Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom/Archive 2

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

Is pending changes protection really necessary?

Looking at the edit history, it looks like the page gets maybe one or two vandal edits a week. I suggest removing the pending changes protection. --Ashenai (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is being used as a test of the pending changes on a page that has attracted problems in the past. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Census 2013

We might need to update information with the latest 2013 Census. Unless that was done already... MarcowyGnom (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Quick question, is ther a section for the fandom memes? Or with this be left off the wiki? Dowa2bp (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

They have to be noted in reliable (not fan) sources. So we have the "everypony" and "plot" aspects but other memes, even the "20% cooler", aren't listed, and likely should not be unless they are a major part. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Discord

Maybe an internal link for Discord. Discord is mentioned three times in the article. Maybe not just link the first mention in the text, but also the mention under the image of John de Lancie. It says De Lancie voiced Discord; made me want to click Discord at that location. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Done I wikilinked it. --Yellow1996 (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Brony Thank You Fund tax-exempted

It looks like the Brony Thank You Fund has achieved the tax exempt status. I doubt there's any sourcing for this other than the usual brony channels (like EQD and DHN). The information is nonetheless relevant, though: first off, it makes our article reporting about the BTYF's application for tax exemption obsolete; second, maybe it's worth mentioning that (at least according to the Fund's own site), this could make the Brony fandom the first media-related fandom to ever "create their own full-fledged tax-exempt charity". I'm unsure about the latter, due to the lack of sources. Any considerations? -- / Kàmi na / 16:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

We'd need a source to affirm it being the first such except charity , but it would be a good thing to add if we can find that. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the info and retrieving a source. But I noticed that the BTYF is mentioned twice in the article; it's probably redundant, since the brief mention in "Arts and entertainment" (btw, wrong category?) doesn't really add much to the article. I would advocate that we merge the paragraphs. -- / Kàmi na / 16:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Good eye , and with a bit more editing, I've pulled out a separate "charity and fundraising" section for all this stuff. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Size of fandom?

I admit, I didn't read the article in its entirety so maybe it's there and I missed it but do we have any information on how many people watch the show? I'm not even sure how such information would be collected since many bronies watch online and only a fraction become probably become members of Equestriadaily or Bronychan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.32.67 (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no hard numbers, estimates are made from surveys and ratings. We have a high end (extreme) based on statistical analysis of ~7 million but I suspect its around 100,000-500,000 based on fan involvement. --MASEM (t) 04:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

According to a Google Consumer Survey carried out among overage Internet users the United States by the publishers of the "2013 State of the Herd Report", there are between 7 and 12.4 million bronies in the United States.

Furthermore, if you go to page 15 of the aforementioned report, you'll see that in the census these people carried out around 64% of respondents lived in the United States (the census was available in varios languages).

If you divide 1 by 0.60 (instead of 0.64, as I doubt the census is representative of fans of the show outside the anglosphere) and multiply the result, 1.6666…, by the 7–12.4 million estimated bronies in the United States, you get a very rough final estimate of 10 to 21 million fans of the show worldwide.--Mαuri^’96 “...over the Borderline” 01:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't prove this so have no grounds to change the article, but I strongly suspect that the multi-millions reported by that census are a substantial overestimate. The survey details suggest that the number of respondents from the UK was a little under 10% of that from the US. In other words, a minimum of 700,000 British bronies. I'm in the UK myself, but I don't think I've ever met someone who thinks that figure is remotely accurate. Evidence is circumstantial -- eg the almost total lack of brony-targeted merchandise (apart from in a few specialist shops) -- but there's very little counter-evidence. My guess would be that the UK fandom is numbers in the tens of thousands. Try as I might, I can't reconcile an estimate of 700,000+ with reality. Loganberry (Talk) 15:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Those numbers were specifically stated as all statistical, and with an uncertainly range. The better numbers are of course considering how many actually took the Brony Study survey (at least 20,000) as a start. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking to place a section on fandom's negative reaction to show changes

We have enough articles from RS about parts of the fandom reacting negatively to changes (From Derpy, to Twilight Alicorn, to EQG) with a sense of entitlement (along with counterpoints about overreactions). I believe its necessary to add this (both sides) to show that the fandom does react poorly as well (balance) and since we can do that with RS, it avoids it making sound like an internal issue. I'm trying to think where to place this within this article but can't figure out a good section. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I'd say in between Hasbro and The Hub and In Other Media under the "Reactions" heading. --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

::While I strongly support the idea, I'm not sure that the "Reaction" heading is appropriate, since it refers to people's reaction to the fandom, rather than the fandom's reaction to the show. Maybe an entirely new heading between "Reaction" and "In popular culture"?-- / Kàmi na / 15:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC) P.S. Sorry, just realized the section had already been reorganized. It fits just fine, so please ignore my former comment.-- / Kàmi na / 15:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"React poorly" is completely subjective, and thus has no place on wikipedia. "Sense of entitlement" is also an opinionated phrase that does not belong on wikipedia (and is mainly used as part of a strawman argument). The objective part of information can be included, but it's debatable if it's significant as all fandoms have negative reactions to change, it's part of human nature.

