Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Lead

I moved a section of the lead to the body and placed it in a comment below the text it summarized (though it was more repetition than summary). The section in question seemed out of place and was adequately summarized in the body. The lead was lengthy beforehand. Mythpage88 (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

4 paragraphs for a article this long is completely fine. The section you moved -about Faust and the like - is actually necessary in the lead because it is a major part of the article, Faust's creative development of the show. I've trimmed it to remove redundancies within it, but moving it was wrong. --MASEM (t) 05:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I did remove the bit about BroNYcon, as per WP:MOSINTRO ("Relative emphasis"). Mythpage88 (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

BroNYcon in the lead section is definitely undue emphasis. IsaacAA (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I do agree too that its excess (At least, at the size it is now and minimal coverage it gets...) --MASEM (t)

Fandom gets it's own page again

It probably won't, but i think the Brony fandom is getting so large that it should have it's own page again. With all the references to pop culture in the show too, that would go on it too. Sticknuke007 (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Pop culture references are a show thing, not a fandom thing. If anything, they would stay here. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Its difficult talk about the show without the fandom, and vice versa. The page is still under 100k, and probably could have some trimming, but separating would make both less comprehensive. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hasbro's legal stance

I recognize that "we" know Hasbro seems to have taken a stance on the vids at YouTube, but the only source that states this that is reliable is the Forbes article that notes that Hasbro is taking down some on YouTube that are HD. I know EQD has posted more articles on this, but we shouldn't be using EQD as a source outside of their interviews. Also, anything dealing with the pony archive is far different, given the attitude they took to the C&D. If there's a more reliable source that explains this at some point, we can add it, but as far as what we can get from RS right now, what's there is all we can say. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm...I know EQD isn't a mainstream source like Forbes, but it's a good source for MLP news, isn't it? And what "attitude" are you talking about; the attitude displayed by ponyarchive or the attitude displayed by EQD? And regardless of anyone's attitude, it still seems important to note that Hasbro issued a C&D against a site that offered free downloads of the episodes. Anyway, here's the relevant EQD articles for references: [1] [2] Sonicsuns (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

EQD isn't reliable as it is a blog without much editorial control. Even the interviews they have done with Faust and Thiesson we have to be careful with because EQD is the source. In the larger picture of things, the ponyarchive is a non-news thing: sites offering illegal downloads of episodes and their subsequent C&D happen all the time; even remove from Youtube happens frequently. What we can state is what sources have said which generally put forth is that Hasbro has been lenient on such videos though have taken steps. We have no official word from Hasbro on this outside of the Forbes article, so anything trying to attribute their stance beyond this needs to be well-sourced. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

An example image of the "fan canon"

Could this image make a perfect example of FIM's fan canon, or, "fanon"? It is a fan comic about Discord trying to vanish "Derpy Hooves" using her favourite muffin (a result of what I would call a misinterpretation of a scene in "Applebuck Season"), in front of "Doctor Whooves" and Derpy's "daughter", "Dinky". If this image can't make it, what would make another appropriate example? JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 12:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Examples should be added only if they're mentioned by reliable third party sources. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I definitely think its going to be difficult to justify any fan-drawn image, barring significant coverage of it elsewhere as Harizotoh said. We have the poster with Derpy and Whooves on it, to start. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Should we nominate for FA again?

I've fixed a large amount of the problems brought up at the last peer review. Should we try nominating again? oyasumi (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We should make sure everything's kosher before we submit it for peer review. – Confession0791 ^talk 03:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I was actually talking about nominating for featured article, but I guess we should submit it for another peer review first. oyasumi (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I've just nominated a couple article for FAC for the first time and have been following the reviewing process there somewhat closely. My strongest advice is to lean heavily on peer reviews before you nominate or re-nominate. Also, you should try to get experienced FAC regulars to perform the review. This probably means bugging them on their user talk page to take a look. That's the best way to get good copyeditors too, usually you'll need several of them to look it over before it meets 1a. The FA standards are really high, and unless someone has experience bringing articles to FA they're probably going to overlook a lot. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've several FAs under the belt, so the things that I know we might be troubled with at FAC are:

• Sources: The bulk of this article is from RS, but we've still got our EQD and DeviantArt sources. "We" here know that these are appropriate, and its the fact when we go to EQD to explain why they are (interviews, identities valified etc.) If we can remove any of these with a more RS, we should do that.
• Prose quality: This is always a stickler. We need to make sure its great writing. I know that much of the text of this article came from me, but I also know my writing is not FA quality to start.

