Template talk:Infobox automobile

Ride height or ground clearance

Ride height or ground clearance is an important parameter, it can be added in the "Dimensions" section of the infobox. Ride height is important for offroading, and also in developing countries where speedbreakers and potholes and uneven roads call for the gap from the ground. Crashed greek (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Is there a reliable source that uses a standard measurement for ground clearance? If so, please provide it here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Ground clearance or ride height is mentioned in mm or inches, depending on country. Crashed greek (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. Is there a reliable source that uses a standard method of measurement to determine ground clearance? Do reliable sources regularly report ground clearance using that standard method? If so, please provide a link to those sources, and the methodology, here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Predecessor/Successor Section

On 16 Oct 2023 User:TKOIII posted the following topic, now in Archive 9: "Have there been any clarifying discussions on the predecessor/successor sections about direct vs indirect successors and spiritual successors? I'm curious about what the process to determine what a successor is. Is it decided by official press releases/interviews from the manufacturer? Is it decided by automotive publications? And how are indirect successors handled? I recently removed the successor/predecessor link between the SLS AMG and the AMG GT because Mercedes said the AMG GT is not a direct successor to the SLS (they occupy different classes), but left the current gen SL as the successor to the AMG GT because Mercedes said it is (even though they're arguably different classes) and i'm wondering if that's the correct call. ~~ TKOIII (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)" There were no responses when the original topic was posted, but I wanted to revive this subject. I have the same questions. Bahooka (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC) Bahooka (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The current template states "The predecessor field states the manufacturer and model name of the vehicle that the subject vehicle replaced, if applicable." It makes no mention of a spiritual predecessor/successor, often separated by decades. The term is sometimes used by reliable sources, but is that what we as a WP community want in this parameter? Personally, the idea of a spiritual predecessor/successor seems pretty vague and subjective to me. I would be interested to hear from other editors and then specifically address the consensus on this topic in the template instructions. Bahooka (talk)

Thanks for reviving this discussion. My personal opinion is that for spiritual successors, they should be allowed to be included if they're marked as such, and only if there's either official manufacturer confirmation that its a spiritual successor, or otherwise strong journalistic consensus from major sources. For the other cases mentioned, I have no particular opinion and am curious what other editors think. TKOIII (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

For me, "spiritual successors" are best left out - it's usually just marketing speak. Even more straight forward predecessors and successors can be quite subjective; read around a bit and you can easily find four or five cited ancestors for many cars, whether reasonable or not. I don't have a good way to fix this unless you all want to give me dictatorial powers to determine predecessors and successors for all cars.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Mr.choppers, about "spiritual successor", and think it is puffery and subjective, and should not be used. I think successor and predecessor should only be used if there is a clear and recognised replacement of one model (the predecessor) with another (the successor). -- DeFacto (talk). 21:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Also agreeing with Mr Choppers. Spiritual successor is more to do with what marketing wants. It is also often after a gap of 10-20 years. And some cars like the original Toyota AE85/86 were originally conceived as just a low budget, bet both ways, holdover from the previous generation (with low hp engines like the 3A-C on the option list) - just in case the switch to FWD failed. The much later Toyota 86 was conceived to fill the place of what the original unintentionally became - ie a light RWD car with a revvy engine that took later engine generations.  Stepho  talk  00:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. These fields fall under a heading of Chronology; It should be a simple matter of what came before and after without the need for interpretation. Say the Model 16's predecessor was the Model 14, and its successor was the Model 18 and it was a clear contiguous one-after-the-other progression. But if some people think the Super 130 GT RS HO from two decades later happens to sort of fill a similar market niche as the 16 Sport and is a "spiritual" successor, that's subjective - I don't think the infobox should go into that. --Sable232 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be to not include "spiritual" predecessors/successors in the infobox. Therefore, I made this change. Feel free to tweak as you see fit. Thanks all for the feedback, Bahooka (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Doors

When was the "doors" field added? Just saw people adding this, which typically duplicates info from the bodystyles field. Seems pointless to me, and actually a negative as it adds more non-information which merely takes up space.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 October 2024

Currently label39 is set to one of two values:

1. If the incoming field 'sp' is set to "UK", then label39 is set to [[Curb weight|Kerb weight]] (piping the UK spelling to a redirect with the US spelling).
2. else, it is set to [[Curb weight|Curb weight]] (unnecessarily piping to a redirect with the same spelling).

Given that both Kerb weight and Curb weight redirect to the same article (Vehicle weight), can we please change the code to produce just those exact plain links without the pipe.

That is (I think), can we change this line:

| label39  = [[Curb weight|{{#ifeq:{{{sp|}}}|uk|Kerb|Curb}} weight]]

to this:

| label39  = [[{{#ifeq:{{{sp|}}}|uk|Kerb|Curb}} weight]]

Which (I think) will set label39 to either [[Kerb weight]] or [[Curb weight]] depending on the value of 'sp'. Thanks, -- DeFacto (talk). 19:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: @DeFacto: The distinction is that there is currently a non-breaking space before "weight". We could wrap the whole thing in {{nowrap}}, but I'm not sure that's really any better than just piping the link. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ahecht, I don't understand where you say there is a non-breaking space, and why, if there is one, it will not also be there after this change. Please explain further. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto  Done Oops, you're actually completely right. My apologies. The code in the template is | label39 = [[Curb weight|{{#ifeq:{{{sp|}}}|uk|Kerb|Curb}} weight]], which prevents the words "Curb" and "Weight" from being on different lines, but it turns out that a wikilink to [[Curb weight]] actually works just fine (example: Curb weight). I though I'd tried that before and it didn't work, but I must've made some other mistake as well. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ahecht, thanks for resolving that and sorry about the confusion over the nbsp. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It would be slightly cleaner to do your suggestion but there is no urgent need to change. Both forms go to the same target - I made a minor change to Kerb weight so that it redirects to the exact same place as Curb weight. Also, I don't have permission to change the template. All this is transparent to both users of the template and to readers.  Stepho  talk  07:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs, the template change has been made now, so all is well. I added the spelling option more than 16 years ago, but no longer have access to change it either. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

No prob.  Stepho  talk  15:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)