Talk:Bull's-Eye Banzai

Why are these not simply Banzai Bills? 02:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Because, they are red and go up to target mario sometimes.

Is this name official? Vent (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2013 (EDT)

Merge this page with Banzai Bill or Bull's-Eye Bill
We know that the Prima guide for New Super Mario Bros. Wii used the term "King Bill" for any larger subspecies of Bullet Bill; this includes Banzai Bill and its Mario-seeking variant, and King Bills (who received the same name officially 5 years and a half after the release of the game). This term/name ISN'T the official name for the enemy.

I guess that we have to merge the page (or start a proposal) with one of the two pages on the title until they find an official name. Nonetheless, I think they won't reappear since it's currently the only New Super Mario Bros. Wii-debuting enemy that doesn't reappear, and it has already passed 6 years after the release of the game. --James Blonde (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2015 (EST)

Wrong
The source was wrong. I have the Prima guide and it does not call them King Bills, it just calls them Banzai Bills. In fact the first mention of a King Bill in that guide is referred to as a Banzai Bill though after that it calls them by their real name so could we remove the source seeing as it's false. 23:18, 31 October 2016 (EDT)
 * This is a screenshot of the New Super Mario Bros. Wii eGuide. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. 23:28, 31 October 2016 (EDT)

Article Title
Why is this article titled "King Bill (New Super Mario Bros. Wii)"? King Bills (the real ones) also first appear in this game! -YoshiFlutterJump (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
 * This King Bill appears to be erroneously named. The "real King Bill" looks and behaves vastly different than this one. King Bill's name is confirmed in Puzzle & Dragons: Super Mario Bros. Edition and appears in more than one game, but for this one, all we have to go on is a Prima guide. 13:55, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

Rename this page
This page should be renamed. This name is not official and only comes from a Prima guide. I even checked MarioWiki:Naming and it said that Prima guides are only valid sources if it was released before Super Mario Galaxy. This game was released two years later. And, even though we do have articles with unofficial names, it's too confusing having two articles titled "King Bill". So I propose we rename this article to under the  template. If you think the article should be moved to a different name, please specify in the designated section.

Proposer: Deadline: July 15, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Rename to

 * 1) See my reasoning above. I think this is the best option, as other names like "Bulls-Eye Banzai Bill", "Giant Bulls-Eye Bill", "Banzai Bulls-Eye Bill", and "Flashing Banzai Bill" are all really silly, and, like I said above, this article should not stay "King Bill".
 * 2) Homing Banzai Bill sounds good to me. I am for the change because the name doesn't make sense, as King Bill originally appeared in New Super Mario Bros. Despite appearing in other games, this doesn't make sense.
 * 3) I believe that Prima made a mistake identifying this Bill. Homing Banzai Bill has a more intuitive name. Banzai Bill are the same size as this red big Bullet Bill. King Bills are way bigger. Red varieties home-in on the player.

Move to other name

 * 1) See Bull's-Eye Bill for better naming schemes. Maybe  or  for a couple of creative names.

