Talk:In the Night Garden.../Archive 1

Archive 1

Trivia

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)

Its the Fire Brigade's Band music that plays at the end of every Trumpton episode. I knew it was something I had heard before!

Two YT links to hear the similarities:

•INTG Ending (Gazebo)

•Trumpton Episode

For the Trumpton one, you will need to skip to near the end. They sound very similar its just the ITNG one sounds more child like. Maybe this should be moved into a Trivia section under [Citation Needed] for ITNG, like it was before? Elven Spellmaker (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Asymmetry

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)

General comments

(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)

It is the weirdest programme I've seen in a long time. It seems to be laced with dadaist influences (e.g. Makka Pakka's song) --- probably not a first for children's TV, but I've certainly never seen it so strong. The Holy ettlz 13:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My five year old loves it. The thing is disturbed, yet I have to sit through it every night. The child has long outgrown tellytubbies, and doesnt like Fimbles, yet this toddler-tv is surreal enough that it works at older age groups. I actually asked him how it differs from TT, his perspective was that makka-pakka has a tail like an ice cream cone, ears like an ice cream cone and similar hair, and that was enough to distinguish the two series. It will be interesting to see if this becomes stoned-student-cult TV; it certainly has all the features, and is way wierder than [the shiny show]. SteveLoughran 22:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My two year old daughter loves it too. I don't know a child that doesn't like it. I think it's one of those things that if they ever bring out merchandise, it will make an absolute killing.The Mayor 17:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My 3 yr old boy loves this show knows all the characters and everything they do, seems to hit the mark more than other programmes for his age. He clearly understands the concept which is beyond the adult mind and seems to really calm him down before bed time. Thank you so much to those who thought and produced this show. My husband and I are indebted to you forever. Mrs Bunting (mother of Sam)

My young sister absolutely adores this programme, I must say and she always laughs when Igglepiggle collapses and it is a great way to calm her down. (Although the "Pinky-Ponk" does Make Some Rude Noises!)Izzy259

The Pinky Ponk does indeed seem to make a couple of rude noises when in the air! But why would the producers put the rude effects in when they would probably wake the child up a bit? --GoldenPhoenix 13:17, 20 December 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

Added press release quotes from Anne Wood to Overview section. The programme not designed to be educational; it is aimed at helping children relax, and calming tensions between toddlers and parents, especially at bedtime when tantrums often occur. Personally I think it is aimed at babies and early toddlers who cannot yet talk at all, or are only starting to make word sounds. I find it very helpful to get my 15-month old daughter to calm down prior to me reading her a bedtime story and putting her to bed. Andrew Oakley 11:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Fitting into the Pinky Ponk and Ninky Nonk

Pascale42 wrote:

• The creatures in the Night Garden are able to change their size to fit into the Ninky Nonk.

There's a couple of things here:

• The Pinky Ponk appears similarly as small as the Ninky Nonk, so any discussion of how the characters fit into the Ninky Nonk should also mention the Pinky Ponk
• Stating that the characters change their size to fit in to the Ninky Nonk assumes that real world physics apply to the In The Night Garden world, and also assumes intent on the part of the characters. It could merely be that in the In The Night Garden world, the characters simply fit into the Ninky Nonk and Pinky Ponk by some unexplainable means (which we might call magic)

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.

How the characters fit into the Ninky Nonk and Pinky Ponk is not made clear, and I don't think it ever will be (or at least shouldn't be). I don't think the characters get smaller or the Ninky Nonk/Pinky Ponk get bigger, rather the scale just changes seamlessly. I don't think any explanation is needed. As far as I'm aware the whole show is supposed to be a 'dream', and these things can happen and dreams and just be accepted without explanation. When the Pinky Ponk and Ninky Nonk appear on their own they appear to be similar in height to the other characters, but when the characters are about to approach the Pinky Ponk/Ninky Nonk suddenly appears huge, and the characters are now much smaller in comparison. However, at the end of each episode you will notice that Derek Jacobi says "Goodnight Ninky Nonk, and goodnight Pinky Ponk," at which point Igglepiggle is seen skipping past the two vehicles and being much taller than them both. Similarly, Makka Pakka seems to be about the same height as Igglepiggle and Upsydaisy when he's on his own, but is only half their height when with them. Catalina 123 20:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In any case I got the comparison wrong; it is Iggle Piggle and Upsy Daisy's carriage which resembles the exterior of The Doctor's TARDIS, not Makka Pakka's. I still think the dimensional trancendence comparison applies, though; the Night Garden vehicles are simply able to change their exterior size without changing their interior size, whereas a fully-functioning TARDIS can change BOTH its interior and exterior sizes (The Doctor's TARDIS was broken in the first episode in 1963 and cannot change its exterior shape; it was temporarily repaired in the 1985 story Attack of the Cybermen, changing from a small stove to a massive church organ, and other Timelords are occasionally shown with fully-functioning TARDISes which can morph their exterior size too). Unfortunately my theory fits into the category of WP:OR, and since original research is not permitted on Wikipedia, my section should remain deleted. If and when I write up my various amusing/sick theories about In The Night Garden (eg. the Pontipines want the Wottingers evicted; the sea in the titles is in fact the River Styx and Iggle Piggle represents the soul of the child in the titles who has died of cot death; Makka Pakka is severely autistic and suffers from OCD; Upsy Daisy is an attempt to make racist gollywogs socially acceptable; etc), then perhaps it may be re-introduced in a severely edited form. Er... actually perhaps not. Andrew Oakley 11:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

