Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Equestria Daily Page Removed?

Where did the Equestria Daily page go, and why does Equestria Daily link to here instead? I was reading earlier the talk page for EQD, and the majority of comments said to keep the page, yet it was deleted anyway. Is it going to be restored, or is it going to just continue linking here? Alexstrazsa (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

AFDs are not voting processes, but based on argument strength. As the closure noted, a large number of people commenting "keep" were single-purpose accounts, likely from the fandom trying to save the page. That doesn't fly here. User Rainbow Dash, however, had the page useriifed, so if they can improve it, it may be restored later. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Dream Focus happened to bring the AfD to WP:DR. I'm just waiting for the review to die before starting improvements. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 22:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with it's removal. Equestria Daily is run very poorly and its, for lack of a better phrase, 'facepalm,-worthiness is practically enough to sully this entire page (not that the fools wanting to believe that this is an american show stating so aren't ruining the page enough already. american shows are terrible, this attributes to this being a Canadian show). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.172.224 (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What a surprise. A geolocate on your IP indicates you're in London; in other words, outside the U.S. dogman15 (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Media heat on MLP MMOs.

I've known about these two MMOs for awhile, but apparently the media has just found out about both of them. Won't be much longer until we either have List of fan-made MLP video games, two independent articles (which I'm not making), or some other crazy nonsense. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 22:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Last FA review and Secondary sources

You can find it here. The most major stumbling block seems to be the use of primary sources, and the lack of secondary sources. The show itself has gotten only moderate secondary coverage, with most of the coverage focusing on the fans. I see no real solution to this, and until it can be solved then there is no chance of this article being featured.

The other issues are much easier to deal with. Formatting and stuff like that. I thought that I had dealt with the dashes and overlinking, but perhaps it was not enough. So it never hurts to do more copy-editing on this article. I encourage everyone to do it at least once. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty of secondary sources - the problem is that the origins and dev sections are nearly exclusively to sources that would not normally be considered reliable, though only because of the fandom we know are considered reliable to us (eg: eqd's interviews with Faust and Thiessenn). Since we're going into Novemeber sweeps here, and there's a new ep each weekend this next month, we may get more, so I'd wait to at least December to see what happens. But if no sources appear, we need to make sure in the next FAC nom that it is explained why we are using the sources as such. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but not that many for the development section. We rely largely on primary sources. We should be using secondary sources, and not drawing our own conclusions from primary sources. Its the same deal with the Anders Breiwik article. He posted a long manifesto explaining his motivation, but editors can't directly use it. Instead they have to rely on secondary sources which examine his manifesto.

Until we can find such secondary sources and reduce our reliance on primary sources, we can copy edit, and phase out some of the more questionable sources. To quote from the second FA review:

• "*What makes http://www.mylittleponynews.com a high-quality reliable source? www.facebook.com? http://www.cartoonbrew.com? [www.dailybarometer.com/forum/ponies-overachieving-from-feminism-to-4chan-1.2385283 This]? This? This?"
• "*Interviews from Equestria Daily may be acceptable in limited circumstances, but why is something like this or this?"

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that people are simply looking at websites and not considering the reliability relative to the information. Im not going to defend the mylittleponynews.com site, and the Daily Barometer site (a college newspaper) is probably replaceable in several cases now, but: we're pointing the official FB channel for MLPFIM, so that's reliable; Cartoon Brew is helmed by Jerry Beck, one of the notable experts in modern-day animation; Boing Boing is the site for Cory Doctorow, a noted expert on modern internet-related phenom, and of course, the fact that a fan vid was featured on a major cable network show can be verified by the comedy central link. Save for the FB link these are all secondary sources that talk about the show or fandom around it.

As for the development section, it's not an issue of whether we have secondary sources as how the show was developed is going to be primary information. What they're trying to find is third-party reliable sourced coverage of how the show was created, and that's very unlikely to happen being a percieved kids show on cable network.

