# Talk:The Web of Fear

I think that we should hold off for now on including mention of the rumor of this serial being recovered.  At this point Doctor Who Online is reporting it only as a rumor, and the sources at the Restoration Team say they haven't heard anything.  I don't think that this quite meets the standards of WP:RS. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Reporting the rumour itself as fact would indeed not make sense. However, given the magnitude of reaction to this rumour, would it not make sense to mention the rumour itself and a general description of reactions to it? --guru 19:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the magnitude of the reaction beyond excitement on messageboards, on newsgroups and in blogs? Timrollpickering 20:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure why those alone wouldn't be enough, given the sheer volume of the reaction in those venues, but it has also already (what, a day later?) been the primiry topic of conversation at Doctor Who taverns and clubs, including here in Canada. Again, I'm not suggesting that this makes makes the rumour itself true, only that it makes the rumour and the reaction to it *noteworthy* enough to be mentioned. Again, because of the volume of the reaction (I mean, obviously, *some* volume of reaction is normal to a rumour like this, but at least here, this is kinda much, and from what I've read it's high elsewhere as well...) --guru 21:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
But really, conversation in Doctor Who taverns and clubs is no more a reliable source than discussion on internet fora.  Until it's mentioned in a reliable source like Doctor Who Magazine or the BBC's Doctor Who website, we really can't mention it here.  Can we? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Please reread what I am proposing. I am NOT saying it's a credible source and should be reported as such, I'm saying it's a noteworthy rumour. Akin to, for example, if a website posted a rumour that the pope had a mistress, and there was a large reaction to it. Posting "he has a mistress" as a fact would be foolish, but posting "there was a rumour that he had a mistress which generated a large reaction" would be reporting a demonstratable fact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurudata (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand the distinction you're drawing, Gurudata.  The problem is that we need a reliable source covering the large reaction.  If there was a rumor that the Pope had a mistress and it created a large reaction, presumably the reaction would be covered in reliable sources; and then Wikipedia could mention it (and the rumor which caused it).  But if it's just scuttlebutt under the table, and no reliable source has covered the reaction, we can't do so either.
Believe it or not, I'm pretty liberal about this sort of thing.  I recently argued with Tony Sidaway about whether we could mention the Sun's report that Peter Davison would be appearing in a Doctor Who special for Children in Need; I wanted to include it, saying "The Sun has reported this, but it hasn't been confirmed."  He insisted that because the Sun is wrong as often as they are right about Doctor Who, they don't constitute a reliable source, and we couldn't mention the rumor (which caused at least as much discussion as the rumor about Web of Fear).  But if we can't include something mentioned by the Sun (the highest-circulation newspaper in Britain), we certainly shouldn't include something mentioned by Doctor Who Online (read by a few thousand Doctor Who fans).  Sorry. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I guess. The only problem with that, of course, is that unlike my pope example, the only media that are likely to report on a reaction on various internet fora to a doctor who rumour are... well, various other internet fora. ;) --guru 21:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably, but it's not unheard of for discussion on internet fora to spread to other media: Doctor Who Magazine has mentioned rumors that originated on Outpost Gallifrey's forum, for example (sometimes to mock them, but even that would suffice).  And then there's the "windows are too big" argument from 2004, which made its way to the actual television series in 2007... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid it isnt for you to keep editing the discussion of the recovery from the article. It is now part of the history of the serial, just as possible recovery stories are to others. It deserves to be reported. Wiki is a source of information, and the possible recovery is a valid story. There HAS been a report on a possible recovery. That is enough to put it into the entry. Leave it alone for goodness sake!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobMonkfish (talk • contribs) 22:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC) 

Numerous stories have had umpteen rumours of episode recoveries and hopes falsely raised over the years, to say nothing of other rumours reported - should each story article for the mid and late 1980s include every piece of crap DWB reported about it? -  and these are not covered on the articles. The only source mentioned, not even cited, is a fan website. Wikipedia is not a news service or rumour recycling mill, reporting every little rumour that crops up or every famous for five minutes matter.
Put it in when there's a firm source either for the recovery rumour or the reaction that proves notability. Not before. Timrollpickering 23:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tim.  As it stands now, the only legitimate argument to be made in favor of including the rumor is the claim that Doctor Who Online is a reliable source.  It's true that in the past we've used Outpost Gallifrey's news page as a reliable source, but I'm increasingly of the opinion that even that was a mistake.  And (although as one of the OG News Page's editors I'm hardly unbiased) I think that OG is regarded as more reliable than Doctor Who Online.  (It may be worth noting that the British press have picked up stories from OG in the past, while I don't think they've done so from DWO.)  Anyway, that's the ground that people who want to include the recovery rumor have to fight on, until another source mentioning the rumor appears.  If DWO is a reliable source (as defined by Wikipedia), then the rumor can be mentioned; if it's not (and I don't think it is), it can't.  It's as simple as that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Sadly for you lot I think DWO and Outpost Gallifrey constitute reliable sources. OG reported this, as a rumour, so it is referenced AS A RUMOUR. It is quite sad people have to exert control over something by removing a valid article from a web page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobMonkfish (talk • contribs) 12:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC) 

