Editing Talk:List of references in music

Is it just me, or does "Musical Sightings" sound weird? :| {{User:Stooben Rooben/sig}} 00:19, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:Srsly. {{User:Super-Yoshi/sig}}
::Would anybody object if I moved this to "Musical References"? {{User:Stooben Rooben/sig}} 00:23, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
::: I think people listens to music instead of seeing it (Unless if it was a music video.) (I don't mind.) :P {{User:Princess Grapes Butterfly/sig}}
:Yeah, but it fits quite well with all the other {{fakelink|Sightings}} pages. {{User:Time Q/sig}} 08:59, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
::Then maybe it's the sightings that have to change.  "Sightings" makes it sound like Mario is Bigfoot or something. ;) Maybe it should all be changed to "References." So, we'd have Video Game References, Music References, etc. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 11:25, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Good point. Should we make this a proposal? {{User:Stooben Rooben/sig}} 11:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
::::I'd agree with it too. {{User:Time Q/sig}} 11:59, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Consider it done. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 12:17, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:Does Super Mario RPG Rawest Forest Song count as a Music References? {{User:Princess Grapes Butterfly/sig}}
::Is that a fan creation or was it featured on a soundtrack? {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 13:49, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
::Well it a song on You Tube. So I guess it fan made. :O {{User:Princess Grapes Butterfly/sig}}
:::No. It was first on Newgrounds and stuff, then put on YT :P. It's fan made. {{User:Super-Yoshi/sig}}
:Everything have been moved from sighting to References per proposal. n_n {{User:Princess Grapes Butterfly/sig}}

== About Nico Nico Douga Medley... ==

There's more than one. ChibiRaikou simply posted it on YouTube. The correct name is "Kumikyoku". There's also another one with Mario in it, "Monogatari".

Plus, a japanese musical artist named Hyadain made this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO26RQkfID8

I can't believe why you haven't done this yet.

...

AND WHY THE HELL HAVEN'T YOU MENTIONED RAWEST FOREST YET?! --[[User:A.R.K.|A.R.K.]] 11:03, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Its fan made. {{User:Princess Grapes Butterfly/sig}} 13:00, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, but still, if you made a song about Mario, it means you're probably a fan of him. That would make ALL of these fan-made. Or do you mean on the internet? {{unsigned|A.R.K.}}

:If I've got my rules straight, we don't list references in nonprofessional media-- Although songs like "Game Gonna Cost a Fee" and even "What It's Like in Japan" are clearly made by Mario fans/people with some interest or knowledge in the Mario series, they're distinguished from the run-of-the-mill internet tribute in that they're professional, commercial works. On that note, I think "Nico Nico Douga Melody" and "The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny" should be removed as nonprofessional. {{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}}

==New Procedure...==
Guys I think the titles look a little too cluttered up. I say the title should only be the Artist's name then a sub-title is made for  the name of the music, because artists like for example Pitbull make a reference to Donkey Kong in every other song. {{User|Zero777}}

==Reorganize List of Mario references in music==
{{TPP}}
Like I mention above, I believe this article should be reorganized (or some may say need to be organized to begin with) to make it easier for visitors to navigate through this article.

The sense of reorganization I propose: It will first be organized by artist/artist group, in alphabetical order (going by first name, not last due to the fact their are artist groups and some artists use a stage name), (sectioned off by "==="), then by the title of the song (no quotations, also in alphabetical order if more than one song by the same artist is there, and sectioned off as a sub-title by "====").

The current one is pretty cluttered up, and also another fact to point out is that each sub-section accounts for only one song for one artist/artist group. What happens if an artist/artist group make another song with Mario references in it? Will we need to make another sub-section accounting for the same artist/artist group? That's why I suggest this system.

'''Proposer:''' {{User|Zero777}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' January 2, 2014, 23:59 GMT

===Reorganize (Organize) the article===
#{{User|Zero777}} Per proposal. It sounds ridiculous to enter in another sub-section with an artist/artist group that's already there. Plus the current organization system of "latest" on the bottom is really disorganized.
#{{User|Yoshi876}} Per proposal.
#{{User|SuperYoshiBros}} Per Zero.

===Leave it as is===

===Comments===
Most artist headers will only have one song subheader: that's a lot of organizational redundancy and clutter (especially in the TOC). Maybe it'd be better to cut the page in half: one overall section for the artists, which would then have artist headers and song subheaders (and be in alphabetical order by artist), but then the other half could be for single-entry-artists' songs, which would be listed in alphabetical order by title, ''without'' artist headers. - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 11:43, 20 December 2013 (EST)
:I kinda get what you are saying, but the problem in this idea is that it is based on an assumption that an artist/artist group will only make a mario-reference in only one song and that is it. Nothing is really preventing them from making another mario-reference in another song sometime in the future. {{User|Zero777}}

When you organize an artist, will it be by last name? <br>{{User:LeftyGreenMario/sig}} 13:46, 20 December 2013 (EST)
:No, it will be by their first name because not all artist use their real name and don't forget there is also artist groups. {{User|Zero777}}