Leave as is

 * 1) The policy's misleading. I don't know why it says that the guides are only valid post-SMG, but Prima guides (also BradyGames and Versus, should they come up) are perfectly valid so long as they've been officially licensed by Nintendo. There are plenty of guides that were released before Super Mario Galaxy that are currently being used as valid sources (see: Super Mario Sunshine, Luigi's Mansion. It is correct to say that Prima guides do not take precedence over Nintendo Power, the Player's Guides, and the game itself, barring exceptions where the Prima name actually prevents confusions, but without any other official sources, Prima is perfectly valid as the top source.
 * 2) Same reason as Time Turner, there's no other source for a different name.
 * 3) Per Time Turner.
 * 4) This can be changed to King Bill (Red) or King Bill (Flashing) after this proposal, but this proposal is about changing it from King Bill to something else. So, the "leave as is" option is the one that I have to choose, as it is the only option that keeps King Bill. Any information officially release will override whatever name we choose if it's wrong, and there is a low chance to choose the right one. However, I also like the name "Homing Banzai Bill". This is why I am voting for two options.
 * 5) Per Time Turner.
 * 6) Per Time Turner.
 * 7) Per
 * 8) Per Time Turner. The point he makes is really good and the policy hasn't been changed yet to allow any Prima game guides instead of just those released before Super Mario Galaxy.
 * 9) Changing vote, per Time Turner and the comments.
 * 10) As much as I think Prima is incorrect, policy states it is a valid source and it would therefore be irresponsible for me to vote otherwise no matter how much I would love to see an enemy named . However, I do think the title should be changed, both because it's a mouthful and because both King Bill variants appear first appear in NSMBW. I'm thinking King Bill (Homing).
 * 11) Per all, especially Ultimate Mr. L. I don't think giving it another identifier is necessary until it returns in another game.
 * 12) Per all, even if I actually disagree with how the official Bill is named.

Comments
@Time Turner: Post-SMG guides are not valid because they were made after the Nintendo Power Player's Guides were discontinued. -
 * I'm well aware of the circumstances, but there's plenty of precedence that directly contradicts what you're saying. The Prima guides are officially licensed and have been constantly used for citations when other sources failed to provide anything. I do not see why that should be ignored. 01:08, 1 July 2017 (EDT)
 * Couldn't the naming policy be updated to reflect any Prima game guide instead of those before Super Mario Galaxy? – Owencrazyboy9 (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2017 (EDT)
 * A revision was suggested on the forums, but for whatever reason it wasn't put into effect. 01:17, 1 July 2017 (EDT)
 * Regardless of the validity of "King Bill" as a name for this thing, "(New Super Mario Bros. Wii)" is a useless identifier for this thing since the actual King Bill also debuted in NSMBWii. 01:21, 1 July 2017 (EDT)
 * That's a valid point. Would "King Bill (red)" be acceptable? It wouldn't my be the first time we used colours as identifiers. 01:25, 1 July 2017 (EDT)
 * It's not red. It flashes red and black. -

@TheHelper: In the course of main articles, one would not use the full title of the article within the body, only "King Bill". The full title is only necessary for links, and it can easily be hidden. Considering how many articles have some sort of identifier attached to them, that logic just doesn't make sense, at least not to justify moving an article from a sourced name to an unsourced name. 01:33, 1 July 2017 (EDT)
 * Okay, I'm just saying that when I'm looking at this article's main title it simply looks odd. Although I wouldn't mind it being "King Bill (Red)" as you said earlier. 1:49, 1 July 2017 (EDT)
 * Again, there are plenty of other articles that have identifiers, and we're not about to move them to unofficial names just because they seem unwieldy. 01:59, 1 July 2017 (EDT)

"If a source is not present, keep moving down the list until you have found the right way to name the article, and only create a conjectural title as a last resort." The Prima guide is pretty much the closest thing we have for an official source (it would fall under number 4, as it's officially licensed by Nintendo), so I don't see why this needs to be moved to a conjectural title. I agree with 7feetunder that it could use a different identifier, though. 04:20, 1 July 2017 (EDT)

