Jump to content

SiIvaGunner Wiki:Moot/Log 2024 May 04

From SiIvaGunner Wiki
Spottygamester (Multi-part proposal) - Create categories for active and inactive contributors with appropriate guidelines for classifying them.
  • 23:05: Mobbz.Co: [in reply to Ironwestie: "This skips about half of the moot topic, list, haha..."] Sad
  • 23:05: Ironwestie: Up next is
Mick — Split Category:Rips featuring Mr. Krabs into Category:Rips featuring Electric Zoo and (potentially) Category:Rips featuring SpongeBob SquarePants
  • 23:05: Spottygamester: I honestly haven't thought about my pitch that much since it was last discussed.
  • 23:06: Ironwestie: Could you give a summary of your pitch, for the record?
  • 23:06: Pokemonfreak777: [in reply to Ironwestie: "Spottygamester (Multi-part proposal)..."] honestly my stance hasnt changed since last time either, in that i dont think we need these
  • 23:07: Spottygamester: Can we skip my topic for now?
  • 23:07: Ironwestie: Okay, no worries
  • 23:07: Mick the Squirrel: ough
  • 23:07: Spottygamester: I'm reading the log for the last moot and I'm remembering how confusing this topic got last time.
  • 23:07: Ironwestie: @Mick the Squirrel, you have the floor for:
Mick — Split Category:Rips featuring Mr. Krabs into Category:Rips featuring Electric Zoo and (potentially) Category:Rips featuring SpongeBob SquarePants
The Mr. Krabs page was created in 2017 to combine the "krab borg" and "oh yeah mr krabs" sources under one joke, and was conveniently absorbed into a kfad page in 2019.
The issue is: there have been no real signs pointing to Mr. Krabs himself being a meme, it unnecessarily buds off one specific character in favor of two sources coincidentally intersecting with him. The category is clearly focused on "Krab Borg" sources, with 59/80 (really 60/81 but "music that makes you electric in fortnite" hasn't been made yet) but all media relating to Mr. Krabs being included in the category does not make sense.
The naming of the meme should be "Electric Zoo" to avoid other incidental parts of the episode from being included in the category, the meme is the song + mr. krabs' interpretation of it via beeps and bops. The only thing making me lean towards calling it "Krab Borg" are the visual segments in "Play That Song Again - SiIvaGunner: King for Another Day Tournament" and "Cocoa Cave (US Version) - Kirby Super Star", which would have to be placed awkwardly on the list page when they are obviously meant to evoke the meme, but technically feature content outside of it.
  • 23:09: Mobbz.Co: Also aren’t the mr krabs rips jst the kfad ones
  • 23:09: Mobbz.Co: Oh yeah there it is[4:10 PM]Spottygamester: Yeah I agree with doing this.
  • 23:10: Airy342: i agree as well
  • 23:10: Ironwestie: I think there are two different subtopics here, one about creating an "Electric Zoo" page, and another about a SpongeBob page
  • 23:11: Pokemonfreak777: i fully agree. the mr. krabs category is honestly a mess and should be more focused on what it really is. although one question i have is about splitting krab borg and electric zoo, since each seems to have enough to be separate categories but are the same source technically
  • 23:12: Mick the Squirrel: i would rather it stay as one source. it's one episode, krabs beeping technically counts as a different cover of the song
  • 23:12: ThisGreenDingo: hello ill be attending but im also doing something atm so ill be in-and-out
  • 23:13: Rickhenrique: [in reply to Mick the Squirrel: "Mr. Krabs should be split..."] Yeah, I agree as a whole
I think that splitting the category would work better,didnt get it in regards of how it would exist
And the rest of the content should move it to the SpongeBob category, in which would be an better idea due to the recent things right now
  • 23:13: Pokemonfreak777: [in reply to Mick the Squirrel: "i would rather it stay..."] fair enough. i would remove everything else that doesnt reference the episode from the category then and move it to the losfir for spongebob or a potential spongebob multisource meme category
  • 23:13: Pokemonfreak777: and then rename the category to probably "rips featuring krab borg / electric zoo" or something
  • 23:14: Rickhenrique: The only issue is due to the Beep Bop meme being either called by the episode name (in which would imply it's the whole episode than the actual scene) or the scene itself
  • 23:14: Mick the Squirrel: so add the "see rips featuring Electric Zoo" next to the Krab Borg episode bullet, or the Electric Zoo subbullet?
  • 23:14: Pokemonfreak777: probably the krab borg bullet
  • 23:14: Mick the Squirrel: okay that works
  • 23:15: Ironwestie: To clarify, with pokemonfreak's suggestion, this category would be called "rips featuring krab borg / electric zoo"?
  • 23:15: Mick the Squirrel: it's called Electric Zoo
  • 23:16: Pokemonfreak777: [in reply to Ironwestie: "To clarify, with pokemonfreak's..."] thats what i would call it, but if there are better names feel free to suggest them
  • 23:16: Mick the Squirrel: if any other parts of the episode get featured on the channel unrelated to the beeping we can move the "see" to a subbullet.
  • 23:17: Mick the Squirrel:
*Electric Zoo:
**Mr. Krabs' "Beep, Bop"
*Visuals:
is how the category list would look
  • 23:17: Spottygamester: That would work.
  • 23:18: Pokemonfreak777: yeah that works
  • 23:18: Ironwestie: I see. It sounds like we are ready to vote
  • 23:18: Spottygamester: Are we going with "Rips featuring Electric Zoo" then?
  • 23:18: Spottygamester: Just making sure before I set up the vote.
  • 23:18: Pokemonfreak777: not my first choice but im fine with it if everyone else is
  • 23:19: Ironwestie: Yes, Spotty. That appears to be the name we've settled on
  • 23:20: Spottygamester: Alright.
  • 23:20: Ironwestie: While Spotty is writing, @Mick the Squirrel , did you want to have another conversation about a Rips featuring SpongeBob SquarePants after this vote? To me it sounds like your proposal has been addressed
  • 23:21: Mick the Squirrel: alright
  • 23:23: Spottygamester: We will change the "Rips featuring Mr. Krabs" category into a "Rips featuring Electric Zoo" that will be focused on the song of the same name and the Mr. Krabs "Beep, Bop" source. All other Mr. Krabs sources from the current category that are not related to the category's new definition will be removed.

