Talk:Them's Fightin' Herds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indie task force.
WikiProject My Little Pony    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject My Little Pony, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Find sources: "Them's Fightin' Herds" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR · free images · wikipedia library

YouTube Link[edit]

The YouTube link to their channel comes up wrong. I don't know what the fix would be. Apparently, Wikipedia's code is interfering. --2602:306:CFF2:5100:D41A:87BB:8395:460E (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


I'm sorry, what is the significance of this being listed as part of the My Little Pony Franchise? User:AFanCorp

The project's already been highlighted in multiple sources that qualify as legitimate under wikipedia standards. It's notability has been established, if only just barely. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised this article passed notability standards. But heck, I'm just excited to actually try this game out. ☆ Antoshi ☆ T | C 19:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see the significance of this article. No one talks about it even in the brony community save for when it was first announced and when that livestream came out. How in any way has this game made any impact on the My Little Pony franchise or community? If this question can't be answered then this article shouldn't exist. Otherwise the significance of the game should be added to the article because this article seems nothing more than an advertisement to me. Ce Ne Pas un Username (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The subject has multiple reliable sources discussing it, having it meet the general notability guideline, which is why the article exists. SilverserenC 01:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an unfinished, unlicensed, simple browser game. One of many that constantly released, dozens come out every month, they do not all merit an article on Wikipedia. Yes, multiple websites about casual gaming have mentioned this upcoming game, the same is true of many other free online games. But should every one of them have their own page? This is shameless self promotion of something very insignificant. (Drelostams (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC))

A) It's a full, downloadable title, not a simple browser game. B) Because of coverage in multiple reliable sources like the Escapist, Joystiq, G4, and GamePro, it has met the guideline for notability and is therefore eligible for an article. C) You can't say it's self-promotion if none of the page editors are actually associated with the game. D) The article was already been nominated for deletion once, andmost of the commenters argued against deletion; furthermore, the article has only improved in the four months since, and it's only going to get better as more sites cover it and more devblogs are released regarding the game's mechanics and development cycle. So no, deletion is hardly necessary. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Clearly just self-advertisement. If this is the case, I should get to make a Wiki page for every crappy RMXP game I've ever dumped out. Please try to keep things in perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

See above. It's not self promotion, and it's met notability guidelines. It stays. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

New CBC Article[edit]

Here you go.  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Saw it on the nightly roundup. Thanks, anyway. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 16:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


So, I added an image of the character selection screen. Should I add any gameplay screenshots to the page? Thanks.--COOLTUX345 (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think at least one gameplay screen would be a good idea. If possible, try to grab one using the most recent HUD layout; if the interface changes between now and release, we can always replace it later. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
That may be hard to acquire, but I'll try my best.COOLTUX345 (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Update: There are no full-sized screenshots with a newer version of the interface, but there are a couple that show part of the screen, or show the entire screen but use the old GUI.COOLTUX345 (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Official logo revealed: dogman15 (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Let's replace the character select screen with the proper logo, and add the "Round 1" screen to the body since it uses the current interface. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Is it really appropriate to link to EqD and ponychan from the article? Eqd could possibly be used as a source, however I see no use for linking to ponychan, considering all content on an image board will eventually 404 anyway. I have removed both links, please revert and discuss if you do not agree. --Princess Derpy (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Using blogs for citations is against Wikipedia standards anyway. (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong picture in thumbnail[edit]

Is it just my computer, or is the wrong screenshot displaying as the thumbnail for the character selection screen in this article? If you click it, it shows the current picture, but the thumbnail in the article shows the old picture. Is there a way to fix this? Has it happened before? dogman15 (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's doing that for me too, which is odd, considering it was displaying the new image just fine a few days ago. Maybe try taking it to the Help Desk?
Nothing there really appeals to me as being able to help me with this specific issue. It's all about problems that could normally be fixed by simple editing, nothing about technical issues like this that are beyond editing. dogman15 (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Normally you'd have to flush the cache, you do this by going to the picture, clicking edit, then replace the '&action=edit' in your browser with '&action=purge'. That's usually how one fixes the thumbnail displaying wrong, but it doesn't seem to be working for me. Perhaps because I'm not logged in. (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Must-include article from Gamespot[edit]


I will try to add this myself but if someone wants to jump in... --MASEM (t) 02:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have serious notability concerns with this article[edit]

Don't get me wrong. I'm a brony and I was a fan of Fighting is Magic. However, much of the sourcing of this article is from blogs, and at least one 'official' article has already been taken down because they were erroneously informed that Mane6 were licensed by Hasbro.

I do not think that Fighting is Magic should have its own article. THere are other fan works that are more popular, and more notable, than Fighting is Magic. Equestria Daily doesn't have its own article, either. This reads like a self-promotion. And in the end, it is a fan work. Fan works face a high scrutiny for notability. ~ PonyToast...§ 17:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

EqD did have an article, but it was removed for not having significant enough coverage in third-party sources. Fighting is Magic, on the other hand, has received much more media attention, especially in the wake of its EVO nomination and recent cancellation. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of the dozen+ sources, only a couple are from the mane6 blog or MLP-fandom sites. The rest are video game journalism or other journalism sites. We even had a full article on the game's development history from Gamespot. Notability is clearly passed here. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It has more then ten sources, which is generally the rule for software, products and services, and should be allowed to stay. Icedog (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Renaming article once new game concept is revealed[edit]

Given that the team has said they're pretty much done w/ this as Fighting is MAgic, but are going forward with Faust's characters, I suggest keeping this article but renaming it to what the final name is, since the bulk of the work on the game so far will carry into the new one (even to the point that the new characters sound like they will remain 4-legged creatures). A separate page for the new game from this would not make much sense. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

According to this article on Polygon, the game is now simply called "Fighting is Magic". Enough to justify a rename and the rewriting of certain portions? -- (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
You're right, I missed that. I will rename right now. --MASEM (t) 06:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Too much conjecture[edit]

This article is riddled with conjecture and grammatical errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 5:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The article isn't locked; if you find any errors you can change them. --Yellow1996 (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)