Talk:List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


My Little Pony: The Wonderbolts Merger[edit]

It was decided quite a while ago now that My Little Pony: The Wonderbolts should be merged into this article. Umm, is that going to happen sometime soon or anything? I'd help it happen but I have no idea how so...I'll just leave this comment here 'til someone more knowledgeable than I comes along. ReecyBoy42 (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if...[edit]

Excuse me, but should we provide images of the characters in the article?


-- (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Typically, lists of characters don't do individual shots, but there is often an image at the top containing some of the more major characters, if that's what you mean. There may already be such an image on the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic page, which could be reused here, I believe. Feel free to research this, and if you think it'd work, try adding it in! ReecyBoy42 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of unnecessary sections[edit]

This article is far too inclusive. Many of the characters listed in the "other characters" section only make minor appearances in the series, as well as the "Pets" section. Most of the page is also unreferenced, providing another good reason to remove some of this content. Ideas on what to do? Princess Derpy (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

i love your username, try Hubsite is CANON! (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed many of the one-shot characters and others who were very minor. I removed the pets section, and added a line to each pony's section naming which pet they have. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Star Swirl the Bearded seems like a very minor character. He's a historical figure mentioned in a couple episodes, but who has never appeared on the show. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The Japanese voices are not needed. We are only concerned about the English show. J4lambert (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


Many fans have compared Discord's psychotic and unpredictable nature as well as his love for chaos to the character Sheogorath from the Elder Scrolls videogame series.

Is that worth adding to his description? Dartpaw86 (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Dartpaw86

No. See WP:OR and WP:RELIABLE--Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Cadence's name[edit]

Her official name is "Princess Cadance", e.g. correctly spelled in Shining Armor's and Chrysialis' sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC) :Is it? cause I'm really confused right now. Helicopter Llama 16:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've done my research, you're right, almost all of the products use "Cadance", I'm stupid, sorry lol Helicopter Llama 16:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It's an honest mistake; I was confused as well until I studied the actual closing credits and discovered that Cadance is the true spelling and thus the one we should be using here on Wikipedia. :) --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
To quote a not very reliable source, but the assertions should be verifiable: "Cadence" is used in the credits of the first two episodes of season 3 and in some publicity material, while the later variation "Cadance" is used in the credits of the second-to-last episode of season 3 and near-exclusively and prominently in publicity material and all products, one of which used "Cadence" in a promotional photo but used "Cadance" in its actual release. Elizium23 (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
While Wikia isn't a reliable source, you make good points. I initially deleted the mention (before reading this) because I couldn't think of a way to word it in a way that explains how the "a" spelling is the official one. I had forgotten how much the other spelling had been used, so I've restored your addition to the entry. It warrants a small mention but should not be used in place of Cadance on the encyclopedia. --Yellow1996 (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Individual pages[edit]

These need to be created for Twilight Sparkle, Spike, Rainbow Dash, Pinkie Pie, Fluttershy, Applejack and Rarity. I have already started writing some of them on my computer. These characters are more notable than 90% of, say, the Marvel and DC characters who have articles on this site. I see no reason why they should not get their own articles. They have MORE than enough "reception" as well. Please unlock the page "Rainbow Dash" as well as any other character names that may be locked. ResonX (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it Owloysius?[edit]

Or have they officially declared the spelling? Serendipodous 18:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Lauren Faust, it's neither Owlowiscious like it says on the wiki page, nor Owloysius, but OWLOWICIOUS instead (notice the missing s before the 'cious'). See — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Uh... I don't think we can source DeviantArt though. --Yellow1996 (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


How come there is no entry for Trixie!?

And some of the main characters should have their own articles. They are more notable than many DC/Marvel characters!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I just added an entry for Trixie in the Antagonists section, since she's no longer a one-shot character.Dr. Slide (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Derpy Hooves[edit]

This section is missing a considerable amount of basic information about Derpy Hooves. Specifically, Derpy Hooves was never intended to be a secondary character, but gained a fan following after fans spotted an animation error in which the nameless background pony had crossed eyes. In acknowledgement of the character's fan following, Derpy got cameos in multiple subsequent episodes, culminating in her speaking appearance in The Last Roundup. This caused some controversy, as Hasbro and/or the Hub received complaints that Derpy was offensive to disabled persons (the word "derp" or "derpy" in particular). The episode was subsequently edited, and the netflix and youtube have that scene altered so Derpy is not named by Rainbow Dash, among other changes.

I believe at least some of this information is worth including in the Derpy description, as it makes Derpy quite unique among the other secondary characters, and does not draw on speculative information from fan generated content (ie, the muffins obsession). Furthermore, I don't think what I've mentioned here goes beyond the scope of a concise and basic encyclopedic entry. -Slothen (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The expunging of Rainbow Dash saying Derpy's name and redub of her voice in The Hub's re-airings of "The Last Roundup" seems to me significant enough to warrant a brief, sourced mention. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Derpy hooves isn't a legitimate character — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamking21 (talkcontribs) 18:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

She's probably the most popular minor character on the show, and they don't seem to be getting rid of her. (In the latest episode, she's hidden in the crowd during Twilight's coronation, winking at the audience.) ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The current section is nice! --Yellow1996 (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Jim Miller has stated here that her name was changed for legal reasons (because the word "derp" is copyrighted by Trey Parker and Matt Stone). Revenano (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You can’t copyright a word. It might be a trademark, but not a copyright. Gial Ackbar (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Twilight is an Alicorn.[edit]

The section on Twilight currently lists her as a unicorn. This is not true, as she turned into an alicorn in the season 3 finale Magical Mystery Cure. It doesn't matter how many episodes she was a unicorn, she is currently an alicorn and should be listed as such. I will be changing the entry accordingly. It already mentions that she was previously a unicorn; which would dispel any confusion. Edit: I now have rewritten the lead sentence with a direct mention of the unicorn-alicorn transformation, which I think clears things up. If not, please add any comments below. --Yellow1996 (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC) and 00:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What we had before your edit was true. We began the first sentence correctly saying that Twilight was a unicorn for most of the series, then mentioned her new form in the second paragraph.
I see two perspectives we could take here:
  • Entire-series perspective: All 66 existing episodes begin with Twilight as a unicorn, so every single episode to date features Twilight as a unicorn. Twilight has been a pegacorn for only half an episode. So looking at the entire series to date, she's primarily a unicorn.
  • Current-state perspective: Twilight is presently a pegacorn in-universe, and we assume she will continue to be for at least 26 more episodes in season 4. So looking forward toward future episodes, she's a pegacorn going forward, and a unicorn in the past.
Combining both perspectives and mentioning both her states in the first sentence will do, I think. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean that what we had before my edit was wrong, just not the way we should be going about things (should have thought before I typed.) I just think it makes sense to begin with what she currently is, not what she primarily was. So the current sentence is okay, then? --Yellow1996 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Note from Rainbowdashies: If Twilight is mentioned as a alicorn, it would be a spoiler to viewers who haven't seen the episode yet. I suggest you put that "something magical happened" or "Twilight showed true responsibility and wisdom for herself and her friends, so Twilight transformed" I really don't know but something like that. There shouldn't be any SPOILER ALERTS on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowdashies (talkcontribs) 00:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

We're not allowed to censor information due to spoilers. See WP:SPOILER. --.Yellow1996.(ЬMИED¡) 03:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Split characters[edit]

I would like to propose we split some characters into individual articles. Just as certain episodes of the show have gained significant reception, so too, I believe, have some of its characters. First and foremost is Twilight Sparkle, whose role as the show's central protagonist, as well as her recent notoriety as an Alicorn Princess, satisfies the general notability guidelines and has been covered with reliable, third-party sources. I also believe Discord, a character portrayed by a big-name actor who has played a significant role with the show's fanbase, also fulfills this criteria. However, we must be aware that Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. Please leave your thoughts in the general section below whether you would support or oppose these splits. User:Immblueversion (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Strong Support - I agree with all your points and would absolutely love to see (and work on!) separate articles for some characters. Honestly, certain other shows have pages for characters that don't even come close to the notability of many of the characters listed here. So yeah, please do. --Yellow1996 (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've just finished cobbling together a draft for a Discord character page in my sandbox, and have submitted it for review at WP:AFC. I started with him seeing how he's only appeared in three episodes so far. I've even gotten some potential images for the page. Feel free to check it out, and even make some adjustments if necessary.
Anyway, who else besides Twilight do you think has a shot at getting their own page? User:Immblueversion (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
That looks awesome! :) I'll give it a thorough check soon when I have some more time. As for who I think would have a shot at a separate page, I'd say Rainbow Dash (though that page appears to have been deleted quite a while ago - during one of my editing hiatuses...), and maybe someone like Princess Celestia. However, I think it would be wise to take it one page at a time (or in this case, two - Twilight and Discord) because then we'll have a better chance of making high quality articles that won't show up on AfD. --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and it appears as though there was a Discord article in 2011 that didn't last long: here it is. Yours is definately an improvement. Edit: and here's Twilight's article, from January 2012. --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC) and 01:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay I have given the article a thorough read, and I think it is quite well written, and is adequately sourced. I don't really have any suggestions, it is quite extensive. I hope to see it in article space soon! --Yellow1996 (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
My article was declined, apparently because the page I requested for creation already exists as a redirect for the "Discord" subsection in this article. So...since the article technically already exists, should I go ahead and edit the article with what I wrote? And by that, I mean the Discord (My Little Pony) page, and create a redirect on this page. If not, what should I do? User:Immblueversion (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Well it appears the article was declined only because Discord (My Little Pony) is an already existing redirect. So yes, what I think you should do is go to the redirect page and replace the #redirect with your content from the sandbox. Your article is well sourced and I can't see it being a problem. --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I have finished the page. Behold.
Now, would you or anyone else like to help with the creation of more character pages? Preferably Twilight Sparkle? User:Immblueversion (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Awesome! I've assessed it. I would love to see more character pages, so if you can put up a starting draft then I would definately work on it. (Yes, Twilight!) :) --Yellow1996 (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I believe strongly that at least Discord and Twilight deserve their own articles. The sources can be found. Many, many articles on the encyclopedia rely heavily on primary sources and are of a lot more biased, poor quality than the Discord article (which is neither of those two things.) Bring it up on AfD if you wish, but I predict a snowstorm. --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
If any pony is notable enough to have her own article, Twilight Sparkle is. But Discord's just a two-time antagonist-of-the-week, like The Great and Powerful Trixie. Q may merit a full article, but I doubt that MLP:FIM's two-shot Q knockoff does. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
that many many other articles currently exist but are sourced only / mostly to primary sources is not a good reason to ignore the basic notability requirements of SIGNIFICANT third party content-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I was merely pointing out the fact, I didn't mean it as an argument for keeping the article. Upon closer inspection of the sources, they are not all primary, actually. --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I've read through the entire article, and I think it is a pretty good one. Moreover, it is well sourced (19) and even if most of them are primary sources it does not justify an outright deletion/redirect. As for the notability issue, I have to disagree. But, as I said before, if anyone is concerned then please bring it up on AfD (or perhaps open an RfC), it could even lead to some outside editors finding more third-party sources etc. --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I've read the whole Discord article now, and think it makes an adequate case for Discord's notability. The unsourced assertion "enthralled de Lancie with the fandom" in the lead comes off a little hypey to me, though. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, feel free to remove it and any other unsourced material that you think jeopardizes the article. --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've submitted the article for RFC. I believe any further comments should be made here. User:Immblueversion (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Great idea. --Yellow1996 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Any update? Hub just teased season 5 on Twitter and we still don't have individual character pages on Wikipedia?200dogz (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