Everything else, such as images, we should be clear with (we only have 3 non-frees, all appropriate, so that's good); I am confident that the sources match the text, and the format per MOS is consistent. But these are "easy" to correct, the above two points will be the ones people comment on at FAC. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As-of

The statement that season 3 is in production is cited to a news report dated 2011-09-08. It will not always remain true (even if it is today). That is why the As-of clauses are needed. --Stfg (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The inline citation that points to the news article (http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Vancouver+Metropolitan+Orchestra+Launches+Ninth+Season/5373201/story.html) is now a 404 and no longer valid. It should probably be removed. LapinJ (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And it isn't in the Wayback machine. Removing it would make the statement that season 3 is in production (as of any date) uncited, but after 5 months, perhaps that's losing its interest anyway. Where is it at now? --Stfg (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2012 -- Type in Czech title

The Czech translation of the title contains a typo:

Můj malý Pony: Přátelství je magickéc

it should be:

Můj malý Pony: Přátelství je magické

(no "c" at the end)

Link to the Czech article: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C5%AFj_mal%C3%BD_pony:_P%C5%99%C3%A1telstv%C3%AD_je_magick%C3%A9

78.108.144.215 (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the correction! Pinkie Pie 21:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Pegisisters

Can someone please put that a large number of female bronies hate being called pegisisters and thus it is a contested term. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.74.202 (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS would need to be found. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.reddit.com/r/mylittlepony/comments/m0cq9/anyone_else_tired_of_female_bronies_being_called/ as one example.

"For a fanbase that wants to get out there that's it's perfectly acceptable for guys to watch a girl's cartoon show, it would be biased for us to accept gender roles and have the male and female fans be separated into two different categories" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.74.202 (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but reddit forum posts are not WP:RS. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

also, it's pegAsister. 109.75.18.242 (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Charity events

Could someone please add something about the Bronies for Good event, which raised more than $24,000 ? It hasn't been covered by the media as far as I know, but I assume GlobalGiving is a trusted source : http://www.globalgiving.org/dy/fundraiser/prevfund/gg.html?regid=6545 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.61.219.98 (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And so this article begins its journey into becoming a publicity piece for bronies. –Throwawaytv (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 February 2012

Please add the following to the international releases please!

European Portuguese | My Little Pony: A Mágica Amizade ("The Magical Friendship") | Canal Panda| March 5, 2012

I can assure you that the references that I put are really reliable. Thank you! 94.132.73.210 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, and thank you for making it really easy to add too :) --MASEM (t) 20:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to link the word European Portuguese to a wiki page. Can you do that please? 94.132.73.210 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Got it now. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you also delete the space between the word Canal Panda and the first reference that I put, please? You Know! You like this: Canal Panda, instead of Canal Panda . It would be perfect for the article. 94.132.73.210 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Got that too. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Add to the names of the series on others countries and from other reference sites

Please add the following to the international releases please!

Latinamerican spanish | My Little Pony: La Magia de la Amistad ("The Magic of the Friendship") | Discovery Kids| November 21, 2011

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.20.60.103 (talk • contribs)

We already have a Mexican Spanish entry and on Discovery Kids - is this different from that ? --MASEM (t) 23:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

New "Internet Following" article

Does anyone else think that the internet following deserves its own separate page? Lightsaber Guy (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

We've discussed this before. The problem is that the show and the fandom are best discussed in the same article; without the fandom stuff, the show aspects are weak here, and the fandom part may seem self-serving. As we've not hit anywhere close to SIZE problems, there's no need to split. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Are we stuck with the claim that 4chan was responding to CartoonBrew's article?

All I have to offer is original research, which obviously is inadmissible, but the idea that CartoonBrew piqued /co/'s interest simply doesn't stand up to simple scrutiny of the actual threads that were posted on /co/. The hyperlink goes to an archive containing all the threads about My Little Pony Friendship is Magic that were posted prior to CartoonBrew's article and archived on archive.no-ip.org. The article is mentioned on October 22nd, but there were already thousands of posts on the subject by then. The archive shows the origin of "brony" and "bronies" too, which predate /b/ threads by a month or more. How can this information, which is easily accessible and trivial to verify, be incorporated into the article? –Throwawaytv (talk) 10:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating. The best bet would be to make this available as widely as possible so that it can be incorporated into future media reports. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the fan wikia is the first place to start. Create an article there on the fandom and correct the information. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

First, on the "brony" thing , there is no claim in this article that this is actually tied to /b/. We only make the claim that the fans adopted that term at some point. So that second point's a non issue.

As to the first one, because every reliable source ties the fandom to the Amid article, we can't counter that. We can alter wording to suggest that the Amid article may have boosted the growth or something to that effect, but we can't sever that tie with just the original threads (that's original research). --MASEM (t) 13:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sad. –Throwawaytv (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did try to alter the wording to make it clear, it wasn't "zero to fandom in 10 seconds flat" after the essay was published, just that it heightened the exposure of the show. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The iTunes Store Derpy Scandal - How to cover it?

There are many evidences, and fans are reporting it; but no official statement was made, and speculations are floating around.

Days after the first upload of "The Last Roundup" - the episode where Derpy's name was first mentioned and she had first lengthily dialogues - on iTunes Store, it was suddenly removed from the list. Nearly a month later when it was appeared there again, Rainbow Dash mentioning Derpy by name was edited, the grey pegasus mare's voice was changed, and she had normal eyes.

