Template talk:Infobox automobile/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Proposed addition of gas mileage stat

Since there is a range variable under the electric vehicles info, I feel that the addition of gas mileage (either mpg or km/l) would be an appropriate addition to the information for a gas powered car. The format could look something like the following:

XX mpg (XX km/l) for american vehicles and XX km/l (xx mpg) for other vehicles

There could also be separate lines for city mpg and highway mpg. The gas mileage label could either be put under overview or under powertrain sections of the infobox.

QUICKWITTEDHARE _CONVERSE 18:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

We need to be careful with terminology and units here. 'Gas mileage' isn't a generic enough term, 'Fuel consumption' might be better as it applies to mile or km and includes gas, petrol, diesel, etc. As for units, we need to remember that the UK use mpg too, but where in the US it means miles per US gallon, in the UK it means miles per imperial gallon (1 imperial gallon ≈ 1.2 US gallons). Also whilst some metric countries use km/L, others use L/100 km for the measure. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Fuel economy is so variable from year to year, powertrain to powertrain, continent to continent, etc. that it would be impossible to summarize in the infobox for most vehicles. --Sable232 (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

While always reluctant to allow the template to suffer middle-age spread, I think this would be a useful addition. Differences in units (km/miles, litres/Imperial-gallons/US-gallons) can be handled by requiring the use of {{convert}} or {{cvt}}, just like we do for weights and other dimensions. Beware that 'gas' can mean gasoline (aka petrol), LPG, natural gas and a few other variations, so 'fuel' is a better term for the generic label. If a vehicle has multiple fuels then we use {{Unbulleted list}} in the same manner as we do for weights or put it in a table in the article if it gets complicated. Since city and highway cycles give radically different results, I agree that there should be two different fields, eg city-consumption and highway-consumption (alternative suggestions for field names are welcome).  Stepho  talk  22:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I think this would add a ridiculous amount of bloat, for example the BMW 3 Series (F30) can be had with one of 19 motors and comes in 3 configurations that significantly change the weight, many of those combos can be had with other things that affect fuel economy like all wheel drive or manual gearboxes, in one infobox it could easily exceed 50 different numbers, even the Volkswagen Golf Mk7 can be had with one of 20 motors (mostly variants on the same base designs but changed sufficiently to alter fuel economy). It will be either incomplete or absurd on many pages. And for pages with some good reason to have it editors can usually add fuel economy to preexisting wikitables. Toasted Meter (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose it While in theory, this may seem like an interesting parameter to add, in practice, this could make things a lot more complicated (the reply above explains things well). If fuel economy played an important role in the design of a vehicle or is a superlative, it is ideal to integrate this into the text content (which helps keeps things more encyclopedic anyways). --SteveCof00 (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Colour

I think the colour at the top of the infobox should be neutral, rather than the current grey colour. It would match other infoboxes. Of course, if there is a particular reason for a colour then this can be added but I think default neutral is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElshadK (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Should both kerb weight and dry weight be written into the kerb weight field or only kerb weight ?

In most articles' infoboxes the weight field contains only kerb weight but in some articles it contains both kerb and dry weight like in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_720S. How should we handle the weight entry ? Drachentötbär (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

As always, it's contentious. The dry weight is almost useless because a vehicle cannot function without fluids. But the manufacturer get's penalised in the reviews if it adds more reliability (and weight) by adding a bigger oil sump or radiator. Also, do we measure with the fuel tank near empty, half full or full? Once again, the manufacturer gets penalised by providing you with a larger fuel tank. A 100 litre fuel tank effectively adds 50 kg compared to a similar car with only a 50 litre tank. It's your choice whether to drive with it near empty, full or somewhere between but if measured with a full tank then the fuel economy figures come out bad for their nice thought of giving you the choice.  Stepho  talk  04:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It's necessary to inform the readers about the variations in the vehicle weight. That is why the figures are there. Plus the infobox template doesn't prohibits the use of dry weight like Drachentötbär said in his reason while removing the dry weight figure.U1Quattro (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The template is defined by stating what belongs inside, not by explicitly listing everything which shouldn't be there (which would be impossible).

It's obvious that the kerb weight value and not dry weight belongs behind "Kerb weight" in the infobox; "Kerb weight 1,283 kg (2,829 lb) (dry) 1,437 kg (3,167 lb) (kerb)" like currently in the McLaren 720S infobox looks wrong.

