Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 04:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but this article's content has a plethora of claims from unreliable sources that cannot be accepted. Around 7+ of the references are from DeviantArt and should be instantly removed and all fansites, blogs or imdb references should also be removed, once you've gathered together the references to replace the following, you should renominate it, but I haven't gone over the text yet, so do make sure that grammar is flawless and such. Thanks for your work on this article but it isn't ready for GA yet. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 04:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 1 is from IMDb. Not reliable.
• Ref 3 is unneeded for a start and is unreliable and doesn't link to an informative part of the site.
• Ref 4 is unreliable. Cartoon fansite.
• Ref 5 Seriously? A deviantArt forum?! Unreliable.
• Ref 6 Unreliable.
• Ref 9 Deviantart.
• Ref 10 Deviantart.
• Ref 11 Deviantart.
• Ref 12 imdb.
• Ref 13 imdb.
• Ref 14 Exactly the same ref as 3, which I've already stated is unreliable.
• Ref 15 Deviantart.
• Ref 24 Unreliable.
• Ref 35 Deviantart.
• Ref 36 Deviantart.
• Ref 37 Same source as 24.
• Ref 41 Facebook!
• Ref 43 Fansite.
• Ref 44 Facebook.
• Ref 46 Fansite.

Too many unreliable sources to be able to repare in the space of a GA Nomination. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 04:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware: all of the DeviantArt links are from Lauren Faust (the show's creator, and confirmed) herself. Normally, yes, DA would be unreliable, but this is a case of an appropriate SPS to affirm information. Similiarly, the *official* Facebook fan page would similarly be a reliable source since it is run by Hasbro themselves. --MASEM (t) 04:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A Facebook status is not acceptable as a ref, but the official FB page can be accepted as a Primary S I guess but unless a reliable indicator can be found that this particular DeviantArt account is actually from Faust, it cannot be accepted as a primary and also the article relies far too heavily upon it even if it is allowable. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 05:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really - there's plenty of third-party sources to establish the development of the show and the reception (both the normal and the brony side). Faust's DA messages are filling in gaps that these don't quite cover. Note that I'm not challenging other aspects you've listed, but it needs to be clear that just because its on DA or FB doesn't invalidate it, we just need assurances these people are who they say they are. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Reluctantly, I have to agree on the FB matter, but I don't see the DA sources going anywhere any time soon. Rainbow Dash 05:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And just in case: the Wired article [1] affirms the DA account. --MASEM (t) 05:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, very well, with authentication of the source, DA is acceptable, but the usage of primary sources should be limited, especially for a GA! If other sources can be found to replace them, then they should be replaced. I hope we can agree on that? That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 05:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it should. Rainbow Dash 05:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Seven/nine of 46 refs is not an issue in terms of "reliance". Again, the major aspects of the show's development and reception are set by third-parties, the "gaps" filled by the primary sources. That's completely acceptable. It would be different if there was a whole section (outside of plot) that only came from a primary source and only a detail or two was from a third-party. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really, 4 of them are in the Development section... but I can see we aren't to agree and the other references still stand to be replaced, I wish you good luck with this article in future. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 16:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Confusion about the show's country of origin

There seems to be a developing edit war about the show's country of origin. It has been argued since the show has partial animation and all voice casting done in Canada, both the United States and Canada should be listed. However, since the original concept for the show was conceived by Lauren Faust and Hasbro, others believe only the United States should be listed. If anyone has a reliable source for show's country, it would be much appreciated.

I would also like to add, if the United States and Canada remain listed, the Philippines should also be listed since Top Draw Animation also animates the show.

TechnoFox (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's right there in the first paragraph: "The show is produced by Studio B Productions [Canadian], in association with Hasbro Studios. [American]" Furthermore, as mentioned, both the music composition and voice-over are done entirely in Canada, save for Tara Strong's performance as Twilight, which is recorded in LA. It's an American/Canadian co-production, and as such, both countries qualify as the country of origin. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not really a joint production in which two studios or network are backing the production; it is an American company (Hasbro) that is paying for the show to be made, regardless of what countries they outsourced the work to. We can mention that Studio B is a Canadian studio, and Top Draw is Korean, but that's it. Unless, of course, there's a source that affirms a co-production between the US and Canada. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, why not just set it up the way they have it on The Transformers (TV series), with countries listed by their role in production? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡælˈeːrɛz/)^[1] 03:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Studio B has a closing logo on the show, while Top Draw does not. --98.26.95.53 (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Cyberlink420. --FunkyDuffy (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I see what everyone is trying say about Canada being involved, however, I believe the point is being missed. An origin is where something began. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic originated or "began" in the United States. It did not begin in Canada, the Philippines, or anywhere else in the world. I'm not discrediting said countries, I'm simply trying to provide correct information on where the show came from. Canada plays a large part in producing the show and all Canadian companies are credited in Section 3: Development. Long story short, it didn't start in Canada. -- TechnoFox (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Friendship is Magic obviously originated in Somalia. But really, every voice actor is Canadian along with the studio that produces the show, thus making me agree only to Canada being listed as the country of origin. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 23:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Anon use section

