SiIvaGunner Wiki:Moot/Log 2025 June 21
our topics for today:
Corb - As it stands right now, there are many problems related to the current way we differentiate between “Rips of” and “Rips featuring” a specific source. Most notably, a source being a Meme will often inspire rips of the song, rather than exclusively rips featuring. By failing to officially recognize this nuance, we are discrediting very obvious contributions to SiIvaGunner memes. In this proposal, I will discuss a way to merge “Rips of” and “Rips featuring” that both acknowledges the inherent differences between the two types of source uses, and also recognizes that the two types have similarities that should be taken into account. Arthur101 - Discuss the creation of an "Events by type" category for super-events.
ironwestie said he likely would not be able to present his topic today
gonna be a little slower to respond today due to irl stuff but i did read corb's topic beforehand so i have a rough block of text to paste later
User:CorbCreates/Frequently Used Sources Proposal i'll post it again bc people are already talking about reading it
User:CorbCreates/Frequently Used Sources Proposal i'll post it again bc people are already talking about reading it
Superficially, I have no objections, but the proposal would be stronger if it had an example of how the frequently used source categories would look
alright __corb you have the floor for:
As it stands right now, there are many problems related to the current way we differentiate between “Rips of” and “Rips featuring” a specific source. Most notably, a source being a Meme will often inspire rips of the song, rather than exclusively rips featuring. By failing to officially recognize this nuance, we are discrediting very obvious contributions to SiIvaGunner memes. In this proposal, I will discuss a way to merge “Rips of” and “Rips featuring” that both acknowledges the inherent differences between the two types of source uses, and also recognizes that the two types have similarities that should be taken into account.
User:CorbCreates/Frequently Used Sources Proposal i'll post it again bc people are already talking about reading it
So yeah, you can read basically all of my thoughts on the topic in the above linked page. If you have any further questions, especially related to clarification or additional issues not brought up, please bring them up for me to address
please read most of the page because theres a lot of things this proposal means to the wiki and i feel like seeing and understanding all of the potential benefits is important
And would the concepts be listed under the memes page or will they have their own pages to explain them?
one source can not be both an FUS and a Meme so they will not share pages
rips of and rips featuring will share pages, not categories
If a source has been ripped 19 times and is referenced once in another rip, what articles and categories are created for this source?
it will have an FUS page unless it passes as a meme. There will be a category for the rips of, and a text list on the FUS page for the rips featuring
it will have an FUS page unless it passes as a meme. There will be a category for the rips of, and a text list on the FUS page for the rips featuring
That sounds more confusing and worse than just having one set of categories for all frequently used sources
This is to combat walls of pages in the lists of references in rips right?
arent fus pages just the same problem we have for most freqrip pages? just a bunch of pages for non notable things?
This is to combat walls of pages in the lists of references in rips right?
That sounds more confusing and worse than just having one set of categories for all frequently used sources
people have expressed interest in merging rips of and rips featuring categories, however it is too controvertial to include in this proposal
arent fus pages just the same problem we have for most freqrip pages? just a bunch of pages for non notable things?
arent fus pages just the same problem we have for most freqrip pages? just a bunch of pages for non notable things?
currently freqrip pages also contain notable things, this allows the notable things to move up to being memes more effectively. having pages for the non-notable things is extremely useful for navigation when they have been used a lot
people have expressed interest in merging rips of and rips featuring categories, however it is too controvertial to include in this proposal
I don't know if I can support the proposal if it actually ends up making things more complicated
currently freqrip pages also contain notable things, this allows the notable things to move up to being memes more effectively. having pages for the non-notable things is extremely useful for navigation when they have been used a lot
theres only a few notable freqrips, most of them arent important at all and this will be the same for fus pages
noting down places where i may have stronger opinions one way or another, anything not mentioned im more in the middle
problem def notes
- i personally dont really see it that way, but i digress
- agree on the sources with overwhelming lists; they are horrible to deal with
- agree under similar reasoning for 2
- i never really saw the current amount as an issue tbh, but i could see the scaling being problematic
solution notes
- i am okay with the proposed tiering system since i think its an alright compromise between consolidating and separating source usage. in particular, i believe every source people voted out should have just been made a FUS to begin with instead of just discarding the category and/or page
- im iffy about the counts (i assume its a halfway point between the 25 of the earlier meme system and the 10 of FRTs). i was thinking an either/or solution for this instead for FUS criteria 1 (10 to FRT, or 25 to old meme system, whichever happens first) would be better
- for naming criteria, i think the title for pages should probably just always be original source so we wouldnt have to then change the page when the original source finally gets used. most common variants used could be mentioned/discussed on the page itself
- for the text lists, i think we should hide them and/or link to existing categories
problems notes -mostly no issues here. i agree with a few statements and disagree with a few as well, specifically on whether or not they are actual issues, but they are "addressed", so sure
benefits notes
- i could see 1 and 2 being true, perhaps too early to tell for 3 and 4
future proposals
- no to 1, this proposal is already pushing it but at least it makes a decent compromise
- for 2, i believe this is already done? not sure what this is trying to change
- indifferent to 3
- 4, i would not consider doing this until the current shell categories are resolved
- no to 5, and i think this proposal already makes this problem less of an issue?
