Bane, creators of a soft drink called Bubble Shock!, harbour a destructive secret, she teams up with investigative journalist Sarah Jane Smith to prevent their plans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.208.230 (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Big city life

The article states that after moving to London Elisabeth found big city life "a bit of an adjustment". According to the previous paragraph she had moved from Manchester. Manchester is no small town, so she had adjusted from big city life to big city life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.76.52 (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Birth year

I altered Lis's year of birth to 1946, because that is what is stated in publicly available records in the UK. The probable explanation is that right at the beginning of her career, Lis told a little white lie about her age, to help her start at Liverpool Playhouse as a student actor. The incorrect birth date has been stated on the Internet for at least ten years, and has been repeated in many places as a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.21.153 (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering what is correct to record? The date of birth the individual has used for a number of years or the actual date of birth as recorded at the time of birth? The records show that Elizabeth C H Sladen was born in 1946.138.253.38.130 (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't have altered the date of birth to 1948. Sladen died yesterday, and SHE WAS 63! If she was born n 1946, SHE WOULD'VE BEEN 65 AND THAT'S WHAT THE NEWS WOULD'VE SAID! Change it back to 1948! 82.13.79.52 (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Her birth was registered in 1946. It is common for actresses to pretend to be younger than they are. The media sometimes report things wrongly. Jim Michael (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Toby Hadoke's obit for Elisabeth Sladen in the Guardian was revised with the 1946 birth date on 21 April 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/apr/20/doctor-who-fantasy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.199.127 (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That Guardian article also updates her correct birth name: it is not "Elizabeth" with a "z" or "Elisabeth Clara Heath Sladen" or "Elisabeth C H Sladen", but "Elisabeth Claira Heath-Sladen" (a so-called "double-barrelled" surname). Source is the Guardian corrected obituary at http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/apr/20/doctor-who-fantasy 91.111.57.167 (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

But the birth record cited at footnote 1 gives her surname as "Sladen", not "Heath-Sladen". That suggests "Heath" was one of her given names. As that is an official public record should it not be preferred? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.95.31 (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Elisabeth Sladen was born in 1948 not 1946 so change it back. She might have lied about her age to join the Liverpool Playhouse but the news say she was 63 so she was born in 1948. So please can someone change it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clbarsby57 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Some media articles say 1946, some say 1948. The birth index shows her birth was registered in 1946, which proves she could not have been born in 1948. Jim Michael (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible death?

Just confirmed on BBC News 24 2100 19th April 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.107.56 (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no official source or confirmation, but Twitter is freaking out and saying that Elisabeth Sladen has died. I'm not making any edits to the article itself, but am requesting some help researching and fact-checking to see if this is true. 153.91.136.201 (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder - Justin Bieber "died" not too long ago. Until it hits a major news site (NOT The Onion), it's better we don't mention it. Wikipedia isn't a news site anyway, overall accurate coverage is better than being in perfect touch with current events. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Why does it say Justin Bieber? Shouldn't it say Elisabeth Sladen? 82.13.79.52 (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware. That's why I'm using the Talk page and asking for help fact checking. I do NOT want to be the guy to falsely update the article itself. (Previous comment was mine, just forgot to log in before making it.) Jivjov (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You're doing it right. It's not unlikely that the death is a memetic hoax, as bigger media companies don't seem to have picked it up. So, I assume it's best to play it safe but keep a lookout for any mainstream coverage. I think Google News might be a good way to find the stories once they're published. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Got a small mention here, not sure how official it is, but for the record: http://www.digitalspy.com/british-tv/s7/doctor-who/news/a315484/elisabeth-sladen-dies-aged-63.html, also, the official Doctor Who Magazine twitter mentioned it. Jivjov (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There shouldn't be anything added until a reliable source that is accepted by Wikipedia backs it up. The Doctor Who Twitter might be an official Twitter but generally Twitter isn't accepted as a reliable source so I don't think we can use that.--5 albert square (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I'd still wait for a while, but with the official Twitter channel joining in, it's a bit more likely to be real now. I found this as well but it clearly states that it's based on Twitter rumours. Well, in any case, I'm going to bed now, I trust you can decide this along with any other interested editors (or possibly just be bold about it). Nite! Zakhalesh (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, what about the from the Twitter accounts of ITV News and Lorna Cooper? Janers0217 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The BBC News channel has reported her death, no doubt an article will appear on the BBC News website soon. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait till the BBC have published the news page then update the wiki page. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 20:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13137674 :'( MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 20:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Alas! I wish that it was only a rumour! But sadly, no. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You're not alone there. Britmax (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow...uh, that was unexpected. If only it were a hoax. Such a shame. And just before the start of Season 32 of Doctor Who as well. I guess they'll edit in a dedication notice. ProtoKun7 (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this have an

tag? 65.94.45.160 (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It did, but someone removed it, in line with the guidelines on its use. Britmax (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey! You undid my edit! That WAS NOT A CLUMSY EDIT! Au contraire! That was in line with other actors look for instance at James Stewart or Clark Gable. Spouse is often mentioned as follows Name (year of marriage - year of end of marriage) (reason end of marriage) -- fdewaele, 20 April 2011, 15:42 CET

Yes, and it's clumsy and unnecessary there as well. Britmax (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That's merely your personal opinion. Which apparantly many other editors do not share. It's practical to have lenght and reason of the end of marriage(s) in the infobox -- fdewaele, 20 April 2011, 15:52 CET

Well for me it's too much detail for the infobox, which should not be a substitute for the article. I'll do some asking around about it. Britmax (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The year of the end of a marriage is always stated in the infobox in cases where the marriage has ended. Jim Michael (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I wish it was a hoax, Its soooooo sad that Elisabeth Sladen has died. I can't believe she has gone. :( The odd thing is that Tom Baker is still going and Elisabeth is dead. CBBC may be showing the first episode of series 5 that was filmed before she died. It will be sooooooo sad watching it, knowing that it will be the last 'The Sarah Jane Adventures' episode. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyguy21 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Life imitating art?

The article on Sarah Jane's Alien Files says in the event that Sarah Jane is no longer capable of defending the Earth. Does anyone know if this spinoff was created because the producers were preparing for Sladen's health problems? 65.94.45.160 (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Without official word from the show's producers, anything that we might say about this would be pure speculation. However, most of the obits that I have seen for her describer her as having fought a long battle with cancer. So presumably, the show's producers were well aware of her health problems. JimFarm (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Where does it say that she had cancer for a long time? All the news reports and obituaries I've read are vague about her cancer. They don't say which organ(s), when she was diagnosed, or where she died. It seems that prior to her death, very few people knew she had cancer. Jim Michael (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to change her age of death to 63. Because BBC news and all other nwes websites says she adied and the age of 63 NOT 65 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.41.55 (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read comments from other parts of the talk page, and the big notice at the top of the article's edit page. Britmax (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.195.33.166, 20 April 2011

Her date of birth should be 1st February 1948, not 1946. Please allow it to be changed.

94.195.33.166 (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Her birth was registered in 1946. Jim Michael (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

How can she be 63 then? That doesn't make sense. If she was registered as being born in 1946 she would have been 65, not 63. One of the sources even says 1948, not 46. 2.103.122.112 (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Many people, and much of the media, wrongly believe she was born in 1948. Jim Michael (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 90.209.198.198, 20 April 2011

Elisabeth Sladen was born in 1948

90.209.198.198 (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done See above - her birth was registered in 1946, so she can't have been born any later than that. Jim Michael (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Reconcile date of birth and age at death one way or another

I see I'm not the only one to note that this article puts her date of birth in 1946 and age at death at 63. I'm not sure which is correct, but simple math requires that one of these is wrong. She was either born in 1948 or died when she was 65. Fix one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.220.158.52 (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done The article now gives her lifespan as 1946-2011 and age as 65. Jim Michael (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So do we have a consensus that 1946 is her actual birth year? The Birth Index should trump all the media reports since it is a primary official source. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 12.139.33.2, 20 April 2011

Elisabeth Sladen was born in 1948 not in 1946.

12.139.33.2 (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done You need reliable sources for that change. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 17:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Tribute song

Talis Kimberley has just released a tribute song to Elisabeth Sladen called "Goodnight Sarah-Jane",[2] if of any interest to editors here. It shouldn't go in the article unless/until secondary sourcing appears. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Place of death?

It doesn't even say where she died. It just says: Died April 19, 2011 (Age 65)

Could someone mention place of death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.79.52 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jim Michael (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Birth date - questionable references

While I do not doubt the good faith of the editors who suggest a 1946 birth date, I am concerned about the quality of the evidence they present.

Specifically: are references behind paywalls (and therefore unverifiable by the overwhelming majority) valid references? If not (and I feel they ought not to be) then we're left with two refs that are as likely to be inaccurate as the vast number of other sources who state a 1948 birthday.

One editor who questioned the '46 DOB was told (fairly curtly) to provide a verifiable source. Why? A source that the majority of readers cannot see/evaluate for themselves is no source at all.

If the official records state a 1946 DOB, fine. But, at the moment, the editors positing a 1946 DOB have not given an openly verifiable source to trump the overwhelming number of sources giving a 1948 date. 86.154.177.24 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The source being used for the 1946 date is a public record so really is a reliable source, it is not normal for government vital records to be unreliable. Only one register entry exists for an Elisabeth Sladen between 1940 and 1960 and that is an "Elizabeth C.H. Sladen" in Liverpool South in the first quarter of 1946 (General Register Officer register of births for 1946 Jan-Feb-Mar Volume 8B Page No. 303. All the websites like ancestry use the same government source (and any member of the public can ask for a copy of the record from either the General Register Office or the local office so it is a verifiable source). Now the jump is that is the "Elizabeth C.H. Sladen" registered in 1946 is the same person, the only clue would be the Mothers maiden name is given is Trainor. If we have a reliable secondary source that says her mother is Trainor that may provide evidence that the 1946 entry is the same person. As no other Elisabeth Sladen is registered in the same time frame it could be that she was either born in 1948 under a different name or born outside England and Wales. Best we can say from sources is that she was born in 1948 etc but government records indicate she was possibly born in 1946. We dont need to decide which is right we can just present both sets of information and let the reader come to the conclusions. MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your very considerate and informative reply. :)

I am not doubting the reliability of official records. I am questioning the fact that the links provided to not allow the majority of editors/readers to see these records, because of the paywall. If there is an openly available online source, then please can we have a link to it. I note your comment re the availability of physical copies of the register entry but 1) that is not practical for most in the UK let alone abroad, and 2) the editors suggesting at 1946 DOB are relying on online sources of very limited use.