===

7-0-0
Pitch has been approved.
A lot does
  • 23:26: Ironwestie: After Mick's topic, @Spottygamester , are you ready to present the proposal we tabled earlier?
  • 23:26: Spottygamester: I don't know yet. I'll have to re-read the last moot's notes on it.
  • 23:27: Spottygamester: I apologise for this.
  • 23:27: Ironwestie: Okay, no worries. In that case, @ThisGreenDingo , are you ready to present after Mick's topic about SpongeBob?
  • 23:27: Ironwestie: (I was asked to ping them when it was their turn)
  • 23:28: Ironwestie: If not, the next person with a topic is @TurretBot . Are you attending this moot?
  • 23:28: Mick the Squirrel: SpongeBob being a meme kind of makes sense, yes it probably meets whatever the current multisource requirements are based on numbers only and yes i would like to convert it to the format I have on my subpage because it would look nice, but, is it really a siivagunner meme?
like, yes various sources have been used and accumulated over the years but that's just by virtue of it being the most popular animated show, like mario is the most popular video game but it as a whole isn't a meme. nothing spongebob really seems "siivagunner" to me. but this is an emotional argument which will vary from person to person.
sidenote: would we be referring to the show or the franchise? are we including the games and musical?
  • 23:29: ThisGreenDingo: hello im here
  • 23:29: ThisGreenDingo: i am ready for when that happens
  • 23:29: Ironwestie: ThisGreenDingo, you will present after Mick's topic
  • 23:29: Ironwestie: Mick, apologies for the interruptions. Please let us know when you are done with your presentation
  • 23:29: Mick the Squirrel: that was all
  • 23:30: Ironwestie: So you are against having SpongeBob as a meme?
  • 23:30: Mick the Squirrel: i just wanted to bring it up and say "what do you guys think?", i'm not really fighting for either side
  • 23:30: Ironwestie: I see.
  • 23:30: Pokemonfreak777: [in reply to Mick the Squirrel: "SpongeBob being a meme..."] well i personally think of it as a meme solely because of the numbers lol
  • 23:31: Pokemonfreak777: sure it doesnt feel like a siiva meme right now, but id also argue a lot of the older sources that are "memes" now didnt feel like them back then either
  • 23:32: Rickhenrique: [in reply to Mick the Squirrel: "SpongeBob being a meme..."] Being honest, a franchise would work
And considering as a meme...honestly, it should be
Considering how it was represented and notably referenced more in it, mostly thanks to Mr. Krabs memes.
  • 23:32: Rickhenrique: So I would think that SpongeBob should be a meme as a franchise
  • 23:33: Pokemonfreak777: [in reply to Mick the Squirrel: "SpongeBob being a meme..."] as for whats included, i suppose including everything (games, movies, musical, etc) would make sense
  • 23:34: Rickhenrique: If we go by franchise, I think we can list the games in the same way as FNaF and/or Touhou, excluding the movies and the musicals/side memes, in which should be listed on the category
  • 23:34: Ironwestie: If this does meet our multi-source requirements, I think that is that. Personally, I agree with Mick's opinion that SpongeBob isn't really related to SiIvaGunner
  • 23:34: Ironwestie: I think that is more of an issue with how we define "meme", though
  • 23:35: Spottygamester: That's my take on this as well.
  • 23:36: Mick the Squirrel: IF the category was made i would kinda prefer spongebob game riors being moved to the category list
  • 23:36: Mick the Squirrel: i havent looked yet but on average they're not that large, right?
  • 23:36: Rickhenrique: I think calling SpongeBob as a meme being unrelated to SiIva would be...farfetch for me, considering for having the event now and how we got Mr. Krabs to KFaD
  • 23:37: Rickhenrique: [in reply to Mick the Squirrel: "IF the category was made..."] Yeah I think for majority that was featured wasnt much
  • 23:37: Mick the Squirrel: counting rn
  • 23:39: Rickhenrique: [in reply to Rickhenrique: "I think calling SpongeBob..."] I dont denile that, but I think SpongeBob is mostly represented as a meme, and before of the event, it seems to featured and referenced enough as it is
Sooo...yeah, being unreleated is kinda... eehhhhhh for me, so I think the category should be made in some way

