Talk:Construction Site Fight

Swap this article with Balloon Barrage
This has been bothering me for a very long time. The names of these levels are a blatantly obvious goof by the manual makers and it's clear they were meant to be swapped. Yet we're taking it at face value purely out of formality. I don't think this is a good idea. This is along the lines of "pirana plants" and the Birdo/Ostro mixup. I see no reason to cling to this. 16:55, August 13, 2022 (EDT)
 * I agree. Even the Japanese names make it clear what the correct names are. PrincessPeachFan (talk) 09:13, August 19, 2022 (EDT)
 * There's no doubt it was a goof, but I think we need to also take into consideration the manual of the Virtual Console release: though a heavily revised version of the original, it retains these levels' swapped names. To contextualise first and foremost: the majority of this version of the manual is reworded to be less flowery, some sections are completely rewritten, and objects like "Buddy Barrel" and "End of stage" (as the goal portal was called originally) are renamed "DK Barrel" and "Goal" respectively. Few textual remnants slipped through, including enemy descriptions. Whether the names being kept swapped was another error in its own right or the result of some in-house directive to stay true to some of the game's original concepts is not, in my opinion, the wiki's judgement call to make. As it stands, the level's newest released title is still "Construction Site Fight" and, for the record, no level names are translated in other languages for the VC version. Note that I'm going by the European release; particulars in the American version may differ. 11:09, August 19, 2022 (EDT)
 * Not really a fan of the precedent set by directly contradicting the only material we have. Plus, moving articles to names that they never actually used is very likely to be confusing for readers. I'd rather just keep the pages where they are and make note of the oddity, as we already do. -- 12:19, August 19, 2022 (EDT)
 * If anything, the current setup is what's confusing. Construction Site Fight refers to a level that does not take place in one, and Balloon Barrage refers to a level with no balloons except for one in a bonus stage. I fail to see how swapping them would be more confusing. The only way readers would be confused by this is if they actually read the manual, and even then, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice the incredibly obvious goof. I also fail to see how this would set any precedents. This is a completely unique scenario AFAIK, any other attempts to go against game manuals using this to support it would likely be comparing apples to oranges. 14:13, August 19, 2022 (EDT)
 * Yeah, and like I said, the Japanese names for "Construction Site Fight" and "Balloon Barrage" translate to "Balloon Lift" and "Construction Site" respectively, further indicating that the manual writers goofed in the original and for some odd reason, they never changed the names for the levels despite having every opportunity to. As such, despite the "recent names", it's perfectly obvious that the level names should be switched going by the layouts and the Japanese names. PrincessPeachFan (talk) 21:50, August 19, 2022 (EDT)
 * It's true that the Japanese names are swapped, but it should be pointed out that Nautilus/Nemo seems to be in a similar boat. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:02, August 20, 2022 (EDT)
 * Yeah, the Nemo is called that but the level name in English and Japanese as well as the enemy's Japanese name and the UK magazine make it clear it was supposed to be Nautilus and much like these two levels, the VC manual writers never changed the enemy's name to the correct one, again despite every opportunity to do so. Anywho, based on these two level's Japanese names and the sheer obviousness of the level layouts, their names should be switched. PrincessPeachFan (talk) 13:54, August 20, 2022 (EDT)
 * Regarding Nemo, I think the level name "Nautilus Chase" is supposed to be simply referring to the Nemo is based on, like how Springin' Spiders refers to the Nids that populate the level, Clam City refers to the Clambos that inhabit it, and many other examples. The UK magazine and Japanese guide book probably just assumed that "Nautilus" was the enemy's name because of the level name, since DKL doesn't have an enemy roll call like the other games do. This makes it more comparable to Dorrie = "Swimming Beast", Klepto = "Big Bird", etc.  14:59, August 20, 2022 (EDT)
 * The only other similar situation I can think of is Birdo/Ostro, and that was resolved long before this wiki was founded. I support moving these pages. Bwburke94 (talk) 21:50, August 29, 2022 (EDT)
 * The wiki has a pretty good history of correcting major errors by game developers and localizers in documentation. Why do you think this should be a case where we shouldn't correct them, Waluigi Time? 23:23, August 29, 2022 (EDT)
 * I'd be curious exactly what sorts of examples there are that would be comparable, since most examples I can think of are based on the material being corrected at other points. Honestly though I don't care enough to be stubborn on this particular issue. -- 18:32, September 6, 2022 (EDT)
 * After thinking it over some more I'm going to formally retract my previous opposition here. -- 17:57, September 7, 2022 (EDT)

This whole thing regarding the swapped names kind of reminds me of how Gooble was named "Swoopin' Stu" by the Prima guide, even though Goobles look nothing like Strollin' Stus nor are able to swoop down. I'm still under the impression that Winged Strollin' Stu was supposed to be called Swoopin' Stu since that name describes the Winged Strollin' Stu much better (it also matches with the hat-stealing Swipin' Stu). Arend (talk) 19:00, September 7, 2022 (EDT)

Swap this article with Balloon Barrage: proposal edition
Since the above discussion has reached a stand-still, I think it time to settle this. To sum up, the DKL manual goofed and mixed up the names for these two levels (plus the clowns who made the 3DS manual didn't correct it). It's clear that they're supposed to switched based on the content of the levels. The only reason this is up for debate at all is the very technical lack of official material to "prove" that they were meant to be swapped. However, the goof is so blatantly obvious that I don't think the mere lack of a smoking gun is enough to justify the status quo. Plus, other languages do correct the mistake.

Proposer: Deadline: March 16, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal, other languages fixing the mistake is a good enough justification.
 * 3) Count me in.
 * 4) Yeah, it makes sense to swap the names. Per proposal.
 * 5) I've argued in favour of quote-unquote fixing minor source material errors and oddities like the incongruously CamelCase names in Super Mario RPG. I don't think pretending the emperor has clothes because nobody has written he has no clothes makes us more serious and encyclopedic - quite the opposite.

Oppose

 * 1) nothing against the inferrence itself, because it's clear as broad daylight this whole thing was a misprint that somehow proliferated in the re-release--but these are 2 top-priority sources that haven't been contradicted by any authority. The wiki has the encyclopedic task of reporting the information as it is from the horse's mouth, and only take compromising stances when there's hard evidence of a different scenario applying (kinda like the whole discussion surrounding the Pale Piranha misnomer). Also keep in mind that the game's language-of-origin is (British) English, so whatever other foreign-language names employed for these levels are taken to be subordinate to the English material. As it's been said above, you're setting a pretty insidious foundation for, essentially, fanon. And uh, yeah, the strong language used to describe some employees who had no obligation to appease a couple of opinionated nerds on a fansite isn't helping your case either.
 * 2) Per KCC. It's an obvious gaffe, and the translators probably made the right call here. I'm just not a fan of the precedent set by contradicting the only official material released. We should note the oddity, but I don't support any further action.

Comments

 * It does strike me as weird that the 3DS VC Manual didn't correct this. PrincessPeachFan (talk) 08:58, March 3, 2023 (EST)

@Koopa con Carne: There are more reasons to correct a blatant mistake in an instruction manual than just to "appease a couple of opinionated nerds on a fansite". It's an obvious goof that does not in any way require a nerd's mind to notice. It would be like if they remade SM64DS and kept the "King Boo = Big Boo" error - it would bother/confuse a lot more people than just those who edit or read this wiki. Therefore, I do not think it's unfair to criticize them for it, especially when the chances of them seeing this, let alone being genuinely offended by it, are nonexistent.

On a more general note, I don't understand why people are saying this will set a precedent. This is an extremely unique scenario that, as far as I know, has never been repeated. As I said previously, any other attempts to go against game manuals using this to support it would likely be comparing apples to oranges; they'd have to go through a proposal just like this one, and they would be supported or opposed on their own merits, not based on the outcome of this one. 17:39, March 3, 2023 (EST)
 * I don't think the King Boo hypothetical is appropriate here, for two reasons: (1) I realise I'm being anal about the lang-of-origin aspect, which I noticed you disagreed with in the past, but I must state that the Japanese version of SM64DS correctly identifies the character as "Kingu Teresa", already rendering "Big Boo" improminent; and (2) outside of that, King Boo has had a vast amount of media and material, in various languages, that identified him as such, validating any fan rectification along the lines of "this character is called such in this game, which is wrong". As even you said, the Construction Site Fight sitch, with the sole two sources repeating the same (alleged, by wiki standards) error, is possibly the only instance of this thing in all of the media that falls under the site's coverage, and should any other identical situations surface, this proposal's outcome would apply to them as well. 18:15, March 3, 2023 (EST)
 * I never intended the King Boo hypothetical to be an argument in favor of this proposal, otherwise I would have included it in the header. It was merely meant to debunk your implied sentiment that only people on fan wikis care about errors in video games and their manuals. I was very confused by that King Boo/Big Boo screwup long before I ever discovered, let alone joined, this wiki. I knew from the beginning that this proposal would be something of a crapshoot given the lack of comparisons or previous proposals to draw upon. This is unlikely to happen again, since printed manuals have largely gone the way of the dodo, and such an blatant error in in-game text would be patched out in this day and age. 19:21, March 3, 2023 (EST)

@Glowsquid, out of curiosity, can you link to the SMRPG discussion, if there was any? 19:17, March 3, 2023 (EST)
 * I don't know of any discussion regarding SMRPG CamelCase, but there was a successful proposal to ignore the ALLCAPS-ification of Mario Party 3 duel boards. 19:27, March 3, 2023 (EST)
 * It was personal musing to another user and not a Serious Policy Edict Everyone Has To Follow. I'm just saying, this isn't deciding some reference material is entirely invalid or fanwanking about in-universe continuity, just making a case for not blindly following an obvious editing error in the source material. --Glowsquid (talk) 19:31, March 3, 2023 (EST)