Talk:Tara Strong

Biography Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

My Little Pony Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject My Little Pony, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of My Little Pony related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.My Little PonyWikipedia:WikiProject My Little PonyTemplate:WikiProject My Little PonyMy Little Pony articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Please try to communicate your edits before fighting for Undo/Redo

Hello, just a thought to share. Let's try to be a bit more descriptive when making edits so that we can better understand your reasoning for the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzstoyanov (talk • contribs) 22:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

#twilightlicious

As Tara herself has (supposedly, considering how she herself continously uses the phrase) said, she'd like the Twilightlicious section to remain. I propose a slight cleanup/rewrite of the section, though, as the suggested reason for removal is valid - it does partially push the entire article in a specific direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abzol (talk • contribs) 22:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Tara Strong, but that doesn't mean that she has the authority to have on the article whatever she wants. Wikipedia articles are informational pages regarding the subject, not a fan club. Jeremjay 24 22:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as far as I can tell, the twilighticious tag can be considered a minor part of her online personality. Maybe it doesn't deserve it's own section, though. Abzol (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think necessarily that it deserves a section to itself, but if perhaps there were a section about her involvement in MLP:FiM and the fan community, it would belong there. I almost want to suggest that it be merged into the fandom section on the MLP:FiM article itself, since it did arise from her interaction with the fans, and is something of a milestone of the cast's growing involvement with the fandom. --Billdorr (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem with this section: it's unsourced, the concept of 'twilightlicious' hasn't been discussed outside of Tara, her Twitter, and the brony community, and it's not encyclopedic. (the EW link uses the word in the headline but does not discuss it.) I was going to leave it as it stood for the moment and allow for potential sourcing; another editor has decided, while I was writing this post, to remove it, as is his/her right. I suggest that if people want it to be replaced, they source it properly from good references, rather than Twitter posts et al, and rewrite it once the sources are available. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't mind - I just read that people were "warring" over this section's removal. I went on here simply to see this play out and opened the talk both to quickly try and fix the problem I've seen on many other so-called "wars" (namely multiple users editing the main article at the same time) and see how many bronies would care. I'm indifferent, really. I'm not a part of the fandom, nor do I dislike it. If noone can come up with a solid reason to keep it, I'm for deleting it. Abzol (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting protection for this page to prevent inexperienced contributors from adding content that is not encyclopedic. Jeremjay 24 22:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a good idea considering Tara Strong's response to all of this. █ EMARSEE 23:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. If the herd arrives and starts going crazy, I'll push the magic button, but for now it's one IP who has replaced the section again. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least take into account that it's really just been one IP that's been constantly removing that section? Dzstoyanov (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It feels more appropriate to mention the tag under the article My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic fandom over Tara Strong's article, since it is highly emphasized more towards the fandom over her entire career. It can be briefly mentioned on the article but as mentioned before by other users, it doesn't deserve an entire section of its own. I actually did not want to have it in the beginning, since it felt more like fancruft from MLP than anything relevant to her career. However, if it emphasized with enough sources, it can be briefly mentioned in this article and the article describing the fandom. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 23:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your reasoning Esanchez, does anyone have a solution that can provide a mention to the subject while not giving it undue weight? Dzstoyanov (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the content of that section is moved to Early life and Career, is this a suitable compromise considering that there is no more undue weight given to the section?Dzstoyanov (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about valid sources

Is content from http://tarastrong.com/ considered a valid source? Dzstoyanov (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a primary source. Reliable sources are generally secondary sources where possible. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. To be honest, if that's the case it seems all pretty subjective. Say if Tara Strong publishes an autobiography and puts Twilightlicious in that biography. Does that make it primary source? If so, what is the difference between that and her writing on twitter? Additionally, I could just request the webmaster on tarastrong.com to add a tidbit on Twilightlicious. Would that mean that Twilightlicious would now be cited from a primary source? I'm sorry if I'm being difficult but it just seems that the whole idea of "reliable sources" is paradoxical. Dzstoyanov (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does wikipedia have a list of reliable secondary sources? Dzstoyanov (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IRS is your friend. █ EMARSEE 04:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two additional credible sources added for Twilightlicious. I've restored the section to Tara's Personal Life now that it has a substantial amount of support. Dzstoyanov (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]