If there is no online link to the official records, then we need as a minimum to quote both DOBs or place a Disputed tag in the lead. 86.154.177.24 (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you need an online link nothing as far as I know requires references in wikipedia to be online. It is not difficult to get a certificate from https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/default.asp Please assume good faith on other editors providing information, a few years ago all the birth, marriage and death indices were available in London for anybody to inspect and then order the certificate but as a cost saving measure the GRO allowed websites to carry the information and a complete set of GRO Indexes are available to view in microfiche format at Birmingham Central Library, Bridgend Reference and Information Library, The British Library, City of Westminster Archives Centre, London Metropolitan Archives, Greater Manchester County Record Office and Plymouth Central Library. All we need is something like Sladen was born in 1948, although official records indicate she may have been born earlier in 1946 or similar. The issue is not the GRO source but does the source relate to the same person. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I am querying it because the originating editors are making a claim that runs contrary to many other sources. When challenged here on the Talk page, the challenging editor was told to come up with a reliable source... but we are told the only reliable source is behind a paywall or will cost us the price of a certificate.

I repeat - a source that is not freely available to all readers is not a source at all.

May I assume there is no online source? If so, I'll begin an RfD. 86.154.177.24 (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Although I am trying to make the situation clear I am still not sure why you doubt the other editors, have not been involved in the edits dont have an axe to grind either way and came along in good faith and found the same information as the other editors. I also explained clearly how it can be used as source. Just to use your phrase - I repeat no requirement on wikipedia for sources to be online. MilborneOne (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please withdraw your accusation suggesting I doubt editors' goodwill. Line one of my first para: "I do not doubt the good faith of the editors who suggest a 1946 birth date" and I continue to hold that view. Your suggestion is, itself contrary to WP:AGF

I also have no axe to grind (how could anyone? We're discussing a dead actress's DOB.) nor have I edited.

For the sake of clarity: I doubt the validity currently provided source online source which is, in reality, useless for the majority.

If the source is not available freely online, the link is useless and should be re-worked to prove sufficient information to allow readers to access hardcopy of the info. It is not in dispute that the vast majority of other sources suggest a 1948 DOB, and this should therefore be acknowledged in the lead (or perhaps infobox, although that may be rather messy.)

An RfD seems inevitable. Pity, as they are something of a time-waste. 86.154.177.24 (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about any accusations I was just frustrated at repeating the same comment, the point I had was that the online sources are just a copy of the General Register Office index entry and that is what should be referenced not the online websites. The GRO reference allows you to reference the appropriate index. Interestingly the Guardian has changed the dob to 1946, they are a reliable source http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/apr/20/doctor-who-fantasy. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Apology cheerfully accepted and thank you!

I agree with you re the Guardian. Might I suggest the removal of the paywall-protected links? Sadly, I have to ask you to do this as I cannot access my full account from work. Your choice. :)

63 or 65, she looked amazing for either age, and an inspiration for those of us determined to tackle middle-age spread.

I do hope Fate has no plans to take yet more childhood away this year. Losing Nick Courtney and now Lis Sladen in quick succession... well, I guess that's wandering into personal chit-chat of a sad nature. I'll shut up. :( 86.154.177.24 (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Paywall ref changed to GRO reference. MilborneOne (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

For those who dislike the paywall, here is a free site for English & Welsh births, marriages & deaths, but they haven't totally completed the year 1946 yet: http://www.freebmd.org.uk/ This whole discussion reminds me of the current one surrounding Taio Cruz, who is listed as being born in 1980 in official records while fans insist he was born in 1982 or 1983 with his stage name and will not accept the ancestry paywall (see his discussion page). And the media cited just feed off each other, citing the incorrect year! Ravenscroft32 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remind those involved that "paywall" sources are not discouraged on Wikipedia, and are valid sources as long as they pass the reliability criteria. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources (WP:PAYWALL). --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Now added non-paywall reference to FreeBMD. Hope this clears up the problem. Ronstar308 (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Elisabeth Sladen was born in 1948, definitely not 1946

How can people actually think it was 1946? It has been stated by the BBC, the Doctor Who production crew, Tom Baker and several other cast members she was 63, the people and organisations who knew her well. Which makes her birth 1948.