How bizare, I know you (to quote a Fuzzy). I'm the same Painted One as on LJ. Anyway, while we could have a long conversation on the differences between the chameleon circuit and dimmensional trancendentalism, that would likely be taking both ITNG and DW far too seriously and probably step over the line from 'fan' to 'disturbing' --ThePaintedOne 12:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is the Chameleon Circuit that defines the TARDIS' exterior apperance, although it is not clear whether this also controls its exterior size. However, dimensional trancendentalism is the method used to seamlessly move characters from the exterior to the interior, and to keep the larger interior stable inside the smaller interior (cf. Castrovalva), which is the main point of interest with reference to the Ninky Nonk / Pinky Ponk. And yes, we are definitely thinking about this too much. Andrew Oakley 15:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that some people are thinking about this one too much... If you watch small children playing with toys, then the concept of size and scale doesn't enter into it. Kids play with figures which are patently out of scale with each other and other objects - it's only in the mind of the child that the necessary conversions take place, and this program is, as someone has already pointed out, only supposed to be a dream... Paul-b4 12:06, 17 August 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 not a scooter

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)

Disappeared?

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)

BBC's Ariel magazine confirmed that only 20 episodes were delivered by Ragdoll in March - which were broadcast as part of the CBeebies revamp. The next batch of episodes arrive in May, for transmission later.AMe 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wottingers evil?

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)

The Wottingers aren't 'evil'. They make their first proper appearance in the second series (although they are seen dancing in the end sequence of episodes). They are just like the Pontipines, and in an episode in which the Pontipines and Wottingers both feature prominently, it is made clear that they are good friends with each other. Derek Jacobi explains that 'the Pontipines and Wottingers love waving to each other'. Catalina 123 20:34, 12 July 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)

Upsy Daisy

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)

I thought this too. On further examination, Upsy Daisy as an actor in costume appears to be black (or brown-skinned), but in the bedtime story at the end of each episode, the cartoon Upsy Daisy appears to be white (or pink-skinned). The Upsy Daisy merchandise dolls/plushies more closely resemble the cartoon, with pink skin. I have many theories regarding the implied or accidentally assumed racism of both the change in skin colour, and the similarity of Upsy Daisy to a golly, but I tend never to ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to sheer bloody ignorance. My nicest guess is that the cartoonists made a mistake and coloured her pink, and the merchandisers used this as the basis for their toys. Andrew Oakley 16:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

HaaHoos

Haahoos - Dead wood or what? (Discuss)Paul-b4 12:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The Haahoos do make a slightly larger appearance in "Where is The Pinky Ponk Going?", in which the Pinky Ponk sails over the top of the Haahoos. But I agree they're not frequently used and, even when used, aren't used for an significant length of time. Frankly I think they're a bit scary-looking. Andrew Oakley 16:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough, despite the Haahoos limited involvement to date. They are one of my daughters favorite characters and she will point them out at every opportunity. The patterns and colours I guess. Squeaky Fish 16:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that their involvement is a slightly cynical attempt on the part of Ragdoll to bump up the quantity of merchandise available. Anyone wanting to collect all of the ITNG characters would have to fork out for a bunch of oversized inflatable cushions which don't actually do anything in the programme, other than float around getting a mention. Paul-b4 13:06, 21 September 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?

Yes, he pronounces them as both "HaaBoos" and even "AahBoos" in some episodes. SJ2571 (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Don't know about you, but when I first watched In The Night Garden, I thought he was saying:

"Go to sleep, Hards..."

Is it just because he says "Haahoos" too fast? --GoldenPhoenix 13:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Olly Bolly Dob-Dob non-notable

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)

Done. Removed from Character section, trimmed and re-inserted into Trivia section. I think the Trivia section is getting a bit long and rambling, though. Andrew Oakley 11:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Inthenightgarden.JPG

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)

Deleted image?

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)

Makka Pakka's OCD

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)

Pinky Ponk grammar error

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" . . . ?

Calling all Trivia haters and lovers!

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)

Igglepiggle & Mowgil?