The section in the article that covered Rainbow Dash's likeness being used by hackers is not relevant to the MLP article. I tried to relocate it to the Anonymous (group) page or the Operation AntiSec fork, and neither one had coverage of these particular attacks. I can only conclude that this information has no home at this time. -- Avanu (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Anon has used many many mascots in their hacking history, there's nothing as pertaining to RBD or MLPFIM here to see at this time. Particularly with the weak sourcing (ED can only be used as an RS if they are interviewing, but nothing else). --MASEM (t) 16:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. (Why else would I have reverted in the first place? :) ) I feel that talking about Anonymous' Rainbow Dash usage demonstrates the widespread popularity of the series outside its intended target audience. Of course I'll defer to consensus, but perhaps the section could be reduced to a couple lines to be incorporated elsewhere?

Additionally, I am unaware of any other mascots Anonymous has used in the past that are not representations of themselves (headless suit, man in green body suit, guy fawkes mask), and I'd like to see an attribution for that claim. :) --FunkyDuffy (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, Guy Fawkes is certainly not Anon (that came from V for Vendetta, quickly picked up there). But that's neither here or there. The widespread popularity of the series outside its intended target audience is already well demonstrated between several mainstream press articles that point out the brony phenomenon. The use of RBD in an Anonymous attack is a current fad being used there. Nothing to see here. Yet. I'm willing to admit there may be more later, but what little we have in terms of reliable sources is ignorable. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't the SPO (a victim) sort of friendly to the Nazis during the annexation of Austria? I could see why they would use me (because I am obviously a tomboyish lesbian) for intended political irony. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 18:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Kathleen Richter review

I'm not sure how to think about this, but I'm just raising the issue. Does her blog post really even count as a "review"? She says she's basing her thoughts entirely on promotional material and that she hasn't even seen the show. Shouldn't someone see the show before they can "review" it? --Havermayer (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It is published criticism of the show - even if they never watched it. The Cartoon Brew article could be considered the same thing. It's not our place to decry if someone never watched what they were supposed to review, but it is important that at least Faust rebutted on the issues raised there. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Should the internet response and reception sections be merged into one?

I think it's became clear that until this article reaches 40-50k in size, a separate article concerning the unusual popularity of the show is out of the question. However, I think that perhaps the Internet Response should be a sub section of the show's reception. Curious as to what you think of this. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 02:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No; in general, the reception section for a creative work is from industry critics and the like. Fan responses are a completely different thing and not really part of its reception. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Should we clarify that the "reception" is actually a "critical reception"? I understand that most times the critical reception is solely of notablility for the reception section, but since the fan response is a type of reception, I feel that simply calling it "reception" is a little vague. --FunkyDuffy (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments made at WP:PR

Just posting these for the sake of this article. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 16:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article failed a GA assessment, and I want to hear from someone else about any remaining issues left unchecked from the initial GA review. Rainbow Dash 18:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the DA references are from the show's creator, and thus are considered a reliable source. Rainbow Dash 18:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: ALthough a bit about My Little Pony, I have never seen this show. Thanks for your work on the article; here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are three FAs on animated tv series that may be useful models: Animaniacs (a farily old FA and does not follow all the current criteria as well as the others), The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest and The Simpsons
• There is a toolbox on this PR page - it shows some dead external links. I also noted IMDB is used as a source - it is often not considered a reliable source, so I would be very careful using it.
• The same toolbox finds at least one disambiguation link and a bad redirect
• I would look at both unsuccessful GA reviews and make sure that all of the points raised in them were addressed. They tended to focus on the reliability of sources used, so I think there are some things that would be issues in a future GAN that were not mentioned in these. I also think that the IMDB issue was raised in at least one of the GANs.
• When I look at this article the structure seems unusual, so I looekd at the model FAs. They all start with a background or history section, and given the fact that there have been previous tv shows based on the existing My Little Pony toys, I think that this should too. See provide context to the reader
• The Releases sections are not mentioned in the lead, which should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
• The language is rough in spots - it does not have to be perfect for GA, but in the lead I am really not sure what this run-on sentence means Despite the target demographic of young girls, the show has gained a large following from male teenagers, in combination between Faust's direction and characterization, the animation style created through Flash and themes aimed for an older audience, and a reciprocal response from the creators in response to the fans. I would split this (end the first sentence at "... male teenagers.") I am not sure what the rest of the sentence is trying to say exactly.
• Waych out for writing from an in-universe perspective - many readers will not have seen the show or be familiar with it, so background and context and an out of univers perspective are needed, - see WP:IN-U
• I would also read WP:WAF
• Another sentence that is way too long and awkward For Faust, My Little Pony was one of her favorite toys from her childhood,[6] but was disappointed that the adventures that her own childhood imagination created while she played with the toys were nothing like the animated shows in which the ponies had "endless tea parties, giggled over nothing and defeated villains by either sharing with them or crying".[7] I would get a copy edit.
• Avoid needless repetition Due to intellectual property issues, Hasbro had lost some of the rights on the original pony names, and as such, Faust's show includes a mix of original characters from the toy line and new characters developed for the show.[6] in Development and Applejack and Spike are the only Generation 1 characters to remain, due to Hasbro losing copyright on the other Generation 1 names.[10] in First season
• Avoid use of vague time terms like currently as these can quickly become out of date. The show has been renewed for a second season and is currently in development, with Top Draw Animation animating the second season.[13] During production, Lauren Faust officially stated ...
• Also the MOS says to use the full name of a person on first mention and just the last name after that (except for direct quotes and for people who sahre a last name) so just Faust after the first mention in the lead and perhaps in the body.
• Refs are not all complete. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• I know you say "DA" is reliable when quoting Faust, but what makes this a RS? http://www.mylittleponynews.com/2011/03/ticket-master-dvd.html
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ready for a third go at GA?

