Talk:Doctor Who missing episodes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Missing episodes FA

I figured that splitting this off would make people more willing to dive in rather than expand an already bloated main article, and I'm happy to see I was right. :) This is on its way to being a candidate for peer review and perhaps after that FAC. It'd be good to have a completely non-crufty Doctor Who FA. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Sometimes, it's difficult to find something to do when activity slows, so a new article always livens things up. Also, I was on RC patrol today and noticed you moving "Doctor Who Missing Episodes" (then a redirect) to the current title, and knew you were up to something :). It's interesting what you say about the FAC, because although I think Doctor (Doctor Who) and History of Doctor Who are fantastic articles, they get quite geeky at times (of course, I don't doubt that many of us consider that a good thing, but that's that) and are therefore unlikely to get Featured status :( , but I can see this one (with some rewriting and expanding, of course) getting through. --Sean Jelly Baby? 02:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think History of Doctor Who only gets particularly geeky when it reaches the new series bit – mind you, I probably would say that given that I wrote most of the earlier stuff! However, there's a good reason for that. With the 'classic series' history it's easier to pick out what was important, but with the new series the temptation is to throw *everything* in because we have so much detail so readily available, which is why it's a bit out of proportion to the other sections at the moment. Anyway, as for this piece, it'd be great if we could get it up to FA standard. It would certainly be good to have a 'serious' Doctor Who piece there, and also it would be good to have a high-standard article on the problem of junkings, as the general Wiping (magnetic tape) page isn't that great and probably in the wrong place anyway, as it also refers to the junking of telerecordings. But anyway, that's not really for here. Angmering 08:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, good luck with the current FA candidacy! I hope my little two cents can help :) --JohnDBuell | Talk 17:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh and one teeny weenie little quibble - chronologically shouldn't the section on Recovery come BEFORE the section on Restoration? --JohnDBuell | Talk 17:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought that, and re-structured it as such at one point. M'learned friends disagreed by the looks of it. Anybody have any other thoughts on the matter? Angmering 17:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

My fault, I'm afraid. I shuffled Restoration before Recovery because I felt that it made more chronological sense, as Recovery has specific events (i.e. the clips from The Power of the Daleks) that take us all the way to the present day. Go ahead and resuffle them if you feel strongly enough about it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I've made the switch. Even with the specific events thing, I do feel it sits more comfortably that way — after all, you can't restore something if you've never recovered it. (Although of course much of the restoration work is on stuff that was never entirely missing, i.e. the Pertwees and some of the sixties serials). Angmering 22:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

That was about the way I felt about it. Perhaps not exactly chronological, but recovery, to me, logically seemed that it should precede restoration. You're doing an excellent job with the article and the material; I just cast my vote in the FA candidacy. --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Syfy Portal

Check this out - horrible typos (like BCC, and "103" missing episodes instead of 108), but does anyone else get the feeling this was researched using Wikipedia? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If by "research", you mean they skimmed this article and didn't look at anything else, then yes :). Nice to know somebody's watching, though. BTW, how'd you find that?--Sean|Black 22:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that I read it more I think whoever wrote it based it on an older version of the missing episodes info. But be that as it may - I found it on Google News, doing a periodic "Doctor Who" troll through the search engine. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Missing Without Trace

Should the Missing Without Trace website be listed as a link? Much of the information is inaccurate. Although significantly improved over the years, there are still some really wild and unrealistic comments in it. And it doesn't appear to have been a reference used in writing the text? User:DrPaulLee appears to have added this link today to this article. Nfitz 19:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically, it isn't listed as a reference, but given that it's been put in by the author, we can justifably remove it as vanity. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Though Paul's article is certainly quite noteworthy in some manner - if only for it's place in fandom history. I've put some text on his own [User:DrPaulLee|page]. Perhaps it is his original article that is noteworthy! There aren't any "Doctor Who Fandom" pages are there? Or some kind of section on history and rumours, etc ... Nfitz 18:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The Web of Fear episode 1

A listing of archive material drawn up in 1976 for the Whose Doctor Who documentary (reproduced in Nothing at the End of the Lane 2) apparently shoots down a number of previously assumed facts about the archives (although it may not be 100% accurate - the holdings for Season 6 suggests someone got their episode numbers muddled). One of the surprises is that it lists a copy of this episode as existing back in 1976. Should we list this as a subsequent recovery or not? Timrollpickering 21:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions about Editing

Okay, why are you allowed to edit items, but when I do, I immediately get threatened to have my access revoked? Seems like someone is having a power trip in my opinion. I am only trying to improve the site. Ian Levine's harsh comments are necessary in my view due to the fact that he represents the attitude of the average fan who was taken in by "fans" like Roger Barret and Darren Gregory. I can also back up the source of these materials if necessary. It seems contrary to the goal of this website, which is anyone can be an editor.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.114.185.170 (talk • contribs) 12:49, March 25, 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is hyperbole to say that Levine's comments are representative of the average fan. Yes, he was upset, but it's sufficient to say that he was; what really is the usefulness of saying that he wants to wring Barrett's neck, or quoting him verbatim? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I just feel that the angst theat Mr. Levine has expressed in those comments represents for a large facit of the fan community the way we felt when people like Roger or Derren Gregory fooled us with "rocoveries" of missing episodes like Fury of the Deep 6. Your editing of my comments though made it flow better and I appreciate it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.114.185.170 (talk • contribs) 13:04, March 25, 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm glad we could work this out, which is all Josiah was suggesting. Simply reverting without engaging in discussion when there is a dispute just causes tension, and I apologise for any slight caused on my part. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are appreciated, and I will work to make more positive contributions to this website in the future. Your editing and typo fixing skills are also much appreciated.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.114.185.170 (talk • contribs) 13:08, March 25, 2006 (UTC)

As Khaosworks suggested, the reason you got warnings on your talk page wasn't the content of your edits, but the back-and-forth reversions. We call that an edit war, and it's a frustrating experience for all concerned. That's why Wikipedia has the three-revert rule — it's a boundary to remind people to talk out their differences rather than wasting time changing things back and forth.

Generally, if something you add is removed, or if you disagree with an edit, it's best to bring it up on the talk page (like you did today). Then you and your fellow editors can explain the reasons behind their edits in detail, and you can usually come to a compromise solution that's satisfactory to all. I hope we've done that now! :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of this quote, was it from More Than 30 Years...? I thought it was from the five-minute mini-documentary on missing episodes from the Planet of the Daleks BBC1 repeat run? Angmering 17:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the memory does cheat. I have it on a VHS copy which I personally taped off BBC One back in the day, and confused it with More Than..., which I also have on VHS. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, it is from the mini-documentary. I saw it air on the National Geographic Channel in the U.S. a few years ago. The documentary is quite infamous for not putting a positive light on the search for missing episodes, but it is an interesting curio. The title of the film is "Missing in Action". I made edits to that effect on the article. You guys are good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.114.185.170 (talk • contribs) 13:22, March 25, 2006 (UTC)

Nah, we're just big geeks. By the way, you can sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~ . That will automatically stamp your post with an identifying signature and timestamp, which is useful for following conversations. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Even better, consider creating an account and joining us at the Wikiproject! --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys all set now

Curious that such a relatively obscure and short programme would show up on National Geographic. Any particular reason why they showed it? I've never heard of that before. Did they show all six of them, or just that one? Angmering 20:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Hey, what happened to the pics on the missing episodes main page? - Reverend Malibu

Not sure what you mean. They look all right to me. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Must be computer. Funny the other pictures work on other pages here- Reverend Malibu

Find an episode and win a Dalek

As of April 20th 2006, the BBC are offering the prize of a full-sized replica (classic series) Dalek for anyone who finds a missing episode. Would it be worth mentioning this in the main article?