You guys don't get it, do you? Let me clear up my proposal: So that's my proposal in a nutshell. Feel free to switch to the support side. Actually, I'd prefer it if you switched sides.
 * We can't have two King Bills because it's too confusing.
 * This name is unofficial and, in a way, conjectural.
 * Homing Banzai Bill makes a lot more sense than the current title or any other name.
 * We can't call it King Bill (red) because it's not red.
 * We can have two King Bills if they have the same name
 * The name is from an official source.
 * Homing Banzai Bill is unofficial, while King Bill is official.
 * We can call it King Bill (flashing) like suggested.  11:03, 1 July 2017 (EDT)
 * It's exactly as Koopa Bro says. We have two articles titled Chap from the same game (1, 2), three articles titled Hammer Bro (1, 2, 3), six articles titled Beetle (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), seven articles titled Ghost (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), and plenty of other examples. Saying that we can't have two articles with the same time is completely false and clearly proven false by the countless examples on the website. Saying that the name is unofficial is also completely false and again clearly proven false by examples on the wiki, as I have covered above. 11:19, 1 July 2017 (EDT)
 * And another example are the two Piranha Plant pages. Piranha Plant and Piranha Plant (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door). They look very much alike but it was a small detail that made us split the two. And also, these aren't homing Bills, they don't chase the player. 11:25, 1 July 2017 (EDT)
 * Did you guys not see the World 9 page for this game? That is what I mean by "too confusing".  I'm pretty sure that's not the only page like this.
 * That really doesn't resolve any of the other issues that we brought up, namely that the name is definitely official and that it is definitely possible to have two articles of the same name. For the articles in which both King Bills appear, other identifiers can be used, like "the large King Bill" or "the homing King Bill" or whatever else is appropriate. 18:02, 1 July 2017 (EDT)
 * The fact of the matter is that King Bill is the official name for both enemies. Both names come from Prima, but the bigger one is more frequent, and is later "officialized" in Puzzle & Dragons: Super Mario Bros. Edition, so it doesn't need an identifier. According to Naming, this article should remain, as it is an official-as-official-gets name. 18:08, 1 July 2017 (EDT)

Prima was just using "King Bill" to refer to any large Bullet Bill, including King Bills, Banzai Bills, and this. Prima was most likely using it as a placeholder. The current article title is as conjectural as any name because the source is invalid (see proposal).
 * If you feel like getting technical, Prima guides after Super Mario Galaxy are actually official, as they entered a partnership deal with Nintendo in 2007, after Nintendo Power stopped making guides. The name is legit, it has a reference, as far as I can tell, there's nothing conjectural about this.
 * Additionally, MarioWiki:Naming is not saying anything after 2007 is unofficial. The point is in numbered order, from most valid to least. Everything there is official. The Nintendo Power point even contradicts your statements, saying "For games released after 2007, this source can no longer be used since this source is currently discontinued.", so Prima is the most valid source for names in terms of guides from then on. 01:38, 2 July 2017 (EDT)

Change this page's identifier
In violation of rule #7: The previous proposal's outcome of "don't rename" is less than four weeks old, and changing the page's identifier would still be renaming the article and therefore overturning said outcome. It can be re-proposed after August 12, 2017, 23:59 GMT.

My proposal a couple weeks ago received serious opposition, but most voters requested an identifier change. This proposal is to change the identifier. Some possible identifiers included in this proposal are (homing), (flashing), (red), (Prima), and (World 9-3). There is also an option for other names. (homing): It homes in on Mario. (flashing): It flashes red and black. (red): Similar reason to (flashing). (Prima): It comes from a Prima guide. (World 9-3): It comes from World 9-3 in its game. (New Super Mario Bros. Wii): It comes from this game (although so did the other King Bill). Proposer: Deadline: July 14, 2017, 23:59:59 GMT

Change to (homing)

 * 1) I like this option the best, but (flashing) will also do. Per my proposal.
 * 2) I'll vote for this. Aside from the size, this is really the only difference between the two.
 * 3) It does home in to the player, but not as much as regular Bull's-Eye Bills. But, I still like it. This is my second preferred choice.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) It does home in on the player, and as this marks one of the few times in which two things with the SAME name appear in the SAME game, we shouldn't just identify as (New Super Mario Bros Wii), and I think we should go with (homing), because again, it homes on the player. But hey, anyone realize that TWO things with the SAME name appear in the SAME game? That's kind of interesting and sweet, if you ask me.
 * 6) Per all.

Change to (flashing)

 * 1) I prefer the previous option, but this will do as well.  Per my proposal.

Change to (red)

 * 1) It may not be solid red, but I guess this'll do because it flashes red.  Per my proposal.
 * 2) Considering Bull's-Eye Bills in New Super Mario Bros. Wii also flash, I say (red) should do the trick. This is my preferred choice.

