Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject My Little Pony

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Murdox (talk | contribs) at 20:12, 27 January 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Le Tags

It defiantly need to be WikiProject animation and not television. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 06:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EQD is stalking.

http://www.equestriadaily.com/2011/08/nightly-roundup-76.html#more Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 11:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

I have made all the "List of X" articles that have yet to receive a class rating 'list class' as I believe this is the only logical class to put them in. -- Spazturtle !DERP/3/PiM Talk 03:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

I have been to every listed article and both added Template tags where needed and classified the article on quality and importance scales. Not that it's likely any of the articles besides MLP:FIM will ever be visited.ReecyBoy42 (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure this project was never made just to benefit Friendship is Magic. Sure, it's a top priority, but so are the other generations. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 12:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know it wasn't made just for Friendship is Magic, but it's just that it seems to me not much else will be done with the other generations, what with them being, put bluntly, inferior to G4. I may be wrong, and I indeed hope I am wrong, and that the other articles get some much-needed attention, but as I said, I can't see it happening any time soon. ReecyBoy42 (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony

I think you ought to get to cleaning up, referencing, and structuring My Little Pony if any of you are knowledgeable about the subject. -IsaacAA (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just flicked through the article; you're right, it needs help. I guess if we can round up the members and focus our efforts, we could clean it up somewhat. Unfortunately, I really haven't the time to be heavily researching and structuring an article at the moment, so I can't exactly help with the big stuff, but I'll try and get some copyediting done in the next couple of days. Meanwhile, perhaps put a heading on the WikiProject page informing everyone that that's our focus article for the time being? I don't know how many seriously informed My Little Pony fans we have here, but I guess every bit helps. ReecyBoy42 (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some G3 Movie articles plus list of characters are a Mess

From My Little Pony: A Very Minty Christmas to My Little Pony: Twinkle Wish Adventure needs to be rewritten. And also get rid of ParaSprites, especially one user who ruins everything. Oh and List of My Little Pony characters would need professional attention. Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winged unicorn

I thought you guys might take an interest in this, managed to find and organize chronologically winged unicorns over the years leading up to Celestia and Luna. I am looking for more information to expand it so if anyone has anything they could add, feel welcome. Bonechamber (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article really isn't under our scope to be honest. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 15:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improving FiM article for FA status

I've started a discussion on the FiM article's talk page. I list some of the issues brought up in the FA review. Please go there to discuss this further Talk:My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic#Improvements_needed_for_FA_status:

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class checklist for WikiProject Animation

Greeting, I am a coordinator for WikiProject Animation. A B-Class checklist has been added to the project banner, along with the work group text, including the importance function. The B-Class checklist will include 6 point parameters to assess against the criteria. If you have any questions, please discuss at our talk page. Thank for your time. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall low quality of this project

It appears that the project members are inserting a lot of unsourced information into articles, confusing MLP generations with television series, and overall just push for more exposure instead of higher quality, often at the expense of accuracy, correctness, and verifiability. Please remedy this behavior. –Throwawaytv (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Several of these articles may end up being merged, or deleted. I think having individual articles for each pony is highly questionable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also concerned many of the character articles seem to be sourced to fansites of questionable quality. I fear any person trying to do anything about it will face an uphill struggle. Because AFDs have been done already recently and the verdicts for mergers have been ignored. So you are against some hardcore inclusionists. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anywhere that we can go with our concerns? I doubt the pony-fans are going to listen to us ("fanboys gonna fanboy"). My concern is that they're treating wikipedia as if it were a fan wiki, and ignoring concepts such as notability--Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only places I feel any concerns will be seriously addressed will be Wikipedia talk:Notability and Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I think and any concerned parties will get a fair hearing will be Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard so I might start a discussion there if anyone is interested inclusionist and deletionist alike. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • WP:SOFIXIT, including finding academic texts and fully exploiting them, like Wood, Walton. "The Empirical Twilight: A Pony's Guide to Science & Anarchism." ImageTexT: Interdisciplinary Comics Studies. 6.1 (2011): n. pag. Dept of English, University of Florida. 18 December 2011. Web. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the various character pages is a good start to improving the quality of this project. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting inadequately notable & inadequately sourced pony articles back to List of... articles - from Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

The following discussion took place at talk:drn; that was probably not the best place for it, and so I've moved it back here;

I am deeply concerned of what I see is a proliferation of poor quality articles such as Spike (My Little Pony) , Minty (My Little Pony), Starsong (My Little Pony) which little to no third person sources to support their notability. Wikipedia:WikiProject My Little Pony seems to an inclusionist excuse to be their own personal fan wiki rather than creating veritable quality articles. 08:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Dwanyewest (talk)