===

5-1-0
ThisGreenDingo - Standardising contributor pages to have consistent formatting, amounts of information and consistency in profile picture galleries.
  • 23:44: ThisGreenDingo: hello!
  • 23:44: ThisGreenDingo: i will start by pasting a pre-made message i gave memmy a while ago
  • 23:45: ThisGreenDingo: Standardising contributor pages to have consistent formatting, amounts of information and consistency in profile picture galleries.
    • Not a massive priority, but something I believe should be encouraged. The lack of information on most contributors leaves a gap in information on the nature of the SiIvaGunner channel's content.
    • Standardising information on most contributor pages would also help document historical contributions that have influenced events, channel trends, memes etc.
    • Some older contributor pages from 2016/2017 have outdated information or opinionated text, or are written in a more journalistic style that doesn't mesh well with the Siiva wiki style standards.
    • Whenever I (ThisGreenDingo) find time to, I love interviewing contributors for examples of their history with the channel. A recent example would be the page I wrote for berg8793, where I have only presented public information, but berg himself assisted in guiding me to the right focus points. If any other wiki contributors are interested in this topic, I would recommend chatting with SiIva contributors you are interested in, it's a very fun experience!
  • 23:46: ThisGreenDingo: Also not mentioned here: a template for contributor pages would help in making them consistent with each other.
  • 23:47: Ironwestie: While I can appreciate the sentiment here, what specific policy changes or standards are you suggesting?
  • 23:47: ThisGreenDingo: Also not mentioned but what is relevant to pfp galleries is inconsistent, and labels change per page.
  • 23:47: Mick the Squirrel: profile pictures should be standardized yeah
  • 23:48: Mick the Squirrel: some build up because some people don't know how to / care to use the "upload a new version of this file" function
  • 23:48: ThisGreenDingo: I suggest an official guide to creating contributor pages, so we can make sure they all match each other better/only have relevant and non-opinionated info and are formatted correctly
  • 23:48: Mobbz.Co: Yeah a few pages dont have profile pics but have like 5 social links
  • 23:49: Mick the Squirrel: Lapi like how far back do we need? just use the newest.
  • 23:49: ThisGreenDingo: I also believe that there's a bunch of contributor pages for contributors that have only submitted a tiny handful of rips, who aren't members of the team
  • 23:49: Ironwestie: Do you have an official guide for us to review? Usually with suggestions of this type, there needs to be some kind of draft, otherwise the guide will never be written
  • 23:49: ThisGreenDingo: I haven't been able to find one
  • 23:49: ThisGreenDingo: I was hoping to be granted permission to create one myself
  • 23:50: Ironwestie: I think the best thing to do is to table this discussion until you have a guide draft for us to review, and then present it at a future moot
  • 23:50: Spottygamester: I feel like we've kind of had unwritten rules for how contributor pages should be formatted for a while now, so I wouldn't mind doing this.
  • 23:50: ThisGreenDingo: [in reply to Ironwestie: "I think the best thing..."] Is this permission to create a draft for a guide?
  • 23:50: Ironwestie: It is hard to critique something that does not yet exist
