Talk:List of rediscovered films

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Silent films task force.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

When

Shouldn't this list have "when" (and if not too clattering, "where") the film was rediscovered? It feels very incomplete with the current format. --Revth (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, feel free to expand it. When I get time, I've been working through the list, getting references for all articles and including more films. Lugnuts (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Rajah

The Young Rajah shouldn't be in this collection. It's not a refound film, rather it's a restoration using still photographs and what little footage exists. It would be better placed in List of incomplete or partially lost films. --65.31.110.13 (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for 75 films found in New Zealand

75 films recently found in New Zealand:

Lugnuts (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found only in torrents

This is about the revert from GH87, which removed the rediscovered "Cry Baby Lane" movie. Why is a rediscovery not relevant if the source is a .torrent?

Cry Baby Lane was the only movie listed as "lost" in the 2000s, and it's rediscovery is confirmed. The medium of the availability should be irrelevant. --95.208.128.7 (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is for documentation of lost films that have been rediscovered. A lost film is a film, "no longer known to exist in studio archives, private collections or public archives."

Do you have documentation indicating that it was believed that all copies of 'Cry Baby Lane' had been destroyed, thus making it a lost film? If not, the film doesn't belong in this article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed in List of lost films long enough, and was not contested there. The film was even already believed to be an urban legend. --95.208.128.7 (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It was listed in List of lost films long enough, and was not contested there." It was added August 4, and it was most definitely contested. The text added to that article claimed that Nickelodeon denied the film's existence. You say it was believed to be an urban legend. What are you citations for these claims? Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buster Keaton titles found by James Mason in 1955

Hi, I see you have the one major film of Keaton's listed; another found by James Mason in 1955 is "The Boat". Does anyone know the list of titles that Mason discovered and had restored? He found these in Keaton's old house that he bought and remodelled.75.21.113.40 (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Groovenians

This wikipedia page is a list of rediscovered films that, once thought lost, have since been discovered in film archives or private collections. A lost film is one that is no longer known to exist in studio archives, private collections or public archives such as the Library of Congress.

A new, anonymous editor has added an entry for "The Groovenians," a film shown on Cartoon Network in 2002. Several reasons why the entry does not belong.

It is highly unlikely that a film shown on cable in the 2000s would disappear completely. I went looking for a reliable source suggesting that Groovenians was indeed a film believed to have had all known copies be destroyed before one was subsequently found. No such source seems to exist, although the film was posted on Youtube on 1/30/09 with the caption, "Found this animation on a dvd in a car boot sale in uk."[1] This I can only presume is the source of the editor's text, "A copy was later found in a garage sale in 2009."
The edit has been reverted, and it stays reverted, until the editor makes a case for the text here, per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle[2]. "If your edit gets reverted, look at the article's talk page and its edit history for an explanation... If you have reason to disagree with the explanation given, or you don't see any explanation at all, start a new discussion (section) on the article's talk page to request an explanation for why your edit was reverted, or to present your argument." The editor has refused to discuss on the talk page, but has given us the pithy rejoinder, "DONT FRICKEN TOUCH IT ITS TRUE".
Here's somebody's blog post from 2007 talking about their personal copy of the film.[3] Not a reliable source, but then neither is a caption from youtube.
To quote the edit: "Originally set up as a television series though only one episode was ever made,Ever since the failure of the groovenians show it got stashed away by the director and for a while was presumed lost,A copy was later found in a garage sale in 2009." Perhaps the editor would consider returning to grade school to learn the appropriate use of periods, commas and capital letters? Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson City, Yukon

Does anybody know which films were rediscovered in Dawson City, Yukon in 1978? [4] . There are more than 500 films from 1903 to 1029. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.93.246.26 (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were over 500 reels, not films. I found a list of feature films and serials in the book Nitrate Won't Wait: ..., which I may start sorting through at some point, since it is unclear which were considered lost before the cache was found. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"No proof? Remove."?

What if people's hopes get up about the uncited films, and they turn out to still be lost after all? If possible, citations should be added to every film on this list. Theskinnytypist (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melies Cleopatra

According to IMDB film found in 2005 in Paris was believed to be Cleopatra, but in fact it was "L'oracle de Delphes" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.69.181.198 (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

It would be nice if we could sort by the year of rediscovery so this page can be checked from time to time to see what movies (if any) have been found recently.172.162.221.213 (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that some of them just give the decade, e.g. 1990s. Another is that many don't have that info. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we really count films that were released on VHS as rediscovered? (not counting films that were lost beforehand)

Since they were never really lost to begin with. Now I don't mean something that was lost for years and found in the 1980s and put on VHS years later. But some of these films like Marjoe and Born to Boogie were never lost to start with! Wgolf (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Films deleted from article 5/17/2015

Woah, slow your roll there, editor. Why all the deletions? Clearly, many of these films were lost and subsequently recovered. That is the subject of the article: "This is a list of rediscovered films that, once thought lost, have since been discovered, in whole or in part."

I was particularly alarmed to see Metropolis deleted. There is no more famous case of a film being partially lost and recovered. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, in most of the cases, the films weren't lost, only parts or versions were. As lost film defines it, it's a "feature or short film that is no longer known to exist in any studio archives, private collections or public archives". "Partially lost" belongs in List of rediscovered parts of films. I also deleted films that don't appear to be notable and were sourced from a blog. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The missing parts of Metropolis that were recovered were, by definition, rediscovered film. The fact that they didn't constitute a complete feature film on their own that was previously missing in its entirety seems to me to be over-analyzing the situation. We've never needed two separate articles, one for films completely lost then completely recovered, and another article for fractions thereof.