Age of the fandom

I read in the introduction that bronies are mostly 18-35 years old; is this referencing a source in particular (rather than WP:SYNTH)? I know from reading the page's history that Masem may help me on this one by telling me which source explicitly specifies the age ranges (I could go through the sources, but it's kinda a lot of work). I need this information on the Italian version of the page. Thanks for helping. ;) -- / Kàmi na / 10:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that number has perculated from sources not as any exactly range, but because in considering demographics for advertizing, "18-35" is equivalent to young adult, and sources tend to fall on that. The Brony study has the age range from 17 to 57 (the lower bound set by privacy restrictions), average age at about 21. --MASEM (t) 12:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we'd better rephrase that part so as to not have to rely on specific sources -- which I think it's sort of called for when talking about numbers -- and limit ourselves to mentioning the "elder" nature of the fandom. The explicit mention of numbers makes me want to have a source immediately justifying the info. Plus, I for one know there are lot of bronies who are, say, 15-17 as well (or were two years ago); they must be accounted for, too. If the Brony Study falls short to probing the under-17 portion of the fandom, it's more reason to have a generic, yet accurate, introduction -- and one we have more than enough RS to vouch for.-- / Kàmi na / 14:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

We certainly can use the Brony Study as an RS here (the people that run it are university professors), but they do have to be careful on youth privacy. I have not seen much in RS that talk about under-17 statistics, though clearly they exist, but I think that the idea is that the fascination is on the "young adults that watch a girl's show", hence why the 17-35 year focus. I think to reword, we can cite the Brony Study for the age group, and note it does not account for those younger than 17. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this solution works well. Personally, I would include into the "brony" group the under-17 as well (still kinda "surprising" fans, as long as they're not either very young kids or their parents), but without sources it doesn't sound reasonable nor WP:OR-free to try "stretching" the age range downwards. Never meant to question the Brony Study's reliability, by the way. :) Maybe wait a day or two for more opinions, if any. -- / Kàmi na / 21:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I too would like to see a mention of the under-17 group; so long as an RS can be provided... I think though that the main fascination by people who aren't part of the fandom is that "adults watch a show meant for little girls?!" and - usually - "adults" refers to people ages 18+. --Yellow1996 (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Bronies are only "18-35" years old if you only define bronies as being adults. There are far more teenage bronies than bronies in their 30s, and the center has been shown to be in the early 20s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.192.36.134 (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah; I think the best definition for bronies is anyone who is a fan of MLP:FiM that isn't a young girl (the original target age demographic.) --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 20:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

As much as I agree with you, recall that we have to stick to RS in order to try and define what a "brony" is. Not doing so would classify as WP:RO. Now... who's up to browse through all the RS we have gathered to find a decent definition? :D -- / Kàmi na / 15:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Well the sentence says "typically", which I had missed until now; so I guess it's not really an issue. ;) --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 16:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that that sentence is "genuine" in portraying the actual fandom "typical" age range—whatever this could mean—, but I guess it's sort of what the RS provide us with. Therefore, I say keep it like that. :) -- / Kàmi na / 07:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good - let's keep it as-is - until someone with the time sorts through all the reliable sources we have so far, that is! ;) --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 03:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

A little concern on the last edit

I'm slightly concerned by this sentence: "The interest in the My Little Pony line by bronies has been partially attributed towards increased sales of the franchise, which, as of October 2013, is one of Hasbro's best-selling brands;" I was wondering if this can in fact be inferred from this source, where I merely read that "My Little Pony in recent years has also generated interest from so-called “bronies,” adult men that are fans of the “My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic” TV show, which was launched in late 2010." I may be missing something, but I think that the article is just assessing the existence of the brony fandom, not necessarily acknowledging its contribution towards the brand's sales. -- / Kàmi na / 16:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right, I might be reading too much into it. I know we can't fully attribute sales #s to brony, but I know a previous, non-RS source, had the number around 5% which is small but non-trivial. Feel free to remove/revert if you believe it's not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah; I agree. The source doesn't mention an increase of sales, only an increase in "interest" - which could mean anything. It's no doubt true to an extent, so really isn't an "inappropriate" sentence; but it can't be backed up by any of the sources we have on the article as of now... --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 18:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I took out that line per this talk. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you both that it's likely that the bronies' interest must have translated into higher sales figures for Hasbro, but WP:OR prevents us from drawing such conclusions, which is what had me concerned. Now it looks perfectly fine. :) -- / Kàmi na / 11:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"Fandom"?

