This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
In the Trivia section we have the following assertion: "The main reference is in the music with the same theme running through Trumpton and the Night Garden.[citation needed]" Now being a sad old chap, I can remember nearly all the Trumpton music. Although the Night Garden theme is Trumpton-esque, in terms of arrangement and the tune may sound similar to some Trumpton/Camberwick Green melodies, I can't recall an identical tune. About the closest I can get is the 'Driving along in an army truck' melody. Angostura 12:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reinstated my content about Iggle Piggle's asymmetry because I think it's a lot more relevant than some of the other content on here, which seems distinctly unencyclopaedic. Iggle Piggle's asymmetry is worthy of note because it is a key defining characteristic of his visual appearance and is very unusual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.249.202 (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
(re-organised by Andrew Oakley 14:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC) )
As Groucho Marx nearly said in Duck Soup: "Why a one-year-old child could understand this programme. ... Run out and find me a one-year-old child, I can't make head or tail of it." It's seriously weird, particularly hearing Derek Jacobi narrate it with lines like "Ombliboo, Tombliboo, here is my nose..."
It's clearly been designed to be 'different' from the Teletubbies in many ways, so one possible section would be a 'compare and contrast' with its predecessor: TT are 'over the hills and far away', ItNG is in the night sky. TT live in rolling hills, ItNG is set in a forest etc etc. Lovingboth 22:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely love this programme and so do my kids. Probably has the same effect on the viewer that watching the Teletubbies for the first time did ie What the hell have I just watched! Youve never seen anything like it. Shut down your minds, relax and float upstream... Couple of things that might be worth mentioning is the homage paid to old progs like 'chigley' and 'camberwick green', 'bagpuss' etc in the retro stop-frame animation of the Pontipines, and the story telling carousel looks to me like an homage to the start of 'Music Box' (showing my age there).86.132.192.130 22:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
My 18 month old adores this programme. We put this on before her bath and she stands in the middle of the room, transfixed by it. The only other shows that have the same effect are Teletubbies and Superbaby (which is rarely shown now, unfortunately). The title music seems so melancholic but still so lovely. I guess that's the nature of a minor key. I hope this stayes on the screens for a long time.
Duckbill 19:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe this show is pointless as is the teletubbies.How are children going to benefit from watching alien type creates speak nonsense?They should watch people or at least human like cartoons/puppets speaking proper english,This show made my 1 year old son have an epileptic fit,it is not safe for children. -moved to a more appropriate section
I think that their speech is part english, part impressiony chinese/japanese. If it's true it's racist to foreign countrys and blackfaces. Donkey balls speak full english so us big brothers or sisters can understand. I find it as offensive as teletubbies. --81.155.114.66 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Pascale42 wrote:
There's a couple of things here:
The article discusses the Pinky Ponk and ninky Nonk as being dimensionally trancendental, like the Tardis, but the likeness is incorrect. The Tardis is bigger on the inside than the outside (the inside is in a different dimmension), but the outside is a consistent size and to scale with people around it. The inside of the PP and NN are always consistent with thier exterior, the issue is that the outside changes size as they move about (or possibly everyone else changes size). I doubt there is any real explanation and I can't quite beleive I'm discussing this so seriously, but I think the current description is inaccurate. --ThePaintedOne 19:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Removed section below for reasons above --ThePaintedOne 20:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Both the Ninky Nonk and the Pinky Ponk are dimensionally transcendent, a concept extensively used in another BBC production, Doctor Who. Makka Pakka's carriage on the Ninky Nonk also resembles the exterior of the Doctor's TARDIS.
Would it be permissible for someone to delete the above gratuitously offensive comment, please? GW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.189.97.52 (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the Night Garden is a childhood delusion of the Time Lord boy that one day would become the Master. He gazes into the Untempered Schism on Gallifrey and the inexplicable vision drives him permanently insane. The hypnotic voice, the inscrutable characters, the erratic behaviour and the complex extra-dimensional geometry. It's just too much! MoonFlump 18:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
As Paul-b4 says above, young children have no problems with completely wrong scale. On this subject you might like looking at the following in Science News Toddlers' Supersize Mistakes: At times, children play with the impossible Dmcq (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The Og-Pog is currently described as a scooter. I would argue that a scooter is something you ride on; the Og Pog is not and cannot be ridden. I would suggest that Makka Pakka really pushes a trolley. A trolly is for carrying things. It may be an unusual three-wheeled trolley but that, surely, is what it is.