According to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE infoboxes are there to summarize key facts from the article in short form without unnecessary content. Dry weight can be estimated from kerb weight, putting it into the article body is enough. Currently almost no cars have dry weight in the infobox, for consistency the others shouldn't either.Drachentötbär (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

How often is dry weight listed for a vehicle? I almost always see curb weight only, dry weight very rarely. I'm not necessarily opposed to including dry weight as a secondary figure in the infobox field (e.g. "Kerb weight | 1,437 kg (1,283 kg dry weight)") but I feel there'd need to be a very good reason to include it - as in why dry weight is that important to the car. Curb weight is used because it's a meaningful real-world value of the car in its operational state. I can't see how dry weight would be important enough to warrant mention in the infobox. "Drain all the fluids and then weigh the car" would be meaningless to the average reader without an explanation (which, realistically, should place the information in the article prose where it can be explained). --Sable232 (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Then according to your logic, the infobox should also state the dimensions of the base model only and not the other variations of the model, just because they don't belong there. This logic incorrect and is against the reader's interest. Sable232, manufacturers weigh the car this way, not editors like you are imposing.U1Quattro (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You're incorrect. The template page explicitly advises to list separate data for each body style and even shows this in the sample infobox, so they do belong. Kerb weights of different body styles fit into a kerb weight labeled folder, dry weight doesn't. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Going back to the original question, I think it is best to stick a single figure for the weight field. Along with the interest of simplicity, curb weight has the widest use (and thus, the easiest chances of proper verification...) --SteveCof00 (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Dry weight isn't a made up figure. It's measured by the manufacturer.U1Quattro (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

True. but dry weight is like the old Horsepower#SAE_gross_power measurements that were made with the water/oil/fuel pumps disconnected, no air filter, etc - a totally measurable figure provided by the manufacturer but bearing no relationship to what you drive on the road and destructive to the engine. Practically nobody uses gross figures HP anymore. Similarly, a car with no fluids isn't driveable on the road. I believe some manufacturers have drained the fluid from the battery, gearbox and diff to get a lower dry weight.  Stepho  talk  22:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Your description is true but there are some articles that state only dry weight, such as the Lamborghini Sesto Elemento. The car weighs 999 kg (dry). Plus the infobox guidelines don't prohibit the use of dry weight as well. So there is no point in arguing.U1Quattro (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Drachentötbär the infobox doesn't have a "dry weight" folder and neither it restricts one to use weight with fluids only.U1Quattro (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro, some articles also have bad spelling, so we should allow bad spelling and there is no point in arguing. Everything is always up for discussion. If would use only the wet weight if it is available. If the wet weight is not available but dry weight weight is, then I would use dry weight as a fall-back position. Similar to how we use the factory production date (ie when the production line started) but fall-back to the first sales date if that is the only date available.  Stepho  talk  21:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not supporting wrong spelling at all. I just don't see a reason of removing dry weight when it is explicitly used in many articles around Wikipedia.U1Quattro (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Your argument is that other articles do it, therefore it's okay. The same article can be used for many sins (eg bad spelling). It's the same as saying "Yes officer, I was speeding but other people were speeding too". It is a very weak argument.  Stepho  talk  11:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Dry weight is not a subcategory of kerb weight so it doesn't belong into the kerb weight infobox place, even if we don't have other numbers. Kerb weight definitions all include driveable condition so readers would be confused or associate dry kerb weight just as kerb weight with an empty tank but that's not how it's used. Dry weight is just a fantasy number with no standard at all with the main purpose of faking a better power-to-weight ratio. Putting it into the article outside the infobox is enough.Drachentötbär (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The manufacturers use dry weight and the power-to-weight ratio is based on that figure. Therefore your presumption about it being a fantasy number is incorrect.U1Quattro (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Dry weight is like weighing a car without the engine. It can be measured and published but it's useless to most people (except those who want to put in a different engine). It does not represent the vehicle as it is used by the owner.  Stepho  talk  09:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Body style link

Why does the link for the body_style parameter go to Car classification and not to Car body style? --bdijkstra (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No reason that I can see. Feel free to change it.  Stepho  talk  00:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I would if I could, but I'm not a template editor and it looks like I don't meet the guidelines for granting. --bdijkstra (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, same problem for me. I have requested to have my permission upgraded.  Stepho  talk  00:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 May 2019