Details here: [1]

Don't forget to also click on the lower link on that site that takes you to the Blue Peter page with even more details.

Overall it's a bit unclear of the EXACT prize (for example, is it a working replica Dalek? Which model is it? Etc). Even so, the prize of a Dalek might encourage a few more folks to keep their eyes peeled for missing episodes.

Added. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Parenthetical comment

Does anyone have any input on this:

Currently, in the Restoration section, there is a parenthetical comment, structured so:

...of which absolutely no footage existed at the time. (Tele-snaps of the episode have since been recovered) The Doctor Who Restoration Team has hinted that similar...

which I edited to say:

...of which absolutely no footage existed at the time. However, tele-snaps of the episode have since been recovered. The Doctor Who Restoration Team has hinted that similar...

which I believe to be more grammatically correct for two reasons - first, I've never seen standalone parenthetical sentences, and second, even if that is valid, then it should surely have a period/full stop at the end. However, Yukichigai reverted my edit twice, saying I was incorrect. I want to be respectful of others' opinions, and don't want to engage in a revert/edit war, but I'm pretty sure that I am correct. Does anyone have an opinion?

GoldenTorc (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It should have a full stop, but apart from that, paranthetical sentences are permissible. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I would have posted the appropriate sections of some grammar guide but I couldn't find one and I was kinda in the middle of something else. And I'm not quite sure where to look online, other than some university websites which only uni students can access. I'm absolutely certain that the sentence is acceptable (except for the missing period pointed out by Khaosworks) and that it needs to be in parenthesis, as the point is to de-emphasize it as an additional bit of narrowly related information. -- Y|yukichigai 04:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, parenthesis... damn, I'm misspelling that, I know it, but anyway, parenthetical sentences/notations (last I checked) invariably belong after any punctuation marks which would come immediately after the previous word in the sentence, period, comma or otherwise. It's a head-scratcher and somewhat counter-intuitive, but I remember it very well after getting marked down almost a full grade on a paper because I had parenthetical comments which were immediately followed by a comma or period. Ouch. -- Y|yukichigai 05:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok - thanks for responding - will leave it as is. GoldenTorc 15:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

More on the Pertwee episodes?

At the moment the article somewhat gives the impression that only the Hartnell & Troughton episodes were vulnerable and doesn't give much scope to the Pertwee episodes. Looking at some of the lists of missing episodes for other series (particularly Z-Cars and Dixon of Dock Green) it really makes the existance of all the 1970s episodes look far more significant than the article currently gives credit. Dixon, for instance, has some gaps in 1975, contemporary to the first Tom Baker stories, Doomwatch is missing most of the final (1973) series whilst the last list I saw for Z-Cars includes:

• in 1970: 40 out of 90 lost
• in 1971: 80 out of 80 lost
• in 1972: 25 out of 50 lost
• in 1973: 20 out of 34 lost
• in 1974: 2 out of 20 lost

It seems that for most genre shows generally 1973 is the turning point for survival of material, rather than 1970. Also quite a bit of search and recovery has gone into the Pertwee episodes - maybe the article needs a slight widening of focus rather than the near exclusive focus on only the Hartnell & Troughton episodes?

(By the way if anyone thinks the Troughton years are badly represented in the archives, here's the rundown on the contemporary Z-Cars:

• in 1967: 52 out of 85 lost
• in 1968: 100 out of 100 lost
• in 1969: 76 out of 100 lost

Of the series as a whole, up to 1974 about 70% of the episodes are missing, compared to 29% for Who.) Timrollpickering 00:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Patrick Troughton era of Doctor Who was almost effected as bad as Z-cars, as the first storey called The power of the Daleks is missing, followed by the second storey, the Highlanders, then only episode 3 of the next storey which is called the underwater meanace survives,then only episodes 2 and 4 survive in the moon base, followed by every episode missing in the Macra terror, then only episods 1 and 3 survive out of the faceless ones and then only episode 2 survives out of the evil of the daleks. In all 29 out of 35 episodes are missing from season 4 with Troughton as the doctor, seems quite bad hmm – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § J2F Duck J2F Duck 09:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a pick and choose approach - season 4 had 43 episodes of which 9 still exist. It's hard to do season comparisons as IIRC Z-Cars was running in an all year round twice weekly format at this stage, but an overall comparison for the years in question is possible. Taking The Underwater Menace through to The War Games as the nearest comparison, 56 out of 109 episodes are missing - 51.4%. For Z-Cars it's 228 out of 285 - 80%, with an entire year's worth missing completely. Timrollpickering 10:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

1973 probably is the turning point, as the BBC launched its archive in 1978, and previously only deleted stuff once its commercial viability had passed - in the case of established shows with international sales potential, this was five years after its screening.

I'd agree that more emphasis is needed on the fact that many Pertwee episodes have been recovered over the years - I believe at least one was still completely missing into the 1990s.--MartinUK (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Similar pages

I've just started a page for Dad's Army missing episodes which covers a lot of similar ground (and is heavily inspired by this page). Help in fine tuning the background to the wiping would be much appreciated. Timrollpickering 21:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

References?

I'm sorry for seeming a spoilsport, but although this is an interesting and informative page, it could do with having a few more references in the article, considering it is a featured article. Bob talk 23:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is much improved now. Thanks. Bob talk 10:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Syd Barrett

I presume that the redirection for idiot hoaxer Roger Barrett to the page for Pink Floyd legend Syd Barrett is accidental? For all Syd's failings, I don't think misinforming sci-fi fans came into his remit! The globetrotter 23:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted. I removed the links, because I don't think that the Doctor Who hoaxer Roger Barrett is liable to have his own Wikipedia page any time soon, nor are the other hoaxers mentioned in that section. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hoaxs

Does anyone think that this section could do with either not being there, or at least having some sources and a large rewrite. Because currently it reads like a rant against a group of people I've never heard of, for activities that might be libelous against them without some sort of proof? I'll add 'Citation needed' to make it nice and obvious. Flibble 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Most definitely. I went ahead and removed the bit describing the personalities of the hoaxers as POV, but the rest still needs sourcing. --Brian Olsen 19:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who Restoration Team — reliability as a source

It was suggested a while ago on the Featured Article Review for The Quatermass Experiment that some reliability criteria be established for the Doctor Who Restoration Team website as a source. As it's used extensively in this article, I thought I would establish the reliability on the talk page here as well, just for the record. The Doctor Who Restoration Team are a group of Doctor Who fans who work within the technical side of the television industry, who since the early 1990s have provided extensive restoration to Doctor Who video and DVD releases for BBC Worldwide and latterly 2 entertain Ltd. The main page of their website explains a bit more about them. Independent verification of the team's activities and status comes from the official BBC Doctor Who website, and a feature in The Guardian. Angmering 11:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Amnesty

Should there be something about the amnesty for those who had in the past somehow unofficially "acquired" any of the missing episodes (i.e. stolen or pilfered BBC property) I remember reading that all the the BBC wanted would be to make a copy, the owner being allowed to keep the original and escape any possible legal reprecussions.Koonan the almost civilised 01:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

commercial reasons

Part of the article says for a variety of commercial and space-saving reasons. Since the BBC wasn't technically a business at the time (and still isn't), may I change "commercial" to "economic" or "money-saving"? Totnesmartin 15:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well while there was a economic and money saving rationale [ the cost of videotape for one )there was also a commerical rationale as well .