  • 23:51: ThisGreenDingo: If so I will get right to it, I'll probably have to create it in google docs as I'm not as skilled with fandom
  • 23:51: ThisGreenDingo: Just like, a set of rules
  • 23:51: Ironwestie: Anyone is welcome to create drafts for anything on the wiki in their userspace. Publishing a draft to the wiki is another matter (EDIT: I mean, publishing it to the public as an official rule or guideline)
  • 23:51: ThisGreenDingo: Next time this topic is brought up I will bring in my draft, but I ask that you wait until I confirm the draft is complete
  • 23:52: ThisGreenDingo: Before I go, are there any other topics I presented that you'd like me to go over
  • 23:53: Ironwestie: You've talked about quite a few things in your initial presentation. I think most of them are related to that draft of yours
  • 23:53: ThisGreenDingo: No I mean the two other topics unrelated to this
  • 23:53: Ironwestie: Yes, if you are ready.
  • 23:53: ThisGreenDingo: Are we going over them today?
  • 23:53: ThisGreenDingo: Ah excellent I'll grab the next one
  • 23:54: ThisGreenDingo: Album exclusive rips being put on a secondary list within the contributor's list of contributions.
    • Due to these rips mainly being variants of rips already on the SiIva channel, or shitposts, it would make sense to place these album exclusive contributions in a sublist in contributor lists of contributions.
    • Additionally, these rips are not actually present on the SiIvaGunner YouTube channel, which is the Wiki's primary focus. Therefore these rips are directly related, but not nearly as relevant. Thus should be placed on a sublist, similar to the "Other Contributions" sublist. Perhaps this sublist could be repurposed for this?
  • 23:54: ThisGreenDingo: Not noted here: the Bandcamp is gone, not sure how this will effect this pitch but yeah.
  • 23:55: Mick the Squirrel: a sublist would look nicer yeah
  • 23:55: ThisGreenDingo: That's also a benefit yes.
  • 23:55: Mick the Squirrel: on the same page, not a subpage
  • 23:55: ThisGreenDingo: Yes
  • 23:55: ThisGreenDingo: that's what i mean
  • 23:56: Mick the Squirrel: could also verbally list art-exclusive contributions there
  • 23:56: ThisGreenDingo: Yes that would be great!
  • 23:56: Mick the Squirrel: (i still need to work on artist subpages...)
  • 23:56: Minindo: [in reply to ThisGreenDingo: "Album exclusive rips..."] im neutral to this proposal but i don't like this point or think it helps the proposal
Additionally, these rips are not actually present on the SiIvaGunner YouTube channel, which is the Wiki's primary focus. Therefore these rips are directly related, but not nearly as relevant.

the albums are absolutely just as relevant and worthy

  • 23:56: Spottygamester: I agree.
  • 23:56: ThisGreenDingo: I'm also wondering if Twitter posts of art count towards contributions, because if Bandcamp is relevant why not other social platforms
  • 23:57: Ironwestie: I agree with Minindo's point. I don't personally see much difference between tracks and rips uploaded to YouTube
  • 23:57: Pokemonfreak777: #⁠wiki-general⁠ #⁠wiki-general⁠ copying some of my responses related to this in earlier discussions
  • 23:57: Spottygamester: I do agree with Dingo's first point though.
  • 23:58: Pokemonfreak777: [in reply to Pokemonfreak777: "#wiki-general #wiki-general..."] first message
i guess we could do something similar to what we did for "insaniquarium deluxe ost" and the subsequent separated album tracks

second message 

i guess we can decide what to do about this at a moot, but i kinda see doing both the album track separation and the shop / ost shop combination as potentially redundant since most of the time the album exclusive tracks are alternate versions of rips like you mentioned. we could just list album tracks next to their associated rips as well as any rips that are kinda like shop fusion / ost shop next to each other
  • 23:58: Ironwestie: (Much appreciated, pokemonfreak)
  • 23:58: ThisGreenDingo: Another option would be to have album exclusive variants be listed like this:
Rip - Game
Album version of rip
  • 23:58: Mick the Squirrel: that would mess with the numbering
  • 23:59: ThisGreenDingo: and album exclusives unrelated to pre-existing rips being on a sublist within the list like mentioned before
  • 23:59: ThisGreenDingo: [in reply to Mick the Squirrel: "that would mess..."] disregard my suggestion for that then sorry
  • 23:59: Mick the Squirrel: visually i think that would be a good idea just makes a bit more work with counting
  • 0:00: Mobbz.Co: But at some point the exclusives do end up being uploaded at some point
  • 0:00: Mick the Squirrel: not the instrumentals
(i wish they were though they often artificially inflate source usage)
  • 0:00: ThisGreenDingo: [in reply to Mobbz.Co: "But at some point the..."] Usually the ones that are UNIQUE yes
  • 0:01: Mobbz.Co: (Not sure if thats relevant because im not good with these topics but im jst pointing out)
  • 0:01: ThisGreenDingo: some are simply minor variants that either
    1. Fix issues with the original
    2. Have a different quality
    3. Instrumentals
    4. Feature some minor additional jokes occasionally
  • 0:02: Ironwestie: I don't see much of a reason to split lists of contributions between Rips and Tracks, myself. I think the cons (having to check all of our lists of contributions and do some funky numbering) outweight the pros (which are that it is visually appealing; I'm not sure about that)
  • 0:03: ThisGreenDingo: aren't the "other contributions" lists still counted
  • 0:04: Mick the Squirrel: numbering isn't that funky its just adding two
  • 0:05: Ironwestie: I meant for the chronology. I thought there was some kind of chronological order associated with Lists of contributions (they're listed by season, for example)
  • 0:06: Ironwestie: Anyway, I concede that "funky numbering" is subjective, as is the visuals
  • 0:06: Spottygamester: They are in chronological order of upload.
  • 0:06: ThisGreenDingo: but tracks are uploaded to a seperate site, so they have their own cronology, parallel to the YouTube uploads
  • 0:06: Mick the Squirrel: the tracks aren't listed chronologically though. they're pushed to the end of the season the album was uploaded in
  • 0:07: ThisGreenDingo: [in reply to Minindo: "im neutral to this proposal..."]
the albums are absolutely just as relevant and worthy
Do excuse me, I didn't intend to come across as claiming albums are less important, they're very key to the channel's identity since the start
  • 0:08: Madotsuki417: [in reply to Mick the Squirrel: "the tracks aren't listed..."] im not gonna say much cause im in the middle of studying but i want to drop in to argue this point, they are not
  • 0:08: Madotsuki417: i would know, i frequent my contribution page in particular often
  • 0:08: Mick the Squirrel: ah
  • 0:08: Madotsuki417: the tracks are interspersed chronologically within the season on mine
  • 0:08: Mick the Squirrel: i thought that was the system nevermind on that point then
  • 0:09: Pokemonfreak777: lemme just get a picture of this in my head. you want something like this right? (examples listed are not real, for demonstration only)
List of ThisGreenDingo's contributions

== Rips ==
*[[Main Theme - Bear in the Big Blue House]]]]

== Tracks ==
*[[Bear in the Big Blue House but Grand Dad]]]]