Seriously, "fandom"? What about "Reception of <title>" or something else? --George Ho (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess I see your point, but fandom, which we define to be "a subculture composed of fans characterized by a feeling of sympathy and camaraderie with others who share a common interest", sounds appropriate enough for this article's purpose. -- / Kàmi na / 09:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not about the show, its about the fans of the show. (the show has its own page and own reception sections). I mean, for all purposes, this is a page about "bronies" but I know not everyone in the fan base likes that word, so hence why its avoided (other fandom articles take this approach too). --MASEM (t) 16:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Plus, it's not all about the reception, either. The only other title that would really work properly for this page would be "Bronies" - but this wouldn't be a good choice for the reason that Masem pointed out. Also because people who don't know what that word means wouldn't be able to find the page as easily... "fandom" is more widely understood. --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 20:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources for conventions

Some of the conventions haven't been sourced. I found sources for BUCK [1] and GalaCon [2], but I haven't yet found anything for the other cons yet to be cited (Big Apple Ponycon, Sweet Apple Acres Con). --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

More info than we can source about the Derpy scholarship

Quoting from the article:

"In December of 2013, the Fund donated $50,000 to endow a scholarship in perpetuity at the California Institute of the Arts, to be known as the Derpy Hooves Animation Scholarship."

The cited source, that American Conservative article, doesn't mention December 2013 or the name of the scholarship; the info is reported in the Fund's own website, where they mention that "the plan is still for the scholarship to carry Derpy’s name". I would advise to omit the scholarship's name for now, while keeping the useful information about the date (we could use the Fund's article to source that). What do you think? -- / Kàmi na / 11:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, given the mention in the AC, we can then "supplement" with the primary source (that's appropriate use of sourcing), but I do agree the name isn't as important as the fact it is for animation. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Done -- / Kàmi na / 10:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Grayson

Someone correctly pointed out the citations don't really mention any anti-bullying group siding with Grayson; maybe we could use this source? I think the very last sentence is meaningful to this end: "Apparently thousands of others agree. A friend of Grayson’s four days ago created a Facebook support page for him that’s garnered more than 11,700 likes as of Saturday evening." -- / Kàmi na / 08:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

Hello. I was the one who marked what Kamina describes above. I'd also like to ask about this bit of prose: ...and several anti-bully groups, including people like Glenn Beck, stood up for the boy's actions. Does Glenn Beck run an anti-bullying organization, or is this just an awkward juxtaposition? Anon126 (talk - contribs) 21:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's awkward, but thanks to MSNBC I can mention the grayson FB support page and fix that. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Furry fandom

Is there any particular reason why furry fandom needs to be listed in the related articles list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.192.36.134 (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I at least can't think of any. The link was added without discussion on November 16th by Jarble and stayed unnoticed. While I'm convinced it was a bona fide edit, I'm deleting the link in view of previously established consensus. Thanks for pointing that out. :) -- / Kàmi na / 10:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kamina: Furry fandom is mentioned in this section of the article as one of the influences on the My Little Pony fandom. That's why I added the link. Jarble (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The furry fandom's influence on the brony fandom is marginal at best (RS support this claim), and hardly enough to fully justify a See also link. The fact that furries are mentioned in the article doesn't mean they should be included in the SA section--more like the other way around, since (and here I'm quoting) "as a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes."

As a personal opinions, while the fandoms do share similitarities, one could argue pretty much the same about every other well-established Internet fandom (Whovians and Trekkies come to mind, just to name two); also, as it's my experience (and I think was already pointed out in this discussion page), most bronies wouldn't classify themselves as 'furry', or if they did, they would likely keep the labels separate. Hence my strong opposition to including "Furry fandom" in the See also section. -- / Kàmi na / 15:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, I'm a little perplexed by this source you added. I can't say I'm familiar with the website, but at first look I doubt it classifies as 'reliable source': the site describes itself as a "news magazine for furry fandom, written by the community since 2001." EDIT 2: This isn't me trying to dismiss the content of the source itself, mind you. I'm fully convinced that there's a notable number of bronies in the furry community (which, as a side note, doesn't amount to saying that a notable number of bronies are furry); I just don't think the source meets the WP standards, and should therefore be removed.-- / Kàmi na / 15:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I proceeded to remove the aforementioned source as its reliability appears questionable. Please discuss on this page if you object my evaluation.-- / Kàmi na / 10:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I've run into the site a few times in the past; indeed it is user-generated and I agree with your action. :) --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 22:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

While the main characters are animals, "bronies" are just fans of the show and "furries" are fans of anything to do with anthropomorphic animals. They aren't exactly the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.117.123 (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

There's crossover but yes, not all bronies are furries, not all furries are bronies. But there was a sufficient drive from the furry side to give interest to the bronies. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Happy April Fools' Day!

Someone (not me) redirected the article on horse worship here for April Fools' Day. Have a laugh. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 03:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Weird census

" An informal statistical census suggests within 95% confidence that as of September 2012, there are between 7 and 12.4 million people in the United States that would identify themselves as bronies"

This is quite unlikely result. As there are 300 milion people in united states, half of them are woman, Adding age restriction 20-30 years decreases this to less than 30 million. So every forth person in target demographic is a brony, which looks bit unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.198.59 (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the "95% confidence" part; that is not from a reliable source, only in a Wikipedia-unreliable survey cited by the reliable source. The remaining text is verifiable because it comes from a reliable source (specifically, an article from The Atlantic), so it should stand.