[will be in and out today] just make normal categories for them if space is the issue, nobody asked for the pages. this is overcomplicated i feel
[will be in and out today] just make normal categories for them if space is the issue, nobody asked for the pages. this is overcomplicated i feel
we can remove the pages later if people dont want them. Right now, I am proposing FUS pages to be as similar as possible to FRT pages to minimize the amount of changes to propose
frt pages are already a bad concept that could be fixed by being category exclusive
frt pages are already a bad concept that could be fixed by being category exclusive
removing frt pages is bad so long as they continue to have genuinely relevant sources among them
my proposal will effectively separate them and we can then remove the pages for FUS if we deem it useful
Ok I take back my brief agreement about FRTs being unnecessary but I guess I don't see the point of having FUSs
And the solution to the walls of links in the list of references are dropdowns in my opinion
FUSs is basically a renaming of FRT to fit how the pages are now about more than just vgm
And the solution to the walls of links in the list of references are dropdowns in my opinion
FUSs is basically a renaming of FRT to fit how the pages are now about more than just vgm
This is a bit pedantic but it'd make more sense to say "articles" instead of "pages" because categories are also pages, and you're already using enough confusing terminology/acronyms as is
I guess but having FUSs and FRTs be basically the same thing doesn't work in my opinion
the problem is not scrolling past them, it is reading/gaining info from them
This is a bit pedantic but it'd make more sense to say "articles" instead of "pages" because categories are also pages, and you're already using enough confusing terminology/acronyms as is
The main issue I have with the idea of Frequently Used Sources is that it comes off as a way to bring back the original way we categorised memes by usage criteria, but disguised under a different title.
Even outside of that, I still heavily dislike the idea of creating a difference between a "SiIvaGunner meme" and a "Frequently Used Source", largely because I feel most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two.
And the solution to the walls of links in the list of references are dropdowns in my opinion
I don't think this would help, because they would make the pages a lot harder to search through and would potentially cause layout issues. I think they may be technically possible, but if you were to use MediaWiki list syntax to do this you would have to keep the entire contents of the dropdown on one line and not have any sublists in the dropdown
The main issue I have with the idea of Frequently Used Sources is that it comes off as a way to bring back the original way we categorised memes by usage criteria, but disguised under a different title.
Even outside of that, I still heavily dislike the idea of creating a difference between a "SiIvaGunner meme" and a "Frequently Used Source", largely because I feel most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two.
people are already having difficulty remembering whether a source is a meme or just an FRT
I don't think this would help, because they would make the pages a lot harder to search through and would potentially cause layout issues. I think they may be technically possible, but if you were to use MediaWiki list syntax to do this you would have to keep the entire contents of the dropdown on one line and not have any sublists in the dropdown
The main issue I have with the idea of Frequently Used Sources is that it comes off as a way to bring back the original way we categorised memes by usage criteria, but disguised under a different title.
Even outside of that, I still heavily dislike the idea of creating a difference between a "SiIvaGunner meme" and a "Frequently Used Source", largely because I feel most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two.
there is already so much debate about what a meme is though, at least among us wiki editors. The Frequently Used Source technique could mitigate that: It would help document things.
there is already so much debate about what a meme is though, at least among us wiki editors. The Frequently Used Source technique could mitigate that: It would help document things.