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)

Tittifers

• copied over from the WP:BIRDS talk page

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)

The picture's so small, it's hard to see details. The blue birds appear to have zygodactylic feet (i.e. only two toes pointing forward)—is that correct? Also, can you describe the bill, or provide a larger image (so we can see it ourselves), which can be deleted once we've identified the birds? MeegsC | Talk 18:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make the image - I just came across it while trying to find out what the birds were. i spotted the zygodacylous toes as well, and I've been doing google image searches on all sorts of things. My guess is some kind of kingfisher. Will I have to write to the BBC? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

They're probably Blue Lorikeets where the colours have been messed with (as has also been done for the White-cheeked Turaco, Channel-billed Toucan and Hoopoe). On a worldwide basis, I cannot think of anything else that looks even remotely similar. Rabo3 (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rabo, Blue Lorikeets (or some weird rendering of a Vini lorikeet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a much better look (they were on this morning) and they're lorikeets of some sort. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Lorikeets are small parrots, so it sounds like you and Rabo and S. S. agree. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

On Treehouse TV

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)

Seriously

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)

Childrens' early years (when ITNG is aimed) are when parents are involved the most, and also when parents are youngest and most likely to still care about children's TV. The straight answer to the postulation "you people have GOT to have more in your lives than this", for many new parents, is actually no, no we don't. For working parents who don't look after for their young children throughout the day, the broadcast timing of the first series of this programme at 6:20pm Monday-Friday meant that it was pretty much the only TV show that working parents and their young children watched together. For thousands of families, including mine, it came on just as Daddy got home from work, and finished just before baby went to bed. For the best part of two years, it was one of a very small number of regular, repeated, shared experiences between my baby daughter and me. Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Other Eps

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)

Separate Makka Pakka article

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)

Well, you might not be able to see one, but alot of other people can, i think the solution to this is creating articles for the others in question, not deleting this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.165.174 (talk) 13:38, 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)

• Third opinion - This is a third opinion on the topic, as requested on WP:30. The general guideline for elements of fiction (such as a character) is this: The character is notable, if "there is significant coverage of the element in reliable secondary sources." (See WP:FICTION). In other words, you should only make a Makka Pakka article if you show that this character has been discussed (and not just mentioned) in secondary sources like newspapers or books. Also, on a personal note, I don't really see why the one paragraph on Makka Pakka would justify it's own article. Averell (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Merge (redirect) into this article - notability concerns. PhilKnight (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooo's Sexual Orientation?

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

Here's a useful reference, should anyone choose to write such a section: [1] Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

BBC wrong

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)

Argos

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)

Agree, done. Mention of Argos removed, the toys weren't exclusive to Argos (and in any case appeared in Tesco several months earlier IIRC). However I have left in the manufacturer's names (such as Hasbro and Play-doh) and, where appropriate, links to articles on those manufacturers. That way, any sufficiently pestered - er, I mean interested - parent can contact the manufacturer and discover their local retailer, or ask their local toyshop to obtain stock from the manufacturer. Support your local independent shops! Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Babies are not babies after 1 year old

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)

This is not true. A baby is not called a toddler until able to walk, and not all children can walk at 12 months. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please show me the stone upon which this is graven. Britmax (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

More than one actor?

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)

Lol, i fooled everyone

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)

Hmm, any other hoaxes you'd like to own up to? –xeno ^talk 17:45, 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)

the ninky nonk

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)

Series 3 information

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)

There might be a Series 3 in 2010. It will feature 50 new episodes. The episodes are all new. It might feature 1 or 2 new characters. So far there will be an episode where 4 Pontipine children are missing, but each one of the 4 with their friends (e.g. one clinging on to Igglepiggle's blanket and one in Makka Pakka's Trumpet). There will also be an episode where Upsy Daisy plants a special Daisy, one where the Tombliboo's explore on the Pinky Ponk high above the garden and one where Igglepiggle's blanket falls on the Tombliboos' Ninky Nonk carriage while he goes dancing but he and Upsy Daisy decide to chase the Ninky Nonk to get it back.

Take the little sail down?

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 of the Night Garden

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)

I read in the Independent that the series was filmed "in a secret location outside Stratford-upon-Avon". The area has to be fairly wooded, and there aren't many wooded areas around SuA, so my money is on a large country house just outside Bearley (is it a stable?) This is just my speculation, though...Paul-b4 (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Number of series

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)

Scheduling

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)

Influences

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)

Not really - this is original research and adds nothing to the article ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion at start?

• Whenever I have watched In the Night Garden on CBeebies in England, it starts with Iggle Piggle in his boat at sea, and the initial footage of the sleeping live-action child is omitted. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Unspecial"?

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)

 Done Changed to insignificant. 80.2.172.185 (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Age Range

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)

Haahoos or Ahboos?

• Is it just me, or does it sound as if the narrator calls the large inflatable characters Aahboos rather than Haahoos?

Nuttyskin (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Here in England I distinctly hear their name as "Haahoos".

"Go to sleep, hards" - Derek Jacobi Was he saying haahoos too fast? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

red vs blue

"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.

duncanrmi (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)