Wikipedia:Reliable sources defines reliable sources as "those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight."  I don't know what structure DWO has in place for fact-checking and editorial oversight; OG has a team of editors, and Shaun in charge.  That structure was actually used with regard to this item — one editor put the rumor up briefly, but Shaun took it down as insufficiently substantiated.  If a consensus of editors on this page feels that DWO has a sufficiently established editorial structure to meet the standards of WP:RS, the item can be included.  However, my feeling is that it doesn't quite reach that standard, so we shouldn't mention the rumor.
Bob, it's not about control.  It's about Wikipedia's core principles of reliable sources and verifiability. It's not personal. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


### Rumour redux
Someone recently re-added the recovery rumour to the article, cited to John Levene on the Podshock podcast.  I haven't listened to the podcast, but I assume that Levene did indeed mention the rumour.  However, it appears that the rumour was false, as the episodes have not surfaced.  (I think there was discussion about this on the Restoration Team's forum, and Steve Roberts shot it down — he would know.)
So we've got a sourced claim reporting on the rumour, but no reliable source debunking it.  What should we do?  Should we remove the rumour, even though its existence as a rumour is now verifiable?  Or should we add something about its apparent falseness, even though we don't have a very good source for that?  (Can anyone find a good source debunking the rumour?)  Thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In an interview in 2008, John Levene, who played a Yeti in the story and later went on to star as Sergeant Benton, claimed he had been told by reliable sources within the Doctor Who community that the missing five episodes had been discovered. ref Doctor Who:Podshock episode 109. feed://gallifreyanembassy.org/podshock/podshock.xml ref
Doesn't need discussion; save it for a page on rumours of the sort. The only reason I can imagine Podshock saw it as newsworthy is 'cos Levene believed it. What does require attention is that I am asking for consensus on rumour removal at Talk:Doctor Who missing episodes but even without it I will continue to delete them. Bad people with poor intent make up this nonsense every day but they rely upon the gullible to do their dirty work for them. MartinSFSA (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm OK with the removal, but as a Wikipedia administrator I feel obliged to challenge the suggestion that removal without consensus is OK.  If your reasons for removal are rational and in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you should be able to create a consensus.  If they are not, the text should remain.  A confrontational attitude is not helpful. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Not reliable, not notable, only not, the only question is why has my call for consensus been up for three weeks with only the original rumour poster commenting on it? MartinSFSA (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know.  I can only speak for myself — I simply didn't see the discussion.  However, since nobody attempted to restore the rumour to the article, that actually constitutes a de facto consensus.  My comment above does not dispute your decision to remove the rumour, only your overly hostile attitude while doing so.  Easier to catch flies with honey and all that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I found this article using Random Article and I cut down the humongous plot summary. I also removed the synopsis, here it is if anyone objects:
Some forty years after their first encounter, the Second Doctor, Jamie and Victoria discover that Yeti have invaded the London Underground. Help is at hand from an old friend - and a man who will become one.

Sorry if I messed up the summary, I tried to make it as short as possible by focusing on the Doctor, Jamie, and Victoria and removing all of the side stories and lengthy summary descriptions. I also put some of the backstory at the beginning of the plot summary part, instead of after the second paragraph. Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it.  There's a movement to prune the plot summaries -- it's just taking a while to get to each and every article. DonQuixote (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

On October 10, 2013, the BBC announced that the missing episodes had been found in Nigeria. The footage has been remastered and will be made available via iTunes and DVD. Phillip Morris, director of Television International Enterprises Archive,  made the discovery by looking up the records of overseas shipments of tapes made by the BBC.
Prof Bernard Quatermass (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
N Not Done: There is currently an embargo (until midnight tonight) on the reporting of this.  This means that there will be no reliable source for this until tomorrow.  There is nothing that can be done until then. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not a blog or a fan page Hektor (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It was but the article has been pulled (probably as it is breaking the embargo) => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Image of the pulled article for those that are curious.  128.210.146.208 (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
You can now use this source, for example. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Episodes 2,4,5,6 have been found of this serial, please ratify the fact that only one episode is now missing of this serial.http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/lost-doctor-who-classics-found-53619.htm  
Anthony "The Tweed" Carroll (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 Not done They cite a source which should be cited directly...but has been pulled from circulation so we can't cite them until they rerelease the article. DonQuixote (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The Independent article is now live again so surely updates can be made. Embargo my bottom anyway. Everyone knows they exist why not just stick it on the main wiki article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.146.184 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC) 

https://itunes.apple.com/gb/tv-season/doctor-who-the-web-of-fear/id704945256
It says all the eps are on there. Even ep 3 which this page says is missing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.192.38 (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC) 

It's a reconstruction using the soundtrack and Telesnaps. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Should this page comment on how well the story is doing in the UK, US, Canadian and Australian Itunes charts? It would be an interesting feature.Wiggs (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Personally I would say not; to focus on the iTunes performance of this story seems like WP:Recentism. It would be fairer for all of the story articles to include chart performance for all formats - VHS, DVD and downloads; but a big move like that should really be proposed at WT:WHO. Other things to consider include the reliability of various sources - see WP:CHARTS. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Speaking about this iTunes charts, BTW is this story only availabe in these four mentioned countries? I.e. UK, USA, Canada and Australia? Meursault2004 (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"Sue Malden found the episode in a pile of tapes" - The first copy of Episode 1 recovered was a 16mm telerecording, and I assume it was found in a pile of film reels rather than videotapes. Can we rephrase this sentence to refer to either videotapes or film reels? What does the citation state? SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The citation states that the film reel was found "at the top of a pile of film cans returned from Hong Kong which were waiting to be destroyed." I have changed the article accordingly. SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Bold ~2025-35808-09 (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)