The Wikipedia softban on pony articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rainbow_Dash_(3rd_nomination)), which lasted from 2012 until April of this year, is now over.

There are now Wikipedia pages for:
>Rainbow Dash
>Pinkie Pie
>Applejack
>Fluttershy
>Rarity
>Spike
>Princess Celestia
>Princess Luna
>Princess Cadence
>Shining Armor
>Discord
>Starlight Glimmer
>the Cutie Mark Crusaders (collectively)
>Trixie
>Zecora
>Queen Chrysalis
>Lord Tirek
>Derpy Hooves
>the "Background Six" (collectively)
>Cheese Sandwich
>Quibble Pants
>The Wonderbolts (collectively)
>Aunt Holiday and Auntie Lofty
>Sunset Shimmer
In addition to Twilight Sparkle, who was the only pony article to survive Wikipedia's initial purge.

Are you happy? Did your favorite make the cut?

A bunch of those pages got deleted, like the CMC

>>42383795 (OP)
HAHAHA, lol, I remember when someone trashtalked me about being nittpicky about the occupations of the ponies; and look what all got added! I won so hard.

>>42383798
Cutie Mark Crusaders is the only one that got deleted. All the others are still up.

>>42383795 (OP)
>caring about shitkipedia

>>42383805
This. Let's make MLP articles on Conservapedia instead.

>>42383795 (OP)
I'm surprised not many wiki autists have picked up on how much of these articles have info that aren't from the source
Yes the person making these articles is using proper sourcing to avoid deletion, but he also seems to be hoping that no one will even bother checking the sources
The Derpy Hooves article for instance has an entire section on Derpygate that's reliant on one single book, and much of that section isn't even present in the book (including the very name 'Derpygate')
>>42383803
Trixie was also deleted, but the guy who made the article just arbitrarily undid the deletion and no one else seemed to notice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Great_and_Powerful_Trixie

>>42383802
Oh, actually, Starlight is missing castellan of the Castle of Friendship for occupation, but still pretty good. The guy who makes these must lurk here, like, all the suggestions I pointed out got added? Wow, I feel so important. Haha

>>42383816
>The guy who makes these must lurk here
He's OP.

>>42383810
It's called being a primary source

Like 50% of these shouldn’t qualify for their own page

Cuckpedia does not allow anything but jew/lgbtv4khd propaganda anyways.

>background favourites
>Aunt Holiday and Auntie Lofty
My guess the only reason this is up because LGBTQHDTV

>>42383822
Wikipedia bans original research though

>>42383819
I'm not the guy.

>>42383863
Yes, there probably are plenty of articles for them because of that which makes them eligible for a Wikipedia article

>>42383795 (OP)
None of the characters are relevant enough to warrant their own pages.

>>42384103
Before anyone asks “Even Cozy Glow?”, yes, sadly we live in a world where she was written into the worst story ever written that deserves to be utterly forgotten forever. In a good reality, she’d be the star of every movie in history, because she’s just that perfect.

Just another sign of pony become slowly less and less relevant.

>>42384120
Good. If it wants relevancy, it has to earn it.

>meanwhile every completely obscure anime/cartoon/movie/series character has their own page
jewpedia is just another one of the pony hater community

It's retarded that ponies warrant more pages for characters than the Simpsons

I wonder why FiM wiki is still on fandom

>>42384490
There's Equestripedia but that's pretty much dead

>>42384490
Because its run by g5 sellouts as nothing more than a ego farm for the IDW comics writers so putting it where the most slop traffic possible comes through is the goal
Like a sewer

>>42384499
>G3 is represented by a troon flag pony
kek
>>42384507
I'm pretty sure you can fork the wiki even if admin cabal doesn't want to leave wikia's platform

>>42384512
>Objects
>Depicts woman
Somepony has to stop them!

>>42383795 (OP)
>Wikipedia softban
This question may seem redundant but, why was pony so massively hated in those years? I can understand the hate for Bieber for example but I fail to see how pastel horses made butts so hurt that people reacted to them as if they were a black person in a public space in the 17th century

>>42384557
It wasn't so much because it was hated but because people kept making low-effort Wikipedia articles for ponies without understanding sourcing
There's a lot of topics like this that get softbans since they're frequently created, Chris Chan is one of them too

>>42384571
>Chris Chan is one of them too
CWC is extra retarded because
>original ban happened when Chris tried to make an article about himself
>second ban happened when weens tried to document him before he became "big"
>third (and current) ban happened because he's trans and documenting him would be seen as harassment or whatever (you literally can't mention him on WP, see Kiwi Farms article)

>>42383795 (OP)
Kek
>>42383823
This lol. It should be one megapage of "list of characters"

>>42383850
I'm honestly surprised people on here still use it. Most information there is so ridiculously biased it's unusable.

>>42385225
Wikipedia requires sourcing which means you can at least check where the info comes from. That's already better than the majority of American education and "news", which only has a basis in superdonor interests dressed up as moral outrage.

>>42384490
>Pic
Kek, true.

>>42383795 (OP)
What’s even more grim is that the faggot who maintains these pages is some xir xem trans zoomerfag
I’m pretty sure wikipedia will go down the drain one day where it rightfully belongs, those annoying donation popups where it screams “le 2% of readers only actually donate!!” sure help with that.
>>42383808
wtf is Conservapedia, archived Wikipedia?

>>42385287
>wtf is Conservapedia, archived Wikipedia?
Wiki that has an open conservative/"republican" bias
only "used" (cared about) by butthurt leftists

fucking hell he made a pony.mov article too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PONY.MOV

>>42385266
>requires sourcing
Yea, no. Requires sourcing if you are not pushing propaganda. And if you try to edit something which goes against their current agenda, if you provide valid and verified sources they will still revert the changes and ban you.

On a living person's page I added the number of kids they have plus their names. Source? Video interview, plus two articles by major publishers, plus the facebook posts from the person. Issue? Guy was supposed to be a rainbow flag supporter, having a straight relationship and kids do not fit this agenda. Result? Page reverted, I got a ban.
Or look at the nigger samurai page. There are hundreds of recordings that he was not a samurai. Cucksoft paid a few publishers to create articles that he was a samurai based on one single other source. Result? He must be a samurai!
But to stay on topic >>42383863

>>42385409
There are many many articles about web (youtube) series. I wonder if this one gets booted or not.

>>42385418
>Video interview, [...] plus the facebook posts from the person
Well yes Wikipedia typically bans this due to self referential grounds
There's a guy I know who has a Wikipedia article that claims he only has one kid sourced to an article from over a decade ago, despite this easily being countered by videos from his own YouTube channel that state he has had several kids since then

>>42385462
Then what's supposed to be the proof? Do you need a copy of their birth certificates or something? The articles even contain a picture of his family...
The main issue was that the straight family he has does not fit the he is known for being an lgtv4khd supporter thing.

>>42385462
>>42385538
On the topic of proof, check the shitfest what's going on Ozzy's page. Ridiculous. Stuff what was here for 10+ years gets removed because "no source". Does not matter that it links to another wiki page as the source where the sources are provided. For example his whole filmography got nuked. Does not matter that the series was his name...

>>42385462
"no primary sources" is so retarded I can't even describe my hatred for this rule
there was one topic that had to wait for journos to release their articles just because "you can't use documentaries as sources" (but articles that describe documentaries are fine!)

>>42385418
>Cucksoft paid a few publishers to create articles
What are you basing this on?

>>42385266
I will tell you I had a revelation on how fucked America is on the topic of sources. Ever since I was in school, all the way into 6 years of college, we used sources but I have never heard the idea of checking "primary" sources. Just "sources". Basically you can make a long game of telephone.

>>42383863
those two make the MLP x Transformers comic #2 lame. But I'll say most of the second comic wasn't as good as the first.

>>42385628
>"no primary sources" is so retarded I can't even describe my hatred for this rule
Agreed, it's absolutely Wikipedia's dumbest rule. They literally have a page saying the'd rather spread lies if they're confirmed with secondary sources even if primary sources prove that it's false. Literally saying they make zero effort to strive for the truth.

>>42386198
Because the point of Wikipedia isn't meant to be a publishing site for the research of randos, but to gather and summarize established information. That's also why many MLP characters couldn't have articles: what is there supposed to be said, other than a regurgitation of the plot and credit the voice actor?

Look at the Wonderbolts article: it probably only survives because of the reception & analysis section, which relies on the "Journal of Fandom Studies" and a Substack article. Speaking generally, what are we even supposed to add?

>>42385976
Where do you think publishers get the money from? Hint hint, not the ads.
Whichever publisher has a donation page and are periodically crying for money are the independent ones.

>>42386872
>publishers don't have a donation page
>therefore they must be getting their money from Cucksoft for the sake of generating secondary sources to be used on Wikipedia
>no I'm not giving any examples or proof
Yeah no wonder your shit gets deleted.

>>42386894
>references 10+ sources from reputable publishers and scientific papers which are valid according to their guidelines
>gets deleted
>agenda pusher references a single article from some obscure publisher, but it aligns with their agenda
>kept
I wonder why you are so retarded.

No one is stopping you to make your own Wikipedia.

>>42386996
/mlp/ can't even make its own desuarchive. It keeps losing more and more old images and nobody gives a fuck.

>>42386966
>dodge the question when pressed
>attempt to change topic
You're full of shit.

>>42383816
Very cute picture glimmerbro

>>42387008
>calls out topic change after changing topic
Nice try hypocrite.

>>42387047
>no u!11
You made the claim, retard. You even responded when asked for clarification, and only chickened out when it became clear you were making shit up.

>>42383810
No, that's wrong. I have a copy of the book and everything written in that section was taken almost straight from the book but paraphrased. The phrase "Derpygate" doesn't show in that book IIRC but it shows up in the other articles sourced in the Wikipedia article.

>>42383795 (OP)
also /mlp/ and brony music have their own articles too

>>42387204
Okay, GregariousMadness

>>42383795 (OP)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slang_of_the_My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_fandom
my favorite article, there should be more examples added tho

>>42387239
Not him thoughever. I don't think he's doing anything wrong or underhanded BTW, he's just really good at following Wikipedia's rules on sourcing to the tee and helping pony articles stay up by playing by their own rules. I haven't seen any content in these new articles that weren't present in the linked source.

>>42383795 (OP)
You missed this one btw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mane_Six

>>42387001
good riddance
if nobody gave a shit when desustorage bite the dust, maybe the archive isn't worth keeping anyway

>>42387241
A copy of the Mareiam-Websteed Dictionary can be found here: https://www.scribd.com/document/60811338/Mareiam-WebsteedDictionary
Need an account to download an offline copy though.

>>42387069