Template talk:Infobox automobile/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox automobile. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

social and environmental issues

We should add:

CO2-Emission or consumption (min.-max. for the engine variants) maximum allowed Biofuel blend (e.g. 5%-30%-100%) either Biodiesel or Ethanol NCAP stars (safety)

many thanks --Gerfriedc 08:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Automobile generation

I am currently working on a new sub-template for automobile generations, called Template:Infobox Automobile generation. I propose moving generation-specific information, like platform, body styles, engines, dimentsions, etc to that sub-template. --SFoskett 18:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, the generation infobox is in place at Jeep Wrangler. Thoughts? I wish it lined up nice into a single table like the old generations, but what can you do? I also think we should leave all the model-specific stuff here and in generations, since many cars only have a single generation and we don't want a sub-box unless we need one. --SFoskett 18:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, but it's missing the "Similar" entry. Regardless, I've added this template to the Dodge Durango page and am in the process of building one for the Chevrolet Nova page as well. --BRossow 00:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature

I propose the following changes to the naming here:

Change "engines" to "engine", "body_styles" to "body_style" to simplify and make the bits parallel
Change "similar_cars" to "similar" since it's not all cars
Change "shares_with" to "related" to better reflect usage in articles

I will make these changes unless anyone objects... Thoughts? --SFoskett 18:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

OK I'm making these changes... --SFoskett 14:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Class

There does not seem to be a uniform standard on what the "class" field means. Is this field necessary, and if so what standard terminologies should be used? Shawnc 09:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it shold be kept as it's important information. However, I'll leave it to others to propose a canon of terms. --BRossow 13:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally, "class" is the type of vehicle, while "body_style" is the specific shape. For example, "SUV", "sports car", and "luxury car" are classes, while "4-door wagon", "2-door coupe", and "4-door sedan" are common body styles for these classes.

Here's a list of classes I can think of:

Hope this helps. --SFoskett 14:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You should bear in mind that those classes, particularly for cars, are very US-centric. The equivalent terms in the UK would be something like:

Supermini
Small family car
Large family car
Executive car
Luxury car
Sports car
??? GT would probably cover it, I suppose
Supercar
???
4x4
???
Pickup truck
???
MPV or people carrier
???
Van

You certainly wouldn't use the US classes in an article on a European car. A British person would be left somewhat nonplussed by the terms "subcompact", "compact", "midsize" and "fullsize" — they'd probably assume you meant one size smaller than you intended. Likewise "minivan" suggests some sort of small commercial vehicle. SUV would probably be understood these days, but it suggests more "soft-roader" than a real 4x4 like a Land Rover. --KJBracey 21:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to split sportscars into small sized, medium sized and large sized sports cars, just suggesting this idea to prevent as I have seen in edits, people are editing many of these articles to make it out as if medium sized sportsars such as the Ferrari F430 out as if they are supercars when they are not. Willirennen 13:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Template colors

If the reasoning behind having this template is for consistency, is there a reason that we have the ability to specify a different "boxcolor" value? I'm just asking, but if there's no good reason I'd suggest that it be locked. If people genuinely have a problem with it and don't value consistency across articles, they can easily recreate the table format or even create a separate template. Not trying to stir up trouble but stop it before it becomes an issue. (I have an article in mind, but I'm not pointing fingers until I get some feedback here.) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 18:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The template was edited as suggested. Shawnc 10:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't really want to be the one to do it if I didn't have to, but I'm glad it was done. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 17:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Prices

