18+ archive guide
Banned from Equestria Wiki Claims: How to Verify Them
Quick answer
Rank sources by distance from the creator: Pokehidden's archive first, a maintainer's release page second, a community wiki third, and an SEO download portal last. A claim without a date, a version, and a named source is a lead, not a fact.
Why this topic needs a source hierarchy
Quick answer
Banned from Equestria has no active official storefront, no verified social account, and no creator-maintained APK. Most pages describing it are fan-written, SEO-written, or copied from each other, so authority has to be reconstructed rather than assumed.
The game is a Flash-era fan work. Its creator archive is a static page, community translations live on itch.io, and the search results are crowded with APK portals that reuse the same screenshots and version claims. In that environment, a page can look authoritative while having no primary evidence at all.
A source hierarchy does not make a claim true. It tells you how much weight to give it and what would change your mind. A creator archive can be outdated; a wiki can be right before a primary page is updated. The point is to know which one you are reading.
This article is about method, not about a specific wiki's reputation. The same checks apply to a Fandom page, a YouTube description, a Reddit comment, or a page like this one.
The four source tiers
Quick answer
Tier 1 is the creator's own archive. Tier 2 is a named maintainer's release page. Tier 3 is a community wiki or guide with visible edit history. Tier 4 is an anonymous download or SEO page with no provenance.
Tier 1 is not automatically current. A static archive may keep an old link or label. But it is the closest thing to a creator statement, and it is the right place to check a release date or a version number.
Tier 2 is valuable because a maintainer can describe what they packaged and why. That is different from claiming to be the creator. A translation project can be authoritative about its own translation while saying nothing about the original game's canon.
Tier 3 is where most useful route advice lives. Community guides often know which scene is gated by which day, but they can disagree because they played different builds. Demand a version label and a date.
Tier 4 is not useless as a discovery layer. It can tell you that a file exists and what filename people use. It cannot tell you that the file is what the page says it is.
| Tier | Example | What it can establish | What it cannot |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pokehidden archive page | Release existence, file names, creator labels | Current safety of a community repack |
| 2 | BFE-Spanish itch.io page | Translation files and maintainer notes | The original creator's intent |
| 3 | Community wiki or dated guide | Community consensus and route experience | A primary release fact without citation |
| 4 | Anonymous APK portal | That a file exists at a URL | Version, safety, or provenance |
Score a claim
Quick answer
The scorer below asks six questions about evidence, version specificity, dates, and provenance. It returns a coarse confidence band, not a truth verdict.
A high score means the page gives you enough evidence to check its claim. It does not mean the claim is correct. A low score means you should not repeat the claim without finding a better source.
Use the score to decide what to do next: open the cited primary page, search for the same version label on a maintainer page, or discard the claim. The useful output is the next click, not the number.
Interactive tool
Claim confidence scorer
Answer for the page you are evaluating. Nothing is uploaded; the score is a heuristic.
Red flags in search results
Quick answer
The strongest red flags are a version number that exists nowhere else, an 'official' label with no named publisher, a file host that changes per visit, and a page that copies another page's text without adding evidence.
None of these proves malice. A new fan page can be sloppy rather than deceptive. But each one removes evidence you would need to trust the page, and a cluster of them is a reason to leave.
A page that cites its sources can still be wrong, but it gives you a way to check. A page that cites nothing is asking for trust it has not earned.
- Claims a 1.6.5 or newer official release that the creator archive does not list.
- Uses 'official APK' without naming a publisher or signing key.
- Shows no file size, hash, version, or release date.
- Hides the download behind a countdown, a survey, or an installer.
- Copies screenshots and paragraphs from other pages with no attribution.
- Asks you to disable Play Protect or install a 'helper' app.
- Publishes a route guide without saying which build it covers.
How to verify a version claim
Quick answer
Check the creator archive for the release number and date, then check whether the page's file matches a known package by name, size, language, and hash. If the page claims a newer official build, require a primary source.
Start with the creator archive. Pokehidden's page lists Alpha 1.0 through 1.5 and the Halloween build, which it titles "Banned from Equestria [Forever]". That is enough to establish that 1.5 is the final numbered release and that Forever is a seasonal label, not a sequel.
Then look at the page making the claim. Does it name a version, a date, and a publisher? Does the file size match the package it claims to be? Does the language in the menus match? A claim that survives those checks is stronger, but it is still not a safety guarantee.
If the page claims a 1.6.5 official release, search the creator archive and the maintainer pages for that string. If only SEO portals use it, treat it as an unverified label.
How to verify a download claim
Quick answer
A download claim needs a publisher, a filename, a size, a hash, and a scan date. Without those, you can only verify that a URL returns bytes, not that the bytes are the package described.
Hashes and signatures are covered in the APK guide. The source-verification question is earlier: does the page give you enough to compare? A publisher who posts a hash is making a checkable claim. A publisher who posts only a button is not.
A scan date matters because malware detection changes. "Scanned clean" without a date is close to meaningless. Even with a date, a clean scan is one signal, not a guarantee.
If a page's download link points to a different domain than the page, that is not automatically bad, but it is a provenance question. File hosts are common. The page should explain who controls the file and how to report a problem.
FAQ
Is a wiki a reliable source?
It can be useful for community experience and route details, but a wiki is only as good as its citations. Check the edit history and the version it describes.
Why do guides disagree about endings?
They may describe different builds, different translations, or different definitions of an ending. A version label and a date resolve many disagreements.
Can I trust a page that copies the creator archive?
Copying is not evidence. If the page reproduces a primary source accurately and links to it, the link is useful; the copy alone is not.
What is the single best source for release facts?
Pokehidden's own archive page. It is the closest available statement of what the creator released and when.
Sources
The source hierarchy is a method used by this archive, not an official Google or creator policy. Release facts are checked against Pokehidden's archive.