I believe that most of the reference issues from the second GA nomination have been removed and/or replaced with more reliable sources as well as the article having undergone a major revamping to follow model GA/FA articles more closely. However, I want to make sure if everyone agrees with me about a third attempt at GA. Thanks, Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 13:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter if it is deemed a Good Article or not? -- Avanu (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed over the weekend that the various MLP sites had mentioned RD trying to push this to FA. That's a good goal, that's not a problem in of itself. The problem is, with what information we have, while you can get to GA, its FA quality is far from what would be expected. We need a lot more info on development and reception (not the brony fandom) to give it a realistic chance. That may come in time with more eyes watching Season 2. But be aware, at least according to the threads I saw: to get a Todays Featured Article once you get this featured is going to require a great deal of justification. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, that is most likely a troll stalking me. Considering I had my Facebook hacked earlier, I won't be surprised if it's the same guy. Not that he will be able to use his uber l33t hacking skills to crack my Wiki password ;). Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 14:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if there are no objections then it's time to commence the third charge. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 14:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Incoming Colbert Bump

I hope that we can find a source other than the show itself, but he namedropped bronies on his 8/1 show. Looking for sourcing now. --MASEM (t) 04:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There will probably be a news post somewhere tomorrow. --Havermayer (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

For those who didn't see it, its on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DAQTWvjd7E&feature=player_embedded --Havermayer (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought that campaign wouldn't work at all. Never have been happier since the Killing in the Name campaign a few years back in England. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 05:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ten Pound Brony, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Princess Celestia...

Oh wait, let me try that again.

This is a lot closer than the last few times. I just have a few suggestions:

• The first paragraph of Production needs a source.
• I'm having Masem check the premise and characters sections for out-of-universe-ness.
• Reformat the DeviantART sources so that they use {{cite web}}. Also needs to be done for cite 32 (Equestria Daily).
• I went ahead and fixed a few capitalization errors and made some other copy edits.
• I don't think the ponies' colors are relevant to the Characters section.
• The redlinks should probably go. At the very least, unlink the redlinks in Characters — those people have only one or two other roles each, so I doubt they'll have articles in the near future.

Other than these, I think the article's weight, sources, tone, etc. are all fine. There is sufficient detail on the development of the show, a reasonable amount of plot and character summary that generally doesn't go into too much detail and a well-balanced section on critical reception. The section on Internet Following may be pretty big, but this show pretty much is the Internet right now, so it's not like that's undue weight.

The problems in the two previous GAs (depth of coverage in the first, reliability of sources in the second) have all been accounted for, as have Ruhrfisch's concerns in the PR. Our favorite tomboy pegasus has been working very hard on this article, and I feel that once my concerns are taken care of, that third time will be the charm. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll review the plot section by tomorrow. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've taken care of my other concerns. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 13:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 13:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Masem re-wrote the plot summary, so it looks good to go! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Equestria Daily is aware.

This obviously isn't going to be placed anywhere in the article anytime soon, but I thought you might get a kick out of this. http://www.equestriadaily.com/2011/08/friendship-is-magic-upgraded-to-good.html Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 02:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, good job on that. (mind broke over something completely unrelated at this time...) Anyway, how are we going to get a todo list on what we need to bump it up to featured? Or would that even be possible in the short term, maybe after season 2 has started? Cupy 52040 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's much more likely to be made into a FA after Season 2 begins, but that doesn't mean a FA is out of the question before then, just insanely freaking harder right now. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 21:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The largest thing on the to-do list is better details on the reception section, and that is limited by what is actually out there we can use. I hope the attention S1 brought to the show will inspire more on S2. The other thing that will be helpful would be more on the show's actual development (not so much its origins, but the actual production process), but again, this is dependent on what comes out from Hasbro directly.

Easier to fix and thus not show-stoppers are more on international broadcasting, and on home media. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Use caution when quoting the Observer article

LaMarche, Una (2011-08-03). "Pony Up Haters: How 4chan Gave Birth to the Bronies". New York Observer. Retrieved 2011-08-03.