Basically, the article isn't failing any of the core sourcing policies to any degree, and we're not making any OR claims that aren't backed by secondary sources. The problem is that the overall collection of sources is generally not as strong as most FAs but we can't make those sources appear nor can we expect them to appear. That shouldn't be a stop to preventing a topic from reaching FA as long as we have covered a topic to the extent that sources have allowed us. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And just to note, there's no reason you can't quote from the manifesto in the article you cited: you just can't base the entire article sourcing the manifesto only (that fails notability) nor can you make claims from it (that's OR). Similar to here, we're using the interviews with Faust and Thiessen, quoting and paraphrasing, but not making any new claims. Perfectly acceptable. It just would be nice to have better sourcing that EQD for these if we could. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 3 November 2011

| Hungarian language | My Little Pony: A barátságvarázslat | Cartoon Network | August 26, 2011 |-

84.236.126.94 (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a better source than the mylittleponynews.com site? --MASEM (t) 15:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

As a follow-up, this is the source that Mylittleponynews.com is using. dogman15 (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy: Equestria - WSJ report.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203707504577012141105109140.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1# Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 11:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not much more than we already had, but key is that we can source "pegasister" and "BroNYCon" to it. --MASEM (t) 12:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just wondering: Is the "?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1#" really needed in the URL? Will the page look any different without it? dogman15 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I just copied the link in whole, it shouldn't affect anything. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 13:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm still not sure exactly what it does. dogman15 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Reception/Spread: German Pirate Party

The Pirate Party Germany (according to polls 5th largest political force in Germany) sells a MLP:FiM inspired T-Shirt with the slogan "My Little Pirates: Democracy is magic". In addition, their rules of procedure for candidate elections ("Listenwahl") include the preposition of the so-called "ponytime" which allows the president to show a clip from the show to provide a break in hot-tempered discussions.

Sources (German):

• http://www.bild.de/regional/berlin/piratenpartei/stehen-auf-ponys-20439484.bild.html (with image of the t-shirt)
• http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/BE:Wahl-_und_Gesch%C3%A4ftsordnung#.C2.A79.14_Antrag_auf_Ponytime (original rules of procedure for the Berlin state election Listenwahl)
• (Also several secondary sources in German MLP blogs)

--178.203.155.137 (talk) 07:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hasbro has taken a stance AGAINST the uploading of full MLP episodes

Hasbro has now decided to remove all full episodes of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic from websites like YouTube, citing copyright violations. Therefore, I have added "Until recently," to "Hasbro has not taken a stance against full episodes being available on sites like YouTube, which has enabled the growth of the fandom." For those wishing confirmation of this, there's no better proof than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3F49D1WiQ4. Whether this policy will extend to the clips that function as memes I do not know, but it is entirely possable. 142.26.194.190 (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

We have no sources that say that this is happening, in other words it is presently unverifiable (beyond, of course, pages on Youtube that are now stating that, things we can't link to). I do note that in the past that some people have claimed to be Hasbro, errr "Habsro" to take down said videos but this never stuck. There's a generally better way to say this that stays inline with what info is verifyable. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing. If Hasbro has taken a stance against online videos and requested they be removed from YouTube, then what sources other than the YouTube pages saying "(insert video name) has been removed at the request of (insert company name) due to copyright violations." can be used to verify this? Do companies issue official documents saying "We have forbidden the uploading of our content onto YouTube and other websites. Violators will be sued."? Of course, MLP:FIM has been noted and even acclaimed for its interaction with its online fanbase, a lot of which appear to use YouTube as a means of accessing the show, so bronies, bloggers and other fans would fuss over it, but those aren't really acceptable sources either. This appears legit, seeing as it says "Hasbro, Inc.", and not "Habsro", and the poster's entire playlist was blacklisted in seconds. Should we wait and see if the other MLP full episode playlists and/or meme hives are removed, and could you please tell me what the "better way to say this that stays inline with what info is verifyable" is? 142.26.194.190 (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that someone from the community (EQD or the like) has already sent a request to comment in regards to this; this is what happened before with the "Habsro" violation reports and I think (can't check now) that EQD did get a reply back saying "Nope, not us". Right now, we have no idea what's going on (beyond that some videos have been yanked). That doesn't yet invalidate anything we have here (though I did note "generally" instead of "until recently", simply because we don't know), but should it be a persistent thing, we'll figure out how to reflect it once more information is available. It could be a mighty big 4chan /b/ troll, for all we know. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can type "Hasbro Inc." when filing a counterclaim; unless they give OFFICIAL word of some form, and not just speculation based on the phrasing of a takedown notice on YT, this can't be considered verifiable. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more trolls. This has happened before. dogman15 (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

They are trolls. Hasbro wouldn't want to kill an unlikely source of profit. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 15:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

To be truthful, based on the comments Hasbro has made in this last week regarding sales and the like, we aren't a source of profit for them. But that said, the cartoon itself is not the profit center, its the toys, and thus they have no real reason to dismiss the youtube episodes as potential advertizing. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah this has been going on for some time. It's more than likely trolls and false flaggers, especially because of the "Habsro" thing. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 22:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Friendship is Magic is already being nominated for two awards and has already won one.

Isn't this show being nominated for two Tubey awards for Best New Show and Best Musical Moment? You should make section called awards and nominations for this show, since it has won the Cablefax Award for Best Animated Series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.224.42 (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Tubey awards are non-significant (TWOP is not that big a site). I know its won the Cablefax AWard but can't find a good reference for that anywhere. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually TWoP is notable, so the noms can be included. Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 12:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit

I put the article on the GOCE request page. Clay^Clay_Clay 21:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Good to know! Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 12:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Circular sourcing?

What to do if it appears that one source is citing another source, or even Wikipedia?

"As the brony ranks grew, monthly viewership nearly tripled to 4 million by the end of the first season", "As word spread virally, show viewership doubled between seasons one and two." – Ad Age citing OregonLive? Are they citing a shared primary source? It seems there might be some circular sourcing going on between this Wikipedia article and its sources. How can this be investigated, and what should be done about it? –IsaacAA (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

To investigate it, check all the refs and where the refs got their refs. If there is circular sourcing then we should remove it and the info see WP:CIRCULAR. Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 11:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's two different statements: triple monthly viewership across season 1; and doubling viewership from season 1 to season 2, so it can't be circular on that. (Also: its clear Ad Age spoke to the Hub people directly, so viewership numbers are likely coming from them). --MASEM (t) 13:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh right, I misread that. –IsaacAA (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the Geekdad reference speaks about a "Doctor Who" reference that doesn't exist. More circular sourcing? –IsaacAA (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't include the fact from Geekdad that implies the show purposely put in Dr. Whooves as a reference (because we know from unusable but close-to-home sources it wasn't intentional - the ref that we do use for it simply notes that it is a fan-identified character.

To be general, there is potential for a lot of circular sourcing, if we went and used more recent articles on the show that have been published by college papers (they are easier to find). However, I know what I'm adding is not circular in that the information given is "new" and not been stated anywhere else, particularly not on WP. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Reasoning for Brony (My Little Pony)

I decided to replace the redirect for a few reasons. In previous merger discussions, one common argument is that while the bronies are notable, they do not have enough of a history behind them compared to other fandoms. However as far as I know, no guideline or policy exists concerning that any subject should have extensive history behind it, even if the subject has been extensively covered by the media. The other major argument (which I lovingly call the 'siamese twin argument') claims that the fandom would take away the majority of sources from the show, thus ruining it's status as a good article. Four articles, all both heavily based solely to the show and certain aspects of the fandom, are using mostly the same sources from this article to show their notability. Sure, they aren't going to be featured or good articles anytime soon, but it only shows that the "siamese relationship" between this article and the bronies documented in the internet following section, can be split.

Those are my two cents, and I would like to hear yours. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 02:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Technically, "bronies" meet the GNG just like the show itself does. But we are not required to create an article for a notable topic just because; when it makes sense to discuss two or more closely related topics together, it is better to keep them together. As for the sources, the issue I had was that if you moved the entire brony section to a separate article, bringing along all the references that go for it, the sourcing on the show goes down the tubes to some extent. My suggestion, before expanding the Brony article further, is spend some time userpages to create two articles: what the show article would be like w/o the brony section (including removing the references only for the brony stuff) and the brony article, and then lets see what the references look like. We may actually be ok on referencing, but I can't say at the immediate time. --MASEM (t) 06:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You should consider what the article will look like. For example, Trekkies is an in-depth article, but Unofficial Buffy the Vampire Slayer productions looks more like a section of an article that was needlessly branched off. I believe splitting the fandom coverage from My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic would result in two mediocre articles instead of one good one. IsaacAA (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

German Pirate Party

Ok, this is by German's public radio service , ergo a valid RS, about the inclusion of MLPFIM into German Parliamentary proceedings due to the Pirate Party seat. (You'll need to translate but the intent is obvious).

