When I encountered it, the article read:
- Unlike the Monster Files and other web-originated content, the canonicity of Sarah Jane's Alien Files is clear. The only aliens mentioned are those which the children had encountered before on-screen, and no information contradicts the main series. The TV edition also features new material taking place within Sarah Jane Adventures continuity, and establishes the Alien Files as an in-universe database created and maintained by the characters. However, on occasion out-of-universe material is used (i.e cropped promotional images), and the characters sometimes display knowledge of events they wouldn't be aware in the main series' narrative.
Which begs at least two questions. If out-of-universe material is used, and the characters have knowledge that's narratively implausible, how can the canonicity be "clear"? And, what's so unclear about the Monster Files? At least in the Captain Jack days, I thought that was all plausible knowledge for him to have, given his access to UNIT, Torchwood and Time Agent wisdom. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 14:11, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
- The promotional images are not an issue; once an image is used on-screen, it's an in-universe image. Compare the photo of Troughton printed out by Eleven's TARDIS console, the photo of Hartnell appearing on Eleven's library card, etc; they may have come from initially promotional photos, but since they're shown to exist as photos of the Doctor within the DWU their promotional origins are immaterial. In canon, at some point the First Doctor posed for that library card, and in canon every image on Mr Smith's screen came from some in-universe source. Possibilities include UNIT, Torchwood, K9, and the TARDIS itself, all of which Mr Smith is known to have directly interfaced with.
- As for characters knowing info they "shouldn't," the narrative clearly specifies that enough time has passed between the discussed events and their being related to Mr Smith for the Alien Files for the characters to have discussed things off-screen. Did you have any particular instances in mind in which this remains implausible? Rob T Firefly 12:21, April 14, 2011 (UTC)