Talk:Timbuctoo

Easy Peasy People

The article asserts (originally in this edit) that "Easy Peasy People" is an alternate name for Timbuctoo.

I've taken a look at this series, and see no evidence beyond some conceptual/style similarities (which we'd expect the author's works to share anyway) that Easy Peasy People is supposed to be the same thing. The artwork isn't even drawn by Hargreaves; my suspicion is that he was working on the concept at the time of his death and someone else finished it off (the series came out in 1989).

At the very least, Easy Peasy People might be an extensive reworking of Timbuctoo, but I don't even see any evidence for that.

I'd be grateful if someone could explain if I have this wrong.

Fourohfour 19:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's probably I who have it wrong. I myself made the edit and I can't find any evidence either!! Probably just a brain cramp. Feel free to change, disregard, etc. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the statement in question. Fourohfour 18:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge This Artice With Mr. Men

This article should be merged with the "Mr. Men" article! They are both the exact same series, as evidenced in "Cluck". They both have the same characters, both take place in the same place, both are written by Roger Hargreaves, both are based on real events, and are the exact same series with no diffirence whatsoever. Day good ("Good day"). --64.231.204.149 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. Totally different set of books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.30.98 (talk • contribs)

"Both are based on real events".... er, what?! Anyway, they were different. The front covers were a different style, and the back covers showing the characters made clear that they were a different series, whether or not there was any minor crossover between the two (and I couldn't tell you if there was(!)) Ubcule (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

How many??

How many books are there? The article says 25, but lists 26 - so is self-contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.30.98 (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Dubious claim about "original" drawing style

There was a claim made by anonymous editor (80.254.147.156) here that

"originally the books where not illustrated by Roger Hargreaves and the animals where more realistic in form, but these where subsequently reprinted with Roger's Mr Men style characters."

This is uncited and dubious enough that I've removed it. Two reasons; (i) I remember having some Timbuctoo books when I was fairly young (late 70s/early 80s, i.e. shortly after they would have first come out) and they had the "Mr Men" style illustrations and (ii) a quick check online gives no evidence for this.

If it's not complete rubbish, it should be possible to come up with some clear evidence of the claim. Ubcule (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect character names and titles (vandalism?)

The page is protected so I cannot make the edit but someone has entered some made up character names!

Chatter is being called 'Stretch' with the episode 'Chatter and his Long Tail' being changed to 'Stretch and her Long Arms'

Sniff has been changed to 'Swift' with the episode 'Swift Runs Out of Carrots' being changed to 'Swift Runs Out of a Race'

Bray the donkey has been turned into a squirrel called 'Skip' with the episode 'Bray Sleeps Through Christmas' being changed to 'Skip Skips Through Acorns'

A Rooster and a Skunk have randomly been added in 1997.

I do not know why this page is so often a victim of vandalism, and I think it's a good idea to protect it but not when the wrong information is under protection! Please someone change this82.15.217.100 (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The edits in question were made by long-term vandal User:99.68.185.245. There were some other edits from the user still mixed in there so I've just dialled the article back to May 2015, which may not be the last good version (none of this is sourced) but is at least a better one. --McGeddon (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)