Talk:Bull's-Eye Banzai: Difference between revisions

== 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, [[King_Bill#Trivia|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 (New Super Mario Bros. Wii)|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 [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 47#The Usage of Old Names in Articles|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 [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 45#Move Mario Party 3 Duel Maps back to their old capitalization|this one]] and [[MarioWiki talk:Naming#Make an exception to source priority for articles with identical names|this one]] are made specifically because following policy in such an overly rigid and literal way actively makes the wiki worse. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 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. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 15:51, June 27, 2019 (EDT)

== Call the Bull's-Eye Banzais in ''New Super Mario Bros. Wii'' only "Bull's-Eye Bomber Bills" ==

Lemme tell you what: Bull's-Eye Bomber Bills debuted in ''New Super Mario Bros. Wii'' as variant of both the Missile Bill and the Banzai Bill. I see that both Banzai Bills and Bull's-Eye Bomber Bills are mistaken called King Bills in the ''New Super Mario Bros. Wii'' PRIMA Official Game Guide. I was just wondering if there's a possibility to call the Bull's-Eye Banzais in ''New Super Mario Bros. Wii'' just "Bull's-Eye Bomber Bills" instead of "King Bills".

'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBB}}<br>

===Support===

===Oppose===

===Comments===