So, first, I gotta say it's a shame about that Discord article. I was hoping it'd work. That said, I really don't think dumping all the article's text into this one was the best idea. It just seems out of place.

Which brings me to my next point: revamping this article. It's been a long time, and I know there are a lot of you who've noticed that the quality of this article kinda pales in comparison to ones of better quality. Which is why I think we should start mapping out how the article should look. In fact, I'm working on a new version of the article right now. You can see it on my sandbox.

First, the header is clearly lacking for an article this size. It should sum up everything the article is trying to get across, such as what the show is about, who the main characters are, what other parts of the franchise outside the TV show they've appeared in, and how they've been received by critics and fans.

Next: sections, starting with "Creation and conception". The show's article already has plenty of sourced information on how Lauren Faust came up with the characters and their mannerisms, so we should start by carrying that over. The same goes for the attributes and abilities for the pony tribes that the staff created and/or utilized for this show.

After that, we go into characters. Remember, according to WP:WAF, anything fictional should generally be written from a real-world perspective in present tense. I suggest we briefly sum up the characters' characteristics and anything notable they've done, and then follow up with some real-world information such as how each individual character was conceived and developed by the staff and their voice actors. And no, we don't replicate the Discord section; as it stands, that's really overdoing it for an article like this.

On top of that, here's how I think we should arrange the characters. It's basically the same as it is now, except for a few things:

  • We get rid of the "Main Six" subsection or anything similar to it (like "Mane Six"), because as far as I'm concerned, that's just a fan term. We can bring up the name if it's sourced, but let's not use it as the title of a section.
  • We put all the other sections under one "Recurring characters" section, because they're all characters who have made frequent or semi-frequent roles. We call the "Secondary characters" section "Major characters" instead. The current "Recurring characters" becomes "Supporting characters". And we put "Antagonists" under this section, because we're only listing antagonists who've appeared in more than one episode anyway.
  • Derpy Hooves. Unless we detail her unique real-world development, I suggest we get rid of her section altogether. As notable as the fandom makes her, that does not automatically warrant a section for her role within the show itself, which pretty much amounts to just about the same as the dozens of other background ponies who could be listed here, like Bon Bon, Lyra, Vinyl Scratch, Octavia, and Doctor Whooves, yet aren't. Otherwise, keep it to the article about the fandom, where she's at least received a picture.

Finally, we add a "Reception" section. We find articles going into how the characters have been received by critics and fans. The fandom article should have additional information.

And of course, non-primary sources. We find articles and interviews, and add them.

This is all subject to change, of course. For now, it's merely a suggestion. Again, check out my sandbox. Feel free to edit and add to it as you please; I could really use help finding additional, non-primary sources. May I also suggest we use the sandbox's talk page for any further discussion. User:Immblueversion (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions for a "creation and conception" and "reception" section. We should be able to pull some resources over from the fandom article. I fully agree we should not use "Main Six" because that is neither an official name nor what people in the fandom actually use (Mane Six.) The blanket "recurring chatacters" section would work, I think - and above all, it makes sense; though I think "secondary characters" should stay "secondary characters" - as I see it used much more than "major"; and that term will conflict with "main characters." For Derpy's inclusion I would say back to pulling stuff from the fandom article; no doubt many people coming to this page will want information on her, whether they're an expert on the show or not. For the sources, well, that's always been an issue, hasn't it? ;) --Yellow1996 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
And what of Babs Seed? She may be a Cutie Mark Crusader, but given that she's only appeared for two episodes, I'd hardly call her a "secondary character". The way I have it written out, I mentioned her in the CMC section, but put her character in the "Supporting characters" section. User:Immblueversion (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I like how you have it laid out on the new version. My only suggestion would be to make "The Cutie Mark Crusaders" distinct from the others on the list (well, I guess in secondary characters the only one right now is Princess Celestia...) ie. have Apple Bloom, Sweetie Belle and Scootaloo appear on the index at the top. Same thing goes for all the other headings on your version - each character should be clickable from the index (as opposed to having to click on a category, like "supporting characters", as you would have to do now.) --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Waifu Stealer Flash Sentry[edit]

Given that Sunset Shimmer's only appearance in the movie warrants her own brief section in this article, would the same apply to Flash Sentry? Or is he a more minor character? Then again, he's pretty much as notable as Braeburn...someone got an opinion? ~Helicopter Llama~ 15:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit that I haven't gotten around to watching it yet I'll get on that soon (so my opinion isn't really a valuable one!) That being said his wikia page says that he will definitely not be in Season 4; so his inclusion would have to weigh on how important he was in the film (aka wait for others to respond!) ;) --Yellow1996 (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. On another note, do you by any chance know if McCarthy said anything about an appearance from Sunset Shimmer in Season 4 as well? ~Helicopter Llama~ 16:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't look like it. From here:
On March 19, 2013, Meghan McCarthy was asked "Is Sunset Shimmer going to be a Season 4 storyline? The fact that her backstory seems like a show plot" and responded "Nope." On April 1, 2013, McCarthy wrote as part of an April Fools' Day joke that My Little Pony Friendship is Magic season four episode five would be titled "The Student Becomes the Teacher: The Return of Sunset Shimmer". --Yellow1996 (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I would be against including Flash Sentry in the list of characters since according to McCarthy (that is of course if you believe her) the character won't be appearing in Season 4. We don't have a section dedicate to one-shot characters like Flash or Cherry Jubilee.  █ EMARSEE 20:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • sigh*

What's with all the hate toward Flash?

I swear to Celestia! Everytime a mention of his name was heard, everyone would go berserk and post bad comments and insults about him on Tumblr and 4chan. By the time i watched "Legends of Everfree", Flash's reputation gotten so much horribly worse to the point everyone would blame the film's problems on him.

Come on, guys! Is there any positive thing about him that you hate to admit about him? StephenAlexis (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Fluttershy vs shutterfly[edit]

Under Fluttershy's entry it says "Not to be confused with shutterfly". Is this really an issue, or just a plug for shutterfly? I don't think anyone could possibly confuse Fluttershy the pony with Shutterfly the US corporation. Canine virtuoso (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You'd be suprised how often I used to see that exact confusion. Though then again that was on YouTube in the first half of 2012 - not sure about it nowadays. FWIW I don't think I had even heard of Shutterfly until I had heard of Fluttershy... not totally sure if the tag on her section is absolutely necessary though. If it gets removed, you won't hear me complaining about it. --.Yellow1996.(ЬMИED¡) 01:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's why: I saw a discussion about the pony's name a few months ago. J4lambert (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Where did you see this? (Just for curiosity's sake.) --.Yellow1996.(ЬMИED¡) 16:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Discord just mixed up Shutterfly and Fluttershy in the episode Princess Twilight Sparkel – Part 1. Gial Ackbar (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I caught that too. Perhaps if we could locate a source for the mixup, it could be added to the article. --.Yellow1996.(ЬMИED¡) 04:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

about twilight sparkle[edit]

on march to July mlpfim toy adverts a sltly different looking alacorn twilight appears the long dress is replaced with a gold chest peese her wings are redone and she looks like she dose not care of becoming an alacorn — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't really something that we could add to the article here at Wikipedia; however, the folks over at the MLP Wiki (at Wikia) would probably be interested to hear this. --.Yellow1996.(ЬMИED¡) 18:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Rarity on The Neighbors[edit]

I cannot believe that Rarity was the only one of the mane six ponies to appear on The Neighbors on December 11. J4lambert (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