Reactions from fans who prefer the original broadcast version are vary, some are blaming either Hasbro or Apple Inc. for the change, but still, no official answer is heard from the companies. Although fan sites are reporting about the incident - and evidence is clear when comparing both versions - there are many doubts about the reliability of those sites. (Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources) With no official words, there are speculations about it.

So, what, and how should we do? JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 14:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

We can't, yet. Until it's pointed out outside of the fandom, its a lot of supposition. And since Faust/others have responded basically saying their hands are tied but not much else, there's little we can do there. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[3] Now we can. I'll add this later tonight. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like we might do something with the closure of PonyArchive with this source, found on the article you linked to. By the way, what should we do with List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters#Derpy? JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 10:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

We can add that ponyarchive thing, but the thing about gawker's derpy article is that it has Hasbro's response, which is key to NPOV here. (The ponyarchive thing is sorta imbalanced in how gawker covers it). As for the Derpy section, more details can be added there - though I'm seriously considering if Derpy can have her own article (given all of Derpygate plus the like). --MASEM (t) 15:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dropping EQD's email from Amy KEating Rogers [4], but I have to think about how best to add it. Again, I'm getting more a feeling we can make a Derpy article, but I'm not sure yet. --MASEM (t) 02:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Make an article about "derp" as an internet slang, put everything about the grey pegasus mare and the name removal there, and that's it. By the way, this is the correct link: [5]. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 08:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Making an article about derp as slang is a very difficult prospect, moreso than an article about derpy. -MASEM (t) 13:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This article from one of British national newspapers, Daily Mail, is _______? JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 14:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing different from the Gawker article (even quoting it), and because its Daily Mail, I'd rather avoid it. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I see... Come back when non-tabloids spot this? JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 14:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I mean, I've got the info from the Gawker article in place here. The Daily Mail is both repeating (no new information), and also a rather unreliable source. So there's just no need to add that reference when the Gawker one is already in place. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2012 -- Add another title in Portuguese title and change in Brazilian title

Can you add another European Portuguese title? It's also called: My Little Pony: A Amizade é Mágica ("Friendship is Magic")

Can you change also the Brazilian title for: My Little Pony: A Amizade é Pura Magia ("Friendship is Pure Magic")?

I can assure you that those titles I mentioned are really reliable. 94.132.73.210 (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm sorry, but sources need to be verifiable as well as reliable, so we cannot use personal recollections. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the proof that the European Portuguese title is also called My Little Pony: A Amizade é Mágica ("Friendship is Magic")

Please add this title. 94.132.73.210 (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Derpy Hooves article

I am trying to see if there's enough to make a Derpy article. I've started this in userspace User:Masem/Derpy and invite anyone to add to it to see if there's enough. I know I will be dipping to AKR's email that EQD posted about the Last Roundup, but I'm avoiding fansites as much as possible. --MASEM (t) 03:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The "Ditzy Doo" claim is inaccurate, the Doctor Whooves claim is not supported by the sources you cite and probably not supported by any reliable source. –Throwawaytv (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It was discussed in the other MLP character AFD debates that characters pages should be merged and redirected to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters. The reason is that there's not enough to establish notability. The Derpy article will suffer the same fate as the previous articles. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure it necessarily would, but that's why I put it in userspace first only because there's a chance there might be (of any of the characters from the show, Derpy has found the most coverage due to the fandom, but that's it so far). If not much more comes out, I don't see it going anywhere. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Autism Therapy Article Correction

First, Kirsten has Aspergers, not autism. Second, she wasn't using it to "overcome her autism", she was just using it as a form of stress therapy or something. Also, this is by no means the first I've seen the show mentioned in an article as being used as therapy relating to Aspergers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.222.145.73 (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've made the corrections. It now describes her as having Aspergers, removed the part about "overcoming autism". I would recommend that others watch that section as it may be an area that trolls may vandalize. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Brony portmanteau

Just so you know, brony is a portmanteau of /b/ and pony, not exactly "bro" and "pony". This is because people on 4Chan's board /b/ called each other /b/ros. Know Your Meme covered it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olLDrvc1qt4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega31098 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Most reliable sources state "bro", which may be from "/b/ro", but unfortunately there's no reliable source with that link (KYM is not reliable here). --MASEM (t) 04:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The words "brony" and "bronies" originated on /co/, and predate /b/ threads by a month or more. KnowYourMeme are wrong. –Throwawaytv (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's not "bro" and "ponies". Brony is a gender free term. Jeremjay24 07:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Technically no - most people take "brony" as male-dominated simply by sound (hence why there was even a "pegasister" term). We know that bronies do consider the term to be gender neutral in general, but the origins are definitely male-dominated. --MASEM (t) 09:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on March 18, 2012

The last word, "browser," in the last sentence of the second paragraph of 6.2.3 "Other arenas," is misspelled as "brower." I'm asking for someone who can edit the page to fix this typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunabeast27 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Add Latvian broadcast info

Hi,

Apparently, MLP:FiM is broadcast in Latvia too[6]. The title is "Mans mazais ponijs: draudzība ir brīnums" which translates too "My little pony: friendship is a miracle", and the channel is TV3. I'm not sure about the debut date, though.