~~Keep in mind that talk pages (like this one) are for improving articles, not general discussion forums. But~~ if you are interested in the methodology of the original survey, it can be found at http://herdcensus.com/generalsurvey.shtml Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The whole thing is garbage. You cannot calculate reliable confidence intervals with non-random sampling. The response rate was 17%. So much selection bias in the sampling it hurts (e.g., wording, time sampling occurred, etc.). It's s stretch to extrapolate from the self-identification to all internet users. This is self-published rubbish and I'm amazed any of those websites picked it up. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Concerning File:A Brony Tale Hashtag Contest.jpg

This image was uploaded to Commons, but it is non-free, so it will soon be deleted from there. I'm wondering, though, if it meets the non-free content criteria. My main concern is #8, "contextual significance": Is this really useful for understanding. Anon126 (please ping!-talk-contribs) 20:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think the article can do just fine without that particular image. Adds very little to the paragraph. -- / Kàmi na / 11:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Glenn Beck and Grayson Bruce

The story of Grayson and the fact that Beck stood up for him is already mentioned in section "Criticism", do we really need to have that long paragraph in "Popular culture"? And by the way, why "Popular culture"? I would suggest that we migrate the most relevant info/sources in the previously-existent paragraph in "Criticism", then dispose of the rest.-- / Kàmi na / 09:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

On the documentary kickstarter source

The problem with using KS's stats page is that there is no way to say from the way the present page is laid out what "rank" the documentary came in at that time - at best it does require a bit of original research to make that conclusion; if it was something that ended today, we could figure that out without question, but not down the road. And while Bleeding Cool is not the most reliable source in the world (yes, it's an SPS), it is at least a third-party that observed the position of the documentary at the time of its close to be useable as a source to make that claim. Of course there's been other documentaries that have outfunded it - that's the nature of KS - but we don't need to worry about that at this time. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

source for Kickstarter project ranking

I believe the old source, a blog, violates WP:SPS, and anyway it just borrows—vaguely, at that—from the current Kickstarter page, which will always be available. Its ranking at time of funding can be deduced by ignoring all subsequent projects in the “Film & Video” category when going through the list. This will be verifiable until Kickstarter goes down sometime in the distant future or once enough projects have surpassed it to make filtering the list manually impractical. Unfortunately, there is no way to sort the list by date of funding. I would make an archive, but the project only shows up when extending the page once, which does not modify the URL. Maybe we should use both sources? Let’s discuss further. Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 08:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The current KS stats page requires WP:SYNTH to figure out where the documentary funding fell at the time it was completed; yes it can be figured out but it requires knowing details that are beyond simple math. Bleeding Cool published their take at the funding at the time of the funding's closure, so while they are getting their details from the KS page, that's a valid RS record of when the funding was completed, even if the source may edge on an SPS - SPS's aren't disallowed, just to be used carefully and this is a case where it is fine - they report the data easily read off at the end of the funding period. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It really doesn’t require that much math to ignore dates beyond the funding period of a project, so it doesn’t encroach on WP:OR. WP:SYNTH is out of the question, as we’re not combining multiple sources; rather, we are citing a source that is not generally reliable and adding the source they themselves used in order to disambiguate. I would agree to using Bleeding Cool as a secondary source, but we could also add a note to the Kickstarter citation describing the quite simple process of ignoring all projects funded after this one. Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 20:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that WP:SYNTH isn't the problem here, but at the same time I believe that requiring the reader to go through the list and manually sort out info which is not readily available (although this isn't *currently* a big deal) would be quite cumbersome, especially as the number of projects is bound to grow up in the future (note that the number of Film/Videos surpassing the documentary in the matter of funding has increased a lot in the last two years alone, and I'd surmise this isn't going to change anytime soon; KS has apparently proved a pretty popular way to crowdfund this kind of projects). In lack of a "cleaner" way, I would suggest to use the Bleeding Cool article as a primary source, and possibly explain with a note in what way the article is misleading. I use 'misleading' rather than 'incorrect' for a reason: note that the title of said article is "Bronies Make My Little Pony Convention Film The Second Most Funded In The History Of Kickstarter", which warrants interpreting "the second most funded" as implying "film"; it's the last sentence in the article that is potentially misleading, but upon a close examination it isn't really *wrong* in any way. -- / Kàmi na / 12:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Any feedback? If no objections show up by tomorrow, I'm going to restore the Bleeding Cool source. Still unsure whether we should put further information in the note. -- / Kàmi na / 15:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC) EDIT:

Done, still open to further discussion. -- / Kàmi na / 09:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Pared down Criticism section

The Criticism section was a long, meandering collection of anecdotes, many of which weren't about the fandom at all. I removed the parts that didn't seem to pertain to the fandom at all (a nine-year-old kid being bullied for his Rainbow Dash backpack or some guy getting fired because he wouldn't shut up about ponies is not "criticism of the fandom"), or that were about random internet trolling (every fandom/subculture/internet presence gets trolled, this is not noteworthy or interesting,) or that weren't criticism, or a response to criticism, at all (the whole Jerry Springer thing, or some fans being disappointed with changes in the show.)

