Talk:Doctor Who missing episodes

Featured article status

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

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)

• Comment the grammar appears fine, please elaborate on why you think it's wrong?—blindlynx (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Current title is clearer and equally grammatical. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:07, 7 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.

Requested move 19 May 2022

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: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

---

• Doctor Who missing episodes → Doctor Who lost episodes
• Dad's Army missing episodes → Dad's Army lost episodes

– The main article about the subject of "missing episodes" is Lost television broadcast (and a UK list is at List of lost television broadcasts in the United Kingdom) which also has the redirect Lost episode, while there is no article on Missing episodes. Seeing as how the terminology we use everywhere else is "lost" and as these are in fact more lost than missing, these two pages should be renamed to be WP:CONSISTENT with the rest. Gonnym (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: the episodes were not lost. Most were actively chucked or wiped. Missing is the better term. If other articles prefer lost, then perhaps they should be changed, or perhaps they have their reasons reflecting the circumstances of the topics they cover. I don’t see any pressing need for consistency on this matter. Bondegezou (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose move. The respective fandoms overwhelmingly refer to the episodes as missing, not lost. O.N.R. ^(talk) 15:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As mentioned the episodes were not lost. Also WP:OTHERSTUFF. MarnetteD|Talk 16:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It just doesn't make sense. Great Mercian (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There is a documentary titled "The Missing Years", included on disc 3 of Lost in Time. Also, Richards, Justin (2005) [2003]. Doctor Who: The Legend Continues - 5 decades of time travel (revised ed.). London: BBC Books. p. 30. ISBN 0-563-48640-6. uses the term "missing" several times. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2022 (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.

POV on colour recovery section?

“In the early 1990s, an early form of the Doctor Who Restoration Team attempted to pair the low-resolution colour signal from these sources with the high-resolution black-and-white signal from the black-and-white film recordings. In this way, several Jon Pertwee stories were returned to a rough form of colour” This seems terribly POV: firstly, the restoration team was created specifically to carry out the project that the paragraph is describing (as per the Wikipedia article on the same). It may be the earliest assembly of the team, but it is the team, not just a form of it. Secondly “attempted” is an ineffective way of conveying that they developed and deployed successfully a new technical process, involving not just mixing the chrominance with the luminance, but also warping the one to match the other, given that the two sources were not the same shape. The results may not exactly correspond to the look of peroid video masters, but the end product is far from being “a rough form of colour”. So successful was it that the restored episodes were deemed suitable for broadcast and retail, and led to the financing of other epsiode restorations by the team. Jock123A (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Completion columns in missing episode list

I added a column for official recons and it was removed as it didn't "count" as completion and there was a section on recons anyway. There's a section on animation too, and I think recons using original materials"count" more than a recreation, and that has a column.

Although the "there's a section already" argument made me think - why does this column need to be in that list? a note with a link to the section below that various methods have been used to complete it would be sufficient Thoughts?

Etron81 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Two Hartnell episodes have been found

Two Hartnell episodes have been found 197.89.10.49 (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)