Template talk:Infobox automobile/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Propose simplification

First proposition

The manual of style for infoboxes says infoboxes should contain "summary or overview information", not extended detail. I therefore propose that the infobox be cut down to essential summary information so it doesn't read like a specs sheet. I recommend keeping the following fields:

• image
• name
• manufacturer
• parent_company
• aka
• production
• assembly
• predecessor
• successor
• class
• body_style
• layout
• platform
• engine
• transmission
• related
• designer

With this information the reader can see at a glance the basics that define a particular vehicle without having to read detailed specifications. More detail is better suited to the main article body. swaq 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The consensus seems to be based on the fact that the "Infobox Automobile" sits at the top of the article beside the introductory para. Together these summarize information for a reader who wants to find out as much as he can but only can take thirty or sixty seconds to do it. In that sense, taken together the info box and intro para can form a sort of executive summary for the longer entry. Of course, if they're good and / or if the car is interesting, readers may be seduced into talking ten minutes to study the entire entry even though they had only intended to allocate thirty seconds.

The question then arises what do we do with types of data which are more suitable for presentation in a table than in sixteen paragraphs of dense prose. Limitations include the screen size that most of us use, and the challenge is at its greatest where - as often happens - one car has a range of different body and engine configurations that are offered at one stage or an other but not all at the same time. And of course if you have three dense data tables, that itself can look pretty unwelcoming to a reader who really WANTED to read sixteen paras of informative prose, supported by nothing more challenging than a couple of nice pictures of how the sedan and coupe version looked...

So some of us - shamelessly (in my case, at least) copying ideas of others - have adapted collapsible tables which can simply fold away, but where unfolded can be created to show the sort of details on engine sizes and outputs in a level of detail not suitable for the info box 'summary' of for the sixteen paras of prose. There's an started example with which I've been involved - and which I found specially challenging because of the combinations of engine type and date - under the 'Data' subheading at Peugeot 204. I wonder if the person who was wanting to add eleven catories - several apparently with multiple answers because of the range of engines offered in a single model - into the existing article topping info box might instead consider adapting the sort of table used at that Peugeot 204 article. It's monstrous tedious and fiddly to set up and align, but it DOES give the possibility, if carefully done, to present quite a lot of non prosey data. The idea was discussed on the project page some months ago, but somehow it's easier to contemplate now we actually have some examples to look at than it was when the discussion was more theoretical. Thoughts? Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I really love this idea. I'd actually like to see even less data in the infobox. The following is what I would suggest:

• image =
• name =
• manufacturer =
• parent_company =
• aka =
• production =
• assembly =
• predecessor =
• successor =
• class =
• body_style =
• related =
• designer =

Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think layout is important in a similar way as body style, engine placement and drive wheels is pretty fundamental. Engine and transmission are pretty basic too, I think, as long as you don't go including horsepower and torque numbers or transmission model name/number. I don't mind the removal of platform though, as this isn't commonly used and the 'related' field kind of overlaps it. swaq 23:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see your side of this. I just hate seeing these long and drawn out infoboxes and think that there's more potential for that if there are items in it that could have multiple entries such as engines and transmissions. A car is generally going to only have one layout or bodystyle, but there's going to be multiple engines most of the time. Editors also love to put every little piece of info about the engine into those parameters as well such as hp, torque, bore/stroke, etc... It just makes the infobox longer than it needs to be. Beyond the revision I placed above, I still way prefer the original proposed changes far more than the current infobox parameters. Roguegeek (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur that we need to show the most relevant information in the infobox. The focus is 'what do readers consider important'? In these times of $115 oil, fuel economy seems to be one of the top data points, with others paling in comparison. So I propose;

• image =
• name =
• manufacturer =
• parent_company =
• class =
• body_style =
• fuel_economy_city =
• fuel_economy_highway =