I feel the pared-down section is stronger and gives a clearer overview of what the section is supposed to be about (criticism of the fandom, and debates relating to that criticism) instead of just being "things that happened on the internet and were somehow related to bronies." --Ashenai (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I mostly oppose your decision to "pare down" this section. In fact, the only deletion I'm prone to agree with is the GNAA trolling, which admittedly doesn't hold much weight in the economy of the section. Now to the reasons I think your edit is inappropriate.
First off, the length of a section is by no means a criterion to cut parts of it; second off, its "meandering" nature as a "collection of anecdotes" is probably inevitable due to the fact that this kind of episodes, which are well-sourced facts and IMO meaningful by themselves, happen with a highly irregular cadence. If anything—and this is something I already pointed out time ago—we should separate the criticism of the fandom from the facts which happened in the fandom, or at least have the section title changed to something more encompassing.
While it's true that the story of Grayson Bruce or the fired brony are not strictly "criticism", they're worthy of mention because 1) they provide useful context to understand the kind of social response fans of the show are or have been liable to encounter; and 2) several media outlets reported the episodes, thus making them noteworthy. The same holds true for the Jerry Springer episode.
Finally, I'm unsure about the fandom's own reaction to changes in the show. They're probably dispensable, and they certainly belongs to a different section altogether; but I'd like to discuss further about this particular topic in the near future, rather than prune the whole thing without a second thought. -- / Kàmi na / 12:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: I'd also like to notify I won't be able to reply during the period going from later in the evening to Aug 4, so please understand that a lack of replies on my end is not to be taken as disinterest or negligence, thank you. -- / Kàmi na / 12:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of criticism sections in general, but I feel that if this article has one, it should be a clearly understandable illustration of arguments made by both sides. That's what I was going for with my edit, and I feel like it works now. If someone wants to know what bronies are being accused of (pedophilia, corrupting young people with NSFW stuff, creepy immaturity), and by whom, then the section makes that clear. If they want to see the other side of the argument, that's there too! I don't think any of the stuff I removed helps illustrate any of this. Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it belongs in an article.

That said, I'm not really against any of the content as such, I'm just not a fan of seeing it shoveled into the Criticism section for no reason, without rhyme or reason. I was being WP:BOLD: my edit just reflected what I felt would be a better version.

It's a big fandom. Adding every event that affects its members in some way will quickly make the article worthless. Not because it would be too long (although it certainly would,) but because it would be incomprehensible, without any clear direction. "A list of things that happened and somehow involved one or more bronies and was covered by sources" is not a useful or needed section.unrelated

I'm sure much of this is just my subjective opinion, so, well, hopefully I've explained what I was going for. I hope other people will chime in here, and I'll be happy with whichever way consensus ends up! --Ashenai (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe you took out too much in that. Keep in mind: the fandom is "interesting" from several different angles - it is one that because of its recentness and Internet roots it can be tracked back fully, it is one that plays on gender and ages norms, and it is one that is understood and appreciated by the creators, among others. As such it has attracted criticism, and this should be documented, and where it has appears in public culture (like the Howard Stern show stuff) where specifically designed to be criticized, it should be highlighted. --MASEM (t) 05:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, I think this is a fair middle ground... except for the last paragraph, the one where it talks about some adult fans being disappointed with the show's direction. Not only is that not criticism of the fandom (if anything, it's criticism of the show), it's also very poorly sourced. When I see unsourced opinions purportedly held by "a portion of the fandom" or "a large fraction of the adult fandom", I can't help but read it as "me and my friends."

I think that last paragraph is by far the weakest part of the Criticism section, and I'd like to see it gone, or if that's not acceptable, then properly sourced with the weasel words removed, and moved to a more appropriate place in this, or the main FiM article. --Ashenai (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

There might be a better place for that last paragraph as it might be more appropriate about Hub/Hasbro, but I'm not sure yet. It's about the bronies' reaction and the reaction to that, so it does belong here. --MASEM (t) 12:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I've assessed the evolution of the paragraph and its current status, and I have to say I'm pretty content with the outcome. Also, I've taken Ashenai's point that we shouldn't try to include everything that was ever covered by media about the fandom lest we turn this article into a mess, which I believe is true. I also agree with Masem's decision to keep Bruce's story while omitting the fired brony's. I still don't think that the fandom's reaction to the show belongs in this paragraph (if in the article at all), because critics *to* the fandom are distinct from those *from* the fandom, as I said above. I think we should discuss about this, maybe in a new section of this talk page. -- / Kàmi na / 10:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the last paragraph (about the bronies reacting to changes in the show) up a few sectiosn and out of criticism. I'm not sure if that's the best place, and it probably can be trimmed down, but I do think we need to address with the available sourcing that there's some "entitlement" issues w/in the fandom that the showrunners deal with. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I actually don't see how the paragraph can fit in that particular section ("Production staff and cast"). While it is true that the people working for the show have had to address specific show-related issues upon being insistently asked by members of the fandom, this has never really had any impact whatsoever on the show (at least, as far as we know and have specific RS about). For this reason, I believe that paragraph is more fandom-related than show staff/cast-related, and it feels extraneous and kinda sudden at the position you've chosen.
Honestly, though, I fail to see a proper way to include it in any other existing sections at all. The only way I would deem appropriate for its inclusion would be create a new subsection in the "Reactions" section, maybe right after "Criticism".
Also, I take the opportunity to note that perhaps we're putting weight WP:UNDUE on the role of Equestria Daily and other fandom 'celebrities' in warning the fandom not to overreact to EqG; if we're looking for senteces to be trimmed down, that one probably fits the bill. -- / Kàmi na / 10:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

At least in terms of undue weight, using the major fandom cites to comment on the reactions of the fandom isn't a big problem (the rest of the article is well done through third-parties). I'm still struggling where better to put this. A possibly I haven't fully fleshed out is to move some of the first section up into Fan activities to discuss that the techno-savvy of the bronies with social media allows them to communicate with the show-runners, which then follows up that there is some entitlement about some of the changes to the show. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Lack of Brony Article

Anyone else thinks it's odd that Trekkie has its own article, and yet brony is relegated to a mere footnote per se? Are there that many fewer bronies than trekkies that it's not deserving of its own article by Wikipedia stardards? I believe there should be separate articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Trekkie is a redirect to Star Trek fandom, same as Brony redirects here. I don’t see the difference. Gial Ackbar (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Relevant youtube clip?

This clip seems to sum up a lot of the info, but I'm not sure where would be a good place to put it. External links? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Est3UNs-LIk peterl (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty confident that is a reference already. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find it on the page. Where? peterl (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, found it. Added another link to the ref, as the PBS site seems to be not loading the video at the moment. Added the youtube title to make it easier to find. Not sure if this is the right way to do a youtube link? peterl (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Works well enough. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hub Network > Discovery Family?

How many of the references to the Hub Network in this article should be changed to say Discovery Family? I understand some need to stay because they refer to what the channel was in the past, as part of the historical parts of this article, but surely some spots should use the new name? Dogman15 (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Unusually high amounts of porn produced by the fandom

The automatic defense mechanism when mentioning porn to a brony is "every fandom has porn." That's right, but it doesn't explain why the brony fandom produces so much erotic imagery and fiction. Much of the non-explicit art for this franchise seems to be suggestive or romantic in nature as well. A cursory glance shows that the amount of explicit My Little Pony images is only secondary to Pokemon, a franchise 20 years in existence. There seems to be an order of magnitude more of it than for The Simpsons, Family Guy, Looney Tunes, or any Disney franchise. The sheer scale of the phenomena merits a mention. The numbers suggest that the anime, videogame, comic-book, and furry fandom are incredibly prolific at producing erotica. This is only touched upon in the furry fandom article and not mentioned in either videogame fandom or anime fandom. There are hentai and otaku and sex in videogames articles, but they don't at all deal with the sexual culture surrounding these topics and how the fans are generating this content. The articles focus on professionally produced material. Perhaps an article should combine this subject for all fandoms. Furry-friend (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think what you're talking about is related to this page in particular, but for what concerns this article there's a reason why we scarcely cover MLP erotica production or "clop", namely the lack of reliable sources. As a tertiary source, we're merely compiling information as it comes to us, and topics with so little documentation are to be regarded as non-notable. I take the opportunity to point out that the topic of pornography within the fandom is indeed addressed in the Criticism section. -- / Kàmi na / 16:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is way too long for the subject

I realize there's a lot of enthusiasm over the fandom by the fans themselves, but does it really warrant an article this long? It borders on unreadable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.39.224 (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I see this as a non-issue. "Long", as opposed to "dispersive", isn't really a negative thing for an article to be. -- / Kàmi na / 20:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Article title

I want to know why this page is not simply titled "Bronies", as that is the term used in most reliable sources to refer to fans of this show. Per WP:COMMONNAME we should use the term used in most reliable sources. WP:CONCISE also would seem to support a shorter article title than the current one. Everymorning talk 11:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Because while the term is common to describe most, its not true for all (the whole "Pegasister" aspect, for example). Thus calling it the MLPFIM fandom avoids a forced title. (Consider that even "Trekkie" is not the title at Star Trek fandom). --MASEM (t) 14:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Herd census

Hey- this isn't typically my area of interest, but I noticed there was a dispute about describing the online fanbase of the show. Seeing as the demographic information (do we describe them as typically men, old, etc.) was sourced to 'herdcensus.com', which is not really a reliable source. I thought I'd take the step of just removing that citation and the specific demographic information cited to it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Note the sources in the body of the article that source the male-dominated part of the group, including a study done by a university profession (that's the Brony Study). The citation to Herd Census isn't needed to support was was original cited in the lede about the age range and gender bias of the group. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

To specifically add, it is not so much the age group (outside of being adult) compared to the fact that the group is primarily male that has drawn attention from RSes, hence why something like "primarily male" is needed in the lead. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

In that case, it's better to cite those reliable sources for this information than 'herdcensus.com'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, they're in the body that way; that was the only citation in the lede; however, while that's removed, that also removed the "primarily male" language for "people" too, which should be restored based on those cites. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Are we sure that 'primarily male' is supportable as both a mainstream viewpoint and as notable enough to be in the lede? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Very clearly yes. You can search google news just on the term "brony" and see how many focus on the adult male side, in addition to the sources already in the article. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Given a lack of any other opinions, and noting my own inexperience in the field, you should be fine adding that information back with a better source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources are definitely there in the body already, just to note, for example [3], [4], etc. As a lede without any other sources, it really doesn't need these repeated. --MASEM (t) 02:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a hidden note or something? Having that information in the lede is clearly something that's seen as contentious, although I fully understand the desire to not have cites in the lede. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Claims in History section boarders on original research

Most of the history section describes early events that can be pinned to something that actually happened. But the idea that Brony fandom got popular off an Internet Meme is a big claim. It's an even bigger claim to to say 4chan started that meme without any evidence. I'm just your typical reader curious about the subject but this raised an eye brow so I started reading the sources. But firstly while I don't see any issue with mentioning Amidi's article it doesn't itself prove that it lead to any significant trend other than it happens to have a tie in to 4chan.

To me the logic plays something like: "An article was written on a popular site so that must be the only source of attention" -> "4chan the king of memes started a meme about it" -> "meme is considered an earlier example than has been found so far" -> "bronies must have been started from that meme"

It sounds entirely overly simplistic, jumps to conclusions and is just silly. But more importantly where is the evidence for this? It sounds like rumor to me, like any wives tale.

Source 2, (https://web.archive.org/web/20130121220852/http://www.dailybarometer.com/forum/ponies-overachieving-from-feminism-to-4chan-1.2385283) Refers back to Know Your Meme for this information. Reads like an opinion piece (Wikipedia has a policy about that?) In fact all the claims about 4chan offer no more information than Know Your Meme.

Source 3, (https://web.archive.org/web/20120107143552/http://www.cartoonbrew.com/tv/weve-created-a-bronster.html) Is in part a source of itself and has potential bias. Is essentially a summery of Know Your Meme that it directly references for this information. It points to http://www.equestriadaily.com/ and http://www.ponychan.net/chan/ as results which is a ploy for credibility as these are considered some of the starting hubs of this fandom. Incidentally EquestriaDaily is specifically mentioned as a push away from the official forums and never mentions a connection to 4chan in the other sources. No explanation of how these are connected.

Source 4, Men who love ‘My Little Pony’ This is an opinion piece which itself sources Know Your Meme for this information.

 So far Wikipedia might as well be sourcing Know Your Meme. Do you consider that a credible source here? These sources present an interesting problem of what original research was actually done. Was it the chicken or the egg?

Source 5, Pony Up Haters: How 4chan Gave Birth to the Bronies. This one pretty much lays out the exact claims this wikipedia article claims. It reads like a culture piece. Skipping past the fluff of sensationalism to attract the reader the first actual claim in the article is when the show started airing in paragraph 4. Paragraph 4 reads like the summery paraphraph on wikipedia until we get to this: "While it is marketed to children, it has quickly amassed a legion of fanboys between the ages of 18 and 35 who obsess over characters with names like Twilight Sparkle, Rainbow Dash, Applejack and Pinkie Pie. Predictably, this has led to some confusion." - Pony Up Haters: How 4chan Gave Birth to the Bronies, Paragraph 4 written by Una LaMarche. Does that sound like a factual statement to you? So we can either consider this source a joke or a cultural opinion piece. You can pick, it doesn't matter. Skip over paragraphs 5 and 6. Good, respectable info for a culture piece, not an encyclopedia. Paragraph 7 actually makes the claim and Paragraph 8 describes what 4chan is. Has any connection been spelled out? Nope. Paragraph 9 gives us some valuable case-study type of info about the topics discussed on a 4chan board. So Riley Kilo, an interviewee is so far the only first hand account of this enormous claim. The article goes on mostly about Riley and their accounts including their participation and experiences on 4chan until Paragaph 13. Paragraph 14 is basically the history of brony forums on 4chan that leads into a history and case study of 4chan all the way to Paragraph 20. Finally Paragraph 21 is important. Shaun Scotellaro (creator of EquestriaDaily) tells us that his site was created as a response to wanting a separate community from the Hasbro forums (owner of the MLP franchise). Shouldn't this set off a few red flags in this theory? Where did EquestriaDaily's users come from? Paragraph 22, RainbowDash.net's founder is actually claiming it was a response to the brony community on 4chan. I'd also like to know if ponychan.net was in any way influence by 4chan. But they don't go into it in this article. Then in paragraphs 23 through 27 actually to the end are the authors meta-thoughts on closeted-ness in Brony fandom.. again good stuff for a culture piece. Why is this on wikipedia?