Popoffka (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The date seems to be 2012-02-11, given [7]. But that's original research to be confirmed by some sources. Could you please check some Latvian newspapers of that time?

Also, similar evidence of Lithuanian broadcast has been found ([8]), but consensus was that it wasn't enough... Still, I wouldn't call that very strong consensus and, as we know, "Consensus can change"...

And on a related note, while looking for the date of debut I have found a Latvian newspaper article ([9]) - Aigars Lazdiņš "Vīrieši mīl mazus, krāsainus ponijus", "Diena" 2012-01-11. That looks as a potentially useful source (for the ones who do not know any Latvian, the title should be something like "Men love little, colourful ponies" - though that translation is still just an educated guess based on similarity between Latvian and Lithuanian). Could you please check for more full bibliographic information of that article..? That is, was is actually printed (or is it online-only?), and if it was, what is the page number? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Other Media

Season one is now availible on netflix.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldwarshot (talk • contribs) 17:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

FPÖ and SPÖ hacking

Found three pages from Austrian public broadcaster ORF's website: Two news articles about the hacking (Jul, Aug) and one review about bronydom. (FM4) JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 08:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No response... Come on, they are much reliable than what we have about the hacking at My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic#Other arenas, at least. (And I can't fully understand German after all.) JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 13:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful to get one or two relevant sentences reliably parsed so that we can include them as quotes within the citations. I don't see a problem with the ORF site itself since they're basically their NPR. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And still, no one's integrating them into the article. I wish Hope(N Forever) and someone fluent in both German and English do something. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 15:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request April 15, 2012

In the "Other arenas" section near the bottom there.

"An article appearing in the New York Times on December 26, 2011, "Navigating Love and Autism" by Amy Harmon,[135] described how one young woman with Asperger syndrome uses using My Little Pony characters to relieve stress."

Right after Asperger syndrome. Please fix the "use using" error? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docter Ted (talk • contribs) 02:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Pirate Party

As cool as it would be, the German Pirate Party does not air episodes within the parliament. The episodes are used for de-escalating debates during internal sessions of the PP delegates, which is what the source says as well. Since I can't edit the article, could someone correct that? 84.191.167.123 (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm "almost sure" that is the right reading - the source ([10]) does seem to say that it happens during the "Fraktionssitzung" (that is most likely to mean "Faction meeting")... So, would the correct version be something like "The faction of Pirate Party of Germany in the Abgeordnetenhaus of Berlin (the Berlin state parliament), has a rule that the members can request inclusion of "pony time" (in which an episode from the series is shown) during its meetings. That first happened on November 15, 2011." (instead of "The Pirate Party of Germany, sitting in the Abgeordnetenhaus of Berlin (the Berlin state parliament), has insisted on the inclusion of "pony time" during sessions, in which an episode from the series is shown, an action that has displeased many of the other members in the Berlin parliament.")? Also, I am not sure about the right way to tell what is the reason for the rule... We should probably cite someone's words and attribute them? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of the wedding...

A wedding-themed finale of the second season is on the way, and Hasbro and The Hub are implementing a massive campaign. Wonder how the major six characters will crash this impressive party for the finale once again...

Anyway, I want to add that they are related to the upcoming Royal Wedding playset, but I can't find any source supporting the fact. Can anyone help? JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 09:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Episodes With Their Own Articles

From the looks of this page, we've been discussing which episodes deserve their own articles. I have a rather silly question. Why not include all of them? It wouldn't be unprecedented, as Wikipedia has done the same thing with shows like The Simpsons and every single one of the Star Trek shows. 64.69.158.250 (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Episode articles need secondary sources to be allowable per WP:N. Every episode of the Simpsons has this, an d while I know several of the Trek ones presently lack them, those sources exist as well. But with MLP, only a handful have gained any coverage outside of the fandom, so we can't have articles for them. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"Negative essays"

Opinion articles berating the shows fandom do not belong here.

In sum

1- They are not reliable sources

2- They do not contribute to the knowledge provided by the article

3- The article does not say the fanbase "is good", therefore there is no reason to "balance" if there is nothing to balance. The lack of criticism is not a warrant to bring in criticism.

4- If you think that a successful fanbase wrapped around an intricate subculture is "too good and must be balanced with negativity" you are blatantly POV pushing.

5- Criticisms over violations and negative externalities are perfectly fine, but criticizing something as weird is totally out of wikipedia's standards.

I7laseral (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear! dogman15 (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The National Review is a reliable source. Furthermore, I'm adding these as a fan of the show. They are included to highlight how some media sources have perceived the fandom in line with the FOX off color reports. This is counter to the positive reception that the showrunners have provided, so there's a counterpoint here and no POV pushing. This is similar to the section from Furry fandom about the media perception, so it is not out of place in such articles. Same in the Trekkie article about stereotypes. --MASEM (t) 05:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Neither the Furry fandom or the Trekkie article say that they are terrifying trends or weird, rather just say the media sometimes has negative perception.

That is not what you are doing. You are straight out providing evidence/sources to provide a POV that the fandom is weird/terrifying. Additionally, the negativity pieces do not contribute to the knowledge of the article. Find something about media coverage of the fan base instead.

Also

5- Criticisms over violations and negative externalities are perfectly fine, but criticizing something as weird is totally out of Wikipedia's standards.

Furthermore there is no "positive reception" that needs to be countered. It is completely a POV to say that the fanbase is good or positive. All we have stated in the article is the level of interaction and eagerness of fans. We have not provided evidence or have sourced pundits saying the fan base is good.

I7laseral (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

We have quotes from Hasbro and the show runners commenting favorably on the fandom. That's a good positive spin to include and that makes sense to include. But at the same time there are sourced commentary that consider older males likely a girls show as strange and weird. That's fine as that's their opinion, and provides a counterpoint to understand the type of ridicule the fandom is getting and yet relents onwards. So we're providing both sides of the issue, and not creating a POV. In what I added I specifically named who they were so it was clear it was singular opinions from notable sources, so it is not making the claim that all media sources see the fandom as weird. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

As a devotee of the show, I happen to completely agree with Masem. There is nothing inherently POV about including positive or negative perceptions of the show, and while there are probably better sources on the subject than Breitbart's piece, to say that "criticizing something as weird is totally out of Wikipedia's standards" is grossly inaccurate of the nature of wikipedia. Number one: Wikipedia is not censored: As the article stands now, Ms. (magazine) basically called Princess Celestia an allusion to white supremacy, so I don't see how calling bronies "weird" would be in any way unacceptable in wikipedia standards. Secondly, in terms of WP:WEIGHT one or two statements on how the brony phenomenon is unappealing to some doesn't even overwhelm the section, let alone the entire article. The National review is a reliable source (which comments on Breitbart's blog, even though I wouldn't consider Breitbart's blog noteworthy in and of itself). If there is to be inclusion on negative perceptions, it should come from more reputable sources. But to say any source which labels the show or its fanbase as "weird" or "creepy" is unacceptable is ludicrous. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Importantly by identifying them as opinions, it attempts to make no factual statement directly about the fandom: it is not "the fandom is weird" that is being pushed as fact, but that "Mr. X of this reputable source says the fandom is weird" as the fact. Big difference. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Brony Music

The remixes and covers are mentioned, but there is nothing on the original music created by the community. This is fairly significant as brony artists have been mentioned in Rolling Stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.222.150.92 (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems worthy of inclusion in the article, but I can't find the Rolling Stones article. Any sources?DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/behind-the-music-of-pop-culture-smash-my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-20120420 186.222.150.92 (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

References to other Media Section

I feel that the MLP:FiM page could benefit from an additional section outlining references to other media in the episodes. The References will be listed in chronological order and would include all the mediums MLP:FiM refers to.

Examples of such references are:

Season 1 Episode 2 - 18:22: Original Star Trek transporter sound effect Episode 6 - 09:01: 1989 Batman reference; when Joker demands a mirror with newly discovered green hair and pale face. Rarity demands a mirror when her hair is turned green. Episode 8 - 05:20: Twilight has a reference guide called Every Thing You Always Wanted to Know About Slumber Parties but Were Afraid to Ask is a reference to Woody Allens' 1972 film Every Thing You Always Wanted to Know About Sex but Were Afraid to Ask Episode 13 - 10:42: Rainbow Dash make a reference to "The Eggheads Guide to Running" parallel to "The hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" note: Twilight's racing number is 42. Episode 15 - 19:16: Twilight exposed in a fit of frustration and her hair turns to flame as her coat turns white looking much like the Pokemon, Rapidash. Episode 18 - 16:21: The Cutie Mark Crusaders rock ballad intro has the same lighting effect (only faces of the singers lit up) as Queen in Bohemian Rhapsody etc.

There are many references that go unnoticed and I feel it the MLP:FiM page would have a lot to gain by having section outlining these references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anextiomaros (talk • contribs) 22:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong place. All this might be suitable for My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic Wiki in Wikia ([11]). That wiki accepts original research (see [12]), Wikipedia doesn't (see Wikipedia:No original research). They also have a page that seems to be similar to the one you want ([13]). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not the wrong place, just would require reliable references. If a member of the show's crew or cast confirmed a reference, then it would be interesting to include in an article. Part of the shows notability derives from the pop culture references intended for adults to catch, despite its primary audience being young girls. Without references, though, it is just speculation.DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Er, the way I read the original post, it refers to everything that doesn't have such sources ("There are many references that go unnoticed and I feel it the MLP:FiM page would have a lot to gain by having section outlining these references."). Of course, I might be wrong on this point.

Still, I suspect, that if we had such sources, the episodes themselves would be described in them. Thus the episodes would be notable and we would create articles for them. And those articles are going to be more suitable place for such mentions, meaning that this one would still be a wrong place. Of course, if we had a source that discussed use of such references in the series as a whole... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I see what your saying and I think you are right as to the intentions of the original poster. If references cannot be sourced to a crew member then I feel that it would always just be fan speculation and therefore not really appropriate for wikipedia. Further more, I am not sure that even a source from a member of the crew commenting on a reference they made would be enough to make a whole episode notable enough for an article, but I do think that it would be notable enough for inclusion in a section on the main articles page.DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I shouldn't have assumed those references to be independent. Still, I guess this discussion can wait until we will find such sources. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, lets get source hunting! DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Many crew members can be contacted publicly. I reccomend asking them directly. Lauren Faust's DA would be a good place to start. --75.84.122.182 (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability of those episodes

I know MLP is a hot new trend among netizens across the world, but are we sure "The Return of Harmony" and "Hearts and Hooves Day" are so-much notable to have their own Wikipedia articles? JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 13:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe notability has been established for those articles because there are enough third-party sources that talk about those episodes, and they also had very high viewership counts. dogman15 (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Really? Are those sources "reliable" (or "authoritative", if you wish) in the sense used in Wikipedia? The ones given in the articles ([14], [15]) are either blogs that are not reliable (in the sense of Wikipedia:Reliable sources) or only have passing mentions (TV schedule and the like)...

Now, of course, it is not impossible that some episodes are notable in the sense used in Wikipedia:Notability. I guess it is not hard to argue that one source (Walton Wood "The Empirical Twilight: A Pony’s Guide to Science & Anarchism" "ImageTexT: Interdisciplinary Comics Studies", vol. 6, issue 1, 2011, ISSN: 1549-6732) discusses the episode "Feeling Pinkie Keen" in sufficient detail. If one really wants, maybe it is even possible to argue that even a short description in one Russian source (Илья Ченцов "Большие безобразия маленьких пони", "Страна Игр", Nr. 8(324), 2011, p. 62-70) that discusses the episode "Suited for Success" is "sufficient detail" (though I doubt that would be very persuasive). But I don't think I have noticed any suitable sources for those two episodes while writing the Lithuanian version of the article...

And, by the way, the articles themselves do not look too well... Mostly plot summaries (even with significant inaccuracies - "In the maze, Discord tricks each of the ponies, excepting Twilight: he convinces Applejack to become a liar, Pinkie Pie to loose her happy attitude, Rarity to believe a rock is a diamond, Fluttershy to loose her passive demeanor, and Rainbow Dash to leave her friends." is an almost hopelessly bad description of that part of the plot) with some viewership statistics and mentions of reviews in a couple of blogs...

In short - Wikipedia does not compete with fan sites and Wikia. Let's do our job and let them do their. They do it better anyway.

Thus, in my opinion, unless better sources are going to be found, those two articles should be redirected here. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Given how much I have to follow MLP mentions in mainstream media, I'm 99% sure that no MLP ep is really notable. There's some you could possibly push the notability claim, but really, they aren't compared to most other truly notable TV episode articles. The episode lists are sufficient for these. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed those as well. I'm probably going to nominate them for deletion sometime today or tomorrow. I don't mind if someone goes ahead and does it now. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I wanted to put Speedy Deletion tag to those articles, but I'm not sure which category suits them. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 08:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That's because none applies. There are no good "shortcuts" to evaluate the notability of art. In the end we have to look at the sources and see if they are reliable, independent etc. That's what a deletion discussion is supposed to do. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I will be disappointed if those articles are deleted. Meanwhile, episodes of South Park, The Simpsons, and Family Guy (and many other shows) automatically get their own article as soon as they're announced. Don't retort back telling me why; I already know why. dogman15 (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As the creator of the articles, I don't understand why they're being deleted. They have reliable, third party sources, which fulfills a main part of Wikipedia:Notability. Specifically, The Return of Harmony features an episode cite, two interviews, a Deviant Art page (which is questionable, but verified), two TV rating websites, which substantially mention the ratings, and two review sites that are not freelance blogs, but rather blogs run by a (albeit minor) news outlet, which does not fall under Self-published sources (online and paper). Finally, the episode doesn't fall under any of the criteria listed under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Thus, the deletion nominations are silly and unfounded. Seven sources is pretty decent in my book.--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the reliability of these sources. The review site, Republibot, does not have a reputation to assure that its reviews are meaningful. The other secondary sources, the interviews, are possible sources, but because they are coming from fan sites, they may be questionable. (Note that we do use those interviews on THIS article, but we've got tons of reliable secondary sources to back it up, so it's a different situation). Also, seven sources is not really a lot at the end of the day. --MASEM (t) 02:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note, I only made those articles because they had sources. I did find a mention of editorial review for Republibot here, but I will admit it isn't the best. I feel its a little premature to delete (or rather redirecting would be better). I have a history of working on episode articles, and I've promoted pages that only have 10 sources, so number really isn't a huge deal I guess. I guess since I'm not part of this project, do what you think is best, but I still think its ridiculous to demand blood and delete the pages rather than let them stay despite them being minorly notable.--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Gen. Quon on this one. dogman15 (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So, have we reached consensus to redirect those articles for now..? I don't think anyone is going to demand complete deletion.

On the point of sources - it's not the number of sources that is important. We could easily have a decent article supported by a couple of sources, but we need good sources. We wouldn't write the article about "Hamlet" or "Faust" (yes, "pun" intended), if we only had the works themselves, some data about book or theater ticket sales on the first day, a letter from the writer and some letters from random contemporaries, right? Why should we set the standards here any lower? Just because it's a cartoon that was meant for kids? I guess that essays User:Uncle G/On notability and (to some extent) User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing could also be worth cited here.

Of course, it doesn't mean that good sources will never exist (I hope they will). For example, it is not impossible that someone will find the episodes useful in Catholic Catechesis and will report it somewhere (for all I know, "The Return of Harmony" might prove useful in illustrating temptation, demonic possession, even the difference between sacraments and sacramentals)... Of course, individual wikipedians can, well, encourage creation of such sources...

So, in conclusion - it wasn't as bad as you thought in [16], was it..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to bring your attention before anything happens to "The Return of Harmony", that I substantially upped the references, with many of them being reliable. I honestly think it has enough to stay. But yes, I still find this whole conversation ridiculous...--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, which of the references ([17]) do you consider reliable? I see some blogs (io9, "We Got This Covered") and a couple of Youtube videos embedded somewhere else with little commentary (actually, the same video in "Neatorama" and "Dorkly")... Perhaps I missed something..?

"But yes, I still find this whole conversation ridiculous..." - well, nice to know we can keep someone entertained. But, a little more seriously, what exactly do you find ridiculous? And just in case, so that we wouldn't end up arguing without a clear standard (now that could be ridiculous...) - do you agree that strict compliance with Wikipedia:Notability and other policies must be enforced? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the loaded question nature of your inquiry, but, to answer, It's your enforcement of Wikipedia:Notability that I find ridiculous. Firstly, i09 is a professional blog with a full editing staff. Same with We Got This Covered, and Republibot, and even Dorkly. These clearly do not fall under the Self-published sources (online and paper) category. Let me quote: ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." (WP:NEWSBLOG). i09, in particular, has been used in a variety of other articles (Granted, I know the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument, but this is a little different, I'm talking about the consensus among the Wikipedia community about the usefulness of a source). Secondly, several of the sources refer to accolades of the episode. For instance, there are a couple articles that have ratings info, which is a notable facet of articles about television, and there's nothing wrong with having references that only briefly mention the episodes in question. Considering the episode is one of, if not the, most watched episodes of the series, that by itself is important. Also, i09 named the episode one of the "The Best Television Moments of 2011." Thirdly, the unreliable videos, interviews, and Deviant Art pages are only used in the article because they're used in the parent article. I don't understand how one article's sources, which belong to a parent GA, can be called "unreliable". Finally, your arguments about reliable sources is confusing. Originally, this article had seven sources, then it grew a little to eight, and finally, it has thirteen sources. Many are unique to the article (accolades, ratings, production info). Granted, I can remove the YouTube video, as there are other cites out there to back the Star Wars ending up, but I digress. I admire your dedication to weeding out articles that don't comply with Wikipedia:Notability, but I feel that this effort is over the top. Every time I improve it by adding more and more reliable sources, there's a consensus that the articles aren't "good" enough or aren't "reliable", even though they comply with notability requirements and provide interesting commentary and information that doesn't exist anywhere else on Wikipedia. --Gen. Quon (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the "loaded question" was asked, because it is clear that our standards are different and it would be nice to know, how exactly do they differ... It could be that we disagree about the need to follow Wikipedia:Notability (looks like that has been ruled out), maybe we have different standards for sources, maybe there's something else...

Now you counted the sources in the article. But the whole idea is that this number has nothing to do with notability: just give me a couple of sources that are clearly reliable, independent, secondary, and describe the subject in some detail at the same time. I'll be content with that even if they won't be cited yet. OK, I'll be mostly content if you will give me a single source. For example, "Equestria Daily" [18] has found "Top 5 Lessons for Adults From My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic" in blog of "LA Weekly" ([19]). Good, that makes five episodes mentioned there arguably notable. If someone will assert that this shows their notability, I probably won't argue with that. See, it's not a high standard.

But "io9" doesn't look that clearly reliable (maybe "authoritative" would describe what I'm looking for more accurately than "reliable"?). I guess you could ask at Wikipedia:RS/N about the reliability of those sources and that would settle everything...