Orangeaurochs 14:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to have disappeared off CBeebies without any comment. A quick search finds nothing, so I don't know what's going on with it at the moment. violet/riga (t) 18:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
They still use clips of it in little trailers and compilations. They often move things around. Hopefully they'll be moving Andy Pandy soon. Orangeaurochs 07:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I know there's precious little citable evidence for any of this article, but the Wottingers being evil overlords or some such sounds like nonsense. Has there been any indication in or out of the programme about this?
Orangeaurochs 07:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
i dont get why they dont use the wottingers much, they are probably secret goths that moap around indoors all day and go out at night, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.38.64.174 (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
My daughter has an Upsy Daisy doll which is white whereas the character in the show is clearly Black. Does anyone know why this is? It's occurs to me that in Doll form she would look more than a little like one of those terrible un-pc gollywogs, but then surely messing around with a character's ethnicity isn't exactly PC either. Any theories? 172.143.71.199 21:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Haahoos - Dead wood or what? (Discuss)Paul-b4 12:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
what are they meant to be anyway, the other characters at least look like a recognisable life form, the HaaHoos are just floating object with faces, i think they have a ghostly atmosphere around them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.38.64.174 (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Whenever the narrator refers to the HaaHoos (eg, when we say goodnight to the characters), he seems to pronounce it as HaaBoos. The BBC website etc does use HaaHoos - maybe it's my hearing... Anyone else noticed this?
about the above, i did it is due to derek jacobis voice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.132.128 (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
"Go to sleep, Hards..."
Is it just because he says "Haahoos" too fast? --GoldenPhoenix 13:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
AKAIK, the Olly Bolly Dob-Dob flower appears in only one episode, "Where is the Pinky Ponk Going?". Therefore I don't think it counts as a character and thus should be removed from the article as per WP:NOTE. I'll remove it from the article over the next day or so, unless someone can ascribe it more significance? Andrew Oakley 14:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Inthenightgarden.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The image I uploaded for this article has been deleted. It was a screengrab of the title screen, which is allowed to be on Wikipedia. Can someone explain to me why it was deleted? WikiJoeH 16:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Although MP's OCD may well smack of OCD, it also smacks of childish obsessiveness: watch little boys line up toy cars and so forth. Neatness and a love of order still don't necessarily indicate OCD. Without a more scholarly opinion or some external reference, this seems innapropriate and unnecessary, so I deleted it.Orangeaurochs 13:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
A part of the characters section says:
Judging by the noises it makes whilst travelling it runs on some sort of gas, although it produces no visible emissions other than the "Pinky Ponk juice" that its passengers enjoy.
That does not make sense. The "Pinky Ponk juice" mentioned is not a visible gas, in fact, it is not a gas or vapour at all. The two parts of the compound sentence quoted above are on different things. The first part:
Judging by the noises it makes whilst travelling it runs on some sort of gas, although it produces no visible emissions
, mentions about the emissions, and the second part:
other than the "Pinky Ponk juice" that its passengers enjoy.
, mentions about the passengers enjoying the juice. I suggest that we split the sentences into two sensible sentences, like:
Judging by the noises it makes whilst travelling, it could be suggested that it runs on some sort of gas. <you could put some text here to separate the sentences even more> Also, the Pinky Ponk provides some sort of juice that it's passengers enjoy. The juice is enclosed in a weird and wacky container which the characters drink out of.
So, what do you think? Should we change it to make it more sensible, or shall we leave it as it is? --GoldenPhoenix 13:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the non sequitur. The sentence notes that the noise made by the Pinky Ponk suggests that it runs on a gas. If it were powered in this way, we might predict it to emit some sort of waste product -- which may or may not take gaseous form. The sentence notes that no emissions are visible, except for the juice.
But, speaking of poor grammar: "mentions about the emissions" . . . ?
An inappropriate trivia section has been discovered!
Nick Kellington, the actor who portrays Igglepiggle, is also in Liverpool band Ella Guru.[5].
Let's delete i'! GoldenPhoenix 19:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Will as the Two DVDs have been released-Whos Here? and Hello Igglepiggle! Then The third titled Hello Upsy Daisy! is due to be released in February But is they going to Be 3 Jungle Book (Disney) DVD Called The Man Villey, Hello Mowgil! & Hello Baloo! & Best of All Igglepiggle & Mowgil Are Happy Boys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simba&Balto (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Could someone explain the above to me? I don't understand the point that is being made or its significance here. What is Mowgli's (note sp) relevance to ItNG? Covbob (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
can anyone identify the small, blue-and-white birds in the top left of this screengrab? They're in a children's programme called In the Night Garden. Thanks. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that this show is now getting set to premiere on Treehouse TV, but don't have an citation. This would be good for the article to add this in. Mr. C.C. (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday I spent 2 hours editing this article and all my work has completely dissappeared, surely it should appear at least as a version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.39.172 (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not to be insulting to anyone but it's disturbing that this show is even on at all. You people have GOT to have more in your lives than this. I can't believe there was a wikipedia article let alone any kind of discussion page! 99.237.118.108 (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I've got an ep from the "Hello Upsy Daisy" DVD entitled "Quiet Please Tombliboos Upsy Daisy Wants to Sing!"
ANyone an idea of chronology or episode number please?
Herra2006 (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
hmm, I'm not sure. According to orange.co.uk though, the episode is supposed to be shown on cBeebies on 24th September at 2:30. I don't remember seeing this episode before even though it is marked as repeat. Does anybody else know? Kelly elf (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I've redirected the separate article on Makka Pakka to the main In the Night Garden article as per WP:NOTABILITY. None of the other ITNG characters have their own article, neither do characters in many more popular and widely known series (Teletubbies, Bob the Builder etc.) so I can't see how a separate character study for Makka Pakka can be justified. Juux (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
"a lot" - who? I do admit that you do seem very keen on keeping this article separate, but without any substantiated reasoning. I however do not believe that an article on Makka Pakka meets any of the criteria that would justify a separate article, particularly in respect of objective evidence of Makka Pakka's notability outwith the context of the programme.
Looking at precedent in Wikipedia, for a cartoon/kids character to justify their own article would mean they had the cultural impact of, say, Bart Simpson or Big Bird. I'm sure you'll agree that Makka Pakka's notability in no way approaches that of these two. Simply being a member of an ensemble cast is not notable enough, even when looking at the aforementioned Bob the Builder who could be argued as having a much stronger case for a separate article (hit single etc.).
I believe that WP:NOTABILITY is clear enough on this point and there exists no case for a separate article so I have reimplemented the redirect. Please discuss here rather than reverting again. I'm happy to seek a third opinion if you really feel it is necessary.
I can't also believe I'm actually debating this ;) Juux (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Would a controversy section be appropriate here, given that the actor who played Ooo was a gay man, and is claiming homophobic motivations may be behind his sacking? Calibanu (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)User Calibanu
Its all very well, if irritating, to discard the synopses of people that have actually viewed the episodes in favour of the BBC corporate description. However, when these are inaccurate should they be retained? The BBC are NOT showing 'Running About' as the 60th episode- so simply trusting them to know what they are doing is unwise. Also, some others of these one sentence summations are also incorrect in details. However there seems little point in correcting them if all Wikipedia does is bend the knee to the Corporate error over the individuals direct experience? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.39.172 (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
RUNNING ABOUT mystery episode................... The Beeb have called all 3 of the recent episodes 'Running About' at one time or another. This is to assume the BBC to be the source of the title the TV companies are using in their schedules. Now there seems to not BE any episode called that at all? The Catch Up TV service is still calling 'Kicking the Ball' 'Running About' having previously claimed that title for 'Daisys Dancing Day'. Clearly Makka Pakka needs to wash some faces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.39.172 (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Running About is now being shown on Wednesday 17th September Kelly elf (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Is the mention of Argos under merchandising necessary? ALL the retailers have these items .. should it not mention Woolworths et al or none? I don't see that mentioning a specific company is required in the article.--Lanzarotemaps (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
At the beginning of this article it says '...particularly aimed at babies and preschool children'. A few sentences later the article states that In the Night Garden is aimed at 1 - 3 year old children. If aimed at 1 - 3 year old children then it cannot be aimed at Human Babies. Both statements can not be correct!
A Human Baby (Or Infant) ceases to be a baby at the turn of his/her first birthday and is then known as a toddler. Is this show aimed at babies or not? Tony1000 (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Please show me the stone upon which this is graven. Britmax (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Cameron O'Donovan's name has recently been removed from the article in favour of Justin Towler's. While Towler undoubtedly plays Makka Pakka in many episodes (including all the ones on my present DVD collection), I have not seen firm evidence that he does so in every single one, and it seems entirely possible that more than one actor was involved. For comparison, Isaac Blake's website notes that he played Tombliboo Ooo in 20 episodes. Until someone can cite a source for the removal, I have reinstated the mention of both actors. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, Cameron O'Donovan NEVER played Makka Pakka, here's the story. It was June 12th, 2008, back when Makka had his own page, i added Cameron as the actor. Cameron was just some guy i knew who i thought was a little like Makka and no actor was listed at the time. (Check the edit logs) Any other website claiming that he's the actor came AFTER my edit. Awesome as it was fooling everyone, all good things must come to an end.
-Zac Manning AKA Bully25 (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, 9/11 that never never really happened, i just made a wiki page for it Bully25 (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I am fasinated by the ninky nonk have found myself watching the program just to see what its going to do but would like to know y it feels the need to go up trees . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godfrey69 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Godfrey69 (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the following from the article, since it is unsourced and I cannot find a source. Also it came from an anonymous IP. If someone can find a source, please can they add the relevent bits back in? Thanks Andrew Oakley (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The article currently states,
"Oddly, he takes down the sail of his boat at the beginning in order to travel."
I would offer that this isn't odd as he is going to sleep. For navigation purposes and safety, it is better to lower the sail when not piloting actively to reduce speed. I also submit that it is not "in order to travel".
Anyone object to changing this to (say)
"He lowers to sail to sleep"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.102.38 (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Location
Does anyone know where Night Garden is filmed, is it in the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.197.35 (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The BBC page for "Fall Down Ball" says episode 100 was still in series one. The article refers to a second series and "series 3". If these are repeats, they are not technically second and third series. --trevj (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
WE have CBeebies in Australia but the countres that do it are uk india but not Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milli2011 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC) As of March 2011, in Australia, the show airs on ABC2 every day at 6:30 pm but as you I used to watch on ABC2 at least 2008-2010 my letters on tv tonight and knowfirst are awsome what channel on Foxtel its on im guessing CBeebies or Disney Junior —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.109.92 (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC) wikipedia you have to read the knowfirst shoutbox for my sayings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.109.92 (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC) I wont able to see In the Night Garden on BBC CBeebies until at least May 2nd 2011 on Foxtel and austar in Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.109.92 (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC) well so far canidian treehouse tv videos woked in australia but ABC\BBC holds it on australian tv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.109.92 (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
It's noted that the gazebo is reminiscent of The Magic Roundabout. I myself have pointed out the similarity of the Pontipines and Wottingers to Camberwick Green puppets (can I really be the only one who's noticed?). Also possibly worth noting is that the gazebo's mechanical movement set to music, particularly the slats that open on its canopy, is vaguely reminiscent of Camberwick Green's opening musical box. Worth including? Lee M (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The article twice refers to Upsy Daisy's bed as "unspecial". Is this actually a word, and if so what does it mean in this context? 31.25.4.14 (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The current article mentions 1 - 16 year olds. This can't be right. Anyone have the correct info? 90.206.47.116 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Nuttyskin (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
"Go to sleep, hards" - Derek Jacobi Was he saying haahoos too fast? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
"The Pontipines appear in most episodes, while appearances by their sworn enemies, the Wottingers, are rare."
"sworn enemies"? where's the evidence for this? it seems a little strong to call them enemies at all, based on the thousands of times I've had to sit through all 100 episodes with junior here. I suspect someone of inserting this alleged emnity for a laugh.