Jump to content

SiIvaGunner Wiki:Moot/Log 2023 January

From SiIvaGunner Wiki
* Spottygamester - Creating criteria for differentiating variants and remixes of a song for the Frequently ripped tracks category
* Spottygamester - Rename the Rips featuring mm2wood category to "Rips featuring Wood Man Stage"
* Pokemonfreak777 - Consistent system for distinguishing between removed/blocked/privated rips and the rips uploaded to replace them ("removed" label vs. date marker)
* Pokemonfreak777 - Final suggestions/opinions/approval for the company list page from July/August 2022 moot
* ZachHasArrived - Settle what counts as a rip featuring a track vs. a rip of a track.
* ZachHasArrived - Should Pitbull be a channel meme?


Spottygamester pinned a message to this channel. See all pinned messages. — 07/01/2023 23:02

  • 22:02: Spottygamester: I'll wait a bit more to see if anyone else shows up.
  • 22:03: Spottygamester: Alright, I'll start then.
  • 22:03: Spottygamester: Oh by the way, I'm managing this moot today.
  • 22:04: Spottygamester: Anyway, I'll go ahead with my topic. Which Creating criteria for differentiating variants and remixes of a song for the Frequently ripped tracks category.
  • 22:04: Spottygamester: I wrote up quite a bit in advance that i will post in chunks now.
  • 22:04: Spottygamester: Currently, the wiki treats remixes, arrangements and variants of a frequently ripped track as the same song. I really feel this needs to be changed since there are instances when the variants of a track are wildly different to their original versions.

I'll go over official remixes first. There are a few notable instances where these have a different structure compared to the original song. One example I can think of is Super Smash Bros. Brawl’s remix of “Stickerbush Symphony” (“Bramble Blast”), since it makes a large amount of changes to the structure of the song.

An instance of us already treating a remix as a separate track would be “A Secret Course” from Super Mario Sunshine, so we can try and work from that on making clear criteria for defining a “significantly different take” on an existing track that warrants being treated as separate on the wiki.

I also think that unofficial remixes, such those made for KFAD and SGFR, along with rips of fan remixes like ones found in the kirbtunes playlist, should not be part of a frequently ripped track category. (1/2)

  • 22:05: Spottygamester: Then we have the topic of variants of existing tracks from the same game. Currently, not only is the wiki really inconsistent with this, but there is a clear lack of any standard rules on when to treat variants as separate. For example, the wiki treats the first act of “IceCap Zone” from Sonic 3 as it’s own track, while “Flying Battery”, “Carnival Night”, “Hydrocity” and “Launch Base” treat both act variants as the same song. You also have instances like the “MOTHER 3 Love Theme”, where all of the songs that simply use the same motif are treated as the same track.

In instances like the above, I really believe that we should start treating track variants as their own separate entities rather then just “the same song but slightly modified”, especially in cases where the track is drastically expanded upon. An example of this would be “Fallen Down (Reprise)” from Undertale, since that song is considerably longer then the original version of the track.

There are however, some cases when the variant isn’t different enough from the original song to be seen as a different track. Good examples include sped up variants of a track (such as those found in the Super Mario series), or other instances where the only difference is a slight change in instrumentation (such as the Yoshi tracks from Super Mario World), though there are cases where this is can be debatable (like the underwater versions of tracks in Banjo-Kazooie).

One more thing I’ll bring up about this is that we already differentiate variants of a track whenever they’re used as the joke of a rip, especially if they’re arrangements, so I think applying this logic to frequently ripped tracks as well makes sense and adds more consistency across the wiki in general. (2/2)

  • 22:05: Spottygamester: Applogies for the wall of text, but I felt it was good to let all my thoughts out on this topic at the start of discussing this.
  • 22:06: Spottygamester: Feel free to ask any questions about anything I said here.
  • 22:07: Ironwestie: So to summarize (and correct me if I'm wrong):
- You want to have the wiki treat remixes, arrangements, and variants as separate songs
- You want us to come up with criteria that allow us to categorize songs as a remix, arrangement, or variant

- You want to have the wiki treat remixes, arrangements, and variants as separate songs

If they're are different enough from the original song, then yes. 

