Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Orphaned references in My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic fandom

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic fandom's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "awn":

From My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic: Strike, Joe (2011-07-05). "Of Ponies and Bronies". Animation World Network. Retrieved 2011-07-06.
From Rocko's Modern Life: Ramin Zahed (July 12, 2011). "Joe Murray Looks Back at Rocko's Modern Life". Animation Magazine. Retrieved July 19, 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
From The Powerpuff Girls: DeMott, Rick (2000). "The Powerpuff Girls' Phenomenal Merchandising Mantra". Animation World Magazine (5.7). Animation World Network. Retrieved 2011-05-26. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Reference named "dalaurenthankyou":

From My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic: Faust, Lauren (2011-05-08). "THANK YOU!!!". deviantART. Retrieved 2011-08-02.
From The Return of Harmony: Faust, Lauren (8 May 2011). "THANK YOU!!!". deviantART. Retrieved 2 August 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I note I got these all fixed. --MASEM (t) 20:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete this page, tia 174.117.241.108 (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Austrian hackings

Just removed an EqD post about Austrian hackings from the article. Seriously, I want to replace it with three sources from Austrian ORF (1, 2, 3). But as I can't understand German language after all, I need someone to check what does those articles say in full. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 13:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently there were more recent attempts (earlier this month and from Easter Sunday) as well. As for your sources, you can use Google Translate to get a rough idea. The first one doesn't mention anything about ponies, but the second one has a statement from one of the anon groups that says roughly "our group uses Pinkie Pie, that group uses Rainbow Dash" (ergo, a good one to use, and then you can use the first article to support it). The last one is definitely one to lead in because it clearly said the characters are used by the anon groups. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Google search results for reference: A, B. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan première

FIM was originally planned to première in Taiwan on 21 April 2011, but was delayed to 5 May. From what I heard, it was because of inappropriate localisation, and there was intervention from Taiwanese netizens. If we find any reliable news reports about it, we can put anything about it in the article. Meanwhile, you may ask User:Geoffreyjhang (who is from Taiwan, and is an editor of Chinese zh:彩虹小馬：友情就是魔法 article) about anything. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You probably meant this at the main MLPFIM article, right ? :) --MASEM (t) 16:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I said that I heard "there was intervention from Taiwanese netizens." I think "Other arenas" section in this article suits well. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 10:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Pirates of Germania

From Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic#Pirate Party:

As cool as it would be, the German Pirate Party does not air episodes within the parliament. The episodes are used for de-escalating debates during internal sessions of the PP delegates, which is what the source says as well. Since I can't edit the article, could someone correct that?
84.191.167.123 (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm "almost sure" that is the right reading - the source ([1]) does seem to say that it happens during the "Fraktionssitzung" (that is most likely to mean "Faction meeting")... So, would the correct version be something like "The faction of Pirate Party of Germany in the Abgeordnetenhaus of Berlin (the Berlin state parliament), has a rule that the members can request inclusion of "pony time" (in which an episode from the series is shown) during its meetings. That first happened on November 15, 2011." (instead of "The Pirate Party of Germany, sitting in the Abgeordnetenhaus of Berlin (the Berlin state parliament), has insisted on the inclusion of "pony time" during sessions, in which an episode from the series is shown, an action that has displeased many of the other members in the Berlin parliament.")? Also, I am not sure about the right way to tell what is the reason for the rule... We should probably cite someone's words and attribute them? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Worth a notice, indeed. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 14:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Brony eating img

File:Brony eating ponies.jpg

A brony eating ponies!

Thanks Masem, I was just about to remove the image. Doesn't really add anything to the article. Might be appropriate for the Eating Disorder article.DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that it was the user's first contribution, I'm pretty sure that's a troll to start with. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Masem and DoctorLazarusLong, the image is of a brony so why shouldnt it be included in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug1 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug and welcome to Wikipedia. The image is of a brony, but doesn't contribute to a general understanding of the brony culture. Every Wiki article is first and foremost designed to be a introduction to a subject, for a person who comes to the article knowing nothing. As such we try to keep things concise. Whenever you are thinking about adding something to an article, ask yourself, "Does what I am adding enhance the article?" and "How will what I am adding help someone understand the content of the article?". Thanks for your contrabution and keep on editing, don't get discouraged if people revert your edits, this is a collaboration and it is through discussion and debate that Wikipedia flourishes. If you disagree with our reversion, please feel free to state your case.DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added the image to this section of the talk page, so the people reading this know what the discussion was about. (Also, because I find the image funny as hell) Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If that image was indeed posted as a troll, would it not be hilarious for it to end up under the Eating Disorder article? Might teach vandals to be a little more careful about what they upload to Wikipedia...(half-serious) Zaldax (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

sexual aspects

hello. a source indicates that there are sexual aspects to this. this seems like a notable aspect of the fandom. why was this removed? -badmachine 00:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

