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
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)