What about adding some kind of pricing information such as the suggested retail price? This could be helpful for shoppers. On the other hand, prices can change over time. Shawnc 01:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Eactly prices change over time. Take the Lincoln Mark for example, production of the Mark ended in 1998. Prices for the different Mark from 1969 to 1998 would be irrelevant and would have to be translated into today's dollar using the inflation calculator. Signature ^brendel 01:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Price is a very significant feature of an automobile, whether for shoppers or for historical interest, and should be included in an infobox. It would be erroneous and unnecessary to correct the early prices to today's dollars. People who want to see the price of a model T are interested more in the original price, and can convert it to today's dollars themselves if they wish. Where a vehicle's price changed over the model run, it can easily be portrayed as, for instance, $21,000-$35,000, as would be done with the price range from low to high option models. If there isn't a big disagreement, I will get around to including it in the infobox after a while, so gripe now if you wish. Gzuckier 21:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Old prices can, however, be additionally helpful for those interested in the study of inflation. Shawnc 01:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you have a point there, but I think they should definitely belong into the generation table. I'll post this on the Wiki auto project discussion page. Signature ^brendel 02:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I recently posted this topic on the Wiki auto project discussion page, as I mentioned above. The discussion came to the conclusion that mentioning price in the infobox, while being a good idea, would be to difficult a task to complete. For more information visit the Wiki Auto talk page. Thanks. Regards, Signature ^brendel 18:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree price must appear in the automobile page, indicating the date. --Mac 08:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

<indent reset> I'm with SB on this. What price? US dollars? The 'similar' field causes enough parochial editing as it is without introducing something as regionalised as currency-related info. It's especially dodgy given that cars cost different amounts in different markets, so even if the reader's willing to do a conversion from one currency to another they're still not necessarily going to get the right info. The only way to provide encyclopedic info is to provide prices for all markets the cars are sold in, and that'd lead to an infobox which was absolutely gigantic. --DeLarge 09:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included. Instead, if someone wants to, they should create a section and a table listing different region prices in local currency. To include a price in the infobox wouldn't be very worldly unless it was huge, which wouldn't be good.Riguy 01:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We can use {{Infoprice Automobile}} . See template:Infoprice Automobile. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mac (talk • contribs) 15:36, February 13, 2007.

Use it for what? And where? And how does it handle multiple currencies (e.g. US$, ¥, €, £, A$, etc etc)? --DeLarge 16:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Car safety

I don't know if this will be controversial, but I'd like to see car safety ratings in the infobox - NTSB and/or EuroNCAP and/or any other relevant tests. --Singkong2005 08:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually that's a good idea. Signature ^brendel 22:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Put it now in the Infobox --Mac 08:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Parent company

After quite a few debated I went ahead and added a cell space for "Parent company." Signature ^brendel 22:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Stablemates?

What in the world is this field for? Unless somebody explains within a reasonable time, I am deleting it. Bravada, talk - 09:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It's like a week and nobody cared to explain, so I'm deleting it. Bravada, talk - 22:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, the termonolgy is very unspecific and to vague for an encyclopedia. Signature ^brendel 06:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Car engine

In the generated output, the 'engine' field header is a link to Car engine, which in turn redirects to Internal combustion engine. This isn't really appropriate for an electric car like the Tesla Roadster, which currently uses this infobox. Suggestions? I could write a real article for Car engine, including a link to 'Internal combustion engine' and a description about electric alternatives, but I'm not sure 'engine' is an appropriate term for an electric motor anyway. Should we just not use this template for the Tesla? --Steve Pucci | talk 20:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I am wondering whether this would not belong better as a section of the automobile article. Besides, does this field description really need to link anywhere? I believe most of the readers do have more or less of an idea what an automobile engine is. I'd say rather the wheelbase or front/rear tracks and such could use a link to a description. Cheers, Bravada, talk - 22:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree, most readers do know what an Automobile engine is, and those who want to know more can always have a look at the coresponding article. Termonology that the "average" reader, those who arn't auto-afficianados, should feature wiki links. Regards, Signature ^brendel 06:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm a bit late getting back to this, but I've un-wikilinked 'engine(s)'. --Steve Pucci | talk 05:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Track

Instead of front track or rear track, I suggest use simply track.

Caption?