- You want us to come up with criteria that allow us to categorize songs as a remix, arrangement, or variant

I imagine it would be rough criteria since this is kind of a broad topic. Though we won't be making any new catgories for it, it's just to aid with frequently ripped tracks.

  • 22:11: Pokemonfreak777: i've been thinking about this a lot as well and honestly still don't exactly know what the best course is. it makes sense to keep them separate since they are different songs, but at the same time separating them produces a kind of disconnect that I'm not sure is necessary/wanted?
  • 22:12: Spottygamester: I completely get what you mean pokemonfreak.
  • 22:13: Spottygamester: It's a thought provoking topic, since I can see the argument for not wanting to treat them as seperate.
  • 22:13: Ironwestie: I'm not super familiar with music theory, but from what I understand from what you wrote, some of those "rough criteria" would be:

- Remix / arrangements: KFAD, SGFR, Super Smash Bros., and other tracks listed as remixes or arrangements;
- Variants: Has a different motif and is more than just "the same song, but slightly modified"

  • 22:14: Pokemonfreak777: like one example i recall having a minor discussion about is route 228 from pokemon d/p/pt. the day and night versions are structurally different but are the "same" track
  • 22:14: Spottygamester: That's a tricky one to define yeah.
  • 22:15: Spottygamester: Since they do have pretty noticeable differences.
  • 22:17: Spottygamester: I will say that I do think this topic might require multiple discussions on it before a proper conclusion can be drawn.
  • 22:18: Ironwestie: Are there any wikis about video game remixes that we can draw on for clarity? I feel like differentiating between a track and a remix of it is not the main motivation being this wiki
  • 22:18: Pokemonfreak777: I guess i lean towards base track + official remix/variants + sections of base track going together, regardless of structure, since it is made clear that the inspiration is the base track
  • 22:20: Pokemonfreak777: unofficial remixes should be excluded from freqrip, i agree. they should go in rips featuring
  • 22:22: Ironwestie: I don't have the skill or time to differentiate between the three categories, so I'm partial to just lumping all of the obvious remixes / arrangements / variants together in freqrips instead of worrying about what is a remix / arrangement / variant and what isn't
  • 22:23: Ironwestie: agreed on KFAD, SGFR and fan remixes, tho
  • 22:24: Spottygamester: I guess to give an example of what I mean by a variant of a track, we currently treat "Flying Battery Zone" as a single track, though there are some slight differences in structure between the two acts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2delt1zaGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXchxWqLqyc

  • 22:25: Spottygamester: If you can, have a listen to the first 40 seconds of so to hear what I mean.
  • 22:25: Spottygamester: Act 2 notably has a slightly different opening with a melody played on the chimes.
  • 22:27: Spottygamester: Sorry if I'm not really explaining very well what I mean here, I'm not the best at expressing what I mean when it comes to stuff like this.
  • 22:27: Ironwestie: So you would suggest the musical differences between the two tracks mean that they should be treated as separate tracks (at least for Frequently ripped tracks)?
  • 22:27: Pokemonfreak777: yeah i remember this discussion from a while back as well. i think i proposed keeping them together back then cuz they have the same motifs but in different spots. now i think we should just keep them together regardless as "sections" of flying battery
  • 22:28: Spottygamester: Honestly, the more I think about this, the more confusing it gets.
  • 22:29: Ironwestie: I think this is overcomplicating something that could be very simple
  • 22:29: Pokemonfreak777: what i mean by sections btw is the way we currently deal with tracks like dancing mad or clock town
  • 22:29: Spottygamester: I agree iron.
  • 22:29: Ironwestie: We could just throw out the whole categorization part, save ourselves a lot of time, and do it based on metadata instead of evaluating each track and its remix
  • 22:29: Spottygamester: I thought this would have been a really good idea at first, but after discussing this in more detail with all of you, I'm starting to think this would be an absolute pain to manage.
  • 22:30: Pokemonfreak777: yeah my main issue with the whole thing is not necessarily the distinguishing or not part but the inconsistency
  • 22:30: Spottygamester: What do you mean by this exactly iron?
  • 22:31: Pokemonfreak777: we should choose a standard and apply it consistently across all tracks
  • 22:31: Ironwestie: Agreed, pokemonfreak
  • 22:31: Spottygamester: Do you mean like what we already do with "Secret Course" from Mario Sunshine?