I seem to be the first editor on this article in 2014. I thought I'd take a look at it as there are multiple issues (evidenced by the aptly named template at the top. I'd also invite other editors to take a look at WP:SYNTH because there may be some. (I will add this to the issues list shortly.) Horse shoes and horse shoeing page198.jpg Brohoof! --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 07:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: WP:WAF will also be useful. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 18:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Citations for My Little Pony: Equestria Girls?[edit]

I haven't seen it, so someone else should add proper citations for the information relating to the film. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Help sourcing the term "Mane Six"[edit]

I'm once again getting back into the swing of improving this article (I know, I fail as a human being for taking so long). Looking over it, I've grown more open to using the term "Mane Six" than I was before, but only if the term can be decently sourced as being used by Hasbro or the Hub Network. As it stands, I'm going to need help. Once again, you may see my progress on my sandbox. Feel free to add whatever you think will help. User:Immblueversion (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I'm against this because this doesn't seem very formal, and "main six [characters]" seems sufficient. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 03:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
As "Mane Six" is used both from fans and official side, it should be mentioned in the article, but not be used as substituted for "The six main characters" in the text. Gial Ackbar (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Twilight and Discord articles[edit]

I've been reading this talk page, I am going to start working on Twilight and Discord articles. Though I am new, and don't know much about formatting, and how to make a good article. So before I start, I think someone else should try. I also don't get why Discord was deleted, it was good. Ig44165 (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Including Equestria Girls information[edit]

List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

There seems to be an edit war concerning the inclusion of information about the characters as they appear in My Little Pony: Equestria Girls. I don't see any prior discussion on this, so I think a consensus should be reached on this issue.

To start off, I personally think that Equestria Girls information should be included, seeing as there isn't a separate List of My Little Pony: Equestria Girls characters (at least at the time of this posting).

@Gial Ackbar, Frontdoor6, Fireydash21, Emarsee: Ping from recent changes. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 23:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no point in having different lists for the characters from the film, the movie, the comics and the novels, as they are all the same characters in the same continuity. Therefor this should be a combined list for all MLP-FIM related media. Gial Ackbar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Exactly - it would be pointless to create another article solely for the Equestria Girls characters.  █ EMARSEE 01:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest to put back in the recently removed EG info. Gial Ackbar (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
YesY Done by this edit. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 04:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
It's one thing to include information on Equestria Girls, but there should be more than just describing what each human character looks like. Or at least, going into every detail of what they wear, character by character. Seems like intricate detail to me, and here's why: I see the importance to mention the color of the pony characters' bodies and manes, as they generally have the same character model and should be distinguished visually. But for their human counterparts, well, they keep these distinguishing traits. I see no need to mention much more than that when it comes to describing how the human characters look; it's redundant and tells the readers nothing they need to know about them. User:Immblueversion (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
That basically applies to this whole article in general. So I think we should treat these descriptions like the rest of it: keep only what is necessary. The EG descriptions of Spike, Celestia, and Luna (and maybe others) actually seem important (well, at least more than physical description). Anon126 (talk - contribs) 07:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm currently doing what I can to rework the whole article on my sandbox. I've currently formatted it as a bullet list, since the avoidance of intricate detail leaves little to write about some characters, even ones who appear in multiple episodes like Cheerilee and the Mayor. It's a work in progress. User:Immblueversion (talk) 07:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the Mane Six's physical appearances in EG don't really need to be detailed that much here, we could really just add a picture and that would probably be sufficient. However, I think that the inter-character relationships are very different in EG than in FIM, we should elaborate on that a lot more, as well as the difference between their EG and FIM personalities. For example, no mention is currently made of how Twilight is really clumsy when she first enters the "parallel universe" or whatever in EG. Jinkinson talk to me 15:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe we should include Equestria Girls or any characters from the future Rainbow Rocks (seeming how that's going to be based on the other film), mainly because most of the staff doesn't recognize it as canon. Citation Needed | Talk 20:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you proof your claim that it isn’t seen as canon? Gial Ackbar (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Since the main show make a few references to EqG (the current one is done by Trixie in "To Where and Back Again") and the fact that there will be three Equestria GirlsTV specials coming this year, let's just say that the ENTIRE Equestria Girls franchise IS canon. StephenAlexis (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: excessive amount of intricate detail[edit]

Reading through this feels like I'm wading through pudding. It's all over the place, but right now I'm only focused on the design descriptions. Do we really need to know what the FIM characters look like down to freckles and haircuts? Do we need to know what the EG characters wear down to buttons and bracelets? This information seems to be far better organized and more relevant at the MLP Wikia, since that wiki is tailored for a specifically interested audience. They have character infoboxes, even! We should leave this level of detail to them. We, here, could probably manage with something along the lines of "Applejack is an orange earth pony with blonde hair. Her cutie mark is three apples." for each character. I'd say that that's about the level of detail we need. The lines about the character roles within the narrative are well-written, though. HomfrogTalk 22:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I might start paring them down now. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Are we going to remove the character design details, though? I feel we don't really need to fully list the EG characters' outfits or the entire color schemes of the FIM characters. It's enough to say a pony is orange and blonde. HomfrogTalk 13:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Changing the editnotice[edit]


You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters#Message about excessive detail. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 20:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

In response to the addition of excessive plot summaries, I've requested that the editnotice (the notice shown at the top when users edit the page) be changed. A consensus must be reached before this happens, so if some people could check out the link above... Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No more episode specific information?[edit]

Evidently there's a new attempt by one Violettsureme to crack down on the article's excessive detail by removing most episode-specific information. Unfortunately, this has rendered months of work trying to revamp the article on my sandbox null and void, as I rewrote the "Discord" section in this article as I originally had it down, only to have a whole chunk of it promptly removed because it "does not belong". I think there should be a limit to what "episode-specific information" needs to be cut.

Now, I can see that writing some of the details of Discord's plan (though not terribly in-depth or even that long) would be considered unnecessary, but to remove the mention of Discord's reformation and its presentation within the show? A specific event within the series' plot acknowledged by the showrunners to have altered his character? I know people can just read the episode synopsis on the Season 3 page, but the way I see it, those episodic summaries so short that this article should divulge some information. See the change here.

While I do appreciate the thorough effort, I still hesitate to call the article "good" as it is now; it's just that now I have lost my idea on how it can be improved. For one, the spacing caused by the extremely repetitive notes stating "NO SPECIFIC DETAILS" leaves an ugly space between each section. Another thing I should mention is the Characters of God of War page, which I'm now trying to emulate in my sandbox. The description of the characters in that article is nothing but a summary of each character's role in the God of War series, yet that article is a Featured lists, so I don't honestly see that to be a problem.

The reason I'm using that article as a template is because, quite frankly, we haven't found a terribly good amount of third-party sources to write about these characters individually. Summing up each character in one moderately detailed paragraph (from as much of an out-of-universe perspective as we can afford, of course), while grouping whatever info on their conception and reception we can get our hands on into their respective sections that this article sorely lacks, just seems like our best bet now. That page has what I have come to define as ideal character summaries: not terribly detailed, but just detailed enough. And as it stands, this article could use that kind of touch. User:Immblueversion (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I do seem to be the one doing the most removal of content but that is mostly out of a certain impatience with what I consider to be a lack of progress on this article. Although the "No Specific Details" notes were not placed there by me. I feel that the embarrassingly long list of "issues" at the top deeply needs to be reviewed at this point as some of said issues are quite old and others like the excessively long plot summary make no sense. This is one of the major reasons for my work over the past few weeks. My issue with adding episode specific information is not that I dislike it for its own sake but when I first started editing this article I was frankly a bit horrified at the huge amount of fancruft and bad writing that had accumulated on the main points of the article like so much volcanic ash.
The problem as I see it is that If one person (myself included) gets to put in what they think is very important information from one or a few episodes then someone else will come along and do the same and before long you get many people adding in every little detail from all the episodes they can think of with little concern for the structure of the article or the overall result of excessive detail. Therefore the question boils down to where do we draw the line? How many episodes mentioned is too many? This is why I have taken up the position that if a character trait of any sort is not at least somewhat consistent across the series then its better to have it in the episode summary itself instead of clogging up the character article. For instance Rainbow Dash is a Pegasus therefore that is a central point in her description, however mentioning that she learned humility in a specific episode is redundant info as that should already be noted in the summary for that episode. And if its not in that summary then perhaps it ought to be. There are places where I myself would like to add in what I think are important points of character development, but those events only occur in one maybe two episodes and If I add in such things then what right do I have to tell others not to add their own?
I don't see myself as the controller of this article nor do I really want to be, I just want a good article. However up to now what I've done so far in the article has gotten me the closest to that goal I feel that I've come.