Change to (World 9-3)

 * 1) Considering regular King Bills appeared in World 9-8 of the game, saying this is from World 9-3 would mean that it came from there. The only problem with this is that it is not the best kind of identifier. Therefore, it is my third and final preferred choice.

Change to other identifier

 * 1) My thoughts on the previous proposal still stand here. These aren't a King Bill variant. Identifiers make things harder to search and link to. No identifier. These things should be called whatever I stated in the last proposal. These are a Banzai Bill variant, and this makes me question Prima as a reliable source.
 * 2) My suggestion goes to King Bill (Banzai Bill); I feel like this would reasonably be the most descriptive title, otherwise it sounds like it's a derivative of the other King Bill.
 * 3) Per LinkTheLefty

Leave as (New Super Mario Bros. Wii)

 * 1) I'd be fine with keeping it the same.

Comments
I'd like to point out neither it nor Missile/Bullseye Bills flash in that game, but stay a solid red. Haven't actually flashed outside of SMB3's remakes. 16:47, 31 July 2017
 * I can't check this myself, because apparently I'm no longer that far in the game, but can someone actually replay 9-3 and see what the King Bills do? The article says they home, but they also travel horizontally, so I'm confused what exactly they do. 17:54, 31 July 2017 (EDT)
 * They travel horizontally, but move up and down to meet Mario. I remember because it was so distinct from the regular-sized one. 16:57, 31 July 2017
 * Oh, yeah, I remember that now. I'll vote for homing then, but I wouldn't mind keeping it the same, either. 18:00, 31 July 2017 (EDT)
 * Here's a video, for easy reference. 18:02, 31 July 2017 (EDT)
 * Just tested it now, and they do actually flash. -- 18:04, 31 July 2017 (EDT)
 * Hell, they share the same model file as the regular Banzai Bill, the flashing isn't even a texture but a different palette. 18:18, 31 July 2017 (EDT)

I am placing my thoughts on the other sections here. (flashing): there is no page called "Flashing Bullet Bill". Not good for it to be this way. (Prima): not good. The Prima calls all big Bullet Bills King Bills. No way this can be good. (New Super Mario Bros. Wii)/keeping it the same: Considering King Bill also appeared in this game, it is not a good identifier. Others: I can't think of a good identifier other than the ones listed. 18:25, 31 July 2017 (EDT) edit: Banzai Bill: Like I said, considering the Prima guide call all big Bullet Bills (which of course includes Banzai Bills) King Bills, this would have a problem being identified as that. Though, it would at least be different from regular King Bills, but I am not going to support it. 19:06, 31 July 2017 (EDT)

@Wildgoosespeeder's change to another identifier vote: That was ended on the 15th of July. That means that it can't be changed until the 12th of August. So, trying to have no identifier, but having a different name, will not go into effect until the date mentioned. At least, that is what I am assuming from "No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old." I assuming that the proposal initially didn't plan for this outcome, but something happen and cause it to change to contradict a recent proposal; and that wouldn't work, because that would be a violation of the rule. 18:45, 31 July 2017 (EDT)
 * In that case, this entire proposal could be violating rule #7. It was decided to not rename the article. Not enough time has passed. -- 00:58, 1 August 2017 (EDT)


 * What rule 7 means by that is, "No proposal to overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks old can be made," since rule 11 also asks proposals to be redone four weeks after the deadline ("...the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks"). This proposal is still technically an attempt to overturn the first proposal's outcome ("moving to another name" was even one of the first proposal's voting options), so yes, this would be violating rule 7. 06:44, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
 * Yes, I agree. I didn't think about that when I voted. -- 06:53, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
 * The previous proposer (above) is one to get it away from King Bill, which failed. This is still keeping King Bill, but having a different identifier. So, does it really violate rule 7 if it keeps the decision of the last proposal, but changes a part of the decision? 10:05, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
 * I think it does violate rule 7, as this proposal would change part of the name, while the other proposal chose specifically to leave the title as is. -- 12:03, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
 * Whoa, whoa, whoa. My proposal violates a rule?  I'm not proposing for the name to be changed but the identifier.  Honestly, I'd rather change the name.  But if it is a violation, is it too late to close the proposal?  13:42, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
 * Since replied to my concern and he says it might be, it is possible that the sysops are reviewing this proposal. We just have to wait and see what the final word is, if that is what I think they are doing. -- 14:51, 1 August 2017 (EDT)
 * Well, this does end on the 14th, so it would be 4 weeks old by the time it passes. Usually proposals aren't created in the first four weeks of another proposal with a idea to overturn it because of rule 7. This may be the first that actually was written during the time another was new, but ends when the other is old. This should be decided by admins. Also, this has one side that has at least 5 votes, so no, it can't be canceled by the proposer (TPP rule 4). But, it can be asked to be deleted (regular rule 14). 15:12, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

Change this page's identifier
All right, guys, this again. You see, this identifier is just...not good. TWO King Bills appear in this game, and if we just name one of them (New Super Mario Bros. Wii), that's going to cause confusion, and it just screams lazy. The thing is, the red King Bill's name comes from a Prima guide and flashes red and black and homes in on the Mario Bros. I don't think leaving the identifier as it is is a good idea. Anyway, same as the previous proposal. (homing): It homes in on Mario. (flashing): It flashes red and black. (red): Similar reason to (flashing). (Prima): It comes from a Prima guide. (World 9-3): It comes from World 9-3 in its game. (Banzai Bill): It's a Banzai Bill. (New Super Mario Bros. Wii): It comes from this game (although so did the other King Bill). Proposer: (banned) Deadline: September 4, 2017, 23:59:59 GMT

Change to (homing)

 * 1) Per above proposal (mostly, but not exclusively, my vote) that was canceled by admins.
 * 2) Per proposal
 * 3) - Per my original vote.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) I know that I'm in the minority, but this option describes the enemy pretty well and isn't as confusing as King Bill (Banzai Bill), which makes it sound like the article is describing two enemies at once!
 * 6) - I think this one makes the most sense. It homes in, but is not directly a Banzai Bill, so...
 * 7) - Per all.

Change to (Banzai Bill)

 * 1) My suggestion goes to King Bill (Banzai Bill); I feel like this would reasonably be the most descriptive title, otherwise it sounds like it's a derivative of the other King Bill. (Take 2.)
 * 2) I still support King Bill (Banzai Bill) as a second choice.
 * 3) - I think King Bill (Bull's-Eye Bill) could also work, but I'm for the Banzai Bill identifier, too.
 * 4) Upon my will, I shall cast my vote for King Bill (Banzai Bill)...or something like that. Per all.
 * 5) LinkTheLefty brings up a good point; it's really descriptive, although Alex95's Bullseye Bill title also kind of works, too. Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Though it sounds weird, I think this is the best identifier. Per all.
 * 9) Per all.

Comments
Sorry for coming this late, but I realized that the Japanese name of this enemy was not discovered yet, which means that the Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. in the section dedicated to the enemies of New Super Mario Bros. Wii can be a precious source for an appropriate English name: Therefore, an appropriate name according to the Japanese names used in the game could be Banzai Bull's-Eye Bill.--Mister Wu (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
 * Bullet Bills are known in the game as 「キラー」, Killer (page 144)
 * Bull's-Eye Bills are known as 「サーチキラー」, Search Killer (page 145)
 * King Bills are known as 「キングキラー」, King Killer (page 144)
 * Banzai Bills are known as 「マグナムキラー」, Magnum Killer (page 146)
 * Finally, this one is known as 「マグナムサーチキラー」, Magnum Search Killer (page 146)
 * Well, since the English name we have is "King Bill", we couldn't call it anything else, which is why we have to rely on the identifiers. 15:22, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
 * We could always call it Banzai Bull's-Eye Bill and tag it with . At the moment, the English name is confusing, so I'm fine with giving it the Japanese name. 15:34, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
 * And doing that would break policy, since English names always take priority over others. Besides, at that point, it wouldn't be "Banzai Bull's-Eye Bill", it'd be "Magnum Search Killer" (or perhaps "Magunamu Sāchi Kirā", though I believe all of these words are transliterations of the original English words). 15:43, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
 * There's been proposals that's been exceptions to policy before (remember our Dark Land debacle?). If "Magnum Search Killer" is one of the options, I'd support it. 15:54, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
 * Yes, but that's only applicable if there's actually a proposal, and it's already too late to make changes to this one. 16:06, 27 August 2017 (EDT)

SMM2 Direct
In the SMM2 Nintendo Direct here, they are referred to as "the red ones" within "Banzai Bills." Therefore, we may consider changing the page to "Banzai Bill (red)." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:04, May 15, 2019 (EDT)
 * Are the Super Mario Maker 2 elements going to be given a proper name somewhere in the game or related material? If so, we can wait to see the actual name there, otherwise if they are not going to be named anywhere else, in my opinion that colloquial name is already better than the currently deceiving one.--Mister Wu (talk) 08:35, May 16, 2019 (EDT)
 * I'm not sure wether they'll use "King Bill", or the other official name "Bull'-Eye Banzai", which was used in the Encyclopedia. -- 10:51, May 16, 2019 (EDT)
 * If they do use Bull's-Eye Banzai, that'll "officialize" it just like Piranha Pod (note that Micro Piranha Plant was not given the same treatment). LinkTheLefty (talk) 11:33, May 16, 2019 (EDT)
 * It IS official, just being made by an incompetent. -- 11:37, May 16, 2019 (EDT)
 * Wasn't Bulls-Eye Banzai one of the names that wasn't copied from the wiki? 11:57, May 16, 2019 (EDT)
 * Yes, but again, so was Micro Piranha Plant, which soon became Small Piranha. It's best to wait for the actual release. (And "officialize" is for lack of better word, hence in quotes.) LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:00, May 16, 2019 (EDT)
 * If anything, if NOA followed the naming conventions they followed until now, the official name would be Bull's Eye Banzai Bill, so I'd hardly be surprised if this correction was made in the name used in the game, or in material related to the game.--Mister Wu (talk) 15:05, May 16, 2019 (EDT)
 * Yeah, Bull's-Eye Banzai is more concise than King Bill. Really. -- 14:47, May 17, 2019 (EDT)
 * I agree on waiting for release, because in a brief shot when they show two players making a course together in the Direct, they briefly show names of Goombas, Burners and Bill Blasters at the 5:40-ish mark. Who knows? The "King Bills" could be called something along the lines of "Bull's-Eye Banzai" in either American or British English, but we'll have to wait a month from now and see what happens. – Owencrazyboy9 (talk) 13:17, May 21, 2019 (EDT)
 * For future reference, the term "King Bill" was used to refer to any type of big Bullet Bill in the Prima guide, proving Prima's incompetence in this one. Per the source priority exception, it should be moved to Bull's-Eye Banzai if it is given this name in Super Mario Maker 2. It should also be noted that the Bull's-Eye Bill's Bill Blaster wasn't differenced in Super Mario Maker. But, if the Bull's-Eye Banzai Bill (along with the aforementioned Bull's-Eye Bill's Bill Blaster are differenced from the Banzai Bill and the Bill Blaster, we wouldn't need to rename it to Magnum Search Killer per source priority exception. -- 04:41, May 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Note that a new name for the article requires overturning the previous proposal. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:01, May 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Are you mainly referring to the source priority exception? Because, even though the encyclopedia had new names that did not came from any fan-source, that doesn't make Zack Davidson competent whatsoever. -- 02:04, May 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * But if it is given a new name in the game, would that require a proposal as well? Because when we renamed it to "Bull's-Eye Banzai" it didn't require a proposal to overturn, either the source priority exception, or the above ones. -- 02:09, May 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * I suppose not given that example, but we still don't know for sure what the name will be in Super Mario Maker 2. If you're suggesting to make a source priority exception, that by itself requires overturning with another proposal because there have been several proposals on the name and identifier. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:50, May 23, 2019 (EDT)

Footage of SMM2 confirms it: it's Bull's-Eye Banzai. 20:55, May 28, 2019 (EDT)
 * Fine by me. Should we bend the rules and change it now, since the current one is misleading? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:24, May 28, 2019 (EDT)
 * I'm fine with moving any of the newly renamed SMM2 objects now. 21:30, May 28, 2019 (EDT)

Treatment of the "King Bill" name
I am 100% opposed to giving "King Bill" the "old name" treatment for a multiple reasons, not the least of which being that "King Bill" isn't an "old name" but a wrong name. It does not refer to Bulls-Eye Banzais, Prima just used it as a catch all name for any large Bullet Bill variant. It's not the same thing as an actual King Bill and we know that. Continuing to use "King Bill" for Bulls-Eye Banzais is confusing as fuck; people reading the World 9-3‎ article cannot tell that King Bill is referring to these and not those other King Bills from the same game unless they mouse over the links. Why be confusing instead of clear? Just because of some stupid naming standard we established a while ago? Look, I don't oppose our current "old names" policy. Hell, I was one of the voters who helped establish it. But I was in favor of it because of things like "Goomba King" vs. "Goomboss." I wanted things to be clearer for people who played Paper Mario but not the other two games he appears in, and other scenarios like that. If I had known that this would be abused in the name of sucking up to shitty guide names, I wouldn't have been so quick to vouch for it. That said, I don't retract my support for that decision - I just don't think we should be following it so rigidly. Being overly concerned with the fact that the "Bulls-Eye Banzai" name didn't exist at the time is such a lawyerly, devil's advocate way of thinking that completely misses the point of why policies and standards exist in the first place. Proposals such as this one and this one are made specifically because following policy in such an overly rigid and literal way actively makes the wiki worse. 15:34, June 27, 2019 (EDT)
 * You're forgetting, of course, that "Bull's-Eye Banzai" is a play on "Bull's-Eye Bill" - a name which also did not exist until relatively recently (namely as late as Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker). Therefore, this 'fix' alone would create a whole new disparity altogether. The simplest solution is to stick with the proposal/policy as-is, which is more chronologically-accurate anyway. If you want to discuss rewriting the existing text to be more understandable (e.g. "homing King Bills" and "invincible King Bills", or some other way to deal with it), that's fine, but the fact is that using a decade-later rename in the context of the original game makes another issue in this case. LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:51, June 27, 2019 (EDT)
 * I agree with not using King Bill when referring to past appearances of Bull's-Eye Banzai as it's obviously one of Prima's many goofs. There's no possible way it can't be a mistake, since King Bill is the name of an entirely different enemy within the exact same game altogether. Also, not only did they mistakenly call the Bull's-Eye Banzais King Bill, but they also did that for the regular Banzai Bills, which cements it being nothing but a goof even further in my opinion. Keeping King Bill in use here would basically be the same as treating Sumo Bro. as an official name of Sledge Bros. in certain games. I really don't think the name not existing at the time is an issue, since we already do this when applicable for subjects that didn't have an English name to begin with and are given a name in a later game. We don't keep using a Japanese name or something like that for appearances in older games, even though some supported this for Nipper Dandelion. (For the record, I also think situations like this where a Prima goof is considered an official rename because there's no other material for that specific game are in the exact same boat and should be avoided) -- 16:44, June 27, 2019 (EDT)
 * I disagree, it's as if we changed "Bloober" to "Blooper" in the Super Mario Bros. article. If so, it should be called Magnum Search Killer per the usage of old names, otherwise, we'd make a counterproposal. -- 16:50, June 27, 2019 (EDT)