One individual does not represent the entire fandom. In fact, the article itself states that the creator actually got a lot of flak and negative reception over his work because of the sexual nature, thus providing evidence that contradicts your point. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"I've noticed that [bronies have] gotten really horny lately, and since everyone knows how careless bronies are with their wallets, why not take advantage of that? I don't really care what people do with it in the end. Hell, I've even seen people say they want to buy it just so they can record themselves burning it. As long as I get the money I don't care!" - directly from the article. Moreover, if you look at sites like "ponibooru" and "e621" you will see that there are tens of thousands of mlp images of a sexual nature. I believe this is notable enough to remain in the article. Sparklerainbow87 (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, that's only one person's observation; hardly enough to make it notable. And you can find tens of thousands of pornographic images of almost ANY franchise; it's not exactly an MLP exclusive phenomenon. If you're going to add it here based solely on booru numbers, you'd have to do the same for the reception sections of every cartoon, anime, game, television show, and more than a few celebrities listed on this wiki. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring that, there is an article from a pro-feminist site about the fandom's taking in stride of the apparent lesbianism from the show. There's also a recent NYT article that only mentioned the show in passing but about how porn on the internet can be easily found by children. *Maybe* there is something but I'm not 100% sure yet. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Although I identify as a member of this fandom, I'll try to be as objective as possible. Rule 34/pornographic content is a small part of the Brony community, and not one integral to the Brony identity. Pornographic material is of no more importance, and arguably less, in this community than it is on the rest of the internet. At most, sexual aspects of the fandom should receive only a passing reference in this article, just like gory, "grim-dark" fan creations.

I base my opinions not only on my personal experience, but also two well-done studies about the Brony fandom that I recommend as a substitute for hearsay on somebody's blog: http://www.scribd.com/doc/94234033/Survey-of-the-Brony-Subcultre and http://www.bronystudy.com/id1.html

Marechal Ney (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this has any place in this article. There are people with every kind of fetish out there. You don't see a Civil War fetish (believe me, it exists) section in the Civil War re-enactment article, do you?DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering that the majority of editors who've posted here are largely (if not fully) opposed, and the only people definitively supporting its addition just got banned indefinitely (leading me to believe this was a trolling attempt), I think we can safely say that this isn't worth a mention. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now that io9 has had its say on PARTY.MOV, along with the NYTimes article, there's definitely something to be said on the adult nature of the produced fanworks. I want to include [2] (the article on fandom shipping) but that article itself is not negative in the same sense, but I do want to be careful of how to introduce the concept. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Also: 'My Little Pony' fan erotica magazine tops $1000 at auction. GreenReaper (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Flayrah's not a reliable source. --MASEM (t) 21:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Brony Study

The Brony Study (bronystudy.com), which is used as a primary reference in ref #20, was written up in The Daily Dot here. RSN has confirmed the daily dot to be reliable for its articles written by staff writers (one or two of the staff writers is iffy because of some of the articles they've written, but this is not those writers, so we're good). The results of the study, which are laid out rather well in that article, should probably be expanded upon in the article than just the one sentence it has now. Also, it seems like they are planning on getting it published in a academic journal, which will be good to use when that comes out. Silver seren^C 21:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As long as we have the RSN assurance there's a few choice pieces to pull from that (one point I can see immediately being that this is a way for "internet scientists" to monitor the growth of a fandom from its inception...) Given that it doesn't go much into the results, I'd be a bit careful, but if they do get the RS journal article with details, then hey, we'll figure something out. --MASEM (t) 05:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I can't get to until late today, but I've noticed several other pony articles on dailydot - can we have confirmation of which ones are "good" from an RSN standpoint? Ones that I saw that would be helpful to include are the one about Tara going out of her way for a fan, the one about AKRogers and Derpygate, and the brony music one, but there may be others. --MASEM (t) 12:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's the RSN discussions:

The second one is the one i'm talking about and, as you can see, nothing that would apply in this situation at all. So, for all intents and purposes, feel free to use any article on Daily Dot (so long as it is written by a staff writer). Silver seren^C 20:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrew W.K. to be going to a brony convention.

New mark achieved! Let's get someone who is famous and not involved with the show to a convention! http://www.thegauntlet.com/article/1225/25485/ANDREW-W.K.-Confirms-Speaking-Engagement-At-My-Little-Pony-Convention Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Interview regarding Andrew's pony enthusiasm. This can DEFINITELY be worked in somehow. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Brony music

Found this source about brony music, could probably be worked in easily. Mentions a few interesting things. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I'm going to do that now. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

~~What about the mc chris part? A mainstream rapper making a song (even if its an April Fools' joke) about MLP should be mentioned, IMO. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)~~

Yup, got it. I don't want to get too much hung up on the music aspects but that article hits a lot of points throughout. (and the editor is the same on the one for he brony study above so reliable ) --MASEM (t) 18:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

How long does it take

for an article to go through the GA process? This article has not yet been reviewed for more than a week now. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

GA process is backed up. It will get done when it gets done. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

With 393 other good article nominations, it'll probably take a while. If you really want to speed it up, you could always go and review another GAN and kindly ask for this to be reviewed in return. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 02:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I intend to get through this review by the end of this weekend, but since it is fairly long and has a lot of links, it might take me a few days. In the meantime, I would like to alert the contributing editors to the disambig links and external links in the toolbox on the right since there are some dead links that need to be dealt with. Thanks. --Tea with toast (話) 02:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Both disamb and broken links fixed. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Problems with references needing to be sorted out

(Citation numbers are as of this version.)