Violettsureme (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you about the spacing so I deleted the extra spaces between the sections. Violettsureme (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
If you feel you're closer to this goal, I'm going to need a better grasp of it. Believe me, I've been reading up on how to write better articles, and I feel that removing certain information (such as Discord's reformation in "Keep Calm and Flutter On") feels like removing context from the characters, and thus the article itself. Right now I'm focusing on the other recurring characters who've made less major appearances than the main characters. I want to mention Trixie's humiliation in "Boast Busters" and revenge in "Magic Duel" because those two episodes are strongly tied together. I want to mention Queen Chrysalis' defeat because it ties into her role in the tie-in comics. I guess the major issue I'm struggling with is, the fewer episodes a character appears in, the harder it is for me to write about them on a broader scope.
Another thing is that since the bodies of text are becoming so short, I'm trying to see if we can reformat this as a bulleted list instead. (Again, Characters of God of War.) I know how to use visible anchors. User:Immblueversion (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I just want to point out that if people don't like the comments in the article, they should comment on changes I'm proposing to the editnotice (the box that appears at the top when you edit). Discussion is here. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


Now, before you say "The Mane-iac isn't an antagonist, even though she is a supervillain", this character counts as an antagonist, even though she only appears in one episode. (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

its only a one shot character with no long term plot line effect and no third party sources indicating its relevance. In addition, most of the content was your personal commentary and analysis, which is not allowed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Problematic redirects from character names[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject My Little Pony#Problematic redirects from character names. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 05:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

More changes to the editnotice[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters#More specific warnings. I'm proposing more changes to the notice that appears when editing the article. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 07:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Create EG character list[edit]

There has been a war whether or not to include EG information and characters in the FIM character list. I personally think EG information should be removed because EG is considered separated from the main show. The characters featured in it, including the main characters, are spin-off characters created only for merchandising. But if EG must be mentioned somewhere, I suggest creating a separated page showing information on EG characters, including the main ones. Add in the main 6, the secondary characters, and the others. But only mentioned what they did in the Spin-off movies. FIM character page belongs to the FIM version of the characters, this new EG character page can belong to the EG version of the characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontdoor6 (talkcontribs) 21:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don’t see why the films should be separated from the show. They play in the same continuity and are connected to each other, especially as Flash Sentry, who was originally from the film, now also appeared in the episode Three’s a Crowd. Splitting the list would only spit information that belongs together into different articles, making it harder for the reader to get a complete overview over the entire setting of MLP. Gial Ackbar (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, the film and show are separate with their own version of the characters. That FS that appeared in Three's a Crowd was the FIM version of him, he isn't the same FS we saw in EG. The EG list can include him because he was a major character, but he doesn't have to be mentioned in the FIM character list because his appearance was short. Other people think the same way and want the same thing, just go above and read what they say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontdoor6 (talkcontribs) 23:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, personally I see where you're coming from. However, what characters would be included in this list? Off the top of my head, I can only think of Sunset Sherbet Shimmer and Flash Bandicoot Sentry, and that's it—hardly enough to warrant an individual list. My move would be to wait for the sequel or whatever to introduce new characters (such as Twilight and Flash's children) and then maybe consider this. But right now, I really don't see how this can accomplish anything, unless you have some other characters in mind perhaps?? ~Helicopter Llama~ 00:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Like I said before, EG and FIM can be considered separate and with their own version of the characters. So the EG character list can still include Twilight and the main characters, but only but what they did in the film. Think of it this way, FIM and EG are separate and they each contain their won version of the characters. In this case, we see two different version of Twilight. FIM (Friendship is Magic)Twilight, and EG (Equestria Girls) Twilight. the FIM character list explains what FIM Twilight did in the show, and the EG list explains what EG Twilight did in the spin-off. Same goes for the other EG characters, and the sequel will boost the info boxes for those characters. In other words, the EG character list will have to cover pretty much every known character who appeared in the spin-off. EG known characters who made a short appearance, like D-J Pon 3 (I can't spell her name) don't have to be included, but you can think of something. Just take what EG information is on this page and put it in the EG character page, but with more description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The sandbox I'm working on currently lists EG info as brief, single-sentence descriptions of select characters' roles in the film (Princess Celestia is a principal, Granny Smith is a lunch lady, etc.). Honestly, I believe whatever details to the EG movies should be left on the movies' articles. This page being proposed sounds like it could very easily become a dumping ground for extremely trivial info that would get it deleted. What it needs is real-world information, something this already-existing character article is sorely lacking. Things shouldn't be added just because they appear in more than one episode; they should be added if they add real-world context to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. And right now, the only real-world information EG seems to give is that it's a spin-off title where the show's pony characters are reinvisioned as humans in a high-school setting. What more do you intend to add, and how much of it? User:Immblueversion (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
There is scant evidence of notability for THIS list, the first question would need to be What reliable third party sources have covered such characters (particularly as characters of EB rather than merely as adjuncts of FIM)?
I have a rather strong hunch the answer to that will result in "No spin off article". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Which list are you talking about: the actual list, or my sandbox draft of the list? User:Immblueversion (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
To Immblueversion: They are one and the same. Notability applies to subjects, not content. By the way, the notability guideline for stand-alone lists is essentially that the items be discussed as a group (in accordance with the general notability guideline). Anon126 (talk - contribs) 02:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
To Anon126: I'm afraid I don't quite understand; what do you mean by "as a group"? How would you change the article beyond the addition of third-party sources? Just to let you know, the main reason I have it written in bullet list format is because there's scant evidence of notability for this list. That said, I'm almost literally tearing my hair out looking for any decent third-party sources relating to even half the characters on either version. User:Immblueversion (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
To Immblueversion: Honestly, I don't have much to say about how specifically to improve this. (This goes beyond my gnomeish comfort zone.) sad I'm trying to compare this list with List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters (found it at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#List of exemplary articles). That star has got to count for something, right? Anon126 (talk - contribs) 05:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
To Anon126: I've looked at that article before; I've once tried modeling my draft after it before the crackdown on episode-specific information forced me to change tactics. As far as I'm concerned, we should start by getting up a "Merchandise" section, seeing how this seems more doable than a "Reception" section at the moment. As for the format, it's currently taken from the Characters of God of War article (featured!), though I've also been experimenting with using a table format like List of human Sesame Street characters (also featured!) and List of Sesame Street Muppets. And thanks for the exemplary article list, I was just looking for that. User:Immblueversion (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, right now each character has info about FIM events and EG events. I'm saying make a second character list with the same characters, but only put in what they did in EG. The FIM character list (This page) explains what the characters did in FIM, the EG character list explains what the characters did in EG and what their roles were (Including the main characters). I can't explain it any clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontdoor6 (talkcontribs) 18:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Just because it exists, that doesn't automatically mean it deserves its own article. Unless we get a significant amount of third-party media coverage explaining the creation, development, reception, and other sourced analyses of these details and events, we will not make a spin-off article on Equestria Girls characters. To write an article based solely on EG events would be writing an article in-universe. And as this article is now, this list of FIM characters, it's not a very good article, which is exactly why this discussion has strayed into the topic of how we can improve it. User:Immblueversion (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Well most of the public don't want the EG information on here in the first place. Like you said, it's a spin-off, other spin-off events aren't mentioned on here. For example, the comic events, which are also considered spin-offs. Maybe it's best if we get rid of it and put this conversation to rest, I've read other users conversations about it and some think the same way. Let's let them decide if they want the EG information to stay or go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontdoor6 (talkcontribs) 23:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Once again, this is NOT a matter of whether or not it's wanted, it's a matter of notability. If any of this spin-off information has any reception or significance in the real world, then that's a good enough reason to add it here. It's a matter of finding those sources that shows this significance. We're not against making any mention of EG; quite the opposite, in fact. But if there's anything that Wikipedia is not, it's a place where one can just compile information and summaries however one feels like it.
I plan to include a concise mention of this spin-off information in the header, such as how EG reimagines the pony characters as humans in a high school setting, or how the comics expand the characters' roles from the show, but I can't go any further than that. Not because I don't want to, but because it wouldn't be a very encyclopedic thing to do. But first, we must get this article up to spec with all those things I said about summary. User:Immblueversion (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we should just go with the idea of making a separate page for EG version of the characters. I don't understand what you mean by 'reception or significance in the real world', do you mean this 'real world'? Because there's reception or significance about the comic stories, yet they're not on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontdoor6 (talkcontribs) 16:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

About the comic stories: it's mainly because this is a character list for the animated television show itself, as stated in the leader. ~Helicopter Llama~ 16:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. This "real world". The article you're proposing should not be about how these My Little Pony characters appear as humans in the fictional mirror world in Equestria Girls; it should be about how these human characters appear in the world we live in. If this article you propose is going to be made, here is a rough list of things it must, I repeat, must include:
  • The history of the creation of Equestria Girls; explain how and why the creative minds behind My Little Pony decided to make movies and toys about human characters.
  • Short and concise descriptions of the major characters' role in the story; most readers want the gist of things.
  • The reception of the characters; tell us how real life people—critics, fans, etc.—reacted to these characters; how they are liked, hated, and everything in between.
  • And most importantly, reliable, published sources to cite all the above things.
To make this article, we need three kinds of sources: first-party sources, which are written by the makers of Equestria Girls; second-party sources, which are written by those who spoke to the makers of Equestria Girls; and third-party sources, which are written by those who have neither made nor spoken to the makers of Equestria Girls, but still have things to say about it. If we can get enough of all three kinds of sources for the first three things on the list (first-party sources for the creation, and second- and third-party sources for the reception), then and only then will we make a separate page for EG characters. Sources give the article purpose. No sources, no purpose. User:Immblueversion (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
But if that's so, then this page is wrong too. There's isn't any of that stuff on this page. No history of creation, no fan reaction info, how they're liked and disliked, none of it is here on this page. And what do you mean 'how the characters appear in this world we live in'? You're talking as if they actually came here, they're not real you know. This page is about how the FIM characters appear in the actual show and what they did, not how they 'would' appear in this world. You're not making any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontdoor6 (talkcontribs) 21:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly why we're trying to improve this page. User:Immblueversion (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been working on List of Naruto characters, a featured list, and been using List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters, another featured list, as a guideline, and I just noticed something. While both, especially the former, have distinct character designs, neither really have in depth descriptions on how the characters look, something which we have in abundance on this article. So I don't think how the characters appear in-universe or the real world or whatever should even be mentioned at all if we want to fix the major issues with this article. Also, to Frontdoor6: history of creation would be a really helpful addition, but critic reaction should take precedence to fan reaction. But yeah, I highly agree with your statement that this page is wrong lol ~Helicopter Llama~ 00:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! And if you really need to add in the history on how the characters were made, it should be added on the top of the page, not anywhere beneath the start of the list. However, I still stand by my idea of creating a separate page for the EG version of the characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontdoor6 (talkcontribs) 00:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

We could also move them to a subsection of the MLP:EG page. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Earlier today I saw that the term "(Equestria Girls character)" was added to Sunset Shimmer's subsection title as a "temporary solution". I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to solve (nor does it look particularly formal), but if it's about trying to distinguish Equestria Girls characters from Friendship Is Magic characters, I believe I have a better idea: expand the header to mention Equestria Girls as a spin-off series, remove "(Equestria Girls character)" from Sunset Shimmer's subsection title, and describe Sunset as an Equestria Girls character in that subsection.
The way I see it, Friendship Is Magic should be a blanket term for the characters from the G4 iteration of My Little Pony. And in case this sparks any discussion on it, allow me to say that no, I do not think it'd be a good idea to rename this article List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic and Equestria Girls characters, because not only is Equestria Girls just one facet of G4, but Wikipedia naming conventions suggest that the article title shouldn't be any longer than it needs to be. User:Immblueversion (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Idea! How about we make a new part of the page called "Spin-off villains" or whatever it's called on the page, and put SS's subsection under that title, we can add the villains that appeared in the comics. We can put in more about Nightmare Rarity, and the other villains who only appeared in the comics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontdoor6 (talkcontribs) 22:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Another idea! How about we write about the six main characters in the "main character" section, and their collective role, development, and intent in the show above their individual subsections? That way, we could write about their role in EG as an "Other media" type of thing, and it won't have to come across as extremely repetitive or needlessly detailed? Think "List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters".
Also, I suppose we could call the section "Characters in other media" or something along those lines. Perhaps we should wait for Rainbow Rocks to come out first. Just keep in mind that when it comes to writing for Wikipedia, we as fans should accept that some of the things we love might not be that important. User:Immblueversion (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


Looking at the edit history of this page, there's one edit that stood out to me: an undid revision to User:HelicopterLlama's removal of in-depth character descriptions, with the reasoning that "A character needs to have a general description." Frankly, I agree with this reasoning: a general description is necessary to tell the characters apart. But there's a general description, and then there's fancruft: i.e., things that no one but the show's most avid of fans care about. I believe much of what's on this page amounts to little more than this: not just the physical descriptions of EG characters, what they wear, and what instruments they play in the sequel (as detailed in the discussion above), but also intricate descriptions how each character's mane is styled, and the inclusion of characters who barely have any profound influence on the show's direction (ex., Donut/Pony Joe). I propose we add {{Fanpov}} to the list of issues, unless anyone here thinks {{Overly detailed}} is more sufficient or proper. User:Immblueversion (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel like {{Fanpov}} is more appropriate than {{plot}} right now, at least ~Helicopter Llama~ 23:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
the swap seems to be a good idea. most of the description minutia is not "plot". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Changed. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Spin-off antagonists?[edit]

In the above discussion, I considered that perhaps a section devoted to spin-off characters could work. As it stands now, however, there's only one "antagonist" in the recently created "Spin-off antagonists" section, but evidently there are plans to include characters like Nightmare Rarity, the Nightmare Forces, and the like. This got me thinking: is it really necessary to devote subsections to such characters? Given how little notability I've seen of them, I don't think so.

Let me be clear that I am not against the inclusion of any mention of spin-off materials in this article. The sources are out there, and they can be worked in. In fact, my sandbox already has some of it; I'm updating it based on these discussions as often as I can. But the thing is, I aim to turn this article if not into a featured or good article, then one that at least adheres to Wikipedia's notability and verifiability guidelines, as well as what Wikipedia is not: an indiscriminate collection of information, especially information that is only of any interest to fans of a certain work. The way I have it mapped out right now, I see no need for a section devoted exclusively to characters in spin-off media. It could very well be made if we can find the needed sources, but I won't assume that we can.

I see no problem with including Sunset Shimmer among the current list of antagonists (though now that I look at it, she'll need some work to meet the notability guidelines). As for Nightmare Rarity and the Nightmare Forces, considering their ties with Nightmare Moon, a mention of them in the Nightmare Moon section should be sufficient. When it comes to writing fictional characters, these subsections can't just be plot summary. To properly sort out this page, we must first properly sort out our priorities. We shouldn't approach the improvement of this article as fans of the show, comics, movies, books, and what have you; we should do it as people who acknowledge all those who created and recognized these things for all they're worth. User:Immblueversion (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

the fact is characters like SS and Nightmare Rarity only appear in spin-off media, not the main show. This page is for main show characters and the section titled "antagonists" are for main show villains, SS is not a main show villain. Adding her to the main show villains would be classed and invalid information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontdoor6 (talkcontribs) 14:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
As I've stated above, for simplicity's sake, we should use "Friendship Is Magic" as a blanket term for the show and spin-offs, even Equestria Girls. And unless we can find enough coverage of these characters by other sources, there's no justification in having a whole section of the article listing them, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As far as I can tell, keeping Sunset Shimmer and Nightmare Rarity where they are—with the other antagonists in the series, and not just the main show—is enough. User:Immblueversion (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge with the main page?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus, seeing as there has been not further discussion about it it for the better part of a mouth TheMesquitobuzz 23:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose we merge this page with the main My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic page.

I've worked on improving this page for well over a year, and I haven't made any breakthroughs. A lot of the major, reliable sources for the characters' creation and reception that I've found already overlap with the main page and others, and I haven't been able to find much else beyond questionable and self-published sources such as YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and the like. Not a whole lot of characters on this page even have any widespread coverage, let alone any coverage at all. I believe the "Characters" section on the main page is sufficient for this topic the way it is; we could even restructure it like the "Cast and characters" section on The Legend of Korra, which has no character list of its own, and has a good article rank to boot. This means no subsections for each character to go needlessly in-depth on each character, and no arguing on where spin-off characters belong.

If anyone here is able to find the reliable sources necessary to support this article, then by all means, please add them. Until then, I ask that you please consider this merger. User:Immblueversion (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We can also consider the fact that the MLPFIM Wikia is reasonable well maintained that we can offer that as a link. For purposes here, we can expand the character section to give a paragraph (3-4 lines) for each of the mane 6 (to include recurring family + pets where appropriate), and then a few lines for the CMC, the Princesses, and the major recurring characters (Zeroca, Cheerilee, Discord). The rest is pretty much window dressing for understanding the show. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The Hub Network MLP character page actually has a few extra characters beyond just the Mane Six; it also has Spike, Discord, the CMC (even Babs), the Princesses, the Apples, and Zecora. We should definitely mention these (in the case of Babs, it was explicitly quoted by Meghan in the Elements of Harmony guidebook that they wanted a new Crusader who wouldn't be a "permanent fourth"). I also put together some tables on my sandbox showing the main cast members and singers. We should limit them to just those who were credited for the first two seasons; it's big enough as it is with nine actors. In fact, I'll add them to the main page now. User:Immblueversion (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
For the table that you added, a file labeled "ashleigh ball" is under Andrea Libman's entry?? was this an incorrect file name or? ~Helicopter Llama~ 17:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Evidently it's incorrectly named, because that's the picture I found on the Andrea Libman page. User:Immblueversion (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
And no one bothered to request a renaming? Well, I've gone ahead and done that. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose the merge. This show has a decently extensive cast of characters and, unlike something like Korra, they're all (I think) original. It'd be quite a lot to fit in here while actually giving readers a good idea what the characters are like and how the show fits together with them. Moreover, linking to external wikis would not be appropriate for a section like that; they even get routinely removed from External links sections of fictional character articles, for example. Tezero (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of a character article is to explain a character's role and impact as a work of fiction. Giving context to the characters' fictional biography and descriptions is only a part of that, to avoid in-universe perspective. Yes, there is a decent number of characters in the show; yes, they get a decent amount of development throughout the show; yes, they appear in a decent number of spin-offs related to the show. What this article lacks is a decent number of good, reliable, third-party sources that are not from the show, spin-offs, or anyone who helped make them. So, unless we can get the sources, we can forget this list. User:Immblueversion (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
To Tezero: I've thought over what you've written, and there's something I need you to clarify for me: are you suggesting this article's purpose is to serve as a character guide for readers? User:Immblueversion (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
In my last post, I erroneously used "here" to refer to the main MLP:FIM page. Yes, I do think that about this page (the list) insofar as it doesn't turn into trivia. If we keep the list, I don't think the main MLP:FIM page needs to go into much detail about the characters, but otherwise I wouldn't recommend leaving Wikipedia's coverage of the characters at a couple of paragraphs or anything. Tezero (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
To Tezero: Well, then I should clarify my own argument: Wikipedia is not a guidebook. While this is unwritten, I believe having a character list exist solely to inform readers of a group of fictional characters, without presenting anything of encyclopedic value (the characters' creation, their cultural impact and significance in the real world, etc.), falls into this. What I'm saying is that we simply don't have the third-party sources to sustain that kind of value on this list. Most of those sources can already be found on the other pages, especially the main page, but seeing how there's not much else relating to the characters I can find to add beyond that, just copying and pasting all those sources here seems excessive. This is why I want this list merged with the main page: to give it encyclopedic value. To make that possible, maybe a couple of paragraphs is all these characters need. If it can work with The Legend of Korra, it can work with this. User:Immblueversion (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
(Two edit conflicts) I'm aware of that principle, but the main article is quite long - surely there's at least some reliable coverage of the characters if there's that much about the other aspects of the show. And as I've said, Korra'a different because its character cast overlaps so much with Avatar's. Tezero (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Then we have to find that coverage, which I haven't been able to do. User:Immblueversion (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ARTICLELENGTH. The mane (ha!) article is pretty long as is, so folding the character list in would make it too long. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
To TenPoundHammer: I'm not saying folding the character list in exactly as it is now; just the base information, like a sentence or two on the basic character portrayals and roles, and a bit of behind-the-scenes stuff on their creation and development. The VA's comments on their characters would be a huge help; we should comb those Everfree Network YouTube interviews for some. User:Immblueversion (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Forgive my absence. It's been a while, and I see that discussions have ground to a halt. That, and things haven't exactly improved, let alone changed, around here. I've had time to think about this, and I now believe we should probably close the merger discussion. As big a mess as the page is, I realize that's not exactly the best reason to delete it or merge it with another page. User:Immblueversion (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I tentatively oppose a merge. WP:CSC states that a standalone list can be made if every member fails the notability criteria. That is, a notable member would have a separate article, while non-notable members would be combined in a list. There are no notable characters in this case, so it's just the list. However, I would greatly shorten the descriptions, perhaps to the length of a description on List of My Little Pony characters. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The villains.[edit]

I like what they did with the villain section. separating recurring, non-recurring and Spin-off villains. However, wasn't Daring Doo's villains a recurring character? I mean, he did appear twice, in S2 and S4. Shouldn't he be among the recurring main show villains? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontdoor6 (talkcontribs) 21:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

personally i think it was a good idea too but the fact that, say, "Spike" is on the same hierarchical level as "recurring antagonists" is a bit itchy in its implementation. ahuziotl should be in recurring, yes, but idk does it look like there are too many sections now to anyone else? ~Helicopter Llama~ 21:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Return King Sombra, Queen Chrysalis and Tirek[edit]

Someone just made a silly edit that mixed villains with other good characters. I undid it, but some villains have been lost. Can someone bring them back? A character page without them would make this page a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontdoor6 (talkcontribs) 21:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits since Fireydash21's block ended[edit]

All right, Fireydash21, Gial Ackbar, HelicopterLlama, let's go. (Article talk pages are preferred for discussing content about an article.)

Fireydash, to answer (what I think is) your question in revision 608975528 revision 608981237, HelicopterLlama was referring to the template {{merge to}} , which adds a notice about a proposal to completely merge this article with the main article. (You can find the discussion above at #Merge with the main page?) But HelicopterLlama, there is no 7-day requirement or anything for merge proposals.

The reasoning for revision 608964073 suggests that "fan theories" were removed. Yes, some stuff from fan fiction has made its way in from time to time, but it's been taken care of. I can't seem to find anything of the sort that was removed in that particular edit.

I would prefer to restore the version before Fireydash's removals and work from there, but that'd just prolong the edit war. Please discuss. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh dang I deeply apologise. so merge discussions aren't like other discussions in terms of like how long the notice can stay? what exactly are the requirements then, does the discussion itself have to close? because i might have mixed it up with another template my bad ~Helicopter Llama~ 18:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
To HelicopterLlama: WP:MERGE advises that a proposal should remain open for at least seven days, but this is not as "formal" as the 7-day period at articles for deletion or proposed deletion. But at any rate, the discussion was started on 2 May, so I am not sure what you mean by "it hasn't been a week yet".
This isn't really my main concern in this discussion, though.Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Well with regards to the edit war thing, now that I'm aware of the thing with the merge templates, I feel like Fireydash21's edits were generally in good faith, and I sort of understand this user's motives better now that all the shouting seems to have subsided. Particularly, I think that I agree that the "Discord" section should talk less about de Lancie, although that could be up for contention. However, what I do disagree with is the fact that they felt a need to revert over 100 intermediate edits instead of working with what already exists (although I'm glad that sections on Tirek and Maud weren't just deleted in the process).
Also, a specific question To Fireydash21:: what do you think about the inclusion of cutie marks? a lot of the "warring" process has been about excessive detail, it seems, and if you agree it's a simple matter to just have the article be rid of it, taking care of this dispute. Many thanks, cheers! ~Helicopter Llama~ 18:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
As far as I see this, the article should be more about reception, which the removed part about Discord is, and less about descriptions of details like the added cutie marks. The edit also removed the imdb-links, therefor i saw it as mostly nonconstructive. However, some shortenings, like the removal of "when they learn Sunset Shimmer had misinformed Pinkie into thinking that the auction was actually a big party." where even an improvement. Unfortunately, the negative parts of the edit seemed to outwight the positive parts. Gial Ackbar (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I must apologize, I'm just seeing this talk page discussion now. I was a little upset to see a two week old version of the article replacing the current version so I reverted to #608799848 which is from early May 16th. It does eliminate an IP's edits that, when I looked at them, did not appear to be constructive. I realize that I should have come here first. I just don't think that two weeks of editing should be thrown out, as if it didn't occur, to return to one editor's preferred version. I guess I should add that I have done little editing on this page, in fact this might be my first edit to it. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well if u looked before I actually edited about the inclusion of cutie marks, twilight and applejack didn't have them whereas the rest of the mane 6 had te info of cutie marks this is why I included it. Plus, I do know that most encyclopedias have tons of info so actually wat I did 1 month ago was to revert back edits by Helicopterllama since I think like the necessary details need to be included but now it's not only me who is making a fool out of myself. Others did tried to do the same thing. So all I got to say is since my edits are 'worth' don't remove them it's a perfect article anyone caught doing it will be reverted straight away. I hope I understand Fireydash21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireydash21 (talkcontribs) 08:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a collaborative editing project, Fireydash21. Many people have contributed and will contribute to this article. Liz Read! Talk! 14:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
To Fireydash21: So if you included the cutie mark details on grounds of consistency, would it be okay with you to remove the cutie mark details for all given ponies, on grounds of excessive detail? I would go through with it myself, but lately it has become clear to me that editing this page is a bit more complicated than i think ~Helicopter Llama~ 20:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
No don't remove them at all in this way the page is totally useless at least a cutie mark should be included that's all- Fireydash21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireydash21 (talkcontribs) 22:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
To Fireydash21: Sorry, I just saw this now. Okay, but wouldn't it be more helpful to describe what their special talent is? I mean, the cutie mark is a representation of this anyway, and it would help to make this page less "totally useless" imo just sayin' ~Helicopter Llama~ 13:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't advise so because if they are removed the original script is ruined and will be forgotten who wrote the original piece plus special talents are alr inside ~ firey

The editnotice (again)[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters#More specific warnings. Thanks. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 15:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Protagonists & tritagonists of My Little Pony[edit]

I mentioned this article has characters in this one as every-pony in Equestria are protagonists and tritagonists are the same as good alignments. With royal alicorns are Princess Celestia, Luna and Cadence are presented in the show of it, I would present them as "Sweet" with good alignments too. --Allen talk 05:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Analysis and commentary requires sources, not the interpretations of Wikipedia editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Include (fairly obvious) trivia fact on Ahuizotl?[edit]

This character is named after the Aztec creature, and much of Daring Do's adventures are thus Aztec themed. Should this be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Too trivial, and needs official confirmation first. You are free to edit if you wish. Λίνουξ (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sunset Shimmer, as secondary protagonist[edit]

Referring to Sunset Shimmer, as a secondary protagonist of the Equestria Girls sequel film. Should it be a reliable source here? And also it contained from this article specific on Heroes Wikia! --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 09:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikia is (almost) never a reliable source. A neutral third party reference would be better. Gial Ackbar (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
As Sunset Shimmer reappears in the 2nd film of Equestria Girls, does she was the secondary protagonist in there that was specific on this reliable source? --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 06:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't deuteragonist be a better description. The whole point of a protagonist is that they're the single most important character in a story; I don't think you can have a "secondary" one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


Someone keeps removing the properly sourced tweet about the singing voice of Sweetie Belle, which comes from Claire Corlett's father, Ian James Corlett. I do not see anything in the policies about anything against this. - Jasonbres (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I dont see any properly sourced content being removed. Please show specifics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The bulk of the credits you are removing (singing voices particularly) are sourceable to the show's credits, the rest to people directly connected with the show and/or the local industry. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes of January 2015[edit]

I don’t think this change, and similar changes before, are all to constructive. It removed linked and referenced, put in unneeded details like eye colors, and uses bad grammar. Overall, in increases the fancruft in this article. However, as it is no direct vandalism, I can’t revert it, as it would make me violate WP:3RR. Therefor, please discuss if this edit, or parts of it, should stay in. Gial Ackbar (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Are the mane 6 characters notable enough for individual articles?[edit]

Are characters, such as Twilight Sparkle, noteworthy enough for individual articles? This show has been reviewed and praised by several critics, and the show has been running for almost 5 years. Other cartoon characters such as SpongeBob Squarepants & Finn the Human have articles. Giving at least Twilight an article can relieve this article from an excessive amount of details. I would create an article about her, but I am very new to Wikipedia. Thank you. My Thinking Cap (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)My Thinking Cap

No, not to a significant extent. We need secondary coverage of these characters particularly on critical reception and that just doesn't exist presently. --MASEM (t) 06:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Is there any other way I can help? I am still learning about editing Wikipedia. My Thinking Cap (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)My Thinking Cap

Can we stop fussing about color shades?[edit]

This page is on my Watchlist and most of the edits are going back and forth about the color of the ponies mane, tail or eyes. Is it blue or violet or idigo or lavender or purple or navy blue? I don't think it is essential to edit war over the exact shade of blue in Twilight's mane. There are a lot more productive uses of editors' time. Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You should have a talk to He's the reason this is happenening. He gets half the colors wrong, and seems to hate when people specify them. (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for the blocking of the user[edit]

The user whose username always starts with 49, has been vandalizing this page for some time now every single day. This includes improper grammar with using "a" instead of the correct "an", and changing the colors of the characters to either vague or just plain wrong shades. (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he just keeps coming back with a different IP every day, so blocking him will be no use. The only way would be blocking this page for unregistered and new contributors. Gial Ackbar (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Secondary characters[edit]

Just added Spike to secondary characters. He's didn't had a big role since season 5, doesn't add much to the story and got less screentime.

