Talk:Meglos

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Episode Information[edit]

I have seen the 3rd and 4th episodes of this serial, but not the earlier episodes. I was thinking of simply writing the summaries for those two episodes, and leaving the other two blank for others to write, like so:

Episode 1[edit]

Episode 2[edit]

Episode 3[edit]

Summary

Episode 4[edit]

Summary

However, since I haven't seen to first two episodes in this serial, I don't know the name of any of the characters besides the Doctor, Romana, K-9 and Meglos. If someone could tell me the names of some of the major characters in this serial, or even better, write summaries for the first two serials, it would be very helpful. Cyclone49 6 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)

Actually, the format for the other articles tend to mash everything into one long plot synopsis (mostly because it's difficult sometimes to summarize neatly into cliffhangers). May I suggest that you simply write the summary for Episodes 3 and 4 as one section, and leave the other half as a section-stub? For characters, you can have a look at http://www.drwhoguide.com/who.htm - the Doctor Who Reference Guide for guidance (just don't commit copyviolations. :)). --khaosworks July 6, 2005 08:16 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew that the plots where all written as one singular plot, but I just thought it would be easier to put it into that format until there is a summary for each section. But, I'll just write it that way. Thanks. Cyclone49 6 July 2005 11:23 (UTC)

Sound goof?[edit]

I've removed this from the "broadcast and releases" section:

An apparent goof occurs as the end credits for Episode 4 are running: The theme music's pitch slows down and the tempo speeds up, but the running time itself is not affected. (It either occurs in the reruns currently broadcast in Canada on BBCK or it happened on the original BBC1 broadcast back in 1980.)

If we don't know whether this was an error on the original broadcast or just an error on the tape used by BBC Kids in Canada, we probably shouldn't have it in the article. If anyone knows more about this, especially if there's a reliable source discussing it, we can re-add it with the definitive info. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's as originally broadcast — some sort of sound filter used on the final scene was accidentally left running across the closing titles in the edit. I've only seen this discussed on the RT forum, though. Angmering 11:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you know more than I do (and more than the person who added the comment to the article). Feel free to restore the comment with more precise/accurate wording. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is I don't know if there are any published citations for it. Fourth Doctor Handbook or the TV Companion might have it, I suppose, but I don't have either of those with me here in the back of beyond. Angmering 20:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in The Television Companion, and I don't have access to the Fourth Doctor Handbook. I suppose there's no great harm in leaving it here on the talk page for now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to The Creature From the Pit?[edit]

I've recently be rewatching some old episodes and it seems to me that this episode must have been, at least at some stage, intended as a sort of sequel to the episode "The Creature From the Pit" I cannot find any references to such online but I dare say anyone watching the two episodes back to back, as I did by chance, would be struck by the possibility. Has anyone out there any concrete info on this possibility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.92.230 (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Brotgrug.jpg[edit]

Image:Brotgrug.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scene-sync: deletion of reference to similar technique in Cosmos[edit]

Pretty much what it says on the tin: my reference to the use of a similar synchronized-camera system on Carl Sagan's Cosmos: A Personal Voyage was deleted, presumably on the grounds of original research. That's understandable, but hugely frustrating. It is a fact that Cosmos used a similar system, albeit one with greater sophistication, and would be well worth mentioning in this article if it weren't for the fact that there's no published citation of the fact. I consider this kind of thing to be a major drawback, and I would really like to know if there's any way of getting around it. Lee M (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it worth mentioning? There are probably a few shows that used similar techniques. These are probably best mentioned in an article about scene-sync. DonQuixote (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the WP:OR problems DonQuixote has hit the nail on the other reason for my removal of the info. The Borgia's (mentioned on the DVD extra) as well as several other television shows of the era used the technology. While the technology deserves a mention the shows don't, anymore than Meglos would merit a mention on any wikiarticles for those shows. As DQ mentions with WP:RSs it is worth mentioning on the article for scene-sync. MarnetteD | Talk 22:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD[edit]

Is there anyway to request that MarnetteD be barred in editing at least this article.

MarnetteD has consistently showed only an interest in maintaining the status quo of articles and is close minded about new information. 122.108.156.100 (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the "new info" was written in a way that was concise and if it was understandable that would be helpful. Instead it rambles on and makes no sense. MarnetteD|Talk 14:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have cleaned it up so that readers can understand it. I also used the proper formatting for the reference. Look, I know that your heart is in the right place with your edits but you really should learn how to do these things to be helpful to the encyclopedia. MarnetteD|Talk 15:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]