Please add "(s)" to the "Designer" label as some cars have more than one designer. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 04:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Many other fields hold multiple entries (e.g Type, Engine, Transmission, Length, Curb weight). We should be consistent. The current usage is consistent; are you advocating for addition of "(s)" to all fields that could reasonably have multiple values? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Since you put it that way, sure, why not? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 05:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Because it is unnecessary. Please give some examples of "some cars have more than one designer". Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The 11th gen Chevy Suburban? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 05:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I see they couldn't settle on a team leader(s). Where did Jamil come from? not in the cite. Is this depth of info of genuine interest to anyone, should it be provided in WP? What about the engines and transmissions and did the team do the interior too? Eddaido (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is only required for controversial edits, not minor copyedits. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 15:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Designer field

Is an exhaustive list of the team of designers is acceptable to add in the infobox or a separate mention of it in the design section is more appropriate? The infobox template is vague at this point and does not explain what should be included in the list of name(s) of designer(s). Either the people who were lead designers or the design director, supervisor and other people who were supervising it. U¹ _quattro TALK 14:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It hasn't been nailed down but it is generally assumed that it is the project leader, the stylistic designer of the body or the lead engineer (drive train, suspension, etc). The stylistic designer of the bodywork is the most common. Of course, others may have a different interpretation and consensus may change all this anyway.  Stepho  talk  22:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Since the infobox is intended to be an overview, it should be as concise as possible - in most cases, this would be the "lead designer" of the body design as per reliable sources. There may be instances where there were two people who would be stated to have shared equally in it; as long as sources back that up it would be fine. However, including several people and detailing which aspects they were involved with is too much for the infobox and is better suited to the prose. Including years in this infobox field should also be discouraged - the context to show what it means is lacking, so that's another situation where it's best explained in prose. --Sable232 (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

After looking at the explanation of this parameter on the template page, it says to stick with the name of the exterior designer (if known). For the most part, sticking with one name is best (if a separate designer is involved with an update of the model, it is worth including). Other aspects simply clutter up the infobox and are best used for expanding the prose. (in the Corvette C7 example from above, one name is perfectly fine, with the others remaining in prose). --SteveCof00 (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for the clarification. Now the only thing left is to give the other editor this explanation and we're done with this issue.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this should be a hard and fast rule, exterior and interior designers, those who designed variants all may be relevant. I don't think a one size fits all approach to this is needed, whether someone should be mentioned in the infobox should be left to those editing the page. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with this Toasted Meter. The whole design team doesn't need a mention in the infobox and that is exactly what this user is doing. Given this "I am always right" attitude of most editors here, edit wars will take place over what should be added. What others have said is absolutely correct. Design director/managers and project heads shoud be written in prose only. We need to keep the infobox limited to its purpose, instead of cluttering it with information that is best suited to prose.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 September 2019

Please add track attribute below wheelbase. This is an extremely important attribute similar in importance to wheelbase. Wheelbase is the measurement of center of front to rear tires, and track is the measurement of center of left to right tires. Here are the 2 articles on wikipedia describing wheelbase and axle track:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheelbase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axle_track

Thank you. IceIR (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I have never requested a protected page be edited. Please forgive me if I am going about this the wrong way. Specifying wheelbase but not track is equivelant to specifying length of vehicle but not width. Even the article for wheelbase (see my original post) defines track in it's sole picture, and the article for track uses the same picture. I would assume most of the admins for the automobile infobox have automobile knowledge can see this a common sense request and frankly an oversight to not have included it in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.19.101 (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

What you want to do is propose the change on this page, then you can get some wider exposure by asking users to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. If users agree that this change is needed you should have no problems getting it added. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not think this is a controversial request. Why list the distance from the front to back wheels but not the distance from the left to right wheels? This should have been added along with wheelbase in the first place. If this infobox included overall vehicle length but not width, I do not think it would be controversial to ask that vehicle width be included also. 172.58.19.101

• Support: This was asked for many years ago and rejected as feature creep. But both then and now, I think it is a good idea and as important as wheelbase. I suspect that wheelbase got in so easily because the US car taxes and license fees used to be based on wheelbase - hence it was of high importance to Americans.  Stepho  talk  10:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

From an outside POV track makes sense to me. As soon as I think of sports cars or handling... I don't recall ever seeing automobile wheelbase (any size) relating to taxes or fees here. Wheelbase was sometimes used for sizes (compact, intermediate, full) in the 50s-60s but I think that was an industry thing. (IceIR can't know me, I think they are asking anybody in GF). Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I am editing articles for 4WD trucks and Jeeps, and want to add track to their infoboxes.IceIR (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support only if we add an attribute for each of front track and rear track as they can differ, else oppose. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, front and rear as separate entries.  Stepho  talk  10:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

First of all, so there's no misunderstanding, I am the same user as the above IP address of 172.58.19.101. Anyway, I would certainly prefer to have options for both front and rear track than no option for track at all. I would probably prefer to not have separate entries, as you can easily put both values anyway, much like is done when vehicles have multiple wheelbase options. The motivation is if the vehicle does have the same front and rear track, it would be neater to only list the track once. That said, I do not feel strongly about this, and having attributes for both front and rear track is very reasonable and probably the better idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceIR (talk • contribs) 22:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. IceIR, you've only solicited input from one of the three projects which have an interest in this template, and you've barely waited 4 days. That doesn't look like a thorough attempt to establish consensus. Informing all 3 projects of this discussion, and waiting 7 days (unless there's WP:SNOW) would be the normal expectation of an impartially run discussion.