All characters need more relevant information[edit]

It has been months since I read this article, and reading it now I am disappointed. All the information seems somewhat dated, and most of it needs more information, e. g. character development. I'd do this myself but I'm a lazy-butt and thought it would be better to bother your pointless lives. Ig44165 (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


According to the notice on top, "this article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience." But whenever I try to cut down on details, it is put back in. If that are not the details that should be removed, what else? Could someone please give a hint on how to solve that issues so that this notice can be removed at some time? Gial Ackbar (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Usually people like being specific when it comes to describing colors. And with so much color on the page, leaving it vague seems very unprofessional. Obviosuly Fluttershy is not yellow-yellow, she's a much lighter shade of it, and Rarity and her sister are not white-white, their coats are just very pale silvery colors, but not pale enough to look pure white. Every color detail should be welcomed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

No, WP is not a fan guide. We can list the characters and give broad traits (like Twilight been studious and well-organized) but we don't need to know exact colors down to cutie marks. That she is a purple-coated pony is pretty much sufficient for WP. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Removed multiple issues tag[edit]

The multiple issues tag (lamenting the lack of primary sources and verification) has been there for three years now. I checked out the article from back then, and it bears only a faint resemblance to this one. This one looks considerably better sourced, and with more secondary sources.

If anyone thinks one or both of the issues still exist, feel free to put the tags back, but please explain what you think should be fixed. --Ashenai (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The part that still stongly resembles the previous version is that fact that it is still almost entirely primary sourced and in universe. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The list has little to no third-party sources, and the overall tone is fairly informal, with multiple cases of fictional past tense ("When she was younger [...]", "her sister was banished"), and original research ("He can always be counted on [...]"), and it doesn't present the characters as works of fiction as much as it should. In short, it reads more like an MLP fan page than a WP article.
What we need is a good (or at least decent) WP character list to use as a sort of pseudo template for this article. I've been experimenting on using tables like the List of Muppets article, briefly describing each character based on notes from official sources and touching on any details of their creation. Here's an example (also note that I've yet to add sources, but much of this comes from the official MLP guidebook):
Character Voice actor Description
Pinkie Pie Andrea Libman, Shannon Chan-Kent (singing voice) An Earth pony based on the G3 toy of the same name. She works as a live-in party planner at Sugarcube Corner, Ponyville's bakery and confectionery store, and represents the Element of Laughter. Lauren Faust worked to depict her as a "free spirit" to address concerns of the character being too "hyper" and "ditzy". As the crew grew more comfortable with Pinkie, she became "really over-the-top strange and bordering on crazy, with a wacky cartoonish magic all her own".
Anyway, that's something I'm toying around with. User:Immblueversion (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
It's come to my attention the List of Muppets article is no longer structured that way. Originally it looked like this. However, I think I prefer the current page layout of that article, and should use that as a source of inspiration. On top of that, I think we should consider just which characters should appear. Some articles (List of Millennium characters, List of Pretty Little Liars characters) set a limit to characters who appear for no more than five episodes. I propose we set a similar limit, though what that limit may be is up for debate. User:Immblueversion (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The number of episodes should not be the important part. Charters like Trixie, that appeared only in two episodes, but have an important role there, are far more important than background ponies appearing in multiple episodes, but doing nothing important. There should be limitations which characters should be here, but that limit should not be base on the number of appearances. Gial Ackbar (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
What about the number of appearances in important roles? User:Immblueversion (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
On second thought, this is distracting from the article's two biggest issues: notability and tone. The most I can do on my own is tone; my search for notable sources has been frustrating. User:Immblueversion (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I suppose we can remove the "primary sources" issue since the sources are in the header (I even added a "Reception" section, as you can see), but tone still needs fixing. And trust me when I say I'm covering that as we speak. User:Immblueversion (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Article revamp now in effect[edit]

Thanks in large part to the Elements of Harmony and Art of Equestria reference books, plus third-party sources that were used in other articles all along despite there not being a section, my revamp of the character list is finally realized. Now it has more detail on the creation and development of the characters as works of fiction, as little in-universe description as I could manage, and most importantly, a legitimate "Reception" section with third-party sources. But first, a summary the present changes:

  • Names given in subsections are the most common trademarked in-show names, including titles such as "Princess". Characters with in-show titles such as "Princess Twilight Sparkle" are an exception because they are not depicted with such titles throughout the show's entirety.
  • No boldface for anything beyond bulletted character names. The way they littered every other paragraph made the article look uneven.
  • The Mane Six are ordered by their appearance in the opening theme (i.e., their singing parts).
  • The primary reason Spike is out of the "Main characters" section is because it's the "Mane Six", as defined in The Art of Equestria.
  • The "Secondary characters" subsection is for characters outside the Mane Six who make significant appearances in multiple single- and/or two-part episodes, listed in general order of appearance in credits and episodes.
  • Nixed the "Royal family" supersection to allow better TOC navigation.
  • Cutie Mark Crusaders are kept to one section. Anchors are in effect for individual characters.
  • Princess Cadance and Shining Armor have been merged because they are listed together in reference books. Anchors are also in effect here. I recommend any information on their child to be kept here as well until significant characterization emerges.
  • "Recurring characters" has been renamed to "Other characters" to allow more freedom with character inclusion.
  • "Major antagonists" is exclusively for premiere/finale villains.
  • Considering the reformation of several other antagonists (Trixie, Diamond Tiara, etc.), they are kept to other sections regardless of whether they continue to play an antagonistic role. Descriptions of their roles should suffice even without directly calling them "antagonists".
  • Certain minor recurring characters are included in other characters' sections (Diamond Tiara's section mentions her parents, Ahuizotl is noted as an adversary of Daring Do, etc.).
  • A "Background characters" section has been added due to sourcing and verifability.
  • Most information on Equestria Girls settings and character roles (the Mane Six as high school students, the princesses as principals) are summarized in the "Equestria Girls characters" section.

These are not set in stone, of course, and discussions are welcome for changes and additional characters. The only other question that remains is, should we remove the tags or not? User:Immblueversion (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, if there are no objections, I'll be taking the notice down. User:Immblueversion (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Great work, I think the notices can be removed clearly now. This is a good balance of secondary source (out of universe) with primary. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Done (and changed all reference dates to MDY format according to top notification, unless that's not what it's for). Next order of business: getting a "Good article" nomination. There's been a history of vandalism such as full character removals and unproductive edits such as an overabundance of detail, but rarely to the point of full edit warring as far as I can see these past few months. User:Immblueversion (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Spike: main or secondary character?[edit]

As I mentioned in my list of changes above, I listed Spike as a secondary character rather than a main one primarily because of the "Mane Six" designation in The Art of Equestria. But it's not just that; while Spike does have a number of his own episodes much like the Cutie Mark Crusaders, he still plays a supporting role to the core cast by and large. And while there are some areas where he is listed among the Mane Six (the MLP Wiki, Behind the Voice Actors, the season box set descriptions and Equestria Girls credits), there are still official sites that focus solely on the Mane Six. But seeing as how Spike has been listed as a main character since the page's inception, I will open this subject to discussion. User:Immblueversion (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

2017 film characters?[edit]

I wanted to hold this discussion in advance since we likely won't get any new character information for a year or so, but should we add any new characters that appear in the 2017 film to this list, or should they be kept to that article, where their development and reception would likely be found anyway? I'm questioning this because Equestria Girls is a franchise of its own while the film appears to be a standalone thing. User:Immblueversion (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Using "bipolar" as an adjective[edit]

I had changed Sour Sweet's description as to "two-faced" from bipolar and appears that someone changed it back. I think my original edit should stay as Bipolar has a very specific definition in psychological/psychiatric literature. Using the term in the vernacular does a disservice to the accuracy of Wikipedia and stigmatizes people with actual mental disorders. Ehgarrick (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


I was reading the comments of a YouTube video clip of Applejack's cameo in "Littlest Pet Shop of Horrors" (Blythe Baxter, also voiced by Ashleigh Ball, was dressed as her) and someone claimed that Discord had Blythe's scooter. If this is true then does anyone know what episode it occurred in? I think this would be good to mention under Discord's section since it connects the two series in more than one way. (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Neither appearance would be appropriate to include (particularly implying there's a connection between the two), though FWIW you're looking for the finale of Season 4 for the appearance. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Move Equestria Girls characters[edit]