Secret Course

  • 22:32: Spottygamester: Since that is already an arrangement of the Mario "Ground Theme".
  • 22:32: Ironwestie: Yes, I think doing it by title instead of by musical structure is easier, especially for the less-musically inclined
  • 22:32: Spottygamester: I see.
  • 22:32: Ironwestie: However, I'm sure there are many cases where that doesn't make sense
  • 22:33: Ironwestie: I just really don't want to have our discussions become "Is X track a remix of Y based on musical principles" rather than be about SiIvaGunner
  • 22:33: Pokemonfreak777: about this. you'd have to be careful about doing this because there are instances of different tracks with the same title in the same franchise
  • 22:33: Pokemonfreak777: such as kirby
  • 22:33: Spottygamester: That's a good point.
  • 22:34: Spottygamester: I completely agree with this as well.
  • 22:35: Ironwestie: @Spottygamester I don't think we're getting anywhere with the discussion at present. It might be a good idea to move on to other topics on the agenda
  • 22:35: Spottygamester: I'm starting to think that as well.
  • 22:35: Spottygamester: What are you wanting to say @Coolbeans7Z?
  • 22:35: Spottygamester: I don't want to rush ahead if you have something to say about the current topic.
  • 22:36: Coolbeans Cruz: i was just going to say that i agree with iron's message since there will be tons of debates with different perspectives and simplifying it would fix this issue
  • 22:36: Spottygamester: Alright.
  • 22:37: Spottygamester: I think I might just dunk this topic and replace it with what iron suggested for a future moot. Are you okay with that idea @ironwestie?
  • 22:37: Ironwestie: Up to you.
  • 22:38: Spottygamester: I'll save it for the next moot.
  • 22:38: Spottygamester: Anyway, let's end this discussion and move on to the next topic, which is also another suggestion by me.
Rename the Rips featuring mm2wood category to "Rips featuring Wood Man Stage"
  • 22:39: Spottygamester: Pretty much speaks for itself.
  • 22:40: Spottygamester: I've thought for a while now that mm2wood isn't really the "main" part of the Wood Man meme nowadays.
  • 22:40: Spottygamester: The midi itself is referenced far less often then it used to be as well.
  • 22:40: Ironwestie: Currently the category accounts for both mm2wood and Wood Man Stage. Would this name change change this?
  • 22:40: Spottygamester: No.
  • 22:41: Spottygamester: Rips using the midi would still be part of the category.
  • 22:41: Spottygamester: Since it's just a variant of the original song.
  • 22:41: Minindo: that makes perfect sense, mm2wood is a derivative of wood man stage, not the other way around
  • 22:41: ZachHasArrived: Would the "Wood Man Stage" and "mm2wood" articles be combined then?
  • 22:41: Spottygamester: Yes
  • 22:42: Pokemonfreak777: i suppose this makes sense. although it might also be necessary to distinguish between mm2wood rips and wood man stage rips on the category itself
  • 22:42: Spottygamester: The article for mm2wood even lists the original song's key and BPM along with the midi's.

mm2wood

  • 22:43: Ironwestie: I would be fine with a category rename, but I'm not sure that mm2wood and Wood Man Stage should be one article
  • 22:43: Minindo: this might be a little annoying to do but it would be nice to see
  • 22:43: Ironwestie: One is a track that spawned a meme that happens to be frequently ripped, the other is an integral meme of the SiIvaGunner channel
  • 22:43: Spottygamester: That's a fair point.
  • 22:44: Spottygamester: We'd have to differentiate rips that reference the original song and one's that reference the midi if we do this though.
  • 22:45: Spottygamester: That would also probably involve a category split though, and I'm not sure if I like that idea.
  • 22:45: Pokemonfreak777: well the wood man stage article is kinda a stub
  • 22:45: Coolbeans Cruz: i think simply adding a long mm2wood section in wood man stage article is fine
  • 22:46: Spottygamester: That's my stance on it as well.
  • 22:46: ZachHasArrived: Yeah, I'm fine with combining the articles too.
  • 22:46: Pokemonfreak777: yeah make "wood man stage" a meme and freq rip article, with the mm2wood section explaining the meme part
  • 22:46: Spottygamester: I think a problem with giving mm2wood rips a seperate category is that a lot of the rips that use the midi are already under the "Wood Man Stage" title as well.
  • 22:48: Spottygamester: So, from what we've discussed so far:
* We will rename the "Rips featuring mm2wood" category to "Rips featuring Wood Man Stage"
* We will merge the mm2wood and Wood Man Stage articles, while keeping the contents of both
  • 22:49: Ironwestie: Question:
  • 22:49: Ironwestie: Would we put Wood Man Stage as a meme in List of SiIvaGunner memes?
  • 22:49: Ironwestie: or just the mm2wood redirect?
  • 22:49: Spottygamester: I think for that we should just use an mm2wood redirect.
  • 22:51: Spottygamester: We can always change our minds on this if we run into issues if we apply these changes.
  • 22:53: Spottygamester: Does anyone have any other questions before we vote on this?
  • 22:53: Zacharrry: there's one main issue i have, which is if rips of Wood Man Stage using the midi should still be kept in the category, since if they are certain rips of Wood Man Stage would have both Category:Wood Man Stage and Category:Rips featuring Wood Man Stage which could be confusing to some people unless its mentioned on the category page that only rips of wood man stage using the midi are added to the rips featuring category.
  • 22:54: Spottygamester: imo I don't think Wood Man Stage rips that use the midi should even be in the song's rips featuring category.
  • 22:54: Ironwestie: Shouldn't they be rips that featured mm2wood, though, still?
  • 22:55: Spottygamester: Yes
  • 22:55: Ironwestie: I'm confused. There isn't a Rips featuring category for Wood Man Stage
  • 22:55: Spottygamester: Well, no.
  • 22:56: Spottygamester: We're purposing on renaming the "Rips featuring mm2wood" category to be a "Rips featuring Wood Man Stage" one.
  • 22:56: Ironwestie: Oh, right, sorry, had a brain fart.
  • 22:56: Spottygamester: That's alright iron.
  • 22:57: Ironwestie: I think we should still denote rips that feature the mm2wood variant in the case zach described
  • 22:57: Ironwestie: Because a rip that features mm2wood should still be counted as featured mm2wood, even if the category is now named something else
  • 22:57: Ironwestie: Otherwise we're changing the criteria
  • 22:57: Spottygamester: Okay that's fair.
  • 22:58: Pokemonfreak777: yeah thats what i mentioned earlier. on the category page we split between an mm2wood list and a wood man stage list. unless this is something else?
  • 22:58: Spottygamester: That could work.
  • 22:59: Pokemonfreak777: basically we apply the "big chungus" category split
  • 22:59: Spottygamester: Good example.
  • 22:59: Spottygamester: Anyway, I'll move to the voting period now, since we've been on this topic for a while.
  • 23:02: Spottygamester: We will:
* Rename the "Rips featuring mm2wood" category to "Rips featuring Wood Man Stage"
* Merge the mm2wood and Wood Man Stage articles, while keeping the contents of both
* Keep mm2wood listed on the List of SiIvaGunner memes using a redirect
* Keep rips of "Wood Man Stage" that use mm2wood in its "Rips featuring category"

Please vote on each topic.
===

2.
3.
4.

2.
3.
4.

2.

4.

1. 4-1-0
2. 4-1-0
3. 2-3-0
4. 5-0-0

  • 23:05: Spottygamester: I hope I counted those right.
  • 23:06: Spottygamester: So it seems we will be making all the purposed changes then.
  • 23:06: Pokemonfreak777: i think the third one is 2-3-0
  • 23:06: Spottygamester: Oh it is oops.
  • 23:06: Spottygamester: Fixed
  • 23:07: Spottygamester: Anyway, that's that topic over. @pokemonfreak777, you have the floor now.
  • 23:08: Pokemonfreak777: alright so a few weeks back we had a short discussion about dealing with removed/blocked/privated rips that also had an active rip
  • 23:08: Pokemonfreak777: namely what kind of label should be added to distinguish it
  • 23:09: Pokemonfreak777: from that discussion, i laid out my personal criteria, which is as follows:
two active: newer gets date label
one removed/one active: removed gets "removed" label
one blocked/privated/one active: blocked/privated gets date label
  • 23:10: Pokemonfreak777: iirc zach wanted privated rips to also get a removed label but other than that, we collectively agreed to bring this topic to a moot for further discussion
  • 23:12: Spottygamester:
two active: newer gets date label

May I ask what you mean by this? The wording here makes it sound that if two active rips share the same title, they don't get a date label.

Moon's Destruction - The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (December 6, 2021)

  • 23:16: Ironwestie: There are some rips on the list I linked that have the exact same title, but I agree with the suggestions for the title
  • 23:17: Ironwestie: I'm assuming this would not change rips that were uploaded on the same day, like:

Ganondorf Battle (Beta Mix) - The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 1 and
Ganondorf Battle (Beta Mix) - The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 2

  • 23:18: Spottygamester: I'll be honest, I don't really like the idea of creating critiria on when to give a removed rip a specific label. I'd rather have it so that we only use the upload date in these cases, minus GiIvaSunner rips.
  • 23:18: Pokemonfreak777: no it would not. although we could apply a similar criteria i suppose
  • 23:20: Pokemonfreak777: so you're in favor of date labels regardless, correct?
  • 23:20: Spottygamester: Yes
  • 23:20: Spottygamester: I also don't really like the idea of defining a difference between a rip that was removed, blocked or privated. Mainly because at the end of the day, they all have the same effect: the rip is inaccessible on the channel.
  • 23:20: Ironwestie: That's a good point, Spotty
  • 23:21: Pokemonfreak777: fair enough. im only bringing this up cuz its currently inconsistently applied
  • 23:22: Spottygamester: I completely understand you and Zach's reasons for wanting something like this pokemonfreak, but I just feel it would be really confusing for a lot of people if we applied these rules.
  • 23:23: Pokemonfreak777: i guess the last thing to talk about is, should the date label be on the removed rip or active rip? (or old versus new for two active rips)
  • 23:25: Spottygamester: In those cases it should only be on the removed rip imo.
  • 23:25: Zacharrry: most the rips in the removed rips category already use (removed) when there is an active unless there are multiple removed rips with the same title, this was brought up because when 2 replacements for blocked rips were uploaded in December, the unavailable rips were moved to different formats
  • 23:26: Ironwestie: (for the log, zach is replying to spotty's message:
I'll be honest, I don't really like the idea of creating critiria on when to give a removed rip a specific label. I'd rather have it so that we only use the upload date in these cases, minus GiIvaSunner rips.

Removed rips

  • 23:27: Zacharrry: these are the pages/rips that were discussed in December

Crisis City: Act 2 (JP Version) - Sonic Generations (removed)
Level 0 (Beta Mix) - Tetris (CD-i) (April 10, 2018)

