Minor cast and crew

Is there really any reason to list so many minor people who worked on the show once? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.30.240 (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[]

A lot of templates I've seen do that; and it doesn't really clutter it up at all. --Yellow1996 (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[]
Shouldn't there at least be some distinction between the core and non-core cast and crew? --98.26.30.240 (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[]
Actually, that's a pretty good idea! If you have an idea on how that could be organized, then please go ahead and make the change. --Yellow1996 (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[]

Discord article

I created a separate article for Discord; I believe this template should link directly to it. User:Immblueversion (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[]

WP:EXISTING?

Is it just me, or does anyone else think we should get rid of all the non-articles in this template? Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[]

I agree with this. This template is to be used to navigate between articles, not to present info like crew members or spinnoffs. Info can be found in the articles, therefor there is no need to include it here. When the articles about them are written, they can be included again. Gial Ackbar (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Correct List + Linking

I assume the correct way to fix this onto this template. This should be it.

--Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 14:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[]

This template links to exiting articles, it is not supposed to give the first and last episode of a season, only episodes that have articles about them. Gial Ackbar (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[]

A bunch of new cast links

I'm concerned with the large number of cast links added recently. There is a long-running discussion about how the "bidirectionality" of navboxes should be implemented. That is: Should every article that includes (transcludes) the navbox also have a link? And vice versa? I'm leaning toward the view expressed by some in that discussion: If it's not appropriate for the article to include the navbox, then it shouldn't be linked from it. In that case, the links here need some serious pruning. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[]

I would agree that there should be bi-directionality, otherwise why have the navbox? (Note that Categories can still be used to further classify MLPFIM-related staffers if we wouldn't otherwise include a box on their page). --MASEM (t) 22:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[]
What should you do to that navbox, if I want to prune that? --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 23:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[]
No need to prune that. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 19:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[]

"Fandom" links

I have a feeling that the title of the "Fandom" subgroup should link to the main fandom article, similar to the "Episodes" link. But that would leave the term brony/bronies absent. Thoughts? Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[]

These terms are not absent right now. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 19:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[]
To Allen2: I mean to say that, if the word "Fandom" were to be linked, then the term "bronies" would be absent (or otherwise it would be redundant). You can see what I mean in my sandbox at User:Anon126/Template:MLP FiM. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Table title

Hi, please discuss the table title here. I believe it should be "My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic" because all the content listed is spun-off from the series. There is no separate "2010 toy line and media franchise". Furry-friend (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[]

Since G4 is coming to a close, I think the proper title is Friendship is Magic, since there won't be any other My Little Pony toys and media that are not derived from the Friendship is Magic television series, and G5 is positioned as the "successor" for the TV series. Furry-friend (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[]

About the "settings" link in the template

2001:5B0:2A67:158:54AB:7DBA:19E8:DE34 and 2001:5B0:2A67:158:C1:9DC6:87E2:EFE3 continuously removed [[Kingdom of Equestria|setting]] from the template (e.g. [1]). I believe we should keep this link. Any input? --Eflyjason (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[]

I believe since Kingdom of Equestria is a part of MLP: FiM, it should be included in this template. @SubZeroSilver, Pure conSouls, and NightShadow23: any input? --Eflyjason (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[]

I agree with Eflyjason, It should be included in this template. Pure conSouls (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[]

Neutral. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[]

Template necessary

Is this template really necessary? Couldn't all relevant information be place in the relevant sub-heading in the main MLP template. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[]

What you said is so. There's just so much G4 content that it needs its own navigation box, but it can be within the overall nav box on non-G4 articles. Dogman15 (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[]
What's the procedure in that case? Would you add a Merge-into -tag proposal on top or something? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Color contrast in Template:Equestria Girls

I started a discussion about contrast at Template talk:Equestria Girls#Contrast problem with title link; I figured I should mention it here. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 12:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[]