Given that there are articles like Wood, Walton. "The Empirical Twilight: A Pony's Guide to Science & Anarchism." ImageTexT: Interdisciplinary Comics Studies. 6.1 (2011): n. pag. Dept of English, University of Florida. 18 December 2011. Web. in double blind peer reviewed journals, many of these characters may be more verifiable than you realise. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Onus is on the person who created the My Little Pony individual characters but refuse or won't do anything to add sources to justify the articles. That's the problem with inclusionism its easy to create articles but next to impossible to get rid of poor or unnecessary articles. If you are prepare to create the articles you should be justify it. "The Empirical Twilight: A Pony's Guide to Science & Anarchism." ImageTexT: Interdisciplinary Comics Studies. 6.1 (2011): n. pag. Dept of English, University of Florida. 18 December 2011 is not gonna cover all the characters so far. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PROD and AfD exist to challenge the retention of articles you find to be of dubious notability. In my view, there's not much article-space competition for the name Spike (My Little Pony) and I'm happy enough to see such fancruft exist there. But as your milage varies, I suggest you take one of the article to AfD to see what the community thinks. (This all presupposes you've tried to engage with the little pony community. If you have not, you might wish to, perhaps suggesting that they confine their nags to a List of my little pony characters article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re the Walton Wood paper, that is indeed a surprising level of serious commentary on MLP. However that's still only a source for the content it includes, and where it's cited. These articles are a long way beyond that in places, with serious in-universe problems. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fear it will be pointless discussing these problems with the MLP community or using AFD'S as they will be ignored see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minty (My Little Pony) and be filled with fansites with aren't reliable sources or articles which have little to do with the indvidual characters they are supposed to be discussing. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going start the ball rolling by maybe nominating some these dreadful characters and no fansites don't count as reliable sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fanbois & girls do not get the option to ignore the outcomes of AfDs. If a merge is the outcome, then we need to serve notice that the substantive article will be changed to a redirect to the "list of" article, make the change, and then keep the redirect page on watchlists lest it be reverted. I'll start to do this this evening (about 3 hours time, I think). If you know of other AfDs with merge or delete outcomes which have not been acted on, list them here and we'll start dealing with them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Could someone please point me in the direction of discussion about Dispute Resolution Noticeboard? I know that people have their own worlds that they express fanatical interest in, but opening a discussion here is not productive and is opening a battlefield mentality. Now if a DRN posting citing disregard for the previous consensus of merging was opened, we could have a discussion. Hasteur (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Dwanyewest has had run-ins with the brony community - I've certainly seen him on List of My Little Pony characters (which I have on my watchlist because I must have sinned in a previous life). The problem is he hasn't formatted this correctly to pick up which editors and include diffs. Dwanye, just redirect all the articles to the list article - that's what it's there for, and if they argue, take it to AfD. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur — including the remark about past life sins — and would note that while this discussion could, indeed, probably be taking place at a better location, brony issues have popped up here at DRN at least twice (here and here). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My question was driving at why the idea was being hatched on the DRN Talk page instead of at other locations. Per the talk page notice The purpose of this page is to discuss Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. If your post is about a specific problem you have, please ask for help at the Wikipedia:Help desk or see the New Contributors' Help Page. My main concern was potentially being used as a co-ordination site for target actions (Much like Article Rescue Squadron) and possibly being branded as a anti-MLP hangout. Hasteur (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The long and short of it is, an AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minty (My Little Pony) - recommended merging that individual pony article back to a List of article; but no action was taken (before today). There are a number of other pony articles as lacking in WP:RS and WP:N as was poor Minty. The suggestion is that action should now be taken to redirect all such articles on sight to their corresponding List of article. It follows, presumably, that any member of this project or in fact anyone, can revert those redirects, and anticipate that the article will then be taken to AfD to solicit a wider community decision. Based on the Minty precedent and the interest now taken in the issue of ponies allegedly lacking notability at WP:DRN the probability must be that AfDs for articles with characteristics similar to Minty will be closed as merge. It's will be incumbent on anyone who wishes to see these articles preserved to demonstrate notability with reference to reliable sources. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see Rainbow Dash and Pinkie Pie are the only characters with any kind of credible sourcing. I don think Pinkie Pie should use the academic source better, but at least there is source a useful source to justify notability. Fluttershy still needs to go or better sources need to be found. If any new character articles are going to be recreated I believe there needs to be a aggressive search for reliable sources that are not incidental and aren't fansites. The last statement I would like to make I think more sources need to be found for My Little Pony (TV series) and My Little Pony Tales. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't but any of them. The references in Rainbow Dash are about homophobia and racism, and mention RB only as an example. The academic paper uses PP again only as an illustration of a concept. No refs for F. Can't see why any would stay; none pass WP:GNG for me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a bit stupid. That means all the MLP characters CAN'T have their own pages due to their sources? Well that's THE ONLY sources I can find. And none of the Bronies would dare touching Gens 1-3.5--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. That's the way that wikipedia works. It selects articles that have references that justify their notability, and repudiates articles that have no such sources. A tough but fair approach which prevents an accumulation of fancruft. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie

RightCowLeftCoast has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thank you for your efforts, and for being Bronies. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Great....seriously

Now List of My Little Pony characters is in the Wikipedia:Lamest Edit Wars! Are we all ashamed of this now? D: --Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well ain't that just dandy. I'm rather disappointed with the behaviour of certain members of this fandom when operating on Wikipedia, and here's another reason why. ReecyBoy42 (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well just because me and Tama Fan always argue on the colors of each pony. I know is this: The colors in both G1-3.5 animation is sometimes incorrect. It causes problems with the toy continuity.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

You might want to know that List of my little pony: friendship is magic friendship reports has been nominated for deletion here. NtheP (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. That information is already covered in the list of episodes. There is no need for a separate article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA trolling attempts

It looks like LoverPony and Princess Derpy were trolls from the GNAA. Keep on the lookout for such future attacks. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portal keeper

Why did Fluttershy have to leave?!? Anyways, are we going to need a new "portal keeper" to make sure the project is up to date (I see he did most of the work)? --User:SweetieBelleMLP 14:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello

I have been invited to join the MLP wiki project. As an avid fan of MLP I would like to offer my help to any fellow bronipedians to make sure everything's going great. TIA Murdox (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_My_Little_Pony&oldid=473569146"