Talk:Vehicle counterpart

Necessary?

Is this article really necessary? All it does is point out that some vehicles fit into particular stat distribution archetypes and that some vehicles share it, and it's not really an official term either. Every racing game has its own archetypes and "counterparts" as well, such as Double Dash's "this kart is lighter and has better acceleration" "this kart is heavier and has higher top speed" or "this kart is the higher top speed variant of this weight class" pairs between characters and Mario Kart 8's stat groupings depending on part. Ray Trace^(T|C) 21:33, August 27, 2022 (EDT)

I don't think so, it looks like just a way to say "vehicles have archetypes and sometimes they match between karts and bikes". It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:02, August 28, 2022 (EDT)

Anyone else wants to weigh on this before we proceed to proposal? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 00:55, September 5, 2022 (EDT)

I'm a bit late, but I can agree to deleting this page. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 13:46, July 22, 2023 (EDT)

Don't worry, your comment is appreciated. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 04:02, July 23, 2023 (EDT)

I doubt many people are going to weigh in if we don't start a proposal; it's best we do so sooner than later. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 14:52, March 24, 2024 (EDT)

I didn't even know we had this article. If I'm to be honest, something like this does interest me and I wouldn't mind keeping it around, but the question is how much of it really boils down to unofficially pairing things together due to similarities? Like is this article just us drawing similarities and slapping them together for an article? I dunno; I'm torn between deleting it cause it's not exactly necessary and keeping it cause it's still interesting and does do well to compare similarities. Tails777 Talk to me!

If you like this page so much, nothing's stopping you from viewing it on the Wayback Machine if we end up deleting it. Our articles on Mario Kart Wii's vehicles already mention which of them have similar statistics to each other, so I see no other reason to keep this page. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 19:32, March 24, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah, that's a solid point. I was leaning more on deleting too and your point on the individual kart pages already mentioning most of what this article already covers pretty much nails the coffin shut. Tails777 Talk to me!

"Total" this article

This talk page section contains an unresolved talk page proposal. Please try to help and resolve the issue by voting or leaving a comment.

Current time: Monday, May 6, 2024, 02:12 GMT

See above discussion. There's no reason for this article to exist considering its premise is already done better on the Mario Kart Wii article itself. Another thing I myself noticed is, why don't the other Mario Kart games get any mention whatsoever? There are several vehicles throughout those games that also have shared stats, although then again, those are also better mentioned in the parent articles than here.

Proposer: Archivist Toadette (talk)
Deadline: April 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Total it

1. Archivist Toadette (talk) Per discussion above.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) This seems to be based entirely on the conjecture that a few karts and bikes are similar to one another, which, while true, is definitely not fit to have its own article. These analogues (such as how the Mach Bike is the bike equivalent to the Wild Wing or how its heavy equivalent is the Flame Runner) are more fit for the articles on the karts/bikes themselves--not this. also, is "Vehicle counterpart" even an officially-used term???
3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
4. BMfan08 (talk) As Camwoodstock said, most of this relies on conjecture. Also, the vehicle sets section feels very weirdly split and not very even (there's only two vehicles under the "Weight" category and one of them is a lightweight bike).
5. Tails777 (talk) Camwoodstock found the word I was looking for to describe this case: conjectural. Per proposal.
6. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) I had no idea this page even existed, but it seems kind of useless to me. I agree with Camwoodstock. Per proposal.
7. JanMisali (talk) Per all. This is purely conjecture.
8. EvieMaybe (talk) per all
9. Sparks (talk) Per all.
10. Mario (talk)
11. LadySophie17 (talk) Woah, this page exists. Not for long tho.

Comments

Would it be mean to suggest this for BJAODN? It's pretty rare we get an article that is seemingly based entirely upon conjecture like this. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:59, April 5, 2024 (EDT)

Well, we're already voting to delete the page, so I don't think it'd be that mean. I was thinking about preserving this in BJAODN as a compromise to Tails777 initially wanting to keep it before this proposal started, so why not? SolemnStormcloud (talk) 15:33, April 5, 2024 (EDT)

Support! Tails777 Talk to me!