Talk:Wiping

message: ----
:Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Oppose "Junking" is too general a term. Cars can be junked. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Junking was definitely a term in use by the 1960s Arwel – I've left a message explaining more on your talk page. Angmering 12:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

message: :Add any additional comments
Well if not Junking on its own, then what? Junking (film and tape) seems rather unwieldy. Junking (media), perhaps? Any other suggestions? Angmering 00:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't we make the title more general about missing peices of film/tape. Jooler 01:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the processes of destroying the material were called wiping and junking. I'm not sure what more general description you could use that wouldn't get too long, and add to that the fact that radio material is also included in the article (although not much at the moment admittedly, that needs bulking up. But one of the reasons I decided to propose the move was that actually having the article under a sensible name would be a good start to that expansion process). Angmering 01:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision

message: i dont know :-s maybe. - fonzy
:Google returns 719 hits for "wipeing" which I think is few enough to be confident it isn't a technical spelling. None of them are about TV companies wiping stuff anyway (one of them is titled "victor portrait old woman wipeing nose" which I find hilarious for some reason - too much coffee, perhaps). I'll move it. --Camembert
----
Can I suggest that this page is moved to something a little more descriptive. such as missing episodes or lost or destroyed television shows and films, such that it could include a list of what's missing etc..
----
Can we move this page to a more sensible title. As someone has correctly pointed out in an edit summary. you can't "wipe" film.  Mintguy 12:44, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: "Wiping", surely?

message: I added this tag because I found that the main article focused mainly on the UK with only a small sectin devoted to the US I'd like to see it present a wider world view Deathawk 16:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No arguing with that. I contributed a fair chunk of the UK stuff, but alas I know little about US television so can't help with that bit. Angmering 19:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited Geographical Scope 

message: This seems difficult to believe: Of all the American soaps, Days of our Lives and Passions are the only ones with all their episodes in existence.
I would have thought more recent serials like The Young and the Restless, Santa Barbara, The Bold and the Beautiful would have all episodes extant too. Asa01 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiping US daytime [[soap opera]]s

message: ISTR that in the last season 2 episode of The Secret Life of Machines that it was stated the BBC lost many old shows when they switched from steel tape to plastic magnetic tape. They sold the steel tape for scrap without dubbing to plastic tape. The episode also showed one of the huge reel to reel steel tape recorders. The reason for the large size was because the steel tape had to be run very fast for video recording.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.251.226 (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing the Blattnerphone, a device used by the BBC in the 1930s for recording audio which did use steel tape, with the shortlived VERA video format of the 1950s which used 1/2 inch acetate (plastic) tape. Both used high tape speeds, 200in/sec in the later case. Philip Cross (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Steel tape

message: Reading introduction and glossing over the content, I can wonder if the article is best split between "wiping" and "junking".  Arguably, wiping is recycling and junking is purposeful destruction.--Kevin586 (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inquiry for article split 

message: Check this out , the BBC still junks some programs. Retro Agnostic (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiping Still Occurs

message: I had a go at the first paragraph, I hope no-one minds.  I would do some more but by gum this is a long article. --81.159.161.115 (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: I honestly doubt that home shopping broadcasters keep copies of their programming. True, their programs are shit, but that doesn't mean they can't be wiped. Retro Agnostic (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Home Shopping

message: I have a technical question that might just be wishful thinking by someone who likes old TV. 
When a video tape is wiped, is it truly and completely wiped, without any trace whatsoever of the old footage, or is there any trace or remnant of the old video left that (with today's digital technological thingies) can be examined, reconstructed, and played, even if it's been taped over? Is it an analogy to erasing a pencil mark, where if you erase it, there's still a light mark and impression there? Because if I'm right, and extremely technically inclined people get at it, then we've got a wealth of old BBC shows coming. Or I could have no idea what I'm talking about, what gets erased pretty much gets erased for good, and what's lost is lost.--24.90.252.208 (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if above could work, you'd need the original tapes. (Much of the 1970s junked items would have been on the now obsolete Quadruplex videotape.) If wiping and reuse had already occured multiple times they probably tossed the acual tapes out once they were no longer functioning, or when the the format became obsolete. Format (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Truly Wiped? Hope for recovery?

message: Happily, the following passage is inaccurate or out of date:
::"If telerecordings were made of a work and that work was then acquired by another party, then the recording had to be destroyed – this happened in 1955 when 20th Century Fox acquired the rights to Anastasia and the 1953 BBC telerecording of the play had to be destroyed (although the lostshows.com website states that recordings of both performances still survive). At this same time, agents would demand that programmes be wiped so that they could never be repeated; currently, actors are almost invariably paid to sign away these rights to the producing company."
It seems the Thursday repeat performance still exists (see "Unknown TV Classics by Lez Cooke", 21 March 2014) and the TV version of Anastasiais (1953) is to be screened at the BFI Southbank in February (next month). See here. The contributor to this message board, Dr Billy Smart, is an academic specialist in this field at Royal Holloway, University of London. So these sources are surely good enough to demonstrate that this passage should be excluded from this article. Obviously, a new example needs to be found to explain the loss of television programmes because of rights issues concerning the original source material. Philip Cross (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Anastasia'' (1953)

message: There was also wiping of old TV programmes in Poland too. For example the oldest episodes of popular show Sonda are lost because of erasing original tapes that were in the archives of Telewizja Polska.
62.152.144.216 (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiping in Poland 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wiping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080725012437/http://www.cuttingsarchive.org.uk/missing/mis_overv.htm to http://cuttingsarchive.org.uk/missing/mis_overv.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It might be interesting -- in contradistinction to people who thought entertainment shows were disposable and without lasting value -- to mention (or point to) shows which did enjoy years, even decades of reruns precisely because they did think their work would be lasting.The prime example that comes to mind, of course: I Love Lucy, all of which was shot by Desilu on 35mm film.Ball and Arnaz wanted to stay in Hollywood, but they also wanted to take advantage of movie industry production facilities and to ensure the long-term value of their series by capturing it on film. Syndication of reruns had not yet become standard procedure, but television's inevitable growth meant that the return on serious investment in a television series was incalculable. The network finally agreed to the couple's demands, but as a concession asked Ball and Arnaz to pay the additional cost of production and to accept a reduced fee for themselves. In exchange Desilu was given one-hundred percent ownership of the series... ** It's still being aired regularly today, around the world, 64 years after its 1951 debut. Had it not been filmed, it certainly could never have been voted the 'Best TV Show of All Time' in 2012. Fascinating question: how did the geniuses behind the wipings ever wind up getting put in charge of anything? Twang (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Wiped