Anyway, here's the relevant EQD articles for references: Sonicsuns ( talk) 21:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC) EQD isn't reliable as it is a blog without much editorial control. M ASEM ( t) 21:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Hm.I know EQD isn't a mainstream source like Forbes, but it's a good source for MLP news, isn't it? And what "attitude" are you talking about the attitude displayed by ponyarchive or the attitude displayed by EQD? And regardless of anyone's attitude, it still seems important to note that Hasbro issued a C&D against a site that offered free downloads of the episodes. If there's a more reliable source that explains this at some point, we can add it, but as far as what we can get from RS right now, what's there is all we can say. Also, anything dealing with the pony archive is far different, given the attitude they took to the C&D. I know EQD has posted more articles on this, but we shouldn't be using EQD as a source outside of their interviews. I recognize that "we" know Hasbro seems to have taken a stance on the vids at YouTube, but the only source that states this that is reliable is the Forbes article that notes that Hasbro is taking down some on YouTube that are HD. IsaacAA ( talk) 19:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC) I do agree too that its excess (At least, at the size it is now and minimal coverage it gets.) - M ASEM ( t) Mythpage88 ( talk) 05:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC) BroNYcon in the lead section is definitely undue emphasis. M ASEM ( t) 05:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Fair enough, though I did remove the bit about BroNYcon, as per WP:MOSINTRO ("Relative emphasis"). I've trimmed it to remove redundancies within it, but moving it was wrong. The section you moved -about Faust and the like - is actually necessary in the lead because it is a major part of the article, Faust's creative development of the show.
Mythpage88 ( talk) 05:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 4 paragraphs for a article this long is completely fine. The section in question seemed out of place and was adequately summarized in the body.
I moved a section of the lead to the body and placed it in a comment below the text it summarized (though it was more repetition than summary).
0 kommentar(er)
