Wikipedia

Talk:Doctor Who missing episodes/Archive 2

< Talk:Doctor Who missing episodes
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Lee Vilenski in topic Requested move 5 April 2021
Archive 1Archive 2

Cushing audio

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It seems to have been a real thing. It was discussed extensively on Roobarb's DVD forum, I think originally from a source in Nothing at the End of the Lane. The lack of a source is problematic, but there's no reason to doubt the existence of the radio play. More to the point, I think, is that I'm not sure this is really the place for that discussion. Though it seems to be missing, it wasn't an episode of the Doctor Who television series. There are lots of other things in the world that are now lost (many of them related to Doctor Who, even), which don't belong on this page either. I can sort of see an argument for its inclusion, but only hesitantly and reluctantly. If you want to talk about the radio play, the best place is on one of the pages about the Cushing Doctor Who films. Aderack (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Focus on the shift from wiping to retention

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article is all over the place. I've been trying to improve it in bits and pieces, but there are some major structural problems to the piece.

One of the biggest is the discussion of the end of the junking process, and the start of the retention. Bizarrely, the Film & Videotape Library barely gets a passing mention, and Sue Malden is only referenced in the footnotes. Meanwhile, Ian Levine is uncritically handed credit for the BBC's shift in policy -- which I am sure he is convinced is the case, but little surrounding evidence would support.

Every reputable source that I've seen suggests that for some while the BBC had been leaning toward merging its separate film and videotape libraries, but just hadn't built up much momentum until around 1977, when the BBC Film & Videotape Library was formed and Sue Malden was installed as its first head. At first she spent most of her energy just trying to halt the destruction, personally going around to talk to various department heads and countermanding orders where needed. Then after a while she decided she needed to assess just how much was missing, so she picked what she thought was a representative show -- Doctor Who -- and went from there.

Somewhere in the midst of this, yes, Levine seems to have turned up and thrown his weight around, first bothering Malden and then going to Villiers House where his dramatic story of the conveyor belt of doom is said to have occurred. And that story may well have played out exactly the way he describes it... at least, one of the many versions he has told over the years. But by the time he arrived the destruction had already been ordered stopped (though not everyone was yet on the same page), and the archives were already being audited for surviving material. So... why is none of this stated here?

A quick Google gives me this link. There are many more to be had. I don't have it to hand, but I am sure Wiped has much to say on the matter.

I think a clearer and more factual account would describe the period of destruction, with all of its logistics; then would move on to the shift in attitude and foundation of the new archive; then would talk about Malden's initial audits and calls for return of material (with some kind of aside about Levine's barn-storming and gymnastic routine); then would move on to the slow trickle back, from various odd sources.216.151.52.59 (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would seem very sensible. Bondegezou (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Doctor Who missing episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of language

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The language used in this article is often inflammatory or emotionally charged. It's understandable enough -- emotions run high at actions that have caused a bunch of problems in following years. Still, in the interest of accuracy it's best to stay as neutral as possible. For example: though technically true, instead of talking about episodes being destroyed, try talking about their deletion, or their clearing.

It's not like the BBC was populated by villains cackling over a bonfire as they burned all of your favorite TV shows. The episodes were lost for clerical reasons. In much the same way that Wikipedia or the Library of Congress does not preserve everything, or that you might delete a bunch of photos off of your phone to make room for that new app you want, the BBC was compelled by practical necessity to make the best use it could out of limited resources. It held onto a few things that it deemed particularly important (even though in many cases they could never rebroadcast them), and then recycled the rest so that it could keep making new programmes. Production, not posterity, was the corporation's mandate -- because the system wasn't set up for posterity.