A lot of the information on this article is misquoted from Know Your Meme. For example: "Mr. Tanaka estimates that by February 2011 there were 6,000-plus daily pony threads on /co/" - this is a misquote of the 6000-post figure that's displayed on Know Your Meme. The 4chan ban on the word "pony" is similarly misquoted, placed in the "fall of 2010" instead of the 27th of February 2011. I think this article is not a reliable source. -IsaacAA (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not so much that it isn't a reliable source, but instead using members of the community for its fact, and those members may be poor recall or memory checks. That said : the timing and numbers maybe be off, but the events themselves are proper. (I did find one quote I misread as being to Poole, as from one of the bronies, I took that out, but still, Poole's involvement is accurately captured.) --MASEM (t) 12:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have put the topic up for discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. Since the article gets its information from fans who seem to be quoting and misquoting Know Your Meme, I suggest that it is unreliable. -IsaacAA (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

But again, we're also comparing it to at least one other sources (possibly a third, Wired UK), and we are not whole relying on facts, just the statements from fans put into a reliable source. It is absolutely true : the MLP trend started on /co/, spread to /b/, trolling ensued, pony posts multiplied to some incredible rate, pony ban was enacted, and then Poole stepped in to correct it. This article doesn't care about the specifics of the timeline, only those facts, which still are true. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a better source for Poole's involvement and the moderator's firing? -IsaacAA (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There isn't going to be a better source (to date) on this since more RS rarely discuss the inner workings of 4chan. I am trying to find the various posts - not necessarily RSes that can be use, but to confirm various events - to make sure what is being said is correct or otherwise reflect the accuracy of it. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've not been able to find anything that really confirms or denies what happened after the temp ban outside of "the situation was resolved" per Poole's comment at sxsw, so I'll grant we can't really talk about if a mod was fired or not (I think that if i'm reading between the lines, a mod was fired for inciting inflammatory comments towards Ponychan, but that's not the same as being fired for the pony ban - but again, what there is that says about this is not really there.) It's still the case that it caused pony stuff to be banned on 4chan temporarily and forced fans to seek other venues, so the article is still correct in that case (and per at least two other sources). --MASEM (t) 21:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"per Poole's comment at sxsw"

Source? -IsaacAA (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wired UK source

There's a short column in a recent Wired UK print mag (not online), which you can see here [2]. If you can provide the reference info - the publication date for the magazine and the page number, we're set to add this (this captures something about the music and a quote from a Hasbro exec on the phenom, both needed). --MASEM (t) 13:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to add in this information anyway, but I just need the specifics for tighter validity of the source. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This is totally not another split request.

This is totally another split request. Taking into consideration that this article is nearing 45k to 50k in size per WP:SPLIT, and that the Internet reception section is adequately sourced enough, there is now a legally just reason for a small to moderate sized article on the show's following. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 22:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think at this point, it would compromise the article's size and cut it down too much. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, as if you split it, you'll likely make this less than a good article. If for some reason we can get a metric ton of development info from the supposed DVDs or in light of Season 2, *maybe* there's reason. Be aware, it is totally reasonable that the internet following aspects could support its own article, but its so tied with the show that it would hurt the article to split it right now. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The cult following is not encyclopedic of itself. It's still only a fad on the internet, not nearly as notable as Trekkies or even Harry Potter fans. -IsaacAA (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Jezebel source

Equestria Daily might not be a reliable source in it's own right, but it is a reliable source for finding other sources. Thought I would let Masem have a look at the lovely thing. http://jezebel.com/5827591/the-unlikely-origins-of-the-brony-or-bros-who-like-my-little-pony Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 12:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw that but I think its mostly retelling of the NYObserver article- eg there's nothing new from it to be added. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"My Little Pony: Fighting is Magic" is up for deletion!

The article My Little Pony: Fighting Is Magic is up for deletion. A couple of people, including myself, have suggested merging it with this article. Further input from you fine folks is greatly appreciate... Bobnorwal (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think merging it with article would be a good idea. If anything it should be merged into a separate "Internet Following of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" article. But consensus is looking like a keep, so it probably won't be necessary.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 03:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The downside is that I have made repeated attempts at a separate article documenting the following. Maybe when the article hits 50k, it could happen, but for now that idea is going to have to wait. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 12:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete for the time being. Right now it deserves only a line in this current article. After it is released, and it becomes very popular then it can have its own article. But only if its notable enough. --Havermayer (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Btw, consensus was keep. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 21:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comic Con 2011 poster image not useful for identification

The image is far too small and crowded to help identify any particular character. I suggest reverting the photo to the previous version which somewhat more clearly illustrates the main cast. -IsaacAA (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why the poster was uploaded over that one. Both should exist in this article, so someone should re-upload the smaller group shot. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 17:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As we need to limit non-free media and use it to the best purpose, the poster serves many more purposes than the single cast shot; the poster is used for evidence of the recognition of fan-named/ID'd characters as well as for all the other creatures within the work. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

FiM's influence on comics.