Which listings do you consider to be non-notable? Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rediscovered film is definitely not the same as rediscovered films. The distinction is clear cut, and the criterion is explicitly set out. We've never needed two separate lists because nobody's added the former until now. As for the unnotables, that's simple. They're the ones without articles, especially 1970s porn movies. Things to Come (1976) wasn't even lost to begin with, just "endangered", while Patty (1976) isn't listed in IMDb. Neither is Black Love (1972), but at least it's got a reasonable NPR reference and a known director. I'm not sure that's enough, but maybe. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnotables- Agreed. Cut those out. And the 'only existed on videotape film(s).

Can't we change the lede and divide the article into sections to cover the finer points of lost and recovered movies vs recovered portions or movies? Or maybe change the title? Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, these are two entirely different situations, and it's better just to have two separate lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Waiting to see if any other editors will grace us with an opinion.-- Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above-films like Born to Boogie and Marjoe should not be there considering they were both released on VHS beforehand and were never truly lost. Wgolf (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK Clarity, it doesn't appear anyone else really cares. Do whatever you want, I won't complain. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Flame

Okay so The Magic Flame has been removed from here-but wouldn't that be just a lost film, as the rumors of it being found are disputed as it says on it's page. Wgolf (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More like unfounded than disputed, according to the reference quote. It's on List of lost silent films (1925–29), where it belongs. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also seems to be on List of incomplete or partially lost films. Wgolf (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See? Nothing up my sleeve. Presto! Alakazam! It's gone. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL-in the words of the Joker "I'm going to make this flame disappear!" Wgolf (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The X-Rays really lost?

Not clear to me that The X-Rays should be included. I see the entry for it on the Silent Era website but I can find no other mention of it. Plus we should make a section on the film's article about its history before including it here. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1930s films section

Can someone fix the 1930s section, please? 71.95.48.111 (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of rediscovered films. 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) 00:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Thought lost"? "Originally thought lost"?

It seems unnecessary, on a list of films "once thought lost", to include the comment again for individual films, that they were "once thought lost".

Also, to declare a film "originally thought lost" is silly. All films begin their existence as not lost.

--23.119.204.117 (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of rediscovered films. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070904195603/http://www.sino.uni-heidelberg.de/eacs2004/content/programme/film_love_and_duty/index.php to http://www.sino.uni-heidelberg.de/eacs2004/content/programme/film_love_and_duty/index.php

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) 04:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of rediscovered films. 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) 00:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Der Hund von Baskerville (1914)

I cannot find anywhere (besides the Wikipedia) that this film was ever lost. Should this film be kept in list of Rediscovered Films?

Kidnapped (1917)

Would it be a good idea to include Kidnapped (1917) into the list of rediscovered movies? It does say 'lost' in Wikipedia but I can't find any confirmation anywhere that it indeed was lost — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpodolski (talk • contribs) 19:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Television series

Although the circumstances are different, there are many television series and productions from the 1940s through the 1970s that were considered lost (some due to actual erasure and "junking" policies held by some networks for a time, i.e. BBC). A number of these shows have been recovered over the years. Perhaps the most notable being Doctor Who, which has been the subject of ongoing efforts to recover some 150 episodes dated between 1964 and 1974 that had been junked. At least half have been recovered with episode recordings found in car boot sales and even church basements in Nigeria. The Avengers has also had a few episodes from its otherwise-lost first season recovered, and I believe the DVD release of Season 1 of the US sitcom My Living Doll was made possible thanks to fans providing copies of episodes the negatives for which had been lost in the 1994 Northridge earthquake. There were also a number of BBC productions that were restored due to copies being found in the Library of Congress. Not suggesting these be added to this specific list, but perhaps a companion list? 136.159.160.122 (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested title

I think "List of recovered films" would be a more accurate title for this. 136.159.160.122 (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Rediscovered" is more prevalent than "recovered". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, "recovered" sounds more like damaged film being restored. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Night To Dismember

The original cut of A Night to Dismember was rediscovered, I believe. Should it be added? I'm new at this, so I don't want to make any major changes, plus I don't know much about sourcing.

Iwasateenagecannibalwerewolffrombeyondplanetx (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This list is for films that were lost, so A Night to Dismember doesn't qualify. It also doesn't belong in List of rediscovered film footage because that's for incomplete films. I don't know that we have a list for rediscovered alternate cuts of intact films. Might be worth starting one if there are enough out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1904 Film Political Rivals was rediscovered today in the British Pathe Archive

it was mislabeled and was rediscovered today — Preceding unsigned comment added by LostMediaFan (talk • contribs) 03:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source. Meters (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.reddit.com/r/FilmPreservationists/comments/q1n9y9/lost_film_found_the_1904_film_political/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ LostMediaFan (talk • contribs) 22:28, October 6, 2021 (UTC)

Please sign you talk page posts.

Please do not change your post after it has been replied to. I have refactored your post.

A Reddit post is not a reliable source. See WP:RS Meters (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sealed Hearts (1919)

Sealed Hearts was added to the 1913 list, however the movie was a 1919 release (per the referenced article, the movie's wiki page, imdb, and the Library of Congress https://memory.loc.gov/diglib/ihas/loc.mbrs.sfdb.8981/default.html ) . I had attempted to edit the page to add it to the 1919 table and hadn't seen it on the 1913 list at the time. The page was reverted. I didn't want to do a back and forth reversion, so thought to ask here if I am misunderstanding something or if I should go ahead and correct the table. SargeAbernathy (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]