A source that should not be considered a source and even if it were it does not spell out any connection or even make the claim it is being sourced for except in the heavily sensational title. This is typical fodder for a cultural piece in news paper but it is not reliable information in general. Further the other sources are a joke and do not add anything to the discussion other than to nearly directly quote Know Your Meme. This type of claim needs some serious sourcing, more than one source and one that clearly spells out credibility and evidence. Further I'd argue on credibility that it would inevitably require an expert to claim what the actual origins were or by quoting in these sources for their own credibility for the readers to make the conclusions. This is not something an encyclopedia should be claiming unless it was generally accepted and well known and can be sourced.

Finally I'd like to point out that my own theory is that Bronies have largely been harbored in Furry fandom and much of its growth could likely have been from that. Which gets little mention in this article even though "Meet the Furries and Fans at 2012's Most Unconventional Convention" goes over it quite a bit. That's essentially an opinion piece to though which suggests readers should be making these conclusions not wikipedia. encyclopedias should only be presenting these as perspectives.

I'd like to see the mentions of 4chan either heavily reworded or removed entirely in lieu of reliable sources. It seems more like mention of 4chan belongs in the pop culture section if anything.

2600:1003:B023:D636:99A6:677:ADF0:1006 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

4chan is confirmed as the source; I personally can vouch that it was the primarily origins as I saw it in real time happen, but we have reliable sources - even if they are referencing Know Your Meme, affirming it as its origin New York magazine, Wall Street Journal, etc. There is an element of these sources having a bit of delay that they aren't reporting "as it happened" but it is close enough that all this could be verified. I would note that we do mention the furry fandom as a possible source as well, but there's not much to say about it; that article from SFWeekly only has a couple mentions that MLP cosplay at the local furry con were up that one year. So it would be undue to ascribe any more to that (And add that I know most bronies absolutely disavow any furry connection). --MASEM (t) 03:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I carefully went over each source one by one to point out that the "sources" don't prove anything. They are among other things badly written and don't provide us with any more information than face value. I'm sure there was a board on 4chan but how do we conclude that these were the origins? I don't consider news blurbs reliable. Even scientists that get published are heavily scrutinized and there is an expectation that information is explained not simply held as self-evident fact. Why shouldn't Wikipedia expect the same?

I read the links you provided and New York magazine once again slips in a claim in the title without addressing it in the article. The comments are amusing though. And for the Wall Street Journal well.. "After the show launched in October 2010, video clips began appearing on 4chan, a website that largely draws geeky, tech-savvy guys. Before long, the bronies were born." hmm, this leaves a lot of explanation to be desired. Some of the other articles at least attempted to explain a timeline.

If you have personal experience with this would you mind explaining that experience as it may provide at least some context for me to research. I've tried to look for sources for this and against this. Not really getting much of either with any kind of explanation. Further I disagree with your hearsay that bronies take issue with Furry conventions. Perhaps in your social circles and that gets to the point that this is hard to prove as an absolute. We can say with fair certainly there was a large fan ban on 4chan but this does not say it was the origins.

I caution at for example the second paragraph of the history sections relevance while Equestria Daily for example isn't mentioned or given any historical context or even the suggestion that it popularized this fandom or may have been the origins, etc. Has Shaun Scotellaro commented on his influences and reasons for making his site? Does he mention 4chan? None of the sources are asking basic questions like this unless I missed them.

Further and less formally I'd like to point out that http://www.equestriadaily.com/2012/02/we-dont-really-post-4chan-news-much.html this post has Shaun Scotellaro mentioned 4chan as the "birthplace" while i notice in the comments many either haven't heard of 4chan, despise it, don't go there, don't want to return if they did, etc.

So this brings us to the most important question, if the creator of a site that inspires pony fandom to grow thinks because of personal experience that the origins were on 4chan, does that mean its true? After all while it could be true HIS influences started on 4chan, it doesn't seem to be clear where the fans that would eventually populate his site came from. Can any source for this article articulate on this? 2600:1003:B010:76BD:55B9:B05B:F57F:6FEB (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The point is that after people on 4chan started flooding the board with macros (about the time that the show started appearing as a meme at KnowYourMeme), there was a point where the mods of 4chan were forcing those pony fans off the site, forcing them find a new site; while ponychan was created then, this also spread to a number of other popular boards, and because of the meme nature, that migration created many new fans and expanded from there. But to the core point, we go with what the reliable sources say, and unless we have sources that say that they are wrong, we assume they are right. I'm 99.9% confident they are correct here from personal knowledge. Note this is not saying that all bronys came from 4chan, its just that that's where it got the most attention from the older audience. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think youre addressing my stronger points. Further if one of the sources spelled out what you're claiming itd be credable but it doesn't. They gloss over a huge claim and then spend paragraphs on commentary about them being older males. That is suspicious. What is to say a whole other community site predates this for example? Based on the sources how would we know that wasnt the case? Theres no explanation or line of reasoning addressed in the "sources" 2600:1003:B010:76BD:55B9:B05B:F57F:6FEB (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)