The BBC as a whole technically isn't a business yes but the section that sold programmes to other broadcasters was and of course still is but they were only allowed at the time to sell on programmes for a period of seven years due to various agreements (Actors,Directors etc )

After that they basically just sat in the archives of no use to anyone taking up space that could be used for programmes that could still be sold hence there was a commercial reason to get rid of them

Offhand though I can't think of a word to convey the mixture of commercial and economic rationales for disposing of these programmes Garda40 16:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there's a word all right, but it's POV so I can't put it in the article! Totnesmartin 16:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it from "commercial" to "economic" in the lead, as I agree that's probably better phrasing. Angmering 08:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Australian Censor

The series of events are the films were sent the Commonwealth Film Censor who was mandated by the ABC to pass (cut) them as G rated. The Censor files including clips were sent to the National Archives and this is where the recovery was made. It is a common fallacy that the ABC performed the cuts or the Censor archives were investigated. MartinSFSA (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Signals in Space

Didn't the BBC attempt to capture the signals in outer space using satellite technology a few years back?

Erm, no. :-) Angmering (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Best image for reconstructions?

Is Image:Invasionrecon.jpg the best image to use for the section on reconstructions? I wonder whether Image:Anim doczoe.jpg might be better, since it represents an official reconstruction effort. Or can we justify using both? Would that be pushing the NFCC too far? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed that the image from the animated version was in the article, but had been commented out by a fair use bot because there wasn't a rationale for its use in this article. I've provided the rationale, and restored the image. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation does not match text

This article is currently used to cite detail in the first and second paragraphs of the "Background" section, but it makes no mention of Equity and rights re-clearing with the union. I assume the correct cite has just got misplaced at some point in the article's preparation for TFA, but I can't see it after a (very quick) look through the history. Steve ^{T • C} 12:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if it's been corrected since your query, but the source cited for the Equity issue is

Sue Malden. (1998). The Missing Years (Documentary included on The Ice Warriors Collection set) [VHS]. BBC Worldwide. Retrieved on 2007-04-19.

DonQuixote (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they're in now. Cheers, Steve ^{T • C} 18:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Stories now complete after episode recovery

I added a line underneath the list of episodes recovered to indicate which stories are now complete as a result. I think it's justifiable to point this out, given that most of the stories listed remain incomplete. 23skidoo (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thailand

Good news chums. Apparently 9 episodes have been found in Thailand! Will edit article and add link when I have time. :-)

No, nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. This story has gone from a search for episodes, to tracing a hot trail, to recovery, getting stupider all the while. A bit like a snowball of idiocy rolling down Mount Halfwit. I'm going to write an article on Chinese Whispers, of which this is the perfect case study.

By the way Mr Anonymous, if it's not out of the BBC's mouth keep it to yourself. Stupid claims are a dime a dozen on the net, don't help them gain footholds. MartinSFSA (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a week, more than enough publicity. I'm removing the advert now. MartinSFSA (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Rumours

I have just removed the latest in a long string of rumours about recovery of missing episodes. While these have been demonstratably poor, there is no formal brief for rumour busting here. Hence i am requesting consensus to remove rumours, no matter how convincing. MartinSFSA (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I was responsible for putting in the possible discovery of The Web of Fear missing episodes. I listened to a reputable, genuine interview with a Doctor Who actor who claimed he had been told the episodes had been found. I'm not sure if that is classed as a "rumour" or not, but perhaps a little less of the Doctor Who thought police and a little more adherence to "in good faith" would be welcome here. Wikipedia is about the contributions of everyone, not just the Head Teacher. Paul75 (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What can be said in favour of rumours? Not a lot, and they only differ from their mean sibling the hoax in authorial intent--which is not at all apparent to the viewer, or victim. Thus what criteria should they fulfill to be considered for inclusion?

Notability. If it leads to a recovery. Alternately, if it can be demonstrated that there was a near recovery--say the film can or witnessed destruction.

Reliable sources. I was willing to consider two, but one's already closed its forum. Which leaves the BBC itself.

Note the recent Thailand story passes on reliable sources (reported by the BBC) but fails on notability as there was never any suggestion of recovery.MartinSFSA (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

BBC Archive Treasure Hunt

I'm just jumping around adding "The public appeal campaign the BBC Archive Treasure Hunt continues to search for lost episodes." to various articles. I am not sure where it fits in this article. Please add it where you see fit. Thanks.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Video camera used for original DrWho?

Anyone from the BBC know? This one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGvO29NQ8xs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

episode exsist

surely is the missing episode of doctor who was broadcast at the bbc the arial signal be be floating around somewhere

offcom are selling uvf space due to the digital switch over so the signal may still exsist?

peter stakes.

any thoughts?

One, it's light years away. Two, signal strength dissipates the farther the it gets from Earth. So, you're not going to be able to catch it, and even if you did, it'll be too weak to be useful. DonQuixote (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Biggest problem: they travel with the speed of light so as long as we do not invent a metalight drive or find some aliens who happen to have recorded it for us, no hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.178.103.225 (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Revision history of Doctor Who missing episodes

The assertion that Algeria returned the prints has been debunked, based on recently discovered documentation at the BBC.

Algeria was sold only nine stories within the range An Unearthly Child to The Rescue - full transmission dates of those episodes recorded here: BROADWCAST Algeria therefore can't have returned season two to the BBC when they never had it to start with! The episodes they had were in Arabic, so any eps they may have returned can't have been in English. The BroaDWcast website has full details on all foreign sales and transmissions. Jpreddle (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Missing Doctor Who 2.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Missing Doctor Who 2.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Found: Galaxy 4 part 2 and Underwater Menace, part 2

BBC News -- megA (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's Galaxy 4 part 3 that has been recovered. Readro (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Death in Canada

Why would the CBC have had a copy of Death to the Daleks episode one? Surely they didn't show anything between The Keys of Marinus and Rose? Should this in fact read TV Ontario? Angmering 18:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, mea culpa. I knew it was a Canadian station and thought it was that one. But which station was it who took over from TV Ontario in the late 1980s and took the series across the whole continent? Timrollpickering 22:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the Canadian showings, but I believe that aside from the CBC showings in the 1960s and from 2005, it's only ever been nationally networked in Canada on the Space: The Imagination Station cable network for a brief period in the 1990s. Aside from that I think it was all regional. I wouldn't take that as gospel however — I will change the CBC mention in the article, though. Angmering 22:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

YTV started airing Doctor Who nationally in around 1988; being the first network to air Season 25 and Season 26. They aired the older material until 1992 or 1993 or so. Space picked up the Hartnell through Ambassadors of Death which they aired nationally from 1996 to 2000. And BBC Kids has been airing all the extant colour serials (Pertwee to McCoy) nationally continuously since 2001. Regionally, TVO aired Doctor Who from 1976 to 1991, but only in Ontario (though I used to watch it on cable in Quebec). CKVU in Vancouver aired 13 of the Pertwee serials in the early 1980's. And the only other Canadian airing I'm aware of is TFO's French-language Ontario broadcasts in the 1990's. Wasn't Death to the Daleks colour material from Canada returned from BBC Enterprises office in Toronto? Not sure if the tape that was returned was ever at YTV (or just a copy that they would have later wiped). Nfitz 00:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

