Talk:List of My Little Pony characters

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

Sandbox trial for separate list format[edit]

I propose that this list would be far more useful if it separated. As an example, I've made a generation 1-only Earth Pony table in my sandbox [[1]].

It may seem like duplication of information but really, nothing more than names are shared between series. As it is now, every single cross-generational pony has clarification for (generation 1) and (generation 3) in every box - this would be much more readable as two lists. Applejack and Spike are the only characters which are remotely similar in two different generations.

I've separated the babies from the adults as they are clearly separate characters - they appear together and are explicitly mother and child, not the same character at different ages.

I've also added some minor corrections, and changed the 'debut' column to show specific episodes rather than just series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1337bonsly (talk • contribs) 23:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I feel the nominated characters should be merged as there is insufficient information to verify notability to justify a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Minty (My Little Pony), Star Catcher, and Rainbow Dash should be merged here. Neelix (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Merging articles would mean placing third generation characters in a list of first generation characters. A new article with a list of third generation characters would be more appropriate. DavaButler (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2010 (CST)
  • Oppose - Most ponies are not fleshed out at all and would be fine for a list. Minty is not one of them. She has has animated movies made about her (eg, A Very Minty Christmas), and there has been multiple versions of the Minty toys made. Any MLP collector or fan will know who Minty is. She is certainly one of the main ponies of the third generation. The merger idea seems ill advised. Dormammu (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This list is not restricted to first and second generation characters. Third generation characters are not currently listed, but they should be. The problem is that neither of these three characters have sufficient treatment in reliable third party sources. If such treatment can be demonstrated, the articles should remain as they are, however I have been unable to find any such sourcing, even for Minty. Neelix (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What third party sources are considered reliable? Because Minty is covered at great length on several MLP collector sites. DavaButler (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2010 (CST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.31.178 (talk)
  • Fansites are links to be avoided per WP:FANSITE as secondary sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Official pages from Hasbro cannot be found, as they were removed when the company changed its marketing strategy. Most of the links provided are to people considered experts in this area. Other reliable links do exist. http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0116948/ DavaButler (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2010 (CST)