I'll also remind you of the caution I placed on your talk page - "the use of both an account and an IP address ... in the same setting ... may result in your account being blocked from editing". Cabayi (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious. After 13 years of extensively working on WP automobile articles, I don't know what the other 2 projects are.  Stepho  talk  11:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I also have no idea what the other projects are, and there have been no mention of them here. I have clearly stated that this was my first edit request, so I don't know why you think I should assume 7 days is considered a standard time to wait for consensus. Is there no standard when it comes to contacting a user about an issue before placing cautions on their talk page? I was simply logged out and somewhat obviously not attempting to appear as a different user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceIR (talk • contribs) 03:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs, IceIR, scroll up. The other projects are listed at the head of this page.

IceIR, how should anybody know why you're no logged in? And no, there's no standard. Cabayi (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Cabayi, also at the head of the page is "assume good faith", among other things. I've read over the link where you claim using an IP and account in the same setting is against the rules. It only says this is not allowed if someone is intentionally trying to appear as 2 different users. I have also explicitly stated that the posts above using an IP were mine. Before that, the tone, wording, and formatting of my posts made it very clear that I was the same user. IceIR (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Sandboxed

I have added some code to the /sandbox. I have used track as the parameter name, and the label links to axle track. Some tests can be seen at /testcases including an example of how different rear/front values can be displayed. Comments invited — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I have disabled the request due to lack of response. I need confirmation that track is the best choice of parameter and that everything looks okay with the tests linked above. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Tank capacity is missing in template

Tank capacity is missing in template Schengen2018 (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not strongly against it but it's not high on my list of things that make a car standout. Haven't seen it mentioned in many articles. In the interest of avoiding feature creep, I would recommend to not have it.  Stepho  talk  10:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Template usage

1292simon is constantly over summarising the contents of the infobox such as changing driver train layout to "all-wheel drive"/"rear-wheel drive" rather than "Front-engine, all-wheel-drive" etc. A common example of that can be seen on the BMW M8 page and also on the BMW M6 page. He is not following how the template should be used as stated on this page rather, he uses a statement written in MOS that "an infobox is meant to be a summary of the key aspects of a vehicle". Not everyone reading these articles is a car enthusiast or is related to the automotive industry. Shouldn't we consider those readers as well and how this template should be used rather than making up our own versions? I suggest there should be a policy regarding the use of infoboxes so these fights can be avoided in the future. U¹ _quattro TALK 04:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Interior image fields

Per the discussion at Talk:Honda Ridgeline#RfC about 2 images in the infobox, there is consensus that the infobox should only contain one image. Therefore, we should remove the interior image fields: interiorimage, interioralt, and interiorcaption. --Vossanova ^o< 18:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done per RFC closure. I have also added Category:Pages using infobox automobile with unknown parameters (0) to this template. When you edit any article in that category, you should see a red error message that explains the parameter error. Note that some articles contain multiple infoboxes, so you may have to scroll or use your browser's Find command (search for "unknown") to locate the error message. Ping me here if you have any trouble fixing them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional parameter: seating capacity

Could the following be added to the template? "|seating capacity = 48 seats (2 axles) and 57 seats (3 axles)" Peter Horn User talk 00:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

+1Tech201805 (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC). Also proposed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_automobile/Archive_6#Seating_Capacity but seems like that has been previously discussed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_automobile/Archive_2

website

The documentation includes If the product has a URL, use {{URL|example.com|optional display text}} to include it. but doesn't say what field to put it in. Where should I put the link to the official web site? --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The line doesn't make any sense. I would just delete it.  Stepho  talk  23:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

If the infobox is not supposed to have a URL, then presumably the url should be removed from the "Classes used" section just below that sentence as well. Alternatively, a |website={{URL|example.com|optional display text}} parameter could be added. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

No parameter for top speed?