SOP at YTV was to dub whatever distributors' tapes for shows that came in and format the YTV copy to air duration with realtime breaks. IIRC, the copies were kept in the the library for the duration of the contract and then recycled. Natty10000 (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The two Canadian stations that screened Who in the 1970s were TV Ontario and CKVU-DT in Vancouver, both starting on the same day in 1976. At a guess based on who brought what and when returns came in, the tape of Death 1 presumably came back from TVO as it was at the same time they returned the Claws of Axos, the Curse of Peladon, the Mutants and the Time Monster. The other stories recovered from Canada (Inferno, Colony in Space & the Sea Devils) were only shown on CKVU-DT who returned their tapes in the early 1980s. It seems that every single Pertwee episode that went to Canada was returned (or already existed back in the UK). Timrollpickering (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"recorded by an American fan in the late 1970s"

The received story is fan Ian Levine had a friend in America named Tom Lundy hire a Umatic video recorder and tape The Silurians, The Daemons, Mind of Evil and Colony in Space, to varying results. Whether Lundy was a fan isn't known. MartinSFSA (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Also it's not clear in Lundy himself did some or all of the recordings - from what I've read they come from a mixture of transmissions in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles and were assembled via contacts. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Recovered episodes

There has been recent editing to the section Doctor Who missing episodes#Recovered episodes, some of it justifiable in view of the recent confirmed recovery of two episodes previously missing. But other episodes (The Underwater Menace ep. 3, and The War Games eps. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 10), which are known to have been held in the archives since the mid 1980s, if not earlier, have been added to the list. Are these episodes which were genuinely recovered, or were they always in the BBC archives? If the latter, they don't belong in this list. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The starting point is 1978 when the FVT Library was formed and aquired the Enterprises stock. The War Games, like the Dominators and Krotons, came back from the BFI after that. Underwater Menace 3 was always there though. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone keeps on adding The Underwater Menace part 3 back to the Recovered Episodes table. As you say, Tim, it shouldn't be on there. What can be done about this? 195.92.109.20 (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that there isn't a table to show exactly what was in the Library at that start point, so anyone coming to the page and only skim-reading it won't appreciate that the "recovered" table is for what turned up afterwards. Maybe the solution would be to amalgamate the information into the recovered table, with a column for "in Library in 1978" and another for "subsequently recovered" like this:

Doctor	Season	Story #	Serial	Extant in 1978	Subsequently Returned Episodes	Total
First Doctor	1	008	The Reign of Terror	None	Episodes 1-3, 6	4
	2	014	The Crusade	Episode 3	Episode 1	1
		017	The Time Meddler	Episode 2	Episodes 1, 3-4	3
	3	018	Galaxy 4	None	Episode 3	1
		021	The Daleks' Master Plan	None	Episodes 2, 5, 10	3
		024	The Celestial Toymaker	None	Episode 4	1
		027	The War Machines	None	All four episodes	4
Second Doctor	4	032	The Underwater Menace	Epsiode 3	Episode 2	1
		035	The Faceless Ones	Episode 1	Episode 3	1
		036	The Evil of the Daleks	None	Episode 2	1
	5	037	The Tomb of the Cybermen	None	All four episodes	4
		038	The Abominable Snowmen	None	Episode 2	1
		039	The Ice Warriors	None	Episodes 1, 4-6	4
		041	The Web of Fear	None	Episode 1	1
		043	The Wheel in Space	Episode 6	Episode 3	1
	6	044	The Dominators	Episodes 1, 3, 4 & 5	Episode 3	1
		047	The Krotons	Episodes 1-3	Episode 4	1
			The War Games	Episodes 2, 5, 8, 9	Episodes 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 10	6
Third Doctor	11	071	Invasion of the Dinosaurs	Episodes 2-6	Episode 1 (b/w only)	1
		072	Death to the Daleks	Episodes 2-4	Episode 1	1

Nick Cooper (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be intresting to include the table on what was in the archive when it started out can give good over view over the rescuing effort done since then.

Recovered from Space

This archived news page from 2009 says that two or so episodes were recovered from reflected VHF transmissions from space. Should this be inserted into the article? --67.174.2.229 (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you check the date on that page Stephenb (Talk) 08:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Episode lists

This can be worked into the article but as even editors are confused, for reference the list of episodes retained, recovered and restored are as follows:

Episodes held by the Film & Videotape Library when audited in 1978:

• 100,000 BC - 1, 2, 3, 4
• The Keys of Marinus - 5
• The Dalek Invasion of Earth - 5
• The Romans - 1, 3
• The Web Planet - 2
• The Crusade - 3
• The Space Museum - 3
• The Time Meddler - 2
• The Ark - 3
• The Gunfighters - 4
• The Tenth Planet - 1, 2, 3
• The Underwater Menace - 3
• The Moonbase - 2, 4
• The Faceless Ones - 1
• The Enemy of the World - 3
• The Wheel in Space - 6
• The Dominators - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (4&5 were overseas censored prints, in the mid 1990s a complete copy of 5 was returned, the missing footage for 4 was found and a unedited copy has since been found; 3 seems to have always been held by the Film Library according to the most recent thinking)
• The Mind Robber - 5
• The Invasion - 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8
• The Krotons - 1, 2, 3
• The Seeds of Death - 1, 2, 4, 5, 6
• The Space Pirates - 2
• The War Games - 2, 5, 8, 9
• Spearhead from Space - 1, 2, 3, 4
• The Ambassadors of Death - 1
• The Claws of Axos - 1, 4 (plus a studio reel with material from 2)
• The Daemons - 4
• Day of the Daleks - 1, 2, 3, 4
• The Sea Devils - 4, 5, 6
• The Mutants - 3, 4, 5, 6
• The Three Doctors - 1, 2, 3, 4
• Carnival of Monsters - 1, 2, 3, 4
• Frontier in Space - 4, 5
• Planet of the Daleks - 1, 2, 4, 5, 6
• The Green Death - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
• The Time Warrior - 1, 2, 3, 4
• Invasion of the Dinosaurs - 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (plus an early edit of 3) (although these may not have been found by the 1978 audit - the lists are unsure)
• Death to the Daleks - 2, 3, 4 (plus a studio reel although it's not thought to contain material from 1)
• The Monster of Peladon - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
• Planet of the Spiders - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and the repeat compilation

(Plus all the Tom Bakers produced so far. The only point of note was that the Deadly Assassin 3 had had the cliffhanger edited down; for the VHS & DVD releases it was restored via an off air recording)

Recovered from BBC Enterprises in 1978 (All complete stories)

• The Mutants aka The Daleks
• Inside the Spaceship
• The Keys of Marinus
• The Aztecs
• The Sensorites
• Planet of Giants
• The Dalek Invasion of Earth
• The Rescue
• The Romans
• The Web Planet (episodes 1 & 6 were edited, unedited copies were later found)
• The Space Museum
• The Chase
• The Ark
• The Gunfighters
• The Mind Robber
• The Seeds of Death

Plus black & white copies of

• Doctor Who and the Silurians
• The Ambassadors of Death
• Inferno
• Terror of the Autons
• The Mind of Evil
• The Claws of Axos
• Colony in Space
• The Daemons
• The Curse of Peladon
• The Sea Devils
• The Mutants
• The Time Monster
• Frontier in Space
• Planet of the Daleks

Also a copy of The Web of Fear 1 was held at Enterprises by this time.