  • Oppose - My Little Pony is a specialized topic with a hard core fan base. To merge Minty who appeared as both a G1 character and a G3 Character into a generalized list is to insult all the MLP fans and basically tell them, "We don't think you're important." Especially since Wikipedia is something that anyone can create an article on. What may seem like unimportant characters to you, to someone who is a fan of that character will know everything about them, even if it wasn't shown on a tv program. Remember that My little pony not only had tv and movie specials, but they also had books on record and audio cassette, coloring books that had mini stories in them, stories on the back cards for the toys. To the fan of Minty or any other pony, these are sufficient resources to flush out a character and then share it on Wikipedia. Not all the information must come from a website. People also get information from hard copy sources, as I've noted above. Before trying to decide that you think this or any my little pony character is unimportant, you should surf e-bay and amazon and hasbro. Also check at http://intothesea.com/MyLittlePony/, The MLP Arena, the My Little Pony Trading post, etc. if you are not willing to put that amount of work into it then you are basically just slapping anyone who is a fan right in the face. There is more than enough third party websites and documentation on Minty being a note worthy character in the third generation of My Little Pony. After All Wikipedia has an article on her movie including pictures. It would seem ridiculous to remove the article of the title character, when you still have her movie as an article. Moon Dancer Pony 20:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding comment added by MoonDancerPony (talk • contribs) 19:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not for fan speculation or essays. There were no reliable sources, and as such constituted original research (specifically WP:SYNTH). If sources can be provided to demonstrate that this is notable in any real-world sense then sources should be added. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Unless reliably sourced, third-party sources can provide significant coverage (per the definition at WP:NOTE) to justify a standalone article. From what I see right here, we have arguments of "this is a G1 list and not a G3 list" and "it would be an insult to fans". Neither is a strong argument to actually keep an article from being merged. Wikipedia is not a fanfiction website. It is an encyclopedia, and all topics must be presented in an encyclopedic manner. So, in other words, if you need to separate this list out with G1, G2, and G3 headers...then do so. If you need to clarify that certain characters appeared in different generations of the show, then do so. If you need to develop a well explained set of paragraphs so fans can come here and learn what they need to about the character, then do so. But at this time, there is nothing that says any of these characters warrant their own article. Appearing in a movie about oneself doesn't make it notable automatically, and just because something might be notable doesn't actually mean it warrants an article. There are a lot of notable topics that simply don't have enough information to warrant a standalone article. There is no point sending a reader to 30 different pages, which contain no more than a couple of paragraphs of useful information, when we can have one page that holds all that information and can be more easily navigated.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Transformers haven't been reduced to one long list of characters. Neither have G.I. Joe. This proposal appears biased. Minty is a regular character in a popular toy line, animated shorts, full-length features, and several books and comics, the same as the Transformers and G.I. Joe characters who are considered notable and have their own articles. Star Catcher and Rainbow Dash are good candidates for a merge. Minty is not. DavaButler (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2010 (CST)
  • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a very weak argument besides many of the GI Joe characters have significant independent coverage of individual characters to assert notability observe GI Joe examples Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe), Flint (G.I. Joe) and Transformers Optimus Prime (Transformers),Soundwave (Transformers),Bumblebee (Transformers) in both franchises they have used reliable third persons sources such as Daily Telegraph, USA Today, Time magazine to discuss their respective characters and quoted the page numbers from Books independent of the subject. Has any of characters from My Little Pony got even independent source to assert notability DavaButler no. The WP:BURDEN is one you to prove that the characters are notable and besides how can you be so sure only people who are interested in my Little Pony will read the articles? Dwanyewest (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • I think what it comes down to here is individual perception of Minty. I can assure you that any serious MLP collector will agree that Minty is one of the most used, most popular ponies Hasbro has ever introduced. If My Little Pony itself is notable enough for an article, by extension one of the most known/popular Ponies should be eligible for her own article. I've added in a lot of links to various sites to prove the merchandise mentioned in the article exists. The fact that Hasbro (for instance) doesn't maintain individual pages on characters from its toyline doesn't change the reality of the situation. I don't know why they don't, things would probably be easier if they did. I don't see a reason why the opinions of collectors (ones who are known in the MLP community as having expertise on the subject) is insufficient in this case, honestly. They are the best source, the one I would think we need to take into account to determine notability in this particular instance. Dormammu (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the people opposing the merge argument seems to be it it exists so therefore it's inherently notable. Wikipedia's policy on verfication clearly states

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's actually my point exactly. Minty is a My Little Pony, so therefore you should go to the people outside of Hasbro (since it should be third party) who know the most, which is the collecting community, to determine the reliability of a given MLP source. You can't just declare sources unacceptable if you don't know anything about them. Going to the various MLP sites and seeing what the respected and knowledgeable members feel is the best way to gauge the reliableness of a source in the context of My Little Pony. We're not dealing with something like the Theory of Relativity here, where an entire field of research is devoted to it and it's much easier to determine what's reliable and what's not. Sometimes you need to do a little digging to find what's reliable and what isn't. Int his case, I've done that digging already and found what's considered reliable by the community most relevant to the MLP toy line. 68.238.203.41 (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe it's many of the people who are anti merge who don't understand what a reliable source means. And I quote

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable.

Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

I see no evidence that any of the MLP websites have been established as reliable by third person publications the basis of argument seems to be trust the MLP websites because they are collectors and fans. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh buy the My Little pony fansites are't considered reliable information sources nor are wiki's like Ponytopia as stated earlier in this debate WP:FANSITE
  1. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)
  2. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If people really wanna understand what a reliable source is

Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Dwanyewest (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that these characters should be merged or not merged etc etc. However, as it stands this list is very confusing because of the first section "Prominent Ponies". it is th eonly section that references ponies that did not appear in the original cartoon series. Therefore I am requesting that either the Prominent Ponies section be deleted/removed to avoid confusion or I am allowed to change the page and have different sections for each of the cartoons. Optimussolo (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2010

  • So even if someone is very reliable and notable in their field, they are not a valid resource if its a personal website? That seems a bit silly. Silly or not, the citations do exist- on non-personal websites, they will be added and fixed. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New material brought over from My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic[edit]