Can somebody add an image caption parameter to this infobox? —Chowbok ☠ 18:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fuel economy

I noticed that about ten months ago, another user expressed the same concern I have, that we shouldn't have "fuel economy" in the infobox. It's big enough already without having to add such info, which of course varies from model to model even within a generation. And if we want to be truly encyclopedic (rather than just the U.S. Shoppers' Guide some editors seem to think we are) then we'd need to include (a) American city/highway figures, (b) British 30/56/75 mph figures, and (c) the European L/100km stuff. And do we use litres, imperial gallons, U.S. gallons, or all three? You could end up with a gigantic infobox just for this specific parameter. I say ditch it - if it's that important it can be included in the main text. --DeLarge 01:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those certainly are vaild concerns. I added the fuel economy section a few months back. I used US gallons (for US cars) and the standard Euro L/100km measurement. See the Lincoln Town Car article as an example. Regards, Signature ^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 06:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't look great to me, although it's been done as well as possible; four rows in the infobox for a car with just one engine and body. Imagine what the Ford Mondeo article would look like, for example... I suppose we could just put a maximum and minimum value depending on the most/least economical in the range, but we're still talking about a lot of variables and a lot of extra rows. And let's face it, most editors here are more likely to make contributions along these lines. --DeLarge 13:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

mmm, I haven't thought about the problems that would arise in a car with different available engines. If you think that fuel economy doesn't work in the infobox, you can go ahead and take it out. Regards, Signature ^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 02:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. I will now be bold. --DeLarge 12:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This can be included in the individual car details but no car I have looked at actually has it included (I just picked 5 cars at random). Personally I feel it's one of the most useful pieces of data about a car and should be reinstated. AndrewLeeson 10:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The stated criticisms dont add up to much, compared with the basic fact that fuel economy is one of the basic aspects of a new car, along with the sticker price. There are always caveats, which is why infobox data can be linked to a note or a subsection which treats the matter more fully. This "I'll be bold" and remove it treatment is nonsense. -Ste vertigo 05:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, it's not. A lot of infoboxes are too long already, and adding five, ten, fifteen different fuel economy figures would be intolerable. And there's also no point to putting a note in the infobox leading to something in the text. Either way, it's been decided that fuel economy figures will not be included; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 8#MPG figures. --Sable232 05:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"It's been decided?" by the wikipedia gods? I think that not including fuel efficiency is a sin of omission, but I appreciate your effort to bypass debate by using a passive sentence construct. The discussion you link shows that a majority of people are in favour of including some sort of fuel efficiency standards.

It's obvious that fuel economy is one of the most important information points at this time. As far as which rating system, simply list the rating for the target region; if the car is a US model, list EPA. If European model, list that standard. If there are different engine/transmission combinations, list the range, i.e., Fuel economy (city) = 23-26 mpg EPA. Not listing fuel economy is a gross oversight, especially when other trivial data like length and width are included. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Linking units in the infobox.

The business of linking to units (eg 123.4 inches) only the first time they are used is a real problem with infoboxes. The problem is (as you'll see if you look at Mini Moke right now) that the order you enter the text in the edit window isn't necessarily the order the infobox will display it. Hence, the first use of inch and meter in "Wheelbase" are not linked whilst the use in "Length" are. The text looks OK in the edit window...but not in the article. Clearly this is easy to fix - but not if someone ever changes the infobox design. So I took the view that it was better to link every occurrance in the infobox just to be sure. It's a very, very tiny point - but with the pickiness of GA and FA reviewers these days...

Is there anything we can do inside the template design to help this problem? SteveBaker 16:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

How about we link them in the text, but not in the infobox? Having unit links in the infobox looks strange (to me at least) anyway. I personally don't see the need to link most units, but I probably hold the minority view on that so I'll let it be. --Sable232 18:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Sable232, units shouldn't be linked in the infobox. -- NaBUru38 17:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Price

I suggest include price with manufacturer's suggested retail price. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mac (talk • contribs) 15:31, February 13, 2007.