Early recoveries 1978-1981

• The Krotons - 4
• The War Games - 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10

(The British Film Institute had copies of all the episodes from both stories)

• The Pilot Episode (found in a mislabelled film can already held)
• The War Machines - 2
• Death to the Daleks - 1 (525 line)

Plus colour copies of episodes held in black & white

• The Claws of Axos - 2, 3 (525 line)
• The Curse of Peladon - 1, 2, 3, 4 (525 line)
• The Mutants - 1, 2 (525 line)
• The Time Monster - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (525 line)

Recoveries 1982-1991

• The Reign of Terror - 1, 2, 3, 6
• The Time Meddler - 1, 3, 4 (all edited; unedited prints of 1 & 3 found later)
• The Daleks' Master Plan - 5, 10
• The Celestial Toymaker - 4 (with a minor edit)
• The War Machines - 1, 3, 4 (3 & 4 edited; some missing material subsequently found & restored)
• The Faceless Ones - 3 (with some significant film damage)
• The Tomb of the Cybermen - 1, 2, 3, 4
• The Abominable Snowmen - 2
• The Ice Warriors - 1, 4, 5, 6
• The Wheel in Space - 3
• Invasion of the Dinosaurs - 1 (only in black & white)

Plus colour copies of episodes held in black & white

• Inferno - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (525 line)
• Colony in Space - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (525 line)
• The Sea Devils - 1, 2, 3 (525 line)
• Frontier in Space - 1, 2, 3, 6 (625 line)

Plus superior colour copies

• Death to the Daleks - 1 (625 line)

Restorations 1992-3 A number of Jon Pertwee episodes were restored to colour by combining broadcastable black & white copies with non-broadcastable or inferior colour copies. The full episodes restored were:

• Doctor Who and the Silurians - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
• The Ambassadors of Death - 5 (plus colour clips from most other episodes)
• Terror of the Autons - 1, 2, 3, 4
• The Daemons - 1, 2, 3, 5
• The Time Monster – 6 (This combined a 625 line black & white videotape with the colour from a 525 conversion)

Recoveries 1999-present

• The Crusade - 1
• The Daleks' Master Plan - 2
• Galaxy 4 - 3 (edited)
• The Underwater Menace - 2 (edited; but most of the missing footage exists)

Restorations 2008-present

• Planet of the Daleks - 3 (specially restored to colour through a combination of a colourisation computer and chroma dot colour recovery)

Timrollpickering (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

List slightly updated; the main point being that it now seems the Dominators 3 was always held by the BBC Film Library as a 35mm print.

Also there's a lot of conflicting and misreported information on the web about the colour restorations. The colour recovery process is a lot more complicated than simply extracting a broadcastable colour master overnight, and requires a huge amount of post production clean-up work. Until an episode is actually released on DVD (or broadcast) we should refrain from declaring it colour restored. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Much of that was due to an anon editor believing that this page constituted a valid source for impending release of Ambassadors. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"The Web Planet (episodes 1 & 6 were edited, unedited copies were later found)" -- this is not correct; while the positive prints held by Enterprises had edits, the negatives held by the film library were complete and uncut (ref "Wiped" [g 419). Jpreddle (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair dos - there's often confusion when multiple copies were held at the same time, especially if the more intact version is harder to view. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"The Time Meddler (all edited; unedited prints of 1 & 3 found later)" -- the unedited prints were actually "found" earlier than the Nigerian prints, but their existence wasn't made public until after the Nigerian prints had been returned to the BBC. Jpreddle (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes this was a simplification for the list on what has confused many. But certainly from the archives point of view they came back later - the 1980s American copies were the cut ones. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Missing Serials Wiki Pages

Recently on a forum for Missing Episodes it was pointed out that should an individual with little knowledge of Doctor Who discover a canister in their attic, they may attempt to Google the title of the episode. Googling the phrase "Power of the Daleks" will result in the Wikipedia page for that article to appear at the top of the list.

The problem lies in that if the individual opens up that page and starts reading, they will not realize their film is missing until half way down the page.

I'm asking those who work with wikipedia often if it is possible to go to every page of incomplete serials and within the first sentence construct a phrase that indicates there are missing episodes in that serial. For example, "The Power of the Daleks is a currently missing serial of the fourth season in the British science fiction television series Doctor Who, which was first broadcast in six weekly parts from 5 November to 10 December 1966." Or at least something that will indicate to the person right off the bat that they may hold something the BBC wants.

I pose this question here since it covers a number of different pages that this article relates to. I have also edited the opening paragraph of "Power of the Daleks". If wikipedia moderators do not believe this change is viable, please let me know. I would like to work with Wikipedia to figure out the best approach.

SargeAbernathy (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Here's my idea for a mention. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly what I'm thinking of. If there's anyway to get it closer to the beginning of the paragraph it would be even better. Google prints the first line or so of a wikipedia page, and I would like that information front and foremost. However, even just being in the opening paragraph is good enough for me.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SargeAbernathy (talk • contribs) 19:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I like both the first line mentioning the serial being "completely missing" or "partly missing". I also like the mention of how many episodes are missing, as suggested by Redrose64. There has been little discussion on this so far, so I'm reading that as there being little objection to the idea. SargeAbernathy (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Destroyed programming needs its own dedicated page!

Doctor Who is not unique in this respect, as thousands of hours of programming from across all genres were destroyed by the BBC until 1978, when the corporation's archiving policies were changed. Other high-profile series affected included Dad's Army, Z-Cars, The Wednesday Play, Steptoe and Son, and Not Only... But Also.[1] The BBC was not the only British broadcaster to carry out this practice; ITV companies also destroyed programmes, including early videotape episodes of The Avengers.[2]
In my early acting days, I too was a victim of this ignorant wicked almost criminal activity, the wanton destruction of historically precious footage. I played fifth cadet in a live BBC airing of Cyrano de Bergerac in a 1968 black and white. Now gone, wiped, and irretrievable!
This is a very important subject, and deserves its own page, with the Dr. Who missing episodes but a part. JohnClarknew (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Be bold and start such an article. DonQuixote (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There's Wiping, Dad's Army missing episodes, List of surviving DuMont Television Network broadcasts. I'm sure there are more. Many individual articles have subsections such as Till_Death_Us_Do_Part#Missing_black_and_white_episodes or Top_of_the_pops#Missing_episodes. So what is it specifically that you are proposing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.241 (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2013‎

Hi, I saw you post about having pages for lost shows you may like to know there is a page to list all missing broadcasts of the United Kingdom List of lost television broadcasts in the United Kingdom the list is currently incomplete but hopefully it will grow in future. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us, Kelvin. It's an important page, and should be added to. JohnClarknew (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Tenth Planet animated

The DVD release date for the animated version of the tenth planet is currently listed as 18 November 2013 but it was included in the 'Regenerations' box set released on June 2013. I can't decide if the release date is just wrong or we need a note to explain. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

They are different versions. The one in the box set is unrestored (save for the animated episode 4) and has no extras (instead it shares a DVD disc with The War Games episodes 1-5); the one to be released in November will have gone through the usual Doctor Who Restoration Team cleanup of episodes 1-3, and will have the normal selection of extras. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't stop it being the first release of the whole serial (with the animated episode) on DVD in region 2 does it? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

UK Mirror reporting more than 100 just found

[2]

Given that I understand the Mirror is considered a tabloid, and thus for here, not a reliable source, hopefully someone better reliable will report on this. --MASEM (t) 05:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing this, given it's the exact same rumour with the exact same lack of evidence which has done the traps over a period of months, the only new thing is that it's in the mainstream press. I am adding a note to the page to ask editors bring any discussion of it here first, there's no evidence of ANY recovery. MartinSFSA (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In the UK, tabloid-style newspapers (as opposed to tabloid-format newspapers such as The Times) are not generally reliable. Newspapers in the Trinity Mirror Group (TMG) are not above the average tabloid reliability. Sunday tabloids are less reliable than the dailies. TMG has two Sunday titles: the Sunday Mirror and The Sunday People, the latter of which is more sensationalist and consequently less reliable than the former. The link at the top of this section is to www.mirror.co.uk which is why the page masthead shows The Mirror, but it's clear from the first sentence that it's the Sunday People that we're dealing with. Consider this source to be triply unreliable; treat it as a WP:HOAX and delete on sight. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all the above. There is only one source for this story (trinity mirror group newspapers) and there is no independent corroboration of it. As much as I'd like to hope it's true (wouldn't we all) it is unrealistic to expect it to be included until there is corroboration from somewhere else (preferably from an authoritative source). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd read the common sense here, here and here. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Not 100 but two?

I've just come across this which claims 2 episodes will be available via ITunes this week => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Radio Times is no longer owned by the BBC, and so is outside BBC control. Until and unless the BBC themselves confirm the facts one way or the other - either through an authentic press release or an announcement on BBC One or BBC Radio 4 - we should treat all such stories as hoaxes. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we need to wait until any facts about recovery are confirmed. One thing to note - since there are 106 episodes still missing - if it is anywhere near 100 episodes that would mean that virtually the entire series had been recovered. That feels a bit on the unlikely side. It'd be great to be wrong but we need to wait and see how things shake out. MarnetteD | Talk 02:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It's notable that there are no reliable quotes from anyone in that article. That is, it is simply reporting rumour at the moment. Stephenb (Talk) 07:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

BBC Radio 4 has announced this on their news bulletin for 6 Oct, 2013, in which they reference "at least 100 long lost episodes". Story begins 9.24 Highly doubt the BBC would allow mere speculation to go out on their airwaves, but I could be wrong. It has happened before. Atomicblue (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

"The BBC" doesn't quite exist in that sense of a single entity. Often one part isn't singing from the same hymnsheet as another, or even recognising the existance of hymnsheets. The news may report one thing but this is really a matter for the archives who probably don't have a veto control on what goes out. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The BBC Radio 4 bulletin linked above begins the item with the words "The People claims that a group of dedicated Doctor Who fans have ..." and during the news item we also hear "According to the paper, ..." and "The People claims the BBC is negotiating ...". They're clearly reporting on the spreading of the rumour by that newspaper; if the news were genuine, they'd say something like "BBC archivists have announced the recovery of ...". --Redrose64 (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

BBC Worldwide have announced a press conference for tomorrow (8 October 2013) where they apparently plan to make an announcement on recovered material. Whether this is just Doctor Who, or includes other programmes (the three missing episodes of Dad's Army have also been speculated) is unclear (Long-lost Doctor Who episodes to be unveiled THIS WEEK by the BBC). Reading the Radio Times article suggests that it may be more than two, and that the two are simply the initial ones that will be put on iTunes; can't see it being as many as 100 though. Hammersfan (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that had they found new episodes they'd just casually put them on itunes (before even remastering?) rather than packaging them on a DVD. Perhaps these two are the Underwater Menace and Galaxy 4 episodes? Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

What happens when the now-delayed press conference (...) occurs is irrelevant. Putting a note on the page hasn't worked, reverting case by case isn't stopping it and the mountain of stupid has gone across the mainstream press so there will be a week of this nonsense. Time to lock the page? MartinSFSA (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

What about using the form of text currently on the main Doctor Who#Missing episodes article? This acknowledges the reports (with multiple cites), but also the BBC's denials to date. It means we have some text (which acts to prevent other more optimistically-worded edits), but also doesn't make any unverifiable claims. Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Reporting the story sounds reasonable, unfortunately the only BBC cite is the repeating of the unlikely recovery claim. I suggest erring on the side of caution. MartinSFSA (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, the BBC have now officially confirmed that they have recovered "a number" of episodes, as the story has been posted on BBC News BBC to reveal a number of missing Doctor Who episodes Hammersfan (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is trying to be an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. It's perfectly sensible for Wikipedia to take its time and err on the side of caution. But, come on, I think we have sufficient reliable source confirmation now that some episodes (if probably nowhere near 100) have been safely returned. Bondegezou (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiping/Junking Dates

Hi, I was think of creating a table that list the episodes that were wiped/junking and there BBC wiping/junking date, I can reference this just want to know if anyone thinks its a good idea or if its to much for the article bear in mind its from season 1 to 11 the wiping/junking occurred. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk)

That sounds <Cyberleader>excellent</Cyberleader> if you're willing to put the effort in. Appropriate emphasis should be placed on differentiating between tapes and films (pretty much every story on the current recovery does not get the difference), records being inconclusive (months given rather than date, or simply absent) and records being plain old wrong (supposed destroyed prints being many of the ones we are seeing turn up).MartinSFSA (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad idea but I would suggest that care be taken. If you are going to be using Molesworth's detailed (and I do mean highly detailed) book Wiped you will want to avoid copyright violations. The subject is rather large so you might also want to consider a separate article with a link to it from this one. One other suggestion is to work out the kinks of it in your sandbox and then ask for input from the members of the Dr Who wikiproject before moving it into article space. Now, all of these are only suggestions and you do not have to follow any of them. MarnetteD | Talk 17:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Any further comments add to this link See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#Wiping_Dates Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk)

Found

Two of the episodes were found recently. --I AM A BOX! OF APPLES! (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The Crusade

The Crusade entry on the table is incorrect. It does not detail which other episode has been found and where. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.10.38 (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The episode was not ever missing so cannot be considered 'recovered'. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Flag icons

Where denoting countries with flag icons, it is the practice on Wikipedia to use the one appropriate to the historical period in question. In the cases of Ethiopia, Hong Kong, Iran, and Zambia, which I have change accordingly. I would note that we were already using the historically-accurate flag for Rhodesia, rather than the modern-day one for Zimbabwe. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The above is correct -- however please review WP:MOSFLAG, we simply don't use flag icons to attach to country names but only where there's strong national ties. The table of broadcasters is at the cusp but reasonably okay, but we should absolutely not be using them in the recovered episode table especially to replace the name of the country they were found; even if the country names were given, this is not the strong national tie to use flags with. They need to be removed from this table. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree that the missing episode table would be better with the country name alone, rather than just the flag. The broadcasters table would probably benefit from the addition of the dates they bought 1960s episodes, which historically contextualises the flags, as well as the specific identification of Rhodesia. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that the table does not need flags. Yes they are cute and when they were introduced last decade their proliferation was immense but they don't really add anything to table like this. That is one reason why MOSFLAG came about. MarnetteD | Talk 18:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

In the tables present state the flags are not useful at all. A reader can't tell which country is being referred to unless they put their curser over the flag. MarnetteD | Talk 18:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

"1.4 List of lost episodes"

The colour-coding of the table potentially makes it difficult to look at and confusing to understand. Moreover, the colour-coding does not provide any information that is not present in the table as text. If additional 'visual cues' really are necessary, would it not be enough to list the 'entirely missing' stories in bold type and leave it at that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.122.234 (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The colour coding certainly doesn't satisfy WP:COLOUR in terms of contrast, particularly for linked text. The blue colour for unvisited links in Vector skin (the default) is #0645ad  which looks like this  on the "white" rows of the table (it's actually grey), which with a contrast ratio of 8.1 is WCAG 2 AAA Compliant; but on coloured backgrounds we have:

•  highlighted red  contrast ratio 3.92 - not WCAG 2 AA Compliant
•  highlighted orange  contrast ratio 5.69 - WCAG 2 AA Compliant but not WCAG 2 AAA Compliant
•  highlighted yellow  contrast ratio 7.37 - WCAG 2 AAA Compliant

In order to make the red and orange WCAG 2 AAA Compliant they need to have the hue altered or saturation decreased - the value is already at maximum. If we wish to leave the hue alone, the saturation must be decreased just sufficiently to give a contrast ratio of exactly 7.0, and thus be WCAG 2 AAA Compliant. Taking orange first, we can have  highlighted orange ; but the red needs more drastic alteration,  highlighted pink . --Redrose64 (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

to be honest highlighting the 'Missing all bar one' and 'missing over 50%' seems rather arbitrary to me. I'd suggest leaving it just highlighting the 'completely missing' serials. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A more logical categorisation would be:

"Majority exist"

"Half exist"

"Minority exist"

Nick Cooper (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Whilst those might be more logical categories, I still fail to see what information they actually add to the table. By reading the text contained in the table any user can determine for themselves which stories have (e.g) a majority of episodes in existence. It isn't even as though this is particularly large table that takes a long time to analyse! If it is felt that some signifier of those stories with no episodes in existence is necessary, then so be it, but any further categorisation does not (to me) seem worthwhile or helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.15.104 (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur with the IP editor above. I don't see the value in marking "missing over 50%" or much value in "missing all bar one". It just makes the table over-complicated in terms of colour. Bondegezou (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I just scrolled past the table and I really feel it is a horrible, garish mess with three different colours in operation (and orange seems wrong, shouldn't it represent a level of loss between yellow and red?). I think only having one colour (for all episodes missing) would be much preferable. Bondegezou (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It really is over-complicated and unsightly. The text information is pretty much fine though, but the colour coding seems like an attempt to put across how many episodes per story is missing, in something similar to fractions/percentages. It's pretty redundant when the text already tells us that, for instance, episodes 2 and 3 of a 4-episode story are missing. Justin.Parallax (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus?

It appears that there is now a consensus, unless anyone significantly disagrees I'll remove the colours for 'nearly all missing' and 'half missing' => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, please make sure that whichever colour is left satisfies WP:COLOUR. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to change the colour to something else though. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

We should do that, because #F2CEE0, where the links  look like this  has a contrast ratio of 5.96, which is WCAG 2 AA Compliant but not WCAG 2 AAA Compliant. The saturation needs to come down:  this  keeps the same value with the saturation reduced just enough to get contrast 7.0, but by increasing the value to maximum,  this  gives contrast 7.02 with less of a reduction in the saturation. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd support the second one - the first suggestion is too gray. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 15:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

yes - saturation is a measure of how not-grey a colour is. This scale

 

is constant hue (330°, like the earlier examples), and on the HSV color model, is constant value (100%) with saturation varying from 0 at the left to 100% at the right. On this scale, the saturation needs to be 11.8% or less for contrast ratio of at least 7.0 to be achieved with blue link text. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Film Can Pictures

I have gotten permission to use the pictures from this website

http://doctorwho.org.nz/archive/tsv22/missingeps.html

of film cans does anyone think any of these images could fit into the article.

Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Marco Polo series recovered

Looks like this series has been found and is in the process of being restored:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/doctor-who-missing-episodes-seven-2839102

I'll leave it to page experts to make the updates.

HisRuntyDogma (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

wait for official confirmation. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

See #UK Mirror reporting more than 100 just found for some comments concerning the reliability of the Daily Mirror. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I am happy for the Mirror article not to be mentioned in the article. However, the suggestion made that we should wait for "official confirmation" (i.e. from the BBC) is problematic. As far as I understand it, core Wikipedia policy (WP:V, WP:RS) does not privilege "official confirmation" above reliable, secondary source coverage. It is contrary to policy to only rely on BBC confirmation.

That said, certainly under WP:V, one can construct a strong argument that a single report in a tabloid newspaper does not warrant coverage as it does not meet WP:V criteria. (Which is why I have no objection to the Mirror article not being included if others feel that.)

So, I suggest it would be helpful if future discussion is based on WP:V/WP:RS. Bondegezou (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The point is reliable sources and this is a particular area where many reports go off half-cocked and present unsourced rumour. If we included all the false reports over the years, some of which have been picked up by the national press, the article would be ridiculously long. Confirmation not claim must be key and there's nothing wrong about waiting rather than rushing to include & perpetuate dubious information. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but if, hypothetically, The Times, The Independent, The Guardian and Komsomolskaya Pravda were all reporting Marco Polo found, and the BBC were still saying nothing, then we would report it as true. BBC confirmation is not a necessary condition; WP:V criteria are. Bondegezou (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Are we perhaps at the point where the rumors are worth reporting on, however? Something to the effect of "In late November 2013, several sources including the Mirror, Mail, and Telegraph reported that Marco Polo had been recovered. The BBC declined to confirm this." Winter's Tulpa (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I would favour that. Bondegezou (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreeing with one other person does not constitute consensus, and so is not justification for this revert. Although WP:IRS#News organizations states "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." I do feel that in such a high profile TV show, rumours spread quickly (cf. "with others then picking up on the story"), mutating like Chinese whispers until there is no truth left at all. Such practices should be discouraged, and the way to do that is not to follow it with a comment that "the BBC said they could not confirm the report", but to exclude it entirely. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've done something along those lines: see article. I think the text I've added is appropriately unbiased and reflects what sources say. However, I can see that it's still a difficult call either way whether it merits inclusion, particularly as the additional reports in the Mail and Telegraph are just using the Mirror as their source (it appears). Bondegezou (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's as far as we can go. without a more concrete source, and preferably one which has images/clips of the missing episodes, we cannot do anything else. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 11:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

(response to Redrose64) I made a WP:bold edit in the context of multiple additional reports by reliable sources. That was my reason for the revert you mention. I felt the additional reports warranted a new WP:BRD cycle, if you see what I mean. My apologies if you feel this was not appropriate. On your other points, it seems to me that the question of whether "Such practices should be discouraged" or not is moot. It's not Wikipedia's place to worry about that. Wikipedia editing follows Wikipedia policies. In that context, I interpret WP:IRS#News organizations differently to you. The Mirror reports the restoration of "Marco Polo" as fact, not as rumour. (It's you who interprets it as rumour.) That the BBC then haven't confirmed the matter should then be tackled under WP:BALANCE, i.e. we present both sides of the story. However, this is not clear cut and acknowledge your concern. I am happy with Spudgfish's suggestion to wait for a more concrete source. Bondegezou (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I note there's nothing about the great Tenth Planet hoax of 1992 in the article despite a good number of reports at the time and even BBC Video modifying their plans to record an introduction to a complete release. Or the reports of the return of the Celestial Toymaker in the late 1990s, or the Web of Fear in 2007 or many others. We shouldn't even be bothering to mention the rumours from earlier this year about Sierra Leone or Ethiopia or the early mistaken reports but instead await confirmation from reliable sources - and that's reliable in the field not just newspapers of choice. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

In the case of 1992 etc., we now know those reports were wrong. Certainly, some reports turn out to be wrong and others turn out to be right. In the case, of reports in the last few months, we don't know whether they are or are not wrong. While taking your point about recentism, I think it's OK for the article to reflect current uncertainty. That said, I don't think this article should report every rumour: I've only added material on "Marco Polo" in the context of mainstream newspaper reporting and I've ignored the extensive, fevered rumouring currently continuing in numerous fan fora. I accept your point that reliability is "in the field", so I am not contesting your reversion of the "Marco Polo" reports. (And, yes, it would be appropriate to trim reports about Sierra Leone or Ethiopia now full details have emerged.) Bondegezou (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The BBC said they cannot confirm any new finds http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s7/doctor-who/news/a533296/doctor-who-bbc-responds-to-marco-polo-recovery-rumours.html and when Philph Morris was interviewed the following day he said we can't say anything at this moment. (with a smile). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWu2qV3q2X0 Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The BBC will announce the entire haul of recoveries at once in December. http://doctorwhoarchive.com/2013/10/28/latest-missing-episodes-rumours/ Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The recovered episodes table

I've got two contradictory questions on the table which has the list of recovered episodes. The first question that came to mind after reading this and the second came to mind when implementing the first.

1. Should we add the recovery date to the table?
2. Has the table got too complicated?

=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 08:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Should the table just reflect serials that currently have episodes missing? By that I mean, is it misleading to still include episodes such as The Invasion, which has now been 'restored' through the use of animation? 77.86.95.41 (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If the original video does not (so far is known) exist, they continue to count as missing episodes. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The Enemy of the World and The Web of Fear

here you are 195.169.141.54 (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Article links to nothing. Wait for the embargo to lift. CommanderLinx (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

To be fair there was an article there but as the embargo was in place it has been pulled. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Do we know if the embargo gets lifted at midnight British time, or midnight UTC (which is 01:00 BST)? Will the press conference occur immediately afterward, or has it already happened? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I've been able to ascertain the press conference happened at lunchtime today. As far as the embargo goes it would be BST (not that I'm in a position to know for sure). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you google cache=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I had put a semi-prot on four articles, with durations varying from 24 hours to 1 week. Now that I know about the embargo, I've adjusted all four to expire midnight British time, which is 23:00 UTC. I think that's fair. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you do the template too? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The Independent also breaks the embargo. "A still from a recovered Doctor Who episode entitled The Enemy of the World" 83.163.5.82 (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Just because some newspapers have broken an embargo does not means that we should do the same. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Why ? we are a press outlet ? why should we follow the rules of press outlets ? 83.163.5.82 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to report on verifiable facts. Our reputation for accuracy is, in some quarters, not very good. We should not make that worse, therefore we should avoid adding unsubstantiated gossip and speculation. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's more the "original research" rule. So if one of our people is at a press conference and gets it first-hand, it's original research. If someone gets it from news media (which we can't yet) it meets our standards of sources and verifiability.DavidFarmbrough (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

And we have a source. 83.163.5.82 (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

And either that's a bad URL or that source has been pulled too. I would think the only source to start inclusion on is directly from the BBC. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

People, there will not been any reliable sources until midnight UK time, when the embargo lifts. Just wait another couple of hours.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The Times is a reliable source ! No need to wait. 83.163.5.82 (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

So? A news embargo essentially means "thou shalt not publish until we say you can, even if you know it to be true". Be patient. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that embargo applies on wikipedia, especially regarding sourced information from respected press organization such as The Times. Can you show me a wikipedia policy regarding embargoes when sourced information is available ? 83.163.5.82 (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course media embargoes do not apply to Wikipedia - my point was merely that any reliable sources that jumped the gun, whether deliberately or inadvertently, were being pulled almost immediately and so were useless. The same thing will probably happen to that Times article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also wait for official BBC word. What if it is the case that these two are the tip of the iceberg, the first two out of several recovered that they touched up first? (in particularly in this case you are completing a full serial and the high "want" level of Web of Fear). In 50 minutes we'll have official word. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I am right now watching on iTunes episodes of Doctor Who who do not exist according to wikipedia. 83.163.5.82 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• You can now use this source, for example. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Word of god, effectively. We can add now. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

In the table showing Recovered Episodes, it has "The Web of Fear" ep 1 listed as being from ATV, which is in Hong Kong. However, the prints recently returned from Nigeria originated from Hong Kong - as evidenced by the RTV Hong Kong labels on the film reels. Obviously there can't have been TWO prints in Hong Kong. Besides, it was only ever conjecture that the earlier print of Web 1 had come from Honk Kong, but more recent wisdom by members of the BBC's Restoration Team is that it came from Australia, part of a consignment of old eps returned by the ABC in 1975. As I understand it, confirmation of where the old Web 1 print came from will be given in the issue of Doctor Who Magazine published on 17 October 2013. Jpreddle (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, DWM issue #466 (published October 2013) reports that's it's believed the film is from Australia. Jpreddle (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Should Web of Fear be added to the table detailing the list of serials to have an animated episode, as the missing episode is being animated for a February 2014 release? 77.86.95.41 (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The original video does not exist (so far is known), so it counts as a missing episode. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't really answer my query... 94.173.118.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Should there be a "omnirumour" paragraph?

Considering the massive coverage this has gotten in both Who-fansites and also in British media (such as the Mirror and Bleeding Cool), I think it would be appropriate that this article had a paragraph in regards to the "omnirumour".

Suggested title: "Rumoured mass recovery" - and it should cover the whole TIEA affair, how rumors began to appear in 2011 and escalated until the 2013 announcement, and have continued escalating since with several sources reporting that all or near-all episodes have been recovered, and how it, amongst other things, have gathered nearly 100 000 forum posts in the "missing episodes thread" on Gallifrey Base, the biggest Who-forum online. Lilduff90 (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No, see above and Talk:Doctor Who#New Missing Episodes found rumours. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Episodes found that are already in the archive

Hi everyone I am not sure if this is a good idea for this article but I would like to suggest having a new section about episodes recoveries that have turned out to be episode already in the BBC's Archive (could name in somthing like recovery of duplicate episodes) for example the Ian Levine recovery December 2013 in Taiwan see links Link 1 Link 2 I am not sure if its notable to metion any of this but theoryically some duplicate episode could be better quality than the orginal if was damaged. Please tell me what you think. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No repies moved conversation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Everything in the Taiwan "recovery" (if it does exist, nobody from the BBC or the Restoration Team has seen it yet) is redundant and is definitely not of a higher quality (based on the quality described by the supposed holder). Ruffice98 (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Propose adding column to table

For Doctor_Who_missing_episodes#List_of_missing_episodes next to Missing Episode(s) I think it would be good to have s Present Episode(s) one. It compliments by more easily informing readers what episodes exist of a compromised story. For example in Marco Polio next to to 'All' we could add 'None' while next to Reign of Terror we could add 1,2,3,6; while having 2,5,10 for /the Dale's Master Plan. Thoughts? 174.92.132.116 (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Episodes bounced back from space?

Someone is sure to try to add this, so I would like to mention that http://www.rimmell.com/bbc/news.htm is almost certainly an April fool's joke from 2009. The actual BBC does not appear to ever made that announcement. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

They have tried, several times. WP:DNFTT. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

April Fool's Day jokes. That takes me back. I remember one printed in Dr Who Monthly. If memory serves the BBC had found unused footage from Hartnell story that was going to be used in a new Davison serial. It raised a bit of a ruckus at the time. I can only imagine the furor if the net had been around. MarnetteD|Talk 19:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Missing tapes in North Korea

When Madeline Albright visited N. Korea, she reported Kim Jung Ill had something like 200,000+ VHS tapes. What are the chances N. Korea is hoarding some of missing episodes? I could totally see them trying to extort the BBC in some type of evil Bond villin plot. 24.51.217.118 (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)