Now, right now I don't have a place to put this, but I remember that someone mentioned that there's a possibly that 4chan and similar groups have "adopted" RBD as a symbol of their group. If we can justify that with an RS, then we can group these as a sort of "negative" (not really negative but certainly not an ideal light - there's a better way to word this), and make the inclusion easier. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the first time the Pirate Party and MLP crossed paths. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 21:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok I think I see soemthing. Here's a recent AV Club article [1] which in their bit about MLPFIM talk about how brony fandom has a somewhat negative stereotype. I might be able to work that FOX News thing in as well. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it "Brony" or "brony"?

Most sources use "brony", as would appear to be the correct way to capitalize a noun formed from a common noun. –Throwawaytv (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be brony, as it's not a proper noun. Wagner ^u t c 22:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again: photo request at BronyCon

If anyone editing this page is going to BronyCon, as we have 3 major VAs there now, please please please get flattering photos of these ladies (and of the event in general). None of the three have a photo and we can use that to illustrate this or other MLP articles. I've made the request over at EQD as well. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't go, but I'm hoping for good photos (and video) too! dogman15 (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Grr – I was there, and I had a camera, too! Unfortunately, the massive overcrowding meant I couldn't get close to the VAs at all during their Q&A session, and it was a bit too hectic when they were doing autographs afterwards to get a photo in then. Disappointing, even though the con itself was really fun. — The Earwig ^(talk) 22:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have any friends that went with cameras, please please contact them for this. I've seen one photoset on google that I'll try to get permissions from but surprisingly not seeing a lot of these. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

General polishing

Correct me if I'm incorrect, but I feel the first paragraphs of the article are a bit too detailed to fit the style of Wikipedia. The information about Lauren Faust is largely unnecessary, and could be moved down to the "production" portion. The Internet Following subheading is chock full of unnecessary clutter. For example, " Two informal surveys, one of about 2,300 self-claimed bronies conducted by Dr. Patrick Edwards, and another performed by a brony fan with about 9,000 respondes, revealed that the average age was around 21, with approximiately 86% of the fans being male and with 63% currently pursuing a college degree or better." This could be trimmed down, just stating the stats and providing the citations to the surveys (which are already there). TSteele6815 (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Fan-fiction?

Shouldn't the section on the internet following talk about some of the fan-fiction created by the brony community, since some of it is of a very high standard? If you look at List of longest novels, some are even longer than War and Peace, so they probably deserve at least being mentioned in this article. --Nallar (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

We know that bronies have made fanfiction but we can't cite any specific example without a source. If we cite one without sourcing, everyone is going to want their fanfic listed. If a source calls out a specific example, then we can mention it, but even then, likely unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Over linking

I thought I had taken care of it, but the reviewers disagreed. If someone could take another pass at the article and check for overlinking, that would be dandy. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Dupes:

Adobe Flash - Amy Keating Rogers - Andrea Libman - Ashleigh Ball - BNET - Canada - Cathy Weseluck - Charlotte Fullerton - Chris Savino - Common Sense Media - DHX Media Vancouver - Daniel Ingram - Dave Polsky - Discovery Communications - Equestria Daily - Hasbro Studios - Hasbro - Lauren Faust - Maclean's - Madeleine Peters - MiniMini - Ms. (magazine) - My Little Pony Tales - My Little Pony - Nicole Oliver - PC Magazine - Rebecca Shoichet - Tabitha St. Germain - Tara Strong - The Hub (TV channel) - The Wall Street Journal - Time (magazine) - Top Gear (2002 TV series) - Wired (magazine) - YouTube -

–Throwawaytv (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling most of the names of VAs and production team are doubled, once from the info box and/or lead, and once again in the body. That's acceptable. Similarly, there are duplinks coming from the sources themselves (eg Ms Magazine as we have two articles from that), and that's ok. Most of these are actually probably okay and thus don't fail overlinking. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

All duplinks cleared today. --Stfg (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Brony study results.

Don't know if this is reliable, but two researchers got 1,300 bronies to take this survey. http://www.bronystudy.com/index.html Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 18:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.224.42 (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks hideously unprofessional. Their sample is self-selecting, and their conclusions are rather dubious: 87% of respondents report being male, but "being a brony is not a male thing"? Highly biased, unprofessional, doesn't fall under WP:NPOV. –IsaacAA (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The man who conducted this survey has a PhD, and he appeared at BroNYCon 2012 (January) and gave a short talk about his research and conclusions. dogman15 (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that in the reports, and as such, is fair game to break down some of the demographics. (It's not just a PhD, its a professor at an acredited institution. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish I could remember more details about the study and those who conducted it (as you briefly just did), but I hope a good-quality video of that guy's short lecture at Bronycon goes up on YouTube soon. dogman15 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be really helpful to know what Dr. Edwards (the lead guy and the one that attended BronyCon) current teaching gig is - it's not clear from the study, nor from the gawker article on the con where he's mentioned (just mentions coming up from NC, but that's still a lot of colleges to check). We do have a Wired article on an more informal survey [2] but I'd rather start with the one done by Dr. Edwards after I've confirmed that this isn't just some random person. (I don't think it is, I just want to help give credence to why we include it) --MASEM (t) 14:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the most plausible result from Scopus: http://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=7401881421.