So. It's unfortunate that the system was set up to be so ephemeral, but that's the way things are. The Web works that way right now -- because it's a fairly new medium, that people don't really think about preserving. The Internet of 1997 no longer exists in a meaningful form. It's all onward and upward. Why look back, when we can keep making new websites? Are there any villains here? Not really. There's just a system that in a few decades we might with good reason consider short-sighted. Right now we're thinking about other stuff. 216.151.52.59 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I also agree that the tone is unnecessarily inflammatory, especially when it says that the BBC "exploited" the episodes. (As for the archiving of the internet, do check out the Wayback Machine) Opencooper (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
"Commercial exploitation" is a perfectly standard term, not inherently pejorative. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"Reign of Terror" locator

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Bruce Campbell or a Bruce Campbell? - Richfife (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

That would be amazing, unfortunately doesn't appear so [1], but one can still hope [2]. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Article protection

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

This article has been protected for 24 hours because of the back & forth edit warring over Dubai vs United Arab Emirates. Please can editors discuss the issue here, rather than in edit summaries. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I have chosen to stop my edits. You can remove the protection and leave it in the current version. MarnetteD|Talk 23:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with the protection, lest others kick it off again. Forces the opportunity for discussion rather than bullying tactics. I only hope you haven't scared off a brand new editor by not WP:AGF. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it really should have been UAE from the start, to conform with the rest of the data presented. That was an oversight. --Aderack (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
If the protection was supposed to be for 24 hours, then why is it listed in the protection log as "indefinite"? Might Timrollpickering have pressed the wrong button by mistake? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 23:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The 1978 audit

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Much reference is made to Sue Malden's 1978 audit of what was held in the Film Library, but we don't currently tabulate it here. The current table in the "Recovery" section merely shows what was recovered after the audit. Perhaps it might be better to have a single table showing what existed (or not) for each story, both at the audit and subsequent reoveries? 

Nick Cooper (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Mission to the unkown

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

According to this page there are no clips of mission to the unkown but if you watch the recon of the episode you can see that there are clips of it. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2bqsns_mission-to-the-unknown-mission-to-the-unknown-reconstruction_shortfilms

19:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Scenarioschrijver20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scenarioschrijver20 (talk • contribs)

Those are stills that have been computerized to look like clips. Numerous sources including the book Wiped confirm the info as stated in the article. MarnetteD|Talk 19:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Those are not the one I mean, there are a few moments when there are a few seconds of footage. Those include the astrounauts getting infected my the hairy fuzzy aliens, a few moments of dalek action and a few more. 20:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Scenarioschrijver20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scenarioschrijver20 (talk • contribs)
Good spotting. It would be helpful to point out the times in the video so people could easily check them out. Personally I would guess that one of the tricks of reconstructions would be to borrow footage from another source. Dresken (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Here are all the times including the duration of the clips:

00:31 - 00:40 (Duration 9 seconds) 01:33 - 01:51 (Duration 18 seconds) 03:25 - 03:27 (Duration 2 seconds) 05:56 - 06:09 (Duration 13 seconds) 07:52 - 08:06 (Duration 14 seconds) 10:29 - 10:48 (Duration 19 seconds) 13:12 - 13:16 (Duration 4 seconds) 14:33 - 14:51 (Duration 18 seconds) 15:26 - 15:32 (Duration 6 seconds) 15:50 - 15:58 (Duration 8 seconds) 17:07 - 17:11 (Duration 4 seconds) 21:54 - 22:20 (Duration 26 seconds) 22:42 - 22:45 (Duration 3 seconds) 22:50 - 23:14 (Duration 24 seconds)

Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Scenarioschrijver20

Good list. So I'm going to operate from the assumption that the multitude of reliable WP:SECONDARY sources we currently have are correct and that something else must be going on. None of those clips provide any significant proof that they are actually from that episode - it's not like recognisable actors performing actual scenes - so here it would not meet a criteria of reliability for a WP:PRIMARY source. The following is my interpretation of it, and is only to give you some potential peace: some scenes are very stock garden footage and could be from anywhere, some of those look refilmed (e.g., the person twitching on the ground), some of the dalek footage (e.g. 10:29 - 10:48) is likely from else where and some are looped and repeated - or even obviously altered (22:50 - 23:14). Hope that helps you. Dresken (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

My thanks for your work S. Dreskin's point about this being a primary source is a good one. It might be interesting to contact the person who made this to see if they would comment on how they made their recreation but I don't think that would effect the situation here on WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 22:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Doctor Who missing episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate figures?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The statement 'Other long-running programmes have few or no surviving episodes; for example, the soap operas Compact (6 out of 43 episodes surviving), The Newcomers (2 out of 375), and United! (0 out of 147)' looks wrong to me. Compact was a on twice weekly for over three years and its article suggests it had 373 episodes in total while the Newcomers article suggests it had 430. Dunarc (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Good pick up, checking back on the history it looks as if the numbers were switched between the series for a long time - and then maybe copy/paste error at a later edit (see [3]). I've fixed it up - but also marked it with needing sources as the main articles don't appear to have sources for it either. Dresken (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Dunarc (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Doctor Who missing episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Doctor Who missing episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Doctor Who missing episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doctor Who missing episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Shada