  • 23:30: Spottygamester: I still think it makes more sense just to use the date label for removed rips with an active rip under the same title.
  • 23:30: Spottygamester: This topic is rather confusing for me to think about ngl.
  • 23:31: Ironwestie: I think using one rule for titling would simplify this whole thing, whether or not a rip is removed, blocked, or privated.
  • 23:31: Spottygamester: Hard agree.
  • 23:31: Ironwestie: Like maybe:
two rips with the same title: newer gets date label
  • 23:32: Ironwestie: That way we don't have to start renaming if one rip gets removed or privated or blocked
  • 23:33: Spottygamester: It doesn't feel right to give the newer active rip with a date label though imo.
  • 23:33: Zacharrry: i feel like the active rip should be the one without the date since i personally think most people who use the wiki would be looking for the currently available upload instead of the removed rip
  • 23:34: Spottygamester: Yeah
  • 23:34: Spottygamester: I was thinking about that last part as well.
  • 23:34: Pokemonfreak777: i think two active rips should probably just be a disambiguation page
  • 23:34: Spottygamester: I agree.
  • 23:36: Pokemonfreak777: and yeah the active rip should get the main name over the removed rip since its the one most people are looking for (and will be able to find)
  • 23:36: Ironwestie: so then:
Two or more rips with same title: older ones get date labels
  • 23:38: Spottygamester: That and creating a disambiguation page when there are two active rips with the same title.
  • 23:38: Spottygamester: Those seem to be what we are drawing towards.
  • 23:38: Zacharrry: i feel like there needs to be a time period before a disambiguation is made since a lot of the times when there are 2 with the same titles its just a mistake the channel made
  • 23:39: Zacharrry: like Good Night - Undertale isnt going to be changed but multiple rips have been uploaded that share titles by accident
  • 23:39: Spottygamester: That's a good point as well.
  • 23:40: Zacharrry: (most rips like this are usually renamed within a few hours to 2 months from memory)
  • 23:40: Pokemonfreak777: i guess at the very least we should go through the similar titles page and make those disambiguations?
  • 23:41: Spottygamester: I don't know tbh.
  • 23:41: Spottygamester: I feel like this is getting a little off-topic from the intial pitch.
  • 23:43: Ironwestie: the original proposal from pokemonfreak was:
two active: newer gets date label
one removed/one active: removed gets "removed" label
one blocked/privated/one active: blocked/privated gets date label

two or more rips with same title: older ones get date labels
creating a disambiguation page when there are two active rips with the same title.

I think even this is unclear to me

  • 23:44: Pokemonfreak777: so the last two can be combined into one and apply date label to removed (which usually is older anyway)
  • 23:45: Pokemonfreak777: and i guess we revise two active to disambiguation
  • 23:45: Ironwestie: agh this is confusing with all of the active / removed stuff
  • 23:45: Spottygamester:
two or more rips with same title: older ones get date labels

I'd rather we just stick to this one if this what we vote on. I feel like the disambiguation stuff needs it's own dedicated discussion in a different moot imo.

  • 23:46: Pokemonfreak777: alright then. we can table that discussion to next time
  • 23:46: Ironwestie: agreed, Spotty. I like this rule because it avoids having to think about what happens if a newer rip is removed for some reason
  • 23:47: Ironwestie: it's just: if two rips have the same title, the older ones get date labels
  • 23:47: Spottygamester: Yeah
  • 23:47: Spottygamester: The only other thing is if we want to change the remove label to a date label, but that's an easy thing to decide on.
  • 23:48: Spottygamester: I would like to see it change to a date label in cases like this, since it explains a little more info then just saying "removed".
  • 23:49: Ironwestie: so the implications of this would be:
- we would replace the "Removed" part of titles with dates
= we would replace the "GiIvaSunner" part of titles with dates
  • 23:49: Spottygamester: I would keep the GiIvaSunner label personally.
  • 23:49: Spottygamester: Since that was a seperate channel.
  • 23:49: Ironwestie: ...then it isn't simple
  • 23:49: Ironwestie: :((
  • 23:50: Spottygamester: I don't think it's as confusing as some of the other topics we've discussed during this moot personally.
  • 23:51: Ironwestie: Okay. I have nothing further to add. It's been almost two hours, and I'm getting tired
  • 23:51: Pokemonfreak777: i think we can vote now then?
  • 23:52: Spottygamester: Sure.
  • 23:55: Spottygamester: When there are two or more rips with same title, the older ones will get date labels

===

6-1-0

  • 23:57: Spottygamester: We will be switching to date labels then.
  • 23:57: Spottygamester: I think we should call it here, since it's been about two hours and we've discussed a lot of topics today that needed extra thought.
  • 23:58: Ironwestie: Thanks for leading today, Spotty. Thanks to everyone who came today, too
  • 23:58: Pokemonfreak777: my other topic is pretty quick so if possible could we get that one done as well?

No problem iron.


We will move Pokemonfreak777's List of video games by company onto the main wiki.
===

6-0-0

Retrieved from "https://www.siivagunner.wiki/w/index.php?title=SiIvaGunner_Wiki:Moot/Log_2023_January&oldid=421965"
Debug data: