Please remember that WiKirby contains spoilers, which you read at your own risk! See our general disclaimer for details.

WiKirby:Proposals/Archive

From WiKirby, your independent source of Kirby knowledge.
Jump to navigationJump to search
Successful proposals archives
Proposals passed in 2023
Proposals passed in 2022
Proposals passed in 2021
Proposals passed in 2020

The following proposals have been successfully passed by WiKirby's community. For older proposals, check the box to the right:

End deletion of permabanned users' talk pages (1\26\2024 - 2\9\2024)[edit]

As is stands currently, talk pages of permanently blocked users get deleted. However, sometimes the content on the user talk page is the reason they get permanently blocked, and even if not, they can still be a part of wiki history. As such, I'm proposing that we stop deleting talk pages of permanently blocked users (and undelete the talk pages of previously blocked users). However, since there can be cases where the talk page isn't important, there are options for only deleting them if the talk page is irrelevant to why they were blocked (e.g. they just started vandalizing pages) or only if it's empty (just the Kirbot message). In any case, kept talk pages of permanently blocked users would be protected to prevent editing, effectively archiving them. ---PinkYoshiFan 18:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Option 1: Always keep
  1. Second choice, though I doubt there’d be much value in keeping pages with Kirbot only, everything else here is the same as option 3. -YFJ (talk · edits) 21:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. Second choice. While I don't see a reason to keep empty talk pages around, there's not really any harm keeping them either. ---PinkYoshiFan 21:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  3. Second choice, no harm in doing so but no use in it either. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 06:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  4. Second choice, I don't see any downside with keeping these pages. NVS Pixel (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  5. This is my second choice. I'll admit that keeping any talk pages that's just the bot-generated welcome message might be clogging things a bit, but working together with others is give-and-take, after all. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  6. First choice. If we are going to stop deleting them, might as well keep it simpler and not delete any of them. I will admit I'm not a fan of deleting stuff so this is in part why I lean more to this. - Gigi (talkedits) 22:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  7. It always baffled me a little that we do this. Interaction on user talk pages are often a showcase of user's conduct, so deleting them feels like hiding evidence to me. Superbound (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Option 2: Only delete if irrelevant to why they were blocked
  1. Third choice. It’s somewhat subjective as to what’s relevant and what isn’t, but at least this way we keep the important parts. -YFJ (talk · edits) 21:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. Third choice. Reasonable if we want to be minimalistic, but everything can count, as long as the talk page isn't empty. If something exists on the talk page other than the welcome message, that is valuable by itself. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 06:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  3. Third choice. I agree it is subjective on what is relevant and what isn't and I can see this sparking pointless debates over users who aren't here anymore. NVS Pixel (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  4. This is my third choice. Other users have pointed out how it can be difficult to reasonably determine what counts as a "relevant" talk page, but I'm sure that can be sorted out on a case-by-case basis, whether on the Discord server on on other user talk pages. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Option 3: Only delete if empty
  1. First choice. You know, I actually think that these pages should be kept. That way, they could be used as examples of what NOT to do (or how to respond to people) on this Wikipedia. If the pages don't have anything on them though, then they could be deleted. --Paistrie (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. First choice. Seems like a given to delete pages that only have the welcome template, but otherwise there could be useful content on the talk page to keep. I’d also say this should apply retroactively—that is, while we’re not required to undelete every blocked user talk page in the wiki’s history, it should remain an option. -YFJ (talk · edits) 21:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  3. First choice. I don't really see a reason to keep the talk page around if it's empty save for the default welcome message. ---PinkYoshiFan 21:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  4. First choice, per the reasoning of others. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 06:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  5. First choice. Makes the most sense and there's no reason to keep these pages if they're empty. NVS Pixel (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  6. This is my first choice, for reasons already stated. If the reason a user got blocked happened solely on their talk page, for instance, and it's not there anymore...then how are people supposed to figure out from a glance what caused them to get banished to the shadow realm? On the other hand, if nothing of interest is on their talk page besides the bot-generated welcome message, then there's no harm in getting rid of it. Per all. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  7. Second choice. I suppose that if we don't want to keep things super simple, this one makes the most sense, as option 2 could be a bit arbitrary in some cases, and this one is objective. - Gigi (talkedits) 22:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Option 4: Keep deleting (no change)
Neutral

Discussion[edit]

Would this apply retroactively or just for users blocked after the proposal passes, if it passes? - Gigi (talkedits) 18:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's retroactive. ---PinkYoshiFan 21:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Allow qualifiers in (music) redirects (Jan 25, 2024 - Feb 8, 2024)[edit]

I will keep this concise, since de facto what I am about to suggest is already done in practice despite its status in theory.

Per our Deletion policy, if "[pages] are redirects containing qualifiers in parentheses", they are the deemed "suitable for deletion". This rule has been ignored in a few cases for music pages, all of which I believe have a solid reasoning:

  1. A theme named after a subject with an existing article's name is a partial arrangement of something else (such as "Secret Island (theme)" for "Fountain Gardens (theme)", "Circuit Speedway (theme)" for "Welcome to Wondaria (theme)".
  2. The case above, but an official name of the base version or a direct remix exists but is not the name of the article (applies to "Goal Game (theme)" in the context of "Sparkling Stars (theme)", and the proposal was sparked for "Cookie Country (theme)", an early official name for "Four Adventurers: Cookie Country".

I think that if a redirect is an official title (which... it should be?), it doesn't actually matter if it has qualifiers or not. It's better to have a redirect with qualifiers than force the reader to figure it out by their own (such as guessing that "Four Adventurers" is a part of the name for Cookie Country's theme). I believe the same could be said for any case besides music as well, although I don't know any examples to go off of. In any case, I'm formalizing the discussion so we can settle it once and for all. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 22:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Support
  1. Full support. I never understood why redirects with qualifiers are not allowed ever. The argument of "no one uses then" feels, really weird and makes me go "citation needed". I'm the believer that anything with an official name needs to be at least a redirect, since maybe someone will search that term and we can help them guide them. This is particularly useful for music pages, as explained, but also other cases exist (like Waddle Dee (novel character) also being named Bandana Waddle Dee). My only note is that we should clarify somewhere that we shouldn't create multiple redirects with qualifiers for the same name (ie. have stuff like "Cookie Country (theme)", "Cookie Country (music)" etc, or even things like "Kirby (character)" redirecting to Kirby). - Gigi (talkedits) 11:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. Support. I can easily see them getting used by people who are searching for old names or remixes, and there's no real downside to having more redirects if they help the reader. Also agree with the thing Gigi mentioned about not making multiple qualifiers. ---PinkYoshiFan 17:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  3. Agreed. There's always gonna be at least one person who can't find what they're looking for, so qualifiers feel like a really good thing to have. ~☆Starvoid⁠☆ (t · c) 03:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  4. Support. It feels important that we help readers find whatever they need and I think allowing qualifiers will help with that. NVS Pixel (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I’m not so sure about this one. I honestly can’t see many people typing in a “theme” qualifier to find a stage theme. More likely, they’d go to the stage infobox and see the theme there. Furthermore, in one case you mentioned, Cookie Country already has a redirect template to direct people to the theme. If the qualifier were actually part of the song name, that’d be another story, but that’s almost never the case. What it all boils down to is that we don’t have identifier redirects because people don’t use them, and I fail to see how music pages are any different. -YFJ (talk · edits) 23:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Neutral

Discussion[edit]

Expand trivia policy to better explain what can and can't be trivia (Jan 12, 2024 - Jan 26, 2024)[edit]

WiKirby's quality standards have always been high, and they keep going up, which I personally consider a good thing. However, sometimes we raise the standards without knowing and don't formalize it, which is what this proposal is about.

So, Wikirby has a very good trivia policy. In particular, we have limits to size of trivia to avoid what happens in many other wikis where the trivia section becomes so big it's sometimes even bigger than the article's main body. However, one issue that I still see happen is that many times trivia points are added, and then a more experienced editor comes and either removes the trivia point entirely, or moves it to the article's main body. There's nothing wrong with that, for the record, but I've realized lately that we have no formal guidelines that tell us to do that. We do have instead a lot of unwritten rules, that some more experienced editors appear to just know, but it feels unfair to newer editors.

With that in mind, and also with the hope to further increase WiKirby's high quality standards, I've put together a draft of a section I would like to add to the trivia policy, a section that defines what is and isn't trivia as best as possible. Sure, this is not a black and white thing, but this was my attempt to write those unwritten rules I talked about. I feel the way to summarize what I want is that I want trivia to be the last place we should put something. Really, only if it doesn't fit anywhere else. Trivia usually is like the default section to add something new when you don't know where to fit it, and while in a way that's good, in another that feels like not a good practice for people who want to learn of policies of the wiki. If that makes sense.

Also, just to be clear, the draft I linked is that, a draft. Feel free to suggest any changes, but that's the overall content I want in that section. If this passes, I likely won't just copy and paste that, I will do a revision with comments presented alongisde other admins.

What all that said, what do you all think? - Gigi (talkedits) 12:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Support
  1. Agreed, standardizing what qualifies as trivia seems good. ---PinkYoshiFan 12:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. Agreed, the current trivia policy is too unspecific. I am never sure what is supposed to be in trivia. Expending the policy will lead to less confusion. SilvTheGrape (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  3. Agree. The points made are common sense, formalizing unspoken rules will only benefit the system. In short, it'll be healthy for trivia sections. Music trivia begone! ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 21:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  4. Sound good. I never realized the trivia guidelines were never formalized in a policy. Superbound (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  5. This is pretty much what we’ve done all along anyway, and I’ve seen how long trivia sections on FANDOM can get. Setting this in stone can only help matters. -YFJ (talk · edits) 15:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  6. Explicitly establishing what falls under trivia can only help the policy. —willidleaway [talk | edits] 23:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  7. There's not much else for me to add other than what's already been said, but I can see how this would help make things more obvious for new users who happen to read our Trivia policy. Per all. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral

Discussion[edit]

Proposals[edit]

Using bold or italics for music names (December 18th, 2023 - January 1st, 2024)[edit]

The sister proposal for the above, for an individual aspect that is significantly more complex than the above. Bold text can be seen used:

  • In the infobox caption and opening abstract
  • For alternate names listed in the article
  • When listing medleys that a theme is a part of

Italics are typically used for translations of foreign titles.

They serve as a visual cue, preventing important information from going unnoticed, but between their interactions with links and/or quotation marks, they are used inconsistently, in particular as far as the latter two points are concerned. So, here come more subpoints to discuss. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 15:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Formatting alternate names (English)[edit]

For example, "A Trip to Alivel Mall" is named "Love, Love, Alivel" in Kirby's Dream Buffet. Welcome to the New World! is "Kirby and the Forgotten Land: Bonus Song 3". So, how do we treat these? (Ranked voting highly recommended due to a large number of options)

Option 1: Only bold
Option 2: Only italics
  1. When writing/typing the name of a song, I'm pretty sure you're supposed to either italicize it or underline. This format would technically be the most correct one. --Paistrie (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
    #First choice. Italicizing music titles is the standard for main titles, I don't see a reason why that shouldn't apply to other titles. ---PinkYoshiFan 01:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 3: Only quotation marks
  1. Second choice. Would want to avoid italics personally. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 06:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. Second choice. Same reasoning as before with consistency, although it seems like the standard both here and in other places is actually quotes for single track titles (italics for albums).---PinkYoshiFan
  3. First choice. I think this keeps the best consistency with the formats of the sister proposal. Waddlez3121 (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 4: Bold and italics
Option 5: Bold and quotation
  1. First choice. To highlight the important text and still be consistent with using quotation (per discussions way above) ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 06:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. First choice. I can see this being helpful since that might be what brought people to an article. ---PinkYoshiFan 13:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. First choice. Usually alternate name of articles are rendered in bold, and these are what they fundamentally are. And quotations makes it clear that they are song names. - Gigi (talkedits) 14:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. This one, as Gigi put it. Quotes for song names always, bold for alternate names of an article. StarPunch (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Option 6: Italics and quotation
Option 7: All formatting
Neutral

Formatting (alternate) names (foreign)[edit]

This primarily applies to names from something like Kirby Star Allies, where we have an official Japanese title. This is more complex. Do we want to name only the English text and have Japanese in Names in other languages? Or name Japanese and English together in text? If the latter, then how? For the first case, formatting is established in the above proposals will be used. Foreign titles will not be within quotation marks or italics (unless someone in discussions shows up and disagrees) because they're clunky, and so is this proposal.

Option 1: Only English name in text
Option 2: Don't bold foreign, italics English

#Second choice. Italicizing the English name seems good to be consistent with native English names being italicized, but bolding the foreign name seems standard on other wikis and also to some extent here. ---PinkYoshiFan 01:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  1. Second choice. Makes sense if there is no reason to bold the foreign text ig. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 06:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 3: Bold foreign, italics English
  1. In many other wiki websites, many foreign names are bolded, while translations are italicized. This one should be used in order to be consistent with other wikis. --Paistrie (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. First choice. This seems to be the current de facto standard, and avoiding names in other languages sections having several tables with one line seems good. ---PinkYoshiFan 01:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. First choice. It's how we do it now in most cases. If the foreign name doesn't have quotations and translation is in paranthesis, quotation marks would only add to clutter, right? ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 06:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. First choice. Bold because it's an alternate title, italics to render translations as we do most of the time. - Gigi (talkedits) 14:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  5. This is what I always go with. Bold for alternate title, italics for translations. If the title is in a Latin language, use quotes as well. StarPunch (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Option 4: Don't bold foreign, quotation marks English
  1. Second choice. Again, same reasoning as before with consistency with native English names but now looking at the actual standard for those.
Option 5: Bold foreign, quotation marks English
  1. First choice. This one makes the most sense to me. Waddlez3121 (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 6: Don't bold foreign, double format English
Option 7: Bold foreign, double format English
Neutral

Formatting medleys[edit]

This technically overlaps with the foreign names point half of the time, but it stands separate for something like... "Kirby's Triumphant Return". This overrides the bold rule for foreign titles above for medleys specifically. Aspects not mentioned here are covered above (this includes the use of quotation marks).