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

This page is about aired Doctor Who episodes whose copies were later lost or destroyed. As such, I believe Shada does not belong on this page, it was not completed and did not go missing. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It's now completed, with animation, so it goes in the Animation section. It also, like The Daleks Episode 1 and the original Episodes 3 and 4 of Planet of Giants, was never televised in any form -- it could probably go there, as well, although obviously the contents which were filmed/recorded were not subsequently lost (thanks to a preservation order put on the materials, something sadly not done for the hundreds of videotaped episodes prior [although we do have snippets of recording sessions from some earlier Baker episodes, albeit only in black-and-white copies]). That, however, seems to be a topic best-addressed at another time, and so I will simply say that the section should stand, barring any misunderstandings we may have. Stolengood (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Animated episodes is not what this article is about. Shada was never completed - the footage was never missing, The Daleks and Planet of Giants are different to Shada as they were actually completed and the footage is actually missing. Just because it has been animated does not warrant its inclusion in this article - animated episodes like Scream of the Shalka, Dreamland and The Infinite Quest don't belong here either. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
In that case, possibly give it its own category/page? I feel like it needs one -- it was animated due to the success of the Power of the Daleks animation, and by the same team/director, as well, so that probably merits some mention, as well. But that's just my opinion; sorry to be sort of obstinate with the edits. Stolengood (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I think and agree that it is a singly unique serial (absolutely nothing else like it) - and I'm definitely not disputing any points you make on why and who created the animation - however the facts remain this article is about missing episodes and Shada is categorically not a missing episode. The article is not about what the animation teams are doing in regards to non-missing episodes. I believe the best place for this information at present is the actual serial's article, at a stretch we could have "see also" at the bottom of this article linking to Shada. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I respected your request to pause editting the article as I thought you wished to discuss to resolve this first - but you have now made it seem like you are just trying to force your misguided agenda. If they didn't complete filming an episode for some reason today - let say for argument "Twice Upon a Time" - would that episode then belong in this article? No way, missing episodes are the episodes that were filmed but the recordings have been lost. This article is about that loss and the amazing recovery efforts. This important history is not improved by including Shada which is a very different topic. BBC's missing episodes list: [4] - Shada is not on it. Dresken (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I can see both sides of this argument, although I have never considered Shada's episodes as being part of the missing total. My view is Shada does not belong here as it is materially a different case for the following reasons - a) It was never completed - all other missing episodes were. Even the original 4 part version of Planet of Giants was completely filmed and is believed to have been edited and ready for broadcast. b) Unlike the missing episodes, no part of Shada has been wiped. Indeed what survived was released on video in the 1990s. c) In terms of reconstruction Shada is the first partially animated story to be created with new material being recorded (Power et al use the sound track to the original recording) and so this does not make it comparable. d) In all of the number of factual discussion of the missing episodes I have ever read it is clear the topic relates to the wiped 1960s stories (and to a lesser extent the John Pertwee stories where inferior recordings have survived). I hope my views are of some help.Dunarc (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Shada can be covered on its own lengthy page. It was never missing, so it shouldn't be covered here. Bondegezou (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Censor clips falsehood

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article claims that the censor clips from Australia "precisely match" the edited prints found in Nigeria in the eighties. This is not true - there are still segments missing from The War Machines: 3 and 4 as the prints had been edited by other countries before reaching Nigeria. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

"All 1970s episodes exist in full colour"

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Not true - there is no authentic colour data for The Mind OF Evil episode 1 (it being the only one of the eight Pertwee episodes of which only telerecordings survive to have had the chroma dots filtered out), while Invasion (of the Dinosaurs) pt1 only exists in partial colour as the surviving print only has two of the three sets of chroma dots. This statement needs to be corrected.62.190.148.115 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