And, of course, once notability is established, we can easily take non-independent sources and passing mentions (Lauren Faust is clearly an authority on her own work). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my argument came off as "I have more citations now", I meant to illustrate that the citations have improved drastically. Also, you claim its fine to accept non-independent sources from Lauren Faust, because she is notable and an authority. Why can't non-independent sources be accepted for Jayson Thiesson as well? And now you're elevating "notability" to "authoritative". Can you see why I'm frustrated? I get what you're saying about other references, but there simply aren't very many out there. But that's why I made two articles, and not 43. Based on the references I was able to gather, I built what I could with what I had. Also, what do you mean by, "I'll be content with that even if they won't be cited yet."--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, there are two different things:

1. Sources are used to show notability. In this case only independent ones will do. It is enough to mention them in a discussion, they do not have to be used in the article.
2. After notability has been shown, sources are used to support the content in the article. In that case non-independent sources (and passing mentions) are OK once in a while.

"And now you're elevating "notability" to "authoritative"."... Actually, I simply think that "authoritative" is easier to understand than "reliable", while meaning the same thing (in this case). For example, in a simple conversation it could be said that "Equestria Daily" is "reliable" (that is, "I don't think they lie, or make many mistakes."), but it is not what "reliable" means in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia we say that "Equestria Daily" is not "reliable" or not "authoritative" (it is unlikely to be cited in a serious academic work as a serious source).

"I get what you're saying about other references, but there simply aren't very many out there. But that's why I made two articles, and not 43. Based on the references I was able to gather, I built what I could with what I had."... Yes, I understand. That is exactly what we (the "deletionists") are saying: we were looking for suitable sources too, and found none. Perhaps there are none yet. Thus we cannot write an article now, we will have to wait until someone publishes some suitable sources... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I really don't care that much anymore. If it means that much. Maybe get a third-party to look it over and cast the deciding vote, since we clearly just have wikideological differences.--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, individual episodes of shows very rarely rise to WP:N standards. If an episode is popular or talked about, it simply contributed to the notability of the show itself. I know there are many TV shows with articles for each episode, but I don't think those belong in Wikipedia either. Is every single episode of Family Guy really notable from an encyclopedia POV? Really? I would argue that there are some rare episodes that do rise to notability outside of the show itself, but this is a lot more rare than you might think. DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Support. The next step would be nominating them (including those created later) for deletion, and integrating sources (that gathered for those articles) into the mane... ahem, main FIM article. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Why should they be nominated for deletion if there is little doubt that the result will be redirection of those articles here (to keep the article history in case good sources are found, "Redirects are cheap." etc.)? We already have some sort of weak consensus here, so let's redirect those two articles (other articles would need further checking). I could do it myself, but, given the comment "Maybe get a third-party to look it over", I have decided that this might be seen as slightly inappropriate... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind, WP can be more inclusive - we aren't running out of space. Yes, notability is important, and I will agree that 90% of the MLP episodes - barring any change in coverage in the future - will not meet the notability levels. Yes, some of these could be merged up - for example, Hearts & Hooves Day has one once true secondary source and its reliability is questionable - the other sources are about its viewership numbers which can be summarized in the main article. On the other hand, A Canterlot Wedding just got passed for GA, and that definitely has several notable sources. I'd rather us see the few episodes that are getting specific critical coverage left (off the top of my head: Cutie Mark Chronicles, Return of Harmony, and Canterlot Wedding) left as episodes, the other information folded into what already exists. (The Last Roundup's "notability" is all Derpy related, so that can go on the character page). --MASEM (t) 23:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Masem on this one. Cutie Mark Chronicles, Return of Harmony, and Canterlot Wedding all have reliable sources that discuss the episode. The rest are weak right now, and I'd be in favor of redirecting them.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I missed the GA on the "Canterlot Wedding" article. Kudos everyone! I stand by what I said about the notability of most episodes of any TV show, but if this episode just hit a GA, then clearly it meets standards. I will agree with Masem and Gen. Quon. After reviewing all the sources My vote is: Keep for "Canterlot Wedding" and "The Return of Harmony". I vote Redirect "The Cutie Mark Chronicles" and "Hearts and Hooves Day" their notability arguements are still a little weak for me. Unless they can be strengthened I dont think they can stand on their own right now.DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The line for notability of TV episodes is generally pretty low: as long as there are a few reviews that are either specifically about the episode or go into the episode in detail in critique, they are kept. This doesn't exist for H&HD (from reliable sources), but CMC does have this, albeit only a couple. I think if we were to split off the brony aspect of this article to give more space for the show itself, the CMC reviews can be added to this article as an example of one notable episode (and tie into the overall theme of the show). --MASEM (t) 16:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed I think the references for the CMC episodes would be better suited in the main page. They are good references and they seem to put forward the episode as an example of the overall excellence of the show. I just feel the CMC article is a little too stublike. It is just one paragraph off from being a plot summery alone. I also agree with your brony article proposal (though I had to first find out what a brony was, lol).DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)