::If they make another reference, then they can just be moved over. - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 21:57, 20 December 2013 (EST)
:::Yeah I thought about that to, if we go your way, in my opinion, I think it will look unprofessional, but I do understand your concern to because if we go my way then having artist-artist group-section with only one song as the sub-section, in my opinion, makes it look redundant or arbitrary; so I'm not really sure how I feel about your idea, partially due to the fact that I don't really understand the last-half of your idea. Could you please reword what you are trying to say? Because when you do I'll add that idea to the proposal as a third option (and also add you as a co-proposer). {{User|Zero777}}
@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ::Would anybody object if I moved this to "Musical References"? {{User:Stooben Rooben/sig}} 00:23, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
 ::: I think people listens to music instead of seeing it (Unless if it was a music video.) (I don't mind.) :P {{User:Princess Grapes Butterfly/sig}}
-:Yeah, but it fits quite well with all the other {{fake link|Sightings}} pages. {{User:Time Q/sig}} 08:59, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
+:Yeah, but it fits quite well with all the other {{fakelink|Sightings}} pages. {{User:Time Q/sig}} 08:59, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
 ::Then maybe it's the sightings that have to change.  "Sightings" makes it sound like Mario is Bigfoot or something. ;) Maybe it should all be changed to "References." So, we'd have Video Game References, Music References, etc. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 11:25, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
 :::Good point. Should we make this a proposal? {{User:Stooben Rooben/sig}} 11:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 ==Reorganize List of Mario references in music==
-{{Settled TPP}}
+{{TPP}}
-{{Proposal outcome|passed|5-0|reorganize}}
 Like I mention above, I believe this article should be reorganized (or some may say need to be organized to begin with) to make it easier for visitors to navigate through this article.
-The sense of reorganization I propose: It will first be organized by artist/artist group, in alphabetical order (going by first name, not last due to the fact their are artist groups and some artists use a stage name), (sectioned off by "==="), then by the title of the song (no quotations, also in alphabetical order if more than one song by the same artist is there, and sectioned off as a sub-section by "====").
+The sense of reorganization I propose: It will first be organized by artist/artist group, in alphabetical order (going by first name, not last due to the fact their are artist groups and some artists use a stage name), (sectioned off by "==="), then by the title of the song (no quotations, also in alphabetical order if more than one song by the same artist is there, and sectioned off as a sub-title by "====").
 The current one is pretty cluttered up, and also another fact to point out is that each sub-section accounts for only one song for one artist/artist group. What happens if an artist/artist group make another song with Mario references in it? Will we need to make another sub-section accounting for the same artist/artist group? That's why I suggest this system.
@@ Line 53: / Line 52: @@
 #{{User|Yoshi876}} Per proposal.
 #{{User|SuperYoshiBros}} Per Zero.
-#{{User|KP}} Per proposal.
-#{{User|Icemario11}} Per proposal.
 ===Leave it as is===
@@ Line 67: / Line 64: @@
 ::If they make another reference, then they can just be moved over. - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 21:57, 20 December 2013 (EST)
 :::Yeah I thought about that to, if we go your way, in my opinion, I think it will look unprofessional, but I do understand your concern to because if we go my way then having artist-artist group-section with only one song as the sub-section, in my opinion, makes it look redundant or arbitrary; so I'm not really sure how I feel about your idea, partially due to the fact that I don't really understand the last-half of your idea. Could you please reword what you are trying to say? Because when you do I'll add that idea to the proposal as a third option (and also add you as a co-proposer). {{User|Zero777}}
-::::The second half just means the one-shots would be organized the exact same way they are now: alphabetically by song title. So the only things that would be organized by artist would be cases where a single artist has made multiple references, like Eminem and NESkimos. Then the two lists (songs-by-title and songs-by-artist) would be separate. (BTW, sorry for not replying earlier - I've been ''really'' busy IRL: the joys of working retail in the holiday season...) - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 12:34, 29 December 2013 (EST)
-:::::Oh okay! I get what you mean. But now it's too late to alter the proposal since it's almost at its deadline. But don't forget that the article will go as section, sub-section, then description, so I don't believe it will look that bad. {{User|Zero777}}
-== Keynsham ==
-Keynsham was released in 1969, it's not a Mario reference -- if anything, it would be a reference made by the Mario series. {{unsigned|98.186.109.210}}
-:Removed, good catch. {{User:Mario jc/sig}} 08:46, 18 April 2018 (EDT)
-== Notability? ==
-{{talk}}
-Should there be a notability guideline on which artists and musical pieces get included? To elaborate, the page doesn't explicitly state anything about like if a random person (i.e. non-musician) just put together a random composition using audio-recording software and says the names of random ''Super Mario'' characters at the end. I think some terms of notability should be established to prevent the article from becoming too out of hand. And what does the opening sentence mean by "popular songs" if there's many I've never heard of before? It's already not the most accessible to find information on some of the more famous musicians like Cardi B, Drake, or Lil Wayne, which are the ones that would capture the reader's attention the most. And a few like DJ RPM and DJ Scheme don't link to Wikipedia articles. I'm not saying get rid of all non-billionaire artists. I just think there needs to be more restrictions put in place. What does the community think? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 17:05, October 22, 2024 (EDT)