== Other ==
*[[Bear in the Big Blue House Minecraft Mod]]]]
  • 0:09: Madotsuki417: i wont be contributing votes or anything to this moot so please dont worry much about further participation from here, im just having it on on the side so im in the loop of whats going on
  • 0:09: ThisGreenDingo: [in reply to Pokemonfreak777: "lemme just get a picture..."] This would be excellent yes, visually a lot more helpful and clear
  • 0:10: Ironwestie: Would "Art" and "Audio" be in a separate section as well?
  • 0:10: ThisGreenDingo: also hilarious examples btw
  • 0:10: Ironwestie: e.g. someone did art in a rip
  • 0:10: ThisGreenDingo: [in reply to Ironwestie: "Would 'Art' and 'Audio'..."] What do you consider "audio"
  • 0:11: Ironwestie: Sorry, I should be more clear. In some lists of contributions, the rip is listed, followed by notes like "(art)", "(audio)", or "(visuals)"
  • 0:12: Ironwestie: I think I'm confused between having sections for each type of contribution (i.e. the contribution is a rip or a track) vs. one's contributions to a rip (e.g. "I did the art")
  • 0:13: ThisGreenDingo: I believe the distinction between a track and a rip is important for the sake of the platform the two are released onto
  • 0:13: ThisGreenDingo: but for art, audio, visuals that feels like a whole other can of beans, but could be just as useful in making contribution lists cleaner
  • 0:14: ThisGreenDingo: I recommend putting that on the moot topics list
  • 0:14: Ironwestie: Right, I don't think that is related to what you were saying. I think my confusion has been cleared
  • 0:14: Ironwestie: Shall we take this to a vote?
  • 0:14: ThisGreenDingo: I would love to :D
  • 0:15: Spottygamester: Can you do the vote this time iron? I'm getting really tired now and I'm not able to really think straight at the moment.
  • 0:15: Ironwestie: Sure, and no worries. I can take the lead from here (EDIT: typo)
  • 0:16: Ironwestie: Summary: We will split Lists of contributions pages by putting album exclusive rips (a.k.a. "tracks") on a secondary list within the contributor's list of contributions.
The format is now something like:
== Rips ==
*[[Main Theme - Bear in the Big Blue House]]]]

== Tracks ==
*[[Bear in the Big Blue House but Grand Dad]]]]

== Other ==
*[[Bear in the Big Blue House Minecraft Mod]]]]

===

Voting closed.

  • 0:18: Ironwestie: 2-3-2. This does not meet the two-thirds in agreement requirement, so this proposal has not been passed.
  • 0:19: Spottygamester: Is this the first time there's been a tie?
  • 0:19: Spottygamester: When it comes to votes I mean.
  • 0:19: Ironwestie: Yes. I refer to the requirement of step 5 of the Moot procedure:
5. Voting: Everyone will get a say in the topic and if it's evident via votes that roughly two-thirds are in agreement, the results will be tallied and the moot will continue. If the topic is highly controversial, a separate consensus can be created in the forum. [...]
  • 0:19: ThisGreenDingo: Man
  • 0:20: Mick the Squirrel: we should get the forum people more involved in moots regardless
  • 0:20: Mick the Squirrel: untapped thoughts of people without discord accounts
  • 0:20: Rickhenrique: Or people in general that isnt on Discord
  • 0:20: Pokemonfreak777: i guess the topic needs a bit more discussion (outside the moot), at least to gauge the reasoning for oppose
  • 0:20: Ironwestie: We have about 10 minutes left in the moot before the 1.5 hour mark. How do we feel about one more topic?
  • 0:21: Ironwestie: This would be @ThisGreenDingo 's:
ThisGreenDingo - Standardising meme and frequently ripped track pages in general. Formatting, trivia, lyrics, history etc. Many pages have very dated, mispelt or opinionated text.
  • 0:21: Spottygamester: I'm not up to it personally.
  • 0:21: Spottygamester: Not that I'm against the topic itself, I'm just too tired now.
  • 0:22: Ironwestie: Okay. I think this topic will be a big one with a similar scope to the contributor page topic
  • 0:22: Pokemonfreak777: how long would mick's "throttle memes" topic take? i feel like that one could either be very quick or very long but not sure
  • 0:22: ThisGreenDingo: I agree my third topic should wait until later
  • 0:22: Mick the Squirrel: mines straightforward
  • 0:22: Ironwestie: Yes, Mick would be up after ThisGreenDingo
  • 0:23: ThisGreenDingo: [in reply to Ironwestie: "Sumary: We will split..."] Before I go, what will happen with this
  • 0:23: ThisGreenDingo: Will we have to bring it up again later?
  • 0:23: Ironwestie: ThisGreenDingo, I will remove the topic from the agenda for now, like all of the proposals that do not pass
  • 0:24: ThisGreenDingo: Very well
  • 0:24: Ironwestie: We currently do not have rules in place for when a person can re-propose something, but I suggest that you at least wait until the current topics on the list have been addressed
  • 0:24: ThisGreenDingo: Understood thank you.
  • 0:24: Ironwestie: @Mick the Squirrel, I think this topic is important, so please finish us off with this topic:

Mick — Throttle creation of meme articles and categories until proper discussion of their actual substance is had

