Talk:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic season 4

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

My Little Pony High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject My Little Pony, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of My Little Pony related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.My Little PonyWikipedia:WikiProject My Little PonyTemplate:WikiProject My Little PonyMy Little Pony articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance). Animation: American / Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Animated television work group (assessed as Low-importance).

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

There's a lot of information coming from the SDCC panel - but we should wait until a source (likely Bleeding Cool News) picks it up to report on the tidbits. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, is there any source for Josh Haber being the writer for episode three? I removed his name from the column for the time being since there was no source listed.--Jonny Manz, signing off! ^{(Ctrb, E-mail)} 00:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Haber was trying to update the article himself, not fully understanding the rules about citing sources. dogman15 (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know that now. :P--Jonny Manz, signing off! ^{(Ctrb, E-mail)} 22:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. That's one RS, but I'd like to see a couple more before making it (and of course after it airs). We can certainly talk about the "Twilight won't change" facets that the showrunners spoke of at the end of S3. --MASEM (t) 06:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(revert): "It is better to be over-sourced than under, and as we get more credits and move away from twitter messges, that will strengthen the article." What exactly do Twitter messages come in to play here? Press releases and Twitter tweets are both primary sources of information. Although the latter is likely to a more favorable source, according to WP:PSTS, primary sources should be used sparingly as to not "base [the] entire article on [them]".

For writer and direction information, since the episode has been released, we can use the episode's credits as a primary source to support that information. For air dates, the season's Zap2it page is referenced in the air date column header, which is used to support all the air dates that have been released from the source (Zap2it). Hence, providing the press releases is unnecessary for episodes that have already aired. — Whisternefet (t · c) 03:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the show itself does provide the credit information, but providing even other primary sources via the press releases is a strongly recommended option when they are routinely available (the same applies for plot summaries); it may be doubling up on sourcing but it is better do that. Twitter itself is a problem in that all these accounts, "we" (fans of the show) know are the people they claim but most of the show runners don't have Twitter-verified status, and thus they will be suspect to anyone else. Hence using the press releases to affirm these claims. And while Zap2It is generally okay, I've not met a lot of people that consider that the best source in the long term. --MASEM (t) 03:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how having redundant primary sources helps to verify information further, but I'll concede for now. Re: Zap2it being crummy, that can be fixed, although any inaccuracies just seem to be a reflection on the network being lazy and not updating their databases. TV Guide seems to be popular as a source for other season articles. — Whisternefet (t · c) 03:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And by redundant I mean for the episodes whose information has already been affirmed by both itself (in the case of crew info) and air dates (by TV Guide). Obviously for episodes that cannot be affirmed by either another primary source is desirable. — Whisternefet (t · c) 04:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing to consider is that the press releases will have be more available to end users than the episode itself, and is better for casting and crew than a site like IMDB in terms of reliability. It does not hurt to have them at all. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as its inclusion isn't self-serving. When you have more than one primary source being used to support the existence of something, then, according to WP:PSTS, choose the best, most encompassing source and cut out what's redundant or unnecessary. Episodes are already primary sources, and if they have been made public, this makes them verifiable, regardless of convenience—although external links do help (but are, by definition, external to the article). Otherwise, the article is going to be abundant in primary sources, which can be hurtful. That, of course, depends on the ratio to the amount of secondary sources available (which this article seems to lack at the moment, although that will change obviously as the season progresses). — Whisternefet (t · c) 18:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Weird Al" Yankovic's guest appearance in the episode "Pinkie Pride" has drawn quite a bit of notability from other sources. Do you think we can put together a whole article for it once we get some reception for the episode? User:Immblueversion (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. That he was on, and a bit of information that explains how that came about is not sufficient for notability. We in particularly need critical reviews of the episode. It might get that due to Weird Al but lets wait until after tomorrow. --MASEM (t) 03:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone didn't agree. User:Immblueversion (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the episode aired as scheduled, the long description will be updated as possible soon it was aired. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 02:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed someone made an article on the episode "Bats!" with no sources or anything. Unless this means we're going to make an article for every episode—which I sincerely doubt—should we actually have this? User:Immblueversion (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. It wasn't a notable episode. Pinkie Pride barely passes the threshold and I doubt we'll see that with Bats!. (I do hope the finale can, but jury's still out on that). --MASEM (t) 23:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Cloudsdale anthem from the Equestria Games that Spike sang should be listed under songs. Yes, it was a painful joke but it was composed for the show, regardless of how bad a song it was. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a song - there are zero credits specifically calling it out in the end of the episode (just checked) that we have for every other song listed, and that's required to credit the composer and lyricist. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all of them are amazing!!! you know what?! if they were eccually real I would have just hugging them!! and learning friendship from princess celestia and princess twilight!! oh and that reminds me that have you watched mlp rainbow rocks!! it is the new movie of equestrian girls!!! I have just watched it now!! it was totally awesome!! I loved it!! you should watched it too!! but I don't care if have watched it because I can watch it 100000000 times if I want!!!! you can too!! your choice! byeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.52.52.129 (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gial Ackbar, Masem:, The Music in the Treetops reprise in "Filli Vanilli" episode, how come that's named "Find the Music in You" reprise was that way I was looking at? --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 02:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the reprise is a mix of both songs. Gial Ackbar (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no fan, but are the ratings in this season are correct? Because for some reason, the ratings for the two-parter, "Twilight's Kingdom", had actually 367,700 people tuning in, while the next part had 478,800 people tuning in, but Wikipedia states that it is different. RareButterflyDoors (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I've changed them.RareButterflyDoors (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]