It says University of Queensland since that's where is most recent publication came out of but his older ones say he was from North Dakota State University which makes more sense (see for example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213489900331). That was 20 or so years ago though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesogyic (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

GOCE copy edit, January 2012

FN13

FN13 merely links to Top Drawer Animation's home page. Please could a more precise page be linked? The sentence citing FN13 need improving, but I can't get it right without referring to the source. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's now FN14). --Stfg (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

and now it's FN15 and links to topdrawanimation.com/production, but that's still just a click-on-the-thumnails page, saying nothing to verify what is cited to it. --Stfg (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I found some projects-by-year pages that I've replaced that with. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Very good. --Stfg (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Ingram

"... Daniel Ingram composes the songs.[15] Songs from Ingram were only included ...". Should this be composes + are or composed + were? --Stfg (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"were" has been changed to "would", but the paragraph still has mixed tenses: present at the start, past later on. Is it describing something that is done now, or something that used to be done in the past? --Stfg (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Present-tensed the last sentence. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

All clear now. --Stfg (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Derpy's 'medical' symptom

Should I replace either "cross-eyed" or "googly-eyed" in Derpy's description in the main article and in the list of characters with either Esotropia or Strabismus? JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 17:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No, we have no idea what it is. That would be original research. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I went too scientific, too. My bad. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 03:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Should we renominate for FA?

I'm sure that the peer reviewer has much more important things to do, but if the issues in the current peer review are the only ones he was able to find, do you think we would have a shot at FA? Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 00:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The likely issue that is going to happen at FA is the sourcing, even though I'd estimate 80% is of no question; the parts using the interviews from EQD and the sourcing for foreign sourcing will likely be questioned. --MASEM (t) 01:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the interview parts will not be a huge problem, given we had concensus agreeing that EqD could be used for interviews. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 01:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The peer review should be seen through, although it might be time to ping the reviewer. Clay^Clay_Clay 01:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. As much as I would love to believe that these were the only issues he could find, that could most likely not be the case. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 01:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Main issues

He responded back to me on my talk page, saying that the prose was the main problem he saw, but he will have a complete PR within 24 hours. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 12:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest PR update.

Here is a full list of the issues, and the issue was surprisingly not with the sources, but with the prose.