At this time, the full sentence is "Furthermore, after careful restoration, all 1970s episodes exist in full colour, which is not always the case for other series." Emphasis my own. Surely this is accurate? --Ae Daily (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The Mind Of Evil pt1 "exists in full colour" only in the same sense that those Laurel and Hardy films that got colourised in the 1980s exist in full colour. Both were colourised and the choice of colours was at the mercy of the aesthetic preferences of the person doing the colourisation.
Furthermore, in the case of The Mind Of Evil pt1, several colours are known to NOT be the correct ones - for instance Doctor Summers' desk telephone is a rather bright golden yellow on the colourisation, whereas the authentic colour of the prop, as revealed in the chroma dot based episodes 2-6 colour, was creamy white.
Let's face it, the authentic colour of Mind of Evil part 1 no more exists than missing episdes/unmade bits of Shada which have been animated can be said to exist.62.190.148.115 (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  Done Have changed the wording to "All 1970s episodes are available in full colour" which does not necessarily imply authentic colour like "exist" does.2.24.71.188 (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

'Short three-frame clip'

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

False. I've seen Episode 6 of Wheel, and the clip was longer than three frames. Vincinel (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

To clarify -- the extermination of Kennedy seen at the start of Evil of the Daleks 2 is NOT lifted from the end of part 1, as Kennedy's death only ever occurred in part 2. The footage of Kennedy's death seen at the end of The Wheel in Space part 6 is slightly different, being 3 frames longer. This is because the Wheel 6 footage wasn't dubbed off Evil 2 but was reassembled anew from the original tapes because they needed this 'flashback' sequence to be on 35mm film for playing onto the TARDIS monitor. Jpreddle (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Best survival record

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I’m not convinced by this claim that ‘only Steptoe and Son has a better survival record.’ True, Steptoe and Son is, as the reference notes, practically the only 1960s BBC series to be complete but there are many others that have better records than Dr Who. Dad’s Army (3 of 80 missing) springs to mind. I think this claim should be removed, or at least drastically modified to something along the lines of ‘only Steptoe and Son has a complete archive from the period, while Dr Who is fortunate to have as many episodes surviving as it does.’2A02:C7F:202A:5D00:2D20:4229:AD36:D8B6 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, let's compare. Over the time period that Dad's Army aired (31 July 1968 to 13 November 1977), Doctor Who series 6 through 14 aired, as well as the first 11 episodes of series 15. That's 255 episodes of which 7 are missing, or 2.7% of the total. In an apples-to-apples comparison your '3 in 80 missing'(3.8%) statistic is worse than Doctor Who's proportion of missing episodes over the same time period. --Noren (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Featured article status

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article was promoted to featured article in 2005, and was last reviewed in 2007. Since then, it has grown in size by more than 100kB and large swathes of it are unsourced. Consequently, it no longer meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. All paragraphs should be verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and supported by inline citations. DrKay (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@DrKay: In which case, see WP:FAR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Revisited

I was reviewing this as well for WP:URFA/2020, and agree with those points from about a year and a half ago, that don't seem to be addressed. Lots of uncited text, questionable sources such as "Dr. Who News" and Wikispaces, and this really seems to have grown a good bit of cruft. WP:FAR is likely to be in this article's future if the issues are not addressed. Hog Farm Talk 20:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 April 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Doctor Who missing episodes → Missing Doctor Who episodes – The current article title contains poor grammar. —ÐW(T·C) 13:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I see nothing wrong with the grammar and it seems clearer in the current article title that 'missing' is modifying 'episodes' not 'Doctor Who'. 'Missing episodes of Doctor Who' and 'missing Doctor Who episodes' are alternatives, but 'Doctor Who missing episodes' is just as good and understandable. Current article title is consistent with categories and similar articles, e.g. Dad's Army missing episodes. DrKay (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Grammar is fine.
    • "The missing red book": the red book is missing
    • "The red missing book": one of the missing books is red
DonQuixote (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think both to help editors stay CONSISTENT and to aid readers searching, related TV articles should be titled with the series title first, followed by qualifiers in the same way we do for the related categories (Category:Doctor Who missing episodes). I think "missing episodes of Doctor Who" is a better option than OP's suggestion which puts the series title in the middle of the phrase, but I still lean oppose to it compared to the status quo. Redirects can of course be created for these alternatives. -- Netoholic @ 19:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Who_missing_episodes/Archive_2&oldid=1194161156"