It would be nice to have a parameter for top speed. Can this option be added? Renerpho (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Top speed is often hard to verify. While some manufacturers have their own claims, they are not often verified by the automotive press, who focus on acceleration to a certain speed or distance instead. It is better to leave the infobox for verifiable facts, rather than performance claims which can vary from source to source. --Vossanova ^o< 22:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

While top speed does play a part in the notability of certain vehicles, that fact is probably best left for the article prose. Along with verifiabilty issues (see above), for the most part, top speed is not a significant fact unless it is among the fastest (or slowest) vehicles produced. Dimensions and drivetrain components are more constant from individual examples of a model line; top speed is not (unless governed/limited). --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Is anyone else seeing certain articles with this template are missing the grey section titles?

Hey, this may just be me or a temporary glitch with Wikipedia, but a lot of the car articles i'm visiting (not all) are showing this template without the grey section markers such as "overview", "body and chassis", "Powertrain", "Dimensions", etc. Is anyone else seeing this? A couple of articles Three articles I saw this on among many are Ford Focus, Datsun 510 and Acura CL. And three I didn't see this happening on, also among many, are Bugatti Veyron, Nissan IDx and Nissan Primera. Can anyone else confirm or deny this? TKOIII (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

They look fine to me. Try a different web browser. Try logging out and viewing the articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It was a temporary bug in Module:Infobox. It has been fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Interior image parameters no longer work

Why was support for interiorimage and interiorcaption parameters dropped? — JerrieAtrix (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

There was an RFC. I found this link by searching for "interior" in the archive search box at the top of this page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 July 2020

Add References parameter under final line of infobox source code. Allows consolidation of reference coding for infobox. SteveCof00 (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need that, because everything in the infobox should already be covered elsewhere in the article and referenced there. See WP:INFOBOXREF. Or do you have a specific example something which might not be already coverd? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A single reference for the entire infobox implies that the references is for all facts in the infobox. Often, only a few facts are referenced and sometimes there are multiple references. A single reference will add more problems than it solves.  Stepho  talk  00:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

To editors SteveCof00, DeFacto and Stepho-wrs:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This sounds to me like something that could be proposed for all infoboxes, not just one. The correct venue for that discussion/RfC would probably be the talk page of WP:INFOBOXREF, which is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Layout

Is adding FR layout, F4 layout any better than adding Front-engine, rear-wheel-drive or Front-engine, all-wheel-drive? U¹ _quattro TALK 18:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the use of acronyms for layout is counter productive, if readers can't tell at a glance what they mean they should not be used. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the lay reader (which is the majority) don't know what FR, RR, MR, F4, etc mean.  Stepho  talk  23:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I see no major difference either way (especially if it is used in a link that explains things). My only big pet peeve is when two links are placed for engine position and drive wheels rather than one for the layout (i.e., front-engine design AND rear-wheel drive rather than the correct singular Front/rear. On a side note, on such vehicles, Four-wheel drive and All-wheel drive should be distinguished properly. --SteveCof00 (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

SteveCof00 FR and F4 creates confusion for readers having no prior knowledge about automobiles. There are such readers who use these articles for research purposes. In my opinion, the use of abbreviations regarding layouts should be avoided. U¹ _quattro TALK 14:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Modifications to infobox

Are modifications like these permitted on the infobox. Isn't the example infobox a guideline of how to use the infobox in a better way or is it just a reference? If there isn't a proper guideline over the use of the infobox then in my opinion a guideline should be made so that users don't start taking out fields which are known and summarise the infobox for no reason. U¹ _quattro TALK 09:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the link provided is trying to say, but in terms of the question, the infobox DOES serve as a reference. However, as the top sentence on its page says, it is used for several types of vehicles, so several things do have to be adapted from time to time. Formatting list parameters (if done properly) to simplify information is not a big issue; listing dimensions as a range rather than seperately is typically encouraged. If there are large numbers of drivetrain parameters, a table list in the article content makes for a better presentation than an excessively long infobox anyways. --SteveCof00 (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The link shows that an editor removed the designer field because they thought it was better suited to the body and they summarised engine types into a confusing format. I'm asking whether it is allowed to modify the infobox in such a way as shown in that diff. Because what I see is an editor removing things which are known. For example, if the designer was not known, the field would not be there in the first place. U¹ _quattro TALK 14:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Be aware that the edit was made by 1292simon. Simon and Quattro disagree on everything short of the colour of the sky.

Deleting the designer appears wrong. There may be a reason but the reason was not given.

Shortening the assembly location makes it fit within 1 line - which is good.

Adding an engine line for "petrol:" doesn't bother me either way.