I just moved a big chunk of material from My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic over into this article since I felt it was better suited here. It consists of a detailed list of the major and minor characters of that show. I note that a lot of this seems to be duplicated in the "Prominent and Reoccurring ponies" section in the first half of the article, but since I know pretty much nothing about the other "generations" of My Little Pony I'm not sure what would be the appropriate thing to do in cleaning up these apparent redundancies. My proposal is to just have a section for each generation and/or media appearance, and if prominent ponies reoccur across multiple generations have entries in each one describing their appearance there (so for example Applejack, who has appeared in earlier media, would have separate entries in each of the sections she appeared in). Bryan Derksen (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imformation: last week an episode was aired and it introduced two more supporting characters- Apple Jack's cousin (didn't catch a name with the accent and all) and a little Buffalo named Strongheart. The episode is titled "Over a barrel". Someone might want to add them in the Friendship is Magic section soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.230.200 (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now just WHO got rid of the My little pony: Friendship is Magic bios? Weren't they important in some way? `Fess up and fix it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.230.200 (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organize by series?[edit]

I think the characters should be organized by series. Its confusing and hard to follow as it is now. --Havermayer (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur as I am only interested in the MLP:FIM characters, plus the two series are quite different. There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance. - Ali ibn Abi-Talib (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this article should be only for characters made into actual toys? 84.237.53.18 (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

This list is WAY too long. I think it should be split in some way. Maybe one for the 80s and one for MLP:FIM? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the Vandalizing[edit]

Seriously....I'm the only pony here who is maintaining this page ever since I split the character sections into separate wiki entries. And now this Wiki is pretty much a target for soooo much vandalism. BRONIES, I'M MAD AND DISAPPOINT on each and everyone on you.

So again, NO VANDALIZING.Blackgaia02 (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. I have NEVER VANDALIZED THIS HERE PAGE. Silvershrek (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Silvershrek[reply]

Uh.....sadly I'm referring to the Anonymous IP's not you.Blackgaia02 (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 2.26.190.153, 28 July 2011[edit]

On the article of List of My Little Pony Characters, the specific character Cheerilee has been descibed wrongly. Her symbol is not a lily, it is a cherry blossom. Her old name was once Cherry Blossom before it was revamped to Cheerilee, but the symbol has always been three pink flowers, which highly resemble the cherry blossom flower. Many fans of My Little Pony have said her symbol is a cherry blossom, and the symbol itself is nothing like a lily. Here is the part of the article that I would like to be changed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheerilee#Cheerilee, the specific part of the text I'd like to be corrected is "Her symbol is a light pink lily" to "Her symbol is a light pink cherry blossom." And here is a picture of the Cheerilee character http://mlp.imagesofher.com/pictures/cheerlieeschool.jpg. if you would like to see the character for yourself. Thank You.

2.26.190.153 (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, however I think this is a very small error. If one would make a request to edit this page to something, the organizing of this page or splitting it (i.e., giving major characters independent pages, for there is quite, quite a bit information one could put in such a place, or splitting them by Generation, or all in all making this list somehow less messy) is far more important right now than a slight error of a character's Cutie Mark.--Zamoonda (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want those things done, feel free to make another edit request with more detail or become autoconfirmed (you need 4 days and 10 edits to become autoconfirmed) and make the edits yourself. Just because there are other improvements that can be made to an article isn't a reason not to fulfill an edit request. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done To the original edit request, I've made that change. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow dash[edit]

Can we change the Zsa Zsa Gabor line? Rainbow dash sounds nothing like her! Ginister (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pets?[edit]

Angel appears under the Allies subsection. Shouldn't the other mane character's pets from FIM be included as well (Gummy, Opalescence, Owlowiscious, and Winona)? TricksterWolf (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still thinking about that and if I can import some info from the Friendship is Magic Wiki. But I need a vote if this needs to be in, along with the Diamond Dogs.Blackgaia02 (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay....the pets are added.Blackgaia02 (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tips to Remember on Adding Ponies[edit]

To prevent any spam from spreading on this page, This is a special guide for everyone to remember on editing this page. First of all: Remember that Fan-Made Stuff is not allowed. Second, Vandalism is forbidden to be included in the page. And Third, to add a pony on the official wiki, remember this:

  • They must have a toy version that matches their animated counterparts
  • Some of their animated counterparts are based on the original toys. This should be taken notice except for some characters made exclusively for the series, movies and specials only.
  • Sources should be either the links below, official commentary from the creators, producers and animators themselves or reliable websites that got good information about My Little Pony.
  • Everyone must follow these two rules: WP:OR and WP:V. Don't follow them, then you lose.

I wish the page would be legit without the bad info.Blackgaia02 (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the first bullet. Zecora is clearly a character in the My Little Pony universe with a canonical name, regardless as to whether or not Hasbro has manufactured toys of her yet (for one). It can be assumed she is a character copyright Hasbro whether or not a toy exists. (There would also be some confusion about G4 ponies for which there exist entirely different G3 toys and no G4 toy as yet; the appearance on television is just as important as the existence of a matching toy.) TricksterWolf (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bold and removing unsourced content[edit]

I have reverted to the revision dated August 3, 2011, as it was the last revision to have a source included in it. I have gone through the whole article and added Citations Needed templates, as currently there are large slabs of information that are violating Wikipedia guidlines Original Research and Verifiability. I have added a Reference Improve template as well, to the article. All addtions to this article including, "Pony #9 (example) is most likely to be based on Pony #1 from the original series" is Original Research, without a reference to support it.

If large slabs of information is added to this article every month, references will also be adding in to corroborate the information. If there is any issues or concerns, please visit my talk page. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuilding and restructuring of the page[edit]

I will be completely remaking the page as soon as I have time so it is easier to view and find ponies. -- Spazturtle !DERP/3/PiM Talk 02:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Idea. I wish you luck on reconstructing everything though...Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to find a good formate to use, I have got a temp page set up to develop the new page here, any thoughts? -- Spazturtle !DERP/3/PiM Talk 20:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's not bad. I can use the new template if I could though I need to do some serious revamping on the WHOLE page. You may need to consult User:Rainbow Dash if he agrees.Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'll see if I can do my own version...Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debate: Generation 2 characters[edit]

I would seriously think that we should add some of the Generation 2 Characters into the list since they count as part of the franchise. But it will be hard to do like a taking a grain of salt.Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Blackgaia02[edit]

Why do you write wrong informations. Look on this images, and you'll see that I'm right. Tama Fan (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: I'm using the the TOY references for the colors since they came out first. You are being immature on editing everything incorrectly in the whole page and also adding TOO MUCH things that I can't verify well. Don't you refer to the references below before you do ANY edit?Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Baby Cuddles is not green even as toy. [Look at this http://www.ponylandpress.com/images/ponies/babyrattles.jpg]. You are just color-blind! Tama Fan (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! You're right! 81.219.195.129 (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks green to me. Don't know where the colour blue comes into it. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And blue to me. 83.238.242.47 (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't take a scientist to see that the two Anons here are both the same person. It's green. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 10:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think, not I that know this is light blue. 77.254.76.139 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter what colour people think they are. per Wikipedia:No original research we can only report what colours they have been described as by reliable sources.©Geni 00:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table in need of reconstruction[edit]

The tables looks excessively messed up:

  • The table takes up far too much scrolling space due to the multiple data fields, esp. the Pony Description.
  • There are far too many colours and some dark colours make text hard to read.
  • Minor characters are mixed up with the major characters.

In answer to these problems:

  • I suggest putting long boxes under each row of pony characteristics for the descriptions, sort of like a standard TV Episode list, the description box being the equivalent of a summary box. That way the description boxes don't stretch the cells downward so much.
  • For consistency sake, the number of colours need to be reduced. I don't see the point of picking that many. If you're intending to make the colours match the body colour of the ponies, it is not going well since half the colours don't match the respective pony. If you insist on darker colours, make the text white, so that is readable.
  • If Minor characters have to be shown because they had their own toy as well as animated appearance, I suggest marking the Major characters with some sort of Indication like Italics.

