SiIvaGunner Wiki:Moot/Log 2025 April 05
Turret will be unavailable today, so we'll first have Corb's topic, then some time for an open floor
Here is today's topic:
Corb - Restructure shell category pages in order to make total usage more obvious. To do this, miscellaneous use rips found in shell categories will be placed in dedicated "Category:Rips featuring minor [category] sources" categories, and all uses found in subcategories will also be put in the shell category, as well. See User:CorbCreates/Category Restructure Proposal for full detailed proposal.
Here is today's topic:
Corb - Restructure shell category pages in order to make total usage more obvious. To do this, miscellaneous use rips found in shell categories will be placed in dedicated "Category:Rips featuring minor [category] sources" categories, and all uses found in subcategories will also be put in the shell category, as well. See User:CorbCreates/Category Restructure Proposal for full detailed proposal.
This seems like a good idea, but I’m not the one who approves stuff
gonna also post the log where prior discussion on this topic occurred SiIvaGunner Wiki:Moot/Log 2025 February 15
Corb also has a page for all of the category changes, User:CorbCreates/Category Reorganization
The goal of this proposal is to create a baseline for us to build a better categorization method that makes both data collection and navigation easier
Please note that besides the 12 shell categories listed under "Categories With No Complications", we are not converting these categories without consensus on how to conform them to the proposal.
The category reorganization page is simply just to demonstrate that this change is reasonably doable
Question: How would you like to come to a consensus with regards to the categories with complications? Should we do it here, or in another discussion?
Okay. I think we should leave this to #1330315666783469568 , and leave whether we do this at all to #992529922843230268 (i.e. this thread)
I was suggested to do "xxxxx minor sources" as that would conform to the fandom autocomplete
i will admit that my overall stance on this topic hasnt changed since the last time (in that i dont think this is necessary) but assuming we do actually pass this i think the proposed structure of the new categories looks alright
I personally agree with this new categorization if it allows for easier sorting of sources that arent memes and all that
sources that are not memes are not given categories and that will not be changed from this proposal, stump
I discussed this with Corb earlier, and I agree with the reasoning behind the proposal. I think the way that categories are currently structured is flawed, and this is a step in the right direction. This new structure seems to be more clear than the wishy-washy way we are currently doing it
I brought up that this a bit of an anti-pattern for MediaWikis, since you're supposed to add pages to the most specific subcategory. However, we already break that rule with Category:Rips and many others.
sources that are not memes are not given categories and that will not be changed from this proposal, stump
this proposal allows for more accurate sorting of sources that are subsources of memes
looking through it and it's clear that the implementation is well laid out - alongside any fixes that need to be made to any categories that don't perfectly work with the proposal
my main concern is that this decision would reflect the minority rather than the majority
pokemonfreak777 , do you have anything else to add? I see that you were involved in the Feb 15 moot where this was discussed last
I do encourage the people who joined the thread to at least say that you are in support/opposition of this before we actually bring it to vote
I was the one who brought up the alternate name format: Rips featuring XXX minor sources, instead of Rips featuring minor XXX sources, such that the minor sources category would be more likely to show up as an autocompletion based on how people naturally type things
Mick , please read from this message https://discord.com/channels/787504555763826738/1358213444737699880/1358215482330710159
Please note that besides the 12 shell categories listed under "Categories With No Complications", we are not converting these categories without consensus on how to conform them to the proposal.
we will probably enact these in groups or individually based off of the problems posed by the categories
pokemonfreak777 , do you have anything else to add? I see that you were involved in the Feb 15 moot where this was discussed last
not really. like i said the last time this topic was brought up, i didnt really see the outward benefit to readers with this change. but one of the changes i wanted made to this (including everything regardless of subcategory size) seems to be addressed so im now indifferent i suppose
I was the one who brought up the alternate name format: Rips featuring XXX minor sources, instead of Rips featuring minor XXX sources, such that the minor sources category would be more likely to show up as an autocompletion based on how people naturally type things
If there are no opinions on this then it doesn't really matter that much, it was just a minor optimization i thought of.
a lot of shell categories are already kinda weird so their subcategories need to get actually changed which is a meme discussion topic
I was the one who brought up the alternate name format: Rips featuring XXX minor sources, instead of Rips featuring minor XXX sources, such that the minor sources category would be more likely to show up as an autocompletion based on how people naturally type things
If there are no opinions on this then it doesn't really matter that much, it was just a minor optimization i thought of.
I have no opinion on the naming scheme. I could see readers start typing "Rips featuring minor..." once we start doing this
i think i would prefer "xxxxx minor sources", probably
Okay. I will note that in the summary that we've slightly changed the proposal to use "xxxxx minor sources" as a naming scheme.
Summary: We will implement subcategories with the naming scheme "Rips featuring xxxxx minor sources" for memes, according to Corb's Category Restructure Proposal. We will only change the 12 shell categories listed under "Categories With No Complications" under User:Corb Creates/Category Reorganization. The other categories will be handled through #1330315666783469568
Please respond with 
, 
, or 
.
====
TurretBot #DestroyTheDynablade , are you still planning on presenting? You told me the other day that you were not attending
I don't have anything pre-written for this, but I think there's only one thing to address that I didn't put in the proposal itself
So, a few of the videos in "SiIvaGunner's Original Fusion Collabs" will not count for this category, namely: SiIvaGunner Art Fusion Collab 7 Grand Dad Fusion Collab Yule Log Medley Collab 11 Minutes of City Pop
The rest of the playlist will count, along with all the ones listed under "Format" in the RIOR section of the playlist, as mentioned in the proposal topic.
So essentially this is a supercategory that contains Category:SiIvaGunner's Original Fusion Collabs as well as rips that reference use the same format as the fusion collabs?
So, a few of the videos in "SiIvaGunner's Original Fusion Collabs" will not count for this category, namely: SiIvaGunner Art Fusion Collab 7 Grand Dad Fusion Collab Yule Log Medley Collab 11 Minutes of City Pop
I find it weird having a category for rips referencing fusion collabs where the fusion collabs themselves outnumber the ones that reference the fcs
So essentially this is a supercategory that contains Category:SiIvaGunner's Original Fusion Collabs as well as rips that reference use the same format as the fusion collabs?
I think Turret is refering to rips like this: Staff Roll (Anniversary Version) - Super Mario 64
i feel like yule log and city pop should still count?
Yule Log is a medley and uses the same style throughout.
I just checked 11 Minutes of City Pop and yes it should count. Dumb oversight on my part. The collab's wiki page says it's a "medley arrangement". That should be changed to "fusion collab-style arrangement" or however this are usually described.
Why do we need to have a specific, non-official version of Category:SiIvaGunner's Original Fusion Collabs? This new category basically redefines the category by excluding certain collabs and adding others not in the playlist
Yule Log is a medley and uses the same style throughout.
I just checked 11 Minutes of City Pop and yes it should count. Dumb oversight on my part. The collab's wiki page says it's a "medley arrangement". That should be changed to "fusion collab-style arrangement" or however this are usually described.
idk i feel like the fact that it changes tracks similarly to how other fusion collabs do should have it count as well
is this meant to be something that includes things that fit within the standard of a fusion collab
Why do we need to have a specific, non-official version of Category:SiIvaGunner's Original Fusion Collabs? This new category basically redefines the category by excluding certain collabs and adding others not in the playlist
We're already doing it by listing a bunch of rips as using the same format in the RIOR section of the playlist page.
I guess the distinction here is that we generally categorize fusions that are under rip metadata as "arrangements" and "medley rips", and the official fusion collabs under "arrangements" but not "medley rips". I think this is a notable type of rip at this point and is distinct enough from other kinds of medley rips to support its own category. Since the official and unofficial ones are very similar in terms of content, I don't see much the reason to not include both.
So, turretbot will this include all rips that have a fusion style?
I have relistened to Yule Log Medley Collab. While I don't think it really fits the format still, it is somewhat similar so I am neutral on including it or not, if other people think it should count.
It doesn't (EDIT: include rips that reference fusion collabs), that was my misunderstanding.
Why would this include rips that reference fusion collabs, then?
No, if you mean like, in the sense that some rips reference specifically "Wood Man Fusion Collab", but don't use the general format.
All current cases of people recognizing a regular rip as using this style are listed under "Format" in the "References in other rips" section of the "SiIvaGunner's Original Fusion Collab" playlist category page.
In its purest form, it is a single composition played in various styles.
There are edge cases, like Boss Battle Fusion Collab, where the composition changes with each "segment", and Yule Log Medley Collab, where the styles are only subtly distinct.
okay, so rips where multiple different songs of the same game are incorporated into an arrangement of a single song count as fusion style arrangements then
I'm not enthused about this vague definition or this category. I don't think it solves any problem. The collabs already have a category (SiIvaGunner's Original Fusion Collabs) and we already list rips that have a similar format on the page.
I also don't think we should be excluding certain rips from the existing category to fit this definition
Showdown with the Ultimate Chimera - MOTHER 3 for example is listed there
what about rips that switch to a different track partway through the rip? i know undertale rips do that sometimes
I'm not enthused about this vague definition or this category. I don't think it solves any problem. The collabs already have a category (SiIvaGunner's Original Fusion Collabs) and we already list rips that have a similar format on the page.
I also don't think we should be excluding certain rips from the existing category to fit this definition
I do like this category idea, but it is really hard to define a limit on what to include/exclude
for a medley rip the minimum is 5 sources not counting the advertised track, so sure. 5 styles, not counting the style of the advertised track, if the rip includes it (for non-rips this will not factor).
Given there has never been a major argument over what should be included in the text list, I don't think this should be very controversial
I'm not enthused about this vague definition or this category. I don't think it solves any problem. The collabs already have a category (SiIvaGunner's Original Fusion Collabs) and we already list rips that have a similar format on the page.
I also don't think we should be excluding certain rips from the existing category to fit this definition
The "problem" is that there's a large text list, and "format of a fusion collab" isn't really a "source" per se. It just seems like the list is put there as a workaround because there is no category.
Like, the format section on the category page doesn't have a clear definition either
So the way medley rips is currently defined would mean all rips in this category will count as medley rips, yes. I don't really see this as a problem.
Why wouldn't all arrangements that are also medley rips also count as fusion collabs under this definition?
Medley rips has the following definition:
Rips using at least 5 sources outside of the advertised track.
It isn't restricted to just melody changes
like if a rip contains 4 different miscellaneous sfx interjections hidden around one melody change does it count
Like, fusion collabs are usually collaborations with different visuals accompanying them
I'll be honest, the more this proposal has been discussed, the less I'm in favour of it.
Overcast has talked about this before and believes that the term "medley" is being misused, but the problems with the medley rips category are not relevant really. I believe the fusion collabs, official or not, are a distinct enough type of content that it should be categorized, regardless of overlap with other categories.
A fusion collab is a multi-segment arrangement based on a particular composition, in which the individual segments arrange part of that composition into different styles. They often include visuals, most commonly recreations of the logo for the style's source with the name of the composition's source, although other visual formats have also been used, such as depicting characters, and some fusion collabs do not have visuals.
like if a rip contains 5 different miscellaneous sfx interjections over one song does it count
all five sources must have their instrumentation used to arrange a track. something like tobalphinehhpoop would not count
Yes, this. The only reason I'm proposing "Category:Fusion arrangements" instead of "Category:Fusion collabs" is because some of them aren't collabs
like if a rip contains 5 different miscellaneous sfx interjections over one song does it count
all five sources must have their instrumentation used to arrange a track. something like tobalphinehhpoop would not count
Like, fusion collabs are usually collaborations with different visuals accompanying them
I mean, it’s convenient that this would provide a category for anything in this format including non-collaborations. “Title Screen (Anniversary Version) - Super Mario Maker” is not a collab and isn’t in the SG Original FCs playlist, but “Magolor's Shoppe - Team Kirby Clash Deluxe” is a collaboration and is in that playlist. But they both are “fusions”
Yes, this. The only reason I'm proposing "Category:Fusion arrangements" instead of "Category:Fusion collabs" is because some of them aren't collabs
(It could be argued that the name "fusion collab", even when not accurate, is synonymous enough with the format that it does not matter and should be used anyway, but I'm not really in favor of that idea)
I mean, it’s convenient that this would provide a category for anything in this format including non-collaborations. “Title Screen (Anniversary Version) - Super Mario Maker” is not a collab and isn’t in the SG Original FCs playlist, but “Magolor's Shoppe - Team Kirby Clash Deluxe” is a collaboration and is in that playlist. But they both are “fusions”
would this category get deleted for redundancy if they were all added in the playlist?
I don't see why we need to have a separate category for "fusions". In my mind, "fusion collab" must also be a collaboration. I don't see a need to cut out the "collab" part.
I am also still against the overlapping for the reasons I brought up prior.
would this category get deleted for redundancy if they were all added in the playlist?
I mean if they became identical categories then yeah but that’s a “what if” that I don’t think is relevant because that’s currently not how the playlist works
I would rather not have a category at all. It's just "arrangements that are also medleys"
if you don't like medley rips meaning more than five sources, then "arrangements of five styles aside from the advertised track"
So, like, do you disagree with the continued existence of the RIOR list as well?
no, there are a lot of rips that are both arrangements and medleys that will not be fusions
a lot of arrangement and medley rips will have 1 or 2 songs arranged with other songs/sound effects mashed up
Okay, let's not use the phrase "medley rips". Is "arrangements of five styles aside from the advertised track" still what we're talking about?
Yes, but that is another issue. It is unclear and arbitrary.
It's not really another issue. The existence of the list was the impetus for wanting a category to exist, and I opened this topic with the specific statement that the category contents would essentially be the contents of the list + the contents of the playlist - the four (later two) videos in the playlist that do not actually follow the format.
By "another issue", I meant that the existence of the list is not the crux of my argument against this proposal. I've already stated that I have issues with the list.
Is "arrangements of five styles aside from the advertised track" still what we're talking about?
As far as I know, yes.
Is "arrangements of five styles aside from the advertised track" still what we're talking about?
As far as I know, yes.
Then I'm against this. It's just a subset of Category:Arrangements, not a new "Fusions" category.
Okay, we're talking in circles. I have already said my opinion on the points you have brought up.
We've been talking about this for almost 45 minutes now and I don't think we're in agreement on it fundamentally.
well the point that we are on the same page and we all know what our opinions are now
Okay. Is it possible that I can add to the vote that if the proposal does not pass the list in the RIOR section should be removed? All of the arguments against the category's existence would imply this anyway
Okay. Is it possible that I can add to the vote that if the proposal does not pass the list in the RIOR section should be removed? All of the arguments against the category's existence would imply this anyway
I get if you don't like this middle ground but a public wiki relies on compromises
The first vote would be something like: "We will create Category:Fusion arrangements, which will contain 'fusions' ('Arrangements of five styles aside from the advertised track'). It will contain the contents of Category:SiIvaGunner's Original Fusion Collabs aside from <list of those three rips>, as well as the rips in the Format section of Category:SiIvaGunner's Original Fusion Collabs#References in other rips"
The second vote would be something like: "We will remove the Format section of Category:SiIvaGunner's Original Fusion Collabs#References in other rips"
as well as any other rips that should have been included in that section but were missed
Well, I am back in the car to another birthday activity, so I have to leave now. I agree with having the two votes.
The three rips are SiIvaGunner Art Fusion Collab, 7 Grand Dad Fusion Collab, 11 Minutes of City Pop
Summary: We will create Category:Fusion arrangements, which will contain 'fusions' ('Arrangements of five styles aside from the advertised track'). It will contain the contents of Category:SiIvaGunner's Original Fusion Collabs aside from SiIvaGunner Art Fusion Collab and 7 Grand Dad Fusion Collab, as well as the rips in the Format section of Category:SiIvaGunner's Original Fusion Collabs#References in other rips ====
4/7 (counting only support and oppose votes) is 57.14%. Let me check what threshold a proposal needs to pass...
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
From SiIvaGunner Wiki: Moot.
The proposal does not meet the two-thirds threshold, so it does not pass.
Summary: We will remove the Format section of Category:SiIvaGunner's Original Fusion Collabs#References in other rips ====