"documenting" content that is 90% of the time useless. the only point should be to make navigation easier, we dont need pages
Or if we keep the lists as is and have a secondary way of finding sources?
categories is already a valid solution to solving these massive text lists and trying to invent a new solution to circumvent using them seems counterproductive
not the current point of discussion but 20 is also kinda low
categories is already a valid solution to solving these massive text lists and trying to invent a new solution to circumvent using them seems counterproductive
not the current point of discussion but 20 is also kinda low
Yeah but then it could get confusing
how will moving a text list to a category get confusing
i feel like having the articles is easier becase it is a one-stop-shop for all uses and information related to a source
I think the general idea of making a source eligible for an article when there are more than n rips containing it makes sense, but I'm still not convinced that we should keep the frequently ripped track categories separate if about 70% of them will be eliminated just because of the raised limit and another 10% of them are already memes
This proposal will actually increase our ability to give pages to things like “PlayStation Startup” with not quite enough rips, as the ability to vote to create FUS pages can circumvent any page losses we would have otherwise had, and create pages we still do not have even now. In addition a lot of these pages for borderline FRTS will still keep their pages due to having several rips where the source is the joke of the rip.
Immediately, this catches my eye. I think that the ability to make things that we cannot make under the current system is a benefit of this system that you are proposing, this Frequently Uses Sources system.
However, I really can't think of any examples of what this would help with other than PlayStation Startup? Could you think of more?
My problem with that is the notability, I feel like only memes should have articles Edit: in the context of FUSs and memes
But then having just categories is kind of weird, hence why I thought dropdowns would be the next best thing
how will moving a text list to a category get confusing
And, another thing I'll ask: How will this system affect how Athletic Doctor is reported, and the page Category:Rips referencing Athletic Doctor ? Will Athletic Doctor become a Frequently Used Source under this system? In general how would Athletic Doctor as a concept interact with this system?
Are you moving the text list to the category or to the meme article?
the text list would be at the bottom of the meme/FUS article unless we agree it should be elsewhere
And, another thing I'll ask: How will this system affect how Athletic Doctor is reported, and the page Category:Rips referencing Athletic Doctor ? Will Athletic Doctor become a Frequently Used Source under this system? In general how would Athletic Doctor as a concept interact with this system?
it has been declared to be a meme. it will not be an FUS.
also FUS only covers singular songs/audio sources automatically, similar to how FRTs only cover single VGM tracks. voted additions is valid but Athletic Doctor could not become an FUS automatically
there will be too much confusion if source combos, series, etc were valid for addition
I think the general idea of making a source eligible for an article when there are more than n rips containing it makes sense, but I'm still not convinced that we should keep the frequently ripped track categories separate if about 70% of them will be eliminated just because of the raised limit and another 10% of them are already memes
i get the idea that having separate categories (or a separate category and text list) for lesser-used FUS is awkward, but currently there is a large group of people who do not want rips of and rips featuring categories to get combined because it can become harder to find one if all rips of the other is included in a single category
I thought about it a bit more. I think I am fine with the proposal but I am not sure if 15 makes sense as a threshold
If the threshold for either type of FUS category is increased to 20, then we won't have cases of some tracks being ripped 15 to 19 times getting categories and others not getting categories (and same for sources being used 15 to 19 times)
This will result in there being slightly longer bulleted lists on FUS articles, but I don't think this will be a big problem
i do agree that having 5 extra rips in a list before making the respective category would not be an issue
i don't think it would be that confusing because its very hard to notice, but i am fine with increasing the category req to 20 if that feels more reasonable
either way my goal of making navigation easier for the more-used sources is still achieved
i get the idea that having separate categories (or a separate category and text list) for lesser-used FUS is awkward, but currently there is a large group of people who do not want rips of and rips featuring categories to get combined because it can become harder to find one if all rips of the other is included in a single category
yeah i am against merging the two categories together; they should stay separate. however having a common place to access either (such as its page) is a good idea to me. its also why i think we should keep the original numbers of 10 and 25 (or whatever number is appropriate for such categories) such that if either one reaches it gets FUS status; at that point its made a presence on the channel that cant really be ignored but whether people want to say its siiva relevant enough to be meme is what arguing in meme-discussion is for i guess
I thought about it a bit more. I think I am fine with the proposal but I am not sure if 15 makes sense as a threshold