  • 0:25: Mick the Squirrel: i feel kind of hypocritical saying this because i technically just proposed one but:
At this point we're all aware of the dispute on what should and shouldn't be documented as a meme. New sources are being added and categorized every few days, and there is nothing stopping someone from just creating a category without consensus and there being essentially no consequence because "it fits the current criteria so whatever". The current criteria needs to be changed, not kept consistently running.
Yes we are all aware, but there is nothing directly motivating anyone towards having a discussion about them yet. So I recommend this one: temporarily pause the creation of meme articles. No we aren't deleting anything yet, just pausing the process until an agreed upon system is proposed and established. If we already aren't under any time limits with this then whats the point of making the future job harder? People are free to document usage and what they think should be memes on subpages if so desired, which can be added in bulk at the later date when the perfect system is implemented (hopefully that point won't be very far in the future).
By "pausing" I mean protecting memenav and instantly deleting new meme categories as they appear no matter the circumstance. We need proper time to reflect on the collection we currently have.
  • 0:25: Ironwestie: Do you have a timeframe in mind for this pause?
  • 0:25: Mick the Squirrel: until proper criteria is established.
  • 0:26: Ironwestie: I honestly do not know how long it will take for "proper criteria" to be established
  • 0:26: Mick the Squirrel: thats the point
  • 0:26: Ironwestie: So I suggest a time limit of some sort in case this ends up taking months or even years
  • 0:26: Mick the Squirrel: if this really needs a time limit ...6 months?
  • 0:27: Rickhenrique: 6 months??
  • 0:27: Mick the Squirrel: yeah
  • 0:27: Pokemonfreak777: [in reply to Mick the Squirrel: "i feel kind of hypocritical..."] i agree with the pause honestly. however i am also worried about how long it would take for "proper criteria" to be established; the last time we attempted to create criteria (aka what we have right now) took months just to get something (and that was with mostly two people)
  • 0:28: Rickhenrique: Not that an pause would work, but I do think this is...too long to be consider, doesnt it?
  • 0:28: Mick the Squirrel: the energy used to track and categorize these will hopefully be redistributed into discussing the actual list we have now
  • 0:29: Ironwestie: Could we formally vote during a moot to remove this temporary pause if we decide that we have reached "proper criteria"?
  • 0:29: Mick the Squirrel: yeah
  • 0:29: Pokemonfreak777: basically we might need to dedicate at least one meeting a month or something simply talking about what needs to be changed about the criteria and how in order for this pause and the subsequent criteria to be beneficial
  • 0:30: Mick the Squirrel: that would work, yes. something separate from moots, maybe
  • 0:30: Pokemonfreak777: moots are the only place where people actively discuss and are in one place though
  • 0:30: Pokemonfreak777: there have been several disjointed discussions in the other channels that led nowhere
  • 0:31: Mick the Squirrel: this is an advertising issue maybe
  • 0:31: Mick the Squirrel: place a noinclude note on memenav saying "there is an ongoing discussion concerning these click here to view and contribute to it"
  • 0:31: Ironwestie: I think creating a system for discussing memes needs to be another moot topic
  • 0:32: Rickhenrique: [in reply to Ironwestie: "I think creating a system..."] That would work well
  • 0:32: Mick the Squirrel: we should work on spreading all these discussions to the forum
  • 0:33: Ironwestie: We can discuss how to include people who are not on Discord in moot discussions outside of this moot, which is already overtime
  • 0:33: Mick the Squirrel: like, a weekly / monthly news bulletin on there so the forum-exclusive wikiheads can stay in the know
  • 0:33: Pokemonfreak777: basically my stance is approval on the pause but there needs to be actual discussion that leads to results in subsequent moots tied to it. otherwise i would have to oppose
  • 0:34: Mick the Squirrel: I would offer myself to lead the discussion if i felt more confident in my ability to assess the entirety of the channel's history and "memefeel"
  • 0:34: Spottygamester: I'm worried that doing something like this would distract from other topics during moots.
  • 0:34: Spottygamester: I'm not completely against it, but it's something I'm concerned about.
  • 0:35: Mick the Squirrel: thats why i said something separate from moots. it would take up the time of an entire moot, but be focused on the entire meme sector of the wiki
  • 0:35: Ironwestie: We're getting off-topic here. Let's talk about alternatives to moots in ⁠wiki-general and other channels
  • 0:35: Mick the Squirrel: k
  • 0:36: Pokemonfreak777: [in reply to Spottygamester: "I'm worried that doing..."] i am too, but if this pause is to be effective and not just an excuse to push the meme issue aside this may need to happen. maybe not this month but it has to eventually
  • 0:36: Ironwestie: The current topic is about whether to temporarily pause the creation of meme articles until either:
    • 6 months have elapsed
    • "proper criteria" are established for the creation for memes
  • 0:37: Ironwestie: I agree that we need to have some kind of goal criteria we're working towards before we take such a drastic pause
  • 0:37: Spottygamester: Same here.
  • 0:37: Pokemonfreak777: [in reply to Ironwestie: "The current topic..."] i believe its categories as well?
  • 0:37: Ironwestie: Yes
  • 0:37: Mick the Squirrel: not articles
  • 0:37: Mick the Squirrel: anything currently in the navbox can be page fodder
  • 0:38: Mick the Squirrel: but no pages for new categories or memes
(except electric zoo and spunch bop)
  • 0:38: Ironwestie: okay, new meme articles and categories
  • 0:39: Ironwestie: Shall we take this to a vote? I think something like this is necessary soon, so if this fails I think we can talk about this again once we have clearer guidelines on when to end the pause
  • 0:40: Mick the Squirrel: okay
  • 0:40: Pokemonfreak777: is there a way to make a half vote that isnt neutral?
  • 0:40: Pokemonfreak777: cuz my vote swings depending on what we do in subsequent moots
  • 0:41: Ironwestie: We can also choose not to have this vote right now and wait until we have more clear guidelines
  • 0:41: Ironwestie: It sounds like something that needs further discussion
  • 0:42: Spottygamester: I agree and I don't really think it's a good idea to do a vote on something that's quite drastic when we haven't discussed it that much.
  • 0:42: Ironwestie: Mick, is that okay with you?
  • 0:42: Mick the Squirrel: are we going to continue discussing it in the next moot then?
  • 0:42: Mick the Squirrel: or whenever the next available time is
  • 0:42: Mick the Squirrel: after all the other topics are discussed
  • 0:43: Ironwestie: It sounds like that guidelines bit needs to be discussed in other channels and refined before it is re-presented
  • 0:43: Pokemonfreak777: lets make it the first topic of the next moot maybe? tacking it at the end was probably not a good idea in retrospect
  • 0:43: Ironwestie: Yes, I apologize for the rushed conversation. This whole process has been tiring
  • 0:44: Ironwestie: To be fair to other editors, I will leave the topic in its current order (EDIT: Meaning other editors' topics would be first)
  • 0:44: Ironwestie: And allow it to be re-discussed then if Mick is ready. Does that sound fair?
  • 0:44: Mick the Squirrel: sure
  • 0:44: Minindo: i was typing this but it looks like the topic has been paused anyway
it'd be pretty unfortunate if the most obvious siivagunner meme appeared on the channel in the next couple months (i.e. the new stuck inside equivalent) and the wiki was on meme page lockdown
  • 0:45: Mick the Squirrel: i get that
  • 0:45: Mick the Squirrel: but it is a necessary consequence
  • 0:45: Pokemonfreak777: instead of pausing memes, we paused "discussion of pausing memes" lol
  • 0:45: Rickhenrique: Lmao
  • 0:45: Mick the Squirrel: [in reply to Mick the Squirrel: "but it is a necessary..."] it would be added later, we're not on a time limit
  • 0:46: Ironwestie: Haha, yep. I apologize for the haphazard discussion today. A lot of folks whom I thought were going to be at the moot did not attend
  • 0:46: Spottygamester: Monochrome Pause (Wiki Version)
  • 0:46: Mick the Squirrel: and we change the navbox to gray lol
  • 0:46: Ironwestie: I will follow up with the folks who are set to present by next week and create an agenda. The next moot will be in a week's time
  • 0:46: Ironwestie: Thank you all for coming
  • 0:46: Spottygamester: See you everyone.
  • 0:47: Rickhenrique: Cya
  • 0:47: Pokemonfreak777: but yeah anyways we need to have a properly defined end goal before i can commit to a meme pause and that goal has to actively worked towards
  • 0:47: Pokemonfreak777: also cya
Retrieved from "https://www.siivagunner.wiki/w/index.php?title=SiIvaGunner_Wiki:Moot/Log_2024_May_04&oldid=585859"
Debug data: