Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom

Renaming

Hey y'all, given the release of the next generation of the franchise, with this fandom still connected, would it be better to, following Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, be better to use the title "Brony Fandom" or "My Little Pony fandom"? - Navarre0107 (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I support this, specifically "Brony fandom". There's still a sizeable following carrying over into G5 if nothing else. It extends beyond FiM at this point and the title may be out of date. "My Little Pony fandom" may be too broad as that might imply a franchise-wide following, where only G4+ gained it. The common name generally seems to be "brony" anyway. Cloudwalk9 (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. If there's any objection, feel free to revert and it could be discussed further if the rename should stick or something else be chosen, or the prior name kept. Cloudwalk9 (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted, as its been discussed before. First "Brony" implies male-only fans, and thus we've avoided using that term alone. Second, it is CRYSTAL to assume that there will be a significant fandom of the same type into G5. If there is a fandom, we'll need to figure out how it is treated. --Masem (t) 02:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I have not found any such discussion.

I would be convinced by your first argument if there is current, popular consensus against the label on the grounds of gender inclusivity, backed by multiple reliable sources. Otherwise it's WP:NPOV editorializing. Wikipedia doesn't get to decide how things are named because it sounds like it excludes people. The only acceptable way to point this out is a section going over the topic about male exclusivity of the label in the past tense; that is, it may not necessarily reflect the situation now if it did so in the past. The fandom's WP:COMMONNAME is still the "Brony fandom".

Your second argument is implying that G5 would spawn a new fandom and not simply be a continuation of the existing brony fandom. The fact that popular originally-FiM media outlets continue to exist and post G5 content, not to mention that G5 itself canonically occurs in the same universe as FiM, leads me to believe that there is no new fandom and a mere continuation has already occurred.

What ever the title of the article, the current title simply isn't accurate and the rationale for not using its WP:COMMONNAME violates WP:NPOV and is not based on reality. You could probably get away with "My Little Pony fandom" but that may be too broad because bronies generally aren't fans of pre-G4. While there have been "proto-bronies" of sorts who were fans of MLP before G4, and some popular brony outlets have explored past content, they have either co-opted fandom nomenclature and merged with the fandom, or avoided the fandom altogether. It still fundamentally falls under the umbrella of the "brony fandom". Cloudwalk9 (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I could have sworn we had a move request on the name at one point but I can't find it. That said, it probably is better to have a requested move since I would still dispute that we should title it "brony" since that is discrimatory towards the female portion of the fandom (even if that's the more common name). But I would also simply wait until we have more G5 content to see how strong the fandom remains, since all we have to go on is the reaction to the film, and not the additional series. --Masem (t) 12:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Citing Equestria Daily

By my count, the artticle currently has six citations to Equestria Daily, a fan blog. According to WP:SPS, blogs (presumably including EqD) are generally not acceptable as reliable sources. Should these EqD citations be removed? CJ-Moki (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I have already proposed an edit that removes several EQD citations. 177.121.112.234 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

EqD collects news from across various sources regarding MLP & its fandom. I wouldn't consider it a blog, more of a news aggregator. As such, I've undone the IP's changes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

What sources are these? Are they reliable? User-generated content is prohibited on Wikipedia, per WP:UGC. If EqD or aggregators in general qualify as reliable sources under WP:RS, then it may be cited, but it's best that their inclusion should be considered based on the source that was collected by EqD. Also, such sources should be linked directly, not through EqD. 177.121.112.234 (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

"Horse News" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Horse News has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 19 § Horse News until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)