If the threshold for either type of FUS category is increased to 20, then we won't have cases of some tracks being ripped 15 to 19 times getting categories and others not getting categories (and same for sources being used 15 to 19 times)
This will result in there being slightly longer bulleted lists on FUS articles, but I don't think this will be a big problem
I think this would effectively simplify the proposal to
- "frequently ripped track" category creation threshold is increased to 20
- "rips featuring" category creation threshold is restored and lowered to 20
- article creation threshold becomes 20 uses, regardless of the uses being considered "frequently ripped track" or "rips featuring"
And as pokemonfreak points out, if the category creation thresholds aren't dependent on the 3rd threshold then they can be adjusted independently or even kept as they are currently
I'm still not sure what "If uses of an audio source are spread across 5 text lists" means in practice though lol
I think this would effectively simplify the proposal to
- "frequently ripped track" category creation threshold is increased to 20
- "rips featuring" category creation threshold is restored and lowered to 20
- article creation threshold becomes 20 uses, regardless of the uses being considered "frequently ripped track" or "rips featuring"
And as pokemonfreak points out, if the category creation thresholds aren't dependent on the 3rd threshold then they can be adjusted independently or even kept as they are currently
- sure
- i'd rather they be 25 but sure
- infinite irrelevant articles is still not a good thing
I think this would effectively simplify the proposal to
- "frequently ripped track" category creation threshold is increased to 20
- "rips featuring" category creation threshold is restored and lowered to 20
- article creation threshold becomes 20 uses, regardless of the uses being considered "frequently ripped track" or "rips featuring"
And as pokemonfreak points out, if the category creation thresholds aren't dependent on the 3rd threshold then they can be adjusted independently or even kept as they are currently
If you are trying to get the proposal to be implemented, I think splitting up the vote into parts like this would be more effective than trying to get the whole thing through in one go, considering the divergent opinions on the proposal
Here's a summary of my thoughts on the proposal:
My problem with FRTs currently is how much irrelevant tracks are defined as notable to the channel along with stuff that actually is notable. I feel the irrelevant stuff should not be documented, period. The FUS category just moves it to a seperate list. While I do like that inclusion in this list is something that would have to be proposed, like with memes, I feel like there's not much to discuss given the little criteria needed to become a FUS.
However, what I do like about this proposal is the change in the definition of memes on the wiki, outlined in the "tier 1" section, being that "rips of" counts towards being a meme as well as "rips featuring". Before reading the proposal, i thought that making FRTs have similar criteria need to memes would solve the problem; after reading, conflating rips of and rips featuring makes a lot of sense now because the principal behind frequent use as either the base track or the joke is the same. I think this is a good idea, so long as "rips of" and "rips featuring" remain with seperate categories.
I think the proposed 3-tier system should only be 2-tier, with FUS being removed; if it's not a meme, then I don't think it's relevant at all. Although it is the main idea of the proposal, a FUS category is unecessary in my eyes.
I'm still not sure what "If uses of an audio source are spread across 5 text lists" means in practice though lol
this is basically if the uses of a single source are spread across several text lists due to covers/remakes of the song having usage, an FUS page can be created to conglomerate the usage to make navigation easier on the wiki reader
i'm not ride-or-die on that point if we don't like it, but personally i think its something useful if it comes up
I feel like it would be better to address that by listing the derivative works with the original author instead of with the remixer/cover artist in those cases
I feel like it would be better to address that by listing the derivative works with the original author instead of with the remixer/cover artist in those cases
this would also count across rips of/featuring btw. so if a song was used in 3 games and also had the og and a cover of it ripped, then that would be valid. but once again i am fine with removing that criteria bc i do agree it is confusing the more i think about it
Here's a summary of my thoughts on the proposal:
My problem with FRTs currently is how much irrelevant tracks are defined as notable to the channel along with stuff that actually is notable. I feel the irrelevant stuff should not be documented, period. The FUS category just moves it to a seperate list. While I do like that inclusion in this list is something that would have to be proposed, like with memes, I feel like there's not much to discuss given the little criteria needed to become a FUS.
However, what I do like about this proposal is the change in the definition of memes on the wiki, outlined in the "tier 1" section, being that "rips of" counts towards being a meme as well as "rips featuring". Before reading the proposal, i thought that making FRTs have similar criteria need to memes would solve the problem; after reading, conflating rips of and rips featuring makes a lot of sense now because the principal behind frequent use as either the base track or the joke is the same. I think this is a good idea, so long as "rips of" and "rips featuring" remain with seperate categories.