Now that we have an article that encompasses the My Little Pony: Equestria Girls franchise as a whole, I believe it's appropriate to relocate the Equestria Girls section to that article; perhaps we could combine it with the "Cast" section. As for whether or not we should use that section expound upon the depiction of the TV series' characters in the film (provided we make the move), I believe the first paragraph remains an adequate summary, and no further detail is needed. But that may be better discussed on the other page. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It would appear my intention was misinterpreted. I didn't suggest we split the Equestria Girls characters into an entirely separate article; simply that the characters and elements from the films be mentioned on the franchise article. And because we did move it without any objections, I figured that was the end of that. An Equestria Girls character list of its own, especially dedicated to noting the differences of alternate versions of characters, just seems superfluous. And besides, it would would fail verifiability guidelines, wouldn't it? User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I see. Though, it would be good to see non-EQG characters' (I mean, those except Sunset Shimmer, Flash Sentry, Sirens, etc.) depiction in EQG materials being removed in this list (for example, DJ-P0n-3's depiction in EQG kicked out of here), while Characters section in the EQG article getting more recurring characters added (like the parallel universe's counterpart of Celestia, Fluttershy and Twilight Sparkle). JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 14:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Soarin vs. Soarin'[edit]

@SubZeroSilver: Per WP:BRD and this revert summary, I start this discussion on whether to use the name "Soarin" or Soarin'" for the second-in-command of the Wonderbolts. Both names are used from official side. Soarin is used in some merchandise and in "The Elements of Harmony" guidebook, while the credits and the official comics exclusively use Soarin'. I'd be happy for more input in this discussion to find a consensus about the name that should be used. Gial Ackbar (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This isn't exactly a very cut-and-dry solution, I admit. If we were to use what the script and credits use, then it'd be "Soarin'". However, Cadance's name was written out as "Cadence" according to Twitter posts and the season 3 credits, but the trademarked name is "Cadance", as we use here. There was also some debate on the MLP Wiki about how to spell the names of characters such as Moondancer, whose name is spelled as such in the show credits, but is "Moon Dancer" on the wiki because that is the name used for toys, even though both spellings are officially trademarked (the "Moondancer" name is used and marked in the trading cards). My solution is that we use the spelling that has been clearly and indisputably trademarked, and if two variations of the same name are marked (such as Moondancer, who has a single mention in this article, by the way), then we use the spelling that is used by the show itself. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

My Little Pony charcters[edit]

Please give a reason why you want to change the order of the characters. The current order is fine and should not be changed without consensus. Gial Ackbar (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I returned the previous order (13 November 2015‎ and earlier). The current order was changed without consent. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
As written above: "The Mane Six are ordered by their appearance in the opening theme (i.e., their singing parts)". There were no objections for half a year, so there was consent. I don’t see why the current order would be better than this order based on the show itself. Gial Ackbar (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It would seem the latest attempt at reordering was based on the official Hasbro website. A fair enough reason, but the official Hasbro Studios website goes by a different order. It just goes to show that there is no set order to these characters, meaning the "singing order" is just as good as any other. Still, we have to agree on something and get to the root of this frequent change. That is, why has the "singing order" version been deemed unneeded, and why would the old or official website version be preferred? User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Maybe we arrange them alphabetically (except for Twilight)? Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
It could be considered. Still, what is the problem with the "singing" order? It's already been established that 1.) It has more of a basis within the show than previous versions, 2.) It is the most commonly used order in the series, being in every episode, and 3.) There were no complaints after the change was made. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I've decided to implement the alphabetical order in the My Little Pony: Equestria Girls character listing. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
We've gone over this. I acknowledge that any order would work, hence the alphabetical order being used on My Little Pony: Equestria Girls. However, we have already stated the reasons why we feel the current order works best for this particular article. All we ask for is a reason why you feel alphabetical order would be better. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree. No reason given on how changing current order would be an improvement. Singing order is stable, and has the most support. Alpha order wouldn't have Twilight first, who is most notable. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Twilight is an exception in the proposed alphabetical order, appearing first no matter what. But the issue still stands that no reason for the change has been given. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Spike: Main character or not?[edit]

If there's any aspect of this page I haven't been on the fence more than, it's adding Spike to the "Main character" section. Now that an anonymous user has gone and made the change, I've decided to hold this to a vote. On the one hand, I'm open to the idea considering Cathy Weseluck's billing in the Equestria Girls films and her confirmation alongside the Mane Six cast members in the 2017 movie; the user also stated that the cast and crew consider Spike to be a main character, though I don't know exactly where this user got it from. On the other hand, Spike has been defined by sources to serve as a foil and supporting character to the Mane Six, and is not featured as a focal character as frequently as them, which I used to justify the decision to add him as a "secondary character" among the likes of the Princesses and the Cutie Mark Crusaders. And in the event that we do settle on Spike being listed as a main character, we should still use the term "Mane Six" since that is the term used in official media. What do you think? Should we permanently move Spike to the "Main character" section or not? User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I've decided. It's a bit dated, but I've found that Spike is listed with the other "Mane Six" actors in the first "Featured Voice Performers" part of the first and second seasons' credits, and Celestia and the CMCs are on the second part. Taking this into consideration with the reasons I've given for why I feel Spike belongs in the "Main characters" section, I will make the change. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Optional cast list article for the "Background Ponies"[edit]

I have read several discussions here, and i'm kind of disappointed when i read the debates of whatever or not a separate cast list for the "Equestria Girls" film series will be made.

I mean, it's a separate media franchise, which means that the characters in "Equestria Girls" are largely different from their FIM counterparts.

Upsettingly, everyone agreed that there will be no EqG cast list. Bummer!!

Instead, do you guys would agree if we can create an expansive cast list for the "background ponies"? Maybe through this cast list, we can put up an explaination of why Derpy have been censored after the initial broadcast of "The Last Roundup", as well as some information regarding some of the least seen background ponies. StephenAlexis (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Why? No notability. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

There is potential in this idea, I would like this and support this. Further, I would create own pages for more notable background ponies with a richer history and more intriguing appearances and roles that are enough to fill an article. However, I do not know how common articles for single characters are on Wikipedia. If this is not supported or tolerated here (I don't see why it wouldn't though, it is an encyclopedia, after all), I would help make an extensive article specifically for background ponies where we can list more informations about them happen. Lesser known, but nonetheless interesting, background ponies would benefit a lot from the additional exposure. It would also help tremendously to keep them in the minds of people, especially now that the end of "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" and G4 has become confirmed for Season (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

MLP 2017 movie characters[edit]

I wanted to start this discussion ahead of time. Does anyone think we should add the characters from the upcoming movie to this page, or would you rather we keep any information on them strictly to the movie's article? User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Strictly to the movie, unless for some reason they actually get talked about in show. We've kept the EQG characters distinct and should do that for the movie unless the show proper reflects that. --MASEM (t) 04:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly, though only because it'd be redundant given the page setup. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Her name.[edit]

My argument here. "Derpy", a name given by FIM fandom, was once considered to be a canon name when the early version of "The Last Round-up" was made on air. But after a number of complaints, any mentions of the name "Derpy" were removed in the revised version of the episode, and the name is not considered official any more. The cross-eyed pegasus was credited as "Muffins" in later appearances and in 2017's MLP film, but she's not mentioned by any name, and the character isn't given any name (other than a picture of a muffin) in the official merchandises. I think the character is now basically nameless, but Hasbro uses "Muffins" as a kind of placeholder when a name must be given in some forms like closing credits JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 15:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Her real name is and always will be Derpy, but "Muffins" is just a real-world cover name that Hasbro is forced to use when referring to her in an official capacity. Dogman15 (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing regarding Derpy Hooves potentially happening in the future by a registered editor[edit]

I think this warrants a public warning. For a while now, I ensure that more profound information about Derpy's roles in "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" is available here, which I think is, despite larger amounts of text, justified, because there is more history behind Derpy than it is behind other background ponies like, say, Octavia Melody or Dr. Whooves. Would even go as far as to move her out of the background ponies area and up to side characters, cause that's what she essentially is since at least "Slice of Life", that episode (if not "The Last Roundup" already), elevated her from that status, but that would probably cause too much of a riot here, I guess, so I'll keep her where she is for now. The other things are important information about Derpy, though, and since she does not have her own page (do TV show characters get any here on Wikipedia?), the information has to be placed here. I also ensured that more information about Derpygate from 2012 is available here. There is more to know to it than what has been here so far and it also gave an awfully one-sided view of the events that transpired, so I included information and quotes from Amy Keating Rogers, the writer of "The Last Roundup", to show the other side of the matter that counters the reactions of the ableists. All of these changes and additions get repeatedly and stubbornly reverted by a registered editor here, SubZeroSilver. It may or may not happen in good faith, but regardless, he removes documented facts and important information because his own opinion goes against those facts. Please be on the look-out for the reverts of this user, they are disruptive editing. (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Derpy's section is meant to focus on the general development of her character. Any info on how characters were received belongs in the "Reception" section, unless it had a direct influence on a character's development; such is the case with Derpy, who was affected as a result of a negative response. In addition, original research, fan interpretations, and questionable sources such as Tumblr blogs are not appropriate for Wikipedia. This is the last time I will reiterate any of this. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


How come the characters from the 2017 My Little Pony movie haven’t been included on this page yet?

I mean, they’re part of the Friendship is Magic franchise, so surely we can list them here. Austin012599 (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

They haven't been incuded because noone did so yet. You could do so. Gial Ackbar (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
We've had discussions about this, as you can see above. The film's article is sufficient for information on the movie characters, which is why they haven't been listed on this page. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)