I think it should be mentioned how this show is influencing comic strips. Just saying, Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 22:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC) https://docs.google.com/document/d/18tFbR1_Sp0-8CeJ4wDoaZR3wCrHjnB0ITf7uaZ8WYUA/edit?hl=en_US

We need a source to affirm that, not just that they happened (that's why we can talk about youtube vids, or fanfic, or video games... because of sources to confirm). --MASEM (t) 22:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue is original research. —IsaacAA (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject My Little Pony

Decided to form a MLP WikiProject. If anypony wants to join, go click the link. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 01:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

September 17 confirmed for Season 2 airing.

http://www.nickandmore.com/2011/08/22/the-hub-updates-my-little-pony-family-game-night-haunting-hour-2nd-seasons-game-of-life-scrabble-showdown-premieres/ Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 12:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of "is"

Shouldn't the title of the article read; My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, instead? As that is the common capitalization and the same as on the logo. Right? <Liggliluff (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)>

Please see [3] and WP:MOSCAPS. Unless the title is an abbreviation, we ignore special casing it may use in favor of standard English, which in our case would capitalize the "I" in "Is". --MASEM (t) 12:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article?

Should someone nominate this to be a featured article? --Havermayer (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is nearly good enough for that. The sources are still somewhat mediocre, and the article requires a lot of copy editing. Some claims remain uncited as well. We still have a lot of work to do, and I don't think we should waste anyone's time at this point to try and get it FA'd at this point.Enigmocracy (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, if the internet fandom is what it is, I expect we'll get more RS coverage come the start of Season 2, which affects the stability of the article. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on internet following

There is a lot of original research and focus on trivial details in the internet following section. Is it really encyclopedic to note that fans named a couple of characters DJ Pon3 and Doctor Whooves? -IsaacAA (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, there is no OR in the following section - sources specifically call out everything in there (I've been very careful about that), including the naming of those characters (If you really wanted, we could pull out the dozens or so other names for bg ponies out there like Lyra and Bon-Bon, but those aren't ID'd by sources). And the main reason this show has this notability is the Internet following; yes, without it, we'd still have an article, but likely much much shorter, possibly a stub. In other words, per WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, we're following what the sources actually provide for this. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayson Thiessen's AMA on Reddit

Jayson Thiessen answered a bunch of questions on Reddit, found here: http://www.reddit.com/r/mylittlepony/comments/jwp94/im_jayson_thiessen_supervising_director_of_mlpfim/

Would you guys say that this is an appropriate source? Jayson Thiessen verified it on Twitter, and AMAs have been used as sources before. Enigmocracy (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this would be ok, though I'd use ED's summary of the posts here as the source. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

EqD only listed a few of the posts though: http://www.equestriadaily.com/2011/08/jayson-thiessen-answered-fan-questions.html He answered dozens of questions.Enigmocracy (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources are much better than unreliable sources like Equestria Daily. -IsaacAA (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Article name is wrong

This article should redirect to My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, not the other way around. The logo agrees with me. Can someone who is au fait with established procedures please switch them around? --Syniq (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

See previous discussions. On Wikipedia, we present titles in standard English and ignore the letter case used in branding unless it is an abbreviation (like "iPod"). In standard English, the word "is" in a title is capitalized as a verb, and thus why we have the article here at "Is", regardless of what the logo and press say. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

dropping ref to add later

[4] no time atm.... --MASEM (t) 16:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Diablo 3 leak involving MLP.

I've been hearing something related to underrated but somewhat known PC games making pony references, but no source other than EqD, forums, and YouTube videos exist. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 00:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yea, it's supposedly in there but it is based on a leak of the beta from Chinese players. Very unreliable at this point, but it does prove true, certainly worth adding. --MASEM (t) 02:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Also note that, IIRC, the reference is only to "ponies" in general, not FiM specifically.Enigmocracy (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the naming scheme clearly parodies FIM but still - that's the English translation of leaked tests. If it is real, and discovered in English versions, I'm sure we'll have a few websites that will imply the FIM connection for use, making it easy to add. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

before I go on a massive adding spree:

Everyone does agree that the two recent interviews that EQD (a fan site) did with Thiessen ([5]) and Faust ([6]) would be appropriate sources? --MASEM (t) 11:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Read the first question here. It's a blog and a fansite; I don't think anything should be added from it. That's just me though, I'm perfectly happy to wait and see what others think, Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 14:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

We've asked this question before and decided that interviews conducted by EqD are fair game. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Can I look at the discussion? Post a link? Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 14:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Right here. Besides, considering EqD actually has its own Wiki page with sources to establish notability, I'd say that helps its case. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like much of a consensus (yourself and Masem), but yes, I agree with your adding content from it (considering official sites consider it to be notable enough to merit a mention). Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 15:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to distinguish between primary sources and other sources. Primary sources are very reliable in some aspects and not reliable in others. Faust's and Thiessen's interviews are somewhat technical and could be considered reliable because of this, regardless of who published them–much like Faust's self-published comments in deviantArt are reliable in this scope. -IsaacAA (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The only issue that the interview would have is how "reliable" EQD is in terms of reporting, in that they didn't make up the interview. A parody site may create a realistic-seeming interview, with very small print that says "this is a parody" that could easily be overlooked, and while that the person they claimed to have interviewed would be an expert primary source, the fake interview would obviously be inappropriate. I don't think this is anything close to a problem with EQD (They've done some fake news posts before, but not regularly and most of the news related items are taken seriously) so the reliability of EQD having performed this interview is pretty high - but I wanted to make sure of that before pouring the details into the article proper. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of Alicorn

