Talk:My Little Pony: A New Generation

Requested move 19 May 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by proposer. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

My Little Pony (2021 film) → Untitled My Little Pony film – Most of the sources in the article and on the internet do not refer to the film as "My Little Pony" but rather the new My Little Pony film or such. Pamzeis (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(untitled)
Deleted sections referencing the new movie being a direct sequel to Gen 4, since the linked source makes no mention of such a thing and gives no reason to believe so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:880:54f0:38da:ad85:227:ee39 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021
I'd like to change the word from will to were 122.61.169.64 (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've changed a bunch of instances of "will" in #Production to "would" or "were" or "was". Was this what you were referring to? Pamzeis (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Plot length cap
Why is the length of the plot section capped at 700 words? That sounds extremely arbitrary. Some of the plot details don’t make sense without further explanation, like the fact it’s brought up the royals are also unable to fly, but it was never mentioned that other Pegasi previously thought they were able to fly.

Ganondox (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * See MOS:FILM and specifically MOS:FILMPLOT. --M asem (t) 23:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding a cite for the gross in infobox
An IP has recently been trying to add a reference to The Numbers in the infobox, claiming that "gross should be clearly sourced". I disagreed per WP:WTC and WP:INFOBOXREF as the gross is already cited in body and subsequently reverted. The IP, however, re-reverted, claiming that the gross was "wrong" but, FTR, it wasn't, just outdated. Any thoughts about this? Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion that it was "unnecessary" does not take precedence over Verifiability/WP:V.
 * The edit summaries made no mention of WP:WTC or WP:INFOBOXREF. It is not clear what part of WP:WTC you think is relevant here, the information was wrong (for whatever reason) and I was challenging it, and I absolutely do care about the accuracy of the information, don't you? Even so it is not clear that those guidelines take precedence over WP:V either.
 * It also showed a lack of good faith that my edit was reverted wholesale and that this editor had a strange interpretation of MOS:LARGENUM and wasn't rounding down the figures. Rounding $1,518,084 to $1.518 million was a strange choice, made stranger by the decision to remove the reference. (Project film generally rounds the figures down for readability, and in most cases to only one decimal place. The guidelines are not specific about this, and it is difficult to dig out past discussions  but in practice most articles round the budget figures down to only 1 decimal place to give a ballpark estimate, and for anyone who actually wants the precise figures the reference is usually right beside it and easy to check. I mention this because it is was so strange to see an editor arguing against including references and also restoring another odd decision in the process.)
 * The fact is that in many Wikipedia film articles figures such as the box office gross are and the budget are frequently inaccurate, flat out wrong, (in this case outdated) or sometimes even entirely made up. As such leaving the figures without a clear and easy to check reference is a terrible idea. Excluding the reference makes it less likely that the figures will be kept up to date and more likely that small acts of vandalism to go unnoticed (yes some editors will vandalize budget and gross figures in small ways, who knows why they do it, but I'll bet My Little Pony articles get vandalized a lot). The Infobox is the first place the figures are shown and they should be clearly referenced, having another reference someone down the page is barely adequate, it is not preferable. I edit older Wikipedia Film articles too, and it is clear that editors used to think it was fine if a source was linked anywhere in the article at all, and often there will be no inline reference and the only link to Box office mojo would be in the External links section, but including inline references is clearly so much better and easier for anyone who wants to check the figures are accurate or up to date. Nonetheless there are still plenty of editors who care deeply about style over substance, who get upset about italics in the wrong place in a reference, and it would not surprise me if there are some that agree with your definition of "unnecessary" and think it looks better or actually believe removing the inline references from the Infobox is an improvement.
 * While we are on the subject of inaccurate numbers, the BBFC says the runtime of this film is 91 minutes, not 90 minutes that some other sources claim. (Template:Infobox_film specifically recommends using the BBFC.) You might like to believe runtimes were simple and uncontentious and wouldn't need an inline reference either but with even the theatrical release having multiple different runtimes (2D/3D/4DX) not to mention the home media release (PAL or NTSC), runtimes are not so simple. Even apparently simple things often need inline references.
 * But again WP:V, better to clearly and unambiguously verify the figures. -- 109.77.206.165 (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess I'm wrong; I've modified the article to reflect what I believe you are saying about the runtime. Pamzeis (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't even say you were wrong, I'd say including the reference makes for a better article. Thank you improving the runtime reference in the Infobox. -- 109.78.198.237 (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

"MLP G5" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MLP_G5&redirect=no MLP G5] 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  until a consensus is reached. 2NumForIce (speak  &#124; edits) 02:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)