 * @LinkTheLefty: Using adjectives like "homing" and invincible" just sounds like we're talking about the same enemy exhibiting different behaviors rather than two different enemies. It doesn't clarify anything, and going the "chronologically-accurate" route is just eschewing one brand of accuracy for an inferior one. I just don't like the idea of treating strategy guide-specific names like they're the gospel in scenarios when they are so obviously wrong. This isn't the first time you've done this; you went and changed all DK64-related mentions of Gnawties to "Beavers" just because the Prima guide called them that, even though it's a generic term for an enemy that already had a proper official name. Plus, here's a genuine question: what if the "King Bill" name never existed? Would we be using a conjectural name for those articles instead, just because the thing didn't have a name at the time? Of course not. After all, we have "Gale Hawg" and a bunch of "Pig Poppo" enemies because Gale Hawg appeared in Brawl as a sticker. And it can be genuinely argued that Bulls-Eye Banzai didn't have a real name at the time, since "King Bill" wasn't even being used to refer to Bulls-Eye Banzais specifically. The point of the "name at the time" policy is to not confuse the players of those specific games, not prevent some kind of paradox that would result from using later names in older games' articles. The only people who would know these things by the name "King Bill" without reading the wiki are those who read the guide, and even then, those who did so would notice the blatantly inconsistent usage of the name. 16:56, June 27, 2019 (EDT)
 * @FanOfYoshi: "Bloober" and "Blooper" is a bad comparison since "Bloober" was a genuine official name that came from manuals and not just an obvious strategy guide fail. Also, I don't think the old name policy applies to Japanese names (e.g. Nipper Dandelion). 16:56, June 27, 2019 (EDT)
 * I'm not sure why you're bringing up old edits like it'll prove a point: I accidentally overlooked the brief mention of Gnawty on page 30 of the manual because it didn't have a description dedicated to it and you corrected it, simple as that. We do apply name changes over time even if they only show up in a "lower" sources (e.g. "Flipswitch Panel" is "Switch Panel" in the context of Super Mario 3D World). In this case, we still refer to Banzai Bill as such because it had an established name prior to New Super Mario Bros. Wii, but Bull's-Eye Banzai's modern name was not established because "Bull's-Eye" wouldn't even be conceived until many years later. As I must point out: changing it to Bull's-Eye Banzai in the context of the original game creates a brand new naming discrepancy with Bull's-Eye Bill, which it is plainly paired with but was originally known as Missile Bill; if exceptions are going to make inconsistencies anyway, then we should not be making them. If we were to use a different name for New Super Mario Bros. Wii sections, FanOfYoshi's suggestion to use the Japanese name is one solution I'd be open to meet in the middle and support, but the last time we had a similar option, it didn't quite pan out (although it's really an unwritten rule and not explicitly against policy, as it's referring to the title and not content). LinkTheLefty (talk) 18:28, June 27, 2019 (EDT)
 * Again, your argument that the new name is based on another new name is entirely dependent on the fact that an "older name" even exists. If it didn't our only other option would be to use the Japanese name. Which, to be honest, is a much better idea than taking an obvious goof at face value. Using "King Bill" is just trading one inconsistency for a far worse one. I brought up the Beaver thing because it does prove a point: that always taking guide names at face value is detrimental to the wiki's quality. I would have opposed that action even if it weren't for the manual; "Beaver" was not a "name change," it was a generic animal term applied by a writer who clearly didn't know what they were doing. And that's hardly the only example: just look at the Nokottasu/Turtle issue that was settled not too long ago. We went with a Japanese name because the Prima name was hogwash. Guides are often flimsy and unreliable, and not making judgment calls on the validity of their names is only going to damage our credibility. If we have to use the Japanese name, then so be it, but "King Bill" should be mentioned as Prima's mistake and nothing more. 19:18, June 27, 2019 (EDT)