Forum:Old general discussion

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Old general discussion

Old general discussion

1

Forums gone

The forums have been removed in order to centralize discussion. -Throwawaytv 14:09, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

You know, in theory this is supposed to be a place for the talk about the main page. Community portal is there for general discussion.--Nathan2000 21:49, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but this page has a link to it right on the front page, and there were already so many places you could start a discussion: the forums, the personal talk pages, the community portal. I think this is the best place, all things being equal.

By the way, excellent work on the episode chart templates, looks awesome. Another thing, I've finished going over the first five episode transcripts (and the last four, leaving four in the middle), so by the weekend I'll compare them to your subtitles. -Throwawaytv 00:18, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

/co/ MLP General Linkboards?

First not sure if right place in posting this but doing anyway, Just wondering if there should be a page dedicated to having an upto date Linkboard for generals on /co/?

Did use to have a long version, but was trying to work on a cut down version that just points people to use the external links page on this wiki as well, but would rather discuss that on a page for it instead of clogging up this discussion page.

JimSan 19:00, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

For the latest MLP General, check http://arch.413chan.net/mlpgeneral. You'll find more useful links on the external links page. -Throwawaytv 03:07, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

I do keep the latest linkboard, I was more interested in how to shorten it while still providing info for people, so was wondering where should it be discussed about how to redo the linkboard.

JimSan 13:05, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the linkboard should only have four links: archive, pensivepony, mast3rlinx, and mentos. That's all people really need. Maybe a link to the wiki's external links page would be helpful too. -Throwawaytv 13:56, February 2, 2011 (UTC) (edited by Throwawaytv 13:58, February 2, 2011 (UTC))

The version I've been playing around with has the same links as yours but also the mlp wiki, the synchtube channel, pony shoe store (it wasn't on the external links page), and pony music (same reason as above), then just saying other links are on the wiki's external links page. If the other links I've got were on the external links page (the ones that aren't on it) then that would help clean it up. JimSan 15:38, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to put them there. -Throwawaytv 17:06, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Added and updated the linkboard, posting it in latest thread too JimSan 18:39, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Episode articles

Nathan raised the issue of trivia sections that turn into a list of unrelated bits and bobs. There is a bigger issue of episodes articles not actually written about the episode, but instead wriiten as the episode, with the inclusion of the writer's own interpretation.

Guidelines are necessary to decide how these articles will be written, if they stay in their current format or change into more informative articles and less re-telling of the episode. -Throwawaytv 11:23, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

As other articles are being guided into viewer perspective, "about" seems appropriate. The transcripts would be the retelling, with only a basic synopsis (clearly labeled as such) of the story in the descriptive article. (Should we enhance the transcripts into a more script-like format that includes "stage directions"?)

The problem then arises as to what goes into the descriptive articles. Outside of the synopsis, it seems to become mostly a collection of trivia or (unwanted) speculation. If the synopsis was compacted, would an abundance of trivia be acceptable? Should the episode articles include lists of appearances? McClaw 13:53, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

The articles should focus on notable events, for instance Fluttershy's character development in Feeling Pinkie Keen which is a very significant event in my eyes yet completely overlooked in the article. Trivia sections would be easier to incorporate in the articles once they're not a re-telling of the episode. Cast/credits/characters could be put in info boxes.

The more I talk about it the less I care, though. I never did get into the episode articles, and since I barely contribute to them the decisions should be made by the people who do, namely Arcadia and Aura. -Throwawaytv 16:52, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

This is precisely why episode articles need to be about the episodes and not a re-telling of the episodes. The Winter Wrap Up "activity" belongs in the Winter Wrap Up page. The page is written in-universe and repeats the same information three times. -Throwawaytv 04:57, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

In-universe perspective

I've been pushing a viewer-perspective approach on the wiki, but it turns out more people might be interested in an in-universe approach. This goes against my wishes to keep fan-stuff (art, fiction, lore, etc) to a minimum, but I can't stand in the way of the majority. I will not edit any in-universe material until it's clear whether the community wants it or not. -Throwawaytv 09:52, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. -Throwawaytv 10:03, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

2

Season one about to end

I wonder when Hub's going to announce season two. -Throwawaytv 10:13, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Generally they announce the new season either right before or right after it ends. - Madgvox 04:26, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

In-universe perspective

You moved it to the archive while I was typing. Screw that, if I want to continue discussion, I'm gonna do it. The rest of my post commencing...
Well, nobody having anything constructive to say doesn't mean that nobody cares. Personally, I prefer in-universe information to listing "in this episode she did this, in that episode she did that". In my opinion, the article should be a compilation of all knowledge about its subject into one continuous flow with a healthy bit of speculation (that is, with some factual ground). For example, someone added on Zecora's page that Twilight went to her to get some tea. But what? She probably wouldn't go to the dangerous Everfree Forest to acquire something that she can easily buy in a shop. It means that this brand of tea is not native to Equestria (or at least Ponyville) so the zebra either grows it near her cottage or keeps trade relations with her motherland. Voila, speculation based on fact.
Fan works have nothing to do with in-universe/out-of-universe writing. You shouldn't mix the two.--Nathan2000 12:29, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Writing in-universe necessarily means you are giving a false account of what is actually shown, embellished from an imaginary point of view. You can see exactly this in my last edit to Sonic Rainboom, where Rarity's choice of music was described in-universe instead of from the audience's point of view. This is related to the fact that the episode articles are actually a re-telling of the episode plus a chunk of "trivia" instead of being actual articles about the episode. -Throwawaytv 11:03, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Pony Powers

Upon watching a number of episodes I have seen a curious trend which might be worth wiki-ing about, This would be a discussion on special powers of the ponies. Every pony seems to have something that makes them very unique a single trait, power, ability that manifests itself in the episodes shwoing most predominatly in "Stare Master" and "Sonic Rainboom" imply that only single ponies are capable of doing itHere is what I believe*"The Stare" Fluttershy's power. This allows her to temporarily create fear in the heart of animals/monsters that will make then listen to her orders and do as she says.

• "Sonic Rainboom" Rainbow Dash's power. This allows her to manifest a physical rainbow by going supersonic speeds and being able to save the day.
• "Excellent Fashion Sense" Rarity's power - while not extraordinary her sense of fashion is always awesome though sometimes the awe inspires is rather terrible admonishment. This appears in the fact she own the only Clothing Store in Ponyville and it appears in "Dressed for Success"
• "Organization Skills" Twilight Sparkle's power - The ability to organize and put things together in an efficent format this ability manifest thoruhgout the series but comes to a head in "Winter Wrap-Up"
• "Pinky Precognition" Pinkie Pie's power - This gives her both the ability to sometimes all of sudden discover things (particularly books) or know things are coming her way or in her proximity. Once again shown through the series but most obvious in "Feeling Pinky-Keen"
• Not a clue on Applejack
• "The Stare" Fluttershy's Power -

Now what's interesting about these powers is the unicorns which have magic seem to have one extermely mundane but useful skill. all the pergasaus ponies seem to have their power due to stressful situations, and finally well for the one, the earth ponies have a very magical one (which could be why Applejack doesn't like to show it off, may think its unnatural).Twilight Tria-MLP 05:23, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

Performing an athletic feat, having a fashion sense, being organized, those are skills, not powers. Each pony already has a "skills" section on each of their pags. Throwawaytv 07:30, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

The point here I was more trying to make is that these should be part of the the subset along with the colors and such for quick reference since they are as unique as the cutie marks and would be easier for someone at a glance to figure out each pony that jump into the middle of series. Given that would you then reference in the actual page where the information comes from. Twilight Tria-MLP 17:17, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

The infoboxes are for visual, physical descriptions, for identification purposes. For characterization, the ponies have jobs, hobbies, interests, and skills, all part of the tapestry of their personality and behavior. They're not superheros or Pokemon. Personally I find characterizing a character through "special power" to be one-dimensional. If special powers were a major part of each character, I would probably stop watching the show. -Throwawaytv 18:25, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

There's a post by Lauren on her DA pages, here. I've made a screen cap, if there's a reason to link / add it to a page. McClaw 18:01, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Shoes

Anyone object removing the apparel page? When I made it I assumed there would be official merchandise such as shirts etc, but it has turned to be nothing more than an advertisement for Zazzle shoes. -Throwawaytv 20:29, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not, and it (and Dolls) shows up as a "dead end page" (no inserted links to elsewhere in the wiki). But then so does the theme song page. It can always be recreated, can't it? McClaw 20:54, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll wait a few days and if nobody objects I'll delete it. -Throwawaytv 21:08, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

Imperial Toy

Imperial Toy is marketing an assortment of items using Pinkie Pie's image, licensed from Hasbro and using logos, art, and references for "Friendship is Magic." All seven items are used to make and play with soap bubbles.

• Link to Imperial Toy's "My Little Pony" merchandise.

McClaw 00:32, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

3

Background ponies

With season 2 confirmed, it's safe to say we're going to have a lot more background ponies in the future. How do we make the background ponies article easier to navigate? Should there be a page for every background pony? -Throwawaytv 21:38, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

The list of ponies page is getting huge. Any ideas for splitting it? -Throwawaytv

Giving every background character their own page seems a little too radical to me. Since most of them don't have any official name, they're recognized by their appearance. A long list of arbitrarily chosen names on a category page might not necessarily be any easier to navigate. Maybe we should group them thematically, eg. "Ordinary background ponies", "Canterlot background ponies", "Appleloosa background ponies", "Foals"? Unique characters like Lotus, Mr. Breezy and Hayseed could get separate pages.--Nathan2000 10:14, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

We got ourselves a Spam Problem

I checked the recent activity and I saw TOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much spam on the talk pages! Who let the adbot in?Duo2nd 10:03, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

The Food of Equestria

You guys and gals think we should make a detailed section of all the food that appears in the world of Equestria? Could be part of the more indepth lore of the universe.ChJees 12:51, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at what I've been assembling (slowly) on this page. At a minimum, the two should be merged. McClaw 13:41, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Created. By the way, it's not "appears in the world of Equestria", it's "appears in the show." When dicussing "lore" and "the universe", keep it to the viewer's perspective. -Throwawaytv 16:27, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Now we have two pages -- Food and Food and beverage. Thus my suggestion they be merged. McClaw 18:12, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Huh? There already was a page? -Throwawaytv 20:40, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

The Native-American controversies of "Over a Barrel"

First off, let me make something clear. I'm not here to start a flame war or start trouble. I have read arguments on both sides, but I just want to see if I have made things clear for what I'm about to discuss.

The recent episode, "Over the Barrel", drew a bit of criticism on Ponychan about the 'depiction' of Native-American, for lack of a better term, and the overall pie solution which is harmless, but still silly. I've read that people took a bit of offense to it or found it as just poor writing: to name a couple off the top of my head. Just now, a commenter here on the wiki suggested that the whole controversy is nothing more than some fans trying to start drama; pointing to the theological discussions brought about by "Feeling Pinkie Clean".

Here's what I'm getting at. I've been steadily working on some pages for the TV/Movie Wiki Screened, which now includes My Little Pony: FiM, which I'm proud to have written the entirity of. Being on a wiki I'm sure many of you are level-headed and have your ears closer to the ground than I do so what I'd like to ask is a quick look through of my recent edit that summarizes this episode. Really, I just want to make sure that I got the controversy, or maybe just mild skirmish, is accurate.

[article for "Over a Barrel"]

174.102.3.200 04:27, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Ponychan was started by 4chan's /b/ MLP fans. They are extremely fond of flame wars and drama, despite their "brony" surface. They did the same concern-troll schtick with Feeling Pinkie Keen and Bridle Gossip before that, although I can't remember if Ponychan existed during the airing of Bridle Gossip or if they were still mostly on /b/. Either way, whenever something is tangentially racial or religious, you can count on ponychan to concern-troll about its ill effects on the poor little girls who watch the show.

Now, personally, I would prefer you didn't refer to it as a controversy, because I do not consider internet arguments "controversies" in the colloquial sense, but you are free to write what you like.

As you can see, this wiki focuses solely on the show and official merchandise -- it does not discuss fan art, the fan community, or indeed anything outside the show and merchandise other than Derpy Hooves and other fan-named characters.

Not being a regular on ponychan I can't tell you what went on there, but it definitely was nothing more than an internet argument. -Throwawaytv 21:42, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Much obliged.

174.102.3.200 01:07, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Edits to the character pages

You might have noticed me doing a lot of edits on the character pages recently, fleshing out personalities and relationships. Of course this stuff is very subjective, and it can often be hard to avoid fanon and personal theories creeping in. I'm eager to keep it professional and backed up only by the episode, so if anyone feels I'm getting a little carried away feel free to send me a message about it. Philweasel 12:36, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions! -Throwawaytv 19:35, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Remove external links to "unseemly" sites?

This wiki was started for /co/'s community, but very quickly children became the main audience, because, after all, this site is about kids' show. I'm still worried that there are links to /co/ and such on the external links page. While it's certainly very useful to adult fans, I think it's no longer appropriate. I don't want an "adult links" section because that would send the wrong message altogether. In any case communities like ponygoons should stay because they're all-ages communities, even if they're predomiantly adult. So, what do you say? -Throwawaytv 19:34, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to offer a tentative aye. Due to the nature of the internet much of the FiM fandom is inappropriate for kids and it will be nice if we kept this wiki clean, and it also fits with the intent to make it a 'show and official merchandise only' site (with small exceptions like fan names for background Ponies). Anyone who should be in /co/ can quite easily find it, and I would hate to be responsible for guiding someone there who shouldn't. - Philweasel 20:16, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Serious Vandalism problems, Requires edit locking.

Well I resolved some of the serious vandalism done by 2 irresponsible 4chan annons here in this wiki but this is seriously getting on my nerves on how this is going. So I hate to say this but all of thr pages on this wiki should be on semi-protect mode againts the stupid vandals. I had enough on seeing stupid edits again and again, and I may retire as an admin due to this. But please stop being so stupid and submit correct info and not stupid spam!

OR I'm GONNA SERIOUSLY TELL Throwawaytv TO LOCK THE WHOLE WIKI DOWN YOU HEAR??? D: Duo2nd 01:18, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Becoming an admin

Hello, and good day to you. I'm here to request being an admin. I don't want to take much of your time, but I have been helpful so far to the site, I keep pretty updated with the site, and I have been neighborly. The reason for me wanting to become an admin is so I could help a bit more than I have. I don't really care if you make me one or not, I'm just throwing a request to the wind. Also, if I don't become an admin now, how can I better my chances of becoming one? Thank you for your time and your decision :) Shadowdemon137 19:27, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

You can't request becoming an admin, it's all about trust. -Throwawaytv 20:23, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Woops. I read in the admins page that you could request, but you're an admin and telling me otherwise, so ok :) Thank you. Shadowdemon137 20:25, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, all the major contributors eventually became admins. -Throwawaytv 20:28, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

4

Grumblings

Recently I've stepped on the toes of two very good contributors. The two incidents are very different from each other, but they both stem from the same two issues:

1. I'm harsh and blunt
2. Speculation, in-universe style, and fan-works should be avoided

Everybody agrees with the first issue, and honestly it's probably not going to change. I might be harsh and blunt, but I'm always civil, and I always back up my edits with issue number 2.

The second issue is the most important. This wiki is very different from other Wikia fan encyclopedias. You can read all about it in the guidelines. The content section:

• This wiki deals primarily with official information about the show and its merchandising.
• Articles should be written from the viewer's perspective. Avoid in-universe descriptions and anchor fictional details, depictions, and descriptions in their corresponding episodes and appearances.
• Disputed but non-speculative content should be discussed in the talk pages before any reverts/edit-wars are made.
• To quote the show's creator: "I don't like defining things that are not featured in episodes." Avoid speculation completely, and be cautious about material that is not featured in the show.

"Disputed but non-speculative content" in this sense is information that is present in the show but hard to determine, like the exact spelling of a word.

The rest should be clear: don't write from the point of view of a character in the show, and don't write as if you're describing a universe.

How not to write?

• Earth ponies live in Equestria. There are no pegasus ponies in Appleloosa. - in universe, speculation.

Why is it in-universe? Because it describes how earth ponies live, instead of how they are seen in the show.
Why is it speculation? Because we can't know there are no pegasus ponies in Appleloosa and it's not stated in the show.

How to fix it?