I think the proposed 3-tier system should only be 2-tier, with FUS being removed; if it's not a meme, then I don't think it's relevant at all. Although it is the main idea of the proposal, a FUS category is unecessary in my eyes.
i do see where you are coming from, and respectfully disagree on removing FUSs. however, if you do want FRTs to be gone, we do need a way to separate the ones relevant to siiva and those irrelevant. this proposal passing will do exactly that
if you want to remove the second tier after this passes you can feel free to make that proposal, it is a valid continuation of this change
this is basically if the uses of a single source are spread across several text lists due to covers/remakes of the song having usage, an FUS page can be created to conglomerate the usage to make navigation easier on the wiki reader
i believe the current frt categories already consolidate covers/remakes to the best of the editor's ability to identify them as the same track? on their respective games, they should link to the page that collects them (currently the category) but it could be the FUS page under this proposal instead i guess?
if its rips of a track, and the track is found in several games, it will be found on the game pages for those several games
like under the current frt system, i believe a track ripped once on ten different games (each with a variation) versus the same track ripped ten times in the same game both qualify for the category in the same way
like under the current frt system, i believe a track ripped once on ten different games (each with a variation) versus the same track ripped ten times in the same game both qualify for the category in the same way
its a matter of whether you are knowledgeable enough to identify them as essentially the same track
im just saying it only needs to be ripped for 5 different games to qualify because it becomes miserable to navigate otherwise
ok because people were seemingly in support of this change:
- the requirement for the rips of/rips featuring lists to become categories will be upped to 20, instead of 15
its a matter of whether you are knowledgeable enough to identify them as essentially the same track
so youre proposing allowing creating a potential category (extreme case) that only has 5 entries if each entry is from a different game but same track? i feel like that might be too little but idk
to remove confusion surrounding the criteria for FUS pages:
- the alternate "number of text lists" requirement for creating FUS pages will be removed.
so youre proposing allowing creating a potential category (extreme case) that only has 5 entries if each entry is from a different game but same track? i feel like that might be too little but idk
i would like to see what the final vote text will look like so i kinda know what im voting for
this is a hard one to summaraize briefly lol but I can see if I can do it for arthur
We will be changing how "Rips of" and "Rips featuring" will be treated when creating articles on the wiki:
- Meme articles will now be created based on the amount of usage in both "Rips of" and "Rips featuring".
- "Rips of" and "Rips featuring" categories will only be made for sources on articles with at least 20 uses of that respective type. Otherwise, that method of using a source will be kept as a text list at the bottom of the article for that source. LORT lists on the LORT pages or game pages will be moved to those lists, and a redirect will be placed to these lists.
We will replace "Frequently ripped track" articles with "Frequently used source" articles, with different criteria:
- The source can be used 20 times across the channel, as either a "Rip of" or a "Rip featuring".
- Or, the source can be voted to be added manually.
- Having a "Meme" article will supercede having a "Frequently used source" article.
- Current "Frequently ripped track" articles will be renamed to "Frequently used source" articles unless the new criteria is not met.
sorry i just wanted to add that clarification that we arent "deleting and remaking" any pages
if you want to remove the second tier after this passes you can feel free to make that proposal, it is a valid continuation of this change
I feel like I'd be less hesitant to support this if you more clearly outlined what would actually be on a Frequently Used Source page
its the same as a FRT page in content basically, except its about both rips of and rips featuring
It also includes a list if either category threshold isn't reached, so it's not just generic text lol
It also includes a list if either category threshold isn't reached, so it's not just generic text lol
I like the benefits this has, and what issues are here seem already present in the current FRT system. Even if we regret choosing this system later on, I think that what we learn from using it will help us flesh everything out in regards to what should be done about FRTs and wiki management in general.
5-2-3. not a two-thirds support, so the proposal is not passed.
yeah for the record my support is more of a weak support. i like where its going but i feel like a few more details may need to get fleshed out more
Arthur101 mas ele é intrigante ‼ Topics can be reproposed restructured in the future right?
yeah if it is restructured or something surrounding the proposal changes, then it can be reproposed
Arthur101 mas ele é intrigante ‼ Topics can be reproposed restructured in the future right?
yes but they should not be a carbon copy (or near carbon copy) of a previous topic
hope this does eventually get restructured because i do like the new definition of memes that it proposed
I did say restructured
so the next proposal would be mine, but this moot has already been running for an hour and a half and I frankly do not have the energy to propose it right now lol
well hopefully at least some parts of the proposal stick with people bc this stuff does need to get changed eventually
I'll be honest, I found most of that proposal and discussion to be pretty confusing.