The following refs need to have the work cited (e.g. name of the magazine or website or such): #33, 54, 57, 69
Ref #71, please fix the capitalization of the author's name
Ref #79, I believe should attribute the source to Donna Bowman (this is a little tricky to figure out, I know. The initials DB are given to the paragraph about My Little Pony, and Donna Bowman is listed as one of the authors at the top).
A citation is needed for a tagged sentence in the "Other arenas" section
In the second paragraph of the "Brony" section, is the sentence "They receive more than 500,000 visits a day...". The word "they" is vaguely attributed to both Equestria Daily and Ponychan suggesting that either both receive that may views, or both of them together equal that many views. But beyond that is a problem with both of the sources that are cited. Ref #24 is a Times article that cites 175,000 views from a Wired source (you need cite the original Wired source here). Ref #25, throws the word "500,000" out, but I didn't catch what internet site it was referring to. I think it would be best to find another source.

I will put this article on hold for one week until these issues are sorted out. Thanks and happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 01:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Except for the sourcing in the Other Arenas section, the rest are fixed. I do need to look for the sourcing that should exist for that one statement but need time to check. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

And now that's sourced, so all points addressed. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(As of July 31, 2012)

Ref #26, please correct the spelling of the author's name to Lisa Hix (also applies to My Little Pony and Equestria Daily entries) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.249.24 (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Prose is good enough for GA, but could use some work. See notes below.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
See comments below.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
While this article does meet all the requirements to make it a Good Article, it could still use a bit of polishing to improve it. See comments below. Thanks to all the editors who have worked hard on this article and have addressed the issues above. Good work! --Tea with toast (話) 03:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional comments

While this article meets all the requirements of GA, and I find no reason to fail it, the article does lack a bit of clarity and would definitely require some more work if it is to survive a FA nomination.

One of the biggest areas for improvement is in cleaning up the prose. I see that a request has been made for this article at the Guild of Copy Editors for a copy edit, and I hope a good editor can help fix things up. There are several paragraphs that could be better shaped so that the text can flow better. I think part of the reason why the text feels so cumbersome is because there is a lot of needless information, which brings me to my next point...
I would advise contributors of this article to remove any unnecessary content. There is just a little too much accessory material here that one can get a bit lost. Remember, this is an encyclopedia article meant to convey the meaning of the topic, not to document every bit of fandom on the web.
I'm not convinced of the legitimacy of the sources. While acceptable in some contexts, blogging websites are generally not acceptable sources for Wikipedia. (Being that the topic of the article is largely web-based, I thought it might be acceptable, but I don't know if it will stand for FA). For some of the content, if the information can not be verified by more reputable sources, then it may not be notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article. Again, this is a bit of a grey area, and I am uncertain how to advise you.

I hope these suggestions can help you out. Overall, I have enjoyed reviewing this article. Thanks again to the editors. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話)

Bronies and the furry fandom

Considering the extreme similarities between the "brony fandom" and the "furry fandom" (this can be backed up with evidence and basic reasoning,) I believe that the "See also" link to the Furry Fandom page should remain. This is not a claim that bronies are furries; it is a claim that the two fandoms share enough similarity and likeness that they can be considered related to each other. Please present your arguments to the contrary. 24.165.160.223 (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

They're not related enough to justify the link. You could say the same of any pair of fandoms that exist. And I don't think you understand how an argument works. You don't say that there are extreme similarities and then ask us to prove you wrong. You have to argue your point straight off. Besides, it's not about your opinion. It's about consensus. The consensus, as far as I know, is that the fandoms are distinct, and have very different cultures. Specs112 t c 19:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

And on a more technical note: we already like to furry fandom in one the sections; See Also sections should be reserved for links that are related but otherwise not linked to in the article nor the templates below. On the more philosphocial side, the major of bronies would not catalog themselves as furries (remember, they're coming from sites like 4chan); we acknowledge there's a common DNA but my experience when the issue is brought up is to distance themselves from that aspect. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with both Specs and Masem. I am sure there are members of the fandom who do identify themselves as Furries, but it seems like a large portion of the famdom has worked to disassociate themselves from the Furry community. Since there is already an in context link within the article, the See Also section grants undue weight to the connection. I am going to revert the edit once again, until evidence is presented that it should be kept.DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

(Official name obtained via the trading cards)

I almost reverted this, because I read through the sources cited and couldn't find the ref to the name. Then I read the note for the edit. Cyberlink could you please provide a reference to the card you are citing. All the references currently cited name him as Doctor Whooves. Thank you.DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

We do have photo evidence from those at BC that have these cards that clearly give the "canon" name. But there likely won't be any sources short of EQD about it. It may not be appropriate to include (since again, we're talking about how Doctor Whooves was reflected back into the show). --MASEM (t) 04:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There may be more of a chance for this note, given that the back of the Time Turner card calls out "timey-wimey". But we probably need to wait for some type of source on that. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Just so everyone else knows what we're talking about, here are pictures of the card in question, front and back. Enterplay was giving out pre-release copies of different cards at BronyCon, but given they haven't been officially released yet, Equestria Daily's the only source we have to cite this; I'm sure we'll be able to grab another once they hit the market this month, though. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, fandom triumphs again. Guess we gotta make another switch. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

At this point, we're going to need a reliable source (not EQD or other pony sites) to affirm either an official "name". We have to go with what the other reliable sources have said about the characters, which is that the fandom's named him "Doctor Whooves", but we can't really acknowledge either the trading card or the comment from WLF yesterday. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