As with the very recent discussion above, I disagree, and the most recent consensus has been to not include it. Region-centricity shouldn't be encouraged in the infobox. Different markets have different prices and different currencies. I think what's in the infobox should be applicable to a vehicle in any market (e.g. its production dates, range of engines, dimensions, etc). Prices are only ever reflective of a single market. --DeLarge 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Similar"

In case there are users who have this page on their watchlist but are not watching Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles, there is currently a debate going regarding the "similar" field, and consensus to date is strongly in favour of its deletion (9-2 at the last count). Please feel free to contribute, or failing that, please keep it in mind before reverting any changes which are made in the near future. regards, --DeLarge 23:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Great note! I'd never find it if you haven't mentioned it over here. Current link is archived Loukinho 05:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox suggestion

As with this edit, can I suggest this lot to be added as figure for these can be seen on sportscar pages and they are written on a separate row, cluttering up pages [1]. Willirennen 13:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

...and not to mention one for suspension. Willirennen and another for brakes 14:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

“Footenotes”

I’ve wondered why there is no “footnotes” entry. It could be found as useful where certain information may have alternate entries or can vary. It might not be used often, however, should still be included for such a general template.

To make sure everyone knows what I am talking about, an example can be found of the one used in the infobox template for countries/territories. —Mr Grim Reaper (Talk | contribs), 01:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

“Engine(s)”

I've wanted to know weather or not this area should also include the horsepower and torque ratings, or just listing the type of engine (displacement/aspiration/type).
—Mr Grim Reaper ^{(Talk | contribs)}, 22:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Proper template formatting

Perhaps someone (with experience) should add the correct template and formatting. Also, better documentation and guidelines shoudl be added. —Mr Grim Reaper ^{(Talk | contribs)}, 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

template width

Somebody who can could fix template width so, that is has same width with picture (250px) or without picture..--— Typ932^{T | C} 12:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

top speed

I noticed that the WrightSpeed X1 is using the tag top_speed, but it is not supported in the form. This is really weird, since it is what every car-wannabe-owner wants to now. That and the speed for 0-100 km/h. Any explanation why it is missing?

probably the infobox is getting too big, so you cant include all the details--— Typ932^{T | C} 11:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Image parameter

The image parameter for this infobox doesn't conform to most others currently in use. In most other infoboxes (cf {{Infobox Ice Hockey Player}} as an example), you don't need to wikilink the image. Instead, you just put the file name, and the image size and caption are covered by other parameters. I suggest this template be modified to match that syntax. --Darkwind (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional fields to be added?

Ought to be added: Engine location, engine displacement, power, torque, BHP/Liter, power to weight ratio, Top Speed, 0-60 Acceleration.

I'm not sure how easy it would be to add those fields or whether there is already a more technical version of the automobile infobox. Many thanks. Oliverwk 19:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add the following fields to the template. If somebody has issues let me know.

Ground Clearance
Front Suspension
Rear Suspension
Tire type
Tire Size
Wheel Size
Maximum Power
Maximum Torque
Displacement
Brake Tire - Rear
Brake Tire - Front

Abhishek Chandra (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Engine location is already covered by layout. Engine displacement goes under engine. Power, torque, bhp/L, power to weight, top speed, and 0-60 times are not necessary in the infobox. Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide or comparison site.

Ground clearance and wheel size seem to be excessive detail to me. Suspension, tires, and brakes should be in the article, if note-worthy, not infobox. Power, torque and displacement I already mentioned.

In general I think the infobox should be as brief as possible, and not a complete specs rundown. It should provide the essential information and not much more. There are plenty of websites out there that are better suited for a table of specifications. swa q 18:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. The infobox does not conform to current guidelines. We should be looking to scale it back before even coming close to thinking about scaling it up. Roguegeek (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)