The engine list both before and after is just weird. Better to have a list of size and engine code, 1 per line, instead of that weird range of sizes. A range of engine codes per line is just confusing. Ranges are a last resort for when there are too many to list or the engines codes are unknown.

The re-ordering of the gearbox section is fine.

So, a little bit of good, a little bit of bad. Nothing really super shocking.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepho-wrs (talk • contribs)

Stepho-wrs can you clarify about the petrol and the engine code bit? What did you exactly meant by that? U¹ _quattro TALK 01:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

1.8–1.9 L M43/M44 I4 is confusing. It looks like it is trying to list the 1.8-litre M43 and the 1.9-litre M44 engines but I suspect it is something actually more complicated.

2.0 – 2.8 L M52 (the original version) is also confusing. The M52 page does indeed say that the M52 engine has a range of sizes. But which sizes were used in the Z3 ? Better to list each size and engine code combination as 1 per line.

For the petrol bit, I am equally happy with a "Petrol:" heading at the top or "(petrol)" on every line.  Stepho  talk  01:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that is confusing as well. That is what I disagree with along with removing fields such as designer. That is why I started this discussion here to discuss whether such modifications were allowed as Simon likes to think. U¹ _quattro TALK 03:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Stepho-wrs. The reason for removing the designer is that Infoboxes are meant to summarise the key features of an article, according to the MOS. For some cars (e.g. McLaren F1, BMW E60, Aston Martin Valkyrie), the lead designer is definitely a key feature of the topic. Without meaning any disrespect to Mr Nagashima (in fact, I think many of the models he was involved with have very nice styling), his involvement is only covered in sources with passing mentions, therefore it is not established that his involvement is a key feature of the topic. Also, the Z3 was developed long after the days of vehicle being designed by a single individual had passed. By the early 1990s, development of a new model line was an exercise involving many millions of dollars and a large group of people. Just to clarify, I have no issue with designers being covered in the body of the article (with references), however in this case I do not believe it should go in the Infobox summary. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Gross Weight, Payload

Gross weight is essential and payload is second. This is true for commercial vehicles and also for passenger cars. Has ever asked a police officer for the kerb weight of your car? Did you ever ask yourself or has anybody else asked you? But you may be asked whether your driving license is sufficient for the car you are driving or whether the car is overloaded. I am not into trailer tractors, but in such a case I would say Gross combined weight is still more important than kerb weight.

I'd appreciate very much if this could be added. --Wolle1303 (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Automatic short description

John M Wolfson has twice boldly added a short description template to this template, making errors both times, and I am tempted to revert the second attempt, but I have no interest in edit warring. The first attempt failed to use the noreplace option. Per BRD, the editor should have brought the proposed change here for discussion. The second attempt has failed to wrap the SD template in {{main other}}, which makes it appear on the template page. In addition, the default SD that has been added is "Car model", despite the very first line of this template's documentation, which reads: This template is used in articles about motor vehicles including, but not necessarily limited to, cars, buses and trucks.

I request that the second attempt be reverted while a consensus implementation is discussed, and that the proposed edit be added to the template's sandbox and tested before the live template is modified. It is not good template-editing practice to make bold edits to templates that are transcluded 7,500 times. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Very well; I have reverted the edit pending such consensus. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I propose "Motor vehicle" as a default short description. "Car model" is inadequate and will often be inaccurate. This infobox is used in articles about individual vehicles and vehicle models as diverse as Lunar Roving Vehicle, Furthur (bus), Grumman LLV, Ram pickup, Green Monster (automobile), and International Harvester Scout. It is also used incorrectly in GM 5L40-E transmission and some additional transmission articles; that appears to be a misuse of the infobox, so I am less worried about the short description being inaccurate in those cases. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That works. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 January 2021

I request to add 2 entries:

1. Gross weight: I feel gross weight is paramount for a commercial vehicle, e.g. Class 3 is hard to understand for non US citizens and not very precise.
2. Payload: still more expressive than kerb weight or curb weight.

2 more remarks:

1. I wonder whether an extra language parameter is worth the effort for just distinguishing kerb and curb weight.
2. A parameter name "weight" generating a caption "kerb weight" is not very clear. Wolle1303 (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. You are welcome to add these parameters to the sandbox and use the testcases page to show how they would be displayed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

|sp=us (default) or |sp=uk can be used to display "kerb" or "curb".