BronyCon photos

I got the guy that uploaded this set of BC photos to put them into a free license (he had no problem). So they can be uploaded on Commons and used around. Be aware: when there is obvious images of copyrighted elements in them : (eg [3]) that won't work , as such art must be "de minimus" ( not the focus of the photo), but most of the shots that I can check are otherwise not a problem.--MASEM (t) 14:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I just made Category:BronyCon on Commons for these images. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it can, but just to be sure. Can this image be uploaded to Commons? Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The licensing is fine for commons but the trick is, are plush of cartoon characters and/or molded toys considered derivative works or not? (Which would make the photo effective part copyrighted by Hasbro). I'm not 100% sure on that. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Military brony article

[4] leaving this here to be added, don't know where yet. I think maybe as part of the brony demographic section but it feels like extra without having mention of other "professions" that have brony fans. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

First let me say this is a great article and awesome that it is already GA status, given that older articles are barely greater than Start.

Second, I read the article, and it is from a reliable source but I don't know how much WP:WEIGHT it should be given, maybe a part of a sentence regarding the overall brony population, but not its own paragraph.

Now if there are other reliable sources that provide significant coverage about brony servicemembers, even in non-U.S. militaries, perhaps it could warrant its own paragraph.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal, Equestria Daily

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 to merge. Throwawaytv (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose that Equestria Daily be merged into My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom. I think that the content in the Equestria Daily article can easily be explained in the context of MLPFIM fandom, and the MLPFIM fandom article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Equestria Daily will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. There is much overlap between the articles, and the notability of Equestria Daily is not apparent from the sources used in this article. –Throwawaytv (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll second that. Now the fandom has its own article (as opposed to the old section in the show's article) it makes sense given the quantity of information provided and notability thereof. ReecyBoy42 (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose because it's a significant-enough part of the fandom that it should remain independent. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt it's significant for the fandom, but out of the fourteen references in the article, five are from the site itself, one is its Alexa ranking, and the remaining eight mention the site but are not about the site. –Throwawaytv (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Support The amount of coverage on EQD in reliable sources is just enough to make it notable but I can't see it expanding much in the near future. Plenty of room here for those details. (leaving behind a redirect, of course, since the term is searchable). --MASEM (t) 15:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I feel like Equestria Daily is independently notable and there's plenty of news articles covering it that aren't currently being used in the article itself. I do feel, however, that there should be a summary section in this article linking to it. Silver seren^C 02:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You should cite those in the article. None of the current articles actually cover the site, they merely mention it in passing. –Throwawaytv (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A week passed with no further discussion, and it seems there are still no sources that establish clear notability for Equestria Daily. –Throwawaytv (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ref drop for Jerry Springer stuff, not yet ready to add

[5] If the call for bronies from Springer actually gets a show about it, then we can add this, but I don't think we can add it just yet otherwise. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

My natural cynicism says the show will eventually air, then inevitably controversy will rise about whether the guest was an actual brony or just someone hired to pose as one, etc., just like with Stern. As it stands now, though, I agree that there's no need to throw it in yet. We'll see how things develop. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Example of brony music

This http://soundcloud.com/thelivingtombstone/tombstonediscord could probably be uploaded. It's under non-free Creative Commons license, and it's in the Rolling Stone article. The Burdened (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No it can't, it would have to be treated as non-free, because it has the non-commercial reuse factor. If it were completely free, (CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA) I could argue for a sample inclusion, but without that being the case, it's just a piece of music with no critical discussion of its style/influence and would fail WP:NFCC. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

POV bias

It seems to me that the majority of the article seems to be heaping positive praise on bronies and defending their culture as noble, bright, etc. etc. with only a passing measure of the more negative aspects (including the bestiality fetish subgroup of the fandom.) Thus, I'm requesting that the article be checked for a NPOV. 24.165.160.223 (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Because there are very few reliable sources that discuss the negative aspects of the fandom; most of the outside sources praise the fandom, so there is no POV bias here given what the sources say. (We have no RS that discuss this fandom in terms of bestiality, so that's an invalid point). We've also had several CEs and the GA process, so if there was POV, it would have been caught then. --MASEM (t) 04:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Just as a lack of negative reaction does not mean an action is good, the lack of sources that present an opposing opinion does not mean that the article has a neutral point of view. It's also very likely that the CE/GA processes were performed -by- members of the brony fandom, who would rather try to shed a good light on their own group than give anyone the chance to provide a critical analysis of the group's very real faults (namely, the subgroup based around bestiality/furry culture.) The POV check is necessary, in my opinion -- in fact, that it is my opinion is probably reason enough to check for POV as any sort of consensus would, again, largely come from the positive-POV based members of the brony fandom and result in the striking down of attempts to shed some light on the growing, darker underculture of the brony fandom.24.165.160.223 (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you want to see more coverage of the "darker" side of the fandom. First, this is addressed, in that the adult material and concepts like "clop" are included. But that's the extent that the RS about the fandom give; I know, I've looked for them. The fact that you want to have inclusion of the "bestiality" aspect, for example, is a problem, because I've never seen that attached to the fandom from reliable sources. Perhaps from 4chan or other boards, but not reliable sources. The cover is balanced given what the sources say, and we still look for more - for example, this thing with the Jerry Springer show will likely come to pass and will likely show the brony fandom in a negative light - fine, when that does, we'll add it, but we can't do anything now about it. This is not denying the darker side exists, only that we simply don't have sources to cover it. --MASEM (t) 05:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I will also point out that you are specifically trying introduce a very contentious claim: that sexual fantasies about pony characters is bestiality. That absolutely needs a reliable source or two to back up, and I know they don't exist (yet). You cannot put that claim in yourself without sourcing it, and it will continue to be removed - as well as your calls for POV issues if that's the basis of what you think is missing. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Source added.24.165.160.223 (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, are you trying to imply that masturbating to ponies is not bestiality? 24.165.160.223 (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Know your Meme - a user-contributed wiki site - is not reliable, and you removed one of the sources that was actually critical of the fandom and even with KWM the Wingboner page makes no mention of bestiality. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

And knowing the furry fandom side of things, "yes" masturbating to anthropomorphic, sentient characters that simply happen to be pony-shaped is not bestiality. Even the furry fandom page here on WP doesn't mention that. Now, if a reliable source in their opinion called out the fandom is into bestiality, maybe there's reason to include, but that simply doesn't exist right now. --MASEM (t) 05:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not accusing the fandom of bestality. I'm stating that the pornographic subculture of the fandom has similarities to bestiality due to the sexualized depiction of animals. How is this information incorrect?24.165.160.223 (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Claiming that a group of people commit an extremely deviant act like bestiality is a huge contentious claim that absolutely needs a source to make that assertion. You cannot say "oh, they get off to animals, ergo it's bestiality", that's both original research and far from a neutral point-of-view. It fails WP:BLP. Also remember, there's a far cry being imagination and actually performing said acts, the latter being what "bestiality" actually applies to. --MASEM (t) 05:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm claiming that a small group of people within a group of people masturbate to pornography My Little Pony, which is zoophilic by dictionary definition of the term (zoophilia being a sexual attraction to animals.)24.165.160.223 (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a contentious claim and you need a source that specifically links bronies to that from a reliable source (can't be a blog, a forum, a WP:SPS or the like). You cannot make that claim yourself otherwise you're failing WP:OR. Now, I will stress - the Howard Stern show people highlighted the sexual aspects of the fandom , but as best I know it did not take it as far as bestiality or zoophilia; that's the closest we can come to that, but without additional sourcing we can't go further. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

They sexualize animals. Sexualizing animals is defined as zoophilia. Therefore, they are zoophilic. Both the fact that they sexualize animals and the fact that zoophilia is the sexualization of animals can be sourced. Where is the problem here?24.165.160.223 (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, knowing the arguments from the furry fandom side (where technically the same definition applies), most would shoot that argument down, because generally the characters have anthropomorphic and humanized characteristics and thus not meet the normal definition of it. I am 99.99999% sure that most of the brony fandom would follow that same logic. Because the terms "bestiality" and "zoophilia" are inheriently negative, you cannot just make the claim and walk away. You need a source that makes that claim for you. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You're... arguing that... because the person being accused disagrees with the accusation, therefore it's not true? What? I don't even... 24.165.160.223 (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you demonstrate these sources here? -— Isarra (HG) ༆ 05:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/zoophilia - "an erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact"

http://www.vita.mn/story.php?id=162941186 - "The Stern segment touches on something important: Rule 34. It's an Internet adage stating that if a thing exists, there is porn out there involving it. I have seen more examples of Rule 34 than I care to (balloons, the Eiffel Tower, Jem & The Holograms), so I know that there are some Bronies who want to bang ponies."

There's your two sources, stating that A. some bronies B. sexualize ponies (animals), and that B. the sexualization of animals is C. zoophilia. Therefore, some bronies are zoophilic. 24.165.160.223 (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:SYNTHESIS. -— Isarra (HG) ༆ 05:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The dictionary source shouldn't even be necessary. We're talking about a word that is part of the English language, there is no reason to prove that a word means what it is defined as meaning.24.165.160.223 (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The words bestiality and zoophilia have negative connotations, and thus are immediately POV terms. You cannot use simple logic to connect these, per SYNTH, you need a source to do that. We similarly cant use terms of praise for the fandom - we can't say that just because 10,000 piece of fan art exist that the group is creative; but there are more than enough sources to make that connection for us, avoiding the SYNTH problem. --MASEM (t) 06:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

At this point, it seems like you're trying to game the system by relying on the synthesis issue to avoid adding another critical viewpoint of the fandom, or at least a part of the fandom. What is the difference between saying "Some bronies masturbate to pornography of ponies" and "Some bronies have zoophilic tendencies towards ponies"?24.165.160.223 (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Because I am pretty sure that there would be a significant portion of the fandom that, though they might agree with the "masturbation" sentence, would take great offense at the second statement. Again, the argument that you're saying about zoophilia would apply to the furry fandom, but I know that if you try to tag that group with it, they will refuse to accept it. A key factor here is that, at least from furry fandom, they consider the characters to be sentient, human-like in manners, and otherwise as far from a non-sentient animal that the terms bestiality and zoophilia would normally apply to. --MASEM (t) 06:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the focus of Wikipedia was to provide true and accurate information, not avoid offending people. In any case, can you source your claim stating that masturbation to anthropomorphic ponies is not zoophilic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.160.223 (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to add this viewpoint, please either find a direct and reliable source for specifically that or stop arguing. Not trying to be dismissive, but this is not getting anywhere. -— Isarra (HG) ༆ 06:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There's an overwhelming wealth of private blogs, Youtube videos, etc. calling attention to the part of the fandom that has zoophilic tendencies towards ponies: just do a google search for "my little pony zoophilia". Are you saying this should just be conveniently ignored because a scientist didn't say it? You're trying to promote a point of view that favours putting bronies in a good light and you're abusing the lack of reliable critical sources to do so. The only sources of information that provide a non-positive view of the fandom are worded to appear that bronies are being pursecuted.

Dude, shut up, considering that you are so obsessed with trying to add one sentence implies that you don't actually care about the integrity of the article and you just want to slanderize bronies. First, it's not zoophilia because zoophilia implies an attraction to animals over people, this is not the case as in 34 the ponies are sexualized for being characters, not for being ponies. Second, it shouldn't be added because it's not significant. Some white people masturbate to black women, but that isn't on the page for white people because no one cares, it's completely irrelevant. Ponies are no more sexualized than any fandom, if anything they are less sexualized because I've seen more backlash against sexual content in the brony fandom than in other fandoms. It's already been mentioned that adult content exists, there doesn't need to be anything more about clop. You are the one with the severe POV bias.

24.165.160.223 (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Please find such sources before continuing to argue over the article's POV bias. –Throwawaytv (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there still room for a controversy section for EQD?

Sorry if this turns out to be a little late, (since you merged it over the weekend!) but I've been looking for an example of Equestria Daily's tendancy to post critical material. They've called for a mass vote or invasion of a website in the past. And I've finally got proof by caching the page before it was deleted/covered up since the talk page needed it as a requirement for reference. The following appeared in my news feed http://www.buzzfeed.com/katienotopoulos/bronies-dew-dreams-dashed leading me to be able to catch this before it was deleted: http://www.freezepage.com/1344888713ONANEWMZLM One of the editors made a stand alone post (not a wrap up) about voting for Applejack as the new Mountain Dew flavor name. Followed by an article label "CHAAARGE". 171.159.64.10 (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I know that I saw other MLP sites and fans pushing the naming contest before EQD posted it this morning, and at that point, "Applejack" was still in second place. But even then, is "vote stacking" really a criticism? Many fansites do engage in this , albeit maybe not so directly, and its still up to the readership to determine if its appropriate. Its certainly not a 4chan-level type vote-stacking where the original intent of the contest was screwed up because of their mass block. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The section needs expanding as a whole. There are six articles that mention Equestria Daily, all in passing, so finding more sources would allow you to integrate any criticism. –Throwawaytv (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Parallels between otaku and bronies

Bronies, Otaku, and My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, Part 1 and Part 2 covers a presentation by Bill Ellis, a professor emeritus from Penn State University, which draws parallels between bronies and otaku. –Throwawaytv (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal, BronyCon

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 to not merge. Throwawaytv (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose that BronyCon be merged into My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom. I think that the content in the BronyCon article can easily be explained in the context of MLPFIM fandom, and the MLPFIM fandom article is of a reasonable size that the merging of BronyCon will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. There is much overlap between the articles. The article is essentially a single paragraph about BronyCon's founding and its attendance, preceded by a summary of this article and followed by a summary of the BronyCon: The Documentary article which relies on primary sources. –Throwawaytv (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Didn't realize I was looking at an editorialized version of the article when I was voting, oppose per reasons given by Masem. █ EMARSEE 01:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What's changed? It's still one paragraph about the fandom, two paragraphs about the convention, and three paragraphs about the documentary. The part about the fandom already overlaps this article, the part about the documentary is virtually identical to the article about the documentary, and we're left with two paragraphs that would naturally blend into the "conventions" section of this article. Nothing was "editorialized". –Throwawaytv (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - The stuff you removed from the Bronycon article, claiming primary sources, is completely fine to include - we have to show it notable by secondary sources (Which is there via at least 3 articles, most recently the AP coverage of the summer con). The Bronycon Documentary is actually rather significant and if they are successful in making that a film festival entry, then it makes to keep it there. The overlap is only necessary to explain the brony fandom, just like we need a summary of the TV show here before talking about the fandom. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

To make things clear: the issues with the article are not the reason for the merger proposal. –Throwawaytv (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I continued the discussion about the article issues on the article's talk page. They are not the reason for the proposed merge. The reason is overlap, which makes up more than three quarters of the article. –Throwawaytv (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Except that your complaints about the Bronycon article (which do not follow what is allowed for by polcy) are trimming that down to make that a 3/4rds overlap; with the article before those, only one paragraph is semi-repetitive (introducing the show and bronies) and that is sorta required for an encyclopedic article. Furthermore, we know that Bronycon article is expected to grown with additional cons and with the release of the documentary, so it is not like that's all there is to say about the convention. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong Oppose per the reasons provided by Masem. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The article issues have been mostly fixed but the overlap still exists. Still it's clear that the merge won't go through. I guess at least the article's cleaner now. –Throwawaytv (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Derpygate

Article says "Some portions of the fandom felt her appearance and actions were negative reflections of mentally disabled persons" under photo with Derpy and Rainbow Dash. That's a bit misleading in my opinion, as there were just about 10 e-mails complaining about Derpy, as Amy Keating Rogers explained in open letter to the fans: http://www.equestriadaily.com/2012/02/amy-keating-rogers-response-to-derpy.html --79.173.32.183 (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: List of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic fan conventions; can it happen?

With Canterlot Gardens sporting a lot of notable people, including John DiMaggio and Andrew W.K., it's bound to attract a lot of media attention. This needs to warrant a question on if other notable conventions have their own seperate article, or if BronyCon and other future conventions be merged into a large, single list. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need it at this point, there's plenty of room for cons (outside of BC) in here. But perhaps after CG, EquestriaLA, and maybe some others there might be a reason. We want to see the coverage after the fact, not before. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Lulz and controversy regarding conventions

yeah, this has been known on 4chan's /mlp/ board for a while, but we never thought that it would be warranted it's own news article. Make use of whatever it seems worth to you. http://betabeat.com/2012/10/bro-no-scandal-rips-through-brony-community-as-bronycon-founder-purple-tinker-cries-slander/ Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Aware of it, but I'm worried that right now that starts to get into BLP issues so better to leave it off until proven otherwise. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Fallout: Equestria makes media.

http://www.dailydot.com/culture/fallout-equestria-fim-kkat-interview/ Use it for what it's worth to you. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Fallout: Equestria is not longest brony work

I'm afraid this is no longer the case. Even staying within the Fallout Equestria fandom, FoE:Project Horizons is longer by half. Out side of it, there are certain to be others. However, Fall: Equestria is the first brony fan fiction to be printed in hardback, to my knowledge. http://book.fallout-equestria.com/ 128.211.194.135 (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

We need reliable sources to affirm that. As only FO:E has been mentioned in reliable sources, that is what we go with. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

#Twitterponies

Why is there no reference to the #Twitterponies? There has been Bronies that Roleplays as the Shows ponies that as own original Characters and and show derivied character as well as Fan character.

Wiggelicous (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

We would need reliable sources, and I haven't seen anything towards that end. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

http://twitterponies.wikia.com/wiki/Twitterponies_Wiki is that source enough? Wiggelicous (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

We can't use external wikis for this. We need reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Circular reference note

A note that this Nov 30 2012 piece at Kotaku [6] does assert that it's borrowing heavily from this WP article, so using it for anything would be a circular reference, outside of any additional personal comments that Fahey himself says. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

We need to be careful...

...when writing sentences like

"Though most of the fans appreciated the inclusion, some parents had a negative response to the character, believing it insulted the mentally handicapped"

without any references stating it was actually "parents" who had a negative response; this could regarded as POV, in my opinion. I suggest that the term "parents" be replaced by a more generic "viewers", so that we may lean on the following ref (Nicole Agnello's statement) for this purpose.-- / Kàmi na / 09:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning of possible attack

So apparently the GNAA hacking group hit tumblr on Dec 3 targeting bronies, claimed as part of a larger anti-brony campaign. (This is in the article). Having no idea what GNAA is up to, I'm just going to suggest keeping a bit more vigilant on this and the other fandom pages just in case they hit Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

How is this page not permanently semi-protected yet? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

We could in fact use a semi-protection; vandals are pretty much coming at a constant rate on this page. Nothing we can't take measures about, sure, but I don't think a semi-protection request would be unfitting. If you will, I say go ahead with the request. Even though, I repeat, it's not really that urgent, in my opinion. -- / Kàmi na / 18:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A couple months ago the GNAA hacked the Bronystate.com livestream, blaming it on /v/ in a failed effort to trigger a flame war. I have seen other GNAA attacks performed on Wikipedia. This page needs Semi-Protection. It may not deter truly sophisticated vandals, but GNAA members are far from sophisticated in their trolling. Marechal Ney (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

MLP: Online

The article says that the creators are

seeking to recreate the game without the trademark issues.

This is never mentioned in the reference, and as far as I know the Starlight Studios are working on a different project than MLP: Online. "Recreate the game" should be changed to "create a brand new game". :) -- / Kàmi na / 11:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hasbro's Copyright Stance

Seeing how Hasbro has sent cease and desist orders to several fan projects, such as Fighting is Magic and the Mentally Advanced parody series, can it be put down that their tolerance for this is decreasing? 207.216.213.8 (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Updated to reflect - though we also don't have evidence they're coming down hard. (contentID is a youtube thing, and less Hasbro) --MASEM (t) 07:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

2 cents on EQD pageviews

On one hand, I can see Masem's (and other people's) point when they say we need a source to update the Equestria Daily pageviews count; following this principle, though, we should stick to the 36 million milestone mentioned in the article ("Ponies DO Sondheim" was written back in Sep 2011), which I regard as a pretty old one. My proposal is to just write "more than 300 million" and not update it at *least* till it gets to 350 million (or even 400 million). Given the size of these numbers, 10M makes little difference. But at the same time we can't ignore that there are currently more than 300M pageviews and say "over 36M" just because the (outdated) article says so. -- / Kàmi na / 19:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at that original number, and realized that it has been increased by others (before revision checks were in place). The original number is important in that 36M in ~9 months is an impressive metric. Additionally, I do note that EQD themselves announced the milestone of 300, so I think we can fairly state both the initial growth number, and then when EQD reports on their own pageview #s (or until we get a separate reliable source) go with their noted milestones. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It's fine to me; I don't think there are any reliable sources other than EQD to rely on for later pageviews updates; EQD will do, in this case. How could we phrase the sentence so as to include both the sources in a smooth way? -- / Kàmi na / 17:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

SOmething like, "Founded in January 2011, EQD had over 32 million pageviews in its first 9 months,(ref), and since has surpassed 300 million views in <month year>.(eqd ref)." This gives the key numbers and time frames to let the reader judge how big those are. --MASEM (t) 17:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Perfect. I took the liberty to edit the paragraph. :)-- / Kàmi na / 11:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal, Fighting Is Magic

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 merger. IsaacAA (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The Fighting is Magic article has major notability issues as a standalone article. I just know this is going to start some kind of flame war, but at the same time I feel a need to be bold and do what needs to be done. I have respect for Mane6, but there are more notable things in the fandom, and there should really be no special treatment here. Fighting is Magic is not an official Hasbro product nor is it being worked on by anyone who has worked on the show (unlike, for example, the de Lancie documentary. ~ Pony Toast...§ 17:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Er, it's notable. It was covered by external video game sources, as well as its closure. Just because it (likely) won't happen doesn't make it non-notable. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Overlap: The articles overlap only a little, with about a single paragraph about overlapping material out of about thirty paragraphs. Text: Neither article is very short. Context: The context is adequately covered in a single paragraph on the Fighting is Magic article. The merge does not satisfy any of the reasons for merger. I oppose. You need to review the notability guidelines, Fighting is Magic meets them fairly well. IsaacAA (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose - This article is clearly able to continue existing in it's present form. It's notability is well established. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No Merge - It has notability as it was covered by outside sources as the other users here have stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.91.15 (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are there any sources dealing with the low number of females in the fandom?

There's nothing inherently masculine about the show, yet the teen and adult fans are 80%-90% male, if the online surveys are accurate. Are there any sources that deal specifically with why the percentage of teen and adult fans is disproportionately male? –Throwawaytv (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any source that specifically addresses this point. The fact there are a large number of male fans, yes. The fact that they love the show without care of others riduculing them for it, yes. But why so heavily male, not really. I'd postulate myself it is specifically because the 4chan-like culture the fandom derives from is male-dominated, and the fact that a male likely a show for girls is a statement, but those are my ideas and far from documented. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

ill see what i can do for sources on the female audience--Sarah Nordic (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

We can only find out how accurate the poll is by comparing it to the sample, if the demographic from which the sample was taken, as is the case with most websites, than the result will be skewed. Also, it's only significant if it contrasts the demographics for other fandoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.228.108.125 (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Las Pegasus Unicon controversy

I've been following LPU's fallout closely on /mlp/ since it happened over two weeks ago and we now have our first reliable source covering LPU's troubles. http://www.dailydot.com/news/lasPegasus-unicon-tara-strong-fail/ There is confirmation from the various show staffers (e.g. Tara Strong, Daniel Ingram, M.A. Larson) that they haven't been paid for their appearence or had their cheques bounced, so it should pass WP:V unlike the controversies surrounding previous brony conventions. I'd like to hear what others think about this. █ EMARSEE 01:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Was this a for-profit outfit, or a not-for-profit fan-run event? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK Sandi Haas - the head of LPU - is the sole owner of LPU. I have very little understanding of business laws in Nevada but my understanding is LPU would have been for profit as you cannot run a nonprofit sole proprietorship. █ EMARSEE 04:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As I've said before in other venues, a for-profit "convention" is like a for-profit "church"; I regard them with nothing but contempt. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is fine (the one from Daily Dot), but I'm trying to figure how to include it without giving it too much undue weight (given its one source). It is not so much a slight on the fandom, though the charity drive to correct things after is more appropriate. --MASEM (t) 05:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied that this event is notable enough to make it into the article at all. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident the con itself or even its fallout is not notable - outside of Tara Strong's cancelling of a few cons, we've not seen any further response from Hasbro or other VAs/etc that reflect on this, or at least anything that WP can use. That said, as the DD article points out, the charity of the community to try to financial help out the con after it crashed and burned might be worthwhile in a section about brony charity efforts. But I'm not 100% sure on that yet since only the DD is the only non-fan source reporting this. --MASEM (t) 17:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the community was raising money to help the people burned by the con, not the con itself; which is as it should be. But so far, we've got an item that fails WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, not to mention WP:BLP. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: If I put in info about the con, it would have nothing about who organized it or what happened (without additional sourcing outside of the community), short of several ppl needed to be helped immediately after it broke down. It would be simple something like, in the area about charitable efforts: "The brony community came to aid those put out financially due to an operational breakdown at the LPU." But, again, I'm not set on adding that yet as it feels forced. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

More sources: http://geek-news.mtv.com/2013/03/12/las-pegasus-unicon/ http://justusgeeks.com/trouble-in-ponyville-first-year-con-laspegasus-unicon-crashes-and-burns/ https://www.comicscrux.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1055:fear-and-loathing-at-unicon&catid=7&Itemid=61 http://panelsonpages.com/?p=61302 --GoldenMew (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seen all those, and they all effectively cite the Daily Dot article and provide nothing new over it. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)