Tom Baker was a very close friend, so here is his source: http://www.tom-baker.co.uk/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=159 At the top of the page. Empoleon9 (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider that a reliable source, but how about this one? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8464295/Elisabeth-Sladen.html "Elisabeth Sladen was born in Liverpool on February 1 1948..." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Never mind -- if the Guardian published 1946 as a correction, they must have been quite sure it was correct. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The 1946 date is perfectly possible, of course though I agree with you the '48 date is given by the vast majority of sources online, Actresses are known to occasionally tweak their DOBs for professional purposes. Alas, the official records are behind a paywall. 86.154.177.24 (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely the fact people who knew her personally say she was 63 is more reliable. Tom Baker's website would be a reliable source, he wrote that page himself and I doubt he would have got her birth date wrong, as would several other people. Empoleon9 (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, reliability doesn't work that way on WP. We don't (well, we try not to) make assumptions like "TB was ES's mate, so he probably should have known."

Reliable editors are stating 1946, and I suspect they are right. It seems probable that official records also support the possibility that ES was telling a small, harmless white lie to lengthen her career. The irony is that she looked great for her claimed 63 years and bloody amazing for someone of 65! In her place, I would have added 5 years to my age and crowed about how great I looked! ":86.154.177.24 (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The BBC which mrs E Sladen work for for over many years claims she was born in 1948 1st Feb and also i think this should be corrcet befor it is reported to her Puplisict and here is a referance (http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/news/bulletin_110419_01/Elisabeth_Sladen) this states she was 63 and as the BBC paid salary to her, the late Mrs E sladen Would be unable to lie on her application form and her tax records so i think this should be corrected.

Um. she was Mrs Miller or, professionally, Miss Sladen. We have no idea exactly how she was paid, or that there ever was an "application form" (more likely a contract), etc. Please remember to sign your comments. 86.154.177.24 (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

All you have to do is look at the BBC her Employer which says she died aged 63 which means she was born in 1948, please correct this and sorry i do not know how to sign cooments, please state how to below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Business badger (talk • contribs) 21:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Four tildes (4 x ~) will give you a signature. Place it at the end of your message which will then be automatically signed and dated when you save. Britmax (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Births England and Wales 1837-2006 is free for anyone to search. Jim Michael (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

on tje 23/04/2011 on BBC when dr who was shown and was dedacated to her, the date of birth was 1968 :P please correct this Business badger (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You are arguing with the contemporary birth records, from the online register you have been repeatedly urged to consult. Also, as I said on your talk page. you would be advised to read your contributions before pressing "Save". I don't think she'd have got the role of Sarah Jane Smith at the age of five. Britmax (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Just out of interest for those that like free online sources she also appears in http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl although they have the name spelt as Elizabeth. If you follow the links it does give you an image of the scan of the index. MilborneOne (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth discussion

http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?51615-Obituary-Elisabeth-Claira-Heath-Sladen-The-Sarah-Jane-Adventures-Dr-Who-Etc http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/elisabeth-sladen-%E2%80%93-the-one-and-only-18444.htm http://www.corrie.net/profiles/actors/sladen_elisabeth.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13156306 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0805207/ http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2011/04/dwn190411204508-elisabeth-sladen-1948.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/news/bulletin_110419_01/Elisabeth_Sladen http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13137674 http://tv.uk.msn.com/photos/photos.aspx?cp-documentid=157116370

all these Websites are all academically Reconised and all claim that the Late Mrs E Sladen, was 63 at her death, also other articals by tom baker and David Tennet say she was 63, can the main editor please correct this.

All her co-workers are saying she was 63, please correct this, even though this is not a vaild academic stie people still belive this and i think the BBC can not be wrong. Business badger (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No reason to believe that all her friends and work colleagues (and fan sites) knew her age she would have been consistent through her career as to her date of birth but please see discussions above. MilborneOne (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And there are as many sites that state 1946. Unless you have compelling new evidence... 86.154.177.24 (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I will add more Websites and the live news report claimed 63, this means she was born in 1948, the only way to settel this will be to look up her Birth Records. However for now I belive it should be set at what the BBC claims it to be. Business badger (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* Her birth records _were_ looked up. Try reading the rest of the page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Business Badger, please stop endlessly repeating yourself, mate. Please also read the discussion further up this page - the points you keep making have already been covered, 86.154.177.24 (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As has been said above it's not uncommon for actors to tweak their ages; it's now clear that she was born in 1946, not 1948 as previously thought. End of.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And your evideance is? Business badger (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you doing this on purpose? Jim Michael has already answered this in the previous section - go to Birth Indexes England and Wales 1837-2006 and do a search for Elizabeth Sladen, and you will be enlightened.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

She was 63, her daughter said so. 1946 is not the year she was born!--81.144.235.66 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

How do you reconcile the evidence of her birth certificate, which is an official document and which clearly states 1946 as the year she was born? I suspect her daughter is simply backing up the common practise of actresses given a later year in their CV. Let's put this to bed please! Coopuk (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Cancer in the infobox?

Is her cause of death (cancer) significant enough to be included in an infobox?--Scott Mac 16:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

While the fact she died from cancer is currently newsworthy, and certainly belongs in the article, I'd suggest that it doesn't belong in the infobox. I removed it, and it was replaced.

An infobox ought to summarise the most important information about someone - name, birth, profession, death. In the case of an actress, perhaps lead roles. Her cause of death is not part of her renown, nor is it significant, nor is it atypical (unfortunately). There is simply no reason for this to be highlighted amongst the most important facts in an infobox.--Scott Mac 17:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd concur here. The cause of death is quite unusual to include in infoboxes; it usually happens when the event of them dying is itself a major part of why that person's encyclopedically significant, which isn't the case here. Shimgray | talk | 17:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

An infobox is meant to convey relevant information about the subject. The subject's cause of death is relevant, and is one of the things that the reader wants to know. It is included in dozens of infoboxes, it is not unusual. The advantage of including it is to quickly inform the reader of information they are looking for - many do not read the whole article. There is no disadvantage to including it. Jim Michael (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The cause is only relevant and being asked about because she's so recently died and it is in the news. But we are not writing news but a long-term encyclopedia. Beyond that, people reading this article may be looking for any number of bits of information - TV shows she was in, which "Doctor" she stared with - who knows? Her death, other than being early, is not particularly notable.--Scott Mac 19:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Things are often removed with the 'reason' of "not relevant to subject's notability". On that basis, her date and place of birth should be removed, as no-one is claiming she is notable for being born in Liverpool in 1946. However, this a biography, it is about her life, not merely an essay about her notable work. Obviously, one of the most relevant things about a dead person is their cause of death. It is not only now that readers will want to know what she died of. It is common for people to read the bios of actors who died decades ago to find out the causes of their deaths. It is a parameter of the person ibox for the reason that it is one of the main things a reader of an article wants to know. They often don't read the whole article, but are likely to read the infobox. Nowhere does it say to only include the c.o.d. if it is relevant to the subject's notability. Jim Michael (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The comparison is invalid. Someone's date of birth and death situates their life and work. When people look at the biography of a deceased person, they generally want to know what they were famous for, and what period they lived in. They are seldom going to be looking for their cause of death.--Scott Mac 21:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I and people I know often look for, among other things, the cause of death on biographies of dead people. I don't think that is unusual, and I'm not part of any subculture. Hence I disagree that people 'seldom' look for the c.o.d. If you were to give a brief account of Steve McQueen, you wouldn't neglect to mention that he died of mesothelioma. Likewise with Patrick Swayze, you wouldn't fail to mention that he died of pancreatic cancer. Their c.o.d.s are not minor side issues of little relevance. Jim Michael (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see what others think. I suspect your attitude may be idiosyncratic.--Scott Mac 22:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The cause of death in the info box looks odd to me, because for a 60-something cancer isn't unusual. When I have a quick look at an actor's wikipage, I want to know what they are known for/age/photo. --Tabya (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

On the note as to how often this is done, it's certainly been my experience that we don't list it except in particularly unusual circumstances. I've done a bit of checking to corroborate this assumption, though, by sampling a comparable category (category:Actors from Liverpool); of the thirty I checked, ten are both dead and have infoboxes, of which seven explicitly give cause-of-death in the text of the article, and none give it in the infobox. Shimgray | talk | 00:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That's because no-one has added it, not because there's a rule against it. Most Wikipedia articles, and their infoboxes, are lacking important info. I can't see by what measure anyone is saying that cause of death is not a relevant point in an account of a dead person. I cannot be the only person to think it's relevant, as it was another person who reinstated to the ibox the cause and location of death, saying: ..."it is a fairly essential part of her bio..." after they were removed in one edit. Jim Michael (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If the vast majority of infoboxes don't include particular details which are present in the article, it suggests to me that a lot of people have deliberately decided not to put it there; editorial choices can be inferred negatively as well as positively. YMMV. Shimgray | talk | 13:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Until October, there was an actor infobox. It was abolished because it had too few fields. As there has only been six months in which it has been possible to enter the c.o.d. into the infobox of articles on actors, most editors are either unaware of the c.o.d. field's existence, or have not got round to entering the info in the ibox. Nowhere does it say not to include it, or to only include it in a small minority of cases. Jim Michael (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I cant see any problem with including the cause of death in the infobox it is just repeating the contents of the article and providing a quick summary, if it is notable enough for the main body and is referenced and as far as I am aware has not been questioned as a cause I dont see the issue. MilborneOne (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

THat rather misses the point. There isn't a "problem" with it, it is referenced in the article and isn't controversial. However, there are about 100 facts referenced in the article, the question is: in the summary of the article, which the infobox should be, is this one of the facts that should be pulled out and emphasised, about the other 05. We could put her production list, employment, alma mater, and any number of facts in the infobox, the contention is that this isn't a particularly important one.--Scott Mac 17:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute that there are other things that need to be added to the infobox. Stating the c.o.d. doesn't prevent us adding other info. Some things can't be added because they aren't stated in the article. For example, if the article stated that she has a degree, the uni and the type of degree should be stated in the infobox. It doesn't, so we can't. Same thing goes for her religion, residence, etc. Jim Michael (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just put every verifiable fact in the infobox and delete the article?--Scott Mac 18:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the cause of death should be removed from the infobox. It may be mentioned in recent news, but it's not a defining feature of Sladen, nor is it key to her notability. bobrayner (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Her places of birth and death are not defining features of her as they are irrelevant to her career. They are also not key to her notability, so by the same reasoning they should be removed from the infobox. Cause of death is rarely key to someone's notability, but try having a conversation about, for example, Patrick Swayze, and see how many seconds it takes for his cancer to be mentioned. Wikipedia articles about people are an account of their whole life, not merely their career. Anyone who has cancer, or who has survived it, will say that the disease has had a significant effect on their life. Jim Michael (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.158.239.240, 23 April 2011

Please change Elisabeth's birth year from 1946 to 1948. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0805207/ (Her IMDB page) You can also check just about any report on her death and it will list her as having been 63, not 65. Thank you. 71.158.239.240 (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline. Please see the discussion already on this page.--Scott Mac 10:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

IMDb is not reliable for biographical info. Many media reports claim she was born in 1948 because she said she was. It is common for actresses to lie about their ages. Look up her birth record; registered in 1946. Jim Michael (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of surname

Sladden? Slayden? Slahden? Someone who knows, please add the pronunciation after her name at the top of the article. Jim Michael (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

On her tribute programme it was spoken similar to sleigh-den or slay-den MilborneOne (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

I have prepped an invisible note warning editors not to change the DOB without discussion. It is:

You are welcome to add it to the article in place of the current rather inelegant solution. You will have to edit this page to edit as the note is invisible otherwise.Britmax (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The warnings have now been replaced with invisible notes. Britmax (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Date of marriage to Brian Miller

Was it 1968 (as stated on Lis Sladen page) or 1973 (as stated on Brian Miller page)?91.111.57.167 (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.57.167 (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

1968 according to GRO Marriage Index.GcSwRhIc (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected his article. Jim Michael (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Narrating birth dates/age rather than BITING users

OK, it's annoying that people keep trying to change this. However, it is also understandable. Someone sees the date on the BBC and thinks "Wikipedia is wrong" - perhaps unaware of the research and discussion on this page. Perhaps we need to spell it out.

I suggest two things. First, someone who's been involved with this might narrate it in the article. "Sladen's birth date has been variously given as 1946 and 1948. The BBC lists it... However, ". I suppose we could put such an explanation in as a footnote, but there may be no harm in including it in the article body itself. Second, I suggest that a nice big bold box at the top of this talkpage explaining what's going on and why could save grief too. I'd do it myself but I've not really studied the sources.--Scott Mac 09:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've thought about having a notice at the top here, as editors who've been directed to the talk page (after changing the article's content) may not know exactly what they're looking for – especially as discussion has taken place in numerous sections. Perhaps we need a summary here. I've also put an edit notice on the article page. I've tried to make it as non-bitey as possible (it was a pinkish-red colour but I decided that was too scary) but if anyone's got any suggestions on wording (or if they thing it ought to be removed) then just say. matt (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That's fine: the colour attracts attention without being too bitey (you can't draw attention without being bitey at all). In an ideal world this would stop all the unchecked changes: in this one it will probably reduce them to a manageable level. Thanks. Britmax (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added a brief notice to this page (it's at {{Talk:Elisabeth Sladen/DOBnotice}} to keep things tidy). Please feel free to change or reword it! matt (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And another template – which I was about to use but someone beat me to notifying an IP – is {{User:Mattgirling/SladenDOB}}. You're all welcome to use this if it helps notifying editors about this issue. matt (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, they're both nice and non-bitey . --Six words (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

More info with regards to cause of death?

Hi, I am quite new to wikipedia but am just wondering whether there is a possibility you could put more about the cause of death and cancer. If this is not inline with your policies then no worries, just was wondering what everybody else thinks...? Thanks Photon64 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone can find out when she was diagnosed with cancer, in which organ(s) and whether she died at home or in hospital, then that info can be added. Apart from on her death certificate - which is held at Ealing Town Hall, copies available for a fee of about £7 - I'm not aware of that information being available. Jim Michael (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Elisabeth with a S

I spoke to Elisabeth about her name. When she was a child, her mother would always tell people it was spelt with a S. Elisabeth is not a stage name. Many people, including people who say they are her biggest fans, have misspelled her name with a Z, in spite of the fact that Elisabeth is right in front of their eyes on the Doctor Who credits. It is very understandable that an official would mistype Elizabeth which is the more common spelling. Chelisuk (talk) 21:49, 07 May 2011 (UTC)