• Earth ponies are one of the three pony races in the show who live in Equestria. Applejack tells her friends that Appleloosa was founded by her relatives, and only earth ponies are seen in residing there in Over a Barrel.

Now instead of describing earth ponies, the sentence describes how earth ponies are seen in the show, and instead of speculation about Appleloosa, everything said is grounded in the show in a specific episode.

Why no speculation?

Because I'm adamant about the show. Speculation, in-universe, and fan-works are a sure-fire way to turn the wiki to something extraneous to the show. An innocent statement like "there are no pegasus ponies in Appleloosa" actually drives the wiki a little bit away from the show by adding information that is not in the show.

Why no in-universe?

Because I want the wiki to be clear to readers who don't follow the show religiously. Additionally, describing a fictional work as if it is an alternate reality inevitably leads to aberrations. There are no scenes in reality, no cinematic elements, and no theatrical elements. If a camera cuts or pans, if a character is subjected to dramatic irony, if the dialogue is specially crafted, if a cinematic element is present, that is important to the show. Describing the show from an in-universe perspective ignores all that. In that regard, the episode summaries are a great disappointment to me, as they are almost always in-universe.

What if I disagree with these two guidelines?

You can disagree on a lot of things, but this wiki was founded with the purpose of adhering to these two guidelines. If this was not made clear before, I am making it absolutely clear now:

Avoid writing from an in-universe perspective. Avoid speculation.

Write from the viewers' point of view. Anchor what you write in specific events and episodes.

Thanks for reading. -Throwawaytv 07:28, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Vector versions

Since the original Hubworld images of the main cast are kinda weird and a little different from the way they look in the show, I was wondering if anyone can extract the models from the Discover the Differences game. I've never worked with SWFs but I'll try to do it myself too. Any help appreciated. -Throwawaytv 10:52, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, there are only models of Twilight, Spike, and Celestia in the game. -Throwawaytv 10:59, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Non-native English speakers

Not all nouns are capitalized in English; most aren't, actually. Even article titles and sections are usually written in sentence case and not word case. (List of ponies - sentence case, List of Ponies - word case)

Fictional events like the plot of a television series are described in the present tense, as if you are watching them while you describe them. (Applejack eats an apple - present tense, Applejack ate an apple - past tense) -Throwawaytv 09:46, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

No fair

It's not fair other bronies get credit for pictures or edits I do or put on the wiki.

Well maybe they uploaded newer & better version of the images. Have you bothered to check the version history of those images.

Plus also remember to sign by typing ~~~~ as it's easier to see who you are without having to check the sometimes confusing history & If I didn't do that I would not even know you were Light-Z. Richardson j 06:01, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

That's an issue with Wikia. Removing the attribution is against their TOS, but you can request that they remove it somewhere on the Wikia community portal. I support removing the attribution on thumbnails, it's distracting. -Throwawaytv 07:51, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

"Sonic Rainboom" confusion

Currently on this wiki, there is only one "sonic rainboom" page. This is for the episode, by name. There is no page for the event itself, nothing describing what happens or how it forms, unless it is explained in the episodes page, but then it would be a bit off-topic.

For somebody who doesn't watch the show or hasn't seen the episode, this could probably be very confusing. I feel a page should be added more relevant to the event of the sonic rainboom itself, but I tend to write in-universe, which I've just discovered to be very bad. Anyone up for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doeoeod (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 May 2011

If the episode page was written a little more clearly there would be no confusion. -Throwawaytv 07:54, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the wiki's "no in-universe material" policy does not warrant the setting up of such a page to accurately describe the specific event of a sonic rainboom. In the Sonic Rainboom episode page, the event is described as an instance of "break(ing) the sound barrier and create(ing) a huge rainbow from the thunderous boom, appropriately dubbed the sonic rainboom".

The setting up of a specific page would mean:

a) The event is significant to the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic show and community.

b) The current description of the event in the episode page fails to give such significance to it.

I have no doubt at all that with the right wording, the article can be accessible to those who have not watched the episode or furthermore are not familiar with the show. For example "The Sonic Rainboom (event) refers to an event that takes place in the episode, Sonic Rainboom..." Furthermore the use of a disambiguation page (if possible) and the labelling of the page with an additional (event) marking at the back of the name would clearly seperate the two pages clearly. Such practices are commonly applied in Wikipedia itself and are no doubt at all a professional and sound way to demarcate similar pages in a wiki.

Such a page would be an in-universe entity. However it can be argued that for one the event is specifically referred to by the charachters themselves as a sonic rainboom and is thus an official name within the show.

Furthermore this presents a challenge to this wiki's policy of providing information that excludes in-universe material and any form of fan fiction. We must acknowledge that although such a policy allows for an in depth appreciation of the show in its official form, it does lose out on the cultural significance that parts of the show may have on the community. It is obviously not in anyone's interest to start a wikipage here detailing fully speculative material. However we should be open to including material that carries special significance to the community and also provides non-watchers of the show an in-depth look into certain elements of MLP.

Hope for further discussion on the topic :)

Daniel95K 16:53, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

:::::Done. Sonic Rainboom (event)

Some unlisted Derpy appearences

Hello. I have just recently started my third viewing of the series, this time looking for all the moments in the series where Derpy is, and trying to make the list already on her wiki page more complete. I have only gotten half way through the episodes again, but I have found about 10 unlisted sightings, and sadly I do not have permission to edit the page myself.

Episode 4 - Reference to this posting ----->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW8RCd_vPoE

• 5:56 - Directly Behind Pinky Pie

• 6:44 (Top of head, purely speculation)

• 7:37 (Top of head again)

Episode 6 - Reference to this posting ----->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv20tte60ak

• 2:23 - Bottom right corner

• 4:56 - Kind of hard to see, but second from the far right in the background

• 19:22 - Far Left

• 19:29 - Scoulding on far right

Episode 11 - Reference to this posting ----->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6GFajh3aWI

• 2:52 - Flew up to the oher ponies

Episode 12 - Reference to this posting ----->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmLkUFJlybg

• 21:31 - Behind the white pony in the far back of the background

Episode 13 - Reference to this posting ------>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVXNBLGJBCg

• 6:03 - On right could in the background

I will continue to search for unlisted Derpy appearences.

"List of ponies" - most are fan-made, or assumptions

The wiki guidelines stated that we should try to avoid speculation at all costs. Now I know that the list of names is unavoidable since most characters possess anonymity, , but the fact that there isn't something that tells us that the name is fan-made, a speculation, or official is down-right confusing. Yes, some do say they are what they are, but not all

I can edit the list of ponies myself, but I'm not a super-brony that knows every little detail of the show. Also, I think that we should try and separate fan-made/speculated names and official names to allow better organization.

What say you?

-- Denmax (talk|contributions|sandbox)

>The wiki guidelines stated that we should try to avoid speculation at all costs.

I say we change the guidelines.

>but the fact that there isn't something that tells us that the name is fan-made, a speculation, or official

Yes, there is. The background color. When the background is blue (like here), the name is official. It's explicitly stated on those pages. If there is enough material, you might even make separate pages about some characters.--Nathan2000 17:44, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

>I say we change the guidelines.

Neutral - I'm not sure what you mean by "change the guidelines". I would normally oppose if your statement inclined to making a complete overhaul, but at some point I would agree with you that there needs to be exceptions, especially in trying to distinguish characters from one another - just that they are informed that it is speculation, and not official canon.

>Yes, there is. The background color... It's explicitly stated on those pages.

The background color is barely noticeable (it does not truly contrast) and notice on distinguishing items is unnoticeable and barely attractive. Yes, it may be of my own ignorance, but the best we could do for the wiki is to make things a lot more colorful, especially on a wiki about a children's show and one good step for that is to give warnings a little more eye-candy. I'll do this myself if I have to, since I'm not informed about the color schemes (by you) of the tables, et cetera.

But before I do so, of course, permission must be granted upon me (since I see no actual warning about changing anything, unlike the Episodes List). All I will be doing is to make the colors on the table a bit more contrasting to the background color (making it darker, perhaps), adding probably a "red" color to fan-made and speculated names, and also adding a more noticeable "Legends" table - even if it only consists of Blue - official, and Red - fan-made/speculation.

User:Denmax April 19, 2024 -- 09:06

If I may butt in for a moment, using colour as the only way to differentiate between important information is very bad form on accessibility grounds. Users of text browsers or scrren readers, and also the colour-blind, will be unable to tell the difference between the two. You might want to think of some other (or additional) way to differentiate, such as appending a symbol to either fan-made or official names. Dendodge 01:27, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Check out my MLP:FiM online article

http://www.awn.com/blogs/miscweant/ponies-and-bronies

This is a hopefully a prelude to a longer article I'm planning to write about the show and us fans...

69.86.123.121 17:26, July 5, 2011 (UTC)Joe Strike aka "Crackerjack"

h3 is getting borked

Aligning text and images with <h3 style> does not work anymore. Images that are executed through this command will get lines to pass through them (particullarly from other headings) if they are transparent. Substituted the Featured articles template using tables until this gets fixed. -- Denmax (talk|contributions|sandbox) 16:59, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

5

Reference Guide?

Being new to the show I recently saw a Reference to Lion King and was wondering if there is a Reference Guide to all the References MLP makes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.171.90 (talk • contribs) 18:35, July 7, 2011

Most references are listed in Trivia sections in episode articles. I'm afraid any separate page would only double the information already available.--Nathan2000 16:45, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

Tables, underlines, Unnecessary Capitalization, misaligned columns

I appreciate what people are trying to do to the front page, but putting underlines under everything, capitalizing every other word, and creating misalighned divs is not the way. -Throwawaytv 20:51, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

It's good now, thanks for neatening it up :) --Callofduty4 18:13, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

This is not KnowYourMeme

The wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of fan art and "memes" from around the internet. It is not about the fandom, it's about the show. There are a dozen other websites about the fandom. Keep this wiki topical and show-accurate. -Throwawaytv 12:55, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

What is this?

SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THE HECK THIS IS!! Is this like the new My Little Pony? I really liked that when i was younger...like, a couple months younger. I would spend hours coloring in my My Little Pony coloring book and then decorate my locker in middle school and high school with them. I liked Rainbow Dash and Wisteria. Recently i saw a bunch of ponies cropping up on the internet and wondered where the heck they have come from. Will someone please explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by didn't check (talk • contribs) didn't check

Altering screenshots

No matter how "accurate" your alteration is, an unaltered image is more accurate. -Throwawaytv 20:25, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

Fan art and fan works

I think the reason to keep fan art, fan works, and fandom news out of the wiki is very easy to understand. Fan art is not part of the show, and having a fan-created image of Fluttershy on the Fluttershy page is simply misleading. Same goes for fan-created depictions of the cutie marks, fan-names for characters, fan-theories, and all other-than-official information.

Altering screenshots, vectorizing cutie marks, naming unnamed ponies--these are all deviations from the actual show and they distort the actual available information about the show. -Throwawaytv 10:02, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Voice Actors?

Would it make sense to have a page for voice actors? Each writer on the show has a page, why not the voice actors as well?

Strangething 01:50, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

should we add a link to every page for fanart?

this would probably keep fanart and ocs away from the actual wiki and then most people may go over to the fanart wiki like on the fluttershy page make a specific page on the fanart wiki for her and on and on.
Mylittlewut 15:52, July 27, 2011 (UTC)mylittlewut

That's not a bad idea, but it still might go against the no-fanart ethos of this wiki. I still like the idea though. --Callofduty4 12:36, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is preserved as an an archive. Please do not modify it.

Lyra and others Discuss please. People have been wanting to keep a page dedicated to Lyra, and most of the other more famous background ponies. Personally, my reaction is Support -- Denmax (talk|contributions|sandbox) 01:16, July 7, 2011 (UTC) Support King flying rock 01:49, July 7, 2011 (UTC) Oppose Fan-name, no extensive info is available on the character. All current info on the page should be incorporated inthe the List of Ponies page and the Lyra page should be deleted. -Throwawaytv 13:49, July 7, 2011 (UTC) Comment -- The main idea is not about its content for now, but rather, if the pages of Lyra and more famous ponies do have some potential to have their own page. At some point, their names will be confirmed and if the page really does have some true content in it, we'll just rename the page and then it's official. Of course, I'll agree to you that it requires to be deleted if it is lacking. -- Denmax (talk|contributions|sandbox) 18:09, July 7, 2011 (UTC) Neutral Needs a little work to be a rightful page. Lyra is one of the layout artists' favorite pony to do "silly poses" [1] and her relationship with Bon-Bon is mostly based on color scheme [2]. I'm a little obsessed about citing sources. Lyra has potential. Unfortunately Bon-Bon page is less promising.--Nathan2000 17:51, July 7, 2011 (UTC) Comment -- I'll agree on your comment about Bon-Bon for now. The only reason she's famous is because of Lyra. Lyra has more potential to have her own page, and Bon-Bon is just IN IT because of her presence with Lyra. Lyra has more distinguishing traits, but all I know about Bon-Bon is that she talks like a female Scooby Doo. -- Denmax (talk|contributions|sandbox) 18:09, July 7, 2011 (UTC) Support -- I think background ponies do warrant their own pages if several (not necessarily all) of the following statements are true: they appear in a significant number of episodes they exhibit characteristics and behaviours that are noteworthy and consistent a comprehensive description of their noteworthy appearances would exceed the couple of sentences that there is room for on the List of Ponies page creators have expressed behind-the-scenes trivia about the character the fanbase has exhibited significant interest in working with the character (which, note, would not be part of the description for the pony; but it would be grounds for making special note of her, somewhat similar to Derpy Hooves) Lyra and Bon Bon should meet these standards. I also think that having individual pages for some ponies encourages people to do research and add to the character's description. For instance, I decided against editing the Bon Bon/Applebloom confrontation into the List of Ponies entry, but I would add it if Bon Bon had her own page, because I think it shows that she does have traces of a distinct personality which can be objectively described as per the wiki guidelines. Similarly, the creator commentary linked to by Nathan2000 would be out of place on the List of Ponies page, but a Behind the Scenes section on Lyra's own page would be the proper place for collecting info like this. So why not give fans of these ponies the chance to put their obsession to good use? If the opportunity isn't taken and the background pony pages remain stubs that don't go beyond a couple sentences, they can still be deleted later on. Ditto if they're abused and spammed with references to fanfiction (though personally, a single sentence along the lines of "many fans like to write stories featuring a relationship between Bon Bon and Lyra" is not something I would be bothered by). -- Tulipchainsaw 19:25, July 7, 2011 (UTC) |} This discussion is preserved as an an archive. Please do not modify it. Category:Royal Family members & Category:Royal family members There is no need for 2 similar-named categories. Plus I see no need of including one category into another. Proposition: 1) Articles from Category:Royal family members move to Category:Royal Family members 2) To completely get rid of Category:Royal family members, exclude this category from Category:Royal Family members Teyandee 21:22, July 9, 2011 (UTC) |} Low quality images Avoid uploading and using low-quality images. High-quality sources are available and there's no reason to use blurry, miscolored, low-resolution images. -Throwawaytv 09:57, July 10, 2011 (UTC) Delete the season 2 related articles with no confirmation Periodically, the articles about season 2 / episode 27 were created. None official links were provided: New episode (2011-07-15)‎‎ or Unknown Episode 27. I propose we delete such articles unless an link to http://www.hubworld.com/ or http://www.equestriadaily.com/ or http://www.hasbro.com/ with confirmation is given. Teyandee 16:02, July 10, 2011 (UTC) Support things need to be confirmed, otherwise they're just speculation. --Callofduty4 21:19, July 16, 2011 (UTC) Supportper Callofduty4 - Jar teh marksman Support GG (talk) 23:29, July 16, 2011 (UTC) This discussion is preserved as an an archive. Please do not modify it. New background image for the wiki Here you are able to see a background image I made for the wiki. It doesn't scroll with the page, so it remains stationary and looks neat. Why don't we use this? It's better than the nothing that we have at the moment. Support as proposer. --Callofduty4 21:19, July 16, 2011 (UTC) Support It's lovely :3 Smuff[The cake is a lie] 23:08, July 16, 2011 (UTC) Support Agree, the wiki is rather bland right now Stealth Cl0wn 23:08, July 16, 2011 (UTC) Support Of course! GG (talk) 23:12, July 16, 2011 (UTC) Support The old background is dull. needs moar colour, so great idea. - Jar teh marksman Support Per the above. ~>ฬђ (tคlк ★ ς๏ภtгเ๒ร) 23:37, July 16, 2011 (UTC) Support Personally, it would make the wiki look much better. Also, most other wikis have backgrounds such as these. Shadowdemon137 05:43, July 17, 2011 (UTC) I have modified the MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Wikia.css so the new background image can be seen by guests and logged-in users with Oasis skin. You may have to clear the cache to see it. Enjoy, everypony! Teyandee 09:13, July 17, 2011 (UTC) |} 3 day block for uploading Fan Art Apparently, not everyone has read Guidelines which states Please avoid uploading fan-art. So I have the following suggestion: User who uploads fan-art first time will have his/her images removed. In case of 2nd upload he/she will be blocked for 3 days. We have the rules and I want everybody to know and follow them. Teyandee 17:40, July 20, 2011 (UTC) Neutral I can agree in principle that rules should be read, followed, and repeat offenders sanctioned. If by "will have his/her images removed" you mean all images, as punishment for uploading one piece of fan-art, then I disagree that that should be the first step. The first step should be the removal of the offending image(s) only, accompanied by a warning. That aside, a temporary ban for doing what you were explicitly told not to do sounds reasonable. However, in the interest of "Assume good faith" and "Don't bite the newcomers", might I make some suggestions? 1. Make the guidelines more concrete. "Please avoid uploading fan-art" is somewhat vague, and can give rise to excuses of the sort "but I couldn't avoid uploading my fan-art, because it's so awesome and twenty people have congratulated me on it, and anyway, 'please' is just a suggestion". Instead, maybe a direct prohibition on fan-art is better, plus a non-exclusive list of the areas of the site that this prohibition applies to (either including or excluding profile pages), just to make it perfectly clear. Any possible sanctions should also be mentioned. 2. If technically possible, the image upload dialogue could be altered to include a bold and obvious reference to the guidelines, so that nobody can claim they weren't aware of them. 3. Similarly, if possible, could the Style Guide, the Guidelines and maybe one or two other pages be put into a seperate drop-down list labeled "New users: read me!" next to "Community"? (On a related note, I do think some fanworks warrant their own entries, if they meet objective notability criteria. But the rules are the rules, so for now, I don't go around creating pages for the major fansites or the Cupcakes story. Somebody inevitably will, though, so maybe it would be best to debate this and publish concrete rules for that eventuality as well.) -- Tulipclaymore 20:59, July 20, 2011 (UTC) The phrasing was lifted wholesale from Wikipedia. "Avoid" here means "don't do it, ever." The image upload page can get a "don't upload fan art" banner, but people will igore it the same way they ignore the Please give the file a descriptive name banner. It just doesn't seem to register. I think we should have a discussion about fan art and the guidelines. I've tried starting one several times but I never get any replies. Lastly, bans should be reserved to vandalism and inappropriate behavior. There is no need to ban people who are simply trying to make a positive contribution. -Throwawaytv 10:12, July 22, 2011 (UTC) Oppose Bans should be reserved for vandalism and terms-of-use violations. -Throwawaytv 10:17, July 22, 2011 (UTC) Oppose Per Throwawaytv, if warnings are ignored, then a ban can be issued, just like a ban can be issued for ignoring any warning. --Callofduty4 17:31, July 22, 2011 (UTC) Review of candidates for deletion I think the candidates for deletion page illustrates how fan art blurs the difference between factual, official show information and fan-depictions. Any fan art should be speedily deleted. -Throwawaytv 13:52, July 7, 2011 (UTC) And my personal meter of "caring" drops pretty quickly. I'm still going to delete unused images, but I'm not touching stuff people post on their user or blog pages. About main namespace pages with actual stuff, I suggest gathering lots of votes for deletion or finding a more eager admin.--Nathan2000 16:16, July 7, 2011 (UTC) Fan-art has to be removed. I suggest notifying the uploader and giving 24 hours for him to delete the image. The problem may arise if the image will be in both main namespace and user blog/user pages. Teyandee 17:22, July 7, 2011 (UTC) Template:Notice --Nathan2000 18:09, July 7, 2011 (UTC) I suggest placing "User_" prefixes on images used for user pages. Example, if someone uses a fan-made Fluttershy image, they use the name "User_Fluttershy". It should be a new rule, at least -- Denmax (talk|contributions|sandbox) 18:12, July 7, 2011 (UTC) Vectoring images myself for the use of the wiki Person that started this request has requested complete removal of this discussion Me and Throwawaytv had a discussion some days ago about uploading transparent images. I've personally come to agree to his terms about the fact that the images may or may not be fully dedicated to the original scene it was taken (at least, that's what I thought he was explaining to me), and we might not know since we were not the ones that personally vectored the images. But what if I vector the images myself for the use of the wiki - as in, these images are personally made for the wiki? Their image names will have a prefix of "Tranparent_" to identify if it were made by me or not. Of course, other people may do this as well, just as long as we know they made it themselves (I suggest adding a list of confirmed users that may do this). This is not limited to characters, but maybe also cutie-marks as well (for the confirmed ponies only). I don't know really. Also, the word "made" I think is used wrongly by me. What I mean is I'm vectoring images of a character from a scene in the show with the least (possible 0%) amount of improvising. If the current scenes of a character needs heavy improvising, I won't do it. Please discuss and thank you for your patronage. -- Denmax (talk|contributions|sandbox) 19:08, July 7, 2011 (UTC) Oppose Adding transparency to images, rather than reducing the accuracy of an image (what on earth that means I don't even know), instead removes unneeded background clutter than can detract from the subject in question, in this case ponies and cutie marks. This is so far the only wiki I've seen with editors opposing transparency in images: Call of Duty Wiki encourages it, Runescape Wiki enforces it; it's perfectly normal, and legal, for wikis to support transparency. Smuff[The cake is a lie] 17:17, July 22, 2011 (UTC) Oppose Images that can be made transparent should be made transparent. There is no legal barriers and it is not altering show content. An image of Pinkie Pie should be an image of Pinkie Pie, not an image of Pinkie Pie and whatever is behind her. --Callofduty4 17:27, July 22, 2011 (UTC) Wrong responses guys. You should have Support - which responds to the title of the request, not the response to initial description. 6 Divide and conquer The function of Requests is the same as this page's and What you can do serves the same purpose as Community Portal. I think they should be merged. The talk page of the community portal is archived when too big while the requests page is designed to grow indefinitely. I suggest we stick to the first solution.--Nathan2000 18:07, July 25, 2011 (UTC) Another issue is about pages that host lists of topics rather than describe just one. I'm mainly talking about Wildlife, Festivals and special events and Family and relatives, but Ponyville and Equestria also suffer it to a smaller degree (Food and beverage is more of an essay than a list). I'd like to arrange them in a more encyclopedic (or at least Wikipedian) format — place every separate topic on a separate page and join them with categories. Of course, exceptions occur. Individual animals (beavers, squirrels, mice...) from Wildlife don't deserve individual pages and neither do slumber parties, which are exactly the same as human pajama parties. Feel free to take a stance. Those templates ( Support Oppose Neutral) are pretty nifty.--Nathan2000 18:07, July 25, 2011 (UTC) 1) This page vs Requests I see that most requests are now posted on the second topic. And all actual discussions are being holded there. I think we sould keep that page for a centralized discussion. 2) What you can do vs Community Portal Community Portal is supposed to be like forum for the contributor`s discussion. And What you can do is like a mini-guide. I think we should add all the instructions about how to help at "What you can do" and leave the portal for a episodes-related discussion like helping to find the episode by description. Teyandee 18:37, July 25, 2011 (UTC) Requests page should have been limited to requests that may have a drastic change to the wiki, and requires the opinion of many users (such as large template [edits], addition of certain pages, and the deletion or merge of large pages, uniformity between large quantities of pages, et cetera). Site discussion and small requests (such as above, but in a smaller scale, anything that does not require many opinions, things that obviously must be fixed) should be placed here. What I find a problem is that what should be placed here is instead in the requests page (examples are Low quality images, Category: Royal Family, Delete Season 2 articles, Review for candidates of deletion). Usually what should be placed here are discussions between those of users that has gained high respect or posses high power. -- Denmax (talk|contributions|sandbox) 02:32, July 27, 2011 (UTC) Currently untangling this. -Throwawaytv 13:07, July 29, 2011 (UTC) The requests page has been moved here, and the various community portals have been merged. -Throwawaytv 14:33, July 29, 2011 (UTC) Strong support re: second issue, for the reasons mentioned by Nathan2000. -Throwawaytv 14:08, July 29, 2011 (UTC) Neutral for the topic/category issue. What happens to the topics (particularly those topics that currently only have a one-paragraph description) that get their own page? Do they retain a brief description in the original page that links to the new one? Then the move seems unnecessary to me, and the same effect could be accomplished by creating an anchored redirect. Another option would be to rename the current list pages to "Other forms of wildlife", "Other recreational activities" etc., with a link to the category for more important animals/festivities at the top of the page. Regarding Food and beverage, I don't think anything there is worth getting its own article right now. But I think the list of foods is so long that it can be spun out to its own page, leaving the "essay" (which I think covers the topic pretty well, but needs some stylistic improvements). That would be two pages for a Category:Food, which could be expanded during/following season 2. --Tulipclaymore 21:52, July 29, 2011 (UTC) Alicorn vs Pegasus unicorn vs Winged unicorn This needs elaboration. Which of the three should we tackle to? -- Denmax (talk|contributions|sandbox) 02:15, July 27, 2011 (UTC) Pegasus unicorn is the correct terminology. Pegasus was a winged horse in Greek Mythology, and it's commonplace to call any fantasy winged equine a pegasus. Pegasus unicorn is an extension of this nomenclature. --Callofduty4 16:13, July 27, 2011 (UTC) The winged ponies are called pegasus ponies on the show. The unicorns are called unicorn ponies. There was no explicit reference to a winged unicorn, but "pegasus unicorn pony" or "unicorn pegasus pony" seem right up the show's alley. -Throwawaytv 10:34, July 28, 2011 (UTC) Well when you think about it, we're a wiki about My Little Pony. This means we cover the contents of My Little Pony with the information we gather from My Little Pony. At no point in the show does it mention the word "Alicorn". Thus, the term doesn't exist in the show's universe and so we shouldn't use it either. Personally I think pegasus unicorn sounds better than winged unicorn, but either of the latter two should be good. Smuff[The cake is a lie] 13:45, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Fanbase Wiki Seeing the huge growth of the fandom, and realizing that it might cause severe problems to the wiki keeping to the show (as in, being swarmed by people and not being capable of keeping up), I'd like to make a suggestion of making a separate wiki for the fanbase and linking it from the main page, so fans can go straight from the main page to the fan wiki, and so then everyone is happy (more or less). Shadowdemon137 16:14, July 29, 2011 (UTC) How about using the existing http://mlpfanart.wikia.com/wiki/? Teyandee 16:37, July 29, 2011 (UTC) Nods Not to step on the toes of your discussion, but I just wanted to point out that there is also the Bronies Wiki. While it's not very large right now, it just needs a tiny bit of love. Perhaps you may want to direct those who more interested in the creation of fanart and fanfiction there.--Trellar (help forum | blog) 16:40, July 29, 2011 (UTC) Is there a difference? One is a wiki about fan art (including, incidentally, a huge page on animation errors which I think best belongs here, since it is official art), the other seems to be about OC ponies (i.e., fan content). I'm not involved with either of them, so I don't know if that might cause problems, but might it not be best to merge the two into a "fan reaction to FIM" wiki (in friendly opposition to our "official FIM stuff" wiki)? Back-and-forth linking between the two wikis is a sensible idea (and would not have to be limited to the main page, with, for instance, a link at the bottom of our Derpy page to their Derpy page). --Tulipclaymore 18:31, July 29, 2011 (UTC) The reason the animation errors page was moved is because it's very hard to judge what's an error and what's intentional sometimes, like Rarity's fifth leg when she gets tossed out of the bed (I think it's an error, others think it's a smear-effect). What's more the page is sprawling and not very encyclopedic, so I think it belongs on the other wiki. -Throwawaytv 14:38, July 30, 2011 (UTC) I disagree with both points. I don't think "too much information" should ever be a reason to throw a page out as long as said information is correct; if if gets too unwieldy, split the page and/or improve the navigation. The list of foodstuff is in a similar state, and that remains here. And as long as the descriptions of possible animation errors are just that, descriptive, I don't see the problem of including those questionable errors as well. If the layout artist responsible hadn't told us, we would never have known that the CMC scene in episode 1 was unintentional, but a trivia entry like "it is possible that the CMC where shown together in 1x01 as a piece of foreshadowing" would still have been okay. Sure, that's speculation, as is what is or isn't an animation error, but it's speculation grounded in the show and storytelling conventions. I think you know by now how I feel about that and the role it should play in this wiki. --Tulipclaymore 15:16, July 30, 2011 (UTC) I agree with Tulipclaymore, Shadowdemon and Trellar. I think we should link to the Fanart/Fanfiction wikis and maybe even affiliate ourselves with them officially. We're all fans of the same show after all so I really do not see why we can't make links to the fanfic/fanart wikis. --Callofduty4 18:58, July 29, 2011 (UTC) Yes. We keep the fan-art out of this wikia but still we leave the connection between an official and fan art content. The question is - what wikia will be used for MLP fan art? Teyandee 19:07, July 29, 2011 (UTC) I don't see any difference between linking to remote articles and keeping them here. Well, except for difficulties in maintenance in the first case.--Nathan2000 20:26, July 29, 2011 (UTC) First option is closer to our "avoid Fan-art" policy as it will be kept at external site this way. The maintenance should not be very hard: 1) We can add the external links to fan wikia like this: Applejack at My Little Pony fan art wiki. 2) And we can add the backward links to this wikia by putting template like that at fan wikia pages: Teyandee 06:12, July 30, 2011 (UTC) What I'm saying is that the result is the same. It's passing a rule and immediately preparing a loophole. If we really don't want any fan-generated content, we shouldn't link to it. If we don't mind, there's no reason not to prepare the place for it in here.--Nathan2000 13:05, July 30, 2011 (UTC) We do not want the fanart on our wikia. But adding fanart here is not the same as giving the external link. The second option has the less change of encouraging everypony to add such material here. Teyandee 13:42, July 30, 2011 (UTC) May I divert your attention here and here. -Throwawaytv 18:22, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Main page This is related to both the first topic up top ("Divide and conquer") and the "Clear presentation" section on the Goals page, but I thought it best to give it its own place. What should the main page look like and how should it be organised? I took a stab at the latter question and the result can be seen here. I did not change any of the actual content, even though I think some should be added and some removed. I just moved the links around, clarified their function, and made the navigation (hopefully) a bit easier and more logical. Formatting is also something I imagine should look quite different in a finished version (several bullet points in a row, for instance; and for some reason wikia changes the source once you click on edit, which breaks the intended page layout). --Tulipclaymore 20:41, July 29, 2011 (UTC) I was thinking more of a slider gallery like this as the centerpiece of the main page; it saves space and can help keep things rather tidy. Smuff[The cake is a lie] 13:47, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Well, it's pretty. I have no problem with putting a slider gallery somewhere on the page (for instance, in place of the current main image of Applejack/Twilight/Rainbow). But isn't it somewhat limited? Once you have more than four thumbnails, you'll (presumably) have to scroll. And at least at the moment, there's no way of knowing what a thumbnail stands for before you click on it. Relying only on the gallery and nothing else doesn't seem sensible on accessibility and ease-of-use grounds. --Tulipclaymore 14:31, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Well it would be more to supplement the content on the page rather than actually replace everything. If you look at Battlefield Wiki's main page, you'll get what I mean. Smuff[The cake is a lie] 14:57, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Yeah, okay, I can support that, as long as the no-frills text links remain for faster access. --Tulipclaymore 15:23, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Strong support Please implement, while keeping the existing links easily accessible for easy navigation. -Throwawaytv 14:44, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Smuff and I will work with the Slider to see what we can do to make the mainpage as pretty and as functional as possible. The slider is a good place to start. --Callofduty4 15:45, July 30, 2011 (UTC) I have a mainpage prototype here. Various other users chipped into it, Drkdragonz66 did the header and Smuff did the gallery slider. The second column of boxes overrides the other parts of the page because of the limited page width on my userpage. It looks perfectly fine when used on the mainpage, with allows for full width. If you want anything changed tell me and I'll try my best to change it. --Callofduty4 18:03, July 30, 2011 (UTC) I don't know how many columns that table can manage at full width, but what do you think about adapting my suggestion from above? I.e. have the categories Ponies/Episodes/Production/Wiki/Other and get rid of Festivals and Wildlife, which can both be accessed via other pages. I think it would make the links a little easier to navigate and the categories more logical. And I don't know how others see this, but I believe the "administrative" wiki section should be as prominent as those other categories, especially if we lose the introductory description at the top. Other than that, it's looking good. --Tulipclaymore 20:07, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Everyone who's working on the main page: too much HTML. Use wiki syntax whereever possible, especially for the tables. -Throwawaytv 20:21, July 30, 2011 (UTC) I think "Featured Article" slide should be the last of those 4. Episodes/Characters/Song are 3 things visitors are mostly interested in. And the slide name should be white - it looks better and clearly this way. Teyandee 20:48, July 30, 2011 (UTC) I actually like Throwawaytv's redesign of the mainpage more than my own, but the modules of the second column (poll, articles which need improvement etc.) could be implemented at a later date. Also I find it much easier to use HTML for coding tables, not sure why but I just do. I would've converted them to wikimarkup if that was more preffered for the main page. --Callofduty4 21:32, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Fan art example: cutie marks I've held off deleting the cutie mark images waiting for the issue to come up. The images are clearly fan-made, and there are numerous images of cutie marks on official material that could be used. How do we qualify what's a "good" fan-made image with as little ambiguity as possible? -Throwawaytv 15:00, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Those are fan images but they have a good quality. Are there a "official" images of cutie marks in that quality? Teyandee 15:04, July 30, 2011 (UTC) I concur. There is a difference between pure fanart and show-based vector art that merely traces what is visible in the show in order to provide a higher quality image. I think that's a differentiation that should be made. If such images are edited/labeled to reflect the fact that they're not official, I'm fine with them being on the wiki (as long as they're actually used in articles), whether they're official or not. --Tulipclaymore 15:43, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Alright. The majority seems to think that fan-art that's copied from the show without any added details is "good enough". This needs to be clearly worded so we can tell which images are okay and which are not. Plus we need to mark it clearly as edited/copied content. -Throwawaytv 16:51, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Yes, there are some official vectors of cutie marks. There are vectors of Celestia and the six leading characters. What I meant to point out is that there are screenshots of Trixie's cutie mark, for example, so it's unnecessary to use a fan-made image. -Throwawaytv 16:53, July 30, 2011 (UTC) I think we should keep them, until we get good ones direct from the show. Better to have them than not, and these are pretty accurate anyway. --Callofduty4 21:41, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Front page logo No logo on the front page. -Throwawaytv 21:35, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Support Since the logo is already on every page, I don't see a reason to include it again. -Throwawaytv 21:35, July 30, 2011 (UTC) I went ahead and removed it because it looked rather stupid actually, considering it's there already as you said. --Callofduty4 21:46, July 30, 2011 (UTC) As long as you're here, I think we don't need the "N articles since creation" because it's up there on the page already, too. Oh, and we'll need to put all the "major" pages into the table in some clear order. -Throwawaytv Didn't you already order them? They look fine in the big table to me. --Callofduty4 22:22, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Weak support for the same reason, and because I'm not sure another picture is needed right next to the big gallery. I guess it depends on what the text says eventually, how it's formatted and whether it will stand out without a graphical "anchor" of sorts. --Tulipclaymore 21:49, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Featured article project page I think the featured article project page needs to be turned into a featured article plus front page project page. We need to decide Featured article other articles in the gallery the rest of the links on the front page ...and since the featured article project is fairly successful, I think we can ride on that. -Throwawaytv 21:54, July 30, 2011 (UTC) 7 Luna help me The times they are a-changing. Though the wiki's goals haven't been settled yet, they are very close to settled and all signs point to the obvious fact that people want fan labor and speculation on this wiki (duh). For that purpose, I have readied the following: New and improved guidelines page - please participate! A guide to fan labor on this wiki A guide to speculation on this wiki The gist of things is "if it's not against the terms of service and not prohibited by Wikia, you can put anything you want on /Fan_labor and /Speculation". May Celestia have mercy on our souls.-Throwawaytv 18:21, July 30, 2011 (UTC) At first I thought this idea would be an open invitation for chaos and should be squashed. Now that it's settled a bit, I... well, okay, I still anticipate chaos if implemented the way you suggest. I've taken a look around and not found any wikis that operate sections like this without any rules. Lostpedia has a Theories section for most pages, but also has a policy tailored to maintain a semblance of order. If we adopt something similar (shorter, and also adapted for "fan labor"), I can get behind this idea. But I don't want the wiki to become a repository for just "anything you want", which could be taken to include original content like people's own fanart and fanfiction. It should remain a reference guide. (Discussion for what those rules should entail should probably be placed at the links you gave, but since it hasn't been agreed upon that this is something we want to do collectively, I replied here. I also have some additional thoughts about the relationship between the main page for a character and their accessory pages, which I will give at the appropriate time.) --Tulipclaymore 20:44, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Yup, the /Speculation section is supposed to be identical to the Theories section. I'll have a look at their rules. Oh, and Wikia rules always apply. -Throwawaytv 21:36, July 30, 2011 (UTC) I've had a look at their rules, they seem reasonable, but superfluous. Provide reasoning for your theory. Example: "Rose is Walt's grandmother" is speculation. If you wrote "Rose is Walt's grandmother because... [insert fact(s) here]" you are on the right track. Place theories on the most relevant article. Example: General theories about Jacob should be put on his theory page, not the theory page for an episode he was seen in. Do not state theories as questions or possibilities (avoid terms like "Maybe", "I think"). Do not add illogical or disproven theories. Do not discuss theories on the theory page, main article page or its talk page; use the talk page for the /Theories subpage instead. Do not sign your theories. Obviously adhering to these principles will give better speculation, but I don't feel that it's mandatory. Perhaps you can propose an altered version for a vote. -Throwawaytv 21:41, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Like I said, the Speculation pages wouldn't need quite so many rules; it's the Fan Labor I'm worried about. A proposal for the former: Please follow these suggestions: Always give reasons for your theory, and base your theory on what is presented in the show. Example: "Celestia is a tyrant" is not grounded in the show. It would be better if you wrote "Celestia is a tyrant because... [insert fact(s) here]". Original content created by fans (especially fanfiction and comics) is not a proper source for speculation; use the /Fan_Labor subpage for that. Place theories where they are most appropriate. Example: Speculation that mostly concerns Sweetie Belle should be put on her Speculation page, even if Rarity or others are involved as well. It should definitely not be put on the Speculation page for a specific episode. Example: Speculation about all three Cutie Mark Crusaders should be put only on that Speculation page, and not on all three Speculation pages. If you want to debate a piece of speculation, do not do so by editing the Speculation page. Use the talk page for the /Speculation subpage instead (button in the upper right corner). --Tulipclaymore 00:58, July 31, 2011 (UTC) And for the Fan Labor pages (posted with a separate timestamp so it can be replied to separately): These pages are primarily about fanfiction (both short stories and comics), but adding fan art and adding information on internet memes is also permitted. Think twice about whether the wiki needs a specific entry. Not every short story in existence needs to be represented here. If you can only contribute a handful of sentences to an entry you started, it should probably not be here in the first place. Consequently, the more that can be said about an entry, the better. Please refrain from creating an entry for your own fanfiction/comic. If it is popular, others will do that for you. Do not post content that is solely about fan-created characters. Do not post entire pieces of fanfiction. The wiki is not a story repository, but a reference guide. Example: For a short story, you can provide a summary, a list of characters, a summary of the reactions (both by fans and by the creators of the show), and a trivia section. Do not post long essays. If you want to add to speculation, do so on the wiki's /Speculation subpages. Do not post your opinion (positive or negative) about a fanwork on the /Fan_Labor subpage. If you don't think an entry is worthy of being included, take it to the talk page. The divisions on a subpage should connect different fanworks by theme, not by media type or genre. Each theme should have its own section, and specific fanworks should have subsections. The number of divisions should be adapted to the conditions on each subpage. Example: The Lyra subpage could include the main sections "Lyra and Bon-Bon", "Lyra as a former human", and "Misc.". Short stories worth mentioning would be put in their corresponding main section as a subsection. Example: The Celestia subpage could include the main sections "Celestia as a tyrant", "Celestia as a benevolent monarch", and "Trollestia". Any memes worth mentioning would likely be put in the first and last section. Example: Cheerilee's subpage only has three entries. The creation of themes is not (yet) necessary, and each entry can be granted its own main section. Place an entry where it is most appropriate. Example: A comic in which Scootaloo is the main character belongs on her /Fan_Labor page, even if Rainbow Dash also appears. Take the main part of the wiki as a guide on what kind of language is appropriate. If you wouldn't post it on a regular article, don't post it in Fan Labor. You can write about mature fanworks (e.g. Cupcakes), but do not quote any sections that would violate the Wikia terms of use. If you must, describe those parts in neutral terms and move on. Fan art belongs in galleries, not on text pages, so do not embed pictures. Each /Fan_labor subpage can have several themed galleries; if one does not exist yet, you can create one. Example: Assuming that that Luna's /Fan_Labor subpage has three main sections, "Luna before the fall", "Luna on the Moon" and "Luna reunited with Celestia", and you want to post a generic Luna picture with Luna in socks: you can create a gallery "Misc.". If at some later points many more "Luna in socks" pictures get added in, a separate gallery can be created for this theme (and possibly a text entry to remark on the theme's popularity). Now, obviously this goes beyond what has been discussed so far and is highly tentative. There isn't any particular order to the rules, because the new editor which wikia foisted upon me a few hours ago is annoying me and making it difficult; they will likely have to be rearranged in any case. I had to make some reasonable guesses as to what others want the Fan Labor pages to be, and what could go wrong. Having no dedicated article pages for crossover topics (and hence no Fan Labor pages for those) could be problematic. I am also assuming that nested subpages are not possible; if they are (e.g. Pinkie Pie/Fan_Labor/Cupcakes), some of the terminology (e.g. sections -> subpages) will have to be reworded. It would also make these pages much more manageable, provided that there's automatic indexing. --Tulipclaymore 00:58, July 31, 2011 (UTC) I'm gonna slim your guidelines down and put them in the new guidelines. Also, participation has been low so I'm gonna go ahead and make the new guidelines into the current guidelines when I'm done. -Throwawaytv 10:45, July 31, 2011 (UTC) I don't think you have a basis for complaining about a lack of participation. If I had worked this weekend, I couldn't have participated at all. People who only use the internet at work (or aren't online over the weekend for other reasons) might not know anything about any discussions. I don't understand the rush to pull massive changes out of your hat without proposing them first and without giving people a chance to respond before assuming they'll fall in line (regardless of whether I agree with the idea, which I do, with reservations). --Tulipclaymore 17:20, July 31, 2011 (UTC) Background pony pages (moved from Goals page) Since a good number of pages that are created and then deleted again are of background ponies, and since there aren't really any rules about this so far beyond "no fanfiction", how about some special criteria for those pages in addition to the general ones I tried to outline above? I put this in a separate section, since they're technically two seperate issues. Some suggestions, adapted from a previous discussion: the pony appears in the show (i.e. no OC characters), the pony exhibits unusual/noteworthy characteristics and behaviours, creators have acknowledged fan interest, the pony has at least one spoken line, the pony appears in a significant number of episodes, a comprehensive description of the pony's noteworthy appearances would exceed the couple of sentences that there is room for on the List of ponies page, the fanbase has exhibited significant interest in working with the character, creators have expressed behind-the-scenes trivia about the character. None of the background ponies who currently have a page of their own meet all of these conditions, so meeting just some of them would suffice. I ordered the list in descending order of importance (e.g. DJ P0N-3 gets her own page because criterion #3 overrules #4 and #5), although that order is, of course, somewhat arbitrary. --Tulipclaymore 18:33, July 30, 2011 (UTC) This is more a specific suggestion for a page and should probably go on the general discussion page. -Throwawaytv 19:06, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Oh, and by the way: NO. NOOOO. NO. This is exactly the sort of overly complex and ambiguous "rules" I've been trying to avoid. -Throwawaytv 19:07, July 30, 2011 (UTC) To clarify, this is really simple: is it on the show? It can have a page. Does the page have any content? No? Then it should be merged with the list of ponies page. Speculation and fan labor goes in /Speculation and /Fan_labor. -Throwawaytv 19:08, July 30, 2011 (UTC) Well, unless you want to allow single pages for all the background ponies (and from your recent clarification, it doesn't sound like you do), you only have the option "don't allow any such pages" and "allow some pages, but only within certain constraints". A set of rules is an unfortunate necessity of the latter option. I think those rules are fairly unambiguous, but if you disagree, make corrections. I think we've established that "I'll know what a useless page is when I see it" is not a satisfactory policy. And I posted it here because it's related to the notability criteria above; if we do want limits on what pages can be created, we need to estabish rules, and we need to post those rules on the Guidelines page. A simpler rule would be "any background pony page that has a) an appearances table that is at least half full and b) slightly more descriptive text than the corresponding List of ponies entry gets to stay". I'd be fine with that, but it may be too simple for some. --Tulipclaymore 19:51, July 30, 2011 (UTC) "Background ponies page" is not a goal for the wiki. If you have issues with a specific article take it to the general discussion page page or edit the article. Since we're already here though, here's the answer: yes, every single thing in the show merits an article, providing there's enough to write. If there isn't enough, it should be merged into an existing article. What's "enough"? Propose a length on the general discussion page. -Throwawaytv 21:16, July 30, 2011 (UTC) I don't have issues with a specific article, which you must know if you've read what I wrote. My "issue" is that it is fairly arbitrary right now which pages are deleted and which pages are kept (only to be moved into the deletion category by the next guy who has problems with it). I have created two talk sections addressing this: a catalogue of general critera (still on the Goals page), and a catalogue of specialised criteria for the background ponies, which are a special case. And the very fact that "enough" is up for debate is what I've been saying this entire time, and what I've been trying to rectify. I'm not proposing a length because I don't think "length" alone is an adequate indicator. My two suggestions for a better solution are the numbered list above and "any background pony page that has a) an appearances table that is at least half full, and b) slightly more descriptive text than the corresponding List of ponies entry, gets to stay". So pick an option and feel free to pick it apart, but don't suggest that I haven't made any concrete proposals. --Tulipclaymore 23:01, July 30, 2011 (UTC) You're making specific rules for a specific article, which is way too cumbersome. I'm gonna implement the "light" version of the guidelines and you should propose new guidelines as you see fit. -Throwawaytv 10:47, July 31, 2011 (UTC) Rename DJ P0N-3 to DJ Pon3 According to There's a Pony For That, that pony`s name is DJ Pon3. It is more official than the fan name Vinyl Scratch. Pages Vinyl Scratch and DJ Pon-3 will be redirected to DJ Pon3. {C}Teyandee 08:15, July 31, 2011 (UTC) Is there a written reference? It's hard to make a call without one. -Throwawaytv 10:33, July 31, 2011 (UTC) One of the posts in Neigh reads "DJ Pon3 in da House".--Nathan2000 12:36, July 31, 2011 (UTC) Colbert Report Under the new guidelines, is there room for stuff like this on the wiki? Bronies could possibly be created because it features in the Equestria Girls music video. -Throwawaytv 12:55, August 2, 2011 (UTC) Support. Colbert's show is well-known enough to be a reliable source in and of itself (at least when it comes to mentions; anything else should obviously be filtered through the satire lens, but that is not currently an issue for us). And if some fan phenomena are to be included, then the most obvious one (and probably the only one deserving its own article) is "bronies". If we stick to the proposed "no fan-related content without sources" rule (and we probably should), we should be prepared for some controversy, though. Most, if not all mainstream articles/sources about bronies so far (Wired, Slate, that Australian one, NPR) focus on the "male fans of MLP" part, leaving out the women who also exist. --Tulipclaymore 16:23, August 2, 2011 (UTC) Support - Technically all male editors of the wiki are bronies, so it would be nice to acknowledge the fanbase. It's a widespread term, it's pretty famous, it's featured on sites such as Know Your Meme, so logically should be deemed notable. Smuff[The cake is a lie] 18:11, August 2, 2011 (UTC)