• Where possible, avoid passive voice and flip it to active voice. SOme passive is OK, but active is almost always more concise and usually more interesting. In the lead The series is produced by Hasbro Studios and DHX Media Vancouver (formerly Studio B Productions). could be something like Hasbro Studios and DHX Media Vancouver (formerly Studio B Productions) produce the series. Or it could even be combined with the previous sentence (It is based on Hasbro's My Little Pony line of toys and animated works.) to give something like Hasbro Studios and DHX Media Vancouver (formerly Studio B Productions) produce the series, which is based on Hasbro's My Little Pony line of toys and animated works.
• Four sentences in the second paragraph start with "Faust" or "Lauren Faust" - again switching the first sentence to active voice "Hasbro selected Lauren Faust..." would help here too.
• Seems a bit too certain as to the reasons why Reasons for this unintended appreciation include Faust's creative contribution to the writing and characterization... Perhaps something like "Reasons cited for this unintended appreciation..."?
• Could the first sentence of Origins give the year MLP started? [Since YEAR], Hasbro, Inc. has produced several generations of toys and entertainment related to the My Little Pony franchise...
• Avoid needless repetition The animated cartoon series My Little Pony Tales, produced in 1992, was the toy line's most recent television series before Friendship Is Magic, and it featured the pony designs of the first generation.[3][4] Does the sentence need both animated and cartoon (wouldn't either one suffice)? Does the sentence need the word series twice? Perhaps something like My Little Pony Tales (2002) was the toy line's most recent animated television series before Friendship Is Magic; it featured first-generation pony designs.
• MOS says that images should draw the reader's eyes into the article - the photo of Lauren Faust is looking the wrong way (out of the article)
• Tweak / tighten this to something like Senior Vice President Linda Steiner stated that they "intended to have the show appeal to a larger" demographic, with a central theme of the Hub's programming being parents "co-viewing" with their children.[8]
• First sentence of Production does not need to say "(formerly Studio B)" as this was expalined in the previous paragraph
• Move last phrase earlier Though Studio B performed this animation work initially, [in the later part of Season 1 and beyond] the final steps of creating the animation were passed to Top Draw Animation in the Philippines, an animation studio that Studio B had worked well with in the past, in the later part of Season 1 and beyond.[14]
• MOSIMAGE also says not to sandwich text between two images - in Production the photo of Thiessen could be moved lower to avoid this.
• Any more details on why Faust left?
• This sounds contradictory Near the end of the first season, Faust announced that she had left the show, and for season two she stepped down as Executive Producer, to become Consulting Producer. The phrase "left the show" makes it sound as if she was completely gone, but then it says she was still Executive Producer, and is still Consulting Producer.
• OK, I will just poiint out MOS issues - see if WP:GOCE or someone listed at WP:PR/V under copyedits can help.
• Who is the sister? Celestia reappears, reunites with her sister,... See WP:WAF and WP:PCR
• Cutie Mark Crusaders info in Charatcers is a bit repetitious (already in Premise)
• Article refers to "as of September 2011" a few times but it is now 4 months later - can this be updated?
• Episodes section needs a ref too
• Needs some sort of date / year for context Shannon Chan-Kent, the singing voice performer for the character Pinkie Pie, has begun recording for an upcoming third season.[1]
• I would be explicit that TV-Y is ages 2 and up. The series is rated TV-Y (designed for a very young audience).
• Really awkward The series is or will be available in the following languages, sorted in chronological order of debut. The series is or will be automatically available in countries wherever the following television channels are broadcast.
• Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections as much as possible - Toys and merchandise is one sentence - could it be combined with something else?\
• Watch tenses in Critical reception - some critics' views are present tense (Todd VanDerWerff of the A.V. Club favorably notes ...) others are past tense (Kathleen Richter of Ms. believed that...)
• OK, will stop for now

Copied and pasted from the latest PR. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 12:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed a few of those critiques. Feel free to check my edits and make sure I didn't do anything wrong :) Also, I noticed that in the Origin section it says "Studio B Productions (now DHX Media Vancouver) had previously worked on Adobe Flash-based animations" and "Studio B requested that Jayson Thiessen be the director". Should they be DHX Media instead? If not, does "now DHX Media Vancouver" need to be there, even though the lead says "DHX Media Vancouver (formerly known as Studio B Productions)"? SapphireRyoko (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of Mythpage88 edits

I've bulk reverted Mythpage's recent batch of edits. Three things stand out:

• Removing Boing Boing as a "worthless blog". Boing Boing is a site on Internet culture by Cory Doctorow, and considered to be a reliable source for such things
• Removing character information. While there is a separate article for the characters, summarizing is fully inline with such breakouts of articles. There's some trimming to do on the CMCs but removing the other ones are not appropriate.
• The CN on the initial sketches is confirmed obviously at Faust's DA account. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Boingboing is a public blog. It was an over-summarization more aptly taken care of by the main article. Deviantart is NOT a reliable source. Mythpage88 (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The DA page of the primary show creator, with known confirmation, is a primary source and allowed (under WP:SPS). Boing-Boing is not a public blog; only a certain set of editors post there, with editor lead by Doctorow. And again, while I recognize that the characters are developed in more detail on other pages, the reason to include the main minor characters here is because that includes the voice actors on this page, which is something not to ignore. These are not crufty aspects. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll give you the DA bit, but the boingboing citation is not only cited in far more reliable sources (included on the page), but remains a group blog. Just because Doctrow is the editor doesn't mean he edits everything, nor does his presence make everything reliable. Mythpage88 (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

While I know the sourcing is duplicated in the other sources, Boing Boing is generally considered an RS for anything dealing with Internet culture, even if it is a blog. It's not an open blog, and those that contributed are experts in this field. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Beschizza isn't a WORLD RENOWNED INTERNET EXPERT, he's a guy who blogs about the Internet for a living. Mythpage88 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no requirement that we can only use blogs from "World Renowned" experts; if they make their profession writing about that, that already starts to make them an expert. It is a notable technology/internet blog, and generally has been factually correct with some editorial control. As a situational source to discuss the internet aspect of this show, it's fine. There'd be topics I'd not use it on, but this is not one of those cases. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The 'world renowned Internet expert' was sarcasm, which I was hoping you'd notice. Mythpage88 (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain (or point out) where you believe the problems with "fansite" and "over-detailed" are in this? Just tagging without stating where, particularly after this has gone through several PR's, is not helpful. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Mainly the reception section. As it stands, that section is just an embarrassment to the brony community. Mythpage88 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Says the person who is tagging the article with a fancruft template. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 22:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is that supposed to mean? I take it you don't actually have a rebuttal, just an ad homenim attack against my person? Mythpage88 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly how is it an embarrassment? It is a sourced analysis of how the fandom developed and why it gained notability. It's told as neutrally as possible. Arguing that it is embarrassing because its too detailed is a poor hypothesis. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question." Too detailed is the issue here. 23:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythpage88 (talk • contribs)

And?

To be brutally honest, this is probably the first "fanbase" that has been caught in formation "in the wild", to speak; we can point to a specific article that caused the fandom to ignite. This fact is of interest to people beyond the brony fandom, either from a "curiousity of the Internet" type of approach, or just to ask "why the heck are grown men watching a kids show, and taken the Internet by storm?". There's a reason why most of the sources in the Internet Response section are from major magazines and newspapers; it's not because the people writing for them are bronies, that's for sure. It should be clarified that "fancruft" is nearly always applied to in-universe details, which is certainly not the case here. So that tag really doesn't apply.

I will, however, possible agree that the over detailed tag may be appropriate, but again, you should explain why instead of just dropping it there. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit generous, "the first fanbase caught in formation in the wild"... By "a bit" I mean "wildly, vastly, inordinately, and undeservingly". Mythpage88 (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been on the net since '93. I know that fandoms have come and gone, using the Internet as a medium for the like. I'm not saying I'm right, but with the brony community, it is more the case that this appears to be the first major fandom to have arisen explicitly because of the Internet (due to how MLP was incorporated into memes via 4chan) rather than just communicate over it. That might be hyperbole, but certainly the interest in the fandom is outlined by the large volume of sources regarding the fandom (over the show itself), so there's clearly interest is why and how this fandom came to exist.

Ignoring that, however, again, I ask what do you think is over-detailed? --MASEM (t) 00:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If I remember wikipedia policy correctly then information should nevery be removed if it is valid, it can be moved or summarised but not removed. -- Spazturtle !DERP/3/PiM Talk 01:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly the debate about if a source was reliable has come up before and it was decided that most of the questionable sources were infact reliable, if you have any problems with a source can you please bring it up on the talk page instead of removing the sources, thanks. -- Spazturtle !DERP/3/PiM Talk 00:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 January 2012

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add the following to the international releases, thanks.

Lithuanian | Mano mažasis ponis ("My little pony") | TV3 | January 07, 2012

The one I linked before and this one are only sources I could find. But it is really there, I've watched it myself. I've never done this before, apologies for any mistakes. Rithelgo (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like TV3 in Estonia also has FIM in its line-up. [3] Not sure if Modern Times Group's other television channels have broadcasting rights too. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 04:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither of those sources are credible, one is a page anyone can edit and the other is a translation of a wikipeida article for the old my little pony series, also saying that you have seen it yourself doesn't help because of WP:NOR, if you can find a tv guide website with it listed that would be great. -- Spazturtle !DERP/3/PiM Talk 23:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Er, the sources are not "not credible", but "not reliable in the sense used in Wikipedia" (or maybe "not authoritative", though that name has been rejected)...

Anyway, there is an offline source: TV schedule in "TV diena", 2012-01-07, p. 10 (quote: "8.30 Anim. f. „Mano mažasis ponis“ (1) (JAV, Kanada 2010 m.)."), that is an annex to newspaper "Kauno diena", 2012-01-07, Nr. 5(19564). A corresponding online source is [4]. Yes, not the best one could think of... Still, neither of them actually says it was the "Date of debut" (not that I would expect them to do so)... So, I guess it would be best to leave that field blank (unless, of course, someone finds a better source or decides that WP:IAR applies here). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As above, awaits better ref. Not done for now.  Chzz  ►  02:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)