This term is used at List of My Little Pony characters as if it were a proper term, but it is a misused term that is supposed to mean what a unicorn's horn is made of. Unless this term was used on the show itself, or officially endorsed by the producers of MLP or FiM, I don't see why we're using it here. I suggest we replace it with a new more technically accurate term. If not winged unicorns or horned pegasi, then something else. Bonechamber (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

2 Princesses are called "unicorns" is the series. But on the other hand we got this - Sabrina Alberghetti (senior storyboard artist) says that their species name is alicorn. Teyandee (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

bronycon

So apparently Thiessen is going to be at BronyCon NY this weekend... I've got a couple people I know going but I ask if you know of people or are going yourselves, please please please try to take photos so that we can put them up to Commons and then include here, particularly of Thiessen (and possibly Sethiso) and the general crowd/atmosphere type stuff. --MASEM (t) 12:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Do your friends have Flickr? If so, they should upload their photos under a free licence. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 23:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I know how to get them to get them uploaded in a way to make it easy to use as free, flickr or otherwise. Just a matter of getting people to do this. --MASEM (t) 04:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Screwattack article

I'm not yet sure if this is an RS: [7] or if it has anything really useful for us as its given a very odd slant. But dropping to not lose it. --MASEM (t) 04:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding another one that may be possible to include (in regards to the negative feedback to the brony subculture): [8] --MASEM (t) 16:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not split yet

I know we're pass one of the recommendations (not requirements) for splitting a topic up, but I strongly suggest not doing it yet, particularly if you want anything about this to get to FA. The brony community is still too closely tied with the show to make its discussion elsewhere more difficult. --MASEM (t) 12:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Trimming down the "Production" section

The production section of this article is extremely detailed, far beyond what is necessary for an encyclopedic article. This article is improving, but I am concerned that it is getting a bit wordy in places. There are other exmaples, but just to illustrate: The writing process began with Faust and Renzetti coming up with broad plots for each show. The two would then spend a session with each episode's writer to brainstorm, allowing the writer to script out scenes and dialog. Faust and Renzetti then worked with the writer to finalize the scripts and assign some basic storyboard instructions. " I feel like this whole part could be cut out.Enigmocracy (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It is probably wordy, that's generally my first drafts, plus I'm adopting it from a timeline approach to a broader process. That said, I don't think clearing out that whole line is not appropriate. It can be trimmed, of course. Mind you, I find development sections to actually be the better parts of articles that should be developed - generally dev info for a published work is not often given, so this is the behind-the-scenes that does flesh out the encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

TV ratings?

This article is currently pretty high quality - remarkably so for one on a children's animated cartoon. But there's one piece of information I can think of that's missing: does anyone know what the series' viewer ratings figures are like? That would add some useful perspective to the article, I think, by making it clear whether it's merely a 'cult' show with an obsessive internet fanbase, or whether it's achieved genuine mainstream popularity. Currently all the article says is that the first episode of the second season got 339,000 viewers, which sounds like a lot; but there's no information on the ratings for other episodes, or indeed how that compares to other cartoon series. Robofish (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I second this, mostly because I'm just genuinely interested to know. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 04:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In the internet following section, we know that the brony community boosted viewership from 1.something million per month to 4 million over the course of the 1st season. But that implies about 1 m per episode by the finale. I don't know if they're accounting for all viewing periods or not with the 339,000 number. --MASEM (t) 05:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I would rather this claim be from a better source than an opinion article. Something from TV by the Numbers or Nielsen is a lot more credible. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 14:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

International broadcast changes

I removed a bunch of the dashes in that section. I feel that the section would be better off it was a list or a chart. Right now its rather difficult to read, and includes a lot of redundant language. What do you guys think? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a table would be better here now that there's more than a handful of international versions. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. That's what I thought. I shall research how to create such a table in wikipedia. In the mean time, anyone is free to make those changes. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Chart has been inserted. Update if needed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference formatting I didn't do

• Ref 29 - cite web w/ no link
• Ref 30 - not sure how to handle publisher field
• Ref 35 - it's something pulled from facebook
• Ref 50 - cite video? video link would be nice
• Ref 55 - probably should be expanded
• plus work and publisher stuff, I tried but always get confused anyways.