The proposed gross weight or payload fields aren't relevant for a lot of automobiles (eg: cars, motorbikes). However, it might be worth creating an infobox for trucks that could have those fields. See Category:Automotive_infobox_templates for existing automotive infoboxes to copy from.  Stepho  talk  11:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Curb Weight - British English - edit request

US English appears to use curb for the roadside concrete items and the verb meaning to curtail. British English should show Kerb Weight as we spell the concrete block thing differently. https://grammar.collinsdictionary.com/us/english-usage/what-is-the-difference-between-curb-and-kerb Ukurko (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

To get British spelling 'kerb', add |sp=uk.

Default style
Dimensions
Curb weight	1000 kg

British style
Dimensions
Kerb weight	1000 kg

American style
Dimensions
Curb weight	1000 kg

The default (ie, if you don't specify the sp field at all) is US style.  Stepho  talk  18:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - great info Ukurko (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 June 2022

Add torque to make better in classifying race cars. TERGY 23:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is a contentious edit, or this has already been discussed, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. If there is an existing discussion on the talk page please contribute to that section. If there is no existing discussion you may explain why this edit should be made in this section, or start a new section on this talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Gas tank capacity parameter

I propose an optional infobox parameter be added for fuel tank size / capacity, this would be incredibly useful for knowing at a glance how much fuel a given vehicle can store in its fuel tank. This would be similar to the Range parameter already used for electric vehicles. This parameter would apply to both hybrids (that have both a battery and a fuel tank) and vehicles that only use gas or such as its fuel source. Most vehicles share a similar gas tank capacity across different trim levels (however not across entirely different nameplates, e.g. the Kia Forte or Nissan Versa / Sentra), so I don't really think this would be an issue regarding infobox tidiness or conciseness. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 00:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

A quick update to this: There's not even a parameter available for fuel economy for city / highway / combined! Some of these design choices for this infobox make no sense at all. Battery capacity & range exist as parameters, but neither fuel economy nor fuel tank capacity exist as parameters. This legitimately makes no sense to me at all and dumbfounds me. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 14:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of value in adding this and it will clutter up the infobox even further. Most vehicles of a similar size/type tend to have a similar fuel tank size (eg compacts have small tanks, SUVs have larger tanks). On the flip side, I do see it mentioned in most dealer brochures and magazine tests. Take care that "gas" in most parts of the world means LPG or CNG (ie gaseous fuel).  Stepho  talk  01:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs: This reasoning makes no sense. There's a parameter for battery size and range, yet not a parameter for gas tank size? The infobox seems a bit biased towards electric vehicles, which isn't fair. Electric vehicles are great, but gasoline-powered vehicles are the most popular type of vehicle, and I've looked at quite a few cars, even cars like the Kia Forte and Nissan Sentra / Versa have vastly different fuel tank sizes & capacity. By size I mean overall capacity in gallons or litres, not how small or big the tank is in actual size. It would be very useful to know at a glance what size tank an older car had, for example. And I would argue that it wouldn't clutter up the infobox further. It would be one parameter that only applies to gasoline & hybrid vehicles. There are infoboxes that have way more parameters available than this one does. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 10:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

When I say "size" I actually mean "capacity" - an old habit common to many car enthusiasts and one that I thought you shared. Liquids are not compressible, so doubling the tank size also doubles the capacity. I'm mildly against adding a new field because it just doesn't seem to be that interesting unless you like crossing deserts. My father used to do this but his Landcruiser had multiple custom tanks and he also put a few 44 gallon drums in the back. For most people, they only care about whether it will leave them stranded if they only fill up once a week. Of course, that's just my 2c. Other people may have other opinions.  Stepho  talk  13:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs: Opposing the addition of one parameter over it not being that interesting is a very subjective take. The larger a fuel tank, the further a vehicle can go, especially if it has really good fuel economy. And a lot of people do road trips, and the further someone can go in one go before having to fill up again is a very useful detail to know. Plus, it would potentially save money on gas if you can reach your destination in fewer refills. I don't know. I just don't understand why there's opposition against adding a fuel tank capacity parameter. It's an interesting detail, and it would help out some people. And it's not fair to have a battery capacity / range parameter, but not one for fuel tank capacity. It makes zero sense in my opinion to have one parameter but not the other. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 14:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The difference is, people don't go around comparing fuel tank capacity when choosing a car. Many EV buyers definitely would compare battery sizes as it is related to how mucn range it has. ICE vehicle buyers don't care about range, they care about fuel economy, so fuel tank capacity don't usually appear in summaries of spec sheets. Also, there are cases where the same car has different fuel tank sizes (petrol vs diesel, or vs hybrid). Andra Febrian (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Andra Febrian: There are some people that actually do care about fuel tank capacity, especially people who like going on road trips. And those people exist in a not-so-insignificant amount. So I would argue it's still useful information to have in an infobox. Some people consider that sort of information to be important. Not everyone will, but its still nice to have that information available at a glance. And you mention fuel economy, but there isn't a parameter available for fuel economy either. Makes no sense to me regarding that either. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 14:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Like top speed and acceleration time, fuel economy is rightfully not in the infobox because it varies a lot between countries standards, fuel octane, engine option, wheel size, etc. Wouldn't comment on EV range parameter, I neither agree or disagree with its inclusion in the infobox.