If a car is targeted for the US market, use the range of EPA ratings for it. If another market (e.g., EU), then use those ratings. If both, provide one or the other (or even both). For example, the Honda Insight would have the following fuel economy listing; |fuel_economy_city = 45-49 mpg EPA |fuel_economy_highway = 49-61 mpg EPA. If other attributes are considered important, I don't have any heartburn adding them. But we would be remiss in not clearly stating the fuel economy in the infobox. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think fuel economy numbers are generally only relevant for comparison, as actual mileage will vary based on many factors. While I agree that readers consider fuel economy important, I think that it is better mentioned in the body of the article. Wikipedia is not a comparison or shopping site and the infobox is not there for specifications (horsepower, brake rotor size, fuel economy, etc.). The infobox is there for "summary" information, not details. Also, fuel economy tells very little about the basics of a car, it is just a number. While body style, class, and layout give you a better overall idea of the car. For instance, lets say we used your proposed fields. We would have a Honda del Sol with class Sport Compact and fuel economy 26-33/30-39 and Porsche Boxster with class Sports Car and fuel economy 18-20/23-29. If you knew nothing else about these cars you'd think the only difference between them is the del Sol is slightly smaller and gets a little better gas mileage (depending on which part of the range you believe). There is no information showing the huge difference of the del Sol being front-wheel drive and having a small engine versus the Boxster with a mid-engine, rear-wheel drive and a flat-6. You also wouldn't know that the del Sol is related to the Civic or the Boxster to the Cayman. swaq 16:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Revised proposition

I am going to re-propose my list based on the comments by Roguegeek:

• image
• name
• manufacturer
• parent_company
• aka
• production
• assembly
• predecessor
• successor
• class
• body_style
• layout
• engine (type only)
• transmission
• related
• designer

swaq 16:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This looks good. I like this very much. Roguegeek (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it for at-a-glance information, also consider that there are things that can't be put in prose or a table very well. Putting power, torque, and even fuel economy for each engine with its transmission in a table is a pretty good way to show it, IMO, so power and torque don't need to go in the infobox (I've been removing that when I find it). (See Mercury Sable for a decent example.) I agree that height should go, as it really isn't all that important for a passenger car anyway. Curb weight is such a variable, hard-to-define, and hard-to-average value that it's best to leave it out as well. However, I think wheelbase and length ought to stay, and possibly width too. These will be difficult to integrate into prose or a table (one or two lines just wouldn't look right), and since there's usually only one or two values for each they don't clutter. However, for trucks where certain editor(s) like to list out 10 different figures with no context, I recommend that those infoboxes be purged of them and tables created (long/short bed, regular/ext. cab, etc.)

Another thing: "related" isn't really of much use if "platform" is there. One can click on the link and (in theory) see all the models built on that platform. I've seen where the "related" field is ten or so lines long, listing out a bunch of GM B-bodies. Also, if we put "platform" back in, could we roll "layout" into that as well? When I first came here it would show "FR B-body" or something like that. Just a thought.

Overall: I like what Swaq has, but I'd like to see wheelbase, length (maybe width too), and platform stay, and "related" (possibly) removed. --Sable232 (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with putting length, width, height, and wheelbase measurements in their own table in the article. I think these should stay out of the infobox. Also, I could see it being confusing to readers and editors if we are only including length and wheelbase in the infobox.

The issue I see with platform is that not all cars that are related necessarily have the same platform, but all cars sharing a platform are related. Also, it is possible for a platform to only have a couple cars, and it seems like a waste to point the reader to another article just to see the one other car that is related. I think I would prefer mentioning platform in the body of the article, or in a table, though I'm not completely opposed to leaving it in (but not removing related or layout).

On layout, I'd rather not make the reader go to another article to see where the engine is located and I think it is basic enough information to go in the infobox. swaq 15:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with making a table for dimensions is that it's going to be a single line in many cases, and it will look like an afterthought. Very unprofessional. I only think they should be table-ized when there are at least three or four different sub-models with different measurements (i. e. pickup trucks). --Sable232 (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest in those cases, we do not make the data available as a table and, instead, include it into the actual text content. Roguegeek (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, either "platform" or "related" - related for use for vehicles based on others (and conversely) before/outside of the platform system, e.g. the Ford Mustang/Falcon, Matra Rancho/Simca 1100. I hate extra-long infoboxes listing e.g. all Accord-related cars. It is not that important for a particular vehicles, IMHO - i.e. the fact that the same platform used in the Accord also underpins the Pilot and Odyssey (which leads to many misconceptions, btw) is one of the least important facts about the car.

As concerns layout - go back to the old system, put it like "FF Epsilon" in the "platform" field, unless there is no platform - then use layout. PrinceGloria (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying to leave platform and related in but only use one or the other?

I'm not sure I like the old system of putting the layout in the platform field. It makes it look like the layout abbreviation is part of the platform name. If a reader isn't familiar with layout abbreviations they won't know what it is unless they specifically click on it. I was discussing using abbreviations on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles recently. swaq 16:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, didn't think about that... That said, we use a lot of jargon/abbreviations etc. in our infoboxes anyway - do you know what a genus or phylum is when reading about the Blue-and-yellow Macaw? A layman would have a hard time guessing what "layout" refers to in the first place... PrinceGloria (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the current infobox is quite ok, length, width and wheelbase are basic information, so you can see the car size straight away, one possibility is to use hide fields like in Italian wikipedia. I would try to avoid big changes to infobox it causes lots of work to put that info to main articles. --— Typ932^{T | C}  18:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the bottom line with all of this info is that it goes against infobox guidelines. Roguegeek (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it again, yeah, "platform" can probably go. Most GM and older Mopar articles have it in the article introduction anyway, and Ford's platform names aren't as commonly known but they can probably be integrated as well. I'm still not convinced that dimensions can be integrated into prose very effectively. Saying "The car has a 110.2-inch wheelbase, an overall length of 198.1 inches, is 70.6 inches wide and is 52.1 or 52.5 or 53 inches tall depending on model" is... less than desirable. --Sable232 (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think having a separate specifications table would be best for information such as horsepower, dimensions, fuel economy, etc. I've seen some aircraft articles that take this approach and it seems to work well (e.g. the featured article Boeing 747). swaq 15:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Something I just thought of. Assuming 'platform' is removed, if the 'related' field is getting too long then it could possibly be shortened by linking to the platform. Perhaps with something like: "Related: F-body platform vehicles". swaq 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there are no strong objections to the "revised proposition", so I'd like to go ahead and make the changes. To start I think I'll just update the documentation. swaq 15:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I still firmly believe that wheelbase, length, and width should stay. --Sable232 (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you keep those three then there would be no argument against keeping height and weight either, as those also pertain to the size of the vehicle. It would also leave open the possibility of adding ground clearance, trunk space, front/rear track, etc. I think these all are too specific to be considered summary or overview information. Dimensions would be easier to show in a table in the article instead. swaq 14:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. These are basic dimensions. Specifics like trunk space, track, etc. don't belong there. Ground clearance is irrelevant in most cases anyway, and curb weight is so nonspecific and variable that it's not much use to supply it in the infobox. A single-line table as an afterthought at the end of a section would be most unprofessional, not to mention the time it would take to move all that information would be considerable. --Sable232 (talk)

While they are basic as far as specifications go, they are still more specific than where the engine is located or who the manufacturer is. They are just numbers and don't tell much about what the car is as a whole. There doesn't seem to be much use besides comparisons. Body style and class should already give a basic idea of what size a vehicle is, without going into specifics. I don't think they should go in their own table, but in a table with other specifications (weight, horsepower, torque, fuel economy, etc.), that would keep it from looking like an afterthought. swaq 18:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The Spanish-language example

One of the most similar Infobox Automobiles to the English 'box is the Spanish one. Compared to swaq's revised proposal, there are three big differences. Firstly, we do without transmission and engine fields: prose or tables are better, and we don't have articles for either anyway. Secondly, we do include rivals, though I prefer them in the leading section. Thirdly, we separate car classifications in two: type (touring car, sports car, off-roader, pickp, van, MPV) and segment (A to F European segments). In my case, I never use assembly and designer.

Since we don't have to deal with imperial vs SI discussions, external dimensions go in one single field. Each bodystyle gets its own line with length, width, height and wheelbase. In case of facelifts, we either write a dash with both (4630-4725) or they get one line each too. Examples: es:Mercedes-Benz Clase C, es:Mazda 6. I hope this helps you a little. --NaBUru38 (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)