Let us see if this can work out well. Deltasim (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the whole page itself: ITS.A.BIG.MESS that I consider in a trope, Ruined Forever.
Simply Put also that I agree on your idea on matching their colors with the table but there are also too many problems that I actually encounter while reading it, and that involves adding too many G1 Ponies in the list that you can call this the second "List of Generation 1 My Little Pony Characters". Some of those errors are:
  • The Baby Ponies. I heard from someone that the Baby Ponies were born from the reflections of their mothers. This however can be confusing so they need to be merged with the main ponies they're based on or removed from. Baby North Star is still unconfirmed and the baby ponies from "The Ice Cream Wars" episode were counted to have main roles in that episode.
  • Tons and Tons of Cameo Ponies. This is a major issue also since some of the ponies appearing in all MLP animations (From Generation 1 to 4) were sometimes cameos or background ponies. I can list down some that needs to be removed.
  • Color Confusion. My head is spinning for the past few days unediting this but please I'm gonna make it straight, the colors in the toys are the MOST correct since they came out first. The only exceptions were Fiesta Flair, Storybelle and Zecora.
  • PHOTOBUCKET. Please, Photobucket is an unreliable source, remove it. And it violates WP:V.
I had enough on editing this so either someone who has better editing skills. I don't want to touch this anymore. As a Brony with editing skills, I'm disappointed on how the page goes downhill. *Facehoof* Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may make a suggestion or two:-

  • Deltasim is right, that table is a dog's breakfast. I think the tv episode listing format would work much better - perhaps try out a couple of examples here on the talkpage to see what it might look like? Or at Talk:List of My Little Pony characters/table tryouts.
  • Lists of characters in some of the cartoon series already have articles. Maybe it would be easier if this list stuck to the toys, and created separate lists for any missing cartoon series. I get the feeling there wasn't much continuity between the animators, the cartoon books and the toys, and this seems to have been the root cause of a lot of the arguments here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did the markup here: Talk:List of My Little Pony characters/table tryouts -- still alot of info in the columns but semi-readable I guess. - Lateg (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. I suck at markup, so am impressed with anyone who can do it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a lot better now than the last one.Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It maybe a good idea to remove the Species column from every table plus the specie indications on the descriptions except the Allies and Antagonists tables. After all the table names "Earth Ponies", "Alicorns" and so on, make it pretty obvious. The only species in the description that would remain are ones (if any) that indicate the pony may have been a different kind of pony. As a result there would be less horizantal scrolling space. Keep up the good work Lateg. Deltasim (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay the species columns from most of the tables plus species specifications from most of the descriptions have been erased. I think the table is as fine as it can get. Deltasim (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now one problem: You didn't rewrote all the tables.Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know I didn't rewrite all the tables, simply because some of the ponies have been recreated from one Specie to another and secondly because Allies and Antagonists consist of many kinds of species, so taking out the species column would misidentify the individual characters in those sections. Deltasim (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that lowest priority columns are removed, the tables finally fit horizantally to the article with any extra scrolling space. I believe the reconstruction is as complete as it can get. Deltasim (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should retitle Alicorn section[edit]

This is the substance that a unicorn horn is made of. It has nothing to do with winged unicorns or horned pegasi. Bonechamber (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that Alicorn has more than one definition. Many websites indicate the creature is called that especially DeviantArt. If you can prove that is a misconception the change can take place. Deltasim (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, you can't possibly use Deviant Art as a reliable source. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Big Macintosh to Big McIntosh[edit]

Recently Lauren Faust has posted some sketches for 2008 MLP:FiM pitch bible where Big Macintosh is names Big McIntosh.

Should we rename him in this list? Teyandee (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fizzy's color[edit]

Fizzy's color is not green! This is more aqua or turquise. And this that she is green is just propaganda! Tama Fan (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly making such a big fuss, for such a small mistake. Deltasim (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not only mistake. In Apple Spice's hair is pink no orange, Baby Cuddles is Blue no Green, Cupcake hair are not aqua just turquise, Gingerbread has black in hair no purple, Lickety-Split is not pink just lawender, and her symbol is brown ice cream, Baby Lickety-Split's symbol is white ice cream, Princess Primrose has red tail, Baby Shady is red, Storybelle was released as toy [3], [4], Sundace has light red hair and symbol in series, Firefly has purplish blue hair and symbol, Heart Throb has red hair and hearts without wings, Baby Heart Throb has hearts with wings as her symbol, Lofty has yellow hair, Medley is turquise not green, Rainbow colors in Rainbow Dash's description is too general, Surprise has res balloons as symbol, Buttons is pink, not lilac, Galaxy is dark pink, not pinkish purple, Gusty has pink streak in mane, Mimic has also yellow and red in her hair, Baby Moondancer has pink hair with purple streak in mane, Ribbon has red streak in mane, Twilight has dark pink stars as symbol, Honeysuckle has light red hair, Morning Glory is baby blue with brown hair. Tama Fan (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Storybelle toys are customs. Now refer here and READ THE FINE PRINT: http://mylittlewiki.org/wiki/Storybelle Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing[edit]

Hi, this is Mr. Stradivarius from the dispute resolution noticeboard. I have replied to the thread on the board, but it doesn't look like there is much interest in it, so I thought I would come here to comment. A lot of the problems on this page seem to be a result of using unreliable sources, or material that is not sourced at all. In the absence of any progress in dispute resolution, I thought I would come over and give the page a copy edit to fix the sourcing issues. This might make the list quite a bit shorter, but hopefully it will resolve the problems that are based in sourcing issues. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've removed all the references that looked unreliable, but I've stopped short of removing any actual content, for now. I might come back in a few days and have a go at removing unreferenced content that looks dubious. I note that the My Little Pony episodes themselves count as a primary source for the ponies, but anything that is just an opinion of the editors here can be removed. Knowing exactly where these two factors meet is not easy, and is why I haven't removed any actual content at this time. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Stradivarius, apparently some of the problem is down to the manufacturers of the toys, the tv cartoons and the comic books not being bothered about continuity. So a pony can be blue with pink toenails as a toy, blue with green wellies in the cartoon, and green in the printed material. My kids had an applejack pony years ago, and my husband always used to refer to it as 'peaches on the bum pony', because in the storybook he kept having to read them at bedtime, the pony in question was apricot colour with peaches on its backside. Go figure. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC) (who only ended up with this article on her watchlist because she once blocked someone from vandalising it)[reply]

References[edit]

Ok looking through this article I see a lot of un-cited information but I don't see any 'citation needed' notes. It is hard to know what to cite when their are no citation needed notes. If they were added then I could search the internet looking for reliable sources to cite. -- Spazturtle !DERP/3/PiM Talk 18:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basic information that is clearly verifiable from the episodes/toys/comics themselves doesn't have to be independently verified by third-party sources, although that might be nice (see WP:PRIMARY). They still need inline citations though, which are sorely lacking at the moment. That might be a good place to start. Also, any opinions about the ponies that are not obviously true from the episodes/toys/comics need to be sourced to reliable third-party sources. I think we should start by removing anything that is an obvious opinion, and by sourcing the basic information using the {{cite video}} template together with inline citations. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some of the problem seems to be caused by editors looking at either their own ponies or photos of ponies uploaded to other sites (someone mentions Deviant Art above, and Tama Fan seems to have put images on Photobucket or some similar site) and writing a description based on that. I suspect a lot of the blue/green dispute is down to someone's colour vision - or possibly to a language difference in what constitutes which colour. If I recall (the child I read the stories to is now 23, so it's a while since I looked at a My Little Pony book!), the early books used to describe the ponies by colour, so would constitute a reliable primary source. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an ideal source Elen. I have a different idea of using hi-quality videos as a source, plus a colour chart to identify them. Deltasim (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G1/G2/G3/G4[edit]

I'm assuming this means, "generation 1", "generation 2", etc., but I can't see it on the page anywhere. Is this right? If it is, we should better qualify what time period each generation covers. Maybe "generations" would be a good way to organize a split of this page? Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article used to be organised by generation but a lot of the ponies apear in multiple gen's so their was a lot of duplicated information and the article became long and confusing. The new layout is much easier to find information. You are right that G stands for Generation, and this does need to be added to the page. -- Spazturtle !DERP/3/PiM Talk 23:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to my examination 15 ponies appear in 2 generations, 2 ponies appear in 3 generations and 1 pony (That's Cupcake/Sugarcup) appears in all 4 generations. Spike appears in 3 generations. The rest all are part of only one generation each. Since a majority remain in one generation, it is safe to say that the Generation columns can be removed and indications of which generation the individuals appear in can be placed in the description box instead. Although I think the "Generation 1 Characters" and "Generation 3 Characters" could be deleted since all the information has been compiled all in one and these two pages now seem to take up extra space. Deltasim (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far I'm noted I agree, the List of Generation 1 My Little Pony characters and List of Generation 3 My Little Pony characters really can take a lot of space and it's not fully needed anymore. But some of the characters there needs to be imported in a right way rather than copy-pasting. Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redo the Character Tables.[edit]

Well I would say we need to redo the whole character tables again so this time it includes every bit of information each pony, human or ally released. Actually I was thinking about making something into like dividing their info a bit like their Toy Colors and Animation colors, and without clashing through one another. I was wondering if the tables can be redone in that way.Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead and do it. You can experiment in the sandbox (or make your own) to test out the formatting before doing it on the main page, if you need to. Don't forget to include those sources while you're at it ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it removed?[edit]

At the bottom in the list where it says "Locations in Ponyville" I inserted "Trottingham" because though only mentioned it was still part of Equestria. It was removed. I won't argue the decision but I want to know why that was taken out. Dartpaw86 (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Dartpaw86[reply]

It was only mentioned, not shown in the series. Unless the main cast goes there, then I'll be added.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Bon NEVER appeared in FIM! NEVER![edit]

Jeez you Bronies, stop changing Bon Bon's info for christ's sake! Just because a background pony who acutally looked like her DOESN'T mean she is really in that series. Besides, their designs are DIFFERENT and you brain-dead bronies think she is a G4 Character!

To put simply: G1 Bon Bon =/= G4 Bon Bon. END OF STORY!--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC) bon-bon did appear in mlp fim read her info on list of ponies/earth ponies[reply]

Fluttershy merge[edit]

Wouldn't it be better to merge Fluttershy to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters instead of here? 81.104.11.4 (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! (sarcastic)[edit]

This article has been added to Wikipedia:Lamest Edit Wars! Yes, this article is a prime example of a major edit war over something which, frankly, no one really cares about! Or at least no one in a "real" encyclopedia does. Every time you start an edit war... God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens. Agent 78787 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split by generations[edit]

Let me give you some example. You see Spike, Rainbow Dash and Cupcake? (No, not Mrs. Cup Cake in Friendship is Magic) They may share name and sometimes appearance/design, but as you see (especially Rainbow Dash), their characteristics are different by generations. So, I believe MLP characters are 'same name, different characters by eras'. Someone needs to split this article by generations:

Got any ideas? JSH-alive talk • cont • mail 15:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for both lists-of-characters by generation and lists-of-characters by show. There is a lot of overlap between the toys and shows, they should be kept in one list as they are now. –Throwawaytv (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be separate but we merged it as it was not working, as Throwawaytv said there is a lot of overlap. It also makes it easier to manage being one article. -- Spazturtle !DERP/3/PiM Talk 15:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split - I just split out the "Earth Ponies", since this seems to be the most gigantic section. I plan to continue with other sections, until the article gets down to a reasonable size. Thoughts? Suggestions?--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations[edit]

I removed the list of locations. "List of Characters" articles are about the characters, not the setting. Article is already insanely huge and over detailed. We don't need to keep adding things. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can add anything we want sadly.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Character "Derpy" taken as offensive[edit]

Apparently, some moms found Derpy offensive by her name, eyes, behavior, and voice. This caused an uproar about whether or not she should be changed/removed from the series. I don't think this is a good cause for a big argument, guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.45.26 (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the controversy merits a brief mention in Derpy's subsection on the FIM characters page. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional ponies[edit]

I was looking for other ponies who appeared in Daring Don't but I don't see them here (they were robbing Daring Do/A.K. Yearling). I understand that there are probably not toys of these characters but they did have a role on the TV show and I can't find them on any other MLP list. Liz Read! Talk! 15:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_My_Little_Pony_characters&oldid=1212517834"