I say, it adds clutter. If we give this a pass, one day someone would propose other measurements such as wheel size, tyre size, track width, headroom, legroom, gear ratio etc on the same grounds, "There are some people that actually do care", "Some people consider that sort of information to be important", etc. These arguments are not even backed up with anything whatsoever. Andra Febrian (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Then it makes no sense to have EV range or battery size either. If fuel capacity can't be added, then IMO those parameters shouldn't be present either. It gives EVs special treatment, and while like I said earlier, I like EVs a lot, they aren't the only vehicle type that exist. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 14:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 04:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: a single reply isn't grounds to deny the request; it is one against one. However, I have gone and updated the title and got rid of the edit template protected request, while a proper discussion regarding the potential addition of this parameter takes place. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 10:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding torque

We should have torque in this infobox. It will be great for race cars. --TERGY 23:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

While it makes sense or race cars, it becomes problematic for road cars that have multiple engine choices. Eg, at Toyota Corolla (E110) you can see that there are 11 engine choices. How do we match the engine name in the engine section with the value in the torque section?

For race cars, an alternative is to add the torque after the engine name. Many editors add the power figure in this manner.

Another alternative is to use {{unbulleted list}} and add list entries (ie, one per line) for the engine name, capacity, power, torque, etc.

Yet another alternative is to create a new 'infobox racecar' template by copying this one and modifying to suit.  Stepho  talk  01:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for idea of new infobox. I just don't know if people will like the switch. TERGY 11:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

In the spirit of being easier to ask forgiveness than permission, you can create the new infobox, put it in one or 2 race cars articles and then tell people about it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles. Don't do too many articles - some people freak out when lots of stuff changes but often come around later.  Stepho  talk  13:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Someone already made it and when I edit it, it does not work.

Nor does it work in page edit w/ that template. TERGY 14:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox racing car is only semi-protected, so you should be able to edit it. There appears to already be a "power" field present. Adding torque to the documentation page alone will not add the functionality to the template itself. You should start a discussion on the talk page for that template, and if you are not familiar with template syntax another editor should add it if there is consensus to do so. --Sable232 (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Model code

I propose to add a new 'model_code' field for these reasons:

1. Model codes (usually consisting of 2-6 letters/numbers or combination of both) are already incorporated into most infoboxes in car articles, it's not a question whether the inclusion of model codes are useful/needed or not.

2. Currently, model codes are included in the 'name' field in brackets. Consequently, it provides no context – non-expert readers might not know what the letters and numbers mean and there is no way to explain what the letters mean unless we explain it in prose.

3. Multiple model codes would cause clutter (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4). Even the inclusion of a single model code can be slightly annoying because the 'name' field wouldn't match the article title (example 1, example 2, example 3) and again, it is provided with no context.

4. Model codes in the 'name' field are mostly unsourced because adding citations in that field can feel awkward, it's like including citations on section headings. By adding a dedicated model code field, sourcing can be done in a more ideal way.

For the location, I suggest the new parameter to be placed between "manufacturer" and "aka" parameters. Andra Febrian (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Support. The model codes are rarely useful to even knowledgeable enthusiasts, it should not be in the name field. IPBilly (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Support. I think this would help standardize and declutter articles a lot. Model codes are useful to know for a lot of reasons but right now they're just scattered around in text, captions, names and sometimes just not included at all so I think a model code field could be helpful in standardizing their placement in articles. TKOIII (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Interior image?

This parameter exists in the documentation but there's no label on the template page? Could someone please fix this xo X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 09:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The template's documentation is correct, but the Template Data code on the documentation page is incorrect. The interior image parameters were removed in 2019. You are welcome to edit the Template Data code on the documentation page, which is not protected. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Jonesey95 reading the discussion, I am not inclined to think the consensus has changed since the RfC, so I will be leaving the documentation as is. Appreciate the reply. X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 06:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed those entries from the TemplateData section (along with a few other parameters that don't exist) to eliminate future confusion. --Sable232 (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)