So how can you account for the fact that her name is spelt with a Z in the official records of her birth AND marriage? Surely it couldn't be wrong on both of those? Also, where does the hyphenated last name come from? The birth record is Elizabeth C H Sladen, not Heath-Sladen. Ravenscroft32 (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be wrong on both official records? As I said, even her biggest fans misspell her name. An early Doctor Who Magazine had Elizabeth on their front cover. Some TV credits have Elizabeth. Why do so many people get it wrong? When Elisabeth is in front of some people's eyes, they copy it as Elizabeth because it is the more common spelling. I didn't introduce the hyphen and I have no comment to make.Chelisuk (talk) 14:20, 08 May 2011 (UTC)

Examination of the original document on which the GRO record (cited here) is based, shows that the typing is smudged. The compiler of the summary used by ancestry websites misread the s as a z. You can see the original document for yourself, but the website doesn't allow you to correct the summary document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.21.153 (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It is smudged but could be either an s or a z, but on close examination appears to be a z. Compare it with the other lower case esses on the page and it appears to have a corner on the upper right where thee other esses are curved. It is not smudged on the marriage index where it is a z. GcSwRhIc (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does all the media say that Lis died age 63 if she was 65? They must have checked

Everything else I've read says that Elisabeth Sladen died age 63. Surely somebody must have checked before believing that she was 63! It is totally mad! And why have only people editing Wikipedia checked her birth certificate? I can't imagine what Elisabeth Sladen would think if she knew that people were arguing over her DOB!

MadetocorrectelisabethsladensDOB (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No one else checked because few other people need to know your age to within two years. It's just not important when you're working with someone. Britmax (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

We have 4 sources which directly prove she was born in 1946, do we not? --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not only Wikipedia editors, it's The Guardian as well. Check the refs. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)

And that's no rag. Your username is mis-guided as there is no error in Elisabeth Sladen's Birth date ;) so let's, ah, put this to bed. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It is very common for an actress to tell people, even her close friends, that she is younger than she is. Journalists often copy unsourced / poorly sourced info without checking it. That's why some media reports said she was two years younger than she actually was. We have checked the birth index, which shows her birth was registered in 1946. Jim Michael (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It is very common for women to tell people, especially her close friends that she is younger than she is.Chelisuk (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Jane Smith is regularly voted the most popular Doctor Who assistant of all time.

This should be added to Elisabeth Sladen's page because it is a key reason why Lis Sladen is famous, and more famous than other companions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelisuk (talk • contribs) 12:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That would belong on the page for Sarah Jane Smith, as it is specifically about the character mentioned, rather than here on the Biographical article of the Late Elisabeth Sladen. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And it seems it is mentioned with sources --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I can see your point, but it has to be more geared towards Sladen herself. Truth is - if there was a poll done on the most popular actress in DW history it would undoubtedly be Sladen - even more so than actor (since she crosses two generations), but until that happens, I would think the info (with the refs) should be on the character page.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a link to a poll indicating this? Coopuk (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No web polls, but it does get mentioned in various places eg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8464295/Elisabeth-Sladen.html. Lots of information is in two places, so why not this? How about "Elisabeth Sladen played the most popular DW companion which is the reason why she returned to DW many times, and was given her own TV series". This is key information to explain her career path. Chelisuk (talk) 19:56 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Because without hard evidence to support the assertion, it is POV. I could put a counter proposal that Jo Grant was the most popular DW companion in Stoke-on-Trent, but without the links or evidence to support it, it is just POV (I stress I'm not going to do that - it's just for illustration :)). But "most popular DW companion" is subjective, to say the least, because there is no hard evidence to support it. What I'd like to see is reference to a poll, similiar to the one reported in the BBC, where David Tennant was voted the most popular DW. Without evidence like that, unfortunately the assertion that she was the most popular DW companion remains POV IMHO. You could word it that she was considered to be *one* of the most popular DW companions, which is neutral and probably generally accepted. And I agree with Tuzapicabit that such information is best suited to the character page. Coopuk (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added 6 citations on the Sarah Jane Smith page. Nobody has answered my two specific points which I will reiterate. 1) Lots of information is in two places, so why not this? 2) It is legitimate to say "Sarah Jane Smith is regularly voted the most popular Doctor Who assistant of all time, and as a consequence, Elisabeth Sladen returned to DW many times, and was given her own TV series (On rare occasions, she has been beaten by Rose and Ace)". This is key information to explain her career path. Chelisuk (talk) 20:52 29 June 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the first query, the information is specific to the character, so it is correct to put it on the characters page. It anyone is interested in the actress playing the character, they can follow the link back to here, so they don't need the same information. As for the assertion about "Sarah Jane Smith is regularly voted the most popular Doctor Who assistant of all time" - unfortunately that remains POV, hence my suggestion that the word be tailored to reflect this. My own POV is that Jo Grant and Peri both remain more popular with men of a certain age - but that's another POV, so I wouldn't dream of putting it in the main article :) Give me a link to an independent vote like the one the BBC ran for the most popular DW, and I'm all in favour. Coopuk (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added 6 magazine citations on the Sarah Jane Smith page, and Wikipedia allows references to printed material. Why do you insist on a link? Chelisuk (talk) 21:38 30 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.82.118 (talk)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but none of those magazines reference a specific independent poll by readers stating that the Sarah Jane character was voted the most popular assistant. I can see references to the interviewer or the editor stating that the character was their favourite... but a reader's poll? Hence - POV. I still maintain that any references to the popularity of the character are subjective, and are best placed on the character page rather than the actress entry. Coopuk (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What I am looking for is an independently verified and run poll like this: http://www.radiotimes.com/blogs/1103-doctor-who-billie-piper-rose-tyler-voted-best-companion/ . If you can supply similar supporting evidence of Sarah Jane then I am happy to support your suggestion. Coopuk (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps my descriptions weren't clear. Except for the first one (1992, Gary Russell states SJS is regularly voted etc. He does not state SJS is his personal favourite.), they are polls. When I mention someone's name, it is the person who is writing the article in which the poll appears. Polls are never just polls, there are always comments about the poll. If it causes confusion, perhaps I should leave out the byline completely . Further along you will see the title of the article eg 'The Mighty 200 Survey' or 'Season Survey' which should tell you they are polls. I shall consider rewriting the references, but it might some time while I work out the correct way within the constraints of the template. Or I may just write some freeform text and see if that looks alright. I would also add that DWM & Radio Times are mainstream magazines that many people can check for themselves, and not low circulation fanzines.Chelisuk (talk) 23:20 01 July 2011 (UTC)

Americans

A lot of this artice is complete balls. It seems to have mostly written by Americans who never met Lis Sladen, or spoke to her. Lis was very friendly to fans in Britain, and told them a lot of information about her life. But I see that a lot of this information has been deleted from the article because it isn't sourced from another website. On that principle, no newspaper should ever print a story that hasn't already appeared somewhere else ! I could tell you loads of things about Lis (she hated flying, she was invited to appear with Tom Hanks in the sitcom "Bosom Buddies", she had allergies and was keen on complementary medicine, she was a life-long light smoker, etc.) but perhaps the people who "police" Wikipedia aren't interested ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.21.153 (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, the reason Wiki articles have to be sourced is to prevent people publishing information which is heresay, untrue and/or potentially malicious. For example, you may claim she hated flying; I could counter claim (based on the fact I lived next door to her) and state that she had a deep rooted fear of spoons. It's not true of course, but without substantiated sources, the article runs the risk of being simply a fan page. Please - for the sake of the subject of the article - let's stick to facts, not opinion. And no, I'm not American, although I don;t see what that has to do with it. Coopuk (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2011

This article is simply a fan page, as you put it. It is full of things that are just untrue. So much for Wikipedia. It was very telling that for years the article gave a date of birth for Lis Sladen that was obviously wrong (it originated with an American fan, and was just accepted by Wikipedia as a fact). About 18 months ago, I tried to insert the correct date of birth, but someone just changed it back to the wrong one. This sort of thing probably happens in every article on Wikipedia. I have noticed that Americans especially take Wikipedia very seriously, but experience shows that nobody should really believe what they read here. Otherwise you get embarassments such as even the BBC reporting an incorrect date of birth in an obituary.(UTC)

I didn’t begin this article but I seem to have made the most edits to this article. I'm not American and I met Lis Sladen many times. I’m just trying to do the best I can within Wikipedia. Is the complaint about this article or Wikipedia? After a quick skim through the article, the only information that I personally do not know is true, is about her father. All the rest is true. Lis Sladen lied about her age (like a lot of women), and that is hardly something you can blame on Wikipedia. Chelisuk (talk) 22:56 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please clearly identify what aspects of this page are untrue, with supporting evidence? Otherwise we're back to "Lis Sladen was afraid of spoons..." :) Coopuk (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, stop having a go at American editors. I've met LOTS of American Dr. Who/Sarah Jane fans who know just as much about the actress in question, and would do a fine job of writing this article using reliable sources and following all the wp bio rules. And I seriously doubt that American Editors had much to do with this article anyway - while some do edit articles on British Bio's, most don't. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how you can say the date was "obviously wrong" when it was repeated by half the newspapers in Britain along with the BBC. And since this article was largely based on what I wrote on my Companions' Home Page at [3] and for the newsletter I put out for the Elisabeth Sladen Information Network (which I ran for over a decade), I'm assuming I'm the American fan you have issues with. I can assure you that every word of my biography was based on printed sources, usually British. If you have problems with the content, take it up with them, not me. Kevinwparker (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Age of Death according to the BBC

I have found two different article on the BBC website and one says she died at 63 and one says 65. The links are below even the BBC don't know what they are talking about.

63

65

I have lodged a compliant with the BBC and they will investigate which is the correct information.

Sfxprefects (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Lis Sladen appeared in a chat show in 1994

Wikipedia allows printed material as references. I could just reference the magazine DWB 127, which (I repeat) is sufficient for Wikipedia, but in this case, there is also a scan of the magazine DWB 127 on the internet. So everyone can read it, and this is even better. I will mention DWB 127 in the reference if it will help. If you disagree with me, please give a reason, please don't say "he's right" :-) comment added by Chelisuk (talk19:19 09 July 2011 (UTC