Talk:Ben & Holly's Little Kingdom

Television: British / Nickelodeon Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Nickelodeon task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Animation: Television Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Animated television work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Trivia[edit]

I've added a trivia tag to the article as the list has been re-added. If the items cannot be rewritten into the main text I will remove them again later. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edited and grammatically 'cleaned up' the article. Still lacks references... Ryanlauph (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"British animated pre-school children's show"[edit]

I'm at a loss to figure out what is nonsensical about the foregoing phrase, as suggested in this edit summary - the program is an animated series, produced in Britain, for children of pre-school age. That is a more precise, and helpful, description than "British animated television series", and unless it is incorrect (i.e. the target audience is not pre-school children), then it should stand. JohnInDC (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spin off or crossover?[edit]

My first exposure to this series was in an episode of peppa pig where they are making up a bed time story and had all the characters of little kingdom. I always assumed this show was a spin off from that peppa pig episode, or was it simply a cross over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.147.96.46 (talk) 04:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't either. It's jst a use of that plot device for that show. The brave celery (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup needed[edit]

This article is a mess, written by someone whose native language is not English. Serious tidying up needed.109.255.138.92 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homage[edit]

The repeatedly-resubmitted Homage section, which this time was removed by Philip Trueman, does not improve our understanding of the series. It is made up entirely of original research and personal interpretation. It's also pretty well established that much of what we watch on TV or on film contains tributes and hat-tips to other jokes, iconic camera shots, puns on book titles, etc. (Fun fact! Did you know that the movie title Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs is an "homage" to the popular weather report phrase "Cloudy with a chance of sunshine"?) It's not Wikipedia's place to note every instance of that stuff, (see WP:TRIVIA,) and it is especially not our place to do so without using reliable published sources that arrive at these conclusions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree. I reverted purely on the grounds of unreferenced-ness; while Cyphoidbomb is right that it's "not Wikipedia's place to note every instance of that stuff", I can imagine instances where properly sourced descriptions of what has inspired what are worthy of inclusion. To answer Cyphoidbomb's example, WP is read and relied on by people for whom English is not their first language and whose cultural background, and even experience of the weather, is far from that of North America and Western Europe. An Indian whose experience of the seasons is 'wet, dry and monsoon' may well be interested to learn about the inspiration of that movie title. I wouldn't call it trivia. But any such description needs to be properly referenced. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references are self-evident, but we do have one good source for the similarity between the Fairy Mayor and Boris Johnson. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, added character/similarity (and source) to article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes of the Future[edit]

This is where we can discuss Ben and Holly episode ideas for future Ben and Holly episodes.Neverlander223 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not where you can discuss that. Article talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Character list[edit]

The article has been tagged for cleanup since Jan. 2010, and it's only gotten worse in that the character list now comprises the majority of the article. We don't need to list every single character. What is needed is to bring any relevant info to the lead paragraphs, not to expand on these cruft lifts. Eik Corell (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eik Corell, I agree to some degree. At first glance, your edit here seems rather severe. The character lists should be focused on real-world information. One thing that might help is reformatting the list so that it doesn't take up as much space. We certainly don't need formatting like:

Ben Elf:

Ben is an elf and one of the main characters alongside Princess Holly.

Better economy of space might look like:

Ben Elf is one of the main characters alongside Princess Holly.

I also think we could dispense with the wardrobe cruft. "Ben wears a blue shirt, a blue pair of shorts and blue triangular hat with an oak leaf sticking out and has red hair." We're not here to replace the experience of watching the show. In these edits I took care of much of this. There's still a lot that could be removed. One-off characters probably don't belong. "He did X in episode Y" stuff could probably be cut as this tends to encourage plot descriptions in character descriptions. Interpretive content should be removed. And so on. I do fear, however, that we'll wind up cutting too much. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. of series / episodes[edit]

I am really confused about the main article saying "No. of series = 4" and "No. of Episodes = 96". When you click on "(List of episodes)" it lists 2 series with a total of 104 episodes. Please explain! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuzzwassa (talk • contribs) 13:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chuzzwassa, I've changed the infobox to reflect 2 series, 104 episodes per the List of episodes article. I don't know if this information is correct, so if you want to dig up some sources that get to the bottom of this, that would be a helpful contribution. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of Daisy and Poppy[edit]

Have just been looking over this article and noted that the link for the voice actor for Daisy and Poppy (Zoe Baker) links to a world record holding swimmer. My gut would say this is the wrong person but I don't know for sure. Can anyone check this?108.171.128.162 (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The twins and magic[edit]

Article currently reads in part Daisy and Poppy are Holly's little twin sisters. They are not very good at magic as they are only babies, but this does not stop them from trying.

I think the opposite! One of the running gags is that they are much more competent at magic than their elder sister. Whenever they get hold of a wand they can instantly do exactly what they want, turning the Wise Old Elf into a frog, or muttering "Kitty cat!" and turning him or Nanny Plum into a cat, while Holly often struggles to find the right spell to do what she wants... "We have to do something, because I don't think he likes being a frog". The problem is not that they are incompetent but that they are irresponsible. It's a classic "little sister" sitcom gag.

Comments? The material is unsourced as it is, so I think it would be an improvement just to change it to be accurate according to the primary sources... that is, to be consistent to the shows as I've watched them. (And they are quite brilliant.) Andrewa (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody messed it up[edit]

I got to this page and then heard it became American. The anonymous user said their judges were KYLE (musician) and the "Mean Ol' Elf & Lil Wayne"— Something's not right here. MakesTheWikiBetter (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted those changes. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution area[edit]

What is Chleseo Mewydd which is said to distribute the series? -- 86.2.174.27 (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal[edit]

This edit with the edit summary of fix things is actually removal of unsourced but apparently accurate content.

As such it is justified (apart from the edit summary), but it would be even better to source and restore the material. Andrewa (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]