Option 1: Bold medleys
  1. First choice. In favour of bolding medleys as important info. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 06:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 2: Don't bold medleys (includes foreign)
  1. Second choice, to not differentiate foreign from English going with this. In case it's suddenly considered not too important. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 06:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. First choice. While it's most likely an edge case with this, Kirby's Triumphant Return does show one issue with bolding medleys in the KatFL section: bold stops looking important because there's so many things bolded ---PinkYoshiFan 13:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. I prefer not to bold medleys since they aren't alternate titles but separate things entirely. StarPunch (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Option 3: Don't bold medleys (doesn't include foreign)
Option 4: Italics for medleys (doesn't include foreign)
  1. Since these are still individual themes, italicizing these would also be grammatically correct. --Paistrie (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
    #First choice. Same reason for other votes, normal music tracks are italicized and I don't see why that shouldn't apply here. ---PinkYoshiFan 01:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Neutral

Using quotation marks for music names (December 18th, 2023 - January 1st, 2024)[edit]

This will be the first of hopefully a full series of proposals concerning music and their dedicated pages. To start it simple, I would like to suggest making quotation marks for their titles consistent. The difference is essentially Green Greens vs Green Greens vs "Green Greens" (to name an example). As we have it now, the more common formatting (or what it should be) is:

  • Quotation marks:
    • Opening abstract
    • Infobox caption
    • Outside of links in composition and game appearances [edit that hopefully doesn't cause conflict: actually no, this is inconsistent, but it's due to bold text and italics, which will be a proposal for another time I suppose ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 14:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)]
  • No quotation marks:
    • Music navboxes
    • Page title
    • Infobox title
    • Within names in other languages tables
    • Jukebox tables
  • Inconsistent usage:
    • Conjectural titles in various areas, in particular with "the" preceding the name
    • Headings for English names in other languages
    • Track names for stage/level infoboxes
    • Titles within links outside of templates

The inconsistencies are the more concerning part. I don't think any changes should be made to the currently consistent format, but that is open to discussion in the corresponding section. The four points of inconsistency will have separate votes, to make it easier. Votes in favor (where applicable) are for adding quotation marks, while voting against is for removing them. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 08:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Update: I clarified what is what under each section with examples since there was confusion. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 13:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Conjectural titles[edit]

Examples:

Option 1: Always use quotation marks
  1. Second choice. I'd rather have all of them be distinguished like that than not at all. Infinite Possibilities (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. First choice. It looks more consistent this way, and it looks better to distinguish music names like this. --YFJ (talk · edits) 23:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. First choice. While it may look a bit strange, it makes sense so that editors and viewers can tell if something is a song name or part of a song name. ~☆Starvoid⁠☆ (t · c) 23:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. Second choice. If the wiki keeps using the phrase "the "name" theme", I would prefer if it kept quotations. - RHVGamer (talk · edits) 18:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 2: Do not use quotation marks if "the" is present
  1. First choice. I can see the quotation marks being helpful for distinguishing conjectural titles, but it looks a bit off with The "name" theme. ---PinkYoshiFan 13:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. First choice. When a "the" precedes the conjectural name adding quotation marks as well seems unnecessary to me. Infinite Possibilities (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. Second choice, per above, but I feel like it’s better to avoid this use to whatever extent possible; just “Town” and “Ordeal” are sufficient. -YFJ (talk · edits) 23:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. Second choice. Very similar to my first choice, but removing "the". ~☆Starvoid⁠☆ (t · c) 23:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  5. First choice. If a name isn't official, I don't see much use to put quotations in a theme name when it has "the" before and "theme" after. Meanwhile, without the "the" and "theme" it can get confusing what is being talked about, and quotation marks can help clarify it's about a song, even if the name isn't official. - Gigi (talkedits) 01:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  6. I think this is the one I want??? Not sure how this rule applies to certain theme names ("The Skull Gang"?) but conjectural title are not actual titles and shouldn't be treated as such.Waddlez3121 (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  7. First choice. Using "the _ theme" for conjectural names with or without quotations has always looked a bit odd to me, just using the conjectural title in quotations and nothing more makes the most sense to me. - RHVGamer (talk · edits) 18:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  8. Getting my last minute votes in since I nearly forgot this was a thing. I would prefer not use the "the 'name' theme" construct, but also to be consistent on putting song titles in quotes unless they are descriptors rather than titles. In other words, official song names should always be like "Max Happy Town!!", and unofficial names should be like "Town" or the Town theme. StarPunch (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Option 3: Do not use quotation marks
  1. Second choice. Having quotation marks to distinguish conjectural titles could be good but I'm fine with this one too. ---PinkYoshiFan 13:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. Second choice. In a way, not using quotations for conjectural names makes it clearer in general that they aren't official names. - Gigi (talkedits) 01:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Neutral

Names in other languages headings[edit]

Compare Time for the Results#Names in other languages and Memories (I'll Never Forget You)#Names in other languages

Support
  1. Per my vote for the infoboxes. I don’t see any issue with using quote marks here, consistency is better, and we italicize game names in headings the same way. -YFJ (talk · edits) 23:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. When the track name is the only thing in the heading, the quotation marks just make it look more cluttered. ---PinkYoshiFan 13:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. Similar to my vote above, I don't think adding quotation marks is necessary when it is already distinguished, in this case by being alone in the heading. Infinite Possibilities (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. Just like with the title of a music page, I don't think using quotations in headings is necessary. - RHVGamer (talk · edits) 18:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. I'm admittedly not consistent with this, as I do prefer consistency with always having music titles in quotes, but I do think it makes linking to certain sections more confusing, yeah. No quotation marks for section titles, for accessibility. StarPunch (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Neutral

Music in stage/level infoboxes[edit]

Compare Butter Building - Stage 1 and Popstar

Support
  1. We italicize game names even if they’re the only thing in the infobox section, so I don’t see the issue with using quote marks here. Again, consistency is always better. -YFJ (talk · edits) 23:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. It can get really confusing when songs named after stages/levels get linked in infoboxes. Without the quotation marks, a reader can be confused and wonder, for example, why there is "The Fountain of Dreams" in Nebula Belt: they could think of the location before the song. While, sure, you could argue they should know better because there is a description and music files above, it's important to consider. And since we often add game names to clarify where a song is from (like in Bubbly Clouds (Battle Stage)) I feel it makes sense to be consistent and, much how games are always italicized, we should have song names with quotation marks. - Gigi (talkedits) 01:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. I think it makes sense to use quotations in infoboxes, since they have more than just music in them. When I added a lot of music to infoboxes (including the Butter Building page you highlighted), I wasn't thinking about if there should be quotations, but looking back I would add them. - RHVGamer (talk · edits) 18:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. Support. I much prefer consistency here as long as it doesn't affect usability, and I don't think it will be confusing or cluttered. StarPunch (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Same as with names in other languages above, when the track name is the only thing there, the quotation marks just make it look more cluttered. ---PinkYoshiFan 13:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. Also similar to my votes above, when the track name it is already distinguished in some way, in this case by being alone in the infobox, adding quotation marks doesn't really add anything. Infinite Possibilities (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Neutral

Outside of square (link) brackets[edit]

Compare Inside the Castle#Composition and Coin Clash (theme)#Composition

Support
  1. Here having quotation marks appears as the logical throughline to me. Makes it easier to tell at a glance whether it refers to a track or something else. Infinite Possibilities (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  2. Can’t really add too much to my vote comments above, but in addition to that, it makes it immediately obvious whether the link goes to Green Greens or "Green Greens". -YFJ (talk · edits) 23:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  3. I don't see any reason for non-links to have different formatting than with links. ---PinkYoshiFan 12:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  4. I agree with everyone else here, it makes sense to use quotations in normal text whether it's a link or not. - RHVGamer (talk · edits) 18:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  5. Again, consistency whenever possible. StarPunch (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose

#I think it's better to just do what we do for other articles (e.g. Kirby) and just bold the first instance of the article title in the infobox as well as the main text. ---PinkYoshiFan 13:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion[edit]

Regarding the comment for the vote for the fourth aspect (quotation marks paired with links), I would like to be clear that it does not affect bold text. It affects listing other themes as a part of the composition or a medley. For example, it's differentiating between <"Green Greens" can include Kirby's Triumphant Return> and <"Green Greens" can include "Kirby's Triumphant Return">. ShadowKirby (t/c) a.k.a. your new overlord ShadowMagolor 15:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)