Talk:Doctor Who missing episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Doctor Who missing episodes is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)