Clay^Clay_Clay 21:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

For ref 29, I added in the following link. Its a .doc, and appears to be a press release. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Premise and Characters

There is quite a bit of overlap between the Characters and Premise section. I'm not sure how to resolve this. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've adjusted that. You have to talk a bit about Twi's character in the premise since it's her attitude change that subsequently drives the show, but the rest can be pushed to characterization. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Jayson Thiessen as Executive Producer

What's wrong with calling Faust "developer and showrunner executive producer"? "Creative director and executive producer" feels like they are referring to the same thing, and "creative director" isn't even used in-show. Showrunners are commonly credited as executive producers. --98.26.102.62 (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Arguably, given the split of production between the writing staff in LA and the animation staff in Vancouver, and what showrunner article says, it would be exaggerating Faust's duties to say she was showrunner. It's a term that is not one-to-one exchangable with "executive producer" And while in show she's (nor anyone else for that matter) is given creative director, it is a title that she's been given by Hasbro for the show. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's just that she got "special" EP and "developer for television" billings.[9] --98.26.102.62 (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Where did Jayson Thiessen replacing Faust as the "lead" executive producer come from? It's not shown on the show.

International broadcast

The FiM wikia has a much larger list of language dubs that ours. I shall add to that section while finding sources. Also, we should make the list collapsed by default, since the list is getting kind of big. I do not know how to do this however.

   Czech - My Little Pony Kouzlo přátelství
   Danish - My Little Pony Venskab er ren magi - not to be confused with the Norwegian title.
   Dutch My Little Pony Vriendschap is betoverend - also applies to the Dutch Belgium (Flemmish).
   Finnish - My Little Pony Ystävyyden taikaa
   French (Canada) - My Little Pony La Magie de L'amitié
   French (France and Belgium) - My Little Pony Les amies c'est Magique
   German - My Little Pony Freundschaft ist Magie
   Greek - My Little Pony Η Φιλία είναι Μαγική
   Italian - My Little Pony L'amicizia è magica
   Norwegian - My Little Pony Vennskap er ren magi - not to be cofused with the Danish title.
   Polish - My Little Pony Przyjaźń to magia
   Portuguese (Brazil) - My Little Pony Amizade é pura Magia
   Portuguese (Portugal) - My Little Pony A Amizade é Mágica
   Slovak - My Little Pony Prijateljstvo je čarovnija
   Spanish (Mexico and Spain) -
   Swedish - My Little Pony Vänskap är magiskt
   Turkish - My Little Pony Arkadaşlık Sihirlidir
   Hungarian - My Little Pony A barátság varázslat

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally, you only collapse lists if there are multiple ones on the article and take up a lot of visual space. Even if these are added (remember, need sourcing for each), we're still good, and only a small part of the page. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I am an author of fan Czech subtitles - I actually made up the Czech translation of the title - and there is no official dubbing. FiM wiki got it out of nowhere and obviously unsourced. --Have a nice day. Running 03:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Equestria Daily is back, and in another AfD.

The article is having a third go at AfD due to the DRV outcome. If you want to participate, head over to it's new nomination page. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 14:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

4chan staff attempting to drive MLP off its random board, threadbanning, etc.

MLP and 4chan are intimately intertwined; a statement from moot or more info is a good idea. This started 21 Oct 2011-- I think someone should keep an eye on news regarding this. Sixcycle (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That, plus the random fact South Park episode, thre may be fake news floating around. Request standard page protection if it goes off. --MASEM (t) 03:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is, since MLP and 4chan are so interconnected, there should probably be information about this on the page. The South Park bit is probably fake, but what I'm talking about is real. Sixcycle (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the battle of /b/, part three. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 11:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Pony Wars will be re-fought on that board. A final, small skirmish. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Only if the 4chan stuff is published in reliable sources like the evolution of the fandom was. It happening now, well after its spread out from 4chan, is likely nothing that will be picked up (particularly since its only /b/ and not all of 4chan). --MASEM (t) 12:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Improvements needed for FA status:

This is where we list things that need to be improved before the article can become a FA. Here is Nikkimaria's list of issues from the FA Nomination discussion. I will use the strikeout on the issues that I think have been addressed so far. I know that a lot has been done on the formatting of the references, but I am not sure if it has been completed yet. Feel free to add other issues you may see, and to strikeout the issues that have been dealt with.

• "All web sources need publisher info and access date
• All print sources need page numbers
• Who is Summer Hayes, and what are her qualifications?
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? deviantart.com? http://thevoiceoftv.com? http://www.toymania.com? http://www.mylittleponynews.com?
• Unreliable-source tag needs to be addressed
• Check for formatting inconsistencies like doubled periods
• Use a consistent date format
• In general, citation formatting needs to be more consistent
• The New York Times, not New York Times
• Check that your wikilinks go where you want them to - for example, Top Gear
• Given the length of the article, the lead should be 3-4 paragraphs
• Article needs copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow - for example, "Twilight becomes close friends with five other ponies; Applejack..." is incorrectly punctuated
• File:Mlp_fim_storyboard_sample.png: source link is dead
• See here for a list of potentially problematic links
• Don't use contractions in article text
• Manual of Style issues - hyphens/dashes, overlinking, etc."

Happy editing.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The reliability of Equestria Daily and Faust's DeviantArt briefly discussed in the past at RSN, and it was decided that within context, they were permissible with certain exceptions, such as EqD being limited to interviews with/statements from members of the show's production team. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

With Summer Hayes, she seems to be considered the foremost expert on MLP toy collections and these aren't self-published books. However, all that we are using those two references for is to say "Hey, MLP has had previous generations called G1 through G3, this is G4". I don't think that's a problem here. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've checked all the ref dates and accessdates and they are all in line (yyyy-mm-dd versions); the dates within the article body are US dates. All citations are using the "cite" family of templates which should all be self-consistent barring missing data (eg page numbers in print sources), so if there are any problems left here, that's something that's a larger issue with the cite templates across WP. --MASEM (t) 23:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's great to see that most of the issues have been dealt with. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 00:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've done another pass. Found a few spelling errors. Removed a lot of the dashes. Pretty sure I got all the extra ones. Not 100% though. I recommend someone else do copy editing and dash-checking--Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

--98.26.102.62 (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The copy-editing and other improvements seem to be going well. However, the most important issue that needs to be addressed, and which may forever prevent this article from FA is quality of sources. Most of them discuss the adult fans, or the online aspect, but not the show itself. Most of the interviews with the crew are done by fansites. Is there a way around this? Please, search for more high quality sources. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added {{find}} to this talk page. Hopefully that will help you find some. Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem we're going to have is that because this still is a girls cartoon show on a cable network airing on a Saturday, it is very unlikely to receive any major coverage from mainstream reliable sources; the fandom yes (because, frankly speaking, it is a very odd thing, stuff that mainstream sources likely will pick up on) but that's yet to show any feedback into mainstreams actually looking into the show. But that said, the rise of the fandom has given us direct sourcing from the show's producers that would have otherwise come from mainstream media if this were a major primetime broadcast show, giving use the development and production details. Barring either a massive release of information by mainstream media on the show, or perhaps extras on the current vaporware DVD release, we just cannot expect this to be coming. That shouldn't block the article from being an FA (We're covering what the sources allow us to cover) as long as this situation is spelled out, and only throws the sections on the show's history and development into some doubt due to reliance on the fandom interviews with the creators. We have to be certain of those being "reliable" (in that the interviews were not faked or misreported) which I don't question, as where they discuss the same material, there's corrolobration of the details. We just have to assure the FA reviewers of this. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

While that is true, I think we can improve several of the sources. The sources for the dubbed shows for instance, a few of them are stuff like mylittleponynews. We can search and replace those with news sources or press releases from the actual country itself. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the majority of the issues have been solved. Should we have a second go at FA? Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 11:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I would hold off for a bit. (I think you can't renom within 3 weeks even, but that's not the only reason). Someone had a good idea (maybe not here but on a MLP board) that if there are fans working at entertainment-based reliable sources to get the work to actually publish stuff about this show. Running off that idea, it can be worthwhile to try to get other MLP sites to help now (pre-FAC) to contribute to this article to get sources, relook it over, all that. Eg: having more than just a nightly-roundup blurb at EQD could do wonders, as long as the right type of help is offered. --MASEM (t) 12:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be both a bad and good idea. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 13:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of these issues resolved were comparatively minor. The most major stumbling block is the quality of sources. For the time being, I suggest going over the article for grammar, flow, and other problems. To solve the source issue, perhaps we could ask the creators to host information about the show on official websites instead of sites like deviant-art pages. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

And to be clear, such editing does not have to be major or time intensive. I copy/pasted the article into libre office and did a spellcheck, and was able to find a few spelling mistakes. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see a user of free software. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 21:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with the NY Observer (the Unreliable source)

Ok, I'm looking through the article and trying to confirm what our use of the "Unreliable" New York Observer article is giving, and the facts that it (alone?) seems to support are:

• Why /co/ picked up on the series
• The pony ban on 4chan
• Moot addressing the pony phenom at SXSW (which a youtube vid exists for this, but we should have a text source too if possible)
• The spread from 4chan to the rest of the Internet
• "Brony" being a genderless term
• Fans starting meetups

Now, the original reason why this article is considered "unreliable" is that it is basically based on statements from a brony-meetup, ergo the reporting should be considered biased towards the fandom. That said, the last fact is obviously acceptable from that. The rest, as I've experienced and read, all seem to be true, but outside of, say, using KYM's video on MLP (which, since created by the site moderators/"researchers", could be considered reliable itself), I'm not sure how much we can assert there. Remember that lots of newer articles are likely using these "facts" from WP so we have to worry about circular sourcing.

Now, the question is, can we replace the Observer article with other articles that are likely less influenced by direct statements from brony fans? That would remove the issue altogether. Alternatively, if we can make a presumption based on the Observer that they checked some of these statements out before including them, then we have that too. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering that almost all statements sourced with the Observer in the section are accompanied by other sources, I believe that the issue has been fixed. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 00:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)